Main Street loses its steeple?

[sheclown]

as posted on myspringfield

We have somewhat of a tragedy on our hands. You may have seen published in the SHEC newsletter, buildings having two addresses and therefore counted twice. This happened at corners.
You may have noticed that the steeple has gone from the church at 8th and Main. It was taken down, not needing a COA, since it was believed that it was not a contributing building. Sadly the building had two addresses, one on 8th, which was the Sunday School and one on Main which was the church. The permission to take down the steeple was done under the 8th Street address, which was not a contributing address. Had it been checked further it would have been found out that the portion on which the steeple proudly stood was included in the survey and should have come under strict guidelines. Under the present circumstances they are not required to replace the steeple. We do not know if this can be changed without a challenge which would probably finish up before the city council. At the moment we have lost an important part of our Main Street skyline.

Chris Farley
     
    Posts: 619
    Joined: Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:26 pm

http://www.myspringfield.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1968&p=15124#p15124

Apparently there has been some misunderstanding around the location of this steeple? 

If Springfield has indeed lost this very important part of its historic fabric, and lost it to such an idiotic mistake (the educational building....?  Does it even have a steeple?  Exactly how many steeples are on Main Street?  How is there any confusion?)

...you simply must, at the end of the day, ask yourself, "why is the city of Jacksonville so eager to knock down Springfield?"

[vicupstate]

What is the churches' motivation for removing it?

[sheclown]

23 W 8TH ST
Property Detail
RE #    071811-0000
Tax District    USD1
Property Use   7100 CHURCH
# of Buildings    1
Legal Desc.    2-4 37-2S-26E 1.120
SPRINGFIELD
Subdivision   01188 SRINGFELD S/D BLK 3,5,9 ,
Total Area    48719
Characteristics    Historic Designation

from the property record card

http://apps.coj.net/PAO_PropertySearch/Basic/Detail.aspx?RE=0718110000

[sheclown]

What is the churches' motivation for removing it?

Don't have a clue.  One guess would be financial reasons?  Cheaper to remove than repair?  But who knows?

[fsujax]

Once the original congregation moved on, those who took over let that church fall into complete disrepair. A sad thing. They should have not been allowed to remove it. They should have been made to repair it. When I saw it the other day, my heart sank.

[uptowngirl]

What is the churches' motivation for removing it?

Don't have a clue.  One guess would be financial reasons?  Cheaper to remove than repair?  But who knows?

What does it matter? Homeowners are constantly harrassed over the wrong window, or porch, or brick. They spend thousands to replace these items, in fines, etc.  The church is no different, it is a contributor. The steeple needs to be replaced, or a close reproduction needs to be put up (as approved by the HPC).

[sheclown]

[strider]

This was obviously an administratively approved COA or else we would have known about it.  We have been told it was approved due to the structure on 8th street not being contributing.  I would imagine that someone failed to even look at the file if this was the case.  A quick review of the historic district amp shows that the building is indeed within the historic district and under the historic guidelines.  The property record card for the 8th street address (the only one used today) indicated a build date of 1935.  There is no reason why this church should have ever been considered non contributing.  Until we have a copy of the COA (12-209) we will not know for sure.

Administratively approved COA's can be appealed.  They are appealed to the HPC.  However, one has to know about it first.  There does not seem like a functional method in place of notifying the public about theses administratively approved COA's. There should be.  At the very least, a list should be sent out to the various organizations and interested parties stating the basic reason for the COA and it needs to be done well within the time period allowed for appealing that COA.  But that is a future issue to address.

This issue needs to be resolved. Either the church exceeded it's COA and should be brought to task for it .  This possibility is based on the fact that the permit says repair and then on 05/23/12 they submitted plans to fix the hole in the roof from removing the steeple. The second possibility is that the historic department screwed up and then the city should be required to correct the issue. 

[fsujax]

Something needs to be done. This is ridiculos.

[Lunican]

This is pretty ridiculous.

Here is a full view of the church from a few years ago.

[fsujax]

Several years ago, they came in a covered all the windows, columns, etc on the steeple with siding. Now this.

[sheclown]

scenario one:  The steeple is being repaired off-site (frankly seems the most logical) and will be replaced.

scenario two:  The steeple got knocked over, oops, like so many "accidental" demolitions.  "Honestly, it was much worse than we expected."  The church exceeded the scope of its COA and now will need to replace the steeple, pure and simple.

scenario three: a COA was accidentally approved to remove the steeple in which case the city will need to replace the missing steeple.

[iloveionia]

A community can be spotted by the steeple on a church.  Think the England countryside dotted with little villages, defined by the church. 

A visit to the church and a friendly (no sarcasm) inquiry conversation needs to be had. 

[Barnaby808]

Too bad. My parents were married in that church in the 60's. My grandparents were married in the old church that was next to it but was demolished.

[sheclown]

Anyone checked on Craig's List for the missing steeple?