A 1904 Victorian in Logan Square for Under $400,000: 2318 N. Central Park
This 3-bedroom Victorian with its own front porch at 2318 N. Central Park in Logan Square just came on the market.
According to the listing, nearly everything is brand new from the decks, the roof, the windows, the furnace, the air conditioning and the kitchen and baths.
The kitchen does not have granite counter tops or stainless steel appliances, however.
The house has front bay windows, hardwood floors and other vintage features.
It’s also on a slightly larger than normal Chicago lot of 30×125.
Didier Lepauw at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See the pictures on the property website here.
2318 N. Central Park: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1 car garage, 3484 square feet
- Sold in August 1990 for $91,000
- Sold in September 2000 for $182,000
- Sold in July 2005 for $353,500
- Currently listed for $389,000
- Taxes of $4360
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 14×13
- Bedroom #2: 14×9
- Bedroom #3: 11×9
- Finished basement
Much nicer website than many…
I appreciate the number of photos
There are quite a few photos, but they make much more sense when you see them laid out on the floorplan – http://www.smartfloorplan.com/il/v292985
Kudos to an agent that can actually present a property like a ‘profesional’ should. Loves all the pics, the floor plan, even the creepy JCPenny Photo studio pic of her and hubby. Actually no, the pictures kinda creepy.
I like the front entryway with the glass doors to seperate the liveing room off from the entry. Very old school, not sure if victorian or not though. It would be great to have that 2nd bath upstairs. Kinda a downer. Maybe it would have been possible to get another 3/4 bath next to the existing bath and reconfigure to have the master in the back. 3rd bath in the basement mitigates that a bit. Can’t tell on the ceiling height but it looks rather low. At least somewhere to send the kids.
I live in Logan Square and the north east end. Parts of LS west of Kedzie/Kimble can be questionable. Its different block by block so Im not possitive on this location.
Love it. Seems like it is in great condition. Love all the unpainted wood. Love the wood floors in the bath. Lots of space. Finished basement. Yard. I like the kitchen. It’s clean, neutral and has plenty of cabinet and counter space. Honestly, this house has everything I want. Even a reasonable price.
The only problem for me is that it’s too far from the el. I don’t drive, and I prefer taking the el to taking a bus. I am not really familiar with this neighborhood and the feel of it.
“I am not really familiar with this neighborhood and the feel of it”
its rough around the edges, head SW towards dino & nick and the naughty store and its not nice. head NE towards logan blvd it gets better.
Anyone back in the day frequent the old YMCA down the street?
Also anyone know when the “Updates” were done? after the 2005 purchase?
380k seems high to live on a partially main street. but you are getting a big house with a yard and garage.
“Maybe it would have been possible to get another 3/4 bath next to the existing bath and reconfigure to have the master in the back”
I think you’d have to extend the dormers to do that–look at the birdseye view to get a feel for the (lack of) head room upstairs.
I think the best bet for fitting in a 2d bath would be adding a 2d floor to the “family room” as the main area of a master suite. BUt then that would probably be overimproving the house.
$111 a sqft sounds about right to me in this part of LS.
This home should attract a family with a modest income. It will sell.
Gotta say, I wouldn’t want to live on that block. It’s just not a charming part of Logan Square and is really far from the El.
For the price, I’d much prefer a house like this one on Troy:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2854-N-Troy-St-60618/home/13451694
Sure, it’s smaller and thus far more per square foot, but I think it has a ton more personality and is a much shorter walk to both the El and the heart of Logan Square. Sold for $370k this summer.
“$111 a sqft sounds about right to me in this part of LS.”
Ok, but I sure hope you’re not multiplying that $111 by the 3484 claimed here.
By my math, they have maybe 1400 sq feet of rooms above grade. Actual total claimed sq footage of the rooms listed = 1700.
(And all this assumes there is some actual use for a 19×7 “family room”. . . stretch out and enjoy that one!).
Yeah, I know they’re probably claiming porches, etc. . . . 1)even with those, this sq footage number is way off and 2)if that practice is “ok” in the minds of some, it should be outlawed during times of the year when snow is on the ground.
If that’s not outlawed, calling this address “the best of Logan Square” should be.
Wow that’s pretty shady calling a 1700sqft house almost 3500sqft isn’t it?
“Wow that’s pretty shady calling a 1700sqft house almost 3500sqft isn’t it?”
Assessor sez 2243, so tack on 50% more for the basement SF, and you’re at 3300+, so it’s non-absurd.
Of course, the assessor’s SF is in fantasyland, too, as there is NO WAY that the three floors total more than about 2000 SF, unless the room dimensions or layout on Max’s floorplan are *radically* wrong (or there’s a magic attic). And as the assessor’s SF is supposed to exclude the basement, I have no idea where they got 2243 for the two floors of this house.
As usual, I thought I was sleuthy but anon takes it to another level.
I am
1)Also shocked at that assessor number.
2)Completely shocked at the tax figure– relative to this assessed sq footage, it is crazy low.
Re: magic attic. . . just notice them windows up there don’t go to the upstairs bedrooms, so apparently there is one. . . *disgusted sigh*. . .
“19×7 “family room”.”
yeah at best its a sun room.
and 3500sqft is most likely counting the basement (is MG the listing agent here?)
but even though the SqFt is shady, its still a nice sized house.
Under conventional lending standards this home requires a household income of over $100,000 per year to purchase. $100,000 a year is hardly a modest household income. It’s not ‘rich’ by any definition, but, $100,000 cannot be described modest except under a pretense of snobbery. I arrived at the $100k figure by subtracting a 20% down payment from the purchase price and then dividing the mortgage by 3 (as in 3x income).
Even with FHA’s liberal lending standards and a 3.5% down payment, to arrive at a PITI at exactly 45% of a borrower’s gross income a household requires a yearly income of at least $64,000, which is about average in the of Chicago. This is not a modest income. It’s an average income. Modest incomes are those who make $12.00 installing cable television or work behind the counter at your local Verizon branch.
“Even with FHA’s liberal lending standards and a 3.5% down payment, to arrive at a PITI at exactly 45% of a borrower’s gross income a household requires a yearly income of at least $64,000, which is about average in the of Chicago. This is not a modest income. It’s an average income. Modest incomes are those who make $12.00 installing cable television or work behind the counter at your local Verizon branch.”
This house *should* be more like $250-275k, tops. That’s not reality, yet, but when houses like this are selling for about 10% more than metro-median, then I think we’ll have hit the real bottom. Houses like this *should* be a little over median price–they’re not truly large, they’re in so-so locations, they’re in reasonably updated condition.
But are they what a family with a (real, dependable) 6-figure income would really want? Nope.
This discussion on “modest” reminds me — I have a friend who, with his wife, make $100,000. They just had second child and want/NEED to buy a home in the city — a real home, not a condo. I was at a loss to give them good options that include i) a good public school (most important), ii) a friendly, stable neighborhood and iii) access to public transportation.
Do we have top picks?
“I was at a loss to give them good options that include i) a good public school (most important), ii) a friendly, stable neighborhood and iii) access to public transportation.”
And a SFH for ~$400k? That’s *tough*.
Couple questions:
What qualifies as “access”? Less than 4 blocks to El? Does Metra count? Can a (short) ride on the bus be rolled in?
How big is the minimum–I would assume 3 BR on one floor is non-negotiable, but beyond that, what? Does it need to be completely turnkey, or can ugly be overcome? Any chance of dealing with a single bathroom, at least to start?
Given that access to good CPS elementary schools with sub-$400k SFH’s are virtually non-existent in most neighborhoods, I would suggest your friend start looking at the suburbs like most everyone else.
Your friends might want to consider anywhere on NW side for sub-$400k homes with decent private schools; north of belmont, west of say Western all the way to the city limits.
JMM – Evergreen Park and catholic school… lol
JMM,
Oriole Park, for access to blue line, Oriole park Elm, a good hood, but thats putting them on the edge of chicago.
I would also recommend Beverly,
Jeebus, folks, Redfin shows 101 3+ BR SFHs + THs in Norwood Park under $450k. I didn’t check the attendance boundaries, but that means there are some options in “good” elem school areas.
And there are bungalow-ish houses west of Western in the Bell area that list around $450k on occasion (there’s one now) and depending on what one feels about Coonley, there are several similar cottage/bungalow types alos for sale currently for sub-$450k.
And, HD, you’re forgetting/ignoring that the most likely reason someone *must* be in the city is that that someone works for the city.
I must live in the city too. I’d rather die than live in Mt. Prospect or Schaumburg.
“And, HD, you’re forgetting/ignoring that the most likely reason someone *must* be in the city is that that someone works for the city.”
“Jeebus, folks, Redfin shows 101 3+ BR SFHs + THs in Norwood Park under $450k. I didn’t check the attendance boundaries”
its harlem, NW Hwy, nagle, Bryn Mawr. (i check the first month wife was prego)
“its harlem, NW Hwy, nagle, Bryn Mawr.”
Within those boundaries, I give JMM’s friend the following for $399k:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/5645-N-Nottingham-Ave-60631/home/13506526
good find!!!!!
i like the place too!!!!!
the groove family in norwood, hmmmmm?
“I must live in the city too. I’d rather die than live in Mt. Prospect or Schaumburg.”
Couldn’t have put it better myself.
This is a nice place and pretty reasonable. I would disagree with the description on the agents site: “ON A BEAUTIFUL TREE LINED STREET.”
Logan Square is actually really shaping up. Including a ton of press from places like this opening up: http://revbrew.com/ . But Central Park and especially this location is definitely not one of the finer examples.
Be interesting to see if this goes this spring.
Actually just noticed Redfin lists it as under contract: http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2318-N-Central-Park-Ave-60647/home/13420448
Census Tract 220900 is Tier 1
Median Family Income: $42,460.95
Single-parent households: 35.62%
Owner-occupied homes: 37.29%
Speaks language other than English: 79.27%
Educational attainment percentile: 10.02%
I wonder how wise and investment it is to buy a home at 10x the value of the median family income in a neighborhood that CPS currently considers ‘tier 1’ (poorest)?
This be the one that apparently closed for $375k.
Can’t believe all these “Cribchatter West” places moving so quickly. . .