6-Bedroom West Lakeview House Sells for $170K Under the 2004 Price: 1402 W. George

We last chattered about this 6-bedroom single family home at 1402 W. George in Lakeview in November 2010.

1402-w-george-approved.jpg

See our prior chatter here.

At that time, it had recently been reduced and was listed $80,000 under the 2004 purchase price.

It sold in May 2011, after 11 months on the market, for $170,000 under the 2004 purchase price.

If you recall, the house had apparently been converted from a 2-unit plus garden apartment into a single family home before the 2004 sale.

It had 11-foot ceilings and Brazilian cherry floors.

The kitchen had granite counter tops, double ovens and SubZero.

5 out of the 6 bedrooms were on the second and third floors.

There was a family room on the main level and a basement.

The house was on a 25×125 lot with a 2-car garage.

The listing says it was located in the Burley school district.

Does a house now have to have a special something to sell for over $1 million?

Kathy Murphy at Baird & Warner had the listing.

1402 W. George: 6 bedrooms, 4.5 baths, no square footage listed, 2 car garage

  • Sold in May 2002 for $510,000
  • Sold in January 2004 for $1,070,000
  • Listed in June 2010 for $1.2 million
  • Reduced several times
  • Was listed in November 2010 for $990,000
  • Sold in May 2011 for $900,000
  • Taxes of $17,952
  • Central Air
  • Bedroom #1: 20×14 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #2: 15×13 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #3: 12×9 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #4: 12×15 (third floor)
  • Bedroom #5: 10×15 (third floor)
  • Bedroom #6: 17×10 (lower level)
  • Family room: 20×18 (main level)

7 Responses to “6-Bedroom West Lakeview House Sells for $170K Under the 2004 Price: 1402 W. George”

  1. Well, the taxes might go down.

    0
    0
  2. It was across from a bar.

    0
    0
  3. Was there anything done to the place between 2004 and 2011?

    I think this was priced ok given the size and location of the property, but was still probably $50K overpaid. I ‘d be interested in the financing on this place.

    0
    0
  4. Nothing on ccrd yet.

    0
    0
  5. I think the location right across the street from a bar (with a large open patio) hurt this one.

    0
    0
  6. We were on the buy side of this one – but not me personally. We were under the impression that no further major rehab occurred after 2004.

    0
    0
  7. “We were under the impression that no further major rehab occurred after 2004.”

    Doesn’t look it.

    SubZero is 7 years old–did a credit for that get baked into the final (it’s mainly a rhetorical question)?

    0
    0

Leave a Reply