When is it appropriate to say a building should be saved? And when is it too late? And how to the give their opinion about something if they don’t have it before them?
This was the debate at the Landmarks Commission last night. The issue that caused the discussion was the pending demolition of the building at 11575117 University Avenue. A woman came in with a concerns. She had done a considerable amount of research, made a eloquent (even if nervous) case for saving the building. But in the end, the commission felt they couldn’t do anything even tho the state had determined that the building was eligible for National Landmarks status and it is likely eligible for city landmark status. They think it has both historical and architectural significance. I think that is wrong, if I were the alder on the commission I have a long list of things that I would do, but these are different times and I’m not the alder on the committee and alders are hesitant to be as outspoken as I was on the issues lest they upset the business community and the Landmarks Commission has been pummeled and appears beaten.
DETAILS ON THE BUILDING
It was designed in 1949 by William Kaeser, one of Wisconsin’s most distinguished modern architects. It was built by Marshall Erdman and used as his office. And Frank Lloyd Wright used his office when he was in town and doing business.
Frank Lloyd Wright, you’ve heard of him right?
William Kaeser is one of Madison’s most distinguished modern architects.
Erdman-Peiss milled much of the housing that is in the area in a factory that was behind the building. He was a friend of Frank Lloyd Wright. He constructed Frank Lloyd Wright’s Unitarian Meeting House. According to the speaker he was a pioneer in design/build methods, a supporters of the affordable housing movement and pre-fab housing and medical architecture innovator. He promoted Do-It-Yourself of Build-It-Yourself housing. It only cost $9K – $14K to buy a home with some sweat equity. His U-Form-It kit homes were featured in LIfe Magazine in 1953 and Frank Lloyd Wright designed three prefab homes for Erdman to produce. In the 1950s he revolutionalized the medical architecture with Doctor’s Park in Shorewood Hills with doctor-owned climics taht featured on fo the first drive-thru pharmacies.
She cites Doug Moe’s book Uncommon Sense: The Life of Marshall Erdman to show the connection between the three men above an how the learned from each other and why they were important to each other.
HOW DID THIS GET BEFORE THEM?
They seemed confused about what they could do. The reason this gets before them is that when I was alder I worked on the demolition ordinance because when I was on the plan commission issues of historic value would come up during demolitions, but we had no expertise to know if the buildings were historically or architecturally significant. And from time to time, we caused delays to refer to Landmarks staff or commission to hear from them. During those discussions, we came up with the 60 day notice for Landmarks so that the public and commission would know what was being proposed to be demolished 60 days before an application is submitted.
WHY THEY THINK THEY CAN’T DO ANYTHING?
1. Some thought it was too late. What? Too late? No, this is the beginning, that was the whole point of the list and the ordinance, to bring the Landmarks Commission in earlier! I registered to speak to tell them this, but they seemed skeptical.
2. They have no landmarks application before them. And despite the excellent information and details the woman brought forward, she did not feel she was qualified to apply for it to be a landmark.
This seems all wrong to me. This was the whole point of the ordinance, but times have changed. I think they are feeling a little gun shy and don’t want to be the ones that stop a project from moving forward.
WHY THEY SHOULD DO SOMETHING
1. Paul Soglin commented on this at the Capitol Neighborhoods meeting the other night that we need to find a way to figure these things out in advance. To figure out which buildings we care about and which are more vulnerable He suggested that they need to complete some work to inventory buildings that had in the 90s. I think that work is so old and only looked at commercial buildings and a few houses that met some criteria that we might not all agree on now. We need to redo some of that work and make sure it is complete, then do the phase two, but I’m not sure how that could be done with one staff person who already has a full-time job.
2. THAT WAS THE WHOLE FREAKING POINT OF THE ORDINANCE. I admit, that was a while ago and I’m fuzzy on the details, but I’ll look at it again. This was the mechanism to get them in early in the project so that they weren’t there last minute talking about the historic or architectural value of the building.
3. Really, if it has been determined eligible for the National Landmarks status isn’t that enough to start talking about saving it?
A FEW OTHER DETAILS
Mark Clear is the alder, he apparently supports demolition. This is the second time it has come up.
WHAT THEY SHOULD DO
I’m really hopeful that Soglin or his staff will come to the committee and talk about their ideas to re-start that work that was started, what it would take to make it happen and when they can get started. To re-empower them. I don’t know that will happen, my guess is it will get lost in the other priorities.
They should take a second look at that demolition ordinance and figure out what their role in it is and should be. Marsha Rummel should sponsor changes if they are necessary.
They should figure out how to get more landmarks applications before them. If someone with that much knowledge and research feels like they can’t do it, then maybe they need a new way for the public to bring issues forward. Maybe they should look at the application or figure out how to get assistance from staff in that application.
FINAL THOUGHT
It’s really painful to watch a group of informed and talented citizens sit on a city committee and feel so powerless. They have been so emasculated by the pummeling they took that they are nearly powerless. Of course, that was the goal, right? I see it with other several committees as well. I hope the return of Soglin also brings a return of the empowerment of the citizen committee and their staff. I hope they start bringing issues forward instead of waiting to react to them. I hope they state their opinions loudly and clearly when they have them. Otherwise, what is the point? I know many talented people who quit city committees under the reign of Dave, because they determined they were wasting their time. I hope that we start to see a change in that attitude and a diverse group of people will return to city committees and that we return to appointing people who have a strong knowledge and background or passion on the issues the committee discusses.
Meanwhile . . . will this building be demolished? Should it be? Shouldn’t we at least ask the question and discuss it?
I think the adress listed is wrong. The 1100 block of University is all UW bldgs. I think the bldg in question is part of the Erdman redevelopment site – just west of Whitney. Right? That would be somewhere up around 5000 University. (Sorry, typing on cell phone, and can’t look it up.)
I support the preservation of modernist architecture, but how much is this building altered on the interior. It looks like a factory. Is someone willing to restore it and maintain it. Maybe it could be a museum fir Madison modernisnm in archetecture.
Very thoughtful discussion. One correction – the Downtown Preservation Plan Task Force looked at every building in the downtown that was not already designated a landmark or in an historic district, including residential buildings.
They also made recommendations about groupings of buildings.
Thanks Kitty! I’ll defer to the expert! 🙂
Corrected.
As someone who has recently worked in that building, I can tell you that only a small portion (the front University facing area) appears to be the original building. The rest is an open office area and in a serious state of disrepair.
Ah, you bring up a good issue. Just because someone wants to tear down a building and hasn’t repaired it, should we reward them for their poor property maintenance and allow the building to be destroyed. Seems like all landowners who face tough decisions on demolition would just use that tactic then. And that also begs the question, with regular fire inspections annually, if its in such bad repair, why hasn’t this come to the attention of the building inspector if it is so terrible?
All good questions Brenda. I should qualify my definition of “disrepair” – pest issues, including all sorts of bugs, mice, etc, crumbling ceiling tiles, dampness/mold/dust problems. Not to mention lack of compliance with the ADA. In the time that I worked there, part of the building was unusable because staff were having such strong reactions to mold/dust, even though inspections cleared the building of any such issues. It was not a comfortable place to work. If the building will indeed be salvaged, a lot of work is in order.