Custom Mansion Reduces $200,000 in Lincoln Park: 1728 N. Cleveland
We last chattered about this 6-bedroom home at 1728 N. Cleveland in February 2010.
See our prior chatter and pictures here.
The house had come on the market less than 2 years after its prior sale for $464,000 more than the 2008 purchase price.
It has now been reduced by $200,000.
The 6,500 square foot home has a limestone facade and in-ground watering system.
5 out of the 6 bedrooms are upstairs.
It also has all the upgrades you would expect from a new construction mansion home with a wine cellar and electric shades.
There is also a 2.5 car garage.
Jennifer Ames at Coldwell Banker still has the listing. See all 32 pictures here.
1728 N. Cleveland: 6 bedrooms, 5.5 baths, 2.5 garage, 6500 square feet
- Sold in August 2008 for $3,331,000
- Was listed in February 2010 for $3,795,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $3,595,000
- Taxes of $3394
- Central Air
As i said before….Where do i sign up?
I’m sorry but if i’m buying a house for nearly 3.5 million its going to have rooms wider than 20′ and its going to be on at minimum a double ‘standard’ Chicago lot without the $1300 a month college neighbors but whatever this is LP and its “different” here…
The best part is that the taxes are less than the two-bedroom in West Loop. Gotta love Chicago!
Can anybody explain the recent sales at 1920 and 1922 N. Hudson? They both sold recently for the same price – $3.395m. But they look like they were separate properties. I.e., it wasn’t a house with an extra lot.
Asking because the houses look very similar to this house. Wondering if these were real sales, and this house just lost two of the very few buyers in this range, if they were just balance sheet sales.
Not a lot moving at this price point, but this is large, well built home, in perhaps the best location in Lincoln Park. I’m with Sonies on LP and $1300 a month college neighbors, but you won’t have that problem on this block.
I love it….sweet place.
“Can anybody explain the recent sales at 1920 and 1922 N. Hudson? They both sold recently for the same price – $3.395m. But they look like they were separate properties. I.e., it wasn’t a house with an extra lot. ”
1922 sold on its own deed. 1st mortgage for $2.376. 2d for $1.5 recorded a month later.
1920 is weird, as the assessor still has it as three condos, altho it obviously is not.
Sorry, but the mechanics of shady real estate deals aren’t within my expertise. I’m guessing this means these weren’t “real” sales? As in a nice couple wanting a fancy house did not buy either of these places?
maybe one year of paying the real taxes on this place forced them to put it on the market.
But LOVE this place.
Continues to be a tough sell. Just mapped on Redfin sales records for the past 2 years for SFH with at least 4000 sq ft with this address at the center point. I only found 5 transactions (including the original purchase of 1728). The last transaction was done in March of 2009 (this was a classic money is no object – $5MM on Orchard). Houses like this just aren’t moving unless you get the “right guy”.
Those taxes aren’t up to-date. I’m guessing they have to be the developer tax rates (pre-sale/2008 vintage).
“Sorry, but the mechanics of shady real estate deals aren’t within my expertise. I’m guessing this means these weren’t “real” sales? As in a nice couple wanting a fancy house did not buy either of these places?”
No, 1922 is definitely a real sale. Buyer is a real person with real money.
1920, I’m not as sure about.
I love the place.
Thanks anon(tfo). So there is a market at this price point, and this house is priced appropriately for the market. Now they just need to hope the market included more than one buyer. I’m guessing it takes time but it sells over $3m.
alanon:
I took another minute and I was wrong about 1920–also sold to a genuine person with genuine money. With the date of the deed (mid-april), it’s possible a mortgage shows up later, but nothing yet.
Somebody explain to me how this house sold in August 2008 for $3.3 million and still has a 2010-quoted tax bill of “$3400”. Thought new construction tax bill is 2% of purchase price. Either there is some weirdness with assessor, or the realtor isn’t doing full disclosure re: 2010 real estate tax bill reality due in Sept.
“Either there is some weirdness with assessor, or the realtor isn’t doing full disclosure re: 2010 real estate tax bill reality due in Sept.”
According to the assessor’s office website, total assessed value went from 23,661 in 2008 to 321,122 in 2009. . . which I think answers your question, Architect!
(And, yeah, hot Friday night for SquareD. . . chillin with the assessor’s office. . . )
I’m with Sonies. Although, I’d also want a foyer for 3.5 million.
Architect: so they are saying the 6,500 sf were built on 4 levels? That’s 1,625 sf per floor (4). Is that legit for this lot? Is this 25×125?
Anyway, this price is similar to penthouse condos in top-tier buildings on a psf basis, and these finishes seem far superior. It appears easier to over-customize in a LP single-family like this than in a condo-box concrete space like 55 E. Erie or Trump.
Realistically, how many buyers that can afford a $3.4M place are going to be buying one that’s already built? Wouldn’t you just build your own on a wider lot? 19 feet wide sounds like it’s not a $3.4M home. I love this place, but for that price point it leaves a bit to be desired.
Dave M – fair point, but tough to continue to find open lots to build upon (excluding tear-down, which would eat into a bigger portion of the $3.4MM number).
Something is wrong with the assessed value if it is as poster Square-D says!
I’m surprised that the assessed value is so so low. Land alone is probably $700,000 for lot.
Biggest issue is not with the house but with the rental building next door. I know, welcome to the city, but still for $3.5M I’d want to forgo De Paul kids puking on my front doorstep.
“Thought new construction tax bill is 2% of purchase price. ”
Where did you ever get that idea? Serious question.
“Land alone is probably $700,000 for lot.”
Residential lots are seriously, seriously under-assessed in the city. They don’t determine AV based on sales of nearby teardowns/vacants at all.
“Something is wrong with the assessed value if it is as poster Square-D says!”
What’s wrong with it? AV is supposed to be 10% of Market Value. $321,122 is close enough to 10% of the prior sale to not worry about.
“they are saying the 6,500 sf were built on 4 levels? That’s 1,625 sf per floor (4). Is that legit for this lot? Is this 25×125?”
There’s no problem have a 1625sf footprint on 25×125 lot–it doesn’t look like they have the full 3′ side setback, so maybe 23′ wide means 70′ deep, which is pretty standard. The floorplan makes it look like interior is 19×72 or so, which is only 1368, so they must be counting the breezeway and probably the roof deck too.
New construction conveyance price would have constituted appraisal value for assessor, so current assessment is close enough. I misunderstood. “2% of new construction price” is a common rule-of-thumb for determining first post-purchase “new construction” real estate tax bill, quoted by both real estate brokers and mortage lenders.
““2% of new construction price” is a common rule-of-thumb for determining first post-purchase “new construction” real estate tax bill, quoted by both real estate brokers and mortage lenders.”
Not in the city, unless the tax rate is going to go up by 50%+ (admittedly possible). Rates for the bills paid in ’09 were under 1.5% of purchase price on my block and nearby for new and old, excluding those with rehab exemptions and senior owners.
I don’t know many $1M houses with $20,000 in taxes.
“Biggest issue is not with the house but with the rental building next door. I know, welcome to the city, but still for $3.5M I’d want to forgo De Paul kids puking on my front doorstep.”
McGee’s nearby has dollar beers twice a week to help you afford that mortgage payment. In fact if I had a mortgage of this size I think I could really use a few dozen of those dollar beers.
“I don’t know many $1M houses with $20,000 in taxes.”
Can’t find one in the city. Unless the $1mm sale was a distressed purchase and it was reassessed for over $1.5 (I’ve seen houses that sold for ~$1.5 with ~$20k taxes in the city, but then that’s not really a $1mm house).
Sold for $2,925,500 on January 10.