Subscribe: 
Union Row, Belgravia Group’s 35-unit development in East Pilsen, has nine townhomes left for sale. That’s an improvement from a year ago, when Yo reported 15 were still on the market. Price points range from the $530s to the $690s for the remaining floor plans.
At first blush, the location (directly adjacent to both the Dan Ryan Expressway and a Metra rail line) doesn’t come off as stellar. Belgravia chose instead to play up the project’s position within the broader Pilsen / University Village neighborhood. A large map in the sales center points out the variety of restaurants, art galleries and retail spots within walking distance of the homes. The developer also hosts monthly “art walks” to buyers them acquainted with the galleries in their new neighborhood.
Even the public amenities will see upgrade in the near future. Jefferson Playlot Park, just south of Union Row, is set for a significant redevelopment this summer, courtesy of the Chicago Park District. Brett Owen, a sales rep at the project, says the park improvement is a key element of the new community Belgravia is building in East Pilsen.
“The city’s actually going to be expanding the park by about 40 percent,” he says. “That’s scheduled to happen this summer, and the park is literally about half a block from Union Row. You won’t even recognize this area in a year, year and a half.”
Related posts:
{ 12 comments }
Wow. Belgravia Group has absolutely no involvement with the Park Expansion whatsoever, and it is both insulting and vulgar that they would use the hard work of others (namely, the community groups in the East Pilsen Area who have worked with the Park District for YEARS to make this park expansion happen) to hawk these townhomes.
East Pilsen Resident,
Your comment qualifies as one of the strangest shots I’ve seen taken at a real estate developer recently, and I’ve seen a lot of them.
Were the developers of Millennium Park high-rises behaving in a “vulgar and insulting” manner by selling their high-rises on the strength of the park? Should developers be prohibited from mentioning any public amenity they weren’t primarily responsible for?
I guess the developers of the new highrise around 2200 North and right on Lincoln Park shouldn’t mention the park or the lake or the zoo or the buses or the restaurants or the cabs or the schools or anything else because someone else is responsible for them.
Ultimately perhaps they should credit the Almighty with Lake Michigan. Now how to refer to the “Big G”? Got to be careful. Some one may get annoyed.
Joe:
In my opinion there’s a difference between mentioning the redevelopment of an amenity in the area and making it seem that you’re in some way responsible for it. Some developers donate money to nearby parks, attend community meetings, etc; I was making it clear that this is NOT the case with this particular development.
I could be wrong, but I’m also going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume that the development in Millennium and Lincoln Park were actually wanted in those communities.
I think you are stretching a bit here EPR. This quote makes it pretty clear to me that the developer is not responsible for the parks rehab, and that it will simply be a great amenity for homeowners:
“The city’s actually going to be expanding the park by about 40 percent,” he says. “That’s scheduled to happen this summer, and the park is literally about half a block from Union Row. You won’t even recognize this area in a year, year and a half.”
I’ll take a wild guess and speculate that you don’t want any development that doesn’t fit your idea of what constitutes “good” development in our neighborhood. I’ll also speculate that you romantically long for a Pilsen that doesn’t exist on this astral plain. Get used to it or start developing. Someone is going to redevelop all the vacant land and the abandoned loft buildings as well as replace or renovate the sub standard houses many of which will become unhabitable once the current resident vacates. There just aren’t that many people looking for 2 closets with a smallish living room and kitchen appliance room with space heat and termites, cracked windows, and a rotted mold covered bathing room with a toilet about to fall thru the floor. Unless illegal immigration picks back up you can kiss tenantz who put up which such sub standard living quarters goodbye.
Viktor,
Pilsen was long plagued by absentee landlords who kept their properties in substandard condition, without interference from city building inspectors.
There was always a demand for that kind of housing at the right price.
Has something changed in Pilsen to remove or police the absentee owners and diminish the demand for low-quality but affordable housing?
Yeah Joe, something has changed. UIC has moved all the way to the 16th Street viaduct, students are being priced out of Taylor Street, young professionals don’t want to pay an arm and a leg to live in Lincoln Park or Wicker Park, and the location is within a stone’s throw of downtown. Is that hard enough for you to understand?
UICstudent,
Bridle your anger long enough – if you can – to take note that this post is about Pilsen.
Young professionals who can afford to still want to live in Lincoln Park and Wicker Park. They still do.
I should be more careful when tangling with you – anyone who can throw a stone two miles is fearsome.
Wow Joe, you really do have an axe to grind with Pilsen. I mean, all I said was that you have no idea of what is going on there. You don’t. But you continue to turn things around as if I am some sort of hate-monger, so as to solidify your point. If Joe Zekas doesn’t want to live in Pilsen, fine. The world is probably a much better place. But for you to sit there and cast stones upon the neighborhood, as you’ve done over the last several years, is horseshUt. Sorry, you’re not in Jersey anymore, Dorothy.
UICstudent,
This continues to be more about your anger than about anything I’ve said about Pilsen.
I repeat my earier question to you: where does all that anger come from?
“young professionals don’t want to pay an arm and a leg to live in Lincoln Park or Wicker Park, and the location is within a stone’s throw of downtown.”
Who says that they are entiled to live there just because they have done so in the past? This was not always a low income area and there is no reason why it should always remain a low income area in the future.
The prime geographic locations in the central city are not the appropriate place for low income housing. If the central city is to prosper economically, the best locations have to be used to provide housing that will attract people with above average income and even ones who are rich, so that they will live in the city instead of the suburs, in order to provide the city with sufficient tax revenue to properly fund its needs, such as, for example, paying for the expansion of parks. That requires tax revenue. If such prime areas are used for run-down, low income housing, Chicago will become an impoverished slum like Detroit. Other, less desirable locations are more appropriate for affordable housing.
Comments on this entry are closed.