This substantial historic railroad depot (Grand Trunk Western) built in 1891, was torn down in 1975, yet the lot remains empty.
By Vicki Priest (enlarged and edited on 3/31/16)
Buildings aren’t people, yet buildings can be unique, beautiful, contain rare materials and can be a face in the community for centuries. A building can represent a street, a community, a city; it can inspire awe and any number of other feelings or thoughts that make us realize that we can create something beautiful. Buildings can be the opposite, too. They can remind us of failing economies and the loss of community pride, as when a school falls into disrepair, or when newer buildings are simple, cheap, cookie-cutter, letting us consider how we now live in a throw-away culture. For example, 805 Pine Grove Avenue used to be the home of an astonishingly handsome home (Second Empire style), but in its place now is an abandoned gas station.
Abandoned gas station at 805 Pine Grove Avenue, Port Huron, today (2016).
An early and astonishing Port Huron home, demolished (!) in 1970. 805 Pine Grove Avenue.
Looking through images of houses and churches that have been razed in Port Huron, I was negatively impressed by the loss of some of the city’s most notable architecture. It’s very hard to imagine how it could’ve been thought that tearing such structures down was better than brainstorming ways to repurpose them. Other structures were lost due to neglect and fire. Below is a very sad example of the urban downscaling that has happened in Port Huron. The first image is of an undated photo, showing a block of historic buildings on the left (one of them was quite unique), with the second image showing them all to be gone. (These images will be updated when more information and better quality photos are acquired.)
With the Harrington Hotel at the right, this view is of a block of historic structures at Military and Wall streets (NW corner), Port Huron. The sidewalk and streets are of brick pavers. Undated photo from Gaffney (2006, p 24).
The same scene in 2013 as the historic image shows, though with a different type of lens. No historic buildings at the left remain. From a Google street view image.
Some homes made way for the primary hospital in town. While time doesn’t stand still and communities grow, the homes torn down for the hospital expansion didn’t have their windows and other structural and architectural components removed for recycling purposes (for use in other historic structures that need replacements). Below are some examples. An inventory of lost resources will be listed in the Lost Properties page.
First Baptist Church, dedicated in 1882 (the church had an earlier building that had burned down). Sold in 1969 to make a parking lot.
The beautiful church structure at left was considered the “crown jewel” of downtown Port Huron (Creamer 2006). It was sold to the city in 1969 and subsequently demolished; there is now a parking lot in its place.
The original Knights of the Maccabees headquarters, built in 1892. It later became the Algonquin Hotel. It met its unfortunate demise in 2000, when it burned down after having been abandoned. Photo from c. 1905.
Below are the homes mentioned earlier, demolished in 2006 for the hospital expansion. They do not appear to have had valuable components removed first.
The 1300 block of Pine Grove Avenue, Port Huron, 2005, prior to their 2006 demolition.
1327 Pine Grove Avenue being demolished. June 2006. The smashed remains of the regal 1323 home are to the left.
The Lauth Hotel, built in 1902. Date of photo unknown.
Very few of the original hotels in Port Huron remain today. Sadly, the “skinny” Lauth Hotel (and bar) no longer stands. “Built to resemble the famed Flat Iron Building in New York City in 1902, it was destroyed in the Urban Renewal Movement of the 1970’s” (Gaffney, accessed Feb 2016). Instead of creatively integrating it into condominium architectural plans, it was simply razed. The whole area where it stood used to be an attractive little city center with brick pavers, but not any more.
__________________
PS. A local authority had told me of this house, and having discovered specifically which house it was in Port Huron, I wanted to append it to this article. St Joseph Catholic Church had owned it and then demolished it, despite it being in the city’s Olde Town Historic District. Believers are called to be stewards of God’s creation, and quality buildings are made of choice and rare materials that God provided. The workmanship required to make such structures may also be considered a gift from God. Apparently, the community wanted this structure saved, the city offered them free amenities, and there was even someone who wanted to move it. Yet the church acted ungraciously (from what I’ve been told) and tore the building down anyway. Why such waste when it could’ve been removed instead? There is nothing but grass there now. There are many reasons why The Church has dwindled in the last decades, and this attitude of disregard–for others in the community and for God’s gifts–could be one of them.
1317 Seventh Street, Port Huron. The church that demolished it, which was on an adjacent lot, even took over the address of the disappeared.
Sources
Bromley, Suzette (former curator for the Port Huron Museum), Rootsweb page, which holds scanned images from various collections held by the Port Huron Museum, and the Library of Congress.
Creamer, Mary Lou (and the History and Research Committee of the Port Huron Sesquicentennial Steering Committee, c. 2006), Port Huron: Celebrating Our Past, 1857-2007.
Gaffney, TJ, Port Huron, 1880-1960 (Charleston: Arcadia Publishing, 2006).
Port Huron Area History & Preservation 
Yes, the home that got away. Built for Lucy Sanborn in the late 1870 by her father John whose home still stands today next to the once beautiful Second Empire. We tried so hard to save this home and spend a great deal of money in our attempts. A relocation plan was devised yet would require a 4 month period to secure the property across from 2333 Gratiot Avenue. The home was to be turned into a B&B which would have thrived being next to the convention center. Unfortunately efforts by both us and the city feel on deaf ears and the home was razed for a parking lot that was never constructed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so very much for your comment here! I’ve heard about it from a couple of people, and your further input helps too. I of course wasn’t involved, but it perturbs me to no end that–as far as can be gathered–that the church lied about it. It’s quite bad enough to tear down such a quality home for a parking lot, and then not even make one . . . I think it may give an indication as to why they didn’t accept any offers for help otherwise . . . they simply wanted more space around them and not have the responsibility of the house. They could’ve used it for something else, period. This drives me absolutely nuts.
LikeLike
I’m disappointed in you, Chris. I’d had respect for you as a person who cares about preserving history, but I didn’t realize you engage in calumny. Father Brian Cokonougher was the Administrator of Holy Trinity Parish at that time — if you have an accusation to throw around, name the people you accuse. Don’t hide behind vague innuendos of nameless “Theys” in the attempt to make yourself appear to be the “good guy,” the “little David fighting big, bad, mean Goliath,” as if you were engaged in battle against evil forces. That’s just dramatic hyperbole on your part. There’s more to the story, and it doesn’t make you look particularly good when you ignore it. All you’ve ended up doing is contributing to bigoted anti-Catholicism, as noted in the snide commentary in this blog. Some horrible things were written here — may God have mercy on your soul and on the soul of the blog owner and all who believe your calumny.
LikeLike
As I received both comments at the same time, I reread Chris’s and can’t figure out why you are so negative about his comment. You are the one that comes off as being the way you say he (and I) are being. You give no names, either, regarding what was seriously considered to save the house. Chris does indeed mention that the church was willing for it to be moved, but that didn’t work out. And I’m sorry, but I’m not going to name names in what had turned into a very hostile situation (with your attitude here, I’m afraid they’d get harassed!). My information is from a prominent person in city preservation that was involved and there at the time (not Chris, but he’s the second witness here). I have no reason at all to doubt this person, who also claims to be a follower of Christ, by the way (since you’re bringing that into the insults). I’m sorry you’re so upset about the situation, but I do strongly believe that any church in its community must go above and beyond to maintain a good neighborly presence in that community, so this is an example of both the difficulties in preservation and the Christian community. I’m a follower of Christ myself and when I heard what happened, or I should say, the manner in which the situation unfolded, I was very offended. If the parties involved all behaved the best they could, and did the best they could under the circumstances they found themselves in, we wouldn’t be posting here. At this point in time, take it as an example to learn from. I’m going to post this answer in response to both of your comments.
LikeLike
Dear Vicki Priest. you don’t gain credibility if all you do is rely on “nameless sources” and rumors to spread calumnious gossip that encourages bigotry, prejudice, and hatred against a particular class or group of people. You come across as holier-than-thou here, and spiteful to boot. Rather than simply believing one side that presents the other side as evil, you could investigate further. Instead, you accepted what you were told without question, and presented it as the only truth. That’s irresponsible behavior in itself, but your snide, cynical commentary reveals your bigoted nature. You damaged your own reputation with your words.
LikeLike
As I received both comments at the same time, I reread Chris’s and can’t figure out why you are so negative about his comment. You are the one that comes off as being the way you say he (and I) are being. You give no names, either, regarding what was seriously considered to save the house. Chris does indeed mention that the church was willing for it to be moved, but that didn’t work out. And I’m sorry, but I’m not going to name names in what had turned into a very hostile situation (with your attitude here, I’m afraid they’d get harassed!). My information is from a prominent person in city preservation that was involved and there at the time (not Chris, but he’s the second witness here). I have no reason at all to doubt this person, who also claims to be a follower of Christ, by the way (since you’re bringing that into the insults). I’m sorry you’re so upset about the situation, but I do strongly believe that any church in its community must go above and beyond to maintain a good neighborly presence in that community, so this is an example of both the difficulties in preservation and the Christian community. I’m a follower of Christ myself and when I heard what happened, or I should say, the manner in which the situation unfolded, I was very offended. If the parties involved all behaved the best they could, and did the best they could under the circumstances they found themselves in, we wouldn’t be posting here. At this point in time, take it as an example to learn from. I’m going to post this answer in response to both of your comments.
LikeLike
It’s been a long time since I commented on your post. As I recall, your article made a snide comment about followers of Christ, so don’t “since you’re bringing that into the insults” me. I don’t care who your second witness is, I’ve talked to seminarians who lived there and know the true condition of the rectory, and I had talked to the “unofficial parish historian” who is also privy to what was going on, having had a position with the parish at the time, and the “sweet deal” your sources claim wasn’t so sweet — it required the parish to come up with money. What you don’t realize is that St. Joseph Church itself was slated for closure because of declining attendance and net operating loss (the cost of keeping the lights on). The parish has managed to save it since 2012, but it’s at a point of no return. So go ahead and continue your prejudiced beliefs — the religion you don’t like won’t be represented by a downtown location, and your article certainly encourages prejudice against it, so there’s no reason anyone would want to attend and keep it open….but most of those churches are dying anyway. The world has grown more secular, increasingly “spiritual but not religious,” “don’t need religion,” “don’t need to go to church to worship.” So it doesn’t matter that those buildings aren’t preserved by the remaining Faithful. It’s more important to take care of people than buildings. No Christian makes sacrifices to preserve buildings at the expense of not feeding the hungry or clothing the naked or giving shelter to the homeless…but that’s what the downtown churches do. You want to call the dealings over the rectory “dirty” and even “immoral.” I think you’ve lost sight of what it means to be Christian if you think buildings are more important than serving people.
LikeLike
I don’t believe I’ve lost what it means to be a Christian. You obviously haven’t seen my Christian writings, and your tone is nothing to write “home” about. The problem with this particular church issue is that you can still see, in writing, that the church claimed they needed the space for parking so that older people and all that didn’t have to walk so far. Since a new parking lot was not put in place, it doesn’t seem true. It’s a bad witness to claim one thing–that the destruction of something significant in a neighborhood that has regulation to protect those things “in order to help people”–and then not do it. It definitely looks deceptive. I don’t care about whether some deal was sweet or not. It was the witness of the church members that I was primarily commenting on (from my understanding, the city offered a good deal that was also rejected). There were people who insulted others on the other side of the fence who were also believers; that is not right. This is what happened and overall, it was not right. Period. There’s no point in going on here, by you or me, since God is the judge, and from what I understand He’s much more gracious than you. (What’s funny, too, is that one of our board members attended that church and I loved her; if she were still alive I’d have to go over this with her and I’m most positive that we’d be all good.)
LikeLike
Your Christian writings are irrelevant to the topic at hand. Your original post accuses the parish or archdiocese, or both, of being underhanded and deceptive, and you presented the accusation through insinuations without being forthright in giving details. I don’t care who you know or knew in the parish who might agree with you, the fact is you use your forum to gossip and spread calumny. I called you out on that. So what if the parish didn’t construct the parking lot? That’s not evidence of deception. I’ve talked to parishioners who have more inside knowledge of the details than you have, and you are way off base. It casts a dark mark on your credibility as a historian, as do your personal insults and ad hominem attacks.
LikeLike
Do you really have nothing else better to do than insulting people for not agreeing with you? I believe that earlier I wrote (I don’t have time for rehashing everything) that this is an example of something that was done in a historic district and that we could all learn from it. There were publicly published statements by church leaders, which led people to believe what was said by them. If things change, they change, but without communication the perceptions remain the same. With your witch hunt type of attitude, I did not want to give names of those involved, and I certainly haven’t changed my mind; if they choose to comment, that’s up to them. This has nothing to do with the quality of my historical research, but with people in the community who are living. No one is perfect, anyway, but I think it obvious to most people when someone or some group is being open and sincere. I recently found out that another home was demolished that is within the land now used by the church, and I haven’t made a fuss about THAT. I just went and searched for the Detroit-based publication that had an article about this, available online previously, but I couldn’t find it. And I’ve just spent too much time searching for other articles–with such general terms it can take lots of time and weeding (and local papers often to not publish certain things deemed negative). In any case, people, whether it be myself or anyone else, have the right to bring issues like this up, but I guess we’re all supposed to just shut up or we’ll be burned at the stake. If I find an article and I remember about this, I’ll post it. Otherwise, if you don’t have any positive thing to say about the event being a learning experience or any other type of positive contribution, please do not comment further. Name-calling posts, whether they are directed at me or anyone else, will be removed.
LikeLike