Got Cash? Get a 2/2 in Andersonville For Only $79,000: 5607 N. Clark
This corporate owned 2-bedroom at 5607 N. Clark in Andersonville has been on the market since August 2011.
I don’t yet have a picture of this building because I had no idea it was even condominiums.
It appears that it was converted into condos in 2007/2008.
This particular unit was purchased in January 2008 for $375,000.
It is now being sold “as-is.”
It appears, from the listing pictures, that the kitchen and baths are intact.
The kitchen has white appliances and granite counter tops.
There are hardwood floors throughout.
There doesn’t appear to be central air, parking or a washer/dryer in the unit.
However, Unit #3, also a 2/2 on the market in the building, apparently has a washer/dryer hook-up.
Listed for just $37,000, that listing calls it “uninhabitable” and that the buyer is responsible for liens, violations and litigation, if any.
That unit is also under contract.
The listing for Unit #2 says the HOA is not active.
It is also a “cash only” deal.
Even with a location right in the middle of Andersonville, is this unit even much of a deal?
William Volpe at Parkvue Realty has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #2: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1100 square feet
- Sold in January 2008 for $375,000
- Lis pendens filed in February 2008 (?)- but also re-filed in 2010
- Corporate owned in July 2011
- Currently listed “as-is” for $79,000
- Assessment of $200 a month
- Taxes of $5943
- No central air
- Washer/Dryer hook-up? (unknown)
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 13×11
- Bedroom #2: 12×11
I always assumed this was an apartment building.
So depressing…. I would much rather live in one of the high rises on Sheridan for about the same price.
Did this sell in 2008 or 2010 for $375k? Redfin says 2010 but could be wrong, of course.
A buyer would be taking a big risk on reactivating the HOA and having stable neighbors, but the unit itself looks okay. This probably is a deal; I don’t think making it cash flow would be too difficult.
how did this ever sell for 375k?
“how did this ever sell for 375k?”
I’m curious as well.
Units in this building have been popping up for sale over the past couple of years but I never looked at any of them because the taxes are so high at 6K. Personally, I wouldn’t buy into a building with no HOA. Think of all the things the HOA manages on a daily basis and all the things which could go wrong. Little things we take for granted like trash collection, working heat, security and vermin control could snowball into a nightmare.
Is the $375k the amount owed when the bank took it back?
Seems like a nice enough place for someone who wants to be in that area and doesn’t need to move for a long time.
KNIFE CATCHER….
5609 N Clark Unit 3 (same building) closed for 45K on 5/17/2011.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/5609-N-Clark-St-60660/unit-3/home/26807280
The unit looks really cool in the pics, but even at that price I don’t have an appetite for that much risk.
“Is the $375k the amount owed when the bank took it back?”
#3 sold for $365k, loan for $346,750, lis pendens filed (Countrywide) 10 months after purchase, deed to Fannie in May-10, deed from fannie to BofA in Jun-11.
Looks like this was a putback of a improperly documented loan.
#2 was Wells, and a huge mess, with the deed recorded 2 years after its date and after the mortgage, itself recorded 20 months late.
Basically, looks like a big fraud all around.
“Basically, looks like a big fraud all around.”
Makes sense, I don’t think anyone ever would have paid $375K to live in this building.
How many units are in this building? It looks like things could be a big mess with a non-active HOA.
All I can say is, if someone indeed paid nearly $400,000 for this unit, they should win the all-time CC booby prize for stupidest purchase during the bubble.
Also, taxes seem pretty high for a place like this priced at this level. Why wouldn’t you simply rent? You’re wasting nearly $700 a month in taxes and assessment buying this place.
I suppose someone will buy it and rent it out. If you pay cash, and rent it for $1,400 a month, you’ll be making profit after about 5 years, even after taking taxes and assessment into account. I might be too high on that rent, though.
17 units. Some with addresses on N Clark and some on Bryn Mawr.
I have a question too. If there’s no HOA, who are you paying your monthly $200 assessment to? I’ve seen this before where the HOA has disintegrated, but there’s still an HOA fee.
Did this building ever sell out to begin with?
Your’e better off buying the entire building.
It’s a rental building. Someone above mentioned fraud. This may be one of those buildings with fake buyers. No one would have spent this kind of money for a unit in this building.
I remember this being converted/gutted about 2/2.5 years ago, not surprised they didn’t sell.
RENTER = SUCKER, REASON #23: 5 YEARS FREE LIVIN’
http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/real_estate/foreclosure_squatter/index.htm?iid=HP_Highlight
If they’ve been saving up their rent checks for 5 years,
they might be able to buy a house with a massive downpayment,
and live for 1/2 the cost of renting for the rest of their lives.
Paid $135k
Now owes $600k
In other words, in addition to 5 years of free living,
she got PAID over $400,000 to live there.
Holy jackpot lottery, Batman!
Sorry, but cashing out $400k and never paying it back, and living for free for 5 years simply beats the living daylights out of renting. If they rented, they’d have the same problems, except none of the benefits.
You’re not very bright, are you? They got one hell of a free ride that could never be pulled off as a renter.
“RENTER = SUCKER, REASON #23: 5 YEARS FREE LIVIN’”
I have to admit, I’m a bit in awe of this Amy poster. Who is she? Where did she come from? Why did she start posting? What’s her story other than owning a shitty one bedroom in albany park? I want to know more….
I’m going to be really perturbed if I find out that Amy is really the alter-ego of steve Heitman…
I started posting here b/c I saw the ridiculous battle that “chuk” was dealing with on this thread.
I am not someone named Steve.
Also, I have nothing to do with real estate industry, as that idiot Bob asserts. I have made my money in finance, and now work part time b/c my expenses are so low (thanks to owning)
Real estate has been VERY good to me. I am sitting on a pile of profit and it costs me LESS THAN HALF the cost of renting a comparable apartment. Win, win. I have so much extra money compared to my co-workers, that I am just wasting it on shoes and blankets and wine.
While it was retarded to buy in 2007-2008, I feel bad for lifelong renters. They will never get it. It being the windfall pile of money at the end to finance my happy old age.
How many properties do own amy?
Alright we have a new used home salesperson named “Amy” who is really Steve Heitman.
I doubt you’re even a female at all, Amy. None of my female friends or acquaintances save one, use that term to describe idiocy. Hell most are appalled if I use it even in its proper medical context.
Why don’t you go study for a new career Amy? Because I can assure you transaction volume is not coming back for you. Go pick up the latest Chicago magazine to see how bad the $1MM+ segment is getting hit, and it’s going to get worse.
Dog grooming is looking pretty good, Amy.
What is up with the buyer having to deal with liens on the property. The bank still has to deliver clear title. HD?
https://w3.courtlink.lexisnexis.com/cookcounty/Finddock.asp?DocketKey=CAAI0MB0GGCGJF0MD
Bob, I am not in real estate. Real estate is for low functioning jackass housewives who are borderline illiterate. I hate realtors. Screw those useless fucking middlemen LEECHES. FSBO all the god damned way!
Dog grooming? What the F are you talking about, you stupid Aspie. I made my money in finance, and I easily have more money than you. Can you even read, you stupid broke low class renter Prole?
Who would pay $900,000 for something that sold for 1/3 of that price just a few years before? An idiot, that’s who.
If you’re not already sitting on a mountain of pre-2008 profit, then don’t bother. That ship has sailed. Owners should now just concentrate on paying off the mortgage, and living rent free for the rest of their lives. Renters, well, I guess can just keep paying off their master’s mortgage.
The only thing I do see in Chicago is that 1BR’s are selling for $100k. That’s a hell of a lot less than renting. What kind of idiot renter would pay $2000 to rent, when they can own for a fraction? But, yea, these $800k houses are going to get slaughtered.
RE: rent vs buying.
Actually, the truth is that the right answer is very person and situation specific. For someone like me (single, doesn’t cook, doesn’t entertain at home, doesn’t need a glamorous place to live), renting would make PERFECT sense. For someone like HD (married with a small kid – probably more on the way), buying would make PERFECT sense. Of course, everything is so screwed up that I bought an estate property in a GREAT school district (Hinsdale central) and HD is renting a crappy apt in a TERRIBLE school district. We BOTH screwed up, HD – it’s time to right our wrongs…..
you better stockpile yer money then Amy. the tea leaves on wall St look a lot like 2008 to me lately. 😀
I agree. It’s gonna get UGLY. That’s why this is the BEST time to be an owner. You RENT? What if you get laid off??? You’ve got to be NUTS to be a renter in such an unstable economy. Lose your job, you’ll be out on the street in 3 months. If you own, you can stop mortgage payments for YEARS!! Owning is SO much SAFER than crazy risky renters who can be evicted overnight! I paid off my mortgage, so it’s not even an issue. I love the recession. I hope it goes into depression!
“What kind of idiot renter would pay $2000 to rent, when they can own for a fraction? But, yea, these $800k houses are going to get slaughtered.”
Real estate makes no sense with the transaction costs unless you’re going to live there a long time. Prices are still going down. When they bottom they are likely to stay low for a long time (an “L” shape recovery.) So if you buy a 1-bedroon instead of renting it- you will have to live there for a long, long time.
How long do people live in 1-bedrooms? Probably 2 to 3 years- at the most. There are some that might be there 4 or 5. Most likely not the 7 to 10 years or more they would need to be there to cover transaction costs etc.
So why buy it? The renter has more flexibility. In today’s job market, they may end up with a job in Schaumburg and will want to live in Logan Square instead of downtown in order to do the commute. Or they may end up with a better job in San Francisco and need to move quickly. Why would anyone want to tie themselves down with a 1-bedroom condo?
I agree with Clio- that if you have a pretty stable job and a family and you’re looking at houses or large condos/townhouses you can live in for 10 to 20 years- then it’s a whole different equation.
“While it was retarded to buy in 2007-2008, I feel bad for lifelong renters.”
Was it retarded to buy in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 as well? Because a lot of those people are also losing, in some cases, their life savings.
So when was it stupid to buy and when were you a genius? If you bought in 1990- was that okay? You’ve held the asset for 21 years.
I think if you have a family and are looking at houses or very large condos, buying is the best thing to do. If you are young or single or just starting with a small family and cannot afford the school district/house you want, just rent. Renting gives you so much flexibility and, as I liquidate my real estate holdings, you begin to realize how much money you actually lose by buying (many hidden costs people don’t realize). I am not switching camps – I still think buying is the only thing to do if:
1. you have a family and are settling down for at least 10 years
2. you absolutely have to customize your living space
3. if there is a very very unique space that you absolutely love and it is for sale
Otherwise, you would be a fool NOT to rent and save your downpayment for your dream house in the future.
Clio- I can’t believe it- but I agree with everything you said. I think this is a first. 🙂
There is no either/or in real estate. Buying will be great for some people (lots of deals out there) and renting will be the right thing for some (flexibility, amenities, less worries, no downpayment etc.)
“Was it retarded to buy in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 as well? Because a lot of those people are also losing, in some cases, their life savings.”
I can’t speak for Chicago’s implosion, but I know people who bought in 2003 who are still sitting on 50% profits in NY. It was the best move they ever made. 2001? Probably an easy double still. Where else do you get a 6-figure payout for housesitting for CHEAPER than renting. WIN. WIN.
“So when was it stupid to buy and when were you a genius? If you bought in 1990- was that okay? You’ve held the asset for 21 years.”
People who bought in 1990 are basically living for about 1/4 of the market rent, and are also sitting in multi-6-figure profits. Hands down the best investment of their lives. Not too different than winning a regional lottery for a few hundred thousand.
“I can’t speak for Chicago’s implosion, but I know people who bought in 2003 who are still sitting on 50% profits in NY.”
Ah…now it makes sense. You’re not FROM here. Maybe you should read Crib Chatter a little longer before you assume that everyone who bought in 2001 is making money in Chicago. Chicago is NOT NY, LA, SF. Not even close.
Chicago real estate has appreciated 1% to 3% for forever. And for some years in the 1980s it went up ZERO (for about 6 years in a row.) Only in the boom decade did it go ballistic. Now it’s giving it all back (essentially.)
Sure- I have friends parents in the Chicago suburbs who bought their homes for $17,000 in 1969 and sold in 2004 to retire for $310,000. Not bad. And you had to live somewhere. It makes sense to buy if you’re going to live there for a long time.
I laugh when I hear Barbara Corcoran on tv (you’re not her, are you Amy?) talking about how she bought a townhouse in Manhattan in 1990 for like $200,000 and then sold it in 2004 or 2005 for $2.5 million. Sure- a TON changed in those 15 years in many neighborhoods. She bought in one of the crappy neighborhoods like where the guys in Rent lived. Now those lofts without heat and that had homeless encampments outside are worth millions.
You buy real estate to live in. That is it. (unless you’re a professional investor.)
Amy, did you read your article? It didn’t say that the woman that paid $135k didn’t pay for 5 years. This was an article about several different people.
Also, some of us don’t buy or rent basing on not paying. I never had the thought when buying that it will be better because down the road I can stop paying. Some of us have conciouses and believe in paying our bills whether we rent OR buy.
“If they’ve been saving up their rent checks for 5 years,
they might be able to buy a house with a massive downpayment,
and live for 1/2 the cost of renting for the rest of their lives.
Paid $135k
Now owes $600k
In other words, in addition to 5 years of free living,
she got PAID over $400,000 to live there.”
Amy some valid points surely but I know renters living for free from a deadbeat landlord so that perk can transfer. Also stop paying your taxes but especially HOA fees and see how long you can squat. It will be under a year for a competent HOA board.
My friends living for free? It helps the landlord is a hands off incompetent fool with a low cost basis. It also probably helps he gets letters from comed threatening to turn off the power for nonpayment. Because who can be bothered with that when your partying nonstop with the rent savings!
“My friends living for free? It helps the landlord is a hands off incompetent fool with a low cost basis”
I don’t understand how this is not illegal? This is the same thing as stealing/shoplifting. Where are the legislators to officially make squatting a crime? Honestly, how is this different than stealing?
Bob, it doesn’t matter what the owner’s cost basis is – can you imagine going into nieman marcus and stealing a 1000 shirt made in india and then saying to the police “but their cost basis was low”. Your “friends” are partying now, but when the lights go on and the party stops, they are in for a really tough time. Almost always, people who are irresponsible enough not to pay rent are NOT saving their money for a downpayment.
I’ve been living FREE (rent free, mortgage payment free, and equity free) for well over 2 years now. All I pay are my utils and the HOA dues. I’m a single investor/entrepreneur type, age 30’s. I have a big modern unit with elevator and parking. Value during the bubble was about $300k. The money I am saving will be used for businjess purposes and will ultimately pay for my dream home in cash – if I chose. MILLIONS of homes are being held off the market and lived in rent free by the original “owners” or their tenants, as in my case.
The banks aren’t selling these unit or kicking out the tenants because the losses could potentially wipe them out, so why would bank executives put their long term compensation at risk.
Yeah, if you have some hypothetical scenario where you buy, then cash out big with additional mortgages, then live rent free for years, you might come out ahead of a renter, but you also have to consider how judgment proof you really are, because the banks can come back for a deficiency judgment up to 20 YEARS later, so you better be broke or invisible for 20 years, not necessarily a good idea for most.
Eventually house prices will fall to what they are really worth and the price that rational individuals (not head in the clouds, get rich on the bank’s credit fools) will pay, and that number is a lot less than what people are paying now with record low rates, subsidized by a third party (the US government), and millions of properties artificially held from the market.
These are all the reasons why house prices are set to crash, and crash big!
—
Bottom line-
Don’t BUY & CRY
RENT till you’re RICH!
“I don’t understand how this is not illegal? This is the same thing as stealing/shoplifting. ”
Actually it’s not you fool because what defines whether something is illegal is what the written laws state.
Basically their landlord isn’t paying the mortgage because he treated his rental as an ATM during the boom and is deep underwater despite only paying 150k for it around 1993 or 1994. He tried to shop the place at a price that got him out of it earlier this year and basically heard crickets. It was a laughably insane ask price like we see frequently here on CC.
Think of all that extra purchasing power and economic activity that asshat was afforded due to the bubble, and now think about how those people are out of the game in terms of purchasing power.
IF he wanted to evict them he could go through the proper channels, but he’s a lazy deadbeat just like them so he isn’t. The onus is on HIM to evict them.
Brad F brings up a big point and to day the only big institution who has broken ranks from sitting on their distressed properties like a male emperor penguin at the south pole in winter watching an egg is BofA. And believe me I definitely notice when they started to open the floodgates. BofA is huge but they are only a fraction of the market. Imagine what’s still out there..
“Your “friends” are partying now, but when the lights go on and the party stops, they are in for a really tough time. Almost always, people who are irresponsible enough not to pay rent are NOT saving their money for a downpayment.”
Clio they aren’t exactly planning home ownership in the future. And they live much like they always have except they have an extra $500/month in their pocket to use however they want (to those who maintain an income source). Your threat means absolutely nothing to them.
And what if a whole generation of younger people aren’t scared by your threat of being precluded from home ownership due to a poor FICO because they equate it with home loanership?? Food for thought.
Yeah, I live exactly how I would normally live, except I have an extra $900 in my pocket monthly. Which in the grand scheme isn’t much at all. The idea that not having to pay rent for a while as an adult is suddenly going to make someone financially irresponsible is a silly notion.