Urbana council rejects landmark designation for Civic Center amid dispute over downtown transit center

Urbana City Council voted on June 22 to deny an ordinance that would have designated the Urbana Civic Center at 108 East Water Street as a local historic landmark, after a night of technical presentations, public testimony and a direct response from the transit agency pursuing a downtown transfer facility.

The vote failed 4–2 after a lengthy debate. Supporters of the landmark — including members of the Historic Preservation Commission and preservation advocates — argued the Civic Center satisfies local criteria for historic significance and that designation would ensure the city evaluates rehabilitation and adaptive-reuse options. “The Historic Preservation Commission was absolutely not included in required Section 106 review process for the Urbana Civic Center,” said Kate Holidayiday, a commission member who told council the commission had not received formal consulting-party invitations during the federal review and that mitigation plans were prepared without its input.

Opponents, led by Carl Ganat, managing director of the Champaign–Urbana Mass Transit District (MTD), said landmark status would impose constraints that could make it difficult or impossible to build the sort of off‑street, mixed‑fleet transfer terminal MTD says it needs. Ganat told council MTD has concept plans but not construction drawings and said consultants advised the existing building footprint prevents the circulation patterns, layover space and saw‑tooth bays needed to host articulated 60‑foot buses. “We don’t have architectural drawings; we have concepts,” Ganat said. He added that MTD paused work to respect the preservation process and that the pause had cost the agency a grant opportunity tied to a proposed multi‑million‑dollar facility.

Architect Joseph Alter, who has taught studios on adaptive reuse for the site, presented measured options showing how partial demolition, sensitive additions or an encapsulation strategy might allow reuse of substantial portions of the Civic Center while creating required bus circulation. Alter said the existing building occupies roughly 8,394 square feet of an approximately 82,000‑square‑foot site and urged collaborative study with preservation architects and engineers to test feasibility.

Members of the public who spoke were sharply divided. Preservation proponents said the building is an unusual local example of modernist civic architecture and urged council to follow staff and Historic Preservation Commission recommendations. Riders and disability‑rights advocates, and residents who rely on MTD, urged council to preserve the chance to secure a dedicated downtown transfer station with improved shelters, restrooms and ADA access. “If that transfer station was here and we could access those services here in Urbana, I could get those tickets independently,” said Sarah Rand, who said she is legally blind and relies on paratransit services.

Council members said they weighed competing public needs. Supporters of the designation pointed to staff and commission findings that the Civic Center met multiple landmark criteria; opponents stressed MTD’s operational constraints and the uncertainty of federal grant funding that proponents say could fund a roughly $32 million transit center. Council member Mary Alice said she was not convinced the city could not save parts of the building and urged continued effort to find compromise; Council member James Jones, who voted against landmarking, said his priority was delivering improved transit infrastructure for riders.

By denying the ordinance, council did not itself authorize demolition or transfer of the property to MTD; those steps would require later, separate approvals (including any intergovernmental agreement). The council also discussed that demolition work was included in the current capital plan and that timing depends on future council direction and available funding. Several council members asked staff and MTD to continue negotiations and technical study so that any future plan explicitly addresses preservation options, operational constraints and community access.

What happens next: the council’s vote leaves open multiple paths. MTD said it will continue planning but warned that landmarking would require tradeoffs on circulation and space. Preservationists urged the city to ensure the Section 106 consultation was completed with meaningful inclusion of consulting parties. Council members suggested the matter could be revisited if grant outcomes, architectural studies, or new proposals emerge.

Vote on Ordinance 2026‑06‑016 (local landmark): failed (yes: Evans, Wilin; no: Woo, Hersy, Jones, Quizenberry).