 |
| Vintage postcard |
It’s a real shame that the former F. W. Wakefield residence and Inland Seas Maritime Museum has to be torn down.
(Click
here for a well-written
Morning Journal article by Jordan Joy about the demolition decision, and
here for another excellent article by Joy about F. W. Wakefield himself.)
Here’s another vintage postcard, courtesy of the
Morning Journal.
And here’s a newer one.
The home has been used as a museum since 1953.
 |
| From the front page of the Vermilion News, August 6, 1953 |
But I’ve come to accept that when a city is determined to tear down a historic landmark, the decision-makers are going to make the strongest possible argument and there’s not much the average person can do – except go take a picture of it.
Along those lines, here are a few views of the doomed mansion from the July 4th weekend.
Such a shame.... from what I understand... it'll end of being "green space" and a parking lot.
ReplyDeleteWe were just there last weekend. We did notice the "ship" is pulling away from the wall of the museum and causing it to bow and crack. It looked to be in bad shape and an expensive fix. Add that on to what apparently the inside looks like and I am not too surprised.
ReplyDeleteGreat spot to expand the park/beach.. great sunset views
Have you been able to find any photos of the interior prior to the museum's modifications? I doubt it was built with ceiling tile and track lighting. ;)
ReplyDeleteGrants are funny sometimes. "We're restricted by the fact that some of the grants that we got for the acquisition of that general property have stipulations that it couldn't be used for anything commercial," Forthofer said. But acquiring a property to tear it down? Totally OK.
The decision to tear it down was a foregone conclusion when they acquired the property. As the Journal article states, "'The intent of the acquisition was to preserve that land here by the lakefront for future generations of Vermilionites,' he [Mayor Jim Forthofer] said. 'The building just happened to be on it.'"
ReplyDeleteThe report from the consulting firm was tailored to support the city's desired conclusion.
That's not to say it's the wrong conclusion. The building is lovely, and I am all in favor of preservation. But the city determined that other needs take precedence.
Yes, I recall from an earlier article in the Chronicle where it was clear the city basically hired a consultant who would tell them what they wanted to hear, which was that renovation would be too expensive. The joke of it was, at the time, they didn't know what they would build on the property to replace the house, or what this new mystery building would cost. It seems now the answer is simply, greenspace. Which, if the mansion is to come down, isn't necessarily a bad use of the land. It's just the manner of getting to this point that doesn't smell right.
ReplyDeleteIf we are not a subscriber to the Morning Journal, we can NOT see the Journal's articles!
ReplyDeleteHi Phil,
ReplyDeleteI’m not a MJ subscriber either but am still able to see a certain number of articles free per month. But I’ll keep that in mind (that some of my readers might not be able to access the MJ website) when I’m deciding which newspaper to link to.
Phil - If you have an ad blocker on your web browser, try turning it off for the Journal's site. That worked for me and I didn't have to log in or subscribe.
ReplyDeleteLoss of a real treasure. Very upsetting
ReplyDelete