Living in the Heart of the Southport Corridor: 3250 N. Southport
You can live in the middle of all the Southport action by living right on Southport in this 3-bedroom duplex up at 3250 N. Southport in Lakeview.
This condo building only has 2 units and each has a private entrance.
The top floor duplex has four decks, 2 garage parking spaces and a full-sized family room.
Igor Dolgikh at Jameson has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #2: 3 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, no square footage listed, 2 car garage
- The public records aren’t completely clear on the original sales price in 2006 or 2007
- Listed in March 2009 for $875,000
- Currently still listed for $875,000
- Assessments of $100 a month
- Taxes are “new”
- Bedroom #1: 16×14
- Bedroom #2: 11×12
- Bedroom #3: 10×12
- Family room: 27×18
This ask price gave me a good laugh at least.
is this listing exclusively for people who are currently smoking crack? does it say “Rich Crackheads Only!” on the listing?
This is priced about $300,000 too high.
What a travesty………………
Wow, low assessments.
I’m having fun with each new listing looking at the pictures and formulating what the owners ask price is going to be in my head before I see what it actually is.
The numbers swimming in my mind for this were high 600’s to low 700’s. I was way off. 🙂
This building is an example of specific residential development which should never occurred. Two condos on a busy street, with livingrooms practically on the sidewalk and open for display – for an asking price of $875,000. Absent an exuberant bubble real estate market, the location calls for inexpensive small starter-unit rental studio and one-bedroom units, like the multi-use “retail ground-floor/residential on two floors above” model of Chicago urban development along busier streets. That model made sense; very expensive (though cheaply constructed) condos on infill sites on busier streets are a truly bad investment now. These units will rapidly depreciate – because of location, because of cheap construction, and because of lack of demand coupled with extreme competition from far nicer units at same price-point.
We’ll see a great deal of vacant residential real estate at all price points. Size, granite countertops, low assessments, etc are meaningless when the underlying assumptions don’t work.
Why didn’t they put down the sqft? Must be small, which makes the price even more laughable!!!
This is what I call “mark to model”…but since we are using a dartboard to determine price, why not raise it to 1m? that would be a nice round number.
Interesting bits of info from the CCRD.
This unit is owned by the realtor, not sure if he lives there or not.
I don’t think your transfer price is right, the condo declaration wasn’t filed until 10/26/2007.
The bottom unit sold for $744k on 10/30/2007.
This unit was quit claimed to the realtor on 12/19/2007 for $0.
Mortgages of $525k and $50k on this unit with Associated Bank.
Not really sure what is going on here. I like the unit but I think that the price is whack. As other said, high 600’s would be about right.
600’s for this place? Um, no. 550 now and closer to 500 by the end of the year.
this is so overpriced it actually makes my head hurt. what on earth could either the owner or realtor be thinking?
Pretty place. Tough sell.
2 units in the building @ $100 a month. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the HOA reserve is insufficient.
that will cover the salt for the steps no prob.
Given kp’s records findings, is the 2006 sale the purchase of the teardown?
The MSN birdseye view linked from Redfin shows a frame house with a large south-facing dormer, which seemd to support that scenario.
Interior footprint appears to be approx 18×60, for 1080/floor, or 4350 overall structure. So, after the sale of the first unit, they probably need ~$600k for #2 to breakeven.
skeptic – owner and realtor are one and the same (and asked to be on here since we actually got the pics? Sabrina? details?).
anon (tfo) – that’d be my guess but who really knows?
I added up the listed sqft as ~1500, figuring in hallways/closets/etc I can see that ~2000 sqft making sense… which at $875k is (drumroll please) $427 per sqft. YOWSERS!
$600k sale price would make it $300, probably right for the quality and neighborhood.
$875k….
wait for it….
redonkulousity.
someone didn’t get the memo about the bubble bursting. nice pics though.
“who really knows?”
Well, I phrased it as a question hoping for a little action. Based on my internet sleuthing *I* know the 2006 sale was for the teardown or, at most, the lot with some groundwork done.
someone paid $600K for the privilege of a teardown on a busy-ish street like Southport?
insanity. I hate these buildings. these are the living embodiment of the “Condo Canyon” problem.
But its Southport and Southport is “hot”. LOL
“skeptic on May 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
insanity. I hate these buildings. these are the living embodiment of the “Condo Canyon” problem.”
3/4 flats have nothing to do with the phrase “condo canyon”.
condo canyon doesn’t just mean height, it’s referring to the flat-fronted buildings that destroy any sense of depth and create a walled-in effect.
you’re correct in that these are pathetic imitation high-rises, I’ll definitely grant that.
ugh, i hate to see such a great looking place goto waste. it’ll probably sit on the market until it eventually drops to about $500k.
off topic, but wow, i love that msn birds eye thing! so much better than google street view (for real estate viewing anyway).
thats anon(tfo), i didnt even notice it until you mentioned it.
er, i meant thanks anon(tfo)…
I live right by this place. It was a teardown of a single family house that was listed around 600k. I seem to remember that house kept going on and off the market. This place is also two doors down from the Schoolyard Tavern
What irritates me most about these prices is the arrogance and ignorance of them. What could they possibly have done to make the place rise to 875k except stink it up with their BO for the last 3 years, when real estate melted down across the country.
Perhaps this is a deliberate move & a “price reduction” will of 200k (or more) will hit the MLS in a few weeks. That’s the only thing that could explain it.
gee Mess on, chill out. The market will do its magic, BO or not.
I like the $30 TV in the 70k kitchen, its a nice touch.
At least read the other comments Mess before you go off the handle.
The $650k price is the teardown price. The new building was only finished in late 2007.
Is reading comprehension to much to ask for around here?
Yeah I am not gonna read all 20 comments for every single post, sorry KP. I read about 10 – which included yours – and all said the same thing I did…price was nuts. So, I am not sure how I flew off the handle more than the rest. The BO comment was stupid semi-humorous nonsense…doesn’t play well online evidently.
I was simply trying to figure out the underlying psychological issue that these owners must have to price it where they did…and why many people out there are still pricing things this way. I decided not to go into the “endowment effect” (which you can google – which is really the proximate cause IMO) bc this is not an audience of behavioral economists. So, I said it was arrogance and ignorance (both layman’s terms for factors that essentailly drive the endowment effect). Nothing hostile… just simplified psychology.
The single family home next door (3248) to this building is for sale with an asking price of $850k. No way would anyone with half a brain pay more for a duplex than the renovated home next door.