The Illinois Audubon Society has heard the
reasons not to raze Margery Adams’ old farmhouse on Clear
Lake Avenue: A remnant of Lincoln-era Springfield, the building is
part of the city’s historical fabric and one of the few of
its kind remaining in the city.
They also say they’ve considered the
alternatives but that most of the ideas, including building an
addition on the house, would be too costly or negatively affect the
environment.
So, barring an act of God or the Springfield
City Council, the house is coming down in November.
At a recent meeting, the society’s
board voted to demolish the mid-19th-century house unless someone
wants to move it from the site of the Adams Wildlife Sanctuary. IAS
plans to erect a 2,000-square-foot office building to serve as the
new headquarters when the society relocates from Danville.
The plan precipitated a maelstrom of
controversy when Illinois Times first reported the story in June and has
since, especially on the part of individuals and organizations who
seek to preserve Springfield’s historic character.
“Just as we respect their work in
natural history, they should have a respect for the cultural
history that is represented by the Adams House,” says Jerry
Jacobson of Save Old Springfield, a local preservation group.
According to Jacobson, the Adams House
figures prominently as perhaps the first historic landmark tourists
see when they enter Springfield from Interstate 55.
The sentiment is lost, however, on Marilyn
Campbell, executive director of the Illinois Audubon Society.
“They are not our members, and they do not support us. We have to do what is our
mission,” says Campbell, referring to those such as Jacobson who
want the IAS to preserve the Adams House. “Our mission is not to
save old buildings. Our mission is to save habitats.”
“And quite frankly,” Campbell
adds, “we have heard from our members that they do not want
us to spend money on that old building.”
What they do want, she says, is a new
environmentally friendly, energy-efficient building that uses
“green technology.”
Making the effort to preserve the Adams home
exceedingly difficult is the fact that the building isn’t on
any city, state, or federal register of historical landmarks and is
therefore vulnerable to demolition at the
owner’s discretion.
Now, Jacobson has asked the city’s
15-member Historical Sites Commission to lobby the City Council to
reinstate part of the 1989 Historic Sites Ordinance that allows
public debate on landmarking of a site whether or not the owner
consents.
He believes that support exists on the
council to pass such a measure.
If petitioning the council fails, though,
Jacobson would consider the “last resort,” the Audubon
Society’s offer to allow the relocation of the house
elsewhere. After all, he says, that’s better than demolishing
it.
This article appears in Sep 15-21, 2005.
