There are good reasons to landmark Madison's Filene House

The city resident who prepared the nomination responds to critics and makes his case

by

In a recent Citizen Dave post, former Madison Mayor Dave Cieslewicz uses a current proposal to designate a city landmark as a platform to blast historic preservationists as mere obstructionists, cynically perverting the city’s landmark ordinance to block development of much needed housing. He confuses the issue in order to hype yet another bland “fast-casual” apartment project.

The proposal involves Filene House, 1617 Sherman Ave., built in 1950 for and occupied until 1979 by Credit Union National Association and affiliates as the national, and later world, headquarters of the credit union movement — an institution that played an important role in expanding economic opportunity for people during the middle of the 20th century. Filene House was dedicated by President Harry Truman who argued in his speech that credit union cooperative ideals should inform a vision of American foreign policy where free nations work together for human advancement and against aggression.

The city’s Landmarks Commission unanimously recommended that Filene House be recognized, but formal landmarks designation will be decided by the Madison Common Council on Feb. 7. Opposed to designation is Chicago-based Vermilion Development LLC, which proposes to demolish the building as part of a 331-unit rental apartment project on the 8.19-acre site. Landmarks recognition does not necessarily bar demolition for Filene House, but could factor into Plan Commission approval conditions for the larger Vermilion project.

Cieslewicz incorporates the Filene House issue into a screed against historic preservation in general, citing a few previous cases where preservation-minded folks questioned development proposals. The common thread, he claims, is that “...opponents use the preservation ordinance to kill a project that they dislike for reasons wholly unrelated to history.” And “...what’s curious about the Filene House [and other properties proposed as landmarks] is that somebody discovered their historic significance only after neighbors started fighting the projects that would raze them because they didn’t like the size and massing of the new buildings. The motivation was to kill or downsize the project. Historic preservation was just leverage.”

I am that “somebody” who discovered the historic significance of Filene House. I am not a neighbor of Filene House; I live on the west side. I rarely visit Tenney Park or the Yahara River adjacent to Filene House. The traffic that the proposed project will generate along Sherman Avenue will not affect my life. No one paid me to research and write the nomination. I am not employed by or under contract to any party with an interest in the project or in opposing the project. I made the nomination and I am advocating for designation because Filene House is one of those rare treasures that should be preserved as legacies for the Madison community. I hope that my grandchildren will thank me for the effort.

Cieslewicz is correct that like many other historic properties, Filene House’s historic significance was identified only after the building was threatened. There’s a good reason for that — money. Researching and documenting historic resources takes time — either time from city staff or from outside consultants. Staff time and/or consultants need to be paid. But in recent years, city budgeting for historic preservation has taken a back seat. It is notable that the number of properties obtaining landmarks designation took a sharp decline during the time Cieslewicz was mayor

But he’s not alone. Not a single property has been given landmarks designation since 2013! The city of Madison’s Historic Preservation Plan, adopted by the Common Council in 2020, defined an area containing the Filene House site as one of several areas prioritized for “intensive survey” to identify historic resources. So far, not one dollar has been spent to do so. Filene House had the unusual good fortune of finding an interested volunteer with the availability and skills to do the work. I took up the nomination on my own dime and on my own time.

As to Cieslewicz’s charge that neighborhood residents simply “use the historic preservation ordinance to kill a project they dislike...” let’s examine the stated goals of the ordinance itself. Section 41.01 Madison General Ordinance states: “The Common Council further recognizes that these historic resources represent the City’s unique heritage, contribute to the health, prosperity, safety and welfare of the City’s residents, and serve as a source of great interest to the City’s residents and visitors. Therefore, the Common Council finds that it is in the public interest to identify, protect, preserve, promote, conserve and use historic resources within the City.” The ordinance goes on to state several purposes, among which are: “Ensure that the City’s growth sensitively incorporates the City’s historic resources” and “Enhance the visual and aesthetic character of the City by ensuring that new design and construction, when it happens, complements the City’s historic resources.”

But Cieslewicz would see neighborhood residents — those most immediately affected — as “obstructionists” when they examine proposed projects in the light of stated city policy? If he doesn’t want citizens to think about the potential impact on historic resources when considering proposed projects, then he should call on the council to revoke the ordinance.

Ciesliewicz accuses preservationists of "gaming the system" in seeking landmark protection for Filene House. But the real gaming is being done by Vermilion, which rushed to submit a land use plan in order to exploit a timing technicality in Madison ordinances which could limit the city's consideration of historic status. That's a subterfuge designed to get around the finding of Filene House's historic significance that the Landmarks Commission already made in November as well as on Jan. 9 and which the Common Council will hopefully affirm in February. It’s not preservationists or neighborhood residents who are “gaming the system” here. 

In his rush to promote Vermilion’s project as an answer to “THE HOUSING SHORTAGE,” Cieslewicz terms Filene House “a large nondescript office building.” He means to denigrate its simple architecture as unworthy of recognition. Either he does not know, or does not wish to acknowledge, that historic significance alone, regardless of architectural attributes, is a well-accepted criterion for historic designation. That criterion is also cited in the Madison preservation ordinance. The story of the credit union movement does not depend on friezes and dentils.

Finally, Cieslewciz poses the false choice of preservation vs. development. Like most preservationists, I laud the adaptive reuse of older buildings for modern purposes. Madisonians can take pride in several great adaptive reuse projects such as Lincoln and Longfellow Schools or Machinery Row. Federal and Wisconsin tax incentives (tax credits for up to 40 percent of rehabilitation costs) encourage adaptive reuse. The city of Madison’s own preservation plan calls for the promotion of adaptive re-use. The current neighborhood land use plan itself lists adaptive reuse of the Filene House building plus additional multi-unit dwelling development on the unused land as a desirable option. The Filene House building occupies only a small portion of the eight-plus acre site. It could easily accommodate hundreds of new units on its excess land while adapting the existing building for new uses as well.

But Cieslewicz takes the developer at their word: “Vermilion says they looked at adaptive reuse of the building, but it’s impractical.” That’s not quite right. Vermilion’s statement of intent, filed with the city on Jan. 17 reads: “The existing building was analyzed for historic significance and adaptive reuse as a residential building and was deemed incompatible with residential development on the basis of architectural significance, column-placement/structural systems, mechanical/building systems, improper entrance, and site drainage issues impacting the neighboring properties that led to an unfavorable cost-benefit analysis on the part of the development team.” 

Let me translate that statement. It means “Maybe another developer could figure out how to reuse this building, but we can make more money by bashing this building down and throwing up more luxury apartments.” Perhaps this property is just not a good fit for Vermilion. Perhaps one of our local developers who have had success with adaptive reuse can bring us a better project in the future. Of course, that’s only if we protect Filene House with landmarks designation now.

Cieslewicz’s fundamental objection to historic preservation seems to be a belief that Madison must build bigger and everywhere. There are 183 individual landmarks in Madison. That number represents less than 1 percent of our total building stock. Adding Filene House to the list would leave the vast majority of Madison’s buildings available for demolition/redevelopment.

While looking to the future, let’s not destroy all evidence of our past.

John Rolling is a long-time Madison resident, historian, and retired real estate appraiser.