Zoning has been approved for the upcoming community hub at 2653 South Kildare Avenue in Little Village. Sitting on the corner with West 27th Avenue, we most recently covered the project last summer when it was first announced as a replacement for a large vacant lot on the neighborhood’s west end. Once completed, it will be called the Erie House La Villita Floreciendo Center.
Elevation of Florenciendo Center by Canopy Architecture
Efforts are being led by social services nonprofit Erie House, which has served the city since its founding in West Town in 1870 and expanded to Little Village in 2004. The organization now plans to construct a five-story intergenerational community center aimed at serving local families, designed by Canopy / architecture + design.
Rendering of Florenciendo Center by Canopy Architecture
The ground floor will include a 10-vehicle parking area beneath half of the structure, along with a rear patio. The building itself will contain 22,000 square feet of space. Programming will include multiple community rooms, a kitchen, offices, a library and READS lab, classrooms, a youth center and media lounge, a counseling and mental health clinic, a full-court gym, and a rooftop garden.
Floor plans of Florenciendo Center by Canopy Architecture
In Little Village, 35 percent of residents under 18 live below the poverty level. The center aims to serve 8,000 individuals annually while fostering community and resilience. Erie House plans to offer programs such as adult education, after-school programming, summer camps, family advocacy, free legal services, health counseling, youth literacy, and more.
Rendering of Florenciendo Center by Canopy Architecture
The building will be clad in a mix of glass and multi-colored panels, with warm pastels throughout the interior to create a calming atmosphere. When last reported, the project carried a $16 million price tag, though Erie House is now working to raise $22 million. Approval from the Zoning Board of Appeals allows the project to move forward, though a timeline has not yet been announced.
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
What a horrible and offensive looking building. Looks like Chicago architects have graduated from designing buildings that look like two buildings to buildings that look like three or four different buildings. Not only does this building fail to blend in with Chicago’s classic architecture, it fails to blend in with itself.
That’s not going to age well…
I don’t think the architecture looks terrible but I’m definitely sick and tired of the constant abstract preschool daycare design. This could be less costly and less a color monstrosity. Still happy to see more development of any kind nonetheless.
Here’s Hanna when you need him?
I love this design. FINALLY someone using something other than brown or grey brick. The massing has lots of interest and shapes, other than the boring boxes being built elsewhere. This design is similar to works I saw in Northern Germany and Denmark with color, various exterior materials, and interesting shapes. Chicago needs more of this!
I like the design. Seems bright and hopeful
The world wants more color and less grey: The world wants less color and more simplicity.
Super simple will get you killed.
Breaking the 4 over 1 curse is now a crime.
I am happy for something fresh. The parking still irks me, but it’s definitely a bold proposal as far as Chicago contemporary goes/has been. I highly suspect the crowd that’s always comparing to NYC is staunchly against this. Give them something to talk about and it’s all the wrong.
It’s not a design reshaping the definition of this industry, but it looks maintainable and I welcome the proposed program. Hopefully it can leave a positive impact on the community. We need all the help we can get in our Hispanic enclaves.
22 million dollars HOLY……
The following is informed by serial high-level involvements in non-profit capital fundraising/construction efforts.
$22 million is their capital-campaign fundraising target not the cost of the building. Somewhere between 2 and 5 million of that fundraising-campaign goal will be for things other than constructing the building: operational startup in the new facility, costs of the fundraising effort itself, maybe some debt service, etc. [Learning the specifics of that breakdown would require being a prospective donor/grantmaker and taking a meeting.]
Meanwhile the stated interior size of the building has increased, from 18,000 square feet a year ago to 22,000 square feet now.
The back of my envelope therefore puts the actual cost of the building at somewhere between $650 and $850 per square foot.
Not finding US new construction cost-estimate ranges that are squarely on target to this project. Range estimates for US national averages for “midrise office building” are $400-850 per square foot; for “government administrative buildings”, $450-850. Also I’m reading that new buildings in colder climates tend toward the higher ends of the ranges, that building in large cities costs more than elsewhere, and that the cost of land varies a lot as a factor. The first two of those would place Chicago towards the high ends of those national cost ranges, while that last one is I think low in this instance.
It’s refreshing to see actual empirical thinking applied here, understanding the design appeal/or not is a subjective question. I like it and agree w those that say we can benefit from more projects that break out of the redbrick/limestone/simple geometry of most chi projects)
MY GOD…