After a Year on the Market, This 6-Bedroom House Reduces $255K: 2038 N. Mohawk in Lincoln Park
We last chattered about this new construction 6-bedroom house at 2038 N. Mohawk in Lincoln Park in June 2011.
See our prior chatter here.
First listed in September 2010, it didn’t have any price reductions until recently, when it was reduced $255,000.
It is now listed under $4 million at $3.995 million.
If you recall, it has all the finishes expected in this price point and neighborhood.
The house is built on a standard Chicago lot of 25×125 and has a limestone facade.
It also has luxury finishes such as rift sawn white oak floors, 8 foot walnut doors and Ann Sacks tile.
The kitchen has white cabinets and stainless steel appliances.
2 bedrooms are on the second floor, 3 are on the third floor and 1 is in the lower level.
There is also a lower level media room.
The garage is heated and attached.
Does being under $4 million open it up to more buyers?
Jennifer Ames at Coldwell Banker still has the listing. See the pictures here.
2038 N. Mohawk: 6 bedrooms, 5.5 baths, 6700 square feet, attached garage
- New Construction
- Originally listed in September 2010 for $4.25 million
- Was still listed in July 2011 at $4.25 million
- Reduced
- Now listed at $3.995 million
- Taxes are “new”
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 19×16 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 19×17 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 19×18 (third floor)
- Bedroom #4: 19×16 (third floor)
- Bedroom #5: 10×14 (third floor)
- Bedroom #6: 16×16 (lower level)
- Media room: 19×17 (lower level)
Looks like the Ye Olde Williamsburgh section of Celebration, Florida. IMO, this type of “architecture” is completely antithetical to choosing to live in a historic area like Lincoln Park.
But there are plenty of these LP McMansions, so who knows. Money doesn’t buy taste.
Still say it closes near $3.5.
Can someone explain the zoning here, specifically what
1) the FAR is
2) height restriction
and then explain why homes on other 25×125 lots in say Lake View, Bucktown, Wicker Park, North Center aren’t as large, or don’t seem to be?
thanks!!
Beautiful finishes, but this kind of money, I would want something wider than a standard Chicago lot. At least 30-35 feet wide. It feels long and skinny.
Zoning code:
http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Illinois/chicagozoning/chicagozoningordinanceandlanduseordinanc?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:chicagozoning_il
This house is in a RM-5 district, while the other areas are (mainly) RS-3 or RT-4.
“Zoning code:”
LOL!!, yeah I’ll look it up myself unless, someone wants to just post it first!
scene from Wall Street
Bud Fox: Hey LOOK! I am sick and tired of playing wet nurse to you all the time! Will you DO YOU OWN HOMEWORK, Marv?
Marv: [leaves] What an asshole!
I gave you the applicable zoning info, but really only b/c I can’t post two links.
And I eschewed the lmgtfy link, too.
Sabrina, you may appreciate this. I remember reading a book about the Hamptons, called Philistines at the Hedgerow or something like that. The book stated that before the current equities bubble began in the very early 1980’s (e.g. Boone Pickens, Saul Steinberg, Ivan Boesky era), that mega-mansions in the Hamptons had prior to that time sat practically vacant, because they were too costly to maintain, and nobody had the money or desire (from 1960’s – 1980 bear market) to own and maintain them, let alone rehab them. There were mega-estates from the 1920’s era out there and they had no central heat, etc. Then Saul Steinberg bought some famous EastHampton mansion and restarted the whole Hamptons scene again, albeit with alot less class and taste. Anyway, I wonder if we go through a pronlonged 15 year bear market now, what will happen again to these HUGE mansions across America? Will people basically stop maintaining them? I guess this is clio question.
LOL. I don’t think this area of Lincoln Park is hurting.
I wish I could destroy all these disneyland mansions. They ruin the cityscape of Chicago and cheapen some of the truly great historic architecture that does exist here. Why can’t somebody do something a little progressive design-wise if you’re going to build a 4 million dollar house?
“Why can’t somebody do something a little progressive design-wise if you’re going to build a 4 million dollar house?”
The monster on the other side of the street just south of Dickens is a little more progressive, no?
“They ruin the cityscape of Chicago and cheapen some of the truly great historic architecture that does exist here.”
With RM-5 zoning it was either this or some stacked condo boxes.
What was there before?
the facade is trash for a 4 million pricetag or even 2 million, it looks like cheap painted wood.
PLA 100:
I 100% agree with you re. the architecture of this place.
Given the width of the lots, I don’t see how anything progressive or contemporary would be better than this place. Sure, it looks new and a bit ritzy, but it’s pretty classic looking, and not too different than many homes in the immmediate area. What should they have built, some sort of glass and steel box? A bungalo?
I’d certainly be happy to have a house that looks like this one. I’d be even happier if it were at least a block or two east. Then again, I’d only buy such a place if I had at least three kids. With no more than two kids, I’d rather spend $2 – $3 million on a big condo in a luxury building on the park, allocating what I saved on the purchase price towards assessments.
“A bungalo?”
I believe one *breeds* a bungalo, rather than builds it.
http://inhabitat.com/c3-chicago-prefab-is-a-cost-effective-and-sustainable-urban-housing-solution/
This is what I would like to see. Unfortunately Lincoln Park is riddled with crap when it comes to new construction with very few exceptions.
Vlajos, the only info I can find is that it was a “2-6 unit over 56 years” per the assessor.
This is a $3MM house, not a $4MM house.
Sorry I missed the w; I’m actually fairly busy today, but it’s hard to ignore properties in my (geographic) wheel house.
Andy, those are neat places, and could certainly play an important role for both sustainability and affordability purposes. But $3 to $4 million places in a landmark/historic/charming neighborhood they are not. The subject property at least (sort of) looks like it could have been built 80 or 100 years ago. Those C3 prefab places look well suited to installing, er, building, in warzones or disaster areas, or in the fringes of the Chicago GZ.
“Sorry I missed the w”
No no; I’ve always hoped that someone else would join me in the appreciation and protection of the half-breed offspring of buffalo and bung corks.
This place is incredibly sterile looking. White on white on white everywhere. You think they’d at least stage it in this price range.
Annony,
I understand that it’s not a 3 million dollar place but I still think that the aesthetic in general provides a nice contrast to the historic fabric. In the end, I think it makes the historic nature of a neighborhood easier to appreciate.
I think this is true whether you are talking about a fringe neighborhood of faded former glory or a thriving historic district like Lincoln Park.
Just my two cents.
“This is a $3MM house, not a $4MM house.”
The developer (ML)’s LLC has a $2.8mm mortgage on the place.
The acquisition deed (Oct-05) is in ccrd for $135,000, which I’d bet drops a zero.
So, $1.3 for the land, $1.5 for (developer’s cost) construction both sound about right. +1/3 for developer’s margin (which would be pretty skinny after 6 year old; 3 years since breaking ground) gets you to $3.7.
‘course, part of their problem is that they sold the (very similar) one next door for $4 in Mar-08 (and may have paid less for the land), and they don’t want to cheapen their product.
I totally disagree that this looks like it could have been built 100 years ago. You can tell it was built recently and is trying to look old. I see this and think: las vegas. It is trying to be something it isn’t and comes off cheaprich. With the Elysian and other similarly historically inspired buildings in Chicago, I’ve gotten used to the look. But I stil don’t like it and hunk there are far better ways to spend money on new construction in Chicago.
Unfortunately, zoning and beautification laws will never prevent tacky.
I got my tax bill today, actually going down a tiny bit thanks to the HOE, I feel bad for whoever buys this place, what would the taxes be like 50k a year?
screw that!
“a thriving historic district like Lincoln Park”
IN this particular instance, look at the streetview–two houses north (streetview still has the empty lot for this house) is a (cheap) modernist box. There are two more (not as cheap) on the south end of the block, also on the west side.
Don’t think they add much, and if they were even half of the new(ish) houses on the block, think it would diminsih the block.
That said, I *don’t* like the exterior, esp not the 3d floor.
” I feel bad for whoever buys this place, what would the taxes be like 50k a year?”
Assuming it sells for $4mm and is assessed that way? More than that.
Mohawk here isn’t the best street. Too many cheap-looking 1970s townhouses (the ones with a unit in front and several more in back that have only a side entrance). Never liked those.
“Mohawk here isn’t the best street. Too many cheap-looking 1970s townhouses (the ones with a unit in front and several more in back that have only a side entrance). Never liked those.”
Take a more recent look at Mohawk bt Armitage and Dickens. Not much of that left.
A lovely home, inside and out. My only criticism is the cheap-looking front gate.
good friend lived on this block in 93. he used to park his motorcycle in his front yard. the shithole he rented with 4 other guys, a garden unit, is long gone. last I saw it was still a vacant lot. west side of street, couple lots south of dickens.
four farthings was always a fun bar. nice happy hour buffet too in the 90s
tftinchi nails it with the vegas call. that is exactly why I think it sucks, thanks.
inside is nice enough though
“Andy on October 3rd, 2011 at 2:43 pm
I wish I could destroy all these disneyland mansions. They ruin the cityscape of Chicago and cheapen some of the truly great historic architecture that does exist here. Why can’t somebody do something a little progressive design-wise if you’re going to build a 4 million dollar house?”
Why does that even matter when the ~trend~ is for everyone to gut all of that “icky vintage,” paint all of the woodwork, strip away the tile, and so on?
It’s new construction, and, yes, it’s white! white! white! At least it isn’t an actual vintage space where all of that happened (like I mentioned in the Lakeview “Paris” condo listing).
Gosh some of you people are so inconsistent.
Also, here’s your comp kill for $4m.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2333-N-Cleveland-Ave-60614/home/13350500
But it’s not all white. Oh dear. 🙁
Nice closet!
Nice bath too.
$395,000. No I didn’t drop a zero on the end.
Yeah, that place on Cleavland is more like it.
that bathroom in the Cleveland Ave property is magnificent.
“boi_in_boystown on October 3rd, 2011 at 8:13 pm
that bathroom in the Cleveland Ave property is magnificent.”
I think you meant to say that that BASKET-WEAVE WOODEN FOYER FLOOR in the Cleveland Ave property is magnificent.
Sweet Jesus.
“the facade is trash for a 4 million pricetag or even 2 million, it looks like cheap painted wood.”
Yeah, that sawn, tight jointed limestone facade sure looks cheap. sarcasm/
“Yeah, that sawn, tight jointed limestone facade sure looks cheap. sarcasm/”
I think it’s the look of the facade people don’t like. Most people can’t appreciate the amount of stone work required to get a product like this.
The house on Cleveland is amazing. Now that is a $4 mil house!
One detail the Cleveland house has that this one does not is natural woodwork. I think you can get away with the gloss white trim up to about a $2mil home, beyond that I want fine craftsmanship. The best way to show that is in natural woodwork. There are a ton of tricks to cover up poor craftsmanship in painted trim.
I don’t get it, the facade is stone. Looks very nice to me.
What’s up with 2208 Cleveland (shows up on same redfin page as 2333 Cleveland)? I don’t follow LP or ELP (I don’t know if this is ELP or anonny ELP), but it seems like a good price (and big decline from the prior sale), no? Why hasn’t it sold?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2208-N-Cleveland-Ave-60614/home/13348422
“Vlajos, the only info I can find is that it was a “2-6 unit over 56 years” per the assessor.”
Thanks G. So this has got to be an improvement from that old crap hole.
For me, it’s the Cleveland one in a heartbeat. Even the location is better. And of course I’m a vintage lover.
DZ, yes, I’d call that ELP (I’ve pretty much moved the westernmost border to Cleavland, so this just makes it). Not sure why it hasn’t sold. Perhaps it’s a bit on the small side and not entirely updated enough for those in the $1 million market (and many might want a full blown basement t.v./family room, rather than what appears to be a fairly small den/office). And, given what the sellers paid, I bet they really can’t afford to go any lower.
But for those with two kids who don’t want to live in a building, this is certainly one of the more attractive listings to come along in a while. While I’m inclined towards returning to midrise (or small highrise) living, if it’s still on the market in a few years I might not be able to resist.
‘What’s up with 2208 Cleveland (shows up on same redfin page as 2333 Cleveland)?’
A million dollar house (as in just *one* million) on Cleveland? Seriously? Gotta be more to it and there is…
The house to the immediate south, would that be 2206 (?), owns this house too and broke thru the wall to make one very large house. Both are for sale, but I’m not sure how they’re being sold… buy 2206 and we’ll throw in 2208 for just a million? Certainly you don’t think one buys in that neighborhood for that price.
… the house to the immediate north (2210 North Cleveland, you can see a sliver of it in the picture), just sold in August for $2,235,000.
“Both are for sale,”
“just sold in August ”
Why’s everyone moving?
Maybe they’re unhappy that the grocery store is finally going to happen (I’m thrilled).
‘Why’s everyone moving?’
Both owners had lived in their houses for many years I know, and I think the owner of the ‘duplex’ houses built a mega manse by Orchard or something. This isn’t a flipers hood, people (like myself) stay here for the long term; I know of a couple of houses that were passed to the kids, and now they raise their kids in the house. Come to think of it, It’s actually kinda cult-like.
Nice area and a nice house.
I thought someone said listings’ photos were expanded from 8 to 16. This house has 30 photos.
jay: “Come to think of it, It’s actually kinda cult-like.”
Hmmm…..