Mumford House rehab 'not practical or feasible or even prudent'
URBANA – Interim President Stanley Ikenberry will ask the University of Illinois Board of Trustees next week to "relieve us of the mandate" to commit money in coming months to rehabbing historic Mumford House, the oldest building on campus.
The money to rehab the 1870 farmhouse now – possibly around $3 million – is not in the university's coffers, Ikenberry said.
He said rehabbing the house, with the UI going through furloughs and buyouts while the state puts off reimbursements, is "not practical or feasible or even prudent" at this time.
The university did not detail what would happen with the house if the resolution were rescinded.
"There is not even a draft item, yet," said Michael Lillich of the Office for University Relations.
University spokesman Tom Hardy and campus spokeswoman Robin Kaler were not available for comment Monday.
The board next meets May 20 in Chicago.
Last May, the board of trustees voted that the Mumford House should not be moved from its original location, off Lorado Taft Drive on the South Quad, to the South Farms.
The trustees' resolution "fully supports the continued planning and fundraising for this project to restore and preserve the university's oldest building in existence on its campus, including a maintenance endowment fund to maximize the utility of the facility in perpetuity."
"Due to the importance of this structure to the university, (the board) states that this matter is one of policy and therefore controlled by board decision. No action shall be taken to demolish, alter to a point that restoration is made impossible or impractical, or to allow the structure to further deteriorate," the resolution continues.
The board directed the administration to write a plan for restoration of the structure by Oct. 1, 2009.
The main board supporter, then-Chairman Niranjan Shah, has since left the board in the wake of the Category I scandal.
Preservationists applauded the May resolution, saying that moving the house could not only damage the building's historic integrity but also damage its foundation.
Trustee Pamela Strobel asked about the house at Monday's meeting of a trustees budget and audit committee meeting.
She said she was curious what it would mean to rescind the resolution, which she had read on an advance agenda for the May 20 meeting.
She said she still didn't know what rescinding the resolution would mean.
"I don't think they were ready to talk about it today. I don't have a position on it at the moment," she said after the meeting.
The house was on the 2006 Top 10 Statewide Endangered List, published by the Landmarks Preservation Council of Illinois, a preservation advocacy group based in Chicago.
Lisa diChiera, director of advocacy for Landmarks Illinois, said she had not heard of any changes in the Mumford House status.
"The last we knew, a firm had completed its reuse story for the university and confirmed its viability to be reused. We felt things were staying quiet with the university having other priorities at the time," she said, giving Category I as an example.
She said it was an especially important historic building on the campus.
But some in the university say the building is heavily damaged.
Melvin Skvarla, campus historic preservation officer, said Mumford House does not belong where it is, stripped of the actual Mumford farmland and surrounded by modern buildings.
"It's out of context there now and has been for the last 60 years," he said. "There's nothing else left of the Mumford farmstead."
My wife and I were noticing this great old house on a Mother's Day walk on Sunday. This is the one right near the brand-spanking-new bell tower, isn't it? You look around at all the well-kept buildings, and then see this one, and you have to think "Wow, they must really be doing everything they can to sabotage the future of this beautiful old house."
Shame on you, UIUC! Let your craftsmen at it again. Take advantage of student volunteer help. Stop being blinded and misguided by your campus master plan. Stop trying to manipulate public opinion by sheer neglect
This is yet another example of how the University kept living in a dream world where the money would just keep flowing.
The cord should have been cut on things like this long, long ago. How much time and money have been spent protecting this worthless piece of architecture?
And I enjoy the part of the resolution where it says "No action shall be taken ... to allow the structure to further deteriorate." Um, wouldn't that require taking some action?
Once again, we see that although the University may have many intelligent people, all of that can be ruined by the politics of influence.
I agree that it's probably not the best use of funds right now, but 3 million dollars to renovate a farmhouse??? I know it's a historic building and all, but really - 3 million dollars? Call the guys from This Old House or something. People renovate old falling-apart farmhouses everyday and it doesn't cost $3 million.
Perhaps a down payment on that $3,000,000 could come from eliminating the position of an Historic Preservation Officer that can't advocate for the preservation of the oldest building on campus, a building that is recognized by the LPCI as being historic and endangered. Maybe next Mr. Skvarla can find some ground around Foosland to put the Morrow Plots more in context.
Perspective - Lincoln Hall renovation is estimated at $65 million. Maybe if we only put $62 million into it, there would be enough to renovate the farmhouse? Don't get me wrong, I am very much in favor of the Lincoln Hall renovation as I have good memories of lectures there. It is all a matter of priority of those making fiscal decisions & the perception of what is important in life. As long as the decision makers & most everyone else in Chambana have food in their belly, it is going to be hard to gain much support for agriculture. An appreciation of the history of agriculture won't develop until people realize that food doesn't come from a drive-up window. Everyone should keep in mind that when it comes down to what is really important, the ONLY thing that humans NEED is food & breathable air - the rest is just for comfort.
And another thought for Melvin Skvarla: if the smell would not offend you, maybe we could put some feeder cattle out on the South Quad & save some money on mowing? They could stay in the adjacent Stock Pavillion (the name implies its use), then could raise feed for the animals from the south farms & butcher them at the meat sciences lab, and finally eat the steaks at one of your taxpayer paid dinners? Of course if you are reading this may be discounting me as a radical, but is it really all that radical?
Maybe the Trustees could wait a while and let the new UI President, a history major, reevaluate the "not practical or feasible or even prudent" judgement on Mumford. Perhaps the News Gazette could assist this reevaluation by FOIA-ing the recent F&S Work Orders for the President's House and compare those with maintenance done at Mumford to make a case that more than benign neglect is going on at Mumford in direct disobedience to the Trustee Resolution "No action shall be taken ... to allow the structure to further deteriorate,"
For $3 million, the university could buy and renovate 50 houses of the same era and general design throughout East Central Illinois and perhaps let low-income families live in them rent-free. Even if this admitted old but otherwise unremarkable building were restored, what use would it be? If someone were talking about creating a museum to 1870s farm life, maybe. But wouldn't that be more appropriate on an actual farm, not in the middle of a campus?
One could argue that the Morrow Plots are not on an 'actual farm' and therefore should no longer be in the middle of campus. There is a deep history here that is just not being respected. Regardless of its function, why should one building be restored while another destroyed? Especially the oldest building on campus!
http://uihistoriesproject.chass.illinois.edu/virtualtour/landmarks/morro...
The N-G posted Corrections today in their paper edition, I don't have it in front of me but it clarified that it was UIUC spokespeople, not their contracted engineers that had specified a $2.5M amount, and ditto for making it sound like it would be hard to make the house accessible. It apparently wouldn't. So my reading is they set the engineering study aside, and came up with inflated figures and other spin in an attempt to negatively sway public opinion.
Yes times are tough, but let's not be shortsighted about preserving the oldest building on campus. Make it into an asset and let's get a nice creaking-floor sensation of what times were like before the university blossomed into what it is today.
The picture is not the house's best angle. It's a lot more friendly in person. Maybe lose that more recent addition though, it detracts.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. we reserve the right to remove any comment at its discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.