The Elusive Lakeview Single Family Home Under $400,000: 3442 N. Paulina
Is it possible to get a single family home in Lakeview for under $400,000?
This 3-bedroom at 3442 N. Paulina just came on the market listed at $399,500.
The listing says it has a new kitchen, including stainless steel appliances and bamboo floors, as well as new baths. It also has central air.
However, it doesn’t have parking. Apparently, according to the listing, a “parking easement may also be possible.”
But who needs a car with the El stop only a block away?
Mark Weitekamper at Haderlein & Co. Realtors has the listing. See the pictures here.
3442 N. Paulina: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1 half-bath, 1600 square feet
- Sold in September 1988 for $106,000
- Sold in June 1991 for $136,000
- Currently listed for $399,500
- Taxes of $5593
- Central Air
- No Parking
- Bedroom #1: 13×20
- Bedrooms #2: 12×10
- Bedroom #3: 10×10
- Living room: 13×14
- Dining room: 13×10
- Kitchen: 10×14
“Apparently, according to the listing, a ”parking easement may also be”
anything is possible, but if it were probable the current owners would have done it already.
WTF, seriously what’s up with the dark & blury pictures.
The photos are not doing this listing justice.
renovated? When? In 1970?
pass
substandard lot, it appears. still a good deal IMO for someone who’d like the access to the train & still wants a yard (and doesn’t need a car).
Seems reasonable to me, although i don’t know much about comps in the area. I wouldn’t mind plunking down 400K on this, if I were in a position to buy. I’d have to re-do the entire backyard though.
If it were my money, I’d put in an offer around $350K
Paulina is a little west for my tastes. That being said a SFH is way better than the McCrapBox condos often featured on here. I guess it sells at or near ask.
LOL why would the realtor even bother to show a picture of that terrible back yard that’s 100% weeds with the broken fence!
I’m not suggesting that this house go on HGTV’s “Designed to Sell,” but how about “Designed to be Habitable.” The surprise of a single family house priced at $400,000 wears off when you look at the pictures. As far as the yard goes, the people who live there must be lazy. Probably they are moving into something requiring less upkeep – how hard is it to keep up a yard that is probably 600 or 700 square feet. Not to mention the terrible pictures – I’d fire my agent for that alone.
Take a look at the lot size:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3442-N-Paulina-St-60657/home/13386254
Quite small and oddly shaped. Plus you’ve got a large building on lincoln looming over your backyard. Also, I’m with Tom: if adding on parking were easily possible, it would’ve been done by now. With a lot this small, my guess is a spot would just fit and consume the majority of the back yard. No chance for a garage.
I dont think this is a SFH I think its just the first floor of a 2 or 3 condo unit. No?
Having done this a LONG time, 2 words: MONEY PIT!
Think, rotted wood, termites, the need for new mechanicals, electrical, structural issues (floors crooked, etc) new windows, new electric, new plumbing, new finished. At that point buy the lot for $350K and build a new masonry house (1600 SF) for $150/ft.
Run, don’t walk away from rehabbing this one.
I wonder if Suzanne researched this?
there is clearly no way to get parking on the lot – it’s only 75 ft deep, and backs into another lot.
that said, my guess is that there is someone out there who is willing to deal with these issues in exchange for the desirable location, and/or is willing to live in it for 5+ years in the hopes the property value will increase significantly.
paul, the listing states:
“Rehabbed with many new features over the last few years: New kitchen with bamboo floor, st. steel appliances and Dacor range, new baths, dual separate 90%+ efficient HVAC, windows, roof, plumbing, electric, water heater, and more. Parking easement may be possible.”
the parking easement line strikes me as a bald-faced lie, but if the other stuff is true, that’s a lot of work.
This place looks terrible. why are the pics so awful? i dont see when it was rehabbed but they could at least update the kitchen
whoever has this listing needs to take the pics again and spend a little more time on making it “pretty”.
re: the “parking” easement
I think they should refer to it as a driveway easement, as that would seem to be a reasonable ask from the condo neighbor. To get from the alley to the back of the property, you only have to pass over a driveway/garage entrance area on the land behind the building on Lincoln.
Probably, the reason that they haven’t done it already is that they don’t *need* the spot and it wouldn’t be free–not that the neighbor would necessarily ask for much money, but they would want a lawyer and want the homeowners to pay that cost, plus their own lawyer and probably a surveyor, too.
it’s not a reasonable ask IMO, that space is too tight. I think Tom is dead on right that if an easement was going to be granted it would have been done eons ago.
Seriously. Fire the agent or whomever is responsible for the photos
those photos are simply not acceptable
chichow—-seriously i could take better ones with my crappy phone.
that agent is a joke.
Broker—if you are reading this, get your client a new listing agent
“that space is too tight”
Which space?
The minimum distance b/t the condo bldg and the northern neighbor’s property line is ~8 feet. I can’t find an aerial without leafy trees, but it appears that all of the space behind the condo is paved and used as driveway/parking. If the area includes actual outdoor parking, yeah, it’s probably too tight. But if it’s just dumpsters, I don’t see why it’s either too tight or unreasonable.
And do you always pay for something you won’t use now b/c it *might* make your house more valuable in the future?
it’s a 75′ deep lot. I don’t see anyone approving a parking easement for that, just my opinion, I agree the trees make it tough to really see what’s going on.
“it’s a 75? deep lot. I don’t see anyone approving a parking easement for that”
I don’t see what the 75′ deep lot has to do with the DRIVEWAY easement I suggested they should be seeking (and beleive they are referring to–note that whoever drafted that language is also responsible for those photos being approved for posting, so I have low expectations).
I’m acting under the assumption that they one not build a garage, but just a pad or, perhaps, a carport, to preserve space in the yard, but have off street parking.
so help me out here, what exactly are you suggesting would be requested, the right to drive over/on property owned by the building owner on Lincoln?
I’m saying there is a reason that right has not long-prior been sought and granted, if it was simple, the owner would have done it prior to putting the house on the market, as it is clearly a potential put-off.
“so help me out here, what exactly are you suggesting would be requested, the right to drive over/on property owned by the building owner on Lincoln? ”
That is what I’m suggesting. Otherwise, it would be a parking space to be purchased, not an easement–makes no sense unless there is some reciprocal right granted.
“I’m saying there is a reason that right has not long-prior been sought and granted, if it was simple, the owner would have done it prior to putting the house on the market, as it is clearly a potential put-off.”
Lawyers on both sides plus a survey of the easement area plus the incidentals would probably end up being $3-4k. And then a parking pad and automatic gate. And maybe your buyer doesn’t have any interest, just as you didn’t.
Lots of people market their houses with things un-fixed, b/c the buyer might want to do something different. I look at this the same way–offer to do it before closing, or give a credit for the buyer to take care of it.
But again, why hasn’t it been done before now? I suspect the Lincoln Ave owner(s) aren’t interested, what’s in it for them, y’know?
“But again, why hasn’t it been done before now?”
They don’t have three grand to spend on something *they* wouldn’t use? And they don’t want the “headache” of negotiating it, even if it is simple? Sometimes it *is* that simple.
Yes, it might be wishful thinking by the Realtor. But not everyone sucks, and it’s not really a big deal, so I’m not as skeptical (ha!) as yuo are.
I see your point, just saying that if it was possible, I’d think the owner would have wrapped this up, as it’s not worth turning away those “must have parking” people for $3K.
I brought up the lot size as I’m thinking that the yard is a little cramped.
The cynic/skeptic in me thinks that the owner (or a prior one) probably tried to get the easement and had no luck.
”
skeptic on May 15th, 2009 at 9:15 am
it’s not a reasonable ask IMO, that space is too tight. I think Tom is dead on right that if an easement was going to be granted it would have been done eons ago.
”
out of pure vanity, I agree with skeptic
driveway easement would be more appropriate of a term for what is being discussed her. Basically you would park your car on your property, but to get there you need to pass through your neighbors property. The easement would give you that right as well as restricting the neighbors ability to block that access or build over it.
I’m not sure if access would be possible from Lincoln, too bad Google street views doesn’t cover alleys yet. I think that if possible then the sellers is thinking of going throught the property to the north.
“the owner (or a prior one) probably tried to get the easement and had no luck”
Well, they’ve owned it since 1991, so I doubt it was a prior owner.
I don’t remember exactly what was on the Lincoln lot before the condo went up–in ~2001–but my fuzzy recollection tells me it ran to the back of the lot, so there would have been no way to get an easement.
Yeah, they blew it when they didn’t raise the issue with the developer as soon as construction started–would have been the perfect time–but maybe they weren’t contemplating the marketability of the place during that one 6 month period. Stuff happens.
“driveway easement would be more appropriate of a term for what is being discussed her.”
You mean, like I said in my 9:11 post on the subject? The one skeptic was respnding to?
“I’m not sure if access would be possible from Lincoln”
I’m CERTAIN that it isn’t. The condo building is lotline to lotline.
“I think that if possible then the sellers is thinking of going throught the property to the north.”
No, the neighbor to the north would never do that; it would eliminate most of their yard from any reasonable use.
However, the condo building fronting Lincoln appears to have fully paved the area behind–the garage entrance is there, I expect the dumpsters, too–the driveway easement would be across a portion of that paved area. That’s why I don’t think it’s a big deal, if one is nice and smart about it.
How bad is street parking here? Is it permit?
I just saw this one the other day when I was looking for new listings. I didn’t realize there was no parking (dealbreaker – even though we have two cars, we need at least one space), but that’s probably because I didn’t get past the photos. The outside and kitchen photos I saw, but then when I saw the living room photo I lost interest. I was even thinking that the owner/realtor were being ridiculous even posting those photos. If they aren’t going to put any effort into posting clear photos on the listing, it’s equivalent to not posting any, in my eyes – that they’re trying to hide something.
I’m thinking that the Lincoln building is using that paved over space for garbage dumpsters and their own parking.
I’m really only posting as I enjoy playing detective on the internet. : )
“I’m really only posting as I enjoy playing detective on the internet. : )”
Me too. It’s not as if it’s likely I would stop by to check out the situation (altho, it’s not impossible, as I could easily walk over to this one).
“I’m thinking that the Lincoln building is using that paved over space for garbage dumpsters and their own parking.”
Yep, probably. But whether it’s at all possible all depends on how much of it they actaully use and what the conditions of the easement are.
Chicago has many of these older remuddled wood-frame aluminum or vinyl-clad “low-income worker cottage” houses with odd rooms, clumsy exteriors, and hidden structural, electrical, plumbing, and flashing problems. They might look cute or homely, but cheaply built as worker tenements, and often beyond intended “useful life”. Older masonry houses are better built than speculative-built comparable housing today, and may be in decent condition with constant maintenance and quick repairs. Wood-frame tenement cottages such as this one probably aren’t a good investment, because price reflects neighborhood and has little relationship to actual building condition and remaining useful life.
Architect,
Good points about the poor construction sometimes found in older ‘worker cottages’. A few weeks ago I toured a cute, recent rehab of a little cottage in North Center. They were asking in the upper 600s and I couldn’t shake the feeling that I was in a cheap little house that had been gussied up and priced to suit people who currently want that school district (Coonley).
It’s under contract
drove by yesterday, no way the owner is going to get an easement. the space is smaller than you’d think.
but regarding the “poor construction” of worker’s cottages – please. I’ll bet a kidney my 100 year old worker’s cottage will still be doing fine long after those mass-produced (and hastily produced) cinder block crapboxes have crumbled to dust.
Agreed skeptic. Also lets not forget at least half these developers, and most of whom entered the construction business during the bubble, were complete hacks. They smelled easy money and a bank was waiting there willing to finance basically the entire project so it was low risk to them.
I’d trust an old worker’s college over a cinderblock McCrapBox condo with effluorescence bleeding out of the facade any day. Idiot McCrapBox owners now look like their front facade has Monica Lewinsky stains on it. Man those purchasers were dumb as bricks.
I was in the neighborhood yesterday, and took a closer look. I’m with skeptic- no way you’re getting parking here unless you pave over the backyard. Maybe not even then.
Still, location is choice… not far from: El, grocery shopping, pleasure chest, etc., etc.
Thanks for all the comments – I can use constructive criticism.
1.I literally dropped and broke my camera at the property, resulting in those dingy pictures. The house went under contract in 3 days. The pictures have since been replaced on the listing.
2. The yard is all perennials not weeds. Since people are used to lawns, this also did not come across in the pictures. It’s actually a nice yard, but the pictures are not doing it justice.
3. The parking situation is not a lie: The association that owns the land/alley access behind the lot is considering letting the buyer have an easement to access the lot form the rear and I have the correspondence to back this up.
4. The rehab did include mechanicals such as all new electric pulled, except the service pole, all new plumbing, new HVAC, new post and beam supports in the basement; as well as baths, and kitchen, and windows. Yes, the house will need cosmetic updates: some floors, paint, trim work and this is not marketed as a complete rehab. Feel free to contact me with questions, comments if there is any more confusion.
Oh – To properly disclose, I am the selling agent….
Mark:
Thanks for checking in with more details on this property.
Back on the market.
“The house went under contract in 3 days.”
WUT HAPPENED MARK??!!