Ravenswood Historic District Single Family Home Reduces $50K: 4337 N. Paulina

We last chattered about this traditional looking home with a more contemporary interior at 4337 N. Paulina in the East Ravenswood Historic District in early August 2009.

4337-n-paulina-approved.jpg

See our prior chatter here.

It has since been reduced another $50,000.

The kitchen has been renovated and has stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.

If you like a backyard, the house has an oversized lot of 33×165.

4337-n-paulina-hallway-approved.jpg

4337-n-paulina-kitchen-approved.jpg

4337-n-paulina-bedroom-approved.jpg

4337-n-paulina-backyard-approved.jpg

Timothy Sheahan at Conlon Real Estate has the listing. See more pictures and the virtual tour here.

4337 N. Paulina: 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 2.5 car garage, no square footage listed

  • Sold in April 1988 for $56,500
  • Sold in March 2000 for $700,000
  • Sold in August 2005 for $955,000
  • Originally listed in May 2008 for $1.099 million
  • Listing cancelled in October 2008
  • Re-listed in June 2009 for $999,900
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in August 2009 at $949,000
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed for $899,000
  • Taxes of $11,471
  • Central Air
  • Bedroom #1: 17×21
  • Bedroom #2: 16×14
  • Bedroom #3: 11×12
  • Bedroom #4: 10×11

26 Responses to “Ravenswood Historic District Single Family Home Reduces $50K: 4337 N. Paulina”

  1. How is this a million dollar home?

    0
    0
  2. You see, it’s all part of the plan to drive real estate prices higher. Buy in 04-06; hold for 3-5 years; flip for PROFIT! before the ARM resets or the balloon comes due.

    The market has changed but the seller’s ingenious plan remains the same.

    “Sold in August 2005 for $955,000”

    0
    0
  3. Still fugly.

    0
    0
  4. The woodwork on the railings/banister could be darker but why do you think this home is fugly? I rather like it. Its just not “staged” well but honestly how hard is it to rearrange furniture?

    The price on the other hand…….

    0
    0
  5. “why do you think this home is fugly? I rather like it.”

    Did you look at the exterior pic?

    0
    0
  6. Exterior = fugly
    Interior = could be worse, but not bad

    0
    0
  7. Those taxes, nearly $12,000 a year, which helps pay for county board’s representative Deborah Sim’s personal driver and her bright red Cadillac, make me want to vomit.

    0
    0
  8. “How is this a million dollar home?”

    Because they paid $955K and real estate only goes up.

    0
    0
  9. The taxes are based upon the 2005 sale record and are anticipated for a property in this price range. The issue is why anyone paid that in the first place. The home from the street is an eyesore. The railings/ rather, newel posts on the stairs are not only too light but also inappropriate for an otherwise not too badly executed contemporary interior. Perhaps the 2000 price is more accurate for today.

    0
    0
  10. i said this before and will say it again;
    oh my, what happened to that front of the house? for really what happened to the front? no seriously what happened to it?

    i think this weekend i will toss little groove in his stroller and we will take a long stare all close up at the front of this place make our eyes blurry and slowly back away.

    0
    0
  11. “anon (tfo) on September 11th, 2009 at 11:04 am
    “why do you think this home is fugly? I rather like it.”

    Did you look at the exterior pic?”

    Saved me a post. The interior is fine. The exterior looks like hammered $hit.

    0
    0
  12. “The exterior looks like hammered $hit.”

    It’s so bad that WL–after defending it extensively–drove by and changed his mind.

    The biggest issue is, there doesn’t seem to be an easy remedy, even if you were willing to spend the $$.

    0
    0
  13. its the ‘curb appeal” killing this house, i really like everything else the back yard is sweet.

    lets put a positive spin, after a shytie day at work you walk/pull up to the front of your house you get a good laugh and your day is better 🙂

    0
    0
  14. Craptastic

    0
    0
  15. “anon (tfo) on September 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    It’s so bad that WL–after defending it extensively–drove by and changed his mind.”

    LOL.

    0
    0
  16. “Groove77 on September 11th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
    its the ‘curb appeal” killing this house, i really like everything else the back yard is sweet.”

    I think it’s curb repulsion in this case.

    0
    0
  17. whatever happened to WL we haven’t heard from him in a while

    0
    0
  18. I think it’s a nice home; I don’t *hate* the front and I definitely like the interior (I love the fireplace in the MB), but no way on earth would I drive by and think, “yeah, that totally looks like 1+ million dollar home.” Or even an $900K home as it’s currently listed. I’m clueless at what this price point would fetch in this area, so I’m hesitant to guess what’ll end up ultimately going for.

    0
    0
  19. Whatever architect designed this place needs to be disbarred or whatever the term is for expulsion from the trade.

    0
    0
  20. Maybe “revocation of their license”? I’m not sure if there’s a technical term for it; I’m sure Architect who posts here does though 😛

    0
    0
  21. During the boom most halfway decent homes were priced as if it would eventually be a million dollar home and this one is no different.

    Think of it this way: during the boom, bungalows in nicer neighborhoods were selling upwards of $500,000. Since this a real house with two levels and fully renovated, it’s easily worth a million….using this logic it would be worth nearly 1.5 mil if the exterior wasn’t designed so poorly.

    0
    0
  22. “Think of it this way: during the boom, bungalows in nicer neighborhoods were selling upwards of $500,000. Since this a real house with two levels and fully renovated, it’s easily worth a million….”

    Too, too true. All driven by the “value”, as a development parcel, of the underlying land. That $500k bugalow–assuming it wasn’t falling down–was about $400k of land and $100k of house. And in a less-desireable ‘hood.

    This place, on a bigger lot, was $600k of land and $355k of house. Now that the land is maybe worth $350k, and the house ain’t worth more than it was, it’s on its way back to spring 2000 pricing.

    0
    0
  23. “bungalows in nicer neighborhoods were selling upwards of $500,000”

    I looked at two brick bungalows in Portage park back in 2005 one was reno’d by a eastern european pick up truck type it was 500k we lauged our butt off on the drive home. the other was 450k and had an unfinished basement.
    after the second house we stopped looking the RE kool aid was strong there :0

    0
    0
  24. Anon(tfo) you’re totally right, the floor of the market was based solely on what developers were paying for the land. Too bad they built way too many million dollar spec homes that are now unsold.

    0
    0
  25. architectural abortion. don’t know how you would fix the facade to make it work.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply