Sherman Hill: Kingsway Cathedral

[speeder]

Des Moines Church Faces Demolition

Des Moines, December 19, 2006 -- A Des Moines church's days could be numbered.

Owners say Kingsway Cathedral was damaged during the I-235 reconstruction project and filed a lawsuit against the city and the state of Iowa. After a three year court battle, the Iowa Supreme Court ruled the city and state were not responsible for an estimated four million dollars in damages.

Now owners are trying to have the building torn down. However, they need permission to begin demolition because the church is located in the historic Sherman Hill neighborhood. Des Moines' historic preservation commission will consider the request tomorrow.

[DMRyan]

This thing will probably sit here and crumble for a while. I've heard it's one very expensive structure to shore up at this point.

[Young DSM Social Club]

Due to it's location near the trendy Sherman Hill, as well as easy access to the Interstate, this could be turned into some really unique destination spot ... I'm thinking like the Masonic Temple downtown.

All it takes is some vision ... and, more importantly, deep pocket books.

[audiored]

Due to it's location near the trendy Sherman Hill, as well as easy access to the Interstate, this could be turned into some really unique destination spot ... I'm thinking like the Masonic Temple downtown.

All it takes is some vision ... and, more imporantly, deep pocket books.

Actually a friend just commented to me the other day how they thought that building would make a kick ass night club.

either way, i'd really hate to see it torn down.

[Bluestem]

It all ready looks 10 times better without the revolving "Jesus Saves" cross on top!!

[DMRyan]

It would be cool to have a nightclub in a setting like this. I'd bet the Sherman Hill neighbors would flip if that idea ever got any merit behind it.

Speaking of revolving crosses, does anyone know if the First Methodist Church on 10th & Pleasant still has a revolving cross at the top of it's copper dome? Notice this church has either cleaned or replaced the copper dome. It looks great going north down 10th Street seeing the massive shiny dome ahead.

[dogbo]

Yes, the revolving cross is still there although it has been stationary while they have been putting new copper on the dome the last few months.

[historicdsm]

I don't know how much structural work is needed on the church building, but I can see a condo conversion taking place in the space with an additional 30 or 40 units built on the parking lot to the north. There have been some really cool projects in Chicago that have used abandoned church buildings as upscale condos.

[conquistador2]

Here's what I don't understand: why is the church using Bernie Van Til as their representative in establishing whether or not the building should be saved? Can this guy have any credibility left after the debacle at Capitol Lofts a few years ago?

[DMRyan]

The rumors are flying all over Sherman Hill about a gas station/C-store (possibly Kum & Go or Quik Trip) looking into building a mega store on this site, or the empty site between the freeway and MLK. I can't imagine this will go over too well if there's any merit behind this idea.

[The Chain]

Speaking of that space between around the junction of MLK/Cottage Grove/235, has there ever been a plan for that? Right now it looks like they just use to keep construction materials on, but once 235 is done, what could happen with that fairly good sized space?

[DMRyan]

It's zoned NPC, Neighborhood Pedestrian Commercial, which would allow for small retail buildings that are oriented towards foot traffic. The challenge on this site will be limited access on two sites essentially severed by a highway. I wouldn't mind seeing some urban commercial go back on this spot similar to what was there previous to the MLK construction. You wouldn't know it anymore, but this area used to be a hub for Vietnamiese businesses before all the one and two story commercial buildings were demolished.

[WesternIaGuy]

I heard Regency wants to put up a gas station on this site? Friend told me its on the KCCI website. But Neighbors DONT want a gas station there and whats wrong with that HUGE open lot directly in front of the church? Anyone know whats going on with it and is it really in that much need of repair ? other then from sitting empty for so long?

[ShermanHillGuy]

The Kingsway building is in disrepair and has been for a number of years due to deferred maintenance issues. Regency now owns the property and - although it isn't completely clear - apparently has an option to buy adjacent land, or perhaps has already purchased. It is unclear. Regency has created a conceptual plan for this area and met with members of the Sherman Hill neighborhood for input. The conceptual plan did include an 11 pump convenience store which Regency said was necessary to make the whole project financially feasible. The Sherman Hill neighborhood expressed various concerns about the conceptual plan, including objection to a convenience store. The conceptual plan was very preliminary and there are still major hurdles that anyone must clear in order to demolish the Kingsway Cathedral. There is a subcommittee of the Sherman Hill Association dedicated to this issue and they have been diligently working on this whole matter for quite some time. In summary, a convenience store or a gas station is not imminent nor inevitable and the Sherman Hill neighborhood is working with various parties to responsibly move forward with the Kingsway site.

[Better Life dude]

ShermanHillGuy has stated the current situation very well. Much more politely than I would have.
I have two concerns:
1. Tearing down Kingsway and the duplex just east of it.
2. Regency trying to put a suburban type project in this location. That's what they do best - but it's not thinking outside the box in anyway for them. What works on a farmfield in the exurbs doesn't necessarily work on a brownfield in an urban setting. Adaptive re-use is just not what they know how to do.

[DMRyan]

I would almost be more outraged if Regency even proposed a suburban styled development to go along with the c-store. There must be some big money behind this if they even attempt to press forward, knowing the obstacles ahead. To me, saving the Kingsway Cathedral from demolition isn't the biggest problem here...it's getting a compatible use that the neighborhood can live with. No matter how you position a c-store on this site, I'm not sure it accomplishes a compatible use for Sherman Hill. One thing is for sure, this stretch of Cocker Street/Cottage Grove has seen better days. It would be nice if during this whole attempt, a greater revitalization effort could be given to the vacant buildings on the south side of the street too. This area is Sherman Hill's achilles heel at this point.

[WesternIaGuy]

That Part of Sherman Hill is as bad as the part with the Apartment complex on the East Side of the Sherman Hills. But Letting them not save the Church would be a HUGE mistake! Maybe even to the point of being a Welcome center, since thats the first place you see coming off the interstate going to the Airport.

[Better Life dude]

I've seen the plan drawing at a neighborhood meeting for what Regency wants to do with the block and a half from MLK Blvd. eastward to 18th Street that Kingsway and adjacent buildings north of Crocker sit on. They want to
-tear down Kingsway
-tear down the duplex
-close off 19th Street between Crocker and Olive on the west side of Kingsway
-build the c store and gas pump area
- build a couple other two story buildings on the site (I suppose office/retail on 1st floor, apartments above)
- shoe horn this development around the existing houses on 18th Street.
- have one of the entrances to this shopping area in the middle of the block on 18th street - a residential side street.

I wish I could upload the plan, but I assume it's not for public consumption. I just don't think the neighborhood wants this type of project on that block and a half.

[Aulus]

close off 19th Street between Crocker and Olive on the west side of Kingsway

Oh, this is going to piss off one hell of a lot of commuters on 19th and I really cannot see the city going for that.

[Philby]

BLD - Minus the Gas Station/C-store, and depending on the layout of the 2 story retail/residential I think this is very much like what I posted a couple posts ago that you thought was a great idea, so perhaps what I'm envisioning is vastly different from the renderings, but I'm wondering why you supported my idea before but now think this proposal is all bad (unless it's just due to the cstore, then I understand).

Does anyone use 19th between Crocker and Olive? I've never driven down that stretch, but I don't think Olive goes West past 19th and so if this developement is the only thing along 19th from Crocker to Olive what else would it need to be open for as long as the development has an entrance?

I'm not saying I want a gas station on this corner (the traffic increase along crocker would be crazy,and I think it would make more sense to have it along cottage grove/crocker in between the 2 1 way portions of MLK), but I'm certainly not opposed to have a 2 story building running from 19th to 18th along crocker with retail on the 1st floor and residential on the 2nd)

I hope if this developer is going to do something on this site they are willing to work with the neighborhood to ensure that the quiet residential nature of 18th street N of crocker is maintained, but if you ask me everything along 19th from center to crocker (with the exception of 1 house) is ready to be razed and/or redeveloped, and if building something on the site of the cathederal helps that happen sooner than I would support A MODIFIED site plan.

I don't think saving this church is vital, it would take A LOT of money to get it into shape where it could be used on a daily basis, and while it's been done successfully in other larger cities, rehabbing a church into another use (uses?) is very difficult. And with the small amount of parking on site (unless there's a parking lot to the N of the building I've never noticed) I don't know that anyone would invest the money needed to rehab this building either as a church or another use.

[Better Life dude]

I'm all for new development in this part of Sherman Hill. What I would like to see is a developer -Regency or someone else- give a shot at reusing the church and the duplex and build around them with the new buildings. There is a lot of surface parking on the rest of the block north of Kingsway. The plans as currently proposed by Regency would add a lot of traffic to Crocker AND 18th street - which is a residential street. I also don't think the neighborhood wants a convenience store at this particular site.

What I've also come to see from attending neighborhood association meetings is the deeply felt belief that the neighborhood would do everything possible to to save the church from the wrecking ball. I don't know all the intrigues, but I have been told that there are other developers that would like a crack at this project and that would include saving the church.

The church would make excellent condominiums or mix of say office/retail/restaurant in the church with new commercial/ condominiums adjacent. This type of reuse of a church building has been done before. I've seen it several times in Chicago, and a lot of times in Boston and even in Waterloo, IA. Why not Des Moines?

[Better Life dude]

And another thing... (:) ). I think the reason I would want everything done to save and reuse Kingsway is:
-it's a nice, distinctive landmark at a very high traffic entryway to the neighborhood. It looks a lot nicer to the passerby than a convenience store complete with canopy over pumps. Propery renovated, it could actually be a calling card of the neighborhood.
-our neighborhood REALY CARES about preserving older buildings because of a belief they can still have a useful purpose and have value to their owners. Case in point: two weeks ago saving and moving the row house and Murillo buildings. Those efforts don't just happen. It took many different parties involved who believed it was a good thing to do to save those buildings. They collectively spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to save these structures.

Now, if you ask me about the building across the street that's for sale- the former Planned Parenthood clinic. I'd say if you wanted to tear that down, be my guest. It has no historical significance, isn't all that attractive, and might have limited re-use possibiliites. Just don't put a convenience store there either!

[Philby]

I do agree that churches have been rehabbed into cool condos or mixed use buildings, and I would prefer that it was rehabbed for all the same reasons you listed, but when you add the cost of fixing the structural damage to the already higher cost of rehabbing an existing building compared to building new I just don't think you're going to get a developer interested (at least not a developer who's looking to make money on the project).

Now if the neighborhood association was the get the money together and complete the project (didn't they do that with the hillside condos?) I could see a better chance of it happening, but that doesn't seem very likely to me...

As far as the PP building - i'll meet you after work tonite, bring some sledgehammers and we can jump start the demo!!

[SharpHawkeye]

It seems to me that a lot of the church reuse projects I've heard of are usually done to more ornate buildings than Kingsway.

Maybe it's just me, and it's not my place to say, but I think it's a rather unattractive church. I understand it as a landmark, and I don't think a Godzilla sized Kum-n-Go is right for the area...but how attached are people really to the building itself?

It seems to me the best possible outcome would be tearing down the church and the duplex (salvaging as much as possible); building responsible, attractive, neighborhood-friendly mixed use with small-shop retail spaces (maybe up to 3-4 stories); and possibly giving over a small piece of the Crocker St. corner for neighborhood signage and landscaping. Or what about a ring of rowhouses built around a central parking area/greenspace?

[RenovateDSM]

Philby, when you say this:

...when you add the cost of fixing the structural damage to the already higher cost of rehabbing an existing building compared to building new...

what is the source of your numbers, and what new construction are you comparing it to? Perhaps repairing significant structural damage and converting the building to apartments would be more expensive than tearing it down and replacing with a gas station. But that's comparing apples to oranges.

Certainly the developer proposing a convenience store to the neighborhood will make every effort to make people believe it is the only financially viable solution. They will do their best to overstate the structural damage to the building and the cost to repair it. If the current owner wants to sell to this particular developer, they may consciously neglect to secure and stabilize the building. I've seen much stranger things happen.

Higher density mixed-use development, which is more appropriate to the neighborhood, would likely cost much more per square foot than a convenience store. That's why many developers will first explore the latter. If the neighborhood and City push back hard enough, it's possible that the project will eventually evolve to include renovation of the existing building and/or more sensitive new development.

In order to properly evaluate the developer's claim of financial necessity, it is important to review (and question) the actual numbers and assumptions - not just take them at their word that it's the only viable solution. It may be the easiest and most profitable for the developer, but it's not necessarily the best option for the neighborhood and city as a whole.

There are many sources available to make up the funding gap on a more dense and contextually sensitive project, while also allowing for developer profit. An intelligent developer will explore these options if the easiest path (convenience store) doesn't fly. Or they will walk away and a better developer will step in and make it work.

My experience has been that in most instances, a strong case can be made that renovation is NOT in fact more costly than building new. It all depends on what is included in the comparison and who is making the comparison.

All generalizations are bad.

[dogbo]

Certainly the developer proposing a convenience store to the neighborhood will make every effort to make people believe it is the only financially viable solution. They will do their best to overstate the structural damage to the building and the cost to repair it.

All generalizations are bad.

Yes....they are.

[Philby]

Yes generalizations are bad and I wasn't trying to compare developing a gas station to developing a mixed use development (new or rehab). Perhaps the difference is less than I think, and I don't have any personal experience it just seems like most developers first proposal is to tear something down and rebuild new, even if it's the same usage and so that leads me to believe it's more expensive to rehab...

However depending on the structure - there could be unique challenges that push the cost higher than building new. Take for example the whiteline lofts downtown. I remember reading an article in the register a some time ago about how they weren't planning on going all the way down to the studs like they ended up having to do, and it cost them more than if they would have demoed and built new.

Again that's one case, and I applaud these developers to sticking to a rehab instead of a demo/rebuild, but the average developer isn't going to cut into their profits to keep a historical building with structural damage (which i'm not saying is a good thing, just the reality of most developers who are in it to make money not preserve history. Now if the neighborhood assoc was to get involved they would obviously have a different goal.)

This building is obviously going to cost more to rehab than the same building w/o structural damage, and I'm not sure how much more - but it's a significant enough figure that the current church (granted with a defunct congregation) is not able to afford the necessary repairs. Maybe in the overall scheme of the cost of this project it wouldn't be a hindering factor.

I definitely agree a gas station is not a good use for this site, but I'd hate to see development on this site, and the surrounding blocks which could benefit greatly from development, stalled because a developer doesn't want to keep the cathedral (for whatever reason) but still puts forth a proposal that is a good fit for the site (like you said, mixed use high density)

[Philby]

Yay - no gas station! Lets hope the developer is willing to modify his plan and still get something done at this site.

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/p ... 0359/1001/

[Better Life dude]

Excellent news. It's amazing that the owner/ developer didn't sit down with all the players first before coming up with the non-starter idea of a convenience store/gas station. What a waste of their time and money so far. Now, hopefully, a better plan will come forward. It's key that that the Register article quotes the city council and mayor as saying this location is an important visual gateway heading into downtown and it's what out of towners see when they are exiting or entering I-235 from MLK Jr. Blvd. on their way to the airport. I'm optomistic that something everyone can like will get built here and that the church and the duplex can be saved and re-used.

[Des Moineser]

Has a church this size ever been redeveloped? Not being disagreeable here, but I really don't see how a retail/office layout would work here.