Opinion ID: 2099757
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Events Leading to Decertification of the McCarthy Building as a Chicago Landmark

Text: The McCarthy Building is located in an area of Chicago (Block 37) which, the parties agree, has long been considered one of the cornerstones of Chicago's North Loop Redevelopment Project, a plan to rejuvenate Chicago's North Loop. One objective of this project is the preservation of historically and architecturally significant buildings, where doing so is economically viable. In 1982, the City, to further promote this development project, published the North Loop Guidelines for Conservation and Redevelopment (Guidelines), which contained the finding that [t]hrough specific effort, [the Reliance Building, the Chicago Theatre and the McCarthy Building] can be rehabilitated for reuse consistent with these Guidelines. This finding was apparently still believed accurate when the city council designated the McCarthy Building's facades a landmark. After the building's facades had been declared a Chicago landmark, however, and as the North Loop development plans continued, facts came to light which cast doubt on the conclusion that the McCarthy Building could be integrated into the redevelopment. The Commercial District Development Commission (Development Commission) received from its department of planning a previously requested staff report addressing these belatedly discovered problems. This report, according to defendants, was made available for public review on August 18, 1987. The staff report summarized the public benefits of developing Block 37, stating that it is the most important retail site in the North Loop and has the potential to make a significant impact on the revitalization of State Street. The report further noted the urgency in getting this project underway so that demand does not shift to other locations. The report also set forth serious design constraints that, in the opinion of the report's authors, would not permit the development to go forward without encroaching upon the site occupied by the McCarthy Building. One constraint involved the above-grade section of the Commonwealth Edison substation. Initially, it had been thought that the above-grade station could be relocated and an office tower built upon that location. Apparently, it later became evident that the above-grade station could not be relocated and would have to be integrated into the development. This necessitated that the initial plans for locating the office tower be altered, and it was concluded that the office tower would have to encroach upon what is now the McCarthy Building. Another constraint apparently involved an initial plan to use a service tunnel for access to Block 37, which plan was subsequently deemed not a realistic option. It was determined, according to the staff report, that ramps would have to be used instead. The location of one proposed ramp would be in direct conflict with the McCarthy Building. In conjunction with issuing the report, the Development Commission adopted several resolutions recommending that the city council approve amendments to the Guidelines, which amendments would eliminate the requirement that the McCarthy Building be retained. On September 22, 1987, a joint committee of the city council's committees on finance and on cultural development and historical landmark preservation, after having reviewed the staff report, forwarded to the city council a unanimous recommendation that the council adopt the Commercial District Development Commission's resolutions. Defendants state that this joint committee submitted the recommendation only after conducting a public hearing, though we can find no verification of this in the record. On September 23, 1987, the city council approved the amendments to the Guidelines, executed a redevelopment agreement and contract with the developer and adopted a schedule for redevelopment of Block 37 that included utilization of quick-take proceedings to acquire the land in Block 37. In addition, the city council specifically adopted, by a vote of 41 to 7, an ordinance repealing the previous ordinance designating the McCarthy Building as a Chicago landmark. Specifically, the city council ordained, notwithstanding the landmark ordinance (ch. 21-64 through 21-95) or any other provisions of the Municipal Code of Chicago, the ordinance designating the McCarthy Building a Chicago landmark passed on June 6, 1984    is hereby repealed. In this ordinance several legislative findings are made, including: Certain design constraints, which only subsequently became apparent, relating to the inability to locate an office tower over the Commonwealth Edison substation and the infeasibility of constructing a necessary service tunnel from lower Wacker Drive for delivery vehicles, compel the conclusion that the McCarthy Building cannot be retained on block 37 in its present site;    the public benefits of the redevelopment of block 37 as reflected by the expected incremental tax revenues to be generated within the redevelopment project area, expanded employment opportunity and revitalized economic activity, significantly outweighs the architectural or aesthetic value of the McCarthy Building. Certain alleged deficiencies in the above-summarized procedure prompted the instant action. Defendants moved to dismiss, contending that (1) plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the city council's action, (2) legislative acts of the city council in passing the September 23, 1987, ordinance are not reviewable and (3) the September 23, 1987, ordinance expressly superseded the procedures articulated in the Landmarks Ordinance insofar as they were inconsistent with the ordinance repealing the landmark designation of the McCarthy Building. The circuit court found that plaintiffs had standing but that no valid cause of action existed because the disputed procedure taken by the city council was nonreviewable.