One of Chicago’s Grandest Homes Hits the Market in Wicker Park: 1407 N. Hoyne
This 5-bedroom historic mansion at 1407 N. Hoyne in Wicker Park just came on the market.
Anyone who has lived, walked, jogged, biked or driven through the Wicker Park neighborhood knows this house.
Built in 1885, it’s on a massive 98×110 city lot.
Crain’s has more:
The red brick Second Empire-style mansion, on nearly half an acre on Hoyne Avenue, is familiar to locals for its turreted top, broad lawn and tidy gardens. Completed sometime between 1885 and 1891 (the dates vary in different records on the house), it was divided into apartments in the early 20th century.
In 2007, Timothy and Robin Sheehan paid nearly $2.47 million for the home, according to the Cook County recorder of deeds, buying it from an owner of 27 years.
At the time, “it needed everything done,” said Emily Sachs Wong, the @properties agent who is representing the home now. They turned it into a five-bedroom, five-bath home that retains many historical details, including leaded glass transom windows in the living room and carved “carpenter’s lace” in a doorway arch.
The house is 6,728 square feet.
It has the layout most buyers look for with 3 of the 5 bedrooms on the second level, including the master suite.
There’s also a laundry room on the second floor.
The third floor has a guest room and bath, an office and an exercise room.
The lower level has a wine room, a recreation room and what looks like an in-law suite with a bedroom and a small kitchen.
There’s a custom kitchen by O’Brien Harris.
Take a look at that Carpenter’s lace and the restored circular staircase that’s in the turret.
It has other unique features like velvet wall paper in the living room.
Is this a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to buy one of Chicago’s grandest single family homes?
Look inside a restored Wicker Park mansion for sale at almost $6.5 million [Crain’s Chicago Business, by Dennis Rodkin, July 18, 2018]
Emily Sachs Wong at @Properties has the listing. See the pictures here.
1407 N. Hoyne: 5 bedrooms, 5.5 baths, 6,728 square feet, 1 car attached garage
- Sold in April 1990 for $200,000 (CCRD lists this but Crain’s says the prior owner lived there 27 years. This may only be a refinancing.)
- Sold in September 2007 for $2,466,500
- Currently listed for $6.495 million
- Taxes of $66,793
- Central Air
- Bedroom #1: 22×13 (second floor)
- Bedroom #2: 15×12 (second floor)
- Bedroom #3: 15×11 (second floor)
- Bedroom #4: 16×10 (third floor)
- Bedroom #5: 14×13 (lower level)
- Den: 28×14 (third floor)
- Office: 20×9 (third floor)
- Exercise room: 14×7 (third floor)
- Recreation room: 28×20 (lower level)
- Kitchen: 12×6 (lower level)
- Laundry room: 9×8 (second floor)
Stunning.
So, we all know that there are floorplans for this place. Why not include them in the listing?
The remodel looks really well done but some of the choices leave me scratching my head
– Not sure why they didnt go a more traditional look Vs modern. The grey pallete should be getting near the end of its run.
-Painting the woodwork is a crime against humanity
– the fireplace in the LR/entrance is pretty wimpy and looks like an afterthought
– Guessing the Husband got to pick out the finishes in the Den. Love the Log cabin look, but totally doesn’t fit
“Sold in April 1990 for $200,000 (CCRD lists this but Crain’s says the prior owner lived there 27 years. This may only be a refinancing.)”
That was for the neighbor to the north, 1417 N Hoyne. From one Land Trust to another. Looks like the current owner of that house bought it in 1994 for $400k.
1417 is, on the outside, the better property, as the coachhouse is part of the property, off set from the main house, and provides 4 car parking off of the alley. May well not be as nice as this inside, tho.
I have a new dream home.
“So, we all know that there are floorplans for this place. Why not include them in the listing?”
And be available for the hoi polloi? If you were actually a prospective buyer for this, you would have the floor plan already and would you really want everyone else to have it. The public photos are bad enough!
Can’t believe the realtors haven’t renamed teh entirety of widker as btown yet.
For once, it’s not the floorplans I want to see, but the before and after and more geeky details about what they did, what decisions they made, and why.
If someone wants to give me $6m that can only be spent on Chicago real estate, I’d consider this place. It’s lovely. Really curious if they can get the price in the neighborhood, though — and not because it’s not in Bucktown!
84 pics… oh baby, some real estate porn right here
“And be available for the hoi polloi?”
Are you suggesting that Jenny Ames associates with the hoi polloi?? Like, Hahvard grads and such??? That’s almost actionable!
I would stay in Chicago if I could live in this house.
@johnnyU I think the photo filter makes the den look worse that it really is
I cannot wait to hear what Jenny dislikes about this place!
” what Jenny dislikes about this place”
It is west of Ashland–aka “so far west”.
is the rear yard coachhouse?
is that why they have an ugly garage in the front
Also it looks like the projects looming east of the house
Beautiful home, but would I pay $6 million to live in this location? Honestly no. If it were Lincoln Park or the North Shore, different story. You can get some beautiful homes in those areas for less money, and they’re in far better neighborhoods.
I love Wicker Park, of course. I could see living there someday. But not for this much money, even if I had it.
this house is amazing. probably the nicest place i’ve seen available in a long time.
“Not sure why they didnt go a more traditional look Vs modern.”
this place is far from modern. i’d classify it as transitional.
“Painting the woodwork is a crime against humanity”
ehh, i think they left enough wood work for to make buyers happy. most people today just don’t want dark woodwork though out their house.
“Also it looks like the projects looming east of the house”
That is a senior housing building you are referring to.
I agree with Dan #2 on spending $6 million in this location.
“is the rear yard coachhouse?”
yes, and seemingly with separate ownership, unlike the northern neighbor.
“Are you suggesting that Jenny Ames associates with the hoi polo??”
she’s not the listing agent.
design strategy screams “shoehorn a $1.5 million new build townhouse into awesome huge victorian.”
Let’s talk about unpainted woodwork nazis.
Where did you people come from, and what is the origin of your ideas? Unpainted woodwork is fine, but is in fact more of a historical anomaly than a norm. Maybe it’s that so many Midwestern homes are craftsman influenced? Natural woodwork was en vogue briefly in the the mid 1800s, and then was the dominant feature in craftsman influenced work, but that’s about it. Painted woodwork (both simply and elaborately painted) has been the dominant style for most eras of history.
Having a preference for unpainted woodwork is fine, and there are situations where unpainted wood is probably a preferable choice (the limitations of this dogma create a boring and bland aesthetic but whatever). But, the idea that painted woodwork is some kind of travesty is moronic.
Which of you dopes walks through versailles complaining about the painted woodwork? Which of you dopes is walking through Windsor castle moaning about the owners lack of appreciation for history and the quality of the wood?
“she’s not the listing agent.”
She (almost) always post floorplans on her listings.
DZ suggests that sharing floorplans invites hoi polloi eyeballs.
ergo…
Re unpainted woodwork:
Chicago vintage tends to date from the late 1800s and early 1900s and to be Victorian or craftsman in style, where unpainted was the norm and high quality wood that (to my eyes) looks beautiful unpainted was often used. Once it’s painted white — often just because white has been trendy in recent years so some people perceive it as “contemporary” and unpainted as “old-fashioned” or “out of style,” — you are basically stuck with painted and can’t go back to the older look, which many of us love.
This place doesn’t bother me so much, since at least they left a lot of it, although I was curious to see the before and after.
However, one place I looked at when looking was a lovely old place in Edgewater with a lot of character built in the early 1900s. One feature was a ton of gorgeous wood detailing — coffered ceilings, great original mantels, banister, built ins and moldings. I was told by the agent showing it that there were people really interested and they were talking about painting all the wood white, and it went under contract right after, so that made me a little sad, as the beautiful wood detailing was one of the things that I thought made it special.
Obviously, their business if they were the ones who bought it, but it wouldn’t be my preference if I had a place of that style and that had all the great woodwork, and when looking at a place of that style having such detailing would be a positive, and having had it painted would be a negative. That wouldn’t be the case in all housing styles, obviously.
A lot of older places have already been remodeled to the point that you don’t really have the original detailing or options available — maybe it was painted some time ago or the mantel changed and then you do what you can. That’s actually the case in my current place, which was opened up and has a newer mantel and banister. It’s less of an issue since it was more of a basic workers cottage without a lot of expensive detailing, but I’d still like to restore a more vintage mantel and maybe some other appropriate detail at some point — I’m researching to see what would be fitting and reasonably authentic, and I’m not bringing back the tinier rooms and bedrooms on the first floor (or changing the fact the kitchen is of course quite modern), so I get time moves on.
Versailles or Windsor has fuckall to do with anything unless they painted over some high quality trim which was originally natural, in which case it would be a travesty. I’ve lived in half a dozen various properties from the 1890s through the 1930s, all of which originally had natural woodwork and only one of which had been devoided of its character through removal, this is the primary era for both quantity and quality of vintage properties in the area. The single most distinguishing interior feature of the better of such properties is in fact IMO their natural woodwork, so damn right painting over it for aesthetics is a shame. (Sometimes the natural wood may be beyond saving).
Painted wood may have historically been used at times, sure, but currently I associate it with new build materials like MDF and poplar, so to take a vintage property that has oak or mahogany trim down to that level is sad, and rather déclassé in many cases.
Having said that I live in a newer build with only painted trim and it’s OK, nothing worth showing off was ruined in the process of painting it. But if you like the whitewashed look, buy newer or buy ravaged, don’t fuck up a regional treasure.
Having a personal preference for the natural wood is fine. And, it’s true that due to the age of chicago’s housing stock, that was often the original state. What’s wrong is assuming that the woodwork being originally unpainted is some kind of superior or natural state rather than the outcome of a temporary trend that is more of a historical outlier than a genuine aesthetic expression.
The unpainted nature of much of Chicago’s victorian architecture is not inherent to the style, but is an artifact of the age of the homes (it’s more inherent to the later arts and crafts stuff). There is no more virtue in keeping it natural, then there is virtue in retaining wall paper, which was a similarly timed trend.
Even the frequency of natural wood in Chicago is overstated. Often people assume that painted woodwork is a modern choice, when it’s entirely possible the woodwork was always painted.
I am annoyed by the idea that paint is somehow more permanent than a natural finish – the “you ruined it with paint camp.” The opposite is true, and it’s harder to take off a penetrating finish to put on a good paint job then it is take off a paint job to put on a penetrating finish.
I am most annoyed by the “devoided” character argument. There is not anything inherently more characterful about a natural finish then there is painted finish, and often paint is the most complementary finish for detailed woodwork with mixed woods, or for standard turn of the century woodwork built out of unremarkable woods.
The exposed woodwork of Chicago’s late 19th earlier 20th century houses is a trend just like wallpaper, wall to wall carpeting, vinyl floors, grey stained floors, etc. You may like it, and you may want to keep it, but cut out the sanctimonious bullshit. There are a lot of examples in Chicago in which amazing natural woodwork should be historically conserved. But there are also a lot more examples of unpainted trim and off the rack built-ins that are unpainted because of fleeting trends alone.
Guessing you live in a McMansion
Sheep following a 15 year old trend
@Johnnyu
There is nothing like a historically illiterate preservationist.
Except for the person who tries to rationalize their questionable taste through tangential application of historical design trends.
I don’t have a preference for natural or painted wood. I just don’t like aesthetically challenged people applying their poor understanding of history in a dogmatic way.