Selling 9 Months Later in Lincoln Park: 2663 N. Ashland

2663 N. Ashland is an 8-unit new construction building in Lincoln Park with higher-end finishes that came on the market in spring of 2008.

Public records show that 5 out of the 8 sold in 2008.

This 4-bedroom duplex unit sold last August and is now back on the market and the listing says it’s “barely lived in”.

The developer has also reduced the price on a 3-bedroom, 2 bath that is still on the market.

Unit #2N, from the developer, was originally listed at $585,000 in May 2008 and is now listed at $525,000– parking included. It’s 2125 square feet. Rachel Krueger at Coldwell Banker has that listing.

The re-sale unit, Unit #1S, has Bosch, Sub-Zero, and Wolf appliances and radiant heated floors.

Is this resale an example of the price declines that have occurred since just last summer in the Chicago housing market?  (And does this confirm G’s belief that today’s buyers are simply knifecatchers?)

Billie Diamond at @Properties has the listing on Unit #1S. See the pictures here.

Unit #1S: 4 bedrooms, 4.5 baths, 1 car parking, 4125 square feet, duplex down

  • Sold in August 2008 for $857,000
  • Was recently listed at $835,000
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed at $799,999 (parking included)
  • OR you can rent it for $5200 a month
  • Assessments are $150 a month
  • Taxes are “new”

44 Responses to “Selling 9 Months Later in Lincoln Park: 2663 N. Ashland”

  1. Taxes appear to be *actually* “new”.

    0
    0
  2. “Knifecatcher” means?

    0
    0
  3. I lived on Ashland during grad school. Not a great memory. The traffic noise is VERY LOUD. Could drop the price enough.

    0
    0
  4. that location to me doesn’t feel at ALL like Lincoln Park. You’re several miles west of the park. You’re on a busy, 4 lane street, less than a mile from the industrial zone and that godforsaken tannery (ugh), your major intersections in both directions don’t offer much, in terms of what people expect, etc.

    I’d be happy with the location and the things I’m describing – but I also don’t have $800K. : P

    0
    0
  5. That would explain why it doesn’t have any big windows for the view.

    0
    0
  6. It doesn’t need to be “prime LP” to be LP. Also this is a 4/4.5 with 4,200sf, thats large even by my standards (or dreams rather heh). Given the finishes the ask price seems reasonable on a PPSF basis, assuming it really is 4,200sf. I’d still rather live here at this price point than a whole lot of other neighborhoods in the city.

    I’m normally not a fan of condos but these are the kind of mega condos with space and rooms that aren’t to be scoffed at.

    0
    0
  7. Oh and my opinion was for unit 1S not unit 2N. Units like 2N are overpriced on a PPSF basis and a dime a dozen in this neighborhood. 460k for 2N.

    0
    0
  8. “You’re several miles west of the park.”

    1.5 miles. No need to exaggerate the distance. Ashland is a total crap street for residential, especially at anything *close* to this price.

    0
    0
  9. It’s barely even subprime LP, Bob.

    You aren’t walking distance from a train, zero cultural institutions/businesses (Facets, maybe), etc.

    I can tell you what people think of when they think of LP – and it ain’t 2600 N. Ashland.

    This is one of those streets where you’d be better off being Lake View a few blocks north, toney “LP” distinction or no. Ashland was never meant to be a residential street, fancy-pants planters or no.

    0
    0
  10. 1.5 miles, several miles, whatever. The point is, you aren’t anywhere near Lincoln Park, the PARK. No walking distance to the Zoo, to the lakefront, to LP nightlife on Lincoln or Halsted.

    0
    0
  11. “this is a 4/4.5 with 4,200sf, thats large even by my standards”

    It’s certainly large enough–it should feel like a SFH, size-wise–but the layout is crap–only two bedrooms up, the other two are in the basement. It’s duplex down, so *half* the living space is below-grade.

    I’m not sure who the target market is for this kind of place.

    0
    0
  12. Yeah but if you have a big family and need a 4/4.5 your options are very limited, even at this pricepoint. Yeah it might be subprime LP, but at under $200/sf, its (1S) cheaper on a PPSF basis than most properties in Bridgeport even.

    Want to guess which has the higher walkability score between “subprime-LP” and Bridgeport? I’ll give you a hint: theres no Wendys in Bridgeport.

    0
    0
  13. “No walking distance to the Zoo, to the lakefront, to LP nightlife on Lincoln or Halsted.”

    You must have missed the allegation that the Costco parking lot Condos are “walking distance” to Metra (I presumed the stop, rather than the rail-line itself–perhaps incorrectly) at just under a mile. Some people apparently would think this is walking distance to Halsted, etc. Besides, who’s buying a 4200 sf 4 BR condo and wanting to stumble home from Kingston Mines at 5am every Sunday?

    As to “1.5 miles, several miles, whatever”: is there a meaningful distinction b/t “this place is overpriced by several hundred thousand” and “this place is overpriced by 150k”?

    0
    0
  14. “if you have a big family and need a 4/4.5 your options are very limited, even at this pricepoint”

    If you have a big family, need 4 BRs and need to spend under $800k, there are a TON of options. They’re called the suburbs.

    This place sux as a family home b/c of the layout and the location.

    0
    0
  15. ha, well, can’t argue with the Metra line hilarity.

    “Want to guess which has the higher walkability score between “subprime-LP” and Bridgeport? I’ll give you a hint: theres no Wendys in Bridgeport.”

    this makes me laugh, only as it’s been such a desolate intersection for so very long – the Wendy’s has outlasted numerous attempts to “hip
    up the area, such as the Hopcats.

    0
    0
  16. Good price but this is one of the absolutely worst traffic sections of Ashland. I’m sure you could sound proof the place a little better and it would be fine. Also I’m sure the bedrooms are in the rear of the place. But for 4000 sqft in “sub prime LP” (lol) this would be hard to beat.

    0
    0
  17. needs more flat panel tvs.

    0
    0
  18. I like the look of both of these on the interior.

    I also like that they have real square footage (no 1400 sqft 3 bedrooms please!).

    Even the prices aren’t *that* bad.

    Of course all of that is until you realize the location. Yuck.

    I think skeptic said it best “I can tell you what people think of when they think of LP – and it ain’t 2600 N. Ashland. ”

    Yeah. This might be in LP on the map, but that location is horrible. No cute restaurants/shops/etc, no close el stop, not near the park. This part of LP is much worse than many parts of Lakeview (Southport Corridor, etc.).

    Location, location, location. And this just doesn’t have it. Perfect example of what seems to be good construction, however, built in the completely wrong place thanks to the bubble.

    0
    0
  19. This is about as “Lincoln Park” as Cabrini Green is “Old Town”

    0
    0
  20. there is a cute restaurant close by…”El Presidente”. Also the Players Club is walking distance. They have surprisingly good food and hot eastern European waitstaff.

    0
    0
  21. Steve Heitman on May 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    Sabrina, wouldn’t a rational person, who supposedly knows real estate, ask about the rationale behind the purchase of a 4,000 sq ft (half sub-grade with 2 of the 4 beds under ground) last year for nearly $900,000? I think we went through this exercise before with how duplex downs were priced around $800k – $900k in the heart of Lincoln Park on nice tree-lined street. Why is this one priced so high when there are no real class of buyer that fits the properties location and layout?

    Isn’t the real question why someone would spend so much money on a new construction duplex down, in the outskirts of Lincoln Park, on a terrible congested busy street? Wow, this goes against all of my “oh I f’d up my purchase criteria”.

    Sabrina quotes “G” in her title and really makes me laugh. Where is the common sense Sabrina?

    The guy overpaid and the listing is still over priced. Why would a family want to spend $800k to live in such a terrible location? Schools? Parks? What are the highlights of the location?

    0
    0
  22. Steve Heitman on May 28th, 2009 at 9:00 pm

    Sabina – Your bloggers see the problem with the property. Do you?

    0
    0
  23. Steve H = Troll

    0
    0
  24. Fiorentino’s is also nearby… awesome italian food!

    0
    0
  25. “They have surprisingly good food and hot eastern European waitstaff.”

    Sweet I’ll have to check it out. That food sounds delicious.

    0
    0
  26. Bob:
    I can also recommend Players Club – a racing theme pervades, and really good perogies. The staff are mainly Polish / Russian.

    0
    0
  27. “Why would a family want to spend $800k to live in such a terrible location? Schools? Parks? What are the highlights of the location?”

    Oh, c’mon Stevo, the only *real* problem with the location is that it fronts on Ashland. Put it on the otherside of the block–Bosworth–the location woulnd’t be such a huge issue. Wrightwood Park is at the end of the block and its in the LPHS attendance area. This one is all about the non-family-friendly layout of a family-sized home and the price–somewhere south of $700k seems right to me.

    But, as you note, the real question is why someone paid $857k for it last year.

    0
    0
  28. ashland is where unsold condo’s go to die….

    0
    0
  29. But according to Joe Z’s website ASHLAND IS HOT HOT HOT!

    0
    0
  30. Steve Heitman on May 29th, 2009 at 9:44 am

    Below is what I consider a perfect example of how Lincoln Park has fared over the past 10 years. Take a look at 2040 N Sedgwick (Lincoln Park Perfect Location). The sales history shows a conservative 4% appreciation rate over 10 years. Would someone have of paid $850k in 2006 or 2007? Maybe, but for those who did not over spend at the peak we are sitting just fine.

    1999 – $530k
    2000 – $602k
    2003 – $683k
    2009 – $780k

    0
    0
  31. Steve Heitman on May 29th, 2009 at 9:52 am

    Below is what I consider another perfect example of how Lincoln Park has fared over the past 10 years. Take a look at 2515 N Seminary (Lincoln Park Good Location). The sales history shows a conservative 4.3% appreciation rate over 10 years.

    1999 – $479k
    2009 – $757k (closed yeaterday)

    0
    0
  32. According to Joe Z’s website West Garfield, Pilsen, Humbolt Park, (insert random ghetto here) are HOT, HOT, HOT!

    Sometimes I wonder if Joey really buys into his own BS, its tough to tell..

    0
    0
  33. Steve Heitman on May 29th, 2009 at 9:56 am

    Now take a look at 2533 N Halsted. This was purchased back in 2001 as new construction and is located next to bars on a very busy street. The appreciation here is less than 1%. See what you get for buying new construction in a terrible location.

    2001 – $445k
    2009 – $460k (closed yeaterday)

    0
    0
  34. what makes the layout non-family friendly?

    0
    0
  35. “what makes the layout non-family friendly?”

    2 BR up, 2 BR down. Might work for some people (esp. w/ HS age kids), but it is generally seen as less desireable.

    0
    0
  36. How many parents gonna let their kids play on the sidewalk in street on Ashland?

    0
    0
  37. “How many parents gonna let their kids play on the sidewalk in street on Ashland?”

    You’d be surprised. Of course, there’s a park about a block away.

    Look, I think this place stinks for the price, and it was foolish to build a family-sized place in this location, and I would never personally live on Ashland unless it were MUCH cheaper (like more than 20% less) than the alternatives, but the location is not as altogether awful as some have been portraying.

    As Stevo has pointed out, there are similar-ish condos on residential streets for about the same price. This place is a little larger, but still need to be ~$150k less. You’d get people interested under $700k. Or you can hope for “the one” at $800k.

    This is probably going back to the bank–if the 1st lender only has 80% in it, they could list it for the $685k they lent and probalby get action.

    0
    0
  38. Steve Heitman on May 29th, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    what, no comments on the transactions I posted?

    0
    0
  39. Steve,
    Thank you for pointing out those transactions.

    0
    0
  40. Steve Heitman on May 29th, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    You are welcome Wicker 🙂

    0
    0
  41. The sales history shows a conservative 4.3% appreciation rate over 10 years.

    1999 – $479k
    2009 – $757k (closed yeaterday)

    Last year this would have been 5.3
    Come back this time next year may be 3.3 and so on…things dont fall in a straight line.

    0
    0
  42. SH, your idea of LP “perfect location” is pretty nuts. seriously- Armitage and Sedgwick? What are you smoking? Where can I get some? Check out the Seminary, a little gated community just southeast of the L stop at Fullerton, surrounded by DePaul…

    0
    0
  43. Steve Heitman on May 31st, 2009 at 8:00 am

    “Last year this would have been 5.3
    Come back this time next year may be 3.3 and so on…things dont fall in a straight line.”

    So what should the appreciation rate have been over the past 10 years? Where is your bottom?

    0
    0
  44. So what should the appreciation rate have been over the past 10 years? Where is your bottom?

    What should be the appreciation rate: track inflation and wage growth maybe. But wage growth was 0 and atleast for now we are in deflation. So not looking too good.

    Where is your bottom: a slow long way away I would think, the problem is huge shadow inventory – folks who would like to sell but can’t because they are so much underwater. This will keep seeping into the mix for years to come.

    and the big reason we are so far from the bottom is the ridiculous effort to prop up the market with loan mods etc. Already 50% of loan mods are back in default. This along with foreclosure moratoriums are extending this issue infinitely.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply