New Albany Mayor Doug England wants to sell church, stable sites, by Daniel Suddeath (The Tribune).Mayor Doug England is asking the New Albany Redevelopment Commission to make the Baptist Tabernacle building available to private ownership interests today...
England is also requesting the historic Shrader Stable property — finished in 1875 — along Main Street be sold. The administration would like to develop stringent guidelines as to who can purchase the Tabernacle and Stable sites.
What's the best outcome? Tightly controlled development that seeks to protect the historic integrity and prime locations of the sites or undefined rehab and fixing the Tabernacle roof as Dan Coffey suggests? Or should the City sell them now at all?
15 comments:
At the risk of being redundantI'm going drag out this old saw once again.
Prior to moving forward we still need to decide where we're going.
On the one hand, I agree with the concept of preserving both of these existing buildings.
Provided of course that it is ecomonically feasible and can be done sooner rather than later.
I'm not an engineer but I've been around long enough to know that vacant unattended structures deteriorate at an alarmingly fast rate. Especially when exposed to the elements as both of these have been.
I personaly do not think the cith needs to "own" either one of them as it has neither the resources, in house expertise, nor desire to take care of them.
To move on, there needs to be a common understanding of what the city's needs and desires are as it pertains to office space.
At the last County Commissioners meeting the subject of the City/County/Jail building came up and the impression I got was;
(A) Some in that group at least are looking at the exiting structure becoming either the justice center/expanded jail, or razing it and starting from scratch, and
(B) Constructing a new office complex (possibly in the West end)to be a joint city/county venture.
On the other hand, what I hear from some in both the City Administration and Common Council is a desire to have a City Office complex that is totally independant from the County.
The point being there is still has been no widely discussed/agreed upon plan to move forward.
The other issue that I brought up some time ago is that as a community we still haven't decided how we want to present ourselves to outside investment.
In other words, we don't have a marketing plan.
All the while these and other buildings like them remain vacant thus some of our prime resources go unused/wasted.
And now, before anyone goes of the deep end, I'm not placing all of the blame on either the Administration/Council.
This is both a government and private sector issue and "We the People" are both the Government & the private sector!
The buildings are in historic districts, so the design guidelines are already in place.
Sell the buildings for $1 to buyer(s) who acknowledge their obligations under the preservation ordinance and who submit a preservation-minded reuse/rehab plan. Hire a real-estate lawyer like Dan Chandler to strucure the deal so that appropriate incentives/bonding exists to ensure the buyer complies.
Everybody wins.
Next?
Nice framing of the question Jeff. Can I try a one? Would you rather be hit by a truck or eat a piece of cake?
Where in the Tribune article did it say anything about "historic integrity" as part of the stringent requirements?
It doesn't nor did I say that it did.
Coffey has a long history of attacking preservation guidelines and the HPC to the extent of telling flat out lies about both in council meetings.
I think the historic integrity should be protected, though my opinion of what that means may differ from yours or others. Via consistent, first-hand observation and interaction, I don't believe Coffey cares one jot about integrity- historic or otherwise.
If you'd like to argue that he does, go right ahead.
Highwayman says he's not sure the city needs to own either structure. That's a fair conclusion to reach in light of the condition into which both structures have sunk.
On the other hand though, the City is the entity best suited to ensure that a historic structure survives and passes intact into the future. The City, any city, is for all intents and purposes, immortal. It is that immortality which allows it to take the long view. The City survives through the generations and provides a home to multiple generations, a home which, when shepherded properly, serves the present and the future. Because we build upon the past and because the past holds our shared history we, in the present, owe it to the future to deliver that heritage to our successors.
My affinity for the Tabernacle stems from a belief that the structure could be an important component in a vibrant civic campus. The campus would be comprised of the Tabernacle itself as some form of a public meeting hall for various boards and commissions,the Fire Department headquarters and an adjacent or nearby City Hall. This would address the space needs of the City and the County. It would revive the east end of downtown and it would serve as bookends to the downtown dispersing commerce more evenly throughout the downtown.
A possible benefit flowing from the civic re-use of the Tabernacle could be an appeal to renovate the building as part of the civic campus, but to also open the structure for wider community use. A certain charitble foundation might be motivated to upgrade the facility if wide community use were part of the package.
A good and a compatible use of the property along with City meeting space, would be as the home of a community theater. Both uses would require good seating and sound equipment. Both uses would be long term assets to the community and one could be seen as a valuable amenity.
Thank you, John, for so eloquently demonstrating the more thoughtful, historically sensitive side of the dichotomy used to frame a portion of the overall question.
I know at one point prior to the last non-city owner, a private individual had expressed interest in converting the Tabernacle into theater space. Unfortunately, that situation didn't work out and it lived for a while longer as light industrial space before going into foreclosure.
Like Lloyd, I've heard many suggestions and rumors about potential new City government offices.
Can you confirm at this point if the proposed sale of the Tabernacle means that your idea of utilizing the building for civic space is essentially over or are you suggesting that someone else may own the building and allow the City to use or rent space for meetings?
And if you want to drink the kool-ade poured by the executive branch, go right ahead.
Now, I don't really believe that. I know that statement is not fair and that's why I'm going to bow out for a while. I have too much respect for you and your efforts. This is headed the wrong way.
B.W. nailed it. This is a no brainer, which may be a stretch for this administration.
I think B.W.'s suggestion is the most expedient, provided the city can structure a deal within a reasonable time. i see the meta goal as putting the Tabernacle back together in a historically correct fashion, as a reuse, part of a mixed use campus per John Gonder, etc. Lot's of good ideas, but who can put the roof on and windows back and the restore the beauty and history ASAP. ASAP.
Since Roger's not here, I'll suggest that we might want to ponder what the building(s) could be in terms of example and usage prior to putting a traditional roof on it as if there's no alternative.
I'd like to see some creative suggestions beyond just trying to replicate what it once was.
The first thing we have to do is get the building appraised before the City can sell it to anyone.
As it turns out, Coffey set that process back a month already by refusing to second a motion yesterday.
I've suggested viewing the adaptive reuse of the Tabernacle as an opportunity to join New Albany with the global, Federal, and State commitment to alternative energy - green building, you know the schtick. New Albany is so behind the "green" curve as to have never gotten on it. I'd like to see a 501c3 org or LLC form to accomplish a green/historic rehab. Like a Green Lab. Get the units of higher learning involved with internships.
AS per the old Stable. Have to promote my idea for a mounted patrol on the Greenway using the old Stable as the HQ. Safety First!
That may be more feasible as Purdue gets their legs under them. I also noticed recently that JCC is hiring for someone to teach sustainable development courses as a part of some green jobs initiative.
Glass roof maybe? Rooftop garden or dining area?
Post a Comment