Earlier this year NA Confidential was prepared to lead whatever charge might be mounted and sustained to keep this old building standing, primarily because there was (and remains) a vital matter of principle involved with it, if not for one important, critical, deciding factor.
The senior pastor of St. Marks, John Manzo. I've yet to meet him, but I've come to like and respect him very much.
John came to these pages several times and provided detailed explanations for his church’s actions with regard to the building at a time when the congregation’s demolition-first firebrands, who lack John’s considerable skills in rational diplomacy, were mum at best, and confrontational at worst.*
To be sure, I’ve not always agreed with John’s viewpoints, but in the end, the deep and good impression he has made (and continues to make) with his thoughts and comments swayed me, and his simple recognition that the community does has a right to be interested in decisions that impact its streetscape is much appreciated. Subsequently, we have agreed -- perhaps to me, surprisingly often -- on numerous other issues, and I've learned something from his perspective. We can agree to disagree on the demolition decision.
Now seriously, John: Many of us sincerely hope that your church elects to build something this time around. We have enough vacant lots downtown, and so far, St. Marks has been an net creator of empty space.
Thank you again for listening and reading. Good luck.
* One of whom explained to me that the best way to regulate traffic in downtown New Albany would be to remove all the stoplights, since there's no reason to stop, anyway, and in essence proffered a view of historical preservation tantamount to Sen. McCarthy's view of Communism. I suppose that he hasn't been looking all that closely at the changing dynamic when commuting from the exurb for services at St. Marks. Willful ignorance of New Urbanism doesn't sound like an excuse to me, but then again, I grew up in Georgetown -- and have since at least tried to learn the language of the city.
16 comments:
Yes, it is understood that I'll receive a good hammering for today's posting, and yes, it's obvious that my conversation with the firebrand (in italics) is the major impetus for returning to beat this dead horse.
At the same time, I'm not entirely sure that the members of the church ever really got to hear the HPC side of the story, that the demolition-first elements were quite content for this information not to be presented, and that few members of the church grasp how emblematic the demolition saga became for those of us seeking a remaking of downtown.
Sometimes it is a matter of principle, and this was one of them. A precedent has been established that bodes ill for the future veracity of the HPC, and while the commission itself it is too cautious (perhaps rightly so) to say so publicly ... well, I'm a curmudgeon and a contrarian.
I don't mind doing it. So be it.
Please note that a one-vote minortiy of the Historic Preservation Commission voted to disallow this atrocity, and that another recused himself from the deliberations.
That recusal was understandable, but what wasn't understandable was his reported recusal from discussion within the church on this issue. Whether or not there was a conflict of interests, that member, an ardent preservationist, chose to remain silent both in his official capacity and during the intra-church debate about the future of the property.
The bogus appraisal put forward by the church is equally troubling. I think it is clear that, at a minimum, there was a lot of blue-skying going on in that estimate of value, and that alone empowered the demolition-firsters.
But back to my point. Please remember WHO voted to allow it and WHO voted to disallow it. And remember that the HPC majority was influenced greatly by the gloomy prognostications and lack of support from its own staff agency.
Sigh.
Okay, I'll have a sense of humor about it and won't hammer you on this.
And thanks for your kind words.
I was, at best ambivalent about this project and stayed and remain neutral. Being the pastor of a very interesting and diverse group of people is challenging enough without getting involved in real estate.
I will say this.
The building itself was awful. As I watched it come down I realized how awful it truly was. I can't say that I totally regret that it's gone.
And, to be quite honest, the church building itself is quite attractive (other than some ugly green stuff that was hidden before) and the building looks better, to me, with that lot having no building on it.
I do hope that we can do something which makes the lot appealing to folks in the downtown. I truly do.
And that's my final word on the subject. :-)
Take a look at the lot next to Stein Glass on Main Street, where several years ago a building was demolished. This epitomizes to me how ludicrous is any claim of city planning in New Albany.
Whoever demolished this building was not required to do a damned thing. They covered the lot with some gravel. No paving, no buffers, no site improvement--no wonder New Albany looks like a war zone. Go ahead, rip it down (and in St. Mark's case, aided and abetted by certain city employees), and let it sit. Toss some gravel in there, but if you don't care to, don't bother. It's the same story all over town. Do whatever you want, we just don't care. Phones calls to complain or question don't get returned, letters don't get answered.
Do we have city planners? if so, where are they hiding?
Geez, I need some ibuprofen now.
John is out, and so am I.
The rest of you may continue the discussion if you wish.
Watching that building being torn down, especially on such an otherwise joyous day, put my stomach in a knot.
The bank demolition does indeed set a negative precedent and it’s unfortunate that some members of St. Marks don’t seem able to reconcile their handling of property with the same sense of commonweal that seems to permeate their worship, other good deeds, and certainly a majority of public utterances by their pastor. With another misguided real estate decision, they’ve further diminished their reputation in the community and positioned themselves at least temporarily as an enemy of preservation and revitalization. I hope that changes.
To turn the situation into a referendum on the Historic Preservation Commission or, more specifically, on certain members of the Commission, though, is short sighted and does nothing to improve preservation efforts over the long term. It’s less about who voted a particular way than it is about why they voted that way. There’s plenty of blame to go around but the preservation problem, like nearly all enforcement situations in New Albany, is systemic.
A majority of the Commission voted more than once to deny demolition. However, the law cited to justify that denial referred to historic structures and the bank building had much earlier been classified as non-contributing in a historic sense. The question, then, was whether the law covers all buildings deemed applicable by the commission or if non-contributing buildings are exempted from that law.
As Commission members debated competing legal interpretations, they were ultimately put in a largely untenable position. It was the professional opinion of both the city planning and legal offices that the law did not justify denying demolition. It's difficult to gauge their personal feelings on the principle involved but it's my understanding that the message sent by the city in reference to the law and a potential lawsuit was clear.
Whether or not those respective legal interpretations were correct was and is debatable but that debate didn’t change the reality faced by HPC members. Having been threatened with a lawsuit and financial responsibility for the church’s legal fees, nine volunteers were left totally unsupported with no resources (including adequate legal representation for the lawsuit) to forge a better outcome.
As bad as the resulting St. Marks precedent is, an alternative in which the Commission got clubbed to death during its first real stand as city officials stood idly by would’ve probably called the Commission’s authority into question to an even greater degree. As a political maneuver, it may have been somewhat prudent to force the City Attorney to deal with the case but does anyone still harbor faith enough to believe that the level of representation secured by doing so would have been of sufficient quality to warrant the risk? I don’t.
It’s worth noting that the Commission’s full annual budget of $7,500 is barely enough to provide basic administrative assistance, let alone to lead a charge against a monster with a hundred year head start.
New Albany’s unwillingness to field a legal team actually capable of battling it’s decades long culture of non-enforcement has been well documented at NAC and elsewhere so, while I share the anger and frustration expressed by readers and am extremely disappointed in St. Marks, the outcome is hardly surprising. This debacle is just one more symptom of the New Albany syndrome as evidenced by the church's lack of understanding and the government's inability or unwillingness to deal with it.
It certainly doesn’t excuse the non-effort sometimes apparent in certain quarters, but the HPC, the Code Enforcement Officer, the Building Commissioner, the Plan Commission and the Board of Zoning Appeals are all useless without an appropriate legal enforcement mechanism backing them up. Yet, despite continued outcry, we have a mayoral administration that’s unwilling to request the money it deems necessary to fund such an endeavor and a City Council that by all accounts wouldn’t fund the request if made.
As long as that’s the case, Annie’s do whatever you want, we just don't care assessment will remain true regardless of who’s voting on which commission. And if we vote them back in, it'll be our fault.
Hopefully a nice green corner park?
With a big pin oak shade tree?
Annie is right. "They" won't doing ANYTHING. Yes, they want to holler at my husband (professional historical painter) and myself to touch up the paint on our houses; meanwhile there's a backlog with the HPC a mile long.
We called about a house that has been sent numerous letters today; been going on 3 years now.
You are right New Albanian about voting the friends who appointed them to these boards back into office. You got that one right. Now, if you could just figure out their friends, huh?
Pastor, I am glad the building came down, even though I am a big Preservationist. It's not a popular subject right now, but I was involved in helping draft the original HPC's purpose. Never (but should have) dreamed it could turn into such a nightmare.
Some of us are thankful, and look to the restoration of what is a beautiful church.
Now, if we could just get them to do something about that house on E Market.
Just to clarify, I meant that voting for politicians who do not support enforcement efforts, whether they be HPC concerns or not, is a bad idea. Mine was a statement supporting the HPC.
The backlog is not with the HPC. It's with those responsible for enforcing HPC rulings, namely the city legal department. Once a ruling has been made, the HPC has no control over which judgements are enforced or not.
They also have no authority to demand that repairs be made to 525 East Market. That falls under the jurisdiction of the Building Commissioner.
Being asked to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness when painting the exterior of a home is a rule that applies to everyone in a local historic district, regardless of profession. Again, If the complaint involves enforcement, it's a matter of action or inaction on the part of the city legal department and not the HPC.
For crying out loud, it wasn't the Culbertson Mansion, but an ugly non-contributing bank building for which the owners had a right to dispose of as they saw fit. I drove by the intersection tonight. It looks SO MUCH better! Sure hope y'all get as worked up if they want to tear down Bottles Unlimited or the U-haul rental site on State Street. I'm sure they're marvelous representations of 1960s service station architecture, which we all know is well worth preserving.
I remember when they tore down the old Post Office building that stood at Pearl & Spring back in the 60's, and the old courthouse. I was just a kid back then, but I don't remember anyone protesting the demolition of these truly historic buildings. While I hate to see another parking lot...vacant lot..nothingness downtown, this building was just built in the 60's as a bank building. McDonald's on Charlestown Rd was built in the late 60's, I believe, and they tore down the entire building to build an updated model. Maybe if the people who try to find stores, restaurants..etc to come to the historic area of downtown (if there are any people doing this)would allow these places to remodel and modernize the storefronts on existing buildings, this would attract people (i.e. customers) back to downtown to see the NEW New Albany..a blend of the old into the new.
With regard to the house at 525 East Market, The Tribune used to run what they called the "Eyesore of the Week", which included the address, and pictures of houses in dis-repair. Maybe if something like this could be published again it might draw enough attention to get the problem(s)resolved.
I have extremely limited knowledge of HPC but, hey, lack of knowledge has never stopped me before.
I understand precedent but after reading many of these comments, it seems that some are advocating almost total denial of any application to tear down a structure. I don't buy that.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. After all is said and done, that corner now looks much better to me.
I hate to say but I'm finding myself on both sides of this one. ANY demolition in an already bulldozed historic city makes me sad. Density is an advantage downtown keeps throwing away. On the other hand I think St Mark's looks much better now and I hope a garden dedicated to truth and Reconciliation or a Peace garden or something green and attractive will take up that corner. But I've already got one battle on my hands with my own family trying to save the old car dealership on Spring. My Uncle's have done a terrible job of maintaining that property and the parking lot's surrounding it are a travesty. But hey - from the 50's on here - CAR is KING!! That's why we have soooo much parking but no people downtown. I still hear all developers can think of is parking...ugh.
Fact check: This building was NOT built in the 60s. Brandon Smith has a full dossier on the history of the building, and Jeff Gillenwater has a full dossier on the history of the site.
Not built in the 60's? I got the impression that it was since I saw it earlier in the year in a comment that someone entered about the building on this blog. Anyway, the building's gone...and the world didn't come to an end. Time to move on. Long live asphalt & concrete!
maybe it could be soon our own version of needle park in Zurich? Crack-head corner?
Post a Comment