I reported recently on some historic preservation requests that are wending their way through the system. One of those is the AMVETS building, 237 NE Monroe. That building got some criticism in the comments section of my blog. And according to another reader who e-mailed me over the weekend, there’s an effort underway to kill the proposed historic designation without even so much as a hearing:
Dear Sir
I saw your article about preserving the AMVETS building and wanted to inform you of the following: This upcoming Wednesday the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) will decide if the AMVETS application will receive a public hearing. I am afraid that they are being swayed, for the wrong reasons, to vote against a public hearing.
The building’s application, which can be obtained from the city, to make it historical was put together very well. There are nine criteria to make a building historic and only one of the nine needs to be met to make a designation. The application cites that the building meets 4 of the nine criteria and lists details why, providing pictures and proper research.
Key (although not all) members within the AMVETS do not want this to happen because they are in the process of trying to move the post location and a historic landmark of the building could prevent this. Certain AMVETS officers of the corporation are not sharing this information with the organization’s membership and lobbying the HPC to vote it down on Wednesday.
The point I am trying to make is that the Historic Preservation Commission has an obligation to permit a public hearing on applications that have merit. This building obviously has merit and deserves a public hearing. This will not guarantee the building is land-marked but will ensure its case is heard, as it should be. The buyer of AMVETS has made its intentions clear to eventual raze the building and it would be a shame to see a possible historic landmark torn down without a public hearing.
I request you make this known so that the commission feels pressure to do their job of ensuring applications get a fair public hearing. You may email me with questions and I understand if you do not want to get involved.
Thank you
A concerned citizen and veteran
I still haven’t seen the application, but it does seem reasonable to have a public hearing if the building indeed meets four of the nine criteria for historic designation. It’s not listed on the October agenda published on the city’s website, but this week’s “Issues Update” confirms, “The Historic Preservation Commission will be conducting a preliminary review of an application to Landmark property at 237 NE Monroe on October 22, 2008 instead of November 26, 2008.”
The Historic Preservation Commission meets at 8:30 a.m. this Wednesday.
The best use of this building is to tear it down.
That does not sound like a very thought out comment. The building is very structurally sound and needs no major renovation. Investment to update the interior is needed. The third floor ballroom is beautiful and needs only updating and someone to care for it.
The building may or may not warrant historical designation but it sounds like it deserves a public hearing.
ya, Ben, great idea. And so original! While we have the bulldozer going, let’s tear down your house too.
CJ
On behalf of all members of AMVETS Greater Peoria Post No. 64, I want to thank you for at least giving us some exposure to the blogging media. AMVETS world wide does so very much for our countries veterans as well as others within our communities.
That said, I am sorry that in this case, the attention is on a negative note. Having read the article you have posted, I feel that you should hear a little more of the facts surrounding the sale of our Post Home and the purchase of our new Post Home.
AMVETS Post 64 bought the building in 1968 and it served us well over the years. Many of your readers may have played BINGO in this facility or attended many of the parties or dances that were held. Use of the facility has been going down for many years and as many older structures go, the facility has also suffered. Current use of the facility has diminished to use of the Club Room in the basement and the first floor as our monthly meeting place. I am sorry to say that the building does not meet the needs of the handicap. That includes the Club Room and the first floor. The facility was built as a split foyer design with no floor at the street level. Of coarse many of our members have started to get up in age and can no longer make it up or down the stairs. Currently when we have a dinner or entertainment, we count on possibly 50 members to attend out of a membership of over 600. Many will not visit the facility because they fear of being robbed, mugged or both, as did one of our members. Others can’t get into the home.
The building has been for sale for over five years. Early in this year, we received an offer that we felt would be attractive. We looked for a site for the new Post Home and finally settled on the site of the old Penguin Tap.
Many hours of research went into trying to retain the building and find answers to these inherent problems. We settled on an exterior elevator at a cost of over $250,000.00 which would change the outward look of the building completely. When completed, there would now be access to the basement and the other floors. Then, even more money would need to be spent in order to do anything with the upper two floors. After receiving a comfortable offer from Riverside Community Church and a letter of intent with the owners of the Penguin Tap, meeting was advertised to the membership for a collective vote. The membership voted to sell our current home and to make an offer for the Penguin Tap. This decision was not made by a committee or a select few. This was at our regular meeting night and I admit that many representatives from both sides were in attendance. After presentations, a secret vote was taken, the membership agreed to sell our Home and to contract for the purchase of our new Home.
Both contracts are currently scheduled for closing on November 17th. Riverside Community Church will build a new expansion on virtually our entire parcel including the current building and parking lot. We will be able to complete the renovations to the Penguin Tap building and be able to move in right after the first of the year. Presenting this as a Landmark status is another attempt to delay the move from our old facility by a very few. If any of them thought that the building should be listed as a landmark, they had from 1968 till the first quarter of this year to do so. As you can see this is an eleventh hour attempt, which eats up valuable time and money. If you would like to take a tour of the facility, I would welcome the opportunity.
With kind regards,
Richard H. Mitchell
Commander
AMVETS Greater Peoria Post 64
All of this has nothing to do with the fact that the building meets certain criteria for being landmarked and deserves a public hearing. I feel for the Amvets in that they want to move but I have heard that handicapped members have been using the current elavator to go from floor to floor. Also, people have been mugged all over the city.
Historic or not, if the building needs too much $ to update, who would want it other than to demolish it it and build new? Not all old buildings are worth keeping. Just because they are old does not mean they are worth preserving.
Thanks, Mitch, for providing the other side of the story! I can see why you and your fellow veterans would be frustrated.
I don’t know if this is reality or perception, but it does seem like most buildings get proposed for historic preservation only after someone starts planning to sell or demolish them. I’ve often wondered why CILF isn’t a little more proactive; but like I said, perhaps that’s just my perception and they are more proactive on other properties. I don’t know. But I can rattle off a whole list of buildings that only became candidates for preservation at the 11th hour, like you said.
I think the only piece of information missing is the application for historic preservation. No one seems to know exactly what it is about this building that makes it worth saving as an historic landmark. I’ll see if I can’t get a copy from the city via FOIA. Technically, it can take seven days to get a FOIA request filled, but maybe they’ll be able to get it for me faster if I ask real nice. 🙂
SB
There is an elavator currently in the building which goes to the ground level, basement, second and third floor. In order to stop on the first floor (our meeting room) you must open the door at just the right moment. The opening at the side is less than 30 inchs, not large enough for a wheelchair to exit. The basement is also assesable by a side door that is also thirty inchs. That elevator cannot be redesigned to allow access to all floors by wheelchair.
Also not mentioned is the crumbling stairway in the rear of the building. Neither did I mention the fire escape that cannot be used or the fact that the whole building needs tuck pointing or that we must heat all floors (which Ameren says will go up 30%) even though only two are used. Only two sides are white ceremic brick. The other two sidesa are red brick painted white and that is in need of repainting. If you have such a fondness for the old building, why have you not suggested Landmark status over the last 40 years?
Mitch
I’ve read the Amvets comments with great interest.
This whole thing is about preserving a historic building period!
It’s not about lack of maintenance or poor management; if you’re worried about muggings, there are two floodlights in the parking lot that have not worked for years, video cameras can be installed for security.
Even a “new” building will require maintenance, like tuckpointing, painting, roof, parking lot resurfacing etc. It doesn’t make sense to move to a different building every time maintenance needs to get done.
The condition of a building speaks LOUDLY of its management and that same management is probably the reason 550 members don’t participate because of the ATTITUDE and politics of those few!
Say what you want, but I agree with Mitch. If people were so concerned about keeping this building, why didn’t someone request landmark status earlier. Now that the building is pending sale, then someone wants to come in and slow things down. The building has been for sale for 5 years. That’s a long time to have requested landmark status. Why wait til now?
I do know that the original plans of Riverside Community Church was to preserve the building and rehab it, but they had structural engineers go in and inspect it and were told it is not worth saving.
You say….”It’s not about lack of maintenance or poor management…”
Then you say…
“The condition of a building speaks LOUDLY of its management and that same management is probably the reason 550 members don’t participate because of the ATTITUDE and politics of those few!”
Norma, you are contradicting; but apparantly it is the management of the building throughout the years that has brought the building and it’s members to where it/they are now. If it had been maintained during all those years, maybe they would stay. The expansion of Riverside Community Church would be a good thing.
The expansion of the church being a good thing and that fact that Amvets may be burdened has nothing to do with whether the building should have public hearing. If there is no rational support then the city council would not make it historic.
I don’t see the merit in the eleventh hour argument either. Of course this building would get top priority for landmark status if it is known it may get torn down. It would be nice and convienient for all involved if this were brought up years ago but it was not. Save those that need it most, right?
Cj, why wait a week to get the application? The commission looks at it tomorrow and a copy is available now if you go to the city. I think the best chance of not getting landmarked is to argue against the points in the application. This is something no one has done.
Get off bashing the Amvets already! The bldg has been up for sale for years.The members voted long ago to search for a new home,no’one said anything then. The management is and it’s attitudes are responsible for 550 members not to participate. BS. Alot of the members are elderly, sick, or disabled,as the years went on more of the members needed more help, that is one of the reasons we voted to move.The downtown constuction and parking were others. Parking became a small issue with the church as well,since their members would fill the parking lot of the Amvets whenever they had a meeting, leaving no parking for our own. But better to have the church than the mess that’s there now,right Ben? I am an AMVET and it makes me sick to think this is how people feel about Veterans Oranizations, especially this one that has given out more food,donations, transportation,and educational help than most organization four times our size. What’s next, the penquin tap support group?
Who is “bashing” the Amvets? This building appears to warrant a public hearing. What is so terrible about that? No one is against a Veterans Organization.
Norma; I really miss you.