It's interesting to go back a few years and recall the issue of the day, and I'll try to throw one of these out every now and then. Consider it a follow-up of sorts, even if such reconsiderations are not common in the local media.R.I.P.: The Swiss Cheese effect claims another downtown victim.
This is the last I’ll have to say about the St. Marks demolition issue; what’s done is done, and there are times when it’s best to move on, though not without a handful of photographic observations.
The question now is, have opinions changed in the 5 years since?
ReplyDeleteThere needs to be one more picture--today's view. To get the complete picture--so to speak.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion hasn't changed even though I readily admit that the corner is very nice now.
ReplyDeleteThe complaint then as it very often is now was about process. How we go about making these types of decisions is what defines us a community. In the years since, that process has arguably gotten worse, not better.
It's only when we change the paradigm rather than just the players will we be able to truly claim progress in the public affairs realm.
Sure thing. I'm walking down there in an bit and will take an "after" shot.
ReplyDelete"After" photos have been added.
ReplyDeleteThe legal issue was, under the rather poorly-drafted local ordinance and state preservation statute, whether the Visual Compatibility guidelines (Section 151.08) applied to the demolition of a building that was classified as "non-contributing" but whose demolition may or may not have met those guidelines due to the impact the demolition would have had on the district as a whole. [There are two types of "non-contributing" buildings - historic and non-historic - Section 151.04(D) - the guidelines apply to just about everything you could possibly do to a non-contributing building, but demolition is not expressly mentioned] The implication being that, if no guidelines apply, then any demolition of a "non contributing" building is automatically approved.
ReplyDeleteThe issue was not so much whether the building itself was an architectural treasure, but whether, absent any plan to replace it, its demolition would negatively impact the district to such an extent as to deny a COA. Thankfully, St. Marks has done a nice job with the property.
It was probably the most complex issue to face the HPC at the time.
In hindsight one thing became really evident. That old bank building was an eyesore and a piece of fecal matter. It's removal completely changed the light inside the church and dramatically changed the view of the stained glass windows. It also highlight the church, which actually has an architectural design. I guess my problem with the building issues is this. There is a huge difference between buildings that are 'old' and buildings that are 'historic.' Maybe it's growing up in the northeast where this process is often painstaking. I can't fathom how anyone can think that piece of craps demolition hurt the downtown.
ReplyDeleteThe word "historic" has been so overused and abused that it's essentially meaningless. New Albany moving just a shade past it as a central theme would be a "historic" occurrence.
ReplyDeleteNew t-shirt:
Welcome to post-historic New Albany
Thanks for the extra photos, Roger. Same to Brandon for the law.
ReplyDeleteSeems that most, if not all, agree that the end result is positive. Where's the first place to start to improve the process?
I think the first process improvement step would be the consistent application of whatever codes/regulations are on the books. A second would be a review and attempted clarification of those codes in order to avoid the sort of questions Brandon mentioned. A third would be the adoption of form based codes that don't necessarily hinge on contributing/non-contributing status to a "historic" district. Preservation districts can work well in addition to but not really instead of other land use and building policy.
ReplyDeleteWhether or not the building in question here was "historic" or not was never the primary question but became a central part of the debate owing to a lack of non-historic related code to address it in its urban environment.
This may or may not be relevant, but it occurred to me as I was walking past the parking lot with the tank facing Main Street (VFW? Legion?)
ReplyDeleteThe bank building may not have been historic, but it preserved the contours of the streetscape. It butted right up against the sidewalk. I miss that.
My complaint (if any) with the St Marks action/demolition plan over the years is that now, the church is almost entirely surrounded by blank, open space -- suitable for the exurb, not for the more dense urban core. With all due respect to John Manzo, it's something I'm not sure the church as ever addressed.
When the VFW/Legion complained about the master plan's mention of brownstones facing Main, am I the only one who thought: Think what they could build facing the street, while preserving the bulk of their parking inside the block.
Why can't we have parking inside the streetscape, and not always create huge vacant spots?
That's very relevant, Roger. There's just not a very good way to discuss or debate a project based on those streetscape principles under our current legal framework, thus leaving us groping for "historic" language that may or may not be applicable.
ReplyDeleteJohn, you are assuming the building would not have been purchased and refurbished. Several nearby "piece of crap" buildings, historic and not so historic, have been refurbished since then. The streetscape there would be much more in line with the district guidelines, in my opinion, were the bank building or new construction anchoring the corner. But this was the minority view that lost out.
ReplyDeleteThe upside is, St. Marks made the space beautiful, and any future new construction would still be subject to visual compatibility guidelines. So, it turned out well for everyone. Hindsight, you know.
I think that I follow the comments here(I appreciate it)but I'm confused about at least one thing. A building(even a "nice" one)butted up against the sidewalk is preferable to green space?
ReplyDeleteI'm going to guess that is not true but it's not been mentioned either.
It is true. Maintaining density (mass, scale, and arrangement) in the urban grid is important.
ReplyDeleteKeep in mind, that lot turned out to be well landscaped green space because St. Marks voluntarily made it so. There was no requirement for them to do that. Based on the interpretation of the guidelines/law chosen, we could just as well be looking at a gravel lot for 50 years with no recourse.
Good discussion. I have no problem with people who disagree or agree with the church's decision. It was actually, internally, a volatile decision within the church. There was a large minority in the church who wanted to sell the building and the buyers would have, I know, done a major reconstruction of the facility and it would have looked nice. I used the term 'historic' because that was the word used with me at the time. I also understand that, over the years, St. Marks has torn a lot of buildings down and we have a large footprint in the heart of the city. There are some other things I'd like to say.
ReplyDeleteFirst, that corner was developed into a pleasant and nice area. It has most recently been the site of Daniel Graham's art display and we will be having another art disply on our property on the next go around, though probably not there. We did not want to have an eyesore on that corner no matter which direction we chose.
Secondly, we have done a major capital improvement campaign which will not be seen much from the outside of our Education Building, but will be a major downtown boost. We are expanding our Clothe Closet and our kitchen for our outreach. We are also having a state of the art geo-thermal system put in the building and we will be one of the first, if not the first, large facilities going this route. Next year you'll see them digging wells in our parking lot and getting this done. I think it'll be something we can take pride in.
Thirdly, St. Marks is still a vital part of the downtown. We participate in downtown functions, support downtown businesses, and do an incredible amount of outreach to those in need. Our Clothes Closet has given out, I believe, over 20,000 articles of clothing this year and our Soup Kitchen serves well over 100 people weekly. Every February, our health fair, which offers real services, brings in hundreds of people. We have been and remain an historic and vital presence in the downtown.
Thus endeth my sermon. :-)
I understand that St. Marks could have put in a gravel lot and that "hole" needs to be corrected. It's just that, to me, there is no comparison in the way the corner looked before and the way it looks now. That's just visually. Doesn't take into account ecological and psychological benefits.
ReplyDeleteUnderstood that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Also,I'm fully aware that my knowledge of urban design is next to zero. If that is not the spot for green space, what would be? Just in "back"?
I don't think anyone is arguing that pocket parks like the one at St. Marks aren't valuable within urban settings or that some of those parks might be more aesthetically pleasing than some buildings.
ReplyDeleteThe issue is that we already have acres upon acres downtown from which to make those parks without demolishing a single building so that knocking something down and giving up even more density to create one tends to be overall bad strategy.
More flat, open spaces downtown is not advantageous to us as a city or county. We have too many poorly used ones as is. But, if we allow it at St. Marks, how can we then deny it elsewhere?
Mark - go read section 151.08 and the dilemma will make more sense. The massing of buildings, density, continuity of street scape, etc. is a big part of urban historic districts. They are tough standards to try and apply in this type of situation.
ReplyDeleteI don't dispute that NA's rules need to be more clear. And enforced equally, of course.
ReplyDeleteJust out of curiosity, since it has no bearing on this situation, is there a grandfather clause for existing owners at the time of passage?
On something of a side note. Say New Albany wanted to have a protest like Occupy Wall Street. Where would it be legal downtown? Just a rhetorical question as I don't imagine people here would ever protest anything, but I'm thinking of how relevant "public space" becomes when dissent is necessary on a "rally" scale? Given what's happening around the country, St Mark's and it's green space might be the only "legal" protest space there is. This happens quite often in history.
ReplyDelete