We are Frank Lloyd Wright homeowners; we have been recognized by the Historic Preservation Commission for our stewardship. Recently, we saw a viral video asserting that our house and all of the other Wright houses in the village face imminent demolition, to be replaced by apartment buildings. The video isn’t simply an exaggeration; it’s a wholesale fabrication from start (“imminent demolition”) to finish (“demolition by neglect”). And the content creator has doubled down on his spurious claims.
No, our house will not be torn down. Even if we (or future owners) harbored such an impulse, the village of Oak Park would never allow such a thing. The Historic Preservation Code forbids it.
It’s critically important to note (as village Historic Preservation staffer Brenton Boitse has had to point out to callers from near and far – including Georgia, Canada, and the UK) – zoning and historic preservation are two entirely different ordinances and processes. They are separate conversations.
And what does it say about the underlying arguments when opponents of Shape Oak Park zoning reform feel the need to deploy such blatant lies and fearmongering?
We support the attempt to end exclusionary zoning. The older, more modest starter family home in Oak Park is already nearly extinct. The current trend is clearly toward McMansions.
The proposed revision of the zoning codes would allow people whose houses are not considered contributing structures in one of the historic districts, or on lots outside those districts, the option to build a 2- or 3-flat.
It would allow the possibility of “missing middle” housing, while also making sure that whatever might be built “looks like a house” because rules about setback and the envelope of the structure would remain largely unchanged.
Oak Park’s historic character has always included a mix of density (single-family homes, 2- and 3-flats, and apartment buildings). The push to limit zoning to single-family homes came later in Oak Park’s history and has racist underpinnings. When the Supreme Court banned explicitly racial housing covenants, communities across the country (including Oak Park), rushed to enact single-family zoning, complying with the letter of the Supreme Court decision while defying its spirit.
And when Oak Park elected officials passed the Fair Housing Ordinance in 1968 (which banned using race as a factor against anyone seeking to rent or buy property in Oak Park), the prospect was met with fear-mongering and hyperbolic opposition. It sounded a lot like the rhetoric we are hearing now. Today we celebrate and congratulate ourselves for living in a community that passed a fair housing ordinance.
Nothing in these proposed zoning changes will by itself magically make Oak Park more affordable. That said, there is a lot of data showing that increasing the supply of housing, even at the upper end, does in fact mitigate price pressure on lower-end housing.
The proposed zoning change would leave the boundaries of Oak Park’s historic districts entirely untouched. Any house in a historic district that is deemed a contributing structure (built before 1945) cannot be visibly changed from the street (let alone demolished) unless the Historic Preservation Commission issues a Certificate of Appropriateness.
As homeowners who have devoted an enormous amount of energy and resources to historic preservation, we are truly dismayed to see the issue of historic preservation misappropriated as a cheap talking point and political tactic.
We are concerned that the fearmongering about historic preservation, combined with what some might consider an overly expansive notion of the purview of the Historic Preservation Commission (to curtail private property rights even for changes that would not be visible from the street), could ultimately create a backlash and erode community support for historic preservation.
And for what it’s worth, we also don’t support stifling all architectural change on the notion that everything old is ipso facto more valuable than what is new. After all, if that mindset were in place at the turn of the century, Wright, whose architecture was a radical departure from the prevailing Victorian architecture of the time, probably wouldn’t have been allowed to innovate. Our Wright house may not have been allowed to be built at all.
*The Pew Research Center has a good explainer and links to one of the academic studies (https://www.pew.org/en/research-and-analysis/articles/2025/07/31/new-housing-slows-rent-growth-most-for-older-more-affordable-units?)
“When not enough homes are built in high-income neighborhoods, people who would have lived in those neighborhoods can usually afford to move into middle-income neighborhoods, and middle-income residents can usually afford to move into low-income neighborhoods, but residents of low-income neighborhoods have nowhere to turn.”
Longtime Oak Park residents, Alec Harris & Carollina Song, live in the Frank Lloyd Wright-designed Beachy House.