When I think of historic buildings, I think of the Kremlin in Moscow, the Taj Mahal in India or the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. I do not think of Kendall College.
But I was not surprised when the Evanston Preservation Commission recommended the administration building on the Kendall College property for landmark status last Tuesday. After all, this is the same commission that seemed to think the Foster-Walker Complex had potential to become historic building.
Although I agree that some buildings should be preserved for their architectural value and historical significance, there has to be some limit on what can become a landmark and how city buildings are nominated.
The process the city uses is ridiculously unchecked as it stands — the commission answers to no one, except the Evanston City Council and doesn’t need the permission of the owner to nominate a building for landmark status or include it in a historic district.
If all residents in a certain section of the city agree — and they sometimes do — to be included into a historic district, then it makes sense to go ahead with the nomination process. But if there is opposition — and there often is — the commission should not be allowed to impose its will against popular sentiment.
Historic districts are complicated. No one, not even the commission, completely understands how the process actually works. But that should be a sign that the committee or City Council needs to revise it to include residents input and devise a consistent citywide strategy for nominating buildings.
When the commission considers a building for landmark status, it has to use a variety of criteria, but primarily committee members review the building’s historical association with important social and cultural events in the city.
After Smithfield Properties bought the Kendall College property last year, the commission submitted an application in June to impose landmark status on the administration building, 2408 Orrington Ave. Some members of the commission have argued that the building — constructed in 1907 as a seminary for Swedish immigrants — is crucial to the city’s history and an integral part of the neighborhood.
Even if the developers decided to use the property for something else, the administration building would stand on the land untouched.
But architecture is not static. Look around the Northwestern campus or in downtown Chicago: You will see representations of various periods in architectural history. New architecture as well as old should be valued, whether or not it has a historical significance.
Don’t get me wrong — it is important to preserve buildings, especially if they are historically important. After all, we have to thank people with the vision to preserve buildings like the Kremlin and the Taj Mahal.
But the preservation process should not hinder new development, nor should it continue rampantly unchecked. Instead, it should be a thoughtful and rational process that takes into account not only the historical significance of a building but also considers the impact a landmark designation would have on the owners, the neighborhood and the city.
The commission should have the guts and the humility to reconsider its mission — it is here to preserve future Taj Mahals or are they here to add to the conundrum that is the historical district process?
City Editor Malavika Jagannathan is a Medill senior. She can be reached at [email protected].
