When a sign advertising a demolition sale is posted or an orange construction fence goes up around an older home in Hinsdale or Oak Brook, residents recognize that–for better or worse–change is coming to their neighborhood.
Whether an alteration to the residential landscape is good or bad depends on one’s view of the practice of tearing down older homes to make way for new ones.
Since older homes first started coming down in the late 1980s, teardowns have become controversial in Hinsdale.
Some people, such as Dale Kleber, a Hinsdale resident for nine years, have lobbied for the village to take a more active stance to see that the homes that replace demolished structures are in keeping with lot sizes and with the quaint charm of the village.
In the past, “houses have been too large,” he said. “They were too `in your face.’ They were too high, too big, too overpowering.
“There was `wedge every square foot of a house into a given lot’ and there was little effort to make them compatible with the neighborhood.”
Although the village put tighter restrictions last year on the size of new houses and the amount of land they can occupy, teardowns have not abated. Demolitions have more than doubled in recent years, from 51 in 1995 to 114 in 1999. In the last decade Hinsdale has lost 12 percent of its existing housing stock.
Under the new zoning law, the maximum house size on lots of 7,000 square feet or less was dropped from 2,900 to 2,800 square feet. Homes on larger lots also were affected. The maximum house size on a 30,000-square-foot lot is now 8,000 square feet, compared with 9,800 previously.
Other changes included reducing coverage limits of homes on corner lots from 35 to 25 percent. All other lots in the village are limited to 25 percent.
Kleber said he believes the stricter zoning law has had an effect on the size of homes that are being built in Hinsdale.
“The scale of the houses has been controlled a bit,” he said.
Despite these tighter controls, Barbara Clark, 73, a lifelong village resident, said the tide of teardowns has continued to wash over the town.
“Apparently, (the zoning limits) need to be reduced further,” she said. “There’s almost no street you can go down where there isn’t a teardown. I don’t think Hinsdale is supposed to be a continuous construction site.”
Architect Michael Meissner, however, said change is inevitable and that owners should have the right to do with their property what they choose.
“The nature of a neighborhood is that it is a temporal snapshot,” he said. “Homes become outdated. They outlive their usefulness, and people are going to replace them.”
People who oppose teardowns, he said, “are fueled by the feeling that what they have is enough and others shouldn’t have more.”
Meissner and Tim Thompson, owner of Tim Thompson Custom Homes in Hinsdale, think that the zoning rules should be examined again. But their reasoning is much different from Clark’s.
They contend that some provisions of the new zoning law, including the one limiting coverage on corner lots to 25 percent, are too restrictive.
Meissner said the reduced coverage for homes on corner lots limits how they can be designed and “diminishes the options for them to be the jewels of the block.”
“It’s no longer design, it’s accounting. I’m having to compromise on design,” he said.
Bo Proczko, assistant village manager, said the village is not currently addressing zoning issues, but is considering another ordinance geared toward protecting the village’s historical architecture.
The proposed historical preservation ordinance, which is likely to be voted on by the Village Board in the next few months, was formulated, in part, as a response to the increasing number of teardowns.
Last year the village hired a consultant who surveyed all of Hinsdale’s 5,654 structures. The study found that 19 historical structures had been demolished. It also identified 549 historically significant structures in the village and named five areas as potential historic districts.
“That study concluded that, yes, there are assets worthy of preservation in Hinsdale,” Proczko said.
The proposed historical preservation ordinance would allow historic districts to be established and individual structures to be designated as landmarks. If a historic district is established, however, it would require the approval of 50 percent of the property owners within it.
If a home is given landmark status, it also would require the property owner’s agreement. If any changes are proposed by the owner to the home’s exterior, he or she would have to go before the historic preservation commission.
“There would be a mandatory review,” Proczko said. “You would have to go before the commission. But (the commission’s recommendations) would not be binding.”
Carol Smith, a Hinsdale resident, said the proposed ordinance is not strong enough.
“It’s not binding,” she said. “What teeth does it have?”
With such a law, she said, houses with unique architectural styles and charm are in as much jeopardy as homes that are outdated, decrepit or poorly maintained.
“My house is a 110-year-old Queen Anne. People say, `Oh, that will never come down.’ But I say, `Every house is a potential teardown.’ “
Old homes, be they large or small, grand or modest, have contributed to Hinsdale’s unique look, Smith said.
“But now you’ve got subdivision homes in an established, old neighborhood. People say, `Oh, that’s progress.’ But it diminishes Hinsdale’s charm and character. It’s not a sleepy little village anymore.”
Sandy Williams, a member of the Hinsdale Historical Society, sees the proposed preservation ordinance as a step in the right direction.
“It’s a place to start,” she said. “It will establish a preservation commission. The focus of their job will be to educate residents about the significance of historic homes.”
Smith, Clark and Kleber are members of a group that opposes teardowns. It is called Citizens of Hinsdale Advocating Responsibility in Teardowns.
Clark said she wants to downsize from her current home to a smaller one in Hinsdale. Although she has searched for two years, she has found it difficult to find a smaller home she likes.
“The builders get there first,” she said. “They’re knocking on doors and offering huge sums of money. Older people can’t downsize. And younger families can’t upgrade. They have to move away.”
In neighboring Oak Brook, builder Thompson said, teardowns are not an issue.
“Oak Brook is welcoming it,” he said. “I think the mind-set there is if there’s a better house next to you, it’s good for you” and property values.
In Oak Brook, however, there have been far fewer demolitions of older homes than in Hinsdale. Six or eight homes have been the target of a wrecking ball in the last couple of years, said Village Manager Stephen Veitch.
“It’s not a hot issue. It’s not an issue at all,” he said. “The pattern of development in Oak Brook works to obviate the issue.”
In Oak Brook, which was incorporated in 1958, there has always been a tradition of building grand, oversize homes on even larger lots.
“Lots in Oak Brook tend to be large,” Veitch said. “And the side-yard requirements also are large.”
While Oak Brook may never see a controversy erupt over residential teardowns, neither side in Hinsdale seems satisfied with the tightening of zoning regulations that occurred last year.
Both sides of the issue agreed that the construction dust has not yet settled. They said it seems there has been enough time to see how last year’s zoning changes have worked and they expect the teardown issue to surface again in Hinsdale.
“I wouldn’t say it’s resolved. I would say it’s been in abeyance,” Meissner said.
