As I asked in my Lowe Down column to which he refers, "Are there advantages to land marking? Of course!" But it would behoove Bahlman to reread the city's Landmark ordinance so that he understands that it is not a carte blanche permission slip to landmark every neighborhood and building in sight. The referenced legislation is under the title of 2-120-580 - 920 in the Municipal Code of Chicago.
That ordinance with its various amendments defines a landmark as, among other things, "an example of the architectural, cultural, economic, historic, social or other aspect of the heritage of the City of Chicago." The ordinance also refers to special properties with outstanding and unique architectural features, or of buildings with "unique location or distinctive physical appearance." Nowhere in the ordinance could I find anything that said that entire neighborhoods of very ordinary homes should be protected by this ordinance, or the restrictions that the legislation places on properties submitted to its rules.
Bahlman contends that in the Landmark Commission, nearly 95 percent of building permits received are approved on the same day. It's true that a request to change a faucet washer would get fast approval, but many of the quick OK's should not have to be submitted for city approval in the first place. However, anyone wanting to upgrade his antiquated windows in a landmarked building with energy saving thermal glass sash has to go through a long, harrowing and expensive process -- one not necessary for the owner of a non-designated property. He simply has to go to a Home Depot Store and buy the replacements.
Contrary to what Bahlman contends, landmarking does prevent change. Neighborhoods have improved in an orderly and appropriate manner without the hand of Big Brother taking part in approving those changes. An example is in our Loop construction boom. Where we once had marginal retail stores we now have luxury condo high rise buildings; and obsolete office buildings have been replaced by upscale hotels. Had those properties been landmarked, improvements would likely not have been possible. We have examples of neighborhoods thriving without the benefit of organizations telling us what's good for us. Hyde Park is a prime example, though there are others which have also not been subjected to land marking.
As for the 860-880 Lake Shore buildings: After conversations with knowledgeable people in the building including the head of its architectural committee, I must agree that changes in the travertine deck pavers and the hinged front doors were never submitted to the city for approval. The reason was not something that would encourage the landmarking process. The building realized that with the landmark designation, it would be impossible for the building to get official approval to make those changes and decided to continue to invest substantial funds in replacement of the pavers. This year, the expense to the building will exceed $40,000. The hinged door issue was resolved by assisting the owner who raised the issue to get a designated handicapped parking space next door to the buildings. The hinged door would not, in their opinion, have ever been approved by the Landmark Commission. Trying to comply with the landmark requirements would also have been prohibitively expensive.
Daley Plaza, the Art Institute, the so-called Museum Campus, the original Soldier Field structure, the Picasso statue are, or have been at one time, appropriate sites for landmark designation, yet none of them fall under the ordinance because the City wants to maintain the right to make changes and repairs in them as they are needed without going through its own bureaucratic process.
By creating landmark districts on a broad scale, one of the problems that arises is that, in those areas are some old, 19th century frame houses, many resting on double lots. When long time owners pass away or decide to sell, they are unable to sell at an economic price due to the restrictions of the landmark ordinance which would make the demolition of their old houses a very complex and difficult process. The land is not available for its highest and best use, and the neighborhood actually suffers.
Bahlman cites my example of the demolition of the Metropole Hotel by stating that it never was "de-designated." In fact, the example stands tall as one reason why landmarking is ineffective. It does nothing to encourage the preservation of the properties it presumes to protect. In short, landmarking is expensive, bureaucratic, ineffective and intrusive in the democratic process. He might also explain what happened to Tree Studios or the original Three Arts Club building or the Harris and Selwyn Theater Buildings. All were landmarked -- all have been radically changed or have disappeared from the skyline. What good did landmarking do for the people of Chicago when there were influences that could be brought to bear that modified or destroyed those properties?
It is my purpose to show the other side of the landmark issue to home owners. I have no interest whatever in any of the proposed landmark districts.
Ed Lowe |
