NA Confidential: Beyond repair?

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Beyond repair?

In today's Tribune, the paper's editorial board offers an opinion on the progress (or lack thereof) of a new Floyd County Youth Shelter. Fair enough. Included in that piece, however, is the conclusion that the county's North Annex, currently utilized as the shelter, "has deteriorated beyond repair."

While I can understand suggesting that the Annex may not be the most suitable structure for a youth shelter, the above pronouncement suggests that the building retains no utility at all and should be torn down. Given that I don't remember (and can't seem to find) any Tribune report that documents any serious, "unrepairable" structural deficiencies putting the building at risk of collapse or presenting the building as an irremediable danger to the public, I find it puzzling that the board would find it necessary to make such a pronouncement as part of an argument for an alternative youth shelter location.

If anyone can point to Tribune reporting that provides evidence in support of a "beyond repair" claim, I'd appreciate it. Otherwise, what gives?

23 comments:

The New Albanian said...: Tick, tock. Tick, tock.; 11:21 AM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: As I've been reminded this morning, most of the problems reported at the Annex seem to be the result of many years of deferred maintenance rather than any inherent structural issues, i.e., the failings have been procedural and political, not physical.

Is it any wonder that some residents haven't been particularly excited by the prospect of forking over millions for a new shelter given the county's track record of caring for the existing one and that others feel much the same about losing a community asset for which we've already paid due to the same issue?

The bricks and mortar are holding up much better than the county reasoning proffered thus far. Like any good rehab endeavor, the first step is admitting you have a problem.; 11:46 AM
R is for Reason said...: Leah Pezzarossi here. The only real dog I have in this fight is finding an adequate home for the children who live at the shelter. I'm in a weird position in that I must advocate for a facility without running afoul of county officials and the very well-meaning preservationists. I am for a better facility regardless of what happens to this building. Many people who have an opinion about it haven't spoken to the people who work there. Our experience has been despite more than twenty visits from a roofing company, the building leaks like a sieve. For about three days after a good rain, the building smells like urine. Every annual inspection brings more and more serious issues. A ceiling actually came down in an office that was next to a bedroom. And yes, this is a long term home for frankly far too many kids. The need for spending money to put the kids somewhere else is apparent. The building was constructed in 1878, so the disrepair and lack of maintenance are really cumulative issues that should not impact the kids who must live there now. I am also extremely sincere when I say that the shelter advocates are fully prepared to embark on a fund raising campaign, so the county isn't on the line for all of it. We'd all prefer it that way as our current relationship with the county is one of cooperation in many areas, but one in which we enjoy much autonomy. For the record, I am for preservation of historic structures. I attended Presentation Academy, the oldest school in Louisville and would probably chain myself to it if it were threatened. I just hope this issue does not confuse the overall objective.; 1:38 PM
Daniel Short said...: I, as much as anyone on here, love the architecture and the old buildings downtown and around our area. However, just because a building has reached a certain age does not mean it is worthy of being saved, inhabited, or used for a shelter for children. I am not saying this building should be torn down either. Here is my stance: the building is not suitable for a shelter...ask anyone that is in any way connected to the situation. If preservationists want the building saved, then raise the funds to purchase it and rehab it.

The bottom line is that the building sits on a very valuable piece of property that the county owns. The value of said property could fund another shelter, help with more county office space and a miriad of other projects. Preservationists can't afford the price tag and no one has a good use for the building other than to tear it down, sell the property and watch a big box move in.

Good Day.; 2:01 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Thanks for participating, Leah.

There's been far too much said about the goals of a well-functioning youth shelter and reusing a structurally sound building as if they're mutually exclusive. Seemingly like you, I don't believe they are.
As I and others said a long time ago, framing it as such creates a rift and unproductive competition where none naturally exists. There are lots of people who support both a children's facility *and* the adaptive reuse of the Annex with the full realization that they're not necessarily the same thing.

The way the county has historically handled the situation has unfortunately made both more difficult.

If fund raising plans move forward, let us know.; 2:06 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Unfortunately, Daniel, the solution you offer doesn't do anything to actually solve the overarching problem: It's been county policy to let assets and preexisting investment deteriorate and dwindle in favor of abandoning them and spending even more money down the road on eventually having to replace them.

Though such ideas are often advanced under the banner of fiscal conservatism, they represent the opposite of responsible investment and efficient spending.

That type of behavior either stops at some point or we'll continue in an infinite cycle of waste. It shouldn't take historic preservation specialists to make that apparent. You'll notice that references to age and history appear nowhere in my arguments. History's a piece of it but just one piece.

Adaptive reuse isn't a special interest. Our general lack of it affects each of our pocketbooks everyday as we become responsible for a continually increasing amount of built environment in the absence of any corresponding population or tax base increase sufficient enough take up the slack. Ultimately, we end up paying both to create our own problems and the prescribed solutions to those problems.; 2:30 PM
R is for Reason said...: I will keep you updated about our progress and our fund raising. I am very grateful I have not encountered any "nattering nabobs" here. Too many people believe that the shelter is full of the "bad kids". In reality, it would be more accurate to say it is full of the poor kids. Whether we get a child for abuse/neglect or through juvenile probation doesn't really matter. They're all the same kids. I wanted to thank you all for not casting aspersions on our kids' characters.; 3:07 PM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: I think we're on the same or very similar page, Leah. A lot of us have spent time trying to improve the situations our community's children face, whether it be the development of a specific facility or the broader economic/cultural conditions that make such a facility necessary.

They're all part of the same whole (hole?) and I think better treated holistically rather than waiting until they reach individual crisis status, which is both more costly (in human as well financial capital) and less effective.

Good luck.; 3:27 PM
R is for Reason said...: Thanks and on a good day it's "whole"; on a bad day- "hole".; 3:34 PM
B.W. Smith said...: Forget the building for a minute. The land is prime county green space and sits adjacent to Community Park. In 20 years, everyone in the county will wish we had that back.

The idea that we make a quick buck and surrender the area to ugly big-box retail shows very poor vision and leadership among some at the county level. Other options always exist.

If only we had county leadership that thought past the next budget cycle...; 7:57 PM
The New Albanian said...: Thanks, Brandon, for making that point. I've been thinking it for the entire day.

The fact that Wal-Mart is across the street is an even more powerful argument NOT to go for the short-term bucks. Of course, when your leaders are used car salesmen, you really can't expect book learnin', can you?; 8:03 PM
R is for Reason said...: The most recent appraisal for the land was far less than what the county had anticipated. If there were ever a time to argue for its preservation as a green space, now is it.; 8:52 PM
The New Albanian said...: If a good argument for green space is made, and only county officials are in proximity, then does it really make a sound?; 8:59 PM
R is for Reason said...: Does the argument have some money?; 9:08 PM
Matt said...: what kind roof is on the building now?; 9:42 PM
R is for Reason said...: That is a good question, but, considering all of the various repairs and such, I couldn't tell you. It seems like thatch when it rains, though.; 9:55 PM
Daniel Short said...: Let me clarify that I was not advocating for a big box to move in. I was simply stating how I perceive the attitude of many on the council. They will hold the land until the market rebounds and then sell.

Jeff, I did not really offer a solution, only a perception.

The building is not suited for the purpose it now serves. The shelter needs to be located more toward the city where the greater need is.

Does anyone know if the building could be revamped into county offices? I feel that the cost of rehab, and any additions, would be less than starting from the ground up.; 4:25 AM
G Coyle said...: Mr Short - you seem predisposed to stack the inner city as high as possible with society's underclasses. Move those shelter kids downtown, open prison half way houses - downtown... sell green space, big boxes are inevitable... yikes! Do you hate downtown or something?

Reason - no one would argue the youth shelter could use more appropriate space. Does not the green space that the current shelter offers, give the kids some benefits? I also have to laugh when you list the structural issues with your 1879 building. The concept of maintaining things over time seems to have been swept away in the flood of 1937. Yes, it's true, old buildings need repairs, continually over time. The big problem here is for the last 50 years very well-built buildings have been hammered to death by inept, lazy, low-common denominator maintenance. When the repairs to really solid old buildings are done correctly, they last a long time. New Albany has literally turned itself into a ghetto over the past 50 years by sucking all the value out of our ancestors hard work - the buildings, the trees, the infrastructure of trains and streetcars...

WHEN WILL IT END?!; 11:09 AM
Jeff Gillenwater said...: Sorry, D, didn't realize you were being somewhat facetious. Good to know.

It would be interesting to sit down with youth shelter folks and some architects and thinkers other than the usual suspects to see what would happen when needs and informed creativity were blended outside of old school political considerations.

That's not a knock against the current architect, mind you, other than to acknowledge that the designer/client relationship is almost always funky, with client expectations a huge part of the equation.

In this case, that relationship is long standing with generally the same political class acting as client. I think a little fresh air could do the kids and the rest of us some good.

We already own a big ol' green space that could serve a lot of great purposes without doing damage to the space or the community.; 11:58 AM
w&la said...: Does this item on next Tuesday's Board of Zoning Appeals docket refer to the same "shelter" mentioned in this post?

LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT
The regular meeting of the New Albany Board of Zoning Appeals will be held on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 at 7:00 p.m., in the Assembly Room (Room 331) City-County Building, New Albany, Indiana, at which time a Public Hearing will be held to consider the following petitions:

Docket B-06-10: Upton Pry, Inc by Steve Pry requests a Special Exception to permit the relocation of the Floyd County Youth Services Center to an R-2, Urban Residential district, at 1702 Graybrook Lane.

I can't tell from the description. Thanks!; 5:17 PM
w&la said...: I believe the address mentioned is the "New Albany Country Club, Inc."; 5:18 PM
Daniel Short said...: Ok, this thread is getting long, so I will try to make this my wrap up comment.

Gina, I am not predisposed to any ideas. The statistics support that the greatest need, not the only need, but the greatest need for a shelter is near downtown. As a matter of logistics, it makes more sense to have the structure there. I love downtown and frequent it often. I am not a fan of big box stores either.

What I was attempting to do was to show the chain of thinking by many of the leaders in Floyd County. These ideas are in no way my ideas nor do I endorse them.

I have no problem with saving the building. My suggestion, as always, is for a more robust and detail oriented plan to be set forth on behalf of those that wish to save it. Running around shouting that all leaders want to do is tear it down will not stop them from doing just that.; 5:24 PM
R is for Reason said...: W-that is referring to the shelter, but we are all a bit baffled by it as Mr. Pry hasn't requested authorization to do this. I have never spoken with him. I appreciate his efforts as he has sparked more interest, but considering we are not a locked down facility (meaning the children are not locked inside), the proximity of that location to the housing projects would probably increase runaways. As I said, the most common characteristic of our kids is they come from poverty so many have family and/or friends in those projects. From the beginning I have wished we could stay right where we are because the green space is good for the kids. When that desire interferes with a building happening though, I have to let go of that. Downtown is not the most ideal, but proximity to the YMCA would be a benefit.
Also, about creativity with regards to planning- I won't comment on most of the last five years, but I promise that since County Planner Don Lopp has been coordinating this effort, we have explored a myriad of solutions. He's also demonstrated to me a determination to get something done. He would probably welcome creative solutions from anyone, so I'd encourage people to contact him with ideas. Just please, nothing that takes us right back to the very beginning. There are many well-intentioned people who don't realize the tremendous amount of research already put into options, and when they introduce something new, it tends to sidetrack efforts. What would be most helpful is suggestions on how to raise funds so the county's liability is as little as possible. Sorry to keep rambling!; 8:35 PM