Foreclosure Alert: Wicker Park Mansion Reduced $1 Million: 1220 N. Damen
Looking for a foreclosure deal?
This 5-bedroom new construction mansion at 1220 N. Damen in Wicker Park just came on the market. It is already bank-owned.
The listing says it has been reduced by $1 million from its original asking price.
Don’t be fooled by these beautiful pictures. A tipster tells me that the agent’s notes to the property describe it as having been “striped” and that it “needs bathrooms.” The bank is also offering a $20,000 credit.
If anyone sees it, please report in.
Jim Murrin at Jameson has the listing. See the listing and more pictures here.
1220 N. Damen: 5 bedrooms, 4.5 baths, 2 car garage, no square footage listed
- Sold in November 2004 for $415,000
- Originally listed for around $1.8 million in 2007-2008?
- Lis pendens in December 2007
- Bank owned as of February 2009
- Currently listed for $899,900
- Taxes of $7526
“PERFECT FOR A DEVELOPER OR REHABBER LOOKING TO FINISH A HOME & MAKE A PROFIT.”
Really? You can legally say shit like this on listings? Fail!
Does anyone know more about this place? It’s a shame if it doesn’t look anything like the pictures. I’m generally not crazy about new construction, but someone did a nice job on this home.
Well, the pictures clearly show no appliances (other than the kitchen hood) and the bathroom pics only show tubs. There do seem to be a couple doors, but other than that, what else is there to strip that has value? Tearing up th efloors is just destruction, no?
Honestly even if it is missing bathrooms and appliances, at ~800k for a semi-finished-luxury 5 bedroom this might actually sell.
For more dramatic effect they should’ve had their initial ask at $2.9 million. Then when the realtor is telling their client this place has been REDUCED TWO MILLION and is SIXTY SIX PERCENT OFF they won’t be able to resist and buy.
Heck if it was me I would list for 1.1 trillion, who could honestly resist a price cut of hundreds of billions of dollars?
I don’t know how I missed the fact that the kitchen lacked appliances. If that’s the worst that’s been done, though, $900,000 seems like a pretty good price. What else am I missing?
Though, Damen is pretty high traffic in this area and I’m not a fan of tile or stone floors in living rooms or dining rooms, but at this price, if there isn’t much else wrong with the place, sounds like a great deal.
But my first offer would be at least 20% less than asking.
Yeah, I gotta say, if this is “striped” it’s not bad at all. But Sabrina, maybe the agent literally meant “striped”–because there are a lot of them in the design as it turns out. 🙂
Bedrooms seem skimpy for luxury. I wonder if the five can be pared down to three.
pfugly interior. i’d strip it more before i finished it.
also very close to damen/division intersection – gas station and strip mall right there, ugly, noisy.
KW:
Floorplans here: http://www.metroprorealty.com/iprop/files/1220_north_damen_avenue_p54300_4.pdf
Doesn’t look like you could easily combine, but also the master, while “skimpy” at 15×17, is part of a full floor master suite.
What’s shocking is that it appears that two of the bedrooms have *no closet*. How do you build a $1mm home and have bedrooms without closets? Oh, because you need room for the stupid elevator. What’s with the elevators in sfhs, anyway?
Oh, and I forgot to note the skylight in the middle of the roofdeck looking down into the master bathroom. Good times!
thanks, anon (tfo). Yes, a very poorly-thought-out build. Too bad.
yes. you can legally say that in the listing.
and that is not stripped. the best stripped place ive seen so far had the toilets,sinks, bathtubs, furnace, ac, breaker box, switches and outlets and the wiring right out of the pipe!, kitchen appliances, counters and the cabinets all removed – the tile backsplash was left on the wall, light fixtures, shower fixtures, towel and tp holder gone, it was pretty cool and i did admire the guy who went balls out to take all that stuff
Why would you have a balcony off the master bathroom. I would agree. This one looks complete to me. Adding some doors and appliances could be left to the homeowner not a developer.
Elevator? That’s hilarious. I don’t know if I’d even trust the elevator in that house. Looks like amateur hour. let me guess, this is a wamu loan, right? I’d put money on it. If i didn’t have to run to court I’d look it up myself.
I still think that this might be a good deal. What do other homes of this size go for in Wicker Park?
“I still think that this might be a good deal.”
It might be, if you want to live in it for a number of years, and the only issues are as pointed out here. I think it’s too big a risk as a high-end “fixer”.
“Oh, and I forgot to note the skylight in the middle of the roofdeck looking down into the master bathroom. Good times!”
sounds like a good place for a spiral staircase 😛
Looks like Liberace got into the real estate flipping game. They probably could sell the place if they really did strip out all that gaudy decorating.
CountDeMonet on March 4th, 2009 at 1:10 pm
yes. you can legally say that in the listing.
No, technically that’s a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Good luck getting punished though. LOL.
“sounds like a good place for a spiral staircase ”
There’s actually a spiral staircase on the bedroom balcony giving private access to the hot tub area.
i don’t think it is. this description speaks to the partially stripped condition of the property. fair housing covers race/color/religion/sex/handicap/familial status/national origin. its possibly that stating “perfect for developers” may be construed to be discriminatory against familial status but i haven’t seen an example of that yet. you have a case you can point to? id like to know before i get in trouble
““sounds like a good place for a spiral staircase ”
There’s actually a spiral staircase on the bedroom balcony giving private access to the hot tub area.”
This old house is currently featuring a yuppie couple who put in a spiral staircase in the middle of their brownstone. At least they weren’t hipsters.
The elevator isn’t required since this isn’t in a development of over x (can’t remember the number) of units. And it’s huuuge for a residential elevator. It looks like the plan of some kind of strange social club or bordello….
Count, you can promise profits in real estate?
I know that’s a huge nono in my line of business.
#
CountDeMonet on March 4th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
i don’t think it is. this description speaks to the partially stripped condition of the property. fair housing covers race/color/religion/sex/handicap/familial status/national origin. its possibly that stating “perfect for developers” may be construed to be discriminatory against familial status but i haven’t seen an example of that yet. you have a case you can point to? id like to know before i get in trouble
Case law has decided that “Perfect for X” is essentially stating a preference for X. Or in this case, it’s stating that the physically handicapped should stay away.
But like I said, good luck getting any sort of punishment. I’ve seen hundreds of violations in the MLS and nobody gets in any trouble. Then again, I’ve never seen something particularly egregious like “Perfect for white folks” or “Family home in a conservative neighborhood.”
right. i get the reciprocal thing about stating “perfect for x” is the same as “no y” but in this case the reciprocal of “perfect for a developer” doesn’t seem to create an exclusion or preference against a protected class. i wouldn’t have thought that “perfect for developer” meant “no physically challenged”. like you said the egregious examples are easy to decide, but i haven’t seen any concrete examples or decision on statement like this. i can see how it could be a problem under the law, but given the how popular “perfect for developer or rehabber is” i had assumed it fallen on to the right side of the law for the reason i stated earlier. any links? i would love to be shown solidly wrong here.
“Case law has decided that “Perfect for X” is essentially stating a preference for X. Or in this case, it’s stating that the physically handicapped should stay away.”
I also don’t get that.
A physically handicapped person can’t actually “fix up” places, probably is what he means. Then again, he/she could hire people to do that.
And again, you real estate agents can promise profits in listings? Nobody has answered that question yet.
“Count, you can promise profits in real estate?”
Unfortunately for all of you who think this is a promise, you are all wrong. At no place in the listing do the words “promise” or “guarantee” or anything else even remotely close come to the forefront. Furthermore, the context in no way is an implication of such a promise. The statement made by the listing agent is as follows:
“PERFECT FOR A DEVELOPER OR REHABBER LOOKING TO FINISH A HOME & MAKE A PROFIT.”
At best, this is “puffing,” which is a sales person’s words or phrases used to promote a sale without making specific warranties. The terms in this are not specific enough to breach that threshold.
So, YES, he can say that stuff in a listing; if you are ignorant enough to believe that if you purchase a home you will surely make a profit just becuase some guy says so, then maybe you should not be spending this much money on a home anyway.
“real estate agents can promise profits in listings?”
How does “PERFECT FOR [someone] LOOKING TO … MAKE A PROFIT” constitute a guarantee? Or does every investment disclosure have to say “Perfect for someone with money to lose, if things don’t go well”?
sonies, i had totally glazed over the “profit” part. yeah promising profits can be a problem, but given that its in the listing agents description its kinda meh. if the agent representing the buyer says “i guarantee to you, my buyer, that you will make a profit” thats going to be a bit worse. personally i would never promise profits. maybe somebody should just report this and lets see what happens? i might learn something
So there are 6 offers on the house as of today. The agent advises if you cant close in 30 days, pay cash and make an offer above the list price, then you will not have a chance.
“Or does every investment disclosure have to say “Perfect for someone with money to lose, if things don’t go well”?”
Um, yes? That’s the way it is in the real investment world. You can’t just tell people you’ll make money with no downside, you have to explain both sides of the coin if it is being marketed as an “investment”.
Sonies,
Methinks the hurdle to obtaining a realtor’s license is probably a bit below any NASD securities license.
“That’s the way it is in the real investment world.”
So, anything that implies that it is something that someone seeking to make a profit would be interested in is prohibited? Interesting.
Still don’t get how “PERFECT FOR [someone] LOOKING TO … MAKE A PROFIT” implies any guarantee.
Perfect for X person to “FINISH A HOME & MAKE A PROFIT.”
Is what the listing reads, which implies that if you finish the home you will make a profit. Which isn’t the case at all. That’s my beef with it.
From the looks of that family room photo, I’d hate to try to figure out where the furniture should go. And it must be even worse on the main floor where you have the front door and the stairs to contend with. Why aren’t any of these houses being built with real entryways and walls to enclose the formal living room? Because that would draw attention to how tiny the living room really is? Or is this all just an illusion and the family room is wider than it appears in the photo?
I also agree with the Liberace comment. Covering every surface in marble doesn’t make a home look expensive. It just makes it gaudy.
“Is what the listing reads, which implies that if you finish the home you will make a profit. Which isn’t the case at all. That’s my beef with it.”
And every Mutual Fund advertisement I’ve ever seen implies that their fund (1) out performs and (2) always goes up. What’s the difference? Some stupid 6 point disclosure at the bottom?
I bet you don’t like ads that imply that hot chicks dig fat dudes who drink Coors Light and will fight each other over a Miller Lite. It’s advertising, of course it implies something that isn’t true.
Oddly enough, I haven’t come across too many real estate listings that tout their money-losing potential.
On the other hand, going out of your way to convince a hapless buyer that the property is a great deal, when it clearly isn’t, is questionable at best.
“Or is this all just an illusion and the family room is wider than it appears in the photo”
The floorplan shows a maximum interior width of 17 feet and a few inches–I think that makes the family room about as narrow as it looks.
“6 offers on the house as of today”
I wonder how many were from developers vs. regular buyers
what a gaudy place. i wouldn’t buy the place b/c i’d have to strip everything out and re-start. who has tile in their homes nowadays?
“Elevator? That’s hilarious. I don’t know if I’d even trust the elevator in that house. Looks like amateur hour. let me guess, this is a wamu loan, right? I’d put money on it. If i didn’t have to run to court I’d look it up myself.”
Good guess Homedelete. But it’s Citibank.
this one went to TEMP (temporarily off the market) status yesterday, 3-4-09.
I was searching the MLS looking for misleading profit-making remarks and found the following:
GREAT MONEY MAKING RESTAURANT, NET PROFIT 80,000 ESTIMATED. GREAT MEXICAN FOOD. OWNER IS RETIRING. FOR INTERESTED PARTIES CALL OWNER OR VISIT RESTAURANT. ASK FOR JESUS. ALL EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN PRICE.
I think a lot of sellers are asking for Jesus right now…
“VISIT RESTAURANT. ASK FOR JESUS. ALL EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN PRICE.
I think a lot of sellers are asking for Jesus right now…”
Hahahaha! Good find!
From the older 3033 Sheridan comments, Sabrina noted:
“From what I understand, to be considered a bedroom in Chicago, the room must have a closet.”
If that is true (I have no idea), then this house is a 3 bedroom, as two of the bedrooms don’t have closets. That’s an expensive 3 br house.
And every Mutual Fund advertisement I’ve ever seen implies that their fund (1) out performs and (2) always goes up. What’s the difference? Some stupid 6 point disclosure at the bottom?
They advertise that their fund beat the average because their fund did indeed beat the average. It’s called survivor bias. Funds that don’t beat the average are shut down and a new one started. Therefore all of your funds are either brand-new or have beat the average.