Coonley Main House sold after eight years on the market

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Sat Feb 02, 2019 2:38 pm

Wrong link.

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Sat Feb 02, 2019 4:41 pm

Significant Wright home sells after 8 years on market

Hard to believe that this amazing 6,000 sq. ft. house sold for only 1.15 million!

David

SDR · Post by **SDR** » Sat Feb 02, 2019 5:58 pm

The color photos in the Crain's piece David linked are useful. The first one, a symmetrical view of the living room -- a novel view -- reveals a detail I haven't
seen in Wright before: the perforated lay-light band is symmetrical as well, its center on the far wall being the point where the pattern reverses itself . . .

S

pharding · Post by **pharding** » Sun Feb 03, 2019 7:51 am

The Homeowner who was so awesome was Dean Eastman, not Dale Eastman. After doing such great things for the legacy of FLW they need to get his name right. He was an extremely bright individual and a wonderful human being. He did great things for the legacy of this masterwork by Frank Lloyd Wright. He took a very humble and appropriate approach to the legacy of Frank Lloyd Wright's Coonley House. Everything that he touched was designed to preserve and when required replicate what FLW did on the house as it was built. He wasn't one to attempt improve upon FLW.

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Sun Feb 03, 2019 2:25 pm

That photo of the square living room makes it look twice as long as wide. Where do realtors find their photographers?

JimM · Post by **JimM** » Sun Feb 03, 2019 5:26 pm

Roderick Grant wrote:That photo of the square living room makes it look twice as long as wide. Where do realtors find their photographers?

These realtor abominations do show "more", but horribly misrepresent everything about the architecture... especially the illusory scale of a Wright building experienced for the first time. I guess their inherent exaggeration at least confirms the oft comment "Gee, these rooms looked larger in pictures!".

DavidC · Post by **DavidC** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:38 pm

Any ideas why this house sold for so little? I was wondering if whatever restrictions/easements have been put on it could have contributed? Anyone know just how restrictive this set is?

David

outside in · Post by **outside in** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 1:57 pm

its just an opinion, but there are many "upper bracket" homes sitting on the market for extended periods in the suburbs of Chicago. Real estate agents tell me there is hesitation in buying older homes, and that many of higher end buyers are investing in new homes built by developers.

I think some of the hesitation has to do with so many people getting burned in the great recession. For many years homes were appreciating at 10%, so people were buying, fixing, selling, etc. and it was difficult to lose your investment money. Its a completely different world now.

I know of one appraiser who, when asked about the added value of a FLW home replied "I do not know this Franklin Wright" - its a very small group of people who appreciate these homes to the point that they are willing to invest.

peterm · Post by **peterm** » Wed Feb 06, 2019 4:24 pm

As a general rule in Chicago, people who are aware and passionate about Wright and great architecture, canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t afford it, and those who have serious money would rather build from scratch, typically mundane and large, but might invest in some blue chip art instead. There also is a greater disconnect between the suburbs, where most Chicago residential architecture is located, and more vibrant (hip?) urban life. There isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that environment as in LA, where people Ã¢â‚¬Å“collectÃ¢â‚¬Â� and restore pedigreed architecture, and with the backyard barbecue summer party, show it off to their Ã¢â‚¬Å“industryÃ¢â‚¬Â� (film) friends and competitors.

The poorly written scare stories about leaky roofs, low ceilings, expensive maintenance, etc. certainly donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t help matters either. And then there are the property taxes!

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:11 am

A factor that might have discouraged Coonley buyers is that it is attached to another large largely FLW house, with 2 more on the same property.

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:36 am

Let's not overlook the MAIN problem: the corrupt Illinois government and the taxes that come with that.

That said these people, who are Wright aficionados, got a fabulous deal. A fully restored, beautiful home for less than $200/sf.

On a related note: The city of Chicago considering a 3.5% income tax on all income over $100K. The state is talking about adopting a progressive state income tax to replace the current flat tax.

peterm · Post by **peterm** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:39 am

Progressive taxation is the solution, not a problem. Of course, billionaires and millionaires will fight it tooth and nail, and spend millions trying to convince workers that it will hurt them.

https://www.chicagobusiness.com/greg-hi ... income-tax

https://www.politifact.com/illinois/sta ... x-history/

Roderick Grant · Post by **Roderick Grant** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:12 pm

The flat income tax should be adopted by all taxing agencies, local, state and federal. Sales tax should be eliminated, since it disproportionately affects low income families. Inheritance tax on cash, residential property and equities should 100%, while on commercial or farm property, little if any.

Paul Ringstrom · Post by **Paul Ringstrom** » Thu Feb 07, 2019 1:07 pm

peterm wrote:Progressive taxation is the solution/

You missed my point: High property tax rates (and income taxes) discourage the purchase and restoration of expensive historic properties except at a discounted purchase price.