We Love 2-Bedroom Townhouses With Roof Top Decks in Old Town: 1732 N. Mohawk
This 2-bedroom townhouse at 1732 N. Mohawk in the Old Town neighborhood of Lincoln Park has been on and off the market since November 2009.
In that time, it has been reduced $84,000.
It is now listed $64,000 under the 2006 purchase price.
The townhouse has the living/kitchen area on the main floor, 2 bedrooms on the second level and then a den on the third level with skylights.
It also has a 300 square foot private rooftop deck on the third level.
There are hardwood floors on the main level and both bedrooms have new carpet.
The kitchen has maple cabinets, stainless steel appliances and granite counter tops.
Built in 1988, it has central air and 2-car tandem parking.
Is this a steal for the location?
Scott Berg at Berg Properties has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #C: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, den, 1500 square feet
- Sold in September 1992 for $208,500
- Sold in June 1994 for $218,500
- Sold in May 2000 for $306,000
- Sold in October 2002 for $377,500
- Sold in August 2005 for $499,000
- Sold in April 2006 for $499,000
- Originally listed in November 2009 for $519,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in April 2011 for $439,000
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $435,000 (includes 2-car tandem parking)
- Assessments of $100 a month
- Taxes of $6435
- Central Air
- Private Roof Deck: 18×17
- Bedroom #1: 15×12 (second level)
- Bedroom #2: 11×10 (second level)
- Den: 11×10 (third level)
mmm, soggy deck furniture cushions. If anyone has a good solution to keeping / storing these I’m very interested (outside of a chest). Or if anyone has used cushions that really are rain proof also interested.
Look people you’re gonna have ta pay big to live in coveted the Old Town. It ain’t gonna be cheap. Pay up or move to schaumburg already.
“mmm, soggy deck furniture cushions. If anyone has a good solution to keeping / storing these I’m very interested (outside of a chest). Or if anyone has used cushions that really are rain proof also interested,.”
Once again, there is no easy answer – either you bring in the cushions every time you use them, hire a personal staff to remove them after you are done, or deal with soggy mildewy cushions. Again, just like dieting and keeping fit – there are no “easy” answers.
JJJ: I normally agree with your blacklist comments (though are you actually keeping such a list for yourself?) I’ll step up for the listing agent here: Scott Berg did not put superfluous ‘bright, sunny, etc’ type adjectives in the listing.
Unless you are personally blacklisting the Redlist agent for putting negative subjective terms onto the record then my objection is not relevant.
Id say this will go for $375k, because its an alley-side unit. Old Town is great, but an Old Town alley looks like a North Center Alley and every alley in between. Love me some rooftop decks though…
I don’t get the blacklist either–you have to show the exterior of the building–when you show the exterior for a highrise condo, you’re certainly not assuming the whole building is being listed. And who is to say that the back of the building, which would be facing west, would not be even brighter?
clio: Heh short of the hiring a staff that’s my thought process as well. I designed a bench system with large tupperware tubs in it to hold the cushions so that the effort was mainly lifting the seat up to retrieve/store. Though the downside was that the cushions would be slightly smaller than the lid.
Didn’t end up building the bench yet, that’s a project coming up.
Wicker – it’s good to dream, though, right? I have the same problem and now have just trained myself to put out the cushions on nice days and bring them back in as soon as I am done. It is a pain in the ass – but there really is no other good choice.
I thought Berg Properties was essentially a flat fee way for FSBO to get on the MLS
Correct me if I’m wrong Anon…
dahliachi,
I don’t have much nice to say about brokers but 1- you are correct. 2- Steve happens, as best I can tell, to be a stand up guy.
OT: opinions on 2141 W Lemoyne? Seriously considering putting an offer in.
Must agree you have to show the building. I have some rentals though and I don’t even show the building if they are rear units because it leads to alot of dissappointment when people show up. I just say it’s a “cool vintage facade with modern interiors” so people don’t get all up in arms. Anyway renters are so picky these days. I hate them.
“Anyway renters are so picky these days. I hate them.”
I agree – I don’t know what it is with the “renters mentality” but they expect five star hotel-type ameneties and service. Hopefully, soon, they will start to realize that they cannot be choosy unless they want to pay.
The one thing I can’t stand is that realtors can do this sort of shit and nothing happens to them whereas in other industries its a permanent, jailable offense to have this sort of misleading information out there
also the rooftop deck here doesn’t even have a south/city view nor a lake view…
it is basically a glorified gator deck
it’s old town/lincoln park, people are there for the neighborhood/location and not the view–bottom line, you have 300 square feet of private outdoor space–what are you expecting to see from the 3rd/4th floor even if you face the front?
Berg is a flat fee service.
I used them 3 years ago to sell a property. It works if you’re smart. I offered a 3% concession to buyer’s agents. Some NAR “cartel” members were turned off and did not show the property.
But, in the end, one agent did work with me, and he earned 3%, saving me listing agent fees (which really helped me at the time).
If you use Berg, you better offer a decent commission. Otherwise it’s just another FSBO.
“pictures of the interior of a different unit in the listing”
pretty sure a smart Redfin agent would then have addressed that in full–and also doubtful as the deck pictures show a west view.
“pretty sure a smart Redfin agent would then have addressed that in full–and also doubtful as the deck pictures show a west view.”
The diff could be largely about time of day–the unit’s windows (mostly) face north and west. The pix appear to have been taken on a cloudy but bright day in the afternoon. If the RF agent were there on a less bright day in the AM, then I could see both teh pix and the agent telling partial truths.
Oh, also, is it a blacklisting offense to *not* mention the public housing across the alley?
For real? Thats public housing? So now your alley-side condo faces public housing. Not a deal at all. I think they need to drop the price another 100K now.
free entertainment from your gator deck thats for sure
public housing is all over the city…however, the building behind the unit is in fact not listed as public housing.
“For real? Thats public housing?”
Former, I guess, which certainly makes some difference, but it’s the folks who were living there then:
http://archives.hud.gov/offices/oig/reports/files/ig951006.pdf
Also of interest, the Ass’n used MADIGAN & GETZENDANNER to get their taxes appealed, and the units now have lower assessed values than they did in ’02.
“The Redfin comment seems to be that the pictures are not that of the actual unit.”
I think you’re reading too much into it.
AND, the bedroom pic *clearly* shows the former-CHA condos, and not the trees that are on the Mohawk side.
agree. reading way too much into that comment. I don’t think the agent’s intent was to say anything other than it is small and dark. I don’t take anything other than that from it.
So is that public housing or not behind the unit? it makes a pretty big difference if this unit is on the alley side and the deck is over looking that. and if its not public housing, then what is it? I drive by there quite a bit and ever once and a while see some very suspicious looking characters.
no, it is not public housing.
double negative?
agreed.
but less negative than nitpicking grammar on a real estate blog.
“So is that public housing or not behind the unit? it makes a pretty big difference if this unit is on the alley side and the deck is over looking that. and if its not public housing, then what is it? I drive by there quite a bit and ever once and a while see some very suspicious looking characters.”
It is no longer public housing; it was built as public housing and, through the auspices of the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, the units were sold to the then current occupants in ’99/’00.
The current assessor’s values for the units range from 4,250 to ~5,500, which implies market values of about $42,000 to $55,000.
My recollection was dated, my apologies.
I just want the real answer, thankfully googlebot aka (anon-tfo) provided it in a coherent manner
It can be hard to tell the public housing properties apart from the non-public housing properties in this particular neighborhood.
Yes, an exterior picture of a property should certainly be shown. But here, it just seems like a misrepresentation. Granted, it’s one that will be corrected immmediately upon a showing, but do brokers really think that this sort of smoke-and-mirrors will work? Do they really think that prospective buyers will simply fall in love with the location (which is not so good) and the roof deck (which looks quite good), and quickly get over the whole alley-living thing?
There’s a $1MM asking place on an alley near here by the buddist temple that I couldn’t imagine paying for. Same demographic perhaps?
Thanks for the explanation anon (tfo), so do you have to meet certain requirements to live there, or are they just cheap condos now? Do they change ownership? Sabrina, maybe you make one of those a new thread.
“There’s a $1MM asking place on an alley near here by the buddist temple that I couldn’t imagine paying for. Same demographic perhaps?”
Gets much nicer over in that area. It really is amazing how much this city change from block to block. Right around that Buddist temple would be my ideal location to live in the city, but I wouldn’t live 3 streets over on Larrabee.
nearly identical rear unit on halsted went for $440k last year:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1717-N-Halsted-St-60614/unit-C/home/13347428
I truly do have to wonder what the owners are thinking with their -0.91% price reduction strategy? They can’t give it away?
Or perhaps they can only budge to the degree of their outstanding mortgage balance?
So maybe this one will drop $4,000/month as the owners try to dig out from under their sizable mortgage balance.
“It is no longer public housing; it was built as public housing and, through the auspices of the Low Income Housing Preservation and Resident Homeownership Act of 1990, the units were sold to the then current occupants in ‘99/’00.”
SO could I buy 1 of these and then send my kids to Lincoln?
Do their kids get to go to Lincoln?
I don’t understand how anyone knows one way or the other whether it is public housing over there. I can’t see anything. But, that neighborhood is filled with pub housing so you just never know. And on that point, the 1717 Halsted isn’t all public housing scattered. So that is a big difference. I want to buy something but I can’t find anything good. All that’s out there is crappy things for high prices. Unless I want to go in dirty old Pilsen.
I think the list is pretty close to what it’ll sell for. I bet $415K.
“Thanks for the explanation anon (tfo), so do you have to meet certain requirements to live there, or are they just cheap condos now? Do they change ownership? Sabrina, maybe you make one of those a new thread.”
I did not go thru the pins on ccrd (checked a couple), but it doesn’t appear even one has changed hands in a market transaction. The units just north of Willow are also part of the association. If my recollection of the Homeownership Act is at all accurate, the association has some tough restrictions on re-sale for a fairly long period–which would be an excellent basis for an assessment reduction, which they have won two years in a row.
“SO could I buy 1 of these and then send my kids to Lincoln?”
If you could buy one of them, yes, you could. But you could also rent a studio in the area; in both cases, you run the risk of the school investigating your *actual* residence and kicking your kids out.
“the 1717 Halsted isn’t all public housing scattered”
…but is a busier area a block from el tracks
Check out the sales history of unit A in the building. looks like it was also up for rent last year for $2,900 at some point
http://chicago.blockshopper.com/property/14333170521001/1732_n_mohawk_unit_a
unit A is a condo/flat, not the front or townhouse unit
“If you could buy one of them, yes, you could. But you could also rent a studio in the area; in both cases, you run the risk of the school investigating your *actual* residence and kicking your kids out.”
Don’t I just have to hide (or claim to have hidden) my wedding dress there?
“unit A is a condo/flat, not the front or townhouse unit”
look at the sales history in the link i provided
“Don’t I just have to hide (or claim to have hidden) my wedding dress there?”
Different standard for school attendance. He’d have had to have kept the utility bills in his name, too–city workers love utility bills as proof of address. Which is why I like the two flat with two rental units, but a 3d meter for common areas–bill for the address in your name.
“unit A is a condo/flat, not the front or townhouse unit”
3 units in the association. It’s not all THs?
“3 units in the association. It’s not all THs?”
appears it is front TH, rear TH, and flat condo.
“appears it is front TH, rear TH, and flat condo.”
Where? How? All ground floor? Talk about *dark*.
“Where? How? All ground floor?”
from the halsted unit my sister looked at last year, the flat is on the ground floor, the TH’s are above, floors 2-4.
“from the halsted unit my sister looked at last year, the flat is on the ground floor, the TH’s are above, floors 2-4.”
And someone paid $477k in ’07 (and $426 in ’03) to have *two* set of neighbors walking on their head? sheesh.
What’s a gator deck?
This place looks like a pretty good deal at $250,000.00
I take that back. The price should be $335,000.00. Sad, but true.
Valbie on May 9th, 2011 at 6:04 pm
What’s a gator deck?
A deck to watch the alleygators from, more commonly described as a garage top deck on the alley. Technically, its one word with a capital g and a capital d.
I always thought a townhouse meant you only share walls?
I can’t get a feel for the layout of this place at all from the pictures. It doesn’t help that the realtor seems more interested in taking pictures of the current owner’s furniture than the actual unit.
“I take that back. The price should be $335,000.00. Sad, but true.”
Jason, have you ever actually considered buying property in Old Town? I’ve lived in Old Town for almost 5 years, and honestly if this place was even listed at $335K it would have a about 20 qualified offers at or above list… one of them from me! I still think it’ll fetch around $415K.
“I always thought a townhouse meant you only share walls?”
I think it’s because it’s a 3-story and nothing is above the unit.
“The price should be $335,000.00. Sad, but true.”
Not sure what is true about that. I agree with JP$–with that location, etc., my guess is $420-425k considering that halsted unit went for $440k last year.
I know people that live on N. Orleans. Between N. Orleans and N. Mohawk is a not as nice part of OT
TB “It works if you’re smart. I offered a 3% concession to buyer’s agents.”
looks like they took your advice and are offering 3%…