11 Months Later and Still Trying to Sell the Lincoln Park 2/2: 2145 N. Racine
This 2-bedroom unit at 2145 N. Racine in Lincoln Park has been on the market since April 2010.
In that time it has been reduced $49,500.
It is now listed $25,500 under the 2006 purchase price.
Built in 2006, the building is on an extra wide 28×125 lot.
The unit has a unique 250 square foot front porch with a blue stone floor.
The kitchen appliances have been upgraded to Viking and Bosch. It also has cherry cabinets and granite counter tops.
There is central air and one car parking.
What is the market for a $550,000 2/2 in Lincoln Park?
Kristin Ellwein Jaman at Baird & Warner has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #2: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1500 square feet, 1 car parking
- Sold in April 2006 for $575,000
- Originally listed in April 2010 for $599,000
- Reduced several times
- Currently listed for $549,500
- Assessments of $152 a month
- Taxes of $7822
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 15×13
- Bedroom #2: 15×10
This place looks pretty nice. I wonder why it has not sold?!
If they had dropped this to 499 or under, they would have sold this months ago. There are plenty of 2/2’s selling for the high 400s these days. Why, I don’t know, but they are.
Furniture overload, this place haz it!
I see this under $500k, but maybe close to it. We know exactly what the seller owes on this property.
not even 5% under April ’06?
good luck with that.
extra-wide building? Doesn’t see to be reflected in the main living space of the unit!
Over half a mil for a 2/2 with no dining room/real place to put a table? No way. Although the porch, a/c, upgraded appliances and bathrooms are nice. I can never get past the whole *one big room for everything-complete with kitchen in the corner*, then a couple beds/baths in the back. Looks like everything else out there.
Good grief this place is boring. Bedrooms feel small, Living room seems extra narrow, Mid floor unit, Cherry cabinetry overload and the [personally] dreaded Kitchen/Dining/Living combo mega room.
No thanks, at any price.
@JAH, I was thinking the same thing. The listing has living room as 28 x 22 feet. There is no way that living room is 22 feet and doesn’t look 28 feet deep as there is barely room for a fully dining room table. Either the picture is just at a bad angle or something isn’t adding up.
Awesome outdoor space. But the living area does look a bit cramped (perhaps it’s all the furniture, the photography, or both).
The listing narrative says it’s “steps” from both the park and the Clyidor. Perhaps. Though it’s quite a few more steps to the former than the latter.
$489, 499k tops.
“There is no way that living room is 22 feet and doesn’t look 28 feet deep as there is barely room for a fully dining room table. Either the picture is just at a bad angle or something isn’t adding up.”
well, the listing also said “steps from the park” (1/2 mile from Oz Park and a solid mile+ from Lincoln Park) so they might just be bad at math.
either that, or horribly desperate.
probably the latter.
“well, the listing also said “steps from the park” (1/2 mile from Oz Park and a solid mile+ from Lincoln Park) so they might just be bad at math.”
I am sure they mean Trebes Park – nice park at Webster and Racine.
“@JAH, I was thinking the same thing. The listing has living room as 28 x 22 feet. There is no way that living room is 22 feet and doesn’t look 28 feet deep as there is barely room for a fully dining room table. Either the picture is just at a bad angle or something isn’t adding up.”
Exterior of the building appears to be a bit over 23 ft, and the lot is something around 28′ wide. 22 is probably rounding up, and this is a perfect example of a room ruined by the giant fireplace.
I figured it out. It is 22 feet wide at the widest point which isn’t shown in the picture. Basically it is probably 28 feet deep if you go from front window to kitchen wall.
Most of these type of units have an offset hallway leading back to the bedrooms next to the kitchen (offset because of the front stairwell).
It probably is 22 feet wide if you go from kitchen wall to hallway wall, but that width does not extend out into the living room because of the stairwell, so the actual living room space is probably only 15 feet wide or so.
“Most of these type of units have an offset hallway leading back to the bedrooms next to the kitchen (offset because of the front stairwell).
It probably is 22 feet wide if you go from kitchen wall to hallway wall, but that width does not extend out into the living room because of the stairwell, so the actual living room space is probably only 15 feet wide or so.”
This place does seem to have a side entrance, tho, so it throws that off a bit.
The widest point is along the front wall with the porch, isn’t it? Plausibly close to 22 feet, I think.
11 months and 5% under 2006 price is nothing. I have a friend with a 2/2 LISTED at 20% under the 2002 price and on the market for about 22 months.
Is 550 reasonable for this place? Down the street is a new construction 2/2 listed for 599.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2041-N-Racine-Ave-60614/home/13352491
Relating back to previous sale prices *shouldnt* matter…if the property is not worth it, it ain’t worth it, regardless of sell year. Piece of mind is all its good for to know u paid less than the last guy.
I toured the “penthouse” unit in this building and the outdoor area really eats into the living space. It’s was even more cramped than the pictures suggest, though the fit and finish was a step up from the norm. I thought its 625k asking price was laughable, but darn thing ended up selling for 591k (perhaps a John’s Place premium)…
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2145-N-Racine-Ave-60614/unit-301/home/12589968
At least the “Penthouse” has that big private roof deck – that’s what makes the $591k sale price make a little more sense.
“I toured the “penthouse” unit in this building and the outdoor area really eats into the living space. ”
Seems to me that top floor + private roof deck + direct light in your living room + open air front porch *has* to be worth quite a bit more than $41,500. Especially when the assessments are the same.
I’d think that the suggestion of $489k is pretty good.
(Prolonged) yawn. $475,000.
Looking again at the picture of this place, I must add that I hate, hate, hate signage (for sale or rent). Has there been a recent study conducted, particularly with respect to nicer areas within a given market, to determine the efficacy of sale signs?
Living in NYC for a couple of years (where I also happened to be a real estate broker), one thing I noticed was the nearly complete absence of signage. I also felt that the absence of for sale or rent signs added to the exclusivity of the place, as in “vacancies are so rare, and there’s such a long list of people waiting to buy or rent places, that no signs are necessary.” Then, in managing condo and homeowner assoications elsewhere in the country, I further came to appreciate not only the absence of signs, but the outright prohibition on signs in many of the more recently established and upscale developments.
Not only do signs make no sense in terms of appearances (i.e., they look bad) and security (i.e., they may encourage break-ins or other crimes at the subject or neighboring properties), but they simply give the impression – at that property and others in the immediate vicinity – that it’s a buyer’s market and the seller is desperate (which, these days, is likely true, but does it make sense to advertise that fact?).
I’m sure Matt Garrison will give you the inside scoop on the importance of giant signage
Anonny, Oak Park prohibits for sale signs. It was done decades ago out of trying to prevent white flight/or keep black people out of the community depending on who you ask.
However, now I actually like that there aren’t any for sale signs.
It does make the streets look nicer.
Some say for sale signs are really just the market the listing agent.
“Some say for sale signs are really just the market the listing agent.”
I agree with that…same goes for open houses.
For an “extra wide” building/lot, it sure looks oddly cramped and narrow.
“Anonny, Oak Park prohibits for sale signs.”
I wish someone would challenge this in court. It’s completely un-American and a violation of first amendment rights.
“I wish someone would challenge this in court. It’s completely un-American and a violation of first amendment rights.”
They also prohibit overnight parking on most (? all?) streets and children hugging each other on school grounds.
In any case, (non-political) advertising sign restrictions are neither particularly onerous nor constitutionally problematic, provided they are of general application.
(tfo) is correct. My two cents (but not legal advice or opinion):
Governmentt bans on flags, political signs, etc. violate the First Amendment. Government bans on religious items are often, but not always, violations of the First Amendment. Government bans on for sale or for rent signs are likely not violations.
The tricky area is when an association tries to ban or limit flags, political signs, etc. or religious items. Some courts don’t see any problem with such bans, because it’s not a government that’s imposing the ban. Other courts do have a problem with it, because ultimately it’s a government that’s enforcing the ban (e.g., by enforcing the association’s governing documents, etc.). (Similar issues arise in the context of private universities, where technically the First Amendment is not directly applicable.)
Interestingly, associations cannot ban (or cause one to incur unreasonable costs in finding a suitable location for) t.v. dishes. (Lots of associations have – and enforce – such bans or restrictions on dishes, as the heavily-lobbied-for-by-the-dish-industry FCC order prohibiting such bans is not widely known.)
“Governmentt bans on flags, political signs, etc. violate the First Amendment. Government bans on religious items are often, but not always, violations of the First Amendment. Government bans on for sale or for rent signs are likely not violations. ”
Sorry you are wrong and the first amendment did not specify. In Ohio someone challenged a fine issued on a for sale sign in a car and took it to the state Supreme Court which ruled correctly that even commercial speech is protected by the first amendment.
“(Similar issues arise in the context of private universities, where technically the First Amendment is not directly applicable.)”
I don’t see any issues with private universities. They should be able to promulgate ANY rules they so choose. Even those that might be in contradiction to the Civil Rights Act, IMO. It is not our government’s job to be the arbiter of private behavior.
“(Lots of associations have – and enforce – such bans or restrictions on dishes, as the heavily-lobbied-for-by-the-dish-industry FCC order prohibiting such bans is not widely known.)”
DirecTV sized dishes specifically. Try to put up a big C-band dish in some manicured cul-de-sac community and see what happens.
“Sorry you are wrong and the first amendment did not specify. In Ohio someone challenged a fine issued on a for sale sign in a car and took it to the state Supreme Court which ruled correctly that even commercial speech is protected by the first amendment.”
Whatever, dude. Time. Place. Manner. Applies to *everything* as long as it’s enforced across the board.
Bet–w/o checking–that the municipality wasn’t fining cars with license plate frames “advertising” for car dealerships, and delivery vehicles with phone numbers, etc, etc, and it was the unequal enforcement that was the issue.
I think most people that live in the manicured cul-de-sacs seek them out for that very reason. The community guidelines are always provided as a condition to sale and there really are no surprises. I lived in a very restrictive community once, to the point where even the height and style of permissible fencing and where outdoor lighting could be placed was controlled. Gotta admit kinda nice and no silly stories like on my friends street in River Oaks where two neighbors got into a pissing match so one neighbor painted his 12,000sq ft home purple. Made it just wonderful for everyone.
O.K. Bob, you can be the resident First Amendment expert. By all means. I’m not about to challenge or correct someone so erudite as to call upon the almighty federal jurisprudential power that is the Supreme Court of Ohio.
But for the CC record, unlike your comment, mine was not intended to be normative (i.e., I wasn’t telling you how I “think” things should be or what seems “right,” I was giving you a nutshell summary of the actual legal landscape on this erratically evolving aspect of First Amendment law, or at least a nutshell as the law existed about 5 years ago when I spent a few months researching and writing on this precise topic).
http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1243&Itemid=165
Actually my initial facts were wrong: it was a Federal Court that overturned the ban.
And wrong guess, anon:
“the district court determined that Glendale’s ordinance complied with the requirements of Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980), and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. Because we conclude that the defendants have failed to produce evidence that
justifies the restrictions on commercial speech imposed by the ordinance, we reverse the decision of the district court and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
You see anyone can be an internet lawyer.
Hey internet lawyer: Before you take your Commerical Speech Expert Show on the road, I would encourage you to carefully read the dissent in the 6th Circuit opinion to which you’re alluding. As is often the case with aberrant decisions, the dissent is probably right. Then again, the justice who wrote it is a conservative, so who knows (career National Guardsman from Kentucky, DOJ lawyer, George W. Bush judicial appointee, etc. – in other words, not your typical “nanny state” socialist).
Well, having lived in Oak Park, what has been explained to me is that the OP law is unenforcable, but OP realtors agree to go along with it because people like not having signs. I have definitely seen signs popping up around Oak Park and I doubt the village has been going after them…
To add to annony’s “hey internet lawyer”:
did you see this, from the majority opinion?:
“The Glendale ordinance cannot be evaluated as a content-neutral restriction, however, because, as appellees conceded during oral argument, the restriction on advertising does depend on the content of the speech: namely, the ordinance, as construed by Glendale, draws a distinction between promotional speech and speech asserting belief or fact.10 The Supreme Court has made clear that any regulation that requires reference to the content of speech to determine its applicability is inherently content-based. Cf. Discovery Network, 507 U.S. at 429 (“Under the city’s newsrack policy, whether any particular newsrack falls within the ban is determined by the content of the publication resting inside . . . . Thus, by any commonsense understanding of the term, the ban in this case is ‘content based.’”). Characterization of the ordinance as a content-neutral time, place, or manner restriction is simply inaccurate.”
Which says, in other words, that the ban cannot be deemed a permissible content neutral limitation on speech because they didn’t ban bumper stickers, too. Which was my stab at it.
Yes, there’s a lot of other stuff in that opinion, but had it been a blanket ban on bumper stickers and on-vehicle advertising of all sorts, it would have been judged differently (and been a *much* more interesting case–could you ban everything on cars, but allow affinity group license plates?).
Way overpriced. 2/2’s should not start with a 5 in front of them.
Anyone notice that the listing actually states that the taxes are 10k+?