Foreclosures and Short Sales at 60% Off: 6030 N. Sheridan in Edgewater
6030 N. Sheridan is a highrise with 262 units in the Edgewater neighborhood along the lakefront.
At the height of the market, 1-bedrooms in the building were selling for up to $180,000. Now, with numerous of the units either in short sale and foreclosure, you can get one for 60% off that price.
Current building stats (out of 262 units):
- 15 for sale
- 4 for rent
Some may be both for rent AND for sale.
Unit #805, a 1-bedroom, is currently the cheapest unit for sale in the building. It is a bank-owned unit with the kitchen still intact (at least according to the one picture.)
There is no central air, only window units. And no in-unit washer/dryer. There appears to be some parking with the building.
Sally Crachy at Applebrook Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit#805: 1 bedroom, 1 bath, no square footage listed
- Sold in December 2002 for $134,500
- Lis pendens in July 2008
- Bank owned in July 2009
- Came on the market in late September 2009 at $57,900
- Assessments of $478 a month (includes cable and doorman)
- Taxes of $1594
- Bedroom: 11×15
- Living room: 16×17
- Kitchen: 10×6
Unit #1909, also a 1-bedroom, has been on the market since March and has been following the market down.
It has now been reduced by $50,200 and is still not selling.
Eva La Mantia at Grove Realtors has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #1909: 1 bedroom, 1 bath, no square footage listed
- Sold in December 2006 for $180,000
- Originally listed in March 2009 for $120,000
- Lis pendens filed in April 2009
- Reduced several times
- Was listed in June 2009 for $99,800
- Reduced
- Was listed in July 2009 for $90,000
- Reduced
- Was listed in August 2009 for $74,900
- Reduced
- Was listed in September 2009 for $69,800
- Assessments of $554 a month (includes cable and doorman)
- Taxes of $2140
Are any of these steals at these prices?
Regarding unit 805:
1) I find the picture of the windows extremely compelling. What was the agent thinking?
2) The assessments are more than the mortgage payment. It’s inevitable that somewhere, sometime, the assessments will be so high on a unit that they will have to sell the unit for $1.
It’s like renting, but with all the liabilities and none of the upside of ownership. What a deal.
I’ve looked at some units at the “condo canyon” and the assessments on many of them are also very high. Does anyone have any idea why…does cable and doorman really cost 550 x 262 = 144,100/month?
“Does anyone have any idea why…does cable and doorman really cost 550 x 262 = 144,100/month?”
Maintaining an aging highrise is expensive. They have to budget for all the exterior, hallway, lobby and other common area maintenance, repair and replacement.
Does anyone know the history of this building. When it was built? was it originally rental and when it went condo?
Got to love that special assessment runing for over a year. Make you worried what else is coming?
not only is maintenace expensive but a building of this size has evelators: expensive to maintain, expensive to insure; plus there is also the general insurance. For any mid-rise + building the most expensive items are a doorman, elevators, and insurance. Not to mention, something of this size has on-site management and probably a building engineer. All of which are expensive.
“Does anyone know the history of this building.”
laura should be chiming in soon she is the northside super expert.
anyone notice the fitness room is a chuck norris total gym and exercise ball?
“Maintaining an aging highrise is expensive. They have to budget for all the exterior, hallway, lobby and other common area maintenance, repair and replacement.”
Ok, makes sense – but what about other buildings of the same age. For example, this 2 bed, 1 bath at 3550 N LSD (http://dreamtown.com/properties/3550-n-lsd-904.html) is almost $100/mo cheaper while offering comparable amenities.
“3550 N LSD … is almost $100/mo cheaper while offering comparable amenities.”
That’s why you need to dig into the condo books. It could be as simple as a different attitude about reserves–one building may keep robust reserves, to avoid specials when something big breaks; another may keep the reserves lean, relying on specials for then-current owners to pay for anything major. Also can come from a combination of things like deferred maintenance, or overpaying long-time doormen, or thieving board members.
I looked at this building about 4 years ago when they were in the middle of renovations. I think it was apartments first and then they gutted the whole thing and made it condos. I also remember that the developer had some crazy financing options available and I’m sure these short sales and foreclosures are most likely units that used the developer financing option. As for the assessments, I’m pretty sure that the building needs new windows in the near future, so that has to cost some coin!
Tom,
If memory serves, this building was converted within the past nine or so years. I couldn’t tell you when it was built, but having grown up in the area I recall it being there when I was a little kid back in the late 60s.
I don’t know anything about this building, but, as you would expect, the older a building gets the more expensive it becomes to maintain.
This isn’t relevant to the age of the current place that I live in, but the breakdown of some of the costs are as follow: cable bill runs about $50K/year. The biggest annual expense is employee related (24 hour union door staff, 24 hour union maintenance, manager, management company fees, janitor’s apartment and misc. associated expenses).
Façade work has been killing the association since the city implemented a law about a decade ago. It has spent well over $2 mil. on that alone. Decorating costs and rebuilding the mechanics of a few elevators have cost close to another mil. Additional decorating costs are budgeted to be another $350K. The city’s pending life safety program will cost into six figures as well.
It hurts even more if the only revenue a building generates is through assessments. It can help if the association owns the parking garage or other income generating sources, but that’s not the case for many buildings.
I’ve owned units in smaller buildings (about 50 units) and larger buildings (200+ units). The larger buildings tend to have more amenities (if you want to call them that) than the smaller buildings, but the damn assessments always tend to be around $500/mo. for one bedroom units regardless.
What a disaster of a building!
I saw an interesting article on Bloomberg today: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601068&sid=an1vxMc2SMEU.
The head US economist at Deutsche Bank seems to think the US housing market is poised for a rebound based on: 1.) increase in August sales of new and existing homes; 2.) a decrease in inventory to its lowerst level since March 2006; and, 3.) the largest monthly increase in private residential construction since 11/1993.
I have not looked at all of the data recently, but this would seem to be inline with the Case-Shiller index and Case-Shiller v. CPI comparison coming back to the historical tread-lines. However, given the state of unemployment, it seems more appropriate to discuss stabilization before rebound.
I wonder if this “poised rebound” will encompass Chicago given the glut of downtown condos, and horrible units like the ones in this post. . .
On a side note, what is rent on a one bedroom in a comparable building in the “condo canyon”?
I rented a unit in this building for two weeks while my contractor finished up the interior renovation on my house (still went two weeks over schedule despite building in a month buffer – big surprise).
While some of the eastern exposures give you partial lake views (it’s on the west side of Sheridan, so your views are peaking around and through “The Malibu” on the east side), the building as a whole sucks. Hallways are dingy and smell musty, the elevators are terrible, and you have your typical, old, individual AC units. The worst part was, about every other day, we’d find a cockroach scurrying into our unit from the hallway through the half-inch gap under the hallway door. To the building’s credit, they did have weekly(!) scheduled exterminator service.
Good times, good times.
Tom, “Got to love that special assessment runing for over a year. Make you worried what else is coming?” I’m with you.
Also, (805) was that last pictures supposed to be of a fitness center?
I’m not a fan of this building as you can gleam from prior threads. That being said I think these are priced appropriately. $600 in taxes and HOAs and a mortgage of $250. Better run before that tax credit expires so you can get 10% off! Layaway sale!
Oh and I would never live here.
“3550 N LSD … is almost $100/mo cheaper while offering comparable amenities.”
Also, depends on # of units paying portion of doorman, elevators, etc. 3550 N. LSD has over 700 units, so each unit is paying a much lower proportion for expenses like doorman, elevators, roof, etc. Some costs escalate with size of building, but some do not. Smaller building mean higher per unit cost on those fixed common expenses.
I don’t know exactly when this towering hive was built, but it looks like a mid-50s-vintage deal.
The $57K price is about right. The place rents for about $1000, heat included. That means that you, as an investor, would have to pay the mortgage and HOA and insurance and special assessments out of that rent. It might be worth it, depending on your downpayment.
Most people affect to despise the mid-century moderns lining Sheridan Road, and I hate modern architecture, period. Every time I look at these places, I think, wow, 55 years ago these were hot, trendy, cutting-edge buildings. They were expensive and coveted. I think of all the architectural fads, one at least for every decade, and how sad and past their time such places look just 15 years later, and I wonder how long it will take today’s trendy, “edgy” buildings in River North and downtown to look quaint and sad.
Yet somehow, stuff built in 1890 or 1928 seems so alive and classic.
“Most people affect to despise the mid-century moderns lining Sheridan Road”
Do you really think most people don’t actually dislike them? Or is there something missing from that clause?
As to the 1890 and 1928 buildings–most of the crap has been torn down, so we see only the good stuff. Of course, there was relatively little of merit* built in the 50s, 60s, 70s, despite the large investments therein, so we’re stuck seeing a lot of dreck
*argue all you want, modern lovers; I get it and don’t reject it all, but I still think it was mostly crap.
Many beautiful buildings were torn down.
And let me revise my statement of opinion regarding modern architecture. I don’t hate ALL of it-just 90%. After all, Deco is “modern” and I love it. Also, I have seen a home or building that really is gem-like. But for the most part, it has always seemed sterile, institutional, boring, and better suited to work environments than home. Living in a place like 6030 is like living in a class C office building. Living in one of the new places with concrete ceilings and open ductwork is like living in a warehouse.
When I see the new “edgy” stuff that is so trendy, I think how much most people will hate this drek 30 years from now. But they’ll still love buildings like 1200 N State or even Park Edgewater, or any Rogers Park courtyard building that hasn’t had the charm and warmth ripped out of it by some tasteless condo developer.
“Many beautiful buildings were torn down.”
Of course; I didn’t even imply anything different. But very few ugly, pre-war buildings were saved. They weren’t all beautiful.
And I’ll repeat my question:
“Most people affect to despise the mid-century moderns lining Sheridan Road”
Do you really think most people don’t actually dislike them? Or is there something missing from that clause?”
laura,
Thats the main reason i hate bucktown, so many wonderful frame two and three flats were torn down to build $2mil boxes (oops sorry meant modern). these places are so sterile, like you said, and have no soul.
I personally love 4+1’s. I think they should build more of them.
I say “affect” to despise them, because you almost have to believe that these people secretly love them, else why would they so love the ugly “trendy” new buildings that have gone up in the past year that are the worst of the mid-century era allover again?
Places like the building at the corner of Broadway and Montrose, on Montrose facing the cemetary, and countless buildings in south Streeterville are mid-century modern all over again, and they’ll be just as sad 40 years from now. Yet at the peak of the mania, they had no shortage of buyers. I looked at the rendering for the Blue Water, a midrise slated to go up in the 5400 block of Sheridan (now probably cxl’d) and it looked like an instant eyesore, a place like the blue and white brick buildings in Edgewater most people would love to demolish, and thought, wow, this is what architects are supposed to want to design.
Ah, the poor ol’ Blue Water, what memories! At least there’s an empty lot for the iGo cars to use, that’s good. So much as changed since those heady days of 2005-6, so I’m glad to have recorded some of the boom up here because now we’re up to our necks in unwanted condos. Some of these places have been mostly empty for going on three years now! These price declines won’t be the last, there’s a big flush coming.
“I say “affect” to despise them, because you almost have to believe that these people secretly love them, else why would they so love the ugly “trendy” new buildings that have gone up in the past year that are the worst of the mid-century era allover again? ”
Two thoughts on that:
1. Developers love them b/c they are much cheaper to build.
2. Most of the people buying in those places don’t know the difference. Say “mid-century modern” to them and you’ll get a blank look back.
And thx for answering; I was genuinely curious if you meant that or not.
“I personally love 4+1’s. I think they should build more of them.”
Yes because we should be living like people did in the 1890’s right?
Party like it’s 1899!
“#Sonies on October 7th, 2009 at 9:04 am
“I personally love 4+1’s. I think they should build more of them.”
Yes because we should be living like people did in the 1890’s right?
“
LOL, yeah I think we should go back to “Earth Toilets” too. Those were good times!
““I personally love 4+1’s. I think they should build more of them.”
Yes because we should be living like people did in the 1890’s right?”
Don’t think there were a lot of ground-level parking garages in the 1890’s. 4+1’s are those hideous post-war apartment buildings that litter the nortside–4 floors of apartments over one level of parking.
Oh I thought he was talking about 4 bedroom 1 bathroom places. Nevermind then…
“Oh I thought he was talking about 4 bedroom 1 bathroom places. Nevermind then”
I thought there was a failure to communicate.
My 4 plus 1 tidbit was an irreverent yet humorously satirical comment about the universally reviled structures which litter the northside, which I made in response to the equally irreverent comments about mid-century modern architecture.
I agree with Laura, the 4+1 style was just a sad period in architecture. The reality though is that people aren’t willing to pay what it cost to “build ’em like they used to.”
If you think home prices are expensive now, wait until you have to pay for legal US citizens to build your property instead of half literate illegal aliens and then have to pay to hire people actually skilled enough build in the details and brick work many of us love on the vintage units. No gargoyles on on the parapet for you! 100% brick? Yeah right.
Russ, I am most likely older than everyone else in here by at least a generation, and most likely more, so I remember when houses were built with much smaller profit margins for the builder and vastly more expensive union labor. The breakdown back before 1980 was 1/3 for the labor, 1/3 for materials and land, and 1/3 for the developer, which is not exactly starvation for the developer, given the pace at which cheap subdivision houses were being built in the 50s and 60s.
Yet housing was very cheap relative to incomes. I’ll give you my parents’ examples: in 1956, they were an extremely young couple and bought a cute new 3 bed 1bath 6 room in a new St.Louis burb. My father made perhaps $5000 a year, which was considered OK if not good. The house cost $10K. In 1971, my mother, by this time single, put 40% down on a much better house, a brick 4 bed 2 bath in a very good St. Louis burb, Webster Groves. Her income was about $8000, which covered us very well- we had nice furniture, good clothes, one 6-year old Olds 88. We were not affluent but we were not suffering, for this extremely nice house with 7 large rooms cost $21K. My mother’s mortgage was $12,500, about 1.5X her income. The neighborhood was very good, right next to two country clubs.
The difference was the way lending was conducted. Lending in those days was “risk-based”, while since 1980 or so it has been “asset-based”. You were NEVER given a mortgage for more than 2.5X your income, and most people went lower. 20% down was the minimum. You were vetted very carefully-my mother had to go for 3 interviews with the top officers of the local S&L that wrote her loan. People obsessed about their credit ratings in those days. Yes, there was a lot of credit card abuse in those days, but nothing like now. And you never, never, ever, ever, took out an equity loan against your house to buy cars or such. Moreover, “upper bracket” properties had to have 50% down. And, of course, your lender got to know you well before approving the loan, because his institution would be on the hook for it in the event of default, which was rare then.
So you can see why housing stayed cheap. But in the late seventies, the first adjustable loans appeared, and in 1977-78 there happened a wave of speculation- grocery clerks owning and flipping 6 houses, and the first big wave of condo conversions, mostly older,high-maintenance buildings that were very elegant but whose owners couldn’t collect the rents needed to maintain them. Then there was a little crash. Then, the runup in the late 80s, much worse, followed by a bigger housing crash. Then after that, the further loosening of lending to the point where rules and benchmarks no longer existed and the bailouts of the 90s, followed by the staggering insanity and completely crazy, corrupt lending practices you saw for the past 8 years.
I believe we will be heading back to the conservatism of the past no matter what people want, out of necessity, but not until another wave of defaults happens and there’s no money left for any more bailouts or housing incentives.
Life will be different, and housing will once more be cheap.