The City of Park Ridge is one step closer to voting on an ordinance intended to encourage the preservation of old and historically significant buildings following Monday night’s City Council Procedures & Regulation (“P&R”) Committee of the Whole (“COW”) meeting to discuss the draft ordinance crafted by the Historic Preservation Task Force.
We like old buildings that add character to the neighborhoods they grace, and we prefer them to some of those F.A.R.-fudging, cookie-cutter structures that have popped up around town in recent years. But we also favor the rights of individual property owners to decide what to build on their land, unless those rights are in conflict with an over-riding public purpose.
We also are naturally suspicious of grandiose and factually suspect government pronouncements, like some of those we found in Section 23-1-1 D [pdf] of the proposed ordinance, such as that preservation will “[s]tablilize and improve the economic vitality and value of the City in general” and “[e]nhance the City’s appeal to visitors so as to support and stimulate commerce.”
We’re surprised somebody couldn’t find a way to stick “vibrant” in there somewhere.
But unless and until we can identify and ensure the preservation of a lot more “historically significant” buildings in Park Ridge than we here at PublicWatchdog currently are aware of, we don’t see our community becoming a national attraction akin to “Colonial Williamsburg” anytime soon. That means our City Council and Staff better figure out how to close the multi-million dollar budget holes without counting on an avalanche of tourist dollars.
The concept is a good one in principle, however, and we hope the proposed ordinance gets a thorough hearing on issues such as whether, and at what cost, the City will be able to effectively preserve historically significant buildings from being torn down or dramatically altered by their owners or developers – unless the City uses already-scarce public funds to acquire them.
We would also like to see somebody (the to-be-created Historic Preservation Commission?) begin pro-actively identifying, at least on a threshold basis, all the structures that are likely to qualify for historic preservation status and why, so as to give both their owners and the City some idea of the scope of the preservation task at hand.
We understand that the ordinance will be on the City Council’s agenda this coming Monday (September 28, 7:30 p.m.). For those who believe in the preserving the character of our community, that might be a meeting worth attending.
9 comments so far
I’ll tell you what… I think it would be better to have on our City Home page, something that read:
Tree lined streets, “Historic Architecture”, small town feel etc… rather than “conviently located near O’HARE AIRPORT”.
The Pickwick Theater Building and the Illinois Industrial School for Girls (commonly known as the Youth Campus) are already on the National Register of Historic Places. What sites in town do those spearheading the effort for the historic preservation ordinance want to see “preserved” and why?
Anon 8:36:
I would like to see a list as well. I am sure there are some that we could all generally agree on but after that we get into a gray area.
I understand that some people object to some of the older homes being torn down and new ones being built. Having said that, if there was a market for some of these homes why would people be tearing them down. As an example, there was a bit of a Bru-ha-ha on the blogs over the houses on Courtland across the corner from City Hall being torn down and a new one being built. Now one can scream about McMansions but the reality is those two homes were not going to sell to someone who wanted to move into them. They need a huge amount of work and the owner was not going to invest the dollars to try to sell them for someone to live in.
The criteria is going to be very interesting. I live in an old house. It is not on Vine or Prospect or Courtland. I am sure there are people who would not want my house to be torn down and a new one built. Does that make it historically significant???
Food for thought: It depends on what they want you to eat.
Food for thought:
Do you know of any other communities selling 100 year-old buildings…cheap?
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THERE WILL BE A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARK RIDGE RECREATION AND PARK DISTRICT
BOARD OF PARK COMMISSIONERS
AT MAINE PARK LEISURE CENTER
2701 SIBLEY AVENUE, PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS 60068
IN THE BOARD ROOM
ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 2009 AT 7:15 P.M.,
THE AGENDA OF WHICH FOLLOWS:
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Closed Meeting
Suggested Motion: I move that the Board adjourn to Closed Meeting for the purpose of considering Appointment/Employment of a New Executive Director of the Park District 2(c)(1). We will reconvene to the Special Meeting to take action, if any, on matters discussed in Closed Session.
(Roll Call Vote)
4. Reconvene to Special Board Meeting to take action, if any, on matters discussed in Closed Session.
5. Adjournment
Suggested Motion: I move the Board to adjourn the Special Meeting of the Board of Park Commissioners. (Voice Vote)
Has anybody heard (like from the Preservation Committee) just how successful any of these other towns’ preservation ordinances are? What kind of incentives (i.e., money) do they have to give away or abate taxes in order to convince somebody who has just paid a few hundred grand for a tear-down to renovate it rather than tear it down and build new?
Have any of you actually read the proposed ordinance, or are you just talking out of your asses, without looking at what you’re bitching about?
Food for THought:
I have. Now, what’s your point?
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>