As expected, Chicago’s Landmarks Commission voted last Thursday 5 to 3 to reject the Gropius in Chicago Coalition’s nomination of the Michael Reese Hospital Campus to the National Register of Historic Places.  The vote came after preservationists argued passionately for retention of the campus and City Landmarks Staffers presented a laundry list of contrived objections to the Nomination.

The Chicago Commission on Landmarks is a volunteer-based body, comprised of members appointed by Chicago’s mayor.  The Landmarks Commission staff are employees of the City of Chicago.  Chicago is the owner of the Michael Reese site and instigator of the demolition action.

Chicago’s vote on the National Register Nomination is strictly advisory.  However, our case in moving forward with this process would have been bolstered by the support of the Chicago Commission on Landmarks.  We also had hoped that a positive vote from the Commission would have caused Chicago to pause its reckless demolition activity on the site and take a good look at the casualties being inflicted.

The Gropius in Chicago Coalition will appeal its nomination to the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency, which supports the nomination and has assisted in the nomination’s creation.  We are scheduled to appear before the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council in early December in Springfield, which will offer its binding vote on the merits of the nomination.

The Staff presentation by Chicago’s Commission on Landmarks was heavily biased and factually incorrect.  The Staff argues that the key parts of Gropius’s campus plan, and therefore the historic value of the Michael Reese site as a whole, have been ruined by later alterations.  They ignore the fact that the inappropriate alterations to the campus, which are few overall, are reversible and do not permanently ruin the Gropius or other important works.  Similarly, the Staff ignores the currently proposed National Park Service guidelines on additions and alterations to historic properties, which apply to Michael Reese Hospital and upon inspection clearly show that many of the sensitive additions to the campus over the years are in fact contributing parts of the historic district.  Most egregious, they disregard Walter Gropius’s own opinions as to how the campus should develop after his departure, instead relying on their own biases.

Chicago also argues many other minor points and technicalities, which in our opinion are specifically and overtly designed to thwart our efforts to gain historic status for the campus.  As architecture critic Lynn Becker has noted earlier, many of the policies governing landmark policy in Chicago are apparently malleable depending on the inclination of the city on a case-by-case basis.

After the Staff and public presentations, certain members of the full Landmarks Commission spoke passionately about the architectural value of Michael Reese Hospital.  The Commission had taken the unusual step of requesting special access to the site during the demolition process, and some members had toured the demolition site first-hand, to their fascination and awe. 

However, the majority of the Commission ultimately decided to toe the party line.  The Gropius in Chicago Coalition is therefore forced to proceed in our quest to gain National historic status for the Campus without the support of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks.

National Register listing would not prevent Chicago from demolishing the campus, but it would provide incentives from the Federal government for rehabilitation and reuse.  Please read our earlier statement on Blair Kamin’s Cityscapes for more information.

~    ~    ~

Press coverage:

David Roeder, Business reporter for the Chicago Sun-Times:  “Knuckling under to the Daley administration, the city’s landmarks commission Thursday rejected a recommendation that the former Michael Reese Hospital campus on the Near South Side be designated a historic property.” (site)

Blair Kamin, Architecture critic for the Chicago Tribune:  “The state council is scheduled to consider the National Register proposal on Dec. 4, but it is not known how many Reese buildings will be left by that time. If the council were to advance the Reese nomination, it would be a rebuke to Mayor Richard Daley.” (site)