IBJNews

Long-struggling condo development going to auction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

A block of eight downtown condominiums is going to auction Feb. 7 following almost five years in which they failed to attract buyers through traditional means.

The mostly two-bedroom units represent the bulk of the ill-fated Chatham Kynett Court project at 716 N. East St. in the Chatham Arch neighborhood. The condos, spread over three buildings, were developed by locally based SC Devcon and came to market in 2008 shortly before the recession ravaged the residential real estate market.

Key Auctioneers is selling the units, which range in size from 1,400 to 2,200 square feet, for BMO Harris Bank. There is no minimum bid, said Jeff Doner, a vice president of the auction company. The high bidder is required to put up $10,000 in earnest money and close on the purchase within 30 days of the auction.

The units are being sold in "as is" condition. Doner said one of the units is finished and three are drywalled and have mechanicals but need finishing. Of those four units, three are in a four-unit building that faces East Street and the other is in a three-unit building directly behind it. Both of those structures were built when the condos were developed. The other four units that are part of the auction package are yet to be built in the Kynett building, a historic brick structure that fronts Cleveland Street, an alley behind and parallel to East Street.

Doner said nothing would prevent a buyer from taking advantage of the hot downtown rental market and leasing the units rather than selling them.

Chatham Kynett Court included 11 units when it was built. Three of those sold, but potential buyers turned up their noses at the rest of them, which ranged in price from $249,000 to almost $400,000.

Kurt Flock, whose company specializes in selling downtown residential property, had the listing for nine of the condos when SC Devcon brought them to market.

Flock felt they were overpriced to begin with. Anyone trying to sell the Chatham Kynett Court units now will have to figure out how to finish them without breaking the bank. They will have to remain competitive with resale units, which are commanding about 20 percent less than they were before the housing bubble burst, Flock said.

"There's not enough profit potential there without buying the remaining units at a stupendous discount," he said.

Flock noted that banks are especially stingy about loaning money for the purchase of condominiums. Common areas and the land underneath a condo building are typically owned by an association supported by building residents.  

Flock said banks usually look more favorably upon planned unit developments, in which the owners of individual units also own the land under their unit. Whoever buys the Chatham Kynett Court units could, theoretically, convert the project to a planned unit development.

"It's going to take some real estate gymnastics" to rescue the project and make a profit, Flock said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. So the Mayor adds another non value added layer to having a vehicle towed? Whereby the City Government RECIEVES AN ILLEGAL KICKBACK FROM A LGOISTICS COMPANY THAT SUBS THE WORK TO LOCAL TOW COMPANIES? What is the service the City performs for receiving the "tribute"? This is RICO!!!!! What a corrupt and unnecessary layer. What a dirtbag Mayor and his cronies.

  2. Owner occupied housing. Clear enough?

  3. So people think I am paranoid. It's from experience in dealing with puds requested by developers who make major donations themselves to representatives, have nice fund raisers for those running for office and hide through pac's. then there are the public relation firms. You will note some pr comments below. You there Clyde Lee? My opinion. Commercial along 421, great. Multifamily housing, terrible idea that will change the town. Senior condos or zero lot line homes west, great. I suggest keeping all entries to commercial areas at 421. All entries to owner occupied on sycamore. Will keep the traffic on sycamore down some. Two other things. You can't trust what will be there in 10 years. Steve builds quality stuff, but areas change over time. Look at the changes at the wall mart center at 86th and 421 over the last 10 years. Look at the apartments and neighborhoods behind St Vincent's. Raintree properties WILL decrease in value if commercial and multifamily goes in near. It has already been happening around the bridges area. The houses that have been sold recently are way below market. Several deals not closed due to the Illinois construction and the whole unsurety of the bridges. It's pretty simple, Zionsville will approve the whole thing because the city council has been groomed over a LONG period of time for this. I might even suggest some are in their position as a result of this.

  4. Esta, do you have a dog in this fight? You seem to really want to knock anyone against this project. No, I didn't move to Indiana for the architecture. I moved here for that red barn in the field. The horses and fields of corn. A place that is NOT overdeveloped. There are plenty of nearby places in Indianapolis that could be REDEVELOPED instead.

  5. RKW - OK, we get it, you're paranoid. The question is, are you paranoid enough? Greg - Yes, Pittman(s) is (are) at it again. They are developers, they build things. It's what they do. So when you go to work tomorrow, Greg, you're at it again too. Cliff - Really? You moved to Indiana for its progressive architecture? That's like moving to England for the cuisine. Zionsvillain - The house you moved to was once a field or woods. I'm willing to bet folks were upset when that ground was plowed under and a house was built. But I guess now that you are in, everything should stop? "My house was OK, but the next one is sprawl." SE Guy - Please don't paint us with such a wide brush. Most reasonable Zionsville residents welcome planned, measured development.

ADVERTISEMENT