The property located at 3838 N. Broadway (commonly known as the Chateau Hotel) has been sold to a local group of investors and is being held in a land trust. More details about the new owners will be shared at the housing court hearing on January 29th at 11:00 a.m.
Last year, I asked the City of Chicago to conduct a series of inspections that led to over one hundred building code violations. Concerns with violent crime, loitering, drug dealing, and public intoxication were also common in and around the property.
I organized meetings with residents of the Chateau Hotel, community members, and local housing organizations requesting better management of the property owner. Unfortunately, the property owner was not responsive to the community's concerns. To view a copy of his letter to me, click here.
When I took office, one of my top priorities was to increase public safety for the residents that live in and around Chateau Hotel. This sends a clear message to other building owners in the 46th Ward that we require a safe environment for their residents and the surrounding community. Everyone deserves a safe and secure home. I will be working with the new owners and the current residents to address their concerns about housing.
Best,
Ald. James Cappleman"
21 comments:
Wilson Men's Hotel Next? I can only pray.
great news for Lake View, wonder if the new owners will try to maintain it as an SRO?
I am very surprised that Mr. Ciardelli made it into law school (much less graduated) with such atrocious writing skills.
Makes you wonder how poorly he writes his legal briefs .
Yeah, DuneWonk, I was a little surprised to see in his letter that he apparently counts to four by going "one, two, two, four." Of course, that whole letter is greatly humorous, so why not misnumbered pages to go along with the rest of it?
I hope the new owners keep the beautiful and extravagant barbecue pit that the former owners put in at great cost and expense out of the goodness of their hearts to supplement the lavish lifestyle of his tennants who lived in one of the most luxurious SROs on the North side.
Wow! My walk to Whole Foods will dramatically change in the next few years.
It never ceases to amaze me just how corrupt many of these SRO operators were (or are), and how they were able to function in plain sight that way for years despite reams of complaints from taxpayers about violence, crime, and the unsafe and unsanitary living conditions. Didn't city inspectors ever visit these locations? Ah..Chicago...
I lived around the corner on Sheridan from 70-89 and it was starting to get bad then.It is true alot of drug selling in Gill Park from that hotel.It is in plain site.
I highly question whether an SRO is the highest and best use of that property in 2013, esp. if the new owners have to sink a bunch of money into it.
Lots of good stuff going on right in that area with the new development, the Gill Park Co-Op's new look, and (hopefully) some really good news concerning the Chateau.
That letter from Ciardelli is amazing. How does he expect anyone to take him seriously when he writes like that? I couldn't even understand some of the sentences.
This is certainly good news for our neighbors south of Irving Park Rd. Hopefully this will lead to improvements north of Irving - particulary with the Wilson Men's Hotel and Lawrence House. I'd venture to guess they are in the same, if not in worse condition than the Chateau.
Wilson and Broadway is never going to fully stabilize with the Men's Club there - new El stop or not.
Wow, so many things wrong with that letter, I don't even know where to start.
I guess I'll just pull out my favorite part of the letter: Gil park is attracting vagrants and drug dealers who are interfering with the peaceful Chateu and their beautiful bbq pit
word on the street is it will remain an SRO
Most likely the new owners will tear down the structure… It’s in bad shape and that is some prime land. It would be great if any new development can continue the idea of preserving the terra cotta façade and integrating it into any new structures. Whole Foods and the planned LGBT senior housing are some examples of this idea right down the street.
Jeff, you are spot on. There is also a craptastic building on Sheridan, just south of the Uptown Baptist Church across from Windsor, that needs to be added to that list. Drug dealing going on all day there and no one seems to notice or care...
Go Cap! That letter is pretty funny....
@Jeff - I am hoping to see some new transit oriented development within close proximity of the Wilson El. Have you see images of the building going up near Division Blue Line? It is a 99 unit rental building with no parking. http://chicago.curbed.com/archives/2013/01/07/the-dough-rises-tower-of-pizza-hut-in-the-oven-at-ashland-division.php
This is fantastic news! Maybe the folks living in that Sedgwick building on Grace (right around the corner from the Hotel Chateau) will scale-back their whining about the beautiful new development on Halsted (in a half-square block, unused parking lot that they were SURE would never get developed....!?! *really??*), and acknowledge that our alderman is indeed actively addressing crime and problem buildings AS WELL AS developing our ward! Fixing the problems at the Chateau was one of James' campaign promises (as was development...) - that he's made good on in just two years! Thanks James!!
" am hoping to see some new transit oriented development within close proximity of the Wilson El. Have you see images of the building going up near Division Blue Line? It is a 99 unit rental building with no parking. "
Best post in years. It's a shame so many in Uptown embrace suburban style development instead of the highest and best use practices which have allowed the blue line communities to thrive.
There are a ton of strip malls and vacant lots around Wilson just begging for upzoning.
@ Alex - I was really angry to see the Walgreens go up by the Sheridan redline stop. That was a prime parcel for TOD development. The city needs a zoning code with "minimum" height requirements for parcels within 2 blocks of a CTA train stop. A mid-rise with a Walgreens supporting the base foor would have been perfect for that location.
I wonder what Thorek's plans are for the parcel across the street. I would assume that Chicago will use eminent domain around Sheridan to straighten the track once federal funding comes for the redline modernization project. That should open the door for future TOD development. I also wonder if the Sheridan rehab makes sense if it is just upkeep (similiar to Argyle and Lawrence) when future plans require a complete rebuild.
Personally, I am still sad that the subway option is left off the table. I understand that the community is worried about the risk of cost overruns, but the city could still operate the elevated line during the construction period and the unpredictable cost of eminent domain for construction. I would not be surprised if we buy places at the height of the market.
What does the statement, “Concerns with violent crime, loitering, drug dealing, and public intoxication were also common in and around the property” have to do with a request for an inspection inside the building? Answer: innuendo and pretext.
As I have explained in previous posts, I suspect that the City of Chicago is engaging in what I call “covert Takings.” According to most interpretations of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause (applied to the States via the Fourteenth Amendment), the Government can take property for “public use” as long as “just compensation” is paid. According to many interpretations, the Government is forbidden to take property from one private party in order to hand it to another private party.
In Chicago, rather than risk the political fallout that would likely result from an overt, Kelo-style Taking (Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)), the Government (at all levels) is apparently using its virtually unbridled discretionary authority to apply pressure to building owners, so that they sell their properties to developers. Are we to believe that Alderman Cappleman, either from concern for the residents—who were summarily evicted from the Chateau Hotel—or from concern about unsubstantiated rumors that the residents of the Chateau Hotel were criminals, asked the City of Chicago to inspect, and an avalanche of violations was the surprise result? Or is it more likely that the City of Chicago does not normally perform thorough inspections—choosing to wait until an alderman, after being approached by an interested developer, requests the City of Chicago to direct its inspectors to “find” enough code violations to compel the building owner to sell the property to an eager developer? Because there is no overt Taking, and because of the poor inspection results, no “just compensation” issue arises for any Government that is involved. It is a mighty slick maneuver.
On Feb. 19, 2010, before he became alderman, James Cappleman expressed the following concern:
“My concern, however, is that the community already has a disproportionate number of mental health facilities in the area. I remember when I was in Social Work graduate school reading that Uptown has the highest concentration of people living with mental illness in the entire United States… We also have a disproportionately high number of nursing home facilities, too.”
On Sept. 6, 2012, an Internet article included the following comments by Alderman Cappleman:
“Mary, the new owner is not requesting a zoning variance, is not using TIF money, is not making this a planned development, is not rehabbing a current CHA building, and is not purchasing this property from the City. Given that none of the above is occurring, the City’s Legal Department advised me against requiring the developer to set aside units to be low-income…
“Also, affordable housing is becoming more expensive to maintain because it has become so expensive for affordable housing corporations to evict tenants who have been convicted of drug sales and storing guns on their premises. While in housing court, these tenants typically go for years without paying any rent. That lost revenue makes it more difficult to maintain affordable housing.”
This is a “clever” way to accuse tenants of criminal behavior, without the accuser committing himself to specific allegations, which can be proved false. I wonder whether Alderman Cappleman would honor us with specific allegations, including police reports, to support his claims of criminal behavior by tenants of the buildings upon which he and his governmental comrades have set their sights. Illinois has long had access to emergency eviction procedures based on serious criminal conduct, such as drug dealing and illegal possession of firearms. With the emergency eviction procedures in place, it would require no more than a few weeks to evict criminals, as well as people whom the preponderance of evidence suggests have committed a crime.
http://law.onecle.com/illinois/735ilcs5/9-118.html
Post a Comment