Live in a 3-Bedroom Penthouse in the Heart of the Action for Under $260K: 2124 W. Division

This 3-bedroom penthouse at 2124 W. Division in West Town has been on the market since August 2011.

In that time, it has been reduced $90,000.

It is bank owned and now listed at $259,900.

From the pictures, it appears that at least part of the kitchen is intact and there are some appliances (the picture only shows half the kitchen.)

There are cathedral ceilings and skylights.

2 of the three bedrooms are on the main floor with the third bedroom/family room on the upper level.

Unit #6 in the building, also a duplex up, is also on the market and it is being marketed as a 2-bedroom with an upper level family room.

The unit also has a roofdeck, central air, washer/dryer hook-up in the unit and 2-car tandem parking.

Is this a steal?

Jason Shapiro at Rising Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.

2124 W. Division: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, duplex-up, no square footage listed

  • The ccrd site is down- but it looks like it may have sold in April 2002 for $328,000 (?)
  • Bank owned
  • Originally listed in August 2011 for $349,900
  • Reduced several times
  • Currently listed for $259,900
  • Assessments of $175 a month
  • Taxes of $10,894
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer hook-ups
  • Fireplace
  • Bedroom #1: 12×12 (main level)
  • Bedroom #2: 11×10 (main level)
  • Bedroom #3/Family room: 22×12 (second level)
  • Den: 13×10 (main level)

 

 

26 Responses to “Live in a 3-Bedroom Penthouse in the Heart of the Action for Under $260K: 2124 W. Division”

  1. you noticed the ccrd site is down too. since yesterday, at least.

    Is this unit a steal? Close, but not quite. Some better photos would make it easier to tell. Right now, the space looks chopped up, with small, dark spaces. Turn on the lights, give us some more panoramic views. If it’s really this cramped, then no, it’s not a “steal”.

    0
    0
  2. Why are taxes $10,000? I guess they city of Chicago and Cook County can do that since it’s such a wonderful place to live.

    0
    0
  3. If the layout is really the mirror of the other unit listed, then it could be a great place that is being really let down by its listing photos. It’s interesting that #5 has a higher assessment, but way lower taxes at $3,300.

    0
    0
  4. Not a good sign when 3 of the 4 residential units are on the market and two are foreclosures.

    0
    0
  5. Either the photos are terrible, or this place looks comparable to my college apartments.

    0
    0
  6. Brutal taxes. That could cause a lot of people to pass on this place. I can’t imagine you wouldn’t win if you appealed the taxes though.

    I agree that the pictures are probably not doing this unit justice.

    I can see it under contract at 239.

    0
    0
  7. Taxes are wrong. 2009 taxes were $3294; 2010 taxes are $3513.

    Funny business in the deed records.

    0
    0
  8. Today’s “steal” will be tomorrow’s comp. 3BRs near the Damen/Division hotspots below $250? Interesting….

    0
    0
  9. oh, and those tax amounts are w/o the HO exemption.

    0
    0
  10. 2 more tax things:

    1. Redfin has it right in the “Public Info” section of their listing.

    2. More than possible that $10k was due and paid in 2010 (for the 2009 tax year) if the former owners just didn’t pay their taxes for 3 years.

    And:

    The Nov-06 sale (no stated value) was accomapnied by $425k in mortgages.

    0
    0
  11. This place is really boring.

    0
    0
  12. before you bears get too excited… the listing states

    BUYER RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY CITY LIENS AND VIOLATIONS.

    so this could wind up costing a lot more than 260k

    0
    0
  13. Sonnies. That is standard language for REO sales

    0
    0
  14. Probably could be a good deal considering the neighborhood. However, the buyer would be taking a huge risk with what looks like a failing HOA. I doubt you can even get conventional financing on the building.

    0
    0
  15. “The Nov-06 sale (no stated value) was accomapnied by $425k in mortgages.”

    The sale was not on the mls. #6 did sell for $442,000 in 6/05.

    0
    0
  16. I’ve noticed that the assessor has been targeting “distressed” properties and jacking the property taxes WAY WAY WAY WAY up. I’ve had this happen with several of my purchases and they can be fought but it’s difficult to get them back to the level of the comps. It can get expensive when you only are credited 100% of the prior year’s taxes on a purchase contract and then the next installment comes out and it’s 100% higher. I guess the county figures that it’s better to screw the banks and investors.

    0
    0
  17. I looked at this unit when it was for sale in 05. My opinion was that it had an odd floor plan that did not flow well. At this price it is a nice place, however if the association is in shambles maybe not.

    0
    0
  18. “I’ve noticed that the assessor has been targeting “distressed” properties and jacking the property taxes WAY WAY WAY WAY up.”

    Possible, but *definitely* not the case on this property. Its assessed value is $20,472–and it “sold” for something over twice that. Taxes are about 50% LESS than they “should” be.

    0
    0
  19. “I’ve noticed that the assessor has been targeting “distressed” properties and jacking the property taxes WAY WAY WAY WAY up.”

    This sounds like an issue with due diligence. They don’t increase the assessed value outside the triennial reassessment year in Cook County. The only exception is if it was previously on vacancy relief, which would be very rare for single residential units (and publicly available info, if so.)

    “It can get expensive when you only are credited 100% of the prior year’s taxes on a purchase contract and then the next installment comes out and it’s 100% higher.”

    This is extremely unlikely to happen in anything but a reassessment year (paid the following year.) NEVER base a tax proration only on the last tax bill. Make sure to check the AV and know where it is in the reassessment cycle. I hear of these surprises all the time, even when the new AV is already known (but no bills are based on it yet.)

    0
    0
  20. This penthouse, and its twin for sale in the same building for $395k, are NOT 3 br’s. I am highly familiar with them. There is no full wall, no door and no closet in the upstairs loft area. Ergo, not a br.

    0
    0
  21. And the plethora of units for sale for cheap doesn’t speak well for the state of the building/association. And who wants to park outside in Chicago winters?

    0
    0
  22. “Today’s “steal” will be tomorrow’s comp. 3BRs near the Damen/Division hotspots below $250? Interesting….”

    REO dumps maybe.

    0
    0
  23. Can’t help but think that former local homeboy Nelson Algren is laughing in his grave over the “plight” of these newbies and others like them.

    His classic “City on the Make” has just been reissued in an annotated 60th-anniversary edition. Amazing how much of it reads like it was just written yesterday.

    0
    0
  24. “And who wants to park outside in Chicago winters?”

    Almost Orwellian, I tell you.

    0
    0
  25. Here’s another one that just popped up right by here on Division. Looks nice, has the all important garage and a big (though common) deck, but who in their right mind would want to live above Fifty-50 and that madness with 3 other bars/restaurants right there??

    http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2041-W-Division-St-60622/unit-203/home/21841285

    0
    0
  26. This unit is now under contract.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply