The largest hurdle facing the redevelopment of State Street's 100 block was made explicit at a city meeting Monday: public disapproval of the demolition of six historic and landmarked buildings.
In a joint meeting of the Urban Design and Landmarks Commissions, representatives of the Jerry and Pleasant Frautschi-sponsored project presented their proposal for the buildings bordered by State, N. Fairchild and W. Mifflin Streets.
All of the buildings slated for demolition were constructed within the first quarter of the 20th century; several are designated historical landmarks.
The 100-block project is designed to do "something special" by contributing to downtown's "cultural arts district," according to architect Eric Lawson, referencing the area in the vicinity of the Overture Center, the new Central Library and the proposed site for a new Veterans Museum and Historical Society building.
The presenters believe the project maintains the "fabric and character" of State Street through the reuse of existing facades, but many worry that the proposal does not do enough to retain the historical significance of area.
"Historic places are designated because they ... contribute a great deal to our sense of place and identity," said Jason Tisch, executive director of Madison Trust for Historic Preservation.
Others were in favor of the project. In describing the condition of one property, Gus Paras, the former owner of 122 State Street, contended that a poorly kept building, landmarked or not, has "nothing to save."
The tenor of the opposition can be explained by the unprecedented nature of the proposal's designated landmarks demolition, according to Landmarks Commission historian Stuart Levitan.
"This, as far as we can tell, would be the first adversarial demolition of landmarked buildings, where somebody said, ‘Those are existing landmarks; I want to take them down," he said.
As he had done in previous community presentations, Project Manager George Austin affirmed the foundation's commitment to evaluating and considering concerns with the proposal ahead of any formal land use application, the first of which is slated for a Jan. 4 submission.
