The New Albany Historic Preservation Commission voted this evening to permit the demolition of the early 1900s building acquired by St. Mark's UCC, which presently occupies the southeast corner of East Spring and Bank streets.
As reported to NAC, voting to permit the demolition were chairman Ted Fulmore, Vicky Nugent, the Cedar Bough rep (Randy???), and Maury Goldberg. Opposing the motion were Brandon Smith, Mark Sanders, and Bill Transue. Members Scharlow and Barksdale did not register votes.
We open the thread for discussion, if not speculation, as to how the commission came to this judgment. Reports say that Mr. Smith made an impassioned and logical defense of the ordinance, but was unable to persuade a majority.
Comments at this point by members would be welcomed, especially now that there is no pending vote before the commission with regard to the St. Mark's intent.
I believe it is safe to say that the editors of NAC are disappointed, and for now, we leave further commentary to our readers.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
I am pleased that entirely alone among local media outlets, NAC kept this issue alive amid confusing and contradictory signals issued by some city officials.
I'm also pleased that John Manzo took the time to address the issues and to explain the church's position, although I persist in thinking that owing to David Barksdale's honorable withdrawal from his church's debate, that perhaps the case against demolition wasn't entirely presented prior to the church's vote.
With all due respect to John and Alan Mason, who I spoke to at length one afternoon, the oft-cited fact that the church democratically voted, while admirable in some ways, seems strange in that it voted in favor of opting out of local regulation.
At a time when we're trying to build a community of compliance, the church's stance was "our way or the highway," those words being mouthed by a lawyer hired for the purpose, and whose presence was not designed to further discussion.
The church leaders seem not to realize that they may have helped establish an unhealthy precedent with respect to downtown and whether we can have community standards of preservation. The church got its way; so be it. But at what price?
Of course, the healthy precednt would be for the church finally to build something on those many square yards of blank ground where previous demolitions have already occurred. That John alluded to this in a recent church newsletter is encouraging to me.
Any thought of returning to the prayer garden concept?
First, just because they have permission to tear it down doesn't mean they have to. It's not too late. At the very least, I think another discussion and vote, including David Barksdale's input, would be in order.
Barring that most positive outcome, I think the church should commission a contemporary sculpture for the space-- a large public art installation honoring the struggle of gays and lesbians against "Christian" bigotry. Kraft should donate his legal fees towards that commission.
And, no, I'm not joking. It would be a beacon of hope birthed from a grim circumstance.
Greenspace would get my vote if the structure is to be flattened.
Also make it a theme for ALL faiths and religous beliefs to enjoy.
The HPC has been working with St. Mark’s on this issue since February. There has been great patience and understanding shown by all involved. Unique circumstances and very limited precedent concerning this specific scenario has made this a struggle.
When the map for the Downtown historic district was adopted, this building was rated as a non-contributing structure. All buildings in the district received a rating – Outstanding, Notable, Contributing, or Non-Contributing. A classification of Non-Contributing essentially means the building “has been altered in such a way that they have lost their historic character..” and ‘these properties are not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places” – 151.01, B, 4, Historic Preservation Ordinance for the City of New Albany. Non-Contributing structures are considered non-historic.
The Preservation Ordinance provides an added layer of protection of “historic” buildings in section 151.10. Should the HPC deny a demolition request for a “historic” building this provision would provide a property owner an avenue to still seek a demolition request. St. Marks was given this option by the HPC as a way to assist them by giving them more options. However, the language in this provision is specific to “historic” buildings. Does the provision apply to “non-historic” structures? This was one issue the HPC sought advice on.
We also dealt with the question of what standards apply to the demolition of non-historic buildings. Section 151.08 deals with the visual compatibility of changes to all structures in the historic districts – historic and non-historic. It is very clear that all buildings require a Certificate of Appropriateness – historic and non-historic. Changes to non-historic buildings can negatively impact the character of the historic district, which is why it is important that they be reviewed. But the ordinance and supporting state statute are silent on demolition. Arguments can be made either way on whether that was the intent of the drafters or not.
These were the two primary issues we dealt with and sought guidance on. In the end, the HPC collected as much information as possible, weighed its options and made its decision last evening.
I am as disappointed as anyone that another building is being lost downtown. Another hole is being created. Especially when there was an understanding that other options were (and still may be) available.
Going forward, the HPC and this community will have challenges to deal with. Housing quality issues and lack of aggressive code enforcement are on the top of the list. I believe the HPC does and will play an important role in addressing these issues. The Commission will continue to do its job to the best the best of its ability.
In the last year, nearly 50 applicants have appeared before the HPC. I believe the overwhelming majority of the applicants were pleased with the process and thankful that a review process is in place for exterior work to all structures in the historic districts.
In fact, if any of those applicants are reading now, please feel free to provide your feedback here or directly to me via email. The HPC is planning a self-assessment review session this year and a community survey will likely be part of that assessment. Get a jump on that process by commenting on the role we play in this community and how that role should change in the future.
I should also note that the HPC has accomplished much in the last year including, but not limited to, the application for and awarding of our Preserve America designation, the awarding of a CLG grant for three local neighborhoods to be added to the National Register of Historic Places, the application for and awarding of the Southern Indiana Community Legacy Award, planning and organizing Preservation Month activities, and the planning and organization of a Historic Home Tour scheduled for Saturday, September 9th.
Ted Fulmore
New Albany Historic Preservation Commission, Chairperson
"I think the church should commission a contemporary sculpture for the space" Bluegill wrote. I like the public "truth and reconciliation" art idea. How 'bout a sculpture called "miracle of Science" with two equations inscribed below that: 2+2=4
and God=Love
As a preservationist I err on the side of saving everything, but sometimes we have to swallow hard and take our best shot and I think lots of people gave thoughtful intelligent testimony about this St Mark's demo issue. I'm proud of that process...as much as I actually saw of it, and hope more local conflicts can be argued and resolved with as much respect for the differing viewpoints. I dare say that nasty accusation of "Politics" was absent this time around.
2 + 2 = 4?
Dan Coffey will never go for that; his junk shop's only a block away, and evidently you're one of those over educated pointy-heads that Danny has to regularly shame when they come before the council with all their high-falutin' knowledge.
Could the sculpture have a Bazooka Joe University theme, instead?
Post a Comment