(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/churchsteeple.jpg)
Quoteas 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?"
What is the churches' motivation for removing it?
Quote23 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
Quote from: vicupstate on June 13, 2012, 04:37:52 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: sheclown on June 13, 2012, 07:12:39 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 13, 2012, 04:37:52 AM
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).
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-13-0754-10-1.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-13-0754-54.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-13-0755-19.jpg)
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.
Something needs to be done. This is ridiculos.
This is pretty ridiculous.
Here is a full view of the church from a few years ago.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6519-p1150245.JPG)
Several years ago, they came in a covered all the windows, columns, etc on the steeple with siding. Now this.
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.
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.
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.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/churchnosteeple.jpg)
Anyone checked on Craig's List for the missing steeple?
http://www.churchsteeples.com/Products/Steeples.aspx?gclid=CJ6MsqWozLACFUHatgod4iJsVQ
In case anyone needs to know.
They do take credit cards.
Quote from: sheclown on June 13, 2012, 06:42:52 PM
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/churchnosteeple.jpg)
Anyone checked on Craig's List for the missing steeple?
Oh my GOD!
It looks like it was beheaded :'(
Our society will not be remembered by the monuments we have built, but by those we've torn down. (Or in this case, mutilated)
I noticed the Steeple was missing a couple weeks ago.. thought possibly it was removed to be repaired? ( Makes sense..it would be REALLY hard to repair in place up on the Church.
This happens to be one of my favorite Brick Church Structures.. I believe it was once called Main St. Baptist Church .
Has anyone contacted the Church to see what the situation is with the steeple being removed?
If this is the City's error, I completely agree the City needs to , POST HASTE , make this right.
It could also be that the Church is having financial difficulties and cannot afford , for now , to repair or replace the steeple.
In any case, I hope it will be restored. it is a beautiful old Church Building...
Just a side note and sign of the times... the Wrought Iron Fence around it , I presume is to help keep vandals and taggers away.. pretty sad but the era we live in.
Yes, the church has been contacted -- our favorite attorney did that. Waiting to hear back.
Financial difficulties are not an excuse here. Besides, there was steel girder-work supporting it so how bad could it have been?
Quote from: sheclown on June 13, 2012, 03:13:39 AM
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/churchsteeple.jpg)
Quoteas 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?"
It looks like the church is not a contributing building afterall. There is a beautiful postcard of the church that was there before the current one linked to that thread. I wish that was still there.
Shame on this congregation for destroying an important symbol in our neighborhood. I am sure they could have raised funds to repair the steeple. Almost all churches go through fundraising campaigns to make capital improvements, why couldn't they have done it?
Why don't you ask them before you start making accusations?
Here was the previous church at 8th & Main in 1958:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/770863409_m9tXg-M.jpg)
That was a lovely piece of the landscape of historic Springfield that will sorely be missed.
I just talked to Joel.
Believe it or not, the steeple and its church is non-contributing and therefore gets no protection.
But it is shameful to have done this... on the church's part, on the city's part. Perhaps we could have helped saved the steeple if given some warning or a chance to raise some funds.
Now, it is gone. I didn't hear any hope for replacements.
Anyone check the scrap metal places? Perhaps there is a steeple belonging to the people of Springfield lying in the back.
Has anyone thought to ask the church why they chose to remove it instead of repairing it? The cost to remove it and repair the roof was $58k, it could be that there were some serious structural issues with it and the cost to repair it was significantly higher than the $58k it was going to take to remove it so they chose to remove it instead of repairing it.
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/churchfrommainst.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-14-1750-50.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-14-1751-34.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-14-1751-59.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-14-1752-25.jpg)
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/2012-06-14-1752-53.jpg)
By ordinance one has 21 days to appeal a COA decision. This expires tomorrow.
I say we fight this. We argue that the steeple, by its very nature, is contributing and that the COA be rescinded. Let's go on record fighting this.
It will cost $300. to fight it. If you are interested in contributing or in fighting, let me know, PM me.
Furthermore, the neighborhood was robbed of its ability to save the steeple by due process of appeal. The work should not have begun until after the appeal period.
Quote from: sheclown on June 14, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
By ordinance one has 21 days to appeal a COA decision. This expires tomorrow.
I say we fight this. We argue that the steeple, by its very nature, is contributing and that the COA be rescinded. Let's go on record fighting this.
It will cost $300. to fight it. If you are interested in contributing or in fighting, let me know, PM me.
Furthermore, the neighborhood was robbed of its ability to save the steeple by due process of appeal. The work should not have begun until after the appeal period.
I guess you haven't spoken with the church to see why the steeple was removed instead of repaired.
Quote from: stephendare on June 14, 2012, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: carpnter on June 14, 2012, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 14, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
By ordinance one has 21 days to appeal a COA decision. This expires tomorrow.
I say we fight this. We argue that the steeple, by its very nature, is contributing and that the COA be rescinded. Let's go on record fighting this.
It will cost $300. to fight it. If you are interested in contributing or in fighting, let me know, PM me.
Furthermore, the neighborhood was robbed of its ability to save the steeple by due process of appeal. The work should not have begun until after the appeal period.
I guess you haven't spoken with the church to see why the steeple was removed instead of repaired.
And this would be important for what reason?
Would the Steeple NOT need to be taken down to be repaired? ( Assuming this is actually what is being done) Would it not be much more expensive to repair it in place?
This is what non-contributing looks like folks...
(http://i860.photobucket.com/albums/ab165/sheclown/non-contributingsteeple.jpg)
There are no plans to repair the steeple and replace it. The COA states DEMOLITION.
I cringed:
"Demolish Steeple"
Man. That's a serious red flag.
Only in Springfield, only in Springfield.
I am waiting patiently to hear if the church is rebuilding.
We ought to start a fundraiser to rebuild that steeple.
$$$ Help them make money.
Bring back that steeple.
Quote from: iloveionia on June 14, 2012, 08:43:33 PM
I cringed:
"Demolish Steeple"
Man. That's a serious red flag.
Only in Springfield, only in Springfield.
I am waiting patiently to hear if the church is rebuilding.
We ought to start a fundraiser to rebuild that steeple.
$$$ Help them make money.
Bring back that steeple.
How much are we talking to replace said steeple? Never heard of a Church removing one permanently, and the only thing that makes sense in this case is that they could not afford to fix it?
Still .. it had to be expensive just to get a Crane to take it off.
I would contribute to a replacement .
Quote from: Timkin on June 14, 2012, 08:16:09 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 14, 2012, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: carpnter on June 14, 2012, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 14, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
By ordinance one has 21 days to appeal a COA decision. This expires tomorrow.
I say we fight this. We argue that the steeple, by its very nature, is contributing and that the COA be rescinded. Let's go on record fighting this.
It will cost $300. to fight it. If you are interested in contributing or in fighting, let me know, PM me.
Furthermore, the neighborhood was robbed of its ability to save the steeple by due process of appeal. The work should not have begun until after the appeal period.
I guess you haven't spoken with the church to see why the steeple was removed instead of repaired.
And this would be important for what reason?
Would the Steeple NOT need to be taken down to be repaired? ( Assuming this is actually what is being done) Would it not be much more expensive to repair it in place?
Someone said there was a steel structure supporting that steeple, if that is the case then it was a permanent attachment and not something you can buy and add to the building. That steeple was nearly as tall as the church itself was so there was some significant structural framing supporting it.
The reason someone should ask is because they could have had the steeple inspected (there could have been a problem inside the building below the steeple) and discovered that there were severe structural problems with it and the cost to repair it may have been significantly higher than removing it.
Quote from: carpnter on June 14, 2012, 10:19:05 PM
Quote from: Timkin on June 14, 2012, 08:16:09 PM
Quote from: stephendare on June 14, 2012, 07:11:14 PM
Quote from: carpnter on June 14, 2012, 06:44:16 PM
Quote from: sheclown on June 14, 2012, 06:36:07 PM
By ordinance one has 21 days to appeal a COA decision. This expires tomorrow.
I say we fight this. We argue that the steeple, by its very nature, is contributing and that the COA be rescinded. Let's go on record fighting this.
It will cost $300. to fight it. If you are interested in contributing or in fighting, let me know, PM me.
Furthermore, the neighborhood was robbed of its ability to save the steeple by due process of appeal. The work should not have begun until after the appeal period.
I guess you haven't spoken with the church to see why the steeple was removed instead of repaired.
And this would be important for what reason?
Would the Steeple NOT need to be taken down to be repaired? ( Assuming this is actually what is being done) Would it not be much more expensive to repair it in place?
Someone said there was a steel structure supporting that steeple, if that is the case then it was a permanent attachment and not something you can buy and add to the building. That steeple was nearly as tall as the church itself was so there was some significant structural framing supporting it.
The reason someone should ask is because they could have had the steeple inspected (there could have been a problem inside the building below the steeple) and discovered that there were severe structural problems with it and the cost to repair it may have been significantly higher than removing it.
You're guessing at excuses.
Meanwhile what we know for a fact is they've demolished a contributing historic structure.
What is at issue here is
1.) the fact that such a huge defining feature of the neighborhood was demolished without any notice or public hearing and
2.) the fact that this feature could be classified as non-contributing when it clearly "stands out" as the epicenter of Springfield. And if this structure is non-contributing, what else is out there and classified as such without any protection whatsoever?
All COAs are appeal-able and as such ought to be properly noticed. This one clearly was not.
The neighborhood is not without its resources. Come out on any volunteer day and you will be run over by folks ready, able and willing to help. We could have helped with fund-raising, labor, volunteer work anything had we been given an opportunity -- notice of the impending doom of the steeple would have been the right thing to do.
The city should have noticed the community.
QuoteFurthermore, the neighborhood was robbed of its ability to save the steeple by due process of appeal. The work should not have begun until after the appeal period.
Like the Seinfeld episode, 'holding' a reservation is a very important part of 'making' a reservation. Without 'holding' a reservation, you don't really have a reservation.
This is a huge gap in the ordinance and in the effort to protect historic structures, should be remedied ASAP.
I do think it matters what the church has to say as to their reasoning, that should be done pronto if an effort is going to be made to rebuild/replace the steeple. Also, any building over 50 years old should be considered 'contributing'.
From my talk with Joel, clearly the church did not have funds to repair the steeple and the contractor stated (with pictures I have not seen yet) that the damage was more extensive than first believed.
Be that as it may, there should have been a public notice.
Extensive damage because of lack of maintenance. It was negelected by the owners. Just look at the soffit, that was rotting off and falling on the sidewalk, I mean they couldnt even keep the church cleaned, it needs a good pressure washing and new paint.
Quote from: fsujax on June 15, 2012, 08:11:57 AM
Extensive damage because of lack of maintenance. It was negelected by the owners. Just look at the soffit, that was rotting off and falling on the sidewalk, I mean they couldnt even keep the church cleaned, it needs a good pressure washing and new paint.
I'm sure that many a good church has been very hard hit during the past couple of years. Any church worth its salt has put its money into helping those hurt by the economy. I can only imagine the draw on the resources that this economic crisis has caused.
I don't think we need to attack the church.
The problem is that the neighborhood was not given notice by the city and the city did not protect the historic fabric "contributing" or not.
With notice, there could have been fund-raising attempts, volunteering, help from people willing to do so.
Now, after the fact, repair and replacement is much more difficult and expensive, if not impossible.
This is what is so disturbing to me.
I am not attacking them. Just pointing out a fact. I remember seeing the church when I was a kid, it was beautiful. I am willing to help out anyway I can. I just think for the steeple it is too late.
So ..... back to the question.. What became of the Steeple? was it destroyed? Where is it ?
Quote from: Timkin on June 15, 2012, 10:53:21 AM
So ..... back to the question.. What became of the Steeple? was it destroyed? Where is it ?
Most likely it was taken down and the steel sold as scrap metal.
I think it is safe to say the Jacksonville considers Springfield non-contributing the the city, so any demolition is fine and dandy. This is really sad. Too many of the churches in Springfield have been altered, or no longer used. They are all significant structures of the community.
Quote from: mbwright on June 15, 2012, 02:19:17 PM
I think it is safe to say the Jacksonville considers Springfield non-contributing the the city, so any demolition is fine and dandy. This is really sad. Too many of the churches in Springfield have been altered, or no longer used. They are all significant structures of the community.
ding! ding! ding!
spot on.
as it was said in another thread, maybe even on another site, just line up the bulldozers at 20th Street, and raze it all into Hogan's Creek.
It is what the city wishes anyway.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2012, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: iloveionia on June 15, 2012, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: mbwright on June 15, 2012, 02:19:17 PM
I think it is safe to say the Jacksonville considers Springfield non-contributing the the city, so any demolition is fine and dandy. This is really sad. Too many of the churches in Springfield have been altered, or no longer used. They are all significant structures of the community.
ding! ding! ding!
spot on.
as it was said in another thread, maybe even on another site, just line up the bulldozers at 20th Street, and raze it all into Hogan's Creek.
It is what the city wishes anyway.
This is a major problem.
And it should become a major problem for every asshat down the line of succession that had anything to do with clearing a demolition of this magnitude, starting with the historic preservation commission and rolling downhill to the permitting department.
How in seven fucking hells do you allow something this prominent to the skyline of a historic district to be "accidentally" permitted for demolition without even talking to the alleged historic district?
That's it.
I hate to splash cold water on the idea that the city doesnt care about Springfield. But the city has invested more money in the one square mile of Springfield hd over the past 15 years than any other square mile in the city because it has been seen as very important to downtown growth. It is the first example of the city reclaiming a neighborhood and it has worked as planned. A reinvestment is needed because of Main St conundrum but the residential housing side of things is doing ok considering the market.
Quote from: stephendare on June 15, 2012, 03:16:33 PM
Quote from: iloveionia on June 15, 2012, 03:07:31 PM
Quote from: mbwright on June 15, 2012, 02:19:17 PM
I think it is safe to say the Jacksonville considers Springfield non-contributing the the city, so any demolition is fine and dandy. This is really sad. Too many of the churches in Springfield have been altered, or no longer used. They are all significant structures of the community.
ding! ding! ding!
spot on.
as it was said in another thread, maybe even on another site, just line up the bulldozers at 20th Street, and raze it all into Hogan's Creek.
It is what the city wishes anyway.
This is a major problem.
And it should become a major problem for every asshat down the line of succession that had anything to do with clearing a demolition of this magnitude, starting with the historic preservation commission and rolling downhill to the permitting department.
How in seven fucking hells do you allow something this prominent to the skyline of a historic district to be "accidentally" permitted for demolition without even talking to the alleged historic district?
That is a good question
Im a lost. Do we know what ACTUALLY happened or are we still speculating at this point?
Quote from: duvaldude08 on June 15, 2012, 05:31:28 PM
Im a lost. Do we know what ACTUALLY happened or are we still speculating at this point?
I suppose someone at the Church could clarify this. That they would just be able to destroy (speculating) the steeple makes no sense at all. Why would they WANT to do this to their own building?
Even more disturbing is that a demolition like this is done "FASTER THAN FAST-TRACK" as if public input matters not. It makes me painfully aware yet again that a few people are making bad decisions on behalf of the people and destroying or greatly altering our landmarks , and they DO NOT GIVE A DAMN what we think, nor are they going to wait around for us to protest.
ASSUMING this is what actually has happened to the steeple.
I have no idea what repairing it would cost, but again I would gladly have chipped in. Not that myself or any of us are rolling in money.
There is a link in the first comment of this topic. It says it was being repaired but it was worse than they thought. Read it
Okay.......... SO ...
1) Perhaps we should do a fund-raiser to help the Church replace the Steeple? ( I wholeheartedly agree IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE STEEPLE REPLACED
2) What can I do to help?
While 100 eager people walked around in the hot summer sun with clip boards jotting down broken sidewalks and graffiti on street signs…one week earlier the city had quietly allowed the largest visual blight to occur in Springfield, ever. And the city kept its secret until it was all over and too late to do anything about it.
I'd like my clipboard back. I'd like to add "missing steeple" on that list.
It just seems that the community of Springfield deserves more respect.
When the COA was submitted and it stated in large print nice and bold "Demolish Steeple" HPC should have raised an eyebrow. I mean, come on DEMOLISH.
All I know is we were promised notification of demolitions. PROMISED.
Albeit it this is not a house. Albeit it is "non-conforming" (that in and of itself is stupid by the way.) But with all the mistreatment and disrespect Springfield has been given and continues to get (shall we discuss Code Enforcement Harassment?) It is the least that could be done.
Gheesh. Stop and think a moment. No one in that office was paying attention. No one. I am absolutely disappointed that the people charged with protecting our historic neighborhood didn't even blink when signing this COA. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.
And now what? The steeple is gone. Gone.
Quote from: iloveionia on June 17, 2012, 10:03:56 PM
When the COA was submitted and it stated in large print nice and bold "Demolish Steeple" HPC should have raised an eyebrow. I mean, come on DEMOLISH.
All I know is we were promised notification of demolitions. PROMISED.
Albeit it this is not a house. Albeit it is "non-conforming" (that in and of itself is stupid by the way.) But with all the mistreatment and disrespect Springfield has been given and continues to get (shall we discuss Code Enforcement Harassment?) It is the least that could be done.
Gheesh. Stop and think a moment. No one in that office was paying attention. No one. I am absolutely disappointed that the people charged with protecting our historic neighborhood didn't even blink when signing this COA. Shameful. Absolutely shameful.
And now what? The steeple is gone. Gone.
More of the same of what has gone on for ages. Demolish , play dumb , Demolish. NO REGARD WHATSOEVER for history. Does not matter which side of the City. This is a shining ( and compared to the cost of saving , say the Drew Castle House, a relatively inexpensive-to-repair) example.
Nah..don't fix it. Destroy it. Makes me nauseous that we have the mindset of "genius with blinders on" when it comes to issuing COA to destroy something as prominent as this.
Here's the deal...protections aren't in place for non-contributing structures; however, those pieces of Springfield still must meet the criteria set by the Historic Planning Commission. One needs a COA to put a fence on a vacant lot -- or build a house or other structure.
What is wrong with the picture when it is okay to demolish in a historic district but to build you must get permission? And why? Because that new construction, be it a fence or a house, is PART OF THE HISTORIC FABRIC -- A PIECE OF THE WHOLE.
We need a better plan. The steeple lesson is a costly one. Let's learn from it.
I just returned from the HPC meeting. I don't have the final word because I stomped out like a little girl (which at the time seemed preferable to cussing everyone out so I'm taking it as the more mature response.)
After spending 45 minutes discussing whether or not to allow a pool enclosure on a non-contributing new construction house in Riverside and then NOT being able to speak on the steeple, I really was over feeling like Alice in Wonderland.
Bottom Line:
The neighborhood has been cut out from all of this -- the administratively issued COA, our request for appeal was ignored, and now to not be allowed to speak on our concerns is alarming to say the least.
I will trust the remaining members of the audience to give us the results as I am sitting at my computer now and not at the Ed Ball building, but I believe the commissioners will request a "temporary" solution to the open structure and work towards a steeple replacement.
City Government is most likely streamlining the process so as to do exactly as you described Sheclown, and that is TO IGNORE OUR EFFORTS AND OUR INPUT. This is very alarming, but I am not sure of the recourse , if any we have.
Next thing you know they will manipulate codes and laws so historic properties have zero protection and they can demolish anything at any time without asking anyone. I suspect this has long been in the works. :(
At the end of the day, the situation is like this. The commissioners will probably insist that the steeple be returned, eventually. The church cannot afford to return it. The hole in the top of the church is filling the church with water and has been for a month.
You do the crystal-gazing.
Let's hope that it gets capped quickly.
The purpose of declaring certain structures as "non-contributing" is that you want to eventually "weed" them from the neighborhood. So, there is nothing to stop one from demolishing anything non-contributing. Ironically, you cannot ADD anything to the historic district without great detail, permission, and often expense. The church finds itself in the position where they had open-season to demo, but there is going to be a huge "HELL NO" when it comes to replacing it with a lesser steeple or other structure of any kind.
The church wanted a 14 foot steeple which one of the staff compared to "a pencil on a cake". This is why the commissioners are saying that they may temporarily cap it, but the church will go through tough efforts to replace it with anything but what was there, originally.
I don't believe the church had any clue about the process.
Does anyone know what happened to the steeple that was removed?
Quote from: sheclown on June 27, 2012, 10:01:57 PM
At the end of the day, the situation is like this. The commissioners will probably insist that the steeple be returned, eventually. The church cannot afford to return it. The hole in the top of the church is filling the church with water and has been for a month.
You do the crystal-gazing.
Let's hope that it gets capped quickly.
Not crystal gazing. Just observing from your comments , that they did not listen to public input much.
sorry.
That church hit my car once back in the 90s - so I can affirm that steeple's always been dangerous. :P
No, seriously, it did. The car was parked on the other side of 8th from the church (next to the pawn shop that used to be at the corner). Back then it was Main Street Baptist Church, and the church was using volunteers versus a licensed contractor, to try and save money. They pulled the cross down from the steeple to repair or replace it. The wood was rotted badly, and broke in the middle as they were hauling it down, and the cross bounced into the rear fender of my car, badly denting it.
I know from the personal experience of that church hitting my car that the steeple was in structural disrepair back then, and I don't think it got any more than a fresh coat of paint at that time. It's been a while since I've examined that building, but if neither owner has renovated since then, the steeple's wood rot will have only gotten worse.
That being said, I wish they could fund replacement also. Having seen the before and after pics, it just looks weird without the steeple. If they put a new one up, I promise I'll keep my cars away from it. :)
Perhaps a community fund raiser to help them put a replacement steeple, in place?
Just a note about the missing steeple. It was a steel framework and looked very substantial. The wood issue was most likely just the cosmetics. I also understand that the wood, or parts of it, had been covered with vinyl.
Somewhere it was posted that the church more or less said no to the idea of the community fundraising as then the community would want a say in the appearance and/ or how it was done. The church did not seem to like that idea much.
I would contribute. I would not stipulate what to put there.
Due to the "Steeple Issue", Preservation SOS had asked the city that a discussion be started to address future issues like this where structures that were listed as noncontributing but indeed did contribute to the overall community could be protected from things like the removal of a steeple. The idea was to at least get community input before approve such things.
While PSOS kept asking about it, the city kept saying it was being worked on, but never indicated anything formal was being done. SPAR indicated that it was also being worked on and promised, as did the city, that PSOS would be involved. A few days ago, the results of at least one meeting involving SPAR, RAP and the HP department were finally distributed.
It seems to me that this is being handled via a policy change (I don't think this has to go past the HPC to be approved and used.). Various things can be approved by the historical department administratively and various things must be taken to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC). At the time of the removal of the steeple, the policy was that things like this were handled on a case by case basis administratively. Based on the new policy being proposed to the HPC this coming week, major changes like removing the steeple will now have to be decided by the HPC. However, noncontributing structures like this church can still be demolished with adminstrive approval. Which means it will be easier to tear down the church than to remove the steeple.
Below is the three sections I belive concern the Steeple Issue.
Quote26)Demolition
(307.106a)
By Admin:
a. Accessory structures that are not architecturally significant and are deteriorated
b. Non-contributing structures (307.106a)
c. Demolition of a feature/space that is not architecturally significant or street visible
d. MCC emergency declared NOTICE TO JHPC REQUIRED BY NEXT MEETING
By HPC
a. Contributing structures
b. Demolition of a significant feature
c. Unclassified (contributing/non-contributing) structures
d. Architecturally significant accessory structures
e.
Quote32)Alterations to non-contributing structures built outside the period of significance
By Admin
a. Small/cosmetic changes such as the installation/ replacement of railings, window replacement and door replacement
b. Work that restores the historic appearance that is documented through pictorial, historic, physical evidence (see Restoring missing features)
c. When the proposed work does not negatively impact the historic design or overall character and otherwise meets the Regulations
By HPC
a. Larger scale changes that affect setbacks, wholesale change of style, and changes height
b. Wholesale changes in materials
Quote33) Alterations to non-contributing structures built within the period of significance
By Admin
REVIEWED CASE BY CASE
While we, as a historic district, get something we need, it is done a bit off. This is what one would expect when the organization helping to make the changes (SPAR) is also the organization that not too long ago thought demolition was a positive thing for Springfield.
The meeting next Wednesday of the HPC is becoming important as while the above issue is important by itself, there are several changes being proposed by SPAR that are in the hindering not helping way of doing things and the community needs to step up and stop the nonsense.
Regarding "Alterations to non-contributing structures built outside the period of significance", how is the Period of significance determined? is this a year, a style, or age?
Period of significance was determined by structures that were 50 years or older at time of designation as a historic district. In the case of Springfield it is approximately structures that are older than 1985. In the case of Riverside Avondale it is structures built prior to 1948
I think for Springfield, Aubureck intended to say 50 years older than 1985? So structures built prior to about 1936?
The RUDAT study done in 1985 was used to obtain the Historic Designation for Springfield in 1987.
Wasn't Riverside/ Avondale a Historic District before Springfield?
Historic Planning Department is going to use a sub-committee to study these issues -- what to do about non-conforming structures, and other administrative issues. These meetings will be noticed SO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES can attend. I'm sure it will also be recorded.
At issue is:
1.) What to do about significant non-contributing structures (the steeple).
2.) What, if any, procedure can be established to notify the public of administratively issued COAs
3.) What can be handled administratively, and what needs to go before the commission (this is determined by ordinance, I believe). But it would be good to get a solid understanding about this.
The COA process is extremely important for all those who live in a historic district. Any changes need to be thoroughly discussed and understood by all concerned citizens
How a New Orleans neighborhood is saving a 155 year old church bell tower: http://www.wwltv.com/news/consumer/Action-Report-Urgent-Campaign-to-Save-Historic-Church-Bell-Tower-215887391.html
QuoteIt will cost nearly $1 million to restore the tower and $150,000 just to put the scaffolding high enough for them to be able to do the work. But it is urgently needed, so they have the 'Don't Let The Tower Tumble' campaign.
"I'm truly amazed because we've already raised over a half million dollars, and we have about another $400,000 to $450,000 to go," Thibodeau said. "I have no doubt that we're going to make it, because I believe that people believe in this place, because it is more than just a building. It is an icon."
For more about the "Don't Let The Tower Tumble' Campaign, call the church at 522-6748, or visit their website at www.stalphonsusneworleans.com.
Coincidentally, there may be something positive to come from this soon.
Quote from: sheclown on January 17, 2013, 06:06:26 PM
Historic Planning Department is going to use a sub-committee to study these issues -- what to do about non-conforming structures, and other administrative issues. These meetings will be noticed SO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES can attend. I'm sure it will also be recorded.
At issue is:
1.) What to do about significant non-contributing structures (the steeple).
2.) What, if any, procedure can be established to notify the public of administratively issued COAs
3.) What can be handled administratively, and what needs to go before the commission (this is determined by ordinance, I believe). But it would be good to get a solid understanding about this.
The COA process is extremely important for all those who live in a historic district. Any changes need to be thoroughly discussed and understood by all concerned citizens
You've got to love the subcommittee. We are so LOST. Attend a Jacksonville Waterways Commission FIND subcommittee meeting for some real back room deal racketeering. I digress.
Hey Springfield. Are you paying attention to 2013-384? Will an amendment be attached to allow for 24/7 access to Hogans Creek? Applicants are supportive. Active piece of legislation. This is just outside of the DIA zone.
Other active pieces of legislation before the new budget and the start of the new guy for DIA Aundra Wallace.
2013-373
2013-377
2013-408
Anyone want to contribute a buck to 2009-442 the Artificial Reef Trust Fund?
Bill, also looking forward to the positive news. This community needs some.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 17, 2013, 11:41:09 PM
Coincidentally, there may be something positive to come from this soon.
Sort of depends on your definition of positive, doesn't it?
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on July 18, 2013, 06:54:29 AM
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 17, 2013, 11:41:09 PM
Coincidentally, there may be something positive to come from this soon.
Sort of depends on your definition of positive, doesn't it?
True statement ChriswUfGator. Bill, care to elaborate, or are you just dangling the carrot? 8)
Efforts are being made to obtain a new steeple. If it comes to fruition, rest assured, I'll be happy to let everyone know.
That was stated that originally.
That's not new news.
However it will be new news if the steeple they plan on obtaining is the structural size as the one demolished.
They intended to replace it with a steeple that was substantially, and I mean SUBSTANCIALLY smaller.
Quote from: Bill Hoff on July 19, 2013, 02:45:57 PM
Efforts are being made to obtain a new steeple. If it comes to fruition, rest assured, I'll be happy to let everyone know.
That was their plan to begin with, what else were they going to do, leave a giant hole in the roof?
And the only thing you had to do with it is you apparently asked them, same as we did, and then posted it on a public message board in a fashion calculated to give yourself false credit for something you actually had nothing to do with.
This isn't a positive, the pre-fab new one is 1/4 the size of the original one, which was part of the skyline and neighborhood, and wasn't any danger, it shouldn't have come down, let alone without public input. And all this time later, the problem city policies haven't changed, and we've lost 2 more historic structures. Where's the positive?