Skip to contents
Logan Square, Humboldt Park, Avondale

Humboldt Park’s Proposed ‘Co-Living’ Apartment Complex Off The Table, Community Meeting Canceled

A new buyer has emerged with a different development proposal, according to a representative for the property owner.

A “co-living” apartment project where residents would get paired up with roommates and share amenities was proposed for the long-vacant lot at California Avenue and Division Street in Humboldt Park.
Mina Bloom / Block Club Chicago / Rendering Provided
  • Credibility:

HUMBOLDT PARK — A proposal to build a “co-living” apartment complex on a long-vacant Humboldt Park lot is dead in the water, the developer’s attorney told community leaders.

And according to Scott Redman, a representative for the property owner, a new buyer has emerged with a different development proposal for the site at 1201 N. California Ave.

“Our client has advised us that complications with the current owner of the property require us to cancel the August 21 meeting at this time, as it appears the project will not be going forward,” Warren Silver, the attorney representing City Pads, wrote in the email.

Silver didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment.

Chicago-based developer City Pads and “co-living” startup Common were behind the proposal, which called for 32 units spread across six floors, and 32 parking spaces.

At the center of the proposal was the “co-living” trend, which is similar to student housing in that all renters need to bring with them are a toothbrush and clothes.

RELATED: ‘Co-Living’ Apartment Complex Planned For Long-Vacant Lot At California And Division In Humboldt Park

A community meeting was planned for Tuesday evening at the Humboldt Park Field House at 1400 N. Sacramento Ave., but, according to Silver, the meeting is now canceled. Attempts to reach the developers Tuesday were unsuccessful.

Reached Tuesday, Redman said they’re currently under contract with the new buyer, but declined to provide any further details.

“I am not sure what the lawyer meant by ‘complications’ but the contract between the parties had specific time periods and City Pads and the owner mutually terminated the contract when City Pads ran out of time for its development approvals and negotiations did not result in an extension on terms agreeable to both parties,” Redman wrote in an email.

Ald. Roberto Maldonado’s 26th Ward office didn’t respond to requests for comment.