A 2-Bedroom Townhouse with Parking Space for $610,000: 2850 N. Lakewood in West Lakeview

This 2-bedroom townhouse at 2850 N. Lakewood in West Lakeview came on the market on March 10, 2023 and went under contract withing 4 days.

But it fell out of contract and was re-listed on March 17, 2023.

Built in 1997, this townhouse complex has 16 units. The photo above is of an original brick lofty type building that is on the George side of the street but the rest of the townhouses are built around an interior courtyard on Lakewood. There is heated garage parking.

This townhouse has 3 levels and a private rooftop deck.

The main floor has hardwood floors, the living and dining rooms, the kitchen and an “updated” powder room.

The kitchen has Shaker white cabinets, a farmhouse sink and stainless steel appliances.

The two bedrooms are on the second floor.

The primary suite has a wall of closets and an en suite bath with double vanity and walk-in-shower along with the stackable laundry.

There’s also an “updated” hall bath.

The top level is filled with natural light and is currently used as an office. It leads to the roof deck.

This townhouse has the features buyers look for including central air and one heated garage space.

It is near the shops and restaurants of West Lakeview, the Jewel on Ashland and the Whole Foods at the Lincoln/Belmont intersection.

Originally listed in March 2023 for $610,000, that is $80,000 above the 2020 sales price of $530,000.

Will these sellers get the premium just 2 1/2 years later?

Marlene Rubenstein and Dena Fox at Baird & Warner have the listing. See the pictures and floor plan here.

Unit #I: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 1500 square feet, townhouse

  • Sold in December 1997 for $298,000
  • Sold in June 2012 for $350,000
  • Sold in September 2016 for $459,500
  • Sold in September 2020 for $530,000
  • Originally listed on March 10, 2023 for $610,000
  • Under contract on March 14, 2023
  • Re-listed on March 17, 2023 for $610,000
  • Assessments of $65 a month (includes lawn care, scavenger, snow removal)
  • Taxes of $10,858
  • Central Air
  • 1 heated garage parking space
  • Bedroom #1: 12×14 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #2: 9×11 (second floor)
  • Office: 7×13 (third floor)
  • Living/dining room combo: 22×21 (main floor)
  • Kitchen: 9×8 (main floor)
  • Storage: 8×3 (main floor)
  • Rooftop deck

 

18 Responses to “A 2-Bedroom Townhouse with Parking Space for $610,000: 2850 N. Lakewood in West Lakeview”

  1. Marked contingent.

    It’s nice. Look at the ’20 photos, together with the current ones, to get a better sense of the (compact!) spaces.

    Kitchen would be greatly improved with a counter-depth fridge.

    Deck needs new decking, and would benefit greatly from some other improvements–if allowed.

    As always, the deck’s usability would be greatly improved by a half bath in the doghouse, but it’s not practical to add for space or cost reasons. Can’t tell if there is even a hose bib on the 3d level–would be a bummer if not, as so much harder to maintain plants.

    I know ’12 was basically the bottom, but that sale was way short of 97+trend–would have expected at least $400k.

    If current contract closes at the ask, will ~37 bps over inflation since ’97–basically in line with long term Chicago trend, but with kitchen and 2 baths *far* nicer than origial would have been.

    2
    0
  2. Under contract again. I almost wrote that this property would probably be under contract by the time the post went live and there it is.

    The inventory is so low right now, that if you have a renovated property like this, it will sell.

    They removed the fireplace in the living room, right? Makes a big difference in the use of the first floor space. Low assessments are interesting. Who pays to heat the garage? That can’t be cheap.

    Looks like each unit has to do its own maintenance: windows, roof decks.

    0
    0
  3. “They removed the fireplace in the living room, right?”

    Yep.

    It’s interesting that it was a wood burner–and apparently with just a steel chimney, from looking at the rooftop pix from prior listing.

    Do wonder if they removed all of that, and sealed the roof, or if it is a potential future issue.

    2
    0
  4. Inventory is going to be low for a loooooong time now that 99% of mortgages are lower than the current rates. Why would you sell when you are locked in at sub 3%? Just rent it out.

    1
    0
  5. “Why would you sell when you are locked in at sub 3%? ”

    but not everyone has to sell…renters, first time buyers?

    0
    0
  6. “Why would you sell when you are locked in at sub 3%? Just rent it out.”

    Need to unlock the equity for the next DP.

    That’s the majority of homeowners, regardless of the financial situation of the ‘typical’ CC commenter.

    And I would think that even for most of those who could float the 2d DP, being that long on resi real estate might not be the best allocation.

    2
    0
  7. to both points–existing mortgage is $424k (80%), and 2.625%.

    I’d have to expect that they don’t have the ~$200k for their move-up place without getting the ~$100k out of this one,

    OR

    they’re moving out of state, and simply don’t want the headache.

    1
    0
  8. I realize some people will need to sell but most people that don’t have to will not. Why give up a rate of sub 3% on a 30 year lock? That is essentially free money.

    0
    0
  9. Nice place, and good listing, but the TP in pic 9 is about half gone, and it’s almost fully gone in pic 12.

    0
    0
  10. “I realize some people will need to sell but most people that don’t have to will not. Why give up a rate of sub 3% on a 30 year lock? That is essentially free money.”

    Agree Nyet. You’re not going to give up your low rate unless you really HAVE to move. It’s what is keeping inventory near record lows.

    And record low inventories, means prices aren’t going to drop all that much. Everyone waiting for a big housing crash in Chicago is going to be wrong.

    1
    1
  11. “Why would you sell when you are locked in at sub 3%? Just rent it out.”

    First, this townhouse association may have certain restrictions on rentals. We don’t know.

    Second, it has mostly new finishes. The best way to ruin that is to put some renters in there (sorry renters.) And in a couple of years, those finishes will be “old” anyway. They can sell right now with an updated unit, with good furniture and design (have you ever tried to sell a property with renter’s furniture in it? Terrible.)

    Third, not everyone wants to be a landlord. I can’t imagine the hell of that.

    And fourth, as anon(tfo) pointed out already, many sellers are moving up and need to roll over the equity as the down payment to the next property.

    3
    0
  12. Not much usable space for the price, and limited curb appeal on a busy street.

    1
    2
  13. how could you not mention the close proximity of the blue park?

    0
    0
  14. “Not much usable space for the price, and limited curb appeal on a busy street.”

    What busy street? Lakewood?

    Even Lincoln (which is at the 6 street intersection) is pretty quiet and tame at that location.

    1
    0
  15. “What busy street?…

    “Even Lincoln”

    [someone, probably] But what about the bus?? Oh, right, forgot there hans’t been a bus there for nearly a decade.

    Had completely the same reaction. But it is true that it doesn’t look great from the street on either side.

    Do wonder when someone will put something in the Elbo Room space.

    2
    0
  16. Sorry – I guess I meant right off a busy street (Diversey). Lakewood is quieter since the trains on that street went away. I was living in the past.

    0
    0
  17. “right off a busy street (Diversey)”

    It’s a full-sized block away! 500+ feet.

    “since the trains on [Lakewood] went away”

    You are dating yourself man! Peerless Candy (south side of Diversey) was the last user–after what? mid-80s?–and closed in ’07.

    2
    0
  18. I know I’m dating myself mentioning the trains. I remember them from way back. As a kid I loved that a train went right down a street.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply