Ruth Lilly's Crows Nest estate listed at $2.9 million

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Late philanthropist Ruth Lilly's 22-acre Indianapolis "Twin Oaks" estate has been listed for sale at $2.9 million, real estate agency F.C. Tucker Co. announced Tuesday morning.

The gated property at 555 Kessler Blvd. includes a 7,726-square-foot home, a guest house of about 2,000 square feet and formal gardens. The Crows Nest setting is "shockingly private for its location," F.C. Tucker listing agent Matt McLaughlin said in a media release.

Lilly, who died late last year at age 94, lived in the mansion, served by a personal staff, until her death. She had six nieces and nephews but no children.

The property is already divided into five parcels, but it will be sold in one piece, McLaughlin said. He expects the buyer will be someone who wants to live in the colonial home on 9 acres, but may sell off surrounding parcels. Twof the remaining parcels are 2.39 acres, and two others are about 4 acres each.

"If somebody would want to buy them, sell them off, that's fine," McLaughlin said. "I think it will probably be someboy who would want to live there and have two or three of their friends build an exclusive gated community."

The house has 22 rooms, an indoor pool and private elevator. McLaughlin is showing the property by appointment only, and he said potential buyers must present evidence of their ability to purchase the property.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. Gay marriage is coming, whether or not these bigots and zealots like it or not. We must work to ensure future generations remember the likes of Greg Zoeller like they do the racists of our past...in shame.

  2. Perhaps a diagram of all the network connections of all politicians to their supporters and those who are elite/wealthy and how they have voted on bills that may have benefited their supporters. The truth may hurt, but there are no non-disclosures in government.

  3. I'm sure these lawyers were having problems coming up with any non-religious reason to ban same-sex marriage. I've asked proponents of this ban the question many times and the only answers I have received were religious reasons. Quite often the reason had to do with marriage to a pet or marriage between a group even though those have nothing at all to do with this. I'm looking forward to less discrimination in our state soon!

  4. They never let go of the "make babies" argument. It fails instantaneously because a considerable percentage of heterosexual marriages don't produce any children either. Although if someone wants to pass a law that any couple, heterosexual or homosexual, cannot be legally married (and therefore not utilize all legal, financial, and tax benefits that come with it) until they have produced a biological child, that would be fun to see as a spectator. "All this is a reflection of biology," Fisher answered. "Men and women make babies, same-sex couples do not... we have to have a mechanism to regulate that, and marriage is that mechanism." The civil contract called marriage does NOTHING to regulate babymaking, whether purposefully or accidental. These conservatives really need to understand that sex education and access to birth control do far more to regulate babymaking in this country. Moreover, last I checked, same-sex couples can make babies in a variety of ways, and none of them are by accident. Same-sex couples often foster and adopt the children produced by the many accidental pregnancies from mixed-sex couples who have failed at self-regulating their babymaking capabilities.

  5. Every parent I know with kids from 6 -12 has 98.3 on its car radio all the time!! Even when my daughter isn't in the car I sometimes forget to change stations. Not everybody wants to pay for satellite radio. This will be a huge disappointment to my 9 year old. And to me - there's so many songs on the radio that I don't want her listening to.