Anatomy of a Hancock Bungalow

In order to understand some of the opportunities we have with restoring our home's exterior woodwork, I took some time to put together the research I have about the home and looked more carefully at the neighboring structures. At first glance, the structures may seem unremarkable. They are modest structures that have changed over the hundred years since they were first built. Some have been muddled beyond recognition and others have been carefully maintained. Closer inspection reveals a wide array of architectural details within a set building format or bungalow "theme". This gives the neighborhood a distinct character and visual cohesion. 

There are thirty of these bungalows, on two blocks on Ridgeland Avenue, in Oak Park's Frank Lloyd Wright Prairie School of Architecture Historic District. They were all built by Raymond Hancock. Hancock built hundreds of these types of homes in Oak Park and the city of Chicago. He advertised himself as the "largest developer of bungalows in Chicago". It is unclear if this was advertising showmanship, but he did have offices on the north and south sides of Oak Park, on the South Side of Chicago in the Gage Park neighborhood, and in the Austin neighborhood of Chicago, just east Oak Park so there may have been some truth to his claim. This particular group of Oak Park homes were constructed starting in 1915 and finished in the following two years. 

One of Hancock's marketing ideas was to give the owner a hand in the design decisions that went into the home. While the advertisements boasted amenities like cement basements, laundry tubs, and elaborate sideboards, many of the elements on the exterior of the home could be customized. Prospective owners could choose the style of bungalow and embellish it with brackets, various materials, and column styles. Hancock was able to maintain a standardized production method for his homes with almost identical floor plans, but also offer the variety and personal appeal that new homeowners wanted.  

There are three primary styles of Hancock home that are found in the historic district; a front gable a side gable, and a hipped roof. Those with side gables and hipped roofs have a variety of front dormers. Those with front gables have different expressions of the gable depending on whether it had a full second floor or a smaller attic space.   

Side gable Hancock home with a front dormer. The dormer with three windows, exposed rafters, rafter tails and brackets. 

Front gable Hancock home with center window and brackets with intact eave beadboard soffit.

Front gable Hancock home with shingles above three windows, tongue and groove eave and brackets.

In addition to the stylistic varieties offered by the gable placement and number of rooms, each detail of the home was also customized. All of the homes have distinctive columns supporting the front of the home or flanking the front porch. Some run from the ground to the eave, others from the ground to a freize board and others are only the height of the adjacent windows. Ours happen to be stucco, a very unique feature for the street as many of the others are wood.

This is me ripping the aluminum siding off of the top of our front columns to reveal the cove molding. 

A wood column the same height as the adjacent windows.

A wood column the same height as adjacent windows but with a suggested clapboard-clad pier below. 

A full-height wood column from the ground to a freizeboard.

A column clad with beadboard and a wood pier below. 

Almost all of the dining rooms are given a more gratious interior appearance by a side bay window. There are both angled and square bays. Some extend to the eaves and some have their own roof. They provide added interest to the side facades of these homes.

Side dining room bay with dorner moulding, banding and brackets and exposed rafters above. 

Side dining room bay with dorner moulding, banding and brackets and exposed rafters above.

Our side bay is tucked under our eave and it doesn't appear like it had any detail or brackets. The skirt moulding, just above the bottom trim board was removed before they put on the siding though. We will have to replace that. 

The amount of detail on these relatively modest homes is surprising. Many of the more overtly "Craftsman Style" homes with exposed rafters and and bracketing are intact but very few of the soffited eaves exist in their original state. These eaves were clad with beadboard and had an intricate cove molding along the fascia and a small quarter-round trim towards against the main house. Our home had a soffited eave.

View of a soffited eave on a stucco home.

View of a soffited eave with beadboard on a central dormer.

We know there is beadboard under our eaves because we still have it in our porch. The eave restoration is the part of this project that gives me the most angst.

Though many of the homes on the street have been severely altered and have lost many of their details, there are still many that appear to be lovingly cared for. and retain much of their historic integrity. To my fortune, this will be my "library" as I move ahead with more work restoring the outside of my home.

Hopefully it won't be too long before the Tiny Oak Park Bungalow is a great example of historic restoration. 

A Forgotten Idea: Oak Park's "Motor Row"

Oak Park has a reputation for being keenly aware of its architectural heritage. Much of this image comes from the people that visit Oak Park to gawk at buildings designed by America’s famous architect, Frank Lloyd Wright. A significant number of people also make the journey to visit the former stomping grounds of author, Ernest Hemingway. Like other suburban communities around Chicago that developed in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we also have architect-designed homes and commercial structures of a remarkable quality and quantity. What makes Oak Park somewhat unique is that it has gone to great lengths to protect many of these structures, creating historic districts that cover almost half the village.

Even with all of this interest in architectural heritage, preservation isn't always at the forefront of the community’s mind when community vision or a new building project are being considered. It is all too common for homeowners to make significant changes to protected homes without regard to codified restoration standards. Sometimes this happens because of people’s ignorance about their property’s inclusion in a historic district and other times it is done out of blatant disregard for the preservation ordinance. Given how protected structures are sometimes treated, the poor treatment of non-protected structure isn't surprising. 

In a currently debated project, the Village (by way of the District 97 School Board) is proposing a new District Headquarters. The District 97 Administration building planning has been in the works for years. Though people seem lukewarm to the idea of a structure for the district offices, it is hard to argue that a new structure isn’t needed. After years of neglect, through deferred maintenance, the current building is in poor shape. Walking by this small yet fortress-like structure at 970 Madison Street, it is easy to believe that the structure has been in poor shape since the day it was built.

The current District 97 Headquarters on Madison Street.  

The new structure is proposed on a site at 260 Madison Street, roughly one mile east of the current headquarters. The new site currently houses a storage yard and a modest yet nicely detailed former automobile dealership garage. The property was provided for the new headquarters in a swap between the Village and District 97. 260 Madison is one of the "significant" structures in Village-commissioned report by Wiss Janney to assess the historic structures on the street. It was likely listed as significant because of it’s former automobile-associated use and because it was designed by a significant Oak Park architect, E. E. Roberts.

The vacant lot and former car dealership at 260 Madison Street. The future site of the new District 97 Administration Building.

A street-view of the future site of the new District 97 Administration Building, currently the Hill Motor Sales Garage building.

Madison Street is not a pretty street and if you were to tell locals that they should pay attention to the architecture there, I bet you would get a hearty laugh. It is a wide highway-like street that once housed many automobile-oriented uses. To say that it suffers from poor urban design and planning is an understatement. Over the years it became home to many of the official Village structures. Some are grand, like the Village Hall and some not so sightly, like the various service and storage facilities for the village and school board. 

There are plans in place for a future sprucing up of the street but the political will has not propelled forward. In addition to these plans, many studies have been done to identify and plan the development of real estate and historic resources along Madison Street. The notion of any historic resources along this street might seem outlandish. The collection of structures seems unremarkable and sporadic at best but a closer look at things starts to reveal an exciting vision for the street. One architectural highlight on the street is, no doubt, Eban and E. E. Roberts’ Foley-Rice Cadillac (FormerlyPackard) dealership built in 1923 but it has sat vacant since 2007.

The long-vacant Foley-Rice Cadillac Building on Madison Street.

Terra cotta detailing on the Foley-Rice building. 

In 2005, the Village hired Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates, Inc. to conduct an architectural survey of properties along Madison Street. The report outlines potential historic resources along the thoroughfare. It is a fascinating study that took a new look at the buildings there. The contemporary and historic photos in it, along with the historic interpretation of the place, allow you to see the structures on this street in a very different light.

The study suggests that the Village could capitalize on the buildings that had an automobile-related use, creating a historic designation of a “Motor Row” by protecting those structures. Historic designation might also bring tax incentive for future rehabilitation. To that aim, the study identifies 18 “Significant” structures and 3 possible “National Register” structures. Coupled with a comprehensive streetscape plan, this thoughtful “packaging” of the street as a historic corridor seems like a logical redevelopment tool for the Village to use to re-design the street, draw in new businesses, and create a more aesthetically pleasing thoroughfare. The exciting aspect of this is that it draws on something that the village is accustomed to thinking about, its architectural heritage. It is also making a place out of architecture and design elements that are uniquely Oak Park.   

The Grove Apartments. Formerly the Comcast Building and Albert Kahn's Cadillac-LaSalle Dealership.

The Collins Building and the new Walgreens.

The idea of using the historic fabric as a starting point for re-imagining the street and becoming the basis for economic development seemed to be gaining some ground. This past year, Oak Park’s Village Hall, completed in 1975 and designed by Chicago architect Harry Weese, was placed on the National Register of Historic Places. Recent developments like the Walgreen’s renovation of the 1922 Collins Building and the award-winning restoration and addition to renowned architect Albert Kahn’s Cadillac-LaSalle Dealership, directly across the street, are all signs that a new mindset was taking hold.

Given the amount of money this town makes on tourism, this really isn't a surprise. We are a village that already attracts people because of its architecture so why not give those architecture aficionados more to see and a reason to extend their stay (attracting tourism dollars)? Many people claim they move to Oak Park because of the historic architecture so why not begin looking at unique commercial areas the same way and demand unique historic places to eat, shop and work in?  We understand the power of unique places to draw people in so this is our key to success. Or is it? 

Stone detailing on the Hill Motor Sales Garage Building, E. E. Roberts, architect.

In this latest move by the Village, the potentially historic structures are being presented as throw-away buildings that would be easily demolished to create a tabula rasa for developers. In swapping the site with the District 97 School Board, the Village is shutting a door on the possibility of celebrating the street's automotive heritage. In slating the Hill Motor Sales Garage for demolition, Oak Park seems to have lost the notion of what a unique place this could be.

Detail of garage door and cartouche on Hill Motor Sales Garage Building.

Street view of the Hill Motor Sales Garage Building, future site of the District 97 Administration Building.

Some would probably argue that this is a relatively insignificant structure and its loss is an acceptable casualty. I see it a little differently. It seems that in this latest move, the village is making a strong statement that it has no interest in historic preservation, nor does it show any understanding about the capacity for historic preservation to be a vital economic development tool. 

We're historic but who cares?

I am a little late with the news but it is now official, we are “historic”. The Tiny Bungalow and many of its neighbors were added to the Frank Lloyd Wright Historic District. If you follow this blog, you know that I am hardly a supporter of this move.

My perspective on one hand questions the thematic grouping of this home with Wright’s legacy and critiques the inability of the village to minimize the regulation it has on private properties. If their zoning ordinance doesn’t work to curb inappropriate development, then re-write that, don’t engulf the entire community under the auspices of being historic in order to curb development. I think that the decision to do this belittles the label “Historic District”. If everything is historic and can meet the woefully low expectations of our local historic areas, then what is the point? What is so special about it?

It will be interesting to see if there is a Renaissance on our street now with people clamoring to fix up their homes and to spend loads of dough to comply with the village requirements for historic properties. I am skeptical, to say the least. We are some of the smallest homes in the village and putting the kind of money into our homes that would trigger any financial benefit of being in the district is simply cost-prohibitive.

This week will be an interesting one. The village trustees will be discussing how they will use public funds to address some of the concerns we have had with the failure of the village sewage system over the past few years. Here, we have experienced flooding because the system is not designed to handle larger rainstorms. The village has several choices: they can do nothing, they can upgrade the systems, or they can fund private measures to improve homes to mitigate against sewer backup. They will not be upgrading the system, since it is so expensive. Last week, the local paper reported that they might provide loans in lieu of actual grant funds for projects.  I guess time will tell.

This is a lame solution as it only allows people with means to purchase the upgrades. In my opinion, if a big solution like making large systemic changes isn't possible, then a grant program covering a portion of the private improvement is in order. The sewer system that is funded by the taxes that we pay is ruining our homes. We deserve something back to help cover the cost of “fixing” the problem at our end.  Otherwise, I think that those that have the means may do something and those that don't will continue to suffer.

The irony is that last week, the village showed that they are VERY concerned about the outward appearance of our homes. Putting on a good face for the rest of the community seems very important to our trustees. This week we will find out if they are equally concerned about the inside of our homes.  Are they content with allowing a good number of the residents of this village to wallow in shit once the next rain storm hits as long as it looks pretty from the street?

If only I could think of a way to make the shit flow as a waterfall and then use it as an architectural feature for the Tiny Bungalow.  Then it might feel at home in a Frank Lloyd Wright Historic District.

Is inclusion in the historic district appropriate for our home?

It is ironic that I am dealing with this issue. I am a proponent of and have been active in historic preservation for over 12 years. When we first purchased the Tiny Bungalow, we thought it was funny that we had moved to a community that is known for its historic architecture and filled with designated landmarks and historic districts but we were in a home that was excluded from designation.

All of this seems to be changing as the OP is considering expanding their Frank Lloyd Wright – Prairie School of Architecture Historic District to include our home. Under typical circumstances I would feel honored and would be all for the designation. Unfortunately, I can’t help but have reservations about this.

Oddly enough, my reservations have less to do with how this affects the tax assessment, property values, and other issues that owners seem to get their panties in a bunch about when it comes to historic designations. Instead, my concerns are a bit more academic and conceptual and the more I dwell on it, I can’t help but wonder what they are up to in the OP.

The OP is FILLED with historic districts and landmark properties. I can't argue with them and I believe it is one of the reasons that the community is so physically attractive. With Unity temple, Pleasant Home, Wright's Home & Studio and the countless other Wright homes and beautiful structures, I would even argue that architecturally, it is one of the most significant places in America. That said, there are many modest parts of the village. If there weren't, we wouldn't be living here.

Our home, along with many others on the street, was built in 1914 by developer Raymond Hancock. If someone told me there would be a “Hancock’s Bungalows Historic District”, I might laugh at them to the point of choking but I probably wouldn’t disagree. Hancock was responsible for the development of a large number of EXTREMELY modest, though nicely detailed, bungalows on the western edge of Chicago and eastern edge of the OP. I appreciate the bungalow as a housing form and am concerned that these minor players in the history of American housing are endangered. Thematically, it seems to makes sense.

To take these same homes and jumble them into a district that seems to celebrate the work of Wright seems a bit odd though. I’m not a Wright scholar and not at all a fan of his lifestyle so forgive me if I get any of this wrong but I believe that Wright “left” the OP in 1909. In 1911, he built Taliesin and I believe he worked from there (and eventually Arizona) for the rest of his career. It would seem that it would not make sense to include homes that are NOT in the Prairie School vein and NOT built before or during Wright’s tenure in the OP. This logic would seem to exclude Hancock’s ventures.
What in the world does Frank Lloyd Wright have to do with bungalows anyway? Contrary to what you might think while leafing through an issue of American Bungalow, the connection is tenuous at best. With it's countless publicity of Wright properties up for touring and images of Prairie Style designs, AB would probably have you believe that Wright invented the bungalow in order to see more magazines. On the contrary, I don’t believe he ever designed one and the simple and rustic Craftsman tradition that is associated with bungalows seems a sharp contrast to the complex constructions and refined designs that Wright produced. Maybe in proposing an expansion of the district to bungalows and foursquares currently excluded, there is a broader goal on someone's part to connect Wright to everything related to the Arts & Crafts. I still can’t make sense of it.

One might argue that it is logical to include these structures because they “preserve a view” by including homes on both sides of a street in the district. Currently, the homes across the street are in the district and our side is not. What would happen to the streets character if someone came and tore down all the homes on our side of the street? Well, that’s ridiculous thinking. The chances of someone doing that are pretty slim. It’s also somewhat laughable since most of the homes, on both sides of the street; bear little resemblance to what they were when originally constructed. Though the Tiny Bungalow, clocking in at just over 850 square feet is an exceptional case, all of these homes are very modest. Inappropriate exterior cladding and terrible new windows and storms aside, considerable modifications have been made to make them amenable to our modern lifestyles. One driving down the street would hardly call it “historic”.

I could spend an equal amount of time remarking on the economic concerns I have about the designation but won’t elaborate at this point. I will say that I hardly doubt that anyone with such a modest home will be taking advantage of any of the economic benefits of a historic district in order to historically restore their home. Getting a permit in the OP is enough of a pain in the ass without having to deal with a historic designation on top of it. Don’t get me wrong I am a huge fan old houses and a big fan of bungalows but I can’t jump on the historic district expansion bandwagon just yet. The draft has been submitted to the state. We'll just have to wait and see how things play out.