Why Chicago's Landmarks Law Matters
www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-oped0323landmarksmar23,0,6160441.story
Don’t wreak havoc: Landmarks law works
By Richard Moe
March 23, 2009
For 40 years, Chicago’s landmarks ordinance has been a highly effective tool for spotlighting and protecting the historic places that give the city its unique character. Last month, however, a court decided that the ordinance is too vague.
It’s time for some clear-headed thought about what this visionary piece of legislation means.
The language of the ordinance-the focus of the court’s decision-calls for the identification and preservation of structures, landscapes and districts that meet certain criteria for architectural or historical significance. Chicago’s ordinance has never been challenged, but New York’s landmarks law was the subject of a challenge that wound up in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1978. In that case, the court rejected the claim that the ordinance’s criteria were arbitrary and subjective. In fact, the court said, some latitude in the development and interpretation of criteria is inherent and necessary to accommodate local attitudes and changing perceptions of what’s worthy of preservation. Chicago’s ordinance closely parallels that of the New York law that the Supreme Court upheld, and similar wording appears in most of the preservation ordinances that have been adopted in more than 2,000 American communities.
The procedures through which Chicago’s ordinance is administered are fair, conservative and consistent. The all-volunteer Landmarks Commission-made up of architects, historians, planners and ordinary citizens with a wide range of expertise and opinion-is supported by a staff that is nationally recognized for its competence and dedication. Deliberations are conducted in public, with plenty of opportunity for citizen comment, and there is a clear procedure for appealing the commission’s decisions. In short, the ordinance works-and the city wisely used it to designate more than 275 buildings and 50 historic districts comprising some 9,000 structures.
Far from stopping progress, the ordinance seeks to manage change so neighborhoods are stabilized and owners’ investments are protected. Studies show that historic-district designation generally leads to increased property values and landmark designation makes owners of some properties eligible for rehabilitation tax credits. Finally, by encouraging the preservation of historic buildings and neighborhoods, the ordinance boosts the local economy by attracting tourists-and tourist dollars-to the city.
Does any of this really matter? To answer that question, imagine Chicago without Wrigley Field, the tree-shaded houses of Wicker Park or the stunning wall of skyscrapers overlooking Grant Park from Michigan Avenue-and then consider this: Even though many of this city’s treasures are listed in the National Register of Historic Places, it’s the landmarks ordinance that protects them from being insensitively altered or smashed to rubble.
Richard Moe is president of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune