It’s Baaack! And Now Priced to “Sell”: 1013 W. Webster in Lincoln Park
We’ve chattered about this 3-bedroom condo at 1013 W. Webster in Lincoln Park several times since spring of 2008.
The last time we chattered about this property was in February 2009 when it evolved into a discussion about the “health” of the Lincoln Park market.
See our prior chatter here.
The prior price reductions apparently didn’t work. The unit is still available and has now been reduced by $236,000 from the original March 2008 list price.
It is a triplex with the master suite on the top floor. The kitchen has stainless steel appliances and granite countertops.
It also has a rare and much in demand 2-parking spaces.
The listing now says the owner has transferred and has priced the home to sell. There is a Relo Rider on all contracts.
Is this latest price the new magic number that will get this property sold?
Linda Broznowski at @Properties now has the listing. See the latest pictures here.
Unit #7: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, 2 car private garage with storage, no square footage listed
- Sold in July 2006 for $686,500
- Originally listed in March 2008 for $685,000
- Reduced
- Listed in April 2008 for $659,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in June 2008 for $649,000 (included the two car garage)
- Reduced
- Was listed in October 2008 for $598,888
- Reduced
- Was listed in February 2009 for $525,000 (two car garage still included)
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $449,000 (two car garage still included)
- Assessments were $271 a month in February 2009 (new listing doesn’t list any assessments)
- Taxes of $8975 in February 2009 (new listing says they’re “new”)
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- Master suite: 30×15
- Bedroom #2: 15×10
- Bedroom #3: 13×13
Short walk to church at least…
How about some new pictures or a VT? Jeez, put some back into it.
Wow I’m surprised this hasn’t been picked up yet. I guess the bankers cut Stevo’s letter of credit so he can’t snap this up.
The July 2006 sales price is ridiculous and probably fed all sorts of unrealistic expectations. Now that it has reduced almost $250K, it’s probably within a range of reason. What a bunch of crappy pictures – I always figure that the place won’t look quite as good as the pictures, but I don’t think that’s possible here. Good thing for the 2 car garage since whoever gets this place will be tired from all the stairs. They’ll probably drive to church.
Kinda reminds me of a Grad student’s apartment
The listing says “recently renovated” – really? I just hope that person that overpaid for this place in 2006 didn’t fund that missed project as well!
Can anyone tell me what is meant by “RELO RIDER ON ALL CONTRACTS?”
Thanks.
i’d like to to know as well!
“Can anyone tell me what is meant by “RELO RIDER ON ALL CONTRACTS?”
Thanks.”
“RELO Rider” basically lays out that you will get title from a relo co. The former owner may have already unloaded the property to the relo co under terms of some employment agreement (or is in the process of doing so.) The employer and relo co then risk having to sell the prop. The relo rider typically includes “as is” language.
Thanks G.
Just what this place needs – another strike against it.
If you thinkg that the July 2006 purchase for $686,500 was ridiculous, how about the fact it was financed at 95% ($651,950)?
The property is already owned by the relo company and you will be dealing with them, not the seller. Relo companies are an absolute PITA to deal with and simply having a relo company involved should cut the price another $25k just on principle alone.
The owner got robbed with that $686k price in ’06. No way this is a $686k property.
Unreal. Looks like maybe the company that transferred this wise investor took over selling it. Are my detective skills on again?
5% down on a wildly-inflated price? Again, unreal.
Elementary, Mr. Jon.
That company appears to be BNP Paribas Fortis. They treat their ‘Vice President, Middle Office’ well, apparently.
The transfer to the relo company hasn’t shown up in the public record yet.
so the owner isn’t getting hosed for his bad decision making, just his employer. Hope this guy is worth it.
Any taxmen out there, is the difference between the price he got from the relo company and what the place is actually worth/sells for considered taxable income??
At least that way there’d be a sliver of justice in this debacle.
Can you elaborate on “Relo companies are an absolute PITA to deal with and simply having a relo company involved should cut the price another $25k just on principle alone.”?
I’m not interested in this property, but I’m interested on dealing with Relocation companies experiences.
“is the difference between the price he got from the relo company and what the place is actually worth/sells for considered taxable income??”
Shouldn’t be. Seller gets his vs transfer price to relo co and BNP takes the LOSS vs income. So they get the taxpayer to help out here a bit that way.
And the “riding the market down” award of the day goes to…
I’ve been in this place. The layout is terrible. There was never a chance that it was going to sell for the original list price. It was priced way above anything comparable in the area, if you factor in the terrible layout.
Relo Co usually buy the property for less than what the owner could probably get selling on their own. They then “flip” the property to the new buyer and take the difference. In this case, the RELO company or the Company he works for probably is eating the loss which in this market I suspect there are quite a few losses being eaten…
Ran into an anti-flipping provision in a case like this where the property can’t be owned for less than 90 days before being sold again. The relo company only owned it about 30 days before the buyer put the contract on it. Fortunately, the only exception to the anti flipping rule is for corporate relocation. The relo company was trying their best to hide what they paid for the property. Title and deeds are recorded simultaneously with the buyers purchase so you can’t look it up.
“Relo Co usually buy the property for less than what the owner could probably get selling on their own. They then “flip” the property to the new buyer and take the difference.”
Huh. The one case I know specifically about (friend), the deed to the relo and from the relo were for exactly the same amount.
Good info Russ and G thanks
In addition to the terrible layout, the building is a disaster. Common areas aren’t complete, and the developer still owns at least one other unit. This was as of about 9 months ago, and seeing as he left the common areas undone for about 2 years, i’m sure he’s not finishing them anytime soon.
I’ve been in this place a couple times, the problem has never been the price, it is the lack of a condo association. It has been under contingency several times, but the prospective buyers are unable to get a loan each time. The unit isn’t luxurious, but it does have some nice perks, like a large, private 2 car garage that is connected directly to the unit and a very nice master suite. It is also possible that inspectors keep turning up some issue, though I can’t confirm that. either way, several times people have attempted to buy it.
“I’ve been in this place a couple times, the problem has never been the price”
Touche. If the problem has never been the price I’m pretty sure an all cash investor would’ve picked it up.
In fact in this era of E-Z credit the only transactions I would trust as smart money these days are investor purchases where they are paying all cash or contributing a significant amount of equity.
Whats probably going to happen if the price keeps getting cut is an investor will buy it and flip it by providing financing is my guess.
Hey Sabrina and Everyone,
This place is now under contract again. Just spoke with the agent listing the unit.
Thanks
John Vossoughi
773-678-7082
It’s under contract because it’s a STEAL at this price! Buy now or be priced out forever!
A “steal”, homedelete? Based on its original price, yes. Based on where the market is going? Hell no. We haven’t even approached the bottom yet. Fasten your seatbelt.
I believe that Mr Delete was being sarcastic.
My guess is $409,000. The seller finally unloads, the buyers think almost 10% off is great and everyone is happy until it it time to resell.
“everyone is happy until it it time to resell”
What do you think this place would rent for in ~5 years? At ~$400k, Buyer would be looking at a sub $3k nut. It would be at least plausible that the place wouldn’t bleed them to death (I wouldn’t go so far to say it might cashflow).
The developer went belly up and left town. It is the same developer that owned all the lots on Dayton in Lincoln Park.
The issue is that the association is not formed and the common areas are still raw. The property itself is worth a lot more than $400k when you consider is has 3 beds and a 2 car garage. You could rent each bedroom out for $950 and each garage space for $175 per month.
Looks like close to a 8.0% cap rate with easy rentals next to DePaul. Who doesn’t like 8% returns when the 10 year is at 3.5%?
“What do you think this place would rent for in ~5 years?”
That depends on what political/economic camp you belong to. The gold types estimate $150,000 (if you are even still acepting currency)/month. The “Obama is a socialist” types estimate $25,000 (mostly due to taxes)/month and the “Obama is our savior” types estimate $250.00 (you don’t need much money in Nirvana)/month. 🙂