Rare Original Finishes in the John Hancock: A 2/2 at 175 E. Delaware in Streeterville
This 2-bedroom on the 71st floor of the John Hancock at 175 E. Delaware in Streeterville just came on the market.
Yes, I’m still calling it the John Hancock even though the company requested its name be removed from the building.
Built in 1969, it has 705 units, commercial space, a parking garage, retail and restaurants.
The top floor units are still among the highest living spaces in the world.
This unit has west facing views.
The listing points out that it is an original unit.
It appears that those are the original 1969 baths and kitchen.
The kitchen has mid-century modern wood cabinets with white appliances.
There appears to be wood floors in the main living/dining room area.
The building is full service with a fitness center, swimming pool, bike room, cleaners and the Potash grocery store.
There’s wall unit cooling and rental parking is available in the building. There doesn’t appear to be a washer/dryer in the unit although the building now allows it, but there are washer/dryers on every other floor (I believe.)
At $466,000, it is listed for $44,000 less than the 2004 purchase price of $510,000.
Could this be one of the last remaining units with 49 year old finishes?
Is that really the original stove?
Is this cheap enough for a renovator to take it on?
Gary Bernstein at BerkshireHathaway KoenigRubloff has the listing. See the pictures here.
Unit #7101: 2 bedrooms, 2 baths, 1204 square feet
- Sold in December 2004 for $510,000
- Currently listed for $466,000
- Assessments of $978 a month (includes doorman, exterior maintenance, lawn care, scavenger, snow removal)
- Taxes of $6923
- Wall unit cooling
- No washer/dryer in the unit
- Rental parking available in the building
- Bedroom #1: 18×11
- Bedroom #2: 11×17
- Kitchen: 10×10
Call the Smithsonian, maybe they will come deconstruct it and take it away? This would be a great opportunity to do your own brushmark on this space. The issue that would stop me, and will probably stop most, is no lakeview. Why live on the lakefront in an iconic high rise that overlooks the lake and not look at the lake. I’m not sure what the point would be. I also know that doing anything in the Hancock, even just moving in, takes forever. I had a place fall through for me and saw a rental available and the board needed 30 days just to review my application. I needed to move in ASAP and they made no exceptions so I had to find another place.
Per Sabrina, Lake views are not preferred
Place looks great for being 49 years old. Doesn’t need a ton of work, new appliances, counter tops, Some flooring and remove the mirrors.
I really hope the buyer goes full on late 60’s/early 70’s motif. It would be absolutely killer
In the Hancock, there must be some very strict rules for rehabbing and appliance delivery.
I had friends in the Hancock building, since moved out, they also had original appliances and countertop. I distinctly recall the dishwasher was ancient. I think the issues was the hassle of countertop and dishwater replacement, not the cost of replacement.
Also, many Hancock residents prefer city views.
I wouldn’t mind city views, depending on the location and direction. There doesn’t seem so bad. Years ago I worked in the Sears Tower (which I am still calling it), and the corner offices that looked north and east were the best — you got a combination of the lake and city skyline. My first office was straight west, which was terrible (except that it was high enough up that it was still kind of cool). That said, the view was just clouds a lot of the time, and on 71 that’s probably true for this place too.
The renos needed here would be pretty expensive (and if the building creates issues, that’s a concern), and it seems pretty narrow and a bit claustrophobic. Usual “it would be nice to have a floor plan” complaint too.
“Per Sabrina, Lake views are not preferred”
——————-
How, in the name of all that is holy, could lake views not be preferred?
I can guarantee you that any unit on the 71st floor is going to have some lake views regardless of which side of the building it is on… The sloppy photographer just didn’t include any views that included the lake…
It’s certainly cheap for the building, about as cheap as a 2/2 has gotten there in recent years. But the listing shows why. No upgrades since 1969, a west view (the least desirable in the building and on a floor that doesn’t get you above 900 N. Michigan across the street), and very small looking rooms. Each of these rooms seems narrower than the last, and I dislike how the dining room is just an extension of the living room.
I guess if someone really wanted to renovate an old unit and sell it, maybe this would be a fun project. But even in solid, renovated condition, I doubt it could go for much above the 2004 price. Great building, but there are far better units. I’d rather spend more and get a good one here.
Stephanie, I work in the Sears Tower now at the WorkBetter office, which means they give me whatever office is available that day. I’ve had views in every direction from the 84th floor, and straight west is my least favorite. It’s just kind of dull, though sunset and nighttime might be better. I love all the other views, because I like seeing both lake and city.
“How, in the name of all that is holy, could lake views not be preferred?”
“It’s just kind of dull, though sunset and nighttime might be better.”
At the Hancock, nighttime is worse bc you get v little in the way of city lights, so it’s mostly just black. I think maybe you get navy pier (and fireworks) but that’s about it. The daytime lake view if better but a little monotonous. The n and s views have to be better if you clear water tower. Between e and w I would probably take e but by less than you would think.
I’ve lived on high-ish floors in a couple high rises around there but a little bit west of the Hancock and the e views were fantastic, in part bc you’d get the Hancock as part of your view.
“No upgrades since 1969, a west view (the least desirable in the building and on a floor that doesn’t get you above 900 N. Michigan across the street), and very small looking rooms.”
900 N. Michigan is 66 floors. This is on the 71st floor.
Also- 900 N. Michigan isn’t directly west. That would be a landmarked church. When you’re on the 71st floor, with a major street that is 6 lanes across, you’re not going to have your views completely “blocked”.
“How, in the name of all that is holy, could lake views not be preferred?”
The lake view is boring. In advertisements and movies, they never live on the lake. They have “city” views.
At night, the “lake view” is simply looking into the darkness. It’s boring.
“Place looks great for being 49 years old.”
JohnnyU: I had to look at the kitchen pictures several times before I realized it wasn’t a “mid-century modern” type newer kitchen (which are coming into style) but, rather, was the original kitchen. Lol.
Of course, the appliances are the giveaway but those cabinets are back in style!
Also, they really made some awesome appliances back in the 1960s if those are really the originals. My gosh. It’s amazing if you get 15 years out of an appliance these days but 50???
Amazing.
The best views give you lake + city. I suspect north or south would be good views from the Hancock for that reason. West in the Hancock would be better than west from the Sears Tower, of course, because the ST is on the west side of the Loop.
The fridge is not original, but the rest of the appliances appear to be.
The non-tile flooring also doesn’t look original.
in the hancock you can also get the views on other common floors. so the transition floor for the lifts has a very large seating area where you can see at all hours the north and east views.
likewise the swimming pool which has restricted hours has different views too.
Anybody who thinks the lake views are boring has never lived on the lake. Its never boring, its an alive piece of art. The lake changes constantly. Never would i trade the lake view to look at light bulbs in buildings.
I have owned in this building for a very long time. The best views are N followed by S followed by W with direct E view least favorable. HOWEVER, if you have a corner it would be NE, SE, NW, SW.
Working in the building can be a bit challenging. This unit is covered with asbestos and it is expensive to remove.
One of the great things about renovation in this building are the two HUGE service elevators to bring up everything you need. The largest service elevators in the city!
“900 N. Michigan is 66 floors. This is on the 71st floor.”
900 N is 871′ over the 66 floors, an average of 13.2′.
Big John is 1,128′ (ex spires) over 100 floors, an average of 11.3′.
71*11.3 = 802.3, and is less than 871. 802 isn’t exactly right, but it’s enough less than 871 that I feel pretty comfortable saying that the 71st floor of the Hancock is not higher than the top of 900 N.
You can’t just count floors in different buildings.
“Never would i trade the lake view to look at light bulbs in buildings.
I agree with you, but I know some people who almost never get home from their office before sundown. Those people prefer to look out over the city lights, rather than the emptiness of the lake.
I think that anyone who prefers a city view to a lake view during the day is foolish.
Back in the day I lived in a Wrigley area high rise. The views from my unit were around 270 degrees with east, south, and west. While it was cool to see the lake and occasional boats during the day. But the western windows offered a constantly changing city view. They were spectacular. And the sunsets were amazing!
In addition my unit had a view of Wrigley Field. During night games my whole unit actually glowed from their lights. Those Hancock units that face south and west must have views that are awesome!
Thanks for backing me up, anon. It’s true that if you’re on 71 in the JH and looking west, the 900 building does take up part of the view. I never said it completely “blocks” the view, however.
West views in JH are definitely better than in Sears for the reasons mentioned above. I’m on 84 in the Sears now looking west and all I see is the Eisenhower. It looks like a long way to the horizon.
“It’s true that if you’re on 71 in the JH and looking west, the 900 building does take up part of the view. I never said it completely “blocks” the view, however.”
I’ve been in the 4S in a east facing unit a couple times (prob in high 30s or low 40s) and the Hancock proximity is so so. Not right in your face but def closer than you’d like.
“West views in JH are definitely better than in Sears for the reasons mentioned above. I’m on 84 in the Sears now looking west and all I see is the Eisenhower. It looks like a long way to the horizon.”
West views from the 4S are pretty boring.
“802 isn’t exactly right, but it’s enough less than 871 that I feel pretty comfortable saying that the 71st floor of the Hancock is not higher than the top of 900 N.”
Honestly, I feel like you could do better. The lobby is pretty tall (though maybe the obs deck is too (not sure if there are technically two floors on obs deck) and what about the below ground type. I’m not saying it’s greater than 871 but I’d like a better sense of how it feels up there in relation to 900 N.
“Honestly, I feel like you could do better.”
And what about office versus residential space? That could be non-trivial.
“Honestly, I feel like you could do better.”
Yeah, probably. But facile calculation is all that was warranted.
“Rare original finishes”. I’ve heard it all now! LOL. Literally. This is worse than “close to public transportation” with the bus stop at your front door. At least they didn’t call it a “doll house”.
Really though, I’d fall for this and buy it if they were leaving a party pit and it had avacado appliances.