Bank Owned Gold Coast 3-Bedroom Finally Sells for 45% Under 2005 Price: 190 E. Walton
We’ve chattered about this 3-bedroom bank owned unit in The Regent at 190 E. Walton in the Gold Coast several times.
See our July 2011 chatter here.
In July, when it was still listed for $1.149 million, some of you thought it would sell from anywhere between $825 to $900k.
After another reduction to $999,900 in early August, the unit just sold for $862,000.
That is about 45% under the 2005 purchase price.
If you recall, the 3000 square foot unit had hardwood floors throughout and custom built-ins.
The kitchen had granite counter tops and a stainless steel breakfast bar.
There were marble baths and a 8×22 terrace.
Parking was included.
This building is a mid-rise which doesn’t have a doorman or any other amenities.
Did someone get a deal for this block?
Tina Culver at Sergio & Banks had the listing. You can still see the pictures here.
Unit #501: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 3000 square feet, 1 car parking
- Sold in October 1998 for $765,000
- Sold in September 2005 for $1.575 million
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in September 2009
- Bank owned in October 2010
- Originally listed in October 2010 for $1.395 million
- Reduced
- Was listed in February 2011 at $1.25 million
- Reduced
- Was listed in July 2011 at $1.149 million
- Reduced
- Was listed in August 2011 at $999,900
- Sold in late August 2011 for $862,000
- Assessments of $919 a month (includes water, building maintenance)
- Taxes of $17,162
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 14×13
- Bedroom #2: 10×12
- Bedroom #3: 11×13
- Family room: 14×20
holy f-in hell that is a huge price drop esp considering the last sale was well after the $hit had hit the fan. I believe the recession had even ended by sept 09…lol.
wait, how was it sold in in sept 09 and lis pendens filed same month?
A video tour of the property with Tina Culver:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aN6KPHyAg8
Right CH, what kind of underwriting was BofA doing with this one?
“wait, how was it sold in in sept 09 and lis pendens filed same month?”
Time line isn’t right, the $1.575 sale was in Dec-05.
Oh, also, the foreclosing lender was the Bank of Shorewood (face amount of the 2 loans on the unit: About $3.9mm), not BofA.
I was joking on the BofA thing. They’re pretty much the worst.
wouldn’t you rather live in this place for about 1-2k/month more? Isn’t the premium worth avoidin the uncertainty of a possibly declining asset? Also I think the penthouse apt is MUCH MUCH nicer than the subject property:
http://cribchatter.com/?p=7858 (click the link to the penthouse – it is on the last post of the thread)
In addition, I got to see the plans for the bar/lounge/restaurant they are building on the first floor (Grand Cru chicago) and it looks awesome! You wouldn’t even have to leave the comforts of the building to get food/drinks during those cold winter months near the lake!!!
Where’d the spambot come from?
by “this place” I meant the property I linked to – not the subject property.
tfo, are you saying that the 05 buyer took out an extra 2.3million on this place above his purchase price?
“tfo, are you saying that the 05 buyer took out an extra 2.3million on this place above his purchase price?”
Nope.
The mortgage taken out at purchase had a face amount of $3.1mm+, and the second taken out later had a face amount of $700k+. Unit held in a land trust. It’s not unusual (not common, of course) for a mortgage in IL to be for a *lot* more (2x is most common) than the amount of the note, as there is no tax (recording or otherwise) based on the amount of the mortgage.
So, I’d guess at 100% financing at purchase, with the $700k+ being a LOC which may or may not have been drawn at all (I’d guess yes, at least partly).
Also, if you want to use a land trust to hide your ownership, it would behoove you to *not* get into a f/c situation, as this unit demonstrated, as you will likely be individually named in the f/c. (yeah, yeah, bigger problems then, but still)
ban the spambot clio pls
“Nope…..”
so is the main benefit you can borrow 2x the value of the place, or is there a different reason for this?
“so is the main benefit you can borrow 2x the value of the place, or is there a different reason for this?”
It’s about the max that the lender can collect on foreclosure. Most lenders do it the other way around–Face Amount of $X, maximum amount secured is $2X, some just make the Face Amount $2X–most commonly in construction loan situations, with interest accruing and paid by adding to the principal. Could also make sense for an exotic (no, I don’t mean a vanilla ARM) loan.
I still don’t see why assessments are this high for no amenities. My 3 bedroom of same size in large building has heated parking, doorman, on site management, work out room, community/party room, outdoor deck, a track, and includes ALL utilities (including full cable, internet) except electricity for 1100 per month. That’s a $200 difference for so much more…
“ban the spambot clio pls”
OK – when I link to another CRIBCHATTER thread to make a very relevant comparison, that is “spam” – but when you post nonsense about inflatable rats and cheap cars, that is acceptable?!!! Sorry – but I have to point out the gross injustices on this site.
a local, maybe your building has many more units to spread the cost thinner per unit. a track? made me think of presidential towers..but those are rentals.
“but those are rentals.”
speaking of rentals…..ok, just kidding.
I thought properties in GC never lost their value : )
miumiu: “I thought properties in GC never lost their value : )”
Well, this is a distressed property, so you can’t count this toward any statistics. The rulz are complimicated.
Wow! I was considering this unit half a year ago. Never would I have thought it would go so low (and I’ve been a housing bear for awhile).
Last year I said the high end still had a long way to drop (but that the low/mid-tier properties were probably done depreciating). That turned out to be an under statement. Here’s to hoping prices don’t drop too much further