[media-credit name=’Derek Montgomery’ align=’alignnone’ width=’648′][/media-credit]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.