It’s like wearing the latest fashions from Paris to the company picnic or trying to squeeze a size 42 long body into a 38 regular sportcoat.
While the clothing and the person may both be attractive, something isn’t quite right.
In much the same vein, some communities in the northwest suburbs have voiced concern that new housing construction may detract from a town’s character or look by not fitting in with existing construction. That’s why several towns, including Barrington, Park Ridge and Richmond, have adopted or are considering appearance codes.
“I sense that appearance is a much bigger issue than it was five years ago,” said Randall Derifield, director of community preservation and development in Park Ridge. “Is it going to be a trend? My gut feeling is yes, because people more and more are concerned about the environment they live in. And that goes beyond just the noise and the air pollution. They want to live in a place that’s nice.”
Unlike anti-monotony ordinances adopted during the ’60s and ’70s by some northwest suburbs to prohibit the building of row after row of identical houses, these ordinances seek some uniformity of design.
Appearance codes are not a new idea in the northwest suburbs and the rest of the metropolitan area, where their main focus has been commercial buildings in central business districts.
Woodstock, for example, has had an appearance code for 15 years for commercial and multi-family residential buildings. And Arlington Heights created an architectural committee in the 1960s to review new-home construction to make sure it conformed but was not monotonous.
But with demand for housing still strong in the suburbs, some older communities are looking for ways to preserve what they see as their unique character.
Two years ago, Park Ridge adopted a comprehensive appearance code covering new single-family, multi-unit and commercial construction.
Little more than a year ago, Barrington replaced its old appearance review committee with a stronger appearance review commission backed by a formal code covering commercial, public and multi-unit residential (apartment, condominium and townhouse complexes of six or more units) and including exterior renovations as well as new construction.
And in Richmond, the local planning commission has been working with a consultant on an appearance code to make sure new subdivisions reflect the 19th Century architecture the village is known for.
The Park Ridge ordinance has stirred considerable debate and is currently under review by the City Council. Sentiment exists both for making it tougher and for letting up a bit.
The ordinance was created after a wave of development in the mid-1980s began changing the town’s landscape. The demand for housing in Park Ridge was high and the price of land skyrocketed, but there was no place to build new subdivisions. So developers building houses on speculation and individuals building their dream homes set their sights on scattered vacant lots and small homes worth less than the land they sat on.
Small older homes, many dating to the 1920s, were being torn down and vacant lots filled in with much larger structures that dwarfed neighboring houses. The size issue was eventually dealt with through a zoning amendment, but still left were the more subjective issues of appearance. Those issues could not be easily addressed through zoning because appearance varied from block to block, Derifield said.
The problem of teardowns was not unique to Park Ridge, according to Williams R. Klein, director of research and education for the American Planning Association’s Chicago office, an organization of 27,000 urban and regional planners. While no one is formally keeping track, observers have witnessed a trend toward teardowns in older communities where little open land is left for new construction. At the same time, there has been a trend by communities to take protective measures to preserve their character, appearance and history.
“A kind of a knee-jerk response is, `We’ll just knock it down and take it to the dump,”‘ Klein said.
According to Derifield, an estimated 150 new homes were built in Park Ridge between 1985 and 1990. Only 10 or 20 of those would have gotten past the appearance commission today, he said. The commission deals with issues such as height, massing, size and placement of windows and doors, the slant of the roof, the color of the brick and attached garages, Derifield said.
Critics say the process is flawed because it is too subjective and adds to the cost of construction.
The design Park Ridge homeowner Tom Ahlbeck and his wife Beverly submitted was denied and, as they continue working with the commission for approval, Ahlbeck said it can be frustrating.
“It becomes a matter of opinion of what looks better and what’s better for the neighborhood,” Ahlbeck said. “At what point are they designing your house for you? If we sat down and had a conversation, I think there would be a lot less misunderstanding than when we go up in front of a board with drawings and they start knocking it down and we start getting defensive.”
Of course, many homeowners like these restrictions. A group from Park Ridge Manor, an unincorporated enclave of 308 homes and 860 residents in the middle of the city’s north side, are seeking annexation to the city in part for the controls an appearance commission would exert over new construction, according to Community Association President Richard DiPietro. A few oversized homes have gone up in the Manor.
“If you get huge homes on these lots, would it detract from the whole neighborhood?” DiPietro asked. “It’s the unknown of what might happen next year, or two years down the road, that brought this (request) to life.”
Of about 50 single-family-home cases to go before the commission since May 1991, all but one eventually have been approved, according to city records, though some have had to make more than one appearance before the commission. And if it has turned off some builders from building on speculation, it hasn’t been felt in the real estate market.
“There are some developers that I’m almost sure have quit doing work in Park Ridge,” said John Chipman, local architect and chairman of the appearance commission. “It’s unfortunate, but they are the ones who would build the same house in Buffalo Grove, Chicago, Park Ridge or Hinsdale. They don’t care.”
Former Richmond Village President Bruce Hunter felt the push of development would inevitably reach the quaint McHenry County town, with its antique shops and 19th Century homes, when he initiated discussion of an appearance code.
Development is “already in Spring Grove, right next to us,” Hunter said. “It’s just a matter of time before it pushes west. You have to do these long-term plans because when they’re knocking on your door, it’s too late.”
The village’s planning commission has been working with consultant Ders Anderson of Crystal Lake on a plan that would affect primarily new subdivisions by requiring that the homes adopt architectural styles typical in the 19th Century.
“They realized the potential was there for larger and larger subdivision,” Anderson said of the village. “What they were concerned about was that the sense of history, character and tradition of the town would be overwhelmed.” According to Anderson, about 25 styles have been identified as acceptable, giving developers plenty of styles to reach a variety of markets. The appearance code would be part of the village’s new comprehensive plan, which awaits board approval.
In Barrington, the village board decided to stay away from regulating the appearance of single family homes, according to Community Development Director Janice Hill. “We wanted an ordinance that did not dictate style,” Hill said. “We wanted a variety of architectural styles because there are a variety of styles and architecture in Barrington, and that is one of the town’s strengths.”
