The Elusive 3-Bedroom Duplex Up: 2651 N. Orchard in Lincoln Park
We’ve often chattered about 3-bedroom duplex down units but more elusive are the 3-bedroom duplex up unit such as this one at 2651 N. Orchard in Lincoln Park.
Originally listed in September 2010, it has been reduced about $10,000 in that time.
It is now listed $9,600 under the 2007 purchase price.
Built in 2000, the unit has 20 foot cathedral ceilings in the living/dining area.
2 of the bedrooms are on the main floor with the master suite and a 14×6 den on the second floor.
It has 3 outdoor spaces.
The kitchen has maple cabinets, granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances.
The first floor 3-bedroom duplex down in this same building is also on the market for $539,900, with similar finishes. See pictures of that unit here.
How much of a premium is there for the duplex up?
Theresa Hahn at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #3: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed, 1 car parking
- Sold in May 2000 for $519,000
- Sold in March 2002 for $590,000
- Sold in November 2007 for $648,500
- Originally listed in September 2010 for $649,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $638,900
- Assessments of $175 a month
- Taxes of $8198
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 15×13 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 17×12 (main level)
- Bedroom #3: 10×10 (main level)
- Den: 14×6 (second level)
“It is now listed $9,600 under the 2007 purchase price.”
What a steal at 1.48% off the 2007 price!
I’m not understanding the configuration of this building. The listing says that there are 3 units in the building and this unit starts on level 3, which would make it 4 stories above grade. But the photos sure don’t look like it.
Sure this thing deserves a premium above the duplex down but I never understood the appeal of these vs. a townhome. You have to walk up a couple flights of stairs just to get to your unit. Try that with a stroller. Then you have to walk up another flight of stairs to get to your second level. But there are people who love these things.
OK. I looked at the interior shots. Looks like the 4th floor is in the “attic”.
Gary: Sure, a townhome would be better…but then it would cost quite a bit more were it right on that very plot (and looked like this place), right? Moreover, the layouts of many townhomes leave much to be desired. As someone who lives in a dup-up, I will certainly attest to the fact that stairs with a kid is not optimal, but it’s a doable trade-off (provided that there is a secure place to leave strollers downstairs).
This is a cool place. It would be cooler if the loft were big enough to serve as the t.v. area, but I suppose it makes for a nice little work/den area. And it would be even cooler if it were in Lincoln elem area, it being a real 3 bed and all.
That said, Alcott is fine. This place goes for $600k, maybe $585k worst case.
Looks like a nice place – then again I am partial to the duplex up. Would be nice to see a picture of outdoor space. Maybe it’s just me, but the listing strikes me as a bit funny.
“Settle in and focus out the balcony to tree-lined Orchard Street, at the granite gas fireplace, or hook your TV up to the existing surround sound.” — What a perfect Sunday evening! I love to sit around and focus (especially on the fireplace if I were a golden retriever)! When I’m not focusing, I am hooking up electronics.
“Granite and stainless kitchen with dining peninsula makes it easy to keep your eye on guests.” — This is going to cut down on theft substantially! The place will practically pay for itself if you have klepto friends. I wonder if you can see your guests reflection on the stainless steel surfaces as they try to pilfer all your valuables. Not so fast buddy!!!
“Don’t forget the bonus space for office/den/ nursery/ studio/imagination area that overlooks your perfect home in the perfect location!” — Rename this post immediately. The Elusive Imagination Area – that space would be perfect as an imagination area – just imagine!!!
anonny pipe down.
This doesn’t meet your “unicorn” criteria so you really aren’t at liberty to talk about this.
This is competing against listings like 1700 W School St which is a smaller 3/2 SFH in Lakeview less than a mile north listed for 450k.
You can’t make a pricing prediction about this 2651 place anonny because you consider all real estate listings on this site in a vacuum and are incapable of comparing them with properties most would consider a vastly superior deal.
Or let’s not forget the much closer comp of 444 W Fullerton unit 909 which is a 3/2 listed for 300k.
In my opinion your wild pricing prediction of 600k is laughable and delusional. This thing when it finally sells will sell for far, far less. Chances are it won’t sell however as I doubt the owner could take the haircut needed to move it.
Not familiar with the term “duplex up,” but I can sort of work it out in my mind. If I’ve got it right, this is a similar property, albeit more expensive, here:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1631-N-Cleveland-Ave-60614/unit-1/home/3960134
I’ll go for a duplex down every time over a duplex up in a non-elevator building. If you travel, have kids or frequent a grocery store then a duplex up gets old really quick. There is no getting around how much it sucks carrying heavy items ip multiple flights of stairs. A duplex down tends to live like a small single family home. Walk right into the main level, with a couple of bedrooms, living room, kitchen, etc. Downstairs you usually find laundry, a family room, a second bed and bath.
The potential for flooding, which would be the same as a home with a basement, is the major downside to the duplex down.
I can’t believe it, but I am going to have to agree with “notClio”. I would prefer a duplex down (especially if the lower level was at least partially above ground as this one seems to be). There are several reasons:
1. Direct unit access
2. Noise – I work out a lot (or at least try) at home and I create a lot of noise – the bottom floor is concrete and doesn’t transmit sound – try doing a treadmill/stairmaster or weights on a 2nd + floor unit and you will get complaints from downstairs neighbors (one lady once called the police and shrieked that her chandelier was falling down!!).
3. Usually duplex downs have private or at least direct backyard access – I would take a patio with surrounding grass and garden any day over a hot dry roofdeck. You can play fetch with a dog, throw empty beer bottles out directly and your barbeques are much much easier. Seriously, nobody ever thinks about the work involved in having a simple barbeque on a a roofdeck – you have to lug all of that stuff up stairs and lug all the garbage back down – and God forbid if you don’t have running water up there!!!
4. Duplex downs are much better in tornados
5. Duplex downs have much more of a single family home feel (to me). You also feel less isolated because you can look directly out into the street and feel like part of the neighborhood (ie directly watch people walking around, etc.) Duplex ups make you feel isolated – kind of the same feeling you get when you are in one of the units at the Hancock – just awful.
“Sure, a townhome would be better…but then it would cost quite a bit more were it right on that very plot (and looked like this place), right? Moreover, the layouts of many townhomes leave much to be desired.”
It’s been a while since I did a detailed comparison but I’ve seen cases where a duplex up sold at a higher price than comparable townhomes. My gut tells me that they get some kind of premium. The main disadvantage of the townhomes – especially in Lincoln Park – is that 2000 sq ft is often distributed on 4 floors.
I would want a real family room (rather than than small den) at this price point. I also think that kitchen is a joke for 639k.
I don’t know why my link isn’t good.
It’s 1631 N Cleveland Ave. #1 for the comp.
lizla, you may want to try Wicker park, uptown or edgewater – I am sure you can get more space and a much nicer kitchen for 639k in those areas
I hate stairs, i’d never buy a place like this. Rent, maybe
also LOL @ Jon
I thought the exact same things
” I would prefer a duplex down (especially if the lower level was at least partially above ground as this one seems to be).”
Totally agree. Obviously have to ensure the construction was done properly so as to reduce the possibility of any future water problems, although I suppose it’s not possible to guarantee that it could never happen.
Aside from that, the direct access at the front and the rear, as well as ‘feeling’ more like a SFH are key,
But the biggest thing for me, as you said: noise. I want to be able to play my music or watch movies at a decent volume without having to worry about whether I’m disturbing my neighbors or not. It would be totally unacceptable to me to have paid this kind of money for a place just to have to ‘keep the volume down’, as if I’m still living back with my parents or something…
Clio – I couldn’t disagree more with your 5 reasons for preferring a duplex down.
1. Direct Access – not just for you but for anyone trying to break into your unit.
2. Noise – so you would prefer to hear the people above you rather than deal with a complaint from a neighbor below? It’s pretty easy to deal with — you just say, “Yea, you should have bought the top floor or asked the people before you whether you can hear the people above. Sorry!”
3. The shared backyard… Real nice when your bedroom backs up to a shared space and your middle unit neighbors are having a cookout 5 feet from your bed. I’ll take a private rooftop. As far as “lugging” things, it’s not so bad — if you are too lazy to do that, you probably should be a party goer not a party thrower.
4. I am not even going to think about which is better for a tornado because I would never make this real estate decision based on such a thing. You are more likely to have a car crash into your duplex down. I kid.
5. Watching the legs of people walking by your duplex down has not been shown to develop any strong sense of neighborhood or community. There is strong evidence to support this. Whenever I feel isolated and alone in my duplex up (which is never), I leave the house. It totally works!
Overpriced.
“How much of a premium is there for the duplex up?”
Bri Bri, there should be a *discount* for a duplex down and just regular pricing for duplex ups. no “premium” should be attached.
Wait – I thought of a 6th and 7th reason why I would love a duplex down:
6. Pets – right now, I have two dogs and it is a nightmare to get them ready, go to the elevator (or, if it was a walkup) walk down the stairs and take them for a walk. It is much easier to just open the door and let them out in the yard. I know this may sound lazy, but my dogs aren’t used to the city and have had many accidents in the lobby, elevator and hallways of my in-town. I know that a duplex up is different than a condo building, but I would be afraid that the same thing would happen.
7. I tend to be a loud guy who comes in late at night and I really don’t want to “stifle my happiness” as soon as I get to the lobby/foyer of my building.
and wait for 650k all you get is that dinky sized kitchen/dining/living room combo?
i do love the windows and all that light
I actually don’t like basements as living spaces. I rather use them as storage.
I think it is a good exercise to walk up stairs everyday. As for kids, I like annony’s solution. Also how often does one travel really heavy? When I travel for work, I take a carryon. I assume most people don’t go more than 3-4 times a year on long trips which includes lot of shopping and heavy luggages.
To date, our 2005 condo association has spent in excess of $34,000 to regrade the driveway, replace the pump systems multiple times (each of which was to “do the trick”), replace the downspout system, rod the drain 6 times per year, repair and replace all common area damage and damage to Unit 1. We’ve experienced 6 major floods in 5 years. Need I say, Unit 1 is a duplex-down. Never, ever again will we buy in a building designed as such.
I would second Jon’s posting re: dup-downs, and then some.
Bob, a couple of things.
First, 1700 W School St is hardly a comp for a place at 2600 N. Orchard. The number of bedrooms is the only thing they have in common. Whereas I would have (possibly) considered modifying some of the Unicorn Criteria for this place on Orchard, I wouldn’t even look at a place in the west 1700’s in Lakeview (north of Diversey, it’s east of Broadway or bust, and ideally south of Belmont). Lakeview, and RV in particular, has much to recommend it, but it simply wouldn’t be on the radar screen for a lot of folks, myself included.
Second, 444 W Fullerton unit 909 is also not a comp. While it’s certainly more of a “location comp,” it’s a completely different type of property, and a wholly different segment of buyers. That’s an interesting listing at 444, and could be a great deal for someone looking in the $275 – $325k range, but it’s simply not in competition with properties in the $500 – $600k range.
Lisa, I am not familiar with these neighborhoods but the place you posted is beautiful inside.
anonny, this is certainly a comparable comp, no?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2629-N-Dayton-St-60614/unit-3S/home/12804528
Nearly 100k less and been on/off market for a year. I say if the Dayton comp hasn’t sold, this one isn’t budging at the current ask either. Thoughts?
haha yes i just typed comparable comp. Sorry coffee not working yet…errrr.
Funny that CC is the first time I ever read prejudices against duplex-downs, To have any private garden space in NYC was always such a huge premium.
@Margo
Sounds like your building was poorly constructed, property graded, and maybe even have a improperly sloped sewer line. We live in a duplex down and have had no problems. (The building is 7 years old and we have lived there for 2 years.) We do regular maintenance on the pumps, which any one with a basement should do.
The only issue we had, was the sealant used on that damn split face block was worthless. Whoever created split-face block should be forced to wear permanently wet clothes, because that is basically what happens to the building. We went with a company that offers a 30 year warranty on the sealant (covered by the manufacturer) and the building dried right up. Amazing results
White City: that unit at 2629 N. Dayton certainly looks vastly superior to this one on Orchard. But I’d say that the location of the Orchard unit is better (at the risk of setting off the usual battle on here, the Dayton listing is being a bit loose with the term ELP).
Clio, “try doing a treadmill/stairmaster or weights on a 2nd + floor unit and you will get complaints from downstairs neighbors (one lady once called the police and shrieked that her chandelier was falling down!!).”
Simply brilliant!
Is there a kind of rule of thumb for how many ft below grade you can be in Chicago before you start running into water problems?
gesc, it’s not my area of expertise, but it really depends on the foundation and the nature of the building more than there being any good rule of thumb.
If the building doesn’t route rain into the building system but instead directly into the storm sewer, and isn’t structured and laid down so that external water must be expelled, you can probably get away with just an ejector up to 8 – 10 feet below grade. That means no potential external water issues – you just have to get rid of your wastewater. If you’re taking water into the building sewer system from rainwater, you have to have a sump + ejector, I think. Most of the buildings with all these problems with below-grade areas built recently were just designed and built poorly – water enters the building and foundation because of the design and it doesn’t collect in one place in order to be pumped out.
In my building the 1st floor is duplex down, probably 4.5″ below grade. Home was built in 1903, as far as i can tell there has never been any water damage. Although the ceilings in the garden level at at around 7.5″ arent exactly that tall.
“gesc, it’s not my area of expertise, but it really depends on the foundation and the nature of the building more than there being any good rule of thumb. ”
Even at that, it depends a *great* deal on where in the city you are.
“If the building doesn’t route rain into the building system but instead directly into the storm sewer, and isn’t structured and laid down so that external water must be expelled”
If your drainage is set up to direct runoff into a sump or ejector, you have a improperly designed system. For a couple of years, the city wanted downspouts disconnected from the sewer system, but they changed that back because of backyard flooding. The downspouts should tie into a gravity drainage system, and go to sewer main with no pumping. Seepage–the reason to have a sump–will need to be pumped regardless.
“If your drainage is set up to direct runoff into a sump or ejector, you have a improperly designed system.”
My understanding is that some old designs and building practices required this.
“My understanding is that some old designs and building practices required this.”
Sure, but still improperly designed. Because:
When do you get the most runoff? During a T-Storm.
When is your electricity most likely to fail? During a T-Storm.
Seems like a really bad idea to design a system that is most likely to fail when it is most needed. Plus, to really adequately deal with the amount of possible runoff, you need to so overbuild the system that it will run inefficiently when minor rain falls–which, for a pump, cause unnecessary stress and early failure.
Do you duplex down, backyard lovers know how many rats hang out back? And since they are constantly eating poison, who knows what will happen to your dog if it bites one.
One of the reasons we bought our townhouse was because it had a backyard and a roof deck. I like to garden and this gave me space to play in the dirt and a roof deck for times when we wanted full sky. After one summer, we’re putting up a deck out back. Too many rats hang in the plants. We want to be off the ground.
(P.S. Yes, we’re not in ELP, but we have way more space, a way-cheaper price, and we’re not stuck in a duplex up or down!)
@GB thanks for that info. Do you mind sharing the name of your waterproofer and the approximate cost of the job? We had our building waterproofed in late 2009 and were recently told it’s good for another few years.
Question to ALL: Who pays for the interior damage to the below grade unit, the association or the unit owners? Just want your take as this seems to vary association by association. Many thanks.
@Margo
We used Seal Chicago and the product is PIM+ (by DynaCrete). Seal Chicago is the only Chicagoland vendor of the product. (Dynacrete actually offer a lifetime warranty in Canada, but thanks to our litigious society, they made it 30 years in the US.) It cost about $5800 for 3 sides of the building (2 simplex units and 1 duplex down, so about 35 feet in height) Worth every penny in my opinion.
As far as responsibility of damage, from what I understand it depends on what caused the problem. I would check with the common insurance carrier and the unit owner insurance carrier. Most homeowners policies cover water damage from backup of sump/ejector water.
@JJJ
I gues we should consider ourselves lucky that the downspouts are direct to the sanitary sewer line and not pumped. Maybe that’s why we have had no problems.
@Jon, I’m still in stitches over your first post. Seriously, hysterical.
Question for those of you familiar with LP and Lakeview areas commenting on the rat thing: how much of a rat problem do these neighborhoods have right now? I’m buying a SFH with a backyard and wondering how closely I’ll have to watch my dogs when they’re out back.
I prefer a duplex-up over a duplex down or townhouse as well. All my friends in townhomes with toddlers had to move because the kid only had so much space to walk around versus a duplex with the long hallways and easy access to other rooms. Compared to a duplex-down, any street noise is lessened in a duplex up, you get a lot more light and no worries about neighbors walking above your head or dropping things and waking up you or your baby.
“First, 1700 W School St is hardly a comp for a place at 2600 N. Orchard…”
You’re right. Because 1700 W School St. is a property that actually went under contract quickly, whereas 2600 N Orchard sits and collects dust on the MLS because the owner is not in tune with where the market currently is.
“Lakeview, and RV in particular, has much to recommend it, but it simply wouldn’t be on the radar screen for a lot of folks, myself included. ”
Apparently your radar screen doesn’t include properties priced as absurdly as this one, at least if you define radar as actually interested in possibly buying it. 1700 W School st was on someone’s radar who apparently has the intention of purchasing it. I bet 444 W Fullerton unit 909 does too.
It’s not too difficult to spot the properties that are priced right, anonny. You just need to look at what actually has closed recently in an area and for what price.
Thanks GB!
Chicago condo valuations got absolutely slaughtered this morning. Chicago’s index fell to 110.79 from 117.17 last month, a decline of 5.44% in one month.
If we go by the Case Shiller index for Chicago condos we’re back to December 2000 pricing now.
Case Shiller is meaningless as it only applies to anyone within 3 standard deviations of the mean and those are not the properties we are looking at.
I don’t think it’s “meaningless”- as about 50% of the sales are distress sales so of course the index is going to decline. But without THOSE sales- what is going on in the market? Nothing. Sales would be at all time lows.
So you have to look at the whole picture to get an idea of what is going on out there. As G’s data over the past few weeks has shown- sales in LP and Lakeview and other GZ neighborhoods continue to be anemic.
Case Shiller is backward looking- obviously.
But that condo number is awful.
So if you bought 11 years ago- you might still be losing money?
Wow.
I was saying it is very relevant. Just commentating on the forthcoming response of how those have been correct so far are all a bunch of ignorant children based on our insistence to imply market movements from data relevant to 99.7 percent of the population while only the .3% should matter..
my bad… only .135% should matter (top of the distribution)
damn weed!!
gringozecarioca:
a rising tide lifts all boats…
clio gave his “stupid average” remark for the “retards” on the other thread.
“I was saying it is very relevant. Just commentating on the forthcoming response of how those have been correct so far are all a bunch of ignorant children based on our insistence to imply market movements from data relevant to 99.7 percent of the population while only the .3% should matter..”
Really emma? Really? From what I have read over the past year it seems that most CCers WANT to live in the Green Zone. Review all of the threads and properties and you will see from the comments that 100% of the CCers understand which neighborhoods are good and which are bad. So it is not 0.3% of the people that I am talking about – it is 100%!!!