Brewster 2-Bedroom Is Back 2 Months Later: 2800 N. Pine Grove in Lakeview

Thanks to the astute reader who tipped me off to this 2-bedroom in the historic Brewster at 2800 N. Pine Grove in Lakeview which just came back on the market.

2800-n-pine-grove-approved.jpg

We have chattered about this unit several times before because earlier this year it was bank owned.

See our May 2011 chatter here.

It finally sold in April 2011 for $67,000 under the 2007 purchase price at $131,000.

At that time, several of you wondered what the new owner would do with it.

Laura said: “Sounds like they got a good deal, but I know this building, so I know they didn’t. It would take a total rehab of that place to make it look decent, and there’s no way 650sq ft is ever going to be a real two bed apt.”

CH said: “maybe they will rent it out.”

Laura gets the prize on this one as the unit just came back on the market as a “rehab” for $68,500 above the May purchase price.

If you’ll recall from the prior listing, the kitchen and bath were intact.

The kitchen had 42 inch maple cabinets, granite counter tops and some stainless steel appliances (from the old listing pictures, it looks like the refrigerator and microwave were missing.)

The bathroom was also intact with what looked like original tile floor in the bathroom and a white pedastal sink.

The new listing shows a very similar kitchen but with a new backsplash and all the appliances.

There also appears to be some new tile in the bath tub in the bathroom.

In the bedrooms, one of the exposed brick walls appears to have either been painted or drywalled over (as it’s no longer there.)

Everything has been painted.

It still has some brick walls and the window air conditioning units.

There is still no in-unit washer/dryer and there is still no parking.

Will they get near their asking price 2 months and a rehab later?

Joseph Semany at Westward Properties has the listing.

See the pictures of the rehabbed unit here.

You can still see the “before” pictures- when it was bank owned earlier this year- here.

Unit #3B: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, 650 square feet

  • Sold in November 1994 for $80,000
  • Sold in July 1997 for $90,000
  • Sold in January 2007 for $198,000
  • Lis pendens foreclosure filed in December 2009
  • Bank owned in October 2010
  • Originally listed in December 2010 for $164,900
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in February 2011 at $129,900
  • Sold in April 2011 for $131,000
  • Now re-listed as a “rehab” for $199,500
  • Assessments of $306 a month
  • Taxes of $3431
  • No central air- window units only
  • No in-unit washer/dryer
  • No parking
  • Bedroom #1: 13×9
  • Bedroom #2: 12×10
  • Living room: 15×13
  • Kitchen: 11×8

20 Responses to “Brewster 2-Bedroom Is Back 2 Months Later: 2800 N. Pine Grove in Lakeview”

  1. wow – these flippers managed to add 150 square feet to the place!!! That is an AWESOME feat!!!

    0
    0
  2. Seriously, though, these flippers are in for a sad surprise – they are likely going to lose money on this flip. I truly think this place is going to sell for 150-160 max. When you figure in closing costs (on both ends), holding costs (even if 100% cash was paid) as well as rehab costs (even if the rehab only cost 15k), these guys are going to lose money – no doubt. They need to rent it out for a few years and then sell when the market is better.

    0
    0
  3. Agree…the unit still has several major limitations…lack of parking, lack of AC, and small size.

    0
    0
  4. Wow, but I am so impressed with the upgrades these flippers did, all $20,000 or so worth, if even that much.

    Do these people seriously think they are going to clear out a $50,000 profit on this squeezy little hole? This is still not a beautiful apartment and it lacks the amenities that most Lakeview condo buyers really want, like AC, parking, and in-unit w/d.

    Agree with clio that they are in for a sad surprise, but they might not lose any money, because they didn’t spend very much. They’ll recover their costs just barely, but they won’t make money, that’s all. There’s no way anybody is going to get a loan for much over the April selling price because that establishes the worth of the place. The last tic is the truth, as traders like to say.

    $150K and glad to get it.

    0
    0
  5. Not very rehabbed to me. Added a backsplash and new tile to the bathroom and new carpeting.
    They still have the same kitchen cabinets, granite countertop and stools in the kitchen. I had parkay floors so I would hate this place. The bedrooms look very small. I live in a 700 2 bedroom and my place looks much bigger than this.

    0
    0
  6. I only like herringbone parquet. The little square block parquet reeks of cheapness, and is usually just the factory made wood-veneer tiles pasted to the floor, not good wood planks with tongue and groove laid properly.

    0
    0
  7. clio, what about all your claims of being honest and a man of your word? You appear now to be a lying POS. You lost our bet, so what are you doing here?

    0
    0
  8. love the punky brewster building, so cool!

    snaps to the rehabers for having the thought to go out and buy a low profile window A/C.
    big thumbs down for not doing the same for the bedroom, and skipping on ceiling fans for the bedrooms too. they get 1.5 stars overall.

    0
    0
  9. For anyone that likes architecture and has never been in this building, I stronly suggest you schedule a showing just so you can walk through the atrium. It has a magical feeling. I’m not saying this flipper is going to make money, but if I was a 20 something, I would love to rent in here.

    0
    0
  10. No Parking, No washer/dryer, no Central Air, etc.
    WHY do some people think renters would prefer to downscale their lifestyle so they could “own”.

    This city is about to experience a surge in construction of new rental units, and most will have parking, central air and washer/dryers in each unit. Add to that new construction, no HOA, no taxes, and no maintenance costs, I just don’t get it.

    When I lived in San Francisco, rentals were older units without parking/a.c. and even dishwashers, while condos had many of the things that would attract me to want to own instead of rent. Even though my cost of ownership in San Francisco was very expensive, I was able to have the comfort that renting in that city could not provide. The exact opposite seems to be the case in Chicago.

    0
    0
  11. “When I lived in San Francisco, rentals were older units without parking/a.c. and even dishwashers, while condos had many of the things that would attract me to want to own instead of rent. Even though my cost of ownership in San Francisco was very expensive, I was able to have the comfort that renting in that city could not provide. The exact opposite seems to be the case in Chicago.”

    Morgan- you are so right! I’ve lived in both cities as well. The rentals in SF are dumps. If you got a dishwasher you were like, “wow!” The kitchens were from the 1950s and 1960s. It REALLY made you motivated to buy because the condos were SO much nicer than the crappy rentals.

    But with all of the new construction high rises in downtown Chicago- why would you buy something that doesn’t have the same amenities?

    I’ve said this about the new high rise they’re building in Old Town on Wells. That building will rent out right away. They’ll have parking, w/d in the units, granite counter tops etc. It will be nicer than almost anything you can buy in that area. So why would you buy something inferior?

    It DOES depend on where you’re looking though. The rentals in Lakeview and Lincoln Park in the low rise buildings are still pretty inferior quality to most condos in the same neighborhood.

    0
    0
  12. Have you people seen what $200K buys you in this area, 1/4 mile from the lake? This is pretty reasonable.

    Also, not everyone wants a parking space.

    0
    0
  13. anyone else doubt the 10ft ceilings? groove, could you go to a showing and jump up to touch it/verify this claim

    0
    0
  14. “anyone else doubt the 10ft ceilings?”

    It’s close. Count the number of bricks from floor to ceiling–my eyes glazed over a bit, but it looked like ~40, which would be right around 10′.

    0
    0
  15. I can’t imagine buying a place that didn’t at least have rental parking in the building. I can’t imagine living somewhere that didn’t have an in-unit washer/dryer. I’m picky though. When I was in college, I would go home to do my laundry because I couldn’t stand the communal washer dryers.

    0
    0
  16. I’ve been in the building. They’re definitely 10′ ceilings. I actually thought they were a little taller. I think $200k is a bit steep and I don’t think they’ll get full asking. But I have to stress again, this building is nothing like others in the area. The atrium is really cool. When you walk in, it feels like traveling back in time (in a good way) – like you’re entering a really swanky hotel in the 1930s. The building has an interesting mix of young renters with high turnover enjoying the experience and an old cult-like following of people who have owned for 20 years. No one who rents in this building is debating between this and a new high rise with parking and a W/D.

    0
    0
  17. I’ve always loved the atrium in this building with it’s incredible geometry and translucent glass brick floors.

    But the apartments just don’t work. The worst feature is the height of the windowsills, which are even with my chest, and I’m a tall woman. Very eccentric. You can’t open the window without climbing a ladder. The floor plans waste space and the rooms are small, and there’s no closet space. But the worst feature is the height of the window sills- the sills are level with my chest, and I’m a tall woman. You have to climb a ladder to open them. Then there’s the ugliness of the units- I haven’t seen one unit in there that I’d call beautiful.

    0
    0
  18. Jenny,

    Then this building is not for you. As AK49 says, it’s for people who can appreciate this sort of unique vintage place while putting up with the inconveniences.

    From what Laura says, the apartments don’t sound too livable, and I don’t like how they look in the photos, either. But I do love the atrium and history of this building. Charlie Chaplin once lived in the penthouse, by the way.

    0
    0
  19. Just as bad as the other eccentricities listed above, are the windows overlooking the atrium- a massive security and privacy lapse. Sure, the building has a guard at the desk, or did last I looked, but lapses do occur, and anybody who could get into the building would find it laughably easy to break into these places.

    0
    0
  20. Those windows don’t look waist high to me. Those aren’t really ac units; they are heat pumps which also provide the heat. Avoid. I wonder what the units were like originally. I remember the commercials trying to spin the rehab (around 1980) as a special and upscale yuppie paradise kind of building.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply