Almost a year since a dispute flared in Highland Park over historic architecture and preservation, the brick house at the center of the conflict is no more, with demolition crews bringing it down in early August.
What had begun as a plan to protect the historic home at 175 Prospect, along with 11 other historic houses in one fell swoop through a “noncontiguous historic district,” ended in a single city council meeting with the proposal shot down, and the bar for the creation of future districts raised.
Local historic architecture advocates reflected on what happened, and looked ahead at what the future may hold for the city’s historic character and preservation efforts.
Known as the Smith House, the now-demolished home at 175 Prospect had been built in 1909 in the colonial revival style by Chicago architect Howard Van Doren Shaw, a prominent figure in the American craftsman movement.
When the owners filed for a demolition permit, the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission determined the house met several criteria required to be considered a local landmark, and imposed a one-year demolition delay that ended in February of this year.
Jean Sogin, a former vice chair of the commission, submitted a nomination to create a “noncontiguous historic district,” meant to protect the historic value of the houses in it. Unlike a more typical historic district, this one was unified not by property lines but by conceptual and historical ties.
Sogin’s proposal had nine homes designed by Shaw, including 175 Prospect, and three others designed by Frank Lloyd Wright in the community — with Sogin arguing they were tied together by the arts-and-crafts movement. The application was well over the 25% owner-consent requirement, with six of 12 owners signing on.
In an interview last year, Sogin admitted she had expected 175 Prospect to be removed from the proposal given the ongoing debate, with the other 11 moving forward. But instead, the City Council meeting became a debate over property owner rights, and the council ultimately voted that night to change ordinances to require 100% owner-consent to begin a nomination for the creation of such a district.
It was a blow for some historic architecture advocates, who described it as a de-clawing of preservation efforts, cutting off an avenue for encouraging owners of historic buildings to learn about the structure’s cultural and historical value.
That included Billy Levy, who lives in a restored Frank Lloyd Wright house in Highland Park. Levy snapped a photo as the walls of 175 Prospect came down in August. He was sad to see it go.
“It’s a shame that we’ve lost the house. The character of the neighborhood will never be the same,” Levy said.
Last year’s dispute led to two disappointments: the house is “gone forever,” Levy said, and now the bar for pursuing non-contiguous historic districts is higher. He also repeated a concern he raised last year — the speed of the council’s move to amend the ordinance, without time for public feedback.
“The history of our community, the story of our community is told by and through its buildings. Once you lose notable buildings, the story changes — the character of the neighborhoods changes,” he said.
Since last year, at least one Highland Park house has been designated a local landmark, albeit at the insistence of the owners. According to city documents, 273 Sheridan Road was the residence of landscape architect Marshall Liston Johnson, known for Rosewood Park, Chicago Columbus Park, Gardner’s Memorial at Laurel Park and the Ford Pavilion at the 1933 Chicago World’s Fair.
The property’s Prairie Style landscape was designed by Johnson, and the building itself is a 1936 French eclectic style building designed by William B. Betts, the architect behind at least 18 other Highland Park houses.
According to city documents, the home is Highland Park’s 79th Historic Landmark designation, bringing the city’s total number of regulated structures to 135.
Meanwhile, 147 Central, an already landmarked historic building, may have its property subdivided to allow for the construction of a new structure. The historic building will remain, however.
According to a city representative, the formal consideration will go before the City Council next week.
There are some mixed sentiments on the subdivision. Julie Ehrlich, president of the nonprofit Highland Park Historical Society, isn’t pleased. “It’s like cutting up Versailles and putting up another house by the fountain,” she said.
Levy is more accepting. The historic home will be saved, and if divvying up a large parcel is what it takes, he doesn’t object, although he cautioned against subdividing smaller lots in the city.
Historic character at risk
Looking ahead, Levy said “education is key” for preservation. People need to be informed about the value of historic homes, he said. He envisions a program to educate homeowners and encourage them to seek landmark status.
Ehrlich worries about the community’s loss of historic architecture. She grew up in England in a centuries-old building, and said it was her love of historic buildings that brought her to Highland Park decades ago. People have property rights, she acknowledged, but she fears the impact on the community’s character in the long-term.
More Top Picks Best Slip Resistant Shoes For Comfort
“Once the historic architecture is gone, we’re going to look like any other suburb,” Ehrlich said. “For me, it’s literally heartbreaking to see these beautiful homes, some by famous architects, torn down.”
For Sogin, 175 Prospect was the end of her involvement in local historic preservation. She’s the local chair of the League of Women Voters now and focused on different issues. But she still speaks of her disappointment with everything that happened.
The suddenness of the ordinance-change left her feeling “cut off.” She had hoped that by combining the properties in a single historic district, she could protect some of the communities “most important houses” in “one fell swoop.”
“I just played the hand wrong. And maybe there wasn’t any way to play the hand right,” she said. “I don’t know, but I just didn’t want to have those discussions with them ever again.”
Sogin generally avoids the property if she can. But the anger she felt months ago has faded, she said. The house at 175 Prospect wasn’t the sole reason she stepped away from historic preservation, anyway. After 25 years in historic preservation, she said, “It’s time to move on.”
But Sogin wonders if there’s going to be another generation of Highland Park residents who can commit to the efforts the way she and others did. When she first got involved, she was working at her home, and her children were well into grade school.
“I had the combination of the time and the expertise and the willingness,” she said.
Today, her daughter’s friends live in dual-income households with small children. “Their plates are so full,” she said. And those buying don’t have the time or energy to make the extensive renovations typically required for historic homes.
“If they don’t have to get involved in something, they can’t,” Sogin said.