Live In a Remodeled 2/2 Right On Lincoln Park For Only $270K: 2626 N. Lakeview
This bank owned 2-bedroom at 2626 N. Lakeview in Lincoln Park came on the market in March 2013 and was recently reduced.
I’m surprised it is still listed and having to lower its price to find a buyer.
While the unit itself doesn’t have lake views, right outside the front door is all of Lincoln Park to enjoy.
The unit has some newer features.
There are cherry hardwood floors in the living/kitchen space.
The kitchen has dark cabinets, granite counter tops and stainless steel appliances.
There is central air but no in-unit washer/dryer.
It also doesn’t say anything about parking in the listing.
The listing does comment that the buyer is responsible for 6 months due past assessments, however.
Originally listed for $290,000 in March, it has been reduced $20,100.
Why isn’t this selling when everything else seems to be?
Jason Shapiro at Rising Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #808: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1250 square feet
- Sold in May 1994 for $146,000
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in August 2010
- Bank owned in January 2013
- Originally listed in March 2013 for $290,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $269,900
- Assessments of $708 a month (not sure what this includes)
- Taxes of $5424
- Central Air
- Coin laundry
- Nothing mentioned about parking
- Bedroom #1: 17×22
- Bedroom #2: 12×12
Nice unit for the price, but I couldn’t justify that combination of assessments and taxes.
(to be clear, I realize the taxes and assessments are not out of proportion to other high rises in the area. Just saying that one could get more bang for their buck in a mid-rise)
“Why isn’t this selling when everything else seems to be?”
Yes, the location of this building (and its neighbor, 2650) is outstanding, but the real selling point of living there is the view (they’re not much different, but based on the limited number of units I’ve been in at each, I’d say that 2650 is a tad nicer, though I’ll defer to Dan#2 on that count). If your view is going to be limited to brick walls (and likely some friendly glances with your neighbors in the Marlborough), I think there are some more compelling options out there once the assessments are factored in (parking is likely in the $150ish/mo range for residents; I think it was around $200 for nonresidents). Looking out over the park and the lake from this building makes the assessments much more tolerable (even an unobstructed north/northwestern view is nice, especially at night). The folks who run the dry cleaners in the building are nice, though.
I don’t think too many buyers cross-shop high rises and mid rises.
I live in this building and its a great building…
However, while the unit in this listing looks OK in photos, I saw it during an open house last year and it’s AWFUL. The kitchen look modern and attractive, but the cabinets are the cheapest possible construction — like where the middle panel rattles in the frame & the laminate on the sides of the cabinets above the stove were warped and peeling. And the unit had only been rented out for a few months since it’s remodel. The kitchen layout is also bad, where they clearly stuck to stock sizes on cabinets and counters and it makes the kitchen way less usable than it should be. The materials throughout the unit seem to have been selected on a “what’s on sale at Menard’s” basis.
There was a period about a year ago where this unit, the unit right above it (908) and 308 were all on the market. The other two sold in pretty quick order. for between $240 and $270… that should tell you how this compared.
Of course the realtor doing the open house didn’t do it any favors. She was showing both 808 and 908 but stayed in 908 and just gave a key to people to check out 808. There was dried, cooked rice caked on the stovetop (odd considering there was no funiture, so nobody living there), the floors were dusty, the blinds were all cockeyed… she clearly had not done any sort of walk through at all!
And to think that I can remember this unit first coming on the market for $425k or $450k when it was first rehabbed about 5 years ago… in all that time, it’s never sold.
There are benefits to highrises when run correctly. My building is nearly 300 units and the board has wisely included all utilities except electric in our assessment. Our assessment includes: water, gas, air conditioning/heat, full cable (all movie channels), garbage, internet, gym, parking fee ….everything. The only thing we do not pay is electricty b/c that is more variable among units and does not always correspond to size of unit/percentage of ownership. In any rate, the board buys energy contracts and is able to hedge prices…in the last 6 years gas and electric for AC has been 8-10% under market. Also, the full cable and internet is less costly than if you would get it in a midrise and/or home. In short, b/c of the size of the building our utilities are 10-15% less than a comparable midrise. Thus, even though a unit is “forced to pay for cable in their assessment” the remaining necessary utlities are so much lower that its like getting internet/cable for free. Its also far less expensive for our building to ban together to fight real estate property taxes. …cost me $25 bucks for the appeal ( I know you can do it for free but it would certainly take more than $25 worth of my time to do it.).
“selected on a “what’s on sale at Menard’s” basis”
That’s actually *worse* than “what was found in an alley”.
“Our assessment includes: water, gas, air conditioning/heat, full cable (all movie channels), garbage, internet, gym, parking fee ….everything”
That’s pretty extraordinary. I know that lots of buildings provide basic cable, but I’ve not heard of many covering all movie channels and internet. I’d love to stop paying RCN $175/mo for Daenerys and high speed internet. And a/c? Is it central to the entire building (like an office building)?
Taxes seem high, no?
“Taxes seem high, no?”
Implies the assessed ‘market value’ was about $315k (for 2011/pay-2012 tax year–which was based on AV as of 1/1/11) with no HO exemption. And the assessment doesn’t account for the relative quality/condition of the interior improvements, or the view–if overall average 1250 sf 2/2 in this building is ‘worth’ about $315k (likely about true), then that’s what this “should” be assessed at.
This is a great location but it doesn’t make up for the fact that it is a boring box with bottom of the barrel finishes looking at brick walls.
Assessments of $708 a month (not sure what this includes)
I live in the building… assessments include doorman, heat & A/C, water, cable (not movie channels or internet), garbage. Gym & Pool are about $100/yr. additional.
Parking is rental… I believe it’s $160/mo. now. There is no waiting list for parking… cars are valeted until an assigned spot opens up. Wait was about 18 mo. when I got my spot, but that was a decade ago…
“This is a great location but it doesn’t make up for the fact that it is a boring box with bottom of the barrel finishes looking at brick walls.”
Agreed. Location is prime, park and lake out your front door and tons of cheap eats down clark street. 250k for a 2/2 seems reasonable in a mid-range highrise. With a view and better finishes aren’t you talking 100-150k more?
” My building is nearly 300 units and the board has wisely included all utilities except electric in our assessment”
That is not wise. That means that there are dozens of fools misusing their heat and AC because there is no direct correlation with their costs of doing so – tragedy of the commons. Probably you are paying way more for these things that you should be – that’s the way it is in every shared utility situation I’ve ever seen.
In a large condo building, aren’t the taxes allocated substantially (solely?) according to percentage of ownership figures? ie. typically the same tier unit on 2d floor would have a different ownership share, assessment, and taxes than a 30th floor unit? And a unit facing the lake, while having equal square footage, would have a larger ownership percentage, assessments & tax valuation than a similar sized unit with non-preferred views? I agree that the assessor wouldn’t have much info on the interior condition, unless building permits were pulled to do a major rehab.
“Implies the assessed ‘market value’ was about $315k (for 2011/pay-2012 tax year–which was based on AV as of 1/1/11) with no HO exemption. And the assessment doesn’t account for the relative quality/condition of the interior improvements, or the view–if overall average 1250 sf 2/2 in this building is ‘worth’ about $315k (likely about true), then that’s what this “should” be assessed at.”
“In a large condo building, aren’t the taxes allocated substantially (solely?) according to percentage of ownership figures?”
Nope. Not at all. Only in a co-op.
““In a large condo building, aren’t the taxes allocated substantially (solely?) according to percentage of ownership figures?”
Nope. Not at all. Only in a co-op.”
Yes they are… Condos are charged one tax bill and then you pay a percentage of that tax bill based upon ownership. Only difference between that and a co-op is that you pay them with assessments in a co-op and you pay them through your mortgage escrow or seperately in a condo.
“Yes they are… Condos are charged one tax bill and then you pay a percentage of that tax bill based upon ownership.”
No, they aren’t. You’re wrong.
“the board buys energy contracts and is able to hedge prices…in the last 6 years gas and electric for AC has been 8-10% under market.”
Your condo board hedges your building’s gas and electric cost ? — with what, futures contracts?
That sounds dangerous. What’s the logic behind “buy[ing] energy contracts … to hedge prices”?
Obviously, if on the date of delivery the spot price is below your previously agreed-to contract’s price, you’re saddled with a loss. Surely, the condo board has no “edge” when trading natural gas. Why engage in it?
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GASPRICE?cid=32217
1. JAH should be correct, when the condominium is created the percentage of ownership (relative value) is assigned to each unit based on a number of factors including square footage, floor height and view (lake would be more valuable than alley all other things being equal). This is done by the developer (or developer’s attorney) at the time the condo is created and is recorded as part of the Declaration. How they ACTUALLY do it is not subject to any statutory formula, however, so it is entirely possible that a developer would only use square footage in determining percentage of ownership.
2. Taxes in a building are assessed individually. An appeal must be done by the entire building which, if it results in an adjustment, will be applied evenly across-the-board but will not equalize units as the assessor is in no position to assign relative value within a building. (The value of a unit with Menards cabinets unit vs Snaidero cabinets all-other-things-being-equal dilemma).
3. A co-op is a stock ownership position in a building and the land it sits on. There is one tax bill for the land which is divided amongst the residents based on the number of shares they own. In theory a better unit is worth more shares. Real Estate Property Taxes for a co-op are paid by share holders 1/12 per month to an escrow account dedicated to payment of those taxes.
“An appeal must be done by the entire building”
Nope. Might ‘need’ to be done by the entire building to have a reasonable chance of winning, but individual owners may appeal individually.
From the assessor’s FAQ:
“If you elect to file as an individual unit owner, the following information should accompany your appeal:
(a) The closing statement if the unit has been sold within the last five years;
(b) A copy of the local municipality’s occupancy permit if the unit is newly constructed or converted;
(c) The percentage of ownership of the individual unit, and if presented, the percentage of ownership of comparables.”
http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/frequentlyaskedquestions.aspx
Your condo board hedges your building’s gas and electric cost ? — with what, futures contracts?
2626 Lakeview does this, too. I don’t believe they’re trading futures, but negotiating flat rate contracts from providers (who may then use futures contracts to lock in their supply?). If timed correctly, it saves money. At the very least, it provides an even cost basis to budget with, rather than having fluctuations that could run hundreds of thousands of dollars when natural gas prices were swinging tremendously.
This is a great building. There is a view from this unit facing the lake. But it also is next to the Marlborough which is the red brick building. Assessments include heat and air conditioning, basic cable, water. The roof top pool and gym each have a small(ish) fee.
Yeah, it’s basically a box that needs work. But it’s a large 2 bed 2 bath on Lakeview Avenue. No buildings now or ever between you and the park. Plus it’s dirt cheap and in a very well run building. You’re really not going to do much better in this neighborhood.
Why isn’t it selling? Price seems reasonable. It is a low floor, which would keep me from being interested, but many people don’t think about views as much as I do. This is a great building with lots of amenities and a perfect location. I’m surprised it hasn’t sold.
Anonny – just saw your comment. Thanks for the name drop. I’d agree 2650 is the nicer building. Floor to ceiling windows make a big difference, and it just has a more luxurious feeling. It’s also about five years newer than 2626 (though being built in 1973, it’s far from new). I’d never be able to consider 2650 because for some strange reason, it has a no cats policy.
Benjy,
I used to envy people who had high-floor 08 units in 2626 because the views south must have been fantastic. Now, the that horrid new skyscraper at 2520 Lakeview, I’m guessing the high floor 08 views have been hurt quite a bit. I haven’t seen a high floor 08 unit for sale since the new building was finished. Do you think the obstructed views will have an impact? I don’t think the 08s have much advantage over the 12s now, considering both look at other buildings.
This building has had 4 fires over the years – even some fatalities or injuries. Most recent was last fall and several months ago. There is no sprinkler system in this building – and the cost to install one is prohibitive. Also – no washer and dryer unless you combine several units.
It is really nice building though – but I would not buy in a high rise building without a sprinkler system at this point in my life.
They also do not have a rental cap.
Dan #2,
Yes, 2520 has completely disrupted the amazing views the 08 units had (not that this unit was affected — it looks into the back of the Marlboro) — here’s a shot from the sundeck, which is directly above the 08 tier.
Compare that to the view before… it used to be my dream to upgrade from a 1BR to an 08 unit here and have those views.
Thanks, Benjy. How sad. I guess the 03 units weren’t affected as much. And the 12 units are nice, but you’re always going to be looking straight into 2650. People I knew who had a 12 unit used to keep several of their living room shades down for privacy.