Last night, Madison’s Landmarks Commission voted to designate a Sherman Avenue property as a historic landmark. In a unanimous vote, the commission recommended the so-called “Filene House” be preserved for its role in housing the beginnings of the credit union movement.
The property was built in 1950 as the headquarters of the Credit Union National Association, or CUNA, and served as the home for credit unions across the globe. The building even received national attention at the time, as President Harry Truman gave a dedication speech for the building, lauding the American credit union movement.
CUNA moved out in 1979, and the building is currently home to Care Wisconsin. Now, developers are looking to demolish the building and build 400 apartments in its place.
Chicago-based developer Vermilion Development submitted plans to the city in October. The Wisconsin State Journal reports that the group plans on building two five-story apartments, and three two-story townhouses on the property.
“The development group, Vermilion Development out of Chicago, has revised their plan a couple of times, (and) I know that they are busily at work trying to get that buttoned up and into the city development hopper, hoping for foreclose a landmark designation.”
That’s John Rolling, a retired real estate appraiser who filed a proposal to designate the Filene House as a historic landmark.
Rolling holds a PHD in history and lived next door to the Filene House in the 1970s. He says that while the building has no real aesthetic contribution to Madison, it marks an important moment in history.
“I’m not talking about particular architectural significance,” Rolling says. “What we are remembering here is the history, and the association with an important economic and social force in the United States, and certainly in Madison. That’s why we would recognize it.”
A designation as a historic landmark would not mean that all development on the site has to stop, city preservation planner Heather Bailey told WORT yesterday . Instead, a historic designation would require the developer to incorporate the existing building into their new designs.
“It’s not about keeping this building exactly the way it is, which is the office building and then a whole bunch of surface parking lots,” Bailey says. “It is about the ways in which the city is evolving, and integrating the historic resources into the way it is evolving.”
But Matt Harvey with Vermilion Development says that keeping the existing building would destroy any plans to build housing on the site.
“Vermilion commissioned a report by Isthmus Architecture, which is traditionally a historical preservationist and focuses on revitalization of existing buildings,” Harvey says. “Yet given that mandate, Isthmus observed that converting this structure to multi-family use would require replacement of the entire rear entrance, the roof, mechanical systems, all fixed windows, and the entire interior. So for all those that are on the phone claiming that this can be reused as multi-family to add additional housing stock for the city, I hate to inform you but that is not the case for the existing building.”
Whether or not to designate the former CUNA building as historic has generated considerable public interest. The public comment period at last night’s meeting lasted for an hour; in addition, the city has received about 30 pages of written public comment. Melissa Huggins, who spoke at last night’s meeting, told the commission that the building does not warrant being considered a historic landmark.
“This is a key development site that will help the city meet its ongoing need, it’s in close proximity to transit, and given the focus the city has had on transit-oriented development, I think it is really important.,” Huggins says. “It is irresponsible to not take that into consideration in regards to the landmarking of this building.”
But Rolling – the retired appraiser who filed to designate historic landmark status – says there are only a handful of buildings designated by the city – and the CUNA building should be one of them.
“Sure, cities change and adapt all the time,” Rollings says. “They have to do that, or else they die. But in doing so, we need to recognize some of those properties that are important to us to maintain a connection with the past.”
The CUNA building isn’t a historic landmark, yet. The Landmarks Commission’s recommendation to designate the property as a historic landmark heads now to the Madison Common Council, likely next month.
If Vermilion is able to get a land use proposal in before the building is designated historic, then the developer would be held to the standards in place when it was submitted, and could still have the opportunity to demolish the building.
Photo courtesy: John Rolling via Landmarks Nomination
