Rarely Available 3-Bedroom Duplex Down Loft in Bucktown: 2035 W. Charleston
This 3-bedroom loft in the Manchester Building at 2035 W. Charleston in Bucktown came on the market in November 2020.
Built in 1895, the Manchester Building has 18 units and a parking garage.
It was converted into condos in 1990.
Here’s info from the Tribune talking about the development when the sales center opened in 1990.
The Manchester Building, 2035 W. Charleston St., was designed in the 1890s as a hospital.
The E-shaped configuration of the four-story structure was planned to contain the 18 wards and service areas of the institution. Each area received light from large windows on three sides.
The hospital was built as an affiliate of All Saints Cathedral, which still stands next door.
Parish financial problems forced the sale of the hospital shortly after it opened, and it was converted to multiuse light industry.
This unit is a 2500 square foot first floor loft that duplexes down.
The listing says it has 14 foot ceilings with beams and iron saddles.
The loft has exposed brick walls and industrial windows.
There are maple hardwood floors on the main floor.
The kitchen has a large island with a breakfast bar with seating, granite counter tops, a tile backsplash and stainless steel appliances along with a walk-in-pantry.
There are two bedrooms on the main floor, including the primary bedroom which has a walk-in-closet and an en suite bathroom with a double vanity and walk-in shower.
The third bedroom is in the lower level along with a full bath, the laundry room and a massive open space that the listing says could be a second family room.
There are 3 outdoor spaces including a covered balcony off the kitchen, a terrace on the lower level and a deck off the first floor family room that could be finished (on top of the garage perhaps? See pictures).
It has the features buyers look for including central air, a one car garage and in-unit laundry.
Listed at $899,000, is this a rare opportunity to get a large, truly authentic loft space for under $1 million in the hot Bucktown neighborhood?
Brent Jensen and Jeffrey Jensen at KW Experience have the listing. See the pictures here (no floor plan).
Unit #102: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 2500 square feet, loft, duplex down
- Sold in October 1991 for $220,500
- Sold in September 1998 for $468,000
- Originally listed in November 2020 for $899,000
- Currently still listed at $899,000 (includes one car garage)
- Assessments of $471 a month (includes exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $14,338
- Central Air
- Washer/dryer in the unit
- Wood burning fireplace
- Bedroom #1: 12×15 (main level)
- Bedroom #2: 12×14 (main level)
- Bedroom #3: 11×13 (lower level)
- Family room: 21×32 (main level)
- Dining room: 10×14 (main level)
- Kitchen: 16×16 (main level)
- Recreation room: 22×28 (lower level)
- Laundry room: 7×15 (lower level)
this place seems incredibly overpriced. Even fully updated it would be a stretch. That lower level is just terrible
the floor plans are in the virtual tour…
This posting is a mystery. It looks TERRIBLE nearly empty. What were they thinking? Recently a rental maybe? Sudden change in health / family situation after 22 years of ownership and they had to high tail it out of there? Weird. Also, given the amount of work needed this is overpriced. I say something starting with a six gets it done. The baths and the lower level are just gross. I feel like I can smell the lower level.
“the floor plans are in the virtual tour…”
I think she does it just to get this comment.
Why do condos always include below grade finished space in the sq footage numbers but SFHs do not? I’ve always wondered this. Are there different rules in place or is just accepted practice? I get why a realtor would WANT to include it in a condo, particularly if it’s a sizable amount of the sq footage, but then curious as to why that’s never the case for a SFH. Perhaps the Assessor calculates the sq footage differently for a condo vs. SFH (i.e. below-grade counts for condo, but not for SFH).
“Recently a rental maybe?”
Very much appears to have been a rental, for a fairly long period.
It’s really just raw space–what’s a white box condo worth in B’town right now?
Here’s the (dated) comp:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2035-W-Charleston-St-60647/unit-104/home/171983257
Without addressing the supposed size discrepancy, the sold one is actually a livable place with reasonable finishes (I don’t like it, but no one cares), and was $739. Given the work and expense to make this place as nice as that one, there’s no way this is worth more than the same $739.
If it’s remotely true that 104 is 50% larger, and even if the extra is all in the basement, then lop off at least $75k.
$650 gets is done. Maybe.
“Why do condos always include below grade finished space in the sq footage numbers but SFHs do not?”
What do you mean? (yes, the *assessor* specifically excludes below grade space in SFH from its calculation, but that’s a diff thing)
This is the closet current listing for a SFH that includes SF:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1937-W-Dickens-Ave-60614/home/13356454
Do you think that “6000” (dubious!) is all above grade?
$550-$650k tops. It needs $100-$200k in work.
And here’s a “large, truly authentic loft space for under $1 million in the hot Bucktown neighborhood”:
https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1728-N-Damen-Ave-60647/unit-106/home/13355110
Or at least in Bucktown Terrace, or Place, or Estates. Close enough for any rational person for $200k+ less and *nicer*.
[ps: it’s also *in* Bucktown]
The Courtyard of Bucktown, like a satellite mall.
“What do you mean?”
I mean, either below grade (finished) living space should count in the square footage or it shouldn’t. It shouldn’t matter the classification of the residence. It’s inconsistent. Of course, I recognize that realtors/sellers sometimes are totally inaccurate with the square footage they list anyways, but having at least some consistency in this regard would make sense. If I’m sleeping in a finished bedroom in the basement, I don’t care if it’s a condo or SFH. It’s still a basement. And thus it should either count or it shouldn’t. (From a sq footage AND BR count perspective). Unless someone can give an argument as to why it should depend on the residence classification.
Not my style at all. Are they serious thinking someone is out there who’d pay this much?
There’s a reason some things are rarely available. If you really want a place like this you could always buy one of the nice comps for $700k and spend $100k ruining the basement and putting in dated finishes upstairs, and $100k in therapy.
That basement screams underground rave party, literally. Even with all that space, the bedrooms are small. I can see a few EDM fiends renting this and throwing parties, but that’s about it.
““What do you mean?”
I mean, either below grade (finished) living space should count in the square footage or it shouldn’t.”
I know *that*–I meant (but admittedly wasn’t clear):
where in holy hell did you get the idea that (in Chicago, at least) realtors don’t include finished basement SF for SFH?