An official groundbreaking has been held for the upcoming mixed-use tower at 1016 West Jackson Boulevard in the West Loop. Sitting on the corner with South Morgan Street, the project has been in the works for a few years and is now officially known as the Julep West Loop. Efforts are being led by Mavrek Development along with Eckenhoff Saunders Architects.
Rendering of 1016 West Jackson Boulevard by Eckenhoff Saunders
To make way for the Julep, general contractor Skender has been working on the demolition of a five-story and two-story commercial building that previously occupied the site. This was recently completed, with the developer scoring caisson permits last month along with closing on funding for the over $170 million project this month, per Crain’s.
Floor plan of 1016 W Jackson Boulevard by Eckenhoff Saunders
Floor plan of 1016 W Jackson Boulevard by Eckenhoff Saunders
Floor plan of 1016 W Jackson Boulevard by Eckenhoff Saunders
The 25-story structure will be anchored by a three-story podium that will span the majority of the site, leaving a small pass-through on the western edge leading to the rear alley and potential future project. The ground floor will be mostly occupied by a 22,000-square-foot Aldi grocery store, supported by the 163-vehicle parking garage above.
Rendering of 1016 West Jackson Boulevard by Eckenhoff Saunders
Rendering of 1016 West Jackson Boulevard by Eckenhoff Saunders
Capping the podium will be a large amenity deck featuring a pool, half basketball court, dog run, and more for the residents of the 380 units within the tower. The units will be made up of studios, one-, two-, and three-bedroom layouts, of which 76 will be affordable. With permits in hand, the team plans to complete the development in the first half of 2028.
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
Glad a grocery store is going there but wide parking podiums like that could hold an entire additional building. Seems like a waste of a design.
Agreed, we’re cramming cars into every nook and cranny of this city and then we wonder why we have horrific traffic and a housing crisis.
This is a classic tragedy of the commons problem that nobody seems to be doing a good job of putting the right regulations in place to continuously reduce the need and desire to own a personal vehicle when living in Chicago.
We ain’t cramming diddly squat into nothing.
Some people want parking. You can’t pass laws that make people stop wanting things. I’m sure you disagree but it doesn’t matter, because reality prevails.
Aldi needs parking. Period. Chicagoans drive. Yes, they walk and bike and use transit, but they drive too. Don’t shoot the messenger, it’s just a fact.
Traffic congestion is a reality, parking or not. Spend a day in Manhattan, where most people don’t cars—the streets are still clogged and you’ll pull your hair out.
Yes, I think getting rid of parking minimums near transit is a good idea. I think we should expand and improve transit. But there will always need to be parking.
Cars. Parking. Podiums. God given right to drive. Yada yada yada yada.
Whole lotta words from someone that decries stuff getting built when parking is a top expense in a building’s composition. You’ll decry cost of construction for affordable housing but completely gloss over probably THE MOST subsidized thing in the United States.
Parking is not subsidized in this instance. There was no minimum parking requirement for this building, any money spent on parking is because of pure consumer demand.
What about the roads, highways, street cleaning services, gutters, filtration for what cars spew out, cost of gasoline, the oil industrial complex, the auto industry, tire manufacturers, etc etc.
Didn’t say they weren’t paying these spots. It’s clear the developer is propping up their own bill. Overall, it’s a luxury we expect to come with citizenship.
Ahhh tupper with another brain dead take. Like clockwork
Go away Tupperware, grown ups are here. Would have loved to see a double tower with that wide podium. But good is better than nothing. As lots become more scarce we will see better usage of land for more density.
How much do people want parking? Why have parking minimums, let the market decide
This development is within 1/2 mile of transit, which means parking minimums are eliminated. The free market has decided that 380 units + a grocery store demands 163 parking spots.
I’m so excited to have an Aldi here
Excellent. More units + a grocery store is a great combo. Pretty close to the Halsted station for commuters. Should attract some UIC faculty as well.
With the exception of downtown, about a year ago the city council eliminated parking minimums for about 3/4 of the city. It’s up to the developer (and probably in this case their major tenant/part owner, Aldi) to come up with the # of spaces they think fits the needs of their development.
380 residences served by, after Aldi customers’ usage, maybe 75 parking spots…terrific. That’s the kind of ratio to aim for.
….while thousands of empty lots are within walking distance of this site…..
Just learning NOW about desirability based on proximity?
One smart cookie here…
No, I’m reminding everyone of undesirability based on crime. What would happen to property values in the West Loop if crime disappeared from Garfield Park?
Racist Dog Whistle
Apologist for corruption in Chicago government. Except for criminals themselves, no one in Chicago wants crime in their neighborhood. The fact that their desires are ignored by Chicago government is the measure of corruption of Chicago government.
*Whistle* *Whistle* *Whistle*
apologize, apologize, apologize.
After seeing so many complaints elsewhere about illegal parking, the idea that each unit is allocated .4 parking spots is nuts, unless there is some serious investment in common (and safe) parking elsewhere. Basically, these buildings are set to be apartments forever since any condo conversation would be slowed by the fact no one shelling out that money would buy without at least one spot included.
As important, Chicago is a small (and decreasing) part of a much wider economic and leisure ecosystem. Sorry to say to deniers, but there is a great big world out there and anyone with this money is not going to spend time sitting at home. I already know people departing Chicago for other suburbs just for the fact that it is easier to get around.
Take it from a person whose neighborhood decided that apartment (or even home) parking is “optional” – the personal car is not going anywhere.
The developers decided that the people living here wanted more parking, they would have built more parking.
Garages aren’t free, but if you’re willing to donate money for the developers to build bigger podiums I’m sure they would accept.
*If the developers decided that the people living here wanted more parking, they would have built more parking.
That would be a valid argument if not for short-sighted “activists” and city planners who are more concerned about pushing agendas than growing a city. Some cite “congestion”. The goal should not be to remove parking, but reduce the need for short trips. If congestion is an issue, great, ban all rideshare and non-commercial deliveries.
Waste of a good piece of land for high rise or skyscraper development .
Way , way too m .uch garage parking .