What's Happening?
The historic Smith House at 175 Prospect in Highland Park, built in 1909 by architect Howard Van Doren Shaw, was demolished in early August, nearly a year after a dispute over its preservation began. The demolition has drawn strong criticism from local
historic architecture advocates. Initially, there was a proposal to protect this house and 11 others through a 'noncontiguous historic district,' which would have unified them by conceptual and historical ties rather than property lines. However, the Highland Park City Council rejected this proposal and subsequently amended ordinances to require 100% owner consent to initiate a nomination for such a district. This change significantly raises the bar for future preservation efforts of this type. The Smith House had previously been subject to a one-year demolition delay imposed by the Highland Park Historic Preservation Commission, which expired in February.
Why It's Important?
The demolition of the Smith House and the subsequent changes to Highland Park's preservation ordinances represent a significant setback for historic preservation efforts in the community. The new requirement for 100% owner consent for noncontiguous historic districts makes it considerably more difficult to protect groups of historically significant homes, even if a majority of owners support the designation. Preservationists argue that this 'de-clawing' of preservation efforts diminishes the city's ability to encourage owners to recognize and value their historic properties. The loss of such buildings, particularly those designed by prominent architects like Shaw, is seen as an irreversible alteration to the neighborhood's character and the community's historical narrative. This situation highlights the ongoing tension between property owner rights and the collective interest in preserving historical and architectural heritage, potentially setting a precedent for similar challenges in other communities.
What's Next?
In the immediate future, the Highland Park City Council is expected to formally consider a proposal next week to subdivide the property of another landmarked historic building at 147 Central. While the historic building itself will remain, the subdivision would allow for new construction on the parcel, a move that has generated mixed reactions among preservationists. Looking ahead, advocates like Billy Levy emphasize the critical need for education to inform homeowners about the value of historic homes and encourage them to seek landmark status voluntarily. However, concerns remain about the long-term commitment to preservation, as former commission vice chair Jean Sogin notes the challenges faced by younger generations with limited time and resources for extensive historic home renovations. The increased difficulty in establishing historic districts suggests that future preservation efforts may need to focus more on individual landmark designations or voluntary owner participation.
Beyond the Headlines
The events in Highland Park underscore a broader national debate regarding the balance between individual property rights and community-wide historical preservation goals. The swift amendment of the ordinance to require 100% owner consent, without extensive public feedback, raises questions about democratic process and transparency in local governance when dealing with contentious issues. The emotional impact on residents, described as 'heartbreaking' by Julie Ehrlich of the Highland Park Historical Society, illustrates the deep connection many feel to their community's architectural heritage. This case also highlights the vulnerability of historic properties when preservation mechanisms are weakened, potentially leading to a homogenization of suburban landscapes as unique architectural assets are lost. The long-term implication is a potential erosion of local identity and a diminished sense of place, as the physical markers of a community's history are systematically removed.
