SFH Alternative? The 3/3 Duplex Down in East Lakeview at 536 W. Oakdale
This 3-bedroom duplex down at 536 W. Oakdale in East Lakeview came on the market in February 2012.
Since then, it has been reduced $15,000 to $674,000.
The listing says it has 2 living rooms with a living room on the main level and a family room on the lower level.
The kitchen has upgraded finishes include Viking and Bosch along with granite counter tops.
There are cherry hardwood floors throughout.
The unit has a private front patio and garage parking.
It is listed $6,000 over the 2008 purchase price.
Does this unit appeal to those who would otherwise buy a single family home in another neighborhood? (since there aren’t any SFHs in THIS neighborhood in this price range.)
Michael Zucker at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #1: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, no square footage listed, duplex down
- Sold in April 2008 at $668,500
- Originally listed in February 2012 for $689,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed at $674,000
- Assessments of $250 a month
- Taxes of $9623
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Garage parking included
- Bedroom #1: 16×12 (main level)
- Bedroom #2: 14×12 (main level)
- Bedroom #3: 11x1o (lower level)
- Family room: 21×14 (lower level)
What is the realtor laughing at?
(1) The buyers in 2008 who paid $668,500
(2) The fact that they are now trying to sell this place for $674,000
(3) The red adirondack chairs on the patio
(4) All of the above
Wow, that’s an ugly building. It’s a shame, they probably bulldozed a nice graystone two-flat to build this.
LOL. And NO details on the realtor site. Just sad…
$550k tops. I feel like I should have some sort of intervention for my fellow 2008 buyers to make them understand that they WILL lose money if they sell now (and in the foreseeable future).
Strangely I don’t mind it. I thought the listing was pretty well done although I would have preferred a floor plan.
Questions:
So is it cut face block? Even using Bing maps, I can’t tell.
What’s the lot size?
Is it wide enough for 3 cars to park in the back?
Augh, I hate these places. My brother rented one with his buddies (on Larrabee) from a family that bought and moved out of state. It looked almost exactly like this without the upscale appliances. Call me crazy but I don’t want to put my dining table in the same room as the living room and kitchen. It’s all one room without any differentiation between the living spaces. Give me a dining room! It’s just generic, I don’t care if you put in nice appliances or how pretty the bathroom tile is, you can put that exact stuff into an old home with some actual character, but you can’t add character to a box…
“Wow, that’s an ugly building. It’s a shame, they probably bulldozed a nice graystone two-flat to build this”
How many nice graystones did they bulldoze to build the even uglier 4+1 next door.
Cue the Amy Winehouse soundtrack…..
Tryin to make me live in a basement I say no, no, no!
Sure this has some space however it is a poor alternative to a SFH. If you really want the amenities of the SFH there are many better options. I’d look at a neighborhood tradeoff vs this option. Better for the proverbial roommate share for some recent grads who have one rich parent that will cough up the down payment cash. That could work.
Good one, Jp3! Love the Amy Winehouse reference.
Trying to decide which building is less attractive: This one or the four plus one next door. It’s actually pretty close. And yes, a distinguished old graystone three-flat was almost certainly torn down to build this monstrosity. The rape of East Lakeview’s side streets, which began in the 1960s with the four plus one craze, just never ends, does it?
$450,000 tops. These inexpensively and often poorly constructed 3-flat and 6-flat condos will rapidly depreciate as they age, plus it’s hard to project a classy image when your neighbor is a “4 + 1” 60s tenement building.
“And yes, a distinguished old graystone three-flat was almost certainly torn down to build this monstrosity.”
From the historical aerials on google earth, *really* looks like it was a two-story building, but so hard to tell sandwiched bt the two monsters.
“These inexpensively and often poorly constructed 3-flat ”
This sucker is a 4-unit–only the basement gets two floors.
I’m curious how far back those historical aerials on Google Earth go, anon. Any idea?
What a shame the old building was torn down.
“I’m curious how far back those historical aerials on Google Earth go, anon. Any idea?”
Oldest I’ve seen anyplace I’ve looked on google earth is 1999. Quality is all over the place–some of them are crap.
“What a shame the old building was torn down.”
Could easily have had a compromised foundation or other structural issue that made anything else prohibitive.
“What a shame the old building was torn down.”
also, appears to have been built in 1909. Architect FW Thomsen, owner Charles Regler.
Looks like Thomsen was pretty active
I had to look at the google street view but after a quick check I now get today’s theme. It’s old girlfriend day. How did you figure that out Sabrina? I had a cool girlfriend that lived in the 525 W. Oakdale building around the same era (Note that they were not overlapping) as the one in the other post at 1749 Wells.
Recall that parking was a pain in the ass in this area. As for the hood it was a pretty cool block but mainly for rentals. It would not be a street that I would purchase to raise my family as this unit suggests.
Despite the bad parking there was easy access to some good shops as well as decent options for transportation downtown.
There are good 4+1s and bad 4+1s, just as there are good and bad hirises, 6-flats etc.Over the past couple decades several of the better 4+1s went condo, others are well-managed rentals. The features that made them attractive to young renters/buyers in the 60s are still relevant today: attached parking, elevator, a/c units and laundromat, plus locationlocationlocation.
lol @ 4+1 condos. They’re my favorite things in the universe.
After reading and studying the comments on this website for about 6 months, I have come to the conclusion that if comments are taken at full face value, 94.7% of Chicago real estate is vastly overpriced, unalloyed crap. It is indeed a wonder that anyone buys property there!
Stylistically, I don’t like 4+1s. But I completely agree with Local Lassie that there are good ones and bad ones. I had a friend live in Edgewater and once you exited off LSD and started going up and down Kenmore Winthrop there were a ton ton of 4+1s in varying conditions.
Got any examples of well kept 4+1s in Lincoln Park Old Town Gold Coast that went condo?
There honestly is nothing wrong with 4+1s. I will just never understand anyone who would BUY a 4+1 condo when, you know, there are only approximately a gajillion of them available to rent.
But here is an example of my personal favo 4+1 condo conversion building. It’s so random.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/512-W-Barry-Ave-60657/unit-402/home/12617767
Wow that looks so much better than the ones in edgewater
If you’re familiar w/older building code, you’ll remember that “4+1” buildings took advantage of an oversight in code, which allowed 4-story wood frame apartment structure to be supported by a 1-story open frame concrete garage. (Not fireproof structure.) These buildings were intended as 25-year useful life cheap rental housing. Yes, they’ve survived longer than that. But we wouldn’t buy a unit there, or let our kids rent one. Perhaps admirers of “4+1” buildings are reacting to their relatively affordability plus sometimes diligent maintenance. Most “4+1″s are ugly boxes. Many have had a typically transient population, so interiors can be worn if not gutted and replaced by condo conversion.. They can be the problem building on the block if not a condo-conversion, and certainly a architectural blemish on the streetscape before the concrete-block builder-developer 3-flats and 6-flats. They often provide the “parking nearby” for vintage buildings..
Architect – Similarly, during the 80s and 90s some builders took advantage of the codes and buit those too-tall-for-the-street 3 and 4 flats. A prime example is on the east side of Ashland between Fullerton and Diversey. The top floor “duplex up” units tower over their neighbors like church steeples!
Ugh, a 4+1 h8r!
4+1s were just the natural extension of their predecessor: the late 20s three story (with “english basement”) courtyard, also designed at a uniform height so they did not need the expense of concrete between floors (or elevators, for that matter). They were also designed to pack as many units onto plot as possible, with light coming from the interior court, and lack common area space, just like the 4+1.
A developer is a developer is a developer. The 4+1 is just the courtyard on steroids: lightwells replaced the interior court, elevators and garbage chutes were standard for “modern convenience”, bedrooms were larger, the units had more closets for the postwar consumer, there was space right there for your car (!), and they all had that modern, fabulous wonder known as air conditioning.
4+1s are still all face brick and have interior firebreak walls. An all concrete 4+1 is rare, but then again, so is the vintage courtyard. 4+1s are no more “temporary” or “transient” than the 20s courtyard littered all over the north side, from RP to GC — the 4+1 is simply hated because of a boring/bland aesthetic.
I by no means LOVE the 4+1, but at least I’m realistic about what they are and offer.
My big beef about courtyard buildings (aside from lack of parking, which is understandable considering the historical period in which most were built) has to do with the often-awkward floor plans.
Some of the interior units will have the bathroom right by the entryway, with the bedroom(s) on the other side of the living/dining space. Now imagine emerging from the bath or shower, wrapped in a towel, dripping your way across the living room en route to the bedroom to get dressed – yuck!
Courtyard condos have plenty of their own issues for an owner, just like any building that underwent a rental-to-ownership conversion.
But I really just hope Sabrina spotlights a 4+1 condo, if only for the commentmania.
Funny, I know someone who lives in the 4+1 next door in sabrina’s photo