Without kitchens or bathrooms, the 128 Single Room Occupancy (SRO) rooms in the West Cook YMCA are considered functionally obsolete, relics unfit for today’s standards for affordable housing, according to a feasibility study of the building. From that point on at last Wednesday’s public meeting on what to do with the site once the Y vacates it, there was little agreement-but plenty of intensity. The meeting was held at the 19th Century Club.
Five organizations combined to fund the study-prepared by Pusateri Development, LLC-to determine if it would be economically feasible to renovate the 225 S. Marion St. property, which the Y will vacate in the next few years for a larger facility in Forest Park.
The Y’s average monthly SRO occupancy is between 100 and 110 residents, 70 percent of whom rank as low income (below $25,000 per year). Rent there is approximately $450 per month, with no other buildings offering a comparable price in Oak Park. Rent for a private Oak Park studio ranges from $575 to $700 per month.
Based on those numbers, the study concluded that Y residents would benefit from a supportive housing facility, a form of affordable housing which combines case management services with a range of other social services, said Ed Solan, executive director of the Oak Park Residence Corporation, one of the five organizations funding the study.
Supportive housing is a term originally applied to homeless people in transition, with a time limit for residency, said Janet Hasz, executive director of the Supportive Housing Providers Association. Presently, it’s called transitional or permanent supportive housing. Without a time limit, residents can stay as long as desired. The housing is designed for the homeless or those at risk of homelessness who have incomes at or below 30 percent of the area median income.
Those in supportive housing often have chronic health conditions, possibly including HIV, mental illness, or substance issues, Hasz said. Victims of domestic abuse sometimes also use supportive housing.
Social services, which generally aren’t mandatory for residents, often accompany supportive housing.
The Y building is not ideal for condominium conversion because of its complicated amenities, such as the swimming pool and two-story gym said Larry Pusateri, author of the study.
“All of that has to be very expensively carved back into residential space for a developer, and that’s cost-prohibitive,” he said. “Or you can keep it as is and that is no longer a likely rent production space for the facility. In both cases, it becomes very financially difficult.”
According to Pusateri, multiple developers have offered the Y between $7 and $8 million for its three properties: the current Y, an apartment building across the street, and a nearby parking lot. Potentially, it would cost over $3 million for acquisition, demolition and construction on the existing Y site.
Current village zoning would allow 52 units on the property at a maximum height of four stories. Spreading $3 million in acquisition costs over 52 units isn’t financially ideal, Pusateri said. The study found 127 units would be most feasible, but he said that’s not the general preference of the five organizations, he said.
The Y plans to release a request for qualifications (RFQ) to developers, seeking anyone interested in the site said Jim Lencioni, the Y’s board chair. The field will then be narrowed down to two or three finalists, whose plans will be presented to the neighborhood.
Residential use is likely for the site, which Lencioni said won’t be available for about three years. The south parking lot (also referred to as “The Doughnut,” accessible only by an alley) is off the table for any affordable or supportive housing development.
Nothing in the study is set in stone, and any potential development at the site would have to go through the village’s development review process, Solan added.
“This limited financial feasibility study is not the be-all/end-all of this discussion,” he said.
“We are not saying that this feasibility study provides sufficient evidence to build [supportive housing],” he said later. “What we’re saying is, it is financially feasible to do so. Our agent has conducted a study that says it’s marginally financially feasible to do so. The next key ingredient will be, is there a developer out there, most likely a not-for-profit developer, who will come forward and put together a proposal that will be sufficiently attractive to the YMCA.”
Neighbors passionate
Over 150 people attended the meeting and many were eager to voice their opinions on affordable housing, crime, and other issues related to the Y property.
Roughly 30 people spoke during the public comment portion of the meeting. Village Trustee Greg Marsey, in attendance, said the evening was unique and memorable and a source of pride for him as an Oak Park citizen. It’s a controversial issue, he said, with a difficult decision looming in the future, but he was enthused to see representatives from all sides there to speak and ask questions.
“To see speaker after speaker get up and speak with the passion that they had, whether they were in favor of the project or opposed to it, is what really made the event and the evening special to me,” he said at Monday’s village board meeting. “It convinced me that as a community, we will work to the right solution because people care.”
“It was certainly, in my 16 years of living here, my proudest moment as an Oak Parker,” Marsey said.