Q3 2026 President's Report

The Triumphal Arch is a Warning Shot for All America's Landmarks

by Eleanor Esser Gorski, President & CEO, Chicago Architecture Center and Frank Butterfield, President & CEO, Landmarks Illinois

Published on October 27, 2026

Sixty years ago, Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act to protect our architectural and cultural history. Central to it is a fundamental policy: before federal dollars can be spent on a project that affects an historic place, agencies must pause, listen to the public and consider alternatives. That promise is called Section 106. It gives no one a veto and halts no development. It requires agencies to consult stakeholders and document trade-offs before landmarks are lost forever.

This summer, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the federal body charged with keeping that promise, voted 16 to 5 to gut Section 106. The proposed American Affordability and Jobs Act, which dramatically reduces resources and requirements protected by Section 106, is up for a Senate vote on November 9. The rewrite, drafted by President Trump's appointees, is shortsighted and undemocratic. It would make consultation with local governments optional, where it is now mandatory. It would narrow the definition of "historic,” excluding any sites that are not "geographically compact" (goodbye Route 66 and the Appalachian Trail) and landscapes without "tangible human improvements" (read: natural landmarks sacred to tribal nations). And it would end the public comment period that makes place-keeping a collaboration among builders, agencies and engaged citizens. The likely impacts of these changes are intensified by the September introduction of the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act of 2026, which would make the dissolution of Section 106 federal law.

Why now? Last year, this administration-proposed new triumphal arch is in a protected view corridor between Arlington National Cemetery and the Lincoln Memorial. In September, the Advisory Council cut off public comment after three and a half business days, then terminated Section 106 review and let excavation begin. The approach will likely look similar if the government plans to demolish a National Historic Landmark, drill in a protected wildlife refuge, or run a highway overpass through an urban neighborhood.

The Chicago Architecture Center and Landmarks Illinois formed in the late 1960s and 1970s, respectively, in response to threats against our architectural legacy in the Urban Renewal era. We’ve built coalitions to guide development while protecting our landmarks. We know Section 106 review can occasionally be slow. We also know it results in better projects.

Take the CTA's Red Line, which runs through five historic districts. Section 106 consultation among the Federal Transit Administration, the Illinois State Historic Preservation Office and neighborhood groups shaped a $2 billion rebuilding of century-old tracks and stations, preserving neighborhood character while attracting economic development to reinvigorated transit hubs.

Or consider the Century and Consumers Buildings on State Street, rare surviving pre-World War I skyscrapers. After the federal government acquired them by eminent domain, Congress appropriated $52 million in 2022 to demolish them over security concerns at the adjacent Dirksen Courthouse. Section 106 required Washington to sit with Chicagoans to study reuse alternatives.

Then there are the 1932 Julia C. Lathrop Homes, among Chicago’s first federally funded public housing developments. Section 106 engagement among HUD, the Chicago Housing Authority and neighbors guided the transformation of a deteriorating campus into a mixed-income community with hundreds of restored apartments.

Each example produced a different outcome, and none was reachable without Section 106. Without these public discussions, we risk returning to the 1960s, a decade that galvanized the American preservation movement and gave us Section 106 in the first place.

Does the law need updates? Without question. The world has changed in 60 years, and so should our approach to preservation. Defending the status quo is easier than building consensus around something new, and we must rethink old policies and take bold steps to stay proactive for the next 60 years.

The door is open for reform because of the actions of this Advisory Council, this Congress and this Administration. But reform must be built in a public forum. It may come from new leadership with new thinking. Today, the proposed evisceration of Section 106 is not the answer and must be defeated. That will take sensible members of Congress shutting it down.

Otherwise, projects like the triumphal arch will arise as memorials to the loss of America's true and full history.