Selling Vintage in Logan Square: 2747 N. Spaulding
A lot of people have been wondering how Logan Square is holding up in this market. What about a property that is big, has in-unit laundry, a parking spot and is not far from the blue line?
This top floor unit at 2747 N. Spaulding is one of those. It was converted in the late 1990s.
Here’s the listing:
Top floor vintage 2 bedroom, 2 bath rehabbed home in intimate 8-unit building. In unit laundry, kitchen pantry, island and closets galore. Granite counters and stainless steel appliances. Separate dining area. Sunny bright living room. Jacuzzi style bathtub.
Large balcony off kitchen. Blue line subway is just steps away. Garage parking space included. Logan Square at its best!
Lino Darchun at Coldwell Banker has the listing. See more pictures and a virtual tour here.
Unit #3: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1500 square feet
- Sold in May 1999 for $172,000
- Sold in May 2001 for $221,000
- Sold in April 2003 for $230,000
- Currently listed for $289,900 (parking included)
- Assessments of $216 a month
- Taxes of $3,067
- Central air
They’re asking for right at 6%/year from the 1999 price and under 5% from the 2003 price. Not too bad! Still too much, in my mind, but certainly a reasonable asking price that they might get really close to from a buyer.
What do you mean? First you say they are asking for the right price, and then you said it is too much??? How much do you think it is worth?
At about $193/sqft, how much lower should they go?
“not too bad” compared to many other delusional sellers still seeking double-digit annual appreciation. “too much” as I wouldn’t pay that to live there (personal biases included). “reasonable ask” b/c someone w/o my personal biases might be enticed.
BTW, I in no way believe that that place is 1500 ft of liveable space. … Actually, I just checked the listing–it includes a pdf of the floor plan which states that the sq ftage is 1056. So it’s $274/ft.
When was the last time ANY property was listed with liveable sqft? not even the property assessor looks at that. So you still have to consider the 1500 ft. Is the 1500ft layed out well? that is another question entirely.
Jason–read the last sentence–the FLOOR PLAN on the listing website says it is ONLY 1056 sq feet. This isn’t about subtracting walls. It’s a typo or a clear misrepresentation.
Also, the assessor doesn’t have square footage listed for any of the condos in this building. Checking my own house, the assessor’s square footage is based on the outside dimension of the structure, but there is no way that an honest calculation of a place with 1056 interior square footage (and this sort of overall structure) would have a exterior footprint almost 50% larger.
It is hard to say without actually measuring the place, but it looks like the living room’s 16X16 measurement is not close. it looks like it should be more in the 20X20 range. Plus the halway full of closets and the bathrooms all add up to a lot of unused sqft.
Dude, are you the current owner?
HA! no.
Okay. And I’ll give you that floorplans are usually a bit off on the sq ft, but it (looks like it) was the original developers marketing amterials, so I doubt it would understand the total sq ft. And floorplans are definitely more reliable than realtor MLS entries. So maybe more than 1056, but nowhere close to 1500.
That said, I do think that 16×16 understates the living area a bit–it’s probably closer to 19×16 plus the bay.