3-Bedroom Vintage Rowhouse at 544 W. Fullerton Parkway in Lincoln Park Sells
We last chattered about this renovated vintage 3-bedroom rowhouse at 544 W. Fullerton Parkway in Lincoln Park in April 2011.
See our prior chatter here.
At that time, the rowhouse had been reduced $251,000 from its original asking price to $999,000.
No one guessed the ultimate selling price of the house, but the chatter evolved into what it meant to be truly “wealthy.”
The rowhouse recently sold for $965,000, or $66,000 above the November 2005 purchase price.
If you recall, the rowhouse was built in 1900 on a 20×101 lot and maintained many of its vintage features even though it was also renovated.
The listing said it had a new kitchen with white cabinets and Subzero, Bosch and Viking appliances.
There were 3 new marble baths.
The rowhouse had 12 foot ceilings, crown molding, 2 original stone fireplaces and the original mahogany front door and staircase.
All 3 bedrooms were on the upper floor.
It also had a front garden and a private rear patio.
The listing said there was “onsite parking”.
Cynthia Wilson at Koenig & Strey Real Living had the listing. You can still see the interior pictures here.
554 W. Fullerton: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 3000 square feet
- Sold in April 1992 for $350,000
- Sold in November 2005 for $899,000
- Originally listed in February 2011 for $1.25 million
- Reduced
- Was listed in April 2011 for $999,000
- Sold in June 2011 for $965,000
- Taxes of $11,991
- Central Air
- Parking is “onsite”
- Bedroom #1: 14×12 (third floor)
- Bedroom #2: 14×12 (third floor)
- Bedroom #3: 8×7 (third floor)
sold above the last sale but of course there were renovations. nice place. congrats to new owners!
Unrelated to this property, here is the latest govenrment stunt to inflate housing.
Interest free loans to unemployed “homeowners” THAT NEVER HAVE TO BE PAID BACK!
For the perma bears out there, you need to understand that the Man will throw good money after bad to the extreme to inflate this market. Eventually they will succeed.
http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/113040/more-money-for-struggling-homeowners-smartmoney?mod=loans-home
“Interest free loans to unemployed “homeowners” THAT NEVER HAVE TO BE PAID BACK!”
It’s backdoor principal reduction.
There are (or at least have been–they may have lost their optimism by now) private investors out there who would be willing to put substantial money into the housing market to accomplish similar principal reduction strategies, if there were a workable mechanism to capture any appreciation upon sale (or, possibly, refi) of the property. But there are state law problems with the structure, so it’s not been put into action.
Indeed, that loan is a principal reduction. Where’s my handout? I bought with 40% down and my unit is worth less than I paid, though I’m not underwater because I put down a substantial downpayment. I lost my job but still managed to pay my mortgage until re-employed because I had savings (imaging that). I would like to move some day and not take a such a huge loss, but I guess I don’t qualify for a bail-out or hand out because I did the responsible thing an put down a large downpayment and bought something I could actually afford.
This housing market will continue to be screwed up until we just rip the bandaid off.
well said local. It is very unfair and unfortunate.
UGh. I’m tired of irresponsible people getting free things while responsible still have to pay.
I would never move to a mixed income housing development simply because I couldn’t stand the idea of having to work hard to pay for my house/condo, while someone else gets it for free or at a steep discount.
Is the third bedroom really 8X7? Sounds more like the dimensions of a prison cell than a true bedroom. Even my freshman college dorm room was bigger.
For comparison, if someone likes this kind of property (a narrow but charming early 20th-century rowhouse), there’s a 6-bedroom on Alta Vista Terrace that I believe is still on the market for about $100K less than this one. And Alta Vista is the better street (quieter). Though of course you do have to put up with being in Wrigleyville instead of Lincoln Park.
Well, if the feds are going to continue to try to prop up the housing market, I like the idea of helping homeowners directly by reducing their principal more than the continued propping up of the banks.
“Well, if the feds are going to continue to try to prop up the housing market, I like the idea of helping homeowners directly by reducing their principal more than the continued propping up of the banks.”
Of course, that indirectly props up the banks, as they turn a likely REO into a performing loan, at least for a while.
anon (tfo) – agreed. All I’m saying is that it’s better than directly propping up the banks while leaving the homeowner just as effed.
I fastidiously saved and lived with family so I could have a 20% down payment. I only took a mortgage when I knew I could afford it, not when a bank told me I could afford it. I don’t see why any tax dollars should go to the banks or the irresponsible people. (Although, maybe they are the smart ones and I’m stupid for being responsible.)
“I don’t see why any tax dollars should go to the banks or the irresponsible people.”
Way, way, way to late to get wound up about that. Horse is out of the barn, barn burned down, horse broke its leg and all the dogs who ate the horsemeat died, too.
We’re in the rounding error portion of the giveaway, now.
“For comparison, if someone likes this kind of property (a narrow but charming early 20th-century rowhouse), there’s a 6-bedroom on Alta Vista Terrace that I believe is still on the market for about $100K less than this one. And Alta Vista is the better street (quieter). Though of course you do have to put up with being in Wrigleyville instead of Lincoln Park.”
I assume you mean 3825 N. Alta Vista. It’s pretty and the street is lovely, but it’s seriously miniscule. Haven’t been inside the Fullerton home, but looking the pictures and room dimensions, there is no comparison. Also, Alta Vista has a single car very short garage and a balcony off a top floor bedroom. Master bath is single sink with small tub, and very petite. No coat closet, they have hooks at the top of the stairway to the unfinished basement. They worked with what space they had, but ultimately, you can only do what you can do. IMO, the Alta Vista property is overpriced based on what else one can get starting from a comparable list price because it’s just teensy. May be why it has been on the market since June 2010– only hope is someone who really wants to live on Alta Vista for any price and is OK with the amount of space. It’s interesting to contemplate how small the other homes must really be if this is the largest model. Homes on the other side of the street with a garage and small garden somehow feel roomier. Alta Vista itself is the pull here, so we shall see if it works for someone. Calling it a 6 BR must create disappointment in prosepctive buyers. Did I mention that it was really, really small???
Thanks, H. Sounds like you’ve been inside the Alta Vista home, which I haven’t. I’m sure it seems small inside, as all of them do. However, it does have twice as many BRs as the one on Fullerton and none are as small as 7X8. That must count for something.
I wonder if the Alta Vista property has gotten any bids. Seems like if it weren’t for the street, the price could be $100K lower.
Jenny…I feel your pain. What’s worse is that is that fact that it is coming from taxpayer dollars so I’m paying for someone else’s gift…or worse, it adds to the debt and my children will pay for it.
“Thanks, H. Sounds like you’ve been inside the Alta Vista home, which I haven’t. I’m sure it seems small inside, as all of them do. However, it does have twice as many BRs as the one on Fullerton and none are as small as 7X8. That must count for something.”
I couldn’t find the floor plan, but IMO, it is a huge stretch to call this a 6BR. I mean, I guess it is (I do not recall if all the BRs had closets, seem to think no) but it felt like a dollhouse. And this is from someone who loves vintage and who is OK with what that entails. There are two nicely sized bedrooms and then a bunch of small rooms (1 12×8 and 3 11×10 per redfin). I recall that we questioned the room sizes, maybe they include closets? The one leading to the deck, for example, barely fit a small desk and two narrow tall bookcases IIRC. The main living spaces are not comparable at least based on measurements (although have not been inside the Fullerton home). Finishing off the basement at Alta Vista would help, too. I don’t recall our exact thoughts at this point and where the master bath is vis-a-vis other rooms, but we felt that combining rooms and trying to exapand the master bathroom would be a pain but make it far more liveable. I guess it comes down to how you want to use the space that’s there and how you want the overall square footage divided up. We’re a couple (as are the owners) and we felt this was far too small.
It’s tough with a rowhouse, I note that the Fullerton property has the LR and DR on a different floor from the kitchen.
For another petite property that unlike Alta Vista, does not have a garage for a single very short car, see
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/217-W-Wisconsin-St-60614/home/13345225
I see it’s now under contract. The lack of parking cannot have helped. It has a nice roof deck, feels totally different, and is really, really nicely remodeled. IMO, it’s an interesting comparison to Alta Vista in terms of space usage and liveability. Compared to Fullerton, going off the listed room sizes, it seems like more of that space is devoted to public spaces, so again, it’s all how you prefer the space to be used.
“I fastidiously saved and lived with family so I could have a 20% down payment. I only took a mortgage when I knew I could afford it, not when a bank told me I could afford it. I don’t see why any tax dollars should go to the banks or the irresponsible people. (Although, maybe they are the smart ones and I’m stupid for being responsible.)”
You aren’t stupid you’re moral. Yeah it’s tempting to jump into the game when it’s tailored to the last common denominators in society, but you are a much better person than them. They are scum of the earth idiots and you are a decent person.
Keep saving–this thing is going to flame out:
1) QE2 ends today
2) FHA conforming limit is set to fall on Oct. 1
3) HAMP ends on 12/31/2012
4) Option-ARM recasts to continue en masse until Q3 2012.
The ponzi confidence game in housing is about to come to an end. It was all supported with unsustainable government stimulus money to begin with, especially since 2008.
H.: “For another petite property that unlike Alta Vista, does not have a garage for a single very short car, see ”
Owner is in the mortgage biz; mortgage is 07-vintage for $1.032mm. So, very short.
Also, one of the windier spots in Chicago.
Bob: “The ponzi confidence game in housing is about to come to an end. It was all supported with unsustainable government stimulus money to begin with”
What was the “government stimulus money” in 2003? And earlier?
“What was the “government stimulus money” in 2003? And earlier?”
Aunt Fannie & uncle Freddie. If you think the housing boom and subsequent bust would’ve been possible without them I’ve got a bridge to sell you.
Yeah it wasn’t “government stimulus money” at the time, but it was widely understood for years in the financial community they were implicitly backed by U.S. taxpayers.
Our government could’ve and should’ve said sorry there’s no such thing as an implicit backing–you gambled wrong and you lose to their debt holders.
The government also shouldn’t have been encouraging poor people to buy homes. I remember seeing footage of Barney Frank, et all telling bank executives that they just had to increase lending to poor people.
See today’s housing article …stop the government intervention…
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/ct-edit-bigbanks-20110629,0,2178916.story
“Yeah it wasn’t “government stimulus money” at the time”
So, you admit you were conflating two different things, both of which you disapprove of. Good!
And fair enough point.
Bob – Though I do think the existence of Fannie and Freddie help prop up property values to some extent, I think they had little to do with the housing boom/bust, as their subprime exposure was quite limited, and the subprime they were exposed to has not see particularly high default rates. You’re probably relying on Edward Pinto’s research, and it’s just terrible. He defines “subprime” so as to include a bunch of GSE loans, concludes that “subprime” loans in general default a lot, then draws the conclusion that the GSEs are responsible for the bubble. The problem with his logic is that we have the information on the default rates for the “subprime” mortgages held by the GSEs, as opposed to “subprime” loans in general, and those numbers do not support Pinto’s views.
Alta Vista is one of the windier spots in Chicago? That’s news to me.
I grew up near LSD in Lake View, and waiting for a bus on the corner of LSD and our street on a winter morning seemed to be about as windy as you could get anywhere in the city.
“Alta Vista is one of the windier spots in Chicago?”
No, 217 Wisconsin.
nat.. I define any loan written with less than 20 down subprime. If someone wants to write it, go right ahead, but keep the losses with the fool that causes them. but like anon said.. That milk evaporated already.
Ah – 217 Wisconsin is windy. I wonder why.
“Ah – 217 Wisconsin is windy. I wonder why.”
It may not be quite as windy as Clark next to the (old) Midtown Bank building or Wells just in front of Kennelly Square, but it’s sometimes windy on almost calm days. Just an odd effect.
“nat.. I define any loan written with less than 20 down subprime.”
Now auntie Fannie and uncle Freddie define any condo loan with less than 25 down subprime (less than prime loan terms). Which is doubly funny because during the boom it was 10 or 5%?
Maybe if they had consistently stayed at 20 they wouldn’t have had to raise it to 25. How exactly did downpayment requirements become a downwardly moving target over the years? Oh wait the powers that be were in on the housing appreciation gravy train as well. Look how it all ended for most of us.
“Which is doubly funny because during the boom it was 10 or 5%?”
It was -25%.
“How exactly did downpayment requirements become a downwardly moving target over the years?”
Exact same thing happened in CRE.
But, if PMI were regulated like *real* insurance, priced properly, and required anytime there was lest then 20% equity, whether or not there was a piggyback second, then all would have been fine. Could have a set re-evaluation thru out the life of the loan, too, so when value drops, you might get re-hit with PMI.