Business Insider

By dee

May 19, 2008 2:36 AM | Link to this

if atlanta wants to further its cause as a world class city, it must embrace art. architecure is the first art.

By atlmom

May 19, 2008 7:38 AM | Link to this

Atlanta needs to stop building parking lots, as well, to counter the idea that the car is the answer.

By Jeremy

May 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

I find it ironic that one of the two sites belongs to Georgia Tech. I’m a grad student in the city and regional planning program, and nothing about the plan to demolish the building fits with sound urban principle. As for the church property, I don’t agree with adding surface parking, but parking is clearly an issue as many of the congregation membership parks in the bike lane on 5th Street. However, there are plenty of surface parking lots with in a block of the church that are constantly empty, even on Sunday mornings. Final observation; I’m all for tearing down the ugly stucco wall of the Northernmost building at 5th ad Juniper. It certainly rates as a depressing, ugly, and useless structure!

By Valerie

May 19, 2008 8:17 AM | Link to this

Since the buildings are already there why not convert to a few Bed & Breakfast Inns. They are good locations for those visiting the city, for a short stay.

By Brad

May 19, 2008 8:41 AM | Link to this

Will our city ever get it’s stuff together? Another parking lot…you have got to be kidding me. It’s hard for me to imagine there isn’t somewhere members of the church can park. This will not surprise anyone, but what a shame. I agree with the other comment about being a world class city…we’re a long shot with this kind of planning.

By zeke

May 19, 2008 8:59 AM | Link to this

THE CAR IS THE ANSWER!

By midtowner

May 19, 2008 9:01 AM | Link to this

There is a large parking garage at the corner of 5th and West Peachtree. It most likely has little or no use on Sunday mornings. This would seem to be a much more “neighborhood friendly” solution for St Marks.

By Steve

May 19, 2008 9:08 AM | Link to this

Creative uses of older buildings is a great idea; for any one of the three houses along Juniper please bring $2 million to $4 million dollars to the Midtown Alliance meeting! The previous ownwer of 125 Juniper tried for many months to lease/ sell the building to anyone interested in restoring it for the purposes of a small business and had no takers partially because the building does not have any available parking. Another owner around the corner on Fifth Street was equally unsuccessful in plans to convert his building to a restaurant; again, the cost of bringing the building up to code and no space for parking. We need to be creative in our planning for the city but that planning has to take into consideration that the vast majority of us still need our cars to take advantage of all the city has to offer.

By steve

May 19, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

The Midtown Alliance and the City should think about a municipal parking deck near the corner of 5th and Peachtree. We tried to save the Erlanger Opera House next to the North Avenue Presbyterian Church and lost that battle. I get a knot in my stomach whenever I drive by that hideous concrete parking deck and think about that hotel ballroom we call an opera house in Cobb. Churches are big businesses that are more concerned with their own bottom line that the good of community. A municipal deck in that area could save what’s left of Midtown’s fine grained urbanism and serve Tech, businesses and retail during the week and nearby churches on Sunday mornings.

By JM

May 19, 2008 10:10 AM | Link to this

Surface parking lot = terrible. Parking deck, maybe.

By 800 Peachtree Resident

May 19, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this

There is absolutely no need for a parking lot or deck at 5th and Peachtree. The Bell South Parking Deck at 5th and Cypress is just one block away and is nearly empty on nights and weekends. We need to maintain our green space. And darn it - people can walk a block to church!

By bob tabaka

May 19, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

I would think the bikers could ride around the cars for one day. They could have a hand in saving the building this way. But Noooooooooo. They will probably want to clog up another lane of traffic with their big fat spandex rears.

By jr

May 19, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

Tearing these buildings down makes sense. The commie people out there who think they have a right to tell other people what to do with their property are out of their mind. In addition, tearing these down is the SOUND URBAN PLANNING we need in this city. If we are going to reduce commutes, pollution, increase livability and increase density, there is only one way to do it. Tear down old low density properties to be replaced by higher density properties.

NIMBY’s: PIPE DOWN!

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

I understand the concept of economics. Old buildings may not have the parking and the modern features that make new construction profitable. But since when is it all about profit when it comes to city planning? The combination of new and old is what makes a city interesting and worth exploring. Take Atlantic Station as an example. We will never build like they did in the past (it’s not profitable), so our only choice is to keep what we have left of that forgotten art.

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 11:40 AM | Link to this

I understand the concept of economics. Old buildings may not have the parking and the modern features that make new construction profitable. But since when is it all about profit when it comes to city planning? The combination of new and old is what makes a city interesting and worth exploring. Take Atlantic Station as a reverse example. We will never build like they did in the past (it’s not profitable), so our only choice is to keep what we have left of that forgotten art.

By Sally

May 19, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

Placing a surface parking lot in your downtown area is like putting a toilet in your living room.

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

Too bad the article states they will be empty lots. Not exactly sound urban planning.

By Captain Whitey

May 19, 2008 12:09 PM | Link to this

Tear down every building built before Maynard Jackson was elected Mayor because everybody knows Atlanta was irrelevent before it became the “black mecca”.When you’re done tearing down the buildings,go ahead and finish re-naming all the streets after “civil rights leaders”.

By Milo

May 19, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

I agree with the poster who said come to the meeting with 2-4 mil$ and you can save the buildings. I did not go to Tech nor do I go to St Marks (I have been to a music prod. there and no parking) But they need parking just like anyother store or house in the hood. I am sure St Marks would no mind building a parking deck on just one or two spaces that are to be removed if they had the funds. Any doners out there????

By Souldrift

May 19, 2008 12:48 PM | Link to this

How Atlanta. What should we do with the few existing historic structures in the central city? Tear ‘em down!!

How Atlanta.

By BPJ

May 19, 2008 12:59 PM | Link to this

Ga. Tech, and its foundation, are not for profit entities. They are supposed to include other values in their deliberations in addition to the bottom line. The irony of our one significant school of architecture, with an historic preservation component, proposing to tear down that building! No first-rate city tolerates this sort of mediocre thinking.

By Bill Sanders

May 19, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

I serve on the St.Mark committee that is proposing the demolition. We are willing to meet with any one to discuss our plans.

All we ask is that you have all the facts before you decide and condemn.

We will gladly take contributions to build a parking deck. That is our long term plan. We think 10,50,100 years in advance, and see ourselves quickly becoming land locked. It is now or never. We have been in midtown for 104 years, and plan on being there beyond my life time.

The surface lot at 5th & Juniper is going away soon, as is every other option we have used over the years. They all went away. We believe we have explored every other option, but are open to suggestions.

PS: Our doors are also always open to worshipers - all are welcome at St.Mark.

By Joeventures

May 19, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

I understand historic preservation as an important element of smart growth. However, I have a lot of trouble reconciling the concept of preserving single-family houses with every other important element of smart growth.

Compared to other types of housing units, the SFH has a higher carbon footprint, consumes more water and encourages more sprawl.

Having said that, a surface parking lot would be worse. The idea of building a surface lot doesn’t even stand on its own merits — the preservation argument is irrelevant here.

In any case, it would make much more sense to rezone Midtown for higher density, mixed-use. The street grid is already here to support it. That would give more people the opportunity to live, work, shop and pray within walking distance.

To solve a parking problem by building more parking would be like going on a diet by buying bigger pants. We should instead be working on negating the perceived need for more parking, especially when (as comments above stated already) there is more than enough parking already available in the area.

By Kathryn

May 19, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

It’s terribly amusing to see people who have no actual financial stake or who are part of the ownership of the buildings, feeling as though they have the right to dictate what goes on at these sites.

Private property ownership is exactly that.

If you wonderful folk who are condemning the rightful property owners for taking appropriate and legal actions on their properly owned land believe that, perhaps, the government would do a better job with these properties, then by all means petition for them to be condemned and purchased by the City. To rot.

Or, reach into your own pockets and buy the properties and make them everything that you could ever want them to be.

Or - shut up. You’re working under the toddler’s rules of possession. “If I ever saw it, it’s mine.”

The minute your name is on the deed, do as you will.

By Midtown Gal

May 19, 2008 1:32 PM | Link to this

What we need to be fighting to tear down is the old Medical Arts building at 284 Peachtree ST. It’s nothing but a hotel for the homeless. I see vagrants coming and going every single day. The place reeks of human waste - I wouldn’t doubt if there are dozens of people living in there…..and the space is virtually unusable - low ceilings, fire damage, the owner can’t lease it out. It would cost enormous amounts of money to get it up to code, but now that it’s been designated “historical”, it can’t be torn down. I’d love to see anything else go up in it’s place! Right now it’s nothing more than an unsupervised homeless hotel. Maybe Anita Beatty could come run it also.

By Common Sense

May 19, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Less concerned about the old residences than the old Tech building. Why would Tech tear it down anyway, if it doesn’t have any plans for the site? That would be a nice building for some student org or admin offices. It’s very pretty, and there’s precious little Midtown history left.

By Bill - Again

May 19, 2008 1:50 PM | Link to this

A vibrant,active church needs parking other than just on Sunday mornings. Yes, that is our peak activity time, but St.Mark is a 7 day a week place, and needs convenient, safe, close by parking. St.Mark was built in 1903, before cars were common, and now has only 22 parking spaces. If the 3 targeted buildings were adapted for other use, where would they park? This is exactly the reason some one else did not buy them first.

By Bill-Again

May 19, 2008 2:04 PM | Link to this

Under current midtown zoning, St. Mark should have 125 parking spaces. (One for every 4 seats in the sanctuary) We have only 22 parking spaces now.

Yes, we did own the lot at Juniper & 5th and sold that lot - to raise money to buy the lots with the houses, to have land for our future use, and because the buyer assured us he was going to build residences there.

It is a mistake to think of St.Mark as a rich church with unlimited resources. We constantly operate in the red. We are not a profit oriented business. Our mission in Midtown is, in the words of John Wesley, to “Feed them Christ.”

You may or may not agree with our mission, but surely you respect our right to do so.

By NICK

May 19, 2008 2:23 PM | Link to this

For all you concerned citizens, why don’t YOU purchase these sites with your own money and then do to them what you please.

Unfortunately, sometimes business is business………..

By Mike

May 19, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

These suggestions to restrict what a private property owner in the name of maintaining a neighborhood’s history always irk me. It’s their property. If you want to dictate what they do with their property, then pay for it yourself.

By verge

May 19, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

to those private property hawks… that stuff may fly in suburbia— but city living is about the collective good— Its why we have things like zoning… In any case Ga Tech is a public entity and should always make decisions with the Public Good in mind…

By seeingforward

May 19, 2008 3:09 PM | Link to this

Everyone should ask, as far as the Tech property is concerned, what is the true use of arguing about it? It is not really even useable on the inside, and Tech would have to spend precious $$$ (Money that could go to students) in renovating (excuse me, have you seen its condition, I mean, GUTTING) the place. It looks pretty on the outside ONLY. Those who are naysayers should realize it encourages crime as it stands (go ahead, look up the police reports). It would be far better for all concerned if Tech square could continue its high-quality building. I hate waste and believe in conservation, but people, please. This building’s not worth saving.

By Joseph

May 19, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this

The idea that Tech would consider tearing down the 771 Spring Street buidling makes me sick on my stomach. Jacquelin Kennedy Onassis said “If we don’t care about our past, we cannot hope for our future.” The Tech alumni should take heed.

By ebaby

May 19, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this

In defense of GT, I think the Board of Regents/University System of GA makes decisions on real estate projects. I seriously doubt that they consult their in-house scholars on architectual decisions.

By Sarah

May 19, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Aesthetics are very importatnt in architecture. Look at Manhattan, a real city…..and look at the pre- WWII buildings in the tonier parts of Manhattan see how much they cost compared to the newer banal looking ones. People (with taste) are willing to pay for things that are aesthetically pleasing.

By Sarah

May 19, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

Aesthetics are very importatnt in architecture. Look at Manhattan, a real city…..and look at the pre- WWII buildings in the tonier parts of Manhattan see how much they cost compared to the newer banal looking ones. People (with taste) are willing to pay for things that are aesthetically pleasing.

By Brian

May 19, 2008 4:08 PM | Link to this

First and foremost the writer of this article should check to be sure that these buildings are historic…truthfully, I do not know either. Are they regiestered? Just because they are old buildings does not constitute a label of historic…secondly, has anyone seen what these buildings look like? Are they attractive to the community? Is there anyone out there willing to purchase them from St. Mark and restore them? Any takers?? I didn’t think so. I don’t see anyone standing at the doors of the church offering to remove the buildings or relocate them. No takers??? St. Mark is the rightful owner of this property, which should give them the right to do what they see fit with the property. As a long standing member of the Midtown community, St. Mark ministers not only to those with jobs, homes and families who seek the love of God, but also to the needy, homeless, and jobless who also seek help and the love of God. This church is an insitution and a contributing member to the betterment of the Midtown experience. They are not asking for anything extravagant…simply to build a parking area so that members and visitors have a place to park and to come to worship, not just on Sundays…but 7 days a week. Gods work is not done in one day. We welcome everyone through our Red doors…

By Joey

May 19, 2008 4:12 PM | Link to this

I think the best solution would be to build a parking deck in the area with public/church intiative. It could eventually serve the peachtree corridor and church members would get free access. The issue at the church is understandable but what Tech is proposing is disgusting.

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 4:13 PM | Link to this

In response to “seeing forwards” comments. I saw the inside of the Biltmore and the Georgian Terrace before they were renovated and can tell you that in comparison the 771 Spring Street Building would be a dream to work with! Those buildings sat vacnt 20 years this one only 5 months. Also saving the building does benefit the students! The Architectural program routinely sends its students out to study the building, just last Saturday I saw at least 12 students sketching the building! The building is worth saving on som many levels!!

By et

May 19, 2008 4:15 PM | Link to this

There is a trade off here. We have 4 historic buildings that help preserve Atlanta’s culture, and we have 4 commercially unviable real estate properties in one of Atlanta’s biggest urban growth centers. We have a city with a deadly traffic problem and we have a city with some options to alleviate those problems. It seems that interests of historic preservation and of transportation needs have come to a intersection. Several interesting points have been made regarding this intersection of interests. If these buildings become surface level parking, then Atlanta will lose a little more of its history and gain yet another “Lanier parking systems” eyesore. Atlanta’s unique culture is diminishing and the destruction it its historic properties highlights that. Atlantans mostly don’t consider themselves southerners as someone like myself does (someone whose family has been in Georgia since 1751). This being said, we must find a compromise that serves both the interests of historic preservation and the interests of transportation needs. The solution is simple and has proven effective. All the congregants of Saint Marks need to do is look at their fellow worshipers in Buckhead. Buckehead Church seats thousands of worshipers per service in three different services each Sunday. Where do all of these congregants park? This church is located in heart of Buckead surrounded by office towers and residential high rises. They are in a similar situation that Saint Marks is in, and they solved the problem when planning for the church the same way that Saint Marks must solve their problem. They contracted with parking facilities located around the church building. Hundreds if not thousands of cars park each day within a couple hundred yards of the church doors and walk across the streets with the help of several police officers. This is the only way population density can economically and sensibly increase in Metro Atlanta. The congregants of Saint Marks must follow the lead of their Buckhead Church counterparts.

By sammy

May 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

It is easy for people to tell other people (or companies) what to do with their land and buildings. If you want the building saved the government should buy it!! If the buildings are that important the tax payers should buy it. It is unfair to force landowners to keep an old building that no one wants. Ever try to work or live in an old building. Small doors, windows and closets. Bad bathrooms. Hard to put in internet and proper power upgrades. Tear down the buildings and make way for the new.

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 4:18 PM | Link to this

In answer to Brian, I do know that at least the Crum & Forster is historic. It has for years been considered a contributing landmark by the City of Atlanta, the AIA, the Midtown Alliance, and the Atlanta Preservation Center, to name a few. The building’s architectural significance has been documented in significant publications: Atlanta Urban Design Commission’s Atlanta Historic Resources Workbook (1981), Atlanta’s Lasting Landmarks (1987), Lewis Edmund Crook, Jr. “A Twentieth-Century Traditionalist In The Deep South” (1984) and The American Institute of Architects Guide to Atlanta (1992).

By seeingforward

May 19, 2008 4:21 PM | Link to this

Johathan: I’m very sorry you have not taken the time to research the situation. The building has not been habitable or useable for many, many years, and that is very apparent to any view beyond the first cursory glance. You should volunteer to tour the building, if the drug deals, vandalism and professional streetwalkers don’t scare you off first.

By Mike

May 19, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry but PRIVATE property is not for the “public good.” That is what PUBLIC property is for, whether it is in the city or suburbia. If you want the property to conform to whatever is for the public good, then convince the city council to condemn and purchase the property at fair market value with your tax dollars.

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 4:43 PM | Link to this

Dear Seeing forward, I am talking of the Crum & Forster building. One of my students did a report on it last semester, it was in fine shape and occupied. The last tenant left in Dec, 2007 (as stated by the GTF representative at the DRC meeting MAy 20, 2008). So I have taken time to research the building. The area is also not as derelict as you claim. It was 10 years ago though. If you are refering to the buildings behind St. Marks, then yes we agree -those building are barely slavageable.

By steve

May 19, 2008 4:51 PM | Link to this

By Brian

May 19, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this

The buildings that I was refering to in my blog are legally owned by and located behind St. Mark…and for the record the church is named St. Mark United Methodist Church and can be referred to as St. Mark, not St. Mark’s. I am all for the preservation of historic buildings of significance. Where were all of these “saviors” when the beautful historic theatres/movie palaces in this city were torn down? By the way…we welcome everyone to St. Mark..come by sometime and enjoy our fellowship!!

By Jonathan

May 19, 2008 4:55 PM | Link to this

Sorry I have to correct myself the DRC meeting was May 8, 2008

By Bill@St.Mark

May 19, 2008 5:05 PM | Link to this

Any building can be renovated, with enough money. Remember the burned out Margaret Mitchell house? For St. Mark, cost is an issue. We have been told about $4million to renovate all four. If we had $4M,and spent it on these properties, where would we park, where would the occupants of the restored buildings park?

St.Mark needs the parking, both on Sunday and during the week.

We are not surrounded by office buildings. We are now surrounded by condos, and we may not park in the condo buildings. Unlike offices, they are home when we are at Church. We parked there when they were offices, but no more, they were converted to condos.

The Buckhead churches use office buildings for Sunday overflow. They all have parking on their own campus for weekday use. We do not.

By midtowner

May 19, 2008 5:12 PM | Link to this

So let me get this straight.St Mark owns an existing parking lot at Juniper and 5th. They sell this property so they can raise funds to build a parking lot across the street. The church certainly has a right to make money, but this smells like a real estate play to me. Selling the parking lot you own and then complaining about a lack of parking for St Mark members is not a compelling argument.

By seeingforward

May 19, 2008 5:13 PM | Link to this

Jonathan - I will presume we have different takes on the Crum & Forster building. While it was occupied, it was barely occupied, as previously stated, and as I have personally observed. The difficulties in renovating/gutting the building are enormous, an undertaking requiring something in the high millions, if not a billion due to extreme damage from mold, termites, weather, asbestos, etc. I believe that the only true way Tech could ever afford to do so (without risking the funds for their students) would be to ask the State for renovation funds via a budgetary state allowance. The actual possibility of that happening within the next two years would be around a 5 -10% chance that the state would provide funding. Funding for historic renovations takes lots and lots of time. And if you feel that the building should be on the historic register, then you should go ahead and try for it. Meanwhile, Tech students could be enjoying a new Tech Square building with all facilities complete (as it is probable use, given the proximity of the College of Management). Unfortunately, the area is as derelict as I claim. Going to work or from my apartment, I do see drug deals, prostitution, etc. and the problem is only going to get worse the longer the building sits empty and not useable. Tech Square is a magnificent development worthy of so much praise. Why should Tech students have to pay/suffer for a building that is not useable at best, dangerous at worst, and unfeasable for Tech’s current useage?

By Carfree in Midtown

May 19, 2008 5:16 PM | Link to this

A note to the leadership of St Mark — if you are trying to appeal to potential congregants in an urban area like Midtown, you should be aware that a growing consideration for many of us is environmental stewardship, and specifically how urban faith communities are responding to that issue.

For the past year or so I have been “church-shopping” in and around Midtown, and at first I was very interested in St Mark — I was raised Methodist, and your church is an easy walk from where I live. Eventually I did visit, and while it was a very nice service, I was quite disappointed to read that building a parking deck was one of the church’s main capital goals. This latest plan to tear down several historic properties for a new surface parking lot — the last thing we need in Midtown — only adds to my disappointment.

Relatively few churches in Midtown/Downtown have their own dedicated parking decks, and for good reason. As others have pointed out, there are plenty of opportunities for urban churches to partner with nearby businesses and parking providers. With all of the societal problems that need the attention of our faith communities, bending over backwards to make it easy for people to drive and park (especially when mass transit and other alternatives exist) should be last on the list of priorities.

For the record, it looks like I’ll ultimately be joining an Episcopal church, and while there are a number of other factors at play in that decision, the attitude of St Mark regarding parking, which I would describe as very suburban-minded and certainly out of touch with emerging attitudes regarding the unsustainability of automobile-centric urban planning, did not reflect well upon the institution in my mind.

By gtg811q

May 19, 2008 5:33 PM | Link to this

To Captain Whitey - thanks for bringing your highly irrelevant comments to the discussion.

By William

May 19, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

Want to preserve the three houses? They are yours, for the taking. St. Mark will give them to you- Free. No joke. St Mark would even consider pay a portion of the cost to move them to your lot.

By William

May 19, 2008 5:56 PM | Link to this

Want to preserve the three houses? They are yours, for the taking. St. Mark will give them to you- Free. No joke. St Mark would even consider pay a portion of the cost to move them to your lot.

By Rick

May 19, 2008 7:03 PM | Link to this

What is it with these people? More parking lots in the city of Atlanta? God, the air is so toxic already we can’t even breathe. Beautiful architecture and more trees makes a place livable. I don’t get it…duh.

By Steve

May 19, 2008 7:16 PM | Link to this

Why not attract people to your congregation from the local area? Or encourage people to use MARTA? Is it because city dwellers tend to have more enlightened worldviews in terms of how to best create a sustainable society and some of these churches hold on to beliefs that are simply by-products of childhood conditioning? Thus, they are having a hard time attracting the locals?

By TL

May 19, 2008 7:17 PM | Link to this

If there’s anything in Midtown that needs demolishing…well, there are several things…but how about beginning with that hideous torch thing behind the Varsity. It defines the term “eyesore”.

And then, Tech, if you’re really in a demolishing mood, how about taking a wrecking ball to that silly video board alongside the connector? I’m an alumnus, and the thing has embarrassed me since it was erected.

As for the Crum & Foster building, hopefully it can be saved, renovated and used by the Institute in some capacity. Its elegant, classic look is a welcome contrast to the bland design of the Tech Square buildings.

By TL

May 19, 2008 7:43 PM | Link to this

…but if it turns out it’s not economically feasible to save the Crum & Foster building, at least try to save the facade to incorporate into whatever building does end up being constructed there, as was done in the 5 Points MARTA station and the Engelhard Court of the Metropolitan Museum of Art’s American Wing.

I personally think, given its history, that it might be a better candidate for renovation and expansion of the College of Architecture than the Hinman Building. Although I could be wrong.

By bill

May 19, 2008 9:35 PM | Link to this

In reply to: =Relatively few churches in Midtown/Downtown have their own dedicated parking decks.=

I do not believe this is true. Can you give me examples? Only Immaculate Conception, Sacred Heart, and St.Mark critically are short on parking.

First Methodist has a whole block of surface parking that they own. Redeemer Lutheran has a large parking lot behind their building. All Saints and North Ave Pres have relatively new decks. Trinity Methodist has a new deck.

Up in Buckhead, St.Phillips has a huge lot, as does Peachtree Road Methodist and Peachtree Christian. Christ the King has a new deck.

Why do you say no other church has dedicated parking deck?

St.Mark’s long term vision is to have a parking deck on this lot, topped by Sunday School rooms, offices, meeting rooms, etc., with some retail on the ground level. This is consistent with the blueprint vision of Midtown Alliance. Surface parking is just the interim solution, until we can build. By acquiring the land now, we keep that option open. In the interim, we need a place to park, and the logical place is on our own land.

By Brian

May 19, 2008 9:36 PM | Link to this

I am not understanding what the battle is here. First and foremost, to say that few church’s downtown or in Midtown have parking is incredibly inaccurate. Redeemer has their own lot, North Ave. Pres. has quite a large lot, The Pres. church at the Abbey has a large lot, the Episcopal church at North and West Peachtree has a nice parking lot…do I need to go on? and that is just within 5 blocks of St. Mark… Look…I am totally for saving these houses , I really am, but who came along and offered money for these buildings when they were up for sale, run down, horribly kept and falling apart. I didn’t see a “SAVE THE HOMES ON JUNIPER” campaign. Has anyone asked St. Mark how they plan to landscape the new lot? or what future plans they may have for the property. . Like I said before…anyone who wants to poney up the money to move these houses…bring it on. I am sure that St. Mark would entertain any offers. St. Mark’s mission is not just to focus on the immediate Midtown area, it is to focus on ministering to those in need wherever they may come from. God does not draw boundries, nor does he require that a church do the same. I don’t remember any scripture that says…only invite those from your local community into your house of worship to aleviate any parking issues that you may have. I am sure that there are viable options to address these issues, but we all need to be sensible. Hey…how about working on the severe homeless issue that we have in Midtown/Atlanta??? How about a major campaign to repair pot holed street we call Juniper? I don’t see anyone clamping down on home owners only blocks from this area in question, who have overgrowm yards, paint pealing off of homes and sidewalks that are in such disrepair I am surprised that people don’t break their ankles on a daily basis. Did I mention that our doors at St. Mark are open to all???

By WLS

May 19, 2008 9:42 PM | Link to this

Why not attract people to your congregation from the local area?

St. Mark takes any one that comes in the door —any one. Midtown citizens are certainly welcome, but most of our members are from the outer ‘burbs. We are a regional church.

Encourage people to use MARTA?

Have you ever ridden MARTA on Sunday Morning? Service is worse than on a week day. Also, many of our members live beyond Fulton/Dekalb Co?

There is a benefit to Midtown.
Many of these members linger in town for brunch, shopping, etc.

By Gman

May 19, 2008 9:49 PM | Link to this

Get out while you can, Atlanta has peaked……it’s all gonna look like a cheesy funpark pretty soon, like Atlantic Station……

By Brian

May 19, 2008 9:50 PM | Link to this

I just think that a lot of nay sayers in this blog need to do a bit of research before they spout off about…how many church’s in midtown DON’T have parking…and “smells like a real estate play to me”… St. Mark has long term visions people, for the community and for our church. Did I say the community…who we serve? We are not building a basketball court. We are interested in the safety and well being of those who come to our church to worship. I don’t see any campaigns against those who only blocks away own homes that are run down and overgrown with weeds. Lets go after them shall we? They are not living up to the vision of Midtown. Where sidewalks are so damaged that I am surprised the people do not break their ankles on a daily basis. I still haven’t heard anyone tell me why these houses are considered historic? For the record…the Lord draws no boundries. The scripture does not say…only attract worshipers from your local neighborhoods as to avoid parking issues…Our doors are open for all. We have members and visitors that travel 40 plus miles to worship at St. Mark not for any other reason than, we are their church home and where they feel God has called them to be. We are open to everyone and all people. I invite you all to come and share the love of God with us at St. Mark.

By George

May 19, 2008 10:04 PM | Link to this

Surface parkings are a crime

By Gman

May 19, 2008 10:15 PM | Link to this

Use the BellSouth (I mean AT&T, oops) lot; there are thousands of spots in those parking decks, work out a deal with them….tearing down a classic house built in 1905 is foolish; Atlanta has almost no architectual history left now anyway, thank goodness SCAD is saving the Peters house on Ponce with some creative ideas. BellSouth worked out a deal at the last minute to save the Fox Theatre instead of putting a parking lot there…..

By Brian

May 19, 2008 10:23 PM | Link to this

Comparing the saving of the Fox Theatre to 3 old houses???

By Ken

May 19, 2008 10:31 PM | Link to this

As a member of St Mark it grieves me to read all the misinformation about our church. First, we have a long-term vision of our campus that is consolidated within one block that will be more accessible for families with children, seniors, and the handicapped, as well as everybody else in inclimate weather. And, as future funding becomes available the space will allow us to construct added features. The parking lot we “traded” for a house nearer our building was on the other side of busy Piedmont, not on our block. Secondly, our short term goal is to provide parking for 7 days of church work, not Sundays alone. St. Mark is not a passive, one-day ministry. The church itself is an historic building with activities that go on daily. Some members live within walking distance but many others drive in because they believe in the ministry that, paradoxically, serves Midtown. People use our church (even non-members) for family weddings, for teaching English as a second language, for youth programs, for feeding programs, and we use it for church-sponsored concerts and plays (open to the public), midweek dinner programs, and, of course worship. Worship is not a Sunday event but carried out through the week by many small groups, choir practices, educational classes, etc. I am one of those that drives in because I believe that St. Mark serves as the hands and feet of Christ as it goes about serving the community. And when I do, I spend my money in Midtown at restaurants and shops, as do hundreds of others that attend our events. So, although I may be an “outsider” I feel that I, and others, bring economic value to the neighborhood. But, back to the long-range plan. Ask any other establishment to find parking a block or two away from it’s location and tell customers to walk to an establishement to buy goods or services and you will see how quickly those businesses dry up. Why do you think shopping centers killed inner-city establishments that did not plan long-term or were land-locked without adjacent parking? I have been a nonprofit CEO and company owner, so I know that it takes a lot of capital to renovate, maintain, and service a building. And, the old (not historic) houses we own would require tons of capital to make them habitable and would still leave both us and other users short on parking. If the houses could be renovated, the costs would make rent or mortgage payments economically infeasble for any occupant, plus require operating expenses. And, where would the customers for such businesses or services park to have access to whatever the buildings hold? It’s ironic to me that a 105-year old church planning for the future of providing service to Midtown has objectors to our plans that are based on short-term concerns such as a “surface” parking lot. Surely, people in Midtown would not want St. Mark to go into ruin like many other downtown churches because we were unable to provide a place for commuters. This beautiful, functional building is the real “art work” to the Midtown community. Come visit and see.

By Gman

May 19, 2008 10:36 PM | Link to this

Use existing parking decks that are underutilized on the weekends and evenings already. The AT&T deck at 5th and Cypress is 2 blocks away maximum and can hold thousands of cars. Use the houses the church has bought in more productive ways, daycare, meeting rooms for the church, etc…….anything but another parking deck. Think about it and it makes sense, everybody wins……

By Bill @ St.Mark

May 19, 2008 10:41 PM | Link to this

Are the houses historic?

That would depend on the definition of historic.

The St. Mark properties on Juniper St do not have historic zoning, and are not on National Registry, or any other historic list.

They do date to c.1905, and are examples of late Victorians. There are dozens of similar examples a few blocks east, on Penn, Myrtle, Argone, and Charles Allen, which are the more traditional residental streets in Midtown.

Juniper is hardly residential, other than condos, mostly new high rise and mid rises. I do not know of even one single family house on Juniper St. I could be wrong.

That side of Juniper (west side) has the same zoning a Peachtree, which calls for high rise and mid rise density.

Before St. Mark purchased these properties, they verified that there is no legal prohibition to the demolition. St. Mark also verified that surface parking lots are legal, so long as they are not park-for-hire lots, open to the public. Parking for church use is completely legal.

Why else is this battle being fought here, in the “Court of public opinion?”

If there were a legal prohibition, this would not be an issue for debate.

By Gman

May 19, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this

Surface Parking Lots = Ugly waste of space, and unnecessary expense due to existing parking in the area

Converting existing houses into classrooms, dining rooms, etc, whatever the church deems most appropriate = makes sense!

They don’t build structures anymore like they used to in the 1900’s era, those houses are built to last forever, get in there and renovate/use them, architecture and attention to detail in construction duing that era was never better. Look at your own church as an example of superior craftmanship, 1903 was a good year…..

By Tom E.

May 19, 2008 11:02 PM | Link to this

I lived in Atlanta for 10 years, and I was always astounded by the city’s lack of appreciation for its history. It always seemed that any building over 50 years old had to be torn down so that something uglier could take its place.

With all the smart people at Georgia Tech, somebody should be able to figure out that tearing down these buildings would simply be stupid.

By Ken

May 19, 2008 11:06 PM | Link to this

To et Midtown is not Buckhead. It is a struggle always to provide services to the community on a modest budget (because most of the St. Mark ministry, and thus costs, goes to direct services). To pay for security staff plus arrangements with buildings with office space (read: cost, again), those solutions sound easier than they are for an inner city church vs. an affluent Buckhead. The church’s proposed parking lot comes with landscaping and should not be compared with “lots for rent” that are typical of downtown. Automobiles are a reality — they must be accommodated. Where do you park when you go to buy groceries, attend events, get a haircut, buy home improvement materials, or to work? You can’t walk everywhere. The bigger question is what kind of usages would there be for three old, dilapidated buildings? Who could afford to renovate and operate them? Where would people park that would use them? These are not architecturally significant, nor functional, buildings.

By laura

May 19, 2008 11:22 PM | Link to this

My guess is that many of the folks posting to save the “historic buildings” haven’t seen the buildings in question. The descriptions I’m reading here don’t match up to what I see several times a week. If Midtown wants a vibrant environment that invites pedestrian traffic, the buildings in question certainly don’t match that image.

Do the folks that are clamoring for “saving” them and spending the money to restore them have any idea of how much that will cost - and what they are starting with? If the buildings have been ones you would want to walk past for the last few years, who is going to have the money to invest to fix them up, who could afford the rent if they do and where are customers going to park IF they do?

I’ve been coming to classes three times a week for the last few months and I have to pay to park. St. Mark is a vibrant contributor to Midtown, gives back to the community and generates revenue for its Midtown neighbors. Sure, we want folks who live nearby to walk to events at the church, but where are the others going to park on Sundays, Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays during normal weeks and special events on the other days of the week?

If the lots that folks are listing will allow me to park throughout the week when I’m at St. Mark, that’s GREAT news! Who are they? Where are they?

The surface lot will be the first phase in the next 100 years at St. Mark. St. Mark has stayed and served Midtown when others left. Isn’t planning for the next 100 years a GOOD thing - especially if Midtown continues to benefit from St. Mark’s presence?

By Gman

May 19, 2008 11:28 PM | Link to this

If you’re gonna live in a big city, you have to accept you wont be able to pull up to the front door of your destination and park your car……unless you have valet parking. Parking 2-10 blocks away from your destination is commonplace in every major city in the country. If you cannot recognize a 105 year old structure as a historical building just because of its age, I dunno what else to say to convince y’all…..go to New Orleans, Savannah, Charleston and other old cities in the South and check out the architecture is all I can suggest. It is just obvious that the church doesn’t need parking, there is plenty of existing parking in the area, in fact, didnt AT&T give up the old existing lease on the BellSouth parking lot on Cypress, which means it is completely empty everyday, consisting of thousands of spots available 24/7….participate in the renovation/resurrection of that area, not the destruction/homogenization of that area…twelve foot ceilings, original pine floors and great molding/attention to detail are almost impossible to find in modern construction….

By Jed

May 19, 2008 11:38 PM | Link to this

If tearing the buildings down “runs counter to the vision that both the Midtown Neighbors Association and the Midtown Alliance have set for the community,” then the MNA and/or the MA should have bought the properties themselves. Instead, they waited for someone else to plunk down a huge chunk of cash, and now they apparently intend to enlist the government as their agent to try and restrict what these landowners can do with their own property! Such gall! But wait a minute here…what about this thing called private property rights? As long as the intended use does not violate zoning and land use laws which were in effect at the time of the purchase, the owners should be free to do whatever the hell they want with their own property.

By wls

May 19, 2008 11:58 PM | Link to this

Wonder what St.Mark looks like, the side that fronts on Peachtree St.

To see 1950 photo and current photo, go to:

http://www.atlantatimemachine.com/downtown/pch781b.htm

Without adequate parking, we can not continue to preserve this jewel on Peachtree.

By Mark

May 20, 2008 12:12 AM | Link to this

Renovating the houses will cost an additional $2Million to $4Million.

St.Mark does not need more meeting rooms, class rooms, day care, etc.

Renting out the houses to others will not cover the acqusition cost and the cost of renovation. If it would, realestate investors would have purchased them and done just that. Also, where would those tenants park?

Also, churches do not make good land lords.

The church needs parking.

Most of our members are from the suburbs, where people DO NOT walk 10 blocks to get any where. I live intown, but not close enough to walk to St. Mark. There are not enough residents in Midtown that are interested in walking to St. Mark.

St. Mark needs close by, convenient, safe parking.

By ViewFromMidtown

May 20, 2008 12:32 AM | Link to this

seeingforward wrote:

The difficulties in renovating/gutting the building are enormous, an undertaking requiring something in the high millions, if not a billion due to extreme damage from mold, termites, weather, asbestos, etc.

Congratulations seeingforward, you have just discredited all your statements by posting such an incredible and wildly inaccurate renovation estimate. $1 billion? By comparison, Plaza Midtown was constructed at an estimated $100 million; do you really believe the renovation of the Crum & Foster Building would cost more than TEN Plaza Midtowns?

seeingforward’s hyperbole aside, IMHO, Crum & Foster is the most important of the structures to save both on architectural merit and as a practical concern. As an institution, Georgia Tech has far more resources and alternatives to serve their needs while maintaining a historic property than does St. Mark. As others have mentioned, there are plenty of properties in the Spring Street corridor that have no artistic or historic merit and have certainly not reached their “highest and best use.” In fact, the remainder of the block that C&F partially occupies is composed almost entirely of surface parking and suburban-style single story bank branch.

To the congregants of St. Mark who are here defending their property use, you should avoid proselytizing and focus instead on promoting the long-term plans Bill mentioned that would develop the properties in a way that respects the urban values of the Midtown community that surrounds you. You are free to define your ministry as reaching beyond the boundaries of the community, but you have a responsibility to not only minister within the community in which you are physically located but to be a good neighbor and good citizen as well. St. Mark recently experienced another nearby church disrespecting both your church’s and the local community’s values - be careful to avoid doing the same here. Midtown’s residents have embraced an urban culture predicated on density and increasingly non-automotive transportation options. When those opinions are expressed here, along with alternative suggestions, you should acknowledge and consider them rather than dismissing them with a wave of your hand and asserting the convenience of your congregants as your primary concern. The AT&T parking deck mentioned above is closer to St. Mark than many parking spaces in the acres of parking surrounding some suburban mega-churches.

By JJ

May 20, 2008 2:28 AM | Link to this

Who now owns the Rose Mansion on Peachtree? Are there any plans for it?

By JJ

May 20, 2008 2:36 AM | Link to this

Who now owns the Rose Mansion on Peachtree? Are there any plans for it?

By Steve

May 20, 2008 6:48 AM | Link to this

Drive through Downtown on Courtland or Spring Streets. There is TONS OF PARKING but the area is DEAD! More parking DOES NOT equal more people! Many cities around the world have spent a lot of money saving buildings that would have been cheaper to tear down and the overall benefit was a world-class city that people love to work in, live in and visit. In the bigger picture, tearing down old buildings is more expensive than saving them. See the difference between Downtown Atlanta and other great American cities such as San Francisco or Chicago. St. Mark and Tech have very myopic visions. If they have long term visions then they need to share drawings of them with the community.

By James

May 20, 2008 7:14 AM | Link to this

I am in full support of St. Mark. I know where these buildings are on Juniper and they are a complete eyesore and have NO historical value whatsoever other than being old. St. Mark’s long term plan for a parking deck and office space is very acceptable even if it means a surface level lot in the interim.

As for the GA Tech property in question, I am not familiar with that so I won’t comment. If you don’t like either group’s plans, then BUY THE PROPERTY from them.

By Richard

May 20, 2008 7:28 AM | Link to this

Saint Mark has been a significant Midtown leader for over a hundred years. They provide a needed space for spiritual growth and developement for both the haves and the have nots. At the same time that they provide world class music and drama, you can see them feed the hungry and the hapless. Saint Mark is a seven-day a week church humming with activity. Since they own the houses (historic?, in doubt) in question, they should be able to do whatever they want with the space. I applaud their planning for the next hundred years.

By cy

May 20, 2008 7:29 AM | Link to this

This city has no respect for its past. I mean there are at least a thousand things this building could probably be used for. This is our southern charm being removed. I hate it. I hope they realize that some of these landmarks could not only drive interest in tourism but could solve some of the budget problems by simply using them. I also wonder what they will do if people really slow down on needing these parking lots.

By rob

May 20, 2008 8:14 AM | Link to this

As far as St. Mark goes I believe if you will deed the property such that it can never be sold by the church nor used for a purpose other than what you state here then great. I am afraid that the temptation to sell appreciated property my be too much for even the ones with the best of intentions. Such would be a commitment to remain in midtown and not flee to the suburbs with real estate profits leaving our area without the support of your church.

As far as Tech goes, they have the money to renovate this building, have you driven through campus to see what our taxes are paying for, construction on a very grand scale everywhere. save this little piece Jackets.

By steve

May 20, 2008 8:45 AM | Link to this

Picket St. Mark’s Sunday service chanting “hey hey, ho ho, surface parking’s got to go!” and signs like “Christians share (parking)”, “This is Midtown, not Gwinnett”, “Keep Midtown a pedestrian community”, “Jesus was a pedestrian” – any other ideas?

By Ruthie

May 20, 2008 8:53 AM | Link to this

Steve, perhaps a more productive use of time would be to join St. Mark in feeding the homeless or volunteering to help with one of the outreach programs or assist with the ESL classes - or something that ADDS value to the Midtown area. Surely you recognize the positive impact St. Mark has on the Midtown community - as well as other Midtown churches who have chosen to remain and serve the community rather fleeing to the ‘burbs.

By steve

May 20, 2008 9:07 AM | Link to this

I park a few blocks from my Midtown church and walk :)

By Jamie

May 20, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this

As a member of Saint Mark, I have a vested interest in seeing this improvement of our church campus come to fruition. I understand Midtown Alliance’s wish for a more pedestrian friendly area, but the fact is that most of the people who attend Saint Mark come from suburbs (as far out as Macon and Columbus). We need a place to park that is safe (adjacent to our property) where members, in particular families with children can get safely to our campus without crossing a busy street. We also believe that we bring a lot to the Midtown area by stimulating its economy in going to brunch every week and visiting other local establishments. We are not just a Sunday only church, meaning that we have meetings and activities (such as dinners, classes, rehearsals, plays, neighborhood association meetings, AA meetings, English classes, etc.) to help live out the mission of our church. We have no intention of allowing this lot to become anything other than something we are proud to call home.

By Bill @ St.Mark

May 20, 2008 10:03 AM | Link to this

Many of us consider St.Mark to be a holy place. It was at St. Mark that I found the true meaning of the word “Sanctuary.” To me, it is the most special place in the world. It is where I go to express joy. It is where I go to connect, worship, and serve others. St.Mark is where I go when I am troubled, and need comfort. That, my friends, is priceless.

By jesus h. christ

May 20, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this

god and worshipers need more parking for two hours every sunday tear these buildings down, that is my command and my right as a property owner and master of the universe. - god

By James

May 20, 2008 10:22 AM | Link to this

I have yet to see anyone state the REAL historic value of these buildings. They’re pieces of crap! I say that St. Mark sell them to the Midtown Alliance (what an oxymoron for a name that is) with the same restrictions that the community is trying to place on St. Mark. Or all of you with no connection to this issue othern than your opinion and loud mouth (much like a rear end - everyone has one) can get together and fork out the money to just let them sit there and rot.

By johnny t-bone

May 20, 2008 10:43 AM | Link to this

I just returned from a week in Europe visiting places such as Bruges, Antwerp, and Paris. None of the buildings in the article are old compared to most buildings in the cities mentioned above, however, Atlanta will never have a completely rich history until they decide to keep as many great old buildings as possible. To say that the location of these buildings make them an eyesore and that they have no history other than being old is very short-sighted. Bruges was left untouched and essentially deserted for years after WWII while Antwerp and Brussels came into prominence. At one point many of those buildings may have been considered eye-sores just because they were old. Look at it now and you would wonder why all cities don’t invest in restoring and maintaining as much of it’s great architectural history as possible. I was standing in the middle of a square in Antwerp about 48 hours ago and thought to myself that there is not one location anywhere in the US that has anything as remarkable (from an architectural standpoint) as this one little square in Belgium. At the rate we continue to kill our historic buildings, we never will.

By steve

May 20, 2008 10:49 AM | Link to this

At St. Mark, the issue is preserving Midtown’s historic pedetrian fabric even if the houses go. North Avenue Presbyterian had a similar project that may have helped the church but destroyed the surrounding district. We don’t want to see the same mistake repeated in the heart of Midtown. Tech has both an historic preservation and urban problem with their plan. Saving that building is important.

By Mr. Sensibility

May 20, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this

Let’s ask Maria, and all the others who want to condemn the church for tearing down historically dubious houses, where they live and what got torn down to erect their concrete condo bunkers. Can they justify the new building over what was there before? Also, it makes absolute sense for the church to consolidate their campus, especially for the sake of security and safety.

By Ruthie

May 20, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this

I was wondering the same thing. The new housing construction going up is concrete and steel. Did any of the new Midtown residents considering buying these buildings, renovate them and use them for their own housing? Are those arguing against the interim stage of a long term plan (by a 100+ year old church that plans to stay there for another 100 year) actually living in “historic” buildings? And, will someone remind me again how/way the author of the article deemed the buildings “historic”?

By Elizabeth

May 20, 2008 12:25 PM | Link to this

In the case of the St Mark parking expansion plan… 1) The houses in question have been eyesores for a very long time. If they were desirable for renovation, they would have been scarfed up and remodeled years ago with the rest of the real estate in Midtown. No individual, government body or preservation society has deemed them worthy of investment as they’ve deteriorated. 2) St Mark is one of the oldest and most productive citizens of Midtown. Its history is rich not only with religious tradition, but also with a commitment to social justice. St Mark has been an unwavering voice for equality, compassion and acceptance for more than half a century. The church embodies what Midtown is all about. (If you haven’t heard its story, I encourage you to learn.) Faced with development creeping in on all sides (and unworkable parking arrangements from its corporate neighbors), the leadership of the church is wise to invest in its long-term security. Midtown will be a better place as long as this congregation flourishes. 3) This is not a case of some money-hungry developer destroying a piece of history in order to make way for more cheap, empty condos. In many ways, it is a measure to protect a lively ministry that has served its neighbors for 100 years — a ministry that depends on the presence of a congregation that comes from all over the metro area (a metro area that, unfortunately, offers few or no public transportation options from most places).

To be fair, I agree that there are few situations that justify the demolition of old buildings. But this is one for the greater good. Ensuring that visitors to St Mark have parking to support their 7-days-a-week outreach, education, performing arts, and community service ministries is to lock in an active, contributing member of our community indefinitely.

By Brian

May 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this

I am still waiting for someone to offer to buy these properties from St. Mark so that they can “save history”..whatever that means, I still haven’t seen a single comment with facts that support these buildings being labeled “HISTORIC”. Plus…I totally agree with Mr. Sensibility…I don’t see people picketing these development firms that are building these huge concrete monstrosities after tearing down shops and buildings that have existed in this city long before most of us were born. By the way STEVE: Get to close to the church with your picket signs and we may just ask you to come in and join us for worship!!

By Steve

May 20, 2008 12:57 PM | Link to this

There have been a lot of good comments posted and some that may not reflect the actual situation. The actual situation is that Church activites and community outreach take place at Saint Mark seven days a week. The actual situation is that Saint Mark has an exciting Music anf Fine Arts ministry that is crippled by lack of rehearsal and performance space; Saint Mark has a growing number of childern that must make do with outdated facilities from the 1950s; Saint Mark as a very diverse outreach ministry that is limited by our lack of space. The actual situation is that Saint Mark needs a larger footprint to build the facilities we need; a footprint that can only be created by combining land those three houses occupy with the land we currently occupy. the lot we sold (across the street) was too small for a parking deck and too small (restricted by zoning) for the addtional facitilies we need. Saint Mark has been a pillar of Midtwon for over a hundred years; during the Depression; the post-war boom; the turmoil of the 1960s and 1970s; the resurgence of the last few years. All along the way Saint MArk has had to take small steps to realize big dreams. The purchase of those houses is a small step, buildiing parking to meet an immediate need is a small step, making plans for a new facility to expand our ministries is a small step, raising money to replace that parking lot with creative new spaces will be a small step, building that new facility will be the realization of a big dream, built one small step at the time.

By Will

May 20, 2008 1:10 PM | Link to this

Be reasonable folks. It’s not feasible to renovate the decrepit houses on Juniper. It’s not realistic to ask most folks to take MARTA to church. It seems to me Midtown is very fortunate to have St. Mark in its midst, and St. Mark provides a great service to the community. I’m sure they will eventually develop their property in a very responsible and sensitive multi-use way. In the mean time, be patient, and be grateful for their overall positive contribution to the community.

By Diane

May 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Steve, I am so happy that you are physically able to walk your few blocks to church. As one who has physical limitations, and is involved in activities at St. Mark several evenings each week, as well as weekends, I can attest to the fact that adequate parking is a necessity. We minister to all, not just the fit and healthy.

I agree with many who have voiced their opinions here, that destruction of beautiful old structures is shameful. The houses in question are not beautiful old structures. They’re just old — and in extreme disrepair. The renovation of these buildings is cost prohibitive for St. Mark. I guess my main question for all of you who oppose St. Mark’s vision is: Where were you when these properties were for sale? Why didn’t you step up, purchase, and “save” them?

The bottom line is that these properties belong to St. Mark UMC. You have every right to your opinions — as do I — but until the laws change drastically, all this talk is just that. You have no right to dictate to anyone what they may do with their own property, as long as no laws are broken.

… and Brian said it all: Why not come to visit us at St. Mark. We will make you welcome. (Come early, you may have trouble finding a place to park.)

By chris

May 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

Many of those opposed to the razing of the three St. Mark buildings live in historic Midtown, where we are seeing an ever increasing rate of demolitions. The feeling is that if something is not done to change this trend, Midtown as we know it will become a thing of the past.

We can debate the historic significance of these buildings all day, but the fact is that they are some of the oldest structures in Midtown, are extremely well built, and are excellent candidates for adaptive reuse. In addition, and contrary to a point made above, all three are within the boundaries of the National Register Historic District. All three are also within the proposed Midtown Local Historic District, which St Mark knew before “swapping” them for their perfectly good, existing parking lot.

St. Mark took a calculated risk in purchasing these homes with the clear intention of tearing them down. Don’t let them out of their bad investment decision by appealing to the unrealistic idea of absolute property rights, where they can do whatever they chose without limitation or consideration for their neighbors. None of the rest of us has that right, and neither should they.

By steve

May 20, 2008 1:24 PM | Link to this

What I’m saying is to get the city or Midtown Alliance to help you financially build the parking deck now. I’m certain you won’t need 100% of the spaces 100% of the time so write a contract with them so you get 100% of the parking on Sunday mornings and some smaller percentage of parking at other times. Share your parking with nearby restaurants, shops, offices and residences that lack parking. I have been in your gorgeous church and anyone who hasn’t should take the MARTA #10 bus and see it!

By Jennifer

May 20, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this

I have only skimmed responses here so I am sorry if I am repeating something someone else has already said. I think the people who attend St. Marks do not want to pay to park in the lots that are already within a close proximity of the church. There is no reason to tear down anything to make yet another parking lot. There are plenty in that particular area. Walk a little, pay to park, take MARTA, take a cab, etc. There are many alternatives other than demolishing a building to make another parking lot.

By Jennifer

May 20, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

And, by the way, the Sunday schedule for MARTA is not that terrible. So you would have to be a little more clear in your argument against taking MARTA on Sunday for me to believe that your members cannot possibly use MARTA on Sundays. And as far as you saying your members need close, safe parking: It is all over within a one block radius. And if they are that scared of being attacked (AKA asked for money by homeless people) then I can’t help but think they may in fact have deeper issues. I walk around Midtown almost every day. Am I aware of my surroundings? Certainly. Am I scared? No. How many of your members can take part in the MARTA Park and Ride? I would venture to bet a good portion of them can.

By d story

May 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this

St Mark is more than just a Church on Sunday morning. It is a community bldg and seven days a week you will find community groups and even some of our midtown neighbors using this building for their use. And we are happy to use our space this way. We want to be in community with anyone who comes to our doors. The parking need is real. That is a simple fact. I personally am happy that we have this need in Midtown. We are a growing vibrant congregation and I hope we are still here for another 105 years when we can just teleport ourselves into the pews. But for 2008 we need the parking.

By Jennifer

May 20, 2008 5:18 PM | Link to this

d story: I appreciate your thoughts and I understand the need for parking. That is why there are many lots already within easy walking distance of the church. I live in Midtown just a couple of blocks from the church and I walk everywhere. It is quite safe. I think perhaps the fact that folks in Midtown do a lot of walking and try to get around by alternate means rather than using their cars should be something that the church listens to. We do not want another parking lot because there are many in the area now. There are alternate solutions to the parking issue you say that you have, but it does not seem as if anyone from the church is listening to those of us who actually live here. Rather, it seems as if you are only listening to yourselves and those in your congregation. Even though I would never picket your church, I must agree with the above poster who said that this is Midtown, not Gwinnett. And we do not want or need another parking lot. Please try to understand this, listen to us, and find alternatives. They are out there, you just have to use them. Your congregation can walk one block or two blocks to church.

By claire

May 20, 2008 5:55 PM | Link to this

I think St Marks church needs to move and get out of midtown if this is waht they think a good nighbor is. If all your people are from the suburbs then take your church out to the suburbs……BYE

By ed

May 20, 2008 6:17 PM | Link to this

People. We are all well aware that there are parking lots in Midtown…today. There is no guarantee that these will be there in 1 year, 5 years… In fact, one of the reasons St Mark began its search for reliable parking alternatives is that it has been warned that the current options are temporary. Back to a suggestion from an earlier post… If someone wants the houses… Take them and invest the $4MM to preserve them. I’m hearing a lot of talk, but have yet to see the first sign of action.

By wtf

May 20, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

why are there not more comments about the georgia tech tear down? what a gorgeous building! quit picking on st mark, who has few options for its budget and purpose. georgia tech surely has more cash, and other options.

By Greg

May 20, 2008 6:32 PM | Link to this

I’m bothered by the fact that this whole conversation seems to have taken on the tenor of “you’re either for Saint Mark or you’re against it”. I am a Saint Mark member who opposes the demolition of the Juniper Street houses. Yet in the postings on this blog and particularly the e-mails that have been circulating among church members, there seems to be no consideration of the possibility that a loyal church member could have a dissenting view on this issue. One e-mail I received even carried the subject line “Do You Love Saint Mark?”

I find this particularly ironic given the ostracized position in which Saint Mark so often finds itself in relation to the larger United Methodist Church. We were recently quite stung when the governing body of the UMC told us there is no room for dissenting opinions on the question of sexual orientation and Christian faith.

For those demanding proof of the historic nature of the houses in question: It is not necessary that George Washington slept there or that the Japanese signed the surrender in the breakfast room for a building to have historic value. These houses are part of the built environment of Midtown; they are its urban fabric and when they are gone, replaced by yet another parking lot, they are gone forever. They are the last remnants on the church’s block of the turn-of-the-century residential neighborhood that lies at the very foundation of Saint Mark’s history.

I for one have never felt the parking situation at our church to be so grave. The small lot immediately behind the sanctuary can provide easy access for the handicapped and the elderly; I never found parking in the lot across Juniper (the “Spice” lot) or on the street on Sundays to be an imposition. Can we really not walk across the street to go to church?

By Greg

May 20, 2008 6:34 PM | Link to this

I’m bothered by the fact that this whole conversation seems to have taken on the tenor of “you’re either for Saint Mark or you’re against it”. I am a Saint Mark member who opposes the demolition of the Juniper Street houses. Yet in the postings on this blog and particularly the e-mails that have been circulating among church members, there seems to be no consideration of the possibility that a loyal church member could have a dissenting view on this issue. One e-mail I received even carried the subject line “Do You Love Saint Mark?”

I find this particularly ironic given the ostracized position in which Saint Mark so often finds itself in relation to the larger United Methodist Church. We were recently quite stung when the governing body of the UMC told us there is no room for dissenting opinions on the question of sexual orientation and Christian faith.

For those demanding proof of the historic nature of the houses in question: It is not necessary that George Washington slept there or that the Japanese signed the surrender in the breakfast room for a building to have historic value. These houses are part of the built environment of Midtown; they are its urban fabric and when they are gone, replaced by yet another parking lot, they are gone forever. They are the last remnants on the church’s block of the turn-of-the-century residential neighborhood that lies at the very foundation of Saint Mark’s history.

I for one have never felt the parking situation at our church to be so grave. The small lot immediately behind the sanctuary can provide easy access for the handicapped and the elderly; I never found parking in the lot across Juniper (the “Spice” lot) or on the street on Sundays to be an imposition. Can we really not walk across the street to go to church?

By Spring4th Center

May 20, 2008 6:56 PM | Link to this

PART 1 of 2

Midtown is a very confusing place to operate a business or a church when it comes to parking. Let me explain.

Let’s start with St. Mark. Because they have been in the same location for a long time, it appears that they are grandfathered as far as the number of parking spaces required by the zoning ordinance. According to an earlier post here, current zoning would require 125 spaces. They have only 22 spaces. I do not know how many they are “required” to have, but I am going to speculate that it is zero which is true of many businesses and churches who existed prior to the adoption of the zoning changes several years ago. So St. Mark probably complies with the City’s requirements as far as parking. But if they expand in some way (i.e., addition of a facility to expand their music program), they will be required to comply with the current parking rules and have 125 spaces on-site.

But of course, their real concern and need is based on their own knowledge of their ministry, the numbers of people attending, the days/times, where these people are willing or not willing to park, what actual parking is available, plus the desire of St. Mark to provide this parking to its attendees at no charge.

All of the examples that others have stated about using this lot or that lot, etc. are great ideas, but the reality is that actually obtaining any type of “lease” for parking spaces is much more complicated than may be expected due to numerous legal, liability and financial issues. I am confident they have done their full due diligence in exploring other options.

So St. Mark is taking the steps they have determined are prudent to address the actual parking requirements of their organization. And they are being incredibly second-guessed and opposed by many people (including me, until I gained a better understanding of the situation) for their decision to provide additional parking at a convenient location that will address their needs.

If St. Mark is not permitted to proceed with their “interim” surface parking solution, they will face real challenges in continuing to operate at their current levels. But (at least until they move forward with expansion), they do NOT face any issues with the City as far as how much parking they are providing.

By Spring4th Center

May 20, 2008 7:25 PM | Link to this

PART 2 of 2

Contrast this situation with that of another business, Spring4th Center, located on Spring Street, between 3rd and 4th Street, of which I am a co-owner.

This building has existed for many years as an office/warehouse, but had been vacant for an extended period. We moved into the building with the intention of changing its “use” from office/warehouse to an affordable community/event center. Although NO construction is required to do this, the building now has to comply with the current parking requirements, which the City determined was 71 spaces.

Unlike St. Mark, people attending events at Spring4th Center will have NO issues in actually finding available parking. The entrance to the facility is less than 200 feet from the Tech Square Parking Deck. This deck has over 250 spaces vacant every day Monday through Friday during business hours. On weekends and evenings, almost ALL of its 1,500 spaces are vacant and available for use. This parking deck is open to the public 24/7 and the rates charged are reasonable. Unlike the people coming to St. Mark, individuals attending events at Spring4th Center expect that they will need to pay for parking—after all, this is a high density urban neighborhood not a suburban shopping mall. The highest parking demand will be weekend evenings, although this will vary depending upon the events scheduled. In addition, there is a public AT&T parking deck at 4th and Peachtree with significant excess capacity (less than 1-1/2 blocks away) and hundreds of surface parking spaces between Ponce & 3rd (about 1-1/2 blocks away). And MARTA is 2 blocks away.

So, it sure sounds like Spring4th Center is lucky to have all that parking so conveniently located, right? That’s what we thought when we selected this location for our business. But the City and every neighborhood organization (MNA, NPU-E, Midtown Alliance, Midtown DRC) that we have met with felt otherwise, as did the City’s Director of Planning and, albeit reluctantly, the Board of Zoning Adjustment.

So what’s the problem? The problem is that we are required to have those 71 spaces on-site. Unlike St. Mark, we have no options for providing our own surface parking lot. If we can’t provide the spaces on-site, then we must have a “leased arrangement” for the spaces in another parking facility. But Georgia Tech’s policies prevent them from entering into such a parking arrangement with an entity that is not affiliated with the school (or, at least that’s what they told us after many months of attempts to secure such a lease).

Since all those empty parking spaces (more than the parking garage the City operates for Underground Atlanta!) within 200 feet are not “reserved” for Spring4th Center’s attendees 24/7, the City just completely ignores them in determining if we have adequate parking. Seems pretty silly to require that 71 spaces be “reserved”, when there are 1,000+ spaces vacant, right? Well, that’s the City of Atlanta spending your tax dollars fighting our business for the last 12 months.

Spring4th Center, like St. Mark, made purposeful decisions (in our initial identification of this location because of its proximity to abundant parking) to address our REAL parking needs (not the arbitrary “requirements” in the City’s zoning ordinance). People attending Spring4th Center will have no challenges finding convenient, safe and affordable parking.

But because we are unable to secure a “lease” for these spaces, the City of Atlanta has refused to recognize us as a community/event center.

If we are not able to get some relief on this parking requirement, this building will once again be vacant (until it is eventually demolished to make way for future development). And we all know what that means as far as the increase in vagrants, litter, prostitution, car break ins, etc. —combined with the expected new vacant lot if the Crum & Foster building is demolished. It feels like this urban planning is taking us backwards and not forward.

More to come to address several other issues raised by people on this blog…

By Attendee

May 20, 2008 11:03 PM | Link to this

After attending tonight’s meeting with the Midtown Neighbors’ Land Use Committee, I just wanted to take a moment to thank Rev. Moor for his open dialogue with the Midtown community. He was very willing to listen to the concerns of his neighbors while looking out for the needs of his congregation & their ministry. St. Mark should be very proud of their leaders. It is imperative that the Midtown Neighbors Association & Midtown Alliance work diligently & swiftly towards a compromise that fulfills the needs of the church and the community. There was a lot of talk about creative solutions but discovering those solutions takes a lot of effort by the community. We must also work in patience & understanding in realizing that St. Mark’s mission is not urban planning and development. The leaders of the association & alliance must lead that dialogue and take seriously the needs of the church.

On the other hand, the actions of the Georgia Tech Foundation are despicable. It’s in the best interest of Georgia Tech’s reputation of promoting solid planning and urban development to take seriously the damage the Foundation’s arrogance will have on the surrounding community. Claiming that renovating 771 Spring Street is a not viable option is deplorable considering the great strides Midtown has been in restoring architecturally significant buildings. Furthermore, planning to demolish the building with only vague references of future development & no definite plans to an expand Tech Square is unbelievable. It is as if they are admitting to demolishing the building before the city realizes what it lost. The Foundation should heed the calls within the architecture & city planning program of its own university to abandon plans for demolition.

By Steve

May 20, 2008 11:25 PM | Link to this

I don’t know why the city or Midtown won’t address the needs of the Spring/4th Center but it illustrates why the city and Midtown need to consider municipal/shared parking. Shared parking can greatly reduce the number of spaces required which saves trees (remember them). No business would open without the parking it knows it needs so requiring a minimum number of spaces is pointless. Questions raised are: What kinds of shared parking arrangements are allowed? How does the citiy encourage businesses with decks to share parking? How does the city calculate the ebb and flow of parking needs throughout the day/week/year for the ever changing mix of uses? Should the city build municipal decks and increase on-street parking? How does Midtown make pedestrian activity safer/more enjoyable?

By David

May 21, 2008 1:17 PM | Link to this

The Tech Square parking deck directly facing the Crum & Forster building has several levels of parking at the top that are wide open, maybe save on football game days. Talk to GT parking anyone? It’s worth a try anyway. (Yes, I know the reputation that GT parking has, but has anyone actually asked the question? They have made arrangements with groups before.)

I don’t understand why Georgia Tech owns the property and then Saint Marks wants to use it. I’d like to see Georgia Tech do something with the land for Georgia Tech. If this is going to be for Saint Marks, then let Saint Marks buy it.

And people, Georgia Tech is not overflowing with cash, so stop pretending like they have money to burn to do something with this building. Maybe the GT Foundation does, but that is another story—don’t attack the school itself. The huge nice, new buildings that you see everywhere are funded by donors who designate the money only for those buildings. The 5th Street bridge was paid entirely by the Georgia DOT. Hardly any of the money we get comes from either tuition or the state; it’s from research grants and from alumni, who all want a say in what to do with their money. As a student that has watched the administration do their work, it is amazing how much they are actually able to do with such tight budgets and so many regulatory constraints from the state.

I go to Buckhead Church. Before we were in our current facility, we had to park several blocks away, in one of several different lots or decks, and we’d have to drive around in circles until we found one that was open. But the church had parking staff directing traffic, had shuttle buses taking people to the church that couldn’t walk…their volunteers made the parking problem work out and did it with a smile on their faces.

By David

May 21, 2008 1:55 PM | Link to this

disregard my first two paragraphs above, I didn’t understand that those were different lots…

By Bill @ St.Mark

May 21, 2008 2:46 PM | Link to this

You are right, St.Mark is grand fathered in for parking requirements. We offer that 125 space argument merely to show what the city thinks we need.

Even though we are grandfathered, we still have parking problems.

By Bill @ St.Mark

May 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

want to know what happened last night.

See related story and blog at:

www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/businessinsider/entries/2008/05/20/midtownneighborsoppose_demol.html

By Bill @ St.Mark

May 21, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this

want to know what happened last night.

See related story and blog at:

www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/businessinsider/entries/2008/05/20/midtownneighborsoppose_demol.html

By Bill @ St.Mark

May 21, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this

Sorry, the correct link is

www.ajc.com/blogs/content/shared-blogs/ajc/businessinsider/entries/2008/05/20/midtownneighborsoppose_demol.htm

By AtlRes

May 21, 2008 11:51 PM | Link to this

People should not be supprised by a church that does not give a damn about the community. The premis of being a good christian is believing that you will be one of the “chose few” to go to heaven to be happy while others burn in hell for eternity and that you will be happy and celebrating in heaven while others you knew on earth are being tormented in hell. Why would you think sick people like this would care anything about the community and the environmental impact of a parking lot.

By AtlRes

May 21, 2008 11:51 PM | Link to this

People should not be supprised by a church that does not give a damn about the community. The premis of being a good christian is believing that you will be one of the “chose few” to go to heaven to be happy while others burn in hell for eternity and that you will be happy and celebrating in heaven while others you knew on earth are being tormented in hell. Why would you think sick people like this would care anything about the community and the environmental impact of a parking lot.