Many of you know that St. John's asked the Downtown Design Review Board for permission to tear down the two buildings between it and the Walnut Building on Walnut Street. The board said no.

The church has no immediate plans for expansion onto the space currently occupied by the buildings.

The church has appealed to MPC and the item is on MPC's agenda for tomorrow, June 13th (the minutes of the DDRB mtg are included at this link).

I knew that Knox Heritage had been trying to work a deal with the church to save the buildings, but I didn't know the full extent of that work. Executive Director Kim Trent outlines it in a letter to MPC Commissioners
asking for a postponement.

Here's an excerpt but read the whole thing:

We did our best to listen to the church and develop a proposal to address the needs that were expressed to us. Our goal was to meet those needs while preserving the buildings. We sought a path that would be acceptable to all parties involved. We asked David Dewhirst to help us and that is why he made his proposal to lease the buildings from the church, finance the improvements himself and then manage the buildings on behalf of the church until such time as they needed the property for expansion. His proposal would relieve the church of the expenses related to the buildings and provide income to the church. Next, just as we provided a design solution to avoid demolition to most of the 500 block of Gay Street, we designed a covered rear entrance to the church that addresses accessibility issues while making the parking lot more attractive. We have attached renderings of those proposed improvements.

In addition, Knox Heritage has agreed not to seek Historic Overlay Zoning for the buildings so that St. John's can expand into that space in the future if needed.

Jennifer Corum's picture

Petition

A petition has been started to let the church know that the buildings have many supporters.

(link...)

Rachel's picture

MPC just voted to allow St.

MPC just voted to allow St. John's to demo the buildings.

If I understood correctly, there may be an appeal to City Council.

Average Guy's picture

I don’t like seeing history

I don’t like seeing history reduced to rubble. That said, these efforts seem like they would be better started with the purchase of the property, than at a meeting about their demolition. How did the church acquire the property? Was it a purchase or donation to the church? When did the church take possession?

There probably have been people at work on this, but this is the first in a long time I’ve seen anything about it. And this from MP;

However, one apparent surprise to both sides was announced by MPC staffer Mike Reynolds, who got word from the state this morning that 710 Walnut, in particular, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.

For a local matter warranting the kind of attention it’s getting today, I’d think that would be information somebody would have known locally. Better yet, why is it historic?

Rachel's picture

This issue has been getting a

This issue has been getting a fair amount of attention for the last two years.

There are willing buyers for the buildings; the Cathedral isn't a willing seller.

Kim Trent said that KH didn't check into the status of the buildings because they had promised the church they would not seek National Register status or local historic overlay zoning for the buildings if the church agreed to the deal with Dewhirst, so that the church would be able to tear down the buildings later if and when they are ready to put something on the property.

Buildings are judged historic based on their age, their architecture, and/or any historic events/people associated with them. Go to the National Register of Historic Places website to read the exact criteria.

Here's the thing about these buildings: the church has no specific long-term plan for what will replace them. They have ideas but nothing firm. I'm reminded of the Sprankle Building (for which there were also willing buyers) - back in 2008 or so Home Federal promised that they would build a new headquarters on that site; that they wouldn't leave "a big ugly hole in the ground." I'm sure they had good intentions (as does the Cathedral) but circumstances can change. Tearing down buildings is forever.

And what did we end up with at the corner of Union and Walnut? A big ugly hole in the ground.

jah's picture

710 Walnut, in particular, is

710 Walnut, in particular, is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places

. My dad and granddad tried for several years in the early 80's to get 710 on the National Register of Historic Places. They were refused because it shared a wall with the building next door, and the attorneys who owned it (712) at the time didn't want to reduce the building's value by having it declared historic (they knew the best bidder was the church, which did buy it several years before they bought 710). So it would be news to us if they now changed their minds.

When the church bought those properties, I don't think anyone would have thought that anyone would ever care if the church tore them down. For what it's worth, I have never been in 712, but 710 was in great shape when the church bought it and would make for great living spaces, assuming the church didn't let it fall apart in the last 10-12 years.

rocketsquirrel's picture

Art Seymour just said in the

Art Seymour just said in the KNS the buildings are "a burden on the church."

Perhaps the church is now a burden on downtown Knoxville. Maybe they need to move out on Middlebrook Pike somewhere.

This is one of the (hopefully) last vestiges of the 1970s attitude of destruction rather than preservation.

I would expect more from this church.

Average Guy's picture

Seems moot now,

but do you know what made it historic?

Rachel's picture

710

Is it possible that this is when the State Historic Preservation Officer determined that it was National Register Eligible? When y'all were trying to get it on the Register?

jah's picture

Beats me. I think it's

Beats me. I think it's eligible mostly for its age (and it's 30 years older now than when they first applied) and for being a good example of a brownstone, etc. It was mostly used as a dentist's office, with various other professionals, book clubs, etc, thrown in for good mix. I can't recall its age compared to 712, but I don't think it's significantly older.

jah's picture

It's definitely a neat

It's definitely a neat building. I used to dream of turning the third floor into a condo and the lower floors into offices. :-)

And if it's a burden to St. Johns, it's because of their neglect.

Rachel's picture

If this guy is so important,

If this guy is so important, how come I never heard of him?

a very large “pro-downtown” and very diversified congregation has vetted this issue and has made a decision

Really? The entire congregation has had input to this decison? Not what I've been hearing from folks I know who attend.

it is time for outsiders to stop whimpering about the buildings that most folks do not even notice or that the downtown developers had no interest in procuring themselves.

If St. John's put those buildings on the market, they'd be snapped up by "downtown developers" in a second.

Mr. Johns may be "one of the very few in the country that holds accredited graduate degrees in both business (MBA) and public administration (MPA)" but he seems to not have all his facts straight.

Rachel Craig, M.S., M.S.P. :)

P.S. Turns out I HAVE heard of him. Some googling tells me that he's the guy who first suggested that Farragut require guns in every home.

Pickens's picture

Well his occupation is

Well his occupation is "Problem Solver" so 'nuff said.

(link...)

Stick's picture

Such a humble fellow that

Such a humble fellow that one...

~rumormonger~'s picture

Let 'em know what you think!

(link...)

Let 'em know what you think.

Hildegard's picture

Thank God it wasn't the

Thank God it wasn't the Catholic Church that tore them down. The outrage would be magnitude X100.

Hildegard's picture

Btw, the above comment is

Btw, the above comment is snark. For the record: I hoped St. John's would preserve these buildings. They were cool, classic buildings that could have been turned into any of the things so many people have already dreamed of and talked about here and lots of other discussions. I am sorry they chose the course of action they did, and I wonder why they are so silent about it. What would be so hard about talking to your surrounding community and just saying, "Look, this is why we are doing/ have done this." No, they don't owe anybody an explanation, but if I am going to blow something up in my community, I would be an asshole not to try to communicate with the people who don't want me to blow it up.

But I gotta say, some of the reactions and comments to this thing are disproportionate to the loss. I mean, like, I'm reading stuff online that sounds totally crazy. Like, what God thinks, how God is angry now. The parishioners are terrible people who do no good in the world. The rain on Saturday was tears from Heaven. The 1961 near-atomic explosion over North Carolina (reported in KNS over the weekend) happened on Saturday to these two buildings at the behest of St. John's. I am paraphrasing some of that, but people have said all those things, and repeated the same themes over and over again.

One of my FB friends said she cried all day. WTF? If the Tennessee Theater burned down, I would be the first to dress in black and walk behind a funeral cortege and I would be crying like a baby. I understand how precious some of our buildings downtown are to us. And like I said, I really wish St. John's hadn't done this; they were pretty dickish about it. But this thing has caused a level of outrage that I just don't understand. I'm reading hate where hate isn't justified.

ArtWagner's picture

The outrage is understandable…

I think the outrage is understandable and justified. St. John's chose to thumb their noses at their neighbors by adamantly refusing to discuss, talk about publicly or privately, or reply to, anyone, at any time, in the Knoxville community. Their absolute silence came across as hate, disdain, and loathing for Downtown, and Knoxvillians are justified in returning the emotion. The congregation and the church leadership are people who have apparently lost their souls, if one can identify one's personal ethics thusly, to placate a certain elderly billionaire who hates (yes hates) anyone with a progressive outlook on life or politics. Now, that elderly gentleman will have his covered back entrance--may he enjoy it and wallow in the satisfaction that he once again bought his way with his (obviously) dirty money. Of course, karma almost always gets the last delicious laugh.

Hildegard's picture

Ignatius J. Reilly?

Ignatius J. Reilly?

Elwood Aspermonte's picture

It's actually St. Jim's (Haslam) church

In my opinion, did you really expect any other result other than the church doing what the church wanted?

Seriously?

City of Knoxville had no problem letting the old buildings be torn down, they have no problem letting a major economic engine within the city move from Broadway over to Middlebrook, creating additional decay, abandonment, and disuse within the city limits (they collect property taxes there anyway,not like it used to be), let's see what they do with the food trucks downtown and if they elect to protect the guilded few who have invested money in downtown Knoxville.

Treehouse's picture

The City of Knoxville

only posts at knoxblab. I don't believe The City has made an appearance here so we really don't know what The City has problems with.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

TN Progressive

TN Politics

Knox TN Today

Local TV News

News Sentinel

    State News

    Wire Reports

    Lost Medicaid Funding

    To date, the failure to expand Medicaid/TennCare has cost the State of Tennessee ? in lost federal funding. (Source)

    Search and Archives