Are There Deals in 1400 N. Lake Shore Drive in the Gold Coast?
This 3-bedroom bank owned unit at 1400 N. Lake Shore Drive in the Gold Coast recently went under contract after being reduced $60,000 by the bank since October 2010.
It is also currently listed 62% under the 2008 purchase price.
One of the rare 3-bedroom units in the building, it had been completely gutted and the listing said it was in the “drywall stage.”
The building was built in 1927 but was apartments for decades before being converted to condos right at the peak of the housing boom.
This unit does not have central air, in-unit washer/dryer or parking.
But it does have a location right on Lake Shore Drive.
There are several 2-bedroom short sales also currently listed in the building for under $215,000.
Are these deals given the location?
Rhett Schrock at Jameson Sotheby’s has the 3-bedroom listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #12N: 3 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in October 2008 for $463,000
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in September 2009
- Bank owned in June 2010
- Originally listed in October 2010 for $239,900
- Reduced numerous times
- Finally reduced to $179,900 in February 2011
- Under contract
- Assessments of $600 a month (includes gas, doorman)
- Taxes of $5030
- No central air- window units
- No in-unit washer/dryer
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 13×11
- Bedroom #2: 12×14
- Bedroom #3: 10×12
entire building is gross and should have been torn down
The problem with conversions in these old buildings is that they did not go far enough. Few buyers want to live without air conditioning and their own washer and dryer. This is especially true of buyers for 3 bedroom units (suggests the buyer is either a family or plans on this being a long-term residence). The only way these grand old buildings (many do have history, pedigree, views and great architecural details) can survive (given the higher than average maintenance costs) is to attract high end buyers who will pay a premium for vintage features and prestige. Your ordinary 1 bedroom buyer is generally not in the financial position of paying for upkeep (think costly facade repairs, etc…) while sacrificing practical amenities such as AC and washer/dryer.
Its not too widely advertised but this building used to be literally one notch above an SRO. Roach invested, smelled like urine on every floor, closet sized units.
Now sporting one of the cheapest, shortcut ridden rehabs in history.
If a real developer were to redo this entire building and spend real money it would be fantastic.
The condos are all pretty tiny, but thats something thats factored into the price. I checked out all the 2 bedrooms that went up for the Auction Jameson was doing in the fall, but ended up not bidding on anything.
There were just better offers out there at the time, having said that I think the buyer got a good price.
a local is 100% correct. They DID not go far enough. Updating the plumbing and installing HVAC would have been huge.
I still say tear this cr-p down and let them build something out….too late now tough
Listing comment of the month:
“Great Open Floor Plan”
What is actually the process of tearing down a building once it has gone condo, would someone have to buy up all the units or is there a way they could just have the support of 51% of owners and then force the others to sell?
What a disaster
Gesc – Basically the building would have to be condemned due to some structural issues or such. It would be VERY hard for a place like this to get torn down, no matter how much it may suck on the inside.
“it had been completely gutted and the listing said it was in the “drywall stage.””
It looks more like the “partially gutted, somewhat framed, cluster-f-ck phase”
As someone said, this is a mess, building should have been torn down.
So would their be a procedure for an investor to do something with a building if they don’t have ownership of a 100% of the units?
If the building is condemned do you lose everything?
Gesc – I think you would need a super majority (67%) before you could really do anything. Seeing as the building was recently converted, it would be a very long time frame to be able to acquire all the units needed at a price that made sense. Then to go through the demolition, planning and construction, it would probably over 10 years of aggressive work before you could get a new development going here.
These apts. should never have gone condo, and frankly, calling them apts. is overly generous. The “kitchens” were basically a reach-in closet, the bedrooms were tiny and the amenities non-existent. I am shocked, though should not be I guess, that anyone paid anything close to what they did in 2008. David is right, the building is gross. As a vintage lover I can assure you there was NO vintage charm, ever. It was indeed an SRO for yuppies.
You still have your percentage of the land value, but you first have to subtract all of the demolition and clearing costs (and costs of selling) So if the land is worth $12 MM, after subtracting those costs, perhaps 10 MM left. Assuming this unit (as a larger one) has ownership of 1.5% of building (I’m taking a wild guess here, as well as on land value), you’d recover about 150K. Bottom line, very few buildings are selling units at the land value, though some might be getting close.
“If the building is condemned do you lose everything?”
“assuming this unit (as a larger one) has ownership of 1.5% of building (I’m taking a wild guess here”
398 total units. pretty unlikely that any unit hits 1% ownership.
“Listing comment of the month:
“Great Open Floor Plan””
and the winner today is….
btw, LMAO
I’m thinking it would cost a ton more than that to take this down and cart it away.
“I’m thinking it would cost a ton more than that to take this down and cart it away.”
Someone tell Daley he can turn it into a park, maybe he will do it for “free”
This could be another Palmolive Bldg.!!!
What a sad use for such prime land. It’s problem with with the lake front property in Chicago. The nice neighborhoods (Gold Coast, LP, LV) on the lake have many ugly highrises built in the 50-70% with outdated plumbing and small, ugly interiors, but nice neighborhood amenities. Not so great neighborhoods on the South Side, like Kenwood/Hyde Park and north of there, have some great buildings (granted they need renovated, but have good bones) and not such nice amenities. If you relocated some of the buildings on the south side to the northside, you’d have Central Park West. Short of a few cash only buildings on the lake in the GC and a few coops on Lakeview, most of the buildings (excluding the few Mies) lack architectural interest.
“Not so great neighborhoods on the South Side, like Kenwood/Hyde Park”
Are you kidding me?
2 bed units at 1350 N LSD rent for ~$2500
http://www.firestarinteractive.com/dev/1350lsd/httpdocs/new/index.php?section=apartments_rates
apartments are the same size
assuming 25% down, and $50k to fully renovate unit (drywall, kitchen, hardwood) and assuming you can rent the 3 bed for $3,000, my math says an investor would cash flow $1200 per month (750 mortgage, 600 assessment, 450 taxes). So cashflows 15k on 95k equity. ~15% per annum
sure it doesnt have parking and A/C, but your steps from the beach, 5 mins from mich ave, 5 mins from old town, 3 mins from bars on division, has one of the best rooftops in the city, on the most expensive block in chicago (1400 Astor). mid 20 year-olds wouldnt want to live here??
“lack architectural interest”
building is in the national register of historic places
I evaluated this investment opportunity and passed due to superior opportunities, but don’t necessarily agree with above comments.
If I wanted to live in a place like this, it would be cheaper to just commit a crime, get caught and spend the next 30 years in jail.
LOL who in the hell is going to rent this POS for 3k a month, try 2200 maybe if you are lucky
“$50k to fully renovate unit (drywall, kitchen, hardwood)”
Please post the name and contact info of your contractor, if you are not a DIYer. TIA!
at the auction, the developer advertised a 50k gut rehab of the units through ALKO Construction.
http://alkobuilders.com/projects_1400lsd.cfm
“LOL who in the hell is going to rent this POS for 3k a month, try 2200 maybe if you are lucky”
maybe they could sell/rent this if they said charles bukowski lived here.
and, what’s with that ceiling? why would anyone want to lower an already low ceiling? was this place not feeling oppressive enough?
“at the auction, the developer advertised a 50k gut rehab of the units through ALKO Construction. ”
Were there 3/2s at the auction?
$45-50 psf seems plausible for a BS gut (that is, not quite actually striping to the brick/subfloor and building from raw space with new plumbing and electric runs), with very basic fixturing (which, of course, would be fine for a rental) when done in relative bulk. Hard to manage for an individual to contract one-off for and any “custom” stuff would be straight add-on.
i lived in this building a year ago….i was in a 2 bed 2 bath for 1500 a month and was in a 6 month contract….when i was leaving he was interested in even renting it to me for 1300 if i was willing to stay….i was on the 2nd floor and facing the lake..had a beautifull view….
the buliding was a piece of crap!…tearing it down would be a favor to chicago…
i wudnt buy a unit for 50 grand in there…the most illmanered staff iv seen in any building!
its a dissapointment for such a piece of crap to take up space on lakeshore drive
If you don’t have a car, don’t mind using a common laundry room, don’t mind window a/c, and don’t mind a somewhat “eclectic” renter population, and don’t mind elevators that break down, and don’t mind some occasional staff issues, this is a great place to live.
Keep in mind that all the new wood framing you see in the photos is a code violation and would have to be replaced with metal studs before you could qualify it as “drywall stage”.
This gets my prize for being the most POORLY CONCEIVED AND EXECUTED CONDO CONVERSION of the past decade – and that’s saying a lot!
The way it originally was going to work, per the spiel I was given at the broker’s tour back at the beginning of the project:
Current tenants were given the first option to buy their space. They could buy it as-is and get their own rehab loans, they could buy at a higher price to cover the developer’s rehab, or they could leave their current space, buy another unit in the building and opt for either as-is or finished.
Any units that the tenants didn’t want, were then going to be offered to the general public on an as-is or finished price.
Which means that the “conversion” was set up to be a mish-mash of old units staying as-is because the tenants were cheapskates, old units being upgraded while the tenant/owners were staying elsewhere; and units being upgraded for new owners buying as conversions.
Can you say “train wreck,” boys and girls?