Objection!

摘要

Do we really really need to have this argument again? Everyone seemed to be in agreement: Some buildings and groups of buildings have an architectural or historic significance that renders them worthy of legal protection against demolition and significant alteration. I thought Philip Johnson and Jackie Onassis chaining themselves to New York's Grand Central Terminal in the late 1960s made the case once and for all.rnApparently three Illinois appellate court judges never got the message, because they ruled on Jan. 30 that the seven criteria in the City of Chicago's landmark ordinance are "vague, ambiguous, and overly broad." (The city is appealing the ruling to the Illinois Supreme Court. Lord help us if it loses.) What's vague about the criteria? According to the ruling, terms like "'value,' 'important,' 'significant,' and 'unique.'"