Chicago Tribune architecture critic Blair Kamin has taken on the Illinois Appellate Court ruling that threatens the thousands of buildings now protected by Chicago’s landmarks law – and could set a dangerous precedent for landmarks laws nationwide.
The ruling… takes direct aim at the seven standards by which Chicago decides whether a building or district can be safeguarded from demolition or defacement—association with a significant historic event, evidence of important architecture and so on. A site must satisfy at least two of the seven standards to become a landmark.
While these criteria are expressed in common, easily understood language, that is not sufficient for the judges, who seem to yearn for hairsplitting, legalistic exactitude. "We believe," they write, "that the terms 'value,' 'important,' 'significant,' and 'unique' are vague, ambiguous, and overly broad."
Kamin takes the judges to task, asking if they reviewed any similar laws, featuring the same sort of terminology, in other cities, including New York, Boston, and Houston.
Take a moment to click through and read the full article. It’s a great take, and breaks down what could be a complex legal argument into an easily-understandable story.
Also... stop by our website to read Preservation magazine's Story of the Day on the issue by Margaret Foster.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation works to save America's historic places. Join us today to help protect the places that matter to you.