A Bank Owned 2-Flat Within Blocks of U.S. Cellular Field: 3550 S. Parnell in Bridgeport
This bank owned vintage 2-flat at 3550 S. Parnell in Bridgeport recently came on the market.
It appears to have a lot of the bells and whistles a landlord might be looking for in a rental property.
Built in 1891, the 2 unit building consists of the following:
- Unit #1: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath
- Unit #2: 3 bedrooms, 1 bath
There is also a 2-car garage and each unit has separate utilities.
From the pictures it looks like they have separate dining rooms as well as in-unit washer/dryers.
The building is also just a few blocks from U.S. Cellular Field.
Is this a deal?
Barbara Thouvenell at P.R.S. Associates has the listing. See the pictures here.
3550 S. Parnell: 6 bedrooms, 3 baths (don’t know where the 3rd bathroom is located- maybe the basement?), 2 car garage
- Sold in August 1988 for $80,000
- Sold in July 1993 for $118,000
- Sold in June 1999 for $150,000
- Sold in June 2005 for $330,000
- Sold in March 2007 for $440,000
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in June 2009
- Bank owned in February 2010
- Currently listed for $288,900
- Taxes of $4677
- Separate utilities
Bridgeport (and this 2-flat may actually be in Canaryville) is an acquired taste for people who “like” hard-core blue-collar working-class neighborhoods. Bridgeport has little to offer in traditional nice neighborhood amenities. It has a Mafia tradition, mostly low-quality high-density housing, and no-trees/small-lots residential blocks interspersed with railroad tracks, public housing, small-scale industrial etc. Close proximity to White Sox hardly overcomes those shortcomings.
Interior photos plainly note low-quality of most Bridgeport housing. Small overpainted units in old charmless buildings, ad hoc kitchens and heating systems, often questionable code compliance, attractive only to a small minority of home-purchasers. Good to know that you can wash dishes and clothes at same time at same place in your kitchen.
Definitely Bridgeport,Canaryville boundaries are usually considered 39th thru 47th.
How much are rents in Bridgeport?
Someone payed almost half a mil for this dump in 2007? What the heck were they thinking!
Architect paints an overly bleak picture of Bridgeport. It is very close nit, and my parents townhouse is top-notch. There are a lot of good restaurants also and it is about 15 minutes from the loop.
“How much are rents in Bridgeport?”
I hope really cheap if this place is standard… my god
If either the 88->99 or the 93->99 appreciation is considered normal, then the ask is non-absurd, but I don’t think it would qualify as a “deal” at anything over about $225k.
for the record, (certain parts of) Bridgeport have changed a lot over the last 5 years, including what became a pretty active arts scene… though it has become a little less “hip” the last year.
And of course, Chinatown has sort of drifted south a bit, too.
I grew up in Bridgeport and its historically an Italian neighborhood but over the past 30 years, the neighborhood has migrated with the Chinese since Chinatown is so close. I always felt that Bridgeport was very family oriented and quiet other than baseball season. In my opinion, it will always be Comiskey Park and not U.S. Cellular Field. Back to the subject at hand, the property is currently in a desirable area. Just one block north (34th and Parnell) you have a row of million dollar single family homes. You have a elementary school on 35th and Wallace, lots of commercial area on Halsted and easy accessible public transportation. If the property was a little further south then it would be a more questionable location. Overall, I think this is a nice rental unit.
Architect is opinionated and uninformed — a pretty scary combo. The border to Canaryville starts at 39th street. The house is in Bridgeport. The block the house sits on is tree lined – as is most of Bridgeport. It is in a reasonably desireable area. Maybe he wants to buy the place. THe apartments would rent for $1000 ea.
Chioppo,
You think these would rent for a $1000 a month?
Can someone confirm this? These are 3/1’s.
It sounds obscene compared to the 1000 – 1200 a month 3brs you can get in Southport, Clyborn, Logan, etc…
“It sounds obscene compared to the 1000 – 1200 a month 3brs you can get in Southport, Clyborn, Logan, etc…”
There are no 3brs going for $1200 a month in the Southport neighborhood (unless maybe you find a random garden unit). You’re lucky to get a decent 1-bedroom for that amount in that neighborhood.
Sabrina,
Not sure if you consider Ashland & Belmont the “Southport Corridor” but its not far from the Paulina stop and I just had four friends move into a three bedroom + den, 1.5 bath place for $1,400/month. They were previously renting a 3/1 in Humboldt Park for $1,050/month.
Yes rents between great walkable neighborhoods with amenities and those without them really do have this little of a difference. Even though the property valuations undoubtedly show far more than a 33% premium for the more desirable hood.
Its an oddity of Chicago real estate I’ve wondered about for some time now and on here often. Anon(tfo) explained it away as government intervention in the form of section 8 vouchers keeping the rents artificially high in the less desirable hoods. Without any data and no other idea behind this it seems plausible to me as I am really at a loss to explain it.
Oh yeah and their $1,400/mo West Lakeview place is about twice the size of their $1,050/mo Humboldt Park Place.
Yup Chicago rents between green zone and not so green zone hoods are really that small.
Whoops, didn’t mean to put Southport, meant to put Lincoln Square.
Don’t know why I had Southport on my mind, good god people covet that neighborhood. I still don’t get it but, whatever.
I was looking at southside apartment rents last night on craigslist and pretty much every listing said “section 8” accepted.
How many people get section 8 vouchers in this city? It must be an awful lot for rents in the worst neighborhoods to be at or over $1000 a month. And I’m not talking about this neighborhood. Rents were that high everywhere.
Just more funny money in the system.
It’s not just section 8 vouchers keeping up rents its also risk. Rents might be nearly comparable on the north and southside, but, as a landlord in certain areas on the southside, you’re only going to collect rent 10 of the 12 months out of the year and quite a few number of months you collect less than full rent.
So you have to charge a higher rent to make up for the 2 or more months a year you don’t get paid. Many of those tenants live paycheck to paycheck and if some other entity else gets to the paycheck first i.e. the CSE (Child Support Enforcement) or a payday loan store voluntary wage assignment, a judgment creditor, a baby momma/daddy, unexpected bail expenses, car unbooting expenses, etc., you as the landlord are just not going to get paid that month. The eviction process is so long and slow and expensive (at least one full month’s rent for costs and attorneys fees) and if legal aid gets involved (for the children of course) then expect the case to drag on for months, rent free. Yes there are U&O orders (Use and Occupancy) which state that a tenant must pay rent during the litigation but a recent supreme court case held that eviction is not the remedy for defaulting on the U&O order during the litigation because it’s that makes the remedy tantamount to a default judgment. So, there’s nothing a landlord can but eat the lost rent. How do I know this stuff? I have a number of clients that are small time southside landlords/land barons although that number is dwindling as they all default and go into foreclosure.
“Anon(tfo) explained it away as government intervention in the form of section 8 vouchers keeping the rents artificially high in the less desirable hoods.”
The “comparable rent” calc for Section 8 uses too broad an area for comparison–it’s basically the flip side of why the conforming loan limit in Chicago is $417–both calcs include both the expensive hoods and the get-toe.
no photos on Redfin, at the link given just now. Not even popping as on the market, just that it sold in 2007. Are they re-working the listing, I wonder?
Going to go search for this on Trulia…
MLS 07898167 came on the market a few days ago as a foreclosure.
It’s a 3/3/1 SFH that was built in 1999. Sold for 670k in October 2005, listed as a foreclosure in September 2011 with an ask of 400k.
MLS 07872417 is a newer construction 4/3/1 newer construction that was built in 2003 (Bridgeport Village). Sold for 570k in August 2007 is now listed at 495k.