On the City Council agenda for Tuesday is a request to strip the Roanoke Apartments building of its historic landmark status. The Journal Star reports:
Second District City Councilwoman Barbara Van Auken said all sides in the issues have been involved in discussions about the fate of the property, including members of the Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation, the grass-roots pro-preservationist group that would prefer to see a reuse of the apartments.
Van Auken also described the request to remove the landmark status as a one-time thing.
“The preferred route is to go to the (historic preservation) commission that recommends things to the council,” Van Auken said. “(The request) presented the opportunity to get a longstanding problem resolved. I would like to see the council take the opportunity to use it.”
The current City Council has been weakening the historic preservation ordinance ever since 2008 when they denied landmark status to the historic Duroc building and began a comprehensive review of the ordinance. This is just another nail in coffin. Despite Van Auken’s assertion that this would be “a one-time thing,” if the Council caves on this landmark, which has withstood legal challenges and been reviewed multiple times, they’ll cave on anything.
Well…what’s the problem here?
I thought we were going to ‘dump’ all of our ‘history’ in the new multi-million dollar museum anyway…!?!
I am sure there will be cardboard replicas of these historic Peoria landmarks scattered throughout the museum. That way when we tear them down, we won’t feal quite as guilty about it…
Give the Joseph Company a TIF, then they can demolish the Roanoke Apartments and put up a Cub Foods.
If you designate something historic to be preserved, then reverse yourself later, doesn’t that mean the designation on any property is basically meaningless and can be changed at any time? This sets a bad precedent.
Van Auken should be ashamed of herself for backing delisting! She knows better.
Visit the Soulard historic district in St. Louis to see what historic preservation can do for a city! There, no demolition is allowed, period.
Demolition is forever, but deterioration can be reversed.
Preserve Peoria, don’t destroy it.
I don’t really have an opinion of this, but do we want to landmark a building just because it’s old or does it need to have some historical significance?
I admit, I drive by this building everyday and I don’t necessarily see it as a historical landmark, but as an old dilapidated building.
Ben’s on to something. Just because it’s an old building doesn’t mean that we need to preserve it.
Sometimes I wonder if it’d be a better policy to establish historic districts with a certain set of building codes and standards to maintain the historic feel of a neighborhood and a separate landmark designation for buildings of historic importance. Landmarks don’t necessarily have to be historic in and of themselves — for instance, I think there’d be a good case to be made that the Twin Towers are historically significant in downtown, even though they were constructed within the last 40 years.
Ben and Sterling make good points.
We already know the city council is incapable of making an intelligent decision on anything.
There are local, state, and federal guidelines in place to determine what is/is not historically significant.
I would think that members of the Hist Pres Commission are aware of this: even if the city council isn’t…?
I am sure Van Auken is looking for her diploma in Historic Preservation as we speak…..
They don’t landmark buildings just because they’re old. According to the historic preservation ordinance:
The Roanoke Apartments had to meet one or more of those criteria.
“Demolition is forever, but deterioration can be reversed. Preserve Peoria, don’t destroy it.” Good Heavens, I agree with Elaine Hopkins! Well, credit where credit is due, she is right on this one. Our so-called “leaders” want to make Peoria a tourist destination, but it never occurs them that tourists want to see something interesting and authentic. You can visit strip malls, Walmarts, and chain restaraunts virtually anywhere. Why come to Peoria? When was the last time you went to Yellowstone to visit a Cub Foods? Ever thought about going to Europe to eat at McDonald’s? I didn’t think so.
Ben is right. The building is a dump. The church, which by historic means dwarfs this building and the church has owned it since 1989. No one has stepped up with the cash to restore it nor will anyone in the future. Get over it in this case, let the church tear it down and beautify the grounds that are really nicely kept now. Make 1000’s of cockroaches homeless.
Sorry, I side with the church on this one. I don’t think it is right for a group to landmark a building (and CJ those criteria listed are pretty loosely applied, I could probably get your house listed as a landmark if I tried!) only after someone has purchased it. The church bought the apts well before historic status was even considered. They never wanted it, never asked for it but it was forced upon them. Then they were unable to use the land for the purpose for which it had been bought–eventual expansion of their facility including a child-care facility if I remember correctly.
If you purchase a designated historic property and then want to tear it down or do something that would alter the status, I would agree with most posters here. But how would you feel if you spent money planning to build on a site, bought the land and the property on it,and then had that right taken from you without you having any way to stop it? Also, no one has offered to BUY these “historic” apts from the church to help them recoup their costs. I say put up ($$$$) or shut up and let the church and their property alone.
Historic pres. seems to have way too much power around here. I am in favor of preserving historically significant buildings but this group runs roughshod over owners AFTER THE FACT. They did a similar thing with the building downtown that wanted to sell to Riverside Church–named it a landmark AFTER the deal was proposed, but didn’t offer $$$ themselves to buy it. It has to stop.
So I can count on all of you supporting the church to support me if I buy the house next door and tear it down so that I can triple lot my house. The house (a rental) next to mine is dump too.
Too many buildings, too many unique aspects of our city, have been torn down. Hopkins is right on this one. The Council needs to vote NO.
Mahkno.
rental..dump…YEP…
I once asked a historical preservation person who was attacking a resident on High Street, about looking into grant monies so that a fund would be available to either purchase and rehab properities themselves or help others who might be interested but not have the extensive funding needed to restore such properties. Apparantly I have two heads, judging by the look and complete lack of response I received.
There seems to need to be significant reforms to the way that buildings are landmarked. I agree, putting the status after someone buys it is rather unfair. If you wanted it declared a landmark then do it before a vacant building is for sale or work with the owner on such a status request. What seem silly to me is that we even have to draft more rules to have this done. One would think that the committee could simply exercise this judgement on their own without having to micromanaging the process.
While this topic is up, there seems to be considerable discussion among the powers that be who believe that it will be a disincentive to historic preservation to move the fee up an additionally $200. If you have the $1000’s to refurbish the property in the manner required, then an extra couple of hundred bucks isn’t going to break the bank. People who make more than the Liheap bunch, but who are working and struggling are going to be wearing gloves this winter inside becase of the tax on heat. If that’s on the table then this should be also.
That is an old picture! The building does not look like that now. It was in disrepair when the Church bought it. The Church did not restore it because they intended to tear it down. It’s theirs, they are entitled to their own time frame, not anyone else’s.
There have been several offers to buy the building, and even offers to help fix it up — one preservationist offered to donate $20,000 to purchase a new boiler. Trinity doesn’t want to sell it or fix it up; they want to demolish it. While it is true that the building was designated an historic landmark after the church bought it, the building was still habitable at that time and could have been sold or at least kept up to code and rented out. The reason it’s a dump now is because the church has not been maintaining the building, a practice generally described as “demolition by neglect.”
If this “one time ” action takes place look for OSF to de-list Irving school. Also I doubt White school will be listed and tore down to make way for a powerhouse/boileroom/energy center.
Guess Peoria could become another East Peoria and teard down everything anytime. Ep even tore down a monument to the Franklin Street bridge and never replaced it. Historic has its place
“demolition by neglect”
Current Bel-Wood nursing home.
Cj, It doesnt’ appear that there was any conspiracy by the church if the intent in 1989 to buy the building with that potential in the first place. Someone else should have bought it if they were interested in refurbishing it. I don’t know the answer, but how long was this building on the market before Trinity bought it.
Paul — I didn’t mean to imply that there was a conspiracy. Just stating the facts. They bought the building for expansion purposes, and they haven’t wavered from that goal, efforts to landmark the building notwithstanding.
I thought the building was in perfectly fine shape when they kicked everyone out. I knew someone who lived on the top floor and loved it. They were artists and said it had the best light. So, they kick everyone out and then let the place deteriorate. Shame, shame on them!
No, actually the people got kicked out when the boiler broke down and they were left without any heat.
CJ, this is true, but still, all in all, it was not ready for the scrapper at that time. It is my understanding the people who lived there, loved it. Who owned it then? How long had they owned it? Hmm… Where did all the money go that they could not afford a new furnace?
In the Land of the Yellow Giant, EVERYTHING in Peoria is scheduled for demolition, sooner or later. That’s where the money’s at.
My letter to the council
Barbara Van Auken and cronies,
I just bought a house up the street from the Roanoke apartments. After house shopping for over a year, I decided to buy in this neighborhood
because I like the architecture & location more than any other part of the city. In the short time I’ve been
here, three buildings have become victims of the city for demolition. One is currently being saved, all of them could easily be. Needless to say, I’m thoroughly disgusted with the decision of the council tonight to remove the Roanoke apartment building from the list of historic properties. It’s
frustrating because your decision tonight completely devalues Historic
protection. If I wanted to paint my house hot pink with neon green
accents without asking permission, why shouldn’t I be able to do so? Or maybe I should just buy the house next door and demolish mine for parking, after all, I don’t have room for a garage and we all know how important parking is to the citizens of Peoria! I don’t buy the story that Trinity was shocked when they discovered it was a protected property. The Randolph/Roanoke neighborhood has been on the registry since 1973, so even if the building itself wasn’t yet applied for when they bought it, they still should have anticipated problems.
It’s already difficult to get
people to take this neighborhood seriously with all the problems it’s had in the past (and you certainly know what I’m speaking of, Van Auken) and the fact that it doesn’t have the glamour of Moss ave. This
certainly is going to add to the decline of the neighborhood. The people
of Trinity Lutheran aren’t here seven days a week. They don’t have the
same investment in this neighborhood that the homeowners do and neither do any of you. It is wrong for you to decide in favor of Trinity when you don’t even live here or understand the massive negative impact this is going to have on us. We already have to deal with Roger Heim and his slums which are going to shambles, we don’t need Trinity adding to the reduction in our property values. Van Auken lives almost as far away from here she can! I would say I’m very disappointed in everyone who voted to approve this tonight, but I didn’t expect you to make a thoughtful decision in the first place. I moved here with the intention of helping to restore what’s
left of the integrity of this neighborhood. I’m not so sure I can do much anymore with this kind of mountain to climb. Who cares if Peoria’s the oldest city in the state? At least we got the market cornered on parking lots!
thanks for nothing (except for Sandburg)
I was one of those tenants in the Roanoke during the church’s tenure. The tenants all took great pride and were very protective of our home. We weren’t a bunch of crack heads. We loved living there. From the beginning it was clear to me the church had no intention of sharing in our pride. The church owners did everything they could to make the living conditions undesirable, at times unlivable. They had their eyes on that parking lot at our expense. It’s such a shame and a sad day for Peoria and for me.
Anyone that is griping about preserving buildings then fork over the cash to purchase all so called historic buildings. If you won’t, then leave it alone. It belongs to the church and they and any other dwelling owner have the right to demolish anything they purchased. Why is the Hist Pres Commission playing God? Let the church do what they want with it. I also remember the building downtown wasn’t it the VFW or something and Riverside didn’t get to purchase it. That is wrong not to let owners do what they want in regards to their own property. MYOB Hist Pres Commission.
I wonder what kind of tax exempts this church received over the years from owning this property and letting it fall into disrepair. I am not a financial expert, but I know it is often said that churches do not pay taxes. Did this church get a break on this piece of property?
Taxes–good question–to what extent do churches not pay property taxes for property they own (even if it isn’t used for the church)?
Our small Historic town is faced with a decision…Just because a local mini-markt-gas wants to move a building that was placed on the Historic register after they bought the property…. 5o years old automatically places this property as Historic.(Also in our Historic overlay area). They are willing to design a very nice sitting area in the location…Our town is beautiful because of our 40 year old Historic review Board. It is almost impossible to tear down an “Historic Bldg”. GREAT! Once a building is gone it is gone forever. Everyone’s idea of significance is diffirent… Beauty is different for all