36 replies to this topic

[hauntedheadnc]

orulz, on Jun 7 2007, 05:43 PM, said:

ight now, walking along Patton Avenue between the Dhrumor Building and Pritchard Park, it feel like an enclosed, urban space, in spite of the big ol' parking lots along Patton. Take down 22 Church, and I predict you will kill that feel. The remaining commercial buildings along Church will be isolated, and Asheville will move a step closer to being like any other downtown that has experienced the heavy hand of urban renewal (for example, Durham.)

Or, Christ forbid, Charlotte, where until this latest boom began down there, there were maybe ten historic buildings in a sea of parking lots.  I don't want even one block of downtown Asheville to look like that.

Edited by hauntedheadnc, 07 June 2007 - 03:54 PM.

[Lootles]

I've wondered if this property extends all the way to South Lexington?  If so, could parking (and perhaps a small deck) be built towards the rear of the property leaving the interesting portion of the building fronting Church Street for another purpose?

[orulz]

It does extend all the way to Lexington.

Personally, I find the part near Church interesting only because of the supposed 1840s church that is buried inside. The facade along Church that was added later has small windows facing the street, basically no detailing, and really isn't interesting at all.

The Lexington half of the building is interesting, in the same 1910s industrial sense as the building that now houses Whiskey Tavern at Broadway and Woodfin, or the Sawyer Motor Building at Coxe and Hilliard. Large windows, solid, vintage brickwork, and a healthy dose of 'grit.' Also looks like it was originally a 2-story building, and a 3rd story was added later on.

See this image taken from the 12 S. Lexington website:


Don't know what it looks like on the inside, but with some elbow grease I bet it would clean up nice!

Remember that since this is a church we're talking about, they don't pay taxes. That makes them immune to every form of incentive that we can offer to encourage preservation and renovation over demolition, such as property tax reductions, income tax credits, TIFs, etc. These incentives have played a HUGE role in saving much of downtown Asheville from the wrecking ball; I think we can kiss this building goodbye for that reason and that reason alone. Pity.

[wtango]

hauntedheadnc, on Jun 7 2007, 05:17 PM, said:

You're telling me that there is absolutely nobody anywhere who would want the building to use as whatever? Is it on the verge of collapse? I figure if the Broadway Arts building can be brought back from a situation where there were trees growing out of the rubble from its collapsed roof, then saying this building is too far gone is a cop out. Sell the damn thing to someone who will do more justice to it and the city than tearing it down and wasting yet more land on surface parking.

Actually, I did NOT telling you that "there is absolutely nobody anywhere who would want the building to use as whatever."  But I think it's highly unlikely that someone with any actual information about the condition of the property would come in and pay what it would realistically cost to have it saved for the sake of preserving a 1950's Faux-Georgian facade, parts of an older Church roof, and a cool brick exterior on Lexington Ave.

If you know of someone who is willing to buy the property from the Church, please by all means let the Church know. Everything is for sale, at the right price, isn't it?  I think the Church would listen to reasonable offers.

[orulz]

I just sent an e-mail to Public Interest Projects to see what their opinion is. We'll see whether they respond or not; this sort of thing is right up their alley.

[rooster8]

Downtown Commission postpones action on the cleaners site:  http://citizen-times...ID=200770608036 (it's below the Ellington discussion)

[hauntedheadnc]

wtango, on Jun 8 2007, 10:43 AM, said:

Actually, I did NOT telling you that "there is absolutely nobody anywhere who would want the building to use as whatever."  But I think it's highly unlikely that someone with any actual information about the condition of the property would come in and pay what it would realistically cost to have it saved for the sake of preserving a 1950's Faux-Georgian facade, parts of an older Church roof, and a cool brick exterior on Lexington Ave.

If you know of someone who is willing to buy the property from the Church, please by all means let the Church know. Everything is for sale, at the right price, isn't it?  I think the Church would listen to reasonable offers.

Oh, good.  I'm glad.  Now, as far as the church goes, it's their job to put the thing up for sale and prove themselves a better citizen than to tear down a historic building.  Your attitude is the same attitude used to justify every demolition in this town, and part of the reason Asheville is what it is, is because most of the time people like you weren't listened to.  I don't care if it is a church that owns the property -- this is not Charlotte, where everything that is inconvenient is bulldozed.

[wtango]

hauntedheadnc, on Jun 8 2007, 03:55 PM, said:

Now, as far as the church goes, it's their job to put the thing up for sale and prove themselves a better citizen than to tear down a historic building.

1.  It is not the Church's job to put the building up for sale.  It is your desire.  Big difference.  

2.  Please explain why this is a historic building.  Just because pieces of it are old doesn't earn it that designation.

The knee-jerk reaction of preserving anything that was built before the 60's just for the sake of keeping Asheville in someone's idea of the ideal (dare I say "quaint"?) era, regardless of other factors such as cost, feasibility, and liability, is eerily similar to the NIMBY sentiment, in my opinion.  

Healthy cities are living entities, and they change.  Not all old buildings are worth the effort of preservation and restoration.

[orulz]

In very nearly any situation, I would rather have a building than another parking lot. Even a building like this that's worn and needs work, but is not a blight on the neighborhood is, in my opinion, better than a parking lot. A small parking lot in place of a building will contribute nothing to the neighborhood in the long-term, particularly not when the county is planning a huge parking deck on the DSS parking lot (right across the street from the church) in the near future. To me it's not about preserving the building for the sake of its history or its intrinsic value; it's about not wanting to end up with another stupid parking lot.

In the end it's up to the church to do with their property what they see fit. I see nothing wrong, however, with encouraging them to leave the building rather than demolishing it. The first amendment protects my right to express my opinion of what they church had ought to do with the building. And to tell the truth, the Downtown Commission has no power to do anything more than express their opinion either. DTC review is mandatory, but compliance is optional.

[rooster8]

I think if the proposal involved the replacement of this building with a urban-style building, then the sentiment here might be a bit different.  I think we're all smart enough to realize that it's the church's property and it's their right to do what they desire.  However, the destruction of any part of the urban fabric (and lack of a suitable replacement) is really the root of the issue here.

[hauntedheadnc]

wtango, on Jun 11 2007, 11:47 AM, said:

1.  It is not the Church's job to put the building up for sale.  It is your desire.  Big difference.

If it's going to get put up for sale, it is the church's job, not mine because I don't own it.  That's just common sense, I would think.   It is also common sense that it is the church's job to be a better citizen than it's planning to be by punching another hole in downtown's urban fabric and building another damn parking lot.

Quote

2.  Please explain why this is a historic building.  Just because pieces of it are old doesn't earn it that designation.

Part of the roof is nearly 160 years old.  Parts of the building are 80, 60, and 50 years old respectively.  It may not be Biltmore, but this clashing mix of styles and ages is unique enough to warrant something better that demolition.  

Quote

The knee-jerk reaction of preserving anything that was built before the 60's just for the sake of keeping Asheville in someone's idea of the ideal (dare I say "quaint"?) era, regardless of other factors such as cost, feasibility, and liability, is eerily similar to the NIMBY sentiment, in my opinion.

Don't even try that crap with me, because for one a ratty old factory is not "quaint" (and you know good and well if you're read any of my posts that I despise that word), and for another, the reaction is to the fact that the city will lose an interesting building to make for a angel love parking lot.  You tell me the building's going to fall to make way for a lost Ellington skyscraper whose plans were discovered under a bed somewhere and I'll be there smashing windows with a sledgehammer myself.  I can even forgive the loss of a 160 year old roof in a situation where the replacement will be much better than what's there.  That is not the case here.  It's falling to make way for a parking lot that will help to make the majority of that block an asphalt dead zone for decades to come.    

Now, you say that healthy cities are living entities and that they change.  This was the same justification for demolishing most of downtown to make way for a mall, and thank God that yet again, people like you weren't listened to.  The healthiest cities retain their history.  Not all old buildings should be torn down so people can leave their cars somewhere.

Edited by hauntedheadnc, 11 June 2007 - 04:46 PM.

[Jones133]

wtango, on Jun 7 2007, 03:13 PM, said:

Haunted-
If the Church were to keep the building as is, per your desire, how do you suggest they continue to foot the bill for:

1.  Upkeep and maintenance of the empty, unusable building
2.  Liability insurance for that property, and security to protect it and people who might want to use it for illegal purposes
3.  Cleanup of the remnants from when it was used as a Dry cleaning facility.

Preserving historical and interesting buildings in Asheville is ideally the first, best way to go.  Whether that option is economically feasible and possible is often another story.  In this case the Church and the design team looked very hard for a way to preserve the building and improve it.  Unfortunately, that no longer appears to be a viable way to go.

Oh Jesus (no pun intended) How do churches pay for anything...tax exempt donations! O&M, and Insurance would apply to their originaly intended new facility as well.  Cleanup applies to turning it into a parking lot as hazardous waste cannot be dumped into landfills.  You fail to support an argument to take down the old building with these statements. Churches in Raleigh are poor historical stewards (we just had a rare carpentar gothic church from 1878 moved that a church was bent on demolishing) and only care about their congregations (customers) having somewhere to park...no concern with urban fabric or form.  I personally think Churches should have to pay property taxes in (at a minimum) designated downtown commercial districts. There is nothing to stop a church from buying up huge swaths of a downtown and demolishing it....raleigh has three continuous blocks of land worth 2-4 million per acre generating NO revenue for the city. Sure, let donations be tax exempt like any tax exempt orginization, but income from earnings (renting parking spots) or for real property beyond the actual sanctuary, should be taxed. Then the playing field will be level while the original purpose of not taxing places of worship would be maintained.

Edited by Jones133, 12 June 2007 - 02:34 PM.

[pyalberice]

Our firm is working with Central Methodist on an expansion plan that includes a family life center.  The parking lot in question is only a temporary solution to provide parking for the cars that are now parked on the future construction site of the family life center.  When the family life center is complete, the temporary parking lot will be developed into a building that is compatible with Church Street and South Lexington Avenue.  The members of the Central Methodist who are our client are very eager to leave a positive legacy building to the city for future generations.  Stay tuned.

[hauntedheadnc]

pyalberice, on Jun 12 2007, 09:07 PM, said:

Our firm is working with Central Methodist on an expansion plan that includes a family life center.  The parking lot in question is only a temporary solution to provide parking for the cars that are now parked on the future construction site of the family life center.  When the family life center is complete, the temporary parking lot will be developed into a building that is compatible with Church Street and South Lexington Avenue.  The members of the Central Methodist who are our client are very eager to leave a positive legacy building to the city for future generations.  Stay tuned.

I still do not and will not like the idea of losing such a unique building.  However, if it comes to pass that nothing will be done to save the structure, I hope you are planning a building that either fits seamlessly into the historic architecture of Church Street, or that you'll take a cue from Asheville's other juxtapositions and build something daring that clashes wonderfully with its neighbors.

That's one of the problems I have with blank-faced wallflowers we've seen go up downtown lately.  Modern architecture in Asheville is either so ugly or so boring that most people, myself included, think that local architects simply are not capable of providing a decent modern product.  That's why many wish the city would adopt an official style, such as art deco, the way Santa Fe has done with adobe pueblo architecture.  The rationale is that because architects can't build anything worth looking at, the ability to do more damage to the cityscape with their lifeless buildings should be taken away from them.  I used to agree with this argument.

However, if you consider it, part of Asheville's appeal is its wildly contrasting buildings.  The S&W and Drhumor buildings side by side.  City hall and the courthouse.  The Battery Park Apartments and the Grove Arcade.  Even the Renaissance Hotel, as miserable of an urban participant as it is, next to the Thomas Wolfe House, and in the future 60 N. Market next to the Wolfe House.  Asheville could benefit from some superior modernism, because God knows there is no good modern architecture in town now.  The library, Civic Center, Wachovia Building, Griffin Apartments,  and the Biltmore Building are ugly enough to make your eyes bleed.  The BB&T Building is more or less innofensive, but it meets the streets in a wretched and deadening fashion, and streetlife around it thrives in spite of it rather than because of it.  21 Battery Park, the upcoming Pack Square visitors center and, yes, your 12 South Lexington are just plain dull.  We need better, and this city deserves better than its been getting.  I have no doubt you're a capable architect, so let's see you prove it.  Either give us a building that looks like it last smelled of fresh paint in 1890, or give us a building that looks like clutch of crystals growing up out of the ground -- give us something that blends perfectly or something that's cheerful and refreshing and clashes as beautifully with its neighbors as the S&W Building clashes with the Drhumor Building.  

We need more buildings that people would want to put on postcards, in short.  Give us that, if this building is going to fall.

Edited by hauntedheadnc, 12 June 2007 - 09:17 PM.

[orulz]

Bringing this thread back from the dead.
Renderings of CUMC's Family Life Center are here. The Family Life Center will sit atop 3 levels of structured parking. If there's anywhere that 3 levels of structured parking directly facing the street at sidewalk level won't bother me, this is it, at the corner of Aston and Buncombe.

I'm still somewhat concerned with the demolition of 22 Church Street. I enjoy this industrial looking building and its bizarre past. It also provides some sense of enclosure to Patton Avenue. I wish the church would look elsewhere for temporary parking during construction of their new addition, particularly with the enormous county parking deck (which will be completely empty on Sundays) in the works right next door. There has to be somebody who's willing to lease the use of their parking lot to the church for just one day a week.

[Whistler]

Orulz -- do you  have any indication that this project is coming back to life? Last I heard, the proposal to the Downtown Commission was tabled sometime last year. Demolition for surface parking--no matter what the building demolished--strikes me as bottom of the barrel planning and design.

22 Church Street is an industrial buidling with the attendant design issues (brownfields). There's been a lot of buidling reuse in Asheville, but any big time industrial rehab? (I haven't seen much action in the River District.)

[orulz]

No, no indication that this is moving forward in the short term. I brought it up because while browsing the web, I saw the renderings for the Central UMC expansion (which I had not seen before.) The expansion is still definitely in the church's plans, but again, not in the immediate future. Chances are it will take them some time to raise capital to do this expansion anyway. I fully expect them to carry out their expansion plans. Not sure what they plan to do regarding the parking situation. Maybe they'll just put off construction until the County's deck is done, in which case the parking situation may be less of an issue.

However, remember that while DTC review is mandatory, compliance is voluntary. The DTC is not the board that would have to approve the demolition, though their recommendation does carry some weight. Not sure exactly who makes the final approval, though.

As far as industrial renovations are concerned, there have been some but nothing big has been done in Asheville that I'm aware of. There really aren't a lot of big, old industrial buildings to begin with (especially not after the Cotton Mill burned.) The Habitat for Humanity store and Mica Village in BV come to mind as complete, comprehensive adaptive reuses of industrial buildings to meet modern codes. Both probably included some environmental mitigation as well. Wedge Studios, Phil Mechanic studios, the Tannery, and some others in the river district have all undergone adaptive reuse, but I'm not sure the extent of renovations. The amount of upfit and utilities necessary for artists' studios is not as great as a full residential or commercial renovation.