North and east elevations of Geneva’s 1840s blacksmith shop. Photo by AltusWorks, 2022.
For the third time in eight years, the owner of 4 E. State Street in Geneva (the former Mill Race Inn) was denied a demolition permit by the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on December 16, 2025, for the 30’x48’ limestone blacksmith shop that was built in the 1840s. The owner immediately appealed, and the Geneva City Council will consider overturning the HPCs unanimous decision at a special meeting on January 12, 2026.
For more on the building's historic significance, please read our brief history of the blacksmith shop.
As we noted in our post on December 15, 2025 about this third request for demolition of Geneva’s 1840s blacksmith shop, preservationists want the stone structure to be incorporated into a redevelopment of the site so that its story can remain part of Geneva's legacy, while supporters of demolition consider the structure an eyesore and an obstacle to the much-needed redevelopment of the site.
Nearly everyone, though, seems to agree that the redevelopment of this eastern gateway into Geneva is needed.
HPC DENIES DEMOLITION
In its arguments in front of the HPC, the owner noted that a large number of letters supporting demolition had been submitted to the HPC and therefore met criterion four in 10-6-10-B of the city code, “The retention of a building, structure, object, improvement or site is not in the best interest of the majority of the community,” (emphasis added).[1] Nothing materially had changed in the demolition request since the owner’s last request in 2023, according to the HPC, other than the growing fine the owner is incurring for violating Geneva’s building maintenance code. Furthermore, the HPC determined it was not the best body to determine what is in the best interest of the community. For these reasons, the HPC denied the demolition request.
The issue at stake is determining what is in the best interest of the majority of the community.
Public comments will not be heard before the City Council votes on this appeal. If you wish to make a public comment, email it to or call the Geneva mayor and/or Geneva Alderpersons.
Previously, the City Council has approved the demolition of structures in its downtown so that redevelopment could occur. While not explicitly, the city has effectively used the same criteria for approving demolition as this application: “The retention of a building, structure, object, improvement or site is not in the best interest of the majority of the community” (emphasis added).[2] In two recent cases, the City Council had a clear proposal for what would replace the structures. These proposals seemed to help the city to determine that the new construction served a greater purpose for the city than the retention of the existing structures.
Both the new library at 227 S. 7th Street and the redevelopment of the old bottling works factory at Ford Street and N. River Lane met objectives that the city has indicated that it wants. In the case of the library, the city received an expanded library that should meet the needs of the community for the foreseeable future. At the old bottling works factory, the city is adding around 120 new housing units within walking distance to local downtown businesses.
The applicant would likely, and correctly, argue that they are not required to present a proposal for what would replace the structure it wishes to demolish. Without some kind of proposal, however, the City Council would not seem to have enough information to fairly judge whether this demolition would lead to an objective the city has indicated it wants to achieve, as it did in the case of the library and the former bottling works. Without some kind of proposal, the City Council may not have enough information to determine that demolition would be “in the best interest of the majority of the community.”
The developer has, so far, stated that they will not redevelop the property with the existing structure standing.[3] What that redevelopment may be, when it can be completed, if it can be completed considering that much of the nearly 2-acre parcel is in the flood plain, etc., have not been addressed.
While many believe that simply getting rid of this “eyesore” would be a significant improvement to the city, demolition alone would seem to offer little economic return or meet the city’s objectives. Demolition alone does not appear to be in the best interest of the majority of the community.
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] City of Code of Geneva, IL, “Standards for Demolition Request Review,” 10-6-10-B.4, revised December 19, 2025, https://library.municode.com/il/geneva/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10BURE_CH6HIPR_10-6-10DEDEPR.
[2] City of Code of Geneva, IL, “Standards for Demolition Request Review,” 10-6-10-B.4, revised December 19, 2025, https://library.municode.com/il/geneva/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT10BURE_CH6HIPR_10-6-10DEDEPR.
[3] “If the structure needs to remain, we won’t have a redevelopment plan we can prepare,” David Patzelt to Geneva Historic Preservation Commission, December 16, 2025, 39:29, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZFgSaUWcgs; See also “So long as that structure is there, the property will sit as is and there will be nothing for us to review with the structure standing, is that correct?” Geneva Historic Preservation Commissioner Mike Riebe. “That is correct,” David Patzelt to Geneva Historic Preservation Commission, December 16, 2025, 44:00, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZFgSaUWcgs; “I guess your point is that you’re not going to do anything with this [property] if [demolition of the blacksmith shop] is denied, [redevelopment] will not go forward, nothing will come forward,” Geneva Historic Preservation Commission Chairman, Paul Zellmer. “That is correct,” David Patzelt to the Geneva Historic Preservation Commission, December 16, 2025, 45:03, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZFgSaUWcgs.