What Would Jesus Do?

Photo by Thomas Anderson. On the pro-urb email list, there is a thread now about accommodating churches as neighborhoods change, in particular when properties become more valuable.

One person discussed the negative impact in a particular situation, in a Downtown neighborhood in a Florida city, which included massive new construction opposed by neighbors, and she ended her email with this sentence: "Who'd have thought spirituality could be such a bad neighbor?"

My response:

Me. At times.

In disinvested cities churches often acquire a great number of nearby properties. Subsequently, the properties are often warehoused-mothballed, neglected, demolished, etc.

The strong historic preservation laws in DC are a direct result of buildings being demolished by the Capitol Hill Baptist Church, when it was discovered that listing on the National Register didn't preclude non-federal demolitions. The Church's justification was in part, that they "couldn't afford the upkeep" of the buildings so it was better to demolish. Ironically, 25 years later, the empty lots were replaced with period-similar (but larger) buildings that are now each worth over $1.5 million.

Unfortunately, I can think of at least three situations in different parts of the city where churches have neglected historically eligible for listing buildings, at times illegally demolished such buildings (including buildings in historic districts), and created illegal parking lots.

I am not a big fan of churches with big property portfolios.

The good thing about the increase in demand for housing in the District is that churches can no longer afford to construct vast property portfolios. Alas, they still have big property portfolios that they are able to neglect.

As the nation has deconcentrated people no longer live by and walk to church, so they drive. Then churches want to reshape the city fabric, through parking lots, to accomodate their automobile-centricity. Of course, tearing holes in the building fabric does not contribute to strong neighborhoods.

Parking-driving is an issue in other areas, even if not associated with the demolition of historic properties. E.g., where a church basically "expropriated" the playground of a local public elementary school as a parking lot with the complicity of public officials--wrecking the ability of the playground to be used by students--and the Church justified this because of their various community activities. Some neighbors fought this, and the Church eventually decided to leave the city.

Full disclosure: In 2003, I lost an attempt to save two 1876 frame rowhouses ultimately demolished by a church in my neighborhood. I am still bitter about it.

That Church, by its failure to act in other ways, has contributed through inaction to the serious street disorder in the vicinity of its properties.

I came to the conclusion that this was in fact a property acquisition strategy.

As long as the area was dangerous, the Church could acquire properties more cheaply, because of lack of demand.

Eventually, the market changed despite the extant (but somewhat reduced*) disorder, and they can no longer afford to acquire nearby properties. (*Some of the properties that housed many of the people who assisted and/or masked this disorder have finally been sold--not to the Church, which still owns adjacent, under-occupied properties that if sold could go for $600,000 each.)

They still aren't happy about this. Their anger over this change in the market contributed, imo, to their intransigence and unwillingness to take responsibility for their active demolition-by-neglect of the properties in question.
_____________
Catholic Church officials say razing the Rochambeau (right) would help highlight the restored Basilica of the Assumption (left).(Sun photo by Kenneth K. Lam) Jun 1, 2005

This is an issue in Baltimore right now as well, see "Church, preservationists in historic battle." The Archdiocese Of Baltimore is spending millions to restore its domed icon, the famed Basilica of the Assumption, and now Catholic Church officials want to make the most of those efforts - even if it means clearing the area around the landmark to best show it off.The church proposes razing a downtown apartment building it owns on the basilica's block, replacing it with a prayer garden. The archdiocese believes it has a religious right to the demolition, a right to recast the area to fulfill the church's vision. But preservationists say tearing down the nearly 100-year- old Rochambeau would leave a gaping hole in one of Baltimore's most historic corridors.

The Church also justifies the demolition because of the cost to renovate the building. In six letters to the editor--"Save Rochambeau from wrecking ball"--writers argue against this proposal. One makes the point "The Archdiocese was fully aware of the economic burden that it put on its own back when it purchased the Rochambeau in 2002. If it was not prepared to maintain the building, the Archdiocese shouldn't have bought it" while another writes:

"One of the goals of my association is to bring more taxpaying residents and businesses to Mount Vernon without jeopardizing the historic character of this special neighborhood. The destruction of the Rochambeau would have a negative impact on our neighborhood by reducing the number of nearby residents who would patronize local businesses and cultural institutions. By doing so, it would also reduce the income and sales taxes that go to the city of Baltimore. The demolition of the Rochambeau would be an act of cultural vandalism aimed at our architectural heritage."