Advanced Search

Evanston RoundTable | Evanston, IL

home : city news
July 21, 2018

6/20/2018 12:29:00 PM
City to Explore Demolition Option for Harley Clarke
By Shawn Jones

City Council on June 18 voted to authorize the City Manager to meet with the organization that offered to pay for the demolition of the Harley Clarke Mansion to explore costs and the parameters of an agreement. The vote makes real the possibility the City will accept the offer put forth by the group, the Evanston Lighthouse Dunes, to pay for demolition or possibly deconstruction and restoration of the natural landscape.

Many steps remain before any wrecking balls will swing, but the 6-3 vote represented a shift from the singular focus on another group, the Evanston Lakehouse and Gardens (ELHG), who dominated discussion of the future of Harley Clarke since roughly October of last year. Now, there are at least two options on the table with perhaps more in the offing as the months continue to roll by.

As with every meeting in which the vacant building appears on a Council agenda, the chambers were packed. Many observers sported newly minted blue “Save the Mansion” t-shirts, and at least one television camera whirred, taking the story to a broader Chicago audience. “I see a lot of blue out there,” said Mayor Stephen Hagerty as the meeting began.

At public comment, speaker after speaker rose to deliver impassioned pleas, urging preservation of the mansion, most pushing only the Lakehouse and Gardens proposal. Several others spoke in favor of demolition, however, with very little middle ground between the two competing factions.  Some heavy hitters were among the restoration supporters: Novelist Audrey Niffenger, who called the building “inspiring” and said she wanted to “inspire more people,” and the granddaughter of Harley Clarke himself, who wrote of fond memories sliding down the mansion’s bannisters, and for the first time, Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky who sent a late afternoon letter to all aldermen urging preservation of the building.

When it came time for debate, Alderman Ann Rainey, 8th Ward, said, “It was my understanding that we were going to request that the Lighthouse Dunes people make a presentation.” Mayor Hagerty agreed, saying Council gave ELHG several opportunities to present as well.

Nicole Kustok and others provided some details of the plan and addressed some criticism of it. The Dunes group was “excluded from the RFP [request for proposals] process last fall,” she said. At that time, the City issued a narrowly worded RFP seeking proposal to preserve the structure for educational or related non-commercial purposes – an RFP essentially offering ELHG and ELGH only the chance to make a proposal.

“When the land was acquired in 1965,” continued Ms. Kustok, the specific intent of the City was “to expand the parkland and dunes.” Removing the mansion would further the “recreation, education, and sustainability” uses of the park in a way that “stays accessible for all.” The recently renovated fog houses would remain and would be able to offer added programming with the mansion gone. “You don’t need a 20,000 square foot building to get kids outside,” she said.

The Council packet contained three estimates of the cost of demolition or deconstruction, and Ms. Kustok said the Dunes group was committed to meeting the cost of the middle estimate -- $450,000 – and had currently obtained about $300,000 in pledges.

Addressing one of the attacks on the Dunes plan circulating in letters and on social media – that supporters of demolition wanted better views, unobstructed by the Harley Clarke building – Ms. Kustok said, “Our view does not change or improve in the slightest” if the mansion is gone.

Noreen Edwards Metz, also speaking for the Dunes group, called for a community design process for the natural areas once restored. Dick Peach called himself a firm believer in “no child left indoors” while touting the expanded environmental education opportunities an expanded natural space would offer.

Ald. Rainey dispelled another social media attack on the Dunes proposal. There has been “some discussion,” she said, that the City’s “process of going through Preservation [Committee] would not be followed – but it would be followed.” Council will send the City Manager to the Dunes group with authority to negotiate terms, then the matter would proceed to the Preservation Commission then back to Council, she said.

Alderman Judy Fiske, 1st Ward, spoke at length about the history of the site, ultimately arguing in favor of demolition. “I don’t want anyone to think [demolition] is not historic preservation – because it is,” she said. Preserving the building itself simply is not “financially feasible” without uses that would have a significant “impact on the lakefront” she added.

Alderman Don Wilson, 4th Ward, said it was “unfortunate there is a very long list of misunderstandings.” One such is the oft-mentioned Colonel Pritzker plans for the restoration of the building. A 15-room bed and breakfast was “not economically feasible,” he said, citing a proposal from Col. Pritzker’s Tawani Enterprises. To make the project work, the mansion would have been converted into a 57-room boutique hotel with 200 parking spaces underground. “I think they also asked for a tax waiver,” he said.

“We have been struggling to find solutions,” said Alderman Melissa Wynne, 3rd Ward. She recalled being on record saying she would rather “deconstruct the building” than agree to a 57-room hotel. But she argued against the Dune group’s proposal, saying “I still think there’s a possibility of reaching an agreement” with ELHG. “I believe we should give [ELHG] one year” to raise $1 million, provided they cover the cost of maintenance – about $15,000.

Long a supporter of ELHG, Alderman Eleanor Revelle, whose Seventh Ward includes the mansion and Lighthouse Landing park, agreed that the intention in 1965 was to add parkland. The mansion, she said, has acquired import and impact since then, though. “Many years of City and Arts [Center] neglect” have unfortunately resulted in the need for large rehabilitation costs. She urged Council to vote to give ELHG one more year to raise funds.

Ald. Fiske turned to the tenor of the debate, saying “the emails, petitions, the rallies, have been very difficult for all of us. The name calling, the attacks,” she said, have been devastating. “Anger and misrepresentation – when I get emails saying I am taking bribes or I am corrupt” just for disagreeing with a resident’s position – “we’re people just like you… [given the] vitriol” in recent public debates, “I don’t’ see anyone wanting to run for public office.” It was “a very hard experience this past weekend,” she said, describing a particularly nasty email exchange. As a result, she said she felt ELGH was “not a particularly good partner for the City… somehow or another, this needs to get repaired.

“No house is worth this, folks. We need to fix this,” said Ald. Fiske.


Alderman Tom Suffredin, 6th Ward, said, “Ald. Fiske is correct. The tone of this has been bad. We are doing a disservice” to the City “using a 2015 [online] survey” to promote preservation, pointing to the assertion by several speakers that a large percentage of residents favored preservation. He called it “irresponsible” to “cover my eyes and close my ears and not listen to the other side.” He then called for a ballot referendum, in November, to put the matter on the ballot and let the people decide.


In the meantime, however, he said, “We need to explore” other options.


Ald. Suffredin, along with five others, voted in favor of negotiating the cost of demolition. Alds. Wilson, Revelle and Wynne voted no, all pushing for another year for ELHG.


The matter, already covering seven years of debate, is likely not over. More rallies, more emails, more public comment – though hopefully less vitriol – can be expected. For now, demolition is most definitely on the table.



Reader Comments

Posted: Thursday, July 5, 2018
Comment by: Jean SmilingCoyote

In the 6/28 print edition, there's an excerpt from Cong. Schakowsky's letter in which she says "Lighthouse Landing Park ... has not always represented the diversity of the Evanston community." Am I missing something, please? It's a park. Aside from the historic buildings, which can't be fully modified for full handicapped-accessibility, the latter is all I would expect from contemporary construction in a park. I hope a park uses native plants in any landscaping, and pleasing preferably-local materials in hardscaping. There doesn't seem to be room for "representing [human?] diversity."

Posted: Monday, June 25, 2018
Comment by: Junad Rizki

I sent this email to the Mayor and all council members. It is public record and can be FOI.

I just looked at the proposal to Demolish Harley Clarke. In Wally's world of not understanding REAL COSTS. It appears to me City Staff has been going out and doing all the work, not the group claiming to want to pay for the demo.

How much Staff time has been spend to date on this? I understand the we taxpayers paid $20,000 for a billing system for the law department, so we should be able to track Ms. Masoncup's time. Also it appears other employees have done work.

So looking at the incomplete work, I see, we most likely spend about $10,000 in staff time.

I thought Council members did not approve any cost to the Evanston taxpayers for this work?

I realize many of the council members have NO real world work experience, and REAL costs are beyond your understanding.

Lets be clear here, Wally has NOTHING to Negotiate. You have no complete documents, to do real work! The statements last night by this group, are nonsense.

It appears to me from the documents you are showing you have close $600,000. which is by no means complete. I suspect the work to do a correct job with all the restoration and parking lot work etc will go well over $1 million, likely approaching $2 million. ( I understand the group wanting the demo was looking at $250,000?)

I also want to know who you are in Negotiation, is that a formal group, which will be accountable for ALL the costs, as I pointed out to one of them last night, the city never delivers a project on schedule or budget! ( Fountain Square) Are you planning to go after them when this project is complete and costs have over run? Remember staff could not even put the Symlie Brothers property on the tax roll and we have now lost $50,000? ( anyone care?)

Frankly some of you are so concerned about Robert Crown, which Mike Visiko and I know is a complete mess, headed for huge cost overruns. You do not have the staff to get Crown done. So now you are planning to use staff on this new project? Why not in Wally's world, have the person running Crown, Fountain Square and the famous Theater on Howard, now run this too? A real formula for success?

I am reaching a point of total disgust, here for the unprofessional actions of City. As I keep saying the budget is in crisis because of things like this, done for political reasons and not done completely.

Article Comment Submission Form

The RoundTable will try to post comments within a few hours, but there may be a longer delay at times. Comments containing mean-spirited, libelous or ad hominem attacks will not be posted.

Note: Your full name is required. Your telephone number and e-mail will not be posted. You may type your comments in the space below, or you may type them in a word document and cut and paste them in the space below.

Submit an Article Comment
First Name:
Last Name:
Anti-SPAM Passcode Click here to see a new mix of characters.
This is an anti-SPAM device. It is not case sensitive.

Click to View Upcoming Events
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        
Submit Event

HomeVideosCommunity PostsObituariesClassifiedsAdvertiseAbout UsContact UsLife

Copyright 2008-17 - Evanston RoundTable LLC, Evanston, IL 60202, 847-864-7741, All Rights Reserved

Software © 1998-2018 1up! Software, All Rights Reserved