$50K Reduction and Under the 2006 Price: 2523 N. Burling in Lincoln Park
We’ve chattered about 2523 N. Burling in Lincoln Park several times in the past- including only a month ago.
See the January 2008 chatter here.
See the original April 2008 chatter with pictures here.
The 3-bedroom vintage unit recently had another price reduction. It has now been reduced $50,000 from its original April 2008 listing.
It is also listed $46,000 under its 2006 sales price.
This unit appears to have it all: 3-bedrooms, vintage, central air, washer/dryer, parking, nice Lincoln Park location, back deck, and up-to-date kitchen and baths.
What will it take to sell this unit?
Susan Parent at Coldwell Banker still has the listing. See all of the pictures and the listing here.
Unit #2: 3 bedroom, 2 baths, 1625 square feet
- Sold in September 1988 for $192,000
- Sold in March 1994 for $223,000
- Sold in June 2006 for $595,000
- Originally listed in April 2008 for $599,000 (parking included)
- Reduced
- Was listed in July 2008 at $579,000 (parking included)
- Reduced
- Was listed in January 2009 at $575,000 (parking included)
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $549,000 (parking included)
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Back porch
- Central air
- Assessments of $100 a month
- Taxes of $5873
Listed room sizes total 1111 sq. ft. and bathrooms add maybe 150 sq. ft….how do they come up with 1625?
Looks a bit small; it likely has minimal closet/storage space; it’s not top floor; the “deck” is off of a bedroom and faces the alley; and there’s sure to be a special assessment soon, as the building can’t have much of a reserve with those low assessments.
But, I still wouldn’t mind taking a look…
I could see paying roughly $425k, give or take about $25k. If that’s simply impossible for the sellers, perhaps they’d rent it, at a slight loss (say, $2200/mo), through 2010 in the hopes that things might start to trend upwards (though 2010 might be a bit optimistic).
Very few of the square footage listings that I check out are anywhere near accurate. Most seam to take the buildings exterior dimensions to arrive at a fat figure. In New Mexico, where there is a premium paid for “Double Adobe” thick walls, the agents specify that the square footage is interior rather than exterior. I would guess that in Chicago, most mesurements include stairwells, elevator shafts, common mechanical rooms, etc.
I would love to know what formula realtors use to calculate the total sq ft in a unit. How are they getting 1625 sq ft for this place?! It’s a nice place but that’s kind of expensive for a 1625 sq 2 BD + den (I refuse to call a 10×10 area w/a closet and a window a room).
Does anyone think that this is a great unit? A “beuaty”? Or mediocre at best?
Yuck. $350,000.
O.K., so, perhaps rent it to me for $1,800/mo?
Anonny,
I live and own in this neighborhood and could easily rent this unit out at $2700+/month. High $400’s would be a good pickup to live in this location.
I think it’s a beauty. Great location close to Oz Park & beautiful exterior. I particularly like the tile work shown in the bathroom.
However, for $550K? Nah. Even if I had the money- nah. Not that beautiful.
The problem with this listing is that its too high for a conforming loan and for only 175k more you can get the real deal SFH in LP a couple streets over on Seminary.
From a target market standpoint this listing is in no-mans land. Too pricey for your typical first time buyer and for conventional financing and yet too small for those willing to throw around serious money these days.
No I wouldn’t be willing to fork over 500k+ to own part of a building. No yard, HOA crap to deal with, etc. No thanks.
Well, 444 W. Surf sold in one day for around $340/sq. ft. If this place has 1600 sq. ft. an equivalent price based on square footage is $544K. Location and finishes are comparable, but this place has A/C and parking which 444 W. Surf lack.
I’m not saying this will move at $549K but I can see the logic behind this price.
JPS,
Yes true but the market for 550k places in the city is vastly smaller than that for 250k units.
With a 250k unit a single yup who has been on the job for a few years can still pick it up with a ten or even twenty percent downpayment. There are lots of yups who want to live in the city and people still want to own.
Fast forward a few years and the yup is now married looking to upgrade their unit. Maybe some kids are in the picture now. So now they have to not only decide which unit but whether they do the suburban thing or not. If not they need to consider private school too, potentially. Also the 550k unit assumes that both parental units will keep working. Its not just the 10-20% downpayment that is the chief limitation is that the market is soooo much smaller.
1/1’s in LP/LV are very common because young people want to “own” and live there. (And generally I still suspect most will hold their value relatively well). But when you start talking about larger condo units I see a lot of downside risk due to the smaller target market. Those listing times could stretch out for ages.
PPSF typically declines as SF increases (all else being equal.)
“rk on February 17th, 2009 at 11:30 am
… I particularly like the tile work shown in the bathroom.”
Too funny because I thought the white bathroom was great while the gray tiled bathroom is an abomination. Looks like someone went pattern crazy in there. And that kitchen is really nothing special. Tastes sure can differ on these places.
Still, it’s too high by about ~100k, IMO.
What’s up with the kitchen in this place? It looks TINY!
The kitchen’s a killer, but the rest of the unit is nice.