Foreclosure Alert: New Bank-Owned Unit at The Sterling- 345 N. LaSalle

It’s been a bit quiet on the foreclosure front in The Sterling, at 345 N. LaSalle, in River North.

345-n-lasalle-_3.jpg

But a few keep appearing. Another 2/2 just came on the market already owned by the bank.

There is no square footage but here are the room sizes:

  • Living room: 13 x 27
  • Kitchen: 10 x 8
  • Bedroom 1: 16 x 11
  • Bedroom 2: 12 x 10

Unit#4303: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths

  • Sold in January 2004 for $616,500
  • Currently listed for $325,000
  • Rental parking only
  • Assessments of $380 a month
  • Taxes of $7,870
  • Jax Realtors has the listing

Remember Unit #206 which was a bank-owned unit that was on the market for months? It finally closed.

Unit #206: 2 bedroom,  2 bath, around 1200 square feet

  • Sold in September 2004 for $445,000
  • Sold in September 2005 for $600,000
  • Went into foreclosure
  • Bank originally listed it for $299,000
  • Went under contract in 2 days
  • Fell out of contract
  • Was reduced to $259,900 in February 2008
  • Sold for $259,900

27 Responses to “Foreclosure Alert: New Bank-Owned Unit at The Sterling- 345 N. LaSalle”

  1. wow, that price drop is insanity. It’s almost too severe to believe. what is going on there? does the building suck that bad?

    0
    0
  2. Streeterville Realtor on July 25th, 2008 at 10:24 am

    The assessment amount listed for 4303 is Not correct.

    0
    0
  3. is this building filled with mortgage fraud (which would explain huge price drops – as those older sales were fictitious) or have values really dropped that much? or just a combination?

    fraud experts?

    0
    0
  4. I have a real hard time believing a 2 bedroom went for 259, otherwise I would be all over this building. Whats going on here?

    0
    0
  5. “Another Exciting Result from American Invesco!”

    What a mightmare for those folks that actually want to live in the units they own and retain any value. Not to mention that I can only imagine the mess that the condo association must be dealing with.

    0
    0
  6. I live in the neighborhood and I’ll tell ya, this building has always been priced WAY too high. I just never got it. To say that it was ever worth 615K is just ridiculous. I’d say the current price seems low for a 2bd, 2bth in River North, but the reputation of this building is falling fast and the banks know it. I’m pretty sure the Sterling is the #1 most foreclosed high-rise in Chicago.

    0
    0
  7. If the 03 tier and the 06 tier are roughly comparable, that $325 price is a pretty fair premium for the 41 floor difference, isn’t it? Of course, the taxes need to come WAY down.

    As to the mortgage fraud, perhaps. But the real problem was the insanity that begat the concept that an apartment (no matter how nice–which these don’t appear to be) that might (might, might) rent for $3000/month could possibly be “worth” $600k+.

    0
    0
  8. Steven Heitman on July 25th, 2008 at 11:20 am

    This unit rented for $2,600. It is a good buy at $300k but you will have to deal with the building problems for the next few years…

    0
    0
  9. The 2004 and 2005 prices are clearly an example of what happens with cheap no-money-down financing. No way the buyers could have or would have bought at those prices with a 30 year fixed and a reasonable down payment.

    0
    0
  10. Why are taxes for Unit 4303 nearly $8K a year, while other newer buildings in better locations (with views of the lake) less?

    0
    0
  11. Oh wait, this is an American Invesco building? Figures. Let me guess, they started closings 2 years ago?

    Stay away from AI like the plague.

    0
    0
  12. “This unit rented for $2,600. It is a good buy at $300k but you will have to deal with the building problems for the next few years…”

    Good god!! A balanced assessment from Stevo!! And assuming it rented for $2600, the assessment also has the benefit of being correct!

    0
    0
  13. is there any truth to the rumor that the Sterling is sinking?

    0
    0
  14. I have a question for you guys.

    From what I understand, this place could rent for between $2000 to $2500. When you use a purchase price of $300,000 and add in assessments, insurance, and taxes, doesn’t the monthly cost end up being about $2500? So, my question is, how could buyers have justified paying over $600,000 for this unit, let alone, $325k.

    Sorry if it seems like a naive question, but I was trying to run the numbers to see if I could afford to buy the place and simply rent it, but the numbers haven’t been working out for me…

    0
    0
  15. We know it’s sinking financially, but are you saying it is sinking structurally?

    0
    0
  16. What is the best sit for tracking foreclosures? Just interested in seeing what is out there.

    0
    0
  17. Abhi – I think American Invsco, the developer, had a program that guaranteed rent for 2 years for investors. Maybe someone else can explain it. Or try finding some info about it from the other entries regarding the sterling.

    0
    0
  18. Condo Investor on July 26th, 2008 at 7:58 am

    American Invesco would guarantee you rent as well as paying the assessments and taxes for 2-4 years depending on the deal you recieved. Since rates were low and they steered these uninformed buyers into 3 yr interest-only arms, believe it or not they were cash flow neutral and on many cases positive. The problem comes when you start having to pay the taxes and assessments. They sort of did a reverse pricing of the units based on the interest rates so that an “investor” would be cash flow neutral for the first couple of years. Since rates were low they were able to get a much higher price for the units. There scheme only works in a low interest rate environment. I’m pretty sure they used their in-house mortgage brokers to get the loans and appraisals. I have no idea how any appraiser could have appraised these units for the previous sales.

    0
    0
  19. real estate fan on July 26th, 2008 at 1:03 pm

    Another poster mentioned that in some cases, at closing the developer would pay the 2 years taxes and assessments to the buyer upfront, so the buyer would pay, say, $600,000 for the unit and walk away from the closing with $100,000 cash (assuming 100% financing) plus the unit. Agree with Condo Investor: it is not clear how any appraiser could justify the prices on such a sale.

    0
    0
  20. I think the building is going to be decondoized and then American Invesco is going to turn the units back into condos.

    0
    0
  21. Gary, what do you mean it will be “decondoized” and then turned back into condos?

    0
    0
  22. Streeterville Realtor on July 30th, 2008 at 5:56 am

    Hi,

    4303 disappeared from the MLS. Does anyone know what happened? I can’t find it under Active, Pending, A/I, CTG, CLSD, etc. As if it never existed….

    0
    0
  23. 345 N. Lasalle #403, Chicago, IL
    Offered at $264k

    http://chicago.craigslist.org/chc/rfs/777744904.html

    0
    0
  24. Steve Heitman on July 31st, 2008 at 2:01 pm

    It is Pending closing Street

    0
    0
  25. Thanks for the update.

    0
    0
  26. Unit #3607 is listed for $319,900 and its a 2bed/2bath

    0
    0
  27. Does anyone here think its worth investing in a foreclosed unit in this building?

    0
    0

Leave a Reply