The Galewood Historic Bungalow: 1730 N. Natchez

May 7 • Galewood, Single family homes • 208 Views • 56 Comments

The listing for this bungalow at 1730 N. Natchez in Galewood says it is on Chicago’s list of Historic Bungalows.

It also is on a bigger than standard Chicago lot at 32×173.

The 4-bedroom home has two bedrooms upstairs and two on the main floor. It also has a full basement.

Built in 1929, many of its vintage features remain including stained glass windows in the living room, built-ins and woodwork.

There are hardwoods throughout and bamboo in the second floor master bedroom.

The kitchen has granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances.

There is also a 2-car garage but no central air.

Pauline Sharpe at Weichert Realtors-Nickel Group has the listing. See the pictures here.

1730 N. Natchez: 4 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 car garage

  • Sold in June 1996 for $151,000
  • Sold in July 2002 for $234,000
  • Sold in June 2004 for $310,000
  • Currently listed for $355,000
  • Taxes of $3551
  • No central air
  • Bedroom #1: 14×17 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #2: 14×10 (main floor)
  • Bedroom #3: 11×12 (main floor)
  • Bedroom #4: 11×12 (second floor)

Related Posts

56 Responses to The Galewood Historic Bungalow: 1730 N. Natchez

  1. Groove77 says:

    Just like most brick bungalows building up into the attic starts as a good idea

  2. Barry says:

    Nice looking place. Ye olde “chef’s kitchen” strikes again. Looks like a pretty regular kitchen to me.

    I used to drive past this area on North every day, but I can’t figure out if this is still sort of in the hood or not.

  3. Groove77 says:

    “I can’t figure out if this is still sort of in the hood or not”

    you do want to be west of oak park but its still great over here. next time your crusin down north ave cut into a side street and drive around you WILL be shocked from what you saw driving up north ave to what you see on the side streets.

  4. Question says:

    I love these old bungalows. We sold one when we had to move to Chicago and miss the character and built-ins every day.

  5. Sonies says:

    mmmmmm Natchez

  6. Russ says:

    The area around there has some nice pockets of houses and streets. Easy drive down into Oak Park for shopping and dining. Pretty close to Brickyard strip malls – target, xsport, and the rest of middle american Big Box Stores.

  7. I love these old bungalows, but is this one really worth more than it was in 2004?

  8. homedelete says:

    Ah, the $350k bungalow. For generations families paid for these on worker’s salaries but not after a housing bubble.

  9. Sonies says:

    now they pay for them on dual worker’s salaries

  10. Russ says:

    HD, so how much should this bungalow cost exactly? There are plenty of areas that USED to be affordable on blue collar/joe average salaries. however, that doesn’t mean the demographics of neighborhood don’t change. Hell, you used to could buy a condo in NY for $200k… now the average is $1 million.

    I think it is a little rich considering you could probably find a bungalow in North Oak Park that is similar (albeit may not be quite as nice) for $400k.

  11. Groove77 says:

    “I think it is a little rich considering you could probably find a bungalow in North Oak Park that is similar (albeit may not be quite as nice) for $400k”

    yeah but your taxes will be like 11k a year compared to 3k

    now i agree the price is high for this place, even if its been updated the skipped the C/A and droping 350k without central air needs a special/unique place to do that.

    “Ah, the $350k bungalow. For generations families paid for these on worker’s salaries but not after a housing bubble.”

    there is still a area that has historic bungalows that are blue collar owners. Its a stretch on patterson from i think either central or autin shooting west a block or two.
    well that whole area from diversey to irving park off austin has these historic mini brick bungalow’s owned by blue collar peep’s

  12. Wicker says:

    Perhaps a better question is – what is the typical (median?) blue collar household income now? Then we as the CC community could agree on pricing easier.

  13. homedelete says:

    A good place to start would be the means test to file bankruptcy.

    “In Part III of Bankruptcy Form 22A and Part II of Bankruptcy Form 22C, debtors are instructed to enter the “Applicable median family income.” This information is published by the Census Bureau according to State and family size, and the data is updated each year. In addition, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(39A)(B), the data on this Web site will be further adjusted early each calendar year based upon the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI). ”

    “One of the leading cases to have considered the
    definition of “household size” is In re Ellringer, 370 B.R. 905
    (Bankr. D. Minn. 2007). In Ellringer, the court held that the
    Census Bureau’s definition of household is the most appropriate
    one because § 101(39A)(A) defines median family income as “the
    median family income both calculated and reported by the Bureau
    of the Census.” See Ellringer at 910. The Census Bureau
    defines “household” as “’all of the people, related and
    unrelated, who occupy a housing unit.’” See Ellringer at 911
    (quoting the U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey
    (2004), http://www.census.gov/population/www/cps/cpsdef.html).
    The Ellringer court concluded that using the Census Bureau’s
    definition “ensures that a household in the means test will have
    the same number of members as the calculation of median family
    income.”

    IL:

    One person two three four
    $45,941 $59,838 $71,075 $81,175

  14. revassal says:

    65K HHI

  15. anon (tfo) says:

    “65K HHI”

    So, about $200k + DP-> about $250k. But this is upgraded over “acceptable” a bit, so maybe $280k.

    “yeah but your taxes will be like 11k a year compared to 3k”

    Won’t be only $3k if this sells for $355–more like $4500.

  16. westloopelo says:

    I think….no I KNOW this price point is right on the mark…actually on the lower end of the spectrum as it is 1) on the ‘historic bungalow’ list and 2) is in fantastic condition. You really can’t ask or expect any price chop for what you are getting. Even the yard is in great condition.
    The only issue I have with this place is the so called ‘chefs kitchen’…this a basic, if not lower, than basic kitchen so the realtor really needs to reword that description. I do like the idea of second kitchen, presumably in the basement (atelier for a better sounding space) as that area could be used as an in-law or student rental unit.
    I was in Denver last week and went to see a number of Arts and Crafts and true period bungalows. All in the $750k -$1.5 mil range and they were similar to these houses. I know, here I am comparing yet another citie’s makket to Chicagos, but I strongly compare these two cities for their similar housing options and feel it is an accurate and fair thing to do.
    All in all, you cannot go wrong with this place for the asking price. The only upgrade (besides minor tweeks to the kitchen layout and replacing the appliances…utilizing the existing ones in the atelier) one would need would be installing AC… and that could easily be done using the exisiting heating system. The usual layout for bungalows is flexible enough to use it for a standard Trane AC unit.
    So, $355 for the price and another say…$30k for the upgrades and you would have a VERY nice place with plenty of room for a family + the option of having another full unit in the basement.

  17. westloopelo says:

    Please excuse the many typos and grammatical errors, but I am sure you all have come to expect as much from me.

    *Brilliant renovator but not too bright in the written skills department*

  18. Sonies says:

    Also HD if you think this is a “working class” home, you’re crazy, this place is definentally “upper” middle class

  19. Russ says:

    The problem with median HHI is that it is often lower than the median HHI of buyers/homeowners. It is a good proxy, but I feel it may be under representing the HHI of buyers because it includes everyone. Everyone isn’t the market.

    Every major city generally has median HHI that is out of wack with what homes in desirable areas cost. However, if you control for actual buyers, I would bet we would see more inline HHI’s with typical prices.

    I have probably closed aroud 40 transactions year to date between refinances and purchases I can count on one hand the number who had HHI

  20. Russ says:

    I have probably closed around 40 transactions year to date between refinances and purchases and can count on one hand the number who had HHI less than $100k.

  21. JPS says:

    What’s the CPS situation around here?

  22. homedelete says:

    My office does a ton of closings and I get to see those loan apps and there are plenty of people, way more than I can count on one hand, who buy homes with HHI less than median. they buy in places on the southside, in roger’s park, in condos, etc.

    I’m not saying this house should be free or anything, i’m saying that most homes in the last 3 months have sold in the $100′s to $200′s and this home probably belongs on the higher end of that scale. that’s what comports with the neighborhood. But you know that’s like my opinion, man.

    “#Russ on May 7th, 2010 at 1:01 pm

    I have probably closed around 40 transactions year to date between refinances and purchases and can count on one hand the number who had HHI less than $100k.”

  23. SquareD says:

    Dios mio, mang.

  24. Jay Huhman says:

    WestLoopElo, I noticed baseboard heaters in the pictures and the listing notes radiator heat as well. Wouldn’t a space pak cooling system be needed?

    Space paks are not as cheap as dropping a Trane AC in the back.

  25. dd says:

    WestLoopElo, $385-$355K seems high for a bungalow in this location.

  26. Dave M says:

    Russ, did you do refinances and purchases anywhere near the neighborhood of this property? If so, what would the median HHI be?

    It’s amazing to me that median HHI’s of buyers is assumed to almost always be north of $100K. If for some reason only one person in the household works, what do they do for a living? Especially if they are 32 or less. Also, how secure is that income stream for the next 5-10 years in Chicago?

  27. Russ says:

    Dave:

    A cop and a CPS teacher can clear $100k. Heck, most under 30 couples I am seeing are clearing $100k in HHI no matter what they do for a living and I am not talking coupled up analysts at a top consulting firm. Pretty run of the mill jobs… physical therapists, nurses, cops, teachers, graphic designers, sales, secretaries, etc.

    I obviously don’t want to extrapolate my client base out on the entire Chicago population, but I close quite a few loans every year and I would think I would see a pretty normal distribution of incomes to some degree. I rarely every see a couple with a HHI less than $100k.

    I also rarely ever see a single buyer making less than $60k looking to buy. I am sure they are out there, but they aren’t that common.

  28. homedelete says:

    I have the exact opposite situation of all the closings I see. In fact most of my clients are making less than $60k a year and I see very few making over $100k jointly. They’re buying houses on the south side, condos in RP, houses in the inner suburbs. I recognize that both our views are very skewed in either direction so that probably means the truth is somewhere in the middle.

    “I also rarely ever see a single buyer making less than $60k looking to buy. I am sure they are out there, but they aren’t that common.”

  29. anon (tfo) says:

    “I obviously don’t want to extrapolate my client base out on the entire Chicago population, but I close quite a few loans every year and I would think I would see a pretty normal distribution of incomes to some degree. I rarely every see a couple with a HHI less than $100k. ”

    To reiterate a point I’ve made several times here, the median Chicago resident is a renter–less than 50% of Chicago HHs own their home. So the median HH income of all Chicagoans is not terribly relevant to the pool of new buyers.

    It’s a less extreme version of NY–the median HH income in New York County (ie Manhattan) was $68,402 in 2008. The median value of o/o housing units in Manhattan was $1,000,001 in *2000* (ie, before most of the bubble). But, since only 20% of Manhattan residents own their home, one has little predictive value for the other.

  30. Dave M says:

    So in order to buy real estate, one must earn at least $60,000 annually. Many of these people are under 30, who have yet to reach a higher income.

    What about single people? Are they out of luck, unless they marry? How about a couple where only the husband works and the wife stays at home? Can that work in this economy or generation in Chicago without a 6 figure income?

  31. Russ says:

    HD:

    I don’t do a lot of deals outside the Greenzone areas. The few Southside closings I have done this year were for people buying $400-$600k+ houses in Bronzeville and North Kenwood and they were more than qualified (biglaw attorneys, partners at consulting firm, etc).

    I am sure there are some folks stretching, but in my Greenzone world and somewhat affluent suburb clients, I just don’t see those deals. This is why I think the bears on here often underestimate the incomes of the BUYERS of the properties that are typically featured on the site. I am sure the demographics changing rapidly when you get into the Berwyns, Maywoods, Ciceros, et al but I don’t see them personally.

    The new name for my clients is HENRYs. High Earners, Not Rich Yet.

  32. Russ says:

    Anon(tfo): I agree with that point which is why I have never put a lot of stock in homes prices correleated with median HHI in large urban cities. I have done deals all over the country and no major city has cheap home prices within the urban core/greenzone type neighborhoods. – LA, Seattle, Austin, NY, Boston, Atlanta, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Chicago, San Fran, etc.

    The demographics of buyers are different than the median HHI.

  33. Dave M says:

    Russ, what’s your definition of the green zone? Just curious so I know what that extends to.

  34. homedelete says:

    Russ, aside from the issue of stretching, my (admittedly biased) world view is that there just are not enough high income earners to support all the high priced properties on the market. I never doubted there are lots of HENRY’s, I’m probably one of them. There just aren’t enough of them to buy every $400k condo or $600k house on the market which is why future price declines on the middle-high end are inevitable. Unless you’re convinced that Chicago is turning into Brazil where the poor unwashed masses live in slums and the small, rich elite upper class lives in extremely expensive housing – which at this point, is not an impossibility!

  35. anon (tfo) says:

    “there just are not enough high income earners to support all the high priced properties on the market”

    This is also true. And the complete disappearance of $600k homes in Englewood (and similar places) is an important piece of correcting that.

    And I share your skepticism of the house in this post as what $350k “should” buy–the house is nice enough and the hood is nice enough but I don’t think the combo is nice enough (ie, either the house should be nicer (and almost in danger of being too mice for the block) or it should be in a nicer hood, for the price).

  36. Russ says:

    Dave: Greenzone is the most popular neighborhoods that have been fully genetrified and within the proper borders of the neighborhood – LP, LV, AV, SL, WL, BT, etc.

    HD: I think there are enough HENRYs within the greenzone, but I do agree with you that these random $600k + houses that popped up in questionable areas are in for a fall.

    During the bubble, there were a lot of condos and houses built on the edge or in bad locations, crappy floor plans, crappy views, etc and now these areas/properties are declining because people won’t pay a premium to live in a questionable area or unit.

    I think where we disagree is the demand to be in certain neighborhoods and the income required to call yourself an owner in those hoods.

  37. Dave M says:

    What if they took away FHA lending support completely? Would prices fall much further because incomes are not sufficient to support current prices using the more stringent underwriting criteria, for much of the green zone? Or, are there a ton of people earning $300-400K sitting on the sidelines with a couple hundred grand in cash just waiting to pounce and buy a property with 25% down?

  38. dahliachi says:

    Dave,

    ( No offense to Russ)
    I think this whole “Greenzone’ thing is a stupid construct of some very closed-minded people on this board.
    Yes, there are a bunch of college educated white people in those neighborhoods-but there are plenty of decent, more diverse neighborhoods as well. I find it beyond pathetic that many people on this board only 4 neighborhoods in Chicago that are fit for them and their ilk.
    (End Rant)

  39. Dave M says:

    Russ,
    how would you define a HENRY? Any specific ranges or a minimum income or net worth?

  40. Groove77 says:

    ok quick post before i get back to the grind,

    WAY TO GO Dahliachi!!!!!!

    its funny that what people call green zone’s while on a post about a galewood house yet dont add it into the list of “whitey approved hoods”???

    and i am off to do what i do so well :)

  41. roma says:

    “…many people on this board only 4 neighborhoods in Chicago that are fit for them and their ilk.”

    Sure, there are. But it’s not just people on this board who feel this way. There are a lot of (college educated white) people who do. You know that “demand to be in certain neighborhoods” Russ references above? That’s what he’s talking about…

  42. Dave M says:

    I think a lot of people justify living in the city by being in those 4 neighborhoods, and if they can’t live there, they’d rather be in the suburbs. Sad, pathetic thinking in my mind.

  43. Barry says:

    I think the Greenzone construct has a lot to do with the best real estate of the city being surrounded by less desirable areas, just like in Baghdad.

  44. Bob says:

    “Yes, there are a bunch of college educated white people in those neighborhoods-but there are plenty of decent, more diverse neighborhoods as well.”

    I am a college educated white person and I don’t think diversity is inherently a good thing. In fact the PC propaganda cannot override natural instincts–people tend to naturally gravitate towards those most like them. I feel no white guilt whatsoever and laugh at those who try to instill it in others. Statistically I’m much less likely to be a victim of violent crime living in a mostly white neighborhood than a mostly black neighborhood.

    Although economic reality is real for me and I probably wouldn’t buy in the green zone for the sheer fact that it’s cheaper to rent there and renting offers far more flexibility.

  45. Russ says:

    The term comes from a comparison to Iraq. Personally, I am not and have never been a “Green Zone” resident. I find most of the Green Zone to be a little bland personally.

    I lived in Andersonville before most people knew it even existed. Now I am in Oak Park. Regardless, there is high demand for properties by educated and high disposable income buyers in certain hoods. If you want to buy in those neighborhoods, it isn’t cheap.

    Dave, I would say a HENRY is typically making $175-$300k in annual household income. Basically the very bottom of the top 1%-2% of earners. The government thinks you are “rich” but you really are just making enough to have a nice lifestyle and a solid retirment plan, but it isn’t like you are balling hard with Jay-Z and Diddy on the G4 going to St. Tropez. You are very much still on a budget.

    I guess they are the very upper end the middle class. Make a lot of income, but are independently wealthy.

    I consider wealthy to have FU money. You can pretty much tell anyone FU and not worry about the consequences. Maybe having say 2 million liquid. HENRYs are lucky to have $300k in a 401k and $100k in cash on hand.

  46. Dave M says:

    That sounds reasonable at this point. I was thinking you were going to list a much higher income figure for the HENRY’s.

    The hard part is to go from HENRY to wealthy with FU money. I think the problem is that most HENRY’S have too many fixed monthly and annual expenses to deal with, that they will have a hard time getting there because they don’t necessarily save enough or got lucky enough on their investments.

  47. Russ says:

    I meant to say Henrys are NOT independently wealthy.

  48. Dave M says:

    Fair enough. I’m amazed at all the HENRY’s in Lakeview where only the husband works. Interesting how they got to where they are today, from at one point being a recent college grad earning $40,000. They aren’t all attorneys, and don’t all work for hedge funds or trading firms.

  49. homedelete says:

    The boomers have been fortunate enough to have lived during the 70′s with high interest rates, the 80′s with a booming economy and the 90′s with a steady inflation rate. The 00′s provided large housing price increases.

    There are a good number of boomers approaching retirement age with a liquid net worth in the seven figures, not including principal residence. Their incomes may have been reduced but they’re sitting pretty.

    My generation, I don’t know. I’m a little pessimistic when I see my checking account with Midwest Bank pay .10% interest. I don’t see the government just printing money and I see continued defaults in mortgages, creidt cards, CDS, etc.

    Helicopter Ben is literally going to have to start dropping money from his blackhawk chopper before we’re going to see inflation creep up. Remember: inflation is too much money chasing too few goods. Too much money isn’t the issue right now. It’s too many goods.

  50. Dave M says:

    HD, I agree with you there. The generation that is 23-34 is pretty much out of luck for a while. The boomers have lived a great life without having to go completely out of their comfort zone to get there, as having a decent job, buying a house, and saving money regularly has many of them at a net worth well over $1M. I don’t see those same opportunities for the younger people of today. Stagnant wages, little bonuses, increasing taxes, all sound like negative signals. The key is to figure out how to skip over all these issues and emerge on the other side in 10-20 years with substantial assets. I don’t see that happening as easily as the boomers, unless it’s going to come from inheritances down the road.

  51. roma says:

    BTW HD, if you use a debit card a lot, you should consider getting a high-yield checking account with a small bank.

  52. homedelete says:

    Yesteryday, there’s an article I read the Vancouver Sun

    http://www.vancouversun.com/business/afford+live+here+willing+little+work/3002163/story.html

    It’s a kool-aid sort of article about how the Vancouver market is on a whole new paradigm, yada yada yada, but the important quote from the article is this:

    “Join the club. I was born and raised in Vancouver in the 1950s, but when it came time to buy my own home, 30 years ago, I went from a condo in Burnaby to a townhouse in Surrey to a tiny home in New Westminster, with a postage stamp yard, orange shag carpet and a basement bathroom with a dirt floor. It took years to trade up to my current home, with a lot of being house-poor and wondering how the bills would get paid along the way.”

    He’s describing the Ponzi scheme of the last 50 years. Buy a home, be really poor, everything will work out.

    Who in their right mind, in this economy, would buy too much house and be house-poor wondering how the bills would get paid? That’s a recipe for foreclosure over the years.

    This is a whole new paradigm, this old school 50′s something boomer
    is describing what he lived through, not what I have to look forward to for the next 30 years. I’m telling you that if you continue believing the same BS like this guy has, you will be in for a rude awakening.

  53. Dave M says:

    I agree to a point. There’s no way the average home will appreciate to the level of the increases in the past 30-40 years during the next 30-40 years, barring significant inflation in the upper single digits. It is similar to a Ponzi scheme, but at the end of the day, people live in their homes. It’s not like they are collectible beer cans or something. It is amazing that a secretary can be living in an $850,000 home in Lakeview which they paid $30,000 for back in the day, while today that secretary could barely afford to rent in that neighborhood with roommates. That’s how things change. Eventually the music will stop when FHA needs to be bailed out.

  54. Dave M says:

    Been to Vancouver. It was a very interesting city, seemed quite liveable, but didn’t go out to the suburbs, which on the map looked like they went way out.

  55. tomm says:

    Did this one ever sell?

  56. Sabrina says:

    No. Looks like it was withdrawn.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

« »