The following are two published responses to the Chicago Suntimes Editorial: Let Maxwell Street go, March 15, 1999, p. 29, which denigrates the need for Maxwell Street preservation.
Click here to read other replies (not yet published).
March 17, 1999, Chicago Suntimes, p. 44
After last week's Save Maxwell news story [March 12] and Lee Bey's numerous positive features, I read with horror your editorial ["Let Maxwell St. go," March 15]. I would like to set the record straight.
As a licensed structural engineer and past president of the Structural Engineering Association of Illinois, I can speak to the condition and rehabilitation of the buildings. They are not "decrepit." The University of Illinois at Chicago owns 15 and has thrown out the tenants and let the facades look bad, with broken windows and hanging awnings. But that's been its plan to create a ghetto so that it is justified in demolishing it. I have worked on the renovation of similar buildings in Chicago for 25 years, and the city's proposed plans are on target and accomplishable for less than new construction. I have redeveloped many in the area for profit.
If the onus of the wrecking ball were removed from Maxwell Street, this area immediately would be redeveloped and restored by private parties, as has happened in the last 10 years everywhere within two miles of the Loop. If UIC is afraid of restoring these buildings, then the market will and UIC should privatize this. The $10.5 million estimated additional cost is bogus. When neighborhoods are being reborn--and I have participated in three of them--the old buildings are the first to be fixed up because it is cheaper. New comes when there aren't any more old ones left, only vacant land on which to build.
I am often proclaimed to be a historic preservationist by the City of Chicago. Your editorial presents me as a "preservation activist," as if I were sitting up in Lake Forest dallying with history, instead of a hands-on engineer who has pioneered urban neighborhoods and saved churches through sweat and commitment for 25 years on the West Side. Yes, there is great history on Maxwell Street. Yes, it must be saved. And, yes, the university must be taught how to do it.
William L. Lavicka, Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition
March 20, 1999, Chicago Suntimes, p. 20
I am addressing each issue raised, point by point, in your [Chicago Sun Times] editorial, Let Maxwell Street go, on March 15.
Reply: UIC has made no such commitment. UIC intends to save these buildings only temporarily and none of these buildings is on Maxwell St.. They plan to tear them down after a period of 5 to 10 years. That is one of the reasons UIC fought to prevent these buildings being put on the National Register of Historic Places in spite of a State Advisory Committee vote of 9-0 in favor of placing them on the Register.
***
Reply: There are 60 old buildings in the area, less than 10% of the expansion area. The 27 building city plan is the second compromise for preservation. An earlier compromise plan for saving 36 buildings was developed with UIC, the city, our Coalition, and preservation architects, Howard Decker and John Vinci. UIC agreed it was a win-win plan and then reneged.
***
Reply: Some of the area's architects were very distinguished which is one of the reasons that the Chicago Architecture Foundation provides Maxwell Street tours. But the main reason for saving the buildings is about historic preservation.
***
Reply: To really understand music, you have to understand how is was created. The music was created by a culture, not just by a few musicians, and that culture is embodied in the bricks and mortar of the place. This was where folks shopped, ate, socialized, and the musicians got their electricity. Their food and clothing came from these buildings. Many of them had jobs in these buildings or lived upstairs of them, and their music was sold in these stores.
It was an environment that has a long history, and the music can be fully appreciated only in the context of its preserved physical remains. And let's not forget about the German, Irish, Bohemian, Italian, Polish, Jewish, Gypsy, and Mexican immigrant history there, too.
***
Reply: First, we don't accept the validity of the $10.5 million estimate. Restoration and reuse will cost less than new construction. Second, the area has the basic ingredients for successful private development: location, location, and location - near the loop, near the lake, near the expressways, and near a Metra stop. Add in 20% federal preservation tax credits, a TIF, more than 120 years of history, and being the original home to some very large corporations, and you have a profitable recipe for development and preservation.
***
Reply: UIC has slated most of the expansion area for non-academic purposes: a performing arts center, a retail area, ball fields, and $400,000 private town house condominiums -- those condos alone taking up half the space. It is UIC that is bringing the suburban mall look to the Near West Side by building massive parking lots and a multitude of look-alike condos,while destroying neighborhood small businesses housed in historic buildings, such as Original Jims, Bill and Paul's, and Sandy's Zoot Suits.
UIC chooses to expand into an old historic neighborhood and then
shirks its stewardship responsibilities. As the millennium approaches,
we should follow the lead of Commissioner Hill and Mayor Daley
to cherish and preserve that which made this city great and which
can keep it great into the 21st century and beyond.
Steve Balkin
Professor of Economics, Roosevelt University
Vice-President, Maxwell Street Historic Preservation Coalition
web page provided by OPENAIR-MARKET NET
return to Preserve Maxwell Street