Town Planning and the Preservation of Our Past:
Privatism and Municipal Responsibility in Illinois

A Review of Two Manuscripts Presented at the
Tenth Annual Illinois History Symposium*

By CARL OBLINGER, Village President, Village of Chatham

It is ironic that most of our municipal officials are both interested in the history of their towns and yet are unable to preserve their historical character. More official emphasis has been placed on the economic, technical, and political aspects of town planning and development than on the historical and psychological aspects. Planners point out the need of secondary and primary arteries to speed traffic, and the desirability of attracting a shopping mall to bring in more sales tax dollars; consequently, the preservation of the historical character of a town takes a back seat.

I would contend that a town's built environment — its homes, stores, streets, and parks — represents a people's connection to their roots, a collective meaning which is as valuable as the economic vitality of a town. To appreciate this connection assumes, of course, that there exists a popular historical consciousness in our communities: a sense of continuity and a sense of contrast; a style in making historical judgments; a concern with the quality of the historical environment; and, above all, when talking about a town's past, some sense of relationship to the range of historical experiences and the built environment. To alter or destroy this environment thus alters or destroys this connection to roots and the uniqueness of our towns' environment.

Two rather sophisticated papers, presented at the Tenth Annual Illinois History Symposium, December 1 and 2, 1989, in Springfield, represent some progress in studying how town planning and historic preservation effect the built environment.

The first paper, Kathe Miller Stumpf's, "Cultural History in the Built Environment of St. Charles, Illinois," is both a critique of and an agenda for town's considering the establishment of an historic preservation agenda. Professor Stumpf feels that the problem with the preservation movement is that until recently it has had little effect on architects, developers, and planners. Designers have been and are being allowed to remake American villages and towns in their own images and not in the images of the land and its people. Consequently, cities need to monitor these changes and to identify elements of architecture and infrastructures associated with the places' sense of itself over time. (Programs like the establishment of historic districts and facade restoration are a few such attempts.) Such an effort would move planning toward an integrated framework which attempts to place individuals within the whole built environment.

The most significant part of Dr. Stumpf's study is her fascinating exploration of how St. Charles has been able to retain its distinctive small town atmosphere while being integrated into the western suburbs of Chicago. Elements of the success story include the town's adaptive reuse of industrial plants and limited development in the older section of town. The most important single factor, however, is the residents' collective view of the history of their town. The author interviewed ninety residents of St. Charles in an effort to deduce their town's common points of identity and what was needed to preserve it. Nearly all mentioned

January 1990 / Illinois Municipal Review / Page 21

the quarried stone buildings, a significant old hotel, the old theatre building, the piano factory, and residential areas of town including a section called Century Corners. Such a strong collective memory has enabled significant progress in preserving the built environment of St. Charles.

Professor Stumpf draws a number of conclusions from her study. Planning Commissioners need to use broader perspectives in making decisions affecting planning and development policies, and to conduct surveys of citizens. The interviews should reveal the citizenry's common view of the cultural history of their city or village. Corporations in America are increasingly interested in looking after the well-being of their employees; so, too, should towns look beyond their economies and make decisions which benefit the entire well-being of their citizens.

The second paper by Bradley Skelcher of Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, "Main Street Mid-America: The Main Street Pilot Project of Galesburg, Illinois," examines the decision-making process behind the preservation of Galesburg's central business district. Unlike Stumpf's story, however, Skelcher's presentation looks at the darker recesses of the battle between developers and preservationists in the medium-sized town.

The basic problem in Galesburg was that the population appears not to have shared a common commitment to preservation and, therefore, did not pursue a consistent program of restoration and adaptation. There appeared to be no collective view of their history as a bulwark to preserve historically significant buildings. In the battle of developers against preservationists over the sanctity of private property versus community needs, it was inevitable that preservationists would lose. The greatest irony was that no matter how attractive parts of the old town were, preservationists could not restore main street (or any other street) as a center of social and economic vitality.

So, we are left with a contradiction when we compare the two papers: the attractiveness of St. Charles and the lack of historical vitality in Galesburg. The easy answer is that St. Charles has access to the capital of suburban Chicago and the historical appreciation of a well-educated upper middle-class while Galesburg has neither in sufficient quantity. A more complex answer in future studies, however, should focus upon the vision of municipal officials and the interaction of these officials with developers, preservationists, and their own population. •

Page 22 / Illinois Municipal Review / January 1990