Buying Property by the United Center (Chicago: rental, neighborhoods, tenants) - City-Data Forum

jp47 · 06-01-2011, 11:12 AM

Before you tell me that I'm crazy or that I need to use the search function, hear me out.

What are your thoughts on the area JUST West of the United Center. I'm not talking about as far west as Western, I'm speaking in terms of the property just west of the United Center parking lots, by Touhy-Herbert park. What are the chances that the area slowly gentrifies in the next 10-15 years and having a place in proximity to the parks, the United Center, and the Medical District could become very attractive for some?

I would buy a multi-unit home, live in one half and have tenants in the other. I understand the risks involved, but from a cash flow perspective, I could be living for free. This would be temporary for me as this would allow to me continue building cash and purchase additional properties.

monroe and surrey chicago - Google Maps

So...let me hear it!

ole69 · 06-01-2011, 11:20 AM

I can't speak to your question, but I can tell you that Malcolm X College is (or was) planning on moving farther West

aragx6 · 06-01-2011, 11:30 AM

I wouldn't personally want to live there -- once it gets warm out I always saw a lot of hood rats out and about even when taking the Damen bus.

But if you feel safe enough, can cash flow and don't mind staying for the long haul? I guess I'd say go for it.

Aleking · 06-01-2011, 12:31 PM

If you're immediately west, are aware of the neighborhoods flaw and find a deal that will allow a positive cash flow, go for it. That said, gentrification city wide has pretty much come to a stand still and that area won't be the first to pick up if and when the greater economy turns around.

Vlajos · 06-01-2011, 12:43 PM

I think over the long term, the area will only improve.

Jandur · 06-01-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vlajos

I think over the long term, the area will only improve.

I think people have been saying that for a very long time.

Not saying it isn't true, but I'm skeptical at this point.

Aleking · 06-01-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jandur

I think people have been saying that for a very long time.

Not saying it isn't true, but I'm skeptical at this point.

I guess it depends on your definition of "long" right

Either way, 10-15 yrs is wildly optimistic.

long101 · 06-01-2011, 02:18 PM

Lets say it does get better in 10-15 years. Your willing to live there for 10-15 years in its current state? I do agree that it certainly could get better with its close proxmity to the loop and areas around it are getting better. However I could not live there for that amount of time. I only live about a mile from there and drive by quite often

jp47 · 06-01-2011, 02:44 PM

Thanks for the feedback. I wouldn't be living there for 10-15 years. I'd say maybe 3-4. Given that I could have all of my payments made by renting out the other unit, I would be saving roughly 1k a month as oppose to renting. With that savings as well as my already high savings rate, I would use this as a down payment on another property to live in and continue renting out the aforementioned property.

aragx6 · 06-01-2011, 02:45 PM

^I think he's suggested he would use the money he saves by living rent free to save up and buy another rental property. I've known a couple couples in St. Louis who have bounced around every 24 months as they save up and buy more properties -- I imagine the timeline would need to be longer in Chicago based simply on higher all-around property costs.

I assume, OP, that you've done the math and you can in fact cash flow once you move on right? Otherwise it's simply not worth it.

ETA:
Oh he just beat me to it!