So, as the downtown continues to thrive and we see very little end to the onging redevelopment, we are running out of vacant land or obvious spaces to redevelop . . . which means we have to tear something down. But what?
Is the only reason to resist tearing something down because it is historic? Or when deciding to tear something down, should we care if it is still structurally sound and economically viable? What type of recycling should be required when demolitions are allowed? Should we be encouraging moving houses to make way for redevelopment?
Does it matter what will replace the buildings when deciding if they should be torn down?
Is a building historic/worth saving because it was built more than 100 years ago? Does it make a difference if it is brick or wood? Does it matter what neighborhood it is in?
Is a building historic/worth saving if it is listed in the Wisconsin Historic and Architecture Inventory? Does it matter if we know who lived in the home or used the building?
Is a building historic/worth saving if it appears in a City document as possibly historic? Or only if it is in a historic district? Or if the Landmarks Commission has previously determined a building is a City landmark?
Is a building historic/worth saving only if it was made my a famous architect or a noteworthy person lived there? (And who decides who was noteworthy?) Or what if it just holds fond memories?
Does it make a difference if there is a whole collection of houses to be torn down? Is a look and feel to a neighborhood worth preserving?
Should commercial buildings be treated differently than houses?
Should there be a better process for demolition by fire?
Should someone have to own the buildings before we approve the demolition?
A subcommittee of the Plan Commission will be reviewing the proposed demolition ordinance changes and discussing these questions and much more in the upcoming months. And there’s lots to think about . . .
