Want a Big Lot in Roscoe Village Under $1 Million? Buy This 4-Bedroom Victorian at 1805 W. Cornelia
This 4-bedroom Victorian at 1805 W. Cornelia in Roscoe Village in North Center just came on the market.
It is built on a double Chicago lot of 50×125.
The house has a koi pond, a pergola with fire pit and a dog run.
However, there doesn’t appear to be a garage or any off street parking.
Two of the four bedrooms are on the second floor with two on the main floor.
The house has a cathedral beamed great room with skylights.
The listing says there is hardwood floors under the carpet on the main floor.
It also has a partially finished basement and central air.
Will the double lot trump the lack of parking?
Kenneth Marier at Prudential Rubloff has the listing. See the pictures here.
1805 W. Cornelia: 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, no square footage, no parking
- Sold in September 1995 for $93,500
- Sold in April 2002 for $335,000
- Currently listed for $899,000
- Taxes of $9965
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 17×25 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 15×14 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 8×12 (main floor)
- Bedroom #4: 11×11 (main floor)
“Will the double lot trump the lack of parking? ”
Will the double lot trump the train noise 150ft on BOTH sides?
No parking? Whats the point of having a double lot if you don’t have a 3+ car garage? My take anyway.
Was this home used as an in home daycare? Large playlot, carpet tiles (removable due to spills), open shelving, bright colors…
Why is this worth $600k more than 2002? The sellers are greedy. This house isn’t immaculate by any means
They should tear this down and build a double wide 8 unit monstrosity of brick and cinderblock. that would be awesome. why waste such a big lot on ONE stupid house when you can cram at least EIGHT units onto this space?
@ Local, I was thinking the same thing. Is this a discovery zone or something. truly ugly house
All I can say is this must have been sold on the “friends and family” plan in 2002, because we were looking all over this area and I definitely would have remembered this one as the homes with double lots were few & far between and always caught my eye.
“Will the double lot trump the train noise 150ft on BOTH sides?”
Stereo sound is superior to mono, clearly.
so who do you have sympathy (or contempt) for…
the owner who bought in say 2005 and cannot sell his property for any less than X or the owner who can sell for less (by paying mortgage down more with bonuses or whatever) but won’t?
from the pictures, because of the curve in the tracks, the train actually appears to be on 3 sides!! Oh, and not sure about any noise from the industrial-looking buildings on either side of this!
“Will the double lot trump the train noise 150ft on BOTH sides?”
I’m not sure this is terribly overpriced, I think it was underpriced in 2002. What are just the lots alone worth? Gotta be a good $700K just in land value, easy.
Icarus, I have contempt for neither. I have contempt for people who walk away or who bought with zero down and now expect the government to bail them out. …or people who think their principal should be reduced by the government.
“so who do you have sympathy (or contempt) for…the owner who bought in say 2005 and cannot sell his property for any less than X or the owner who can sell for less (by paying mortgage down more with bonuses or whatever) but won’t?”
I guess I have some sympathy (empathy?) for the former. Don’t really have any feelings about the latter (if such sellers can hold out, more power to them). It’s rather strange (and a little bit depressing) that some folks harbor contempt for those who bought at the peak. It’s the sort of thing that should probably be examined by a shrink or some sort of therapist.
“not sure about any noise from the industrial-looking buildings on either side of this!”
Whatever it may be, it would be a rounding error here.
Jenny that’s fair. I don’t think principal should be reduced by the government. I do think that if the government is going to reduce anyone’s principal it should reduce everyone’s principal.
Today must be “listings overpriced by $250,000” day.
Not this property, but does a double lot trump 1.5 bathrooms?
What’s back on the alley? Weird looking place, looks like original house up front, then two different additions going back?
“not sure about any noise from the industrial-looking buildings on either side of this!”
“Whatever it may be, it would be a rounding error here.”
Maybe they help insulate against train noise. (Just trying to stay positive.)
“Not this property, but does a double lot trump 1.5 bathrooms?”
If I’m choosing between a double lot with 1.5 versus a single lot with 3.5, for the same price, in a location I actually want to live in, yes!
“If I’m choosing between a double lot with 1.5 versus a single lot with 3.5, for the same price, in a location I actually want to live in, yes!”
Yeah, especially if the only significant functional difference bt the houses is the extra two bathrooms.
i walk by this pretty often. It is tucked away a bit and I’d love a double lot, the side yard is very nicely done.
Obviously some cosmetic work here. Someone down the block on Ravenswood just built a killer SFH from an old factory and this is also just down the way from the 3mm crib with teh basketball court on the roof. Still, overpriced, but I think it would move at about $750
RE: What’s back on the alley? Weird looking place, looks like original house up front, then two different additions going back?
From aboard the Brown Line it appears the back half was an addition. The roofing shingles are different colors, and it looks kinda weird.
Double lot with 1.5 bathrooms and no central air versus
Oversized Lot with 2.2 bathrooms with central air.
Double lot is priced higher but slightly more desired location. At what price point is “higher” too much/?
In my book the double sized lot trumps the 1/2 bath and central air. You can always add an extra bath or central air to an existing structure but you can not make land grow. When selling the property I suspect that the double lot will often have wider appeal to buyers including developers, dreamers, or claustrophobic people that have to live in the area. On the downside taxes and upkeep will be higher while owning the property.
This place is not exactly a “land value” deal due to that decent, fairly practical, but ugly structure. Given the odd pocket of land located under the el, next to the train, and across from commercial I suspect that it trades for about a 20% premium to raw land.
Anyone have an idea what the land value for this property would be?
Seriously?!?! $900k for an oddly added onto house surrounded by industrial buildings and trains on three sides? I don’t care if this is a double lot, the house is ugly, the location stinks and they didn’t even bother to put a garage on all that land. I’ll agree the 2002 price may have been low, but I think $900k is just as over-priced.
If someone WERE to buy this for the land, would someone really want to build a new house on this odd lot between industrial buildings with the trains? This lot seems far better as industrial zoning or something other than a home.
I’m definitely not saying I think the price is right (I have no idea, frankly), but I am curious what the lots might go for, although obviously the CTA & Metra sandwich has to be knocking that down. What would that rail-proximity hit be, 20%
” would someone really want to build a new house on this odd lot between industrial buildings with the trains? ”
The answer is yes. At the right price someone will value land size and ability to build an interesting shaped home even on this lot. The key word is “right” price. Anywhere near current list knocks out most dreamers and all real developers.
Many people have built interesting homes out of the industrial buildings located on Ravenswood. It would be one of those type of individuals. We live adjacent to the el tracks although our home is 40 feet above the tracks which is significantly quieter than living below the tracks! Just to clarify I would not consider this listing at market price for land. Perhaps at 25% to 30% below similar double lots in the area.
“JAH (April 24, 2012, 1:44 pm)
from the pictures, because of the curve in the tracks, the train actually appears to be on 3 sides!! Oh, and not sure about any noise from the industrial-looking buildings on either side of this!”
good call JAH, train three sides and as TB pointed out you can get a full view from it while riding the brown line.
its a hard call here at 900k, big lot, not bad house (inside), very nice area, big lot, but train on 3 sides and street parking?
Can someone explain to me why a $900k SFH on it’s own plot of land has taxes that are lower than many (dare I say most) $600-700k condos? Is it something in the tax code that favors SFHs? Or an unspoken “rule” of the assessor?
Given the condo owner would split the cost of taxes on the land and common elements, I would guess that, if they are taxed at an equal rate, a 600k condo would have lower tax bill than a 800k SFH. But I’m not sure that is the case.
“Can someone explain to me why a $900k SFH on it’s own plot of land has taxes that are lower than many (dare I say most) $600-700k condos? ”
If you want to get mad about relative assessments, check out 340 OTP. One fine example here:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/340-E-Randolph-St-60601/unit-5702/home/26794913
2008 sale of $2.2m (and a ’12 of 2.6) and taxes under $12k. Assessor “market value” under $750k.
anon: I don’t want to get mad at all. I’m just trying to figure out the rules of cook county taxing, working under the assumption that there is some consistency in the process.
I’m beginning to realize my original assumptions were faulty.
^^^
holy $%#%!!
That one has got to take the cake (the SSA adds another 3k, about a tenth of a drop in the bucket)
“working under the assumption that there is some consistency in the process”
its crook county, dont ever use that assumption even for the simplest things.
when i compare my tax bill to my parents tax bill its insane. and i am even on the low end of taxes because of non permits and owning for ~10 years. my parents have the senior freeze and exemption and having an insanely low assest value it comes to $700 per year.
yes people its not a typo $700 per year!!!!!!!!
“I’m beginning to realize my original assumptions were faulty.”
Yep.
But there is some consistency within each defined property type (12-ish residential types, with all condos lumped together), and each “neighborhood” (there are about 20 in Lake View T’ship, for example).
anon: On that example, I just can’t believe it. If Rahm wants to eliminate waste, step one should be hiring an intern to pour through the assessor’s website looking for properties like this. It is just so damn obvious that something is off here.
“anon: On that example, I just can’t believe it.”
Whole building is underassessed. But there is a *ton* of compression in the assessed values for upper bracket condos.
Here’s a 340 OTP 1/1.5 that’s assessed at 50% of last (’07) sale, and pending with an ask 12.5% above that last sale:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/340-E-Randolph-St-60601/unit-207/home/39723443
“my parents have the senior freeze and exemption and having an insanely low assest value it comes to $700 per year.”
Neighbors with the freeze and exemption, and an AV about the same as mine, have 85% lower taxes. And, if they apply, they get their water bill cut in (almost) half, becasue they get “free” sewer.
“Whole building is underassessed.”
Can a bystander appeal it for being too low?
“And, if they apply, they get their water bill cut in (almost) half, becasue they get “free” sewer”
heard that they want to take that away and start forcing the water meters.
“heard that they want to take that away and start forcing the water meters.”
As it stands, they get “free” sewer if they have a metter, too.
btw, if you (any of you) don’t have a meter–unless you water your grass like a golf course–get one. We’re running over 75% off our last non-metered year.
“btw, if you (any of you) don’t have a meter–unless you water your grass like a golf course–get one”
double lot, best lawn on the block, wifes garden. I am avoiding the meter like a sober girl avoids bob.
“As it stands, they get “free” sewer if they have a metter, too.”
hmm i will pass that along
“If you want to get mad about relative assessments, check out 340 OTP.”
Most likely due to error by the assessor’s office (Houlihan’s old regime.) Last appeal was in 2008, which was the last year of the prior reassessment period. The units got vacancy relief for partial year occupancy. Vacancy relief should be coded as “one year only.” Simplest explanation is that it wasn’t properly coded as vacancy relief, so the 2009 triennial reassessment was adjusted off of the reduced 2008 assessment instead of the 2008 full assessment. In addition, the 2008 full value was likely low to begin with due to an allocation of a total value, as opposed to individual unit values, since the PINs were new and the building incomplete when the total valuation was determined. This last point also explains the very low initial taxes on many new condos. Let’s see what happens to 340 OTP in the upcoming 2012 triennial reassessment.
“Can a bystander appeal it for being too low?”
It’s my understanding that only a taxing body can appeal (or intervene.)
“All I can say is this must have been sold on the “friends and family” plan in 2002, because we were looking all over this area and I definitely would have remembered this one as the homes with double lots were few & far between and always caught my eye.”
Good call. It has 2 PINs. The house was bought in 2002 and the lot in 2005 (with a Victorian “tear down” apparently still on it.) Total purchase price of $745,000.
house 14-19-411-014
6/1/89 closed $58,000
9/19/95 closed $93,500
4/30/02 closed $335,000
lot 14-19-411-013
6/16/97 closed $185,000
6/1/05 closed $410,000
“I am avoiding the meter like a sober girl avoids bob”
Haaaaaaaa that was funny!
I agree that there is too much room for interpretation on assessed values of RE in Chicago. Is there any municipality in the country that has a better clearer more fair system? How would it work? Maybe that 9/9/9 plan by the crazy horny pizza guy had some merit. There were things that I liked about that idea. No idea if the 9’s were the right numbers to get the end goal of XXX dollars but there is a number that would work.
“No idea if the 9?s were the right numbers to get the end goal of XXX dollars but there is a number that would work.”
But the question for real estate tax (and I’m assuming–yeah, at peril–that you’d apply the concept to RE tax, too) is all about how you define the taxable base–the *rate* everyone in Chicago pays is determined fairly, the problem is the value the rate applies to (just like with income tax, what constiutes “income”–marginal rates are somewhat high, because they apply to a relatively narrow base of “income”–braoder than it was before ’86, but not truly broad).
Ahh… now that makes a lot more sense. So then this house does seem overpriced, although I suppose they could have done some serious rehabbing (crazy paint color schemes aside).
“Good call. It has 2 PINs. The house was bought in 2002 and the lot in 2005 (with a Victorian “tear down” apparently still on it.) Total purchase price of $745,000.”