Evening star., 1960-09-25
Chicago Saving
Architectural Gem

ers to refuse wreckers their per-
NIT. The wrecking firm filed suit.
In August, the Cook County Su-
perior Court upheld the city in its
role as protector of the Garrick.
The judge admitted his essentially
was a new Interpretation Of the
municipalities police powers. He
said, in effect, that the legal right
to a wrecking permit was not an
absolute right when public esthetic
interests are involved.
The court leaned on the 1854
Supreme Court decision unani-
mously upholding the power Of
the District of Columbia to in
clude a department store, in no
way a slum. in the Southwest re-
development project.
"It is within the power Of the
legislature to determine that the
community should be beautiful
as well as healthy, spacious as
well as clean, well-balanced as
we'll as carefully patrolled
Justice William o. Douglas, wrote
in a star decision for the "es-
thetic" concept.
The. Courts Ruling
Thus, Cook County Judge DON
aid S. McKinby ruled that
city, for esthetic reasons. could
deprive an owner of his right to
destroy his own property.
The same principles were in
volved in District dispute over
two Georgetown houses in 1858.
District Commissioners in a ruling
contrary to the Chicago court
decided they could not deny
owners their rights to raze the
rundown properties. Houses were
demolished despite the Fine Arts
Commission recommendation that
they should be saved as archi-
tecturally historic.
Had District Commissioners
acted boldly for beauty. they
would have riSked - with con-
siderably shaker defenses - the
same kind of court charges Chi
cago is battling now. Appeals are
expected before the Illinois Su-
preme Court. ......
The Commissioners would have
been in a more vulnerable po-
sition because the houses, rela-
lively speaking, were insignificant
architecturally compared to the
Garrick-the mark of Chicago's
urban coming of -age.
But the owners plight was the
same problem in both the Dis
trict and Chicago cases.
Moy Seek Domoees
Judge McKinlay indicated the
Garrick owners might seek dam
ages from the city. Or. he noted,
compensation might be forth
coming from private Embarrassing
campaigns by preservationists
who want to save the building.
Locally. municipal officials have
toyed with the idea of Offering
tax benefits to owners whose his
toric properties are ordered main
tained regardless of profit losses.
A standard argument of histo-
rianS-rejected by most business
mems that preservation of
landmark buildings in itself in
creases the value of those build
!ngS and their neighborhoods.
In Chicago. Mayor Daley hopes
to buy the old theater and restore
it for incorporation in a civic
center. The city may have to pay
owners damages if it doesn't buy
the Garrick.
The Chicago experience seems
to be proving that a city can't
get preservation for nothing. 1t
will take not only bold admins
tration, but cold cash.
But Chicago, in taking the legal
and financial risks of preserving
a historic building, has shouldered
burdens evaded in Washington
and in most cities.
If the courts continue to sup
port Chicago. then the District
Commissioners will be sure to re-
assess their own legal position on
preservation of landmarks in the
Nations Capital.