Fascinating case in Washington, DC, right now, involving an extremely ugly and expensive to maintain church whose congregation can no longer afford its upkeep, and wants to modify it or tear it down. The city has declared it a landmark, and won't let the congregation do what it wants. It's all going to court. Excerpt from the Times story:
Supporters of preserving the church, the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, say it is a sterling example of a style of architecture called brutalism, which is identified by repetitive geometric design and raw concrete.J. Darrow Kirkpatrick, the church's former first reader or lay leader, said that the building was expensive to heat and that it cost up to $8,000 a year to change the light bulbs because scaffolding must be erected. Most of the church's nearly 400 seats are empty for services, and the concrete is so porous that the smell of mildew lingers, Mr. Kirkpatrick said.
"We believe this brutalist, unwelcoming, bunkerlike building is not a proper representation of our practice or our theology and, that without a compelling government interest, our members, not the Historic Preservation Review Board, are in the best position to determine that representation," Mr. Kirkpatrick said Thursday in announcing the lawsuit at a news conference.
Although it is unusual for such a recent building to be declared historic, officials felt that it was an important architectural statement, David Maloney, state historic preservation officer for the District of Columbia, said in an e-mail message,
As it happened, I was going to meet a friend for dinner in Washington in June, and found myself standing on the corner where this unfortunate carbuncle also stands. I thought, "Oh for pete's sake, this horrible building is a church!" (You can see a tiny photo of the thing here).
I'm not sure what side I'm on Part of me hopes the church prevails, and this awful eyesore comes down. Besides, how fair is it to demand a declining congregation to pay for upkeep on a building it can't afford to maintain? Talk about unfunded mandates!
On the other hand, my strong feeling in this case has almost everything to do with my extreme distaste for architectural Modernism. If this case involved a church built in an older architectural style, I would be far more likely to side with the landmarks commission (though that does not resolve the problem of the justice at issue in expecting a congregation with diminished resources to sacrifice its own property for the public interest).
What do you think? When property rights conflict with historical preservation (granted the validity of the community's interest in preserving landmarks that are genuinely of historical value), what are some useful guidelines to help us decide which should prevail? What role should aesthetic judgment play in the matter, given how mutable taste is over time? My own Craftsman bungalow neighborhood here in Dallas was thought in the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s to be an unfashionable eyesore; it's now considered one of the city's architectural treasures, and has landmark status.
Who's right in this DC case? How do you know?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Oh please, if the community has such an interest in preserving other people's historic architecture, maybe the community should pay the bills for keeping up the old pile.
Precisely.
Of course, this whole brouhaha would never have arisen except for the stupidity of the District of Columbia preservations. This particular building (which I walk past several times a week) is an eyesore that dates way back to the 1970s.
The notion that much of anything built during the Great Wasted Decade is either historical or worth preserving hardly passes the laugh test.
"Because Christian Scientism maintains that the physical world is an illusion, why are they so uptight about the demolition of a mere building?"
TR: It's been awhile since I looked into it, I did a paper on Nancy Astor, but I did't think that's quite what they believe. Although I guess they actually do.
Still the emphasis is that the true nature of the world is good and spiritual. Any imperfections we see are caused by delusion or error. However I'm not sure if this view applies as much to created things like buildings. Even if it does a building that takes less effort to see as "perfect" might still be desirable.
It's the District of Columbia that wants to preserve the building. The Christian Scientists want it torn down.
Rod, a similar situation has happened in Seattle.
The congregation of the historic and exteriorly beautiful First United Methodist Church in downtown Seattle wanted to sell their property and take the proceeds and build a more utilitarian church and mission more in line with their current interests (feeding and sheltering the poor).
Their historic building was built to accomodate something like 1,000 worshippers of which only one or two hundred remained. It is expensive to keep up.
The city and preservation board kept trying to mark the church as historic, but our courts denied the request because of the building being a church.
However, there was a LOT of public pressure on the church to keep the building. There was endless back and forth with the city and the church over the planned sale to a developer who planned to build a skyscraper there.
The public outcry was great, no one wanted the church to be torn down and yet no one wanted to care for the building. Long story short, a new developer was found who will maintain parts of the old building and build around it.
See the story here: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/316497_church21.html
I've been in the church. The dome is nice. The inside ornamentation is pretty bare though. It does add something beautiful to the city so I'm glad it won't be torn down.
The congregation has moved on and now meets in the Seattle Center (a complex of fine arts venues and public parks) at the Children's Theater which you can see here: www.firstchurchseattle.org.
In response to Francis, who said:
"Because Christian Scientism maintains that the physical world is an illusion, why are they so uptight about the demolition of a mere building?"
First, it's "Christian Science," not "Christian Scientism." Christian Science was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.
Second, we believe in raising our thoughts so that they are closer to God and that the physical world (whether or bodies, buildings, or relationships) will reflect our raised thought. We do believe in Divine Mind over matter. We believe that this is how Jesus healed.
We believe in creating and developing physical representations of higher thought. That higher thought includes sharing our faith with others. That is why we maintain Christian Science Reading Rooms. We believe in being aware of the world and its events so that we can help raise it up. That is why we publish the Christian Science Monitor -- a highly respected national newspaper. We have radio programs, internet cites, summer camps, boarding elementary and high schools, and a highly regarded University (Principia). We are not a dwindling church, but I have never seen a Christian Science congregation that consisted of 400 people and I cannot imagine why this church was ever build to accommodate so many people. This church looks bears absolutely no similarity to any other Christian Science church that I have ever seen.
Third, as someone else already pointed out, it's the congregation that wants to tear down this old church and build a new church and the city that wants to force us to maintin it -- without subsidy. This is the first time I have ever heard of a congregation not being allowed to rebuild its own house of worship. Just as bad, however, is the concept that the government can force a congregation -- or anyone -- to pay for the renovation/upkeep of a crumbling building (yes, it really is crumbling!)as well as the utility bill for a huge, concrete structure that seeps out heat in the winter and air conditioning in the summer so that our children cannot even be comfortable in the Sunday School or childcare facility.
The city is, in effect, pushing us to abandon the building, without compensation -- without any funds to build anew somewhere else. How would you feel if this were your home? It is about our right to worship, but it is also about property rights. What right does the city have to force us to pay for this expensive monstrosity for eternity? At some point, we would have no choice but to abandon it, without compensation.
I hope that people think about the legal precedent that will be set by this case and understand how it impacts on their own right to practice their religions, as well as their own right to rebuild their own property to make it usable.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.