What’s a Lot Worth in Lakeview? 1019 W. George Sells
We chattered about this 4-bedroom single family home at 1019 W. George in Lakeview several times in the last 6 months.
See our April 2011 chatter here.
Formerly a million dollar home, it was in “pre-foreclosure” and originally listed at $399,900. The listing said it was a cash only transaction.
The house went under contract within days the first time it was listed, only to fall out of contract and come back on the market at an even more reduced price.
The pictures portrayed extensive interior damage to the house.
In our last chatter, many of you thought the lot alone was worth at least $500,000 and that the now reduced $349,900 list price made it a steal.
Many of you also thought it would never sell for $349,900- since it was “pre-foreclosure” and it was thought unlikely that the bank would agree to a price that low.
At least one of you thought the house would eventually end up as a REO because the bank would never entertain any offers while it was pre-foreclosure.
The house actually DID sell.
Final price of $250,000.
Yes- it was a standard Chicago lot of 25×125.
No- there was no El tracks, police or fire station, gas station or school next door.
What’s a lot worth in Lakeview these days?
George Cuevas at Exit Strategy Realty had the listing.
1019 W. George: 4 bedrooms, 3.5 baths, 4200 square feet, 2 car garage
- Sold in May 1991 for $450,000
- Sold in August 2004 for $1.18 million
- Sold in July 2007 for $1.23 million
- Originally listed in August 2008 for $1.299 million
- Reduced several times
- Was listed in October 2009 for $979,000
- Withdrawn
- Was listed in February 2011 as a “pre-foreclosure” at $399,900
- Under Contract the first day it was listed
- Fell out of contract
- Reduced
- Re-listed on April 14, 2011 as a “pre-foreclosure” for $349,900
- Under Contract
- Sold in May 2011 as a “short sale” for $250,000
- Cash Only
- Subject to 3rd party approval
- Taxes of $16,117
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 18×13 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 18×14 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 15×13 (second floor)
- Bedroom #4: 16×11 (lower level)
What gets put in place of this p.o.s. Is it a gut-rehab, a multi-million dollar home, or a 3 unit building with a duplex-down on the bottom floor?
Who will be the first to claim this is the new market price for a teardown? Something smells about this, but until the deed is available, speculation will remians mostly baseless.
Did it have lots of liens and back taxes?
Good point, dahlia. Might have included settlement/payment of a bunch of other stuff that you wouldnt pay transfer tax on.
Land loses the most value in a bust because there are so few builders bidding for it. A few years ago this would have sold in second but today qualified bidders with cash can get deals. Just yesterday we learned that new home starts were down 10% nationally. Whoever bought this may even try to salvage it given how few new home starts are happening these days.
I would have personally bid if I could have used financing rather than requiring all cash down with expectation of this would be a gut rehab or teardown. To many people’s points here – financing capabilities impacts actual price.
As I mentioned in a prior thread about this property, I don’t believe it was ever available to be bid on. Like Wicker, we probably would have bid on it had we had the opportunity. Our realtor contacted the seller’s agent and they said it was being sold to a developer.
I think anon nailed it: we need to see the deed to see what went on here, but my assumption is that it was not at arms length. Had it actually been put out on the market, the sale price would have been higher, barring 200k in liens or something.
“I would have personally bid if I could have used financing rather than requiring all cash down with expectation of this would be a gut rehab or teardown.”
That’s exactly it. Cash is king. Most of the deals out there are cash only. How many financed deals do you see closing at bargain prices?
“Whoever bought this may even try to salvage it given how few new home starts are happening these days.”
Huh? The number of new home starts has nothing to do with the new owners decision.
Yeah, this was not an arms-length transaction at all. Another perfect example of why you need to have a great network and know the right people to get real estate deals done. I live in the area, and even a total tear-down lot would be $325K.
“Huh? The number of new home starts has nothing to do with the new owners decision.”
OK, I’ll admit I wasn’t articulate enough. What I’m trying to say, is that if I were a betting man, I would bet that this is a rehab rather than a tear down, because statistically, there are so few new homes being built right now. However, I can be wrong, apparently, someone above believes the home was sold to a developer.
I’m sure I’m just being naive, but what types of scenarios would lead the bank to approve the transaction, if it truly is below market (as opposed to not reflecting liens etc.)? A guy at the bank selling to his buddies? And that’s worth enough to risk whatever he’s risking?
“Yeah, this was not an arms-length transaction at all.”
So the bank was gladly taking the loss when it didn’t have to? They didn’t have ANY comps or other insight into what lots should sell for in this zip code?
I’m just asking (as I don’t know.) I’m with DZ. Why would the bank INTENTIONALLY take the loss?
There ARE some instances where the bank is using appraisers who literally live in other states- and simply go off of data and have no idea what a neighborhood is like. But any recent comps would NEVER show a sale for a SFH in this zip code at this price (interior damage or not.)
“What I’m trying to say, is that if I were a betting man, I would bet that this is a rehab rather than a tear down, because statistically, there are so few new homes being built right now.”
HD- you’re wrong about this. In Lakeview and LP, developers are STILL buying the cheap houses and tearing them down with no buyers in sight. I just saw one come on the market in North Lakeview. Sold last year for $275,000 and now there is a $1.3 million new construction house on the lot (no matter that there are similar houses for sale on each neighboring block that haven’t sold for a year or more.)
I should do a post on it. It’s truly amazing that the teardowns are still going on.
“#dahliachi on June 1st, 2011 at 5:57 am
Did it have lots of liens and back taxes?”
“#anon (tfo) on June 1st, 2011 at 6:06 am
Good point, dahlia. Might have included settlement/payment of a bunch of other stuff that you wouldnt pay transfer tax on.”
hmmmmm i think we may have stumbled on to something here. Groove is in for 20% and up to 35% if not enough takers join.
Well then I guess I’d lose that bet.
“HD- you’re wrong about this. In Lakeview and LP, developers are STILL buying the cheap houses and tearing them down with no buyers in sight. I just saw one come on the market in North Lakeview. Sold last year for $275,000 and now there is a $1.3 million new construction house on the lot (no matter that there are similar houses for sale on each neighboring block that haven’t sold for a year or more.)
I should do a post on it. It’s truly amazing that the teardowns are still going on”
Could this be a teardown? It seems possible that the damage is so extensive that it’s cheaper and easier to rebuild rather than repair. Maybe a demo for a new house this big is a little more expensive, but it still seems like, even with an expensive demo, this would be selling for at least $300k.
There’s a new SFH going up on a standard lot in around Wellington just east of Ashland that was a recent teardown sale for $360k, I think. That may reflect some Burley premium.
Can someone please help educate me on the desire for “cash only” transactions? I completely understand bank-owned properties and the bank’s need for a quick closing. However, my wife and I recently contacted the realtor of a $1M+ property in LV which was recently listed, and she said she would not show the property unless we were able and prepared to pay in cash. Seller did not want to show to anyone who needed bank financing. What’s up with that? Why would seller want to limit the universe of potential buyers to 10% or fewer of those in the market?
“OK, I’ll admit I wasn’t articulate enough. What I’m trying to say, is that if I were a betting man, I would bet that this is a rehab rather than a tear down, because statistically, there are so few new homes being built right now. ”
Well, that’s irrelevant. The buyer will make the decision based on what is cheaper to give him what he wants. If it costs less to tear down and rebuild, he will do it, even if “not a lot of other people are doing it”.
“I completely understand bank-owned properties and the bank’s need for a quick closing.”
Why do banks need a quick closing? I understand that that may be the practice, but why? If anything, I’d think the bank would have more flexibility.
” What’s up with that? Why would seller want to limit the universe of potential buyers to 10% or fewer of those in the market?”
I’m guessing it is too hard to get financing on that property and they don’t want to waste time with people who are willing, but unable to buy the property.
“I should do a post on it. It’s truly amazing that the teardowns are still going on.”
Why wouldn’t they still be going on? Here are three teardowns that have sold recently in my neighborhood. All in the 1-1.5mil range. What’s truly amazing is that people are still buying them. I don’t think any on these houses were on the market for more than 2-3 months.
http://chicago.blockshopper.com/property/14183020100000/4335_n_oakley/
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1911-W-Cuyler-Ave-Chicago-IL-60613/3708828_zpid/
http://www.urbanrealestate.com/property/1937-W-Cuyler-CHICAGO-IL-60613-AWHOIMMWPJJA4.html
What is best guess as to the % of cash buyers vs. all buyers for properties in the following price ranges:
$250K
$500K
$1M
You are clearly not understanding the basis of my conjecture as to the fate of this property. Sabrina understood it, she thought I was wrong, but she understood.
“Well, that’s irrelevant. The buyer will make the decision based on what is cheaper to give him what he wants. If it costs less to tear down and rebuild, he will do it, even if “not a lot of other people are doing it”.”
“There’s a new SFH going up on a standard lot in around Wellington just east of Ashland that was a recent teardown sale for $360k, I think. That may reflect some Burley premium.”
Are you thinking of 1514 W Nelson? They tore it down about 2-3 weeks ago and are making pretty good progress on it.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1514-W-Nelson-St-60657/home/13366438
I would be very surprised to see that a property in “market” condition and appropriate pricing requires a cash purchase. Usually this would indicate that there is some issue with the property or that it is priced well below value in order to get investors to come in (which may also reflect a lurking issue).
Like others in this thread, I think that it’s clear that many REO properties trade at less than market value and banks have shown their systems of dealing with the current housing market to be exceedingly poor and divorced from common sense.
“Why do banks need a quick closing? I understand that that may be the practice, but why? If anything, I’d think the bank would have more flexibility.”
Financing can be extremely difficult to get on a property like this. Deals these days get cancelled *all the time* because of financing issues. Lenders and their title insurers are crossing their ‘t’s and dotting their ‘i’s these days with releases, liens and the like.
$250K cannot be the full story here. If it is then everyone in Lakeview is underwater.
Well then hopefully nobody uses this as a comp!
From what I’ve seen the fire sale foreclosure (or short sales) usually have something *really* weird about then. I don’t know if that’s the case with this property, but examples I’ve seen in the past include: taking the property subject to a neighbor’s pro se litigation; unrecorded and/or unreleased liens; squatters; extensive interior damage; weird title issues; city receivership issues (that REALLY drives down the price when the city VPSs the property and the realtor has to contact the receiver just to show the property). etc
“Joe on June 1st, 2011 at 8:41 am
$250K cannot be the full story here. If it is then everyone in Lakeview is underwater.”
If this place is worth 250k, then the numnuts who has this parcel for sale is crazy. Two houses and a lot/large garage for 1.6 million being sold as vacant land (in Burley).
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1250-W-Barry-Ave-60657/home/13365598
would love to know the whole story here. As others mentioned even when you can do a cash deal, there’s definitely an exclusive group that have access to it. We’ve ‘lost’ out on two properties that we could have brought cash to the table for. The realtors are very evasive and generally do not return calls even when you specifically mention you that you qualify and can prove cash.
The bank wants to turn a non-performing asset into cash, which can be redeployed to make profit. There are some carrying costs for holding the property, and risks associated with having too many non-performing assets in the bank portfolio. It could be as simple as the bank trying to reduce owned assets to a certain target by the end of a quarter, and that is the primary goal driving decision making. The bank is in the money business, not RE, and their incentive is not necessarily to maximize yield on each transaction. Sometimee you just have to move the inventory.
There is definately an exclusive group and they have big money and they are repeat buyers. The bank can give them a call and if the buyer wants it there are none of the big hassles associated with trying to qualify someone for the first time. Rick is spot on, they just want these properties off their books with as few complications as possible.
“I’m just asking (as I don’t know.) I’m with DZ. Why would the bank INTENTIONALLY take the loss?”
because sabrina, the bank can take the loss (use it towards a tax writeoff on whatever other profits they may have) and then take the 250k of cash and turn that into loans worth $2.5million and then charge interest (and fees) on that $2.5 million so that the bank takes in almost $5 million over the course of said loans.
not a bad ROI eh?
“Can someone please help educate me on the desire for “cash only” transactions? I completely understand bank-owned properties and the bank’s need for a quick closing. However, my wife and I recently contacted the realtor of a $1M+ property in LV which was recently listed, and she said she would not show the property unless we were able and prepared to pay in cash. Seller did not want to show to anyone who needed bank financing. What’s up with that? Why would seller want to limit the universe of potential buyers to 10% or fewer of those in the market?”
Could be that the property is offered significantly above appraised value (maybe realtor had a bid that was dinged because appraisal much lower than bid price) and therefore knows that nobody would be able to get a mortgage near the current asking price.
This had to be an insider deal.
“I’m just asking (as I don’t know.) I’m with DZ. Why would the bank INTENTIONALLY take the loss?”
maybe it’s kinda like HR not taking the time to find the right candidate for a high turnover, low level position. It’s easier to hire Sally from accounting’s cousin and get the brownie points with her than to interview, and interview and interview and hope this person doesn’t quit two weeks after getting hired.
So I get the argument that they just want to liquidate their position, so to speak. But what I don’t understand is why they wouldn’t market it to at least a pool of “qualified, cash-only” developers. I really don’t think the “we want out NOW” attitude is the whole story here. Even if they did, there was a way to do it without leaving a mess of cash on the table. Even one other interested, qualified party here and they could have easily gotten another 100k minimum.
Nope, I still suspect funny business here. Unless, of course, the lien theory proves correct and the sale price is hiding 100k+ worth of costs…
“the bank can take the loss (use it towards a tax writeoff on whatever other profits they may have)”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCZRqH7sRyA
“Financing can be extremely difficult to get on a property like this. Deals these days get cancelled *all the time* because of financing issues. Lenders and their title insurers are crossing their ‘t’s and dotting their ‘i’s these days with releases, liens and the like.”
So that may argue for a cash sale (but not obviously for accepting below market price) for these kinds of properties, but not for other bank owned properties that don’t have particular financing challenges. Also, I don’t really understand the bank wants cash point in the sense that even if it’s financed, the bank owning the property still gets cash (unless it’s extending the loan).
“HD- you’re wrong about this. In Lakeview and LP, developers are STILL buying the cheap houses and tearing them down with no buyers in sight. I just saw one come on the market in North Lakeview. Sold last year for $275,000 and now there is a $1.3 million new construction house on the lot (no matter that there are similar houses for sale on each neighboring block that haven’t sold for a year or more.)
I should do a post on it. It’s truly amazing that the teardowns are still going on.”
I’m scratching my head on that (continued building of $1MM++ SFH) too.
At least 1 year’s (likely two??) of supply of new/nearly new 60614/57 $1MM+ SFH—not to mention all of the $1MM++ condos in 60601-60611.
“I should do a post on it. It’s truly amazing that the teardowns are still going on.”
3828 Bell (brick two-flat; 30′ lot) sold for $515 in Jan-11 and was torn down as soon as the snow melted. No foundation as of the weekend.
The bank let’s you in on this deal( we used to call this a pork chop) In return, at some point in the future you will be taking a problem property or properties off their hands at a price more favorable to the bank.
Regarding the condition of the interior: Check the Redfin listing here:
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1019-W-George-St-60657/home/13362337
for the pix of the too-the-studs interior. Unless I’m mistaken, that’s an almost un-financeable structure (won’t call it a house).
No back taxes, unless they’re quite old. The last three installments were each timely paid, 1 to 3 weeks before due dates.
“But what I don’t understand is why they wouldn’t market it to at least a pool of “qualified, cash-only” developers. I really don’t think the “we want out NOW” attitude is the whole story here.”
Because “the bank” isn’t really the one doing the transaction. It is some flunky who works at “the bank” who is doing the transaction. It’s not the flunkies money. They just want to leave at 4:30pm to pick their kids up at soccer.
“The bank let’s you in on this deal( we used to call this a pork chop) In return, at some point in the future you will be taking a problem property or properties off their hands at a price more favorable to the bank.”
This I believe. Banks may be lazy, but they also look to squeeze cash out of whatever they have. If they get a favor down the line for eating a loss on this, it might make it worth their while.
No way this gets done at this price without serious hidden costs or a quid pro quo down the line…
“I’m scratching my head on that (continued building of $1MM++ SFH) too.”
That’s what these guys do, and they have equipment and employees or contractors they want to keep busy, so building something is better than building nothing. If you can weather the valleys it makes sense to keep on going for an eventual sale. The last few valleys have probably put more than a few out of business, though.
Places like these cannot be financed by regular mortgages. The only option for those who can’t pay cash is hard money lending which essentially is only a few degrees away from getting the loan from Tony Soprano. The price reflects the reality that they only buyers are going to have all cash.
I get several calls a week now from people looking to buy condos as rental properties. They are seeing condos listed for less than $100k, some less than $50k. However, they can’t get financing on these units even with large down payments for a variety of reasons so cash only. Very few are willing to do that…
chuk.. Agreed.. Find the right person at a bank – and you can have some serious fun… Some just don’t give a shit, some don’t know better, and many hate their employer for paying millions to some while they make 50k. Banks are so much less sophisticated than people give them credit for being. That holds true with recent presumed ‘nefarious’ behavior as well.
After looking at the pictures from http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/1019-W-George-St-60657/home/13362337, does anyone know what happened to this house? Presumably in July 2007 it was a completed structure. Did someone try to gut rehab it afterwards and run out of money? Just seems odd to me, and I’m curious as to what happened.
“does anyone know what happened to this house?”
Didn’t someone in the last thread say something about water damage?
I believe this is in the 44th ward with Ald. Tunney. He and the neighborhood association have been very strict about what they let get built in the ward. I’m not an expert on the topic, but I believe they will not change zoning without a very good reason (and that reason can’t be b/c you gave Tunney a few $). This may have had an impact on the final price.
I can’t actually think of a profession with a worse reputation right now.
The problem is the good old USA has essentially undergone a large societal swap of a manufacturing sector for a financial services one.
What people don’t often grasp are the implications – the financial services sector still needs to “manufacture” something, the problem is they have unbelievable resources and very few regulations.
Exotic mortgages were the cat’s meow when appraisals weren’t being scrutinized, when speculation was considered more important than the structures in question (as land value was skyrocketing with no end in sight), and when the Fed was keeping the spigot on full-blast.
Now, things sure look different. I am awed by the people who seem oblivious to the past correction cycle. I call it that to make clear the housing boom was a MISTAKE that needed to be fixed.
From my perspective, people buying & building house to flip/just to make money are screwing with something they don’t understand, which is neighborhood stability – transient populations are in general just kind of stupid. They tend to support idiotic short-term decisions (ie, parking meter privatization) without worrying about the long term, because you know, they have no plans to be around and thus just don’t care.
I care about people raising kids here, people with family here, people trying to retire and enjoy a neighborhood they spent their whole life trying to improve.
btw, does anyone even remember Bush’s brilliant plan to privatize social security? Same moronic mindset, “the market is doing great right now, how could this go wrong?”
“Banks are so much less sophisticated than people give them credit for being.”
“They tend to support idiotic short-term decisions (ie, parking meter privatization)”
Failure of execution, not concept. I, for one, and perhaps the only one, appreciate parking being available when I drive somewhere and am happy to pay somewhat more for it–runs me under $50/year, total.
“I, for one, and perhaps the only one, appreciate parking being available when I drive somewhere and am happy to pay somewhat more for it–runs me under $50/year, total.”
Crap, I’d guess we spend $250/year, but still really like availability.
“Crap, I’d guess we spend $250/year, but still really like availability.”
That’s a lot of hours at meters, or you park at Loop meters sometimes. We never meter park in the $5 zone and very rarely in the $3 zone.
There are some crazy dynamics in the Chicago RE market where cash only deals go for this but deals where deals with financing go for far more. Scary stuff.
“Didn’t someone in the last thread say something about water damage?”
Yeah, I guess I should have read the last thread rather being lazy. From the comments, it did not seem like anyone truly “knew” the answer, but most people thought the walls were opened up because of mold caused by water damage.
“That’s a lot of hours at meters, or you park at Loop meters sometimes. We never meter park in the $5 zone and very rarely in the $3 zone.”
We do park at loop or river north sometimes; my wife is out with kid a couple times a week with need for metered parking; with easy availability of meter I don’t seek out free spots as much as I used to; and my wife likes to just pay for the max b/c she doesn’t like “to cut it close.”
Just checked my credit card, $93 over last four months: 2 times in $5 zone for the max 2hrs, 1 time in $3 zone for max, a lot of $2-3 dollar charges.
“does anyone even remember Bush’s brilliant plan to privatize social security? ”
I’m actually surprised the bank lobby didn’t cram this one through
although i’m sure when all the sheep lost their retirment savings the next go aroud, uncle sugar would be there to assume that old people aren’t eating cat food.
I would at least like the choice of whether or not to participate in Social security and the ability to manage my own money if I choose to do so.
anon (tfo) – of course, the city could have done that itself, and socialized the profits.
The parking meter lease requires a more nuanced review:
Generally raising rates to provide for better availability and a more realistic cost for parking – I think that this is good. Metered spots at an artificially low rate just encourage parking all day, and the point is that the meters are supposed to be available for people for a relatively short time.
Privatizing the maintenance o parking meters and collection of parking fees – I think that this is good, too. The private company seems to be handling this better than the City would be.
Selling the revenue from parking meters for the next 75 (or whatever) years in return for an upfront payment – this was the terrible part. Even if the money we got exceeds the present value of the parking charges over the 75 years (which I think that it clearly does not), we can’t trust City government not to just spend all the money as soon as they get it. And Daley did exactly that.
its pretty sad that we have already pissed away all the billion dollars we got for the parking meters
if chicago ever sells its water supply i am outta here
“its pretty sad that we have already pissed away all the billion dollars we got for the parking meters”
Chicago government operates a lot like a dog. Put ten big steaks in front of most dogs and they will eat them until they are sick or die.
Nat: “of course, the city could have done that itself, and socialized the profits.”
You just move here? From the West Coast, right? Not in this town, they couldn’t have.
JJJ: “[nuanced view]”
Yeah, basically how I feel about it. Needed an earn-out, too, for any increases above scheduled, inflation-adjusted, rates.
I think that more spaces need to be metered, too. Still too much “free” (i.e., paid for by everyone, to the benefit of only those parking there) parking.
sonies.. Just manage your 401k til they come take that from you too. Your SS is sitting in a special gov’t trust.. Don’t worry about the 14 trillion deficit sitting in the
shared account, it’s all ok.
“sonies.. Just manage your 401k til they come take that from you too. Your SS is sitting in a special gov’t trust.. Don’t worry about the 14 trillion deficit sitting in the
shared account, it’s all ok.”
I bet the financial press and the advisers are shitting br_cks right now worried that if consumers understand that their tax rates in retirement might well be much higher than during their peak earning years there will be far less of an incentive to contribute as much as possible to these plans.
“Still too much “free” (i.e., paid for by everyone, to the benefit of only those parking there) parking.”
Much harder/impossible to have counterfeit permit zones anymore, too (it was quite easy back in the day with erasable pens and no barcodes). I’m surprised there hasn’t been a grey market site set up for people to trade the temp permits.
avoiding taxes with retirement funds is why most (good) advisors have jobs, go ahead and raise taxes I’m sure they will figure out some sort of shelter that they can use. Right now, diversify by contributing to a roth IRA in addition to your 401k or traditional IRA… even better if your employer offers a roth 401k, that will be a much tougher nut to crack down the road politically since they were created to benefit “the poor”
I recently made an all cash offer on a condo in foreclosure. $30k over the asking price and was outbid by another all cash offer just a couple weeks into the listing.
I wish I knew someone at the bank.
Steven, how did you find the foreclosed property? I assume not MLS.
It was off the MLS. I don’t have any insider connections.
bob… That was my thought. Whats the chance tax rates are lower for you at retirement. Whats the chance anything ‘over’ a certain amount won’t be subject to a ‘special’ tax. People so often mistake gov’t as a friend as opposed to its often being a competing organism.
And anon.. I think you said it well. Needed an earn out, purposefully not included, since part 2- unscheduled rate increases WILL come.
I know same with us. I was wondering if there is any good way of getting foreclosure listings other than MLS.
My wife and I are thinking of dropping out of the condo search altogether. There are so very few condo listings in 8008 and 8032 that are even worth considering. Couple that with the fact that this state and the country as a whole is on the precipice of another great depression and I think we’re better off waiting.
We want to get a 2BR condo but are waiting too. I really feel that the prices will get another 15-20% hit by next year. Unless one finds a great short sale or a foreclosure, waiting might be a good option. Also I am doing this rent vs buy thing. Unless I can rent out the place and break at least even on my expenses, I won’t buy. Most condos in GZ at least don’t fit the bill.
Yeah, I agree completely. We looked at a place at 550 st clair. The developer wanted 1.35 for a place that rents for $5,000/month. Tax/Assessments alone for that place would probably be in the 3,500-4,000 range.
The numbers don’t make sense in 90%+ listings and the market is getting worse.
“Steven, how did you find the foreclosed property? I assume not MLS.”
Redfin has started to show foreclosures (with addresses). I think this is a somewhat new development. I don’t know how up to date or complete their information is.
Miumiu I was reading in Chicago magazine a couple months back about an agent who does a lot of these foreclosures, I’ll try to check it later for the name for you. Someone in my office was just saying this morning that she lost out on yet another place today to someone that offered less than she did, but all cash.
Interestingly the biggest roadblock we’re coming up against in our purchase is the HOA who are completely incapable of telling anyone what the monthly fee is. I suspect they’re mad that we’re paying half of what they all did.
I just got a NAR membership to check. It was ~$1,500 and then I can claim the 2.5% co-op if I buy anything.
“I just got a NAR membership to check. It was ~$1,500 and then I can claim the 2.5% co-op if I buy anything.”
Are you sure about the commission? Do you have to do anything other than hand over ~$1,500?
“Do you have to do anything other than hand over ~$1,500?”
No details, but you have to have the license, too.
Yeah, the license is the harder part. Depending on your situation it may require you to take some RE classes.
Didn’t this house have massive water damage?
Ok, I’ll propose a scenario. House goes into foreclosure, empty, with massive water damage due to extended period of uncontrolled water flow on 2nd floor saturating drywall, wood floors, and wood framing. Bank inspector and/or appraiser tour house, inspect interior, note significant areas of “black mold”, mold, standing water, softened wood framing, etc. House labeled as “environmental hazard”. House is gutted to interior studes, but studs also water-damaged, softened, mold evident, etc. House is determined to be a total loss, requiring demolition, for bank’s file purposes.
Basement foundation reusable, but everything else must be demolished, hauled from site, and materials properly disposed. “Black mold” is a big environmental red flag. Bank will convey property with no reps and warranties concerning environmental condition nor assume any liability for environmental hazards. That sale condition makes it impossible to finance purchase. That sale conditon also creates a title blemish that can be remedied by buyer’s demolition of existing house (and eventual new construction) prior to conveying property in future.
For a contractor/developer, in this situation it’s cheaper and faster to demolish the building shell and build a new structure over the existing foundation. Bet that foundation interior gets a hazmat treatment too.
sorry to drift a bit off-topic (although I can add that once upon a time I recall this block not needing permit parking whatsoever), but on the parking meter/space availability issue I think removing the physical meters played a huge role there.
Those meters were installed back when cars were being churned out of Detroit that were significantly longer than they are now. I’m guessing that on an average block filled with Toyotas, Hondas and the like, you get a few extra spaces, easy.
“No details, but you have to have the license, too.”
“Yeah, the license is the harder part. Depending on your situation it may require you to take some RE classes.”
Yeah, 90 hours worth of classes. Maybe I can take it online like the driving classes. Or go to law school and pass the bar I guess. Probably not worth it.
“Chicago government operates a lot like a dog. Put ten big steaks in front of most dogs and they will eat them until they are sick or die”
Sure they spent the billion but actually they had already spent that billion and were using the sale to just replace some of that money that had already been OVER- SPENT.
Now I’m no Blago fan but I say that all of those politicians that continually stole money from protected retirement pools of money with no intent or plan to ever replace those funds should be held accountable and are the ones that are now actually on trial.
If the average individual gets into a financial jam they may elect to borrow from their 401K account. I find it interesting that our government designed a way to penalize the heck out of Joe shmoe for this obvious short sighted mistake but when they did it no one even blinked and they did not even have to pay it back!
Most of our politicians are idiots, ass kissers, and liars!
LMAO….you mean like the new Walmart he is changing zoning for? 🙂 The 44th ward is a architectural mess with all the developers they let ruin some very beautiful blocks of older buildings.
“I believe this is in the 44th ward with Ald. Tunney. He and the neighborhood association have been very strict about what they let get built in the ward. I’m not an expert on the topic, but I believe they will not change zoning without a very good reason (and that reason can’t be b/c you gave Tunney a few $). This may have had an impact on the final price.”
Ze is either having flashbacks or its because he lives next to a country that has defaulted before and at times gives the finger to property rights
http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/the-credit-crunch-claims-its-biggest-victim-argentina-13892
‘Why wouldn’t they still be going on? Here are three teardowns that have sold recently in my neighborhood. All in the 1-1.5mil range. What’s truly amazing is that people are still buying them. I don’t think any on these houses were on the market for more than 2-3 months.
http://chicago.blockshopper.com/property/14183020100000/4335_n_oakley/
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/1911-W-Cuyler-Ave-Chicago-IL-60613/3708828_zpid/
http://www.urbanrealestate.com/property/1937-W-Cuyler-CHICAGO-IL-60613-AWHOIMMWPJJA4.html”
Phil: Out of the examples you provide only one of them sold in a decent amount of time.
1911 W. Cuyler was first listed in 2008- so it took 3 years to sell (not 3 months).
4335 N. Oakley DID sell within 5 months. That’s fast for a $1 million house in North Center (in Coonley- NOT Bell).
1937 W. Cuyler never sold. The listing was cancelled.
There are others that have been on the market for YEARS. But they keep building them.
“1911 W. Cuyler was first listed in 2008- so it took 3 years to sell (not 3 months).”
Three years to sell twice. Sold in Jun-09 for $1.445, with a ~$950k mortgage.
My point with 1911 W. Cuyler, it’s a teardown that did sell. It was listed on the market this winter and sold for a higher price within three months.
I assume the developer was living in 1937 Cuyler, someone has been there (maybe it was rented). That home was up for sale for 2 months this spring, someone moved out and someone else moved furniture in- if the listing was canceled, maybe it was rented.
2146 W. Cuyler was also a teardown that sold last summer for 1.1m. However, that home seems to have been relisted for a short time this spring…
http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2146-W-Cuyler-Ave-Chicago-IL-60618/80819371_zpid/#{scid=hdp-site-map-bubble-address}
I seriously question the judgment of the people who are purchasing these homes- until it stops, developers are going to continue to buy teardowns.
“I assume the developer was living in 1937 Cuyler, someone has been there (maybe it was rented).”
NB: The construction mortgage was paid off; that house is free and clear in the developer’s LLC.
Sounds like an inside job – someone paid someone off etc.
250K sounds absurdly too low for this place given the location.