Historic Preservation has been a valued tool used by private citizens and village officials to boost Oak Park’s economy over the last 50 years, spurring investment in and enhancing the historic features of buildings, guiding the modernization of vintage housing and commercial buildings, and building a collective sense of our community as an architecturally interesting and unique place to live and work.
Decades ago, the village board created the Oak Park Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) by ordinance, establishing and encouraging a set of guidelines and rules that support Historic Preservation.
That’s why I was so puzzled reading columnist Josh VanderBerg’s diatribe criticizing preservation in my Oct. 8 Wednesday Journal. After reading his opinion, I was appalled at how much misinformation he packed into one column, misrepresenting the basic facts about what preservation is and how it works in our community; demonstrating his ongoing obsession with mocking citizen input into decisions that impact their lives; and imagining some sort of preservation power grab.
I have proudly spent more than 30 years of my personal and professional life living and working in Oak Park, serving on the HPC, volunteering on various preservation-related projects, and working with others to tell diverse and fascinating stories of our villages.
Here are two of the more egregious errors in VanderBerg’s column:
I and other residents didn’t argue against a multifamily building at Chicago and Ridgeland because we oppose such housing. I and many others opposed the draft plan because it was a poor design (particularly in a historic district) and its 36 units far exceeded the 11 units allowed by ordinance. A smaller multifamily building could have been built, with no variances. The developer never even owned the property and chose to let an option expire. And what is the disastrous outcome of citizens pushing back against a half-hearted, speculative development? An Oak Parker bought the property and is pursuing her dream of a new day care center in that existing vacant building. I gladly testified on behalf of her zoning application last month.
I also was proud to write the Oak Park Landmark nomination for the Boulevard Arcade building in 2007; the owners of that South Boulevard property sought out the designation and thereby benefitted from a decades-long tax break. After choosing and reaping the benefits, the owners chose to propose a 10-story addition to a 2-story structure and that violates the architectural review guidelines that the HPC is required to uphold. It was not a “new building” as VanderBerg claims that “would not touch the existing historic landmark.”
On appeal, the village board overturned the HPC; so much for what he calls the “outsized power” wielded by the HPC.
Oak Park is a vibrant community that has a strong economy and is a very desirable place to live. Its mix of housing styles and types — including nearly half of our residential units found in multifamily buildings — is part of our community’s history and future. Historic character matters in Oak Park.
Do you appreciate the ambiance and historic character of our shared hometown? Do you oppose widespread teardowns of homes and buildings in our historic districts? If you want to get involved in the ongoing efforts to preserve Oak Park’s architectural and historical heritage, feel free to email me at franklipo@sbcglobal.net.
Frank Lipo is the longtime executive director of the Historical Society of Oak Park-River Forest.