Halsted Flats Construction Timeline Slashed, Plans March 2014 Opening

Those itching to move into Boystown’s new Halsted Flats development won’t have to wait much longer: About seven months have been shaved off the construction timeline, officials said.

Crews broke ground at the site at 3740 N. Halsted on Nov. 1 with plans to build the 15-story structure over two years. But now representatives with the project say construction won’t take nearly as long.

“Update: Halsted Flats will be opening March 2014,” the company wrote on its Facebook page April 24. “Stay tune(d) for more info!”

Officials with the Halsted Flats development did not immediately return Patch’s calls regarding additional details about the construction timeline, but crews on the scene said everything is moving at a rapid pace.

This also comes after the city officially granted the construction permit for the project on April 12, months after the groundbreaking. The permit estimates erecting the Halsted Flats will cost nearly $30 million.

“Had we gone with a big-box development, the traffic problems would have grown exponentially...”

The new building by JDL Development Corp. will feature nearly 11,000-square-feet of retail space, 269 apartments and 276 parking spaces. Combined with a third-floor rooftop with a landscaped park, dog run, outdoor pool, fire-pit and hot tub, the massive glass structure is welcomed by 46th Ward officials.

However, some Lake View residents and business owners aren’t happy about the building’s construction. Between the threat of the new high-rise blocking existing views and the possibility of the development drastically increasing traffic in the neighborhood, some are calling the entire project “Corrupt (and) sickening,” such as a Patch reader did in our first article on the building.

Join Patch for more neighborhood news and follow us on Facebook and Twitter!

But according to Cappleman, it’s far better than the alternative. Developers first proposed a big-box store in the space, complete with a massive parking garage. After a mass of public hearings, the Zoning Committee—made of a collection of community representatives—voted against the big box. 

“Had we gone with a big-box development, the traffic problems would have grown exponentially,” Cappleman told Patch in an email. “The big-box development was the other alternative that did not require a zoning change and the developer would have had every right to go down this path of building a big box. Also, the Zoning Committee was very clear about NOT wanting a big box.”

Want more details about the controversy and the project’s history? Check out Patch’s first story outlining the specifics.