NEWS
Alders deem site historic
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Jimmy Rahm:
- Fair trade festival hopes to create trend (December 6, 2004)
- Ethnic restaurants staple of State Street (November 30, 2004)
- ALRC continues license debate (November 18, 2004)
- Vendors discuss new locations (November 11, 2004)
- Council motion could increase tenant's rights (November 10, 2004)
Related Stories:
- Landmarks may expand locally (May 2, 2006)
- Groups honor Capitol building (April 17, 2006)
- Neighbors meet concerning women's building (February 5, 2004)
- Protesters may help save local building (February 4, 2004)
- Mayor veto on Overture possible (October 20, 2005)
by Jimmy Rahm
Wednesday, September 22, 2004
Downtown Madison is now home to a newly declared historical landmark. The City Council voted Tuesday night to add the Women’s Building, 240 W. Gilman St., to the city’s list of historical landmarks.
The vote comes after the motion was deferred two weeks ago because two alderpersons were unavailable to vote.
A petition with several hundred signatures and over a dozen e-mails were sent to the Landmarks Commission in favor of landmarking the property. Nine citizens spoke in favor of preserving the building and 13 registered further support during Tuesday’s meeting.
The owner of the Women’s Building, Joe McCormick, was the only registered citizen to speak against the landmarking during the last council meeting.
Because the reconsideration passed, McCormick must submit requests to the city for uses of the site. This changes McCormick’s plans to demolish the building to construct a high-rise apartment complex.
“The building far exceeds criteria for landmark status, and I fully support landmarking this building,” Ald. Mike Verveer, District 4, said.
Central to the debate were concerns over the owner’s rights and intentions and whether the building’s architecture constitutes landmark status.
“After purchasing the building, the owner didn’t do his homework over what could happen with it,” Verveer said.
Those who supported the move dispelled concerns over the building’s structural soundness.
“The brick that makes up the building is considerably softer than modern brick, but can be easily repaired, and won’t hinder landmark status,” said architect John Martins, who supported the movement.
Martins, among others, also acknowledged the building’s contribution to Madison’s cultural and social history.
“Tearing down the Women’s Building would be like tearing down the first synagogue,” said supportive speaker Jack Holzhueter.
Speakers came in large numbers to support the building’s historical significance and to prevent the tarnishing of its cultural contributions to Madison.
Other speakers noted the public appreciation of historical sites.
“It’s incredible the way the public lights up with the explanation of these buildings — it’s so moving,” Martins said.
Opposition to the motion revolved around the significant financial burden a landmarked building can impose.
Any changes to the property must first be cleared by the City Council.
Another issue the council discussed was lifting drink-special restrictions for Crave Restaurant & Lounge, Buck’s Madison Square Garden and Madison’s.
“We’re trying to correct inconsistencies and make this a fair process,” Ald. Judy Olson, District 6, said.
Opponents to lifting the restrictions noted the amount of violence that sprouts from excessive drinking.
“We need to deal with over-consumption issues. These ‘all you can drink’ specials end up being paid for in emergency costs. We need more limitations,” Ald. Gregory Markle, District 15, said.
Others noted excessive drinking occurs regardless of drink specials, pointing out that individuals are the cause of binge drinking, not the establishments.
“We need to consider the fact that banning drink specials forces people into unregulated drinking areas,” Ald. Austin King, District 8, said.
Council members did, however, agree they needed to settle the debate.
“We’re long past due to correct these inequities. Drink specials do not beget violence or assault,” Verveer said. “The police have shown no objection to removing restrictions and leveling the playing field — this is not a controversial issue.”
The motions passed after consideration and the drink-special restrictions were officially lifted on the three downtown businesses.
KSJ (September 22, 2004 @ 9:35am):
"After purchasing the building, the owner didn't do his homework over what could happen with it," Verveer said.
---
Yeah, the homework is that the city of Madison will wait until after a transaction to designate a relatively unremarkable building a historic landmark. The homework is a message to developers looking to provide people places to live and work--stay out of Madison; the city council acts like a third world dictator.
There is a place for historic landmarks= designations. But it strikes me that the timing of this designation could not be worse.
And it strikes me that this designation has little to do with the building itself and a lot to do with "growth." Well, growth is happening--sprawling growth--at the edge of the city and in the nearby towns. All, in part, because the Madison City Council can't get its head around a moderate density increase that will serve the city and the surrounding area well in the future.
Anonymous (September 22, 2004 @ 6:09pm):
Isn't it great to declare other people's property historic? Why didn't Madison just buy the stupid place and then they can do whatever the heck they want to with it.
