Shady nonprofit to demolish historic church for surface lot

[Hal]

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 reasonable question the finding of a consultant that it may be prejudiced toward the client

Agreed....

"Imminently Dangerous"

http://www.phila.gov/li/ContentPage....l2=204&level3=
Glossary of L & I Terms - continued

Imminently Dangerous “ID” Condition
This term is used when in the inspector’s opinion, a partial or complete collapse of the structure will likely occur within ninety (90) days
and as such endangers human life and / or will cause damage to adjacent property.
Only those structures that meet these criteria are to be classified as “Imminently Dangerous".

So, May 18, 2009, Siloam's engineer said the magic words - "imminently dangerous"
e.g. the church will likely collapse (all or part) within 90 days.

My, seems that prediction was both self-serving, and quite a bit off....




Unless,










it's a miracle....






Hal

[Colin P. Varga]

Very good Hal.

Now, what were all the citations mentioned in the report for?

[Hal]

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.

Very good Hal.

Oh, not so fast.




You've raised "imminently dangerous" and "public safety" and "not pandering" and you're stuck with it.


Actually you're stuck with a dilemma. Instead of the lady or the tiger, seems like you've got "The Lady or the liar".


A) Siloam's report of May 18, 2009 was wrong, and misleading, as it was NOT likely that the church would crumble within 90 days, which would be August 16, 2009.

or

B) Siloam's report of May 18, 2009 was true, and based on the laws of engineering and physics, the Chuch of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary was likely suffer some collapse by August 16, 2009.

Now, either the laws of the universe changed, or, it just so happens that August 15, 2009, was the Feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, the patroness of the Church.




Hal

[Hal]

Unless,

it's a miracle....

Very good Hal.

Eh, I don't think you appreciate the point here about "imminently dangerous".
Imminently dangerous means a high probability that the a building will suffer a collapse within 90 days.
The probability that the church is still standing, after all these years, comes out to less than on in a billion...



Per L&I's definition, it means-
collapse of the structure will likely occur within ninety (90) days provides some powerful analysis.
Now, perhaps you clearly underestimate the predictive power of "likely within 90 days".

"Imminent", and "Likely" generally convey a high chance of happening-

80% for imminent - What Is an Imminent Rain Chance? | eHow.com
80% for likely - Definition of Probability
while "probable" represent a 75% chance - Words of Estimative Probability - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, in this situation, "imminent" clearly means a high probability-
it means that that the City can step in to your private property, deal with the situation, and send you the bill.
So let's take "imminently dangerous" to mean there is an 80% chance that a building will suffer a collapse within the next 90 days.
Restated, this means there's only a 20% chance that a building will not suffer a collapse within 90 days.

Now, Siloam's report came out on May 18, 2009. Ninety days from that date was August 16th. -
Since the building will not fix itself, during the NEXT ninety day period, it should have (at a theoretical maximum) that same 20% chance of standing.
Based on Siloam's report the building was deteriorating rapidly, so they indicate the probability of standing was actually decreasing, but ignore that for now.
Using this 20% chance of standing as a maximum limit, the it applies again for each subsequent 90 day period. So, once a building is "imminently dangerous"
that should really mean that it has a 80% probability of falling down / 20% probability of standing for the next 90 days, and the same probability of falling down / standing for the subsequent 90 days,
on so on through each subsequent 90 day period.


Each year has 4 ninety day seasons, so we get 4 probability periods per year.
May to August 2009 - 1 period
August 2009 to August 2010 - 4 periods, total 5
August 2010 to August 2011 - 4 periods, total 9
August 2011 to August 2012 - 4 periods, total 13.


So, using Siloam's own "imminently dangerous" assessment, (WITHOUT considering the effects of "deteriorating rapidly")
The probability that the Church of the Assumption would still be standing without collapse are 20% per ninety-day period, after 13 ninety-day periods
that is 20% to the 13th power, which is 1 in 1.2 billion!

But, there's something poetic here.
Siloam's "imminently dangerous" report indicates that the Church of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary should have (80%) suffered a a collapse by August 16th.
Poetically enough, the weekend of August 15-16th, 2009 falls on the Feast Day of the Assumption, the Patron Saint of this Church.
Using Siloam's report,
For 2009, there was only a 20% chance the Church of the Assumption would still be standing undamaged for the Feast of the Assumption- The Church stood.
For 2010, there was only a .03% or 1/3125 chance the Church of the Assumption would still be standing undamaged for the Feast of the Assumption- The Church stood.
For 2011, there was only a 1 in 2 million chance the Church of the Assumption would still be standing undamaged for the Feast of the Assumption- The Church stood.
For 2012, there is only a 1 in 1.2 billion chance the Church of the Assumption will still be standing undamaged this long.

According to engineering and mathematics, the Church of the Assumption (or parts) should have fallen down by the Feast of the Assumption, many times over.
Guess somebody likes this Church.

FYI, the Feast of the Assumption this year is next Wednesday, August 15th.


Hal

[Colin P. Varga]

Hal, I understood all that when I read the city's definition of of "imminently dangerous".

I have a friend with cancer, she's counting on the one in a billion chance. It happens.

However, what are the chances that L&I would include that report from Mr. Lawson in a Fact Finding over 2 years, around 800 days, later? Obviously L&I thought it was pertinent. (It should be remembered that buildings have suddenly collapsed in Philly without the "imminently dangerous" designation. Two collapsed about a year ago.) Is it pertinent today? Would L&I include it today in the same report? Do the spires need examination?

If this is Siloam's report would you also declare Bevan Lawson to be shady since he wrote it? This is the main problem I find with this thread and others like it. A group of people are perfectly willing to throw stones through a window and then use their anonymity to run away in the night. Man up, woman up, and put your name and reputation on the line and call Bevan Lawson shady.

Eh, I don't think you appreciate the point here about "imminently dangerous"...

Hal

[Hal]

Hal, I understood all that when I read the city's definition of of "imminently dangerous".

I have a friend with cancer, she's counting on the one in a billion chance. It happens.

Yes, I know.

My father was operated on for brain cancer decades ago, at a time when I'm told an astrocytoma was always fatal.

Two unusual things there-
First, as my grandfather was a doctor on staff at U-Penn and Jefferson, the brain surgery was videotaped for the benefit of future med students.

Second, more to this point, we have a few Priests and Carmelites in the family who arranged a loan of a first class relic of St. John Neumann which he wore during the operation,
which was successful, such that his recovery was up for consideration as support for the canonization of St. John Neumann in 1977.

Man up, woman up, and put your name and reputation on the line and call Bevan Lawson shady.

Eh, I didn't choose the title of the thread. It seems that it is you who are so infused and imbibed with conflict.

I'd prefer mulling the contrary position, what I believe WAS your position, and the reason you picked upon "imminently dangerous"
The engineering report is accurate and the property was imminently dangerous in 2009;
therefoe Siloam was justified in salvaging or demolishing the interior of the building which was beyond hope.

However, improbably, 90 days later, the Church of the Assumption was still standing for the Feast of the Assumption-
and so on, for years.

hmm ...


Poetic grace?


Hal

[Colin P. Varga]

My point is, step up and define "shady".

Until 2009 Siloam could legally remove interior pieces in accordance with the sales agreement with the Archdiocese and in accordance with the CDC recommendation in 2007. This is as the Archdiocese had been done previously at the closing of the church in 1995, and Assumption VBM may have done with a major renovation 1899 which for all we know may have including something you might consider "demolition". The question regarding the interior is, what is or was historic material in the building in 2009? Without knowing I don't how one could determine the "shadiness" of Fr. Reilly and Sr. Bernadette. And was the Archdiocese guilty of the same "shadiness" when it removed items? Also, what, if anything was replaced in the 1899 renovation and was the church itself guilty of "shadiness".

As your research turned up, Assumption BVM was condemned in 1946 for a problem with a wall. In 2009 a structural engineer called into question the safety of the building and L&I including it in a report 2 years later that the building might not be safe. The question today is, is Assumption BVM safe?

That it has stood without a problem (except for the 1946 condemned citation) is much the same statistical degree of safety that the Titanic had after it left port. To the owners and insurers every minute it was sailing only added to the statistical degree of safety even though it was headed for an iceberg.

As to "imminently dangerous", this building (or pile of bricks) in S. Philly was only cited by L&I for being "unsafe". Maybe Assumption BVM is only as unsafe as this building was:
Bricks Rain Down as South Philly Building Collapses | NBC 10 Philadelphia

The question is, what is current the structural state of Assumption BVM?

Sincerely, I would like to see Assumption BVM stay right where it is and used as a church, office building, or even the best looking parking garage in Philly. I believe in Historic Preservation, but not individual emotional preservation. The kind of preservationist that Philip Johnson referred to in saying something to the effect that many people become historic preservationists when they find that their favorite pool hall is going to be torn down. The original architect planned for this church to be safe, that is the paramount duty of an architect, but unfortunately this is not always shared by the preservationist.

Now to get back to the title of this thread which was title by "eldondre" (whoever that is):

Was Siloam, and let's be specific were Fr. Reilly and Sr. Bernadette "shady"?

Did they do anything that the Archdiocese had not done themselves or that Assumption BVM did not do in 1899?

Did either one of them go beyond the sales agreement they made with the Archdiocese?

Did either of them break any laws? If so, call 911.


One personal note. I am very happy for you and your father. If he is still alive I wish him and you many years. And here you will find the valued note of sincerity which is so often lacking in this medium, my name:
Colin P. Varga

Yes, I know.

My father was operated on for brain cancer decades ago, at a time when I'm told an astrocytoma was always fatal.

Two unusual things there-
First, as my grandfather was a doctor on staff at U-Penn and Jefferson, the brain surgery was videotaped for the benefit of future med students.

Second, more to this point, we have a few Priests and Carmelites in the family who arranged a loan of a first class relic of St. John Neumann which he wore during the operation,
which was successful, such that his recovery was up for consideration as support for the canonization of St. John Neumann in 1977.



Eh, I didn't choose the title of the thread. It seems that it is you who are so infused and imbibed with conflict.

I'd prefer mulling the contrary position, what I believe WAS your position, and the reason you picked upon "imminently dangerous"
The engineering report is accurate and the property was imminently dangerous in 2009;
therefoe Siloam was justified in salvaging or demolishing the interior of the building which was beyond hope.

However, improbably, 90 days later, the Church of the Assumption was still standing for the Feast of the Assumption-
and so on, for years.

hmm ...


Poetic grace?


Hal

[Hal]

My point is, step up and define "shady".

...


Now to get back to the title of this thread which was title by "eldondre" (whoever that is):

Was Siloam, ... "shady"?

Did either of them break any laws? If so, call 911.

Nah, 311.

Church is listed in records as 1123, 1133 and 1137 Spring Garden.
Thanks to the new hansen information, and the newly available information
the discussion ends here.


1) March 2009, Permit for interior demolition issued to Siloam, warning that they cannot demolish anything that could destabilize the church.

INTERIOR DEMOLITION OF NON LOAD BEARING AND NON STRUCTURAL BUILDING COMPONENTS IN THIS HISTORICAL BUILDING.
NO REMOVAL OF ANY COMPONENT OR PORTION OF STRUCTURE WHICH MAY CAUSE OR TEND TO CAUSE DAMAGE TO THE EXTERIOR OR ALLOW BUILDING TO BECOME IN A STATE OF DISREPAIR.
SCOPE OF WORK TO BE APPROVED BY DISTRICT INSPECTOR PRIOR TO THE START OF INTERIOR DEMOLITION.

2) May 21, 2009 Historical Commission designates the Church of the Assumption as Historical

3) June 3, 2009 - Siloam appeals the historical designation by the Historical Commission.

SILOAM INC. VS PHILADELPHIA HISTORICAL COMMISSION
Case 090600613


4) July 3, 2009 L&I issues a notice of violation, a stop work order, and revokes Siloam's permits because their work has gone beyond the original permit.


Violation Code Violation Type Violation Date Status Location
A-301.1/4 PERMB- ALTER REPAIR INT PART July 3, 2009 Complied Entire building.
A-301.1/38 PERMB- STRUCTURAL REPAIR July 3, 2009 Complied Basement
A-504.1/1 STOP WORK ORDER July 3, 2009 Complied Entire property
A-302.10/3 PERMB- REV WK GONE BEYOND ORIG July 3, 2009 Complied Entire property.


5) July 9, 2009 notice of violation issued based on damage to building


Violation Code Violation Type Violation Date Status Location
PM-307.1/10 WALL LOOSE/MISS BRICKS July 9, 2009 Not Complied ALL FOUR WALLS VIEWABLE FROM INTERIOR OF BUILDING
PM-307.1/11 WALL DETERIORATED July 9, 2009 Not Complied ALL FOUR WALLS VIEWABLE FROM INTERIOR OF BUILDING
PM-307.1/2 ROOF DETERIORATED July 9, 2009 Not Complied Main and roof supporting spires
PM-307.1/9 WALL FRACTURED July 9, 2009 Not Complied Wall supporting spires
PM-307.1/9 WALL FRACTURED July 9, 2009 Not Complied Load bearing pier located in east side of basement



Summary
Only limited interior demolition is authorized.
Church is designated historic.
Siloam objects to the historic designation.
When Siloam exceeds the authority of their permits, L&I issues a stop work order and revokes Siloam's permits
L&I then issues violations for damage to the building.


Hal

[Colin P. Varga]

The first set of violations shows that Siloam complied and accomplished repairs as of Nov. 6, 2009 "Status Closed". As stated in the L&I report Siloam perform repairs on the building the whole time they owned it.

The second set of violations seem to be all structural in nature. If anyone will notice the church was cited for "Deteriorated" "Roof Supporting Spires" and "Fractured" "Wall Supporting Spires" which seems to confirm the letters of Mr. Bevan Lawson P.E., the structural engineer.

The building is currently listed as "Unsafe". Just like this one:
Bricks Rain Down as South Philly Building Collapses | NBC 10 Philadelphia

There doesn't seem to be any question.

Assumption BVM is UNSAFE.

[Titus]

Assumption BVM is UNSAFE.

And somehow you still don't seem to understand - the current owners are entirely responsible for that condition - no one else.

[Colin P. Varga]

And somehow you still don't seem to understand - the current owners are entirely responsible for that condition - no one else.

Indeed they are, unfortunately that is not the subject of this thread.

And from reading everything presented on this thread I now understand, and I guess everyone else can understand that Siloam is only guilty of going beyond what a permit authorized and then Siloam remedied the situation themselves to the satisfaction of L&I.

While the historic protection of the building may have seemed like a good idea it may have made things worse. Before June of 2009 the building could have simply had it's deteriorating spires removed, now they have to be removed and replaced which was not accounted for in the CDC report of the cost of restoration. Also, the value of the building apparently went up after receiving it's historic status now the new owner, who paid more than the 2009 asking price, might more easily make a hardship case at L&I. Inasmuch as the new owner paid more for the building and it will need even more money to make the building receive a "Safe" status and meet the historic standard now required.

[DCnPhilly]

Indeed they are, unfortunately that is not the subject of this thread.

And from reading everything presented on this thread I now understand, and I guess everyone else can understand that Siloam is only guilty of going beyond what a permit authorized and then Siloam remedied the situation themselves to the satisfaction of L&I.

While the historic protection of the building may have seemed like a good idea it may have made things worse. Before June of 2009 the building could have simply had it's deteriorating spires removed, now they have to be removed and replaced which was not accounted for in the CDC report of the cost of restoration. Also, the value of the building apparently went up after receiving it's historic status now the new owner, who paid more than the 2009 asking price, might more easily make a hardship case at L&I. Inasmuch as the new owner paid more for the building and it will need even more money to make the building receive a "Safe" status and meet the historic standard now required.

I think the attitude towards the whole situation is typical. I don't know a lot about Siloam's shadiness factor, but I think everyone, including Siloam, can agree they got in over their heads. What's typical is the Callowhill neighborhood group was no doubt happy that somebody purchased the church when Siloam moved in, otherwise they could have been as vocal as they are now. Self assigned do gooders do this all the time. Instead of targeting deteriorating buildings with potential and absentee landlords, they find buildings beyond repair and run them into the ground, litigate them away from the owner, then bicker over the best use until it collapses

Dilworth House is empty because the neighborhood quivveled over its use. The Boyd is vacant because the owners can't figure out what small towns all over America have done with their old theaters. The Divine Lorraine was crushed when the neighborhood demanded public housing. One of our hysterical societies told the Hale Building's owner he couldn't replace its horrible facade with something modern so it sits empty.

There might have never been a great reuse for this church, but the organizations in charge of keeping our neighborhoods nice do more damage than good. My point is, where was all the concern when this building was salvagable?

[thoth]

The Boyd is vacant because the owners can't figure out what small towns all over America have done with their old theaters. The Divine Lorraine was crushed when the neighborhood demanded public housing. One of our hysterical societies told the Hale Building's owner he couldn't replace its horrible facade with something modern so it sits empty.

There is a serious problem with community input and the zoning input in Philadelphia, but I don't believe any of these examples are well grounded in reality (except possibly the Boyd). In all three cases, as far as I've ever been able to determine through google reserach, financing for these immense projects simply fell through.

The neighborhood did ask for something dumb like swimming pool access and a CBA in the DL case, but that wasn't what scuttled the project, it was that the Dutch owners backing out after the market crashed. They never even got into serious talks with the community group, which I don't believe even exists anymore. The Hale building is also a case of simply not having enough money in line to renovate a seriously dilapidated, ornate, historic building. The Historic Commission actually stopping development? Please, they roll over at the drop of hat.

Though you can make the case that these delays drove up the costs of development, they are rarely what halts multimillion dollar developments with heavy political support.

[Colin P. Varga]

I think the attitude towards the whole situation is typical. I don't know a lot about Siloam's shadiness factor, but I think everyone, including Siloam, can agree they got in over their heads. ...

I don't think Siloam was in over their heads when they bought the property. According to an article in The Inquirer 4/25/1995 the average attendance for Mass on Sunday was 48 in 1993 in a church that was designed for 400. Siloam bought a building that Catholics had abandoned and I doubt if they thought there would be a serious fight to reuse, sell, or demolition the building.

Siloam was in over their heads once the building was a protected property. Given their small budget they would not have been able to pay for historic restoration let alone repairs just to stabilize the structure just to meet the "safe" standard. However, it looks like a happy ending for this organization which thanks to rising property values and the historic designation of the building Siloam was able to make some money on the property to continue their mission.

However, there is now an unsafe building on Spring Garden St. But at least the asbestos was removed.

There needs to be some concern for the historic material left in the building. The stained glass windows, and if it's still there and wasn't replaced in the 1899 or later renovations, the baptismal font where St. Katherine Drexel was baptized.

[Colin P. Varga]

The font in which St. Katherine Drexel was baptized was removed by the Archdiocese and was planned to be put on display in the Catholic Heritage Ctr.
Monument To Faith An Office Building Near Independence Hall Will Be Renovated And Turned Into The Catholic Heritage Center. The Archdiocese's Plans For The History Museum-educational Center Will Be Shown Today. - Page 2 - Philly.com

Apparently, the connection to St. John Neumann is tenuous. According to the Phila. Church Project the saint is only purportedly to have assisted in the consecration. (When the church opened in 1848 John Neumann was stationed in Baltimore. He wasn't raised to Bishop of Philadelphia until 1852.)

[carloss]

Court of Common Pleas reverses L&I Review Board decision on Church of the Assumption | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

Apparently no one quite knows if this means anything or whether it applies to the new ownership.

Query: If you seek to justify a demolition by claiming that your property has zero market value, and later sell your property for over a million dollars while the appeal to your demolition permit is still being heard, how does the case justifying your permit not collapse under its own ill logic?

[carloss]

Mr. Wei, the time to meet with the community on this is now:

New owner of historic Callowhill neighborhood church unsure of its future | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

[Titus]

Mr. Wei, the time to meet with the community on this is now:

New owner of historic Callowhill neighborhood church unsure of its future | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

" “I’ve got to check it out. Before, I was thinking of saving it. But now I see there are problems.”" Huh?! Seems to me you look before you buy...

[mixiboi]

Oh he knows what he was doing....So now he is going toplay dumb till we forget...


Lest he knows that no one forgets...

[Colin P. Varga]

Court of Common Pleas reverses L&I Review Board decision on Church of the Assumption | PlanPhilly: Planning Philadelphia's Future

Apparently no one quite knows if this means anything or whether it applies to the new ownership.

Query: If you seek to justify a demolition by claiming that your property has zero market value, and later sell your property for over a million dollars while the appeal to your demolition permit is still being heard, how does the case justifying your permit not collapse under its own ill logic?

When you say property there are multiple meanings in this case. Siloam wanted to use the "property" as a parking lot, so the property had value but not the church. The new owner may also want to have a parking lot at the site or more likely something that would justify the expense of buying the property like a office building or condos.

The only thing that Siloam was saying was that it couldn't afford to stabilize the church, and then once it became a historic site of course the value went up and so did the cost of the "property" since now the church would need to be stabilized and restored. The ground (the property) has value, the church didn't have value to Siloam since it would have needed more money then they had or could raise. Now the question is does the church, as opposed to the ground, have value to the new owner and that seems doubtful.