Deal of the Week in the Gold Coast? 1445 N. State Parkway
This 2-bedroom unit at 1445 N. State Parkway in the Gold Coast has been on the market since June 2009.
Despite price reductions that now total $70,000, it has yet to sell.
It is the cheapest 2-bedroom on the market in its building. Other 2-bedroom units have sold in the last 6 months for over $300,000.
The condo is a corner unit with what the listing calls “partial lake views.”
It has carpet, no central air and no in-unit washer/dryer (though other units in the building appear to have them so this may be allowed.)
It also doesn’t have parking- but valet is available.
Given the location, is this the deal of the week in the gold coast for a buyer willing to look past the current interiors/furniture in the unit? (all which won’t be there when you move in?)
Matt Laricy at Americorp has the listing. See more pictures here.
Unit #1602: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, no square footage listed
- Sold in March 1994 for $190,000
- Originally listed in June 2009 for $329,900
- Lis pendens foreclosure filed in October 2009
- Reduced several times
- Currently listed for $259,900
- Assessments of $840 a month
- Taxes of $3741
- No central air- room units
- No in-unit washer/dryer
- Valet parking
- Bedroom #1: 15×17
- Bedroom #2: 14×11
- Living room: 17×15
- Dining room: 8×8
- Kitchen: 14×9
I’m sure there’s an upside to this place, but to me it just looks like a classic ‘place old people go to die’ tower.
When you say it has valet, does that mean you pay extra in this building for valet rights as opposed to deeded space?
Assessments of $840 a month
No central air- room units
No in-unit washer/dryer
Valet parking
fail x4
Ugly dump, very reminiscent of 6030 N Sheridan Rd.
You really have to want badly to live in the “Gold Coast” neighborhood to settle for something like this.
Sometime within the next 20 years, this bad vintage of buildings, all the bland, fugly, boxy 50s and 60s MidCentury Modern buildings will become really and truly obsolete, and the units will have fallen in value so much relative to the surrounding ares that the owners will be bought out and the bldgs demolished by someone developing something more attractive and appropriate. I hear that 1000 N Michagan, the ugly green and white brick-fronted highrise with rust streaks on the brick work,is a prime candidate for demo and replacement at some future date. Many others will follow, especially as these charmless buildings age and become more expensive to operate.
The problem is there are so many units stretching up so high even if they get to River City pricing it would still take a good chunk of aggregate change to buy out every owner, so the fugliness might be around for quite awhile longer.
I must be one of the only people who actually like valet parking.
It won’t happen just this minute, Bob, and there surely is no impetus for it now, or most likely for another decade. Speaking of River City, I believe that disaster will be the first to go when there is once more a hot flash of development.
But I remember how, during my childhood many decades ago, developers couldn’t raze fine old Art Deco ‘scrapers fast enough. We’re sorry that happened now, for those were truly beautiful, excellent buildings,which dumps like 1000 N Michigan and River City are surely not.
What will provide the impetus is another wave of development fever, which will probably take another 25 years, in combination with much higher energy prices that will make these spectacularly inefficient buildings stunningly obsolete. They will be just ugly garbage impossible to heat or cool and that cost more to run every day, and they are sitting on prime lots.
In fact, there were plans afoot to buy out the residents of 1000 N Michigan and raze that place around 2006, but they didn’t go anywhere because the real estate bull market was getting really old and financing was really tricky. There was to have been another 40 story multiuse full of $3M apartments, like 1 Mag Mile or someplace.
Another issue with trying to buy out individual condo owners is holdouts. People know that as there are fewer hold outs available for a developer their ownership stake rises in value as the developer collects other units and needs them all.
There would have to be some mechanism for all owners agreeing to sell, which I think would be unlikely. Additionally there is no way to get them to force their hand as eminent domain can’t be used for things like this.
Laura, i respectfully disagree. I don’t think it will be ecomically feasible to buy up the units in high rises to be torn down, for land value.
Also, this building may have been built during mid-century, but I wouldn’t call this style “mid-century modern”. It does not reflect modern in the way the mies van der rohe high rises, for insance, do – elegant, simple, open, livable and filled with light from floor-to-ceiling windows, allowed by modern steel framing. This place feels enclosed, dark, with thick masonry-clad exterior walls bearing more resemblence to those found in a medieval castle than a truly modernist high rise.
some descriptives from Wikipedia etnry for mid-century modern architecture:
characterized by simplicity, democratic design and natural shapes… style emphasized creating structures with ample windows and open floor-plans with the intention of opening up interior spaces and bringing the outdoors in… eliminated bulky support walls in favor of walls seemingly made of glass.
“I hear that 1000 N Michagan, the ugly green and white brick-fronted highrise with rust streaks on the brick work,is a prime candidate for demo and replacement at some future date.”
My realtor, who has done a number of mission trips to the Middle East, affectionately refers to that place as “Beirut”
IF you think this place is ugly be glad you don’t live here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703415804575023483097973538.html?mod=WSJ_hps_LEFTWhatsNews
Stuyvesant town in NYC
Im laughing because I live just down the street in a similar building albeit with better views, same vintage and lower assessments.
Most of these buildings wont be torn down. They are actually perfectly fine structurally and with new windows, electrical system upgrades and improvements, like any old building, they will be just fine. They are great places to buy multiple units and combine them. Just watch out for high assessment buildings.
“Stuyvesant town in NYC”
Ugly for sure, but I still think 6030 N Sheridan takes the cake. For some reason ugly brick buildings don’t seem like quite the inferno deathtrap that ugly buildings like 6030 N Sheridan do.
Wo, Laura is well caffeinated today. I appreciate your attitude and I wish those properties would go away, but that’s not about to happen. I do agree that the property on North State is in need of a renovation, but that unit will sell at some point due to its location.
Regarding 1000 N. LSD, that building is stayin’ put. Although I don’t find the exterior or interior common areas attractive, there are some nice and expensive units there.
The chances of a developer coming along and buying up all of the units at a price agreeable to the unit owners simply will not happen. It doesn’t make economic sense at this time and it apparently didn’t make sense in ’06. Given acquisition and construction costs in ’06, someone must have been terminally optimistic in thinking they could pull that off profitably. 1000 Plaza, directly to the north, in my opinion, is an eyesore as well, but it ain’t goin’ anywhere either.
Take a trip to NYC and you’ll see horrid looking buildings (not sure if they’re condos or co-ops) in prime locations. There are several absolute dumps located on Central Park West that you’d be shocked to see. They’re not going anywhere either. Incredible location across from the park, Columbus Circle, a few blocks from Lincoln Center, and uglier than sin. But there they are and there they will remain for a long, long time.
I’ve frequently wondered about what happens at the end of the “useful life” of a condo building. Problem is that you have many owners– all with differing goals, timetables, economic situations, etc. Some may be elderly & just want to stay put for a few more years; some may be investors; some–people who’ve upgraded their units; some desperate to sell, etc.
The first tests will come with some of the 4 + 1’s , which may only have 100 or less owners & will also have a higher land value per unit, so when the land value = the total sales value of all units in the building, a teardown may be possible (but again, holdout issue mentioned above comes into play)
Those cases will be tough enough, but the units with 200-400 units or more will be a much tougher case.
It would be interesting to calculate how far the units would have to fall to approach “land value”. The other factor would be a repair to structure or components that becomes critically necessary and which is uneconomical.
I live (rent) in 1000 N Lake Shore – the one to the north on LSD & Bellevue. The assessments are up to nearly $1,800/mo on an 1800 s.f. 3/3 and over $1,000 on a 1200 s.f. 2/2, and the building still needs to figure out what to do about the atrocious windows. If at some point residents were faced with the choice between a buyout and a monstrous special assessment, I could see this bldg being torn down.
The holdout issue, while significant with any development, becomes more of an issue the larger the development as well.
For even if money is no object to the developer (possible in bubbly times like ’06), there is the chance that there will be at least one irrational owner in one of the units with larger buildings who won’t sell out at _ANY_ price. Yes these people exist. Economically irrational people do indeed exist.
“The first tests will come with some of the 4 + 1’s , which may only have 100 or less owners”
There are 4+1s that have been condo-ized? And people actually bought into those dumps? Ugh.
when condo-craze started, people assumed that condo buildings were nicer than apartment buildings. But then developers figured out that any building could get condo-ized. I believe that a significant portion of the 4 + 1’s in LP and Lakeview are condo; whether that portion is 1/4, 1/2 or 3/4, I don’t know.
Also–as others have pointed out, in a market where no one is likely to start building any replacement mid/high rises, the land prices are greatly reduced, so it will probably be many years before we see any of these teardowns of mid/high rises happening.
“There are 4+1s that have been condo-ized? And people actually bought into those dumps? Ugh.”
chi_dad, I understand your point. From what I’ve seen though, buildings of that age tend to have assessments within those price points given the square footage.
I agree about the window situation, they’re nasty. Unfortunately it’s ridiculously expensive to replace them. I live in a building about the same age and we’ve considered replacing ours. Two problems exist; the cost and no one will offer us a no leak guarantee. Nevertheless, at some point we’ll be forced to swap them out. Unless budgeted for, that will entail a special assessment which tends to temporarily screw up property values. Hope I move before then.
Back to your point though, a large building would have to be in dire straits for it to consider a massive buyout. Even then, it would have to be at fire sale prices in order for a developer to make it profitable.
Regarding my previous post, I think I may have goofed on the buildings’ names. I believe the big green thing is considered 1000 Plaza and the one to the north is considered 1000 LSD.
Dave – that’s correct: 1000 Plaza is the green hi-rise, 1000 LSD is the eyesore mid-rise. Incidentally, both buildings are fighting to keep their LSD addresses (neither building has a front door on LSD). The “legal address” of 1000 LSD is now 129 E Bellevue which, as of 2 weeks ago, is now painted prominently on the front entrance.
It’s unlikely many 4+1’s will be torn down since zoning may not allow as many units as these contain. Some have been given heavy make-overs – facadectomy’s as I call them – there is one on Melrose which one wouldn’t recognize as a 4+1. The better 4+1’s have, in my opinion, better layouts than a lot of newer buildings with bigger rooms and even hardwood floors. Friends of mine remember when they were new and considered to be hot – like all the red brick infill condos are considered today. The LA equivalent, the Dingbat (there is a book about these, I can’t find the name off hand), is very popular and many are being preserved.
This unit looks basically nice, if in need of a makeover. The 80’s replacement windows really hurt the looks of the building inside and out, but that’s all that was readily available back then.
can anyone show me a picture of a 4+1? I have no idea what you are talking about
http://forgottenchicago.com/features/chicago-architecture/defining-the-four-plus-one/
There you go.
“can anyone show me a picture of a 4+1? I have no idea what you are talking about”
They are the buildings that you see all around lakeview that were built in 50’s to 60’s, are four stories tall, plus a level of parking at or slightly below street level. A small entrance lobby in the middle. The zoning codes had some variance to allow the height and these maximized the number of units that could be crammed onto the land (usually 2-4 lots I believe)
The style leaves much to be desired; construction was often shoddy, and they are filled with starter apartments (studio/1 br.)
Here’s a link to one article:
http://forgottenchicago.com/features/chicago-architecture/defining-the-four-plus-one/
Developers usually budget 30,000 to $40,000 per unit for land value.
“The holdout issue, while significant with any development, becomes more of an issue the larger the development as well. ” by Bob
Our condo declaration has a clause which states that a vote of 75% of owners can “elect to sell the Property as a whole”. I believe that this clause is standard. No problems with holdouts.
Does anyone know if a Chicago building, with an association not controlled by the developer, has been sold after such a vote?
There are 4+1s.
NASTY!
Not only are they everywhere on Winthrop in Uptown and around Surf in Lakeview, they even can be found around my area of Old Town
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=1700+n.+north+park,+60610&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=38.963048,77.080078&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=1700+N+North+Park+Ave,+Chicago,+Cook,+Illinois+60614&z=16&layer=c&cbll=41.913215,-87.636724&panoid=cnsFdtnM-LiHLajzevxXSQ&cbp=12,269.32,,0,-13.06
BLEH BLEH GAG!
PRO-TIP: When you take photoes of a property for online listing, clean the efing coffee table, de-clutter the couch, for for the love of God, take your dirty bath towel off the freaking shower!
This must be the laziest agent/seller ever…