Last Thursday the Landmarks Commission voted to approve the new Map presented byAlderman Flores. This is the article that the Medill News Service printed.A Chicago publication of the Medill School of Journalism
© 1997 -- 2005 Medill Chicago News Service — Northwestern University
-->
Chicago s Landmark Commission moves may designate historic district
by Paulo H WintersteinJuly 07, 2005
The Commission on Chicago Landmarks Thursday moved along a recommendation to designate a part of East Village on the Northwest Side as a historic district over angry objections from some neighborhood residents.
Under the proposal, 195 houses and businesses in East Village, tucked just east of Ukrainian Village, would be designated as the East Village District.
This designation would prevent the demolition of buildings deemed to be historically significant as well as restrict the kinds of developments that can go up in the area. Any major modifications to the 195 buildings being considered for special status would require permits--as is necessary for projects anywhere in the city. But given the proposed designation of the East Village District, permits for projects within that zone would get closer scrutiny from city officials.
Ald. Manny Flores (1st), who spoke in support of creating the historic district in his ward, told the board that in the past five years about one fourth of the properties in the neighborhood have been demolished, with haphazard development taking their place.
"We need the landmark district to have sustainable long term development in a way that will benefit all members of the East Village community," said Flores.
Property values in historic districts tend to increase faster than the property values in surrounding districts, according to a summary of 11 studies provided by Flores office.
Supporters of the historic district also cited the positive effects that preservation has on encouraging neighborhood pride and discouraging shoddy construction.
Now that the preliminary proposal has been voted on, it returns to the Department of Planning and Development before it is passed on to Chicago City Council for a final vote. If the historic designation is approved, the East Village properties would join the more than 6,000 buildings that currently make up Chicago's 38 historic districts.
But it is likely that disapproving residents will turn up again to oppose the move, which, at the earliest, would be voted on by the full council during the July 27 meeting.
"I do believe in preserving old homes, but not in the form it's taken today," Kevin Kuster, 35, a creative consultant from East Village, told the commission. "[Landmarking] needs to be incentive-based so that people like myself who have fixed up two old homes want to get on board. Right now it's being used to stop and deter new development."
The city could more effectively encourage residents to preserve landmarks if it modified its landmark regulations to something similar to the Historic Chicago Bungalow Initiative, which provides financial and technical assistance to bungalow owners, Kuster said in an interview following Thursday's committee meeting.
Current tax incentives are just a "façade" and aren't sufficient to offset the costs of maintaining these historic buildings, said East Village resident Swithin Simons. Simons questioned whether the city was taking a close enough look at the buildings it deemed to be historical, claiming that many buildings included in the district are structurally unsound.
But for East Village resident and real estate agent Carol Mrowka, the problem is simply a matter of respecting her rights.
"I oppose the manner in which this has been done," Mrowka said. "No one asked me before this decision came about. This is my property, not yours."
THis came from one of our local property owners who is concerned. Feel free to coment and send you letters also.CarolI wanted to pass along a reply I received from one of the realtors I have used in the past as have a number of my friends. As this was personal information, I am withholding her name, but she is a Broker, GRI, ABR with a major residential Chicago real estate firm (non-development affiliated).
WTPO has always told us to verify the information for ourselves, so that is what I did. I went to my realtor to ask her opinion on how the landmarking would impact property values and neighborhood development.
In her first reply, she said that they had someone come in last year to give a seminar to them on landmarking and its full effect which everyone in her office considered the authority on the area. She did not have the notes handy but looked them up. It turns out that it was Andrew Fisher from the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois. His overall message was that landmarking had no negative effects on any area.
Now, we have seen many discrepancies in public reports from groups that have one side or the other to push regarding landmarking. For instance, developers generally say landmarking is disastrous for property values, and reports from landmarking commissions/groups say that property values either are not affected or are actually improved.
So, I asked my contact to go back and do a little more research. Apparently, there is not a lot of unbiased information available on the subject, but here is her response regarding the proposed landmarking and downzoning for our area:
“My opinion is that I think it will negatively affect values in the area if you go landmark. The limitations will have long-term effects. Even in Lincoln Park, where it has been built up for a while, over time, some of these side by side, higher end properties have been destroyed to build a spectacular property. This couldn't happen with landmark. In Old Town, where there are some really small frame houses, they haven't been able to be improved to the point where you can live in them comfortably, yet their taxes are sky high due to the neighbors, who improved before them.”
“I am also concerned about proposed downzoning as well. In R-3, you can have single family only, not the complex you live in. I would like to see a mix of styles and sizes to attract different economic levels, kids, ages, etc. On the map you sent me, I was wondering if the proposed downzoning areas are maintaining the housing stock already there, or placing a limitation, possibly devaluing land value? I believe the city is trying to prevent some of the god awful units that clearly do not fit in the landscape, and it's not an easy task to come up with standardized zoning. More input is needed from your neighborhood groups who have enough other groups in other neighborhoods who can bring them up to speed on what has transpired elsewhere and then have these opinions voiced to the city. It's a lot harder to undo something after it gets passed formally.”
Now, I love the neighborhood and do not plan on leaving for many years, so property values are less of a concern directly. However, I am concerned with what this will mean for the overall value of the area, as taxes are one of the primary sources of school funding, and I have heard of price drops of 20% to 35%. I support the overall goal of protecting individual buildings that have historic significance or are architecturally significant. I simply do not support district landmarking that says that each building on its own is not significant enough to protect, but together they have this “feel”. I know that is not exactly what the code says, but that is my view of it (after going to the last commission meeting, reading the actual landmarking code and speaking with several people at the commission office).
Everyone is free to make their own decision on whether this is good for the neighborhood or not, but I wanted to pass along the reply I received.
