A community meeting has been held for a residential development proposed at 2652 West Chicago Avenue in West Town. The project would replace a vacant auto parts store and its parking lot at the corner of North Washtenaw Avenue. It was originally proposed in August of last year, but the team has now returned with three potential schemes for review.
Site context map of 2652 West Chicago Avenue via Google Maps
Last year, developer Barrett Homes presented plans for a five-story building rising 63 feet and clad in brick. The proposal included 57 residential units made up of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom layouts, with 11 designated as affordable. The building would have been supported by 24 ground-floor parking spaces.
PREVIOUS floor plans of 2652 W Chicago Ave by 360 Design Studio
This week, Barrett Homes, along with architect 360 Design Studio, presented three new schemes to the community following two previous meetings that raised concerns primarily around height, density, and parking. All three options reduce the building to four stories and lower the overall unit count.
- The first option includes 46 apartments with smaller floor plans, nine of which would be affordable. This scheme would include 23 parking spaces and ground-floor retail.
- The second option proposes 40 apartments with larger layouts, including six affordable units, along with 23 parking spaces and ground-floor retail.
- The third option would feature 15 for-sale condominiums supported by 15 parking spaces, with no affordable units or ground-floor retail.
PREVIOUS Elevation of 2652 W Chicago Ave by 360 Design Studio
According to Block Club, the proposal received similar feedback regarding density and parking, though it also garnered some community support. 36th Ward Alderman Villegas expressed support for the 40-unit option. If that proposal moves forward, the team will refine the design and apply for zoning approval. If approved, construction is expected to take approximately 16 months.
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
My gosh NIMBYS are insufferable.
“Concerned neighbors” is code for pulling up the ladder after their pay out. Don’t get them wrong, they want to see city improvements. Just not here, or there, or next to them. But absolutely somewhere.
The condominium proposal is embarrassing compared to the others.
The condo scheme was probably a “decoy” to make the other options look better. It reminds me of a different developer who was done with community approval so they provided two options 1) Convert historic church buildings to residential, add a smaller new construction residential building, and preserve some open space OR 2) tear everything down and build 5 to 6 million dollar private homes. LOL.
Don’t try to appease the NIMBYs, they will never be happy with your proposal, no matter how much they cut
Unfortunately, as we often see, community input has now evolved into community approval.
Humboldt Park is gentrifying. Seems like a lot of people there would want to see affordable units. 24 parking spaces for 57 units is a decent ratio. A 5 story building on a commercial street isn’t as inconsistent as a 5 story building on a block of bungalows or 2 flats. So why do the NIMBYs always call the shots? Rhetorical question. But seems like someone – a community group, church group, social service agency, even the alderman ( assuming he supports housing) ought to be able to produce people to a meeting
My name is Natalia. I have lived in this neighborhood for many years and value its peaceful character. I attended three community meetings about the proposed zoning change, and the majority of residents opposed it. We respectfully request that the current zoning remain unchanged
You realize people are homeless in part because of people like you? At least you get to enjoy your peaceful character
Are you comfortable fronting the costs of the 42 homes that could’ve been because of your own greed?
That comes down to 84 potential residents who could’ve been supporting local establishments if the smallest option is chosen.
Of the options the 46 units to 23 parking spaces seems like the win.
This is not a side street, its Chicago Ave, we need to add density.
I saw someone complaining against the development not have a 1 to 1 ratio because there isn’t enough stuff to walk to around the area so people have to drive. lol. The lack of awareness is amazing.
Where do you live Sam? There’s a vacant lot at Chicago and western. It’s been vacant over a decade. Density is welcome there.
Hey Shawna, I likely live closer to this location that you. Just a block south on Superior and Washtenaw. This is a great project for the area, restaurants have closed down because there is not enough density.
Regarding the lot at Chicago and Western, it is the bane of my existence. There should absolutely be a project like this (preferably larger) developed there.
Let me flip the questions back on you. Why are you so against having new neighbors in this location?
It is easy to support a project when you do not live near it.
Residents of the neighborhood see this very differently.
Those who disagree with me are welcome to build such projects near their own homes or the homes of their family.
I would like to bring an important matter to your attention.The option selected by the alderman was chosen from three proposals submitted by the developer, who does not reside in this neighborhood. At the same time, the proposal put forward by local residents — specifically, to ensure 100% parking coverage and to construct buildings similar to the neighboring developments, where parking fully meets residents’ needs — was unfortunately not taken into consideration.Residents of this area sincerely hoped that their position would be reconsidered, as they live here directly and are deeply interested in the comfortable and balanced development of the neighborhood.Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. I truly appreciate the opportunity for further dialogue.
Kind regards, Albert
The final meeting regarding this matter between the community and the alderman has now taken place. I would like to sincerely thank everyone who attended, as well as the alderman, for taking the time to meet with us.
Many residents of our neighborhood were present at the meeting. We know one another personally and by face, as most of us are family-oriented people who have lived in this area for over 15 years. We had serious and well-founded reasons for opposing this construction project. The proposed building does not fit the architectural character of our neighborhood, and most of us are families with children.
Because the apartments in this building are very small, it is likely that residents would move in and out frequently, possibly on a monthly basis. We also emphasized that parking is already very limited in our area. These were important reasons why we expressed our concerns and opposition to this project.
We hoped to put this matter to a community vote; however, the alderman stated that he would make the decision himself. I have always believed that an alderman represents the interests of the community that elects him, so this outcome was disappointing to many of us.The developers and the property owner do not live in our neighborhood, so understandably their perspective may be different. The official explanation given was that the City of Chicago needs more affordable housing. As far as I know, Chicago has many large areas of vacant land where thousands of affordable housing units could be built.
For me, it remains unclear why this particular decision was made. If there is still an opportunity to revise the project and replace it with a smaller residential building, we would truly welcome and support such a solution.
Once again, thank you to everyone who attended the meeting and to the alderman for his time.
Respectfully,
Albert
To all those posters that support this proposed development… You are drinking kool-aid thinking that this will help address housing crisis. It will not… There are a TON of lots owned by the city that are perfectly capable of hosting this type of development. There’s a reason those lots are STILL vacant.. The only thing this proposed building in question will do is provide nice return to the investors who are very likely out of state.
Don’t forget about the tax revenue on this land. There’s a non-zero chance that development company received a tax insentive to build this, but nothing is free and collectively we all pay for it.
All that and we didn’t even touch on the quality of life of residents surrounding this proposed development. There was a time when they took a calculated risk and chose to invest in the area (it was NOT as nice as now) and bought property there and spent their resources for the upkeep. All that so that they have to look for parking in the overcrowded city block?
Tenants in the proposed building will be primarily renters who will move out at the first sign of displeasure, but leaving long time residents in the area stuck with the perpetual revolving door of new tenants moving in and out.
Absolutely hilarious and embarrassing drivel and whining. “oh no, people might move houses in my urban neighborhood!” “they MIGHT get a tax insentive [sic]” you are unbelievable lol move to the suburbs
I have lived in the area for over 25 years. How is this a city improvement? This is a quite part of the city that has lots of church buildings, cultural centers, and lots of families residing in both apartments(which are 2 bedrooms or more) and single family homes. Putting a building with 57 units of studios is not an improvement for the community, it will destroy the cultures and become very loud and obnoxious. Tenets will be moving in and out not caring for our community.
Yeesh, half of this comment section makes me feel like they’ve trained a NIMBY AI. I didn’t realize people still unironically say these things. The entitlement is crazy
Passing this ordinance is a slap in the face to all Ukraine’s. We have lived here for over 50 years. We built this community. We don’t need to drive around all night looking for a parking space to make some developer rich alderman has a commitment to vote this down. His office is on Chicago Oakland, right on the middle of Ukrainian village. Would he like if they built that right next-door to his house people shop here the churches are here. We don’t need an extra 40 units and parking is so scarce don’t forget there’s an election coming up. Nobody is gonna vote for this ultimate if he votes for this .
I live in the neighborhood and the ward and welcome this development. I wrote the alderman continually throughout the process to voice my support. This whole area along Chicago and Western should be upzoned for 5+ stories so that developers don’t have to go through the community development process that favors NIMBYs. This area is close the Western Ave Metra stop and along two major bus routes. We should be supporting density of housing for people and not cars. This makes me support the alderman more. He seems to understand how important housing is.
The complaints about parking are funny. How dare your parking, provided by the City either free or heavily subsidized, be impacted. The City is not required to provide you free parking.