Forget a Loft Condo, Buy a Loft House Instead: 1275 N. Hermitage in Wicker Park

This 2-bedroom single family home at 1275 N. Hermitage in Wicker Park came on the market in August 2011.

 

The house is more like a loft than your typical single family home.

Built in 1881 on a 37x15x25x39 lot, it has exposed brick and ductwork common in most lofts.

At 2000 square feet, the master suite is located on the second level, along with an office.

The second bedroom is in the lower level with a full bath.

The house has 2 outdoor spaces including a 13×9 deck off the main level and a 360 degree panoramic rooftop deck.

The kitchen has cherry cabinets and Wolf and Subzero appliances.

While the house has central air, it doesn’t have any parking. There is apparently 2-car leased parking nearby.

What’s the market for this unique property?

Jenna Smith at Dream Town has the listing. See the pictures here.

1275 N. Hermitage: 2 bedrooms, 2.5 baths, 2000 square feet

  • Sold in June 1989 for $23,500
  • Sold in July 1990 for $55,000
  • Sold in December 1995 for $150,000
  • Sold in December 1999 for $215,000
  • Sold in December 2003 for $330,000
  • Sold in June 2008 for $482,000
  • Originally listed in August 2011 (I couldn’t find an original list price)
  • Was listed in September 2011 for $449,900
  • Reduced
  • Currently listed at $435,000
  • Taxes of $6617
  • Central Air
  • No parking- 2 car leased parking available nearby
  • Bedroom #1: 19×14 (second level)
  • Bedroom #2: 23×14 (lower level)
  • Office: 23×11 (second level)

 

23 Responses to “Forget a Loft Condo, Buy a Loft House Instead: 1275 N. Hermitage in Wicker Park”

  1. Is the el underground here? Because this property is right on it.

    0
    0
  2. I can’t imagine anyone buying this property – the owners should just rent it out for 2000/month and wait until the next boom (?10 years). No way anyone will buy this place (even for half of what they are asking).

    0
    0
  3. danny (lower case D) on October 11th, 2011 at 10:15 am

    Like!

    0
    0
  4. looks like the el is not underground yet. but it is on the ground, so you got that going for you which is nice.

    0
    0
  5. I think those are the el tracks behind the lattice in the picture with the grill. wow, that is close. great if you have little ones who like trains. if you want to cure them of that interest.

    0
    0
  6. Jim in the Sloop on October 11th, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Nice deck.

    Note the realtor: remove the giant picture of the NAKED man before taking the picture.

    0
    0
  7. Definitely right on top of the el. 1720 W Ellen is similar triangle lot on the el but has a 2 car garage. It was listed for $425k in 2008. No way this place is worth $435k now, subzero or not.

    0
    0
  8. You could walk to Jewel. I like the Ark thrift shop too.

    0
    0
  9. WTF with the naked man? Sitting at your desk… always being mooned by the naked man. Weird art choice. (Although, much less creepy than a crucifix.)

    0
    0
  10. Missed the naked man the first time. Went back for a second look but was unimpressed. Crack kills!

    0
    0
  11. “37x15x25x39 lot”

    If only it were a rhombus. Would buy it just to make my son do geometry problems on it.

    0
    0
  12. is the exposed brick on the interior the same thickness one would see on a loft (fmr. industrial building)? Normally, that brick would have studs and drywall. I’m assuming that real loft buildings had perhaps thicker brick exterior walls than this residential? I wonder how thick the wall is, and if it’s insulated well. Place looks nice inside.

    0
    0
  13. “The second bedroom is in the lower level ”

    The floorplan linked in the redfin listing labels it a “rec room”, and shows it as open to the laundry area and the storage area–both okay it its a rec room, not so much as an every day bedroom.

    0
    0
  14. These idiots probably didn’t even know what Bear Stearns was, why it imploding was a canary in the coal mine, or anything. Betting it was a low down loan, too.

    0
    0
  15. Jenny – Are you also creeped-out by the mezuzahs gracing the front doors of some residences in our fair city? Or the tabletop Buddah shrines found in some living rooms (and the office of a Realtor I used to work with)? Or are you “selectively religiously offended” only by Christian icons? If so I guess you also protest at (privately funded) Nativity scenes in town squares.

    Sorry that you’re so offended by our First Amendment.

    Sad to be you.

    0
    0
  16. That is some ugly stair and entrance addition. Noisy location due to the el going up or down here. Interesting shape for a unit.

    0
    0
  17. “Sorry that you’re so offended by our First Amendment.”

    Right back atcha, CTG.

    jenny’s perfectly entitled to her disdain for religion and the religious, so long as she is not discriminatory in the realms of employment, service or housing.

    0
    0
  18. People sure seem to confuse “offensive personal opinions” with “violating the 1st amendment” a lot these days. Even the examples you cite, anon, aren’t really first amendment violations. Those are violations of various employment and housing laws, mostly enacted in the last century or so.

    A true first amendment violation would be the government (at any level) restricting speech based on content or restricting the practice of religion. Private entities are restricted by various laws, but are restricted by the first amendment in only certain, very narrow circumstances.

    0
    0
  19. “Those are violations of various employment and housing laws, mostly enacted in the last century or so.”

    Sure, sure, but they are examples of types of “speech” that are NOT protected by the First Amendment.

    For, if they were, then the government could not enforce an employment or housing law that abridges the speech rights, right?

    0
    0
  20. anon: “For, if they were, then the government could not enforce an employment or housing law that abridges the speech rights, right?”

    I agree with your first sentence but I’m not sure what you are getting at with this. Too many negations of negatives, my head might explode…

    0
    0
  21. “I’m not sure what you are getting at with this”

    If discriminatory “speech” in the workplace (or whatever) were deemed to be “speech” fully protected by the First Amendment, then the government (fed, state, local) could not pass laws proscribing such “speech” without running afoul of the First Amendment. Hence my carveout.

    Yeah, yeah, proof of interest, balancing of rights, etc, etc. So, yeah, wicked oversimplification, but *much* more correct than chiding jenny for being “offended by our First Amendment” because she expressed an opinion about religion unpopular with (presumably Catholic) CTG. Who, I shouldn’t have to remind, is (presumably) a member of what was (and in some circles, remains) a rather unpopular religion, what with being papists with competing personal loyalties and all.

    0
    0
  22. this place is ON TOP of the el. You could jump onto the tracks from the bedroom window. I walked by it today. tragic.

    0
    0
  23. I’ve been in this property. It is super tiny and not conducive. It has a great deck above the El, but no way should this be classified as a single family home.
    Its value is $150-$200k in my opinion.

    0
    0

Leave a Reply