- Local every day in
POLL: Should City Allow Teardown of Historic Kuchera Building?
The former gas station on West State Street in Geneva is now the home of The PURE Gardener. Owner Joe Stanton has put forward a plan to build a branch of St. Charles Bank.
This proposal might turn into a classic showdown between economic development and historic preservation in Geneva.
On one hand, we have a historic building that is shown proudly in Geneva Chamber of Commerce brochures. It's a building style that goes back to the 1930s and one that's considered a milestone marker of the Lincoln Highway.
On the other hand, it's a former gas station. And the bank's plans represent new development at a time when the tax base—particularly in downtown Geneva—is shrinking.
Development versus historic preservation was one of the benchmark issues of the 1980s and '90s in Geneva. In those days, there was compromise and there was dialogue, but perhaps more often than not, historic preservation won the day. Developers were asked to pay more to renovate or adapt, or plans were turned down so that the next developer could have a shot.
Such was the case with, for example, The Herrington, which was a former creamery building in Geneva.
But in these economic times, can the city afford to do that? Can any government in good conscience say no to good-faith development in an economy that makes it more and more difficult for anyone to build or expand?
These are the higher issues facing Geneva. And the discussion starts tonight. At 7 p.m. at the Public Works facility, the Historic Preservation Commission will get its first look.
What do you think? Should the city say yes to history or yes to development in Geneva's downtown?
Thanks. We'll email you the next time we update this story.
chuck carroll
3:05 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
If the citizens of Geneva want the gas station to survive then they should purchase it from the current owner. Anything else violates the owners rights.
Charles Emout
8:40 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Mr. Carroll, while I can appreciate your position, I can't help but agree with Mr. Descoteaux... Mr. Stanton knew what he was getting into when he made an offer to purchase this property & should have known the historic district guidelines he was going to be bound by once assuming ownership.
I recall a story that was all over the local papers not to long ago of another historic district homeowner being in a long drawn out legal battle with City Hall over replacement windows. I sure hope Mr. Stanton isn't hoping to get special treatment just because he is a political ally of the Mayor - that would be completely wrong & undermine the whole purpose of establishing a historic district to begin with!
Rudy
10:28 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
If you buy a Historic building be ready to do as your told or sell it to someone who is willing to take care of it. Batavia could use some redevelopment move along down the river Mr. Stanton
Patricia Winter
7:24 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
We should not allow the tear down of the building where the Pure Gardener is located. It is attractive to have the plants/flowers there and the building has the kind of architectural character that we have wanted all along in Geneva!!!!!!!
Paul Descoteaux
8:37 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Chuck,
I understand but disagree, this issue isn't about Mr Stanton's rights being infringed on. Its about playing by the same rules and guidelines all of us who live and own property within the historic boundaries are bound by. No one is singling out Mr Stanton. You can like the building or not, its blue roof and white walls are period correct, it's a historic building that is well within the historic district. The property owner understood the buildings historic standing dating back (at a minimum) to when Mr Kuchera closed his auto shop operation and was considering options to sell the site, approximately 8 years ago. Economic times don't give the city the right (easy way out) to bend the rules and guidelines we have all had to abide by. The very Rules and guidelines that were put into place to minimize this very type of action. The direction the City is pursuing is not Economic PLANNING - its called Economic REACTING.
Economic times like these give us reason to closely look at our City leadership for evidence to how they spend and plan for down turns in our local economy. And how fundamentally, taxation is their valued first choice (fear factor) to put out in front. If we allow structures like these to be eliminated, precedence will dictate Geneva's look and feel, leaving nothing but canned buildings without the charm we were built on.
Lets help the bank to find another place to build. A site that is less disruptive and compliments our architectural history.
Mike Bruno
10:14 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
FYI: The demolition was denied by the Historic Preservation Commission 5-1 moments ago. There was tremendous public turn-out in defense of the Pure Oil building
Bob McQuillan
10:43 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Good, now maybe the same tremendous public turn-out can attend the Monday night meeting of the Geneva Board of Education and ask how, other than increased taxes, they plan to pay off the $325.6 million in debt.
The public "saved" a building, now maybe they can focus on how they are going to be able to afford to continue living in Geneva.
www.GenevaTaxFACTS.org - check out the FACTS and do soemthing about it.
Don Haugk
10:45 pm on Tuesday, February 21, 2012
I hope the building doesnt get torn down.
this is where i had my cars worked on. Mr Kuchera always did the job right and gave us a better then fair price to us and also to other people in the community I knew who were going thew tough times. everytime i drive by now, i remember Mr Kuchera. You might say Im just an old sentimental fool...but a big part i think of learning our history and preserving our historical sights...is to remember the good people who made this town what it is...a great place to live....
Jeff Muranyi
8:11 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Sorry not much compassion for any banks here, or the willingness to do them a favor! Well Bob at $325.6 million in debt it sounds like Geneva was "Living beyond their means". What ever happened to ACCOUNTABILITY?
Jim Kautz
8:40 am on Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Really? With all the vacant space staring us in the face everyday we are debating the need to tear down a rather unique visual piece of Geneva's history for a drive through? Did anyone notice the vacant bank with drive up facilities on north Third Street? To demolish this building for a "convenience" would seem short sighted.
While I understand that owning this type of building poses redevelopment challenges to the owner it should have been a given that those challenges existed on the day it was purchased. Geneva is a better place because of buildings like this, whether you like this particular building or not. We all lose when we continually chip away at our architectural history. We may not notice it at first, but the slow gradual erosion of that history changes Geneva along with many intangibles that are almost impossible to recreate with "new history". It will be up to the city council to determine where this will go but I seriously hope they will view this with a longer vision and will see what a mistake it would be to allow this demolition. Let's be more creative in working to fill vacant space instead of scraping away one more piece of our city's architectural heritage.