April 17, 2023 Historic Preservation Commission Meeting - Minutes

Home Browse Search

CITY OF SOUTH BEND HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION the capacity of congregations that have these amazing resources to help them become more integrated even in their community, and use them as community assets and that's what they're doing here. So I'm just so pleased to see them here this evening and to get this moving forward, it's a joy to see them moving forward, and you talked about the 10 million, but you know we think about that in today's terms, but I also think about then what that took to build out of the wages, as Gavin talked about, and really, it's an interesting parallel to me about that. It was not a small feat to build this in the years and so as much as the church is obviously the starring role here, those other properties, those other buildings on the site are equally as outstanding and I will add my two cents to the rectory, which is this amazing mashup of Craftsman and Ecclesiastical, which is just something different, right, but good for them. Thank you for entertaining this and sending it down to the state with the positive recommendation." Letters were received in support of the nomination, but none were read into the record. They are available publicly on the City of South Bend's online document portal. The following from the public spoke in opposition of the nomination: There was no one from the public to speak in opposition of the nomination. Commission Discussion Commissioner Andrews: Anything we need to discuss as a Commissioner? Commissioner Hertel: I have a question. I understand criteria A and C, but there has been mentioned that maybe it falls under criteria B as well. Is that what I heard in the beginning? Adam Toering: So, there was the initial discussion about criteria B. In conversations with Gavin regarding that nomination, I advised him either to make a very strong case for putting it forward under criteria B or to back away from criteria B. The information that I'm getting from my colleagues at the state level and elsewhere is that National Register nominations are being scrutinized more and more, so you want the argument to be airtight and solid on the criteria that you know will be successful. Not that I didn't think that there was wonderful history associated with the individual in question for criteria B, it's just whether it is a nationally significant significance, I questioned whether it would carry that much weight. For local history, the individual, the priest, in question was very prominent and was very well known, but as to how it would be received by the federal government, I don't know. Commissioner Hertel: Is that something that could be added later or is once this submitted, it's submitted, and this is how it will always be, or you know, the data comes back that we could, they could prove criteria B also? Adam Toering: I mean, I've joked with other people that the National Register of Places is still a very, in my opinion, young thing, since the 1960s. So, our ways of quantifying it and defining it are still evolving. I would again echo they're providing more scrutiny with reviewing of nominations. That's not to say that calling out that history is present in this nomination and calling out that individual is present in this nomination. So his name and his impact on the erection of this church and its complex is very felt in the nomination. I would say, again, the National Register program in historical terms is still very young and it feels strange saying that because it's 60 years old, but we're still, it's evolving always and I'm feeling a current of more restriction and more review. I hope that answers your question. Page 16