Can This 1903 Greystone Be Saved? 652 W. Sheridan in East Lakeview
We last chattered about this vintage greystone mansion at 652 W. Sheridan in East Lakeview in October 2008.
See our prior chatter here.
A year ago, the listing gushed about the vintage woodwork which included original wainscoting, chair rails, crown molding and coffered ceilings.
The house has a library, a parlor and is close to the lake.
Now, there’s a second listing that talks about how you can build a “maximum o f 11,690 sq ft total.” And that most likely “this lot would house 4 or 5 huge units. This area is not oversaturated with these types of units.”
The listing says the greystone is not orange listed and not on any historic registry. It is a 35×165 R5 lot.
Can this greystone be saved?
The house is now listed $50,000 under the 2005 purchase price.
Danny Glick at @Properties has the listing.
See the one selling it as a SFH here (with interior pictures).
See the one selling it for the land here.
652 W. Sheridan: 5 bedrooms, 5 baths, 6000 square feet, 2 car garage
- Sold in August 1989 for $370,000
- Sold in June 2005 for $1.3 million
- Originally listed in April 2008 for $1.65 million
- Reduced
- Was listed in October 2008 for $1.5 million
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $1.25 million
- Taxes of $25,456
- Central air
I think the old greystones are beautiful. However if it is replaced by some multi-unit housing then only the immediate neighbors would care. Ten years down the road, few will even remember the original house.
It will be interesting to watch what happens to this place.
The RE taxes are appallingly high. Especially since you need to add another $25,000/year in tuition for the kids’ schooling.
I like this home and I hope it survives the wrecking ball. But if 638 W. Oakdale (http://cribchatter.com/?p=6447) still has not sold, why would this one? Is there something else going on, that vintage SFHs just aren’t moving in this market?
as the owner of a 100+ year old greystone I think it would be a tragedy to lose such a beautiful house. I think that this property might be safe though. 5 years ago every beautiful old house was on the chopping block to be knocked down and a monstrocity built in its place. Things are different now, I don’t think that there are developers clamering to build highpriced condos anywhere in the city right now. After permits, hearings, holding costs, demolitions costs, your looking at $300-350K land cost per unit (based on 4 units built).
So I think that this building will be saved by the one thing that destroyed hundreds of similar building in the last 5 years: pure market economics.
Is there a means of reducing the taxes if its kept in tack based on historic restoration or significant. Would/could the new owner get this place registered somehow?
questions tothe RE agents: i thought that you could not list the same property/PIN more than once on the MLS. If seen these doubled up listings before. How those one get around this? Is it allowed because one is a property and one is ‘land’ only?
And for any builder/developers: what are the total costs for clearing the land: permits and other legal expenses, demo cost, clean-up cost, aldermatic expediting costs? and an estimate on the time it takes?
This is a great house! I agree with everyone on the taxes, WTF! I’m sure there is something that can be done to help lower them.
Given the location, and the size of this place, and with at least 4 full bathrooms and 5 bedrooms, I could see a savvy person, turning this into a really cool B&B. If they can pick it up for just north of $1M and put another $100K into it, it could really be something special.
We are seeing more B&B’s pop up in the Andersonville/Edgewater neighborhood, than I would have ever thought possible, and with this one located even further south and right off the water…
Taxes are absurd. $25K for a house listed at $1.25m? Mine are $5K+ and my house is worth a lot more than $200K and change.
Beautiful place, hope it survives – I know about this preservation initiative:
http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/webportal/portalContentItemAction.do?contenTypeName=COC_EDITORIAL&contentOID=536940788&topChannelName=HomePage
but this doesn’t look like it needs a ton of rehab, just someone with deep pockets who appreciates the architecture and location.
we have seen recently on CC places that could be torn down and condos thrown up that somebody bought and restored. that victorian over on 2643 N. Wilton http://cribchatter.com/?p=7162
i do hope this grey stone gets saved. i wish the greystones on south michigan ave will be saved too.
Nice place, seems like a pretty good value if you get those taxes sliced in half.
“Taxes are absurd. $25K for a house listed at $1.25m?”
Don’t know where that came from–>the first half bill was $8,589.26 (meaning that last year’s bill was $17,180). And that was with no homeowner’s exemption. The ’09 1st pass assessment puts it at $1,438,610, so it would have to be subject to some unknown special tax district to accrue $25k in tax.
The name on the tax bill is a rabbi who moved to NYC (now with a Park Ave co-op address–in which another unit-on a lower floor–is listed for $7.5mm, altho the unit is prob owned either by the synagogue or a member) having served in Chicago for a few years.
I wonder if he was one of those kidney stealin rabbi’s
I think this is a commercial property… I used to live by here and it was some type of organization for people recently moved to the US or something – they had a sign out front. Maybe those are commercial property taxes?
“Maybe those are commercial property taxes?”
But the tax bill is the tax bill, regardless if it’s commerical or residential, and the tax bill for 07 (paid in 08) was $17k.
Plus it is listed with the assessor as a residence.
when did rabbis start getting nba salaries?
“when did rabbis start getting nba salaries?”
Not so different from many other religious folk, including a wide variety of protestant/christian/fundamentalist preachers and, of course, Farrakahn.
And, in terms of residence alone, not so different from the Catholic church. You’ve seen the Cardinal’s residence, no?
The best house on the block in the ghetto is always a church, you think that’s a coincidence?
“The best house on the block in the ghetto is always a church”
Ha! And a lot of them also have another house in a nicer ‘hood.
cardinal has a nice crib. seems like most other priests don’t. and the rabbi’s i’ve known had depressing little homes.
“the rabbi’s i’ve known had depressing little homes”
The (very) few I have known most certainly did not. But that’s mostly about the community they serve.
“most other priests don’t”
AFAIK, ministers of major, non-Catholic religious denominations do not (in general) take a vow of poverty. So there’s a major distinction b/t catholic priests and all teh rest.
Is this on Sheridan just south of Irving Park? If so, you have the 151 roaring by 24 hours a day and Park Place looming 500 feet overhead.
Great looking place, though.
if this house had been owned by as religious organization than shouldn’t it been tax exempt for RE taxes???
Didn’t some guy in the North Shore recently try to fake his mansion as a church to avoid taxes? I remember in the newspaper article that he sent the assessor (as part of the paperwork) a picture of the mansion with a cross drawn in as proof that it was a church.
Regular clergy catholic priests do not take vows of poverty. You’re thinking of religious (monks and nuns. Quite a few priests I have known either inherited large amounts and lived comfortably on the proceeds or came to the priesthood having had successful careers. But for those who have to live on the pay, it’s thin pickings. The only upside is that many have decent rectories to live in.
“Regular clergy catholic priests do not take vows of poverty.”
Alright then. But is there any other denomination in the USA who requires a vow (or equivalent) of poverty for *any* of its ministers.
Buddist ?
“Buddist ?”
Left out “major” as I rewrote the sentence. Buddhism–major globally, perhaps numerous in the USA–not “major” here.
But you forgot the Jains!
“While poverty is characteristic of most monasticism, Jainism goes to extremes. The oldest and most venerable order of Jain monks, the Digambara, or “Sky Clad,” don’t even own clothes. They go naked. There are no Digambara nuns. Jain Saints are always shown naked. This is what impressed the Greeks when they reached India, since they prided themselves on going naked in athletics to display the beauty of the human body. Other Middle Eastern people they knew of didn’t do this — many even observed the nudity taboo that survives into modern Western society. Then Alexander gets to India, and not only are there men going naked, but they are holy men, the “Naked Philosophers,” Gymnosophistai. The Jains even have a story that Alexander gave up trying to conquer the world after talking to the naked monks. This is a nice touch, but we know from Greek historians that Alexander turned back only because his army was ready to mutiny and wanted to go home.”
Wow, so cheap they didn’t even own clothes. Awesome.
“Wow, so cheap they didn’t even own clothes. Awesome.”
See, there are other “reasonable” steps you and Bob can take to cut your expenses. Let us know when you monk induction ceremonies (whatever they’re called) are.
“See, there are other “reasonable” steps you and Bob can take to cut your expenses”
i know funny, and that was funny
I could see how joining the Jains might be cool. It all depends on heading up the selection committee and convincing them to remove that no nuns clause.
“Regular clergy catholic priests do not take vows of poverty. You’re thinking of religious (monks and nuns. Quite a few priests I have known either inherited large amounts and lived comfortably on the proceeds or came to the priesthood having had successful careers. But for those who have to live on the pay, it’s thin pickings. The only upside is that many have decent rectories to live in.”
Some orders take a vow of poverty – Jesuits IIRC