137 Year Old Historic Saint Andrew's School Slated to be Demolished

[x99]

The "problem" is really that they own this building, and they want it gone, and other people don't like it. From an historical perspective, there is nothing terribly significant about this building. Architecturally, it isn't all that interesting, and could be duplicated without too much effort. I suggest if anyone is so concerned about preserving this building that they arrange the funds to continue its upkeep and make a generous offer to its owners.

[joeDowntown]

I disagree. This whole area has had a ton of "nothing terribly significant" buildings removed. Where there was once a bunch of re habitable building, it is now low slung office buildings and parking lots. A traditional mixed use district has been turned an area that lacks residents, character or a sense of place. All of that is very difficult to replace.

This is an age old fight. City Hall wasn't "all that interesting" when it met the wrecking ball. Grand Rapids needs to do a better job protecting what we've got, even if some people find the buildings to be insignificant.

And as far as your comment about "being so concerned", I don't think anyone is being given a choice to preserve the building.

Joe

The "problem" is really that they own this building, and they want it gone, and other people don't like it. From an historical perspective, there is nothing terribly significant about this building. Architecturally, it isn't all that interesting, and could be duplicated without too much effort. I suggest if anyone is so concerned about preserving this building that they arrange the funds to continue its upkeep and make a generous offer to its owners.

[jas49503]

I also agree that this building is not really worth saving. it is uninspired architecture at best and those retrofit windows are atrocious. The fact that a bunch of kids learned how to add and subtract does not make this building historically significant. in fact, I can't think of a single reason to save it. What I wouldn't want done though is what they are proposing and that is turning the location into a parking lot. like many have mentioned previously, that area does not need any more parking lots.

[gvsusean]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2011/03/city_commissioners_vote_5-2_to.html

Let me get this straight. This building is "easily" replicated? TODAY? When was the last time you have seen a building built like this? With actual bricks? sure the windows look like crap but they are replaceable and if given historic designation the new owners would have to change them back (is this correct? Im not sure, Im just throwing out ideas).

[MiGuyz]

The Cathedral of St. Andrew was designated an Historic Landmark in 1975. The school was not at that time, but could have been. The Heartside Historic District was designated in 1979. Its boundary's were expanded in 1984, 1999 and as recently as 2003. In each of those FIVE instances when neighborhood building's were being designated, St. Andrew's School could have been included in the District, but it wasn't.

North of the school the eastern boundary of the Heartside Historic District cuts to the west. Then south of the school, the boundary cuts back again to the east - specifically excluding the school from the District. Five times, the Historic Preservation Commission could have asked for this building to be included. Instead, the District was even mapped to exclude the school because obviously it wasn't deemed worthy!

I think it is fair that the parish has made plans to plan a new plaza and prayer garden with outdoor Stations of the Cross after FIVE neighborhood reviews failed to include the structure as worthy of historic designation.

Even the HPC Guidelines allow a historically designated property - which this is not - to be demolished. Two of the four acceptable reasons include: it is in the way of an improvement program or maintaining it causes financial hardship. So even if the building were designated it is possible to still have it demolished in the future.

[GRDadof3]

The Cathedral of St. Andrew was designated an Historic Landmark in 1975. The school was not at that time, but could have been. The Heartside Historic District was designated in 1979. Its boundary's were expanded in 1984, 1999 and as recently as 2003. In each of those FIVE instances when neighborhood building's were being designated, St. Andrew's School could have been included in the District, but it wasn't.

North of the school the eastern boundary of the Heartside Historic District cuts to the west. Then south of the school, the boundary cuts back again to the east - specifically excluding the school from the District. Five times, the Historic Preservation Commission could have asked for this building to be included. Instead, the District was even mapped to exclude the school because obviously it wasn't deemed worthy!

I think it is fair that the parish has made plans to plan a new plaza and prayer garden with outdoor Stations of the Cross after FIVE neighborhood reviews failed to include the structure as worthy of historic designation.

Even the HPC Guidelines allow a historically designated property - which this is not - to be demolished. Two of the four acceptable reasons include: it is in the way of an improvement program or maintaining it causes financial hardship. So even if the building were designated it is possible to still have it demolished in the future.

Is that what the attorneys and PR people are telling everyone on the pro-demolition side? For the March 22nd hearing, are they planning to talk about how many "jobs" will be created to tear down the school and build the plaza? Should we also expect to see "ghost" letters to the editor in support of demolition? Maybe we already have?

Actually, most of the Diocesen properties were excluded from Heartside District. It was way more than just the school that was excluded.

http://www.grand-rapids.mi.us/download_upload/binary_object_cache/planning_Historic%20District%20and%20Landmark%20Maps.pdf

(pg. 14)

Who knows why not much East of Sheldon was included, but I know when historic districts are being laid out, there are a lot of politics involved. And pressure from major property owners to be excluded.

[GRDadof3]

Let me get this straight. This building is "easily" replicated? TODAY? When was the last time you have seen a building built like this? With actual bricks? sure the windows look like crap but they are replaceable and if given historic designation the new owners would have to change them back (is this correct? Im not sure, Im just throwing out ideas).

No kidding. An entire building covered in brick and that stone detailing? Remember when Aquinas fought the city over one brick wall on the new dorm they were building? I think it cost about $500,000 just for that one wall of brick (instead of vinyl siding).

[MiGuyz]

Is that what the attorneys and PR people are telling everyone on the pro-demolition side? For the March 22nd hearing, are they planning to talk about how many "jobs" will be created to tear down the school and build the plaza? Should we also expect to see "ghost" letters to the editor in support of demolition? Maybe we already have?

To answer your question, no. I am able to develop my own thoughts.

[andrew.w]

Actually, most of the Diocesen properties were excluded from Heartside District. It was way more than just the school that was excluded.

I can think of multiple cases where conflicts have arisen over historic designation of religious structures, so I think that it is entirely possible that the church properties were left out of the historic district because of political issues rather than issues of significance. I don't think that most preservationists would consider the school as non-contributing to the historic nature of its neighborhood.

[jas49503]

No kidding. An entire building covered in brick and that stone detailing? Remember when Aquinas fought the city over one brick wall on the new dorm they were building? I think it cost about $500,000 just for that one wall of brick (instead of vinyl siding).

sounds like they got ripped off. I had my chimney rebuilt for a few of hundred dollars. granted, it's not as big as a wall but the section they rebuilt was 8-10 feet tall and about 5 feet by 3 feet wide. that price included tearing down the old chimney as well.

[GRDadof3]

sounds like they got ripped off. I had my chimney rebuilt for a few of hundred dollars. granted, it's not as big as a wall but the section they rebuilt was 8-10 feet tall and about 5 feet by 3 feet wide. that price included tearing down the old chimney as well.

Well it was a lot of brick:

If I recall correctly, I think the contractor donated the brick (Rockford?)

correction: Joe's post mentions Rockford and Belden donated the brick.

[mpchicago]

The building is certainly not a masterpiece, but it’s certainly by no means an eyesore either. It seems to be nice example of school architecture for its time. When was this current structure built? Seem like the teens or 20s? Could it be easily replicated today without spending some significant money - no. As everyone one knows the real issue here is the fact that the whole area is turning into one big parking lot. Is there a need for all this surface parking? What are the real chances that most of the lots will develop into something meaningful in the future?

[GRDadof3]

The building is certainly not a masterpiece, but it’s certainly by no means an eyesore either. It seems to be nice example of school architecture for its time. When was this current structure built? Seem like the teens or 20s? Could it be easily replicated today without spending some significant money - no. As everyone one knows the real issue here is the fact that the whole area is turning into one big parking lot. Is there a need for all this surface parking? What are the real chances that most of the lots will develop into something meaningful in the future?

1874 actually. The original structure (some of it has been torn down, some rebuilt, some remains) survived two fires, 1899 and 1915. It's the oldest school building in GR still standing, apparently. It may even be one of the oldest buildings in GR still standing. Maybe the Calkins Law Office is older? Oh yeah, 1836.

[joeDowntown]

I think St. Mary's and the Catholic Church have a bit of sway as to what is or isn't included in expanding historic borders. Politics definitely sway what does and doesn't get demolished. We wouldn't have an S-Curve if that weren't the case. This is nothing new, but you would think we'd learn our lesson at some point.

Joe

I can think of multiple cases where conflicts have arisen over historic designation of religious structures, so I think that it is entirely possible that the church properties were left out of the historic district because of political issues rather than issues of significance. I don't think that most preservationists would consider the school as non-contributing to the historic nature of its neighborhood.

[x99]

The building is certainly not a masterpiece, but it’s certainly by no means an eyesore either. It seems to be nice example of school architecture for its time. When was this current structure built? Seem like the teens or 20s? Could it be easily replicated today without spending some significant money - no. As everyone one knows the real issue here is the fact that the whole area is turning into one big parking lot. Is there a need for all this surface parking? What are the real chances that most of the lots will develop into something meaningful in the future?

If someone wants to cut the Diocese a $36,000.00 check each year to cover the upkeep costs until another use is found for the building, then by all means do so. Otherwise, you're essentially asking forcing them to pay for something they don't want to pay for. This simply isn't a case where a cash-rich developer wants to level an historic structure to replace it with the latest and greatest glass confabulation. Unfortunate realities have relegated this structure to functional obsolescence. Could some use be made of it in the future? Undoubtedly, but again, who is going to pay for it until then? While it would surely be nice to see the Diocese put it on the market to see if there are any buyers, ultimately they seem to think having the land is better than having the cash, and I really can't blame them. I would love nothing more than to buy the house next to mine and tear it to the ground, but it ain't for sale. They're lucky enough to have the option.

[GRDadof3]

If someone wants to cut the Diocese a $36,000.00 check each year to cover the upkeep costs until another use is found for the building, then by all means do so. Otherwise, you're essentially asking forcing them to pay for something they don't want to pay for. This simply isn't a case where a cash-rich developer wants to level an historic structure to replace it with the latest and greatest glass confabulation. Unfortunate realities have relegated this structure to functional obsolescence. Could some use be made of it in the future? Undoubtedly, but again, who is going to pay for it until then? While it would surely be nice to see the Diocese put it on the market to see if there are any buyers, ultimately they seem to think having the land is better than having the cash, and I really can't blame them. I would love nothing more than to buy the house next to mine and tear it to the ground, but it ain't for sale. They're lucky enough to have the option.

I don't think anyone would pay for Saint Andrew's to keep the school. That wouldn't make a lot of sense. I truly believe the Diocese has no need for the building, nor will they ever again (with the way membership is dropping). There are a lot of situations where an owner will sell a building for $1, essentially giving it away but still having it count as a sale of the property. The Cherry Tree Court Apartments was a prime example, if only a lot could have been found to move it to. Drat!

[RegalTDP]

If someone wants to cut the Diocese a $36,000.00 check each year to cover the upkeep costs until another use is found for the building, then by all means do so. Otherwise, you're essentially asking forcing them to pay for something they don't want to pay for. This simply isn't a case where a cash-rich developer wants to level an historic structure to replace it with the latest and greatest glass confabulation. Unfortunate realities have relegated this structure to functional obsolescence. Could some use be made of it in the future? Undoubtedly, but again, who is going to pay for it until then? While it would surely be nice to see the Diocese put it on the market to see if there are any buyers, ultimately they seem to think having the land is better than having the cash, and I really can't blame them. I would love nothing more than to buy the house next to mine and tear it to the ground, but it ain't for sale. They're lucky enough to have the option.

To an extent I agree... I like the building, but I'm not about to ask the parish to hang on to it if they have no use for it... And I don't think an intervention by the city would be good in the long run... But remember they're still spending quite a pretty penny to replace the building with a plaza - that, according to the diocese, is integral in a plan meant to:

>> Provide a walkable connection between the Cathedral & St. Mary's

>> Provide more access, green space, and set the ground for future retail, office, and housing growth

>> Provide a better view of the cathedral for blocks around

...And the reality is, the plaza will achieve exactly none of these objectives. If you wanna talk about good financial stewardship, then start with saving money by dumping this idea.

That being said, MiGuyz is doing a way better job at PR than Seyferth or the diocese (Dead serious. They should fire those guys and hire you). But If there's no use for this building, that doesn't mean it should turn into something even less useful. If there were plans to replace this building with something else that has a purpose, or just looking to sell to someone with such intentions, I'd be just fine with tearing this sucker down.

[MiGuyz]

I can think of multiple cases where conflicts have arisen over historic designation of religious structures, so I think that it is entirely possible that the church properties were left out of the historic district because of political issues rather than issues of significance.

The Cathedral was landmarked in 1975 at the request of the Diocese. The other buildings have not been included in the Heartside District because their use was separate from the specific retail/furniture purpose of the Heartside District. That being said, the possibility of a Cathedral District - or St. Andrew's by itself - could have been officially reviewed at anytime since 1975, especially after the 2000 Central City Survey.

These events should be a wake up call to everyone who knows of a building around town they believe is worthy of landmark status. Don't wait until the wrecking ball comes knocking.

[GRDadof3]

The Cathedral was landmarked in 1975 at the request of the Diocese. The other buildings have not been included in the Heartside District because their use was separate from the specific retail/furniture purpose of the Heartside District. That being said, the possibility of a Cathedral District - or St. Andrew's by itself - could have been officially reviewed at anytime since 1975, especially after the 2000 Central City Survey.

These events should be a wake up call to everyone who knows of a building around town they believe is worthy of landmark status. Don't wait until the wrecking ball comes knocking.

Yeah, like Saint Adalbert's School. Horrible, despicable thing it is. I hear the Diocese has it on the chopping block too. *&P^%A%$T$#T@#E)(R!@N

[MiGuyz]

Then now would be the time to look into historic designation.

[jas49503]

1874 actually. The original structure (some of it has been torn down, some rebuilt, some remains) survived two fires, 1899 and 1915. It's the oldest school building in GR still standing, apparently. It may even be one of the oldest buildings in GR still standing. Maybe the Calkins Law Office is older? Oh yeah, 1836.

maybe one of the oldest downtown or heartside but there are a lot of homes in heritage hill older than that.

[RegalTDP]

maybe one of the oldest downtown or heartside but there are a lot of homes in heritage hill older than that.

Not even - One Trick Pony's house goes back to 1856.

[Ted]

Elizabeth Hoffman Ransford on St. Andrew's

[grnd]

I have a long history at St. Andrew's -- both my children went there until it closed and I was on the school board for the last five years of the school's existence, including serving as its President for the last 2.5 years there was a school board (a "governance board" was used the last six months).

When Bishop Hurley came to Grand Rapids, one of the first things he did was draw up the plans for Cathedral Square. As a board member, I saw them five years ago, and they absolutely called for the demolition of the school. Whether those were made public or not, I do not know. But removing the school has always been part of the private plan, at the very least. Those plans also called, however, for the building of a new St. Andrew's school on the parking lot just to the northeast of the school's current location. It would be an understatement to say that the Bishop received a cool reception to his plan, at least at the meeting I attended (which included the school board, the foundation board, and other parties connected to the school).

Bishop Hurley indicated that it would take approximately $5 million to build a new school. He proceeded with the first part of his Cathedral Square plans, using the initial money he raised to renovate the southwest corner of Cathedral Square. During this time, pretty much all Catholic elementary schools were struggling, St. Andrew's included. Despite indicating publicly several times that he was committed to having K-12 schools on Cathedral Square (he called it a "Catholic Campus"), and despite the fact that St. Andrew's was unique among the Catholic elementary schools insofar as it was attached to the Cathedral parish, Bishop Hurley did nothing to assist the school. I believe this was a very deliberate move on his part, as allowing the school to fail was much cheaper than either supporting the school in its existing location or, certainly, building a new school across the street.

The Cathedral parish was (and is) in no shape financially to support the school. Despite technically being attached to the Cathedral parish, the parish provided less than 5% of the school's funding on an annual basis. In truth, St. Andrew's was not a parish school -- it was a county school, drawing students from all over Kent County. That is certainly part of what made it unique.

Now that St. Andrew's has closed, the Bishop can proceed with his plan. I have no doubt that the current Rector of the Cathedral parish is not speaking on his behalf, but rather on behalf of the Bishop, when he is making the case to tear down the building. The $3,000 per month cost is a canard. The fact that Seyferth is involved is strong evidence that this is being driven by the Bishop rather than by the Parish.

Now, none of this may have anything to do with the propriety of tearing down St. Andrew's at this time. But we got here through a deliberate plan that was orchestrated over five years.

I will say this: if the Bishop was being truthful -- and there is plenty of evidence that he was not, is not, and will not -- then there will be a K-8 school on Cathedral square in the future. If that is the case, then this building deserves historic status, as it should be allowed to return to its rightful historical place as the Catholic elementary school in downtown Grand Rapids.

[Ted]

I have a long history at St. Andrew's -- both my children went there until it closed and I was on the school board for the last five years of the school's existence, including serving as its President for the last 2.5 years there was a school board (a "governance board" was used the last six months).

When Bishop Hurley came to Grand Rapids, one of the first things he did was draw up the plans for Cathedral Square. As a board member, I saw them five years ago, and they absolutely called for the demolition of the school. Whether those were made public or not, I do not know. But removing the school has always been part of the private plan, at the very least. Those plans also called, however, for the building of a new St. Andrew's school on the parking lot just to the northeast of the school's current location. It would be an understatement to say that the Bishop received a cool reception to his plan, at least at the meeting I attended (which included the school board, the foundation board, and other parties connected to the school).

Bishop Hurley indicated that it would take approximately $5 million to build a new school. He proceeded with the first part of his Cathedral Square plans, using the initial money he raised to renovate the southwest corner of Cathedral Square. During this time, pretty much all Catholic elementary schools were struggling, St. Andrew's included. Despite indicating publicly several times that he was committed to having K-12 schools on Cathedral Square (he called it a "Catholic Campus"), and despite the fact that St. Andrew's was unique among the Catholic elementary schools insofar as it was attached to the Cathedral parish, Bishop Hurley did nothing to assist the school. I believe this was a very deliberate move on his part, as allowing the school to fail was much cheaper than either supporting the school in its existing location or, certainly, building a new school across the street.

The Cathedral parish was (and is) in no shape financially to support the school. Despite technically being attached to the Cathedral parish, the parish provided less than 5% of the school's funding on an annual basis. In truth, St. Andrew's was not a parish school -- it was a county school, drawing students from all over Kent County. That is certainly part of what made it unique.

Now that St. Andrew's has closed, the Bishop can proceed with his plan. I have no doubt that the current Rector of the Cathedral parish is not speaking on his behalf, but rather on behalf of the Bishop, when he is making the case to tear down the building. The $3,000 per month cost is a canard. The fact that Seyferth is involved is strong evidence that this is being driven by the Bishop rather than by the Parish.

Now, none of this may have anything to do with the propriety of tearing down St. Andrew's at this time. But we got here through a deliberate plan that was orchestrated over five years.

I will say this: if the Bishop was being truthful -- and there is plenty of evidence that he was not, is not, and will not -- then there will be a K-8 school on Cathedral square in the future. If that is the case, then this building deserves historic status, as it should be allowed to return to its rightful historical place as the Catholic elementary school in downtown Grand Rapids.

Word.