"Where Olmsted County News Comes First"

28

Should the Vikings be able to use the University of Minnesota’s TCF Bank Stadium?

 Yes

 No

 I don't care


View Results

Comments

Forty-five years ago, the 800 block of South Broadway looked much different than it does today. The older members of Rochester’s historical preservation committee remember the Graham estate that preceded sprawling businesses and parking lots fondly.

But, as in the current Williams House discussion, community members seeking preservation of the property came on too late in the game to save the home of an original Mayo partner.

“It was immaculate to see,” said historic preservation committee member John Kruesel, who has been an advocate for preservation since the Graham estate was removed from the community in 1970. “It had three-foot high brick walls surrounding the property, a very regal reminder of our history. Then, without much allowance for public input, it was gone.”

Following the loss of the Graham estate to development, Kruesel and other concerned Rochester citizens pushed for the creation of a historical preservation committee, which has taken many forms throughout its existence.

On Monday, the Rochester City Council will consider adoption of a historical preservation ordinance at a hearing during their committee of the whole meeting at 3:30 pm in room 104 of the government center. Almost 24 years to the date earlier, the council heard a proposal for a similar ordinance.

Judge Kevin Lund, then a young lawyer, crafted and presented the proposed ordinance, which failed to garner the council’s approval in October of 1988.

“I’m glad I wasn’t hanging on to the rails because they were greased and that thing was going down,” said Lund, who has continued to advocate for historic preservation in the community following his mother’s involvement in the effort following the loss of the Graham estate.

Reflecting on the ramifications of that decision, Lund recalls a number of pieces of Rochester’s history that have disappeared from the landscape, and laments the manner in which they went.

“It’s bigger than historic preservation, it’s what do you want your community to look like,” said Lund. “There needs to be a discussion about that and there are a lot of people who should be part of that discussion, but they’re not, it’s done by a handful of people.”

In the ensuing years, many historic properties have been demolished or covered with a façade hiding the charm of Rochester’s history, replaced by an attempt to meet the ever-changing tastes of modernity. Lund and Kruesel rattle off a place after place that has gone by the wayside. They do not focus on the places themselves, but the way of life from the not too distant past, that have no remnants on the streets that Rochester residents walk every day.

This year’s version of the ordinance would call for a public hearing before a property that has been deemed to have historic value can be significantly altered on the exterior or demolished.

In the week leading up to the hearing, preservation advocates and business interests represented by the Rochester Area Chamber of Commerce have yet to reach agreement on an ordinance that would be palatable to both sides.

The divide is in whether adherence by property owners would be mandatory or voluntary. Chamber of Commerce president John Wade argues that require business owners to participate in hearings regarding use of their property would constitute an undue hardship.

“For us, time is money. We’d like to see rules that entice businesses to preserve historic properties,” said Wade. “From our side, we’re confident that an agreement can be reached.”

Historic preservation committee members doubt that an ordinance would be successful in achieving preservation of Rochester’s dwindling historic properties if there are not some mechanisms for enforcement.

“We agree that property owners should have a wide degree of latitude and deference to their tastes, but making the ordinance completely voluntary would be like offering safe driving courses while removing traffic lights,” said committee member Barry Skolnick.

Rochester is unique in lacking rules regarding the preservation of its historic places and is the only major city in Minnesota lacking such an ordinance according to the Preservation Alliance of Minnesota. More than two dozen other Minnesota communities have preservation ordinances.

One of the first and only acts of preservation accomplished by the historical preservation committee through an era of rapid growth in Rochester was the Whiting House, which currently resides in Central Park after being relocated following an expansion of Civic Center Drive in 1975.

“It wasn’t always there, when people learn that they’re kind of amazed,” said Lund.

While only one save among dozens of historical places that have gone by the wayside, the home still stands to be talked about by newer residents of Rochester.

“This is about whether you think your grandchildren should see these important places so that we can come to know about where we came from and what made us who we are,” said Skolnick.