How to Decide to Demolish a Landmark

George Austin kept saying that we had to think about what was going to go in place of the landmarked buildings or that is should “add value” if we demolished a landmark when talking about the project on the 100 State St block. That was still bugging me, I don’t see that anywhere in the standards for demolishing a landmark. He also said that Landmarks Commission made a recommendation to the Plan Commission about a demolition, which also, clearly was not true. They issue a Certificate of Appropriateness and its appealed to the council (think Edgewater). For his comments see here. For the real standards and procedure, see below.

Sec. 33.19(5)(c)

(c) Regulation of Demolition. No permit to demolish all or part of a landmark, or improvement in an Historic District, shall be granted by the Director of the Building Inspection Division except as follows: (Am. by Ord. 8081, 7-29-83; ORD-08-00109, 10- 7-08)

1. Scope.
Any application for a permit to demolish or remove all or part of a landmark or improvement in an Historic District shall be filed with the Landmarks Commission. Such application shall be made in all cases, both when demolition
or removal is planned as an isolated event and when said demolition or removal is considered in conjunction with a special development plan, a rezoning plan or a conditional use plan. No owner or operator of a landmark, or improvement in an Historic district, shall be granted a permit to demolish or remove such property unless a Certificate of Appropriateness therefor has been granted by the Landmarks Commission. (Am. by Ord. 8117, 10-3-83)

2. Procedure.
Except as provided in Section 28.12(10)(d), the Landmarks Commission shall hold a public hearing on each application for a wrecking or removal permit and shall follow the procedures required for other hearings by Madison General
Ordinance Section 28.12(10)(d) and (e). Thereafter, the Landmarks Commission may decide to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness, refuse to grant such Certificate or suspend action on same for a period not to exceed one (1) year
from the date of application for said permit. Failure to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness or to issue a written determination to suspend action on the application within thirty (30) days of the application date shall be deemed a
refusal to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the demolition or removal, provided that the determination period may be extended an additional thirty (30) days by written stipulation of the applicant and the Landmarks Commission. If the Landmarks Commission determines to suspend action on the application, the Commission and the applicant shall undertake serious and continuing discussions for the purpose of finding a mutually agreeable method of saving the subject property. Furthermore, during this time the owner shall take whatever steps are necessary to prevent further deterioration of the building. At the end of the one year period the Landmarks Commission shall act on the suspended application by either granting or refusing to grant a Certificate of Appropriateness for the proposed demolition or removal. (Am. by Ord. 9085, 1-29-87)

3. Standards.
In determining whether to issue a Certificate of Appropriateness for any demolition, the Landmarks Commission shall consider and may give decisive weight to any or all of the following:
a. Whether the building or structure is of such architectural or historic significance that its demolition would be detrimental to the public interest and contrary to the general welfare of the people of the City and the State;
b. Whether the building or structure, although not itself a landmark building, contributes to the distinctive architectural or historic character of the District as a whole and therefore should be preserved for the benefit of the people of the City and the State;
c. Whether demolition of the subject property would be contrary to the purpose and intent of this chapter as set forth in Sec. 33.19 and to the objectives of the historic preservation plan for the applicable district as duly adopted by the Common Council;
d. Whether the building or structure is of such old and unusual or uncommon design, texture and/or material that it could not be reproduced or be reproduced only with great difficulty and/or expense;
e. Whether retention of the building or structure would promote the general welfare of the people of the City and the State by encouraging study of American history, architecture and design or by developing an understanding of American culture and heritage;
f. Whether the building or structure is in such a deteriorated condition that it is not structurally or economically feasible to preserve or restore it, provided that any hardship or difficulty claimed by the owner which is self-created or which is the result of any failure to maintain the property in good repair cannot qualify as a basis for the issuance of a Certificate of Appropriateness;
g. Whether any new structure proposed to be constructed or change in use proposed to be made is compatible with the buildings and environment of the district in which the subject property is located.

For what it is worth, the purpose and intent of the chapter is 33.19 is as follows:

(1) Purpose and Intent. It is hereby declared a matter of public policy that the protection, enhancement, perpetuation and use of improvements of special character or special historical interest or value is a public necessity and is required in the interest of health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the people. The purpose of this section is to:
(a) Effect and accomplish the protection, enhancement and perpetuation of such improvements and of districts which represent or reflect elements of the City’s cultural, social, economic, political and architectural history.
(b) Safeguard the City’s historic and cultural heritage, as embodied and reflected in such landmarks and historic districts.
(c) Stabilize and improve property values.
(d) Foster civic pride in the beauty and noble accomplishments of the past.
(e) Protect and enhance the City’s attractions to residents, tourists and visitors, and serve as a support and stimulus to business and industry.
(f) Strengthen the economy of the City.
(g) Promote the use of historic districts and landmarks for the education, pleasure and welfare of the people of the City.

It is not uncommon for developers and even alders to slaughter the standards that are required to be considered when making various decisions and they all should know better. They certainly used that tactic during the Edgewater discussion. But certainly, the former Director of the Planning Department should know what he’s talking about. I hope he starts using the actual standards instead of making them up. To do otherwise is pretty slimy.

Also note, I don’t see anything in the standards that makes it ok to demolish a landmarked building so that people attending an arts performance can get a better view of the capitol or so that the Overture can make money by hosting more weddings. I don’t see anything in the standards that say that they should tear down buildings because some people don’t like looking at buildings with fire escapes when they are at the opera. And I don’t see anything in there that says they should knock down landmarked buildings so that they can create a better built environment to chase away people who are “loitering” in the area. So rich people don’t have to look at the homeless or low-income people. Those are not criteria in the ordinance.

I can’t wait to actually hear more about the buildings involved and their merit. Not the merit of what will go in its place.