The Salvation Army is rethinking a request to demolish an historic
home it owns next to its headquarters at Michigan and Alabama streets. The not-for-profit group is expected to request a continuance
of a Feb. 26 public hearing on the demolition. The structure, which was built before 1898 as a single-family home, has been
controlled by the Salvation Army since 1947. It was used as apartments until about five years ago. While the exterior is in
good condition, the interior needs work. Planning administrators and a Historic Landmarks representative toured the building
but have not yet offered a recommendation, said senior planner Jeff York. "We'd certainly like to see it reused if possible,"
he said. The Salvation Army initially had planned to use the space for parking.
On today's planning agenda: The MDC could decide whether to allow a crematorium
to be built near the corner of Allisonville Road and 82nd Street. The commission was supposed to decide Feb. 4 whether the
Harry W. Moore Funeral Care center could construct a one-story, 1,600-square-foot crematory on the site (shown at right).
But David L. Ring, who owns the funeral home, asked that the decision be delayed until Feb. 18 to give neighbors a chance
to review project changes. You can read more from IBJ's Chip Cutter here and here.
Back to Top
IBJ Conversations
25 Comments
Add Comment
//end rant
To paraphrase an old professor, if the owner thinks about the problem for more than six seconds, the mistake of the original thinking becomes clear. I'm thinking adaptive reuse.
Given the location, and since the interior needs to be redone anyway, perhaps it can be reused as professional office space -- such as attorneys who practice family law, accountants, property management offices, etc. Tearing down this house for anything less than what it is would be a crime and the Salvation Army could use some good press lately.
Wouldn't make more sense to sell it to a developer for professional space or whatever and use that money to help the needy? I hope they are smart enough to back off, but if not, I hope the City turns hem down.
1) There are not a lot of historic homes downtown.
2) There are not a lot of BRICK historic homes downtown.
3) Tearing down a beautiful home in a city that lacks good architecture for a PARKING LOT?!
-_-
This should be preserved. This is a great old house and I hope they don't.
This city has got to learn from what we did in the 20th century.
Isn't this in the St. Joseph historic district?
It would be a real shame for a parking lot to go on this site.
P.S.
I agree.... how dare SA even consider tearing down this building for a parking lot!
at 2 p.m. on a workday you know.
That being said, I would agree that Indy needs more parking lots like it needs a hole in the head, and it would be a shame to demolish this building just for more surface parking. If they were going to demolish it and put another building there I would be fine with that.
Historic Landmarks lists historic as an important event, associated with an important person or a good example of a historic style. I would say this is definitley the last. To be considered historic, a structure only needs to be 50 years old.
This is a style that was quite common through out the city at one point.
Might I remind everyone that at one point we had a lot more historic architecture.
But we tore it all down.
Nothing amazing happened in the Marion County Courthouse, and nothing amazing happened in the English Hotel.
Same with the Old Jail and Roosevelt building.
They were old, but not historic yet why do we feel so sore for their loss?
Nothing amazing happened in this brick 1890's home.
However, it reflects a dying style and an era in this city during the gay 1890's(yes it was called that).
This isn't a barn or shotgun, it is a middle class masonry victorian that saw this city change while it pretty much stayed the same(even as the neighborhood around it was wiped out).
BTW, last time I checked our stock of such fine 19th century homes isn't much compared to our stock of parking lots.
Criteria for Evaluation
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or
C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. That have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
The vast majority of significant old buildings that get listed in the National Register meet criteria C.
I don't think it's worth tearing down for a parking lot (just what we need downtown is right), but then again, it's not my property. If I were a contributor to SA, maybe I'd care more about how they use their resources, but since they no likey the gays, I don't give them money.
Bottom line: DRT is right. Just being old doesn't necessarily make it significant or historic.
This isn't the right forum to make an argument that the building is National Register eligible; I provided the National Register criteria to point out that something can be considered historic without having an important event take place there. A professional architectural historian, would have to visit the building to assess its integrity; however, looking at the photo presented here, it does appear to be an excellent example of the Queen Anne style. As someone already pointed out, brick houses of this style are rare in Indianapolis. Even if the house doesn't stack up to National Register criteria (and we don't know it does not), it is valuable to the heritage of our city and most certainly worthy of preserving. The last thing downtown needs is another parking lot. You would think folks could learn from history that that kind of urban renewal leads to negative outcomes.
I applaud the Salvation Army for reconsidering its request.
It being Christian based has nothing to do with the issue here.