More than 200 people attended a meeting at St. Teresa of Avila Church, 1950 N. Kenmore Ave., to hear a discussion of proposals for landmarking portions of the Lincoln Park community. Monday's meeting was chaired by Ald. Vi Daley (43rd) who described this meeting as the third involving the proposals but the first which was formally attended by City officials.
Speaking at the meeting were Brian Goeken, deputy commissioner for landmarks for the City’s Department of Planning and Development. His presentation to the group explained the dynamics of designating an entire neighborhood area as a landmark. The two districts involved are the Sheffield Historic District and RANCH Triangle. The Sheffield area extends from Fullerton Ave. to Willow St. and from Sheffield Ave. to Halsted St. The RANCH Triangle district, which is an acronym for the neighborhood covered, encompasses the area circled by Racine Ave., Armitage Ave., North Ave., the Chicago River and Halsted St.
Representatives of the two neighborhood associations spoke to the assemblage about the proposals as did Ald. Daley. She told the group that no decisions had been made and that the meeting they were attending was only the third dealing with the subject. She indicated that many smaller meetings would be held on the subject, and encouraged neighborhood and block organizations to call such meetings where neighbors could be informed about the progress of the designation process.
Goeken, whose interests lie in extending the role of the Landmark Ordinance, spoke about the positive side of such a designation, pointing out that demolition, alteration and new construction within the area would be strictly controlled. Almost anything dealing with the properties within the district would require approval by the City Landmarks Commission before permission could be granted to do the work.
One woman questioned the efficiency of the City in granting permits to do necessary repairs. Goeken sputtered over the answer before trying to assure the woman that replacing a deteriorated window could be handled on a staff level. The questioner then recounted her experience with the City asserting that she had to pay more for a permit to replace the window than for the window itself. Her frustration with the City’s bureaucratic processes was obvious to the audience.
A majority of those attending vehemently oppose the proposed designation. Carl Vuonafede and Steve Jackson live in the 2100 block of N. Seminary Ave. Vuonafede told Inside that not one person on his block wants landmarking. His neighbor Steve said he had gone door-to-door to discuss the matter with his neighbors. "Every one of them opposes landmarking the neighborhood. Why can’t we do landmarking on a block-by-block basis?" he asked.
John Kelly, who lives on the 2200 block of N. Kenmore Ave., had a slightly different view on the subject. "We need a moratorium on tear downs," he said, "But we don’t need landmarking. Let the whole thing cool down." Kelly has lived in the area for 67 years.
Speaking on the other side of the issue, a woman who would only identify herself as Rebecca, and who has been a resident of the area for only a few years, said that, in order to maintain the integrity of the neighborhood, landmarking was needed; it would prevent developers from buying up properties and then building what she expected to be high-rise structures that weren’t in keeping with the area.
Following Goeken’s presentation, the floor was opened for questions and, later, for comments from the audience. Chuck Michelle, a 35-year resident of the 2200 block of N. Dayton St., asked about the economic impact of landmarking. He observed that people don’t know the effect of landmarking which is imposed on home owners. Ald. Daley responded by telling him that she will survey the area on a block-by-block basis to determine public interest.
The owner of a commercial building in the previously landmarked Armitage Halsted Landmark District told the group how he had surveyed the owners of the buildings affected by the proposed landmark designation for that area. He said he had discovered that more than 90 percent opposed the designation and that in defiance of the wishes of the owners, the City Council pushed through the enabling ordinance affecting his property.
One of the members of the RANCH board spoke to the group and complained that she attended a meeting in June or July in which landmarking was recommended by the RANCH Association in spite of the fact that the neighborhood wasn’t notified of this meeting.
One attendee shouted a question at Goeken asking "What’s in it for you?" Goeken was unwilling to respond to the question. Later, Don Edwards of the 1800 block of N. Fremont St. asked whether there "is a public accounting or a vote on the issue of landmarking." Daley responded that there’s been no decision made on the subject and that she and Ald. Ted Matlak (32nd) were examining the feelings of their constituents on the subject. In fact, there is never a vote on landmarking.
One attendee addressed the group and urged them to organize on a block level, holding small meetings, inviting the alderman to attend and expressing their concerns, learning the background of the landmark process and expressing their feelings about the proposal.
While several of the people present supported the landmarking process and identified themselves by a show of hands, they represented a minority viewpoint. Clearly, with adequate advance notice, and unlike earlier meetings which were not well publicized, the vast majority of the people attending this meeting were opposed to the landmarking process as it affected their properties. Many attendees carried computer generated placards which read "Say ‘NO’ to landmarking. We support zoning as the answer."
People were informed about a process which would affect their most valuable possession—their homes—and were given facts to allow them make a decision on the subject. Assuming bureaucracy doesn’t take over the reins of the landmarking machinery, the majority will have their way and will be supported by their elected representatives. |
