Norfolk History

[stillill]

Im with you Chesapeake Pirate. There is nothing remarkable about this house. There are older and prettier houses in Riverview and Colonial Place (and Park Place for that matter) and nobody would say a word if they were demolished. Change happens.

[rusthebuss]

let me play devils advocate here, this is just another house that really means nothing but is historical to the city. Yes there is 100s more but 40 years ago how many were there? 1000s? One house leads to multiple houses like this being torn down. Bad enough we have to deal with fires and nature destroying them, but we are taking them down faster than those two are. There are going to be others that will see the same fate because they're are "insignificant". People i think are just tired of Norfolk tearing its history down I guess. I won't loss any sleep over this but it does take away what makes Norfolk, Norfolk. What distinguishes Norfolk from Vabeach? Nothing besides the historic buildings we have.

[tombarnes]

That's precisely the point I've been trying to make about Norfolk's recent string of bad decisions. I'm well aware that every old building may not be worth saving, but the cumulative effect is not good for the city. I'm also at a loss regarding how the church intends to raise the money for this addition.

[rusthebuss]

also building a replica doesn't replace the historic house. They act like its making up for it

[Chesapeake Pirate]

That's precisely the point I've been trying to make about Norfolk's recent string of bad decisions. I'm well aware that every old building may not be worth saving, but the cumulative effect is not good for the city. I'm also at a loss regarding how the church intends to raise the money for this addition.

Why are you at a loss?

I suspect the money is already raised, or a good amount of it is raised and the balance pledged from the loyal and responsible members of the church.

I do love old homes. Something about the character of them I guess.

I love them too. Most people do. However, there is certainly no clear cut opinion that this is a very special house worthy of throwing one's body in front of the bulldozer over.

[tombarnes]

While this building may not be worth "throwing oneself in front of a bulldozer", it's the war of attrition which has been waged against Norfolk'd dwindling stock of historic buildings- one here, two there and you have real losses mounting. As for the finances, I am unaware that the church has indeed raised the money necessary to build the new building. Perhaps I am mistaken, but I fear that this will be an expensive black hole. I remain skeptical regarding the architectural value of its replacement. What's done is done, so there may be little use in decrying another loss for Norfolk. It is time, however, that some responsible party must raise a flag before the city to question the value of so much recent demolition. Dismissing such criticism as the work of a deranged few may not serve Norfolk well in the long term.

[Sky06]

I think this shows just how important it is for all parties to work together to prevent unnecessary demolitions. I'm not sure the city is really at fault here, other than to say its policies in the past clearly have been poor regarding preservation. But this demolition seemed to catch the city by surprise. Maybe that's a fault of theirs, but it's clear a better "system" must be in place to keep all informed and manage these properties and the city's history better. There are so many groups involved (city, owner, contractors, citizen groups, others) that better coordination and information is needed. I'm encouraged that the city has appointed a citizen group to work with the council to better manage the process in the future. Maybe this kind of thing can be prevented in the future. Not to mention preservation education.

[urbanlife]

also building a replica doesn't replace the historic house. They act like its making up for it

to some degree, I disagree with this comment. depends on the level of care put into the replica that is the most important. for example, the historical center of warsaw was built after WWII because the nazis leveled all of their historical content, but the architects of the city secretly documented every piece of the city core and reconstructed it to its originality, with a few modern upgrades like a tunnel running underneath it. Another great example is williamsburg, every house in the historic williamsburg has been reconstructed to its original content with modern upgrades to make them more useful. But both those examples are all about care, for the right money and level of care in detail one could reconstruct all of downtown norfolk to its original content and no one would know the difference.

So there is good things about replicas, but when it comes to crappy work, then it shows. besides, replicas are not much different that gutting a building and changing its use to something else, it is just how we wish to evolve with our buildings.

[tombarnes]

Good point. Most of what visitors see at Colonial Williamsburg are replicas of buildings. Most of the old city in Warsaw was completely rebuilt after WWII. I wandered around for quite a bit before I realized that nearly everything around me had been bombed to oblivion and totally rebuilt. Can we be confident, however, that the reconstruction of the Guild House would be comparable in attention to detail to the examples mentioned above? The Guild House may not stand the test of uniqueness. It was, at best, a contributing building to the historic district.

[rusthebuss]

But comparing alot of those issues with these houses in Norfolk being torn down are different situations. Those were destroyed because of invasion of the Germans. This is being torn down because a expansion, not war or natural disasters

[tombarnes]

True enough. I mentioned those places as examples of successfuil recreations of older buildings in response to the query above. I'm not convinced that this building is necessary, though my sister who's a member there (and, I think, a past member of the vestry) might well disagree with me. It's unfortunate that the church could not acquire Pelham Place. Replacing those apartments with this new building would have been preferable, if not practical. I understand that the owner has raised the price to unacceptable levels over the years.

[Former Resident of HR]

True enough. I mentioned those places as examples of successfuil recreations of older buildings in response to the query above. I'm not convinced that this building is necessary, though my sister who's a member there (and, I think, a past member of the vestry) might well disagree with me. It's unfortunate that the church could not acquire Pelham Place. Replacing those apartments with this new building would have been preferable, if not practical. I understand that the owner has raised the price to unacceptable levels over the years.

What makes Pelham Place any less deserving of standing than the Guild House? It's an old structure and actually kind of neat inside the courtyard. It needs work, but I would rather see it stand than see the wrecking ball to be replaced by a huge glass box.

I think the bottom line is that churches are so much holier than thou that they can do whatever they want. They pay no taxes. And usually make bad neighbors if you are not a member of the congregation. It's too bad that the Guild House is gone but from the first time that I read about the church's plans, I knew that it was fait accompli.

[scm]

I think the bottom line is that churches are so much holier than thou that they can do whatever they want.

Actually, it isn't "that churches are so much holier than thou", it is the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Boerne vs. Flores. All of those laws require government to show a "compelling interest" to prohibit any action by a religious body, including expansion. There certainly is the opportunity for several motives among those attempting to deny this expansion. But they just don't matter, for reasons that are rooted in our laws and traditions. The City lost on every turn, because they couldn't comply with the requirement to show a "compelling interest" in preserving a building of no historical significance (agreed to by all parties), which will be replicated in a nearby location.

Christ and St. Luke

Edited March 1, 2008 by scm

[urbanlife]

But comparing alot of those issues with these houses in Norfolk being torn down are different situations. Those were destroyed because of invasion of the Germans. This is being torn down because a expansion, not war or natural disasters

this depends on one's definition. A war did not erase much of Norfolk's downtown history, but just like the Germans, Norfolk set out to erase their past for a better future. One person can wage war on a structure. Again, I point to Williamsburg, no war was waged there, it was just the deterioration of that city through neglect. It wasn't till it got dumped on with money did that change.

As for the building in question....it has been about 7 years since I was there, I don't actually remember this house anymore. So I can't say about the significance to the area it has. I can say that churches do have the ability to override laws in many cases when it involves buildings they own. The reason for a long wait like that has more to do with the fact that they didn't wish to make that move. Here in Portland we had a incident with a church and a historic carriage house that they owned. The church wanted to tear it down for condos and a parking garage, not to make a profit, but to survive. As the pastor of that church said to justify it, "I am here to save lives, not structures." (the quote might be a little off, it was a few years ago I heard it). But in that notion a church would tear down its own church in order to survive. Case in point, there is a church in downtown Seattle that wanted to tear down its own structure to construct an office tower on its site and have the lower floors be the new church.

In both of these cases though, the historical architecture was saved. The carriage house sits in a parking lot a couple blocks away waiting to for the building to be finished before moving back to its original spot. In Seattle a developer proposed a renovation of the church building and tearing down it adjacent building to build a tower on that site.

I guess the moral of the story is that while a church is in the business of "saving lives," people are in the business of saving and preserving their past. As times change, it is our duty to make sure our current architecture evolves with us either through reuse, replication, or recycle....and so on.

[Sky06]

Actually, it isn't "that churches are so much holier than thou", it is the First Amendment, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, affirmed by the Supreme Court in Boerne vs. Flores. All of those laws require government to show a "compelling interest" to prohibit any action by a religious body, including expansion. There certainly is the opportunity for several motives among those attempting to deny this expansion. But they just don't matter, for reasons that are rooted in our laws and traditions. The City lost on every turn, because they couldn't comply with the requirement to show a "compelling interest" in preserving a building of no historical significance (agreed to by all parties), which will be replicated in a nearby location.

Christ and St. Luke

[Sky06]

I know there are no decisions on Union Mission building at this time (still for sale), but I have concerns that some [developers?]are not opposed to tearing it down. My understanding is that while some parts of the building may need work, the basement is in immaculate shape. I sincerely hope this building is not torn down. The city can't afford another situation like that (not to mention a guaranteed front-page article in the Pilot).

[Jim Nasty]

I know there are no decisions on Union Mission building at this time (still for sale), but I have concerns that some [developers?]are not opposed to tearing it down. My understanding is that while some parts of the building may need work, the basement is in immaculate shape. I sincerely hope this building is not torn down. The city can't afford another situation like that (not to mention a guaranteed front-page article in the Pilot).

Im a little torn in this regard. I like the history of the place and I hear it is beautiful on the inside (chandaliers etc.). But the red-brick of the place, IMHO, is garish and off-putting. It doesn't look very inviting to me (but I guess its very inviting to the homeless they cater to). Maybe with work it will look better, but I wouldn't be too upset if they tore it down.

[Sky06]

The color may not be great, but the detail in my opinion is. But even if it is lacking in style, the fact that it's part of the city's history should count for something. We need to preserve where we can and not just think about replacement buildings. I'd much rather have the Union Mission than another 15-20 story box.

[skylinefan]

Brambleton Ave and Church St. 1960's

Edited June 20, 2008 by skylinefan

[metalman]

Being it deals with the Royster Building...

NRHA wants to move out of Royster to the own building to have the 96 year old building put to better use.

http://hamptonroads.com/2008/08/housing-ag...ve-headquarters

[lil-bear]

chamber of commerce

Looks like another piece of Norfolk history is up for sale!!!

[Jack Smalley]

I thought the Madison (formerly Commodore Maury) was mid-block and not on a corner. Wish someone had a map of Granby street pinpointing these old hotels!

When the Maury was renamed The Madison it was an up-grade attempt, and for at least a while was considered quite stylish.

The Hotel Southland is located on the corner of Granby and E. Freemason. I have a photo of that street from circa 1917 ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2934212505/) and an updated photo from 2008 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2935016680/). The hotel now appears to be under serious renovation.

The Madison hotel is mid-block on E. Freemason between Granby and Monticello Ave. It appeared to be closed.

[Jim Nasty]

The Hotel Southland is located on the corner of Granby and E. Freemason. I have a photo of that street from circa 1917 ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2934212505/) and an updated photo from 2008 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2935016680/). The hotel now appears to be under serious renovation.

The Madison hotel is mid-block on E. Freemason between Granby and Monticello Ave. It appeared to be closed.

Awesome pic, Jack; and welcome!

I think there is horse poo in it, to boot!

[Telmnstr]

The Hotel Southland is located on the corner of Granby and E. Freemason. I have a photo of that street from circa 1917 ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2934212505/) and an updated photo from 2008 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2935016680/). The hotel now appears to be under serious renovation.

The Madison hotel is mid-block on E. Freemason between Granby and Monticello Ave. It appeared to be closed.

Very cool!

[Jack Smalley]

I also have a photo circa 1917 of the Epworth United Methodist Church on W. Freemason St. ( ) as well as the current view ( ) - not much different. Does anyone know where this house (or inn or school) is located? http://www.flickr.com/photos/31410842@N08/2934212475/ I'm reasonably certain it was in Norfolk, VA. Thanks!