Ugly.
Eyesore.
Rockpile.
These are just some of the words used to describe long-vacant buildings dotting the Fox Valley landscape that are not being maintained and are at risk of becoming so poorly deteriorated that demolition is necessary. This is what is known as “demolition by neglect.”
Many wonder why these ugly, derelict buildings are not being demolished so that something new can be put in their place. “New” does not mean better, however. Demolishing a building and replacing it with new construction can have negative consequences. Demolition produces unnecessary waste, harms the environment, discourages creativity, and diminishes a community’s sense of place. Fortunately, city building codes can prevent demolition by neglect—if the city is willing to enforce them.
Disadvantages of Demolition
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that debris from building demolition amounts to about half of all material placed in landfills annually.[1] Worse is the embodied energy loss of those building materials. The bricks, concrete, wood, glass, etc. of a building store the energy used to make them. Demolition discards that energy, requiring energy to be expended for new materials. This explains the oft-touted phrase, “The greenest building is the one that is already built.”
Buildings vacant for extended periods are presumed to be useless. However, usefulness is not related to vacancy. Creative adaptive reuse can address vacancy thereby increasing a building’s economic value. Such reuse can also retain elements that demonstrate the character and vibrancy of a community.
The architectural or historical significance of certain buildings defines a city and gives it its sense of place. Importantly, the condition of such buildings has no impact on the integrity of their historic value. “Deterioration,” the National Park Service explains, “…can certainly impact condition but not necessarily its integrity” (emphasis added).[2] Even when a building is left to rot, that building can still be historic and therefore worthy of preservation.
Role of Building Code Enforcement
When a building is allowed to remain in a condition that causes it to deteriorate and eventually threaten the public’s safety, the city’s code enforcement can compel the owner to complete certain maintenance—or be cited and face a daily fine. Cities are reluctant to issue fines, preferring to encourage compliance with their building codes. Most of the time, encouragement works. Occasionally, however, following through with a fine is the incentive an owner needs to repair and repurpose their building or sell it so someone else can find a creative solution to put it back to use.
Below is a summary of some of the historic buildings in the Fox Valley that are or have recently been at risk of demolition by neglect:
1948 Geneva Bottling Works, Geneva (302 River PUD)
NEXT ACTION: November 4, 2024, 7 PM Proposal to City Council for demolition of 7 buildings
Earlier this year, a developer proposed demolishing all but one of the structures of the block in the northeasternmost section of the Geneva Historic District to construct a five-story apartment complex with 114 units and twelve townhomes. One of the 1850s homes along First Street would be saved and repurposed for office space. The plan was unanimously rejected by the Historic Preservation Commission and Plan Commission primarily because the mass and scale of the buildings were not consistent with others nearby, a standard for new construction consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Rehabilitation of Historic Properties.[3] In its appeal, the developer has made no changes to the mass and scale of their proposal despite recommendations from both commissions. See our blog posts here and here for more information about this project.
1844 Judge Barry House, St. Charles
NEXT ACTION EXPECTED: November 11, 2024, 7 PM Appeal of demolition denial to Planning and Development Committee
The owner has not used the house for several years and requested the structure's demolition to replace it with additional parking. Demolition would also save the owner money on insurance and maintenance costs. The Historic Preservation Commission denied demolition because the owner could not demonstrate an immediate need for its demolition, no report of the building’s condition was provided, and the owner rejected a recent offer to buy the home that could alleviate their financial burden. The owner is appealing. See our blog post for more information about the history of the Judge Barry House.
1843 Alexander Brothers’ Blacksmith Shop/Mill Race Inn, Geneva
After the City of Geneva unanimously denied the owner a demolition permit last fall, the city’s code enforcement began negotiations with the owner. Last month, after nearly a year of discussions with no resolution, the city received a judgment in its favor to fine the building’s owner if it was not “weather tight” by the next hearing date on October 17. At that October hearing, the owner informed the adjudication officer that they had filed an appeal of his order to impose fines rather than comply with the city’s building code, delaying, again, a potential resolution suitable for the owner and the city. See our blog post for more information about the history of this former blacksmith shop.
The following are three recent successes that have prevented demolition by neglect due, in part, to the enforcement of building codes.
1846 Amasa White House, Geneva
The diligent work of a small committee of volunteer preservationists has worked with the owner of this ashlar-cut limestone gem near Settler’s Hill Golf Course to complete necessary maintenance. Brush was cleared from the house and a fence was installed to prevent vandalism. Repairs to the temporary roof are expected to begin soon, which will provide a weather-tight building envelope. These efforts slow the building’s deterioration, giving the owner time to find a creative long-term solution for its preservation.
1904 Heinz Cut Glass Factory, St. Charles
The former factory at South 13th and Indiana Avenues in St. Charles was vacant for many years and had become a terrible eyesore for the neighborhood. After multiple years of encouraging the property’s owner to maintain their building, the City of St. Charles began fining the owners in 2021. Reluctant to sink any more money into the property, the owners sold the building to a new owner who is rehabilitating the former factory into apartments.[4]
Copley Hospital, Aurora
This hospital complex on Aurora’s east side was abandoned in 1995 and remained a terrible eyesore with broken windows and graffiti for over twenty years. A plan began coming together in 2017 for its rehabilitation and now the entire campus has been transformed into housing, medical, and other offices. Learn more about this incredible project here.
Thank you for reading! If this story interested, inspired, or informed you, please consider subscribing to our monthly e-newsletter so more of these stories come right to you!
[1] Environmental Protection Agency, “Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2018 Fact Sheet,” December 2020, https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-01/documents/2018_ff_fact_sheet_dec_2020_fnl_508.pdf.
[2] National Park Service, “Assessing Integrity, Not Condition,” National Register of Historic Places Best Practices Review, Issue 9 (September 2024): 3, https://irma.nps.gov/DataStore/DownloadFile/709290.
[3] National Park Service, “The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties: Rehabilitation as a Treatment and Standards for Rehabilitation,” 9, accessed October 29, 2024, https://www.nps.gov/articles/000/treatment-standards-rehabilitation.htm.
[4] Eric Schelkopf, “Historic Factory Building in St. Charles to be Preserved,” Kane County Chronicle, October 21, 2022, https://www.shawlocal.com/kane-county-chronicle/news/2022/10/21/historic-factory-building-in-st-charles-to-be-preserved/.