Friday, May 20, 2011

Wilson Yard Apartments Not 100% Occupied?

A reader writes in:
"I pass by the Wilson Yard Apartments (1026-32 W. Montrose) on the way to work each morning and this sign has been out for quite some time now. I am wondering why these units weren't filled immediately if there was/is such a need for affordable housing in Uptown? I always imagined there would be a huge waiting list to get in these units but that does not seem to be the case."


  1. At least this gives evidence that there is no demand for MORE low income housing in our neighborhood. Maybe instead we can focus on making sure the housing here is safe for its residents AND its neighbors.

  2. The need was so Helen could make a nice chunk of change under the table.

  3. It is not unheard of for there to be tenant turnover in rental housing. Especially perhaps in the senior housing portion of the project.

    Judging by the lights in windows on at night, plenty of them are occupied.

    I still think it was a giant TIF boondoggle but will totally concede I haven't noticed any of the issues there that beset some of Uptown's other affordable housing spots. May it stay clean and boring around there for years to come.

  4. So far so good. This summer will tell the tale of the tape but I think there will be few problems that come from this apartment complex. I hope their strict examination of all applicants that apply to live there continues and I guess with it not being 100% occupied by now shows they are doing what they said they would. Lets hope they continue doing so too.

  5. I haven't noticed any of the issues there that beset some of Uptown's other affordable housing spots.

    From everything I've read on the subject, it seems that a major problem with developments like Cabrini and RTaylor were with piss-poor management by the city, including starving off funds for necessary maintenance and repairs to the buildings and units. I've read about elevators that completely froze up during winters, leaks and non-working plumbing that persisted for years.

    Sounds to me like somebody(ies) were "concentrating the broken windows" right there in the projects.

    As long as Holsten keeps his promise and commitment to properly manage and maintain the buildings/units, #1 on behalf of the residents, and #2 on behalf of the community, then as far as I'm concerned, he'll be doing better than the city of Chicago ever did.

  6. on the same thoughts as Toucan, perhaps, and this is a BIG perhaps - maybe Holstein is being selective and properly placing these folks that truly deserve a place to live and won't trash it.....which, for the long term is a good thing....we can only hope....

  7. The management is being selective...that is a good

  8. They are not filled because of what is seen going in and out of building.Gangers family must be living there.There is alot of people still needing low income housing.That does not make all bad because they can not afford higher rentals.

  9. It's because you MUST be employed that's most likely the big reason. I'm assuming MOST people are NOT employed in the VOP buildings and look at all of the FREE aminities they're getting???? Of course off of our backs. I guess I'll shut up now because I'm feeling real ignorant and I don't want to offend anyone. After all I'm supposed to be UN-BIAS.. I'm libral yes BUT I do belive hard work and education dosnt hurt ANYONE.

  10. This is mixed income housing, correct?

    Perhaps their difficulty is in filling the units that were designated to be occupied by the people who would be paying full retail.

    I know that if I am looking to move, and I'm prepared and can afford to pay a sizable payment for my housing, I would NOT be looking to move into a development like this.

    I'm just sayin.

  11. To me it would make sense to empty out a building like say Lawrence House and put the okay,decent people at wilson yards and then do something else with that large low income building.

    To take a problem building empty it rehabilitate it for another purpose and thereby getting rid of problem people. Its funny that this came up on the blog because I drove by the other day and was thinking that wilson yards was pretty empty, but better to be picky about who lives there.

  12. Cone, Wilson Yard is "mixed-income" only if you consider "mixed-income" to be incomes between poverty and $50K. If you make more than that, you do not qualify to rent an apartment in Wilson Yard.

    "Mixed-income" was the line that Helen Shiller fed everyone to get their buy-in and sign-off to fork over tens of millions to Holsten...but don't feel bad about that, since former Mayor Daley also thought Wilson Yard is "mixed-income".

  13. No, Cone of Silence, Wilson Yard is not mixed-income.

    That was what the community wanted, and we were told it would be mixed-income, with an ownership component.

    What we got was 100% low-income rentals, no possibility of ownership.

    Just one of the many Wilson Yard sleight-of-hand tricks performed by the Amazing Helen and her trusty assistant, Peter.

    I had to laugh when Rahm expressed amazement that there was no TIF oversight or standards. Anyone in Uptown could have told him that years ago.

    No problems so far from Wilson Yard, and the fact that Peter Holsten is moving his offices there bodes well (except that we won't be getting any retail there, as promised). So far, so good. I'm just saying that what the community asked for, and what we got, are two entirely different things.