By Scott Unger • Of the News-Register • 

Historic church approved for demolition

Only current online subscribers may access this article and/or our N-R e-editions.

One-day subscriptions available for just $3.

For all subscription offers, click here.

Already a subscriber, please

Comments

leo

That building is Way too big for that block, 20 apartments would be more reasonable,

Bigfootlives

Why do they build ugly apartment buildings? No balconies? The new one next to the hospital looks like a barn, and not in a good way like they tried to do. Ugly, communist buildings, they look like the projects.

Don

Thank you, leaders at Cooperative Ministries, for having a vision that will provide more housing in McMinnville. Wishing you all the best.

Lulu

I have to agree with Big. Why the Brutalist style, so hopelessly ugly?

NJINILNCCAOR

Uninspired.

McMinnville can do better.

Otis

more housing = good

NJINILNCCAOR

Agreed Lulu.

While some Brutalist buildings make architectural statements, and look appropriate for the environment (like the government center in Salem), this just looks cheap.

CubFan

I'm sad to hear this. Parking downtown is already tight, and even though this project includes "some" tuck-under parking, it won't be enough parking for the tenants. So they will be forced to park on the street. This project also displaces existing parking for downtown employees and shoppers. Aside from that, I the gotta agree about the horrible design. It could have/should have been alot better.

tooling_around

This is not a good fit for that location. It was not long ago that Garvin and Remy voted down the Gwendolyn. At least that building would have had parking.

Bob

Claims of providing “affordable housing” should not give developers a free pass to get the city council or the Historic Landmark committee to approve ugly, not historically correct buildings that don’t meet the city ordinances they are supposed to base their decisions on.

tooling_around is right. The Gwendolyn hotel would have met an equally important city need, and met ALL city codes and ordinance, but several members were opposed to tearing down 150 year old historic buildings that were in far worse structural condition than the Methodist Church. Others stated the hotel plan just didn’t feel right. But they have no objections to tearing down the Methodist Church and replacing it with an ugly, non-historic structure that is too big to provide adequate parking.

To this point, developers have used the, “affordable housing” claim to avoid city ordinances intended to protect surrounding neighbors from unfair damages (excess traffic, not enough parking, and now ugly non-historic architecture). Hopefully our city council wakes up and starts protecting local citizens instead of out of town affordable living contractors.



  • Most viewed
  • Most commented
Web Design and Web Development by Buildable