The residential development known as The Base is now open at 2763 North Seminary Avenue in Lincoln Park. The five-story, 24-unit rental community replaced the former United Christian Church, which was demolished last fall. Studio Dwell Architects created the design for the building, which is built by Contemporary Concepts as both the developer and general contractor.
Rendering of The Base by Studio Dwell Architects
Aerial view of The Base, via Apartments.com
Rooftop pickleball court, via Apartments.com
Rooftop entertainment area, via Apartments.com
It is not clear how many units are spoken for, but some do appear to be occupied, while listings at Apartments.com show units as “available soon.” Rentals units include one-bedroom, two-bedroom, three-bedroom, and four-bedroom floor plans ranging from $2,160 to $6,900 per month. A pair of two-bedrooms and two three-bedrooms have been set aside as affordable units.
Contemporary Concepts got their permission to build on September 4 of last year, with the demo permit following three weeks later on the 25th. Demolition began shortly thereafter, allowing construction work on the new building to get started quickly.
Site context for 2763 North Seminary Avenue, via Google Maps
The roof top, with pickleball fencing to the right, from Diversey Parkway. Photo by Daniel Schell
The north facade. Photo by Daniel Schell
From the alley. The balcony belongs to the four-bedroom unit on the fifth floor. Photo by Daniel Schell
West facade, with the residential entrance on Seminary Avenue. Photo by Daniel Schell
The Base includes just one parking space. Its location at the southeast corner of Diversey Parkway and Seminary Avenue puts it within a two-block walk of public transit via the Diversey Brown/Purple Line elevated train platform to the east. The Route 76 Diversey bus stops both eastbound and westbound less than a block for the residences. For north-south bus service, Route 8 is available three blocks east at Halsted Street.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
Wow, what an ugly box that does nothing to improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Aside from some fancy brickwork, the building looks cheap and not well thought out. It’s presence on Diversey is horrible. Looks like a doctor’s office. Total missed opportunity to blend in and enhance the old neighborhood architecture.
Looks like a great modern design, vs. a ye-olde Chicago design from the streets of Disney.
What are the chances Hanna’s brown box falls into the same fate? I think they at least keep the build quality looking somewhat close to the renders, but that’s not on them to find the contractors.
This structure? I definitely have seen first-year architecture undergrads whip together a better building. (And I am talking about build quality.) I’m not quite sure if the architects lead the builders astray or the developer cheaped out in the end. Overall, the old building definitely had a better look to it.
Disagree with that ^
I was sad to watch the old church go down for this to go up, but I love the added density, street presence, and creative brick bonding and combos.
This is a perfect example of how things would have appeared better had they stuck to the original plan. WTHIT.
The original design is solid. They executed the project at Halsted/Lincoln/Fullerton beautifully. Why pivot?
The design in the rendering looked so much better. Big flop for appearance and presence.
Are they selling Christmas trees at the top? Looks like it. Studio Dwell Architects are known for low quality design. Developer’s like them because construction is very basic and cheap.
Sigh, another awful boxy brown brick building. Come on Chicago, we can do so much better!
Maybe you haven’t visited their website. Studio Dwell does outstanding work. This has all the earmarks of value-engineering, but sometimes the math dictates that tough choices be made. Nevertheless, I think it’s still a solid urban-infill building.
Value engineering is one thing to cut corners, but the final product has some major changes to what was advertised. The most glaring change is the gross white box across the whole ground floor instead of just a window frame. What would prompt that as a lower cost benefit? More change in materials and how the brick was laid.
They dropped the ball on this one. But there’s certainly worse out there.
Wow that’s shockingly bad
I think this is an altogether fine looking building. Yes, there are some minor changes I would make in its design (carry the expressed sills to all floors-missing at top floor) but I appreciate that the building hugs the street corner and the sidewalks-a great urban response-has interesting but subtle brick designs, and offers a fresh color palette to would may be considered a tired-hued street. The image showing the back/side of the building with that porch is a great urban addition to that relatively tight space.
Is this 24 units with zero parking?
Nice.
On the site of a disused church there’s now housing. People moved in there over Labor Day weekend– I walked past their stuff piled high on the sidewalks. Building aesthetics don’t drive down rent; vacant units do. 100% win for supply and demand.
There has to be some code violation for that huge chain link fence on the top of the building, right??
That’s a pickleball containment system.
I appreciate the varied brickwork as a distinctive touch, though the sharp corners and walls shaved flat always has a 1970s public housing vibe for me. One parking space for 24 units seems extreme. Hard not to think some tenants will expect free or low-cost street parking over the life of this building.
Tenants need to do their homework when choosing where to live. There is parking available here, if they’re willing to take their chances on street parking. TODs are about encouraging residents to use the buses and trains that are within easy walking distance. If someone rents a unit here, then expects parking to be provided for them, they’ve chosen the wrong living situation. Hopefully they signed a short lease.