Piece of Logan Square History Still Available in the 8-Bedroom Spencer Kimbell Mansion: 2556 N. Kimball
This 8-bedroom single family home at 2556 N. Kimball in Logan Square has been on the market since October 2011.
The listing says it is the Spencer S. Kimball Mansion which was built in 1905. But after some digging around, it seems that the listing agent got the name wrong of the original owner- as did the city of Chicago when naming the street- because it was Kimbell with an “e” – not an “a”.
The street was named after the family later- but the city messed up the spelling and that’s how it ended up with an “a.”
The house is at the corner of Kimball and Fullerton and used to make up an area called Kimbell Farm. Here’s what I found out on the all-knowing Google:
“However, for historical reference and as a point of amusement, the original Kimbell Farm extended from Kimbell/Kimball Avenue (spelling “was flubbed” in the City’s 1909 re-naming) to a street name that escapes me, just a few blocks west of Central Park, and from Fullerton to just past Wrightwood.
Wrightwood Avenue was a gift to the City in 1895 by Martin Kimbell’s family, west of Kimball/Kimbell and allowed for its extension to Crawford (now Pulaski Road).
The Kimbell Farm supplied the early Town and City of Chicago with produce
and hay for horses in the late 1830’s, via an old Indian Trail, developed in part by Kimbell and others into Northwest Plank Toll Road. That street is now known as Milwaukee Avenue.”
The house is on an oversized lot measuring 81×125 and has a 2-car garage.
The listing says the interior has been restored. There are still many of the original vintage features including pocket doors, beamed ceilings, and stained glass.
The kitchen has white cabinets and some white and stainless appliances (there is a stainless steel stove.)
6 of the 8 bedrooms are somehow on the second floor with the 2 remaining bedrooms and a library on the third level.
The house has been reduced $201,223 since October. It is now listed $152,223 below the 2005 purchase price.
What price will it take to sell this property?
Ismael Perez at Exit Real Estate has the listing. See the pictures here.
2556 N. Kimball: 8 bedrooms, 5.5 baths, 5170 square feet, 2 car garage
- Sold in June 1997 for $345,000
- Sold in December 2005 for $1.2 million
- Originally listed in October 2011 for $1.249 million
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $1,047,777
- Taxes of $13,109
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 28×14 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 15×16 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 14×15 (second floor)
- Bedroom #4: 20×15 (second floor)
- Bedroom #5: 15×14 (second floor)
- Bedroom #6: 14×18 (second floor)
- Bedroom #7: 14×18 (third floor)
- Bedroom #8: 12×15 (third floor)
- Library: 12×14 (third floor)
It’s fitting that the old Indian trail is now called Milwaukee Ave b/c Milwaukee is an Indian word for “the good land.” Wayne’s World! Schwing! NOT!!!
According to this article in the Chicago Reader, one of the Kimbell’s “was so incensed by the altered spelling that he went out in his horse-drawn wagon, paintbrush and bucket in hand, and reinserted the ‘e’ in Kimbell on every street sign from Armitage to Diversey.”
http://www1.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/logansquare/history/
For a house like this, I would make an exception to the not buying a home on a busy street rule.
Icarus…at least its set back and fenced in which makes it seem more private….
I used to work at a business on Fullerton in the early 90’s. As I turned onto Wrightwood I would always look at this place and imagine living there. At that time the area was just ok but the owners of this place took exceptional care of the outside of this building as well as the property. Many of the SFH’s on Bernard were being remodeled and flipped by the mostly pick up truck work crews. It was clear that the area was getting better. I definitely recall my friend who owned that business telling me that this home had sold in 1997 and that someone got an amazing deal. He would have put in a bid however I think that it was sold quickly and quietly. Judging by the next sale price in 2005 I guess that he was correct about that price having been a great deal!
My only concerns at this price would be the lack of a decent private or public school in the immediate area, some gang activity, and the lack of yard for this sized home. Otherwise I’m a big fan and think that it will sell to a esteemed long term resident of the area that has always looked at this place as one of the true trophy properties similar to the other few that are located on Logan Blvd!
Awesome.
I am imagining Skeptic armed with painting materials scouring his neighborhood, inserting rogue spaces in all the offending “Lakeview”s out there!
Groove, can you hook up some gear for this project?
Chris M (June 4, 2012, 11:15 am)
According to this article in the Chicago Reader, one of the Kimbell’s “was so incensed by the altered spelling that he went out in his horse-drawn wagon, paintbrush and bucket in hand, and reinserted the ‘e’ in Kimbell on every street sign from Armitage to Diversey.”
Beautiful home! No clue on the price, but so many plus’s. Close to the blvd, el, huge lot with big yard.
I have been in the property and liked it very much. The first floor layout is great and the huge landing at the top of the stairs is just awesome. It does need some repairs to the porch and foundation, and the windows are old and no central air. Also, there is no master bath, which will be a deal killer for many, but there is enough space to allow for one to be added. The entire third floor with 3 or 4 bedrooms is a separate apartment, and gets a healthy rent.
What’s with the funky $1,047,777 price?
And I can’t imagine anyone with the ability to buy this would want to rent out the third floor.
Renting out the third floor makes no sense – I agree. Unless there’s a separate entrance with a separate stairway that goes straight up to the third floor, which I very much doubt. Do you want your renters trooping in and out of your living space?
There is a separate entrance and its a nice 1,300 a month. And wouldn’t it be nice to depreciate 50% of your 2 flat?
This place was actually 3 or possibly even 4 units for a while… Yes, believe there are back stairs to the upstairs.
It is really nicely laid out and current owners helped it big time… Kitchen was scary but looks very nice.
Agree this will sell to someone who appreciates it. This area continues to surprise me in terms of that interest– multiple offers / bidding on a couple places on Bernard recently, I know.
I do think they’ll have to come down a bit, but prolly not too much… There have been a couple closes north of 850k in the area not too far back.
This is a beatuiful home (other than that red bedroom which gives me a headache just looking at the photo…) although LB’s comments make me question whether it could ever get around $1M in the current state. The listing says there must be Chase preapproval…do you think that means this may be a short sale in disguise?
HD, I’m too lazy to do the ccing….was this bought with 1% down or something?
At $1m sales price the $1300 in rent is negligible for most buyers however don’t overlook an extended family living situation. Extremely common in many ethnic communities. Hard to put grandma and gramps up that many stairs so perhaps a few recently arrived uncles, nephews, or cousins with a small family.
Is that a possibility?
@Jp3 — that’s certainly a possibility. More likely is some entrepaneur type who recently came into some money or yields a big enough salary. Isn’t ready to settle down but doesn’t want to live alone (or have big house that appears empty) so they rent to some friends which helps them save money for a future down payment.
I’ve seen that scenario play out on a smaller scale SFH. Heck, I almost had the chance to be that renter until my buddy found his wife.
Lucky him….unlucky you!
A third floor rental wouldn’t be 50% of the building, so you can’t depreciate 50% of the building’s value if you rent that out. And, yes, depreciating will increase the paper expenses but it will reduce the cost basis and, accordingly, raise the amount that would be taxable.
And, I agree, no elderly folk are going to live on a third floor. Knees won’t allow it.
Ha ha ha ha!
I have taken solace in this:
http://www.lakeviewcitizens.org/
They got it both ways with “The LAKE VIEW CITIZENS’ COUNCIL (LVCC) is a non-profit civic organization serving the Lakeview community on the north side of Chicago, Illinois. We have been working since 1952 to keep you informed of what is happening in your neighborhood. Learn the results of our neighborhood surveys: ”
I don’t really mind the “Lakeview” as subset of Lake View community area thing, I just can’t stand people screwing up (the Reader is one of the worst, ironically enough) Lake View with two words when it’s a formal title, like Lake View High School, Lake View YMCA, etc.
That said, if I had an army of minions…
“Awesome.
I am imagining Skeptic armed with painting materials scouring his neighborhood, inserting rogue spaces in all the offending “Lakeview”s out there!
Groove, can you hook up some gear for this project?”
@Chirs, not being too familiar with the depreciating and paper expenses versus costs and raising the taxable amount….could you demonstrate with an a example featuring two scenarios? Extra credit if you provide graphs and charts like Gary.
“will reduce the cost basis and, accordingly, raise the amount that would be taxable.”
Exemption from capital gains from primary residence of $250k ($500k m-fj).
“@Chirs, not being too familiar with the depreciating and paper expenses versus costs and raising the taxable amount”
see IRS form 4562… it’s a very good thing to know. Ze is a big fan of depreciating non depreciating assets.. Obamas biggest gift to those that didn’t need gifts…
LOL.
The value tripled from 97 to 05? Give me a break. Bubble much?
I just did some simple math. Bought in 97 for 345K, if the house value went up by 10% per year, 97-12, it’s value would be 1.44million. I just looked at a Zillow article from January 2011 (so, a year and a half old), it said home prices went down nationwide by 26% from 2006 to the printing of the article. My 10% annual math indicates that in 2006 the home would have been worth 813K, assuming increase of 10% per year in value (which, I’m no expert, but probably didn’t happen for this part of Chicago, huge mansion or not). So….813K, less 26%…is $601,000.
Sorry, but anyone willing to pay more than 700K for this place is an utter fool. Like, legally retarded. I bike by this building everyday, and it’s so gorgeous. If only the asking price made sense.
“Sorry, but anyone willing to pay more than 700K for this place is an utter fool. Like, legally retarded. I bike by this building everyday, and it’s so gorgeous. If only the asking price made sense.”
Your calculations do not include any improvements to the property made since the purchase in 1997. I am confident that those change the formula upward. While the boom days often gave a multiplier above cost to improvements made to properties we are now back to a more realistic percentage of the cost as a return on the investment. The better the execution the higher the percentage.
As for someone being “legally retarded” you are way way off. Remember that people purchase with emotion and in your own admission the place is gorgeous. Think how many people purchase much higher priced versions of the same thing based on a look. Consider clothes, cars, watches, and hotels as they are great examples of things that people are willing to pay substantially more for and are mainly based on a look or emotional attachment. It will never get to the 700’s. You my friend are confused! That 1997 price was way under market. I heard that it sold to an insider at that time. Had he been given the chance a good friend of mine would have paid much higher price at that moment in time.
Sabrina – or anyone else – is there a way to track how long it was on the market before contract back in 1997 or is that information long gone? That would prove my point that my friend claimed about it being a private or inside sale.
“Exemption from capital gains from primary residence of $250k ($500k m-fj).”
On the filings for my 2-flat the IRS basically views them as two seperate properties–one primary residence and one investment. So, if you were to rent the third floor, that wouldn’t be exempt is my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong. Then maybe I can give Icarus an example.
“On the filings for my 2-flat the IRS basically views them as two seperate properties–one primary residence and one investment. So, if you were to rent the third floor, that wouldn’t be exempt is my understanding. Correct me if I’m wrong. Then maybe I can give Icarus an example.”
Could be. Still, it’s a hook. And 15% LTCG isn’t bad if you can structure the depreciation to eliminate OI now (and for several following years).
“Could be. Still, it’s a hook. And 15% LTCG isn’t bad if you can structure the depreciation to eliminate OI now (and for several following years).”
Oh, yeah, not a bad deal at all. The expenses with depreciation far outweigh the income and it’s a nice deduction against my other income.
Icarus–I think the best thing is to review this IRS publication: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p527/ch02.html