Attorney No. 55881 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILL COUNTY DEPARTMENT - CHAN CERY DIVISI .137." I L, 92 ta 1. NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC Case No. PRESERVATION IN THE UNITED STATES and LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COUNCIL OF ILLINOIS, Plaintiffs, vs. COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS and CITY OF CHICAGO, Defendants. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Plaintiffs, based on knowledge as to themselves and their own actions and on information and belief as to all other matters, allege as follows for their Complaint against Defendants City of Chicago (or the "City") and the Commission on Chicago Landma IICS (the "Landmarks Commission" or "Commission"). INTRODUCTION 1. This action seeks to correct an improper circumvention of the Chicago Landmarks Ordinance by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks and to ensure that lawfiil procedures are followed to allow appropriate consideration of the preservation of Prentice Women's Hospital ("Prentice") -- a unique work of architecture designed by the world-famous Bertrand Goldberg, a native Chicago architect and engineer. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Review Law ('or alternatively pursuant to similar common law mechanisms for review) to challenge the Commission's resolution to rescind its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice moments after, and at the same hearing in which, the Commission determined that Prentice met the historical and architectural standards for landmark designation and thus for consideration by the Chicago City Council. Plaintiffs further request an immediate stay of the Commission's improper rescindment so that they may correct this misapplication of the law. 2. On Thursday, November 1, 2012, the Landmarks Commission passed a preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice in accordance with Chapter 2-120, Section 630 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. At the same meeting, pursuant to a pre-orchestrated arrangement with the Department of Housing and Economic Development, the Commission then voted to rescind its own recommendation based solely upon criteria that the Commission is expressly not permitted to consider in connection with deciding whether to make a "recommendation to the City Council for designation." MCC 2-120-620. 3. The Landmarks Ordinance (defined below) expressly provides that the Commission has the duty, power, and responsibility, inter alia, hold hearings and to recommend that the City Council designate by ordinance. . . buildings. .. as official 'Chicago Landmarks,' if they qualify as defined hereunder. . ?2-120-610(2) (emphasis added). In connection with this "recommendation" phase of the landmark process, the Landmarks Ordinance expressly defines and limits the criteria to be considered by the Commission. In this respect, the ordinance specifies that "the commission shall limit its consideration solely to" seven enumerated criteria regarding the architectural and historical significance of the property in question. 2-120-620 (emphasis added). The Landmarks Ordinance vests the City Council with final say on whether economic factors outweigh the interest in preserving important architecture. On November 1, the Landmarks Commission properly limited itself to its enumerated criteria when making its preliminary landmark designation. That first resolution passed with a unanimous vote. But then, pursuant to an unprecedented process with a predetermined outcome, the Landmarks Commission purported to "rescind" its own recommendation, at the very same hearing, based solely on economic considerations. In so doing, the Landmarks Commission acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority by violating the plain language and intent of the Landmarks Ordinance and usurping a role reserved for the City Council. 4. Plaintiffs are non-profit entities in favor of preserving Prentice who participated, as they could, in the Con11nission's November 1 meeting and who intend to participate in future hearings required by the Landmarks Ordinance. Plaintiffs request that the Court immediately stay the Landmarks Commission's rescindment of its preliminary landmark recommendation. As a result of the requested stay, the Commission's preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice would stand. Because a preliminary landmark recommendation restricts the permits that may be issued for a property, a stay in this case would preserve the status quo by effectively preventing the City from issuing a demolition permit for Prentice until the case is decided. Ultimately, the Court should reverse the Com1nission's decision to rescind its landmark recommendation and should remand the matter to the Landmarks Commission to follow the mandated Landmarks Ordinance procedure with respect to landmark recommendations for City Council consideration. PARTIES 5. The National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States ("National Trust") was chartered by Congress in 1949 as a private non-profit organization intended to facilitate public participation in the preservation of sites, buildings, and objects significant in American history and culture. See 16 U.S.C. 468. The National Trust has almost 200,000 members nationwide, including more than 8,000 members in Illinois. The National Trust is headquartered in the nation's capital at 1785 Massachusetts Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 20036. It has field offices around the country, including an office in Chicago. The statutory powers of the National Trust include the power to bring suit in its corporate name, 16 U.S.C. 468c(b), and the Trust has participated in hundreds of cases in federal and state courts in carrying out its mission. 6. Plaintiff Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois ("Landmarks Illinois") is an Illinois non-profit corporation. The mission of Landmarks Illinois, a state-wide organization, is to advocate for the preservation and continued use of Illinois' threatened and significant architectural and historical heritage. Its principal place of business is located at 53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 1315, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 7. Defendant Commission on Chicago Landmarks is the body responsible for recommending buildings, structures, sites, and districts for designation as official Chicago landmarks. Created under Chicago's Landmarks Ordinance (defined below), the Commission is staffed by the Historic Preservation Division of the City's Department of Housing and Economic Development The Commission maintains its offices at 33 N. LaSalle St., Suite 1600, Chicago, IL 60602. 8. Defendant City of Chicago is a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. This Court has general and specific personal jurisdiction over Defendants and this action because, among other reasons, Defendants are entities organized under the laws of the State of Illinois; Defendants transact business within Illinois; and the allegations in this Complaint arise from Defendants' transaction of business within Illinois. 735 ILCS 5/2- 209(a)(1). 10. Venue is proper in Cook County because Defendants' principal places of business are located in Cook County; the conduct giving rise to this Complaint occurred in Cook County; and the hearing or proceeding culminating in the decision of the Commission was held in Cook County. 735 ILCS 5/2-101; 735 ILCS 5/3-104. FACTS GIVING RISE TO THE COMPLAINT The Chicago Landmarks Ordinance 11.The City's Landmarks Ordinance defines the powers and duties of the Commission and sets forth administrative procedures for designating a building as a "Chicago Landmark." The Landmarks Ordinance appears at Chapter 2-120, Sections 580 to 920, of the Municipal Code of Chicago. (Attached as Ex. 1.) 12. Among its enumerated purposes, the Landmarks Ordinance states that it is intended to preserve and protect sites "having a special historical, community, architectural, or 5 aesthetic interest or value to the city of Chicago and its citizens." It is also intended to "safeguard the city of Chicago's historic and cultural heritage" and [t]o encourage public participation in identifying and preserving historical and architectural resources through public hearings on proposed desiguations, building permits, and economic hardship variations." 13. Members of the Commission are selected for their expertise in architecture or related fields. They "shall be selected from professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, historic architecture, planning, archaeology, real estate, historic preservation, or related fields, or shall be persons who have demonstrated special interest, knowledge, or experience in architecture, history, neighborhood preservation, or related disciplines." 120-600. 14. The Landmarks Ordinance instructs the Commission hold hearings and to recommend that the City Council designate by ordinance areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects as official 'Chicago Landmarks,' if they qualify as defined hereunder . . 15. To define the criteria by which the Commission is to determine whether a building qualifies for designation as a Chicago Landmark, the Landmarks Ordinance sets forth seven criteria. The ordinance commands that making its recommendation to the City Council for designation [as a Chicago Landmark], the Commission shall limit its consideration solely to [these] criteria . . 2-120-620 (emphasis added). The listed criteria relate only to architectural and historical significance and do not include economic considerations. 16. The Commission may make a preliminary landmark recommendation to the City Council if the Commission determines that the building at issue meets two or more of the criteria required for landmark designation, and (2) has a significant historic, community, architectural or aesthetic interest or value, the integrity of which is preserved in light of its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and ability to express such historic, community, architectural or aesthetic interest or value." 2-120-630. 17. Upon adopting a resolution making a preliminary landmark recommendation, the Commission is to provide "written notice" by certified mail to the owner of the property, the alderman of the ward in which the property is located, and "all relevant city departments." Id. The Commission also must request from the Commissioner of Housing and Economic Development a report that "evaluates the relationship of the proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chicago and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood," as well as any other planning considerations relevant to the proposed designation. ?2-120-640. This DHED report is to become "part of the official record concerning the proposed designation" for later consideration by the City Council. Id. Upon receiving the DHED report, the Commission may make "modifications, changes and alterations concerning the proposed designation as it deems necessary" in consideration of the report. Id. Nowhere does the Landmarks Ordinance state that criteria outside of those enumerated in ?2-120-620 may serve as a basis for the Commission to "rescind" its landmark recommendation upon receiving this report. While the Commission must request the report, DHED is not required to provide it. 2-120-640. If DHED does not provide the report within 60 days, the Commission proceeds with the required steps of its landmark recommendation process. Id. 18. If the owner declines or fails to give consent to the recommendation of landmark status to be given to the City Council, the Commission "shall schedule a public hearing on the proposed designation." ?2-120-650. In this case, Northwestern has stated its opposition to a landmark designation for Prentice, so it can be presumed not to consent. At the public hearing, the Commission "shall provide a reasonable opportunity for all interested persons to present testimony or evidence under such rules as the Commission may adopt governing the proceedings of a hearing." ?2-120-680. Under the Commission's rules governing such hearings, parties to the hearing may raise solely subjects enumerated in the criteria by which the Commission is to make its recommendation: "Under no circumstances shad a party be permitted to present any information not related to whether the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object proposed for designation meets the criteria set forth in section 2-120-620 of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to, information reiated to any economic hardship that may result from the proposed landmark designation, an application for a permit, or zoning concerns." Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks ("Commission Rules") Art. II. E.2.b (emphasis added). (Attached as Ex. 2.) 19. After the public hearing, the Commission "shall determine whether to recommend the proposed landmark designation to the City Council." ?2-120-690. The Commission "shall also transmit to the City Council the official record of its proceedings concerning the recommended designation." Id. This record would include the DHED report. 20. Finally, the City Council "shall give due consideration to the fmdings, recommendations and record of the Commission" in determining whether to designate the relevant site as a Chicago Landmark. 120-700. If the City Council fails to act on the Cornmission's landmark recommendation, that recommendation "shall be granted." ?2-120- 705. Once a site becomes a Chicago Landmark, the designation "shall only be amended or rescinded in the same manner and procedure as the original designation was made." 2-120- 730. 21. A preliminary landmark recommendation by the Commission carries with it immediate legal consequences, including public notice requirements and strict limits on permits that would affect the site. "No permit for alteration, construction, reconstruction, erection, demolition, relocation, or other work, shall be issued to any applicant by any department of the City of Chicago without the written approval of the Commission. . . ?2-120-740. If a permit from the City would allow, among other things, the demolition of a proposed landmark, the department that receives the permit application "shall forward the application" to the Commission. Id. This triggers a process by which the Commission must review the permit application and disapprove it if, among other grounds for denial, "the proposed work will adversely affect or destroy any significant historical or architectural feature" of the proposed landmark. 2-120-760 to 800. 22. The Landmarks Ordinance provides specific and separate procedures pursuant to which economic considerations are to be addressed. Notably, under these procedures, which address claims of "economic hardship" alleged to result from a preliminary recommendation for landmark status, the Landmarks Ordinance vests the City Council, not the Commission, with the final say on whether economic factors outweigh the need to protect the site. 2-120-830 to 890. This separate consideration occurs only after the owner of the property has applied for and been denied a permit to alter or demolish the property. 2-120- 830. First, the affected party must file an application for an economic hardship exception with the Commission. Id. Next, the Commission must hold a public hearing on the application; issue its determination on the application; and, if the Commission finds an economic hardship, forward its decision, report, and proposal to the City Council. 2-120-840 to 870. The Finance Committee of the City Council must then give prompt consideration to the Commission's decision, report, and proposal, and the City Council must approve or disapprove by ordinance a plan to relieve the economic hardship. 2-120-880 to 890. This process for consideration of an "economic hardship" application is the only context in which the Commission's powers and duties authorize the consideration of any economic factors. 2-120- 610(14). 23.If the City Council fails to act on the Commission's plan regarding an economic hardship, the plan "shall be deemed to be denied and the permit [requested by the property owner] shall issue." 2- 120-890. 24. Though the City Council has the final say on economic hardship exceptions, the Commission's determination is immediately appealable. The Landmarks Ordinance provides that "[t]he determination by the commission pursuant to Section 2-120-850 approving or disapproving an application for an economic hardship exception shall, on the date it issues, be a final administrative decision appealable to the Circuit Court of Cook County under the provisions of the Illinois Administrative Review Law, as amended." 2-120-860. 10 The Prentice Women's Hospital 25. Prentice, located at 333 East Superior Street, is unique among Chicago's many architectural milestones. Completed in 1975 and located in the Streeterville neighborhood, Prentice was designed by Bertrand Goldberg. 26. As described by the Commission's Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation, the building's "cloverleaf-shaped thin-shell concrete tower is cantilevered from a single core column, an unusual structural solution that is, if not unique, exceptional in the history of structural engineering." (Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation at 1, Attached as Ex. 27. Prentice also stands as one of the first examples of an architectural design developed with computer technology. As described by the Commission's Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation, "Prentice is one of the first tall structures designed using computer analysis, and the computational method used to create it is now an essential tool in architectural and structural design." (Id. at 1, 3.) 28.Prentice likewise holds an important place in the history of hospital architecture. The Commission's Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation noted that "Hospital architecture was one of Goldberg's lifelong preoccupations, and he felt that Prentice was the pinnacle of his achievements with this complex building type. In Prentice's bed tower the distinct clover-shaped floor plan clustered new mothers, babies and nurses in what Goldberg called 'quiet villages' of care." (Id. at 3.) 1 Exhibit 3 to this Verified Complaint is a copy of the materials for the Commission's November 1 meeting that was posted to the Commission's website on the afiemoon of October 30, 2012. I1 29. In 2010 the Illinois Historic Preservation Agency formally determined that Prentice is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. 30. In June of 2012, the National Trust named Prentice to its list of America's 11 Most Endangered Historic Places. Prentice also appears on the National Trust's list of National Treasures. In addition, Prentice has been on the statewide Ten Most Endangered List published by Landmarks Illinois since 2009. Northwestern Universigg Seeks to Replace Prentice 31. Prentice is owned by Northwestern University ("Northwestem"). 32.Representatives of Northwestem have stated that the university intends to demolish Prentice and replace it with a research facility. 33. Though Northwestern has represented that Prentice is the only viable site for the planned research facility, Northwestem and its affiliated institutions own 25 acres of property in Streeterville, including an empty tract of land across the street from Prentice. 34. According to a report submitted by DHED to the Commission, "Northwestem [has argued] that other sites in Streeterville that have been suggested . . . are not appropriate or available for its use." (Ex. 3, DHED Report to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks Report" or the "Report") at 3.) 35.0n September 14, 2012, more than 80 prominent architects from Chicago and elsewhere signed a letter to the mayor urging the City to give the site protected landmark status. In the letter, the signatories wamed that "Chicago's global reputation as a nurturer of bold and innovative architecture will wither if the city cannot preserve its most important achievements." (Attached as Ex. 4.) 36. On October 30, 2012, Mayor Emanuel issued a statement in support of replacing Prentice. The Commission Properly Grants but then Illegally Rescinds a Preliminary Landmark Recommendation for Prentice 37. Also on October 30, 2012, the Commission placed Prentice on the agenda for its November 1 meeting. The agenda and related attachments were 75 pages in length and contained a pre-dated report from DHED. These documents and the agenda indicated that the proceedings relating to landmark status for Prentice were pre-orchestrated in a manner designed (1) to deny interested members of the public the opportunity to participate in a public hearing and to be meaningfully involved in the landmark recommendation process, (2) to preclude consideration of the recommendation by the City Council in accordance with the specified procedures set forth in the Ordinance, and (3) to otherwise circumvent the Ordinance's plain language and intent to foster historic preservation. 38. The agenda attached four documents concerning Prentice, which suggested that the Commission would, in the span of a single meeting: (1) adopt a preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice based primarily on its architectural significance; (2) consider a DHED report recommending that landmark status be denied based on economic considerations; and (3) rescind the preliminary recommendation issued earlier in the same meeting. 39. First, the agenda attached a Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation and a Draft Resolution for Preliminary Landmark Recommendation. The Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation asserted that Prentice met at least four of the architectural criteria set forth in Section 2-120-620 as well as the historic integrity requirement set forth in 13 Section 2-120-630. (Ex. 3, Draft Preliminary Landmark Recommendation at 25-28.) Consequently, tl1e Draft Resolution for Preliminary Landmark Recommendation contemplated a resolution by me Commission making a preliminary landmark recommendation. (Ex. 3, Draft Resolution for Preliminary Landmark Recommendation.) 40. Next, tl1e agenda attached a report from DHED, which asserted that preserving Prentice as a landmark was "directly at odds" with Northwestern's plans for the site. (Ex. 3, DHED Report at 2.) Despite being published on the Commission's website with the Commission's agenda on October 30, the DHED Report was dated "Nov. 1, 2012," and was not marked as a draft." (Id. at 1.) 41. The DHED Report noted that DHED was in the "unique" position of having to evaluate preservation from two different perspectives; first as a landmark, and second as a site for potential development. (Ex. 3, DHED Report at 1.) On the first point, the Report stated that DHED's own staff had "approached the question professionally and carefully, issuing a report to the Commission that suggests that the building meets landmark criteria." (Id. at 2.) On the second point, the Report advocated that Northwestern's ability to obtain millions of dollars of research funding was at issue, and further that Northwestern would suffer a "competitive disadvantage" were Prentice preserved. The DHED report proceeded to assert that "the civic and economic impact of Northwestern's proposed research program outweighs the relative importance of maintaining the former Prentice building as an 2 The Commission has since posted a new version of the November 1 agenda and attached documents to its website. The new version contains the same DHED Report, except with a physically applied drafi stamp. This version remains available on the Commission's website at (Last accessed Nov. 14, 2012.) 14 architectural landmark." (Id. at 3.) The Report concluded by recommending that the Commission "reject or rescind a preliminary designation, as appropriate." (Id. at 4.) 42. Finally, the agenda attached a second draft resolution accepting the DHED report and rescinding the preliminary landmark recommendation set forth in the first resolution. (Ex. 3, Draft Resolution Pertaining to the Report and Recommendations from the Department of Housing and Economic Development.) 43. The November 1 meeting proceeded as the Commission had arranged. 44. First, the Commission stated that it would consider the criteria in Section 2- 120-620 and the standards in Section 2-120-630 the Section 620 criteria plus the integrity of Prentice's historic, community, architectural, and aesthetic value) for making a preliminary landmark recommendation. After allowing meeting attendees to speak, the Cormnission unanimously passed a resolution finding that Prentice met the test in Section 2-120-630 and making a preliminary recommendation to designate Prentice as a landmark. Specifically, the Commission found that Prentice met four of the seven criteria enumerated in Section 2-120- 620. 45. In passing its first resolution, the Commission expressly limited its consideration to the enumerated criteria set forth in Section 2- 120-620. 46. As part of its first resolution, the Commission requested from the Commissioner of DHED a report that evaluated the relationship of Prentice to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chicago and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. A representative of DHED entered a report into the record in 15 substantially the same form as the DHED Report attached to the Commission's November 1 agenda. 47. Finally, the Commission passed a second resolution accepting DHED's report and rescinding its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice in response to DHED's recommendation (the "Second Resolution"). This consideration undertaken by the Commission in connection with the Second Resolution was not limited to the enumerated criteria of Section 2-120-620. In so acting, the Commission exceeded the power granted to it by the Landmarks Ordinance. 48. In passing its Second Resolution, the Commission did not expressly limit its consideration to the enumerated criteria set forth in Section 2-120-620. Nor could the rescindment have been based on the enumerated criteria, as nothing in the DHED Report provided any infomiation challenging any of the criteria upon which the "recommendation to the City Council for designation" was based. 49.The economic hardship process, with its own separate public hearing process, City Council oversight, and judicial review, represents the sole procedural basis by which the Landmarks Ordinance permits the Commission to address economic factors. By passing its Second Resolution based expressly on the DHED Report, the Commission engaged in impermissible economic weighing during the landmark recommendation process in contravention of the express directive of Section 2-120-620. 50. Because the Commission made and then rescinded its recommendation in the span of a single meeting, it failed to provide the "written notice" of a preliminary landmark designation required by Section 2-120-630. This notice was to have been sent by certified mail 16 to the owner of the property, tl1e alderman of the ward in which the property is located, and "all relevant city departments." 2-120-630. 51. A transcript of the November 1, 2012 meeting, if available, shall be filed by the Commission. See 735 ILCS 5/3-108. COUNT I ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PURSUANT TO THE REVIEW LAW 52. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 51 as if set forth fully herein. 53. The Commission acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority by considering inappropriate factors in rescinding its preliminary landmark recommendation. The plain language of the Landmarks Ordinance requires that making its recommendation to the City Council for designation, the commission shall limit its consideration solely" to the architectural criteria set forth in 2-120-620 (emphasis added). This limitation to the 2-120- 620 criteria is not confined to a preliminary recommendation. Nothing in the Landmarks Ordinance permits the Commission to modify, change, or alter its recommendation based upon factors or criteria other than those enumerated in Section 2-120-620. This includes evidence introduced by the DHED Report other than that within the scope of the criteria in Section 2- 120-620. 54. The Commission acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority when it rescinded its own preliminary landmark recommendation and curtailed the public hearing process envisioned as part of the Ordinance. Here, once the Commission made a preliminary landmark recommendation, the Landmarks Ordinance required a public hearing and recommendation to the City Council unless the Commission made a determination that the 17 requisite criteria, as specified in 2-120-620, had not been met and its evaluation of those criteria was in error. 55. The Landmarks Ordinance provides that in those limited circumstances in which the Commission addresses economic factors, pursuant to the "economic hardship" procedures, the Commission action is to be subject to judicial review. 56. The decision of the Commission constitutes a final administrative decision appealable to the Circuit Court of Cook County for review pursuant to the provisions of the Illinois Administrative Review Law ("Review Law"), 735 ILCS 5/3-101 et seq. 57. For the reasons set forth above, the Commission's Second Resolution exceeds its powers and duties as set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance. As such, the Commission's decision is unlawful. A. IMMEDIATE STAY PURSUANT TO THE REVIEW LAW 58. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 57 as if set forth fully herein. 59. As set forth above, the Commission has exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in rescinding its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice. 60. A preliminary landmark recommendation would effectively prohibit the City from issuing a demolition permit for Prentice. The Commission's decision to rescind its recommendation has left Northwestern free to seek a demolition permit from the City of Chicago without any review by the Commission. Representatives of Northwestern stated at the Commission's November 1 meeting that they plan to seek such a permit within weeks. 13 61. If Northwestern demolishes Prentice, Plaintiffs will forever lose their opportunity to participate in the landmark recommendation process (through a public hearing and otherwise) as required by the Landmarks Ordinance with regards to Prentice. Without an immediate stay, Plaintiffs will also likely lose their opportunity to have this case heard on its merits by this Court. 62. An immediate stay of the Second Resolution is therefore required in order to preserve the status quo. 63. A stay will not endanger the public but rather will preserve the public's right to participate in the City's landmarks process. 64. Granting a stay here is not contrary to public policy. Rather, a stay will safeguard the policies embodied in the Landmarks Ordinance, including the due review of the Finance Committee of City Council and the City Council. 65. Plaintiffs have shown a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits. 66. Under the Review Law, this Court has the power to "stay the decision of the administrative agency in whole or in part pending the final disposition of the case." 735 ILCS Plaintiffs request such a stay. B. REVERSAL WITH INSTRUCTIONS PURSUANT TO THE REVIEW LAW 67. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 66 as if set forth fully herein. 68.As set forth above, the Commission has exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in rescinding its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice. 19 69. Under the Review Law, this Court has the power to affirm or reverse the Second Resolution in whole or in part. 735 ILCS 70. Under the Review Law, this Court has the power to reverse and remand the Second Resolution and to state the questions requiring further hearing or proceedings and to give such other instructions as may be proper. 735 ILCS 71. Under the Review Law, this Court has the power to remand for the purpose of taking additional evidence. 735 ILCS 72. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court reverse the Commission's Second Resolution and remand for further hearings and proceedings and for the purpose of taking additional evidence, with the instructions detailed in Plaintiffs' Prayer for Relief. COUNT II ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW PURSUANT TO COMMON LAW CER TIORARI 73. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 72 as if set forth fully herein. 74. If not eligible for review pursuant to the Review Law, the Commission's Second Resolution represents a fmal administrative decision reviewable pursuant to a common- law writ of certiorari. 75. For the reasons set forth above, the Commission's Second Resolution exceeds its powers and duties as set forth in the Landmarks Ordinance. As such, the Commission's decision cannot stand. 76. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court reverse the Commission's Second Resolution and remand for further hearings and proceedings as requested in Plaintiffs' Prayer for Relief. 20 A. IMMEDIATE STAY PURSUANT TO INHERENT EQUITABLE POWERS 77. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 76 as if set forth fully herein. 78. As set forth above, the Commission has exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in rescinding its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice. 79. A preliminary landmark recommendation would effectively prohibit the City from issuing a demolition permit for Prentice. The Commission's decision to rescind its recommendation has left Northwestern free to seek a demolition permit from the City of Chicago. Representatives of Northwestern stated at the Commission's November 1 meeting that they plan to seek such a permit within weeks. 80. If Northwestern demolishes Prentice, Plaintiffs will forever lose their opportunity to participate in the landmark recommendation process (through a public hearing and otherwise) as required by the Landmarks Ordinance with regards to Prentice. Without an immediate stay, Plaintiffs will also likely lose their opportunity to have this case heard on its merits by this Court. 81. An immediate stay of the Second Resolution is therefore required in order to preserve the status quo. 82.If this action must proceed pursuant to a common-law writ of certiorari rather than an action under the Review Law, this Court nevertheless retains the inherent equitable power to stay the Second Resolution pending the final disposition of the case. 83. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a clearly asceitainable right in need of protection. 84. Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an immediate stay. 85. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. 86. Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits. 87. Plaintiffs therefore request an immediate stay of the Commission's Second Resolution pending the final disposition of the case. B. DECLARATORY JUDGMENT 88. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 87 as if set forth fully herein. 89. As set forth above, the Commission has exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in rescinding its preliminary landmark recommendation for Prentice. 90. If this action must proceed pursuant to a common-law writ of certiorari rather than an action under the Review Law, this Court retains the power to issue a declaratory judgment setting forth a binding declaration of rights, pursuant to 735 ILCS Section 5/2-701. 91. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court issue a judgment setting forth those instructions or declarations detailed in Plaintiffs' Prayer for Relief. COUNT WRIT OF MANDAM US 92. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate paragraphs numbered 1 through 91 as if set forth fully herein. 93. If not eligible for review pursuant to the Review Law or a common-law writ of certiorari, the Second Resolution remains the proper subject for a writ of mandamus. 94. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a right to a public hearing pursuant to Section 2-120-680 of the Landmarks Ordinance. 22 95. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a duty of the Commission to provide such a hearing. 96. It is within the authority of the Commission to hold such a hearing. 97. The holding of such a hearing is not discretionary but rather required by the Landmarks Ordinance with regards to Prentice. 98. Plaintiffs therefore request that the Court reverse the Commission's Second Resolution and remand for a hearing as requested in Plaintiffs' Prayer for Relief. E3 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Court enter judgment in their favor, and respectfully request that the Court: (0) Immediately stay the Commission's Second Resolution pending the final disposition of the case; Instruct or declare that the Commission acted arbitrarily and exceeded its authority when it adopted the Second Resolution; Instruct or declare that the Landmarks Ordinance: i) prohibits the Commission from considering any criteria not contained in Municipal Code 2-.120-620 when making a recommendation to the City Council, absent consent of the property owner to the landmark designation, requires the Commission to hold a public hearing pursuant to Municipal Code 2-120-680, prohibits the Commission from considering any economic factors in determining whether to recommend the proposed landmark designation to the City Council, and requires the Commission to transmit to the City Council the official record of its proceedings concerning the proposed recommendation for Prentice; E4 Reverse the Commission's Second Resolution and remand this matter to the Commission for a public hearing and other proceedings consistent with the Landmarks Ordinance; Award Plaintiffs' attorneys' costs; and Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable. Respectfully submitted, By: Wayne "ii Whalen, Atforney No. 55881 Martin V. Sinclair, Jr., Attorney No. 47489 Paul J. Forster, Attorney No. 55880 155 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700 Chicago, IL 60606 (312) 407-0700 (312) 407-0411 (fax) Counsel For Plaintiffs National Trust For Historic Preservation In The United States and Landmarks Preservation Council Of Illinois. Of Counsel: Michael Rachlis RACHLIS DURHAM DUFF ADLER PEEL, LLC 542 South Dearborn, Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60605 (312) 733-3950 Firm No. 48221 VERIFICATION Under penalties as provided by law pursuant to Section 1-109 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the undersigned certifies that the statements set forth in this are true and correct, except as to matters therein stated to be on infonnation and belief and as to such matters the undersigned certifies as aforesaid that she verily believes the same to be true. hristina'Mor1Ts SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to me this If-{fday of November, 2012. ML I Notary Public 0 I IA MONICA A. KOONECAEL NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE or MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 1;21;2o14 25 EXHIBIT 1 Page I of 12 ARTICLE XVII. COMMISSION ON CHICAGO HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL LANDMARKS -72-I20-S80 Purpose of provisions. It is hereby declared necessary for the general welfare ofthe citizens ofthe City of Chicago as an exercise ofthe home rule authority ofthe City of Chicago under Article VII, Section 6, ofthe Illinois Constitution, to protect and encourage the continued utilization of areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other similar objects within the City of Chicago eligible for designation by ordinance as "Chicago Landmarks". The purpose ofthese sections is the following: I. To identify, preserve, protect, enhance, and encourage the continued utilization and the rehabilitation of such areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects having a special historical, community, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value to the City of Chicago and its citizens; 2. To safeguard the City of Chicago's historic and cultural heritage, as embodied and reflected in such areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects determined eligible for designation by ordinance as "Chicago Landmarks"; 3. To preserve the character and vitality of the neighborhoods and central area, to promote economic development through rehabilitation, and to conserve and improve the property tax base of the City of Chicago; 4. To foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past as presented in such "Chicago Landmarks"; 5. To protect and enhance the attractiveness of the City of Chicago to homeowners, home buyers, tourists, visitors, businesses and shoppers, and thereby to support and promote business, commerce, industry, and tourism and to provide economic benefit to the City of Chicago; 6. To foster and encourage preservation, restoration, and rehabilitation of areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects, including entire districts and neighborhoods, and thereby prevent future urban blight and in some cases reverse current urban deterioration; 7. To foster the education, pleasure, and welfare of the people of the City of Chicago through the designation of "Chicago Landmarks"; 8. To encourage orderly and efficient development that recognizes the special value to the City of Chicago ofthe protection of areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects designated as "Chicago Landmarks"; 9. To encourage the continuation of surveys and studies of Chicago's historical and architectural resources and the maintenance and updating of a register of areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects which may be worthy of landmark designation; and I0. To encourage public participation in identifying and preserving historical and architectural resources through public hearings on proposed designations, building permits, and economic hardship variations. (Prior code 2l-62; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272) Commission -- Creatioo, composition and officers. There is hereby created a commission on Chicago landmarks. The commission shall consist of nine members, eight l0/29/20l2 Page 2 of 12 of whom shall be appointed by the mayor by and with consent ofthe city council ofthe City of Chicago. The ninth member shall be the commissioner of housing and economic development or his designee. The members shall serve without compensation. One of the members shall be designated by the mayor as chairman, another as vice-chairman, and another as secretary. For the purposes of this Article XVII, the "commission" means the commission on Chicago landmarks. (Prior code 21-63; Added Coun. J. 3-l 1-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 6-22-88, p. l4547; Amend Coun. J. l2-11-91, p. 10936; Amend Coun. J. 1-19-08, p. 47220, Art. VII, 1; Amend Coun. J. 11-17-10, p. 106597, Art. IX, 2) i2-I20-600 Commission membership and meetings. A majority ofthe members ofthe commission shall constitute a quorum. The commission shall meet on the call of the chairman or of four of its members. The term of each member shall be for four years and until a successor is appointed. No more than four members shall be replaced in a one-year period. Commission members shall be selected from professionals in the disciplines of history, architecture, historic architecture, planning, archaeology, real estate, historic preservation, or related fields, or shall be persons who have demonstrated special interest, knowledge, or experience in architecture, history, neighborhood preservation, or related disciplines. (Prior code 21-64; Added Coun. J. 3-l 1-87, p. 40272) '2-120-610 Commission Powers and duties. The commission shall have and may exercise the following duties. powers, and responsibilities: l. To conduct an ongoing survey of the City of Chicago for the purpose of identifying those areas, district, places, building, structures, works of art, and other objects of historic or architectural significance; the results of such an ongoing survey shall be carried and transmitted online on the City of Chicago website, and the website identification shall be carried on the City of Chicago TV Public Access Channel. 2. To hold hearings and to recommend that the city council designate by ordinance areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects as official "Chicago Landmarks", if they qualify as defined hereunder, and to recommend that such designation include all or some portion of the property or any improvements thereon; 3. To cause plaques to be manufactured and installed that identify the significance of designated landmarks and landmark districts; 4. To prepare and publish maps, brochures, and other descriptive and educational materials about Chicago's landmarks and landmark districts and their designation and protection; 5. To review permit applications for alteration, construction, reconstruction, erection, demolition, relocation, or work of any kind affecting landmarks and structures or unimproved sites in landmark districts and to require the presentation of such plans, drawings, elevations, and other information as may be necessary to review those applications; 6. To advise and assist owners or prospective owners of designated or potential landmarks or structures in landmark districts on technical and financial aspects of preservation, renovation, rehabilitation and reuse, and to establish standards and guidelines therefor; 7. To apply for and accept any gift, grant, or bequest from any private or public source, including agencies of the federal or state government, upon approval by the city council, for any purpose authorized by these provisions; 8. To make recommendations to the city council conceming means to preserve, protect, enhance, rehabilitate and 10/29/2012 Page 3 of I2 perpetuate landmarks and structures in landmark districts; 9. To adopt, publish, and make available rules of procedure and other regulations for the conduct of commission meetings, hearings, and other business; I0. To prepare and present nominations of landmarks and historic districts to any state or federal registers of historic places; II. To assume whatever responsibility and duties may be assigned to it by the state under Certified Local Govemment provisions of the National Historic Preservation Act of I966, as amended; I2. To cooperate with and enlist the aid of persons, organizations, corporations, foundations, and public agencies in matters involving historic preservation, renovation, rehabilitation and reuse; I3. To advise any city department or agency conceming the effect of its actions, programs, capital improvements or activities on designated or potential landmarks; l4. To consider whether denial of permits affecting landmarks and structures or unimproved sites in landmark district results in economic hardship to property owners; l5. To exercise any other power or authority necessary or appropriate to carry out the purpose of these provisions. (Prior code 2l-65; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. S-l7-00, p. 327l8,? l) '2--l20-620 Landmarks -- Criteria for designation. The commission shall familiarize itself with areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, and other objects within the City of Chicago which may be considered for designation by ordinance as "Chicago Landmarks". and maintain a register thereof. In making its recommendation to the city council for designation, the commission shall limit its consideration solely to the following criteria concerning such area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, and other objects: I. Its value as an example of the architectural, cultural, economic, historic, social, or other aspect of the heritage of the City ofChicago, State of Illinois, or the United States; 2. Its location as a site of a significant historic event which may or may not have taken place within or involved the use of any existing improvements; 3. Its identification with a person or persons who significantly contributed to architectural, cultural, economic, historic, social, or other aspect of the development ofthe City of Chicago, State of Illinois, or the United States; 4. Its exemplification of an architectural type or style distinguished by innovation, rarity, uniqueness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship; 5. Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development ofthe City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, or the United States; 6. Its representation of an architectural, cultural, economic, historic, social, or other theme expressed through distinctive areas, districts, places, buildings, structures, works of art, or other objects that may or may not be contiguous; 7. Its unique location or distinctive physical appearance or presence representing an established and familiar visual feature ofa neighborhood, community, or the City of Chicago. .com/nxt/ gateway.dl ll I 0/29/20 I 2 Page 4 of [2 (Prior code 2 l-66; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272) J2-120-630 Preliminary recommendation. The commission may, by resolution, make a preliminary landmark recommendation if the commission determines that an area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object: meets two or more of the criteria required for landmark designation, and (ii) has a significant historic, community, architectural or aesthetic interest or value, the integrity of which is preserved in light of its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and ability to express such historic, community, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. The commission shall send, by certified mail, retum receipt requested, written notice of such recommendation to the owner of the property. The commission shall also notify in writing the alderman of each ward in which the property is located and all relevant city departments. (Prior code 2l-67; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) 2420-640 Preliminary recomendation -- Request for planning report. Upon adoption of a resolution making a preliminary recommendation the commission shall request a report from the commissioner of housing and economic development which evaluates the relationship of the proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chicago and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood. The report shall also include the commissioner's opinion and recommendation regarding any other planning consideration relevant to the proposed designation and the commissioner's recommendation of approval, rejection or modification of the proposed designation. The report shall be submitted to the commission within 60 days of the request, if the proposed designation is of an area, place, building, structure, work of art or other object, or within 90 days, if the proposed designation is a district, and shall become part of the official record concerning the proposed designation. The commission may make such modifications, changes and alterations conceming the proposed designation as it deems necessary in consideration of any recommendation of the commissioner of housing and economic development. If the commissioner declines or fails to submit a report within the time provided herein, the commission may proceed with designation. (Prior code 2l-68; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. l2-l p. l0936; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085; Amend Coun. J. l-l9-08, p. 47220, Art. VII, l; Amend Coun. J. l-l7-l0, p. l06597, Art. IX, 2) -I 2-120-650 Request for owner consent. The commission shall thereafter, by first-class mail, notify the owner of the property of the reasons for and effects of the proposed designation and request that the owner consent in writing to the proposed designation. The owner shall respond within 45 days from the date of mailing of the request. ln the case of the proposed designation of an area, place, building, structure, work of art or other object, an owner may, within the 45-day period, request an extension of time, not to exceed l20 days, to submit a response. In the case of the proposed designation of a district, the alderman of a ward in which the district is wholly or partly located may, within the 45-day period, request an extension of time, not to exceed l20 days, for owners to submit responses. If the owner consents to designation, the commission shall notify the owner of its determination with respect to the proposed designation within 45 days after receipt of the owner's consent and shall forward its recommendation to the city council as provided in Section 2-l20-690. If the owner declines or fails to give written consent to the proposed designation within the time specified in this section, the commission shall schedule a public hearing on the proposed designation. (Prior code 2l-69; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. l0-7-98, p. 78734, 2) -I2-120-660 Buildings owned or used by religious organizations. No building that is owned by a religious organization and is used primarily as a place for the conduct of religious ceremonies shall be designated as a historical landmark without the consent of its owner. 10/29/2012 Page 5 of 12 (Prior code 21-691; Added Coun. J. 3-1 1-87, p. 40272) 2-120-670 Public hearing -- Notice requirements. Prior to conducting a public hearing under this Chapter 2-120, the commission shall give written notice of the date, time, and place of the hearing to any owner of the subject property. The commission shall also cause to be posted, for a period of not less than 15 days immediately preceding the hearing, a notice stating the time, date, place, and matter to be considered at the hearing. The notice shall be prominently displayed on the place, building, object or structure, or on the public ways abutting the property, and, in the case of designation of areas or districts, the notices shall be placed on the principal boundaries thereof. In addition, not less than 15 days prior to the hearing, the commission shall cause a legal notice to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Chicago setting forth the nature of the hearing, the property, area, or district involved, and the date, time, and place of the scheduled public hearing. (Prior code 21-70; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272) 2-120-680 Public hearing -- Presentation of evidence. The commission shall provide a reasonable opportunity for all interested persons to present testimony or evidence under such rules as the commission may adopt governing the proceedings of a hearing. At the hearing, each speaker shall state his name, address, and the interest which he represents. The hearing may be continued to a date certain, and a transcript and record shall be kept of all proceedings. A person, organization, or other legal entity whose use or whose members' use or enjoyment of the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art or other object proposed for designation may be injured by the designation or the failure of the commission to recommend designation, may become a party to a designation proceeding. Any person, organization, or other legal entity whose use or enjoyment of the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art or other object designated as a landmark may be injured by the approval or disapproval of a proposed alteration, construction, reconstruction, erection, demolition or relocation of a proposed or designated landmark, may become a party to a permit application proceeding. The foregoing shall include, without limitation, persons, organizations or other legal entities residing in, leasing or having an ownership interest in real property located within 500 feet of the property line of the proposed or designated landmark or within the proposed or designated landmark district. (Prior code 21-71; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272) 12-I20-690 Commission recommendation following bearing. Within 30 days after the conclusion of the public hearing, the commission shall determine whether to recommend the proposed landmark designation to the city council. If the commission makes a determination to recommend a designation to the city council, it shall set forth its recommendation in writing, including finding of fact relating to the criteria for designation in Section 2-120-620 that constitute the basis for its decision and shall transmit its recommendation to the city council, to the owner of the property and to the parties appearing at the public hearing. If 51 percent of the owners of the property in a district responding to the request for consent file written objections to designation, a recommendation of landmark designation of that district must be approved by the affirmative vote of six members of the commission. The commission shall also transmit to the city council the official record of its proceedings concerning the recommended designation. If the proposed designation is of an area, place, building, structure, work of art or other object, the commission shall transmit its recommendation to the city council within 180 days from the date of receipt of the report of the commissioner of housing and economic development, or if no report has been received, within 240 days from the date of the commission's request for the report. If the proposed designation is of a district, the commission shall transmit its recommendation to the city council within 240 days from the date of receipt of the report of the commissioner of housing and economic development, or, if no report has been received, within 330 days from the date of the commission's request for the report. If, however, an extension of time has been granted under Section 2-120-650, the time allowed for submission under this section shall be extended by the same number of days. 10/29/2012 Page 6 of 12 (Prior code 21-72; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 12-11-91, p. 10936; Amend Coun. J. 11-19- 08, p. 47220, Art. VII, 1; Amend Coun. J. 11-17-10, p. 106597, Art. IX, 2) 2-I20-700 City council consideration ofdeaignation - Plaques. The city council shall give due consideration to the findings, recommendations and record of the commission in making its determination with respect to the proposed designation of any area, district, place, building, structure, work of art or other object having a significant historic, community, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value. The city council may, in its discretion, hold public hearings on any such recommended designation. The city council may by ordinance designate an area, district, place, building, structure, work of art or other object: meeting two or more of the criteria stated in Section 2-120-620 hereof, and (ii) having a significant historic, community, architectural or aesthetic interest or value, the integrity of which is preserved in light of its location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and ability to express such historic, community, architectural or aesthetic interest or value, as a "Chicago Landmark". The city council may direct that a suitable plaque or plaques be created by the commission appropriately identifying said landmark. The plaque may be affixed to private property only if the owner or owners consent in writing. (Prior code 21-73; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) -I 2-I20-705 Time in which recommendation may be considered. If the city council does not take final action upon any landmark recommendation submitted by the commission on Chicago landmarks to the city council within 365 days of the date upon which the recommendation is filed with the city council, landmark designation based upon the recommendation of the commission shall be granted. The historic landmark preservation committee of the city council shall hold timely hearings and report its recommendation to the city council. (Added Coun. J. 3-6-96, p. 17630; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) 2-I20-710 Preservation easements for landmarks. The commission may consider and recommend to the city council the adoption of a preservation easement for any designated landmark or for any building, area, district or place which meets the criteria for landmark designation. If an owner of any property proposes to the commission a preservation easement, the commission shall hold a public hearing on the proposal in accordance with Sections 2-120-670 and 2- 120-680 prior to recommending that the city council accept the proposed easement. (Prior code 21-74; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272) -12-I20-720 Landmarks -- Notice of designation. Immediately following official designation by the city council, the commission shall notify the department of buildings of the City of Chicago of the designation. The commission shall also, within ten days of the official designation, send a notice of the designation and a summary of the effects of designation to the owner of the property by first class mail. The commission shall also file with the recorder of deeds of Cook County, the assessor of Cook County, the bureau of maps and plats of the city of Chicago, and all other relevant city departments, a certified copy of the designation ordinance. (Prior code 21-75; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 9-13-89, p. 4604; Amend Coun. J. 12-11-91, p. 10936; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085; Amend Coun. J. 9-10-97, p. 50512; Amend Coun. J. 10-7-98, p. 78734, 2) 1 2420-730 Amendment and recision of designation. 10/29/2012 Page 7 of 12 Any designation of an area, district, place, building, structure, work of art or other similar object as a "Chicago Landmar shall only be amended or rescinded in the same manner and procedure as the original designation was made. If the commission votes not to recommend a proposed designation to the city council, or if the city council has refused to designate a proposed "Chicago Landmark", then the commission may reconsider such proposed designation only if: the commission finds that a substantial change in circumstances has occurred or new information becomes available relative to the criteria set forth in Section 2-120-620; or (ii) the owner of the property consents to such reconsideration in writing. (Prior code 21-76; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 10-23-91, p. 6879; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) 2-120-740 Alteration, relocation or demolition of landmarks --Permit review requirements. No permit for alteration, construction, reconstruction, erection, demolition, relocation, or other work, shall be issued to any applicant by any department of the City of Chicago without the written approval of the commission for any area, place, building, structure, work of art or other object for which the commission has made a preliminary recommendation for landmark status or which has been designated as a "Chicago Landmark" in the following instances: (1) where such permit would allow the alteration or reconstruction of or addition to any improvement which constitutes all or a part of a landmark or proposed landmark; or (2) where such permit would allow the demolition of any improvement which constitutes all or a part of a landmark or proposed landmark; or (3) where a permit would allow the construction or erection of any addition to any improvement or the erection of any new structure or improvement on any land within a landmark district; or (4) where a permit would allow the construction or erection of any sign or billboard within the public view which may be placed on, in, or immediately adjacent to any improvement which constitutes all or part of any landmark or proposed landmark. Any city department which receives an application for a permit as defined in this section shall forward the application, including copies of all detailed plans, designs, elevations, specifications, and documents relating thereto, to the commission within seven days of receipt thereof. It shall be a violation of this ordinance for an owner to perform, authorize or allow work or other acts requiring review without a permit. (Prior code 21-77; Added Coun. J. 3-l1-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) -I2-120-750 Permit review-- Preexisting work. Erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, or demolition work begun pursuant to a properly issued permit prior to a preliminary recommendation for landmark status shall not be subject to review by the commission unless such permit has expired, been canceled or revoked, or the work is not diligently proceeding to completion in accordance with the Chicago Building Code. (Prior code 21-78; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) 4'2-120-760 Application for permit -- Preliminary decision by commission. Within 15 days of its receipt of an application for a permit, as defined in Section 2- 1 20-7-10, the commission shall issue in writing a preliminary decision approving or disapproving the application and shall notify the applicant and the appropriate city department of its preliminary decision. (Prior code 21-79; Added Coun. J. 3-1 1-87, p. 40272) 4'2-120-770 Application for permit -- Preliminary approval by commission. If the commission finds that the proposed work will not adversely affect any significant historical or architectural feature of the improvement or of the district, and is in accord with the Standards for Rehabilitation set forth by the United States Secretary of the Interiorat 36 C.F.R. 67, as amended from time to time, as well as the commission's 1 0/29f20 12 Page 8 of 12 published procedures, the commission shall issue a preliminary approval of the application. Upon receipt of the commission's preliminary approval, the appropriate city department shall proceed in its usual manner with its own review of the application. No substantial change shall be made to the work proposed in the application for the permit after approval by the commission without resubmittal to the commission and approval thereof in the same manner as for the original application. (Prior code 21-80; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272) .12-120-780 Application fo permit -- Preliminary disapproval by commission. If the commission finds that the proposed work will adversely affect or destroy any significant historical or architectural feature of the improvement or the district, or is inappropriate or inconsistent with the designation of the structure, area or district, or is not in accordance with the spirit and purposes of this ordinance, or does not comply with the Standards for Rehabilitation established by the Secretary of the Interior, the commission shall issue a preliminary decision disapproving the application for permit; provided, however, that if the construction, reconstruction, alteration repair or demolition of any improvement could remedy conditions imminently dangerous to life, health or property, as determined in writing by the department of buildings, or the board of health, or the fire department, the commission shall approve the work notwithstanding other considerations relating to its designation as a "Chicago Landmark" or to the fact that the commission has made a preliminary recommendation for landmark status. (Prior code 21-81; Added Coun. J. 3-11-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 9-13-89, p. 4604; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) 2-l20-790 Preliminary disapproval-- informal conference on alternative procedures. Within ten days after receiving the commission's notice of preliminary disapproval, the applicant for permit may request in writing an informal conference before the commission for the purpose of securing compromise regarding the proposed work so that the work will not, in the opinion of the commission, adversely affect any significant historical or architectural feature of the improvement or district and will be appropriate and consistent with the spirit and purposes of this ordinance. The commission shall hold such conference within l5 days after receipt of the request. The commission shall consider with the applicant every means for substantially preserving, protecting, enhancing and perpetuating the special historical or architectural feature of the improvement or district, including investigating the possibility of modifying the proposed work, the possibility of any alternative private use of the structure or structures that would substantially preserve its special features, and the possibility of public incentives for enhancing the use of the structure or structures or district involved. If the commission and the applicant for permit reach accord through the informal conference, the commission shall issue its approval of the application for permit as modified and so notify the applicant and the appropriate city departments in accordance with Section 2- 20-760 and 2- 20-770. (Prior code 21-82; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272) -1'2-120-800 Application for permit - Public hearing. If within 30 days after the conclusion of an informal conference under Section 2-I20-790 the commission and applicant for permit have failed to reach accord or if the applicant fails to request an informal conference within ten days of receiving notice as provided in Section the commission shall commence a public hearing on the permit application in accordance with Sections 2- 20-670 and 2-l20-680. The public hearing shall be concluded within 90 days after the commission has disapproved the permit unless the applicant requests or agrees in writing to an extension of time. The commission shall, within 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing, issue a written decision approving or disapproving the permit application. The decision shall contain the findings of fact that constitute the basis for the decision consistent with the criteria in Section 2-l20-740. The commission shall send written notice of its decision to the applicant by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the appropriate city departments, to all parties registered at the public hearing, and to the city council. 10/29/2012 Page 9 of 12 (Prior code 21-83; Added Coun. J. 3-l1-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) 2-120-810 Application for permit -- Final commission decision. Unless the decision is subject to city council review under Section 2- 211-825, the written decision of the commission approving or disapproving an application for a permit under Section 2- 20-800 shall be on the date it issues a final administrative decision appealable to the Circuit Court of Cook County under the provisions of the Illinois Administrative Review Law, as amended. (Prior code 2l-84; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 9-1-99, p. 10907, 1; Amend Coun. J. 3-31- 04, p. 20916, 4.8) 2-120-815 Permit fee waivers. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code to the contrary, the city council shall, by the passage of an appropriate order, waive any fees charged by the City of Chicago for the issuance of any permit for which approval of the commission is required pursuant to this chapter. (Added Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40048) I2-120-820 Expedited consideration ofdesignation and permit. Notwithstanding any other provision in this ordinance, if an owner of an area, parcel within as district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object for which the commission has made a preliminary recommendation pursuant to Section 2-120-630 applies for a permit, and if the commission issues a preliminary disapproval of the application, pursuant to Sections 2- I 20-760 and 2-120-780, the commission shall schedule and conduct a public hearing on both the proposed designation and the application for permit and shall notify the city council of its recommendations thereon within 90 days of the date the application for permit is received by the commission. If the commission fails to make its recommendation on designation to the city council within 90 days, then the application for the permit shall be deemed approved by the commission. If the commission submits its recommendation within 90 days and the city council does not pass an ordinance granting the proposed designation within 90 days after the recommendation of the commission, then the application for permit shall be deemed approved by the commission. (Prior code 2 l-85; Added Coun. J. 3-l l-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085) )2-120-825 Permits for demolition - City council approval required. Notwithstanding any other provision of this ordinance to the contrary, except as provided in subsection in the case of any permit application for the demolition of 40 percent or more of any building or other structure designated as a "Chicago Landmark" or located in any district designated as a "Chicago Landmark", the commission's decision approving an application issued under Section 2- 1 20-770, Section 2-120-790 or Section 2-I20-800 shall be subject to review by the city council. Upon issuing its decision approving an application, the commission shall forward a recommendation for the approval of the permit application, in writing, to the committee on historical landmark preservation of the city council. Within 75 days after the receipt of the commission's recommendation, the committee on historical landmark preservation shall consider the commission's recommendation and vote to recommend that the city council accept or reject the commission's recommendation. At the next regular meeting of the city council following the committee's vote, unless the matter is deferred and published in accordance with state law, the city council shall, by passage of an appropriate order, accept or reject the commission's recommendation. If the matter is deferred and published, the city council shall, by passage of an appropriate order, accept or reject the commission's recommendation at the next regular meeting of the city council following the meeting at which the matter was deferred and published. If the city council does not accept or reject the commission's recommendation within the time specified herein, the commission's recommendation shall be deemed to be accepted. The city council's decision shall be based on whether the proposed demolition will adversely affect any significant historical or architectural feature of the 10/29/20 I 2 Page 10 of 12 improvement or the district, and is in accord with the Standards for Rehabilitation set forth by the United States Secretary of the Interior at 36 C.F.R. 67, as amended from time to time, as well as the criteria to review demolitions as set forth in the Rules and Regulations of the commission. For purposes of this section, 40 percent or more of a building or structure shall mean 40 percent or more of the significant historical or architectural features identified in the ordinance designating the building or structure or the district in which the building or structure is located a "Chicago Landmark"; provided that, if no significant features were identified in the designation ordinance, the entire building or structure shall be deemed a significant feature for purposes of this section. This section shall not apply to permit applications for the demolition of: any building or structure that is necessary to remedy conditions imminently dangerous to life, health or property, as determined in writing by the department of buildings, the board of health or the fire department; or (ii) auxiliary buildings or structures such as garages. Within 30 days of the commission's decision approving a permit application for a building or structure pursuant to subsection of this section, the commission shall forward to the committee on historical landmark preservation of the city council a written report informing the committee of the commission's decision and stating the reasons for its decision. (Added Coun. J. 9-l-99, p. 10907, 1) J2-120-830 Economic hardship exception - Application. Upon final notification from the commission or the city council of a decision to deny an application for a permit to construct, reconstruct, alter, add to, demolish or relocate property given a preliminary recommendation for landmark status or designated as a "Chicago Landmark", the applicant may within 30 days apply to the commission for an economic hardship exception on the basis that denial of a permit will result in the loss of all reasonable and beneficial use or return from the property. The commission shall develop regulations that describe factors, evidence and testimony that will be considered by the commission in making its determination. (Prior code 21-86; Added Coun. J. 3-1 1-87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 2-26-97, p. 40085: Amend Coun. J. 9-l-99, p. l0907,? l) Ill-120-840 Economic hardship exception - Puhlic hearing. The commission shall schedule and hold a public hearing on the application for an economic hardship exception within 30 days from receipt of the application. Notice of the date, time, place and subject matter of the hearing shall be provided in accordance with Section 2-I20-670 and, in addition, shall be provided in writing to all persons who presented testimony at the public hearing on the permit application under Section 2-120-800. The hearing shall be concluded within 90 days after the application for exception has been received by the commission. All interested persons shall be allowed to participate in the hearing as provided in Section . The commission or the hearing officer may solicit expert testimony or relevant information from the applicant. A record of the proceedings shall be kept by the commission. (Prior code 21-87: Added Coun. J. 3-1 1-87, p. 40272) 2-120-850 Economic hardship exception - Commission determination. Within 60 days following conclusion of the hearing under Section 2-120-840, the commission shall determine whether denial of the permit denies the applicant all reasonable and beneficial use of or return fi'om the property. The determination shall be accompanied by a report stating the reasons for the decision. In the case of a finding of economic hardship, the decision shall also be accompanied by a recommended plan to relieve any economic hardship. This plan may include, but is not limited to, property tax relief, loans or grants from the City of Chicago or other public or private sources, acquisition by purchase or eminent domain, building code modifications, changes in applicable l0/29/2012 Page 11 of12 zoning regulations including a transfer of development rights, or relaxation of the provisions of this ordinance sufficient to allow reasonable beneficial use of or retum from the property. (Prior code 21--88; Added Coun. J. 3--11~87, p. 40272) J1-110-860 Economic hardship exception -- Appeal from commission decision. The determination by the commission pursuant to Section approving or disapproving an application for an economic hardship exception shall, on the date it issues, be a final administrative decision appealable to the Circuit Court of Cook County under the provisions of the Illinois Administrative Review Law, as amended. (Prior code 21--89; Added Coun. J. 3--11--87, p. 40272; Amend Coun. J. 3-31-04, p. 20916, 4.9) ll-120-870 Economic hardship exception -- Report to city council Upon a determination by the commission pursuant to Section 2-120-850 finding an economic hardship, the commission shall forward its decision, report and proposal to the finance committee of the city council. (Prior code 21-90; Added Coun. J. 3--l1--87, p. 40272) ll 2-110-880 Economic hardship exception -- Finance committee consideration. The finance committee of the city council shall give prompt consideration to the decision, report, and recommended plan to relieve economic hardship filed by the commission hereinabove provided, and shall recommend to the city council within 60 days after the receipt of said report whether or not said owner relief plan, as modified or not by the finance committee, shall be approved or disapproved. (Prior code 2l--91; Added Coun. J. 3--l 1--87, p. 40272) -1 2-120-890 Economic hardship exception -- City council decision. The city council, within 30 days following said finance committee recommendation, shall approve or disapprove by ordinance a plan to relieve economic hardship to the owner. If the city council does not approve a plan to relieve economic hardship within the time specified, the plan to relieve economic hardship shall be deemed to be denied and the permit shall issue. If the city council approves a plan to relieve economic hardship that requires that any action be taken by city departments or agencies, the action shall be initiated within 30 days following passage of the ordinance. (Prior code 21--92; Added Coun. J. 3--l1~87, p. 40272) J2-120-900 Hearings and hearing officers. In any hearing conducted by the commission pursuant to Sections 2--l 20~680, 2--l20--800 or 2--l20--840 hereof; the commission may designate any commission member or members or any other person as hearing officer to hold such hearing and take evidence. No member of the commission absent from the entire hearing shall be eligible to vote on any matter which is the subject of the hearing until such member is provided with transcripts or tapes of the testimony heard and evidence presented at such hearing. The commission, in making its determination, shall take into account any written opinion of the appointed hearing officer, if any, on the evidence presented. (Prior code Added Coun. J. 3--l I--87, p. 40272) 1 2420-910 Penalties and remedies for violations. The following penalties and remedies shall be applicable to violations of this ordinance: 10/29/2012 Page 12 of 12 1. Penalties. Failure to perform any act required by the ordinance codified in this Article XVII or performance of any action which is prohibited by said sections shall constitute a violation thereof. Every day on which a violation exists shall constitute a separate violation and a separate offense. Any person violating any of the provisions of this ordinance shall be subject to a fine of not less than $500.00 nor more than $1,000.00 for each offense. In addition, if the owner of property designated a "Chicago Landmark" wilfully or through gross negligence causes all or any part of the property to be demolished or substantially destroyed or altered without the approval of the city council or the commission, as the case may be, then no permit to construct a new structure or improve said structure shall be issued for said property or for the land upon which the landmark stood within five years of the date of the demolition or alteration. Thereafter for a period of 20 years, commencing at the end of the five-year period herein before stated, any application for a building permit on the subject premises shall follow the procedure heretofore set out in Section 2-129- ZLQ through 2-120-800. 2. Remedies. Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (1) hereof, in the event any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered, added to or demolished in violation of this ordinance, the City of Chicago may institute appropriate proceedings to prevent or remedy such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration, addition or demolition. (Prior code 21-94; Added Coun. J. 3-1 1-87, p. 40272) 2-120-920 Severn bility. If any provision of this ordinance or application thereof to any person or circumstance is invalid, such invalidation shall not affect' other provisions or applications of the Act which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this ordinance are declared to be severable. (Prior code 2 l-95; Added Coun. J. 3-1 1-87, p. 40272) This Code of Ordinances andtor any other documents that appeal on this site may not reflect the most currenr legislation adopted by the Municipality Ameucar Legal Publishing Corporation provides these documents for informational purposes only These documents should not be relied upon as the definitive authority for local legislation. Additionally. the formatting and pagination of the posted documents varies from the fonnatting and pagination of the official copy. The official printed copy of a Code of Ordinances should be consulted prior to any action being taken. For further information regarding the official version of any of this Code of Ordinances or other documents posted on this site. please contact the Municipality directly or Contact American Legal Publishing toll-free al 800-445-5588. (C) 2011 American Legal Publishing Corporation 1.800.445.5588. 10/29/2012 EXHIBIT 2 Landmarks Ordinance and the Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks CITY OF CHICAGO RAI-IM EMANUEL, MAYOR Commission on Chicago Landmarks Rafael M. Le on, Chairman Reprinted August 3, 201 1 . The Commission on Chicago Historical and Architectural Landmarks was created in 195 7 by the City Council. It served primarily as an advisory board, whose principal purpose was to compile a list of significant buildings. In 1968, the City Council adopted a landmarks ordinance that gave the Commission the responsibility of recommending to the Council which specific landmarks should be protected by law. The ordinance also gave the Commission the authority to review building permits for landmarks, to ensure that any proposed alterations would not negatively afiect the character of the landmark. In 1987, the ordinance was revised to more clearly articulate the processes for land mark designation and permit review and to add an economic hardship provision for owners. The Commission also was renamed the Commission on Chicago Landmarks at that time. In 1997 and 1999, other revisions were made to the ordinance, including regarding the status of "pending" landmarks, the waiving of permit fees for owners of landmark properties, and requiring review by the City Council of any demolitions approved by the Commission. In 2009, the Commission membership was expanded from 9 to 10 members (to add an additional ex--officio member as part of a city department reorganization). Efiective January 1, 2011, the ordinance was amended to return the membership of the Commission from ten to nine members (including one ex--ofi'icio member). As of February 3, 2011, when this document was printed, there were 349 designated landmarks: 296 individual landmarks and 53 landmark districts and 7 district extensions. COVER: The staircase of the Rookery Building at 209 S. LaSalle St., a structure designed by Bumham and Root in 1885. The Rookery' restored atrium is one of the city' most famous interior spaces. (Photograph by Richard Nickel, 1972) Contents I. Chicago Landmarks Ordinance 'I'itle 2, Chapter 120, Article XVII Purpose and Duties of Commission on Chicago Landmarks .. 1 Criteria for Landmark Designation .. 4 Landmark Designation Process .. 5 Permit Review Process .. 9 Economic Hardship .. 13 Penalties and Remedies .. 15 II. Excerpts from other sections of the Municipal Code of Chicago Pertaining to Landmarks: Chicago Streets, Public Ways, Parks, Airports and Harbors Code Public Way Use Permit Fees Pertaining to Landmarks .. 17 Chicago Building Code Building Permit Requirements Pertaining to Landmarks .. 18 Automatic Sprinkler System Installation Pertaining to Landmarks 19 Rehabilitation Code Provisions Pertaining to Landmarks .. 20 Chicago Building Infrastructure Code Energy Conservation Pertaining to Landmarks .. 21 Chicago Zoning Ordinance Adopt-a-Landmark Floor Area Bonus in Downtown Districts .. 22 Authorized Administrative Adjustments for Setbacks in Landmark Districts .. 22 Nonconforming Uses: Coach Houses in Landmark Districts .. 22 Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks Article I. General Provisions of the Commission .. 23 Article II. Public Hearings on Landmark Designations .. 27 Article Procedures and Standards for Review of Permit Applications .. 32 Article IV. Public Hearings on Permit Applications .. 40 Article V. Public Hearings for Expedited Consideration of Proposed Landmark Designations and Permit Applications .. 46 Article VI. Public Hearings on Economic Hardship Applications .. 48 Article VII. Public Hearings on Preservation Easements .. 51 IV. Overview of the Landmark Designation Process .. 52 [One of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks under Section 610 of the Chicago Landmarks Ordinance, Chapter 2-120 of the unicipal Code of Chicago, is to adopt rules of procedure and other regulations for the conduct of its meetings, hearings, and other business. The last major re Visions to the Commission's Rules and Regulations were adopted on December 7, 2006'. On February 3, 201 1, minor technical revisions Were adopted the Commission to reflect an amendment to the Ordinance reducing the membership of the Commission from ten to nine members] Rules and Regulations of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks Article I - The Commission A. Membership, Officers, and Committees 1. Membership a. Members. As set forth in section 2'120'590 of the Municipal Code of Chicago (the "Municipal Code"), the Commission on Chicago Landmarks (the "Commission") shall consist of nine members, eight of whom shall be appointed by the Mayor, by and with the consent of the Chicago City Council. The ninth member shall be the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development or his or her designee. [Amend. 2/3/11] b. Powers and Duties. Commission members' powers and duties are set forth in section 2'120'610 of the Municipal Code, these Rules and Regulations, and any future rules or policies adopted by the Commission consistent with law. c. Ethics. Members of the Commission are subject to the Governmental Ethics Ordinance, codified at Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code. If any party to a proceeding believes with good reason that a member of the Commission has a conflict of interest pursuant to Chapter 2-156 of the Municipal Code in the matter being considered, said party shall immediately bring this possible conflict of interest to the attention of the Commission or, at a public hearing, to the attention of the 23 hearing officer, who may request that the Commission member abstain from participation. 2. Oficers Pursuant to section 2-120-590 of the Municipal Code, the officers of the Commission, designated by the Mayor, shall be a Chair, a Vice-Chair, and a Secretary. a. Cliair. The Chair shall be the chief executive of the Commission, shall set meeting dates, preside at meetings, decide all points of order and procedure, and have such additional duties and powers as delegated in these Rules and Regulations. In the absence of or recusal by the Chair, the Vice-Chair shall serve as the Chair. In the absence of or recusal by both the Chair and the Vice-Chair, the Chair shall appoint another member of the Commission to serve as the Chair. All powers delegated to the Chair in these Rules and Regulations shall apply equally to the Vice-Chair or any other member of the Commission when acting as Chair. b. Vice-Cliair. The Vice-Chair shall serve as Chair in the absence of or recusal by the Chair. All powers delegated to the Chair in these Rules and Regulations shall apply equally to the Vice -Chair when acting in the absence of or recusal by the Chair. c. Secretazy. The Secretary shall keep and maintain the records of the Commission as set forth in Article I, Section C, of these Rules and Regulations. 3. Committees a. Standing Committees. There shall be the following standing committees of the Commission: 1. Permit Review Committee. The Permit Review Committee shall have the duties and responsibilities set forth in Article of these Rules and Regulations. 2. Program Committee. The Program Committee shall: (1) review and make recommendations to the Commission on nominations to the National Register of Historic Places; (ii) solicit suggestions from the public for possible Chicago Landmark designations; and perform other functions as delegated by the Chair. b. Ad lioc Committees. In his or her discretion, the Chair may create committees of the Commission to evaluate specific issues that arise in the conduct of the Commission's affairs. An ad hoc committee shall exist for the time specified by the Chair. c. Committee Membership. The Chair shall appoint members of the Commission to serve on committees and shall also name a chair for each committee. The Chair may also appoint members of the Commission to serve on committees on an interim basis, as required, to meet any quorum requirements as set forth in these Rules and Regulations. The Commissioner of the Department of Housing and 24 Economic Development shall not be a member of the Permit Review Committee. [Amend 2/3/11] d. Quorum. A quorum for a meeting of the Permit Review Committee shall consist of three members. A quorum for a meeting for all other committees shall consist of two members. e. Committee Chairs. The chair of any committee shall set meeting dates, preside at committee meetings, decide all points of order and procedure, report to the full Commission on all business of the committee, and have any such additional duties and powers as delegated in these Rules and Regulations. In the absence of or recusal by the chair of the committee, the committee chair shall appoint another member of the committee to serve as the chair of the committee. All powers delegated to the committee chair in these Rules and Regulations shall apply equally to any other member of the committee when acting as its chair B. Meetings, Public Notice of Meetings, and Agendas 1. Meetings All meetings of the Commission shall be open to the public, except where otherwise provided in the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. All meetings shall be held at times and places specified by the Chair in accordance with law and these Rules and Regulations. a. Quorum. A quorum for a meeting of the Commission shall consist of five members. b. Voting. All motions of the Commission may be approved, adopted, or passed by a favorable vote of a simple majority of the members present at a meeting. However, when considering a recommendation of landmark designation for a proposed district, an affirmative vote by six Commission members shall be required if 51% or more of the owners of property in said district responding to the request for consent file written objections to the designation. 2. Public Notice of0omm1Issian Meetings a. Regular Meetings. The Commission shall provide public notice of its meetings at the beginning of each calendar year and shall state the dates, times, and places of such meetings. If the annual meeting schedule is changed, at least 10 days notice of such change shall be given by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in Chicago. If the location of a scheduled meeting changes from that stated on the public notice issued at the beginning of the calendar year, the Commission shall post a notice at the originally scheduled location and at the Commission's office stating the new location of the meeting. b. Special Rescheduled, or Recon vened Meetings. The Commission shall provide public notice of any special, rescheduled, or reconvened meeting at least 24 hours before such meeting. However, no additional public notice of a reconvened meeting need be given: when 25 announcement of the time and place of the reconvened meeting is made at the original meeting and there is no change in the agenda, or (ii) if the meeting is convened within 24 hours. c. Form ofNot1'ce. Public notice requirements of the Commission are met by: (1) posting a copy of the notice of the annual schedule and of all regular, special, rescheduled, or reconvened meetings at the office of the Commission; and (ii) supplying a copy of the notice to any news medium which has filed with the Commission a request to receive such notices. 3. Agendas The Commission shall post the agenda for each regular meeting at its office and the location where the regular meeting shall be held at least 48 hours in advance of holding the meeting. C. Records 1. Public Records The Secretary shall keep all records of the Commission at the office of the Commission. Public records shall be made available for inspection during the hours determined by the Commission. In no instance shall a member of the public remove any record from the office unless such removal is approved in writing by the Secretary or directed by court order. Access to such records may be obtained upon written request to the Commission to the extent required by the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, 5 ILCS 140/1 et seq. The cost for copies of Commission records shall be paid by the person requesting same, and no such copies shall be released until payment is received. 2. The Commission shall keep minutes of all Commission meetings, indicating those members in attendance and showing the vote of each member present upon each question, or if declining to vote, indicating such fact. The Secretary shall sign all minutes adopted by the Commission and maintain them as public records. D. Definition of Owner For the purposes of notifying or otherwise contacting an owner as specified in Chapter 2120 of the Municipal Code, an owner, to the extent known, shall be as defined in Article II, Section D.1.a through e, of these Rules and Regulations. E. Website Information, Commission meeting agendas and minutes, and other educational materials on the Commission and Chicago's landmarks, landmark districts, and other historical and architectural resources can be found on the City of Chicago's Chicago Landmarks website. 26 Article II - Hearings on Landmark Designations A. Purpose Public hearings on proposed landmark designations are held to gather relevant facts and information to assist the Commission in deciding whether the subject property or properties meet the criteria for landmark designation set forth in section 2-120-620 of the Municipal Code. B. Necessity of a Public Hearing The Commission shall schedule a public hearing on a proposed landmark designation when the owner of the subject property declines or fails to give written consent to the proposed designation within the time specified in section 2120-6350 of the Municipal Code. In the case of a proposed landmark district, a public hearing shall be held by the Commission unless all known owners of property located within the proposed district consent to landmark designation within the time specified in section 2120-6550 of the Municipal Code. C. Hearing Oflicer A Hearing Officer shall preside over any public hearing held by the Commission on a proposed landmark designation. 1. Appointment The Chair shall appoint a Hearing Officer to preside over a public hearing on a proposed landmark designation. The Chair shall appoint either: a member of the Commission to serve as Hearing Officer; or an uninterested person found by the Chair, in his or her sole discretion, to have the education, experience, and skill necessary to serve as a Hearing Officer. The Chair shall exercise the powers and duties of the Hearing Officer until a Hearing Officer is appointed. 2. Powers and Duties oftcbe Heanizg Oficer The Hearing Officer shall have the duty to conduct the hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. The Hearing Officer shall have all powers necessary to those ends, including, but not limited to, the power to1 a. Arrange and change the date, time, and place of hearings in accordance with law; b. Extend any deadlines contained in sections 2-120-630 through 730 of the Municipal Code or these Rules and Regulations by agreement of all parties; c. Rule on all requests to become a party; d. Receive, exclude, or limit statements, testimony, or evidence; e. Question participants and Witnesses; f. Resolve any procedural questions; 27 g. Recognize any member of the Commission present at the hearing and permit such member to question parties and witnesses; and h. Take any other necessary or appropriate actions not prohibited by law. D. Notice of Public Hearing on Designation Pursuant to section 2-l20'670 of the Municipal Code, the Commission shall provide notice prior to conducting a public hearing on a landmark designation as set forth below. 1. Notice to Owner The Commission shall give written notice by United States regular mail, postage prepaid, of the date, time, and place of the public hearing to any known owner of the property being considered for landmark designation. In the case of a landmark district, the Commission shall provide such notice to all known owners of property in the proposed landmark district. a. Definifion of Owner. For purposes of supplying notice of a landmark designation hearing, an owner is any person, organization, corporation, condominium unit title holder, or other legal entity having a recorded fee simple interest in a building and/or its underlying land. When an owner has entered into a recorded land lease extending for a term in excess of 75 years which lease entitles the lessee to construct, demolish, or alter buildings on the land, the lessee shall also be considered an owner. b. Joint Ownership. When one or more persons, organizations, corporations, or other legal entities are joint owners of a building and/or its underlying land, the rights afforded to owners herein shall be exercised as if there were only one owner. In such circumstances, the Commission shall have no obligation to investigate or determine the legal relationship among the joint owners governing the exercise of such rights. Absent any timely protest by an owner, the Commission may rely on representations made by a joint owner as to the manner in which such rights will be exercised. c. C'ooperat1'Ve. When a building is owned by a cooperative corporation, the corporation will be considered the owner. d. Condominium. When the ownership of a building has been divided into condominiums, the condominium association will be considered the owner. If the proposed designation includes the interior or other portions of the building not held in common ownership by the association, then the individual condominium unit owners of such portions will also be considered owners. e. Land Trust. A land trustee shall be considered the owner unless the land trustee notifies the Commission in writing of the identity of the beneficial owner or owners and certifies that the beneficial owner or owners will act on behalf of the land trustee in proceedings before the Commission. 28 2. 011 'S1'te Notice The Commission shall cause to be posted, for a period not less than 15 days immediately preceding the hearing, a notice stating the time, date, place, and matter to be considered at the hearing. The notice shall be prominently displayed on the place, building, object, or structure under consideration for landmark status or on the public ways abutting it. In the case of designation of an area or district, the notice shall be placed on the principal boundaries thereof. 3. Publication Notice Not less than 15 days immediately preceding the hearing, the Commission shall cause to be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Chicago a legal notice of the hearing setting forth the nature of hearing, the property, area, or district under consideration for landmark status, and the date, time, and place of the hearing. E. Parties to Designation Hearing 1. Party Statue a. Owners. Owners of property being considered for landmark designation have the right to be a party to the designation proceeding. Any owner wishing to exercise that right shall submit an appearance form to the Hearing Officer at the public hearing. Any owner wishing only to make a statement at the public hearing or ask questions as part of the presentation by Commission staff need not declare party status. b. Other Parties. Pursuant to section 2-120-680 of the Municipal Code, the following persons may become parties to a landmark designation hearingi any person, organization, or other legal entity whose use or whose members' use or enjoyment of the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object proposed for designation may be injured by the designation or the failure of the Commission to recommend designation; and (ii) any person, organization, or legal entity residing in, leasing, or having an ownership interest in real property located within 500 feet of the property line of the proposed landmark or landmark district. A request to become a party shall be made by submitting an appearance form at the public hearing to the Hearing Officer along with information demonstrating satisfaction of either subsections or (ii) above. 2. ofPa.rt1'ee a. Part1'c:1pat1'0n. A party to a designation proceeding shall be permitted to make a presentation for or against the proposed landmark designation. Such presentation may include an oral or written statement, documents, photographs, and/or testimony from witnesses. Such presentation shall be limited to whether the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object proposed for designation meets the criteria set forth in section of the Municipal Code. 29 b. Prolzjbited Subjects. Under no circumstances shall a party be permitted to present any information not related to Whether the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object proposed for designation meets the criteria set forth in section 2'l20'620 of the Municipal Code, including but not limited to, information related to any economic hardship that may result from the proposed landmark designation, an application for a permit, or zoning concerns. F. Participation of Non-Parties 1. Part1'cg'pat;z'on Any person, organization, or other legal entity not eligible to participate as a party or whose request to be a party is denied by the Hearing Officer may participate in a public hearing for a proposed landmark designation as a non'party. Such participation shall be limited to making a brief statement for or against the proposed landmark designation. 2. Procedure To participate in a public hearing, a non-party shall complete an appearance form available at the Commission office or at the public hearing. The appearance form shall be submitted to the Hearing Officer prior to the commencement of the public hearing. The Hearing Officer may, at his or her sole discretion, allow the submission of an appearance form after the commencement of the public hearing, provided the submission will not result in prejudice to any party or cause an unreasonable delay in the hearing. G. Conduct of Hearing Hearings shall be conducted in an informal but orderly manner in accordance with these Rules and Regulations and the directions of the Hearing Officer. Participants in any hearing shall conduct themselves in a courteous manner and shall address themselves solely to the Hearing Officer. Refusal to comply with this section shall constitute grounds for immediate exclusion from any hearing. The following shall be the order of procedure for public hearings on landmark designations. The Hearing Officer may alter the order of procedure as circumstances require. 1. Opening of the hearing by the Hearing Officer, the Commission's counsel, or other designated representative. 2. Incorporation into the record of various documents of the Commission, if any. Such documents may include, but are not limited to: notification to the owner or owners; (ii) certificate(s) of publication of a legal notice; letter(s) attesting to the posting of notices; (iv) the preliminary landmark recommendation and summary of information adopted by the Commission; report(s) from the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and 30 H. Economic Development; and (iv) consent/non-consent form(s). Documents may be examined at the hearing and are available for inspection at the Commission office. [Amend. 2/3/11] 3. Hearing and ruling by the Hearing Officer on all requests for party status. 4. Presentation by the Commission staff summarizing the preliminary landmark recommendation. At the conclusion of the Commission staffs presentation, any owner, whether or not a party to the hearing, and any other party may ask questions of the Commission staff provided such questions relate to whether the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object proposed for designation meets the criteria set forth in section 2- 120-620 of the Municipal Code. To the extent the presentation by the Commission staff includes any testimony from witnesses, any owner, whether or not a party to the hearing, and any other party may question the witnesses. 5. Presentation(s) in support of the designation by owners who have become parties and any other parties to the hearing, if any. To the extent any presentations include testimony from witnesses, any other parties to the hearing, the Commission staff, and the hearing officer may question the witnesses. 6. Presentation(s) in opposition to the designation by owners who have become parties and any other parties to the hearing, if any. To the extent any presentations include testimony from witnesses, any other parties to the hearing, the Commission staff, and the hearing officer may question the witnesses. 7. Statements of interested persons in favor of the proposed landmark designation who have submitted an appearance form. In lieu of an oral statement, written statements may be submitted at the time of the hearing. 8. Statements of interested persons in opposition to the proposed landmark designation who have submitted an appearance form. In lieu of an oral statement, written statements may be submitted at the time of the hearing. 9. Adjournment by the Hearing Officer. Recommendation to the City Council The Commission shall make its recommendation regarding the proposed landmark or landmark district to the City Council as set forth in section 2120-690 of the Municipal Code. As part of its recommendation, the Commission shall specifically identify the significant historical or architectural features of the proposed landmark or landmark district. A significant historical or architectural feature shall be any part, portion, or whole of an area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other 31 object that makes an essential contribution to those qualities or characteristics by which the criteria for designation are met. The Commission shall make the entire record of a hearing available to the public pursuant to Article I, Section C, of these Rules and Regula tjons. Article - Procedure and Standards for Review of Permit Applications A. Purpose The Commission reviews all permit applications to ensure that proposed work will not adversely affect any significant historical or architectural feature of any area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object that has been designated a Chicago landmark or for which the Commission has made a preliminary determination of landmark status. B. Overview of the Process The permit review process is set forth in sections 2-120-740 through 2?120'815 of the Municipal Code. An overview of the permit review process is set forth below. The Commission offers this overview to provide context for its regulations only and does not intend for it to supplant the requirements of the Municipal Code. Applicants and other interested persons therefore are urged to consult the Municipal Code. "Commission" as used only in this Article means the Commission itself, or the Commission staff or the Permit Review Committee acting on behalf of the Commission pursuant to these Rules and Regulations. 1. Prelz)a21'naryDec1L91'0n. Following receipt of a properly completed permit application for work to a landmark or proposed landmark, the Commission shall issue in writing a preliminary decision approving or disapproving the application within 15 days of its receipt. 2. Informal Conference. If the Commission preliminarily disapproves the permit application, the applicant may request an informal conference with the Commission to discuss possible compromises. If the applicant wishes to have an informal conference, the applicant must submit its request in writing to the Commission within 10 days of receipt of the preliminary denial. The informal conference shall be held within 15 days of receipt of the applicant's request by the Commission. 3. C'omm1'ss1'on Hearing. If the Commission and applicant are unable to reach a compromise within 30 days of the conclusion of the informal conference, or if the applicant does not request an informal conference, the Commission shall commence a public hearing on the 32 permit application. The public hearing shall be completed within 90 days after the Commission initially disapproved the permit application. 4. Final Decision. Within 30 days of the conclusion of the public hearing, the Commission shall issue a written decision approving or disapproving the permit application. C. Review of Projects Before Applicant Files Permit Application The Commission encourages, but does not require, applicants to seek its advice and guidance before filing a permit application for work that would affect any area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object that has been designated a Chicago landmark or for which the Commission has made a preliminary determination of landmark status. 1. Requirem en ts The staff to the Commission may provide advice and guidance to a permit applicant before a permit application is filed. In certain instances, however, the staff may refer the request for pre-permit advice and guidance to either the Permit Review Committee or the Commission. The Commission shall establish in writing: the types of proposed work that shall be referred by the staff to the Permit Review Committee or the Commission; and (ii) the information which must be submitted by the permit applicant to qualify for a pre-permit review under this section. The Commission shall make the aforementioned writing available at its offices and on the City of Chicago's Chicago Landmarks website. 2. Pre-Pennit Approvals a. The Permit Review Committee or the Commission may issue a conditional approval of the project based on the pre-permit submission by the applicant or engage in negotiations with the applicant to bring the project into compliance. If the Permit Review Committee or the Commission conditionally approves, with or without conditions, the pre-permit submission, the applicant, if it elects to file a permit application, shall complete the permit application consistent with the conditional approval and these Rules and Regulations. b. Upon receipt of a permit application pursuant to Article Section E, of these Rules and Regulations for which the Permit Review Committee or the Commission has issued a conditional approval, the staff to the Commission shall compare the permit application to the conditional approval. If the scope of the proposed work has not changed, and the permit application conforms with the conditional approval, the staff shall approve the permit application, subject to any conditions, and report its approval to the Commission. If the scope of the work has not changed but the permit application does not conform to the conditional approval, the staff shall deem the application incomplete and notify the applicant of its decision. 33 c. If the applicant has altered the scope of the proposed work of a project for which the Permit Review Committee or the Commission issued a conditional approval, the staff to the Commission may approve the application, subject to any conditions, if the staff deems the changes to be immaterial to the conditional approval. If the staff determines that the changes made by the applicant are material, the conditional approval shall be deemed withdrawn and the permit application shall be reviewed pursuant to Article Section E, of these Rules and Regulations. 3. Criteria The criteria, standards, and guidelines for review of pre' permit submissions shall be the same as those for the review of permit applications under these Rules and Regulations. 4. Expiration ofH'e -Permit Approval A conditional approval issued by the Permit Review Committee or the Commission pursuant to this section is valid for two years from the date of the conditional approval. The staff to the Commission may extend the approval for an additional year provided that the staff finds that the circumstances of the original approval, including the project and the applicable criteria, standards, and guidelines of the Commission, are substantially the same. D. Content of Permit Applications The Commission shall establish in writing what information must be submitted by the applicant for the permit application to be considered complete. The Commission shall make its requirements available both at its offices and on the City of Chicago's Chicago Landmarks website. E. Preliminary Review of Permit Applications 1. Time for Preliminary Review As set forth in section 2'120'760 of the Code, the Commission shall issue in writing a preliminary decision approving or disapproving a permit application within 15 days of its receipt by the Commission. The applicant may waive in writing the 15'day period required for a preliminary decision by the Commission. 2. Review by Commission Staff for Completeness The staff to the Commission shall review a permit application to determine whether it is complete. If the staff determines that the application is not complete, the staff shall notify the applicant. The 15'day period for the Commission to preliminarily approve or disapprove such application shall not commence until the Commission receives an application that is complete. If the staff to the Commission determines that the permit application is complete, it shall next determine if the proposed work will 34 affect any significant historical or architectural features. If the significant historical or architectural features have not been defined by the designation ordinance, the staff to the Commission shall preliminarily identify the significant historical and architectural features pursuant to Article Section G. 1 of these Rules andflegulatjons. 3. De termina tjon o1"Efi'ect a. No efiect. If the staff to the Commission determines that the proposed work will not affect a significant historical or architectural feature, the staff shall approve the permit application, subject to any conditions required by the staff to the Commission, and report the approval to the Commission. b. Effect present. If the staff to the Commission determines that the proposed work will affect a significant historical or architectural feature, the staff shall determine whether the proposed work will have an adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features. 1. No adverse efl'ect. If the staff to the Commission determines that the proposed work will not have an adverse effect on any significant historical or architectural feature, the staff shall approve the permit application, subject to any conditions required by the staff to the Commission, and report the approval to the Commission. 2. Adverse efiiect. If the staff to the Commission determines that the proposed work will have an adverse effect on any significant historical or architectural feature, the staff may take any of the following actions, except with respect to applications for demolition, in which case the staff to the Commission shall refer the application to either the Permit Review Committee or the Commission for review. a. Contact the applicant and discuss alternative solutions which may eliminate the adverse effect. If the staff elects to contact the applicant and an agreement is reached between the staff and applicant that will eliminate the adverse effect, the staff shall approve the permit application subject to the agreement between the staff and the applicant and report the approval to the Commission. If no agreement is reached between the staff and applicant, the staff shall refer the permit application to the Permit Review Committee or Commission. b. Refer the application to the Permit Review Committee or the Commission for preliminary approval or disapproval. c. Preliminarily deny the permit application and report the preliminary denial to the Commission. The staff to the Commission may only issue a 35 preliminary denial of a permit application when the staff has communicated with the applicant in an effort to eliminate the adverse effect and an agreement has not been reached one business day before the expiration of the 15-day deadline set by section 2-120-760 of the Code. 3. Permit Committee Re Vie W. If the staff to the Commission refers a permit application to the Permit Review Committee, the Committee may take any of the following actions. a. Direct the staff to the Commission to approve the application, subject to any conditions, if the Committee finds that proposed work will not have an adverse effect on any significant historical or architectural feature and report the approval to the Commission. b. Discuss potential compromises with the applicant that would eliminate any adverse effect. If the Permit Review Committee reaches an agreement with the applicant, it shall direct the staff to the Commission to approve the application subject to the agreement between the Committee and the applicant and report the approval to the Commission. If the Permit Review Committee does not reach an agreement with the applicant, the Committee shall refer the permit application to the full Commission for preliminary approval or disapproval. c. Forward the permit application to the full Commission for preliminary approval or disapproval. d. Preliminarily disapprove the permit application. 4. C'0mm1'ss1'0n Re Vie of Perm it Applica tions. Upon receipt of a permit application from either the staff to the Commission or the Permit Review Committee, the Commission shall preliminarily approve or disapprove the permit application consistent with sections 2120-770 and 2-120-780 of the Municipal Code. F. Review Following Preliminary Disapproval of Permit by Commission 1. Informal Conference Within 10 days of receipt of the Commission's written decision disapproving the permit application, the applicant may request in writing an informal conference with the Commission to review its decision. The Commission will conduct the informal conference within 15 days of receiving the written request unless the applicant and Commission agree in writing to an extension of the time limit. The purpose of this informal conference is to review the Commission's decision and attempt to resolve the issues identified in the disapproval of the permit application. The Chair shall appoint a member of the Commission, other than the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic 36 Development, to attend the informal conference on behalf of the Commission. [Amend 2/3/11] 2. Public Hearing If the informal conference does not resolve the issues identified in the preliminary disapproval of the permit application, or should the applicant waive the informal conference and choose to pursue the permit application without modification, the Commission will hold a public hearing in accordance with section 2-120-800 of the Municipal Code and Article VI of these Rules and Regulations, to determine whether the proposed work will have an adverse effect on any significant historic or architectural feature of a landmark or proposed landmark. G. Standards and Criteria for Review of Permit Applications 1 . De termina tion o1"Si'g111'1'icaut His tonfcal and Arclijtec tural Fea tures a. The significant historical or architectural features shall be those identified in the ordinance designating the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object as a landmark. b. To the extent the designation ordinance for a landmark district does not identify the significant historical or architectural features, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the significant historical or architectural features are all exterior elevations and rooflines, unless otherwise determined by the Permit Review Committee or the Commission. c. In all other instances, the significant historical or architectural features shall be any part, portion, or whole of an area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object that makes an essential contribution to those qualities or characteristics by which the criteria for designation set forth in section 2-120-620 of the Municipal Code of Chicago are met. 2. Standards The U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, as well as other criteria, standards, and guidelines that may be adopted and published by the Commission, including but not limited to these Rules and Regulations, govern the Commission in evaluating the effect of work proposed in a permit application. 3? 3. C'1'1'ter1'a for Determining Adverse a. Work proposed as part of a permit application that is co :trary to any of the following criteria will be deemed to have an adverse eflect. 1. The work will maintain the significant historical or architectural feature with no material change to that feature. 2. The work will repair the significant historical or architectural feature with no material change to that feature. 3. The work will replace the significant historical or architectural feature where the original feature is deteriorated beyond reasonable methods of repair, and the replacement feature is in kind--that is, similar in design, construction, function, appearance, material, and other characteristics. 4. The work will restore the significant historical or architectural feature to its original character where the feature has been removed or altered and the alteration is not in itself significant in terms of its design, character, or material, and where the restoration is based upon documented evidence, such as photographs or drawings, of the original feature. 5. The work will restore the significant historical or architectural feature to its original character where the feature has been removed or altered and the alteration is not in itself significant in terms of its design, character, or material, and where the restoration, lacking documentary evidence, is intended to restore the general historic character of the feature as evidenced by similar building features and types. 6. The work constitutes an addition of a feature where the new feature will not adversely alter, change, obscure, damage, or destroy any significant historical or architectural feature. 7. The work constitutes new construction or an addition to a building or structure that meets the established criteria, standards, and guidelines of the Commission. 8. The work will alter a non'contributing building in a landmark district, meets the established criteria, standards, and guidelines of the Commission, and will not otherwise have an adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features of the landmark district. 9. The work otherwise meets the Commission's criteria, standards, and guidelines and will not have an adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features. 38 b. Demolition of either a building or structure designated as a landmark or (ii) a contributing building or structure within a landmark district, shall be deemed a per se adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features. 4. Criteria for De tern:u'n1'ng 3 Con trjbuting Building W1t}u'n at Landmark D1'str1'ct a. Cr1ter1'a. The following criteria shall be considered in determining whether a property contributes to the character of a landmark district? 1. The subject property exhibits the significant historical or architectural features described in the designation ordinance. If the significant historical or architectural features are not defined in the designation ordinance, they shall be determined pursuant to Article Section G.1 of these Rules and Regulations. 2. The subject property exhibits the general historic and architectural characteristics associated with the district. 3. The subject property respects the general site characteristics associated with the district. 4. The subject property exhibits the general size, shape, and scale associated with the district. 5. The materials of the subject property are compatible with the district in general character, color, and texture. 6. If the subject property has been altered in a manner which is contrary to these criteria, such changes could be easily reversed or removed. siding, dormers, and porch enclosures shall be deemed easily reversed or removed. b. Prerequisites for Demolition. Demolition of non- contributing buildings, structures, or improvements within a landmark district may be allowed if the building, structure, or improvement proposed for demolition is non-contributing to the character of the district and its removal will not have an adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features of the district. 5. Criteria for New Construction, Additions, and Ajtera tions to Non - Con trib uting Buildings Permit applications for new construction, additions, and alterations to non-contributing buildings are reviewed to ensure that they are compatible with and complement existing significant historical or architectural features and qualities. The intent is to encourage excellence in contemporary design that does not imitate, but rather complements, existing architectural and environmental characteristics of the subject property or district. 39 The following criteria shall be considered in evaluating permit applications for new construction, additions, and alterations to non'contributing buildings3 a. The new structure exhibits the general size, shape, and scale of the features associated with the property or district. b. The site plan exhibits the general site characteristics associated with the property or district. c. The design respects the general historic and architectural characteristics associated with the property or district in general character, color, and texture. d. The materials are compatible with the existing structures in the district in general character, color, and texture. e. In the case of additions, the addition is so connected to the property that it does not adversely alter, change, obscure, damage, or destroy any significant critical features. f. In the case of minor alterations to non-contributing buildings, minor alterations compatible with the architectural character of the existing building shall be deemed to not have an adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features of the landmark. Article IV - Hearings on Permit Applications A. Purpose A public hearing shall be held by the Commission on a permit application to determine whether proposed work will adversely affect any significant historical or architectural feature of a landmark or a proposed landmark. B. Necessity of a Public Hearing A public hearing shall be held by the Commission on a permit application when required and within the time period specified by section 2-120-800 of the Municipal Code. C. Hearing Officer A Hearing Officer shall preside over any public hearing held by the Commission on a permit application. 1. Appointment The Chair shall select a hearing officer in accordance with Article II, Section C.1, of these Rules and Regulations, except that the Chair shall not select the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development to serve as a Hearing Officer. The Chair shall 40 exercise the powers and duties of the Hearing Officer until a Hearing Officer is appointed. [Amend 2/3/11] 2. Powers and Duties oftbe Hearing Oficer The Hearing Officer shall have the duty to conduct the hearing, to take all necessary action to avoid delay, and to maintain order. The Hearing Officer shall have all powers necessary to those ends, including, but not limited to, the power toi a. Arrange and change the date, time, and place of hearings in accordance with law; b. Extend any deadlines contained in sections 2120-670 through 680 and sections 2120-7410 through 800 of the Municipal Code or these Rules and Regulations by agreement of all parties; c. Rule on all requests to become a party and set deadlines for any submissions of information contained in these Rules and Regula tions; d. Receive, exclude, or limit evidence; e. Question witnesses; f. Resolve any procedural questions; g. Recognize any member of the Commission present at the hearing and permit such member to question witnesses; h. Report in writing his or her findings and/or conclusions to the Commission; and i. Take any other necessary or appropriate actions not prohibited by law. D. Notice of Public Hearing on Permit Application Pursuant to section 2-120-670 of the Municipal Code, the Commission shall provide notice prior to conducting a public hearing on a permit application as set forth below3 1. Notice toA,pp1z'cant and Ovmer, ifD1'fl'?'9rent Notice of the date, time, and place of the public hearing shall be given to the applicant of the permit application and any known owner(s) of the property at issue, if different from the applicant. For the purpose of supplying notice of a public hearing on a permit application, an owner shall be as defined in Article II, Section D.1, of these Rules and Regulations. 2. On -Site Notice and Publica tion Notice Notice shall be given as stated in Article II, Sections D.2 and D3, of these Rules and Regulations. 41 E. Parties to Permit Application Hearing 1. Procedure a. Parties as a Matter 02"R1jg}1t. In any public hearing held by the Commission on a permit application, the applicant of the permit application, (ii) the owner of the property at issue, if different from the applicant, and the Gii) Historic Preservation Division of the Department of Housing and Economic Development shall be deemed parties to the hearing. All parties as a matter of right shall complete an appearance form available from the Commission and file it with the Commission by the date set by the Hearing Officer, but no later than 10 days prior to the hearing. [Amend. 2/3/11] b. Parties by Request. Pursuant to section 2-120-680 of the Municipal Code, the following persons may become parties to a permit review hearing: any person, organization, or other legal entity whose use or enjoyment of the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object designated as a landmark may be injured by the approval or disapproval of a proposed alteration, construction, reconstruction, erection, demolition, or relocation of a designated landmark; and (ii) any person, organization, or legal entity residing in, leasing, or having an ownership interest in real property located within 500 feet of the property line of the designated landmark or landmark district. Such person, organization, or legal entity must request to become a party by completing an appearance form available from the Commission and filing it with the Commission by the date set by the Hearing Officer, but no later than 5 business days prior to the public hearing. The Hearing Officer may rule on a request for party status prior to the public hearing, but if the Hearing Officer does not, he or she shall rule at the commencement of the public hearing. c. At his or her discretion, the Hearing Officer may accept appearance forms after the set deadlines for such filings provided it will not result in prejudice to a party or an unreasonable delay in the hearing. 2. Rights ofPart1'es a. Evidence and Testirnony. A party to a public hearing on a permit application shall be permitted to present evidence and testimony either in support of or in opposition to the permit application. A party's evidence and testimony may consist of both documents, including but not limited to reports, records, and photographs, and testimony from fact and/or expert witnesses. Under no circumstances shall a party be permitted to present any evidence related to economic hardship which may result from the denial of the permit application. b. Cross-Exanzination. A party shall be entitled to cross'examine witnesses of an adverse party. Re'direct and re'cross shall also be permitted. c. Rebuttal Evidence and Testimony. The applicant for a permit or the owner, if different from the applicant, shall be permitted 42 to present rebuttal evidence and testimony. The right to cross' examination, re-direct, and re-cross, as set forth above in subsection shall apply to the witnesses called during rebuttal. d. P0st'Hear1'ng Subn21'ss1'on. Following a public hearing, a party may submit draft findings or conclusions for the Hearing Officer's consideration. 3. Disalosuz-e of Testimony andE'v1'dence a. D1sc1osLu'es byPa1't1'es. All parties to a public hearing on a permit application shall disclose the following information to all other parties: 1. Position Statement. A written statement setting forth whether the party supports or disapproves of the permit application and all bases for its position. 2. Fact Witnesses. The name and address of every witness the party will call to testify at the public hearing, together with a summary of the facts to which each witness is expected to testify. 3. Expert Witnesses. The name and address of every expert witness the party will call to testify at the public hearing. The party shall also disclose the qualifications of the expert witness, the expert's conclusions and opinions, any report or summary prepared by the expert of his or her opinions and conclusions, and any documents relied upon or examined by the expert witness in the formulation of his opinions or conclusions. 4. Documents. A copy of each document or other tangible item that the party will introduce as evidence at the hearing. b. T1'n:u'ng ofD1'sc1osures. Parties as a Matter of Right, as defined in Article IV, Section E.1.a of these Rules and Reguiatjons, shall make their disclosures by such date set by the Hearing Officer, but no later than 10 days prior to the commencement of the public hearing. Parties by request, as defined in Article IV, Section E.1.b of these Rules and Reguiatjons, shall make their disclosures by such date set by the Hearing Officer, but no later than 5 business days prior to the commencement of the public hearing. At his or her discretion, the Hearing Officer may accept disclosures after the deadline provided it will not result in prejudice to a party or an unreasonable delay in the hearing. F. Participation of Non-Parties 1. Pa1't1'c1'pat:z'on Any person, organization, or other legal entity not eligible or desiring to participate as a party or whose request to become a party is denied by the Hearing Officer may participate in a public hearing on a 43 permit application as a non-party. Such participation shall be limited to making a brief statement for or against the proposed permit application. 2. Procedure To participate in a public hearing, a non-party shall complete an appearance form available at the Commission office or at the public hearing. The appearance form shall be submitted to the Hearing Officer prior to the commencement of the public hearing. The Hearing Officer may, at his or her sole discretion, allow the submission of an appearance after the commencement of the public hearing, provided the submission will not result in prejudice to any party or cause an unreasonable delay in the hearing. G. Burden of Proof The permit applicant bears the burden of proving that the proposed work will not have an adverse effect on the significant historical or architectural features of the landmark property or district. Whether the proposed work will have an adverse affect shall be governed by the standard set forth in Article Section of these Rules andRegu1at1'o11s. H. Conduct of Public Hearing Public hearings shall be conducted in a formal and orderly manner in accordance with these Rules andRegu1at1'ons and at the direction of the Hearing Officer. Participants in any hearing and their attorneys, if any, shall conduct themselves in a courteous manner and shall address themselves solely to the Hearing Officer. Refusal to comply with this section shall constitute grounds for immediate exclusion from any hearing. The following is the order of procedure for public hearings on permit applications. The Hearing Officer may alter the order of procedure as circumstances require. 1. Opening of the hearing by the Hearing Officer, the Commission's counsel, or other designated representative. 2. Hearing and ruling by the Hearing Officer on all requests for party status. 3. Taking of appearances of parties and their counsel, if any. 4. Incorporation into the record of various documents of the Commission, if any. Such documents may include, but are not limited to: notification of the hearing to the applicant and owner of the subject property, if different; (ii) certificate(s) of publication of a legal notice; and letter(s) attesting to the posting of notices. Documents may be examined at the hearing and are available for inspection at the Commission office. 5. Opening statements by the parties. 44 6. Presentation of cases-in-chief by parties in support of the application, with cross-examination of the their witnesses by parties adverse to the application, and re-direct and re-cross to the extent necessary. The Hearing Officer may also question witnesses. 7. Presentation of cases-in-chief by parties in opposition to the application, with cross-examination of their witnesses by parties in support of the application, and re-direct and re-cross to the extent necessary. The Hearing Officer may also question witnesses. 8. Presentation of rebuttal case, if any, by applicant or owner, if different, with cross-examination of the witnesses by parties adverse to the application, and re-direct and re-cross to the extent necessary. 9. Statements of interested persons in favor of the permit application who have submitted an appearance form. In lieu of an oral statement, written statements may be submitted at the time of the hearing. 10. Statements of interested persons in opposition the permit application who have submitted an appearance form. In lieu of an oral statement, written statements may be submitted at the time of the hearing. 11. Closing statements by the parties. 12. Adjournment by the Hearing Officer. Before adjournment, the Hearing Officer shall set a deadline for the optional submission of draft findings or conclusions by the parties for the Hearing Officer's consideration. I. Record of Hearing The record of the hearing shall consist of the transcript of the hearing, (ii) all documents admitted as evidence at the hearing, any written statements submitted at the hearing, (iv) any documents of the Commission incorporated into the record as described in Article IV, Section H.1, and any draft findings or conclusions submitted by the parties. J. Post-Hearing Submission to Commission 1. Submission afflrafl.' Findings and by Parties Any party may submit draft findings or conclusions for the Hearing Officer's consideration. The Hearing Officer shall set a deadline for submission of such draft findings or conclusions before concluding the public hearing. 45 2. Report by Heating Ofioer Following a public hearing on a permit application, the Hearing Officer shall report in Writing his or her findings and/or conclusions to the Commission and make the entire record of the hearing available to the full Commission for its review. K. Final Review by the Commission 1. Scope ofC'omm12srs1'on Review The public hearing is the forum for the presentation of all evidence and testimony by the parties regarding the permit application. The Commission shall only consider evidence or testimony included in the record of the hearing described in Article IV, Section I in determining whether to approve or disapprove the permit application. 2. FY1131 Decilsion Following receipt and consideration of the report of the Hearing Officer, the Commission shall issue a written administrative decision approving or disapproving the permit application within the time specified in section 2-120-800 of the Municipal Code. The decision shall contain the findings or conclusions that constitute the basis for the decision consistent with the criteria in sections 2-120-740 through 780 of the Municipal Code and these Rules andflegulatrons. Pursuant to section 2-120-810 of the Municipal Code, the written decision of the Commission constitutes a final administrative decision subject to judicial review, unless the decision involves approving a application for demolition subject to City Council review under section 2-120-825 of the Municipal Code. 3. Recusal by the C'omm1'ss1'oner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development The Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development shall recuse himself or herself from any vote by the Commission on any final decision on a permit application. [Amend. 2/3/11] Article - Hearings for Expedited Consideration of Proposed Landmark Designations and Permit Applications A. Purpose A public hearing on both a proposed landmark designation and a permit application involving the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object under consideration for landmark designation is held to gather relevant facts and information to assist the Commission in deciding whether the property under consideration for landmark designation meets the criteria set forth in section 2'120'620 of 46 the Municipal Code; and (ii) to determine whether the work set forth in the permit application will adversely affect any significant historical or architectural feature of the proposed landmark. B. Necessity of a Public Hearing A public hearing on both the proposed landmark designation and the permit application shall be held by the Commission within the time specified by section 2-120-820 of the Municipal Code when the Commission has issued a preliminary disapproval of a permit application for work involving the area, district, place, building, structure, work of art, or other object being considered for landmark designation, and (ii) the Commission has failed to resolve the permit application with the applicant. 0. Hearing Oficer A Hearing Officer shall preside over any public hearing held by the Commission on both a proposed landmark designation and a permit application. 1. Appointment The Chair shall select a Hearing Officer in accordance with Article II, Section C.1, of these Rules and Regulations, except that the Chair shall not select the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development to serve as a Hearing Officer. [Amend 213/1 ll 2. Powers and Duties oftbe Healing Oficer As related to the proposed landmark designation, the Hearing Officer shall have all powers and duties as described in Article II, Section C.2, of these Rules and Regulations. As related to the permit application, the Hearing Officer shall have all powers and duties as described in Article IV, Section C.2, of these Rules and Regulations. D. Notice of Public Hearing As related to the proposed landmark designation, the Commission shall provide notice as set forth in Article II, Section D, of these Rules and Regulations. As related to the permit application, the Commission shall provide notice as set forth in Article IV, Section D, of these Rules and Regulations. E. Parties to the Public Hearing Parties and non-parties to the landmark designation portion of the public hearing shall be governed by Article II, sections and F, of these Rules and Regulations. Parties and non-parties to the permit application portion of the public hearing shall be governed by Article IV, sections and F, of these Rules and Regulations. F. Burden of Proof As related to the permit application, the applicant bears the burden of proof as described in Article IV, Section G, of these Rules and Regulations. G. Conduct of Public Hearing 1. Order The permit application portion of the hearing shall precede the landmark designation portion of the hearing. The Hearing Officer may alter the order of procedure as circumstances require. 2. Pe1m1'tA,pp1icat1'on For the permit application portion of the hearing, the conduct of the hearing, the hearing record, the post-hearing submissions, and the final review by the Commission shall follow Article IV, Sections through K, of these Rules and Regulations. At the discretion of the Hearing Officer and by mutual agreement of all parties, the parties may offer evidence and testimony pertaining to whether the property under consideration for landmark designation meets the criteria set forth in section 2-120-620 of the Municipal Code during the permit application portion of the hearing, and such evidence or testimony may be incorporated by reference in the landmark designation portion of the hearing to avoid unnecessary duplication. 3. Landmark Designation For the landmark designation portion of the hearing, the conduct of the hearing and the Commission's final recommendation to City Council shall follow Article II, Sections through H, of these Rules and Regula tions. Article VI - Economic A. Application for Economic Hardship Pursuant to section 2-120-830 of the Municipal Code, upon final notification from the Commission or the City Council of a decision to deny an application for a permit to construct, reconstruct, alter, add to, demolish or relocate property given a preliminary recommendation for landmark status or designated as a landmark, the permit applicant may within 30 days apply to the Commission for an economic hardship exception on the basis that the denial of the permit will result in the loss of all reasonable and beneficial use of or return from the property. 43 B. Public Hearing on Economic Hardship Pursuant to section 2-120-840 of the Municipal Code, the Commission shall hold a public hearing on an application for an economic hardship exception Within 30 days from receipt by the Commission of the application. Public hearings on applications for an economic hardship exception shall follow the procedures for public hearings as set forth in Article IV of these Rules and Regulations. C. Burden of Proof The applicant bears the burden of proof that the existing use of the property is economically infeasible and that the sale, rental, or rehabilitation of the property is not possible, resulting in the property not being capable of earning any reasonable economic return. Proof of economic hardship is not established solely by submission of proof of actual financial loss or lost opportunity to obtain increased return from the property, although these factors the Commission may consider. Proof of economic hardship must be established by clear and convincing evidence. D. Evidence of Economic Hardship Any applicant for an economic hardship exception shall offer at the public hearing described in section 2-120-840 of the Municipal Code evidence relevant to the following issues: 1. The applicant's knowledge of the landmark designation at the time of acquisition, or whether the property was designated subsequent to acquisition. 2. The current level of economic return on the property as considered in relation to the following: a. The amount paid for the property, the date of purchase, and party from whom purchased, including a description of the relationship, if any, between the owner of record or applicant and the person from whom the property was purchased and any terms of financing between seller and buyer. b. The annual gross and net income from the property for the previous three years; itemized operating and maintenance expenses for the previous three years; and depreciation deduction and annual cash flow before and after debt service, if any, during the same period. c. Remaining balance on any mortgage or other financing secured by the property and annual debt-service, if any, during the prior three years. d. Real'estate taxes for the previous four years and assessed value of the property according to the two most recent assessed valuations. 49 e. All appraisals obtained within the previous two years by the owner or applicant in connection with the purchase, financing, or ownership of the property. f. Form of ownership or operation of the property, whether sole proprietorship, for-profit or not-for-profit corporation, limited partnership, joint venture, or other. g. Any state or federal income tax returns on or relating to the property for the past two years. 3. Any listing of the property for sale or rent, price asked, and offers received, if any, within the previous two years, including testimony and relevant documents regardingi a. Any real'estate broker or firm engaged to sell or lease the property. b. Reasonableness of the price or rent sought by the applicant. c. Any advertisements placed for the sale or rent of the property. 4. The infeasibility of profitable alternative uses for the property as considered in relation to the following-' a. A report from a licensed engineer or architect with experience in rehabilitation as to the structural soundness of any structures on the property and their suitability for rehabilitation. b. Estimate of the cost of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, and an estimate of any additional cost that would be incurred to comply with the recommendation and decision of the Commission issued pursuant to section 2-120-800 of the Municipal Code. c. Estimated market value of the property in the current condition; after completion of the proposed construction, alteration, demolition, or removal; and, in the case of a proposed demolition, after renovation of the existing property for continued use. d. In the case of a proposed demolition, the testimony of an architect, developer, real-estate consultant, appraiser, or other real-estate professional experienced in rehabilitation as to the economic feasibility of rehabilitation or reuse of the existing structure on the property. Article VII Preservation Easements A. Definition and Purpose A preservation or conservation easement is a legal agreement between a property owner and a public agency or a private, not-for-profit organization which gives the agency or organization the right to monitor and protect the architectural and historic character of the property. Easement donations may be made to the City of Chicago. B. Public Hearing on Preservation Easements The Commission shall hold a public hearing on any proposed donation before recommending to the City Council that the donation be accepted. The Commission's public hearing will be conducted according to the procedures set forth in Article II of these Rules and Regulations. 51 EXHIBIT 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 30, 2012 TO: Members of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks FROM: Eleanor Esser Gorski, AIA Assistant Commissioner SUBJECT: Materials for the November 1, 2012 Meeting The following is attached: 1. Meeting Notice and Agenda for the regular meeting of November I, 2012 2. DRAFT Minutes of the October 4, 2012 Meeting 3. DRAFT Reports from the Department of Housing and Economic Development: 0 AUGUSTUS WARNER HOUSE 0 MUTUAL INSURANCE BUILDING 4. DRAFT Report on Projects Reviewed at the October 4, 2012, Meeting of the Permit Review Committee 5. DRAFT Report of Permit Decisions by Commission Staff for the Month of October 2012 6. 2013 Schedule of Regular Commission on Chicago Landmarks Meetings 7. 2013 Schedule of Permit Review Committee Meetings 8. DRAFT Preliminary Landmark Recommendation (Former) PRENTICE HOSPITAL 9. DRAFT Resolution for Preliminary Landmark Recommendation 0 (Former) PRENCTICE HOSPITAL l0. DRAFT Report and Recommendations from the Department of Housing and Economic Development 0 (Former) PRENTICE HOSPITAL WARD 42 ll. DRAFT Resolution Pertaining to the Report and Recommendations from the Department of Housing and Economic Development 0 (Former) PRENTICE HOSPITAL DRAFT Briefing Notes for the November 1" meeting of the Permit Review Committee will be forwarded to Committee members in a separate email. PLEASE BRING ALL MATERIALS WITH YOU ON NOVEMBER 1, 2012. cc: Arthur Dolinsky, DOL Patti Scudiero, HED Peter Strazzabosco, HED COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS NOTICE OF A REGULAR MEETING The Commission on Chicago Landmarks will hold a regular meeting on THURSDAY, November 1, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. in City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle St., Room 201-A. The Permit Review Committee will hold its regular meeting in City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle St., Room 201-A at 10:00 a.m. The Commission will meet informally for lunch in City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle in Room 1003A, at 12:00 p.m. Lunch is provided for Commission members and staff only and is not for the purpose of discussing public business. This informal lunch period is announced and is open to the public. Attached is a copy of the Agenda for the Commission meetings. John Baird, Secretary AGENDA COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS Regular Meeting - Thursday, November 1, 2012 City Hall, 121 N. LaSal1e St., Room 201-A 12:45 p.m. Approval of the Minutes of Previous Meeting Regular Meeting of October 4, 2012 Reports from the Department of Housing and Economic Development AUGUSTUS WARNER HOUSE WARD 42 1337 N. Dearbom Street MUTUAL INSURANCE BUILDING WARD 46 4750 N. Sheridan Road . Progress Report on Proposed Designations - Announcements UKRAINIAN VILLAGE DISTRICT EXTENSION WARD 32 (Former) St. John Evangelical Lutheran Church and School Buildings 913-925 N. Hoyne Ave. The request for consent period expired on October 12, 2012. A public hearing will be scheduled. Program Committee Report A. Recommendation to the Illinois Historic Sites Advisory Council on Nominations to the National Register of Historic Places: POLISH ROMAN CATHOLIC UNION OF AMERICA BUILDING WARD 27 984 N. Milwaukee Ave. PASSIONIST FATHERS MONASTERY WARD 41 5700 N. Harlem Ave. VESTA ACCUMULATOR COMPANY BUILDING WARD 2 2100 S. Indiana Ave. STORKLINE FURNITURE CORPORATION FACTORY WARD 22 4400-4418 W. 26"' St. THE NEUVILLE APARTMENT BUILDING WARD 42 232 E. Walton Pl. STRAND HOTEL WARD 20 6315-6323 S. Cottage Grove Ave. 42"" PRECINCT (TOWN HALL) POLICE STATION WARD 44 3600 N. Halsted St. B. Report on Suggestions Received from the Public for Possible Chicago Landmark Designation (Deadline for submissions was October 12, 2012) Permit Review Committee Report Report on Projects Reviewed at the October 4, 2012, Permit Review Committee Meeting Report on Permit Decisions by the Commission Staff for the month of October 2012 Announcements Schedule for 2013 Regular Commission Meetings Schedule for 2013 Permit Review Meetings Preliminarv Landmark Recommendation (Former) PRENTICE HOSPITAL WARD 42 333 E. Superior St. Report and Recommendations from the Department of Housing and Economic Development and Resolution Pertaining thereto (Former) PRENTICE HOSPITAL WARD 42 333 E. Superior St. Adjournment DRAFT MINUTES OF THE MEETING COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS OCTOBER 4, 2012 The Commission on Chicago Landmarks held a regular meeting on October 4, 2012. The meeting was held at City Hall, l2l N. LaSalle St., City Hall Room 201-A, Chicago, Illinois. The meeting began at 12:50 p.m. PHYSICALLY PRESENT: Rafael Leon, Chairman John Baird, Secretary Tony Hu James Houlihan (arrived after item 1) Ernest Won Anita Blanc ard Christopher Reed Mary Ann Smith Andrew Mooney, Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development ALSO PHYSICALLY PRESENT: Eleanor Gorski, Assistant Commissioner, Department of Housing and Economic Development, Historic Preservation Division Arthur Dolinsky, De artment of Law, Real Estate Division Members of the Pub ic (The list of those in attendance is on file at the Commission office.) A tape recording of this meeting is. on_ file at the Department of Housing and Economic Development, Historic Preservation D_ivision offices and is part of the permanent public record of the regular meeting of the Commission on Chicago Landmarks. Chairman Leon called the meeting to order. 1. Approval of the Minutes of the September 6, 2012, Regular Meeting Motioned by Smith, seconded by Wong. Approved unanimously. (8-0) Commission member Jim Houlihan arrived. 2. Final Landmark Recommendation to Cigg Council MARTIN SCHNITZIUS COTTAGE WARD 43 1925 N. Fremont Street Resolution to adopt the Final Landmark Recommendation to City Council that the MARTIN SCHNITZIUS COTTAGE be designated as a Chicago Landmark. Alderman Michelle Smith, (43'd Ward), within whose ward the building is located, expressed support for the designation. Michael Spock on behalf of the Barbara Spock Trust, the property owner, also expressed support for the landmark designation. Motioned by Smith, seconded by Reed. Approved unanimously. (9-0) Class Progerg Tax Incentive - Final Certification BRYAN LATHROP HOUSE WARD 42 120 Bellevue Pl. Resolution to notify the Cook County Assessor of the final approval of the Class Property Tax Incentive for the BRYAN LATHROP HOUSE. Motioned by Wong, seconded by Reed. Approved unanimously. (9-0) Permit Review Committee Report Ernest Wong, Chair of the Permit Review Committee, presented the report from the Permit Review Committee meeting of September 6, 2012 (see attached). Other Business Eleanor Gorski reported on the status of the Augustus Warner House designation. Announcements Program Committee Meeting for Suggestions Received from the Public for Possible Chicago Landmark Designation ANNOUNCED: The Program Committee will meet on Tuesday, October 30, in the Historic Preservation Office, 33 N. LaSalle St., Room 1600, to hear suggestions from the public for possible Chicago Landmark designations. The meeting time will be posted as part of the meeting notice. Please note that suggestions must be submitted to the Commission on the suggestion form by Friday, October to be considered at the meeting. The form is available online and from the Historic Preservation office. Adjournment There being no fiirther business, the meeting was adjourned at l:l0 p.m. Motioned by Jim Houlihan, seconded by Leon. Approved unanimously. (9-0) John Baird, Secretary Draft November 1, 2012 Report to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on the Augustus Warner House 1337 N. Dearborn St. The Department of Housing and Economic Development finds that the proposed designation ofthe Augustus Warner House as a Chicago Landmark supports the City's overall planning goals for the surrounding Near North Side community area and is consistent with the City's governing policies and plans. Built in 1884, the Augustus Warner House is a significant "first-generation" building in Chicago's Gold Coast neighborhood and exemplifies the historic importance of the neighborhood, which developed in the post-Chicago Fire era of the 1870s, 1880s and 1890s as arguably Chicago's premiere upper-income residential neighborhood. It is also the work of Chicago architect L. Gustav Ha11berg, Sr., who is significant in the context of Chicago architecture as a designer of finely-designed and -crafted single- family houses for Chicago's upper- and upper-middle-class families, designing many of the mansions that originally lined Gold Coast streets, as well as those of then-fashionable neighborhoods on the West and South Sides. The Augustus Warner House is located in the Gold Coast neighborhood, which is part of the Near North Side community area. It is zoned RM-6.5, which is a high-density zoning classification that permits hig11- rise residential buildings. Surrounding properties are primarily a mix of small-scale houses and flat buildings built in the late nineteenth century and large-scale tall apartment buildings built in the 1960s and 1970s. Smaller-scale residential properties are largely zoned RM-5 (which accommodates multi-unit residential buildings), while larger buildings are zoned RM-6.5. In addition, the Warner House is located within the Near North Historic Overlay District No. 1. This purpose of this overlay district, which covers much of the Gold Coast neighborhood, is to supplement existing base district zoning regulations in order to "preserve and enhance the unique and historic residential character of the Near North Historic Area," "preserve the existing and delicate balance of townhouses, row houses, landmark structures and high-rise buildings," and "prevent further increases in scale, density and congestion by limiting construction of taller buildings." In the case of the Warner House, the Near North Historic Overlay District No. 1 would allow the demolition of the house, but a replacement building could be no taller than 125 feet or 1 1 stories, whichever was greater. The Augustus Warner House is well-served by public transportation. The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) Red Line Division St. stop is 2 blocks south west of the property at Division and Clark streets. Several CTA bus lines serve the area, including the #22 Clark, #36 Broadway, 70 Division, #151 Draft Sheridan and #155 LaSalle buses. Lincoln Park is the nearest park and is located 2 blocks north of the building. There are a number of individual Chicago Landmarks and Chicago Landmark Districts in the vicinity of the Augustus Warner House. The Three Arts Club, located at 1300 N. Dearbom St., is located on the same block as the Warner House. To the east is the Fisher Studio Homes at 1209 N. State Parkway, while to the north is the Madlener House at 4 W. Burton Pl. To the northwest are the Germania Club and the Village Theatre, located at 1536 and 1546-50 N. Clark St., respectively. Additional individual Chicago Landmarks are the James Chamley House at 1365 N. Astor St., the Former Engine Company 27 firehouse at 1244 N. Wells, and the Bryan Lathrop House (housing the Club) at 120 E. Bellevue P1. The Astor Street District, comprised largely of residential buildings facing the 1200- through 1500-blocks of N. Astor St., is located two blocks to the east of the Warner House. Farther to the east, the Seven Houses on Lake Shore Drive District is made up of seven surviving buildings built as single-family houses. To the south is the Washington Park District and Extension, comprised largely of small-scale residential and institutional buildings located along the 800- through 1100-blocks of North Dearbom St. The Department supports the designation of the Augustus Warner House as a Chicago Landmark. The Central Area Plan, approved by the Chicago Plan Commission (CPC) in 2003, and the Central Area Action Plan, approved by the CPC in 2009, both support the goals of historic preservation and the protection of landmark buildings within the City's Central Area, including the Near North Side. Preserving buildings such as the Warner House provides many long-term benefits to the City. Landmark designation encourages the preservation and rehabilitation through a range of incentives. Designation also supports economic development, employment and an enhanced property tax base. It serves as a model for sustainable development by retaining existing buildings and adapting them to modern conditions. Preservation of Chicago's architectural heritage attracts tourists and new residents as well as contributes to the quality of life for Chicago citizens. In conclusion, landmark designation of the Augustus Warner House supports the City's overall planning goals for Chicago's Near North Side community area and is consistent with the City's governing policies and plans. Andrew J. Mooney Commissioner Draft November l, 2012 Report to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on the Mutual Insurance Building 4750 N. Sheridan Rd. The Department of Housing and Economic Development finds that the proposed designation of the Mutual Insurance Building as a Chicago Landmark supports the City's overall planning goals for the surrounding Uptown community area and is consistent with the City's governing policies and plans. Built in two phases between l92l and l927, the eight-story Mutual lnsurance Building is significant as the long-time headquarters for the various insurance companies founded and operated by insurance magnate James S. Kemper. The building is one of Chicago's largest historic office buildings located in the City's outlying neighborhoods and exemplifies the historic importance ofthe Uptown Square commercial, retail and entertainment area. The building is finely designed and detailed in the Classical Revival architectural style with white architectural terra cotta executed by the Northwestem Terra Cotta Company. The Mutual lnsurance Building is located in the Uptown community area on Chicago's north lakefront. lt is zoned B3-5, which is a community shopping district designation that is meant to accommodate a very broad range of retail and service uses, often in the physical form of shopping centers or larger buildings than are found in Bl and B2 districts. ln addition to accommodating development with a different physical form than found in Bl and B2 districts, the B3 district is also intended to accommodate some types of uses that are not allowed in Bl and B2 districts. B3 districts allow residential uses above the ground floor. lt is intended to be applied to large sites that have primary access to major streets. Surrounding properties, primarily commercial or large-scale residential buildings facing either N. Sheridan Rd. or W. Lawrence Ave., are largely zoned B3-2, B3-3, or B3-5. Smaller-scale residential properties facing N. Kenmore Ave., just to the west of the property, are zoned RT-4. The Mutual Insurance Building is well-served by public transportation. lt is located at N. Sheridan Rd. and W. Lawrence Ave., where two heavily-used Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) bus routes--the #l5 Sheridan and #8l Lawrence routes--intersect. The CTA Red Line Lawrence Ave. stop is 2 blocks west of the property. Lincoln Park is the nearest park and is located east ofthe building. Draft There are a number of individual Chicago Landmarks and Chicago Landmark Districts in the vicinity of the Mutual Insurance Building. To the west, the Former Sheridan Trust Savings Bank Building is located on the southeast corner of Lawrence Ave. and Broadway, while the Uptown Theater is located at 4816 N. Broadway. A little farther west is the Dover Street District, comprised largely of properties on the 4500- through 4700-blocks of N. Dover St. To the northwest are the Essanay Studios at 1333-45 W. Argyle St. and the Bachman House at I244 W. Carmen St. To the south is the Hutchinson Street District, primarily made up of buildings In the 700- and 800-blocks of W. Hutchinson St. The Department supports the designation of the Mutual Insurance Building as a Chicago Landmark. Preserving buildings such as this provides many long-term benefits to the City. Landmark designation encourages the preservation and rehabilitation through a range of incentives. Designation also supports economic development, employment and an enhanced property tax base. It serves as a model for sustainable development by retaining existing buildings and adapting them to modern conditions. Preservation of Chicago's architectural heritage attracts tourists and new residents as well as contributes to the quality of life for Chicago citizens. In conclusion, landmark designation ofthe Mutual Insurance Building supports the City's overall planning goals for Chicago's Uptown community area and is consistent with the governing policies and plans. Andrew J. Mooney Commissioner 2 .. ma: .5: 55o oz .Eav:n.m .o.5m_u Ea ._uoE_un on new woman. 9.9. 2 E2. :62 3% uoneufi coamtonfln. .3 :23 oonfim. ucu osofiom .8 5. oo_.__EoE_aE fiu=_uo_u ms: 55. uo3o=a wouwufl hotuwxo 2 omcafi 0: .33 Bovcsa 2. - 2 soon E: 5.: no.2. 22.. Ease. in mm .50: :0 _:nco_ OUEO acamxu .5. :oau>oco.. .33.. ENE uonEm.m an _u_Eou_aE EuEmwa 5.3 Eofi? ucamio acoafluza ucu 2.32 o:oE_ m._o_BE_ 95 5:5 EUR03 5 EuE8a_._2 oz 93. vein 22.. =o_.u..com2n_ .3 Eofizunu cufiuu ucnufio 2 uE:oE. _m>2nEu Soon 2 ?93 35? oz 3 .529 2 ocofiucwm Eu 3 o_nEwm 32>! 2 .3: o__n .2 cu? ut2m=._ 3:30 .uEo.a_ .51 Ba 350 .09: cuauE E9: 05 co 32.5.5 on RE u.._Eau.u canon. oz ?uunwooc nu new minus? woes 3 =32 323. 9.. .385 2 . Ba :22. 32.2 5:25 new 23: _oEEn van .22x? ncemucwm z3uE 8 ocsmucmm EmEoou_nE Eu Bu 5.2.. 2 5.8 gates. :o_.E2mom 2.2m E230 32.3: 2 5? 222.3 names ocsmucum .53 Eoson new no. uomonxu go. on 2 mowsou Ea ..u:oE .839 .09. 0.: :29 3 3.5.3 on 2 .522 32. ucufi census in mm minus! 52. En ucu Soc new coovzon >EomwE .3 3:35 .3 .3 ace. hm _w_oE _uoE_un WNN 0 E25 .CuEo9:o_2 umsol 225 ?30 a uooscox nu _o_fi_n 1 5.62 at _8fiw :m_I can 532 nmmomvoor SE98. aunhmeoor _88..o9 383.8 .m 262 3.820 .5 com 2 on .32s.._o2o 25. .3 one 28529.00 9.9. 9:2. .5 oz. En Tu EN mum _.oN mum. oumtuaw mfiruam Emww Eu 35.. on E. Mafia euao_._U 2.: 5 ficaom <Em on o. and. 39:3. Bun: .o new 3.3 ..u_nE a. 2.. 2 .502 Eco _uc:o..u 33emu vE0.<. 02 - z.?m.m 0.. u_00m ozFw.xm 96. no.2. 5.. mu 2 3.9: xucn - minus? uoo.s.uw.u .50: minus? a 53.5 nu. 2. o. .o.Eou .mco..n>o.o aim no Scam ucm ounnm. 293.3 .o fie! new 35? iota.>> uses fie! uuwuw. .xo: 2 ta? .2 o. uo._nEo on 2 onion. vo.o_nEoo .o 8 2. 2 cam N. .33. no.2. uoasafi .2. ma 53? a. .o 5.9.. 2 aaz nu. .n .50: 5.3 new an. .n _uo.Eo:o.uu o..5Enm dnnu 3.0 9.38 .o ma 2.. o. o. uo..nEn new .o .m..6Ew. o. coxm. on o. .33 .0 3.2.. .N. 35. .0. an 3.3 =95 59. ..E.s ucu .1 nN_._nu.m ..o:o.xm mcoasam .. 2 833.8. .. .2 a 55.200 02? muamo 0.. >m 02? am..su.>mm mm 0.. awommz mm mxofim 3002.3 02 02? 0.. oz .23.. Eu 3&2 83?: .o 3.52 .onu._an fine: <m. 2.. 32. 03.0 o.o..m -w 8% .2 002. .m 2: gauge? .2 dm TN _.oN SN mum. manna. manna. manna. manna. u.??E53o otcostso oz 2. Ea 5: 32.3". 5 no: .2 ans; E2852 Ea in: 35o oz oofiu mafia ..o.fi.come._ 2.23: ..on ?2 2: ao 253 van E853 Emao. ao=u..Emao0 ucao fa! oz .m-mw a_ ua5E:_n Eofiounfiox fiflawzuaz tzama oz oz< Boozcs oz 6.3.6. F5 E23 .28 5 is ?29: fine 2 zone .33 2. 2 BE 5.25 32 32. 2.3 Ba .52; Ba 52; E2 .58 5 BEE urea; 2. 2 .355 302 uaBm=._ 2.: 2 van uounzwm on ?552>> Ba 25$ 9.23 nun". Qaea. uofiu Eofiaoo .8 no :95 .323 BE. 2% Enema cgsasoi in mono>> Bo: Em an maoawaosw .o:oE. boo 2o:?E go 8 .o?o oz <> no.3>> sew .9__E?3m .o?o oz E..m_w banana 20> 25. uaafixo an on MUHPIM . fa! 3.55% Bone 3 ?03 .o?o oz MEN .3 ouamaoE_aE <> .2. no 32% umcuflou 5? usuuan Buz tab 2.5 $u_au.._uo.2 _.wu_am_.Bo2 .oaucm_ fiu.aw.._um2 uoesw 3:282 Uflfl Sanazaofi Efiz $25 uoozcoz mssam not 5 Boom umwuzu uanmaz WEI aim acsuw as cunazm Eat; ma_u__:m .__ooava.._o.2 _u.5m_o so Ema E321 559.9 _uoos._Eov_ 555.0 fun. .93; .. 8.2639 3.339 2398. B..,a.m39 98839 $588. <<.2839 _..B8v8. 0 Eo9.8. E20 mono an. 2 En. _?m?2oo .w 93 ofiwfi .w mm. .3 :2 8.5.2 .3 on 8.5.2 .m on Fsoufim .z 8% cnofiz 8.. comxooa .NEN 9.9 <> zoom .95 onutn o_ mica: 530 3 coamoflow853:8 E. oucafi 2 $2 2 .u?o Boos? oz o_ new .52. uses .uo3a=a 395.>> $533>> oz .3: 9 .50: .9 --moEoom_ $momSo_a =E._oo .wnE.zw 2.52 Qsonzzs moo.E-E~ oz 23.6. .52. mEo..E..bo_u uonfiufi foEv.._m.. an an xutn .50: van nieces? woo? 30: 55. canon. ED: _o :_nE _o _o oEo.a E5. :5 .530 z3nE o_ in: ..C_..omuE 325uc_:ao__o .5293 oz 3 seen. uses. .25 .58 gene 2 ioz iota _o oocflunna new ..o_oo .uu_n o_ .35. 262 xocca aoa5.3 hfiuo o_ .103 .3526 iotccs oz .583. unfit mcwfi uonfiufi .2. wow 3 Eco: co uu:u=nEoo .2 E3. no.5 .22. 9 5.3 530 2 35?95 _ao?oom_ ME. S000 2 .0?o oz oucwzu 9.5 55. 53o 3.53 .o?o oz .0: _o :o=wuo_ van 9.3.3 3 . 338 .2 Eo.?n En>> Bun no=oo._ oowium 35 5:5 Soon 2 B?o oz ._oE .3 _o o=.fi.E co=wuo_ Eu cum 53 - 25: 5.3 uc_fl__oo:oo ozo uca oonfiom 3.2.9 n:oo:u.mom..s. acsxu _fl .8228: N500: Eng: flea Uta .Boscux x--o.oow .9329 .._mnEu_2 saga sen mam .85 .32.. uwzoz .o..Ean_ SE39 5.33 mm 829.8. .2 _u~BSo_ uooacov. .w 92. .3938. .:Baon .2 N8 332.8. 3 Eu N: .m Now: 2: 2.. 532 Ban: .3 8 33.48. 8.5: .w um._.83o_ Ex .53: 5 mmo_oSo_ .o._uES .w mm u~m8v3_ 00-min: 38 3893. uufimr NOON mum. can 753 ommwmau Nmm--.N Sm. <m F_.__fl_fl boo Snsuo .2 _mu_buo_w 9. o_o..8w oo_._ucoE.wE 35:92 92:0 oz :99 Emu .3 mEoo.amo._ 33:: Ba: ?v _mF .33. .025. in! ._uu_uuo: an __naS._u uzu .3-to ozfl .3533; u:EE:_n moan! ban 3:9 _n>a=Eu ?5 5_.s Soon woman unto Esau. Emca _uo?E..wQ oz oz .933. BE. to on new :23 woo; .co_m.n >82 32:! o>oEom 35:02 sacs _woEoo_w oz oo_oo utBw_I 3.. an mafia noes 35:9. new . SUD: _auEa.._ua.2 _ao_..Eoos. o.o..oom Elm u.._o.om Em. am. Essa :9 Em. Em. ao_o__om Em. o.u.a_oom nose: E30 o..o_a_on_m .oso_.n .oo.o_n B330 95.91 .22.. notes,' fi=bn.D 2.3.39. 822.8. mmo.o..8. o3ao..8. 883.8 33.8 VNM 9.8 :8 30.. M. Em :8 .._oaoo.s .z So can So gonna? can .z Sm aim at ..on_fi_.z .z 8 .333 03:22:: 2 ..oo.oo< .2. 82 90:00 .2 mama Em. NFON Em. FON in EN monF..NFoN FON Bataan nmmF.NFoN -N Eu NFONEBF ~3uo:o. NFONEBF NFONEBF fiomaa. NFONBBF NFONBBF NFONBBF NFDNEBF .n Hana :2 :2 :2 :2 :2 55.. 26.. 3.8 .23 332 5.3. 2 2. 2 22.. 355 Eu 2.322 Begum .22. in mm _m0.S :0 Becca 29? .28 .22. 5.9.. 2 3 2 22.. .235 23 3.o&.a 35am 5: :2 3.2. 3222>> 23223 .2. an .33 5 3.2.22. .2 3.23 222 .228 .22. $32 23.hen 3:23 39? .28 .22. 2.32 5.3. 2 3.22. 2. 2 acucm Eu ?..oan:m accam .3 E52. mafia ..2.En.m ?.mEUcu._ .2. on .33 Eu 99.1 :2 no.2. 2.2.. .2. 3 .m .32. 5.8 5. Emu mesa v2_Ew_n .2. an .9. .. .3 .8 5.2 2.2% E8532. no.2. .2. mm ?5 noun. .39: .22 _uoE_ma .. 3E3 862.20 .929 LS. oz .2 28.28 .o uu.?.o 2.5 common nmcamtco as 2 <> muazaaflc ouflooa .Eu_u>o 95 .2 92 .0 :oa.wu?o._ new So: .0 =o=m=5mE "baa _au_huo_m 2. 2 a so 26: vein 3.2.. cooaabuoi .2. .ocoE_ new =oa__u_uw BE .ou:ou.mE ?52 co 2 iaz 3oz ucu Base 2 Ba 33.5. 2% 28.3.3 Bros. Ban 3% Basso :o_.o__coow.n_ 5.. 28.. .02 ?25 oaflwu ..Eo.2o 5 be? one a ten EoEomB o2u__3 >EowmE ma. Eofi no.5 25: a 32m 302 35 55. Soon 2 E9: .22.. oz 3.3 2.2.. uooesm 2.aEoca._ .2. ufio 32. 5.3 2% new new .cEu SE33 ucanxu ooa_n_om mo 9 mo> 23523 .2. 3 .23 .3 ?255 .2 35.3 u_.o.m 3.8 uuaos 5.5.. 2 2. 2 22.23 Ea mtonnom moan u2_E2w .=mEtcm._ to an Rom co 3.8 .52. 2.32 .22.. 2 2 22.. Bcucn non mtonnzo Eccum .N vain wcmi u2_Eu_n EoEtcu._ HOQ mu Bow :0 EEO ..N-.M 52:3 .28 .52. moms. 222.. 2 3 2 .azu..a tea rwccam .N uofiu mama uon_Eu_w EoEtcu._ 5.. 3 .5226.>> 2. 22.2.6 .2 2 55.3 2.23.1 _3_.afios. fiooafioz :52 rooao 302 50236 .o:wE. cazm .. rowaa can Zouaa can 3.53.5.: _u.5m_o _u2m_o Em nsoo _u2m_o mom .025 _o2m_o _o2m_o inn. Eusom -0590 o9_:w3__s. 3520 o=co>< SE29 noonoeoo won 532 omnwovoo o~omovoo_ m_.E2.oS 8 32.8 -o?.o2 ovmovvooe .amfi_s. 2 one ufioio 58 .225". .m .m can 2.. 352>> 3 zoom on uos_E2 .5 <<50_.oN Noo_..N_.oN an 36.. 900.. moown EN oomwm SN :2 53:5. NEN2. 3.9.. flow. .2E_aa Eficoa u. 5.4 wanna HMEHH M. NENB --.B--. NENB --.B--. _oNa:.o_ SEN :2 for .o?o oz EUR93 .m?o oz uo.u.E._oo fies oz 5050 D2 5050 O2 ..u5o oz :53 .m?o oz EUR93 .o?o oz ?93 .o5o oz E93 .o?o oz {es .o?o oz _unEE.__0n_ E93 35o oz uc?E..oa EUR93 .m?o oz .a?o oz Bfio oz m_z_:o_a zficoz .o9.m.._u.E_mE .25 zoo .mEo _muEuo_m zoo _fi.5uo.m 35. zoo as _aoBoo_m .25 _35uo_m _3.Bo_m .9255 oz 52 .3 .._oEon_ cesium ?93 - Bo: Em omu__o> 3o. on o_ E293 ucw o__u_s mccuon?oc _.._oEoown .o:oE_ uofio uonE5m uto__m_I in 30: u__n:n po can oomo?Noo mmoE_ no--m.m oco __uo_.._acuo2 L. mi. _moEmsuos_ _3_..Buo.2 wzuuz 3:332 322:. 33:23: Beau cacao .._oemo a oo?oo Nv Nv Nv Nv Nv 53.0 :oan_m .._oE3 Nv _c9_3m Nv a9_Sm Nv asaom Nv a9_3m 2. _o.5o.a .85 5.3. En? Nv 82.20 Nv _Ew:w_:om No 9 . 329.8 1 uooicwx _u_5u_.u No .uEm_o Emzum N98. 8398. m2.NoeoS on huh N38. o..u.Novoo ow _E.Novoo. N98 So N38. .m?N$oS 9.6 N98. =.oNo3o_ mm>> No.32 Sm N88. no NBEBE Non No.32 _ooEvoS wEmN ?__oo=o__omn._ ooN o__omo._ 3N o__omo._ 3N o__amo._ 3N 5.2 2 82 amaze .Noun 2 N5 H. moo.3. BN3 --..6--. NFONB N63 :2 ESQ .5 53 <..w._onEoh ass. Bass>> 3523 .8 3 2 _u 33:5 unit acafi .u2_Eflu .2. am pm a .03 Eco uo=5oE EmBaEoh vain cones>> .=uEEa._ .2. an 59 33:? 2.8 8.2. 335>> on 2.3 u3::oE cum E: no.2. _u2_Ea_n .:uEu:3 3 _souE..s 2.3 can BE. zones" ..aEu._3 8.. mm _u ioucts 2.3 cm: bER_Eoh BE. cones>> E523 .2. 3 3353 unE:aE >._w._oaEoh Ban .u2_Ea_a .=uEu..3 an 3 S. 38:5 Eco uo=5oE _cu..2_Eoh Bin names" .2. an E. _u 33:5 2:0 uo_.u_u _u2_Em.m in nu .4 _u 3353 2:9 .5. Ban vanes" .2. an .souE.s Sac v2_.5aE 3 coco uou.u._o._ an 23:02 .359. voice. on 2 Begun mEoE;ua:< E: 9 u: E2. E2. 5:3 mean. an .3 E96 Eu2_m E33 oungoa 251.. uEoc_o oEua.o._ nun are no.2. ._:aEu:3 .2. ma unufiu .:aE:oa=u ucu oEw>> .uo>oE2 was 3:2. .53 . hoouh n.ooaE. 3. uoufium voEE..mn ?03 .05.. oz 25:02 "baa :_au_..Euo.2 in ucuoss_m_ Em. Em. 9. s_m_ s_m_ am. am. Em s_m_ am. mcfiam Em. x.._2_Eo0 zoom xuocuacoi SE0 2:5 93.. 2 Baden m.m_n_ _m .201 5502 _..Bao oufiau csau a ouzao 4 .39.. 9.2: $2989 85.9.8. EH38. ?35 .2 can 5.233 2 Sn EUR3.93 2 Sn EUR3.25 2 can ?2.25 .2 Sn 53?; .2 Sn sauna; 2 Sn 2 Sn 53a; 2 Sn 5.233 2 Sn 53?; .2 can figs; .2 Sn <> 2.553 E9: 9.5 53>> Soon op Stain .050 _:nEuun_n_o. oz .03: fine .xo._n_n_3 ..:oEmmwn 03: an? 9: 3 "men 35:98: .5 9: .33 55: oz tau .uu_m .:o=muo_ 2 sac: Ba 252 >420 Ens: range toes 3:25 ?5 53: 3 x..Qs .35 325.5 a: oz dabcfm 25: _u:n 2.3 an. ?995 .50: ?3 2.5.3 :9 oumfiux BE. 2% Buss" 3.. an _u 3 33:5 :D.n BE. mcui 5: 3 2n 3 33:5 3:0 uoE=oE 58:53 no.2. ._aEuca._ .2. an 33:? .N :23. no.3 ?2.33 .3 an or 33:? 9359: .cEonEw._. .N 5:3. BE. cones>> fmEu:u._ 5.. an 3 vo_::oE no.2. m:aE uoaesm .2. an 2m 33:? 322359.: 2:0 :m.m vo_w:_E:_Yco: BE. 25.. Bass>> xaeucfi .3 an 33:? n2E..oE :Dn .N :23. no.2. uoassm in ma _w 33:5 vo_::oE .3522 :32. 3:22" ._aEEu._ 3.. an 5 33:5. .co=.uE..Em no.2. 39:3>> 3: an or 33:? 9359: .N :5 =3 no.2. n:a_n_ _..onEm.m EmEu:u._ .2. me :B.m :83. 35. uonssu .=aEEa._ .3 an up 5 58.235 :Dm 93:: uaaesu .2. as _u .oo=.uE..Em uoE:oE .o:u_xw in can can :u_w :n.w :m_w :u_w :n.w :m.w .56 :m_uEm_D u:o.n.I .uE_m =33: 52:20 Eimm --U.bw.D Own. :0 mouse: :o>mam am. Biz: am. Sammvco mfiumzx: 23m?8_ w8$..oS m8?.3. 3mB..8. 8m~.m3o_ No mN 29.8. mN R28. uN B98. aoE.m32 $.52 nN mE..3_ SE93. 2:532 oozes. .m mm 29.wmN_. fiufia. 2 can .2 Sn fiufig .2 Sn ?333 2 Sn figs: 2 can fifiaz. 2 Sn fianui 2 Sn 5.33.5 .2 Sn fiunuz. .2 can .2 can 5.35: .2 Sn figs: .2 Sn fifiuz82.28 _.aN 39 N02. NOE. can mmu_..N _.aN umm_..N_.aN E2 mmw_..N 33 .3329 39.93. Bun roam 33.23. an: u..uQ 3. NSNB 55-. NSNB 2.0.. :0 -- 2 05:2 E2. an 3000.! .02. .00 0. 302 0.00.5 ?0 02 00.00 .u2.Ea.m .00 00000 .00.. :0 0. .020 0. 0.5.0.: .3 003.000 000 on 0. um:..su.0 0:0 ..0.uE 0. .502 00.0.. .00 an 00.2.0 .095. 9.0 .0. ?03 .000 mm0<0<. 02.0.5.3 mo 0025.0 02 00.00 02.En.w .00 an 0.3. .00.. .0 0000. mm0<0<. .10 005.. m0z<:0 oz 00.00 00 .00. .0 09.0. 0.5 .5000 0. .050 02 .u._0Eu0 30. 0 . 3002.2. 02 0:0 0. 0. :62 000 ..ufiE 0. .0092. 00.00 00..En.a .00 00 00.39.. 0.. 0. 2.0.0. .0..0.2. .0 000. .000 .00.. .0. 0.. 0. 000 0. 0.0E0. 0. n0.E00 02.2800 0:0 0000200 .000 ..0 5.3 .0000 0. .050 .0 3000.2. 02 .0 0n . 5.0.. 00.00.00 0:0.moE.._ 0.5 5.3 500.0 0. .050 02 2 .080 2 05.3320. .0 .w0.E0..0 oz 3.. .28 .00.: 0. 0. .0 :33 :000 0. ?03 .050 .0 3000.3 0.. m0..n.xn 0. ?03 02 .0300 .00.. .000 .00. 2.0.. .m0.n.m as. .00.: 2.0.. 5.2. 05.00.. 000 =0 .00.. .5000 0. .050 02 .n..00u. 0.0.0000 .000 0:53 3 men. 052. .83 009.1. 000.00. . 000.00 .95. .030. 0. .. 22.80 30.000005 22.0100.030 00000.. 0.000 0.0.0 mn0.a..0U 000.0. ?.u0m_ 0:0 5.30 0:0 2&0 0.0.5 9.0.. Hum .0505 .800 .23.. .0500 fan. 5.0.3 .20. 003.30. ..mm00..o0 .5830. 8 52.8 0 5.3.8. 3.398. 0.8093 muammqoc. .2 08 09.003 2 ON 00:302.: .5 mm. .2. N9. 22.0 9.0.. 000 ..s 3.. 5.9_.oN 50.. SE 9.neonate. 35.. N_.oN..h .06.. ~50. E0020. 300.. J. u.o~aua_ u.ou.2a_ u.ou..m:o_ u.ou.o:o_ 15.5.. mzoazso Oh m_0zs._0 E0 5.95 mo_mm._.xm OZ 03% <> ncocfloxo oo_oo _uonEa_m .5525 .00 no 300:2>> o. _uo.E_..oE _o 0.50 5.. :90 00:0. =53 E2. o_ 5.3 2 omcwzu oz .30 E3 05 aoroozo ono us._o_xo 2 oz so on ._oB So. 5 can 2. =5 mania mafia. oonoa no.2. _uo._ESu .2. on .EURo._o.a BE _u Soho .c:oawE uozufioo .502 .a?o oz om:oI Scam 35o oz .oo.oo3o:. __.Eoo E2. 8:20 no.3 .u2.E8u in m_o.._oo ozfioqo ?5 5% Eu 40.3 _o o>oEE 610$ .uo._o oua..o_m can M05 .02. uotoaxo .o?o oz ?u:u:oE_nE oazo _nuEuomboaosop "zoo ?5 55. {oi oz no.2. mama 0:22: 5.. Bot omwao too! 26: 55 53. 9.6.0 .000 onuam a 30.001 .350 O2 _30?w $.03 .050 oz 0500-0 05 0.00200 now 2.53. B?o oz .305 5.. .ca..onEoh 35o oz 5.. 3003003 35o oz 5. _CEonE0h .o?o oz Boga .?EonE?. __u0E0o_m_ 2.5 5.: o. foo. oz .2 .:s_mmn_ m_o> ssop 20 E55 .cwEom_.._o.z noon zoom 9.0.. .z oomomo BE >>mZ >>u2 SE .902 .05 3:02 .00 ?000.32 you _o.5o_n_ mm .832 Bqmoos. ouonovoo. E. 338 :.nmo..oo_ ON Foes 2. .2. ._.o.onoo8_ nu _o..oo2, .2 ON .2 fun. 9.0.. .m mumo oo.mo_.._oo2. .5 on .2. 8 _o..oo2, .2 on zoo; saw 2 .: 25m .2 aocoEo:o_z .2. Mann ouoozo .2. So Boom 9.0.. .m So EEO .m coo 0:30 So 0:20 So o__omo._ .2 mun .. _.oN oDh_..N_.oN 82 omofifiou SN moo. omofu _.oN Nam_..N_.oN Sorfiou omofifiou .82 moofifiou flow om _ou.o:2 305 305 3 00.. Sea. T. Susana. <> 5.3 .o_8.E coco? u_._o3 _o .2323>> aacafi oz nausea _m:oo=u=oun=2 ?5 .5000 2 .o .32 o: _wo_Eo.._o o: oz .2. 3N .xaE. Eco nuns Bi; 5.3 mouoofl _o 32.. now 3.8 .09: 5 W593 fi_nE o_ .m:oE ..ccommE o_ 23.5 on _m:E Emu .c_._omuE _o to 55o oz 2 6o._m oz ?5 to?o=a Eozfl. vomonxn .mm_uwm__ u:o.nE oc . unfit .2. on cumin tea 3:0: ?oE u:=oE 30: ?5 zafimm mooaom voices: 203 oz 85o oz .co=muo_ .o cum oz ouoowa 82 _o _oE co Sana: Lotofim _uo_ou mafia .toEocm._ in no -25 2 Eco Ease. 3:2 93 .22.. ?3 ._fiEmu. .2 can Evian 550 02 areas. 2 ED: <> omfiu acts>> fiance 3 .1 BEN _u5u_o=8m 55. .5000 2 in: sea oz <oEo._ on 2 En mozumi 8023 u:E:_oo .32 . m:E:_oo EoomEURm 2 LN .o..mo..fi_m ocm _o oozoo. co N:mwB_ Emu vooEm--m an an n=co_cn a Bonzzs oz Eu .28 m_w_?aE ..u_nE 2 Enfiam Ea Emu Bases .3 no manna. Eouucoo van anion Bu: - ouaofl 2 Emma: mzouco-39.2 _oEoEco.__Em_ u_o=3m com _wu_cw?uu2 -Qiufl Htlum ESQ Um_o_.fi_o ._o_oE om_.._oI oE:on_ ._u_E._oUuE 00 3.3 3.22 =w_.oEoE 5.oz.u.s_ Ea: Basso cum.>> 6 Esau 3.3.5 :9 cmmfias. u_..2u_I ..a_.oEon mi _u.5mE 25m F8839 mR8..8. $m~mv8_ P..onu3o_ E838. etumvoor :5 595: mama :otm=:n_ 2.. ..n%u2m .2 <oEo._ on 8 Ba arena 55 m:E:_oo 053 53.2 E__E:_oo _:ou?tm o. LN 9.3.3 o.uuo_ux E5 530 2 ?95 550 oz tan an: fiasco: o. nuance 5:25 3.8.. 2.. 833 _u Soon a. to: 3:3 5 ?53 E=omuE 33:? oz 8.2.2 _u Anna fine tea 5.cumin. 3.2 as 55.. 32 _a 8.5.2 _u 52 _u Eom? ucu _Eow 3u_nu._ ucu nfionmciou .23 zmfi .m m.c__u_xu 5? 503 2 :33 550 oz .23 mg. m_m:_m 322.52 as 5.5 58.. 2 .23 oz nausnfle Bu 52? mc_uu_nE 52.2 _wot..oo_u BEE - _uu_hu?m_ maoocn HIDE: UEN _muEuzoos_ _uu_E $5002 _auEm.._uu.2 533:. ucm .o:o_xm_ _.wuEw.._oa2 . >>uz _uEu_o 332.. E30 220 _E_n_o.som unuu .9220 29.53am :um=.u=2 :umEu=2 noise .8 a E25 .cuEo9..os_ s_m_ guess: 25.5: scan EUR9.38 93%: Eutagm Emsum moan 82.23.: 8:98. 332.8. nauumvoo. ~38. afinoeoo. 3.: 9.. 59.8. @8832 8538. anunmwoo. <oEo._ oz .550 com>> .33 oaonm _o novice. uofiu vonEw.m in can no-- 553 5.3 <> csfizumoi in BE 05.5 .325 m:o__o norm E.._owuE ace. .3 3oz uoto_xm .mz_doo? .m..sooz? mo> oocflo 3oo_.a__8u_s. oosfioo .o?o oz 953 omm=o> .30.. boo _wo:_uo_m_ momcafi 55: oz Ebb .o--un.Eoo _3Euo.m 8:20 .wo_u:mzu oz voonuvoozz o. BnE:--o 5? 53o o2=o oz _o oacmco .otoE-- uco .o.:owxw wwagaw ounfiw 252 mzoucm-<> Nmh--.N--oN ont?ou Jen Pomona. Soaama: nook hum; DRAFT PERMIT REVIEW COMMITTEE REPORT TO COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS November I, 20 I 2 The Permit Review Committee (PRC) met on October 4, 2012, at 1:20 p.m. The meeting was held at 121 N. LaSalle, Room 20l--A. Present: Emest Wong, Chair John Baird James Houlihan (left at 2:20 Tony Hu Mary Ann Smith Staff: Eleanor Gorski, Assistant Commissioner, Historic Preservation Division, Bureau of Planning and Zoning, Department of Housing and Economic Development Dijana Cuvalo Cindy Roubik Larry Shure The following projects were reviewed by the PRC: I. 1060 W. Addison (Wrigley Field - 44"' Ward) Proposal: Action: Proposed relocation of the existing brick wall behind home plate, installation of new seats, and construction of two high voltage electrical vaults within the existing steel trusses at the roof level over the grandstand seats. Approved (Commissioner Smith against) with the following conditions: 1. As proposed, brick and the stone cap will be salvaged from the existing wall and used to reconstruct the new wall behind home plate. The masom'y joint widths, mortar color, and profiles shall match the existing wall; The concrete cap portion of the removable wall section, meant to match the limestone courses of the existing wall, shall incorporate scored joints and shall have an integral color with a smooth finish to match the color, joint pattem, color, texture, and finish of the limestone of the existing wall. Historic Preservation staff may request a color sample of the concrete for its review and approval; The electrical vault cladding and wall arch infill shall match the color, texture and details of the historic metal panels below, subject to Historic Preservation staff review and approval; 520 N. Michigan 4. The four proposed ventilation grills shall be painted to match the adjacent 5. materials; and, The roof decks and railings atop the electrical vaults are approved as proposed. These rooftop areas shall not be considered a precedent for additional rooftop veranda proposals, which must also address visibility and preservation of the roof profile and structure. (McGraw-Hill Building -- 42"" Ward) Proposal: Action: 77 S. Dearborn Proposed relocation of four Gwen Lux panels displayed in the Grand Avenue Atrium to the Rush Street enclosed bridge. Approved unanimously with the following condition: Informational/interpretative plaques about the panels shall be designed and installed by the owner with the panels in their new location by the end of 2012 and the design and mounting locations of the plaques shall be reviewed and approved by the Historic Preservation staff prior to their order and installation. (Inland Steel Building -- 42"" Ward) Proposal: Action: Proposed build-out within the ground-floor commercial space for caf? use including two new sets of exterior doors, two new louvers, and new signs. Approved unanimously with the following conditions: 1. The new mullions and doors shall be stainless steel to match the existing mullion system and should match the existing shape, size, and dimensions as much as possible. Existing and proposed mullion and door details shall be included in the permit plans. Any new glass shall match the existing glass in color and appearance. Samples to be reviewed and approved by Historic Preservation staff prior to order and installation; The two new louvers, required to meet ventilation code and located on the east facade, should be architectural louvers with narrow lines finished in stainless steel or factory painted with a grey color. Product specification shall be reviewed and approved as part of the permit application; The proposed interior build-out, incorporating a new "box" of partial height partitions to shield a commercial kitchen, is approved in general size and location as submitted with the interior partitions set back from 330 N. Wabash the exterior storefronts and with the new ceiling, which spans only portions of the box, at below the original luminous ceiling; and, The new signs, proposed to be set back from the inside face of the glass, shall be clad in metal faces with lit letters and logo. Attachment details shall be included with the permit plans and all conduit and transformer boxes shall be concealed. (IBM Building -- 42"" Ward) Proposal: Action: 1732 N. Hudson Proposed installation of a partial-height self-supporting clear glass dividing partition in the north elevator lobby. Approved unanimously as submitted. (Old Town Triangle District -- 43"' Ward) Proposal Action: Proposed conversion of the existing 3-unit residential building into a 2- unit residential building including a rear addition and exterior and interior alterations. Approved unanimously with the following conditions: l. The plans shall be revised to retain the east (front) wall of the historic side bay in its current configuration. The west wall of the bay may be removed and the bay extended to the rear to accommodate the proposed interior stair; Report and drawings by a licensed structural engineer addressing how the exterior walls and roof should be supported, braced and protected, in-situ, during the demolition of the interior structure and the excavation and construction of the new addition, shall be included on the permit plans. The report should include recommended measures and sequencing plan; As proposed, non-historic siding shall be removed from all elevations of the existing building. Upon removal of the non-historic siding, Historic Preservation staff shall review the condition of the historic wood siding. Historic siding shall be retained and be repaired, wherever possible. Areas beyond repair may be replaced with new wood siding to match the historic siding in size and profile. Removal and replacement of siding shall occur in phases, elevation by elevation. Details of the existing and proposed siding shall be reviewed and approved by Historic Preservation staff as part of the permit application; Window and door openings on the east (front) facade shall match historic sizes and locations based on any physical evidence uncovered 3211 S. Calumet after the removal of non-historic siding. Door details shall be included on the permit plans; Details of new trim and window surrounds shall be based on any physical evidence that may be uncovered after the removal of non- historic siding. Should no evidence be found, the design of these elements may be based on similar historic properties in the district, as proposed. Details of the trim and window surrounds shall be included on the permit plans; As proposed, the existing floor masom'y shall be repointed and cleaned and the masom'y for the rear addition shall match the existing in size, color, and finish. Pointing mortar shall match original in type, color and joint profile. Masomy cleaning specifications and sample of new brick shall be reviewed prior to permit approval; As proposed, existing windows shall be replaced with new double- hung clad-wood windows. Details of the existing and proposed windows shall be included with the permit plans; and, The project as proposed would require a zoning adjustment and/or variation, and the Commission takes no position regarding any requested adjustment/variance relative to the zoning code requirements. (Calumet-Giles-Prairie District - Ward) Proposal: Proposed new construction of a masom'y single-family residence and detached garage with a roof deck. Action: 1. Approved unanimously with the following conditions: The proposed standard-sized face brick, "Medium lronspot 46 Smooth" by Endicott Clay Products shall be installed on the front facade and wrap on the north and south elevations of the main building. This same brick shall be installed on the east (S. King Drive) elevation of the garage with a 3 wrap on the north and south elevations. The proposed utility-sized brick, "Plum Colored Iron Spot," by Sioux City Brick and Tile is approved for the remaining elevations of the main building and the garage. The mortar color of the face brick shall be a color similar to the brick and shall be subject to staff review and approval; The east (S. King Drive) elevation of the garage shall be modified to incorporate architectural detailing to break up the large expanse of the flat brick wall and the garage door shall be a paneled design. Revised elevations and details shall be submitted with the permit application; and, 3. The proposed concrete stairs shall be integrally colored to match the proposed limestone. Enlarged details of the proposed stair railing shall be submitted with the permit application. 2946 W. Armitage (Logan Square Boulevards District -- 35"' Ward) Proposal: Action: Proposed l-story additions to existing non-contributing l-story commercial building and elimination of existing curb-cut. The Committee voted a tie, 2-2 (Commissioners Smith and Wong against). The project was not approved. 1958 W. North (Milwaukee Avenue District - 32'" Ward) Proposal: Action: Installation of 20'-long l5'-tall sign on the North Avenue facade at the third-floor of an existing 3-story comer building. The Committee unanimously adopted the following findings and preliminarily disapproved the application: A) Find that, pursuant to the Milwaukee Avenue Designation Ordinance designating the Milwaukee Avenue District a Chicago Landmark on April 9, 2008, the significant historical and architectural features of the district are identified as all exterior elevations, including rooflines, visible from the public rights-of-way; and, B) Pursuant to Section 2-l20-780 of the Landmarks Ordinance, preliminarily find that the proposed sign would not meet the Commission's guidelines, standards, and criteria because the sign would adversely effect, obscure, and damage significant historical and architectural features of the building and the district. As Mr. Cho indicated at the meeting, he will be withdrawing the permit application and will look at other signage options with Cindy Roubik of our staff. The withdrawal of the permit application needs to occur immediately. Otherwise, pursuant to Section 2-l20-790 of the Municipal Code of Chicago, within ten days of receiving notice of preliminary disapproval the applicant may request in writing an informal conference to further discuss and reach an accord regarding the application. If the Commission does not timely receive a written request to hold an informal conference, a public hearing on the sign application must be held and concluded within 90 days after the Commission has preliminarily disapproved the permit, pursuant to Section 2-l20-800 of the Municipal Code of Chicago. COMMISSION ON CHICAGO LANDMARKS 2013 SCHEDULE OF REGULAR COMMISSION MEETINGS Thursday, January 10, 2013 Thursday, February 7, 2013 Thursday, March 7, 2013 Thursday, April 4, 2013 Thursday, May 2, 2013 Thursday, June 6, 2013 Thursday, July 11, 2013 Thursday, August 1, 2013 Thursday, September 5, 2013 Thursday, October 3, 2013 Thursday, November 7, 2013 Thursday, December 5, 2013 Meetings are held in City Hall, 121 N. LaSalle St., Room 201-A Floor) and begin at 12:45 PM. DRAFT DRAFT Permit Revlew Committee - 2013 Submittal Schedule The below chart sets for the submittal deadlines for an applicant's permit review documentation and the meeting dates for the Permit Review Committee. These dates are accurate as of the date of the publication of this document. Please check the Commission's website for any updates to this chart. Submittal Permlt Review Committee Deadline Meeting Date Friday, November 16 December 6, 2012 Friday, December 14 January 10 Friday, January 18 February 7 Friday, February 15 March 7 Friday, March 15 April 4 Friday, April 12 May 2 Fnday, May 17 June 6 Friday, June 21 July 11 Fnday, July 12 August 1 Friday, August 16 September 5 Fnday, September 13 October 3 Friday, October 18 November 7 Friday, November 15 December 5 Friday, December 13 January 2014 (TBD) Submittal Deadlines Submission by the above deadlines does not guarantee that a project will be placed on the Permit Review Committee agenda for a particular meeting date. Placement on the agenda is at the discretion of Commission staff and depends on the receipt of a submittal package and agenda availability for the particular meeting. Community Review In the interest of greater public awareness regarding proposed projects that will be reviewed by the Pennit Review Committee, the Commission encourages applicants to provide the applicable local community group with information about the project in advance of the scheduled Permit Review Committee meeting. Applicants may obtain the name and contact information for the applicable local community group from Commission staff. The community groups and other interested entities and individuals are welcome to submit written comments to the Permit Review Committee prior to the applicable meeting and to attend the meetings. DRAFT PRELIMINARY SUMMARY OF INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE COMMISSION on CHICAGO LANDMARKS IN NOVEMBER 2012 (FORMER) PRENTICE HOSPITAL 333 E. SUPERIOR ST. DATE OF CONSTRUCTION: 1972-75 ARCHITECT: BERTRAND GOLDBERG ASSOCIATES The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital is a boldly sculptural building completed in 1975. Its cloverleaf-shaped thin-shell concrete tower is cantilevered from a single core column, an unusu- al structural solution that is, if not unique, exceptional in the history of structural engineering. Poured concrete appealed to modernist architects for its ability to be shaped into an almost limit- less range of forms, and stylistically Prentice occupies an important place within a group of ex- pressive concrete structures from the modern movement in architecture. Prentice was designed by Bertrand Goldberg, a Chicago architect and engineer who rejected the rigid glass-box that had become the dominant form of modem architecture. In its place he em- braced new forms, especially circular ones, that he believed were better suited for human activi- ty. He is best-known as the architect of Marina City, a mixed-use development com- bining living, work and recreational spaces that has become one of Chicago's most iconic struc- tures. While he emphasized the human aspect of architecture, Goldberg also had a keen under- standing of building materials, especially concrete, and he continually explored new ways of using it as both the form and structure of his buildings. Goldberg was an early adopter of computer technology within the architectural profession, and during the design of Prentice he modified software then in use by the aeronautical industry to design the building's unprecedented cantilevered structure. Prentice is one of the first tall struc- tures designed using computer analysis, and the computational method used to create it is now Cl'l|Cl|3O QUE. (Former) Prentice . Women's Hospital 333 E. Superior StLocated in the Streeter- neighborhood, the (Former) Prentice Wom- en's Hospital Is located approximately one- quarter mile east of Mich- igan Avenue and one- third mile west of Lake Michigan. The building was designed by Chicago architect and engineer Bertrand Goldberg, one of the more individual . -- figures within the modem 7 3' movement in architec- I . I . ture. To provide a flexi- -. ble, column-free interior, -. I the thin-shell concrete bed tower is carried on arches cantilevered from a single core superstruc- ture, a rare and possibly unique structural solu- tion that is clearly visible on the building's exterior and defines the build- ing's overall appearance. an essential tool in architectural and structural design. Hospital architecture was one of Goldberg's lifelong preoccupations, and he felt that Prentice was the pinnacle of his achievements with this complex building type. In Prentice's bed tower the distinct clover-shaped floor plan clustered new mothers, babies and nurses in what Goldberg called "quiet villages" of care. Compared to the long corridors of typical hospital design, the plan eliminated inefiiciencies and supported the vision for Prentice as an innovative maternity hospital. Through its design and history of progressive medical care, Prentice exemplifies the historic importance of medical institutions to Chicago. HISTORY OF CHICAGO HOSPITALS The history of hospitals in Chicago is part of the larger history of medicine in the United States which was marked by advances in scientific knowledge, professionalism and well-designed and -equipped hospital buildings. In 1866, the first Cook County Hospital was established. Rebuilt first in l875-76 and later in the l9l0s, Cook County Hospital with its thousands of patients served annually attracted a wide range of physicians, educators and students seeking experience with a broad range of medical conditions. Soon Cook County Hospital became a center for ad- vanced medicine, and a phalanx of corollary institutions rose in its proximity, including the University of Illinois' College of Physicians and Surgeons. In the twentieth century, North- western emerged as another prominent university-afiiliated teaching hospital on Chicago's Near North Side. Prentice may be understood within broader trends in American medicine in the twentieth centu- ry. In 1946, the U.S. Congress passed the Hill-Burton Bill which provided $4 billion for hospi- tal construction between 1946 and l975. During the same period more Americans were partici- pating in commercial health insurance programs which led to a greater demand for healthcare services. And in l965, Lyndon Johnson successfiilly pushed forward his Great Society pro- grams, which included Medicaid and Medicare programs. These public and private insurance programs unleashed a huge demand for hospital beds and led to the closure of smaller hospitals and encouraged the construction of larger hospital campuses in the l970s, a pattern of expan- sionism in the American health-care system illustrated by the construction of Prentice at North- westem's hospital campus. Hospital architecture in the postwar era became increasingly more complex in order to contain a growing number of medical specialties and new diagnostic technologies. At the same time, the progressive movement of the mid-1960s led to an increased interest in "patient-centered more questioning attitude towards hospital care and one that demanded recognition for the patient as a complete human was the treatment approach at the Prentice Women's Hospital. Propelled by these progressive ideas in hospital design, new trends in architectural aesthetics, and the increasing formal freedom enabled by developments in building technology, health care facilities in the 1960s and 1970s dramatically changed shape, abandoning for the first time the massive, rectilinear plans that had existed in some form for the entire history of the modern hos- 3 pital. Round nursing towers began to appear in the mid- 960s with the purpose of centralizing caregivers in the middle of patient groups. Some of the earliest examples of this new hospital type show round towers placed next to the rectilinear building masses that held administrative, surgical, and emergency facilities, with a hallway connecting the two building sections. Goldberg's 1967 hospital in Elgin and his first design for Prentice were both similar to these simple drum-and-box formal combinations, but he was driven to continue to refine this ap- proach in order to better serve both the needs of patients and hospital administrators. The prob- lem of how to integrate round nursing towers with the main body of the hospital was key; while isolating nursing care in round towers ensured a calm environment for recovering patients, this approach risked creating a disconnect between recovery spaces and treatment and surgical facil- ities. Goldberg's placement of Prentice's nursing tower directly on top of its multi-use base with a shared elevator core balanced the quiet of patient bedrooms and quick access to treat- ment. In Chicago there were no other hospitals similar to Prentice architecturally. The Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago provides a striking counterpoint since it was built at the same time as Pren- tice l97l -- l97S) and is immediately adjacent to it. Designed by Gene Summers, a former IIT student working at C.F. Murphy Associates, it is the quintessential glass-and-stee_l box of the International Style, the very hospital design that progressive hospital architects and healthcare professionals questioned. Although architecturally admired, patients and doctors at the time of the Rehabilitation Institute's construction puzzled over its resemblance to an office tower. On a national level, the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital was considered exemplary of the new direction in hospital design. It was featured on the cover of the March l976 issue of Mod- em Healthcare Magazine, and in "Caring Curing", the 1977 Britannica's entry on hospital architecture. In that entry, the current state of hospital design and pa- tient care was illustrated by Prentice, which was praised for taking advantage of technology and non-rectilinear shapes to provide improved care and patient experience. Trends in hospital architecture have continued to progress rapidly since Prentice was construct- ed. Hospitals have sustained extremely rapid rates of obsolescence and are often extensively renovated or decommissioned only a few years after their completion. Although Prentice has experienced a similar fate, it should be noted that the innovative "lobed" plan of its tower floors has remained relevant, re-appearing in Perkins Will's Rush Medical Center building on Chi- cago's West Side, completed in 2012. BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION Planning for Prentice Women 19 Hospital The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital was originally conceived as the Women's Hospital and Maternity Center of the larger Northwestern Memorial Hospital. Northwestern Memorial traces its origins back to two early Chicago hospitals: the Passavant and Wesley hospitals, founded in 1865 and l888 respectively. By the early-twentieth century both of these institu- tions became affiliated with Northwestern University's medical school and began a period of 4 expansion. In the mid-1920s Passavant opened a new 325-bed facility at 303 East Superior Street. Wesley followed in 1941, building its "Cathedral of Healing" at 250 East Superior. By the 1960s the two hospitals were sharing services, and in 1972 Passavant and Wesley formally consolidated into one institution, Northwestem Memorial Hospital. With 1,000 beds, the new hospital campus immediately became one of the largest university teaching hospital in the Mid- west. In 1968, prior to consolidation, Passavant and Wesley began to plan a new Women's Hospital and Matemity Center which would eliminate duplication of services between the two institu- tions. The vision of the new hospital was to provide comprehensive care for women, infants, and the expectant mother in a new type of specialized medical facility. The new institution was named Prentice Hospital in 1973 for John Rockefeller and Abbie Cantrill Prentice, major bene- factors with a special interest in women's health. Prentice would be staffed by the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Northwestem University Medical School. In addition, it would provide a hospital base for the Chicago Matemity Center, a medical charity founded in 1895 that had historically helped underprivileged mothers safely deliver their babies at home. The Chicago Matemity Center's progressive, patient-focused approach to women's health and childbirth likely influenced the treatment philosophy at Prentice which was touted as "family- centered maternity care." Prentice's promotional materials boasted that "having a baby at Pren- tice is -- as far as possible -- a family event," undertaken in an environment approximating the home. Fathers were encouraged to be present during labor and delivery and families had free access to their newboms during recovery. These now-common practices were advanced when Prentice was built and reflect the broader trend in medicine in the 1970s to treat patients as whole persons, not just their medical condition. The vision for Prentice also reflected a broader trend towards increased specialization in all fields of medicine, including obstetrics and gynecology. Dr. John Sciarra, M.D., the first Chief of Staff at Prentice, observed that during the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries maternity hospitals were separated from general hospital populations to reduce the risk of infection. As hospitals grew larger and antibiotics improved in the postwar era, matemity hospitals began to be absorbed back into larger medical centers. Continued advances in the areas of blood transfu- sion and anesthesia greatly reduced rates of maternal mortality during childbirth, allowing med- icine to focus on other factors which lead to a healthy mother and baby. The subsequent in- crease in complexity and technology of obstetrics and gynecology made specialized hospitals like Prentice necessary by the late 1960s. On July 3, 1969, Bertrand Goldberg Associates was commissioned to design Prentice, yet his- torical records provide little insight on how Goldberg was chosen for the job. It is known that Goldberg designed a prototype neighborhood maternity clinic for Dr. Beatrice Tucker of the Chicago Maternity Center; however the prototype never made it off the drawing board and it is unclear if Goldberg's connection with Dr. Tucker led to the Prentice commission. What is cer- tain is that Goldberg was an accomplished hospital architect. His first hospital, the Elgin State Hospital, was completed in 1967, and he was engaged in master planning of medi- cal campuses at Harvard and at the State University of New York in Stony Brook when he was commissioned to design Prentice. And, compared to others in his field, Goldberg was a rare 5 architect willing to take on hospital design with the inherent complexity and restraints of that building type. The new hospital was to provide facilities for patient care, research and medical education, yet the more detailed brief provided to Goldberg by Northwestern reveals the magnitude of the de- sign task. In addition to patient beds, the hospital would need spaces for dietary, pathology, data processing, sterile supplies, blood bank, research labs, radiology, laundry, pharmacy, emer- gency, medical records, parking, teaching, and animal quarters. A maximum annual capacity of 6,000 deliveries, 3,000 gynecological operations, and 33,000 outpatient visits were to be pro- vided for. At some point after the original commission, but before Goldberg arrived at the final design for the building, the hospital requested that facilities be added to accommodate the Northwestern Institute of Historical records are not clear about how the building was divided be- tween Prentice and the Institute during its lifetime. For example, a 1971 cross- section drawing of the building indicates that the institute occupied three of the sev- en bed tower floors, though other records indicate that care was limited to outpatient clinics at the base portion of the building. It is known that when the building was last occupied, the bed tower included inpatient floors of Northwestern's Stone Institute of The Derign Proceis Goldberg began designing Prentice in 1969 and the hospital went through several iterations be- fore arriving at its final form in 1971. The process is recorded in a series of renderings and models which survive. One preliminary plan (figure conceived of the building as a bundle of concrete tubes, though this was apparently rejected by the hospital as too radical; at least some portion of the building had to be rectilinear for the hospital's needs. Therefore most of the iterations display Goldberg's signature arrangement of a circular bed tower over a rectangu- lar base. A design fiom 1969 (figure resembles Goldberg's earlier design for the Elgin hos- pital as a drum-shaped, curtain-walled tower, raised on columns that descend through the mid- dle of a one-story base building. A third design (figure is a model dating to around 1970 showing a rectilinear glass-curtain-walled base of about four stories topped with four concrete towers, each carried on a single column. A rendering of this design was published in the Chica- go Daily News on April 23, 1970, that announced the new hospital to Chicago. A nearly final rendering (figure shows a ten-story bed tower nearly identical to Prentice as-built, however in its final realization (figure the height of the tower was reduced to seven-stories. The design process for Prentice is marked by two important themes. The first is the hospital's interest in creating a new type of maternity hospital that placed women and their families at the center of care. Goldberg, who believed "that spatial design can enhance medical care relation- ships and make the art of healing the patient more effective," was well suited to the hospital's goals. The second theme relates to the building's innovative structure and how Goldberg used new computer analyses to arrive at the exceptional design. Family-Centered Care Typical hospital wards of the period were characterized by long corridors loaded with rectangu- lar rooms on each side. Long, straight hallways added travel time between patients and nursing 6 I I1_ll|D on F0 eeocooe. Renderings for early design studies for Prentice reflect what Goldberg later described as "the working over and over and over--the refine- ment. the wringing out of ideas. the throwing away" that must occur in design. He credited Josef Albers' course at the Bauhaus for this dis- cipline. The drawing (Figure combines an elevation and section of the building as completed in 1975. stations, resulting in delays in care. Visitors, doctors, and nurses forced to walk up and down halls were a constant disturbance to patients attempting to rest in the rooms lining their path. In response to the inefficiency of linear hospital wards, Goldberg employed a circular plan for many of his hospital designs, including Prentice. Each floor of the cloverleaf bed tower con- sists of four lobes which each contains what Goldberg called a "care cluster" or "quiet village". Each cluster included seven patient bedrooms, two single rooms and five double rooms accom- modating a total of twelve patients. Rather than placing babies in separate wards, the nurseries at Prentice are located at the center of each cluster, permitting the mother to have access to the baby, or visitors to view the baby, at all times. Two nursing stations were located at the center of each floor with each station placed to serve two clusters. The plan allowed nurses to main- tain visual contact with their patients, and easily reach them when necessary. The close proxim- ity between caregivers and new mothers also reduced foot traffic, creating a quieter, more peacefiJl atmosphere. As the number of patients fluctuated, a lobe could be temporarily closed during periods of low occupancy allowing for more efficient use of space. At Prentice's dedi- cation ceremonies, Goldberg claimed that the "the bed tower has replaced the anonymity of the long hospital corridor with a promise of a community for care. The structure clearly shows that each floor provides four clusters of increased, intimate concern between the patient and the phy- sician or nurse." Computer-Assisted Design The second important theme of Prentice's design process was the role that the electronic digital computer played in its realization. Goldberg was an early adopter of the computer, and criti- cized the architectural profession for its slowness in recognizing the potential of the new tech- nology: "other industries now are using the machine to do things man cannot. But the building industry is stuck in the Victorian period in which an industrially-produced unit is fabricated in some segmental form of infinite length, chopped up into usefiJl pieces, and combined by hand." In the preliminary designs for Prentice, Goldberg struggled with the structural challenge posed by supporting a circular building above a square one. He wrote that "the pattern of columns to support the circular floor did not align vertically with the columns that support the square build- ing below. If unresolved, the square base building would contain a confiJsion of both its own column system and that of the circular patient rooms above." He resolved this conflict by canti- levering the thin concrete shell of the circular bed tower from a single core column that con- tained the elevators and stairwells shared by both buildings. This structural solution was rare if not unique at the time of construction and it would have been impossible without the computer. Goldberg used a computational tool known as finite element analysis to design Prentice's struc- ture, and the building is one of the first tall structures designed using this method, a technique now universally used in the design of all large structures. Finite element analysis emerged dur- ing World War II as a method for designing ships and aircraft. Unlike traditional post-and- beam structures where load paths can be easily calculated, the curved shapes of airplane fiJse- lages and ship hulls were far more complex. In the simplest terms, finite element analysis draws a grid or mesh over a curved structure, di- viding into smaller parts (finite elements) and calculating compressive and tensile forces at each 8 IEDICAL OOQHUNITY DENTAL COIIUNTV I CLUSTER TYPES NURSING QUADRANT NURSERY CENTRAL SUPPORT STATION TOWER FLOOR PLAN 0 In I0 In Goldberg insisted that human activity tended to occur in groups. or clus- ters. which were ill-served by linear or boxy architectural spaces. This theory led him to develop what he called "care-ciuster" floor plans for his hospitals. His archive at the Art institute of Chicago includes the three renderings at right for how the cluster plan might be applied to a range of healthcare communities in- cluding research (left), medical (middle) and dental communities (right). The plan of a typical bed tower floor at Prentlce (left) showing its four care clusters. Patient bedrooms are arranged around the perimeter wall with nursing stations located at the center of the floor. Nurseries. ren- dered here with small bassinets. are located between the patient rooms and nursing stations. The plan re- flects Goldberg's vision of a hospital being "a very intricate set of many sub-organizations. You might call these medical 'neighborhoods' with- in the thing called a hospital. We are no longer talking about the hospital as a building. but as a set of social and functional relationships." The photograph of a three- dimensional model of Prentice (left) highlighting the sightlines into two patient rooms simultaneously from a single vantage point. clearly illustrat- ing the advantages the Prentlce plan offered nursing staff. point in the grid. The benefit of the method is that it creates stiff and lightweight structures with minimal material weight for airplanes) and cost. The downside is that it requires an enormous amount of ti1ne-consuming calculations, which prior to the computer were done by hand with slide rules. The emergence of high-speed electronic computing in the 1960s drasti- cally reduced the time needed to complete the calculations required by finite element analysis. When Goldberg began work on Prentice, digital computers were still in their infancy, but his firm and another large architectural firm, Skidmore, Owings and Merrill, were early adopters of the new technology in the architectural field. Goldberg and his chief structural engineer, Lud- wig Stainer, worked with a sister company called Computer Service Incorporated which Gold- berg also owned. Two engineers there, Mike Eiben and Mickey Gerardi, modified software used to design airplane wings, and used it conduct finite element analysis on Prentice's tower by modeling it as a three-dimensional mesh. The resulting combination of a lightweight con- crete shell and a cantilever remains complex by present day engineering standards. In a 1974 interview Goldberg noted that "the ability to cantilever the structural shell off a fiinction which was common to both the base and superstructure, namely the stairs and elevators, gave us a new flexibility and freedom which we had never previously been able to achieve. The cantilevered shell is a real breakthrough in engineering . . . It works well and I think it will look damn excit- ing." Building Description The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital is organized in two distinct parts with clearly separate forms. The base is a conventional, rectangular five-story building with a reinforced-concrete post-and-beam structure. Cantilevered above it is the dramatic cloverleaf bed tower, a seven- story thin-shell reinforced concrete structure with a striated surface. Floor space containing me chanical equipment is located in the superstructure between the tower and the base building. This concrete superstructure also contains the elevator and stairwell core which connect both parts of the building, and serves as the primary structural support for the bed tower. The exteri- or walls of the tower transfer their weight down to four arch-shaped wall sections which are cantilevered 48 feet away from the central core. These arches in tum transfer the load of the tower to the central core and from there down to the building's caisson foundation. While most of the concrete at Prentice is reinforced with steel bar, post-tensioning cables were added at the transfer arches to enhance their strength. Secondary structural supports for the tower include its interior floors which act as diaphragms to resist lateral wind loading. The five-story (originally built as four stories) rectangular base building is primarily clad in an opaque metal curtain wall with intermittent bronze-tinted windows. At street level, the first floor of the building is recessed and clad in clear glass. The main entrance is located at the south elevation facing Huron Street, with a secondary entrance at the north elevation facing Su- perior Street. Loading zones and service entrances are located at the east and west facades. The base originally housed fiinctions of both the Prentice Women's Hospital and the Norman Ida Stone Institute of The base building's open floor plan accommodated the hospital's treatment spaces, outpatient clinics and labs. This portion of the building was designed with ultimate flexibility in mind, with few structural walls and columns to allow for fiiture reconfigu- ration. 10 Prentice was designed using an IBM 1130 computer, not a desktop but rather a desk- sized computer with 8 KB of memory intr duced by IBM in 1965. It was designed for smaller engineering offices and could be rented for $1,000 a month or purchased for $32,000. COMPUTER STRESS ANALYSIS DIAGRAM Prentice was one of the earliest tall structures designed with the aid of computer technology. The computer- generated drawing above depicts half of a floor plan and a three-dimensional model of a section of the bed tower's exterior wall. The analysis of the structure as a grid of finite elements was a technique Goldberg adapted from aeronautical design. in addition to being in- novative, Prentice's structure is inseparable from the building's vis- ual interest, as depicted in the detail of the 48- foot arches at right. The weight of the tower is transferred to these arches which in turn carry the load to the central core which is revealed by the flat wall surfaces behind the arches. The core trans- fers the load down to the building's caisson foundations. In plan, the seven-story bed tower consists of four overlapping circles, or a cloverleaf shape. Each leaf, or lobe, expresses a "care cluster," Goldberg's principle of locating patient beds and nurseries around a central nurse's station. The plastic quality of concrete was a logical choice for Goldberg who observed that "concrete does not take its form until you give it its shape, and (therefore) we are not bound by the engineer's module--the rectangle. We are bound by the human module which is infinitely more complex." Curved concrete structures were a trademark of Goldberg's work and they stand in a larger context of the Expressionist style of modem ar- chitecture discussed below. The thin-shell concrete walls of the tower were constructed using slip-form concrete construc- tion. Architectural and structural drawings of the building indicate that lightweight concrete was used for the tower walls and these walls were designed to be 15" thick at the fifth and sixth floors and narrowing to 10" thick on the higher floors and parapet. The concrete shell walls were less expensive than comparable glass curtain wall buildings; at the time of construction a comparable teaching hospital cost about $80 per square foot; Prentice cost $57 per square foot. Because the tower is cantilevered fi'om a single core, the tower walls at Prentice were designed to be as lightweight as possible. Optimized weight is a firndamental feature of most thin-shell concrete structures. Compared to standard concrete construction, thin-shell structures lack ma- terial redundancy and therefore require more rigorous inspection and maintenance schedules. At time of writing, the exterior wall of the bed tower exhibits limited areas of concrete spalling, a condition where patches of the concrete surface have been lost due to corrosion of the con- crete's intemal steel reinforcing bar. This is a common condition in reinforced concrete with well-established repair methods, and as with any building repairs, these must be addressed in a timely manner. The walls of the tower are pierced with oval-shaped window openings like those found in ships and aircraft. In a shell structure curved-shape openings eliminate stress concentrations that would occur at the comers of rectangular openings. Arranged in horizontal stacks, each win- dow marks a patient bedroom. In 1974 Goldberg stated that "we knew, back in 1968 when we were designing the hospital, that conserving energy was a requisite," therefore the size of the window openings was kept to a minimum to reduce heat loss and the glazing was tinted to re- duce solar gain. The first patient was admitted to Prentice Hospital on December 10, 1975, and a weeklong se- ries of dedication ceremonies were held in January 1976 which included medical symposia for professionals from around the world to gather in Chicago and discuss the current state of gyne- cological and obstetrical science. The medical community recognized Prentice's design as an impo11ant step forward in hospital design. It was featured on the cover of Modern Healthcare Magazine in March of 1976, and in an entry on hospital design in the 1977 edition of the Ency- clopedia Britannica, a photograph of Prentice was chosen to illustrate the section on modern hospitals. The building was also widely published in architectural and professional journals including: Building Design Construction (March 1974 cover story), Inland Architect (January 1974 and 12 Construction of Prentlce began in 1972, and a topping off ceremony was held on May 23, 1974. Figure a. shows the placing of the arches which were shored upon pipe scaf- folding during construction. Figure b. shows a portion of the bed tower being constructed with slip forms which are raised gradually as the concrete cures. Figure c. is an aeri- al view of the bed tower floor with the central core structure rising above the floor plate. The photo at upper left shows the north elevation of Prentlce as It appeared In 1975 when It was photographed by the photography studio. The photo shows the as It ap- peared before the 1991 construction of a one-story rooftop to the base Current photos of the building show one lobe of the bed tower with the distinctive oval windows (top right) and an overall view of the build- lng's south elevatlon (lower 1-'1 April I976), Architecture and Urbanism (Japan, July l975), Architecture 'aujourd'hui (France, January -- February I976), Architectural Record (July I976), Informes de la Construc- tion (Spain, November I976), Cement (Netherlands, I977), Concrete Construction (February l980), 'Industria Italiana Del Cemento (Italy, No. 7-8, l980), and Concrete Abstracts (cover image, January/February 1986). In I975 the Engineering News-Record recognized the Prentice design with an award for innovative structure. In l979, Prentice was included in an exhibit at the Museum of Modem Art in New York entitled "Transformations in Modem Architecture." In l99l the building base was expanded with the addition of a fifih floor which added seven- teen new labor, delivery and recovery rooms. Two special use elevators were also added, as well as a new patient transport bridge to link Prentice to Passavant Hospital next door (recently replaced by the Lurie Cancer Research Building). The Special Care Nursery was also expanded at this time, and floors one through four of the base structure were renovated. Prentice was designed for a capacity of delivering around 6,000 babies per year, but by the year 2000 the hospital was handling twice that number. Northwestem Memorial Hospital completed construction of a new Prentice Women's Hospital building in 2007, and the former Prentice has remained vacant since. Although the services offered at Prentice have moved to another build- ing and are now considered much more standard than they were in l975, the building's shape remains a physical legacy of the .'2OClal and medical significance when it was estab- lished. ARCHITECTURE IN THE MODERN MOVEMENT Modem architecture, particular in Chicago under the influence of Mies van der Rohe, is often associated with the International Style glass-and-steel buildings commissioned by large corpo- rations and government from the 1950s through the 1970s. These boxy structures were present- ed as purely fiinctional buildings with a sleek aesthetic devoid of ornamentation or historical reference. Modem architecture however took many forms and gave rise to numerous styles one of which was Expressionism, a form of modern architecture that is regarded as a reaction against the rigidity of the Intemational Style. Expressionists clung to the idea that architecture was a powerfiil art form with the capacity to express its human function, elicit emotion or to be symbol. Typical features of Expressionism in modern architecture are sweeping, curved wall surfaces. Because of the emphasis on curved forms, Expressionist buildings were frequently built with concrete because of its ability to take on a curvilinear shape. And in comparison to steel framed structures, Expressionist concrete buildings fi.lS6Cl the structure and exterior form of the building into a single element, creating an economy of means that appealed to modernists. In its material and design, Prentice is an excel- lent example of an Expressionist-style concrete building and it stands within a group of other flowing concrete iterations of that style. Given the emotive quality of Expressionism, churches were frequent patrons of the style. An 15 Prentice is an example of the post-World War II Ex- pressionist style. Within the modern movement it was a reaction against the glass-and-steel boxes of the International Style, advocated by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. Notre Dame du Haut (1955), Ronchamp, France, Le Corbusier Felix Candela Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (1959), New York, Frank Lloyd Wright '>17 7 i -. Saint Mary of the Assumption (1967-71), San Francis- co, Pier Luigi Nervi and Pietro Belluschi TWA Flight Center (1 962), New Yorit, Eero Saarinen early example is Le Corbusier's Notre-Dame-du-Haut (l950-54). This small chapel in Ron- champ, France features a concrete roof with dramatically upttuned edges, an oval shaped belfry and concave walls all executed in concrete. In Mexico, Felix Candela designed the Church of the Miraculous Virgin in Mexico City (l954) which employed hyperbolic parabaloids, or warped planar surfaces. These same surfaces were employed in the design of the Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption (l967-7 l) in San Francisco which was designed by a team which included the Italian engineer Pier Luigi Nervi, a master of concrete structures who also de- signed the domed Palazzo dello Sport (l957) in Rome using pre-cast concrete ribs and buttresses. In America, Frank Lloyd Wright was an early pioneer of cast-concrete architecture in his l904 design of Unity Temple. However he truly exploited the expressive potential of concrete in his design for the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum (designed in l945, built l956-59) in New York. The galleries on the interior are laid out on a single helical ramp that is the same form used by Goldberg in the garages at the base of the Marina City towers. Eero Saarinen is regarded as the leader in manipulating the expressive possibilities of concrete. His TWA Terminal (l952-62) at John F. Kennedy Airport in New York is perhaps the most aesthetically and technologically advanced example of Expressionism. He followed this with the Dulles International Airport Terminal in Washington, D.C. which has a concrete roof shape resembling a wing. At MIT in Cambridge, Massachusetts he designed the Kresge Auditorium with a thin-shell concrete roof shaped as section of a sphere that appears to rest on two points. ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER BERTRAND GOLDBERG The (former) Prentice Women's Hospital was designed by Bertrand Goldberg, a Chicago-based architect and engineer who possessed an unusual combination of three perspectives that shaped his six-decade long career. First, he was a humanist who firmly believed that architecture could improve human experience, either individually or collectively in urban contexts. Second, he took great interest in the physical aspect of architecture, always exploring new ways of using materials and new building technologies. Third, he was inspired by structures found in nature such as eggs, shells and trees which were strong and efficient. The resulting firsion of these perspectives led Goldberg to create buildings that were structurally innovative, boldly sculptur- al and carefully planned for human activity. Born in Chicago in l9l3, Goldberg first became interested in architecture in l930 as an under- graduate student at Harvard where he began to audit graduate courses at the Cambridge School of Landscape Architecture at Harvard College (now incorporated into Harvard University). At the recommendation of Harvard's dean, Goldberg travelled to Germany in May l932 to study at the Bauhaus, an avant-garde school of an and design in Germany. Though he only spent a year at the Bauhaus, which in l932 was located in Berlin, Goldberg was influenced by the school's philosophy that art and design could improve human experience and by the school's emphasis on merging design and mass-production. Also while in Berlin, Goldberg spent three months working in the office of architect Mies van der Rohe, one of the most influential architects in the modern movement who would later move to Chicago. As the political situation in Weimar 17 Golrlbotg mu-II corners. opens inl miois Pglir-fll H-u elun l"llI"I'l'\ nun lluun-3. color. building can a hulpilal Hun |-I-uuclown ell:-cl 5 ha--llfuuerl BUILDING DESIGN CONSTRUCTION Prentice was designed by Chicago architect and engineer Bertrand Goldberg. A humanist, Goldberg believed that ar- chitecture shaped the quality of life for individuals and communities. Though he is best known as the designer of Marina City, Goldberg regarded Prentice as one of his most sophisticated designs. The photo at top are of Goldberg at Prentice soon after completion. Prentice was a highly pub- licized building making the covers of Modern Healthcare Muim _mhm"_l (top right) in March 1976 and Building Design and Con- iS'Sl in' struction (bottom right) in March 1974. - I - 1- -- mull! 13 Germany deteriorated, especially for a Jewish-American student, Goldberg left Germany in ear- ly 1933 and returned to Chicago. Back home, Goldberg visited the 1933 World's Fair where he was inspired by Buckminster Fuller's Dymaxion Car and, like so many architects in the 1930s, to also design an automobile. He began studying st1'uctural engineering under Frank Nydam at the Armour Institute of Tech- nology (now the Illinois Institute of Technology) and earned his degree in 1934. He then began working in the offices of progressive Chicago architects including George Fred Keck (193 5) and Paul Schweikher (1935-36). In 1937 Goldberg established his own practice which later became known as Bertrand Goldberg Associates (BGA). In the beginning he specialized in sing1e-family homes and other small buildings, which, despite their apparent simplicity, were characterized by a high level of struc- tural and material inventiveness. In 1938 with Gilmer Black, Goldberg designed a factory- prefabricated, mobile ice cream store supported on a single mast that could be easily disassem- bled and easily moved. A mast-suspended gas station soon followed and was built at Clark and Maple in 1938 (no longer extant). During World War II, Goldberg was active under the Lan- ham Act designing housing and mobile field clinics for the U.S. government. These light- weight structures were designed with stressed plywood skins that could be demounted and easi- ly moved. He also designed industrially-produced bathrooms and kitchen units though these never gained widespread acceptance. In the early 1950s Goldberg continued to design single-family homes like the Ralph Helstein House (1952) in Chicago, as well as the Drexel Town and Garden Houses (1954-55) on the Chicago's South Side, an early urban renewal project combining federal and private firnds. In 1958, Goldberg was commissioned to design Astor Tower, originally a combined hotel and apartment building, in the Gold Coast neighborhood. The concrete-fi'amed structure was raised five-stories above grade to reduce its visual impact on the surrounding historic residential neighborhood. It was Marina City (1959-67) that thrust Goldberg onto the national stage. A successfirl mixed- use development firnded by the Building Services Employees International Union which had the foresight to understand that there was an untapped market for middle-class apartments in city. Goldberg created a "city within a city" that included two round residential towers with parking as well as an office building, performing arts space, boat marina, ice skating rink, bowl- ing alley, and other amenities. Each round, cast-in-place concrete tower has a central structural core from which radiate wedge-shaped apartments and petal-shaped balconies. The complex has become an icon of Chicago architecture. The scope of the Marina City project led to an expansion of Goldberg's practice known as Ber- trand Goldberg Associates (BGA). The firm's next major project was the Raymond M. Hilliard Center (1966, listed on the National Register of Historic Places in 2007) built for the Chicago Housing Authority (CHA) to provide public housing for seniors and families with children. It is regarded as the CHA's most socially successfi11 public housing for which much is credited to Goldberg's design. Families were housed in a pair of twenty-two-story buildings which are curved slabs while the apartments for seniors are located in a pair of round towers with oval 19 As a 19-year old, Goldberg attended the Bau- The emphasis on unifying art and design with industrial haus in Germany from May 1932 to April 1933 production was one of the Bauhaus influences that when the school was closed by the Nazi patty. staid with Goldberg. He designed the Stanfab Unit Walter Gropius' schematic representation Bathroom in 1946 which could be mass produced as a (above) represents the Bauhaus curriculum. single unit and installed in a house with simple connec- Goldberg took the 6-month voriehre or basic tlons. course. which he later as "leamlng how to see." He also took workshop courses ln three-dimenslonal form, color, painting as well as an urban planning course taught by Ludwig Hllberseimer who focused on low-income housing. Like many of Chicago's midcentury architects, Goldberg started his career with single-family .. houses. Completed in 1951 in Hyde Park, the Hel- . . 'sat stein House (above) reveals its reinforced concrete ln addition to prefabrication. Goldberg was fascinate columns and floors. with mobile architecture, and in 1938 with Gilmer Black, Goldberg designed a mobile ice cream shop that could travel between Florida and Chicago as the seasons changed. The shop was built with wheels and a light- weight tensioned-cable structure that could be easily disassembled and moved. 20 . Completed in 1963. Brenneman School in Uptown was commissioned by the Chicago Public Schools. The parabolic concrete roof forms were created us- ing sprayed concrete. Deterioration of the extremely thin shells forced them to be later covered within a new structure. -4- _A.u sg: - -I. I. . 113' - .. E-v E. eh --.I. - --.'fin: 4. . Also completed in 1963. Astor Tower's primary structural support is its central core which Gold- berg revealed at the base of the bullding. Originally containing both a luxury hotel and apartments. it was one of the few Goldberg designed for an upper-class clientele. 21 1. .-.. Designed in 1963. but never realized. was the new American Broadcasting Company headquarters In Manhattan. Goldberg studled ABC's corporate structure and culture and used that Information to guide his design. The attached transmission anten- na would have been the tallest structure In New York City at the time. Marina City (1959-67, top) has become an iconic Chicago building and it is arguably Goldberg's best-known work. The Raymond M. Hilliard Center (1966, middle) is regarded as one of the more socially successful public housing projects in Chicago for which Gold- berg's humanistic design is often credited. The Hilliard Center was listed on the National Register of His- toric Places in 2007. In 1986 Goldberg promoted his concept for River City (bottom), a massive ultra-dense mixed -use development on the south bank of the Chicago River. However only a small portion of it was built. window openings. The round towers and curving slab high-rises at the Hilliard Center are sup- ported by their exterior walls, which form rippling concrete load-bearing shells. The structural innovations at Marina City and the Hilliard Center, specifically the central core superstructure for the former and the thin concrete shells for the latter, would be combined and refined by Goldberg at Prentice. Taken together, Marina City, the Hilliard Center and Prentice provide a legible narrative of the development of Goldberg's ideas about concrete structural en- gineermg. During the late 1960s through the 1970s, Goldberg's firm BGA developed a specialty in hospi- tal design, a building type that many architects shied away fi'om due to their complex technical and functional requirements. As a humanist, Goldberg was attracted to hospital design as an opportunity to create spaces that promoted healing for the patient and that were highly function- al for medical staff. He designed seven major hospitals around the country which were herald- ed as groundbreaking contributions to modern healthcare architecture. Prentice is the only Goldberg hospital in Chicago and the one design which the architect believed to be the most structurally advanced of all his hospitals. His first hospital was the Elgin State Hospital (1962-1967), which consisted of a rectilinear base building beneath a seven-story circular bed tower. Each floor of the bed tower was planned with a central nursing station with patient rooms arranged around the perimeter. This "cluster plan" eliminated long corridors and placed patients and nurses in a close visual and spatial arrangement. The rectilinear base building provided a separate and flexible space for treatment and support spaces. Afier Elgin, Goldberg would continue to refine the "cluster plan" and the drum-and-box combination of forms for most of his hospitals designs, including Prentice. Concurrent with Prentice, Goldberg was working on hospital projects in Massachusetts, New York, and Washington. For the Affiliated Hospitals Center (AHC) at Harvard in Boston, BGA prepared a master plan. In Stony Brook, New York Goldberg designed a massive complex of buildings known as the Health Sciences Center (1965-76) that included a medical school, re- search, hospital and administration buildings. Saint Joseph's Hospital (1969-74) in Tacoma, Washington required a series of structural columns, rather than the single support at Prentice, to meet seismic requirements of that locality. Afier Prentice, Goldberg designed Saint Mary's Hospital, Milwaukee (1972-76) which em- ployed thicker pre-cast concrete exterior walls to accommodate larger floor areas required there. His last two hospitals were the Good Samaritan Hospital (1978-82) in Phoenix and Providence Hospital 1982-87) in Mobile, the latter eliminating the rectangular base building allowing the curvilinear exterior walls to meet the ground. Goldberg was an intellectual who championed cities in general and Chicago in particular. He was preoccupied with ideas that would revitalize urban centers, something that he did so suc- cessfully at Marina City. He published articles in magazines and lectured on urbanism, arguing for dense, mixed-use projects that would combine commercial, residential, educational, recrea- tional and health uses. In the 1980s Goldberg attempted to realize this ideal of a massive ultra- 23 collectively referred to as "the Goldberg Variations," Prentice is one of seven extant Goldberg-deslgned hospital buildings, and the only one in Chicago. They share the architect's careful attention to and layout in ways that facilitated and balanced the needs of medical staff with those of recovering patientsElgin State gin, Illinois I-Iealthusciences Center (1965-76), Stony Brook, New York Saint Joseph's Hospital Wash- ington '1 Providence Hospital (1982-87), Mobile, Alabama dense mixed-use development on the south bank of the Chicago River, just west of downtown. Known as River City 1984-86), the development originally envisioned dozens of 72-story tow- ers, however only a small fraction of the plan was realized. Goldberg's last built project is Wright College (1986-92) on Chicago's Northwest Side. Throughout his career Goldberg's work was profiled in architectural publications domestically and internationally. His work has been the subject of exhibitions in the United States and Eu- rope. More recently, he has been the subject of a major exhibition and publication produced by the Art Institute of Chicago, which was also the beneficiary of his collection of papers and drawings. Goldberg was elected to the College of Fellows of the American Institute of Archi- tects in 1966, and was awarded the Ojficier de l'0rdre des Arts et des Lettres from the French government in 1985. Goldberg died in Chicago in l997. CRITERIA FOR DESIGNATION According to the Municipal Code of Chicago (Sections 2-l20-620 and -630), the Commission on Chicago Landmarks has the authority to make a preliminary recommendation of landmark designation for an area, district, place, building, structure, work of art or other object with the City of Chicago if the Commission determines it meets two or more of the stated "criteria for designation," as well as possesses sufficient historic design integrity to convey its significance. The following should be considered by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks in determining whether to recommend that the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital be designated as a Chica- go Landmark. Criterion 1: Value as an Example of ity, State or National Heritage Its value as an example of the architectural, cultural, economic, historic, social, or other aspect of the heritage of the City of Chicago, State of Illinois, or the United States. - Through its innovative design and history of cutting-edge medical care, the (Former) Pren- tice Women's Hospital exemplifies the historic importance of hospitals as significant insti- tutions in the history of Chicago. - The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital was built to house advanced facilities for patient care, research and medical education and therefore reflects a broader historic trend toward increased specialization and greater use of technology in American medicine in the late twentieth century. - In the l960s and l970s, medicine in America focused increasingly on a holistic approach to patient care, and the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital was designed to place new moth- ers, their newborns and medical staff in close proximity, and the cloverleaf bed tower clear- ly shows how each floor was arranged as a series of four "care clusters." - The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital reflects a period of expansion in the American health-care system in the l970s as a greater number of Americans had access to hospital 25 care through public and private insurance programs. The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital reflects a dynamic era in Chicago's history when stakeholders in the city, including universities and hospitals, reinvested and transformed the city's center with works of modem architecture. Structural expression is a central theme of Chicago's architectural history, beginning with the city's "Chicago School" of the late nineteenth century and continuing with the so-called "Second Chicago School" of the post-World War II era. With its fusion of ar- chitectural form and structure into a single architectural element and with its exposed canti- lever, the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital exemplifies the city's architectural legacy of structural expression and innovation. Criterion 4: Exemplary Architecture Its exemplijication of an architectural type or style distinguished by innovation, rarity, unique- ness, or overall quality of design, detail, materials or craftsmanship. .The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital was a visually- and structurally-innovative build- ing at the time of its completion in 1975. To provide a flexible, column-free interior, the structural system of the Prentice bed tower consists of a thin concrete shell carried on arches cantilevered fiom a single core superstructure, a rape and possibly unique structural innova- tion that is clearly visible on the building's exterior and defines the building's overall ap- pearance. With its curved concrete form and expressed patient clusters, the (Former) Prentice Wom- en's Hospital is a fine example of the Expressionist style, a stylistic reaction against the ri- gidities of the Intemational Style within the context of the modem movement in architecture during the second half of the twentieth century. The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital building was one of the earliest tall structures de- signed using finite element analysis with a digital computer, and the existing form and structure of the building would have been impossible to design without this computational analysis, a technology which is currently used in the design of all large structures. Bertrand Goldberg, the architect of the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital, believed archi- tecture had a profound impact on human beings, and his humanistic approach is exemplified in his innovative layout of the hospital's bed tower floors, which placed patients and care- givers in small groups with close physical proximity. Criterion 5: Work of Significant Architect or Designer Its identification as the work of an architect, designer, engineer, or builder whose individual work is significant in the history or development of the City of Chicago, the State of Illinois, or the United States. 26 Bertrand Goldberg, the designer of the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital, is a significant architect in the history of Chicago architecture, combining both technical brilliance and hu- manistic values in ways exemplified by his architectural designs, including Prentice. Goldberg was a Chicago architect and engineer who possessed an exceptional understand- ing of materials and new building and design technologies, but who also believed that these physical aspects of architecture must serve humanity; he was also an urbanist, but one who often found inspiration fiom structures found in nature. The fusion of these qualities led to Goldberg's highly individual buildings found in Chicago and across the nation, including Prentice. Goldberg was one of the few Americans who studied at the Bauhaus, an avant-garde art and design school in Weimar-era Germany between the two world wars. Goldberg credited his time at the Bauhaus for his interest in the human and social aspects of design and his inter- est in mass-produced and prefabricated structures. Goldberg is best known as the designer of the iconic Marina City complex (1959-67), a highly successful mixed-use development that combined apartments, offices, and retail, rec- reation and entertainment facilities that was a trailblazing demonstration of the potential of downtown Chicago during its post-World War II revitalization. In l966, Bertrand Goldberg designed the Raymond M. Hilliard Center for the Chicago Housing Authority. This complex is regarded as one of the most socially successful public housing projects in the nation, attributed largely to Goldberg's design, which successfiilly balanced community amenities and the individual needs of residents. Within the field of architecture, Goldberg was an early adopter and developer of computer technology, and the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital was designed using aeronautical design software modified for architectural design. In addition, his firm of Bertrand Gold- berg Associates and a sister company, Computer Services, Inc. developed computer pro- grams for specifications writing, scheduling and duct-sizing. Goldberg was an accomplished designer of hospitals, and the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital is one of seven extant Goldberg-designed hospital buildings, and the only one in Chicago. These hospitals, collectively referred to as "the Goldberg Variations," share Gold- berg's careful attention to planning and layout in ways that facilitated and balanced the needs of medical staff with those of recovering patients. Criterion 7: Unique Visual Feature its unique location or distinctive visual appearance or presence representing an estabiished visual feature ofa neighborhood, conmtunity or the City of Chicago. With its four-lobed convex-walled tower, its elliptical window openings, and cantilevered arches, the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital possesses a distinctive visual appearance in the physical context of the surrounding Near North Side Streeterville neighborhood, 27 largely built up with rectilinear buildings with flat wall surfaces and conventional structural systems. Integrity Criterion The integrity of the proposed landmark must be preserved in light of its location, design, set- ting, materials, workmanship and ability to express its historic community, architecture or aes- thetic value. The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital retains its historic location and setting in the Streeter- ville neighborhood on Chicago's Near North Side. The building largely retains its overall his- toric design, use of materials and workmanship with its curvilinear concrete patient-care tower rising fi'om a glass-and-metal-clad podium building. The most important change to Prentice's historic appearance occurred in 1991 when the podium building was expanded with the addition of a fifth floor which added seventeen new labor, de- livery and recovery rooms. The design of the addition mimics the design of the original curtain -wall structure of the podium building. The addition reduced the open space between the base building and the cantilevered arches of the tower and to a limited degree the visual boldness of the cantilevered design has been lessened. However, the overall historic exterior design of the building remains visible, legible and understandable, and the architect's original design intent remains clear. The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital continues to express its historic archi- tectural value. The exterior wall of the bed tower exhibits limited areas of concrete spalling, a condition where patches of the concrete surface have been lost due to corrosion of the concrete's internal steel reinforcing bar. This is a universally common condition found in reinforced-concrete structures and it is typically managed by maintenance repairs and other preventive measures. The spalling at Prentice does not inhibit the building's ability to express its aesthetic or architectural value. However, because the bed tower is a thin-shell structure, and as is good practice for buildings of this size, the walls require a rigorous program of inspection and maintenance. SIGNIFICANT HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES Whenever a building, structure, object, or district is under consideration for landmark designa- tion, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks is required to identify the "significant historical and architectural features" of the property. This is done to enable the owners and the public to understand which elements are considered most important to preserve the historical and archi- tectural character of the proposed landmark. Based upon its evaluation of the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital, the Commission staff recommends that the significant features be identified as follows: - All exterior elevations, including rooflines, of the building. 28 :2 in Surrounded largely by rectilinear buildings with flat wall surfaces (above), Prentice's rotund form and elliptlcal windows make the building a distinctive visual feature in the Streeterville neighborhood. The photo at left from and a current photo (rig ht) of the same comer of the building shows that Prentice pos- sesses excellent integrity. In 1991 a one- story rooftop addi- tion was added to the base building, though was designed to be indistinguishable from the existing work. The fifih-floor addition to the podium building, added in 1991, is not considered a significant feature for the purposes of this proposed designation. NOTE ON THE PHYSICAL CONDITION OF STRUC- TURES It is inherent in the design of many "recent past" buildings of the modem movement to stretch the envelope in terms of materials and their capabilities. Architects ofien experimented with new materials and pushed the boundaries of common materials in an attempt to craft new forms or ideas. This impulse has resulted in special preservation concems for buildings of this era that preservationists, architects and engineers are actively working to study and resolve. Compared to historic buildings that have traditionally been the subject of historic preservation efforts, "recent past" buildings were in many cases built with industrially-produced materials 01' new techniques. Some examples include glazed curtain-wall assemblies, thin-stone building veneers and thin-shell concrete structures. These new materials and techniques often have lim- ited lifespans or require ongoing repair and replacement. Though knowledge of how to main- tain and repair "recent past" buildings has grown, due to the different circumstances in each building, attention and care must be paid to observing each buildings' performance and antici- pating repairs. As stated earlier in this report, Prentice Hospital is distinguished by its engineering and thin- shell concrete construction. Similarly bold concrete structures have presented preservation challenges. During the construction of Eero Saarinen's Kresge Auditorium at MIT in 1954, the thin-shell concrete roof began to deflect due to deficiencies in its design and concrete place- ment. To correct this the structure had to be quickly redesigned with additional support, and the building has required ongoing restoration work during its life. Saarinen's thin-shell concrete TWA Terminal has also recently undergone a well-documented restoration to address deteriora- tion. Another example is the Seattle Kingdome, a thin-shell concrete stadium structure com- pleted in 1976 but demolished in 2000 after its condition substantially deteriorated due to water infiltration and inappropriate maintenance. Here in Chicago, Goldberg's extremely thin pavil- ions at Brenneman School (1960-63) have failed to withstand Chicago's climate and were en- closed in a new structure to prevent leaking. It can be reasonably anticipated that Prentice Hospital will need to undergo a restoration pro- gram due to its age, construction type and the visible damage and spalling of its concrete exteri- or walls. The scope of such restoration cannot be known until a detailed condition analysis is conducted; but this should be understood as part of the consideration for designation and as part of any fiiture use. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Annmarie. Medicine by Design: The Architect and the Modern Hospital, 1893-1943. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2008. Argyris, .H. "On the Analysis of Complex Elastic Structures," Applied Mechanics Reviews, v. ll no. 7, July 1958. "Bertrand Goldberg: Le Roteur Panoptique," Architecture 'aujourd 'hui, France, January -- February 1976, 92 -- l02. Blau, Eve and Edward Kaufman, Eds. Architecture and its Image: Four Centuries of Architec- tural Representation. Montreal, Canada: Canadian Center for Architecture, 1989. "Cantilevering the Shell: A Breakthrough," Inland Architect, January 1974, 6 -- 7. "Caring Curing," Britannica, 1977. Center for High-Risk Babies and Mothers," Chicago Tribune, March 7, 1976. Cohen, Jean-Louis and G. Martin Moeller, Jr., eds. Liquid Stone: New Architecture in Concrete. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2006. Concrete Abstracts, January February 1986. Cover illustration. Condit, Carl. American Building. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968. Cook, John Wesley, Heinrich Klotz, and Philip Johnson. Conversations with Architects: Philip Johnson, Kevin Roche, Paul Rudolph, Bertrand Goldberg, Morris Lapidus, Louis Kahn, Charles Moore, Robert Venturi Denise Scott Brown. New York: Praeger, 1973. Currey, Mason. "The Goldberg Remedy," Metropolis, February 2009, 50 -- 57, 89. Downey, Gregg W. "The Goldberg Variations," Modern Healthcare, March l, 1976, I8 -- 24. Drexler, Arthur. Transformations in Modern Architecture. New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1979. Goldberg, Bertrand. Bertrand Goldberg archive, 1933-2003. The Ryerson Bumham Ar- chives at the Art Institute of Chicago. . "Rich is Right," Inland Architect, February 1982, 6 -- I5. . "Slimming Down," Inland Architect, July/August 1983, I0 -- l. . "The Critical Mass of Urbanism," Inland Architect, March/April 1984, 9 -- l0, I2, 47 and Betty . Blum. Oral History of Bertrand Goldberg. Chicago: Art Institute of Chi- cago, I992. and Bertrand Goldberg Associates. Working Drawings for Prentice Hospital, Feb. l972-Aug. I974, Sheets Structural Drawings for Prentice Hospital, Feb. 1972 -Feb. 1973, Sheets l-S45. Bertrand Goldberg Collection, Department of Architecture Design at the Art Institute of Chicago. Zoe Ryan, and Alison Fisher. Bertrand Goldberg: Architecture of Invention. Chicago: The Art Institute of Chicago, 201 1. "Health Care for the Total Woman," Chicago Tribune, March 7, 1976. "Hospital Femenino Instituto Psiquiatrico, Chicago -- Informes de la Construction, November 1976. "Hospitals."Architectural Record, July 1976, l09-- I24. ICES-ST UDL: The Structural Design Language Engineering User 's Manual, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Department of Civil Engineering, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1968. Legner, Linda. "The Goldberg Variations: Space and Structure," Inland Architect, January 1974, 8 -- 22. 31 "Living Completely Cured," Chicago Tribune, October 31, 1976. Margolius, Ivan. Architects Engineers Structures. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley- Academy, 2002. Marjanovic, Igor, and Katerina Riiedi. Marina City: Bertrand Goldberg's Urban Vision. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2010. "New Hospital to Cater to Health Needs of Women," Chicago Tribune, November 4, 1974. "Prentice: A New Hospital for Women and Infants," Chicago Tribune, March 7, 1976. "The Prentice Women's Hospital at the Northwestem University, Chicago," I. 'Industria Ital- iana Del Cemenro, Nos. 7 8, 1980. Ragon, Michel. Goldberg, Dans La Ville In the City. Paris: Paris Art Center, 1985. Randall, Frank A. and John D. Randall. History of the Development of Building Construction in Chicago. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1999. Ruggiero, Virginia. "Cluster and Core: A Hospital Done the Goldberg Way," Inland Architect, April 1976, 18 20. "Special Feature: Bertrand Goldberg" and "An Architecture for Humanism," Architecture and Urbanism, Japan, July, 1975. Stevens, Edward Fletcher. he American Hospital of the Twentieth Century. New York: Dodge, 1928. Tatum, Rita. "The man who gave you Marina City is still throwing curves," Building Design Construction, March 1974. "1 0-story matemity hospital, Near North research center," Chicago Daily News, April 22, 1970. "Towards a New Philosophy," Chicago Tribune, May 15, 1977. "Towers' cores implanted idea for cantilevered, high-rise shell," Engineering News-Record, July 18, 1974. Verderber, Stephen, and David J. Fine. Healthcare Architecture in an Era of Radical Transfor- mation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2000. Zienkiewicz, O.C. "The finite element method: its genesis and future," The Structural Engineer, v. 70, No. 20, October 20, 1992. 32 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS CITY OF CHICAGO Rahm Emanuel, Mayor Department of Housing and Economic Development Andrew J. Mooney, Commissioner Patricia A. Scudiero, Managing Deputy Commissioner, Bureau of Planning and Zoning Eleanor Esser Gorski, Assistant Commissioner, Historic Preservation Division Project Staff Susannah Ribstein (Save Prentice Coalition), research, writing and photography Matt Crawford, research, writing, photography and layout Terry Tatum, writing and editing Eleanor Esser Gorski, editing Thanks to Susarmah Ribstein, Chris Morris and Geoff Goldberg, Save Prentice Coalition, for their assistance, including historic research and photographs used for this report. Illustrations Historic Preservation Division, Department of Housing and Economic Development: pp. 2, I 1 (bottom), 14 (top right, bottom), 16 (Pallazzetto dello Sport, Kresge Auditorium, Guggenheim Museum), 22 (top), 29 (top and bot- tom right). The Estate of Bertrand Goldberg, courtesy of Geoff Goldberg: pp. 7, 9, I 1 (top right), 13 (top lcfi and bottom), 18 (top lefi), 24 (Elgin State Hospital). Hedrich Blessing, clo the Estate of Bertrand Goldberg: p. 14 (top left). BertrandGoldberg.org: pp. 20 (North Pole, Helstein House), 2] (all), 22 (middle and bottom), 24 (projects in New York, Washington, Arizona and Alabama), 29 (bottom lefi). Computer History Museum, p. I 1 (top lefi). Inland Architect, April 1976: p. 13 (top right). p. 16 (TWA Terminal). Fondation Le Corbusier, p. 16 (Notre Dame du Haut). Wikiarquitecturacom: p. 16 (Church of the Miraculous Virgin). Docomomo US Register: p. 16 (Cathedral of Saint Mary of the Assumption). Modern Healthcare, March I, 1976: p. 18 (top right). Building Design Construction, March 1974: p. 19 (bottom right). The Art Story Foundation, p. 20 (Bauhaus curriculum diagram). Ryerson Bumham Digital Archives, File Name: 200203.08l229--559.jpg: p. 20 (Stanfab bathroom). Metropolis, February 2009: p. 24 (top right). The Commissi'on on Chicago Landmarks, whose nine members are appointed by the Mayor and City Council, was established in 1968 by city ordinance. The Commission is responsible fiar recommending to the City Council that individual building, sites, objects, or entire districts be designated as Chicago Landmarks, which pro- tects them by law. The Commission is stafled by the Chicago Department of Housing and Economic Development, Historic Preservation Division, 33 North LaSalle Street, Room 1600, Chicago, IL 60602,' (312-744-3200) phone,' (3 I 2- 744-91 40) fax, web site: cityofchicago. org/landmarks This Preliminary Summary of Information is subject to possible revision and amendment during the des- ignation process. Only language contained within the final landmark designation ordinance as approved by City Council should be regarded as final. DRAFT Resolution DRAFT by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on the Preliminary Landmark Recommendation for the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital 333 E. Superior Street November 1, 2012 Whereas, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks (hereinafter the "Commission") preliminarily finds that: The (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital (hereinafter the "Building") meets at least four criteria for landmark designation set forth in Sect. 2-120-620 (1), (4), (5) and (7) of the Municipal Code of Chicago (the "Municipal Code") as specifically described in the Preliminary Summary of Information submitted to the Commission on this 15' day of November, 2012 by the Department of Housing and Economic Development (the "Preliminary Summary"); and - the Building satisfies the historic integrity requirement set forth in Sect. 2- 120-630 of the Municipal Code as de.~acribed in the Preliminary Summary; now, therefore Be it resolved by the Commission: Section 1. The above recitals are expressly incorporated in and made part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein. Section 2. The Commission hereby adopts the Preliminary Summary and makes a preliminary landmark recommendation concerning the Building in accordance with Sect. 2-120-630 of the Municipal Code. Section 3. For purpose.-. of Sect. 2-120-740 of the Municipal Code goveming permit review, the significant historical and architectural features of the Building are preliminarily identified as: All exterior elevations, including rooflines, of the Building. The fifth-floor addition to the podium base, added in 1991, is not considered a significant feature for the purposes of this proposed designation. Section 4. The Commission hereby requests a report from the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development which evaluates the relationship of the proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chicago and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with Sect. 2-120-640 of the Municipal Code. DEPARTMENT 012* HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY OF CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Nov. 1, 2012 Report to the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on Prentice Hospital, 333 E. Superior St. According to Sec. 2-120-640 ofthe Municipal Code of Chicago, the Commissioner ofthe Department of Housing and Economic Development is called on to evaluate the relationship of a proposed landmarks designation "to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chicago and the effect ofthe proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood." The Commissioner's report "shall also include the Commissioner's opinion and recommendations regarding any other planning considerations relevant to the proposed designation and the Commissioner's recommendation of approval, rejection, or modification ofthe proposed designation." The Commission may then "make such modifications, changes, and alterations concerning the proposed designation as it deems necessary in consideration of any recommendation ofthe Commissioner of Housing and Economic Development." It is in this context that I am providing this report on the proposed landmark designation of the former Prentice Women's Hospital with respect to: the Comprehensive Plan ofthe City of Chicago and other formal planning initiatives that are underway in the community and the city; how the designation would align with these initiatives; and how the owner's plans for this site would align with both. The issue ofthe building's preservation first came to light a year ago in June, just as Mayor Emanuel was assuming office. Alderman Reilly requested a delay in its consideration to provide time for all concerned parties to discuss the merits ofa designation. Since then, the Alderman and Mayor have met with the building owner, Northwestern University, and with representatives of the preservation community, as well as local neighbors and businesses. In addition, the Department has met separately with all parties, and facilitated two sessions attended by representatives of the owner and the preservation community. This Department is in the unique position of having to evaluate the question of preservation from two different perspectives: as a potential landmark; and as a site for a 121 NORTH LASALLE STREET. ROOM 1000. CHICAGO. ILLINOIS 60602 major development project. With respect to the former, the Department's landmarks staff has approached the question professionally and carefully, issuing a report to the Commission that suggests that the building meets landmark criteria. Having said that, however, the Department must also frame the question in a broader planning context as required by the Landmarks ordinance. It is from that perspective that we make this report and the final recommendation noted below. en It is clear that the suggestion to preserve the former Prentice Hospital is directly at odds with the University's plans for the site. Northwestern is engaged in a long-term medical research expansion project that has targeted 333 E. Superior for a new research facility, immediately adjacent and connected to the Lurie Research Center to the west of the Prentice site. The latter was chosen specifically for its location at the nexus of a medical research campus that, at full build-out, is planned to include approximately 1 million square feet of additional research space and employ more than 2,000 medical professionals and support personnel. total impact on Chicago's economy is estimated at nearly $400 million annually. In federal grant dollars, Northwestern's research funding would reportedly increase from $300 million to an estimated $450 million every year. Northwestern's ambitions in the academic medical research field are integrally tied to the new facility. According to U.S. News and World Report, Northwestern is ranked 18th in the country as a medical research institution. A new facility such as the one contemplated could help it move into the top ten. Without such a facility, it would be at a competitive disadvantage as compared to such well-established institutions as Duke, Yale, Johns Hopkins, Stanford and others across the country. Northwestern's re-development plan has been in place for some time. It is what led Childrens Memorial Hospital to re-locate from Lincoln Park to the Northwestern campus in Streeterville. It also led to the construction of a new Prentice hospital. Both institutions intend to take advantage of the research capacity that the University's new center would offer. HED has reviewed the re-use proposal submitted by preservation advocacy groups for the former Prentice building, as well as the re-use report prepared by the University. After careful consideration, the Department is persuaded that the old building cannot be efficiently adapted to meet the technical needs of a modern medical research facility, nor can it be configured to meet the space requirements identified in the school's expansion plan. In short, it would work neither financially nor programmatically. That leaves the question whether the university could locate its new facility elsewhere in the area, which would allow the former Prentice building to be used for alternative purposes. Northwestern argues that other sites in Streeterville that have been suggested, including the site of the former VA Hospital and the soon-to-be-vacated Rehabilitation lnstitute of Chicago are not appropriate or available for its use. Northwestern Memorial Hospital, which owns the VA site, has announced that it will begin construction of a new clinical development (including a new emergency room) there in the next few years and that the two different uses -- clinical practice and academic research -- are operationally and structurally incompatible. The University also asserts that the site would not accommodate the connectivity with its extant research facilities that the university is seeking. After careful consideration of these arguments, the Department is again persuaded that there is no other location where the University could commensurately fulfill its research expansion objectives. The Department's perspective on these matters is guided in part by the "Plan for Economic Growth 8: Jobs" published by the City and World Business Chicago earlier this year and adopted by this Department. The plan identifies 10 major strategies to reinforce and expand Chicago's economy. Northwestern's plan for its medical research program corresponds to several of these strategies, specifically the City's desire to support its "largest research institutions to better align their research and development agendas with industry needs." For Northwestern, this alignment entails the physical integration of its medical research complex precisely at the old Prentice site. The requirement for physical integration and proximity to clinical practice is a fundamental characteristic of the world's newest medical facilities. The new building would provide seamless, floor-by-floor integration with the Lurie Center, along with connections to future structures to the south and east that would foster the collaborative environment in which medical research and treatment is most effective. Recent, ongoing, and proposed Streeterville projects by Lurie Children's Hospital, Northwestern Memorial Hospital, and all share this same principle. Unfortunately, a building such as the former Prentice that was designed for a completely different purpose is not going to meet this objective. Imam'. ln addressing the conflict ofvalues between the preservation of an important building and the need for a modern research facility, the Department concludes that the civic and economic impact of Northwestern's proposed research program outweighs the relative importance of maintaining the former Prentice building as an architectural landmark. The location is expected to become one of the critical nodes in Chicago's medical industry, creating and attracting new companies and research institutes that will be at the cutting- edge of scientific research in this country. With 10 new startups formed since 2010, the University anticipates the new facility would foster the creation of some 30 more companies in coming years. This projection strategically aligns with the Plan for Economic Growth Iobs, specifically its goals to strengthen connections between the academy and industry, and to promote university research and development, and commercialization. It is also in alignment with the Comprehensive Plan for Chicago, which promotes the increased density ofbusinesses and support institutions in the central business district of the city. The Department also recognizes the humanitarian aspects ofthe proposed building. There will be many patients whose lives are saved or enhanced as a result of its research program. Specific study areas will include cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes, autoimmune disease, and neurodegenerative disorders, among others. Northwestern is already a primary research center for these and other medical subjects. Finally, as the principal planning agency for the City, the Department must maintain an objective perspective in evaluating the impact ofneighborhood projects on citywide goals. From this perspective, the Department has determined that the Northwestern proposal is in the best interests of the city and its residents. It will further distinguish the Streeterville neighborhood as one of the nation's preeminent medical campuses while reinforcing institutional investments that will extend citywide and beyond. 11] ion The Department is highly sensitive to the ongoing balance we must maintain between preservation and growth. Our larger obligation, however, is to situate the landmark process within our long-term planning framework. As cited previously, the Ordinance requires that we evaluate proposed Landmark designations in the light of City plans and the effect on the City generally as well as the surrounding neighborhood. Based on the foregoing. therefore, it is the recommendation ofthe Department of Housing and Economic Development that Northwestern University should be allowed to pursue its long-term plan for a medical research facility on the site ofthe former Prentice Hospital. As a result, the Department cannot recommend landmark designation ofthe former Prentice Hospital and further recommends that the Commission reject or rescind a preliminary designation, as appropriate. . Andrew]. Moo ey Commissioner DRAFT Resolution DRAFT by the Commission on Chicago Landmarks on the Report and Recommendations from the Commissioner of Housing and Economic Development for the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital 333 E. Superior Street November l, 20 2 WHEREAS, the Commission on Chicago Landmarks ("Commission") voted to approve a "preliminary landmark recommendation" for the (Former) Prentice Women's Hospital Building (the "Building") on November 1, 20l2; and WHEREAS, the Commission's vote on November 1, 2012, initiated the consideration process for further study and analysis for the possible designation of the Building as a Chicago Landmark; and WHEREAS, on November l, 20l2, the Commission also requested a report from the Commissioner of the Department of Housing and Economic Development report") which evaluates the relationship of the proposed designation to the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Chicago and the effect of the proposed designation on the surrounding neighborhood in accordance with Sect. 2- l20-640 of the Municipal Code of Chicago (the "Municipal Code"); and WHEREAS, the Commission has reviewed the HED report and recommendations dated November l, 20l2; and WHEREAS, the Commissioner of HED has recommended that the Commission rescind its "preliminary landmark recommendation" for the Building; now, therefore Be it resolved by the Commission: Section l. The above recitals are expressly incorporated in and made part of this resolution as though fully set forth herein. Section 2. The Commission hereby accepts the HED report in accordance with Sect. 2--l20--640 of the Municipal Code. Section 3. The Commission hereby accepts and approves the Department of Housing and Economic Development report recommendation and rescinds its "preliminary landmark recommendation" for the Building. Op-Ed on Prentice Hospital Mayor Rahm Emanuel The diversity of Chicago's sometimes requires making difficult choices between them. The debate over Northwestern University's plans to build a new medical research center on the site of the former Prentice Women's Hospital reveals how tough those choices can be. Here, both Chicago's role as a global hub for scientific research and its place as a world architectural capital must be considered. The promise of a new medical center that would bring two thousand jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in investment to our city must be weighed against the importance of honoring Chicago's past and one of our great architects, Bertrand Goldberg. My position is guided by the belief that we should constantly strive to build a better future. As we have throughout our history, every time Chicago rebuilds, we build a stronger, more global city. It is clear that the current building cannot accommodate the groundbreaking research facility that Northwestern needs to build, and I support the decision to rebuild on the site. The new center will further drive an emerging scientific research hub in the area that currently sustains 4000 permanent jobs, attracts more than $300 million in federal funds each year, and keeps Chicago as a major center of scientific innovation that will be home to countless discoveries in the future. My position comes after working with the University, the preservationist community, and neighborhood groups to explore ways to maintain the building's original design while meeting Northwestern's research needs and respecting community needs. But a modern research facility requires modern design. Just as the former Prentice Women's Hospital was on the cutting edge when it was built nearly 40 years ago, this new chapter for the site will continue in that tradition. As part of the process, I asked that Northwestern make four key considerations that were requested by the community. First, I called on the University to provide Chicago's architectural community and community groups with a voice in the way the project proceeds and in its final design. Second, I supported the community's request that the University preserve the neighborhood's recreational space, particularly in Lake Shore Park. Third, I asked that the new research center be a well-lit area that enhances the safety of the community. And finally, I sought a commitment from Northwestern that they would preserve other historic buildings in the neighborhood, including the Ward, Levy Mayer, and Wieboldt buildings along Chicago Avenue. I also had two requests to reflect the talent and values of the city at large. I asked that the University's final design team include a Chicago-based architectural firm, and was adamant that Northwestern agree to abide by the City's goals of women and minority-owned business participation. Northwestern has not only agreed to meet each of these requests, they have now committed to additional investments that will enhance the neighborhood's parks and quality of life. I know not everyone will agree with my viewpoint on this. I appreciate the position of the preservationists and their passion. I understand that Chicago's architectural heritage is part of the City's magnetic pull and a critical piece of what makes Chicago a world-class city. But I also know that Bertrand Goldberg's vision is alive in Chicago beyond one building. We see his legacy towering over the Chicago River in Marina City. We see it in the Raymond Hilliard Homes, which have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places and protected since 1997. Chicago's architectural legacy is part of a larger story of a city that has been a trailblazer from the beginning and remains on the forefront of design and dance, medicine and manufacturing. To honor that legacy and build on it for the next generation of Chicagoans, we cannot simply preserve the past: we must promote opportunity for the future. Northwestern's new facility will be a catalyst in creating stronger, healthier communities and in providing Chicago the investment, expertise and opportunity we need to advance as a world leader in medical treatment and research. EXHIBIT 4 I I I I I I oolooll unlit}! SAVE PRENTICEI September 14, 2012 The Honorable Rahm Emanuel Mayor of Chicago 121 North LaSalle Street, Room 507 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Dear Mayor Emanuel, The National Trust for Historic Preservation recently completed a landmark recommendation report documenting the significance of architect Bertrand Goldberg's Prentice Women's Hospital. The report confirms what we already believed: that the historic Prentice exceeds the criteria for Chicago landmark designation, that it is truly singular in construction and layout, and that it changed the course of modern hospital design. As members of the architecture community, we believe Goldberg's Prentice should be given a permanent place in Chicago's cityscape. A building this significant this unique in the world should be preserved and reused. Prentice was a culminating work for Bertrand Goldberg, who most famously designed Chicago's Man'na City. Over his 60-year career, Goldberg designed eight major hospitals around the country; Prentice is the only one located in his hometown. His ideas for improving hospital design helped redefine patient- and family-centered care. Prentice's cloverleaf tower exemplifies the belief that patients should be grouped in communities around a nursing center. creating "quiet villages" that improve proximity and sightlines between nurses and patients, welcome fathers into birthing rooms, and place mothers closer to their babies in the nursery. Prentice also propelled advances in the fields of architecture and engineering that are still recognized today. its cantilevered concrete shell broke with precedent and remains unique in the world. The result created column- free floors that today allow great flexibility for reuse options. Upon completion in 1975, critics and engineers worldwide celebrated Prentice as a breakthrough in structural engineering. The legacy of Bertrand Goldberg's Prentice Women's Hospital is unmistakable. It stands as a testament to the Chicago-led architectural innovation that sets this city apart. Chicago's global reputation as a nurturer of bold and innovative architecture will wither if the city cannot preserve its most important achievements. Reuse options abound. We urge you, the Commission on Landmarks, and the City Council to grant this building landmark designation and preserve Chicago's historic architectural legacy. Sincerely, Tadao Ando Pn'tzker Prize 1995 Gustavo Araoz Osaka. Japan President. Intemational Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) Joe Antunovich, AIA Washington. District of Columbia Chicago. Illinois Carol R. Bentel, FAIA William Baker, PE, SE Chair. National AIA Committee on Design 2008 Chicago. Illinois Locust Valley. New York SAVEPRENTICE . ORG amt-trI.I If" SAVE PRENTICEI David Brininstool, AIA Chicago, Illinois Denise Scott Brown, RIBA, Int. FRIBA Philadelphia, Sheridan Burke President, ICOMOS International Scientific Committee on 20th Century Hentage (ISC20C) Sydney, Australia Jean Carroon, FAIA Chair, National AIA Historic Resources Committee 2012 Boston, Massachusetts Louise Cox, HFAIA President, Union of International Architects (UIA) 2008-2011 Sydney, Australia Dan Coffey, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Dirk Denison, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Walter Eckenhoff, FAIA Chicago, Illinois John Eifler, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Philip Enquist. FAIA Chicago, Illinois Doug Farr, AIA Chicago, Illinois David N. Fixier, FAIA President, England Boston, Massachusetts Jeanne Gang, FAIA MacArthur Fellow 2011 Chicago, Illinois Frank Gehry, FAIA AIA Gold Medal 1999; Pritzker Prize 1989 Los Angeles, California Geoff Goldberg, AIA Chicago, Illinois Hamp, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Donald J. Hackl, FAIA Chancellor of the AIA College of Fellows 2009 Chicago, Illinois Gunny Harboe, FAIA Vice President, ICOMOS Board Member Chicago, Illinois Jack Hartray, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Jacques Herzog, HFAIA Pritzker Prize 2001 Basel, Switzerland Jorg Haspel Vice President, ICOMOS Germany Berlin, Germany Malcolm Holzman, FAIA New York, New York Eugene C. Hopkins, FAIA AIA President 2004 Ann Arbor, Michigan Bjarke lngels AIA Institute Honor Award 2012 Copenhagen, Denmark Marlene lmirzian, AIA Chair, National AIA Committee on Design 2013 Phoenix, Arizona Thomas Jacobs, AIA American Institute of Architects' Young Architects Award 2012 Chicago, IL Richard Keating, FAIA Los Angeles, California Thomas Kerwin, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Stephen J. Kelley, AIA, SE, FAPT, FUSICOMOS President, ICOMOS ISCARSAH Chicago, Illinois SAVEPRE 'ln'ln'ln'uffI'\ 00000 9333 .- 0000000 0000000 000000: xffii.' t' SAVE Jackie Koo, AIA Chicago, Illinois Leonard Koroski, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Ronald Krueck, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Judith Kirshner - Dean, College of Architecture and the Arts, UIC Brian Lee, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Dirk Lohan, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Brad Chicago, Illinois John Macsai, FAIA Chicago, IL Jeffrey McCarthy, FAIA Chicago, Illinois George Miller, FAIA National AIA President 2010 New York, New York Robert L. Meckfessel, FAIA Board Member, Dallas, Texas Mike Mense, FAIA Chair, National AIA Committee on Design 2012 Anchorage, Alaska Michael Mills, FAIA Past Chair, National AIA Historic Resources Committee Princeton, New Jersey Plerre de Meuron, HFAIA Pritzker Prize 2001 Basel, Switzerland Joost Moolhuijzen Paris, France Kyle Normandin Secretary General, ICOMOS Los Angeles, Califomia Renzo Plano, HFAIA Pritzker Prize 1998 Genoa, Italy Louis R. Pounders, FAIA Chair, National AIA Committee on Design 2009 Memphis, Tennessee Theodore Prudon, FAIA President, New York, New York Jack Pyburn, FAIA Past Chair, National AIA Historic Resources Committee Atlanta, Georgia Donna Robertson, FAIA Professor and John and Jeanne Rowe Chair, Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago, Illinois Kevin Roche, FAIA Pritzker Prize 1982 Hamden, Connecticut John Ronan, AIA Chicago, Illinois John I. Schlossman, FAIA Chicago, IL Peter Schlossman, AIA Chicago, IL Ken Schroeder, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Mark Sexton, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Bob Somol, J.D. Director, University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Architecture Chicago, Illinois Eduardo Souto de Moura, HFAIA Pritzker Prize 2011 Porto, Portugal SAVEPRENTICEORG 'K'8'd"o"i'ln SAVE Tristan d'Estr?e Sterk, AIA. SBA Netherlands AIA Chicago Dubin Family Young Architect of the Year 2011 Chicago. Illinois Billie Tsien, AIA New York, New York Richard ll, FAIA Chicago. Illinois Joe Valerio, FAIA Chicago. Illinois Robert Venturi, FAIA Emeritus, Int. FRIBA Pritzker Prize 1991 Philadelphia, John Vinci, FAIA Chicago. Illinois Charles Waldheim Chair, Department of Landscape Architecture. Graduate School of Design, Harvard University Cambridge, Massachusetts Dan Wheeler, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Sarah Whiting, Associate AIA Dean of College of Architecture, Rice University Houston. Texas CC: Tod Williams, FAIA New York, New York Ross Wlmer, FAIA Chicago, Illinois Antony Wood Studio Associate Professor, Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago. Illinois David Woodhouse, FAIA Chicago. Illinois Kulapat Yantrasast Silpathom Award 2009 New York, New York Siegfried Zhiqiang Wu, Vice President. Tongji University; Chief Planner. World Expo 2010 Shanghai, China Andrew Zago Faculty. Southern California Institute of Architecture Los Angeles. Califomia Dr. Anke Zalivako Research Fellow - 20th Century Heritage. Technical University of Berlin Beriin. Germany Commissioner Andrew Moone Dept. of Housing and Economic Development Alderman Brendan Reilly (42" Ward) Commissioner Rafael Leon. Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner John Baird, Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner Anita Blanchard. Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner James Houlihan. Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner Tony Hu. Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner Christopher Reed. Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner Mary Ann Smith. Commission on Chicago Landmarks Commissioner Ernest Wong, Commission on Chicago Landmarks SAVEPRENTICEDRG