The “Win-Win Deal” Is Now Reduced $12,800: 536 W. Belmont in Lakeview
We last chattered about this 2-bedroom unit at 536 W. Belmont in Lakeview in September 2010.
See our prior chatter here.
The building was a 2006 condo conversion with new kitchens and baths along with central air and in-unit washer/dryers.
This unit went into foreclosure, was bought, and renovated.
Someone who said he is the developer on the unit commented about the rehab in September:
“Just in the last month (not in 2006), 3E has been “cosmetically” rehabbed to a nicer level of finish than any unit in the complex. Specifically, the recent cosmetic rehab added a new stainless steel refrigerator, recess lights, 6 LED dimmers, 2 ELFA closets with walnut fascia-drawers-& jewelry box, 2 new faucets, a new bathroom vanity & medicine chest, new brush nickel shower-bath trim set, new brush nickel bathroom hardware including a double hotel shower bar, a new kitchen backsplash, 3 ceiling fans with remotes, a foyer entry light, a kitchen track light, a bathroom wall light, decor switches & outlets, floor repairs, Eight 2.5 inch real wood window treatments, a furnace cleaning, a touch screen thermostat, a combo smoke/co2 detector, window repairs, and significant drywall and painting work (3 coats of colored primer to cover the walls that were painted black).
I wish I could have got all that work done for $5K – but it was several times this amount unfortunately.”
In September the listing said it was the “final and best price” and that it was a “win-win” deal.
The unit has since been reduced $12,800.
Is this now a steal?
Justin Brown at Jameson still has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #3E: 2 bedrooms, 1 bath, no square footage listed
- Sold in October 2006 for $265,000
- Lis pendens in October 2008
- Bank owned in January 2010
- Listed in August 2010 for $179,900
- Sold in September 2010 for $163,000 (per the MLS)
- Originally listed in September 2010 for $229,900
- Reduced
- Currently listed for $217,000
- Assessments of $209 a month
- Taxes of $3824
- Central Air
- Washer/Dryer in the unit
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 15×12
- Bedroom #2: 13×9
- Living room: 13×16
- Kitchen: 11×8
This building had a special of about $10K/unit. Some owners paid it upfront, others financed it. Curious if this one still owes for the special.
Otherwise I think this is a very good deal. Depressing building but a nice location and better than what you can rent nearby.
I disagree on the location… and think it sucks belmont and broadway? blech!
It’s going to be nice to start seeing Lakeview 2br’s under 200k!
Tiny LR-DR
These buildings were apartments prior to the boom and should’ve remained apartments. When people move to a high-traffic area like Belmont & Broadway its not to settle down and plant roots but rather to experience a few years of city living. There’s going to be a lot of distress in these buildings once owners realize that living in this area long term sucks.
What was the special assessment for?
I don’t recall exactly. I think they said the builder bailed on a bunch of work they were supposed to do around the common areas. Seems high but that was the amount fsor the unit we looked at.
I love that area but would not want to live right on Belmont or Broadway or Clark. Commercial strips are noisy and you have more security issues.
Agree that this should have remained a rental. As vintage buildings go, it’s dull and featureless.
However, it IS extremely convenient.
So they are selling a glorified apartment unit, I mean a condo for 217K? As Laura and Bob already stated, this unit should have stayed as a rental unit. But during the real estate boom, everybody just had to get out there and become a home “owner” (how can you own an asset if you still owe money on it?).
Since when is adding a smoke alarm/carbon monoxide monitor a cosmetic upgrade?
“Since when is adding a smoke alarm/carbon monoxide monitor a cosmetic upgrade?”
It really ties the room together…
“how can you own an asset if you still owe money on it?”
That’s funny. Do you get to call yourself a college graduate before you pay off the loans? And, by that standard in Illinois, where property taxes are paid in arrears, is it possible to *ever* own real estate?
I know we have debated the vessel sink before and it just seems like there should be some kind of stone/solid surface counter below it. Has any one used a vanity like this for the long term with the frequecy this would probably face? How did it work out?
“how can you own an asset if you still owe money on it?”
That’s funny. Do you get to call yourself a college graduate before you pay off the loans? And, by that standard in Illinois, where property taxes are paid in arrears, is it possible to *ever* own real estate?
Nimesh, do you have a credit card? Do you take ownership over items you buy with it, or does Visa?
Vessel bowls are not cool to deal with in general, however, in this case it does give you a little more counter space… I imagine the wood counter would be toast after 5 years of use.
“Do you get to call yourself a college graduate before you pay off the loans? ”
I call people buried in college debt corporate serfs.
“JP$ on December 21st, 2010 at 10:47 am
Nimesh, do you have a credit card? Do you take ownership over items you buy with it, or does Visa?”
If you don’t pay Visa back then yes they’ll come looking for it.
“If you don’t pay Visa back then yes they’ll come looking for it.”
Uh, no, they won’t. Sears is the only significant CC operation that has had (do they still? long time since I had reason to look) a security interest built into the CC agreement. Generally, the CC issuer has *no* rights to property acquired w/ the CC.
Honest question: wouldn’t credit card and school loan debt be considered unsecured, while residential mortgage debt is secured by the underlying property? With that viewpoint – it’d be easier to see items purchased with credit card or the schooling purchased with a loan as ‘owned’ and the money borrowed rather than a mortgage. If you default on the first they’ll look for other assets to claim (you won’t get your object taken usually and obviously won’t take your diploma). On a mortgage more than likely the property itself is removed from you.
“Honest question: wouldn’t credit card and school loan debt be considered unsecured, while residential mortgage debt is secured by the underlying property? With that viewpoint – it’d be easier to see items purchased with credit card or the schooling purchased with a loan as ‘owned’ and the money borrowed rather than a mortgage. If you default on the first they’ll look for other assets to claim (you won’t get your object taken usually and obviously won’t take your diploma). On a mortgage more than likely the property itself is removed from you.”
But you basically can never get away from your student debt, and the lender can and will garnish you wages, which is the “value” of your diploma.
Anyway, the discussion was based on “how can you own an **asset** if you still owe money on it”, which is absurd, as that means anyone with a margin loan doesn’t own their stock and most companies own very little of their assets.
“But you basically can never get away from your student debt,”
Two ways:
1) Move out of country and tell creditors to go F themselves.
2) Die or fake your own death and start anew.
anon (tfo) on December 21st, 2010 at 2:12 pm
“If you don’t pay Visa back then yes they’ll come looking for it.”
Uh, no, they won’t. Sears is the only significant CC operation that has had (do they still? long time since I had reason to look) a security interest built into the CC agreement. Generally, the CC issuer has *no* rights to property acquired w/ the CC.
They may not want the exact thing you bought but they will want something of the same value.
“They may not want the exact thing you bought but they will want something of the same value.”
Um, how does that work? What’s the basis for that remedy? Can you show me *any* credit card agreement that provides a CC lender with rights approaching that? Among other problems with that theory is that you cannot surrender the TV to the CC lender and settle the CC obligation in whole or in part.
And collection calls seeking payment of cash amounts due are *not* the substantial equivalent of “come looking for the asset purchased w/ the credit card, or something else of the same value”.