Lakeview Penthouse Reduced $85,900: 1735 W. Diversey

We last chattered about this 3-bedroom penthouse with a 90-foot wrap-around deck at 1735 W. Diversey in Lakeview (or is it Lincoln Park?) in July 2008.

See our prior chatter and pictures here.

It is still on the market and has been reduced at total of $85,900 since the fall of November 2007.

It’s also priced $27,000 under its 2006 selling price (if you include the parking).

Unit #615: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1715 square feet

  • Sold in June 2000 for $368,000
  • Sold in April 2002 for $395,000
  • Sold in July 2006 for $492,000
  • Listed for $530,900 in the fall of 2007
  • Reduced
  • Listed in November 2007 for $515,900
  • Reduced
  • Was listed in July 2008 for $490,000 plus $20,000 for parking
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed for $445,000 plus $20,000 for parking
  • Taxes of $7215
  • Assessments of $490 a month
  • Fireplace
  • Central Air
  • Lori Blackwell at Koenig & Strey has the listing. See the listing and more pictures here.

20 Responses to “Lakeview Penthouse Reduced $85,900: 1735 W. Diversey”

  1. This is OT, but what are everyone’s impressions and/or data on the state of the rental market. We’re thinking of waiting a little longer to buy. Interested in a 2-3 BD apartment, in River North/Gold Coast. What can I get for say $2500 incl 1 parking spot?

    0
    0
  2. “Lakeview (or is it Lincoln Park?)”

    Both sides of Diversey are in 60614, so you can fairly claim LP. This is on the south side of the street, so even more “correct”.

    “reduced at total of $85,900”

    Was the parking really *not* included when the ask was $530k? If it was, then it’s only a $65,900 reduction, if not, what were they thinking?

    0
    0
  3. “This is OT, but what are everyone’s impressions and/or data on the state of the rental market. We’re thinking of waiting a little longer to buy. Interested in a 2-3 BD apartment, in River North/Gold Coast. What can I get for say $2500 incl 1 parking spot?”

    You can get a nice 2br/2ba for that kind of money in both of those hoods.

    0
    0
  4. This lame ass game of listing the parking extra is getting old. Buyers aren’t falling for it.

    0
    0
  5. Agree on parking. I think the best would be if an offeror said no they don’t need the parking with the property. I’d bet 90+% of sellers would say it has to come with it. And if thats the case why is it seperated out?

    0
    0
  6. “I think the best would be if an offeror said no they don’t need the parking with the property. I’d bet 90+% of sellers would say it has to come with it.”

    I’ve made that point a bunch of times, and everytime there are 3-5 folks who chime in either (a) I don’t want parking, so it’s better for me or (b) I’d be happy to keep the space b/c I could rent it profitably. Outside of high-rises with sold out parking, it seems to be an admission that you’d accept an offer based on the w/o parking price for the unit & parking together.

    0
    0
  7. north side of Diversey = Lake View, south side = Lincoln Park.

    the zip code is meaningless, as is for the most part any substantial distinction someone might want to make about Diversey (given that Lincoln Park extends all along Lake View’s eastern edge at the lake).

    0
    0
  8. “the zip code is meaningless, as is for the most part any substantial distinction someone might want to make about Diversey”

    You can say that about every neighborhood boundary line. But I think it’s pretty funny that you say:

    “north side of Diversey = Lake View, south side = Lincoln Park.”

    and then:

    “for the most part any substantial distinction someone might want to make about Diversey [is menaingless]”

    0
    0
  9. Is the parking spot on a separate mortgage? How do you payoff if you sell one without the other?

    0
    0
  10. “Is the parking spot on a separate mortgage? How do you payoff if you sell one without the other?”

    Partial release. Or get a new mortgage for just the parking–it’s only $20k. Or sell for enough to pay off the mortgage and own the parking free and clear.

    0
    0
  11. “You can say that about every neighborhood boundary line.”

    no, you can’t. the community areas – of which Lake View and Lincoln Park are two – were set in stone for census purposes decades ago.

    go to alookatcook.com, you need to brush up on your history and where all these lines in the sand originated. (Lake View was a township/suburb, for example – those borders are set.)

    the distinction I’m referring to is that the name “Lincoln Park” means anything, in the sense that the people living on the north side of Diversey are somehow missing out on something those on the south side have.

    0
    0
  12. First: “meaningless, as is for the most part any substantial distinction someone might want to make about Diversey”

    Then, in response: “You can say that about every neighborhood boundary line.”

    Then: “no, you can’t. the community areas – of which Lake View and Lincoln Park are two – were set in stone for census purposes decades ago.”

    Is the distinction “set in stone” yet still meaningless?

    Oh, wait, you’re narrowing your definition of “distinction” after being snarky about “north side of Diversey = Lake View, south side = Lincoln Park.” And then using your narrowed definition to say that your snarky point doesn’t matter anyway. Got it.

    Finally, notwithstanding that “Lake View was a township/suburb, for example – those borders are set.”, the USPS (for what little it’s worth) disagrees. And, if the Township lines are what matter, who cares about the Census?

    0
    0
  13. Location is terrible. You can call it Lincoln Park or Lakeview, the bottom line is that the property is in a terrible location.

    Location location location…

    0
    0
  14. “You can call it Lincoln Park or Lakeview”

    No you can’t Stevo. The boundary is set in stone. Lincoln Park has to claim this dog of a location.

    “a terrible location”

    Can’t disagree at all. I don’t understand why people are paying soo much for the houses just south of here (HArtland court, etc).

    0
    0
  15. Anon – They may have paid alot for them but you can trust me that they will not sell them for much. Location is brutal (other than the nice community pool). You can walk to more activity in Springfield. Construction costs were probably around $600k? The land is not worth $800k that is for sure…

    0
    0
  16. “The land is not worth $800k that is for sure”

    Might not be worth it now, but that’s pretty close to what the developer paid for it, especially when you account for the roads.

    0
    0
  17. According to Joe the tard’s page, Ashland is a “hot” area since there are so many new builds there (unoccupied or for sale, obviously)

    0
    0
  18. Sonies–

    A ton of the SFHs and THs (and condos–to the extent they are there) along Paulina and west to the tracks have sold. I liked the area when it was still mostly industrial, but think that it’s an overcrowded not-quite-neighborhood now. You’re hemmed in by some of the worst traffic on the northside, there’s no transit access to speak of, the neighborhood school isn’t good and the only things within an easy walk (i.e., with kids–why else buy those big houses?) are the Ashland strip malls, Riverplace (with Dominicks, Marshalls, etc.) and Costco. And I guess the park at Wrightwood and Greenview isn’t too far. But it’s a mile plus to any nice neighborhood retail/restaurant strips (unless you’re up by Wellington, and tehn you’re farther away from the park, etc.).

    So, in my view, it’s been “hot”, but completely inexplicably.

    0
    0
  19. G on the original thread wrote:
    “8/21/06 actually, HSBC Mtge was the savior with 100% loan”

    And now HSBC is running with its tail in between its legs and retreating from the US entirely. Its shares as of tonight are suspended in Hong Kong.

    Thanks for f*$king up our real estate market over here in Chicago, HSBC. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    Who would’ve ever thunk that giving zero down mortgages was a sound business practice? HSBC knew it wasn’t they were just hoping to sell these dubious loans to guillable investors, too bad for them the investors got smart before they did.

    0
    0
  20. Bob.. sometimes you are great and sometimes ass backwards. This time ass backwards. They are telling the U.S. to pound sand! Oh they will eat their losses, but moving forward they want the U.S. to be a smaller part of their portfolio. This will continue universally. It’s about lack of trust. The world will move forward and it will leave the U.S. as a smaller player. Once bitten, twice shy. Been saying it here for over a year.

    And Bernie Madoff I am sure enjoyed his brunch from Zabaars yesterday. America looks great! Buy NOW!!

    0
    0

Leave a Reply