Shady nonprofit to demolish historic church for surface lot

[Colin P. Varga]

Glad to see somebody who is interested.

Here are the responses - short, but not meant to be snarky-



That's avoiding the central issue - nobody's claiming "restore". I assume you're focusing on my use of the word "church" which here that simply means "building".
Nobody says Siloam was required to restore the building to an active church.

No, I wasn't implying restoring back to a "active church", just restoration to it's previous architectural state.

The claim at issue is "letting the building fall down"-
The deed restriction which imposes a positive duty to repair, is simply another point about who had the duty to keep the building up.




Which is the dividing line we're interested in.

Yes, the chuch was decomissioned, but that's a bit different from demolished...



It's in the papers the city submitted in the court case

http://www.preservationalliance.com/...IRfindings.pdf

Board of L&I Review Findings of Fact and Conclusions of law, page 2, Finding of Fact #4
Also in the Minutes of the 577th Meeting of the Philadelphia Historical Commission, May 8, 2009.

Once Siloam found out the building had been designated, they sought a permit to demolish the INTERIOR of the building.
Why would you want a permit to demolish what is already gone?


Hal

First, according to this document from June 2011 Siloam was seeking demolition of the structure and then the church received its historic designation. At that time Siloam revised the permit to be limited to demolition of the interior. Hal, you seem to have skewed the facts by leaving out the fact that Siloam was seeking a permit for demolition well before it’s historic designation. The reason for demolition of the interior is clearly stated in the document and it should be noted that demolition should be differentiated from wonton destruction from eleven years of neglect before it was bought by Siloam. Demolition would be a necessary improvement for the sale of the building. To quote the Community Design Collaborative (CDC) report (page 9, fact 46):

Siloam has the advantage of having a building that is essentially a blank slate: there are many more opportunities for adaptive reuse than a church with a higher degree of integrity of interior finishes would have.

Also, it is documented that the church was “un-maintained” after its closing in 1995. My experience with abandoned buildings is that within about 2 weeks they are completely trashed by vandals. The example I give is the former Italian restaurant, previously known as Arroyo, along the canal in Manayunk.

What is lacking is any evidence that Siloam as an organization destroyed the interior of this church. L&I has faulted Siloam not for any destruction to the church but for not trying harder to sell the church or finding a reuse for the church.

One other item (page 6, fact 36) missing in this thread is the cost of renovation of the church estimated at $6,319,000 without the cost of architectural, engineering, and legal services added into that figure.

[Outlaw Star]

Boom goes the dynamite.

Palewski noted that when the Philadelphia Archdiocese vacated the church in 1995, it removed the altar and stained-glass windows. But the other elements of the interior – the pews, carved woodwork, and ornate plaster with decorative painting -- remained intact.

The interior was still in that condition in spring 2009, when a Philadelphia art dealer, Ellen Schicktanz proposed buying the building and setting up an art gallery, Palewski said. “But by the time Mrs. Schicktanz was given access to the site a few months later, most of the interior elements had been destroyed. The historic details that attracted her to the space were gone, and so was her interest in buying the church,” Palewski said.

At the time, Ellen Schicktanz owned an art gallery at 16th and Ritner Streets but was looking for space to expand, her husband Bill explained. They saw photos of the church taken by the Community Design Collaborative in 2007 that showed the interior still intact. Ellen Schicktanz hired an architect, consulted an appraiser, and contacted Lukach to take a look at the building. “Ellen was genuinely interested in the church,” Bill Schicktanz said.

But when Luckach brought them inside, “they were in the process of the demolition of the interior,” Bill Schicktanz said. Detailed plaster ornamentation on the columns had been removed, pieces of marble and wood flooring had been taken up and stacked. “It was apparently a salvage job. Everything had been taken apart,” Bill Schicktanz said.

“At one time it may have been economically feasible” to restore the church, he said. “If the interior had been kept intact, I think it would have been usable for an adaptive reuse. When we went through and saw the deplorable condition, there was nothing worth preserving.

Without a buyer, historic church remains in limbo | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

[Titus]

Thanks for finding this - I couldn't recall where I had read it.

[Hal]

Furnishings from the interior were almost certainly removed by a division of the Archdiocese that removes interiors pieces from churches and places them with other churches in Philly or around the country.

Or the Archdiocese may have hired a salvage company to remove items.
This was probably done well before Siloam took over ownership of the church.

Which, you have no evidence for.

Which is contradicted by online and published reports.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/23377258/2...lvania-at-Risk

So, this is a bit of a scavenger hunt, guess we'll want to get a look at those Community Design Collaborative 2007 photos...

Love to see that as "before and after"....





Hal


"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's you you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain

[Colin P. Varga]

Which, you have no evidence for.

Which is contradicted by online and published reports.
2009 Pennsylvania at Risk

So, this is a bit of a scavenger hunt, guess we'll want to get a look at those Community Design Collaborative 2007 photos...

Love to see that as "before and after"....





Hal


"It ain't what you don't know that gets you in trouble, it's you you know for sure that just ain't so."
Mark Twain

If anything was removed by Siloam before before the church received it's historic protection Siloam had the right to do that. That was part of the sales agreement between Siloam and the Archdiocese as stated clearly in the L&I Fact Finding. The Archdiocese had the same protection when it removed the most important historical pieces.

Also, it would have to be determined if anything removed by Siloam was original to the church. The interior of the Cathedral in Philly has changed several times. The only known original item in Independence Hall that was there at the signing of the Declaration of Independence is the Sun Rise Chair.

The gallery owner that saw pictures of the church in good condition may have seen photos before the church was closed in 1995.

[Titus]

You are officially an idiot.

[Hal]

If anything was removed by Siloam before before the church received it's historic protection Siloam had the right to do that.

Unless, of course, removing it required the demolition permit which Siloam was denied.

Also, it would have to be determined if anything removed by Siloam was original to the church.

So, you're back pedaling and admitting the obvious, - Siloam removed the interior-,
but like Aesop's Crow you're trying to rationalize that what was lost was not worth preserving.

So, just so you have to explain yourself,
you're saying that only the original furnishings have historical value?

So, because the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House is not part of the the original John Adams era layout, tearing it out is fine?

The gallery owner that saw pictures of the church in good condition may have seen photos before the church was closed in 1995.

Perhaps, but, I'm not going to let you avoiding the following questions.

Have you been inside the Church building?
When?


YOU, Colin P. Varga, saw photos of the interior prior to 1995?
Yes or NO?

You, saw photos BEFORE Siloam took possession?
Yes or No?

You saw the photos in the 2007 CDC report?
Yes or No?


Hal

[Colin P. Varga]

Unless, of course, removing it required the demolition permit which Siloam was denied.

Again, the demolition permit that they applied for was to tear down the whole church. Since the building wasn't protected by any historic designation until 2009, I don't believe that Siloam needed a permit for the interior of the church.

So, you're back pedaling and admitting the obvious, - Siloam removed the interior-,
but like Aesop's Crow you're trying to rationalize that what was lost was not worth preserving.

More facts are being presented. Like the 1899 renovation. That's about 50 years after it opened. Was it renovated again in 1950?

So, just so you have to explain yourself,
you're saying that only the original furnishings have historical value?

Possibly. That would probably be determined in a hearing with experts.

So, because the Lincoln Bedroom in the White House is not part of the the original John Adams era layout, tearing it out is fine?

Actually this has already happened. Whole White House interior was gutted down to dirt during the Truman Admin. Today in the "Lincoln Bedroom" only few pieces in the room were used in the WH during the Lincoln Admin. The bed, probably never slept in by Lincoln. It's value is mostly it's name but not as an historical site. However, the Truman balcony could go without too many people crying over it. Going back to what was in the church, just because something was in the church doesn't add historic protection to the item. For example, the sound system. The lighting may have been replaced several times since it was installed probably in 1899. Going back to the White House, only some of the pieces in the WH have an historic connection to the building.

Perhaps, but, I'm not going to let you avoiding the following questions.

Have you been inside the Church building?
When?

While I was working on the Catholic Heritage Ctr., I tried to get in the building but to no avail. I believe the Archdiocese felt that closed churches would not need to be researched at least on site.

YOU, Colin P. Varga, saw photos of the interior prior to 1995?
Yes or NO?

(Hal, if you are going to use my full name please give me the same courtesy.)

Oddly, there are rather few interior photos of churches of the Archdiocese in the PAHRC collection. I can't say for sure.

You, saw photos BEFORE Siloam took possession?
Yes or No?

The photos in question? Maybe.

You saw the photos in the 2007 CDC report?
Yes or No?

I never saw the CDC Report, all that I know about it is what I read in the L&I Report the photos don't seem to be part of the L&I Report. Why is that? Recently, I saw a photo dated 2007 which showed the main part of the interior intact, minus the altar which was removed by the Archdiocese and it seems that they probably removed the pre-Vatican II altar as well since the apse doesn't seem to have anything of a religious nature in it. But I never saw that photo before. All I can say is that before 2009, when the church received it's protected state, I saw photos showing the interior in roughly the same state it is today.

Hal

But the title of this thread is "Shady non-profit..." If Siloam, removed furnishings before the Historic protection they offended some people's sensibilities but they didn't violate any laws. Are they as "shady" as some of the "interested" buyers of the church who, if the L&I Report is to be relied upon inasmuch as the L&I report has implied that $575,000 is too high a price for the church, seem to want to drive the price down of this piece of real estate? That's a spurious charge for which there are no facts to support and therefore I wouldn't make such a charge. However, others are apt to do such things.

Just to repeat one of the findings of the CDC Report of 2007 which seems to be accepted by L&I Report of 2011 that L&I seems to believe that if the interior had been left as it was it would have been an obstacle for reuse and selling the property.

[Outlaw Star]

You are officially an idiot.

Not so much an idiot, I think, as a hack who's parroting the ridiculous narrative that the church was worthless anyway and Siloam did absolutely nothing wrong.

If an organization wantonly destroying the interior of a church, and then turning around and claiming it's too damaged to sell--without ever really actually trying, and without admitting their culpability for its condition--isn't the very definition of "shady," then, brother, show me the dictionary you're using.

[Outlaw Star]

I am in total agreement with Colin. If no one wants the responsibility of rehabbing an old building what is the use of keeping it up and adding to the urban blight we already suffer from? Just as not all old cars are worth restoring, not all old buildings are. If we were to save everything old we would never be able to move forward as a society.

Oh hey, guess what, someone does want it, because it's been bought. What exactly that's for is TBD, but interest is interest.

Your argument is a total strawman. No one's blocking any proposed, exciting development by trying to save the building. It's really a choice between trying to keep and reuse it, or knock it down for...a vacant lot or a parking lot. The former option is much better, no? You talk about blight, but a vacant piece of land is a worse blight than a distinctive, historic building that could be part of the neighborhood's rebirth. That's moving forward as a society.

[Colin P. Varga]

Oh hey, guess what, someone does want it, because it's been bought. What exactly that's for is TBD, but interest is interest.

Your argument is a total strawman. No one's blocking any proposed, exciting development by trying to save the building. It's really a choice between trying to keep and reuse it, or knock it down for...a vacant lot or a parking lot. The former option is much better, no? You talk about blight, but a vacant piece of land is a worse blight than a distinctive, historic building that could be part of the neighborhood's rebirth. That's moving forward as a society.

If you mean that Siloam "bought" it, yes, but the church is only part of property that they bought. I suspect Siloam never wanted the church as it was a burden for Archdiocese, and since the church didn't have any historical protections at the time of the sale Siloam could sell it or tear it down.

Now someone needs to come up with the money to buy it: $575,000 was the last offer.

And $6,319,000 for restoration.

And probably another $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 for architects, engineers, and lawyers.

Meanwhile the spires noted in the L&I Report quoting the CDC Report are "imminently dangerous to the public".

[DocAwesome]

Not that anyone asked, but the rectory right to the west of the church (part of the same property) is an amazing building that I guess noone gives a **** about. Maybe because it isn't about to collapse upon itself. Figured I would give it some love as it is related to this whole process.

[Titus]

Yes it's an excellent building, but built much later than the church. Since clergy were actually housed there and it is considerably smaller it probably received more maintenance.

[Hal]

If anything was removed by Siloam before before the church received it's historic protection Siloam had the right to do that.

No they didn't. You don't have a right to demolish and do architectural salvage.

Sorry, let me be clear - you need to go to L&I and get a demolition permit before yo udo that.

Interestingly, although the Church's file goes back decades, and includes repair permits from the 1940s...






What i DON'T see in the L&I records is, (drum roll ---) a demolition permit for Siloam.

Can't find it.

Nowhere.

The gallery owner that saw pictures of the church in good condition may have seen photos before the church was closed in 1995.

Not likely - you mean, for instance the 2010 Inquirer photos showing the stained glass?

Changing Skyline: Historic Church of the Assumption needs buyer, not wrecking ball
October 01, 2010

http://media.philly.com/images/600*4...q_sky01z-b.JPG

Already been discussed.


http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...ght=provenance

http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...tml#post187993
03-10-2010, 05:51 PM
Kelly13680
Junior Member

We actually were in there with the owners from Provenance architectural salvage back when the plan was still to tear down the church.
They did their best to salvage as much as possible, but the inside was in really bad shape.

http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...tml#post371171
05-18-2011, 11:14 AM
DCnPhilly

Actually the Historical Commission approved the demolition before the CNA ever mentioned the church.
They only stepped in after it was gutted and brought to their attention by the Inquirer.
Had this proactively been on the CNA's radar when Siloam saught demolition, they probably would have been able to persuade the Historical Commission to save it more than a year ago
and it wouldn't be in the state of disrepair it's in right now.

Hal

[Outlaw Star]

If you mean that Siloam "bought" it, yes, but the church is only part of property that they bought. I suspect Siloam never wanted the church as it was a burden for Archdiocese, and since the church didn't have any historical protections at the time of the sale Siloam could sell it or tear it down.

Now someone needs to come up with the money to buy it: $575,000 was the last offer.

And $6,319,000 for restoration.

And probably another $1,000,000 - $2,000,000 for architects, engineers, and lawyers.

Meanwhile the spires noted in the L&I Report quoting the CDC Report are "imminently dangerous to the public".

No, I meant that someone bought it from Siloam, as noted previously in this thread.

Church of the Assumption sold to developer | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

Again, what they plan to do with it is uncertain, but you never know. And whatever the costs of restoration are, they're far higher than they should be--thanks to Siloam's enlightened stewardship.

[Colin P. Varga]

No they didn't. You don't have a right to demolish and do architectural salvage.

Sorry, let me be clear - you need to go to L&I and get a demolition permit before yo udo that.

Interestingly, although the Church's file goes back decades, and includes repair permits from the 1940s...





What i DON'T see in the L&I records is, (drum roll ---) a demolition permit for Siloam.

Can't find it.

Nowhere.

So the building received a comdemnation citation 1946. Interesting. This permit is almost surely for the structure of the church which apparently the city was concerned with. Did you find permits for the Archdiocese to remove the altars? I strongly doubt any would need to be filed since the city wouldn't have any interest outside of the church's structure. And therefore, Siloam could do what it wanted to the interior. I also suspect salvage wouldn't apply her on two counts: 1. The Material removed probably wasn't leaving the property inasmuch as Siloam is on the property. 2. Since there wasn't any historic protection before 2009 a permit wouldn't be necessary.

What you also didn't find was a citation from L&I for demolition without a permit.

Not likely - you mean, for instance the 2010 Inquirer photos showing the stained glass?

Already been discussed.


http://www.philadelphiaspeaks.com/fo...ght=provenance





Hal[/QUOTE]

I made two assumptions about this building which were false. 1. That the building had received it's historic protection before 2006, before Siloam bought, instead of 2009. 2. I had forgotten that the building had been sold.

Look did Siloam break any laws? Apparently no. Did L&I didn't cite Siloam, as they did the church in 1946, them for anything like demolition without a permit, apparently not.

Now, since Siloam used a state grant to buy the building you could try to charge Siloam with some kind of misuse of funds. But where is the evidence? Like a citation from L&I for demolition without a permit. And of course only a portion of the money used to buy the property would have applied to the church.

As to Siloam being a bad steward. It would seem that this would only apply to their actions after the church had it's historic protections but not before.

However, the pressing issue now is the fact the church is "imminently dangerous to the public".

[Titus]

1883 church a transcendent corporate headquarters

[carloss]

OK, I probably missed this somewhere further up, but here goes:

Has the church been formally cited by L&I as imminently dangerous? If so, wouldn't Siloam's request for demolition override any historical designation? If not, is there any reason to believe that L&I won't grant the developer an "imminently dangerous" ruling if/when he wants to tear it down?

I think it's best to forget about what Siloam may or may not have done to the church and deal with the present. Unless you're outraged by how the lack of parking lots on Spring Garden is stifling redevelopment, relax. There really isn't much at stake in supporting demolition; the odds are already heavily in your favor.

[Colin P. Varga]

OK, I probably missed this somewhere further up, but here goes:

Has the church been formally cited by L&I as imminently dangerous? ...

No, "imminently dangerous" is from the CDC Report of 2007 which is quoted in the L&I Report of 2011. But it would seem that L&I should investigate the spires. The recommendation of the CDC was to remove the spires.

However, at this time since the church has historic protection the spires must be replaced as they are historic material pertinent to the history of the church, and I would guess there would have to be agreement with the CNA, and the Historical Commission.

[Colin P. Varga]

The term "imminently dangerous" comes from Bevan Lawson P.E. a structural engineer hired by Siloam. He is quoted in the L&I Report of June 2011. According to the L&I Report Mr. Samuel Harris questions this finding but Mr. Harris did not examine the interior of the church. One may reasonably question the finding of a consultant that it may be prejudiced toward the client but Mr. Lawson has raised the issue of public safety and I would guess that in doing so he has crossed a line in which he has placed his reputation at stake and is not merely pandering to a client.

It should also be noted that original amount mentioned in the CDC Report of 2007 regarding repair to the exterior of the church was roughly $1.5 million. But that would not have included the cost of the removal of the spires and part of the towers and then their replacement.