Business Insider

By Joe

July 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Wow! What a one sided article. Way to go AJC!!

And if you are going to state in the article that “Currently the three buildings have no historic designation.” then what is the argument here? Has anyone actually looked at these structures? Seems like a great location for criminal activity. Is that what the midtown alliance is looking for?

Seems to me that the midtown alliance should be working with St. Mark, their neighbor for over 100 years, to help keep the church a thriving part of the community instead of trying to limit the churches potential.

By Joe

July 11, 2008 11:15 AM | Link to this

Wow! What a one sided article. Way to go AJC!!

And if you are going to state in the article that “Currently the three buildings have no historic designation.” then what is the argument here? Has anyone actually looked at these structures? Seems like a great location for criminal activity. Is that what the midtown alliance is looking for?

Seems to me that the midtown alliance should be working with St. Mark, their neighbor for over 100 years, to help keep the church a thriving part of the community instead of trying to limit the church’s potential.

By Dan

July 11, 2008 12:12 PM | Link to this

Historic? Come on now, these buildings are just old (and not really old, just sort of old) and already falling apart. There are precious few people who actually believe they warrant “historic” status, and so it’s interesting that you’ve included that designation in the title of the article.

I’m behind the neighbors trying to get St. Mark’s to do something better with their land, and they should have a say in the process, but there is a point at which this gets ridiculous.

SPI 16 and the newest Blueprint Midtown are very clear about not allowing for new surface parking lots. The bottom line is that they hurt the urban fabric of the city, destroy any sort of pedestrian connectivity we do have, and can be harbingers for illicit activities (ie prostitution and drugs). 95% of the time that lot would be empty, since St. Mark’s really only needs it on Sundays. Why can’t we talk about that when evaluating a proposal for surface parking? Why hide behind this farce of “historic preservation?”

By Andy

July 11, 2008 1:58 PM | Link to this

I am a member at St. Mark and am very hurt at how my church is being treated by our neighbors and community. We are quickly running out of places to park which will cause our members and potential new members to go to one of the churches outside of midtown or to a church that does have parking. Is that what the midtown neighbors association wants? St. Mark has always had a reputation of reaching out to the community and serving the community. How can that very community bite the hand that feeds it?

Can we talk for a minute about preserving the actual historic building which would be St. Mark’s sanctuary? By attempting to preserve these so called “historic” eye sores and prevent St. Markers from parking, we will be looking down the road at losing the truly historic building which is our church.

I agree that surface parking is not an ideal use of land, but for the short term, that is where we have to start to gain the parking we need. Without that short term step, the long term plan of building a structure there may never happen.

And I disagree with the comment above that this parking lot will be empty 95% of the time. St. Mark is a very active church and I would venture to say that the parking lot will have activity most every night of the week. Check the churches web site for all of the activities that occur on week nights. www.stmarkumc.org

There is more potential crime in the houses that are sitting there falling apart than in a parking lot that will be used heavily by church members and the community members that come to the church for weekly activities.

By Mark

July 11, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this

All three of these buildings are indeed historically significant and are elgible for listing on the National Register.The fact that that has not happened yet is not relevant to their value. In addition, they are an important part of the neighborhood in which St Marks was built and sustained through the years. If restored they could again be an asset to the area and could potentially provide residents who would attend St. Marks, trade with local businesses and contribute to mid-town’s cultural life. Institutions which exist just to serve suburbanites who drive in and drive out are dinosours from the bad old days of sprawl. It is time for St Marks to think holistically and sustainably about its future.

By Chris L

July 11, 2008 2:24 PM | Link to this

“By Joe

Seems to me that the midtown alliance should be working with St. Mark, their neighbor for over 100 years, to help keep the church a thriving part of the community instead of trying to limit the church’s potential.”

Joe, clearly you have no idea what you are talking about. Both the Midtown Alliance and the Midtown Neighborhood association have devote significant amounts of their own time and resources to provide St. Mark’s with a variety of options that satisfy their needs without tearing down historic structures and putting in another surface lot.

It is St. Mark’s who is being the bad neighbor here, selfishly putting their own needs ahead of their neighbors. Regardless, they can choose to be a bad neighbor as long as they don’t violate code in the process.

Finally, the notion that St. Mark’s requires a big sheet of asphalt to “keep the church a thriving part of the community” and reach its “potential” is a load of crap. Sorry, but it is.

By Tony

July 11, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

In its public presentations, St Mark routinely cites that the Juniper Street structures have no historic designation and they are technically correct here. But to extend such a claim is adopt a very narrow interpretation of the situation. The MNA and the Atlanta Preservation Center believe that the Juniper Street houses, in conjunction with the neighboring historic residential building, constitute an ensemble that creates a continuous historic block along Juniper Street. We feel that this condition is unique along this corridor and warrants consideration in accordance with the following sections of the code: 16-20.001, and 16-20.004.

There can be no doubt that Midtown as a district has concerns over the preservation of its historic fabric. In fact SPI-17 is considered by the city an historically sensitive area that serves as a transition between SPI-16 and the older R-5 classified area of Midtown to the east. Additionally, for the past three years the MNA has been working on an Historic District classification for an area within Midtown that extends to Juniper Street and includes the three structures St Mark cites in the SAP. This like all of MNA’s initiatives has been publicly vetted and available on our website for quite some time. It was for these reasons that the MNA and the APC have sought to preserve these structures in our concept proposals worked out with St Mark.

The issue before all the committees thus far and before the Bureau of Planning is the issue of code compliance and established precedent in its interpretation. As stated in the DRC meeting and every meeting prior the code is explicit regarding the addition of surface parking lots within SPI-16. The code is also explicit in allowing for reduction of parking requirements in urban areas of the city, including SPI-16. The code is also explicit in encouraging shared parking agreements and the code is clear about not allowing any parking between a building and the street within SPI-16 (Sec. 16-18P.022). It is my understanding from our conversation last night that at issue here is how to weight two dueling code concerns. The first being the ancillary parking to a structure and minimum parking requirements and second parking between a building and a street. I would ask that Bureau of Planning closely scrutinize some key points in St Mark’s presentations. St. Mark routinely cites a section of the code that references ancillary parking as the grounds for their request for this surface parking lot. The code does address ancillary parking, but it references surface parking that is grandfathered into the code not the creation of new surface parking lots. Such lots are brought up to code in their treatment at the side walk etc. But the code encourages their future removal. Additionally it must be recognized that St. Mark currently has ancillary parking in the back of the church that is contiguous with the historic structure. That parking is accessed off of Fifth street and continues under the 1950’s addition. The church has been unclear as to how many parking spaces are contained in that area claiming in various documents between 23 and 45. If any part of the code addressing ancillary parking should apply to this case it should apply to this parking area and not a new surface parking lot. St. Mark routinely cites that the code requires a minimum of 125 parking spaces for a new church of its size. The code may well cite minimum parking requirements for new structures, but existing structures are grandfathered in and are not subject to such minimums. Again St Mark was built in 1905 and is not required to provide such parking. This means that there are no code requirements placed on St Mark to pursue this option. Additionally there is established precedent to interpret the parking code requirements, including minimums, as flexible. The codes for SPI-16 and the Blueprint Midtown encourage parking reductions, and shared parking agreements. The established precedent in SPI-16 is to allow applicants to reduce the minimum on site parking requirements to as few as possible. The established precedent is to reduce only to the level that maintains enough for employee parking. They are neither required by code to have such spaces nor is there precedent for such a requirement. This is an option of choice for the applicant’s convenience and should be identified as such, by the Bureau of Planning as it has been at the LUC, the NPU-E and the DRC for SPI-16

These two citations are routinely presented by St Mark as the grounds for the variance to the code restricting the placement of parking between the building and the street. But if neither one of them is, as I maintain valid, then there is no justification for the variance. Furthermore, while the proposed lot would have an adjacency to the true grandfathered ancillary lot it is not contiguous to it due to a change in elevation of several feet. Thus the two lots would have to operate independently as they do in the proposed plan presented in the SAP. The plan proposed in the Midtown concept points would have made them contiguous and thus the surface lot proposed there would have been a true extension of the ancillary lot and not the creation of an entirely new one.

My concern here is that the approval of this SAP would establish a highly detrimental precedent not only for SPI-16 but for all of the city of Atlanta. That precedent would allow property owners to place parking between the building and the street by claiming the need to extend ancillary parking to meet stated parking requirements. What is to prevent the next applicant from purchasing property surrounding their lot and literally razing an entire city block to extend ancillary parking to bring it up to ‘code’ requirements. And at what level of requirement? The code establishes minimums and maximums. What if the next applicant chooses to pursue the maximum?

By Tony

July 11, 2008 2:37 PM | Link to this

St Mark has come before the community at various public meetings on five occasions and presented their concerns and intentions publicly. The LUC also meet with St Mark on several occasions privately to discuss their strategic plan for the future and development options for their site. We pulled together a group of experts who listened to the Church’s stated needs for both immediate parking and future unrestricted growth and developed plans to accommodate both without demolition of the Juniper Street buildings. The Architectural firm of Lord, Aech and Sargent did study sketches that demonstrated that if the Fifth Street houses were removed a surface lot that could hold more parking than the current SAP proposal could be built. Furthermore, that lot was large enough that in the future St Mark could build either; a temporary deck that could hold more parking, a permanent deck with additional occupy-able and or lease-able space, or a mixed use tower like the one Mr. Sanders claims he would eventually like to see on the site. The concept points developed in those meetings in no way hindered any of the stated intentions of St Mark at any of the public or private meetings.

By ebenes

July 11, 2008 2:41 PM | Link to this

Andy -

Please spare us the pontification. St marks benefits greatly from the efforts of the groups in question, so the notion that these groups “owe” st marks anything is absurd.

I do know that the st marks homeless outreach program attracts and feeds the vagrants who get drunk and roam through my back yard. My guess is that if the church’s membership grew by attracting the massive influx of new Midtown residents, you wouldn’t need a new big parking lot. You would also probably find that the desire to atrract vagrants to the neighborhood diminishes as well.

By Frank

July 11, 2008 2:47 PM | Link to this

Why is it that the rest of the country practices “adaptive reuse” while Atlanta doesn’t even know the term. This is just another indication the hillbilly mentality of this city. These posts claiming an asphalt parking lot is better than a historic homes just shows the suburban, countrified mentality that runs rampant in Atlanta. To those who think like hillbillies, I say stay out of the city and stay stuck in your SUV.

By A neighbor

July 11, 2008 2:58 PM | Link to this

One of the pieces of information that has not been mentioned in either Saporta’s article or the comments above is that St. Mark had a parking lot of more than 60 spaces directly across Juniper from the property they now want to demolish. They sold it to buy these three properties. They also indicate that they want to consolidate their holdings on the north side of the block between 5th and 4th and Peachtree and Juniper. They certainly are within their rights to do that, but it seems that buying the property on 5th that is adjacent to their church would have been more prudent and would have met their needs in a more expedient manner.

Furthermore, Mr. Sanders’ comment at the DRC meeting last night that the ideas proffered by MNA and the preservation community were “half-baked” is wrong and certainly insulting to those who worked hard to provide more than one option for the St. Mark congregation to move forward with their expansion plans. The preservation community even offered to moth-ball the three buildings and to provide the funding so that St. Mark could purchase the remaining property on 5th Street. However, at every turn St. Mark’s representative, Mr. Sanders provides illogical and half-baked arguments against anything to save those buildings. By his actions, and by extension the congregation, St. Mark is tearing another hole in the fabric of the community they have called home for more than 100 years.

Shame on them!

By Tony

July 11, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this

to Andy’s comment that St Mark’s parking lot would be utilized 95% of the time I would like to note that St Mark had a parking lot across the street on fifth which it sold. That lot was never 95% full of St Markers. It was utilized by St Mark as a public pay lot to raise money. surely if St Mark utilized it that much it would not be available for public parking. Additionally the church currently has ancillary parking for at least 20 cars, the city of Atlanta allows St Mark’s parishoners to park on both PEachtree and fifth streets on Sundays. There is a public lot across fifth street from St Mark and the ATT parking Deck across Peachtree from St mark is public as well. There is able parking within a one block walking distance. The real issue is that St Mark’s parishoners who live outside the Midtown area want to worship in Midtown but don’t want to pay for parking. That is the fact. And they believe that the MNA, the Midtown alliance, the Atlanta RPeservation Center and the Cities codes and zoning ordinances as well as the interests and goals of the residents of Midtown should be disregard for thier fiscal convenience. Shame on you Andy!

By Deedra

July 11, 2008 6:23 PM | Link to this

To specifically address a couple of points - this lot does and will sit empty the majority of the time. I know this as I live in the condos next door to these buildings and my unit looks out onto this property. Even on Sundays, this lot is rarely near capacity.

One of the early stated reasons for selling the lot St. Mark UMC owned directly across Juniper is it is unsafe for their congregants to cross Juniper Street. If this surface lot is allowed, all foot traffic, and there is a lot of foot traffic, on the east side of Juniper is put into greater peril than already exists.

Too many of us have been hit or almost hit crossing 5th Street on the east side of Juniper with the aid of a traffic light. Cars turning right (south) onto Juniper never look right because there will be no approaching cars for which they need to be concerned. The thought of potential pedestrian traffic never enters the vehicle mentality. If cars are exiting the proposed lot onto Juniper, a one-way south street, the chances of pedestrian incidents will increase exponentially as cars will not be regulated by a traffic light and will rush out onto Juniper to beat oncoming traffic.

Alarmist, you may think. I beg to differ. The same is already occurring with the aid of the traffic light. With no regulating devise, pedestrians on the east side of Junper will be at risk each and every time there are cars using this lot.

By Graham

July 12, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this

I have two concerns about this project at St. Marks.

By Warren

July 12, 2008 10:04 AM | Link to this

Comment like only a “precious few people” want to save the houses is just plain stupid and uninformed. A great many people have spoken out and taken the time to attend the meetings.
No one dislikes the church. However it has NOT acted in a kind manner to its neighbors remaining aloof and unresponsive to talks. I’ve read ALL proposals presented to them and their many, diverse and effective at solving ALL of the church’s needs. What’s most disturbing is that St. Marks has flip-flopped its reasoning for the demolition as often as a politician running for office. They had parked and sold it. They’ve threatened the city with litigation while ignoring everyone who opposes yet wants to help find a solution.
It’s Mr Sander’s motives that remain unclear and perhaps it’s not the church he is serving but himself for future profits. No one can even tell us his position with the church. He acts like the owner. Few if any of the churches’ members have come to meetings to support it. A couple have spoken out against it. Their lawyer even said to me that had the gotten the demolition permit they would have torn the buildings down regardless of all of the committees’ pemrit denials. While they are a church they still need to follow the law and ordinances of their city. Everyone they’ve met with wants to help solve their problems. they don’t want a solution-I wonder if all of the chrich members really know what is going on.

By saf

July 12, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this

Yes, it will have parking all evenings of the week as ST. Mark allows restaruants in the area to park for a fee. Clearly, the church has more to do with its money than go on spending spree’s to aquire land. As an intown church perhaps they could offer a shuttle from the Marta stations that are close by.

By saf

July 12, 2008 10:52 AM | Link to this

Yes, it will have parking all evenings of the week as ST. Mark allows restaruants in the area to park for a fee. Clearly, the church has more to do with its money than go on spending spree’s to aquire land. As an intown church perhaps they could offer a shuttle from the Marta stations that are close by.

By Lee

July 13, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this

I agree with SAF …. why not offer some kind of shuttle service from certain points in the vicinity to transport the worshippers to and from the church? I am very surprised that the church leadership, per se, has been short sighted. (If they have been). Midtown does not need another parking lot..Isn’t one of the biggest needs in Atlanta is to leave your car at home, take transit and/or walk when possible ? The buildings need to be saved (no pun intended).

By Brian

July 14, 2008 8:02 AM | Link to this

Wow…I have truly never seen in my life, such attacks on a church that is known for their outreach to the community, who would do anything to help someone in need, and who has been there time and time again to support a community that seems to want nothing more than to drag the good name of St. Mark through the mud. Where were you all when that out of place, eye sore of a bilboard was placed in the pay parking lot at Juniper and 5th???? Why haven’t you stormed the Bastille to have that removed…it certainly adds so much “historic value” to midtown. How much money has been raised by the community to restore these “historic” homes that are so “precious” to midtown??? Where were all of you “neighbors” when these homes were for sale? Even when they were inhabited they looked like crack houses…I never saw a campaign to save them then, and this self serving ritual to destroy a church’s reputation isn’t sitting well with others of us who live in the community as well. Maybe those of you who quote code and city ordinance would do much better to go to church and learn what it is to be a good neighbor. I stand amazed that the Midtown Neighborhood Alliances…or what ever you call yourselves… have been able to stop the building of huge skyscrapers and condos that have replaced beautiful, old store fronts that provided the area with true character. Or, what about that lovely HOLE that sits near 10th and Piedmont, next to the spa??? Face it Atlanta…the development of new properties in this city has far outweighed the need for historic preservation…that is clear from the manner in which Atlantans tear down what is old to replace with new, and your inability to stop it then, is no need to pull up your pants for one more last ditch effort to stop it now. You cannot reclaim the past, or try to make up for a cities inabilities to preserve the past. This city has never seemed to place history on the forefront of anything. Otherwise these new structures would not have replaced wonderful old office buildings and theatres that once graced the streets of the city. For those of you who do not appreciate what the church does for the homeless…let me let you in on a little secret…it is a ministry that helps others rise from the ashes, and encourages people that there is hope in the world and that there are good people who are on this earth to share love and fellowship…not hate. Its easy to sit up in your million dollar homes and “take up a cause”, but when it comes to serving the community…and these people, the homeless and less fortunate are members of the community as well. Where are you to help them out, or provide alternatives for them??? I am so tired of the “I am more of a christian than that person” attitude. GRAHAM: How dare you pass judgement on another person claiming that you are such a high and mighty christian. What church do you belong to that you cannot state the name in this blog? Maybe you should get to know someone first before you spout off on who is acting as a christian and who isn’t. SHAME ON THE CHURCH????????… SHAME ON ALL OF YOU, SHAME ON YOUR POLITICS, YOUR SELF-SERVING ATTITUDES, AND YOUR BACK STABBING MANNERISMS.

By Lee

July 14, 2008 8:55 PM | Link to this

Brian, I beg to differ … I think most of the posters are not bashing the church or its ministries, I do think some of the posters felt that the church was being under-handed when it came to the demolition permits. You have been quite eloquent at making your case, however. It obviously is a big concern for you and personally, I respect that. I just disagree.

By Lana

July 15, 2008 8:13 AM | Link to this

I read this article with a heavy heart. I have been a resident of Midtown for years and agree we should safeguard our historical sites. But when did it become okay to attack a church with the long history and neighborhood outreach this church has provided to the community. I drove by this site with an independent view, and see no issue with the church proposal. They have a small piece of land they want to use for parking and in the future an expanded building. The council and residents have no problem with letting in starbucks, Trump tower, Mcmansions, the unrelenting assault on the commmunity with condo after condo building. This church does alot to outreach to the very people the neighbors are complaining about. If we run the churches out of town, then what do we have left? I suggest you go have your latte and do some soul searching.

By James

July 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Link to this

Well said, Lana. As of today I’ve quit shopping in Midtown, dining in Midtown, and doing business with any Midtown establishment. I will exercise my support of St. Mark by taking my dollars OUTSIDE of Midtown instead of shopping in my immediate area. Maybe that’s what the ‘Midtown Alliance’ - whatever that means - would prefer.

By Tony

July 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this

Let me respond to those who accuse the Midtown Nieghbor’s Association and the Midtown Alliance of attaching a church. Since when is disagreeing with a church unacceptable? This is not a theocracy and to my knowledge the Methodist church is not adverse to disention or disagreement. The disagreement is not with St Mark as either a Church or a Midtown institution which it has been since 1905, but with its leaderships decision to abandon the Blueprint and the code and zoning laws and precendents that the Church has supported fully in the past. The Land Use committee spent much time working with the St Mark Committee in an amicable and respectful environment such that Mr Sanders himself send the Chair of the Land Use committee a letter stating that despite the agreement to disagree it was a pleasure working with the LUC and the MNA in such a respectful environment. I respect the opinions of those who support the church in print (noting that they choose not to support them in person at any of the five public meetings) but I think that you should stick to the facts of the situation and the facts are that no one has challenged the idea of St Mark as a vital and historic member of the Midtown community and that the Church and its committee was treated with respect and concern for its needs throughout this process. What I do see is a consistent attack on the Midtown Neighbors Association, the Alliance, the residences of Midtown and the cities zoning and codes for not backing the church in its endeavor to demolish the three structures. The Church is a religious institution and it has the support of Midtown as it has since 1905 in the pursuit of its spiritual ministry. The issue before the Bureau of planning is not a part of that it is an issue of parking and potentionally a business opportunity for the church to work with a developer to develop a tall building on the site (this has been stated publically by Mr. Sanders on several occassions). It needs once again to be stated that St Mark has no strategic plan for the expansion of any of its current ministries or the addition of any new ones at this time or the near future. This was a concern of the LUC in its meetings with St Mark in attempting to address the church’s current and future needs. Additionally supporters of the Church’s position constantly cite personal property rights as a basis of there support. Let’s be clear here as well. This is the U.S. of America our founding fathers based the Constitution on the writings of the French philosophes most notably J-J Rouseau’s first and second Discourse, wherein he asserted there was no divine right to govern that all political power is that power ceded to government by the people who relinquish some of thier God given freedoms to live in a civilized society. We all live by laws and yes building codes and zoning ordinances. To function as a civil society we must weigh individual needs and desires against the greater good of society and the needs of the many. Any argument that asserts that an individual, institution or business has the right to do what it pleases on its own property is specious. If you truly wish that then you should not be living in an American city. And in closing let me also state that that arguement is not the position of the Church of St Mark at no time did they ever express such disrespect for the law or the people. They see this issue as a disagreement over interpretation of the zoning codes. It has been the assertion of the LUC the MNA The DRC and the NPU-E that their interpretation is not supported by precedent, the spirit of the zoining ordinance or the Blueprint. St Mark has, is and will always be a vital Midtown institution, regardless of what happens on the site. That is something that both sides continue to agree upon.

By Lana

July 15, 2008 8:14 PM | Link to this

Nice rebel yell on the constitution, but a little dramatic for this case. If the church was going to build a steel mill on site, then maybe you would have a point. But parking is hardly outside the boundries of reasonableness for this site.

While you may not mean for your efforts to be a direct attack on the Church, bottom line that is the net result. Parking for an urban Church is vital, and your efforts are going to hurt the ministry of this wonderful institution. Perhaps you will open your own kitchen to feed the homeless. Perhaps you will work tirelessly side by side with the needy to clothe those less fortunate than those of us with beautiful renovated homes. Perhaps you will reach into the most poverty stricken areas in our city and try to help the most destitute. Or, perhaps we should support the Church to remain a loving, accepting serving neighborhood institution.

By Rick

July 16, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this

Its an urban church. Solicit parishoners from the local area. To set expectations that there will be free parking in a central urban core in one of America’s largest and most beautiful cities is absurd. Lets keep taking this city to the next level and make it more beautiful. Parking lots are awful.

By Arthur

July 21, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this

Lots of interesting comments. That anyone should presume that Midtown Neighbors’ Association, or Midtown Alliance is against a church is pure bull——! But, when you work in “good faith’(oxymoron there)with an institution to help them with their situation, only to learn they went behind your back and tried to go around the process (getting a Special Administrative Permit-SAP) and go directly to the city and get a demo permit! Yeah….what GREAT neighbors they are! And yes, for those of you that don’t know that piece of info..while MNA was working with the church on other options, they went behind MNA’s back and tried to get a demo permit WITHOUT the proper approvals! Hat’s off to the City of Atlanta Bureau of Planning that stopped them cold in their tracks!

Parking for an urban church….what the heck are you talking about? I’m sure you meant parking for a SUBURBAN church!!! If you are in an urban area, the whole idea is to be on your feet, and not have your butt in a car seat!!! St. Marks is NOT an urban church. They are a suburban church in an urban location. And Mr. Sanders publically confirmed that at the DRC meeting when he said they have minimal membership from Midtown. Most of their worshipers come from around Atlanta and even Alabama (scare me! what a drive to go to church!) Mr. Sanders also commented that at the NPU-E meeting, the parking lot was full of cars. How many of us had driven to that meeting? He said St. Marks could not even hold that meeting, because they would not have enough parking. But he failed to ask how many of us at the DRC meeting walked to the DRC meeting and did not need parking or a car!!!! Mr. Sanders further confirmed that they did their due dillegence and that the homes are not currently historic structures. While this is true, if they were “involved or concerned for their neighborhood” they would know that efforts have been underway for almost 2 years to create a historic district in Midtown, and keep it from bulldozers. If they did their due dillegence, they must of skipped the Midtown BluePrint or SPI guidelines that don’t allow for surface parking lots between a building and a structure. Hmmmmm…how convenient that they missed that one! As someone else said, to think that the church paid all that money for those properties and if a parking lot would be created, you don’t think they won’t put in a pay parking station? Or are they going to staff it 24/7 to keep it exclusively for church use? Pleeeeeze!! Their previous lot they had was “rented out” at night to valet companies for use at Spice Restaurant. St. Marks might be in our community, but they certainly do not understand it by any stretch. And don’t EVEN get me started on their “good will” to the homeless. I’m ALL FOR helping people who need help…but if you think bringing a bunch of homeless people INTO your neighborhood is a good thing….maybe you need to get out on the streets a bit more, or read the crime stats for Midtown and how they are on the rise! People breaking into cars right and left to steal anything in sight. Ok, maybe not all of those people are homeless, but the odds are in their favor.

Nobody at MNA or Midtown Alliance wants to discourage a church from their mission. I just think the mission at St. Marks is not the Midtown Community.

By Joe

July 21, 2008 3:03 PM | Link to this

I’ll let you all fight this battle! When will you wake up and realize the hypocrasy the St. Marks preaches. They are the meanest and rudest congregation I have ever delt with. I lived directly behind St. Marks for 12 years. They’re “homeless” outreach program is a midtown threat. The feed these drunks and vagrant and never let them use the faciities. I’ve cleaned up more crap from them during my time. And when i’ve reported this to St. Marks, they laugh and think its cute. NOt to mention the spike in crime on those days.

Further, talk about they’re “burglar” alarm that goes off all night long. Or the prostitues turning tricks in their parking lot.

They don’t care about community. Just dollars in the offering plate.

I’m sorry I left Midtown, but not St. Marks.

By tmh

July 21, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this

St. Mark’s sold a surface parking lot in order to raise the money to buy three more properties with the intention of razing the structures to build more surface lots. This process simply is not good stewardship of our urban core if we hope to make it more livable. That there will be another plan possibly “50 years out” does not make this plan any more wise.

That the buildings and their lots have been allowed by their owners to deteriorate to the condition we see today is form of demolition by neglect. The windows are left open for both the weather and the vagrants to come and go freely. This particular form of urban blight is as hard on the neighborhood as paving over sections of it or extended work hiatuses on projects (like the gigantic hole on the north side of 10th St, west of Piedmont beside the spa).

Ownership of land should confer a sense of pride, responsibility and community, not just privilege. But too often it does not.

By Jack

July 21, 2008 6:24 PM | Link to this

The name of the church is Saint Mark.

Not Saint Marks. Not Saint Mark’s.

By Midtowner

July 22, 2008 6:42 AM | Link to this

Of course having a pompous, angry man representing St. Mark at the NPU meeting didn’t exactly help their cause. When issues were raised by opponents of razing the buildings, this guy just sputtered and fumed and stomped around like a spoiled fat kid who was told he couldn’t have a third piece of cake.

Oh by the way, the reason that St. Mark doesn’t have much parking: they SOLD their existing near-by surface parking lots one-by-one over time. THOSE lots were grandfathered and could remain as parking lots without question. Boo hoo hoo.