Their statement of opposition was in the form of a letter to Mr. Wheeler, so our rebuttal is too. Simultaneous with sending this letter to Wheeler, we have sent a letter to the Keeper of the National Register, Carol Shull, in Washington, asking that she request the nomination from Wheeler so she can make her determination as soon as possible--before the bulldozers roll again.
June 12, 2000
William L. Wheeler
Illinois Historic Preservation Agency
Old State Capitol
Springfield, IL 62701
Dear Mr. Wheeler:
It was a pleasure to meet you in Barrington on Friday. You now have a difficult and important decision to make. Perhaps I can shed light on some key issues.
Although James Foerster's June 9, 2000, letter to you and to the members of the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council was signed by him, it obviously was written by the attorney who presented it at the meeting in Barrington, or by the staff of his law firm, because it reads like a legal brief. The flaw in this approach, of course, is that the IHSAC, IHPA and NPS are not courts of law. Their rules are different.
Under those rules, anyone may nominate a property or district. If a nomination application is rejected, there is no rule prohibiting it from being improved and submitted again for the same or similar property or district. Your own staff determined that the current nomination was sufficiently different from the 1994 submission to be presented to the IHSAC for consideration.
Because the IHSAC, IHPA and NPS are not courts of law, most of the University's arguments are simply irrelevant. If a proposed district is eligible for National Register inclusion, then it is eligible, regardless of what may have gone before. The council of experts appointed by you to advise you on exactly these matters is unanimous in its opinion that the proposed Maxwell Street Historic District qualifies for National Register listing (as it was in 1994). Their opinion is supported by the Issues Committee of the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, which includes some of the area's most distinguished architects. Therefore, in the opinion of the most qualified experts available, including the people selected by your agency to make these sorts of determinations, the proposed Maxwell Street Historic District qualifies for National Register listing. That fact is undeniable and no amount of legalistic double-talk can change it.
The University's "brief" also seeks to confuse the uninformed reader by conflating landmark criteria with National Register criteria, architectural standards with historical significance standards, and individual building considerations with historic district considerations. Mr. Foerster also falsely claims that "the City approved the University's plan May 14, 1998," a date that does not even appear on the University's own time line. Approval was actually given by City Council on November 10, 1999, as noted on the University's time line. Throughout Foerster's letter, and in many public statements, the University has spoken of a 1994 "determination of ineligibility," when no such "determination" was ever made. As you know, neither the IHPA nor the NPS makes negative "determinations" of the type that wording suggests. The IHPA and NPS determine National Register eligibility based on the merits of a given nomination. They do not "determine ineligibility." That wording is nothing more than the University's wishful characterization of the fate of the 1994 nomination. If they have relied on their own gross mischaracterization to their disadvantage, that is a grave they dug for themselves.
The University's "brief" also fails to note the many efforts of the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition, Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois and others to negotiate a development plan that is more sensitive to the historic importance of the Maxwell Street neighborhood. In 1998 and 1999, the University participated in discussions that produced several alternative plans, which our group supported. The Decker plan, in which 36 contributing buildings were to be retained in situ, was developed in the late winter and early spring of 1998. The McClier study, in which 16 contributing buildings were to be retained in situ and 11 relocated, was completed in March of 1999. Both plans were commissioned by the city's Department of Planning and Development, and endorsed by the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition, but rejected by the University. At that time, the University's position was that the area had no historic significance and every remaining building would be demolished. The University's current plan was not announced until September, 1999, and was not truly final until adopted by the University's Board of Trustees on October 15, 1999, and accepted by the City Council on November 10, 1999.
Even though we opposed the University's final plan, we urged them to nominate their Maxwell Street to the National Register, but those requests were ignored. It was only after all our efforts to work with the University were rebuffed that we decided to submit our own National Register nomination, which was filed less than 90 days after the date of the City Council vote accepting the University's plan. These facts are ignored in the University's "brief."
The objective of the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition always has been to work with the University to develop a plan that meets the University's legitimate academic needs in a historically sensitive way. We believe those two objectives are compatible. Only the University seems to believe that they are not, and that an irreplaceable historic resource must be sacrificed to suit the University's purposes.
The University would have you believe that they were blindsided by this nomination when the opposition of the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition to the University's plans was well known. The University has received thousands of letters urging them to develop a responsible preservation plan. They are also well aware that many of the property and business owners in the proposed district still oppose their plans and support preservation of the area's historic fabric.
Some of the University's arguments are simply pathetic. They claim that "most of the buildings in the proposed district were constructed in the period 1905-30, following the asserted period of historic significance." In fact, the "asserted" period of historic significance is 1870-1950, a fact that would be clear to anyone who actually read the nomination. Likewise they assert, as if it has some dispositive significance, the fact that the "historic" Maxwell Street Market originated on Jefferson Street, which is not within the proposed historic district. In fact, our nomination discusses in detail the evolution of the market and its surrounding commercial district during the period of significance, and points out that in the final decades of the historic period, the center of the market and related commercial activity had shifted to the area proposed for the historic district.
Though not mentioned in Mr. Foerster's letter, the University's oral presentation argued that the blues performances cited by the nomination "were not associated with any buildings." In fact, and as the nomination makes clear, the buildings were the backdrop for the outdoor performances, certainly integral to the overall environment, plus the musicians lived in the buildings and performed in the buildings for "rent parties" and other gatherings. As even the University's own expert, Mr. Wittman, points out, "the context within which the performances occurred is a paramount consideration; street performers obviously need a street with an audience for their performance, and the buildings that formed the context for these performances were essential to their feeling."
Although the University likes to emphasize its "academic mission" in this and other documents supporting its plan, the fact is that two-thirds of the development project will have no University purpose whatsoever. It is private development for private profit. That is what the University is fighting so hard to protect.
One key aspect of the National Register rules, of which you are surely aware, is that "under federal law, owners of private property listed in the National Register are free to maintain, manage, or dispose of their property as they choose provided that no Federal monies are involved." Even if Federal monies are involved, there is no absolute protection for listed properties. So why is the University so desperate to obtain validation for its erroneous contention that the district is not eligible for the National Register, even though that position has consistently been rejected by the most prominent experts in the field?
The University has never sought to determine if the area is genuinely significant or if it genuinely qualifies for National Register status. What is apparent to everyone, certainly to the IHSAC, is that the University arrived at a conclusion that suited its purposes and then tried to "prove" that conclusion by any possible means. If these efforts to subvert the process have come back to haunt UIC, it has no one but itself to blame.
In closing, Mr. Wheeler, I urge you to promptly endorse the nomination of the Maxwell Street Historic District and forward it to the Keeper of the National Register in Washington for final determination.
Sincerely,
Charles K. Cowdery
President
Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition
Return to the Maxwell St. News Update page.
Return to the Maxwell St. page.
Return to Chuck Cowdery's home page.
Go to the Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition home page.
Contact Us
TO REACH US VIA EMAIL:
Chuck Cowdery, President (cowdery@21stcentury.net)TO REACH US VIA THE USPS:
Steve Balkin, Vice President (mar@openair.org)
Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition
P.O. Box 6435
Evanston, IL 60204