Vintage 2/2 in The Eddystone Going to Auction: 421 W. Melrose in Lakeview
We last chattered about this 2 bedroom unit in The Eddystone at 421 W. Melrose in East Lakeview in October 2010.
See our prior chatter here.
At that time, it had recently come on the market as a Fannie Mae property.
It’s kitchen and bathrooms look intact from the pictures.
But now, there is a twist.
The property is going up for auction on auction.com.
Here’s what the listing says:
“Please note that you can pre bid on this property online, see agent remarks for additional info. Pre bids online are accepted starting 1/4/2011.”
The actual “live” auction is apparently on January 26, 2011.
Will this auction method be more successful in selling this (and other) properties?
Are mega-auctions the wave of the future?
If anyone bids, please let us know what happens.
Rakesh Parikh at Keller Williams Lincoln Park still has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #8C: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1600 square feet
- Sold in November 2004 for $342,500
- Fannie Mae owned in May 2010
- Was listed in October 2010 for $256,500
- Reduced
- Was listed in early December 2010 for $230,900
- Currently listed with an “unknown” price as it’s going to auction in January 2011
- Assessments of $1043 a month (includes heat, gas, cable, doorman)
- Taxes of $4496
- No central air
- No in-unit washer/dryer
- No parking
- Bedroom #1: 16×12
- Bedroom #2: 16×13
This is not a new concept at all and rarely gets anywhere near what banks/owners are hoping for – however, it DOES drum up interest and will likely result in a sale (at a huge loss). I have participated in many auctions but have always been disappointed. Properties that are worthwhile are not sold at such a discount and properties that are sold at a huge discount are usually not worthwhile. Also, remember that there are HUGE numbers of investors scouring the MLS and real estate listings for such properties. These people have MILLIONS and will snap up any good deal. The common folk like you and I have little chance – so might as well forget about it.
Wow, no parking, no central air, no washer/dryer in the unit and an assessment of $1043. Way overpriced.
in the words of keyshawn johnson, CMON MAN!!!
“Wow, no parking, no central air, no washer/dryer in the unit and an assessment of $1043. Way overpriced.”
It’s NOT priced. That’s the whole point (though it may have a minimum bid at the auction- I didn’t check.)
Why isn’t someone just going in and lowballing for this in the first place? Why resort to the auction on a day with thousands of other properties? Apparently Fannie Mae believes an auction is a good way to get rid of properties.
Sabrina, I agree – the auctions I have been to are so ridiculous that bidding will start at 1k and go up to 80k and then stop. The property won’t be sold (because it hasn’t met the reserve price) and then will go back on the market. It is so idiotic – maybe the banks are hoping that someone will get “hooked” on this particular place and buy it. I guess it is a good marketing tool to bring attention to the unit -but in this type of market I don’t know how effective it really is.
PS – stock market is rallying again – more good news to boost confidence and spending.
The opening bid/reserve is $79K. With those assessments and taxes I’d take it for that.
$1500/month to start with is tough. ? special assessments (elevators, caulking, tuckpointing, roof), ? updating unit costs, $ future value, etc.
These older units will eventually reflect their true depreciated value. I love vintage, but don’t want to pay inflated prices due to eventual costs such as above.
Built in 1929. I wonder what the lifespan is for a bulding like this? It reminds me of buying a twenty year old mercedes, nice car and interesting, but eventually everything needs to be replaced.
“These people have MILLIONS and will snap up any good deal. The common folk like you and I have little chance – so might as well forget about it.”
And here I was thinking you did have MILLIONS and were far from being ‘common folk’. Anyone who drives a lambo and has an ‘estate’…and an ‘in city’ on Michigan Ave is NOT common.
and what’s with the ‘Clio’ and ‘clio’?
I know a good number of people who DO indeed have MILLIONS of dollars. Most, if not all, of their fortunes were made by taking educated RE investment risks and who have now fled the RE scene probably never to return….they are NOT spending one cent on anything now or in the foreseeable future.
Investing in RE for the sake of investing…being a mini Trump… is a thing of the past. Regardless of how many zeros are behind your name.
I too have been to many auctions, most of them in the NYC area and they are just not worth it…especially if you are seeking an owner occupied property. Most if not all are in terrible shape needing a total gut rehab that would equal (and in most cases) surpass the purchase price.
I could not advise anyone to go this route at all. As much as I hate short sales, I would choose that route over auctions any day.
” what’s with the ‘Clio’ and ‘clio’”
multiple computers.
“they are NOT spending one cent on anything now or in the foreseeable future.”
Really? – because most of the rich people I know are in it for the game of it (including me). Many have enough money to be comfortable the rest of their lives and now it is more about the chase/hunt and ego than anything else. We are through licking our wounds and are on to the next hunt. The rich understand that in order to make money you need to take some risks – you are never going to accumulate wealth by putting your money in a 2% CD or high interest checking account.
Yeah, OK Clio…
The risk is just too great for true investors…regardless of their wealth.
While I am all about taking risks, where we are now the risk is just too great and no, esp in Chicago, that is not going to be changing for years to come…if ever.
And I have never been a doom and gloom person.
“Why isn’t someone just going in and lowballing for this in the first place”
Even if it sold for ONE DOLLAR, you would still have carrying costs of ~$1500.
“The risk is just too great for true investors…regardless of their wealth.”
Not true. I kow a few investors who are putting in several offers daily on properities from the south loop up north to Barrington, highland park. They are low, yes, but people are making moves, too much opportunity out there to not be.
westloop,
while you are absolutely correct that you can no longer count on making a quick/fast buck, there ARE long term real estate opportunities out there. Also, there are some very good deals that you actually CAN flip for a decent return. Again, it is not like the past where you could make 100k on a 200k investment in 3 months, but you still can do pretty well.
wow, Clio – PERFECT EXAMPLE OF CHEERLEADING…
… market opens up 16pts – you call a rally. 20 minutes later… it’s down 16.
Looks like your crystal ball is b0rked.
“Built in 1929…life expectancy?”
Longterm, building could stand for another 100+ years; look at European central-city buildings. But note caveat that building systems and materials are likely to need to be replaced or repaired or reconstructed for that to occur, so that eventually building may actually be reconstructed bit-by-bit. A 1929 building with original plumbing risers and electrical distribution is a building facing an enormous special assessment, for demolition work to gain access to those buried building systems, replacement, and restoration of finishes. Many older condo-conversion buildings don’t have new systems because the condo-converters focussed on finishes and code-items only. Building may have updated incoming electrical service, for instance, but old conduit and wiring, masked by new outlet covers and light fixtures.
A friend who lives in a 60s Gold Coast condo building experienced the catastrophe of a water riser failure, cascading water into an entire tier of apartments and causing significant property damage. That’s not altogether surprising.
crwls – just trying to point out how idiotic it is to take a snapshot (like the CS) and make a HUGE assumption of all of real estate based on that one piece of irrelevant data.
Agreed European central city buildings are good for another 100 plus, but how many european central city buildings are 20 plus stories like this one? At some point this thing is worth no more than the land value.
Minus the demolition cost.
I’ve been betting that more auctions are the wave of the future. I think regular homeowners who’ve bought a new place and are stuck with their old one are going to starting auctioning off homes as a means to get out.
“I’ve been betting that more auctions are the wave of the future. I think regular homeowners who’ve bought a new place and are stuck with their old one are going to starting auctioning off homes as a means to get out.”
have your read about the people “raffling” off there house? its the new wave of ideas
I don’t know about these auctions – they truly bring out the cheapest people in the world. Everyone thinks they are going to get a million dollar house/condo for a dollar. It is just a HUGE waste of time.
“crwls – just trying to point…”
…and missing wildly again.
“I’ve been betting that more auctions are the wave of the future. I think regular homeowners who’ve bought a new place and are stuck with their old one are going to starting auctioning off homes as a means to get out.”
Joe, have you ever been to an auction? Try spending a quarter million dollars on something that you haven’t seen. Not to mention you better have that quarter mil ready to spend, as in cash or the form of a mortgage. But then again, what bank is going to give you a mortgage on a place THEY haven’t seen!
This is a semi-extreme example and I do not mean to steer you away from these auctions but if you choose to engage, do your homework. Try to find out what is on the block and go seen them ahead of time. Bring a friend who has a completely different lifestyle too and get their opinion on what the properity is worth…
Does anyone think this real estate meltdown might completely change (or eliminate) the future of condo ownership as we know it today? It seems to me like all of these properties that people on here say they literally wouldn’t accept for free (or would only pay $10K for or something ridiculously low) means the model of shared building ownership we have now is fatally flawed. You’re basically going into business with a bunch of strangers and in a building like this, you could be on the hook for debts that far exceed your investment. Is there any way to fix this? Are co-ops going to make a comeback?
G – wow, really?
auctions suck don’t bother with them as you will overpay 100% of the time
“Bring a friend who has a completely different lifestyle too and get their opinion on what the properity is worth…”
Huh?
“Does anyone think this real estate meltdown might completely change (or eliminate) the future of condo ownership as we know it today?”
No – people need a place to live. Many do not want to rent. Most can’t afford single family home ownership costs. Condos are the only alternative (coops are way too restrictive and exclusive for most people).
Well my point is that maybe some new model will come out of this. Maybe some hybrid? How about condos buildings with bylaws that require larger downpayments? Is it way too expensive for new condo buildings to do individually metered utilities so that assessments cover less and you’re not paying to heat your deadbeat neighbor’s condo? I love the idea of living in a co-op where people have to apply and be approved to live there, but I’d like to have this in a building where the assessments aren’t $1500 a month for a two bedroom. Surely there are people out there who want to be surrounded by responsible neighbors even if they can’t afford a co-op on LSD.
Danny, you bring up a very good point. Actually, does anyone realize why assessments (which include taxes) are so high in coops? I always thought it was because most coops were in vintage high cost buildings. What if, as Danny suggests, there was a new construction coop – the costs should come down, right? Any insights?
I’m sure part of it is the high maintenance costs of the buildings that are typically co-op in Chicago, but I always figured part of it was because the people who live in these buildings also want an incredibly high level of service (e.g., please come replace this light bulb in my unit, on-site handyman person). I don’t think there has been much incentive for developers to create new co-ops, but I don’t think we’re far off from a whole generation associating condo ownership with all kinds of risks and headaches and clamoring for anything that sounds like it fixes some of those issues without requiring you to own a SFH of your own. I’m a perfect candidate for this. I really don’t mind living in a building with others and I love not having to shovel snow and such, but I hate that the condo structure offers no protection against a whole building basically becoming a dump full of foreclosures or low-income rentals.
assessments are high in co-ops because the assessments include property taxes
I can’t speak of new construction co-ops since I don’t know of any. But new co-op conversions from rental buildings typically come with a large underlying mortgage that is paid out of the assessment. Just like with taxes, a unit “owner’s” share of the common interest is tax deductible (along with the interest on their unit loan.) These underlying mortgages are commonly written by the converter with favorable interest-only or balloon terms that increase the payments due from the co-op over time. This is in the converter’s interest since they want to minimize their share of mort pymts to themselves while they are still paying assmts on units still for sale. By the time the mortgage is paid off (many years), there are typically deferred maintenance issues to deal with so the assmt often times does not decrease. The largest variable in assmts between similar co-op buildings is the amount of underlying debt. A unit’s share of this common debt should be considered as an additional purchase cost.
G, there’s no rule that a new co-op would have to come with common debt, right? Couldn’t you just have a condo building with some of the best features of a co-op, like requiring 20% down and approval of buyer or renter applicants by the co-op board, and maybe some better options for collecting assessments from owners who refuse to pay? Maybe every buyer would have to create an escrow account with the co-op that can be used if the owner doesn’t pay assessments or violates any of the bylaws or incurs any fines. I think the key is to make sure every owner is heavily invested in the building and that the board has a sort of “security deposit” from every owner that it can use to ensure other owners aren’t paying for someone else’s share of things.
Wouldn’t that violate fair housing laws or something?
One major problem with coop buildings is that it is very difficult to secure a typical mortgage from a bank. I believe is it that since you don’t own a legally separate peice of real estate (ie not a separate taxed property) the assest is not distinct enough.
Don’t co-ops in NYC have boards that have to approve all buyers? I see this on TV all the time where someone has to do a stressful interview and a bunch of snooty old ladies with small dogs give them judgmental stares and ask questions about their credit history and employment. That’s EXACTLY what I want and I don’t see how it violates fair housing if all you’re evaluating is someone’s credit and ability to pay their bills on time.
ME, I don’t see why you can’t just keep the basics of condo ownership to make financing easier, but add a lot of stuff to the bylaws to make it harder for just anyone to buy or rent in the building.
Danny, that’s a ‘chicken or the egg’ problem. In your example, you don’t have a co-op board without owners, and you can’t have owners without a board.
Sure, keep coop style vetting, but have a legal title to your peice for mortgage security purposes.
As for the future of condos in general, I think there is and will continue to be a market for them, but it will be as s smaller portion of the overal RE market. There were just too many buildings built/converted (esp converted) in the last 15-20 years that should have just been rental.
Although some people like it, if I ever buy into a condo development I would never for a small association like 2,3,4 units total. I would rather have the default risk spread over a large number of units (say 30+) and have the scale to warrant hiring a professional management company.
Also, to the subject unit – it would be a nice rental, especially if you could squeeze a W/D unit somewhere in those 1,600 SF, which is likely.
Now owning this unit may be iffy depending on the “condition” of the association and building.
G, that’s true. I guess the problem is finding a developer who is going to set up condo declarations that require things like a big down payment or a min. credit score or proof of income because what incentive do they have? If they can sell a whole building to buyers who put nothing down and got interest only loans and have no jobs, that’s just fine with them. The stability of the building is someone else’s problem as soon as that last unit is sold. Ideally, banks would be discriminating enough in their lending to ensure a building isn’t full of people who can’t afford to live there, but clearly that’s not the case. Wouldn’t it be awesome, though, if every new building was required to have X% of the building’s value in reserves from the day the board is formed? Maybe some law could require that all owners in a new building contribute X% of the purchase price to the condo’s reserve fund or something. It’s just kind of shocking to me that buildings can continue to have superficial renovations and then be turned over to hundreds of new owners who might be completely unprepared or unwilling to maintain the building.
““Bring a friend who has a completely different lifestyle too and get their opinion on what the properity is worth…”
Huh?”
Clio – Your place is only worth what someone is willing to pay for it. RE basics. If you bring someone for a second opinion, that may be the best reassurance your gonna get if involved in a bidding war and are gettin called out on the spot. Some investors aren’t as strong as others. Bring your friend, relative, wife (maybe), x-wife, whoever for a second opinion – because if you listen to the people in the room, you are done-for.
a-fed, oh – I thought you meant gay vs straight when you started talking about “different lifestyles”
I like the idea of some minimal qualifications for condo buyers, but I have no idea on what a condo association is permitted to do in this regard. A friend who lives in an Edgewater high rise condo told me that his board can disqualify a potential buyer, and he should know, having served as the board president for a number of years.
As for “unbundling” the utilities, I’m not so sure. Electricity, by all means, but heat is too essential to the overall health of the building to leave to the individual owners. You want your entire building minimally heated at all times, so that pipes don’t freeze. This happened to a friend’s building here in Rogers Park, where one owner in her three-flat defaulted and her gas was shut off, resulting in the pipes freezing almost to the hot water heater (the defaulting owner was on the first floor).
Regarding this beautiful old building- I have always loved the Eddystone but the HOA fees have always been horrible there. Part of the expense is the cost of a 24-hour front desk, which means 3 shifts plus a relief shift. This cost could be eliminated, but the well-off owners here want it, are willing to pay for it, and would probably strenuously resist eliminating it, so if you buy there you might as well accept it.
” Part of the expense is the cost of a 24-hour front desk, which means 3 shifts plus a relief shift”
I don’t know laura – I think it is much more than just that. I own a 2/2 just down the street (3232 Halsted) and assessments are only 548 with includes 24 hour doorman, gas, water, common area cleaning (of course), snow removal, mail service, elevators maint., park maint., dog run, cable, internet, and 2 garage spaces/garage maint. So there has to more to do with it than just the doorman
clio, could be that this building needs certain improvements to lower the monthly cost. It has always been a super-high maintenance building in my memory. There is a 2 bed 1 bath unit here that tempts me strongly and which has been on the market nearly a year at $159K, wonder why it’s not selling, huh? The maintenance and taxes together are about $1100, that’s why, and I’m seeing comparable vintage units with much lower monthly costs who also maintain respectable reserve funds. I’m not well-off enough to feel good about buying an apt. that needs about $40K in improvements, with a fixed cost starting at $1100 were I to pay cash up front and it’s really not sensible for me to do that. I’d want to see a breakdown of monthly expenses to see where the money is going in this place, and look for ways to improve the operation of the building.
But some buildings just cost much more to maintain, and in these places it is better to keep the monthly assessment high to maintain a large reserve, to avoid hitting owners with monstrous special assessments for things like the roof, or facade work (super costly)or other things that are just part of owning in a decorative older building. For example, the Casa Bonita here in Rogers Park, which is surely one of the most beautiful old buildings in the city, is covered with intricate terra cotta, which is intrinsic to the charm and beauty of the building. It is extremely costly to maintain this terra cotta- there are only 2 companies in the country that make it and will cast it custom to match the building- and it’s ongoing. The building’s resident-owners are moderate income people who could not bear a large special assessment, so the monthly assessments are kept high so that a there is always a large reserve to cover this expense. It’s part of owning in the building and you know this coming into the situation, and that’s much better than counting on low monthly costs, and then being blindsided and possibly blown out of your apartment by a sudden steep assessment to cover a necessary repair. This happened at the Edgewater Beach, which had unrealistically low assessments for years, until several years ago when 40 years of deferred maintenance became manifest, and the residents were confronted with a $37M repair bill for facade work necessary to keep pieces of the building from falling off, and garage and pool work, which they got millions of dollars in federal, state, and city assistance in meeting. (I learned of the Edgewater Beach repairs and subsequent taxpayer bailout in a city sponsored condo class for prospective condo buyers- but you CANNOT find the info online at all). Even with assistance, the owners in this building, who were mostly not wealthy, were confronted with specials that averaged $40K each, a very, very nasty surprise for anyone who hadn’t planned on it. Many couldn’t cope and had to sell their units very cheaply to whoever could pay the assessment.
Some buildings are just much more expensive to run, and that cost will increasingly be reflected in their selling prices, which I expect to go lower in places like this.
“I own a 2/2 just down the street (3232 Halsted)”
Hmm…its possible we know each other through a friend/employee of yours. Do you live in Deerfield by any chance?
Laura,
You are right – what do you think will eventually happen to these places? Maybe they should be turned back into rentals. That might be the smartest thing to do.
Bob,
I know that you are new to this site, but I can assure you that we don’t know each other. You know I don’t live in Deerfield (I don’t even know what a deer field is). Also, I have no friends – so I am sure you don’t know “my friend”.
meant to write “I have no friends in that area,….”
clio, I don’t think they will turn back into rentals because that’s why they converted to condo in the first place: because their ownerships did not want to bear the cost of carrying them and the rental market wouldn’t pay what it cost to maintain them.
I was in another old city, living in a comparable high rise vintage 2 bed as a renter, back in the late 70s, when the first wave of condo conversions hit my bldg. and the rest of the country. This building was converted then, as were a lot of other buildings up and down the north lakefront from downtown clear to Rogers Park. Back then, they were “straight flips”, with minor improvements made to the mechanicals and public areas. My place in St. Louis was converted by someone you have heard of, the very same Cliff Drosda who built No 1 Mag Mile, and I heard he purchased our 17-story, 60 unit Deco highrise for the incredible sum of $350K in 1978. The landlord sold it because renters just would not pay what it cost to run it with a small profit.
What I believe will happen is that these units will sell at much lower prices, but that their boards might start screening prospective buyers for financial qualifications, if they are allowed to do so by IL condo laws. I don’t know how far a condo board can go in doing this, but someone in Edgewater who serves on his building’s board says that a condo association CAN qualify buyers. I’m not sure.
Laura,
there will come a point where the ass fee’s will get so high units will not trade in dollars.
Yeah, Groove, that could happen if the owners of these places don’t start acting aggressively to get their buildings in hand.
Most of our stock of vintage high rises need a lot of mechanical improvements and they surely need weatherization and to improve their heating equipment, to reduce energy bills. The capital costs of things like winterization and new boilers usually pays off very quickly in the form of steeply reduced heating bills, yet, believe it or not, there are still many old buildings in this town running converted coal boilers (converted to gas) with efficiency of about 15% or something like that. This is insane, but when you try to sell the resident-owners a new $50K boiler that will reduce their heat bills by 70% at least and pay for itself 3X the first season you run it, they balk.
I don’t know what the situation is in this building, but I’ll bet they have a lot of outdated mechanical stuff that cost them a lot to constantly service, and in energy use. I’m really surprised at what bad mechanical condition so many fine old high rise condos are in, and I’m surprised their affluent owners would let them get to the point where the plumbing is breaking and some units have 20 amp wiring that hasn’t been touched since 1940 or so. Elevators can be another major energy guzzler, and new ones run on far less energy than those installed 30 or 40 years ago, let alone old rebuilt cage elevators that date back to 1900 or something.
Were I to buy into a place like this, I’d want to know what the major money drains are going in. I wouldn’t want to eliminate expenses like the doormen, because that is something people want and move into a building like this for. But I’d be looking for every other way to plug the leaks, and I’ll bet you can find at least a dozen in this place.
what are they going to trade in, chickens?
“what are they going to trade in, chickens?”
Sure, I’ll take 10,000 chickens to assume your obligations w/r/t that condo.
Then I can barter the chickens for medical care, like that woman in Nevada suggested.
“What I believe will happen is that these units will sell at much lower prices,”
Cheapest 2/2’s in Lakeview are those old lakefront highrises going for 150k. Of course that’s just the mortgage and excludes the insane assessments.
I got an idea of just how bad prices could get in buildings like this from looking at comparables in another city in far worse condition than Chicago: Shaker Heights, OH, a elite old suburb of Cleveland.
Now, Cleveland is not Chicago (not yet, anyway), but once upon a time, Cleveland was much different. I don’t believe prices at 421 W Melrose will approach the lows of a really beautiful building in Shaker Heights I’m seeing online, where a 2000 sq ft unit replete with herringbone parquet floors and some of the most beautiful millwork I’ve ever seen is listed to sell at $1,400. THAT IS NOT A TYPO. It is one thousand, four hundred dollars. A couple of years ago, a unit like it in the same bldg. was listed at $50K, still ridiculously low. A unit like this would sell for $300K in Chicago even now…. or would it?
Part of this is that Cleveland is so economically decimated that nobody there makes a good enough living to buy anything anymore. Yet, part of it is that the bldg is horrendously expensive to maintain- the HOA fees on it (it’s a co-op) are $2000.00 a month. That’s higher per square foot than at the building featured here.
I don’t think the prices of Chicago vintage co-ops and condos will drop anywhere as low as in Cleveland, but they could go much lower as these buildings get ever more expensive to operate. How much lower will depend on the overall economic condition of the city and the country, and I’m not optimistic about a city whose government spends twice as much as it takes in yearly in taxes, while looking for ever more ways to divert hundreds of millions of dollars from the public till to private purposes. Yes, folks, I’m very worried about our beautiful city’s future economic viability, which will have a major impact, for better or for worse, on the prices of our real estate, not to mention the cost of living and doing business here.
““what are they going to trade in, chickens?”
Sure, I’ll take 10,000 chickens to assume your obligations w/r/t that condo.
Then I can barter the chickens for medical care, like that woman in Nevada suggested.”
not the outlook/point i was going for but i like it.
Even if this was free you’re still paying $1,420/mo for a 2/2 with downside risk of special assessments vs. renting a similar place for less with less risk. What a disaster.
To any individual or building considering boiler/water heater/furnace replacement, there are substantial rebates from Peoples Energy (or Nicor in the burbs) for energy efficient upgrades.
Oftentimes, the energy savings payback is just a few years.
good luck finding a similar place for 1420 a month in rent
“good luck finding a similar place for 1420 a month in rent”
Good luck getting the seller to deed this to you for the change in your pocket.
I believe this would rent for about $2000. So figure a price for it that would allow that much rent and still cover the mortgage, insurance,taxes, and maintenance.
Last I heard, this building allows rentals.
“there are substantial rebates from Peoples Energy (or Nicor in the burbs) for energy efficient upgrades”
orland park help residents with cash to weather proof and new window. i know a person who only paid half the bill for their new windows!
“I believe this would rent for about $2000. So figure a price for it that would allow that much rent and still cover the mortgage, insurance,taxes, and maintenance. ”
You could probably rentsave at a $100k purchase price.
That’s what I was figuring- IF I want to save quite so much rent. I might rather be a rent-saver in a slightly smaller, cheaper 2 bed 1 bath. Wonder what that $159K 2 bed 1 bath that’s been on the market forever here will eventually sell for.
Laura, can you tell me the address of the property in Shaker Heights? I’m originally from University Heights and am curious.
What do you guys think of this recent sale? I used to live in the building, the views are pretty beautiful but the assesments are steep although they include cable and everything except electric. Central heat/air is free except you pay to run the fan. How much would this rent for without updating? Was this a good price?
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/3440-N-Lake-Shore-Dr-60657/unit-10A/home/13375341