Old Town Renovated Single Family Home Now Reduced By $405K: 1722 N. North Park

We keep chattering about this 5-bedroom distinctive single family home in Old Town at 1722 N. North Park.

1722-n-north-park-approved.jpg

How can you not notice it when you drive or walk down the street?

On the market for 10 months, it has now been reduced by $405,000.

If you’ll recall, the home has been completely renovated.

The old listing said it was an “eco-friendly” restoration but the new listing has removed those terms.

Lack of parking with the house has been the source of much chatter since this house first appeared on the market. The old listing was offering 2 years of prepaid parking. The new listing says 1 year.

See our December 2009 chatter here.

Karen Peterson at Coldwell Banker now has the listing. See the pictures here.

 1722 N. North Park: 5 bedrooms, 4.5 baths, plus family room, 4500 square feet

  • Sold in July 2007 for $1.435 million (per the Tribune)
  • Was listed in June 2009 for $2.3 million
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in September 2009 for $2 million
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in December 2009 for $1.985 million
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed for $1.895 million
  • Taxes of $16,848
  • No parking – but one year paid for by the seller
  • Central Air

17 Responses to “Old Town Renovated Single Family Home Now Reduced By $405K: 1722 N. North Park”

  1. Matt the Coffeeman on April 12th, 2010 at 1:56 pm

    Plus: no longer FSBO. Minus: 234 W. Saint Paul (only a few houses away) just came on the market.

    234 is listed at $1.5 million and was gut rehabbed in 2009. Like 1722, no parking. However, 234 has a garden side year (shared) and a private deck. While 234 is smaller by (guesstimating) 1200 sqft, it’s solid brick (which, at least for me, is a plus).

    0
    0
  2. Agreed. Relative to other comps in the neighborhood, this house needs to drop by another $300-400K.

    0
    0
  3. “234 is listed at $1.5 million and was gut rehabbed in 2009. Like 1722, no parking. ”

    Listing sez it has one garage spot. What gives?

    0
    0
  4. It’s a beautifully renovated place inside and out, and I love the way it provides a visual “anchor” when you look down St. Paul from Wells St.

    Before people start ripping about parking again: That’s just something that you have to deal with in Old Town Triangle. When the streets were built and homes were put up pre-automobile, there isn’t much accomodation for our four-wheeled buddies. But that’s part of what makes the area so charming: density of historic houses and lack of curb cuts. You have to take your pick; can’t have it all.

    0
    0
  5. Matt the Coffeeman on April 12th, 2010 at 2:11 pm

    “You have to take your pick; can’t have it all.”

    Yeah, but $1.8 million should get you close….

    “Listing [234] sez it has one garage spot. What gives?”

    I don’t know – must be offsite. Nice catch.

    0
    0
  6. Wasn’t 234 W St Paul on the market a couple of years ago for a million? If I remember the visual tour correctly, it had a lot of charm (exposed wood etc) that is now apparently gone after the gut renovation…Do I remember this correctly?
    Oh boy, I’ve been following the market (down) way too long…

    0
    0
  7. “Wasn’t 234 W St Paul on the market a couple of years ago for a million? ”

    Sold Mar-08 for $975k.

    0
    0
  8. Another genius who bought near the peak and can’t come to terms with the fact that maybe they made a bad investment decision and will have to sell at a loss.

    0
    0
  9. Matt the Coffeeman on April 12th, 2010 at 2:53 pm

    What I find interesting about both these properties is this: both have similar markups (as a percentage) to the initial asking price after they were each rehabbed.

    For example: 1722 was marked up 60% (1.435 to 2.3 initial) while 234 was marked up 53% (975k to 1.5).

    0
    0
  10. In the Market on April 12th, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Saw 234 over the weekend – it definitely has a garage parking spot, but not attached (looks like it was bought from another house so there are other garages in between the house and the garage spot). My wife really liked the house but the lack of a true yard and the lack of a second parking spot didn’t do it for us (so we are probably not Old Town Triangle people).

    0
    0
  11. This place is beautiful and so sophisticated in how in blends the old with the new.
    How do they arrive at 4500 sq. feet, though? I don’t buy it.

    0
    0
  12. “How do they arrive at 4500 sq. feet, though? I don’t buy it.”

    Nor should you. The 1st and 2d floors are approaching 1100 SF, the lower level a bit smaller, and the third floor quite a bit smaller, unless you count crawlspace-sized storage. Maybe (*maybe*) 4000 SF, but no way it’s 4500–unless they’re counting the outdoor space, too, which they would were it a condo.

    0
    0
  13. OT, re: MGG

    http://www.chicagomag.com/Radar/Deal-Estate/April-2010/A-Horseshoe-Shaped-House-with-a-Colts-Connection/

    0
    0
  14. Where is the garage spot relative to the house?

    0
    0
  15. Congrats on the purchase Matt, looks like a fantastic home.

    0
    0
  16. Dayum Nice house MGG! (except for it being in the burbs :P)

    0
    0

Leave a Reply