Historic St. Charles home may be torn down, as church that owns it awaits final green light from city
The house, which was recently named one of nonprofit Landmarks Illinois' 2025 most endangered historic places in the state, now finds itself at risk of demolition, as the city moved the issue forward following months of discussion about the structure's future among city employees, advocates of preservation and the building's owner across the street, Baker Memorial United Methodist Church.
The building at 217 Cedar Ave. in St. Charles is also referred to as the Judge William D. Barry House, for its original owner. Barry was a lawyer, who did trials as far north as McHenry County, according to former board president of the St. Charles History Museum Steve Gibson, who has been researching Barry and the house since 2017, when he sat on the city's Historic Preservation Commission that first voted against demolishing the house.
Barry built a home in St. Charles, worked as a Kane County judge around the time of the Civil War and served as the first president of the Kane County Bar Association, Gibson said. There's some anecdotal evidence about his knowing Abraham Lincoln, according to Gibson.
The house itself dates back to the 1840s, according to Gibson's history written for the St. Charles History Museum.
The Judge Barry House, along with the buildings at 211-215 Cedar Ave. and the parking lots to the south, west and north of the buildings, are owned by Baker Memorial United Methodist Church, which is looking to demolish the buildings on Cedar Avenue to construct a parking lot.
Because the Judge Barry House is located within the city's Historic District, exterior changes to the building must be reviewed by the city's Historic Preservation Commission and receive a certificate of appropriateness from the city before the demolition project can begin.
In October, the city's Historic Preservation Commission recommended the City Council deny the certificate of appropriateness for the demolition of the Judge Barry House, based on findings about the building's significance and architecture.
It then went to the City Council's Planning and Development Committee in December. Per the meeting agenda, the property had been brought to the committee by the church before, in 2017. The preservation commission had recommended denying the church's request then as well, but the church's application was withdrawn before the City Council voted on it, according to St. Charles Community Development Director Russell Colby.
At the December meeting, representatives from the church gave a presentation on their rationale for the project, discussing the church's financial situation and need for additional parking in the area, among other concerns.
The Planning and Development Committee ultimately made a motion to postpone its decision to allow city staff and the church to discuss options.
Since then, the city and the church have been engaged in discussions about the house's future, and whether the city could purchase it from the church, Colby said, but they were unable to reach an agreement. That's why the request to demolish went back to the Planning and Development Committee on Monday.
On Monday, advocates and residents spoke in favor of preserving the house, while representatives from the church reiterated their interest in tearing down the building in favor of additional parking.
'We would like to keep the property,' Brian Harris, the church's property committee chair, said at the meeting. 'As the property owner, we would like for the highest and best use after all of this time and all of this vetting out, which is to have a community and church parking for the next generation.'
Harris noted that, should its request be approved, the church would work with the city to determine the plan going forward. Baker Memorial did, however, signal on Monday that it would allow a 90-day hold on demolition so that an interested party could buy the house for as low as $1 and move it off the property, thereby preserving the structure.
'I think I can speak for the commission that we are open to the idea of moving it,' Historic Preservation Commission chair Kim Malay said during public comment at Monday's meeting. 'We're not saying it has to stay there, but we really would like that opportunity and that potential to be reviewed and incorporated somewhere in town.'
Al Watts, the community engagement director of local nonprofit Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley, pushed back on the church's immediate need for additional parking, and said the building posed 'no apparent structural safety risk.'
Gibson, who has gotten involved in advocating for preserving the building, said at the meeting that the council's decision was 'precedent-setting' and asked for more time to form a working group and discuss its options.
'The house is not beyond redemption,' Gloria Kohlert Geske, who said she was the previous owner of the building before Baker Memorial, said at the meeting, describing the renovations she and her husband did.
'The house has been salvaged before,' she said.
Ultimately, after comments from the public and discussion among its members, the Planning and Development Committee recommend approval of the church's request with a 5-3 majority vote, with Ronald Silkaitis, Bryan Wirball and Ed Bessner voting against.
On Monday, May 19, the church's request to demolish the building will be put to the full St. Charles City Council for a final vote.
Planning and Development Committee Vice Chair Jayme Muenz and Malay did not return The Beacon-News' requests for further comment.
As discussion of the house's future has stretched out for months, the Judge Barry House has garnered local — and statewide — interest from preservation groups, which are still advocating against its demolition.
In 2024, the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley wrote about the house's history, and has since been in talks with the house's owners, the city and St. Charles residents about the course of action for the structure, Watts said. The organization doesn't always recommend preservation, he said, but considers the historic and architectural significance of a building as well as whether it could be reused.
'The most important thing is the building has to have a use,' Watts told The Beacon-News. 'If there's no way that there can be a modern use for it in some way or fashion, I mean, it's kind of, the discussion, then, is pointless.'
More recently, the house's situation was brought via public nomination to Landmarks Illinois, which listed it as one of its 2025 most endangered historic places in the state.
'I think a lot of people would say, 'This is just a house. Why should we care about this place?'' Kendra Parzen, Landmarks Illinois' advocacy manager for the organization's Chicagoland region, told The Beacon-News. 'Buildings from this first … 10, 15, 20 years of a settlement of a community are becoming increasingly rare, especially in suburban communities that have experienced constant growth over long periods of time.'
Landmarks Illinois also submitted a letter to the city committee, urging its members to consider preserving the house. The organization also has grant programs, Parzen said, a network of professionals who do pro-bono work like conditions assessments of properties and information on finding other funding sources that it provides to owners who want to preserve their historic buildings.
Gibson said he's been researching Barry and the house at 217 Cedar Ave. since 2017, when its possible demolition first reached the city's Historic Preservation Commission. But some of its history is still being discovered, which is why he's still researching, even though he's no longer an employee of the St. Charles History Museum.
'Everything kind of opens up another place to go looking for something, which is how history kind of works,' Gibson said.
For example, Barry appears to have been an abolitionist, and may have had some role in the Underground Railroad, Gibson said.
The church, for its part, believes it has 'exhausted every option there is,' Harris told The Beacon-News on Thursday, and is ready to move forward with the council vote on Monday.
'We're not in the property business,' Harris said. 'We have missions, we have other purposes in the community. … We don't want to be a landlord.'
And he thinks Baker Memorial's experience maintaining its own historic building means it knows how to proceed with the Judge Barry House.
'We're very knowledgeable … and respect the need and the process (of historic preservation),' Harris said. 'We're in it. We're part of it.'
Watts said Monday's vote was 'disappointing,' but that, no matter the outcome of the final City Council vote, his organization can help.
'Either way, whatever decision they make, we can be of assistance,' Watts said about the Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley. He said it could help the church and the city obtain historic documentation of the building even if it's ultimately torn down, and said he's begun looking into relocation options if a buyer decides to purchase the house to move off site.
But the City Council vote remains a weighty decision and a permanent one, too, Gibson said.
'You can only take a home down once,' Gibson said. 'At that point, we'll point to the parking lot and say, 'This is where Judge Barry's house was.' … All of those stories, that's how they'll end, with somebody making that gesture.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Wall Street Journal
an hour ago
- Wall Street Journal
‘Midnight on the Potomac' Review: The Civil War's Last Gasp
Twelve months before Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered to Gen. Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox, Union victory in the Civil War was far from certain. The capture of Vicksburg in 1863 had riven the Confederacy, but in the spring of 1864 Lee's Army of Northern Virginia remained a powerful force. Commander in Chief Abraham Lincoln worried not only about military prospects but also an impending presidential election in which he would face George B. McClellan, the popular Democratic candidate. Defeat would frustrate Lincoln's plans to stamp out the Southern rebellion, end slavery and reunite the nation. The stakes are high in Scott Ellsworth's fast-paced 'Midnight on the Potomac: The Last Year of the Civil War, the Lincoln Assassination, and the Rebirth of America.' Mr. Ellsworth, a former historian at the Smithsonian Institution and the author of 'The Ground Breaking,' about the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre, argues that, in early 1864, 'the fate of the United States of America lay in the balance.' He takes readers on an action-packed journey, beginning with the launch of Grant's Overland Campaign that spring and ending with Lincoln's shocking murder at Ford's Theatre one year later. Mr. Ellsworth has crafted a suspenseful narrative brimming with engaging insights, highlighting some lesser-known historical episodes and individuals. For instance, most Americans think of Gettysburg as the war's deadliest battle: More than 51,000 soldiers perished, were wounded or went missing in July 1863 on the blood-soaked fields of Pennsylvania. But Mr. Ellsworth draws our attention to a different encounter. After Grant launched his Overland Campaign, the first two clashes between Gen. George Meade's Army of the Potomac and Lee's troops lasted from May 5 to May 21, 1864, and resulted in more than 60,000 casualties. 'Taken together as one single conflict,' Mr. Ellsworth writes, 'the bloody side-by-side battles of the Wilderness and Spotsylvania was the largest battle ever to occur in the Americas.' Neither side could claim victory afterward, a fact that must have produced deep anxiety in Lincoln and the members of his administration. The president recognized, Mr. Ellsworth argues, that the war had become one of attrition and 'the trick now, as the summer weather rolled in, was to hang on.' But June and July brought new troubles. Munitions exploded at the Washington Arsenal on June 17, killing 21 workers and producing a damaging fire. The city came out in full force to honor the dead, with Lincoln joining the long march to the cemetery. One month later, Gen. Jubal Early brought his Confederate troops within 5 miles of the White House and contemplated an invasion to level the president's home as well as the U.S. Capitol. For unknown reasons, he decided not to attack. Union reinforcements reached the District of Columbia the following day and Early was forced to retreat. 'The audacious plan to capture Washington—and possibly end the war,' Mr. Ellsworth concludes, 'disappeared as quickly as it had begun.'
Fox News
4 hours ago
- Fox News
US Attorney for DC says 'weak' local laws letting 'young punks' off easy
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro on Monday said the federal government needs to "go after" the District of Columbia city council for its "weak" laws on youth criminals.
Yahoo
6 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's White Nationalist Vision for the Future of History
To be a historian in the time of Trump 2.0 is to teach and write history at a time when the federal government is being mobilized to promote a white nationalist version of American history. Plenty of previous politicians offered tacit sympathies for white nationalist ideas with coded terms like 'states' rights' and 'law and order,' but we have to journey back over one hundred years, to the presidency of Woodrow Wilson, to find an executive branch so supportive of white nationalist ideologies in the study of American history. A white nationalist vision of American history is one that centers the role of white Americans above all others and, in fact, typically treats the history of the nation and the race as one and the same. For white nationalists, the United States is a nation created and founded by white people, and American history necessarily spurns the contributions of all other groups. The sins of slavery, segregation, and violence are excused as minor blemishes made along a path toward greatness. It was the accomplishments of America's great white men, we are led to believe, that brought us the prosperity for which we should all be so thankful. To question them—even if they enslaved, raped, and killed for power, expansion, or wealth—would be to question America itself. Various versions of this story exist. For decades, the most pervasive version of this mythology lived in the American South. From practically the day after the Civil War, white Southerners crafted a white nationalist morality tale—in popular culture, veterans' organizations, and the Lost Cause ideology—of lazy Black slaves with generous white masters who in the 1860s did their best to fight off a war of 'Northern Aggression' that threatened white Southern freedom. For most of the twentieth century, this story was advanced by groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy, or UDC—activists who dedicated much of their lives to celebrating white Confederate heritage. They published textbooks, erected monuments, and led public ceremonies honoring the legacy of the Southern white men who tried to destroy the United States. Meanwhile, Black historians such as W.E.B. Du Bois and John Hope Franklin were literally segregated from the archives, banned from studying in Southern libraries because they were Black. When Franklin went to an archive to conduct research, he recalled, 'My arrival created a panic and an emergency among the administrators…. The archivist frankly informed me that I was the first Negro who had sought to use the facilities there.' Black people were not supposed to be in the archives, let alone be in charge of telling America's history. Since American public universities fully desegregated in the 1960s, historians of different backgrounds have thoroughly dispelled the Southern Lost Cause and other white nationalist mythologies. These historians see more nuance in Founding Fathers who called for freedom even as they enslaved humans. As Franklin explained of his groundbreaking book, From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans, 'My challenge was to weave into the fabric of American history enough of the presence of blacks so that the story of the United States could be told adequately and fairly.' Subsequent decades of cutting-edge research have rescued millions of nonwhite actors from the margins—Native Americans, African Americans, Asian Americans, Latinos, and more—showing that they also played major roles in the formation of the United States. In other words, America wasn't just built by white people. The struggles of millions, not only the brilliance of a select white few, are what made possible American affluence and good news is that today, in spite of Trump's efforts, historians are telling more complete stories, ones that don't rely on half-baked truths, veiled hypocrisies, or a racially segregated professoriat. And the public is hungry for works that offer a more complete retelling of the American experience. Buoyed by the Black Lives Matter movement, African American history in particular has surged in popularity. From bestselling Black history books like The Warmth of Other Suns to The New York Times' 1619 Project to the explosively popular genre of Black historical fiction and film, African American history is now enmeshed in popular culture as never before. Books like James and films like Sinners center the Black experience, drawing millions of readers and viewers yearning for Black stories from the past. The murder of George Floyd in 2020 created a tidal wave of white sympathy for the African American experience. Amid such demand, the federal government and so many of America's institutions, from the Smithsonian to the National Football League, responded with efforts to better teach and study the history of race in America. Juneteenth finally became a federal holiday in 2021. Trump 2.0 seeks a reversal of all of these strides toward a pluralistic history. The new Trump administration is staking claims to racial morality by stressing the excesses of and seeking to destroy diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, programs that multiplied in the wake of George Floyd. The administration cannot make Americans uninterested in the history of race, nor can it turn back a cultural marketplace that offers serious profits for great stories about race in America. But it can use the tools of the state to influence, even poison, how history will be taught in America's public forums and schools. On Juneteenth, the federal holiday established after George Floyd to commemorate Emancipation, Trump decided against issuing a formal holiday greeting, choosing instead to argue that America had too many holidays that took away from economic productivity. Of all the federal holidays to dismiss, of course it was the one expressly dedicated to a Black cause. Trump's new administration is openly scrubbing historical government websites of Black and Brown people, removing references to American heroes like Medgar Evers, the Navajo Code Talkers, and the trailblazing female veterans, while also promising to restore the names of Confederates to military bases. Fort Bragg, originally named after a white supremacist Confederate general before being renamed Fort Liberty in 2023, has once again been renamed Fort Bragg (although it's now cynically named for a different Bragg, a World War II soldier). On Juneteenth, the federal holiday established after George Floyd to commemorate Emancipation, Trump decided against issuing a formal holiday greeting, choosing instead to argue that America had too many holidays that took away from economic productivity. Of all the federal holidays to dismiss, of course it was the one expressly dedicated to a Black cause. A Trump executive order in March called for citizens' support in 'advancing the policy of this order,' in other words, reporting federal historical sites that spend too much time focusing on the perspectives of nonwhites. The UDC would be proud. In fact, one historian of Civil War memory noted that Trump's Black History Month Proclamation 'reads as if it was released from the headquarters of the United Daughters of the Confederacy.'These approaches to history resurrect some of the very same failed historical arguments made by white nationalist groups of the past. And so part of being a historian during Trump 2.0 is to witness a renewal of debunked mythologies and outdated ideas made fresh by a state apparatus deeply invested in protecting the historical reputation of whiteness. And yet, Trump 2.0's flawed and racist approach to history will probably offer little in the way of substantive change for serious historical study. The Trump allies promoting censorship are only interested in prevention, not innovative creation, ceding the field to those of us who really do care about honest history. And unfortunately for Trump and his supporters, the censors can't reach everywhere. Knowledge today comes from many quarters. Millions of students may be blocked from learning American history in public school classrooms, but the Trump administration cannot completely block them from accessing American history from other venues. Today's censors will never again enjoy the same stranglehold that white nationalists once had on the production of the past. Even if an eighth grader in South Carolina is blocked from studying Frederick Douglass in their classroom, state laws cannot prevent them from accessing additional information online, in film, or in podcasts. Oddly enough, Trump 2.0 has also created opportunities for better understanding the history of race in America. It can be difficult for modern students to fully appreciate the intensity with which people fought over race in previous eras of American history. Across the country, even in the North, everyday white citizens were willing to go so far as to bomb school buses to stop the desegregation of elementary schools. Students struggle to understand the motivations of people like the women screaming at Black teenagers at Little Rock Central High School in 1957 or the activists who shouted, 'Don't wait for your daughter to be raped by these Congolese. Don't wait until the burrheads are forced into your schools. Do something about it now,' in order to intimidate six-year-old Ruby Bridges when she entered the first grade in 1960 New Orleans. I have been teaching those ugly episodes for years, but the reactions of my students this spring were different than ever before. Students now recognize their present in the past. There was a time when the sight of adults screaming at school board meetings might have appeared very foreign. Now, that's just part of America's political culture. The incivility of the present helps us to understand the ugliness of the past. Perhaps the greatest consequence of Trump's second term will be the retardation of America's ability to have a true national reckoning on race. The United States has not deeply explored its own racial history with an eye toward a constructive public process of reconciliation. Historians argue that such a reckoning, if done well, would hold the promise to help us break free from the cancerous orbit of race that has poisoned life in America since its founding. The ancient hope of that reconciliation is precisely what Trumpism and its enablers intend to prevent. After a brief moment when some historians began discussing the possibility of a 'Third Reconstruction,' Trump 2.0 brings the full force of the federal government against that promise, erasing Black and Brown histories from public display and recentering white voices above all others so as to align with the white nationalist fairy tale that they tell themselves is America. Solve the daily Crossword
