A 3100 Sq Ft Loft With a Private Terrace and City Views: 900 N. Kingsbury on the Near North Side
This 3-bedroom loft in Domain at 900 N. Kingsbury in the Gold Coast (what is this neighborhood again???) recently came on the market.
(Sorry- this is the only picture I have of the building- but this is the commercial end of it with Groupon etc. I need a new picture!)
We’ve cribbed about a lot of the west facing, smaller lofts in this building but this unit is one of the east facing lofts with city views.
It has big industrial windows with 12 foot concrete ceilings and concrete columns.
The loft has a 25×24 private terrace.
It also has wide plank white oak floors.
The kitchen has quarter sawn walnut cabinets with Caesarstone counter tops, a Wolf range and double oversn.
There’s a separate family room.
The master suite has a custom-built walk-in closet and a steam shower.
It has Ann Sachs tile.
The loft has the features buyers look for including central air, a laundry room and 2-car garage parking.
This loft sold just 2 years ago after it was on the market just a few weeks.
There doesn’t appear to have been any major renovations. The current listing uses some of the 2014 listing pictures.
It is listed for $379,000 more than the 2014 sales price at $2.179 million.
If it sold quickly 2 years ago, will it sell just as quickly this time?
Katie Freeman at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #746: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 3160 square feet
- Sold in October 2002 for $935,000 (included 1-car parking)
- Sold in July 2007 for $1.210 million (included 1-car parking)
- Sold in November 2014 for $1.8 million (included 2-car parking)
- Currently listed for $2.179 million (includes 2-car parking)
- Assessments of $1832 a month (includes heat, air conditioning, gas, doorman, cable, Internet, exercise room, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, and snow removal)
- Taxes of $14,972
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Bedroom #1: 16×10
- Bedroom #2: 11×10
- Bedroom #3: 11×12
- Terrace: 25×24
- Walk-in closet: 14×9
- Laundry room: 8×6
Wow, for this kind of money the better options are mind-boggling. To me, this is and likely always will be a second or third choice location. Yes, the unit is expansive, as is the terrace, but for 2 million plus I just don’t see it.
This is arguably the blandest looking $2 million dollar unit I’ve ever seen on Cribchatter.
This is truly a beautiful place…but incredibly pricey. Just never understood why this ‘Kingsbury’ stretch of loft/condo living commands such money?? For this amount of cash you can pretty much pick where and what you want to live in Chicagoland! But I guess this is it for some people? Just not me…
what are yall smoking this place is baller as fuck
I think it will sell in the 1.8-1.9 range though
At $690/foot this is overpriced. Whoever sold it last did well.
One of my best friends lives in this building. Assessments are a bit on the high side for what you get –but you do get a lot — and there have been some rare issues with the CHA allocated units; not the tenants, but the friends/family those tenants allow in the building.
The terrace in this unit would make for some great summer parties, and the rooftop deck and new party room has some of the best, unobstructed views of the city.
For $2+mm and those assessments you can probably get a unit in a much higher-end building, sans the outdoor terrace.
Those assessments aren’t high at 2 million. What’s low though is those taxes. They have to be at least double that. Citing an earlier tax year to make it more appealing?
This place is pretty sweet but for $2MM I don’t want someone literally looking down on me from their balcony while I am on my terrace sipping wine. A little privacy please?
A SFH with the same style and quality of finishes only larger than this unit with a side lot included just sold up the block from me for about this price, so yeah, for this kind of money I think you can absolutely do much better. You can hire grounds-keepers and a maid to take care of your SFH for a boat load less than those assessments.
This location is pretty good by the way. With all of the nearby development, it is only going to get better and better.
Whoever is buying this isn’t going to look at SFH. This will feel much bigger than a $2M SFH. This is a party pad.
Great pad for someone who works at Groupon. LoL Otherwise, who the heck is going to want to pay $2MM to live in this location. This is more River North or Old Town. There is no way this is considered Gold Coast. For that price I would rather get a SFH or a high-rise condo in a newer building.
The neighborhood is Cabrini
but eventually I feel it will be called river north as its just going to be an extension of it someday with all the development going on
The neighborhood is River North. North boundary is Oak st (1000 N).
At least according to Joe Zekas…
this place will be perfect for the Bears first round draft QB pick next year. big contract, big money, big city. Easy highway access to Lake Forest, short drive to Solider Field…
Realtors love to call everything Gold Coast. It’s almost amusing that they are trying to call Cabrini Green as Gold Coast now. lol
“sonies on October 28th, 2016 at 11:56 am
The neighborhood is Cabrini
but eventually I feel it will be called river north as its just going to be an extension of it someday with all the development going on”
If anything, the pending CHA redevelopment will make this area more Cabrini not less.
“If anything, the pending CHA redevelopment will make this area more Cabrini not less.”
how are more mixed income developments anything like “more cabrini”
oh wait, they aren’t
Ok… Cabrini-lite then. The consent decree developments will have 30% CHA & 20% low income.
you do know that this Domain lofts building is a mixed income building right?
I don’t think Domain is 50% CHA/low income.
“sonies on October 28th, 2016 at 2:16 pm
you do know that this Domain lofts building is a mixed income building right?”
Interesting experiment to see how someone who can afford a $2M condo interacts with poor people and vice versa. Either its great for both parties, a nightmare for both parties, or a nightmare for 1 party.
probably the same way rich jerks can be nightmare neighbors as well, blasting music and doing coke with their friends till 6AM while you’re trying to sleep and such
This place is the same price and you don’t have to deal with assessments or a condo board and it’s gorgeous: http://www.estately.com/listings/info/71-east-bellevue-place–1
It’s entertaining how people can be fooled so easily by assessments.
Look at the size of those windows and how many there are. Figure a lifespan of 15-20 years. That’s a six figure plus window job. Amortize that. Easily 500 a month right there. Building staff, 300 a month.
Look at what the assessment includes. Heating/AC. Those windows are a major source of heat gain and loss, 3k square feet plus high ceilings, $300-500/mo.
If an assessment is high it usually just means reserves are being established for big expenses like windows. If they are abnormally low you’ll probably get hit with the special assessment for stuff like windows.
“Interesting experiment to see how someone who can afford a $2M condo interacts with poor people and vice versa. Either its great for both parties, a nightmare for both parties, or a nightmare for 1 party”
Oh do poor or rich people wear a special badge that labels them as such? Like how do you know who is rich or poor? Oh I get it you just use your snobbish judgmental eye to draw snap conclusions based on your idea of what poor and rich people look like.
this neighborhood is not river north….
I don’t think anything west of Orleans can be considered river north. I think the accurate realtor babble for this area would be to call it ‘Near North’, which is basically just a new spin on Cabrini.
I’ve mentioned this before but I live a few blocks east of here, and this area is still very much ‘in transition’ – I think this was overpriced at the 2014 purchase price. 2 million dollars is crazy.
“probably the same way rich jerks can be nightmare neighbors as well, blasting music and doing coke with their friends till 6AM while you’re trying to sleep and such”
I don’t really think you get that crowd out here. Rich jerks who party and do lots of cocaine want to live at trump tower, museum park, the ‘east side’ over by randolph…they want glam and glitz. Not to walk out of their condo to flashing blue lights and groupon employees.
you are so out of touch with reality its frightening Riz
Sonies,
We all know you live in this quasi – Cabrini neighborhood. Don’t get sensitive.
Greer needs to quit reading into comments so much. Talk about drawing unwarranted conclusions.
“Interesting experiment to see how someone who can afford a $2M condo interacts with poor people and vice versa. Either its great for both parties, a nightmare for both parties, or a nightmare for 1 party.”
Is it still an “experiment” if it’s been going on for 12 years?
That’s how long it’s been since they converted this building into condos. Out of 298 units, 16 were mixed-income.
“Don’t get sensitive.”
I’m not, just calling out bullshit when I see it. Your knowledge of the coke scene here in Chicago is pretty hilariously off, but that’s a good thing, I wouldn’t want a doctor knowing or associating with that garbage anyway.
Sonies,
It’s not as far off as you’d think. I don’t partake myself but drug use is far from uncommon amongst stressed out lawyers and physicians.
My point was simply that most rich cokeheads ( or molly heads ) I know who could ever afford to buy a place like this would probably want to live a bit closer to the action in a fancier apartment building. That way they can walk over to studio Paris or underground or wherever and get their rocks off.
That being said, it goes without saying that 99% of the people that I encounter that are cokeheads are much more likely to do lines off their coffee table in humboldt park and go to evil olive after.
Riz on October 29th, 2016 at 10:28 am
this neighborhood is not river north….
In your opinion.
“I don’t think…” – there’s the proof.
A lot of sources have different boundaries for what River North is. A lot of them say Chicago Ave is north border, others say Division/Oak. A lot of sources say that the Chicago river is the western boundary too. To say there is a definitive, agreed upon boundary is false. People claiming otherwise are probably those who own or rent in the center part of RN — or away from the blurred boundary edges — and are trying to protect their ego so they can brag how they live in the “real” River North.
From what I hear coke has made a come back among the hipster crowd so the Humbolt Park comment probably isn’t too far off. The days of MJF type character blowing coke in Bright Lights, Big City are over, along with the open outcry traders (most of now whom groom dogs for a living); but then again, what do I know. My state’s attorney friends tell me that Molly is back among the Grindr crown because heroin and Tina are so suburban these days….
” I don’t partake myself but drug use is far from uncommon amongst stressed out lawyers and physicians.”
I’m sure there doctors and lawyers out there using drugs, but with the exception of pot, I think that the overwhelming drug of choice, by far, is alcohol. It’s not often you hear about some professional caught with hard drugs, and when you do, it tends to make the news.
The Miami pro baseball player who crashed his boat and died had .147 blood alcohol level and cocaine in his body.
I consider the subject location to be River North.
For $2 million+ you should get more than just 3 bedrooms. Look at the small sizes of the bedrooms:
Bedroom #1: 16×10
Bedroom #2: 11×10
Bedroom #3: 11×12
PS Some Kareem Abdul Jabbar size NBA players try and come back there, with their ladies, and they can barely fit in the rooms.
“I’m sure there doctors and lawyers out there using drugs, but with the exception of pot, I think that the overwhelming drug of choice, by far, is alcohol.”
I thought lawyers had the largest percentage of cocaine use of any profession? I thought it was like 30% used it (but this was back in the days when crack was running rampant.)
I’m sure someone can find a link.
In the 1990s, my lawyer friends at large law firms had to go to drug training because it was so bad.
like i said earlier sabrina, the 80’s and 90’s are over. times have changed and lawyers blow less coke.
“like i said earlier sabrina, the 80’s and 90’s are over. times have changed and lawyers blow less coke.”
That could be HD. But they’re doing other things other than the coke like Molly, oxycontin etc. And the drinking is really extreme.
Here’s what I found from March of this year:
“A newly released study conducted by the Hazelden Betty Ford Foundation and the American Bar Association Commission on Lawyer Assistance Programs reports an alarming statistic: Up to 21 percent of licensed, employed lawyers qualify as problem drinkers; for lawyers under age 30, it’s 31.9 percent. By comparison, only 6.8 percent of all Americans have a drinking problem. In addition to questions related to alcohol, participants were asked about their use of licit and illicit drugs, including sedatives, marijuana, stimulants and opioids: Seventy-four percent of those who used stimulants took them weekly.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/24/the-most-terrifying-part-of-my-drug-addiction-that-my-law-firm-would-find-out/?utm_term=.d95482c0e22d
Im not really surprised. Physicians and lawyers on average have a lot more stress to deal with, so it’s not all that surprising that alcohol and maybe drug abuse is higher than your average American.
to be fair, if we are quoting lawyers under the age of 30 – can’t really compare that to the general population – one including a crapload of old people and babies. Also, I drank pretty liberally in my 20’s..didn’t we all? 🙂
Once again, digital staging has shadows and sunlight in a situation that makes no sense. Cloudy out? Why yes of course all the furniture has sunlight on it!
“Seventy-four percent of those who used stimulants took them weekly”
74% of what number? Is it 100, or 100,000? Meaningless stat.
“Up to 21 percent of licensed, employed lawyers qualify as problem drinkers”
“up to”? so what’s the actual number?
“problem drinker” which definition? This could be as little as exceeding the “1 drink/day for women, 2 drinks/day for men” on a weekly basis, semi-regularly.
Also: they left out that the percentage of licensed, involuntarily UNemployed lawyers who qualify as problem drinkers is up to approximately 7,000%.
“Also: they left out that the percentage of licensed, involuntarily UNemployed lawyers who qualify as problem drinkers is up to approximately 7,000%.”
You’re actually trying to argue that the legal profession isn’t filled with addicted people? Really?
It’s been known for decades. Like I said- the coke problem was so severe that big law firms in the Bay Area used to have mandatory drug abuse counseling for all employees in the 1990s (yes- because paralegals and secretaries also had problems so they had everyone do it.)
The worst abusers are apparently junior associates.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/business/dealbook/high-rate-of-problem-drinking-reported-among-lawyers.html?_r=0
One in three practicing lawyers are problem drinkers, based on the volume and frequency of alcohol consumed, 28 percent suffer from depression, and 19 percent show symptoms of anxiety, according to the study, which involved 12,825 licensed, employed lawyers in 19 states around the country.
The study’s conclusions were based on the lawyers’ anonymous responses to a questionnaire, in which they were asked to characterize their alcohol use and mental health. Problem drinking was defined as “hazardous, harmful and potentially alcohol-dependent drinking.”
The lawyers represented a small sampling of the more than one million lawyers estimated to be practicing in the United States.
Problem drinking by lawyers was notably higher than the 15 percent of surgeons who were categorized as abusing alcohol, as reported in a 2012 study of nearly 7,200 surgeons by the American College of Surgeons.
Over all, a study in 2014 by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism found that 6.8 percent of Americans over 18 had alcohol use disorders.
“You’re actually trying to argue that the legal profession isn’t filled with addicted people?”
What you quoted was a joke; and a joke that is contrary to your total misapprehension in the quote above.
The rest was a criticism of the article’s use of only a portion of a statistic, together with weasel words. It’s the sort of jumbled use of stats that would make the NAR proud–enough there to not be false, but not enough to provide a full picture.
“It’s been known for decades. Like I said- the coke problem was so severe that big law firms in the Bay Area used to have mandatory drug abuse counseling for all employees in the 1990s”
Were there more big firms, with larger lawyer counts, in the bay area in the 90s than today? Because it’s not a particularly huge big firm market now. It is nothing like Chicago, let alone NY.
As far as big firms, or SF offices of big firms, go, I’d venture that most junior associates there are not exactly party animals. I worked at a top firm in Chicago, and I’d guess that at least half of my associate class had never even experimented with drugs in college and were not the type to drink to excess, be it in HS/college or as young professionals. The other half were Midwestern college football enthusiasts who’ve likely expended many thousands of dollars to attend one or more of the current World Series games, but even those Bud drinkers were at the tops of their classes in college and law school (hardly the hang over crowd). And since the SF market is smaller and thus more selective, especially given the emphasis on science/tech legal work there, I’d venture that junior associates at big firms in SF party less than the typical Naperville 10th grader.
“As far as big firms, or SF offices of big firms, go, I’d venture that most junior associates there are not exactly party animals.”
Anecdata from 25 years ago is more powerful than your deductive reasoning.
“Anecdata from 25 years ago is more powerful than your deductive reasoning.”
Biglaw hasn’t changed. In fact, it’s the same as always (with the same salaries- actually.) My friends are now partners at these same firms. Yawn. The junior associates don’t do drugs because they are party animals. They do drugs because they can’t bill 2500 hours a year for 8 years without them.
“Were there more big firms, with larger lawyer counts, in the bay area in the 90s than today? Because it’s not a particularly huge big firm market now. It is nothing like Chicago, let alone NY.”
Brobeck Phleger & Harrison had 10 floors in one office tower. It had over 1000 lawyers at one point. Wilson Sonsini; Cooley; Orrick; MoFo; Latham & Watkins SF office was also big. Hundreds of lawyers in each of those firms in San Francisco (not to mention in Palo Alto.) How many does Wilson have in Palo Alto? They must have had 600 in that one office during the height. Not sure what they have now. My friends in the law there don’t talk about the competition as much as when they were younger.
It’s a huge legal market both in San Francisco and down in Palo Alto. The firms hired more associates back in the 1990s because there were hundreds of IPOs going on. They consolidated after the 2000 bust and again in 2008. But the entire industry has shrunk considerably since 2008.
And, again, being a “party animal” has nothing to do with the drug abuse at law firms. My god. Is anyone here a lawyer at biglaw? The pressure my friends were under was insane. They worked 7 days a week. Sometimes for months in a row. They ate meals at the firms every single meal (including breakfast.) Some slept in their offices. You can only do that so long. The substance abuse ran rampant. And it had nothing to do with “partying.” And yes- it is still going on throughout the legal profession today.
People need to educate themselves about what a drinking problem is really about. Alcohol is a depressant. It’s NOT an upper. It has nothing to do with “partying.”
My wife is a corporate attorney – Some of the things Sabrina says are definitely true, others are exaggerated.
Your first few years out of law school at corporate firms are tough – just like residency for physicians. You work insane hours and don’t sleep much, are expected to work from home, etc. Many people burn out and transition to smaller practices or other fields entirely.
Drug use / alcohol abuse is definitely more prevalent than in your general population, but like I said earlier, that has to be expected in a population of young, overworked, and over stressed overachievers.
Later in their careers, corporate lawyers that make it have a pretty decent lifestyle, as the new batch of graduates take over the slave gigs at work. I don’t think all that many lawyers in their 30’s are pounding adderal or coke to get through the week, but they definitely drink more than others in that age group. It’s not really a surprise but it’s far from an epidemic.
I think it’s appropriate to say that substance abuse is higher than with your average joe population, but it’s far from ‘rampant’. ( that implies everyone is doing / abusing something, when it’s probably closer to 20% )
“they definitely drink more than others in that age group”
Here’s a tip:
Control for income levels and education levels, and the (still) male slant to the profession, and lawyers aren’t such outliers. Sure, still above expectation, but not bananas.
http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-who-drinks-the-most-in-the-us-2015-9
which basically proves my point… you can have awful neighbors in any income bracket