The Housing Bust Lives On: An Auction at 1300 W. Altgeld in Lincoln Park

1300 w altgeld #2

This 2-bedroom in Altgeld Court at 1300 W. Altgeld in Lincoln Park recently came on the market.

This complex was built in 1991 and has 44 units.

The units are all loft-style duplexes.

There aren’t any interior pictures with this listing. It’s being sold “as-is.”

From the listing:

Property is occupied and occupants are not to be disturbed or contacted under any circumstances. Interior inspections are not available. Property is at Auction, all Auction terms apply.

The auction will apparently take place from March 18 – 22.

A lis pendens was originally filed on this property all the way back in May 2008. From public records, it appears that the bank took it back in April 2015.

But buyers still can’t get in to see it (see above).

Will this sell at auction or not?

Who’s a target buyer for this? It appears from the listing that it might be cash purchases only.

Peter Koconis at Rising Realty has the listing. See the outside pictures here (no interior pictures).

Unit #104: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, duplex, no square footage listed

  • Sold in November 1991 for $272,500
  • Lis pendens filed in May 2008
  • Appears to be bank owned in April 2015
  • On and off the market since 2008
  • Re-listed in March 2017 at auction and sold “as-is” for $585,000
  • Unclear if that includes the parking (but parking WAS part of the original 1991 sale)
  • Looks like it might also be a “cash only” sale
  • Assessments of $397 a month (includes scavenger and snow removal)
  • Taxes of $8434
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer hook-ups in the unit
  • Bedroom #1: 15×13 (second floor)
  • Bedroom #2: 12×12

12 Responses to “The Housing Bust Lives On: An Auction at 1300 W. Altgeld in Lincoln Park”

  1. Looks like a squatter’s domain. If there’s no lease, can they be removed for trespassing after the sale takes place?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  2. “Looks like a squatter’s domain. If there’s no lease, can they be removed for trespassing after the sale takes place?”

    Probably have to evict them or get yourself some extra-judicial remedies…

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  3. I wouldn’t pay more than 60% of full market value on this one. Chances are that the squatters will fight any eviction action and it will take at least 1 year to file eviction, and get them out since they will likely game the system. On the way out, the squatters will also likely cause lots of property damage. So you would have tot tack on about $100k for repairs.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 2 votes)
  4. Here’s the comp:

    https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1300-W-Altgeld-St-60614/unit-134/home/13361854

    No way they sell for the same price.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  5. Or maybe it’s closer to this one:

    https://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1300-W-Altgeld-St-60614/unit-132/home/13360961

    But (1) I doubt it, and (2) no way they sniff even 90% of that ask.

    Might be a deal, for someone, at something under $450k.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  6. “Probably have to evict them or get yourself some extra-judicial remedies…”

    Thinking about hiring Moose & Rocco

    If they dont have acoustic deck, they are going to be extremely loud units

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  7. “I wouldn’t pay more than 60% of full market value on this one.”

    Yet there will be someone who will pay market value for this one even with the tenants in place.

    One thing I’ve learned about real estate is not to underestimate the ability of someone to overpay for property. There are no deals in real estate.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 4 votes)
  8. This place could be upgraded to handle Jan Terri’s band practice. She could also handle the eviction, just set her up with a case of Old Style.
    GO CUBBIES!!!
    good bless.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 3 votes)
  9. Matt the Coffeeman on March 14th, 2017 at 4:40 pm

    Here’s an odd question, what if you are trying to evict the “tenants” but, while you are doing it, they violate the association’s rule and start racking up fines. Who’s responsible for paying them?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  10. “while you are doing it, they violate the association’s rule and start racking up fines. Who’s responsible for paying them?”

    It depends on the association bylaws. But as a general principle, it’s going to be the owner who is responsible for the fines.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +3 (from 3 votes)
  11. ” But as a general principle, it’s going to be the owner who is responsible for the fines.”

    But only the worst of boards would go after the new buyer for violations of an unwanted existing tenant. Most reasonable boards would file their own eviction action for any number of reasons.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +2 (from 2 votes)
  12. I think it’s only the previous 6 months the New owner can be legally liable for. And of course, they would have to work that out in negotiations. Lots of boards just write off the lost fees as bad debt.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply