Evanston preservation panel approves demolition and replacement at Burnham estate with documentation and salvage conditions
Loading...
Summary
The Evanston Preservation Commission voted 6–2 to grant a certificate of appropriateness allowing demolition of the heavily altered Daniel Burnham–era shelter house at 111 Burnham Place and construction of a contemporary replacement, adding conditions requiring measured as‑built documentation, archaeological sensitivity (including human‑made objects), and reasonable access for local repositories to salvage material.
The Evanston Preservation Commission on a 6–2 vote approved a certificate of appropriateness that clears the way to demolish the altered shelter house on the Daniel Burnham estate at 111 Burnham Place and to build a contemporary replacement. The approval includes three conditions intended to record and preserve historical information before demolition: measured as‑built drawings and high‑resolution photographs of the surviving 1909 fabric; expanded archaeological language covering "human‑made objects" (not just human remains); and a requirement that the homeowner make reasonable efforts to allow local repositories or history organizations to document or salvage notable elements.
Why it mattered: Commissioners and members of the public framed the decision around two competing aims — preserving any surviving link to Burnham’s estate and recognizing that the pavilion has been substantially altered since its original construction. The commission’s decision formalizes a path for replacement while creating a record that local institutions can use for study or future interpretation.
What the speakers said: Northwestern professor Carl Smith — identified in the meeting packet as Franklin Bliss Snyder Professor of American Studies in English — urged the commission to preserve the shelter house as "the last direct link to a place where Burnham lived," writing that Evanston should "honor and preserve" the structure. By contrast, a letter from Jack Weiss, described in the packet as a cultural ambassador, argued the pavilion has lost its setting and material integrity and that "the majority of standards for demolition are fully met." The project team told commissioners their field probes and consultant assessment showed the pavilion had been heavily altered and was "not intact" and "not livable."
How the decision unfolded: After a technical presentation of Sanborn maps, permits and photographs showing changes from 1909 through a 1948 adaptation, commissioners debated integrity, the value of association with Burnham, and whether less drastic measures (such as disassembly and reassembly) had been fully explored. The commission conducted a straw poll favoring demolition pending conditions, then moved to approve the owner’s proposal and the architect’s replacement design with the three conditions described above. The motion passed on a roll call vote recorded as 6 in favor and 2 opposed.
Details of the conditions: The commission required (1) that the preservation standard addressing archaeology explicitly include "human‑made objects" so non‑human‑remain artifacts are treated sensitively during site disturbance; (2) production and deposit of an as‑built packet — measured drawings and photographs — documenting the surviving 1909 shelter house facades; and (3) reasonable access for qualified local repositories or the Evanston History Center (or similar organizations) to document or salvage elements, and a good‑faith outreach effort to identify potential repositories willing to accept the documentation.
What remains unresolved: Commissioners acknowledged questions about whether the building could be moved, timetables and costs for full disassembly, and the extent of fabric that can be recovered. The commission did not require relocation or full hand‑archaeological excavation; rather, it required documentation and sensitivity during construction disturbance.
Next steps: With the COA approved, the property owner may proceed with demolition and construction subject to the conditions. The commission’s action also directed the staff to work with the applicant to draft clear condition language for the demolition permit (including which repositories to contact and the expected scope of the as‑built documentation).
