Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
Mayor Joe Hogsett is preferring to take a neutral stance while officials debate the future of the historic Church of the Holy Cross building, city officials said Thursday, despite what an official with the Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission said at a public meeting earlier this week.
Commission members voted unanimously Wednesday at an emergency meeting to designate the near-east-side church as a historic landmark in an effort to save the property from the wrecking ball. The 103-year-old building at 125 N. Oriental Ave. has been slated for demolition by its owner, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis.
If the preservation group’s measure is approved by the Metropolitan Development Commission, the archdiocese would be banned from carrying out its demolition plan. The MDC’s next meeting is April 15.
IBJ reported Wednesday that city leadership, including the mayor, were supportive of two resolutions that would prevent demolition. But the city later contacted IBJ to say Hogsett was staying neutral on the decision while supporting the process.
The mayor’s support was signaled by Indianapolis Historic Preservation Commission Administrator Meg Busch at the meeting.
“The staff of HPC in partnership with Indiana Landmarks and the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association, along with the full support from city leadership and the office of Mayor Joseph Hogsett, respectfully request your consideration this evening the adoption of” the resolutions, Busch said.
The city later told IBJ the mayor is not taking a stance on the resolution.
“The City staff recommendation related to a petition is not a reflection of the Mayor or City leadership’s stance, but is based on a technical analysis of the petition,” Department of Metropolitan Development Director Megan Vukusich said in a written statement. “Rather, the Mayor and City leadership are supportive of the technical expertise of City staff and respect these independent, community-focused processes.”
Vukusich also wrote that there are very specific rules of procedure for land use and historic preservation petitions, and all processes must follow federal and state statute. The city’s divisions of Historic Preservation and Current Planning complete technical reviews of land use and historic preservation petitions, and provides a staff recommendation to the appropriate commission for approval or denial.
“These commissions represent the most grassroots form of policymaking, where residents advocate on behalf of the future—or history—of their neighborhoods, and their peers vote on the petitions,” Vukusich wrote.
During the emergency meeting of the IHPC, the wishes of hundreds of residents and preservation organizations such as Indiana Landmarks clashed with church leadership, which cited canon law for its decision to demolish the sanctuary spaces.
Members of the Holy Cross Neighborhood Association gathered more than 700 signatures on a petition against the planned demolition.
About a dozen members spoke Wednesday evening, citing the cultural and historical importance of the structure. When commissioners asked supporters of the preservation measure to stand, all attendees except an attorney for the archdiocese stood.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.
Hogsett probably has no clue where this neighborhood even is. Maybe if they hosted a dance party or an open bar he would show up.
Mayor Do-Nothing doing what he does best.
Wow that’s disappointing . The Archdiocese demolished St Cathrine Church back in the early 90’s (in the middle of the night on a Saturday I might add). The Church, the School, everything gone overnight. It was an anchor institution in the neighborhood. It was replaced with a tanning salon, a video store and a CVS. It had a DEVASTATING impact on the Garfield Park Neighborhood which still hasn’t fully recovered.
As an active Catholic I feel okay being critical of the Church on this one. Like St Cathrine, Holy Cross has been the core (and namesake) of the neighborhood for more than a century. In that time they have paid ZERO taxes. I do not think it’s unfair to ask the Church to support the best interests of the neighborhood who has cared for it for the last 100 years. Rather than focus on a spreadsheet, or some delusional fear that the community will use the church of “unholy” purposes, think about the people who live here when you decide to leave.
I really hope the Mayor can stand up for that.
At this point, I am convinced the archdiocese does not actually understand basic finance
They allowed the Saint Joan of arc daycare to be closed because they claimed it was losing hundreds of thousands of dollars
It was confirmed after this decision that the daycare was actually making hundreds of thousands of dollars and supporting the losses of the grade school
They were too proud or stupid to admit they were wrong, and never reopened it. It’s run by a private entity now who is likely making a lot of money.
St. Catherine and Central Catholic were also able to move to a newer building just a mile down the road with a lot more land that sure seemed to open up the combined churches for the future.
I am definitely not an apologist for the Catholic Church and I think they make hysterically foolish decisions (one reason I left) but consolidating St James and St Catherine sure made sense to me when they did it 35 years ago. And I think the installation of I-65 did more to hurt all the parishes in that area than anything else.
Joe B, I hear you. I realize that was the party line back then. But it proved to be completely wrong. It was a terrible decision – for the parishes and for the community.
The best interests of the city parishes were completely ignored. They were only concerned about the suburbs.
I agree that the path of I65 and the rural interchange design on Raymond street were major factors.
That said, haven’t we learned our lesson I. The last 30 years? Are we going to continue to make the same mistakes? really disappointing.It’s
I grew up in the neighborhood and attended Holy Cross graduating in 1954. So even though I obviously have some bias, I agree that preserving this historic building is the right thing to do. Concerns that ‘sordid’ eventual use might occur is a weak argument for obliterating this anchor of the community.
Out of the fray and into the liquor cabinet.
The truth is there is nothing substantially historic about this Church, nor is it particularly architecturally significant. IHPC would be better served using its time to designate buildings and stop the disturbing trend of emergency designation. Hopefully the loss of this inevitable lawsuit will bring them to yield.