Rare Chance to Build “New” in East Lincoln Park: 2106 N. Hudson
This single family home at 2106 N. Hudson in East Lincoln Park recently came on the market (sorry about the bad picture).
Some might remember it if looking in Lincoln Park, as it was also listed early in 2017 and sold a month later, in February.
Built in 1886, it appears to have some kind of landmark designation.
From the prior listing, which called it a “writer’s cottage”:
“R5 zoning allows for SFH or multi-unit construction of over 6,000sf above grade. Landmarked facade eligible for property tax reduction w/ 8yr tax freeze to someone willing to invest at least $35,000 into the home. A tremendous opportunity for the right owner occupant or investor or developer to consider.”
It is on a 25×135 lot.
The current listing says “create your dream East Lincoln Park home.”
There are no interior pictures with the listing.
After being owned by the same family since 1993, it was listed in January 2017 for $799,900 and sold in February 2017 for $860,000.
It has now come back on the market for $1.2 million.
Are East Lincoln Park historic lots this hot that it can command this price increase less than a year later?
Emily Sachs Wong at @Properties has the listing. See the one picture here.
2106 N. Hudson: listing says 5/3.5 bath, 5000 square foot house could be built here
- Owned by same owner since 1993
- Listed in January 2017 for $799,900
- Sold in February 2017 for $860,000
- Currently listed for $1.2 million
- Taxes are $13,381
- 25×135 lot
HUGS NOT RUGS LOLZ!!!!
GOOD BAND SPACE (PRACTICE).
GO SPORTS TEAMS LOLZ!!!!!!
FIRST.
@AbeFrohman Dude what is your point. If you’re going to post, post something non-stupid.
Thomas – that’s just Abe – don’t worry about him.
What I do worry about is someone paying 1.2mm for a freaking tear down/total gut job? What?! This is so delusional.
“paying 1.2mm for a freaking tear down/total gut job? What?! This is so delusional.”
Someone just paid $860k–8% over ask!–for it in February. That makes it “aggressive” rather than delusional.
“Someone just paid $860k–8% over ask!–for it in February. That makes it “aggressive” rather than delusional.”
I think its called the Greater Fool Theory. lol
They aren’t building any more land in lincoln park!!! Buy now or be priced out forever!
“paying 1.2mm for a freaking tear down/total gut job? What?! This is so delusional.”
You’d never be granted a demolition permit to tear down this house, as it’s located in the Mid-North historical district and because it still retains much of its vintage form; the best you could do is to renovate it like the broker’s photo shows – expand it in the back yard while keeping the front. The *rare* exception is to find a house in the neighborhood with no vintage character left, appeal/plead to the city and the neighbors, hope for a miracle, and start from scratch. This is/was probably the very last one, and it’s right across the alley from the Hudson St home: https://www.trulia.com/homes/Illinois/Chicago/sold/20608296-2125-N-Cleveland-Ave-Chicago-IL-60614
Price? The Cleveland house just sold last May for $1.5 and it’s already gone. $1.2 in this small pocket of protected LP isn’t unrealistic for a house that needs a total renovation, but also includes the holy grail of old houses here – a 2 car garage.
“Seller is a licensed broker but not listing agent.”
…I’m curious why this is in the remarks. What difference does it make?
“Seller is a licensed broker but not listing agent.”
…I’m curious why this is in the remarks. What difference does it make?
It’s a required disclosure.
I love the fact that the listing has bedrooms, bathrooms and dimensions for a home that doesn’t exist. By this standard, brokers will be able to put down whatever they want the house to be, rather than what it actually is.
“paying 1.2mm for a freaking tear down/total gut job? What?! This is so delusional.”
it would make more sense if the facade was worth saving and it had some beautiful architectural details.
something like this…
https://chicago.curbed.com/2015/7/21/9938364/lincoln-park-workers-cottage
@ Matt – – agreed. I think this happens a lot and I am not sure what, if any, ethical standard is applicable. but this house actually does exist and those may well be the actual dimensions of the current spaces in the home.
@Liz you and I are on the same page about the practice of putting not-yet-in-existance specs in the listing. Everything about this listing indicates that the specs listed are that for the non-existent house, not the current house. In fact, the Redfin insights point out that there are currently only two bedrooms, one on the second floor and one in the basement. The listing clearly states that there are three bedrooms on the second floor. So it seems fair to say that it is for the proposed house.
I don’t think this is acceptable because it leads to absurd results. One could make outrageous claims such as “Master bedroom is 100′ x 25′” (theoretically possible if you expanded the house and took out all existing bedrooms) or “Lot is 125′ by 125′” (sure, if you acquired the four adjacent properties). I think it is only appropriate to list what is there and, if you have plans for a replacement building, describe them in the comments. Not the specs.
” I think it is only appropriate to list what is there and, if you have plans for a replacement building, describe them in the comments.”
C’mon, Matt, it’s just a bunch of numbers.
Like the phony square footages that they use all the time.
” I think it is only appropriate to list what is there and, if you have plans for a replacement building, describe them in the comments.”
“C’mon, Matt, it’s just a bunch of numbers.”
Is someone really going to be deceived by this? Isn’t the issue that they want this to show up on searches for someone looking for 3 bed up or whatev house? Doesn’t seem that unreasonable in the day of automated searches.
“Is someone really going to be deceived by this? Isn’t the issue that they want this to show up on searches for someone looking for 3 bed up or whatev house? Doesn’t seem that unreasonable in the day of automated searches.”
If that’s the theory, shouldn’t you also show the price as including the actual cost of building that house? I’ve searched for particular square foot, br & ba specs in a particular price range & wouldn’t want to get back a result that is clearly way beyond my means!
“I’ve searched for particular square foot”
So, you get a whole bunch of garage results right off the bat.
“If that’s the theory, shouldn’t you also show the price as including the actual cost of building that house? I’ve searched for particular square foot, br & ba specs in a particular price range & wouldn’t want to get back a result that is clearly way beyond my means!”
I’m just saying I understand why they did that and it’s so clearly not the details for the actual house that it’s unlikely to be deceptive. It’s pretty easy to discard this if you are really limited to $1mm or so. And really are you expecting to get a 3bd+ sfh in ELP (is this really nonny ELP?) for $1mm? Also, frankly, it’s not the listing agent’s biggest concern if it shows up on some searches where it’s not relevant.
I’d be more concerned about puffing up stats for an actual house being sold where it’s likely to be deceptive. This is just potentially inconvenient for some house searchers and potentially helpful for others.
“garage results”
garBage results. Garbage.
@anon(tfo) and DZ:
Yeah, good points. But I’m not necessarily limiting a search to SFH’s. So if I am looking for 2000+ square feet for up to $1.3 MM and want me search to report back on townhouses, condos or houses, I wouldn’t expect that result to include “Development opportunities” where the property would end up being north of $2.5 Mill.
And, yes, I do understand that a lot of puffery often goes into square footage claims!
The house only has an “orange” designation with landmarks which means it can be torn down after a 90 day “review” period. Not hard to do.
“The house only has an “orange” designation with landmarks which means it can be torn down after a 90 day “review” period. Not hard to do.”
theoretically, the city can change the designation during that review period. still a bit of a risk on a purchasers part.
“The house only has an “orange” designation with landmarks which means it can be torn down after a 90 day “review” period. Not hard to do.”
If it was so easy, why doesn’t the current owner do it to assure the new buyer that it’s possible? I would hate to give the current owner $360k more than they paid only to find out that I couldn’t actually build there.
“theoretically, the city can change the designation during that review period. still a bit of a risk on a purchasers part.”
And I guessing that’s what happened to the current owners who bought the property just last February. Color coded designations may mean one thing outside of a historic district, but quite another thing inside Mid-North or even Old Town, where the members of those boards can be brutal; Mid-North is still licking its wounds after what they feel was a total defeat regarding the Children’s hospital site, and they’re in no mood to play. And then you have the deep pocketed/highly organized neighbors themselves who pay big dollars not only for their houses, but also for the gaurentee that their neighborhood/street will continue to look the same for years to come. Yeah, probably not a good idea to buy in a historic area of you don’t absolutely love history.
jay, that was a most informative and insightful comment. i’m not
being sarcastic either.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Fo45lyVi4ToJ:https://www.cityofchicago.org/content/dam/city/depts/zlup/Historic_Preservation/Agendas/CCL_Oct2017_Draft_Agenda.pdf+&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
Current owner additional plans got rejected by the landmark commission, so they’re trying to find another sucker
Another sucker? Not likely with that absurd price hike and this precedent in place. Thanks for the link, very interesting.
“Current owner additional plans got rejected by the landmark commission, so they’re trying to find another sucker”
Wow. What a scumbag. This is near to outright fraud. Their plans got rejected, but they are selling the property as though those plans can still happen. I hope they end up losing money on this place. What jerks.
hopefully suzanne does her research
Absolutely Jenny. Scumbag is the apt word here. The massive price increase they want makes it outright sickening. PXM – thanks for sharing that. Hopefully any interested buyer find this before offering; maybe even through some SEO magic linking them to here!
2106 N Hudson
“The proposed hipped-shaped rooftop addition is a substantial alteration of an existing inappropriate change to the building that would be visible from the public right-of-way, would not be in conformance with the adopted standards and Commission’s guidelines, and is not approved.”
So Mr. Kyle Rockey – how does this justify a whopping $340k increase?!
Thanks for the link pxm, very interesting.
So if I’m reading the city’s report correctly, they want the front of the house to be restored (ala the rendering in the listing), and all additions should not be visible from the street. So maybe you have to tweak the later and “inappropriate” dormer/roofline addition, but given that this is a deeper than standard lot at 135ft, I’m not seeing why this couldn’t be an ample sized, modern if that’s what you want, home. This house did a great job on a lesser lot and without the benefit of a roof altercation: https://www.estately.com/listings/info/217-west-eugenie-street–1 Plus, I’m not seeing a garage on the linked property regardless of what the agent says; Hudson would have a 2 car garage.
I don’t think any suckers are involved with the property, now or in the future, only greedy and blatantly stupid buyers/listing agents who think that by retaining an old 2×4 that’s sticking up from the ground, somehow equals a cheery green light from landmarks and a neighborhood that actually adheres to the long established (1977) building guidelines. Build your fantasy castle *outside* of a HISTORICAL district idiot.
Actually, this house dates to circa 1872 or ’73 and was most recently owned by a single family since 1973. Most of the ad copy refers to what the buyer “could create”—not what currently exists.
Sold in June for $885k.