Supporters carry signs during Saturday’s rally in front of the Second Baptist Church building along Franklin Street. The century-old building is slated for demolition. (Jonathan Spiers photos)
In a reversal, the City of Richmond now says it is going to allow the owner of The Jefferson Hotel to tear down the century-old Second Baptist Church building beside it without needing to secure an additional approval that was first thought to be required from the city’s Commission of Architectural Review.
The change in position, confirmed with the city late last week, prompted outrage from historic preservationists, who held a news conference Friday in front of the former church building and gathered Saturday for a rally that drew dozens of supporters, some holding signs that read “Historic hypocrisy” and “No more landmarks in the landfill.”
Ringing a cowbell and chanting “Save Second Baptist,” the crowd at one point marched past the five-star hotel’s Lemaire restaurant, some of them raising and pointing the signs toward the restaurant’s windows.
The scene was reminiscent of 30 years earlier, when pressure from preservationists effectively stopped The Jefferson’s owner, the Bill Goodwin-led Historic Hotels of Richmond, from going through with a demolition it initially sought in the early 1990s, when it bought the church building as part of an assemblage when it purchased The Jefferson.
Citing structural deterioration and a need for more parking, the group was allowed to demolish the building by the City Council at the time, which in an appeal reversed the decision of its Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) to deny a required certificate of appropriateness — an additional approval needed for building modifications in city-designated Old and Historic Districts.
Historic Hotels, tied to Goodwin’s CCA Industries, never went through with the demolition and instead fenced off the building and has been using it for storage.
It applied last fall for a new permit, which the city initially said would require a new certificate as well, giving preservationists hope that the request would again face scrutiny from CAR.
But as of last week, that position had changed, with the city now saying the 30-year-old certificate still stands.
The rally marched past The Jefferson Hotel’s Lemaire restaurant.
Kevin Vonck, director of the city’s planning and development review department that issues demolition permits, said Friday that it will be releasing a hold it had put on this latest application, after the city attorney’s office had determined that the previous certificate remains valid.
In an email, Vonck said, “Our cursory review of the facts led us to assume that (the 1992 certificate) was invalid given the significant lapse in time. Thus came the initial conclusion that the applicant would need to apply for a new (certificate) from CAR.
“After more extensive legal analysis, however, the City Attorney’s office has concluded that the 1992 (certificate) is still valid and thus we have released the hold on the demolition permit requested by the applicant,” he said.
Filed Sept. 20, the application technically expired Dec. 30, according to the city’s online permit portal. Vonck said the application would likely still be processed, given the hold that was put on it to allow time for Historic Hotels to apply for a new certificate from CAR.
It’s not clear how soon the building could be demolished, but preservationists on Saturday said they feared it could happen as soon as this week.
Michael Phillips, who helped organize Saturday’s rally, said their concern at this point is as much about the process as about saving the building.
“It’s a beautiful historic building, it’s a beautiful historic corridor we’re trying to preserve, but it’s also a transparency issue with the city,” Phillips said. “All we’re asking is that this building go through the process that was set forth through the city’s Old and Historic District plans, because that’s what everyone else would have to do. Right now, The Jefferson and the owners are bypassing all of that straight to demolition.”
Jennie Dotts, a local preservationist and real estate agent who led the rally, said the demolition would be hypocritical for a business with “Historic” in its name.
A photo distributed by Historic Richmond shows the interior of the former church building, which The Jefferson Hotel has been using for storage.
“It’s unfortunate that this building has been allowed to deteriorate for 30-some years, because it’s owned by one of the wealthiest and most powerful people around,” Dotts said.
“It’s next to a hotel that is trading on its history and the fact that it was built in 1895. So the idea that they would consider or even be allowed to demolish a historic landmark at its front door, and then still continue to trade off the history, makes no sense,” she said.
The demolition application does not specify what would be done with the quarter-acre property beyond filling the basement and landscaping over the site. Danny Workman, The Jefferson’s engineering and facilities director who filed the application, did not return a call seeking comment Friday. Attempts to reach CCA Industries for comment on the demolition have been unsuccessful.
Built in 1906, the sanctuary building was designed by William Noland of Noland and Baskervill, a predecessor of the present-day Baskervill architecture firm. Featuring a prominent columned portico, the neoclassic building’s design was based on the same Roman temple that Thomas Jefferson modeled the Virginia State Capitol building after.
The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Grace Street Commercial Historic District. It’s also part of Richmond’s West Franklin Street Old and Historic District.
The application puts the project cost at $350,000. Draper Aden Associates is listed as the engineer for the work.
Historic Richmond, which was involved in fighting to save the building the first go-round, has said it reached out to the hotel and was told that the demolition was sought due to structural issues with the building and “an inability to find an economically viable use.”
The nonprofit said it has offered to work with the hotel to assist with an adaptive reuse of the building, with past proposals including a fitness center, pool, offices and housing.
In a statement released after Friday’s news conference, Historic Richmond likened the scenario to “an uphill David v. Goliath battle,” describing the CAR review as the deciding slingshot.
“The City took away that slingshot. Why? The shadow of Goliath was looming over City Hall,” the statement said.
Supporters carry signs during Saturday’s rally in front of the Second Baptist Church building along Franklin Street. The century-old building is slated for demolition. (Jonathan Spiers photos)
In a reversal, the City of Richmond now says it is going to allow the owner of The Jefferson Hotel to tear down the century-old Second Baptist Church building beside it without needing to secure an additional approval that was first thought to be required from the city’s Commission of Architectural Review.
The change in position, confirmed with the city late last week, prompted outrage from historic preservationists, who held a news conference Friday in front of the former church building and gathered Saturday for a rally that drew dozens of supporters, some holding signs that read “Historic hypocrisy” and “No more landmarks in the landfill.”
Ringing a cowbell and chanting “Save Second Baptist,” the crowd at one point marched past the five-star hotel’s Lemaire restaurant, some of them raising and pointing the signs toward the restaurant’s windows.
The scene was reminiscent of 30 years earlier, when pressure from preservationists effectively stopped The Jefferson’s owner, the Bill Goodwin-led Historic Hotels of Richmond, from going through with a demolition it initially sought in the early 1990s, when it bought the church building as part of an assemblage when it purchased The Jefferson.
Citing structural deterioration and a need for more parking, the group was allowed to demolish the building by the City Council at the time, which in an appeal reversed the decision of its Commission of Architectural Review (CAR) to deny a required certificate of appropriateness — an additional approval needed for building modifications in city-designated Old and Historic Districts.
Historic Hotels, tied to Goodwin’s CCA Industries, never went through with the demolition and instead fenced off the building and has been using it for storage.
It applied last fall for a new permit, which the city initially said would require a new certificate as well, giving preservationists hope that the request would again face scrutiny from CAR.
But as of last week, that position had changed, with the city now saying the 30-year-old certificate still stands.
The rally marched past The Jefferson Hotel’s Lemaire restaurant.
Kevin Vonck, director of the city’s planning and development review department that issues demolition permits, said Friday that it will be releasing a hold it had put on this latest application, after the city attorney’s office had determined that the previous certificate remains valid.
In an email, Vonck said, “Our cursory review of the facts led us to assume that (the 1992 certificate) was invalid given the significant lapse in time. Thus came the initial conclusion that the applicant would need to apply for a new (certificate) from CAR.
“After more extensive legal analysis, however, the City Attorney’s office has concluded that the 1992 (certificate) is still valid and thus we have released the hold on the demolition permit requested by the applicant,” he said.
Filed Sept. 20, the application technically expired Dec. 30, according to the city’s online permit portal. Vonck said the application would likely still be processed, given the hold that was put on it to allow time for Historic Hotels to apply for a new certificate from CAR.
It’s not clear how soon the building could be demolished, but preservationists on Saturday said they feared it could happen as soon as this week.
Michael Phillips, who helped organize Saturday’s rally, said their concern at this point is as much about the process as about saving the building.
“It’s a beautiful historic building, it’s a beautiful historic corridor we’re trying to preserve, but it’s also a transparency issue with the city,” Phillips said. “All we’re asking is that this building go through the process that was set forth through the city’s Old and Historic District plans, because that’s what everyone else would have to do. Right now, The Jefferson and the owners are bypassing all of that straight to demolition.”
Jennie Dotts, a local preservationist and real estate agent who led the rally, said the demolition would be hypocritical for a business with “Historic” in its name.
A photo distributed by Historic Richmond shows the interior of the former church building, which The Jefferson Hotel has been using for storage.
“It’s unfortunate that this building has been allowed to deteriorate for 30-some years, because it’s owned by one of the wealthiest and most powerful people around,” Dotts said.
“It’s next to a hotel that is trading on its history and the fact that it was built in 1895. So the idea that they would consider or even be allowed to demolish a historic landmark at its front door, and then still continue to trade off the history, makes no sense,” she said.
The demolition application does not specify what would be done with the quarter-acre property beyond filling the basement and landscaping over the site. Danny Workman, The Jefferson’s engineering and facilities director who filed the application, did not return a call seeking comment Friday. Attempts to reach CCA Industries for comment on the demolition have been unsuccessful.
Built in 1906, the sanctuary building was designed by William Noland of Noland and Baskervill, a predecessor of the present-day Baskervill architecture firm. Featuring a prominent columned portico, the neoclassic building’s design was based on the same Roman temple that Thomas Jefferson modeled the Virginia State Capitol building after.
The building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the Grace Street Commercial Historic District. It’s also part of Richmond’s West Franklin Street Old and Historic District.
The application puts the project cost at $350,000. Draper Aden Associates is listed as the engineer for the work.
Historic Richmond, which was involved in fighting to save the building the first go-round, has said it reached out to the hotel and was told that the demolition was sought due to structural issues with the building and “an inability to find an economically viable use.”
The nonprofit said it has offered to work with the hotel to assist with an adaptive reuse of the building, with past proposals including a fitness center, pool, offices and housing.
In a statement released after Friday’s news conference, Historic Richmond likened the scenario to “an uphill David v. Goliath battle,” describing the CAR review as the deciding slingshot.
“The City took away that slingshot. Why? The shadow of Goliath was looming over City Hall,” the statement said.
I’m surprised that the COA transferred with the sale of the property. In my localities’ local historic district the new owner would have to apply. I’m not sure how the local laws work in Richmond, but it will be a loss and I’ll make sure to venture to other establishments when in Richmond if demolished.
Highly disappointing that the condition of the historically registered property is used for grounds to demolish. The owning entity was responsible for the last 30 years of neglect. In other cities this building would be a treasure and renovated with historic tax credits to be an amenity like a food hall, fitness center, or other dynamic use. But because this is Richmond, and the property was owned by the hotel, all this property was ever viewed as was eventual site of future parking. If parking is what we’ve resigned ourselves to then at least making it a multi-story parking garage… Read more »
Agreed. However, multistory parking lots tend to attract crime, and that’s wrong on so many levels…
Really? Can you site a study to support that?
They don’t appreciate your sense of humor, but I do.
So surprising that the 30 year old certificate has never expired. The City attorney’s opinion needs a thorough review along with relevant state law and adopted building codes.
You are spot on Alan Johnson. It is incredible that a permit issued in 1992 would still be valid in 2022….That’s not the case with every other permit I’ve seen issued in the City of Richmond. This should be a step one reexamination with a competent attorney. Absolutely unbelievable…The Jefferson will NEVER see another dime from me if they move forward on this project (I’m certain they don’t care but, try to catch a rolling stone).
Alan so is on point; hands up (or post written) for anyone who left their building permit, CZC letter, or special use permit never get completed, inspected or extended AND then came back 30 years later to find it is was still valid.
All these do Gooders should put THEIR money up and buy the place, then turn it into a food hall/pool/offices……
Uhhmmmm…. are the owners offering to sell? Probably not, because, let’s face it, this isn’t about the condition of the building – they want more parking. “Disingenuous people suck” is probably as close as I can get to saying what I actually think in a moderated forum
Okay, you are most likely right in general, and maybe correct in specifics —- the real question, that I keep asking and no one wants to touch because it is out of their rigid zones of thinking is — WHY do they want to tear the bldg down and do they have a good reason for it??? I don’t know the reason — it may be as simple as they want to tear it down and then sell the land to someone who will build something big on it — this often happens in growing cities. The FUNNY thing is… Read more »
Generally, I tend to agree with you — there are personality types that want to spend others money without their permission on things that the person with the money thinks there are better uses for (which is often why they have the money in first place)
But there is likely other factors at play — there is likely a value to the land greater than the use of the building, so it would be very expensive for the whiners to raise the money.
Please let all the protesters pay the taxes, fees and upkeep. Lets move on please.
I’m not sure why the city is getting all of the heat and Bill Goodwin is getting very little. The city is up against the legal and powerful resources of a billionaire. This guy is near the end of his life and would rather squeeze more profit out of this hotel than try to repurpose this beautiful an irreplaceable building. The Jefferson already has a large parking lot across the street that could become multi-level, so not sure why demolition is crucial to parking.
Someone needs to check recent campaign donations to the mayor!
You may be correct on several points — my observations may not be up to date, but it seemed to me at some point that the Jefferson needed to have a bit more control over its immediate environment — the perception that it is not safe in the immediate area can discourage out-of-town visitors.
Old doesn’t mean Historic, and that label is often too liberally applied.
It is arguably one of the most accurate homages to the Roman Maison Carrée in Nîmes, which is the very building that inspired Jefferson’s design of our state capitol. It has infinitely more value than a parking lot. And if this is The Jefferson’s way of contributing to the community, I will do everything I can to stop utilizing the services of such a lazy and shortsighted business.
They have already bulldozed enough significant properties for the sake of disgusting parking lots along Franklin and Main Streets. Enough is enough.
You are just parroting what you read.
The proportions are wrong for it to truly be an homage to the Maison Carree — that is most important — and the number of pillars is even wrong.
It looks like many other Baptist Churches from that time.
For a more deep history lesson, the State capital is not very impressive or in any way original looking, and jefferson is only considered a great architect in Virginia.
I can’t imagine how unbelievably expensive it would be to restore this historic building. But I can’t help but think what a giant mistake demolishing it is. And for a parking lot??? It’s like burning 2000-year-old scrolls for firewood. Even in its decrepit state, this building is gorgeous. I had the chance to poke my head in there when they were unload some storage and it’s a really special place that once destroyed, will never be able to be replicated, much like the Jefferson Hotel itself. That a historic hotel can’t fathom the value is incomprehensible. And that they can’t… Read more »
With all of the good that Mr. Goodwin has done for Richmond, why in the world are people so bent out of shape about this? He bought the property, right? It was sold to him, right? He is the owner. He tried for years to come up with an approved use of the space which made sense for the City and the owners – none materialized. Look next door at the Jefferson and ask yourself if he is committed to improving the City or just trying to get rich? If someone has a good idea for the space they should… Read more »
Dan, I’m pretty much a property rights kind of guy myself, so I understand where you are coming from, and in many instances I would agree with you, but not here. This building is important. It would be like if someone wanted to bulldoze Fallingwater because they could make more money turning the space into a mini-storage. Ok, so if you don’t want to renovate, fine. But sell it to someone who will. There’s no indication Mr. Goodwin has offered to sell this to anyone else or accepted help in developing another use, as offered by Historic Richmond. And you… Read more »
Fair point. Has anyone offered to purchase it (even it were for sale)? I wonder if others would get inside and realize the same thing, that repurposing it or preserving the space would be nonsensical given its condition? I don’t know the answer to these questions but it does seem like the Jefferson has tried to come up with uses for the space but stopped short of moving forward given the cost / benefit. Tricky subject for sure. I would generally be in favor of preservation as well but it doesn’t seem like this was a decision that was made… Read more »
But are you surprised? This is also a family whose son paid 5.5 million for a home just to tear it down:
https://richmondbizsense.com/2017/06/26/goodwin-mansion-demolished/
Is he the first to purchase a home and tear it down? I thought when you purchased a home you then owned it and could do as you see fit? Pricey – yes. His – yes.
No, but you’re missing the point. This wasn’t some derelict shack, it was a *historic* 7,000 sf house, in fantastic condition for age, in the wealthiest part of Henrico County. And it may be the most expensive sale in county history. 5.5 million for a plot of dirt. Pricey – yes. His – yes. Insane – yes.
“Why? ‘Cause f*** ’em, that’s why” – Dave Chapelle
No, they paid 5.5 million dollars for some land that had a nice house on it.
a bridge waaaaay too far here. Your point contributes nothing to the argument in favor of preserving the church. First, attacking a guy’s son because you don’t like his development proposal is totally bush league. Likewise, what the guy’s son does is irrelevant to this discussion. Next, what someone or his son does with a house and land they buy as long as its legal is absolutey irrelevant to this issue and absolutely none of your business….
Your point contributes nothing to the argument in favor of preserving the church. You are correct. My point was calling out the Goodwins’ lack of desire to preserve historic properties. Likewise, what the guy’s son does is irrelevant to this discussion. No it’s not, he works for the company that owns the church. Next, what someone or his son does with a house and land they buy as long as its legal is absolutey irrelevant to this issue and absolutely none of your business…. The irony of this statement is certainly not lost on me. If you believe that, this… Read more »
Well in typical form it goes right along with the revisions of history and the removal of our monuments and traditions in America, where Christianity is anathema to liberalism, to be supplanted with intersectional spaces and parking lots.
“Our Monuments”? You mean the false idols to the fake gods of the racist confederacy? Cry me a river.
Also, if you think removing statues of racist generals who killed American troops to defend the right to own other human beings is an attack on Christianity, you need to reconsider your religion.
What an idiotic post. I thought “educated” people realized what the word history entails.
Tell that to all the “liberal” voting folks filling up the church pews every sunday. If you don’t think Jesus was a radical leftist on economic and most social issues then you don’t understand the bible.
Tell me you never read the bible without telling me you never read the bible
2 thoughts: 1) Several years ago the city “gave” or allowed the block of Jefferson St. between Franklin & Main street to be closed to vehicle traffic so that the hotel and parking lot could be connected for pedestrians, etc. 2) In the 80s the Jefferson Hotel was also a run down historic building that some called for to be demolished when it sat abandoned for a few years The city council needs to show some muscle and make life difficult for the Jefferson Hotel owners instead of trying to resuscitate a dead casino referendum. This building is in bad… Read more »
At least make them save the facade and architectural features! I imagine someone would gladly PAY to have those, but if not the cost of removal work and transporting the historic components of the building to a history museum or nonprofit might generate a tax write off!
The owners of the Jefferson have been at the forefront of historic preservation, in Richmond and other cities as well. There are simply some situations where a building is functionally obsolete and it would take an incredible investment to restore it.
No one can predict what the ownership will do with the property when it’s demolished. One of the worst ideas, in my opinion, would be a parking lot fronting the main entrance.
Unfortunately, I believe that’s the fate of this property once this gorgeous old building is sadly removed — yet another of RVA’s lovely surface parking lots.Too bad Mr. Goodwin apparently has no desire to sell the building and the land. I feel certain if he were to put it up for sale, he’d have suitors ready to purchase lined up, ready and waiting.
Wow – I’m at a loss for words, really. I’m no preservationist by any stretch – but I agree 100% that every possible effort should be made to save this gorgeous building. It is as unique a structure in Richmond as it gets – a true one-of-a-kind gem not only in the city or the metro but in the Commonwealth as well. It’s been a part of the fabric of Franklin Street for over 100 years now – and the grandeur of this structure simply cannot be replaced, nor can it be replicated. And the ULTIMATE sin is to “replace”… Read more »
When I see a building like this I am reminded of places which could be direct models for how to preserve and adapt them. Often the most appropriate reuse has nothing in common with the original purpose, but it is that which makes for such great work. There’s no shortage of uses for a building such as this one, and I think it is one of the finest works of architecture in Virginia. I say that as a modernist. There is a sense of authenticity and purpose simply standing in its presence. Society needs great buildings! It saddens me greatly… Read more »
Maybe a deal can be made with Stone Brewing; they are never going to build that Beer Garden at the old Intermediate Terminal so maybe someone with clout can work with Stone, the City, and the Jefferson to help find a use and save this Diamond.
They should offer the building for free and see if anyone would want to move the building to a empty lot in that they have done that before on TV shows.
Not sure why you’re being downvoted here. What you’re suggesting is inferior to preservation, but a superior outright demolition.
Agreed. Can it be moved??
I’m a little disturbed at how many of you don’t believe in property owner’s rights.
Here’s an idea. Richmond could require that all parking lots be installed underground as automated silos (like Carvana
). A creative contractor could develop a repeatable process for quickly digging and inserting prefab silos and make a fortune. Added benefit would accrue to the lot owners’ being free to develop their lots at surface and above. Win Win! What’s n to to like?
I would generally prefer to see a cool bldg than a parking lot.
But one thing I have noticed about a vocal group of people here — they HATE parking!!!
I think there is something larger behind this. To put it simply, the don’t like people using cars.
Thoughts?
Would this not be an absolutely fantastic event space? Lavish weddings? Fundraisers? Why not embrace it as part of the Jefferson?