Gold Coast 3-Bedroom Listed $155,000 Above the 2023 Price: 1440 N. State Parkway
This 3-bedroom in the Brownstone at 1440 N. State Parkway in the Gold Coast came on the market in October 2023.
The Brownstone was built in 1974 and has 75 units. It has attached garage parking which is rental.
The building has 24/7 door staff, on-site maintenance staff, an exercise room, party room and a roof deck with a pool and grilling area.
Believe it or not, I don’t think we’ve ever chattered about this building before.
The unit has floor-to-ceiling windows and Juliette balconies.
It has hardwood and marble floors and a formal dining room.
The third bedroom is currently being used as a library with built-in bookcases.
The kitchen has off-white cabinets (?) and orange counter tops (not sure what they are made out of) along with stainless steel appliances.
The primary bedroom has an en suite bathroom.
The unit has the features buyers look for including central air, washer/dryer in the unit and garage parking is rental for $220 a month.
This building is near the shops and restaurants of Old Town and Rush Street. It’s also a quick stroll to Lincoln Park.
This unit sold last year, in August 2023, for the first time since 1985, for $440,000.
It was then relisted just 3 months later at $595,000.
It doesn’t appear from the prior, or current listing pictures, that any renovations were done to the unit.
The unit was removed from the market at the end of May and relisted in June 2024 for the same price of $595,000.
Will this seller get the premium if they continue to be patient?
Michael Mandera at Jameson Sotheby’s has the listing. See the pictures and floor plan here.
Unit #7D: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2200 square feet
- Sold in 1985 (no price)
- Sold in August 2023 for $440,000
- Listed in October 2023 for $595,000
- Removed in May 2024
- Re-listed in June 2024 for $595,000
- Assessments of $2133 a month (includes heat, a/c, doorman, cable, exercise room, Internet)
- Taxes of $12,468
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Garage parking is available for $220 a month
- Bedroom #1: 18×19
- Bedroom #2: 13×15
- Bedroom #3 (currently the library): 14×15
- Living room: 22×18
- Dining room: 11×12
- Kitchen: 11×12
Your link takes you to 17C
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1440-N-State-Pkwy-APT-7D-Chicago-IL-60610/3855384_zpid/?
This is really the worst of all worlds, either lean into the vintage aspect or go new.
LOL on the price. This feels like greedy kids
Wow, I’m amazed that this sold just a year ago in this condition.
“ LOL on the price.”
Looks like an estate sale. With carrying costs of $3K+ per month, I’m not sure why they are messing around.
If I wanted to be in this area, I would try and pay slightly more 15% and get a unit at 1501 N. State.
More light.
Better views.
Actual balcony
“Looks like an estate sale. With carrying costs of $3K+ per month, I’m not sure why they are messing around.”
First sale probably was. But the second one isn’t.
Was this just a flip gone bad? Like, they bought it, thought they could put $150k into it and flip it but realized they could not so are selling it again?
Why not just sell at what you bought it for to stop the bleeding of the monthly costs? Yeah- you’re still going to lose money on closing costs and agent fees, but months of holding it will drain you too.
I think the lack of outdoor space really hurts. It’s a Chicago thing. We want it.
“Was this just a flip gone bad? Like, they bought it, thought they could put $150k into it and flip it but realized they could not so are selling it again?”
What did they put into it? Looks the same
““Was this just a flip gone bad? Like, they bought it, thought they could put $150k into it and flip it but realized they could not so are selling it again?”
What did they put into it? Looks the same”
Johnny, looks like Sabrina is saying that they were thinking of doing a buy/redo/flip, but didn’t even get to the “redo” portion, which makes the most sense.
“Johnny, looks like Sabrina is saying that they were thinking of doing a buy/redo/flip, but didn’t even get to the “redo” portion, which makes the most sense.”
Correct misread it
I still dont think this is a flip gone bad, unless the flippers are retarded. Listing this for $150k more than they paid and dealing with 9Mo of carrying costs doesnt seem like a well thought out strategy
9C just closed for $785k:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1440-N-State-Pkwy-60610/unit-9C/home/14114318
and…
10C sold last July for $735K:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1440-N-State-Pkwy-60610/unit-10C/home/14114566
Would guess they saw a “way below market” buy opportunity, looked into reno cost, and decided to cut out–really should have been happy with a quick return of capital, and listed it at like $525k, accept anything that gets their cash out.
How ironic that this building is called “The Brownstone.” How many charming old brownstones were torn down to build this 1970’s piece of generic anonymity? Several, I’d suspect. It’s a crime how the developers tried to wreck Dearborn, State, and Astor Streets back then with modern buildings that have no relationship to the vintage row homes on these blocks.
The interior is a disaster, too. This unit has no charm, no view, and probably will cost $200,000 to get into decent condition. No outdoor space even after all that work, and you’re stuck in a 50-year old building that probably needs lots of upkeep (high HOA). So I’m not sure what reasons anyone would have to buy it, even at this price which must make it the cheapest 3 BR on the Gold Coast.
Dan #2
So for you….unit in Hancock or here?
“It’s a crime how the developers tried to wreck Dearborn, State, and Astor Streets back then with modern buildings that have no relationship to the vintage row homes on these blocks.”
Neighborhood was a mess in the 1970s. People wanted “new” buildings. Old vintage brownstones probably falling down. So they tore them down to give people what they wanted.
A tale as old as time.
“How many charming old brownstones were torn down to build this 1970’s piece of generic anonymity?”
Using the designated address numbers on the plat, this building is 1436-1446.
As of 1928, there didn’t seem to be a lot of houses there:
1436-no building
1438-wealthy divorcee
1440-vacant building
1442-no building
1444-leather goods guy
1446-no building
1434 was also no building, and 1432 was a vacant building.
Those “no building” spots could defintely have been oversized lots, rather than actually unused.
Good research, Anon. Interesting stuff. Even if nothing was torn down, this building is completely out of scale to the rest of the street and ugly to boot.
And Chichow, I think you know the answer. I’d get a Hancock place now if my wife didn’t object to it.
Sabrina,
I don’t think the neighborhood was a mess in 1974. Maybe in 1954. But it was already quite expensive by 74. We had plenty of friends/acquaintances who were quite well off and lived in that stretch at that time.
Dan #2
well I THOUGHT it might be but the neighborhood is different.
I do think this part of State street is more idyllic and for sure the parking is easier than at the Hancock
but yeah I am with you. Hancock.