Get a 3/3 in Buena Park for Under $180,000: 720 W. Gordon Terrace

 

This 3-bedroom at 720 W. Gordon Terrace in the Buena Park neighborhood of Uptown has been on the market since October 2011.

It is a Freddie Mac property.

Since October, it has been reduced about $40,000.

While the building was built in the 1970s (although some listings say 1966), this unit was created in 1997 when Units #7B and 7C were combined to form an 1800 square foot 3 bedroom, 3 bath.

The kitchen and at least one bath (from the pictures) are intact. The kitchen has stainless steel appliances.

The unit has central air but I can’t tell about in-unit washer/dryer. The listing claims the unit has a 9×7 “laundry room”. But none of the other listings currently for sale in the building have in-unit washer/dryer.

There is rental parking in the building.

This is a full-service building with a doorman, an exercise room and a pool.

Freddie Mac is offering a 2-year warranty for an owner/occupier.

How low will this go?

Barbara Thouvenell at P.R.S. Associates has the listing. See the pictures here.

Unit #7BC: 3 bedrooms, 3 baths, 1800 square feet

  • Unit #7B sold in February 1997 for $40,000. I couldn’t find a sales price on Unit #7C but it was also purchased in 1997.
  • Lis pendens foreclosure filed in November 2009
  • Freddie Mac owned in April 2011
  • Originally listed in October 2011 for $220,000
  • Reduced several times
  • Currently listed at $179,900
  • Assessments of $1122 a month (includes heat, a/c, doorman, cable, pool)
  • Taxes of $4033
  • Central Air
  • Washer/Dryer in the unit???
  • Bedroom #1: 15×11
  • Bedroom #2: 13×14
  • Bedroom #3: 14×11

19 Responses to “Get a 3/3 in Buena Park for Under $180,000: 720 W. Gordon Terrace”

  1. Emporis sez 1966, so I’ll believe that:

    http://www.emporis.com/building/gordonterraceapartments-chicago-il-usa

    0
    0
  2. As bad as the building looks on the outside, the ironic thing is I think it had an exterior makeover in the last 10 years. It was even worse before. I used to know a kid who I went to school with who lived here, circa 1978.

    0
    0
  3. The assessments are a bit high. I wonder what sort of savings the association has. Maybe they blew it all on the exterior and now are having to start over.

    0
    0
  4. I was wondering why the pictures on Emporis were of a white building and these were brown.

    It is priced similarly to the 2/2’s available in the building which seems decent enough. One of the problems of combined units though is you are now paying combined assessments too.

    0
    0
  5. No wonder it’s so cheap – the views suck. Do you really want to look at the back of another building directly out of your living room window?

    0
    0
  6. What in creation would be the reason for combining two units on the 7th floor of a highrise? So you can have more windows to look at even more concrete? Ridiculous.

    0
    0
  7. Appears to be the SE corner. The “back of another building” is the front of the building across the street. PIx are better than many REOs, but still horrible.

    0
    0
  8. Well, if that’s the front of another building, not the back, it doesn’t say too much for the architect of said building, because it sure looks like the back!

    0
    0
  9. Agree that the people who combined units were nuts. Who in heck is looking for a 3 BR on a low floor in a 1960s high rise in this neighborhood?

    There are some nice vintage 3 BR around here if you like Buena Park, for instance at 4300 N. Marine and in that 10-story 1920s high rise on Junior Terrace.

    0
    0
  10. “One of the problems of combined units though is you are now paying combined assessments too.”

    I’d like more information on this. I thought assessments were based on percent ownership of common elements so it wouldn’t really matter whether the unit was combined or not. Perhaps there is some base charge per unit and then another charge the is based on the unit size?

    0
    0
  11. The available unit I saw at 4300 N. Marine would be a whopping $90.000 more expensive.and doesn’t even central a/c. Views, assesment and the need for an update in bath and kitchen seem pretty equal.

    If you don’t want to live in a vintage building (and there are good reasons not to want to, i.e. no central a/c) the 720 Gordon unit seems like a pretty good deal.
    The immediate location is nothing to get excited about, but I’d consider it reasonably close to LV/Wrigleyville to be enjoyable.

    0
    0
  12. “I thought assessments were based on percent ownership of common elements so it wouldn’t really matter whether the unit was combined or not. ”

    When you buy Unit A and Unit B to combine them into Unit AB, you also get the assessments for Unit A and Unit B which are also combined as AB. The same with the percent ownership; it’s combined. If the assessment were somehow reduced with the thought that ‘it’s only one apartment now,’ that would unfairly penalize other owners.

    0
    0
  13. Yes, but my question is:

    What is the penalty for combining a unit, with respect to the assessments? If you have X square feet, HOW does it matter that those X square feet were originally one unit or originally two units?

    0
    0
  14. “Freddie Mac is offering a 2-year warranty for an owner/occupier.”
    I have come across this in other listings recently.
    Is anyone familiar with this warranty?
    What exactly does it cover?

    0
    0
  15. “If you have X square feet, HOW does it matter that those X square feet were originally one unit or originally two units?”

    It is at least possible that the allocated share was not done strictly based on square footage. Sometimes, the declaration sets it out based on the developers list prices–that’s why we sometimes see 22A with slightly higher assessments than 17A–and they could have done it on some other proportional basis, too.

    0
    0
  16. “What is the penalty for combining a unit, with respect to the assessments?”

    It’s not a penalty per se, but it can seem like one. For example, if the ownership percentage of a two bedroom is 0.5%, and a one bedroom 0.3%, a two bedroom combined from two one bedroom apartments will have a combined ownership of 0.6%, and will have higher assessment than a non-combined two bedroom. Thusly, the perceived penalty for combining units in this example is 20%.

    0
    0
  17. Anon is right, most assessments are based off original “value” of each unit as part of the building. My unit has the same sq. ft as the one below me and beside me but the one below has a lower assessment as the top floor was priced higher. If I were to combine units, my assessments would be higher if I bought the unit beside me rather than below me and duplexed up even though both units are the Same size.

    0
    0
  18. Thanks for the info guys. That is what I was looking for.

    0
    0
  19. It’s simple:
    Unit B is a 1bd condo with assessments of (let’s say ) $ 550
    Unit C is a 2bd condo ” ” ” $750
    You combine the two and you pay the total: $ 1,300.
    The building does not have 3 bd condos. If id did then most likely the assessments would be around
    $1,000/1,050 and it would be somehow smaller since it would have one kitchen.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply