Some say it’s an eyesore. Others appeal to its history. Some want to see it repurposed, others call for its demolition. But before it became a site for public debates, the limestone structure at 4 E. State St. had many lives, according to the city of Geneva: it was a blacksmith shop in the 1840s, a carriage painting shop shortly after the turn of the 20th century and was part of the property of a longstanding Geneva restaurant that operated from the 1930s until it shuttered in 2011. In more recent years, what remains of the limestone building on the northern edge of the former Mill Race Inn property has been a source of contention in Geneva. Its owner has on several occasions appealed to the city to tear it down, the city has denied its requests, and preservationists have joined the mix in attempts to keep it standing. Last week, the city’s Historic Preservation Commission unanimously shot down another request by Dave Patzelt, the president of Geneva-based Shodeen Group, to demolish the structure. Its future remains uncertain, however, as Shodeen has already filed an appeal of the commission’s decision, meaning the Geneva City Council could still override the commission and vote to allow demolition. Discussion at the Dec. 16 meeting also led to a number of calls for redeveloping the property — another matter that’s come before the city in the past. These debates about the structure at the former Mill Race Inn property in downtown Geneva have been years in the making. According to the city, the limestone building was first the Alexander Brothers’ Blacksmith Shop in the mid-19th century. Among other things, it later was used as a wagon manufacturing and blacksmithing shop, a cooperage and a carriage painting shop. The site of the property later was incorporated into an iconic restaurant, the Mill Race Inn. After almost 80 years, the Mill Race Inn closed in 2011, and the property was eventually acquired by Geneva-based development company Shodeen Group. Demolition of most of the property began in 2016. At the time, city officials said the developer would evaluate the 1840s-era limestone sections to determine if the structure could be considered a historic landmark or be incorporated within any future development of the property. In 2017, Shodeen looked to demolish the limestone building that had been part of the restaurant property, but the matter was put on hold early in 2018 after a Geneva resident moved to get it designated as a historic landmark. Later that year, the building got a landmark designation from the city, and preservationists advocated for repurposing the site for another use. A residential development at the site was considered in 2019, but later rejected by the Geneva City Council. Fast forward a few years, the Shodeen Family Foundation again requested permission to demolish the building, but it was unanimously shot down by the city’s Historic Preservation Commission. Following an appeal by the developer, the City Council affirmed the commission’s decision in 2023. Later that year, the city cited the property owner for code violations, per documents from the city, and a ruling was made on the case in September 2025 in the city’s favor, requiring that the building be made weather-tight. Then, in recent months, Shodeen made a request for demolition again. The application by Patzelt claims that the stone structure “stands in the way of” redevelopment goals for the property and that “no positive impacts have been accomplished” in the eight years of discussions regarding the structure. The application asks the city to consider the demolition request on the grounds that the structure “is not in the best interest of the majority of the community.” At the Dec. 16 meeting Patzelt noted that, previously, part of the hold on the future of the building was to give residents additional time to find something that could be done with the structure. “I would suggest that, whatever amount of time, that time has passed,” Patzelt said. “It’s been long enough. There’s been several different attempts … whether it’s to find a buyer, to move the structure, to find somebody that is interested in renovating the structure or … using it for some specific use.” He argued that the cost to repair the structure is in excess of what it’s worth. “The time has come that we need to make some further decisions on it,” he said. Several of the commissioners offered their opinions on the request at last week’s meeting, and considered what the future of the property might look like. Commissioner Jewel Jensen — pointing to the portion of Shodeen’s application related to a failed stakeholder input initiative about the site — suggested that taxpayer-funded efforts to determine the property’s future were not successful because the owner didn’t ultimately submit development plans for approval, has not protected the structure from the elements and has not agreed to work with a study group about the site. Jensen also noted the fine the owner has incurred from the city, questioning whether the city would have to pay it if the demolition request were to be approved. Jensen also asked about the ownership, and Patzelt clarified that the property is no longer owned by Shodeen itself, but by the Mill Race Land Company, LLC. Shodeen remains listed as the contractor on the original application for demolition from October. Some of the response to the request for demolition centered around the criticism that there had been no significant change since the last time Shodeen came to the city asking to tear down the structure. “I just want to make clear … that nothing has changed since 2023 in August when this commission denied demolition, with the exception of, I’m assuming, additional letters that are in favor of demolition being submitted to the commission,” said Commissioner Kevin Phillips. Patzelt said he would “admit that there’s maybe no change,” but reiterated that there had been a request for more time, more time had been given, and no solution has since materialized. Phillips argued that, because that request for additional time didn’t come from the commission, it was “irrelevant” from anything being different from its latest decision in 2023. “Since that time, Shodeen has done nothing except drag the city into hearings in courts and question the (commission’s) decision, and, in the meantime, has allowed that building to deteriorate such, to the point where, now, maybe many people in … the community view it as an eyesore,” Phillips said. “You’re asking us to approve a demolition that basically is based on an eyesore that you’ve created.” Patzelt said he doesn’t think much has changed from deterioration. Commissioner Lisa McManus suggested that there should have been work on a development plan for the property. “It’s just not a property, right now, that’s in good shape,” she said. “And the reality is that we need, rather than have these conversations about taking the building down, for years we could’ve just presented something … Shodeen could be making money on this property, but yet here we are entertaining another demo request.” Patzelt said that, to do so, Shodeen would need to know what is to be done with the structure in order to make a redevelopment plan. And Commissioner Mike Riebe asked whether, if the structure must remain, Shodeen plans to let the property sit as is, rather than develop the site. Patzelt said they would, and noted that structural engineers have said the walls and footings are not capable of sustaining any additional load, so they couldn’t put an addition on the building. During the meeting, a number of residents — split between those in favor and those against demolition — also advanced their suggestions about the site and what they hoped would come of it. Several of those opposed to demolition spoke of their hopes that the site would ultimately be redeveloped. “If the (commission) were to deny this demolition application, there is an opportunity for the former blacksmith shop to be part of a larger redevelopment at a minimal cost to the property owner,” said Al Watts, the community engagement director of local nonprofit Preservation Partners of the Fox Valley. “Collaboration between the public and the owner with that goal in mind would likely accomplish something the community could be proud of that both honors the legacy of Geneva’s industrial past and stimulates Geneva’s future.” Alan Leahigh, of Geneva, said Shodeen is bringing forward a “false choice” between keeping the structure or demolition, suggesting that efforts to restore or redevelop the building would be “much more favorably received” by the community. And Lee Eysturlid, who said he lives across the street from the structure, said whether the building is an “eyesore” is subjective, and criticized the “stonewalling of the process” as setting a precedent for the future. He also spoke about his view on preservation, including what the future of the site could end up as. “It’s not just the present of the history … that you preserve, but it’s the future of the history you preserve,” Eysturlid said. “And it’s not just the building, it’s the space. And by removing the building, you open this space up to a six-story monolith. And I know that’s not part of the point, but it is the point, because history is also into the future. Otherwise, why are we preserving anything?” Some individuals from the area felt otherwise, criticizing in particular the impact the deteriorating structure has on the neighborhood and the city’s economic position. Herb Nachreiner, of Elgin, said that even decades ago, the blacksmith shop “was a piece of junk, and it’s even worse today.” He noted that the site is essentially the gateway to Geneva’s business district, and that businesses “never get a second chance at a first impression.” “Move on,” Nachreiner said. “We’re beating a dead horse with this building.” Similarly, Patrice Bertheau, of Geneva, pointed out that there is “no progress being made” on the property, and it is having an impact on “neighborhood pride and economic potential, as it discourages investment and tourism.” Another nearby resident of the structure, Ed Streibig, said he hopes there will be a sidewalk by the site for safety reasons, and that he is “here looking for progress.” “When I think about progress, the quickest way to progress seems like demolition,” Streibig said. He suggested taking the stone blocks from the structure and incorporating them into a new structure. Ultimately, after the public hearing on the proposal for demolition, the commission again considered the possibility, but ultimately landed in opposition to Patzelt’s request. Riebe said they haven’t gotten a “good faith proposal” for redeveloping the site and suggested that Shodeen has just been “waiting and waiting and waiting to strongarm — whether it’s us or City Council to give in, give them what they want.” “The differences between the petition … to demo a few years ago versus today is that the property has sat longer,” McManus added. The commission also considered how it could judge what the consensus from the community is, and Jensen suggested that the owner and community don’t have to be in opposition going forward. “I believe that we can come to a solution if we do work together on this,” Jensen said. The commission ultimately unanimously shot down the demolition permit request on Tuesday. But Patzelt, in an email to The Beacon-News, says an appeal has been filed with the City Council, which the city also confirmed. A city spokesman said the date the council will consider the matter has not yet been determined. The City Council has the ability to uphold, amend or reverse the commission’s decision, Historic Preservation Commission Chair Paul Zellmer noted at the Dec. 16 meeting. Per the city, the council must vote on the commission’s determination within 30 calendar days of an appeal being made. A reversal or modification of the commission’s decision requires a two-thirds majority of the aldermen. [email protected] ...read more read less