A bittersweet day in Buffalo

Today is a bittersweet day. While The City was busy allowing a North Buffalo neighborhood to be pillaged, developer Karl Frizlen was busy helping to create a community on the city’s West Side. As I walked from my house, down Connecticut Street towards the Winter Market at Horsefeathers I found myself deep in thought. Instead of thinking about what lay ahead of me, I couldn’t get the church on Colvin out of my mind. Even as I sit here typing, enjoying the fruits from the market, I find it hard to concentrate on a story that I have been looking forward to writing for over a year. Just as the wrecking of Saint Mary’s on the Hill (leveled by City Hall a year and a half ago) still lingers in the air, not far from the Winter Market in fact, we have lost still more of our irreplaceable history.

Had it not been for the Winter Market, the day would have been completely memorable for all of the wrong reasons. Instead, the market was such an overwhelming success that the bright silver lining has offered solace from the goings on to the north of the city. 
On the walk to the market, I passed a number of other people as they made similar pilgrimages in search of locally produced meats, cheeses, wines, flatbreads, soaps, etc… in a building that is now an overnight anchor in the community. After living in the neighborhood for the last fourteen years, it was a welcome sight to see all of the people walking to and from the Winter Market, socializing in the street, before carrying their goods home. Inside the market it was no different. The place was teeming with activity, both sellers and buyers. The scene must have been exactly what Karl Frizlen had hoped for. 
Horsefeathers-Market-Opens-Buffalo-NY-1.jpg
If the first day of the Winter Market is any sign of what is to come, then Connecticut Street is on the brink of becoming a year ’round culinary destination. In coming weeks, the market will grow…
The vendors you can expect to find include: Arden Farm, Green Heron Growers, Chateau Buffalo, First Light Farm & Creamery, Biscotti for Everybotti, Spices & Mixes by Milly, Saltamontes Salsa, Avenue Boys Smokehouse, Fetch Dog Treats, and The Pasta Peddler.  Furthermore, additional vendors will be added as the season, and project, progresses.  Additionally, Martin Cooks will resume cooking breakfast and lunch items at the market next week, which many of you became familiar with at the Elmwood-Bidwell location over the summer.  Chef/Owner Martin Danilowicz will also be setting up permanent residence in the building, opening up his first full-service restaurant by month’s end. – GirlFriday
… let’s just hope that City Hall comes to its senses, and starts to rethink its policy that condones the destruction of buildings that have stood for a hundred years. Structures such as the Horsefeathers building offer this city invaluable opportunities that can’t simply be recreated as we see fit. These are the historic buildings that all cities clamor for because they are built by the hands of artisans and to this day inspire the imaginations of developers and entrepreneurs… something that a parking lot or a Dollar Store will never do.

About the author  ⁄ queenseyes

Founder of Buffalo Rising. Co-founder Elmwood Avenue Festival of the Arts. Co-founder Powder Keg Festival that built the world's largest ice maze (Guinness Book of World Records). Instigator behind Emerald Beach at the Erie Basin Marina. Co-created Flurrious! winter festival. Co-creator of Rusty Chain Beer. Instigator behind Saturday Artisan Market (SAM) at Canalside. Founder of The Peddler retro and vintage market. Instigator behind Liberty Hound @ Canalside. Catalyst behind the Pierce-Arrow Film Arts Center. Throws The Witches Ball at The Hotel @ The Lafayette. Themed New Years mayhem at various locations. Next up: Porchfest... Also offers package tours of the city for groups or individuals. Contact Newell Nussbaumer | Newell@BuffaloRising.com

40 comments
whatever
whatever

LastMan, but the argument critics made against Comerford's approving the demo (of cigar store in a Preservation District) was that Comerford and people he consulted reached a very wrong decision about whether it was an immediate public danger.

I've no reason to doubt your comment here that it was too far gone and possibly dangerous, and I've no reason to question Comerford's decision. I wasn't among the critics of his decision.

What I'm saying is Comerford's persistent critics seem to want it both ways - they want to demonize him viciously when based on his best judgment he approves demo of an official landmark or buildings in a Preservation District, and yet they also want to leave that decision power in his hands and his alone.

It seems to me ridiculously inconsistent.

If the Common Council members don't have expertise to make the decision, then logically they they also don't have the expertise to second guess it like they do.

But if the law was changed to subject that decision to a Council vote, the Council could appoint an independent expert, or panel of them, who they do trust to advise them what to decide, or they could delegate to the Preservation Board to decide.

Then the Council would have accountability for those yes/no decisions. They could listen to Comerford and his inspectors, too, but they'd have the final call.

Council members are full time employees just like Comerford is, so a quorum of them should be available any day of the year just like he is.

Old First Ward
Old First Ward

Well now that we have flushed you out from behind the snowbank, I'm pleased to meet you. Judging by the 1:00 am time now, I just may take you up on that offer.

Anyways, I may be in touch soon after I peek at those sites again, but tomorrow I have a full day of volunteer work for a major project.

"Realist"
"Realist"

[sorry - one screen name only please]

"Realist"
"Realist"

It wasn't condescending because of some made up grudge (reading comprehension issues again). It's really hard to not objectively view using the words "bitch and whine" as condescending or worse.

And demo cheerleader calling for "weaker" preservation is likely influenced by more than just logic. Same goes for your repeated attempts to tie in local political adversaries to the conversation.

bernicebuffalove
bernicebuffalove

Also, I would recommend you check my blog (berniceradle.com), pres ready sites on fb and the BYP facebook. We are all very active and we always need help, if you want to help out.

bernicebuffalove
bernicebuffalove

Ummm.. we are here and working very hard!!!

Between ECC, Save Trico, BYP events/organizational growth, East Side Demos, Beth Steel... this church was being worked on as well (from Tim & Pres Board) but I cannot do everything... I do have a full time job and I am in the process of working on a rehab of a couple houses myself! If you can find a way to make me not sleep, I bet I could do more! :)

https://me.yahoo.com/a/KKJihvERzsP4KR3.8374cLnN4_r
https://me.yahoo.com/a/KKJihvERzsP4KR3.8374cLnN4_r

Man... what happened to the days of things being open a little later for the 2nd shifters? I work 3-11. I live 3 blocks from this. I'll rarely be able to go since the chances of me being up before the crack of noon on a Saturday are slim to none. I wish that we 2nd shifters could petition and maybe get things like this to stay open a couple extra hours once a month so that we could participate. Other than that, fantastic implementation. Maybe I'll drag my arse out early one of these Saturdays.....

CindyLee
CindyLee

The Winter Market looks fabulous! Couldn't make it this weekend but definately next.....

UberGeek
UberGeek

It has no character, interest as part of cultural development, or heritage. And, it's not characteristic of the city, state or nation.

I is not the location of a historically significant local, state, or national event.

It does not exemplify a historic, aestetic, architectural, archaelogical, educational, economic, or cultural heritage of they city, state, or nation.

It is not identifiable with a person or persons who contributed significantly to the city, state, or nation.

It does not embody any architectural style important for a period or style study. However, it does use indigenous materials.

It is not the work of a master builder, engineer, designer, architect, or landscape architect; whose work had major local, state, or national impact.

It MIGHT have elements of design, detailing, materials, or craftsmanship that could make it significant. However, they have been largely removed already.

It does not embody any element that makes it structurally, or architecturally innovative. It's more or less a cookie cutter of the period church buildings.

It's location is not unique (It's a nondescript corner in a residential neighborhood). It's not really a landmark. I never once gave directions using it. The blue water tower meets this mark better than this building.

So, we have one item definite, and 2 possibly. I'm hard pressed to find many buildings in Buffalo that wont meet at least one of these conditions, and there are plenty more that meet 3.

STEEL
STEEL

Maybe they finally understand the appeal of parking lots and dollar stores.

JSmith
JSmith

It met five of those criteria according to the Preservation Board, who have the legal authority and responsibility to make that determination.

whatever
whatever

Condescending?

Do you really dismiss good, constructive ideas like those I suggested as 'condescending' simply because of who their messenger is?

Isn't that closed minded? Maybe even emotional?

Shouldn't suggestions be considered on their merits, not on anyone's distaste of the suggester?

As Tim observed, my suggestions for different more proactive approaches were logical, realistic, and solution based.

LoCurto, Franczyk, and others on the Council could do much worse than to consider those ideas or something similar.

Current approaches didn't give you guys the results you hoped for for this church and many other buildings.

You know what Einstein supposedly said about doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results!

whatever
whatever

real>"you come across just as whinny and dramatic is anyone on here"

Whiny and dramatic are in the eyes of beholders - each of us including you 'high up on our pedestals' if you want to look at it that way.

Have I really ever written anything as drama-dripping as this, for instance from above?

QE>"While The City was busy allowing a North Buffalo neighborhood to be pillaged"

Pillaged? Seriously?

Or this in today's 'Sunday Service' thread?

Steel>"Why don't we just tear down Sheas Buffalo Theater right now?"

Those are pretty dramatic.

btw, it's just delusional on your part if you really think I've ever "bristle fiercely" at anything you've written. That's nice creative writing though - very expressive fiction! :-)

real>"featuring content they disagree with"

Much of BR's content is mostly factual and informative about what's going on in the city in which I live, then followed by a wide range of different people's opinions. As you may have noticed - quite a few commenters, maybe even a majority or near to it, haven't joined in with QE's and Steel's viewpoint in the debate about this church.

'side' was just shorthand for those who blame The City govt for buildings like this non-landmarked church being demoed by its owner. That should be clear from the context.

LastManIn
LastManIn

Maybe it depends on how bad the fire was. Tielman can't do much in the case of a fire. Any charred joists, supports, members would need to be replaced. In a building that large, not sure all of us together could afford that fix.

Old First Ward
Old First Ward

Maybe I'm out of line in saying this here, but what happened to the feisty Tim Tielman that used to be front and center on all issues of preservation? If the mayor's office is running roughshod over the preservation board then why is he not standing up and speaking out? He is on the Preservation Board, that is an inside position. Or are they appointed by the mayor? Where is the outcry and organization he always put forth?

His Campaign blog has not been updated since September and his website is outdated and practically useless. What about all these Buffalo Spree game changers like Bernice Radle who thinks she should be elected mayor of Buffalo for raising taxes on empty lots and creating bicycle lanes. Where are these up and coming voices? The crickets are chirping.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, I'm just pointing out what I see and hear from others.

"Realist"
"Realist"

Whatever> "real - for one thing, I whine & bitch a lot less than Steel, QE, & co do, and with far less drama about it. "

You may not see it from up so high on that pedestal of yours, but from down here you come across just as whinny and dramatic is anyone on here. You are on here as much as anyone professing your views wishing things you don't like were done differently. The fact that you do so with an objectivity act , and bristle fiercely when anyone uses words like "outrage" to describe your viewpoint, and now some contrived woe-is-my-minority view act, doesn't make your routine any less dramatic than those of us who don't put on the armchair Vulcan act. (at least in the comment section of BRO articles)

Whatever> "Almost makes me wonder if these repeated demo dramas are subconsciously enjoyed."

Like those who continue come to a site featuring content they disagree with, day after day, month after month, year after year, to tell the other "side" how it is? Is that the kind of subconscious drama enjoyment you are talking about?

"Realist"
"Realist"

Right Tim. Whatever's condescending remark was " logical, strategic, realistic solution minded" while mine, using the same words, was "emotional." What an emotional double standard on your part!

As much as some here would like to deny it, all of the non-spam bot commenters on this site make emotional comments. Whatever's selective logic was emotional, so was my mockery, and so was your rush to a like minded BROer's defense.

I find it funny that the BRO contrarian hive views being emotional as such a dig. It is only human to have ones emotions influence our viewpoints. It's best to be aware of this rather than trying to falsely paint ones views as superior through pretend logic and objectivity.

LastManIn
LastManIn

I can see maybe number 5. Not sure about 6. When I was in there nothing struck me as significant. But I still think Frizlen's condo idea was better than a landfill. Especially with the school and parking. Too bad it got torched.

LastManIn
LastManIn

The demolitions are decided by Comerfords office because they are code enforcement people that can condemn a building for any number of reasons, if needed. Would council members be qualified to make those decisions?

As for the cigar building, was anyone in there prior to demolition? I was. The entire ceiling and roof support members were collapsed. And the floor of the first floor was collapsing into the basement. You couldn't even get 5 feet in the front door. Unfortunately, that one was neglected for a long, long time. I can't think of one city inspector that would put his career on the line and approve a work permit on that building.

whatever
whatever

real - for one thing, I whine & bitch a lot less than Steel, QE, & co do, and with far less drama about it.

For another, I realize most of my views are a very small minority in Buffalo. So logically, the likelihood of anyone who agree with me persuading the Common Council to make any types of changes we'd favor is basically zilch. The Council sees things very different than I do. It's okay. Majority should rule. Same goes for NYS govt. If it ever bothers me too much, I can move. For now anyway, I can put up with it.

Regarding demolitions, I'm pretty much okay with the status quo here. For the most part, property owner rights usually reign supreme. If anything, I'd weaken the landmarking law, reduce Pres Board's powers, certainly fire Tielman from it ... but again, I realize I'm in the minority so those things are far fetched.

On the other hand - you guys do have like minded allies on the Common Council regarding preservation - LoCurto and Franczyk to name two.

So your side would need only to get a few more votes on the Council to change the city charter if you wanted to, then try for voter approval. Changes would have to be written in ways that aren't inconsistent with state or fed laws of course, but there's things which could be done - maybe like greatly speeding up landmark designations (which could have affected the NB church) and/or reducing the demolition-approval powers in Comerford's office (which could have affected the cigar store) - maybe moving those powers to the Council for example.

Those are just two ideas - no doubt your side could think up more or different ones.

Evidently so far there's no interest in trying anything like that, however.

Almost makes me wonder if these repeated demo dramas are subconsciously enjoyed.

whatever
whatever

js>It would seem to me that this demolition might have been avoided if the city had been as zealous about following the laws regarding property codes over the past six years."

Seems to me the above is the same old wishful thinking status quo.

Might have avoided this and other demolitions, yes, or also might just speed them up. No way to know.

I've no objection to better more zealous enforcement in theory (and unlike many of you, I wouldn't care either way if that results in faster demos), however a few things in practice -

First - this owner clearly preferred demolition to paying for a rehab, and with the laws as written demolition is a legal choice regardless of building condition (since this wasn't landmarked) or even if there hadn't been a fire...

so if pushed much more zealously with very expensive fines for not doing enough repairs of a building they didn't want to rehab (or more fines for not dealing with trespassers, etc), might not these owners have just demolished sooner?

Why wouldn't they have, especially if they're greedy & self centered as some are saying?

Second - in general, collecting on fines for property violations is reportedly not easy, discussed by some comments in

http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/08/bro-submission-by-fred-brace.html

... so it's questionable how much practical effect the much more zealous enforcement would make.

Third - fines are decided by City Court. Why was Judge Nowak so widely praised all those years if he was setting fines so awfully not high enough according to your premise? (just asking)

Regardless, my previous suggestions wouldn't preclude also trying what you suggest in addition. Practically, since Masiello's whole 3 terms and Brown's 2, likely soon to be 3, terms haven't brought the amount of enforcement effectiveness or zealousness you'd like, that idea might have to wait at least until the next-next mayoral term starts in Jan 2018.

(& you'd also have to hope that by then Brown has finally been promoted to something instead of winning a 4th term.)

btw - should I interpret for your comment as disagreeing with my previous one?

UberGeek
UberGeek

I would think that would work. And, the market would determine what is worth keeping, and what is not.

If a group can't even form to put the trust together, then obviously, the building is just not that important.

UberGeek
UberGeek

It doesn't seem to meet any of those criteria.

Rand503
Rand503

What we need is a plan to prevent such unnecessary destruction. We KNOW that we will have such a probelm again in the future. This building could have been used for apartments, or a dance studio, or an arts campus, or a combination of things. Now we will never know.

If we had some seed money from a foundation, and then people could add their own small amount of funds, we could form a non profit (or use any of the current preservation non profits) to move in quickly when a building is in danger of demo.

The problem is that the city usually fronts the costs for the demo, and then bills the owner. But the owners rarely pay the costs and fines, and so the city is the loser financially. Let's assume it costs $200,000 to demo this building.

I would instead first have the take the property under eminent domain, and back taxes and whatever. Put the $200,000 that would have gone into demo into a stand alone trust, and transfer title to the trust. The trust would be jointly owned by the city and the non profit that we form for this specific purpose., and the non profit puts some money into the trust as well.

The trust then can mothball the building until a suitable purpose can be found. If a for profit developer cannot be found, then an option is to allow a non profit to move in and use it rent free. However, the non profit must be able to maintain the building by paying utitlities and basic maintainence. the $200,000 or more would go to the costs of mothballing and for any stabilization of the building that is needed.

In this way, title is held jointly by the city and the preservation non profit, so that means that demo can't happen unless both parties agree. The city isn't losing any further money than it would have if it had demoed the structure. If a for profit developer can't be found (which is the ideal) than at least a non profit institution can use the structure for whatever purposes it can, including also generating income. For instance a former church like this could be used as a dance studio, and artists studio and also rent out the space on Sundays to any group that wantsto worship there. The non profits should be encouraged to generate income from whatever means possible.

I'm sure that there are a number of non profits that would love a rent free space, even if the local and space isn't exactly ideal, and this would accomplish it. At the least, it aligns everyone's interests in keeping the building up.

Thoughts on whether this would work?

Tim
Tim

A logical, strategic, realistic solution minded response followed by your emotional crap. Genius.

JSmith
JSmith

"The City has to follow The Laws."

It would seem to me that this demolition might have been avoided if the city had been as zealous about following the laws regarding property codes over the past six years. The owner failed to maintain and secure the property, and the city, even after repeated complaints that teenagers and young adults were hanging out inside the church, did not do anything to compel the owner to secure the building.

JSmith
JSmith

Here are the 9 qualification to be designated a local landmark, from http://ecode360.com/13624575

As you can see, they are not all simply about historic significance. I do not know offhand which 5 this church qualified under.

---

(1) It has character, interest or value as part of the development, heritage or cultural characteristics of the City, state or nation.

(2) Its location is a site of a significant local, state or national event.

(3) It exemplifies the historic, aesthetic, architectural, archaeological, educational, economic or cultural heritage of the City, state or nation.

(4) It is identified with a person or persons who significantly contributed to the development of the City, state or nation.

(5) It embodies distinguishing characteristics of an architectural style valuable for the study of a period, type, method of construction or use of indigenous materials.

(6) It is the work of a master builder, engineer, designer, architect or landscape architect whose individual work has influenced the development of the City, state or nation.

(7) It embodies elements of design, detailing, materials or craftsmanship that render it architecturally significant.

(8) It embodies elements that make it structurally or architecturally innovative.

(9) It is a unique location or contains singular physical characteristics that make it an established or familiar visual feature within the City.

UberGeek
UberGeek

So, what criteria did it meet?

It is not a significant example of architectural design.

It is not a monument to a significant event.

It is not a unique building.

What criteria did it meet?

"Realist"
"Realist"

And the protest-bitch-whine-blame-outrage-mad as hell cycle, vs going out and changing laws you don't like, that you and like minded BRO readers do is totally respectable, right?

Rand503
Rand503

The above comments prove a couple of things -- familiarity breeds contempt, and we face an embarrasment of riches.

First, the comments show that when people live next to treasures for a long time, then no longer regard them as treasures. They are just "old buildings" of no value. I understand it takes a lot of effort to see things with a fresh pair of eyes, but that is what must be done.

The second point is that we indeed have a plethora of great churches and buildings in Buffalo. We are very lucky on that point. When you eat at a table laden with gold, silver looks just so mediocre. Nonetheless, it IS silver, and it's a whole heck of a lot better than other cities have.

I just wish people could see it.

whatever
whatever

QE>"While The City was busy allowing a North Buffalo neighborhood to be pillaged"

Nice drama, but The City has to follow The Laws.

As it was reminded by courts when losing the recent Acropolis case, the Pano's case a few years ago, rulings against the BPS for labor issues, and against Fire Dept hiring practices, etc - The City isn't a dictatorship who can freely act based on whims.

They're supposed to obey what's written down already in laws and past court rulings, and apply things equitably to all - not just do anything they feel like.

Didn't Pano's court win remind the City that it can't delay issuing of a demolition permit for a non-landmarked building just because some bystanders like the building?

(that's a question, I'm not sure if it was that court case, but it might have been...)

As I asked after the cigar store demo (which had different issues, but a similar pattern of blaming The City minus any follow up to change the law, as far as I know) -

If you guys don't like what the law says, then instead of just waiting for the same thing to happen again-again-again-... why don't any of you at least try getting the law's wording changed?

For future cases such as this church, one possibility you guys could try is to change the law so landmarking designations can happen much faster, say within a week, at the last minute (as inevitably is wanted when proactive landmarking or purchase hasn't happened).

I'd suggest to make that change more palatable to those who don't feel the same as you, also include as a compromise a provision like I recently suggested, constructively to offer City purchase of any buildings it landmarks retroactively.

If you guys would at least try for law changes like that, I might not always agree with what you propose, but at least I'd respect it much more than just the protest-bitch-whine-blame cycle.

Rand503
Rand503

The above comments prove a couple of things -- familiarity breeds contempt, and we face an embarrasment of riches.

First, the comments show that when people live next to treasures for a long time, then no longer regard them as treasures. They are just "old buildings" of no value. I understand it takes a lot of effort to see things with a fresh pair of eyes, but that is what must be done.

The second point is that we indeed have a plethora of great churches and buildings in Buffalo. We are very lucky on that point. When you eat at a table laden with gold, silver looks just so mediocre. Nonetheless, it IS silver, and it's a whole heck of a lot better than other cities have.

I just wish people could see it.

JSmith
JSmith

There are three churches within a mile of this one that have recently been or are currently being renovated into apartments. If the current owner had been interested and proactive about selling it, this would have been an easy and profitable project.

It is not a consequence of the city becoming smaller. It is a consequence of an absentee owner that couldn't be bothered to cut the lawn or make sure the building was secured from vandals and arsonists, but also couldn't be bothered to try to sell the building. It is about a city government that trips over its own feet trying to get the demolition permit out the door but can't be bothered to get up to enforce the housing code violations that led up to this.

Now with respect to Newell, let's talk about the Winter Market at the Horsefeathers building. I went there this morning, and it was wonderful to see such a beautiful five-story brick building finding new life. Connecticut Street still has a lot of its historic commercial buildings (for now). Hopefully, this renovation will provide the momentum for others to follow.

millertime486
millertime486

I do believe that this building would have been expensive to restore. I unfortunately can't find any numbers but look at 14 north street that Carl Paladino resorted to apartments. There is no way that cost $250,000. Also as stated here (http://www.buffalorising.com/2012/01/construction-watch-14-north-street.html) many of these projects can not utilize historic tax credits because splitting up the floor plan redefines the building original purpose. Would I like to have seen this building saved? Yes! But I don't think it's a huge deal that it's gone. Hopefully we can get something filled in there rather then let it sit empty!

Tim
Tim

It is a consequence of our city becoming smaller. There are/ will continue to be some beautiful, stable well kept 'enclaves', areas teetering either way, and unfortunately many declining ones. If the city was increasing in population, we would probably see more objections to a demolition like this and a healthier fabric would once again develop. While this was a blow with maybe questionable insurance beneficiary issues,etc, we also should note that there have been several more architecturally interesting churches saved and/or turned into lofts/venues. There will be several/many more church demolitions before all is said and done, but also some conversions. What we need is growth to decrease apathy/support towards demolitions like this. Sucks, especially when churches are demolished which were once the architectural/community gathering points.

I hope you all enjoyed my use of /

paulsobo
paulsobo

There are many historic are architecturally wonderful churches in danger such as Our Lady of Lourdes De Notre Dame.

as well as the recently closed churches on the eastside.

I dont know how we can keep Buffalo alive if we cant keep our neighborhoods stable

r-k-tekt
r-k-tekt

Another ignorant comment....Read the US Department of Interior Standards for Historic Preservation....It met at least 5 of the 9 criterea for listing as historic

Daniel Sack
Daniel Sack

"lacks a possible future use"

Even though many churches in Buffalo and throughout the nation have become offices, residences, restaurants, etc.?

"it would cost a fortune to restore" Really?

According to the Buffalo News there was $250,000 of damage from the fire. Did the owner not have insurance? What did the owner do with the insurance money? Did the City see that the building was properly secured after the fire?

Is the City working to protect property so that our tax base is healthy or does the city turn a blind eye to building code violations?

rubagreta
rubagreta

I am for historic preservation as much as anybody, and mourn the loss of the Larkin Building, Erie Savings and others. But sorry, this church was built on the cheap back in the day, and would not get a single "wow" from anybody driving by it for the first time (and I mean in a hypothetical restored condition).

Moreover, it would cost a fortune to restore, and restore to what? There seems to be a suplus of churches in the area, and I doubt the next door neighbors want any other use other than a church or single-family houses.

Time to move on.

UberGeek
UberGeek

The Colvin Church had nothing going for it, to mark it "historic", other than age. However, there are many other church buildings, that are much older in the city, so it really doesn't have even that.

As a prior resident of that area (Just prior to September), I am glad to see that derelict gone. It was an eyesore, lacks a possible future use, and served no historic significance.

© 2014 Hyperlocal Media. All Rights Reserved.