For much of the spring in an Evanston neighborhood dripping with charm, yard signs that said “No thanks” became as common as plastic pink flamingos in a Florida trailer park.
The polite little protest signs, which dotted the lawns of hundreds of homes, expressed the feelings of a vocal group of residents of the north suburb who didn’t want their houses included in a newly designated historic area.
“It makes sense for people to speak in their yards,” said Patrick Shiplett, who came up with the idea to erect outdoor signs. Shiplett, along with a loosely organized group of several hundred other homeowners, believes preservation districts should be voluntary.
“This shouldn’t be something imposed on homeowners against their will,” he said. “Besides,” he added, “we don’t have people making stupid changes to their homes. A preservation district is unnecessary.”
But not all homeowners opposed the historic district, and the issue divided the neighborhood.
“There are people here who are in favor of the district but it’s hard to tell that with all the signs,” said Mary McWilliams, an advocate of the district. “I’m surprised by the intensity of the opposition.”
McWilliams lives in one of Evanston’s other two historic districts, where she says practically no one was opposed to the idea. “It’s pretty innocuous.”
In response to the protest, the Evanston City Council eventually approved a scaled-back historic district of some 90 acres, including about 200 primary buildings. The district includes single-family houses, apartments and office buildings. The city’s Preservation Commission originally recommended a district more than twice that size.
Homeowners on both sides now
The homeowner rebellion that led to the downsizing of the plan illustrates the tensions that can erupt between property owners and preservationists in an era when local governments are enacting more preservation laws in an effort to control growth and capitalize on local allure.
The preservation debate usually cuts two ways. On one side are homeowners who don’t want the historic designation saying preservation rules impinge on their rights as property owners. They fear a heavy-handed preservation commission that might, for instance, select paint colors for their houses.
Homeowners also argue, with some justification, that preservation laws impose added regulations that lengthen the approval process when they want to remodel or repair their houses. Disgruntled homeowners often are joined in the battle against preservation efforts by developers, or big property owners, who don’t want to be told what to do with their land or old buildings.
On the other side are preservationists, including homeowners who favor historic designation, and local governments struggling with ways to combat the demolition of old houses to make way for big, new ones. They see the preservation ordinance as a tool, similar to zoning, to help regulate the types and rate of changes made in a neighborhood.
And they argue preservation efforts can be an engine to jump-start economic development, which helps elevate everyone’s property values.
“We walk a fine line,” said James Kinney, president of Rubloff Residential Properties, which sells a lot of homes in Chicago’s historic Gold Coast neighborhood. “We should preserve the best old buildings. But you don’t want to inhibit development or change. Today’s new buildings could be tomorrow’s landmarks.”
Chicago set local pattern
More than 100 local preservation commissions operate in Illinois, according to the Springfield-based Illinois Historic Preservation Agency. The first preservation commissions were started in the 1960s, but most commissions have been formed since the late 1970s.
Generally, a preservation commission is authorized by a local preservation ordinance. The commission, usually composed of volunteers, then nominates specific buildings or districts for historic designation subject to approval by the city or village council.
In addition to local designations, a property or neighborhood can be selected as a national landmark or landmark district.
The national designation may carry more prestige, but it offers little real protection, experts say. The federal government has no say in how a property looks or what its owner does with it, unless federal monies are involved. Only local preservation ordinances establish rules that homeowners must follow.
“A local historic district provides the mechanism to oversee the character and quality of a neighborhood,” said Jim Mann, Midwest director of the private non-profit National Trust for Historic Preservation.
In 1968, the City of Chicago enacted one of the state’s earliest, and most stringent, local preservation laws. The South Side Pullman neighborhood and the North Side block near Wrigley Field called Alta Vista Terrace were among the city’s first historic districts.
“The trend is toward more preservation,” said Jim Peters, Chicago’s deputy commissioner of planning and development. “Half of the city’s landmark designations have taken place in the last 10 years.”
The city has 30 historic districts, covering about 4,500 properties. Another 153 individual buildings are city landmarks.
Peters considers the city’s preservation program a success, in part because new districts are usually pursued only when the community supports the idea. Also, unlike many cities, Chicago’s preservation ordinance links the building permit and preservation approval process. For the property owner, this eliminates the extra step of obtaining consent from the preservation commission, which issues what’s called a certificate of appropriateness.
Still, city proposals sometimes generate opposition. The recent battle between preservationists and developer John Buck over the art deco McGraw-Hill building at 520 N. Michigan Ave. was finally resolved when the developer agreed to save the facade of the old building by gluing it to the face of a new one that will house a Nordstrom department store.
In another flap, property owners have opposed a new historic district proposed by the city along Michigan Avenue between Randolph and Congress streets.
“We support landmark preservation only when the property owner is in favor of the designation,” said Camille Julmy, a member of Central Michigan Avenue Association, which represents area retailers and building owners. (Julmy is also vice chairman of U.S. Equities, a real estate firm that owns property on Michigan Avenue.)
Hodgepodge of rules
Julmy echoes the feelings of many property rights advocates in the suburbs where landmarking activity has accelerated. Preservation ordinances have been enacted or considered in Lake Forest, Barrington, Winnetka, Aurora, Elgin, Richmond and Oswego, among others.
But a local preservation law is often long in the making and hard fought. Part of the problem, experts say, is the confusion that surrounds landmarking. Not only are there different types of designations, but local preservation laws vary widely.
Some ordinances require property owner approval before a preservation district can be designated. Many ordinances are voluntary. The commission can make suggestions, but homeowners have the final say.
In contrast, strict ordinances require all property owners in a historic district to follow the rules. Any changes an owner wants to make to a house must be approved, though interior modifications are rarely challenged.
Last April, west suburban Hinsdale enacted a preservation ordinance after two years of debate.
“It took a good deal of study on the preservation matter to get us this far,” said Bohdan Proczko, assistant village manager.
Like many towns, Hinsdale’s first stab at a preservation ordinance isn’t too strict. It says preservation districts cannot be created unless 50 percent of the homeowners in the district approve the plan. Also, buildings that have not been designated as landmarks are not required to follow recommendations made by the preservation commission.
“We took some of the teeth out of this ordinance,” said Proczko. “But if we shove this down everyone’s throat that would be counterproductive.”
Evanston homeowner Paula Twilling is philosophically opposed to the new preservation district there because no one asked the neighborhood if it wanted the designation. In Evanston, the preservation commission can nominate districts without homeowner approval.
“The idea is excessive,” Twilling said.
Siding with balanced view
But preservationists argue that a law without teeth can lead to changes in a neighborhood that don’t benefit anyone.
“A good ordinance prevents someone from putting pink aluminum siding on a house. It lets residents know what the neighborhood will continue to look like,” said Mann of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.
Many preservationists preach balance, arguing they don’t aim to transform every town into Colonial Williamsburg. But sometimes preservation zeal spins out of control.
Last year, a Geneva couple got embroiled in a dispute with city officials over the building materials they used for a new home they built in a historic district. The couple slightly altered the plans for the home’s exterior, which outraged the preservation commission.
The commission didn’t oppose the changes as much as the fact that the couple didn’t follow procedures. Other horror stories exist of preservation commissions going so far as to dictate what kind of gutters can be used on a house.
Another homeowner gripe is the permit process. Evanston homeowner Shiplett, who had the idea for the protest signs, wanted to enclose a small alcove on his house. He waited more than 60 days to receive approval from the preservation commission which meets only once a month. Because the permits weren’t ready in time, Shiplett says his contractor started another job, further delaying the project.
In the best of all possible situations, historic preservation can boost a neighborhood’s status. Historic designations are often used in blighted areas to elevate community awareness. And property values are usually enhanced by historic designations.
Donovan Rypkema has conducted several studies on the economic effect of historic preservation districts. In five Indiana towns, for instance, he found the rate of property value appreciation was greater in preservation districts than in non-designated areas.
The historic districts that showed the most appreciation in property values were ones where homeowners understood the rules and guidelines were applied consistently. Also, Rypkema discovered that 90 percent of changes sought by homeowners were approved by local commissions.
“Good historic districts protect the context of a neighborhood,” said Rypkema of Washington, D.C.-based Real Estate Services Group. “Homeowners have a level of assurance that their neighbors will comply with the rules.”
A preservation law can be a powerful economic development tool, according to Lisa Bennett, program manager of Batavia MainStreet, a non-profit group working to revitalize downtown Batavia. Her organization helped develop a preservation ordinance for the town that requires mandatory compliance by property owners.
“We will propose downtown as the first preservation district if the ordinance passes,” said Bennett, who thinks the city council may take a vote in the next few months.
She says the downtown area has a number of native limestone buildings that could never be replaced. The buildings add the kind of charm to the downtown that can help attract visitors and shoppers who have grown tired of big, sterile malls.
Bennett also notes that property owners, like those in other preservation districts, who comply with certain regulations, are eligible for tax credits.
She said: “A good preservation commission will work hard to help property owners. But the law is necessary.”
