Landmark designation has reared its head in yet another Lincoln Park community. With the able assistance of Ald. Vi Daley (43rd), someone who has always taken an even handed approach to the issue within her Ward, and with the encouragement of one of the petty officials in the City’s Department of Planning, a group of neighbors seems to favor landmark designation for another large segment of the North Side. The majority of those attending a meeting favored landmarking but they did not necessarily represent the community at large.
Landmarking of Chicago neighborhoods has been around for a while and everywhere it appears, neighbors have attended open public meetings to express their distaste for the idea. It’s time to examine landmark status for what it is, not for what certain sinecured political hacks say it is in order to insure their job security. Usually, the preliminary meetings, attended by a few proponents of the idea, seemed to favor the idea. Later, when word of the scheme gets out, it’s clear that the vast majority of property owners affected by the landmarking proposal didn’t attend the original meeting. When there’s an open public forum on the subject sentiment has turned against the proposal time and time again. Why does this happen when the facts are exposed to public scrutiny? Let’s explain.
Landmarking removes from the owner one of the rights he got when he bought the property. Under Common Law concepts, the ownership of land includes what’s called a "bundle of rights." Those include the right to alter one’s land, to change the nature of its use (for example from commercial to residential where zoning permits), to upgrade the facade or other portions of the property (for example to install heat saving storm windows or to rebuild an antiquated front porch), and generally to use the property for any legal purpose. Landmarking removes many of these rights or necessitates time consuming and expensive permits administered by the Department of Planning and supervised by the
landmark preservationists.
The argument in favor of landmark designation is that the neighborhood retains its "character," and that the ambiance of an area couldn’t be changed by developers coming in and building new housing where old housing once stood. This argument is specious and self-serving insofar as those most in favor of seeing no further change in the area have upgraded their own property to make it more livable and now want to deny the same right to new buyers.
Landmarking also makes any changes in the property, however necessary and aesthetically pleasing, much more difficult. Here’s an example. Among the City’s landmark properties are the Mies Van Der Rohe buildings at 860-880 N. Lake Shore Drive. Once called the glass houses, they represent the first glass and steel high rise apartments anywhere in the world. Photos of the buildings appear in most architectural books. When Mies planned the buildings, he used Italian travertine paving blocks on the plaza of the buildings. He knew that those blocks worked in Italy and wanted to give the same feeling to a Chicago property.
But owners of the building soon discovered that Mies’ idea and the harsh reality of Chicago weather did not get along, and the pavers soon began to crack and disintegrate. The buildings were landmarked and any changes to the plaza were not allowed. But Mies went on to plan other buildings with variations of his original concept. The buildings across the street from 860-880 Lake Shore, at 900-910 Lake Shore, have the same sort of pavers, but those are made from much more durable granite. There are few problems with cracking or spalling.
So, what do the people at 860-880 do to solve the problem resulting from the inflexibility of landmarking? The landmark designation forced them to regularly replace the broken pavers with new travertine expecting them to last only a year or two before they cracked again. The pavers cost hundreds of dollars. The effect of the difference between granite and travertine is hardly noticeable to residents or visitors to the buildings, yet the landmark designation precludes any changes in the type of stone used for the purpose.
The buildings were built before the enactment of the Americans With Disability Act. Because of landmarking, they are not allowed to change the facade of the building in any way. That means that, without hinged doors, people with wheel chairs must enter through the rear service door, pass by the garbage dumpsters and use the freight elevator. That’s not much help for those disabled people and has generated at least one lawsuit against the building by one owner who feels he’s entitled to come home through the front door.
And what did the owners of 860-880 get in return for allowing their property to be included in the landmarking process? They got a plaque to hang on one of the pillars outside the building. That’s all. They got no tax relief, no increases in City services, and no improvement to the quality of their lives because now, instead of upgrading their plumbing, they have to pay for new pavers. The only one to benefit from this designation is the City’s Department of Planning which finds busy-work in checking that the landmark designation is not abused.
Another extreme example of the abuse that landmark designation brings to a property is in the late, unlamented building at Michigan Ave. and Cermak Rd. known as the Metropole Hotel. The legal maneuvering that was needed to remove landmark designation from that derelict property in order to demolish it feathered the nests of not a few lawyers. The landmark designation did nothing to preserve it for future generations to enjoy.
Are there advantages to landmarking? Of course. Certain properties in the City represent a part of our historical heritage and should be protected from redevelopment. But they are few and far between. Chicago has always been a city of change. Neighborhoods that do not change become slum areas. An example is portions of Lawndale, a neighborhood which was never rebuilt after the explosive 1960s. If changes hadn’t been allowed in the DePaul area in the 1960s, those properties would probably be in run down condition, unfit for human habitation. Large areas of Lincoln Park, Lake View, Lincoln Square, Bucktown, Wrigleyville, Belmont Harbor, Roscoe Village and other identifiable communities have undergone major rehabilitation and rebuilding over the past couple of decades. And they have provided upscale living accommodations for many of the same people who now want to stop progress in their areas. Like déja vu, it’s NIMBY all over again. After they have done their improvements they want to deny the same right to anyone wanting to climb the social ladder and move into their neighborhoods.
It’s about time that we changed the concept of landmarking and made it apply to specific buildings with architectural, cultural or historic value. Neighborhoods change and those changes make living in the City a better experience for all of us. We should let the vitality of a changing City continue to upgrade Chicago. We certainly shouldn’t let groups of uninformed or misguided people decide to halt change and improvement. And we surely don’t need advice from self-interested and self-serving petty officials to tell us what to do with our homes. That smacks of totalitarianism and we have enough of that without their help. |
