Another loss for Peoria.
“It’s clear this structure meets the [city's historic preservation] criteria. If not this building, then throw away historic preservation.”
Once again, Gary Sandberg is right, and once again he was the lone decenter on Peoria’s City Council. I did not attend or watch the council debate, but from what I gather between the Journal Star’s article and CJ Summer’s recap, the decision was all about the process, not necessarily whether this building deserves to be saved.
CILF (Central Illinois Landmarks Foundation) was reactionary on this property, waiting until the 11th hour before requesting Landmark status, and that was not a good decision. This process should have begun many moons ago, but lack of foresight should not mean a beautiful building should meet the wrecking ball.
I also believe in paybacks. Les Kenyon and CILF attempted to stifle Methodist’s expansion by designating Hamilton Boulevard as an historic landmark. The landmarking was eventually approved after some give and take from both sides, but the gauntlet had been thrown and many saw CILF as having too much power and standing in the way of progress. It did nothing but minimize their effectiveness as a group. The AMVET’s building decision was possibly and unfortunately the payback.
So many people don’t realize it, but Peoria is very rich in history. We just lost another small chapter that history. The more I learn about Peoria, the more I learn that most people around here don’t really care about its past. Ask yourself a question… when you go on vacation, do you like to visit towns with historic significance or towns with nondescript modern buildings?
I personally own about two dozen Peoria centric books; some old, some new, and they’re all chocked full of places that don’t exist anymore.
How much of our history must be lost before we finally say enough is enough?
November 26th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
If one taxpaying family moved out of Peoria because they cannot use their property as they see fit, that’s a far bigger loss to the city, in my opinion. Either we have property rights or we do not.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:22 pm
Billy, if one taxpaying family moves out of Peoria because they wanted to use their property in such a way that it would have lowered the property values of their neighbors, that’s not a great loss to the city. Someone else will come along and buy the property and fix it up so that it sustains or raises community property values, and that will mean more revenue for the city.
November 26th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Is it the current resident’s concerns and the good will of the neighboring Church or annoyance with the last minute landmarking that makes you ok with the razing of this stately building?
November 26th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
Theoretically thinking… what if the AMVETS wanted to buy the neighboring Shrine Mosque from Riverside Church with the intent to raze it… Would property rights prevail? Let it get torn down? I doubt anyone would be happy with that.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:15 pm
I think Billy needs to move back to Pottstown. He’s apparently not a fan of civilization.
Yes, we have property rights, but like most rights, they’re not absolute. There are logical limitations. What one person does to their property affects their neighbors. That MUST be considered.
November 26th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
If historical preservationists think this building is SO important, they should buy it. Demonstrate its value by purchasing it rather than complaining about what its owner(s) choose to do with it.
November 27th, 2008 at 5:16 am
Idonotknowme – *WINNER*
November 27th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
I sure wish all those whorehouses and speakeasies were still around so we could all remember how Peoria grew up on vice and corruption. Ahh, the good ol’ days.
Many of the buildings and structures that have been saved still look like shit and, quite frankly, are an eyesore on a city struggling to modernize itself. If the history buffs want to save their precious relics, they should at least make some effort to restore them to their original “glory”. Rotted out buildings look nice in Norman Rockwell paintings. They don’t look nice in real life.
November 27th, 2008 at 8:03 pm
History is always making itself. Will our ancestors be kneeling in front of a 150 year old Becker Building demanding it not be torn down? Will people say that it comes from the 20th century design popular around 1990?
The AMVETS building is an old dump. Tear it down and move on. Maybe someone will build a building there that will be of historic value in Peoria’s future.
November 27th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
Yeah, what a dump of a building… tear it down. Tear it all down and built a new Utopia… like East Peoria. They’ve got a fabulous Riverfront Super-Walmart and are soon building a new “downtown”.
Oh if we could only be progressive like them.
November 28th, 2008 at 12:08 am
If Peoria had half the foresight and progressive thought East Peoria has, the Embassy Suites, Eastside, and Par-A-Dice would be on the other side of the river. Not to mention the second hotel being built in the near future at the east foot of Bob Michel Bridge and the new “downtown”.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:19 am
I can appreciate a spirited debate on the principles of private property rights as well as the next guy, but reading the callous disregard for significant architecture and local history in these comments is depressing, and hearing people extol the virtues of East Peoria’s “progressive” development is enough to make me lose my Thanksgiving dinner.
You guys really wish we were more like East Peoria? Seriously? Out of all the cities in all the countries in the world, all the places that you might aspire to emulate or hold up as an example of progressive city planning, you’ve selected East Peoria as your model? East Peoria embodies the architecture, design, and planning after which we should pattern ourselves? And you’ve cited Eastside and Par-A-Dice casino as two of their crowning achievements? Really?
Good lord. Aim a little higher, people.
November 28th, 2008 at 5:38 am
I am not saying ” Tear it all down and built a new Utopia… ” In this case, the AMVETS building, while beautiful in it’s day has been rotting for decades. Where were all you history people while this was happening? It’s easy to demand it be saved yet no one coughs up the money to buy it and save it. I’ll bet the AMVETS would love to have to cash to restore it but they don’t and they have checked into the costs of doing so. It was un-realistic. To say that ” Tear it all down and built a new Utopia… ” is just whining.
By the way, I for one am not wanting our downtown to look like East Peoria’s “throw away” downtown. Still, here in Peoria, how long have we been dicking with the Sears block????
November 28th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Eastside and the Par-A-Dice draw more people from outside the area than the museum ever will. Period. I’m not trying to say they’re brilliant pieces of modern architecture and city planning. I don’t think Eastside could even be considered a piece of architecture, and the Par-A-Dice is, well, a boat with quite an ugly hotel. I’m saying they were built to serve a purpose, and they’re serving the purpose well. As for EP’s 2010 project, as far as commercial and retail development, it is without question better than anything Peoria has planned or is even proposing for the next 10-15 years, let alone the next 3-5.
November 28th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
Speaking of the Pardise Gambling site. About 80% of the profits leaves the area. And as of last week, the Paradise hadn’t pledged one dime to the musem because no one had asked management. Source: Mark Johnson before County Board Committee.
Good marketing? Minimum contribution in my opinion? At least $1 million.
November 30th, 2008 at 12:19 am
I think this building would make an excellent site for a real history of Peoria museum … you know, like they were talking about before the economic development crowd hijacked it for the Sears block.
November 30th, 2008 at 8:52 am
There’s an awful lot of anguish over this building.
I grew up in Pekin. I loved the Pekin Theater. It was a grand building. But, it’s time came to an end.
If I wanted to preserve it I should have come up with the $$$ to save it. I didn’t have it. I didn’t own it. It wasn’t my decision about what to do with it.
If you want to preserve something and decide how it is used, buy it. That’s supposed to be the American way.
For all of those pining over this building I’m sure your check’s in the mail.
December 1st, 2008 at 12:07 am
C.J.: “I can appreciate a spirited debate on the principles of private property rights as well as the next guy, but reading the callous disregard for significant architecture and local history in these comments is depressing, ”
Yeah, well, guess what? When you live in a society that respects property rights, that means that some times you wake up in the morning depressed because someone did something with THEIR property with which you disagree. It’s the price you pay for the many, many, many benefits from living in a society that respects YOUR property rights.
The alternative is living in a society in which the most powerful mob makes the rules.
Property rights is not an abstract concept, to be debated for entertainment purposes on a blog. You either have it, or you don’t.
And to those who think property rights are a myth … well, we took a vote, and we’re coming over to turn your home into a homeless shelter. Hey, majority rules, right?
December 6th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
I just can’t believe the words “Gary Sandberg” and “right” were used in the same sentence.