This Bank Owned 4-Bedroom Is Listed 35% Off The 2005 Price: 1601 S. State In The South Loop

This 4-bedroom single floor unit at 1601 S. State in the South Loop has been on the market since August 2012.

It is bank owned.

At 4500 square feet, it has as much square footage as a larger single family home in the neighborhood.

It has hardwood floors in the main living areas.

The kitchen has maple cabinets, some stainless steel appliancesĀ and granite counter tops.

It appears to have one car parking.

There is a fireplace, central air and washer/dryer hook-ups in the unit.

It’s been reduced almost $100,000 since it came on the market in August 2012.

The unit is now listed for about 35% under the 2005 price.

Is this a deal?

Ayoub Rabah at Great Street Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #7E: 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 4500 square feet, 1 car parking

  • Sold in November 2005 for $1,061,000
  • Lis pendens foreclosure filed in January 2009
  • Lis pendens foreclosure filed in August 2009
  • Bank owned in March 2012
  • Originally listed in August 2012 for $787,050
  • Reduced several times
  • Currently listed for $689,900
  • Assessments of $1300 a month (includes cable)
  • Taxes of $18,178
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer hook-ups in the unit
  • Bedroom #1: 14×14
  • Bedroom #2: 12×12
  • Bedroom #3: 12×10
  • Bedroom #4: 12×10

12 Responses to “This Bank Owned 4-Bedroom Is Listed 35% Off The 2005 Price: 1601 S. State In The South Loop”

  1. Blech. And I call BS on 4500 sq ft.

    0
    0
  2. agree about the 4500 sq. ft. Where did that come from (didn’t see in the listing?!). Added up the 8 rooms listed (all but the bathrooms, closets & hallways), and it comes to a bit over 1500 sq. ft. So I’d believe 2800 sq.ft., but not much beyond that unless they are counting balconies, garage space, hallways outside the unit, etc.

    Outside of building looks depressing. Inside of unit, depressing. Staging might help a bit (and closing the toilet before photographing!).

    0
    0
  3. Not a good enough location to be a SFH alternative. Assessments are very high. Who is the target market for this? going to be a tough sell.

    0
    0
  4. Target market was the developer. For free this would have been ok.

    0
    0
  5. Remind me to call this architect if I ever need a prison to be designed.

    0
    0
  6. At least this unit doesn’t appear to be right on the el tracks like some units here are

    0
    0
  7. You can get a large town home in this area for the same price. Why would anyone pick this instead? Maybe they are looking for the elderly marketing who can’t handle stairs.

    0
    0
  8. I’m aghast that someone once thought this unit was worth over $1 million.

    0
    0
  9. Bland and charmless with many design flaws (like the small, strangely-placed window in the living room) and tacky appointments such as the horrid little fireplace. It doesn’t look like 4500 sq ft.

    The assessments are awfully high for such a new unit. What will they be like when this place starts to age and needs serious work? Given the quality of a lot of buildings that went up in the South Loop especially, during the Rampage, it will probably need major work sooner than later.

    I can’t see a higher price for this than the fabulous unit on Surf that you posted next. The place on Surf even has lower monthly assessments.

    0
    0
  10. Who has 4500 sqft with bedrooms that small? I have 1000 sqft with a bigger bedroom,

    0
    0
  11. Sonies, this isn’t right on the el tracks because it is right above them. It is an east unit, so it faces the tracks but luckily they don’t run 7 stories high.

    This is such an ugly building. I’d agree that I’d prefer a townhome over this place at this price although you may not be able to get 4 bedrooms at this price….

    0
    0
  12. I’m familiar with this building & there is no way this is even close to 4500 sq ft. Also, Benjamon is right, the balcony is DIRECTLY over the el tracks. The tops of the trains are about 2.5 floors below you.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply