I am utterly speechless that this beautiful building will be destroyed simply because of its liability, and that the supposed Historic Foundation of Kansas City is more obsessed with a bad imitation of "spanish architecture" than this graceful edifice.  Not only is Holy Name Church quite attractive, it is very historic.  It served as one of the primary African American catholic churches following the initial wave of black neighborhood expansion east of Prospect in the 1950s/60s.  During the riots, there is anecdotal evidence that some black high school students who had been bussed from the peaceful demonstration in downtown Kansas City to a dance in the church basement were locked in and tear gassed when the riot started downtown.

I have been in the building, and it does need extensive repair, but this impending demolition and silence from those allegedly interested in preserving what Kansas City is weakens my belief in the quality of the human spirit.  I no longer have any patience for this city or the people in charge of it - if the plaza is the only summary of Kansas City's historic identity, which judging from the public sentiment that may be true, then I have no desire to be a part of this place. 

Discussion of the economic reality of a dangerous building on a long abandoned boulevard does not interest me - similar arguments could be made for any other significant structure in this city.  Sometimes a building means more to a city's identity than its economic sense - and the thing I lament is the lack of perspective and faith in an abiding Kansas City spirit beyond the geriatric plaza.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/12/22/2536861/owner-tells-judge-he-will-demolish.html

http://curmudgeonkc.blogspot.com/2005/11/holy-name-church-kansas-city-missouri_06.html

I'd like to clarify that my anger on this topic is based on a lifetime of research of Kansas City's historic fabric and the continual removal of such.  My interest is not on the typical historic nature of a building, per say, but more on the ecological and social impact of structures on that very difficult quality to define in a city - so much so that I can't find a word for it.  It may be something like patriotism, or hope, or even loyalty, but really I think it is any city's ability to inspire and transcend itself.  I realize that this news just broke, so I shouldn't jump so quickly to judge, but my faith in Kansas City's leadership and true intentions is on shaky ground.

what a disaster.  it is just sickening to see truly beautiful, historic buildings (and, really, entire square blocks of the city!) torn down without a peep over the last 40+ years, but then people go apeshit when they might lose a one-story retail building on the plaza. 

This is one of the most beautiful and spectacular houses of worship ever erected in KC.  It is one of the few neo-gothic nave chuches with a true clerestory(the only other one I know of is Redemptorist at Linwood and Broadway).  Sad, sad, sad.

Historic preservation is rather hard when there is zero economic opportunity surrounding the subject.  About the only way something like this gets done is personal philanthropy. 

Is there someone to contact to let them know we care or is it too late?  If the Historic Foundation gets a sense from the public that there is interest in saving the church is there anything they can do?

The Historic Kansas City Foundation is 100% focused on protecting the Plaza's faux-Moorish architecture.  Every colonnade in the city could be blown up and they wouldn't notice.  Remember, they only jumped on the Cosby Hotel bandwagon after being shamed into it by this board.

I guess this is what I was getting at - shame them into jumping on Holy Name's bandwagon, then the next collonade's bandwagon, etc. 

I'm not sure what powers, if any, they have to prevent demolition of a historic structure.  I'm also thinking about the Bloch house off the Ward Pkwy / Meyer Blvd circle that they unsuccessfully tried to save.

It is truly sad when great old buildings like this are lost. There are many old churches around the city slowly falling apart, or sitting empty with no funds to repair them.

The major problem with the Historic Kansas City Foundation is that it has no funds to do anything. It would be a more effective organization if it were endowed by a trust.

That said, the other major contributor to HKCF being a paper tiger is the fact it is run by just a few people--the board.  The board meets regularly, but the membership isn't invited to the meetings except once a year I think. They are more than happy to take membership fees from people, but don't encourage the type of participation that I think is needed.  They just send out a newsletter lamenting the loss of historic buildings.

This will be torn down, and there will be little no discussion of it in the KC mainstream press. But heaven forbid a tall building be added to the plaza.

They have a $200,000 grant from the Kemper foundation to rebuild the organization.  Besides, advocacy doesn't have to be super expensive to be effective.

They need a trust fund set up to underwrite buying and restoration of threatened structures for resale once the renovation is done.

Consider also that bad things happen in dangerous buildings.  Kids-people get abused and/or killed.  Some crack gets smoked-crackheads steal shit to get money--more crack gets smoked, etc...  Cops have to enter these structures blind and in the darkness.  Fires start, usually firfighters just let places like this burn because they are already structurally jacked up, but sometimes they have to go in to save neighboring structures. 

Dangerous structures are also a visual blight and invite crime and dumping, they disincentivize investment (most banks won't lend within 2 blocks of a boarded structure) and create a general feeling of shittiness for the people who have to see that on a daily basis. 

Its one thing to hop on a bulletin board and say "someone else ought to do something".  Its entirely another to raise the funds and actually rehabilitate the structure, which almost never happens in these circumstances. 

Sorry to be harsh but the real stakeholders, the people that live around this place, have been screaming for action for years and years.  It is their kids that walk by the structure and their cars and houses get broken into for the crack money.  I know this place may be boraded up, but I guarantee you it is open to entry somewhere.

We better hurry up and bulldoze the West Bottoms 'cause theres a crackbaby epidemic waiting to happen.

Yeah that's a good analogy.

OK Thaine, you deserve a more thoughtful and less sarcastic response.

We have to be careful in how we analyze "blighted and dangerous" buildings. 

First, it sometimes takes a while from the time a building loses its original use, until subsequent reuse is identified and executed. (note this fact, KCMOSD)

Second, you should not tear down an idle building just because the dopers and kids might sneak in and do bad things.  Secure the damn building.  You might have to do it well and you might have to do it repeatedly.  Damn, if I can see a way into a cool empty building, you can be sure I will be inside shortly..........as will a number of our intrepid urban explorers on this forum.  PumpkinStalker would never pry a board off of a building entry, now would you, PS?

In 1984, downtown Kansas City had nearly 3,000,000 square feet of empty buildings that would never again be used for their original constructed intent.  We've now got 2,000+ lofts in these rich buildings, offices, studios, and retail.  We also mourn the nearly million square feet of opportunity that has been missed and destroyed.


Your point is well taken, Thaine.  There are great old houses and houses of worship that are crumbling to dust in rural communities throughout the midwest.  Their useful time has passed and there is not a population with sufficient interest,  intent and resources to preserve these passing treasures.  This is to date true of our near abandoned urban wasteland too.

So, my joke about the west bottoms is just that, a joke.  The west bottoms has a vast number of empty buildings, but the perceived value causes the individual owners and more so the community at large to insure security for these properties.

There are however, many churches in the core that are mothballed and secure, awaiting a second coming.  At surface, it sounds to me like this owner is not capable of maintaining a secure facade.

One last platitude;  if you're not part of the solution.................

Appreciate the thoughtful response.  For the record, I have restored buildings on Union Hill, in Valentine and Brookside.  I like old buildings.  I'm just saying there is a practical side to this issue, too.  And there is a distinction between an empty building that can be re-purposed, and a dangerous building.  Dangerous buildings, if I recall correctly, either are structurally unsafe causing an imminent danger to the public, or economically infeasible to repair.  And I know those standards can be contested.

Churches are very difficult to redevelop unfortunately. It's harder to re-purpose them because of their design. They often have high ceilings, and are expensive to heat and cool. In older parts of the city, they often only have street parking, and exist in primarily residential areas where zoning is hard to get changed for other purposes, thus diminishing other daily uses.

It is hard to find other churches to take them over, because many are already losing their congregations.  Those churches in the inner city that do exist may be small, and not have funds, and that is why they open in former retail spaces.  Their congregations are poor.

Often the can be repurposed for community centers, but how many community centers can be supported? Especially when one is competing with empty former school buildings nearby that may have better facilities like gymnasiums and playgrounds.

The only real way to save older church buildings is to slowly rebuild the residential population around them so that the congregations can be maintained and rebuilt.

Some churches have formed non-profit organizations to finance the rebuilding and renovation of housing in their neighborhoods. In many situations, that is the only long-term solution.

Much of it depends on the size of the church building.  A smaller church can be converted to residential use with some effort (think This Old House did one a few years ago).  A bigger church building does present a whole different set of problems.

can't you disassemble a move those old stone buildings. I'm sure it would cost a lot but that would look awesome next to my pool.