Follow the link and see the "comments" to read what the church's senior pastor, John Manzo, wrote with respect to the building's future disposition.
Several readers asked for a photo of the property in question. Here is is , looking in a southeasterly direction from the corner of Bank and Spring:
Shifting to a view toward the southwest, here's the main part of the church and the old bank building:
Looking to the south from the corner of 3rd and Spring, we see St. Marks parking on the east side of 3rd:
Shifting to a Market Street vantage point, the vistas to the north and west reveal large tracts of cleared urban land surrounding the church on two sides:
A final note: According to information in the church newsletter, it has received an offer for the bank building from a legal firm -- not, as some persist in believing, from local food and drink entrepreneurs. It is important to understand that the bank building is next to useless for those contemplating entertainment that includes adult-friendly libations, as it would be impossible to obtain an alcoholic beverage sales license from the state of Indiana owing to the building's close proximity to the church.
----
* Thanks to Bluegill for the aerial view (via Google Earth).
5 comments:
Looks like from the photos, and a drive thru town, St Marks is surrounded by parking. Do they worship the almighty car too?
The congregation voted today to reject the offer to purchase the building.
The aerial photo makes me wonder what used to stand in the cleared areas.
Might I inquire whether the pastor sees this vote as a "victory" for any certain principle, i.e., property rights, responsibility to the neighborhood, the collective interest of the antire city's citizens in the judgment of the Historical Preservation Society?
Must we assume sans meaningful debate that a church by its very nature is good and well meaning when it comes to these topics?
Being a good neighbor downtown includes paying full heed to the historic preservation effort and respecting the decisions of the Historic Preservation Commission. While some members of the church may not view the bank building as significant, it's clear that the HPC and numerous other concerned citizens do.
The HPC has ruled in favor of saving the building more than once, yet St. Marks continues to appeal. It strikes me as odd that the church would would put so much effort into passively respecting its own internal processes while ignoring those of the greater community.
If church members consider quiet acceptance as the civil response to potential conflict, why then do they seem unwilling to show that same level of civility and respect to the HPC and the community at large?
As clearly demonstrated by the aerial photo, the footprint of the bank building is minimal when compared to the overall size of the St. Marks property. They have more than enough space (owing to other demolitions) to expand their sanctuary building, build a prayer garden and to increase parking without demolishing anything.
Selling the bank building would rid them of what they consider to be unnecessary expenses and help finance future projects, allow someone with resources to continue revitalizing downtown and aid in the preservation effort.
The church has an opportunity to set an example to others at a time when downtown is just starting to revive. Let's hope their chosen course reverses so that example portrays the cooperation and respect evident inside church walls rather than just the amorphous self-interest exhibited externally thus far.
Post a Comment