The church recently voted to reject a bona fide purchase offer of $250,000 for the subject property four blocks west of my own establishment. Apparently at least one appraiser is willing to say that the vacant land is worth substantially more than a quarter-million dollars.
NA Confidential hopes to provide you with relevant photographic evidence of the notice, which is purportedly posted on the face of the building in question.
For more details, see The Tribune of July 8, July 27, or August 15. The application for a permit has been filed sometime in the last 15 days, according to its words, and our sources tell us the Board of Public Works is the body that will grant or deny the permit application.
As always, we invite discussion of this important public issue by our readers. Real estate professionals are particularly invited to weigh in.
I added the photo to All4Word's text to make a simple point.
ReplyDeleteBut first, thanks to Rev. Manzo for participating here and giving the church's side of it.
Now, strictly my take: Look at the aerial photo and see that everything St. Marks touches eventually turns to vacant lot or asphalt parking.
To emphasize, don't take my word for it. Look at the aerial photo, and see.
I appreciate the notion that the congregation voted, and that the pastor is neutral and seeks strictly to obey the wishes of the parishioners.
However, to judge from the newsletter dialogue as reprinted here in June, one must ask: Were the parishioners really given the full range of options before voting?
Reverend?
If the building is demolished, it sets a bad precedent. Anyone who wants to tear down a building in an historic district will be able to cite the St. Mark's demolition and find an appraiser who'll say they building is unfixable.
ReplyDeleteI'm opposed to the demolition.
There's a difference between tearing down a historic building and tearing down a building in a historic district. It's ugly, it's in disrepair. What exactly is anyone trying to preserve here? A mid 1900s building (I'm guessing it's from the 60s) like this does absolutely nothing to enhance the character of downtown New Albany's truly historic structures. Seems to me that unless someone can document and demonstrate some truly historic significance to this building (as I read somewhere in a blog comment, there's no evidence that George Washington slept there), then the rest of us ought to just butt out of the church's business and let them take care of their property in the manner they deem most appropriate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteI urge you to look at the picture. A reasonable offer has been made on the building in question by people who apparently disagree with the church's assessment of the property.
ReplyDeleteDid I remember to point to the huge swaths of empty land surrounding the church?
Historic preservation includes not only buildings of a certain age (say, 100 years or older) but architecturally signifcant buildings from more recent eras as well and their contribution to the overall streetscape and built environment.
ReplyDeleteThe practice of architecture didn't end at the turn of the century, so our awareness of its cultural significance shouldn't either, regardless of who slept where. For more reading on the topic, check out The Recent Past Preservation Network.
The bank building in question is one of the few significant examples of mid-century architecture in New Albany, qualifying it as a contributing structure for preservation purposes whether some people find it "ugly" or not.
The church in question has a history of demolishing historic buildings and turning them into parking and empty lots, already having done much to destroy the ambience of their block for no particular purpose. They have plenty of room for any/all of the potential projects mentioned in their newsletter and public petitions without resorting to even further destruction.
What remains to be seen is whether or not our city government intends to set a positive precedent supportive of the preservation authority they've superficially empowered or, as is the case with code enforcement, they'll cower from the responsibility.
Well, since you thanked me for my comments...
ReplyDeleteTo answer the question, "Were the parishoners really given the full range of options before voting?," I'd say that the answer to that is 'yes.' There were mailings, discussions, forums, etc. Actually, to be quite honest, we spent more time than any church ought to talking about property and such. Everything else in the life of the church was put on hold. From a pastor's perspective, that was frustrating. But I digress. I do believe people were well informed, or, had the opportunity to be. As with the voting electorate, providing opportunity doesn't assure that people really do 'know' what they are doing.
The church had to make a decision on accepting cash for the building, or retaining the property. That was the core of the debate.
The desire to retain the property, from my listening to the comments of folks, came from some different perspectives.
One was control over who our neighbors would be. Many did not seem to feel that someone buying the building would stay there forever. The fear of the local porn shop and the Asian massage parlor weighed in on many people's minds. (I would think any porn shop or massage parlor which opened next door to a church would be insane, but that was the part of the discussion.) I've heard rumblings in town that there was fear over a restaurant with alcohol. That was never really an issue. St. Marks is not an alcohol abstinance driven place, but that was a rumor.
Another big issue was that if we ever want to expand our Sanctuary to 'fix' our restroom dilemma (they are both either at the top of bottom of steps---though we do have one accessible rest room), and if we wanted to have a receiving area in the Sanctuary building, the land where the bank building sits is the only real spot where this would be able to be done. And, it really is. Whether we actually do that or not is another question.
A third prevailing attitude was that it's our property and we have a right to do with it as we see fit. Several felt that the church was unfairly being pressured into selling the building.
Are these arguments valid? The people who made them seem to think so, and 60% of those who voted did so as well.
Some facts involved with the building haven't been discussed here.
When the church purchased the building, we moved our choir room in there, a couple of Sunday School classes, and our Community Clothes Closet. The Clothes Closet served a significant number of people, but it's space was, to be quite honest, quite poor. My wife, Janet, in her position as the Coordinator of Lay Ministries ran the program. However, in the midst of major budget cutting, Janet needed to leave that position---a position we no longer have, and the Clothes Closet was moved to the Education Building. Frankly, upstairs in the bank was not a good space. The rooms were scattered, the steps were steep and difficult to climb, and we were afraid someone would be seriously hurt.
Around 3-4 years ago we had a comprehensive facility assessment done by the Entheos Corporation. Their report was that the bank building:
1. Was in awful condition and needed major work.
2. Didn't remotely meed the church's needs.
They suggested, in their report, that we demolish it. Thus was the advent of that plan.
The building itself was not built as 'one building' but it was a smaller building that got added onto at least twice. The support beams in the building, as a result, are awkwardly placed making the building, especially upstairs, useful only in having a maze of small offices and rooms.
For one, I do not see this building as any example of any type of architecture at all. Maybe it appears so from the outside, but it is, frankly, a mishmash of rooms, almost randomly scattered.
I do not believe that the issue with most is the removal of 'this' building. It is old, but not that old, and it is certainly not historical. It is, however, in the historic district. I think that if we were removing it to add to the Sanctuary (keeping with the design of that building) this would not have been an issue.
The issue of our 'land' frankly, is something which troubles us as well. We park off of Third Street and have a large green space behind the Education Building. We don't use that as much as we'd like to---and we do discuss using it at some point. I think the fact that we have bought land and cleared it and not developed it is a challenge to us; one we do need to take seriously.
I'm not sure that these are satisfying answers, I know I gave a lot of random details, but I do hope this helps.
John Manzo
For the record, I am not a member or even visitor at St. Marks's. I think Rev. Manzo has given a most suitable explanation of the chronology of events and I believe they should be allowed to proceed as they have planned. I've driven by the building in question numerous times and I'd rather see green than that ugly gray structure. A prayer garden would have been a nice addition, but sadly that was previously denied. Perhaps a reconsideration is in order. In any event, the city of New Albany will not be shortchanged by the loss of that building, regardless of where it sits. Just because someone might want to buy it doesn't mean that's the best decision for the owners to make.
ReplyDeleteRev. Manzo wrote:
ReplyDelete"I've heard rumblings in town that there was fear over a restaurant with alcohol. That was never really an issue. St. Marks is not an alcohol abstinance driven place, but that was a rumor."
Indeed it was a rumor, but as I've written here previously, it would be extraordinarily difficult (in point of general procedure, well nigh impossible) to get an alcohol permit adjacent to a church.
Thanks again to John Manzo for coming here and explaining the church's side of the issue.
ReplyDeleteIt is refreshing to read these words:
"The issue of our 'land' frankly, is something which troubles us as well. We park off of Third Street and have a large green space behind the Education Building. We don't use that as much as we'd like to---and we do discuss using it at some point. I think the fact that we have bought land and cleared it and not developed it is a challenge to us; one we do need to take seriously."
Neither of the two newsletter debate participants quoted here previously seem willing or able to address the issue of the church’s apparent proclivity for buying and demolishing structures, and erecting nothing in their wake. This is an aspect of the issue that many in the community see as important, and until now, we’ve seen no indication that the church has considered it. Thanks to Rev. Manzo for acknowledging the concern.
What's being sidestepped throughout this discussion is an understanding of historical structures in the cityscape, and the obvious fact that the constant evolution of architecture in America (and the modern world) always brings us to a different point of perspective on what is historical and what isn’t. Jeff has noted this better than I'm able to attempt, but I’ll ruminate anyway.
In East Berlin, the Communists dynamited what remained of the damaged downtown palace of the royalty, and replaced its footprint with a television tower, a conceptual monument to Marx and Engels, and the Palace of the Republic, a modern glass and steel building that of course is much detested by many who lived in the former GDR.
I understand that there is a movement afoot to reconstruct the original royal palace, and concurrently, to demolish the Communist parliament building. I ask: If it was wrong to demolish the old palace, isn't it equally questionable to demolish the newer version? It may be ugly, but as an architectural and historical example of the Communist regime in the GDR, it couldn’t be more representative of the epoch.
Closer to home, many of us regard it as criminal that the old post office at Pearl and Spring was demolished forty years ago to make room for a parking lot. In the ideal world, would we rebuild it the same way? I've heard proposals to build a three-story building on the spot, which would include adaptations of some design elements of the old post office, but to make it a modern building all the same. That strikes me as a judicious compromise.
I'm neither an architect nor a professional historian, but I comprehend that while it may have been a tragedy that older buildings disappeared to make room for newer ones, that these newer ones will, or might already, be considered examples of a certain period and a certain style. This topic is being examined around the world at present.
Consideration of such factors is precisely why we have an historical preservation commission, and why we agree as a community to include it in the decision making process.
Right?
You raise some interesting questions.
ReplyDeleteI am a history buff and travel a great deal to see historical places. I grew up in New Jersey and, like many places in the northeast, there are lots of historical buildings.
I'm not an expert, but I have some criteria I use to determine historical buildings.
First, was it the home of someone, for lack of a better word, 'historical?' Monticello, Mount Vernon, Thomas Edison's home and warehouse in West Orange, New Jersey, etc. Neil Armstrong's childhood home in Wapakoneta, Ohio. Okay, I used to live there, so I know where it is.
Secondly, was it a 'historic' place. Did something of note take place there. Old North Church in Boston. Independence Hall, etc.
Thirdly, is it, in itself an architectural masterpiece? Empire State Building, Biltmore in Asheville.
Fourthly, did the 'city' have a 'theme' going. Elfreth’s Alley in Philadelphia still maintains the same colonial motiff of the 18th century. People who purchase a home on that street have to abide by that.
I was recently in Asheville and they had an 'art deco' theme in the city. To rear down an art deco building in that city would be awful.
Frankly, I think that St. Marks two currently used buildings, the Sanctuary and Education Building really do reflect the architectural design of a specific era. (I am fascinated, btw, by pictures of the 'old buildings.' The older folks who were part of the decision in the late 1950's to replace the Sanctuary said it was heart breaking to take the old church down; but it's foundation was basically destroyed by the flood. Too bad. I like old church buildings a lot better than some of the modern day marvels...)
But I digress. My issue with the comments about the bank building is this. This building, frankly, may have an exterior that may reflect an era, but the building really doesn't. It was an 'add-on' special and, in and of itself, is not a special building.
I believe that communities need to have historic preservation groups. I truly do. I also believe that we need to articulate which buildings are, indeed, truly historic, from those that are old and, frankly, an eyesore.