Edgewater – losing the preservation argument
On May 18 the Madison Common Council gave a green light to the Hammes Co.’s proposed expansion of the Edgewater Hotel. In doing so, our representatives amended zoning codes and land use ordinances to accommodate this single project. A majority voted to subsidize a national property development company with Madison taxpayer dollars, and they overturned, for the first time ever, the Landmarks Commission, the body charged with protecting the irreplaceable culturally significant places that contribute a great deal to our city’s unique character and sense of place.
There were strong arguments on both sides of the debate: job creation, economic development on one hand, and the integrity of the Landmarks Ordinance and the preservation of the city’s premier historic district on the other. And there are positive aspects to the proposal: the rehabilitation of the 1947 Edgewater hotel and the improvement of the failed public space of the 1970s addition.
In any contentious debate, if there is not a compromise that dilutes the proposal from its original vision, there is a side that wins more and a side that loses more. In this case the clear losers are our five historic districts and the very idea of historic preservation in this city. And the insults will be added to the injury in the coming months as the Landmarks Ordinance is scrutinized, clarified and amended in the wake of a process that, by all accounts, was long and tedious.
This project and this process represent a challenge to the fundamental idea of historic districts in Madison and has raised fundamental questions about preservation in general.
Precedent
During the approval process much was said about the precedent that will be set by this project. Actually, the precedent was set long before the May 18 Council meeting. The process that played out over the past two years sets up a model for gaining approval for a project that would otherwise not be allowed by existing zoning regulations. Sell the project to city officials, and as many Council members, neighbors, and members of the public as will buy it, and the codified zoning restrictions, including Historic District requirements, are up for negotiation. Property developers often say, particularly of the Landmarks Ordinance, that they want some predictability when planning projects, but the approval of this project has created a significantly unpredictable environment for historic district residents, and for anyone who relies on zoning codes for the character and value of their property and neighborhood.
Jobs v. preservation of neighborhood character
At its core, this project pitted job creation and economic development against the value of preserving the character of a historically significant neighborhood. Both are important pursuits, essential to any healthy city with a sense of identity, but in a depressed economy, job creation is a tough opponent. In this case jobs and development won out. The Mayor and a majority of Alders, most of whom do not represent historic districts, valued the expansion of the hotel, and the creation of hospitality jobs and temporary construction jobs over the integrity of the landmarks ordinance.
The overturn of the Landmarks Commission
The Common Council can overturn a Landmarks Commission ruling if 2/3 of the Council votes to do so. This is the first time the Council has ever exercised that authority. That the Landmarks Commission found the project to be inappropriate in light of the guidelines for new construction, and despite tremendous pressure to find otherwise, was a bright spot in an ugly process. But the Council’s vote to overturn brought into question, in a loud and clear voice, the value of retaining the historic character of certain districts by use of zoning regulation. That regulation is the essence of historic preservation at the local level. And to add insult to the injury of the Landmarks Ordinance, the Mayor and Council have suggested some debilitating changes to the ordinance and the Commission. The Commission is proactively reviewing the ordinance to address weaknesses exposed by the Edgewater process, and hopefully to preempt major changes made by people less qualified to make them whose motive would likely be to remove guidelines perceived as obstacles to development. Wisconsin Historical Society staff have advised against making reactionary changes to a local preservation ordinance.
A better approach would be to carefully clarify the troublesome language of the ordinance while retaining its effectiveness for protecting the places it was intended to protect, and while also retaining the power of the Commission, realizing that the system worked in this case It was the peculiarities of the proposal and the location that made it so contentious.
The fact that this proposal was approved for this location over significant voices of opposition represents a shift away from support of historic preservation in general in this city. A hopeful person may suggest that in a depressed economy jobs and economic development are a more urgent short-term priority, and anything that can be pushed aside to facilitate that is vulnerable.
No matter how you interpret the May 18 Council votes, the integrity of the Landmarks Ordinance and the Mansion Hill Historic District ordinance took a serious hit. And the Landmarks Commission, although their vote protected the integrity of the ordinance, is in jeopardy of being weakened in their ability to protect our historic districts and landmarks.
Category: Executive Director's Blog