The Chicago City Council has approved funding for the mixed-use development at 132 North Kedzie Avenue known as Hub 32. Sitting at the intersection with West Lake Street within East Garfield Park, the project has been in the works for some years now as part of a multi-lot RFQ issued by the city. The fully affordable project would bring much-needed housing to the area.
Multi-site map of East Garfield Park RFQ, current site in center via Chicago DPD
Efforts for the project are being led in collaboration by The Michaels Organization, KMW Communities, and TruDelta Real Estate, along with architecture firms Brook + Scarpa and Studio Dwell. Back in February, we reviewed the revised plans for the development, which saw a height reduction as it received preliminary funding approval.
Ground floor plan of Hub 32 by Brooks + Scarpa and Studio Dwell
Floor plan of Hub 32 by Brooks + Scarpa and Studio Dwell
The now five-story structure will occupy the majority of the site and hold 3,800 square feet of commercial space, a lobby space, fitness room, bike parking, and a 12-vehicle parking garage accessed from Lake. The floors above will hold 51 residential units made up of 28 one-bedroom, 16 two-bedroom, and seven three-bedroom layouts.
Elevations of Hub 32 by Brooks + Scarpa and Studio Dwell
The $41 million project will feature multiple terraces along its setbacks and be clad in white brick and corrugated metal panels. With the approval, the city can now sell the city-owned lots to the developer for $1, as well as grant the project $13.86 million in TIF money along with other grants. Construction is set to commence in July and be completed by December 2027.
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
Am I reading the ground floor right? There is a bus top at Maypole and a huge planter the rest of the way North blocking all the front entrances? So any car dropping someone off will pull up to the bus stop so the person is not let out onto the planter?
That would appear to be approximately $804,000 per residential unit. This “fully affordable” project is only affordable to the tenants, not to the taxpayers. Imagine if they could figure out how to build more units for less money per unit!
As someone in construction and built on the west side near here, all private market, we deliver units at $300K per unit, standard 3bd 2 bath, 27% what the grifting affordable housing entities cost. I’m glad more people are finally starting to ask “why”.
The city should instead consider just buying market-rate buildings and converting them to affordable or partially affordable. Reduction of market-rate supply should stimulate more market-rate construction. That means more units for everyone at lower total cost
That’s just too common sence
“That would appear to be approximately $804,000 per residential unit.”
You just divided 41 mil by 51. You didn’t factor in the commercial units at all. Or the amenity space. Also you didn’t factor in that 16 units will be two-bedroom and 7 will be three-bedroom. Or the fact that the architecture is better and less generic than than what private developers typically make.
Just seems disingenuous.
$41M for only 51 new housing units just seems like a waste of public money.
The 1415 Dayton project, which involved a market rate land purchase, comes in at $300,000 per unit, for example. With donated land, this project on Kedzie would appear to be the textbook illustration for how not to build affordable housing.
The 1415 Dayton project is a generic tower with a generic podium. It also includes zero commercial space. It isn’t really fair to compare that project to an architecturally-significant community hub that includes commercial space and pedestrian activation.
Why didn’t a commercial developer propose a project in this location? THAT is the question here.
A lot of that land is owned by the city and county. I cant speak for that parcel but our group has tried and been denied purchase of government owned land many times in this city. They dont want private development or they want to control it or they dont want the areas “changing”.
I am guessing “changing” = gentrification?
Just sitting here and giggling as people call this project a waste of taxpayer money, while knowing they’re downright giddy about giving the 1901 project (and other “privately financed” projects) millions in tax breaks. I’m not saying it’s right for the affordable units to be so costly (albeit a more nuanced issue than what people seem to think) , but I think it’s important to underscore the cognitive dissonance.