A Little Piece of Paris in Lakeview: 3314 N. Lake Shore Drive
This Beaux Arts building at 3314 N. Lake Shore Drive is unique on the Drive because it was built in 1916, not in the late 1920s like many nearby buildings, and it has attention to detail rarely seen since.
It was the first shoreline high rise apartment building built north of North Avenue and it was built to house the rich.
According to “Chicago Apartments: A Century of Lakefront Luxury” when it opened, each story contained a single unit 18-room, 5 bath apartment that rented for about $10,000 a year. Residents included all the ritzy families of Chicago at the time, including those with the names of Spiegel, Ward, Peacock and Goldblatt.
Over the years, the units were reconfigured and when the building was sold to a new owner in 1951 for under $400,000 it contained 49 apartments. Since then, units have been reconfigured so that there are now 29.
The building was converted to condominiums in 1983.
This 3-bedroom top floor unit has 2 wood burning fireplaces, including one in the master bedroom. The listing says it has a 35 foot gallery with barrel vaulted ceilings.
The kitchen and two bathrooms have been renovated.
While the unit does not have a washer/dryer (it is one floor above the unit, apparently) it does have a rare deeded parking space. Not all units in the building have parking.
Stephen Bognar at Koenig & Strey has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #9C: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in February 2003 for $330,000
- Sold in June 2005 for $478,000
- Originally listed in July 2009 for $559,000 (parking $25,000 extra)
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $519,000 (parking $25,000 extra)
- Assessments of $1039 a month (includes heat, AC, cable)
- Taxes of $4312
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 13×13
- Bedroom #2: 12×11
- Bedroom #3: 11×10
- Gallery: 37×6
This property might be a deal if the library comes with a signed copy of Dustin Diamond’s tell-all book “Behind the Bell”.
Cool looking unit although there doesn’t appear to be any view whatsoever. I think every window in the apartment look at another brick wall.
“washer/dryer … is one floor above the unit”
“This 3-bedroom top floor unit”
Huh?
And why did they put that kitchen into this unit? Looks terribly out of place.
does look really cool. i dont think i could handle views of brick walls in every room though.
That kitchen is like the “one of these things is not like the other” song…
TWO CRIBS!!!
Also, the linked listing narrative says that the parking is included in teh $519k price, nws the contrary reference in the data fields.
Looking at the building aerial, there’s really no view at all, unless you have a unit facing LSD–it’s pretty much a capital I, boxed in by other buildings on three sides.
You always know the view is crappy when there are no pictures of it in the listing. It is a nice looking unit, but it is a bit pricey to be looking at a brick wall for that kind of money.
I stayed at the W in NY awhile back and got a room with a “NY View.” This was actually on the reservation. Turned out a NY View meant looking at a brick wall.
“TWO CRIBS!!!”
Someone doesn’t have kids yet, do they? The second “crib like” piece of furniture is what parents like to call “a changing table”… They come in handy, or so I hear.
“The second “crib like” piece of furniture is what parents like to call “a changing table”… ”
Oh, be serious. That’s *obviously* a crib for the less-favored child. Need to make it clear which one is mommy & daddy’s favorite right away.
Its true. I’m a DINK so far. Besides shouldn’t I change Jr. on my marbled countertops and built-ins?
The listing says “spacious” but I can’t get any idea of the square footage here. The second and third bedrooms are pretty darn small. And I’m suprised that no one has mentioned those $1000+/mo assessments.
yeah assessments seem high, especially with no amenities listed on the listing. i assume there’s a doorman and some basics but no pool, etc. cool building and unit though
is this a co-op or condo building. The $1000/ assesment seems more inline with this bring a co-op.
> each story contained a single unit 18-room, 5 bath apartment that rented for about $10,000 a year. Residents included all the ritzy families of Chicago at the time, including those with the names of Spiegel, Ward, Peacock and Goldblatt.
rich people don’t rent!!
brad,
where did you find that? seems pretty interesting
Not really excited about this unit or this building, although I should be. I have an acquiantance who lives in the building next door and I have been able to look into two units. Not at all excited by what I saw. For a building of this caliber, every unit should be decorated to death…such is not the case.
I guess the lower price does reflect the fact there are no views to be had. No matter how exclusive this area, LSD, and the actual building may be, the fact you would be staring at brick kills any interest.
It would have been SO cool had the building not been reconfigured. For it to go from floor through, 18 room apts to having 49 units then back down to the current 29 would send a few red flags up for me if I were interested. I would seriously question the design process to make such a journey…is all the work done with high quality standards?
If I want to live in a place like this I have a huge selection in NYC to chose from. Now those UES buildings are spectacular!
Russ, in which NYC W did you stay? Only one has a great customer service reputation and the rest have gone the way of…say Holiday Inn.
Rich people don’t rent? Ridiculous!!!
http://www.spoa.com/pages/03rent-control.html
Alistair Cooke
former New York City mayor Ed Koch,
supermodel Kim Alexis,
singer Carly Simon,
fashion designer Arnold Skazi (whose apartment was featured in “Architectural Digest” magazine),
Mia Farrow (whose apartment was featured in a Woody Allen film).
“brad on October 8th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
> each story contained a single unit 18-room, 5 bath apartment that rented for about $10,000 a year. Residents included all the ritzy families of Chicago at the time, including those with the names of Spiegel, Ward, Peacock and Goldblatt.
rich people don’t rent!!”
“The $1000/ assesment seems more inline with this bring a co-op”
it seems high but did you see the details on the facade, i can see how maintenance on that can be costly. plus the plush lobby too.
“Oh, be serious. That’s *obviously* a crib for the less-favored child. Need to make it clear which one is mommy & daddy’s favorite right away”
good one anon.
chichow,
when wife squirts out a little one, SKIP the changing table (or extra crib as you see it) and get a good baby dress with a lip for the changing pad. (you will only change her on that for about two months anyway).
the place is sweet besides the kitchen. the kitchen by its self is good, put in this place takes away from the charm.
you dont get a veiw, which sucks, but i feel the price reflects that.
“from floor through, 18 room apts to having 49 units then back down to the current 29 ”
Looks like 7 floors above ground-level (but doublecheck, if anyone cares) with some rooftop additions/warts.
HD: I had no idea all those people had apartments in Chicago. Or that we had rent control.
Comparing how people live in Manhattan to anyplace else in America is like comparing the Vegas Strip to the Viagra Triangle or any other bar/club district in America–it’s just not a very valid comparison.
Hey, when you make a stupid comment like “rich people don’t rent” then you get stupid answer.
“HD: I had no idea all those people had apartments in Chicago. Or that we had rent control.
Comparing how people live in Manhattan to anyplace else in America is like comparing the Vegas Strip to the Viagra Triangle or any other bar/club district in America–it’s just not a very valid comparison.”
“Hey, when you make a stupid comment like “rich people don’t rent” then you get stupid answer. ”
I think you mean: When someone makes a sarcastic comment, you get a credulous response?
This building was almost a roominghouse in the 1970s and 1980s, and then went through several attempts at re-glorification thereafter. It appears this unit is one that was carved out of an original, and may have a squirrely layout as a result–to say nothing of the lack of lakefront view. I am curious about the 35′ gallery space–the original and still extant front units all have a gallery (almost ballroom) sized space overlooking LSD, so not sure where this is in relation to those. My recollection is no doorman.
Do you really have to comment on all of my comments?
“I think you mean: When someone makes a sarcastic comment, you get a credulous response?”
“Do you really have to comment on all of my comments?”
No. And I don’t.
Can anyone elaborate on the 35′ gallery space Olde School is talking about?
would the layout of this unit connect with a gallery space that faces LSD?
WestLoopeo:
I used to stay at the W in Union Square. I stayed there so much over a period of 6 months, they sent me a Christmas Card signed by all the staff members. I guess being Platinum at Starwood had its privileges. I used to always get these really nice upgraded rooms that were fairly large and the doormen knew me by name. In fact, I went back a year later for a weekend trip with the wife and the doormen greated me by name and mentioned how he hadn’t seen me in awhile… that freaked my wife out.
Two years later after I lost my “status” I went back and I was just Joe Schmoe at that point. I got this little bitty closet for a room with the NY View all for the bargain basement price of $400/night. I was absolutely shocked how small the room was; i didn’t even know they had rooms that small at the hotel. LOL.
It sure feels like it.
“anon (tfo) on October 8th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
“Do you really have to comment on all of my comments?”
No. And I don’t.
“
“It sure feels like it. ”
I completely ignore all of *your* sarcastic posts, as one example.
look,you all can bicker without me. Amazing.
Dollface:
Any luck selling your Gold Coast studio (I believe it was you who mentioned this in a previous thread)? I am also in the position of trying to sell a Gold Coast studio and having a hard go of it (I’m limited to investors only since I’ve got a tenant in thru next July).
This unit is at the back of the building. No lake view. No view period other than common brick walls of adjacent buildings.
I love this building! I have seen the units on this tier before, though, and can testify that the view is horrid, nothing but brick walls.
But it’s a beautiful place. These apartments are cut off from larger units. The front units are the best and most beautiful.
As much as I love the place, I really can’t see it selling for more than the 2003 price. This is NOT a good time to try to sell a high-maintenance vintage unit above $500K.
there’s another unit for sale on this floor (9 A/B). there’s your lake view.
“each story contained a single unit 18-room, 5 bath apartment that rented for about $10,000 a year. Residents included all the ritzy families of Chicago at the time, including those with the names of Spiegel, Ward, Peacock and Goldblatt.
rich people don’t rent!!”
Brad: No offense but you clearly don’t know the history of real estate in the City of Chicago.
While I’m no expert, what I do know is that most of the grand vintage building that you now know as condominiums or co-ops in the City of Chicago were built as apartment buildings. The rich didn’t buy their housing in these buildings in the 1910s and 1920s. They rented. The co-op came into being as a legal entity in the 1920s and some buildings started life that way (and buyers would then “own” a portion of the building- like they do today.)
Some tenants also bought shares in the building and then rented out the other units to other similarly rich individuals.
999 N. Lake Shore Drive (the famous building “on the curve” in the Gold Coast) was built as apartments in 1912. Rents were $3600 a year in 1912 but in the early 1920s the building was among the first to “go” co-op and tenants purchased shares in the building.
On another note- about real estate declines in Chicago- 1320 N. State Parkway was built in 1927 at the cost of about $2 million. It initially had 40 duplex apartments.
The tenants purchased it in 1949 to turn it into a co-op for the price of $975,000 – about half what it cost to build 22 years prior.
Snaps to Ms Sabrina on knowing her Chicago history! I hear similar tales from others familiar with vintage LSD and Gold Coast buildings. Very interesting stories.
Russ,
All true about the Union Square W…THE place to stay while visiting NYC. You describe what I was talking about re the customer service…very impressive. Talk sweet to the staff and you get upgraded to a great suite…be a snob and end up with a brick walled cracker box, still not as bad as the other NYC W locations though.
I too at was very ‘cozy’ with the staff when my place was flooded due to exploding city water pipes. It was a mess but I sure did enjoy my long stay. I was there for nearly 5 weeks and had a number of celeb sightings. Very cool place on any summer Friday night. The bar staff still remember me and I never have to actually place an order to get what I want…very impressive to ppl I go there with.
Sabrina,
It’s not just Chicago.
The same story in Europe – even most affluent families rented their apartments/flats/houses in the cities. For some reason estates in the country were owned. I am wondering that caused this trend and when/why renting became out of style. I would love to read a book or article on that. Does anyone have any suggestions?
“The same story in Europe – even most affluent families rented their apartments/flats/houses in the cities”
One reason that would be true in some (many? most?) parts of Europe is b/c the land under/near the cities was/is owned by the aristocracy (eg Duke of Westminster owns Belgravia and Mayfair) who had no interest in selling their profit centers.
Most people rented in the city back in the day because most people could not afford an entire building, since the condo or co-op was not in existance yet.
anon (tfo),
Good point, thanks! This is probably the case in London and some other European capitals.
I was reading couple books on 19th century Paris and impressionists and there were some info on les Grand Boulevards and Baron Haussman. The land belonged to city of Paris, not to some aristo family.
Sonies,
I am wondering about people who could afford to buy the whole building and owned lot of land in the country, but still rented in Paris. Some families actually owned their residences in Paris so I am very interested based on what would they make this choice.