Historic Church on Long Street Demolished
- This topic is empty.
- May 18, 2010 8:30 pm at 8:30 pm #81760
I was in the Olde Town area today and took some pictures of the church being demolished at Long Street 17th. Very sad it wasnt able to be saved. In order to keep the historic feel of the neighborhood buildings like this have to stop coming down.May 18, 2010 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #372209May 18, 2010 8:51 pm at 8:51 pm #372210
What a shame, it looked like a very nice church. Why did it get torn down? I hope (but doubt) they at least saved the top part, seems like you could do something neat with it. And the stained glass. Though I guess if they were going to save that, they’d have taken it out before they started smashing it to bits.May 18, 2010 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm #372211
Wow, they really need to get some preservation going over there. This is a sad day for the KLD.May 18, 2010 8:54 pm at 8:54 pm #372212
I spoke with one of the construction workers and he said several parts are being saved including some items from inside. It looks pretty stable minus the roof was falling in.May 18, 2010 8:55 pm at 8:55 pm #372213
Public nuisance and an emergency order, and it’s gone.May 18, 2010 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm #372214
More:May 18, 2010 9:03 pm at 9:03 pm #372215
The Church was owned by 2nd Baptist Church for many years. It has sat vacant for a while now. It was ordered demolished after having been found structurally unsafe. In my opinion, we should be talking about preserving buildings like this while they sit unused. If you want to preserve it, put the money up to do so, and get to it. Everybody likes to talk about how sad it is to see something like this go, well sympathy for this building 5-10 years ago may have saved it. Money to put it into productive use 1 year ago would have saved it.
Making it useful is very expensive. The alternative to tearing it down is that it sits there, empty, for 10 more years or more, and everybody complains about that. I would have loved to save that place, but the cost is high, and I personally don’t have the money.May 18, 2010 9:05 pm at 9:05 pm #372216
it looks like Walker beat me to the links, but here is one more:
but this was also on the news last night. it is a shame it couldn’t be preserved, but the tear down was a legitimate operation.May 18, 2010 9:07 pm at 9:07 pm #372217
It is true. There are plenty of nice bldgs rotting. Maybe a vacant bldg tax to help force absentee owners to use it or lose it.May 18, 2010 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #372218
I really think the city or some type of group needs to act fast on hundreds of other historic structures before they face the wrecking ball. Thats pretty much the whole point of the neighborhood, keep it historic..right?May 18, 2010 9:13 pm at 9:13 pm #372219
This is why we can’t have nice things. :(May 18, 2010 9:23 pm at 9:23 pm #372220
I don’t know much about this specific building, so I don’t know what sort of shape it was really in, how much it would have cost to fix up, what sort of re-use it would be good for, or what group/entity/charity/developer would want to pony up the money for it, but I agree with jawjack that bemoaning the loss of a building doesn’t really do any good if there is literally zero interest from anyone who wants to dedicate money and resources to re-using the building.
While the neighborhood has lost some buildings, there are still a lot left being fixed up and restored. Part of what I find attractive about this neighborhood is that over the next 20 years it will continue to rebound as a mix of new development and historic development.
Taking a quick look down the street at the historic Lincoln Theatre and the Hamilton Park Condos sitting next to the brand new retail/office Gateway building is a nice mix of old and new. I think the rest of Long Street can continue this trend of blending some historic architecture with purposeful new-build development.
Again, this is just my own personal assessment, and I can’t speak for anyone else who lives here, but if I wanted to live in a neighborhood that was locked into a historic time capsule, I would have stayed in German Village. I actually prefer living in a place that is a little more historically diverse.May 18, 2010 9:34 pm at 9:34 pm #372221
kind of curious what the next building to be demolished on Long St will be.May 18, 2010 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm #372222
I do not believe it is the responsibility of the city to act on old/historic buildings. I think the city can and does provide incentives for those private developers to come into neighborhoods like KLD and others and redevelop or build on existing space. I worry about our citizens getting the perception that the “City” is the entity that is responsible for every private property that is vacant/abandoned and needs some help. Ohio is a state founded on the property rights of the individual.
The process for acquisition of private property from a governmental entity takes a long time, and even if the “City” can get a hold of these properties, I don’t want my tax dollars going to the City as a large scale developer. Columbus just got federal Neighborhood Stabilization dollars to try and eliminate blight within its boundaries. As soon as the “City’ purchased multiple properties, based on the guidelines submitted by the feds, the “City” got into trouble from the press for being the “owners” of blighted property. In many cases, it’s a lose-lose.
There are non-profits that specialize in rehabbing properties for productive use, but many of them focus on housing. This Church was built for one purpose-to be a church. Another church would have been the most likely candidate to come in at Centenary and be productive. In fact, the Yeshua is Lord Church that is on the SE Corner of Long and Miami (BEAUTIFUL facility) attempted to purchase Centenary a while back, but in the end, they did not have the resources to do what was needed to stabilize the building and turn it around. In other words, it would have changed hands and still stayed in the same shape.
I think with the developments that we see coming east on Long, you will see someone do something with this property in the very near future. The demolition of this church actually makes the site more attractive for a new development. Sad but true, IMO.
The forum ‘Development’ is closed to new topics and replies.