“One of a Kind Opportunity” in Albany Park? 4916 N. Central Park

Price is everything in this market. This single family home in Albany Park at 4916 N. Central Park has been on the market over a year.

4916-n-central-park.jpg

It’s been reduced by $115,900.

The listing says it is a legal 2-flat and an estate sale sold “as is.”

Who has some vision?

4916-n-central-park-diningroom.jpg

4916-n-central-park-kitchen.jpg

Charlie Vernon at Baird and Warner has the listing. See more pictures here.

4916 N. Central Park: 5 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2 car garage

  • I couldn’t find a prior sales price
  • Originally listed in September 2007 for $494,900
  • Reduced several times
  • Currently listed for $379,000
  • Taxes of $3542
  • Built in 1916
  • No central air- window units
  • Funky ’50s decor (according to the listing)

29 Responses to ““One of a Kind Opportunity” in Albany Park? 4916 N. Central Park”

  1. Taxes are $3542 PER MONTH?

    0
    0
  2. I wonder when my stainless steel, stone counter tops with laminate wood cabinets will look as dated as this kitchen. Of course, the green is so bad it’s awesome.

    0
    0
  3. Re-reading my statement above, I should clarify: I know my cookie cutter kitchen will become dated, and I’m certain the cabinets are much better than the home depot specials I have.

    0
    0
  4. Taxes of $3542 a month?

    0
    0
  5. Can someone say WOOD PANELLING!

    0
    0
  6. I meant paneling.

    0
    0
  7. 1. Just west of Lincoln Sq? This house is west of Western and over the river. It’s closer to LaBagh Woods than Lincoln Sq.

    2. The wood paneling gives the room a northwoodsy feel…

    3. By legal two flat I think they mean 1.5 story bungalow converted into small apartment for rent.

    4. $494,900? That’s the delusional thought of while tripping on LSD price. $379,000? Less delusional price but more desperate. The sellers might stir some interest if they lowered the price into the upper $200’s.

    0
    0
  8. “Taxes of $3542 a month?”

    Sorry- that was a typo (of course.) It’s been corrected.

    0
    0
  9. 380k for a bungalow straight off the set of Roseanne.

    Let me tell you something: Roseanne’s character sure as heck didn’t pay anywhere near 380k for her bungalow.

    This correction will be interesting as more younger couples simply refuse to honor the above market appreciation sellers think they are entitled to via looking at websites like zillow and “comps” set in 2006. 280k for this one.

    0
    0
  10. “above market” should’ve read “above inflation”

    0
    0
  11. The upstairs rec room alone is worth the asking price. Somebody spent a mint on this place in the 50s (and replaced the appliances in the late 60s when the darkened edge look came in).

    0
    0
  12. I thought this said the price was $115k and I was like, oh, that’s a pretty fair deal. Then I realized that was only the price drop. $379k to live in the barrio/airport zone of the city? yall must be crazy!

    0
    0
  13. this place is really cool.
    and only a short bike ride from the admiral and Lincoln square lanes.

    0
    0
  14. $115k is low but fair.

    0
    0
  15. “$115k is low but fair.”

    The rental unit is a 2/1, right? At $115k, I’d buy it tomorrow as a rental. It’s worth ~$225k as a two-unit rental, easy.

    0
    0
  16. i think this place is really nice – breat bones, really attractive. Neighborhood is a little boonies for me tho – which is why it’s so cheap.

    0
    0
  17. Nice place. I heard avocado is the new stainless steel.

    0
    0
  18. This place was last sold around 2002, if I recall the asking price was right under 400k then—not sure about the sell price. I live in the hood and it is priced accordingly to what else is currently selling. I’ll take 3 at 115k, get real !

    0
    0
  19. sorry typo. the list price in 2002 was just under 300k.

    0
    0
  20. I *love* those appliances–in all sincerity.

    0
    0
  21. “just under 300k”

    Sounds about right again. With a closing credit for any defered maintenance or necessary repair/replacement.

    0
    0
  22. Here’s what I have for the last activity on the block. I couldn’t find anything on the subjet, which probably indicates a very longtime owner.

    4901 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 8/21/1998 $250,000
    4910 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 3/27/1989 $122,500
    4911 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 10/22/2004 $444,000
    4912 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 10/25/1996 $140,000
    4915 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 7/31/2001 $236,500
    4919 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 10/28/2002 $245,000
    4920 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 6/23/2000 $255,000
    4921 N CENTRAL PARK AVE n/a n/a
    4924 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 9/18/2000 $175,000
    4925 N CENTRAL PARK AVE n/a n/a
    4928 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 1/24/1990 $166,000
    4929 N CENTRAL PARK AVE n/a n/a
    4932 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 11/7/2008 $425,000
    4933 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 12/26/1989 $113,000
    4936 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 10/24/1986 n/a
    4938 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 7/15/1996 $126,000
    4939 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 6/9/1989 $43,500
    4942 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 11/8/2004 $362,000
    4944 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 4/22/1987 $82,500
    4945 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 11/3/2006 $460,000
    4947 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 2/27/2007 $310,000
    4948 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 8/8/1990 $130,000
    4951 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 12/4/2003 $277,000
    4952 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 11/10/1983 $55,000
    4954 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 12/20/1983 $73,000
    4957 N CENTRAL PARK AVE 3/29/2000 $202,000

    0
    0
  23. The chart above generally shows that the pre-bubble i.e. pre-2000 homes sold in the 100’s and 200’s but during the bubble they sold in the mid-200’s to 300’s to even the 400’s…..

    I know you all know where I think prices are heading.

    0
    0
  24. The data above, not chart, sorry. damn this has been a slow day …

    0
    0
  25. “barrio?” Go back to Lincoln Park, yuppie.

    My real question is how much flood damage this has from the flooding in September… that might explain the lower price…

    0
    0
  26. zero flood damage I would guess, that area was not effected

    0
    0
  27. $115,900 should be the price, not the reduction. I’d argue that it has depreciated over the years, not just because of the market but the huge amount of maintenance and updating that obviously has not been done. By the way, a refrigerator that old must be so inefficient that it would cost more to run for a year than to replace.

    0
    0
  28. You know, Pete, I thought so, too (that old fridge would be cheaper to replace than keep.)

    Then my circa god-knows-when (1980’s at the very best) refrigerator door literally just fell off one day about two months ago. Yeah, it was that old. So I replaced it with a basic fridge, larger than the last but same set up (freezer on top). Not energy star, but still–nice new appliance.

    My electricity bill went up, two months running.

    🙁

    0
    0
  29. I think you folks need to catch up on the newer trends in home decor. not everyone wants granite and a subzero.
    http://retrorenovation.com/

    I’d kill for that kitchen and knotty pine upstairs

    0
    0

Leave a Reply