Shady nonprofit to demolish historic church for surface lot

**thoth** · 07-13-2012, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by DCnPhilly

Did a Chinatown developer buy it?.

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

"Siloam, which helps clients with AIDS and their families, went to settlement with developer John Wei on July 5, said Siloam’s interim executive director Cathy Maguire. A letter informing Siloam constituents of the sale was sent out this week.

Wei has developed small apartment projects in the nearby Chinatown neighborhood, he said, but he did not know yet if redevelopment of the church properties would involve residential, retail or other uses."

Again, I'm not trying to stereotype, I don't know this guy and Andy Toy says he's a decent person. So, who knows? I just have a sinking feeling.

**carloss** · 07-13-2012, 07:19 PM

Originally Posted by thoth

does anyone else doubt that a historically appropriate rehabbing or conversion into a funky brewpub are not in this building's future?

Assuming the question is if anyone else doubts that said rehab & conversion ARE in this building's future... (flirting with the double negative there)

Probably it will sit vacant for three more years and then suspiciously burn down or collapse a week before the developer goes before the HC to request demolition in the public interest.

Really, someone should buy the car wash next to the church and build cruddy housing over that first.

**MariusPontmercy** · 07-13-2012, 11:59 PM

Shame.

I'd almost rather see it demolished than turned into a warehouse for the Happy Sign Co before it needs to be demolished due to neglect. At least let it have some dignity before it goes.

Then again, that's just the cynic in me talking.

**MarketStEl** · 07-14-2012, 06:23 AM

Someone fill me in here: How many historic churches have been purchased by Chinatown developers hereabouts?

How many historic structures of any type?

Is the usual m.o. of a private developer in Chinatown to buy a property that has been allowed to deteriorate, sit on it while it deteriorates further, then tear it down and maybe build something or maybe not? (Those of you who have lived here long enough: I've just described Sam Rapaport, for many years Center City's biggest slumlord.)

I don't quite understand why this buyer strikes some as a potentially worse steward of the property than the current owner.

And while I didn't go back through all eight pages of posts, I do sense, from both the title of this thread and a few comments I did read, that some suspect that the nonprofit that just reached an agreement of sale for the property is somehow not on the up and up. It's been my understanding that it has operated on a shoestring for its entire existence, and if you're doing that and your mission is to provide services to people, don'tcha think you'd focus your energies on that rather than on upkeep of a historic building? Consider how many active church congregations have difficulty keeping up their buildings, which were built in a bygone era for more and better-heeled worshippers than now fill (some of) their pews. (An image of Christ Memorial Church at 43d and Chestnut popped into my head as I typed this.)

For now, I'm willing to give both seller and buyer the benefit of the doubt.

**MariusPontmercy** · 07-14-2012, 11:42 AM

Problem is there's nothing in this guy's track record that suggests he has the ability to deal with a structure like the Church of the Assumption. From that perspective it looks more like a land grab than anything.

**thoth** · 07-14-2012, 08:57 PM

What Marius said, and I don't think that they would be a worse steward than Siloam. Siloam wanted to demolish the structure to build a parking lot. I suspect this guy would demolish to build unattractive rowhomes. I value rowhomes over surface lots.

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

Someone fill me in here: How many historic churches have been purchased by Chinatown developers hereabouts?

How many historic structures of any type?

Is the usual m.o. of a private developer in Chinatown to buy a property that has been allowed to deteriorate, sit on it while it deteriorates further, then tear it down and maybe build something or maybe not? (Those of you who have lived here long enough: I've just described Sam Rapaport, for many years Center City's biggest slumlord.)

I don't quite understand why this buyer strikes some as a potentially worse steward of the property than the current owner.

And while I didn't go back through all eight pages of posts, I do sense, from both the title of this thread and a few comments I did read, that some suspect that the nonprofit that just reached an agreement of sale for the property is somehow not on the up and up. It's been my understanding that it has operated on a shoestring for its entire existence, and if you're doing that and your mission is to provide services to people, don'tcha think you'd focus your energies on that rather than on upkeep of a historic building? Consider how many active church congregations have difficulty keeping up their buildings, which were built in a bygone era for more and better-heeled worshippers than now fill (some of) their pews. (An image of Christ Memorial Church at 43d and Chestnut popped into my head as I typed this.)

For now, I'm willing to give both seller and buyer the benefit of the doubt.

**Colin P. Varga** · 07-20-2012, 09:20 AM

The church is a beautiful piece of architecture and it certainly has historical significance but it was badly constructed. The columns that are holding up the galleries on the sides are made of wood. This building was not built to last. This is also true of some other closed Catholic churches in Philly, beautiful, impressive but not built to last.

As to Siloam being shady? Just a cheap shot.

**Titus** · 07-20-2012, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

The church is a beautiful piece of architecture and it certainly has historical significance but it was badly constructed. The columns that are holding up the galleries on the sides are made of wood. This building was not built to last. This is also true of some other closed Catholic churches in Philly, beautiful, impressive but not built to last.

As to Siloam being shady? Just a cheap shot.

I'll grant it's not built of solid stone, but there are plenty of wood construction buildings standing in Europe for hundreds, hundreds of years. The church itself did not take care of the structure as it ought to have. Any historic building needs constant maintenance and care - these are expensive - and I'm dubious the new owners will be any better at caring for the building, which will likely soon be demolished.

**DCnPhilly** · 07-21-2012, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Titus

I'll grant it's not built of solid stone, but there are plenty of wood construction buildings standing in Europe for hundreds, hundreds of years. The church itself did not take care of the structure as it ought to have. Any historic building needs constant maintenance and care - these are expensive - and I'm dubious the new owners will be any better at caring for the building, which will likely soon be demolished.

I'm optimistic. There's no reason to think the developer wants to demolish it. You make a very good point though. There are countless old buildings in other countries still standing. There's no reason this one can't be somehow reused.

**carloss** · 07-21-2012, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

The church is a beautiful piece of architecture and it certainly has historical significance but it was badly constructed. The columns that are holding up the galleries on the sides are made of wood. This building was not built to last. This is also true of some other closed Catholic churches in Philly, beautiful, impressive but not built to last.

As to Siloam being shady? Just a cheap shot.

Your first paragraph also strikes me as a cheap shot of sorts. How does one define "built to last," anyway? Those words were also infamously uttered by the folks at Norris Square Civic Association to justify tearing down St. Boniface. "Oh, it was badly constructed, you see, when you build with brownstone it isn't meant to last past a hundred years." Meanwhile you can plot your own Center City tours of brownstone churches that have lasted 150 years (including, hello, the Basilica of Saints Peter & Paul) and show no signs of imminent demise.

I don't know the details on Assumption's architecture but it has survived over 160 years, which may not qualify as "lasting" per se, but it's still an impressive run. Eventually, though, it's maintenance and restoration funds that will determine a building's fate, which can be done as long as finding those funds is feasible, and we actually care enough to invest in the building (and learn to treat historic buildings outside of a handful of national landmarks in touristy districts with greater priority).

Although choice of materials does go a long way towards controlling those funds. The Municipal Services Building? There's a building that was built to last...

**Titus** · 07-21-2012, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by carloss

Your first paragraph also strikes me as a cheap shot of sorts. How does one define "built to last," anyway? Those words were also infamously uttered by the folks at Norris Square Civic Association to justify tearing down St. Boniface. "Oh, it was badly constructed, you see, when you build with brownstone it isn't meant to last past a hundred years." Meanwhile you can plot your own Center City tours of brownstone churches that have lasted 150 years (including, hello, the Basilica of Saints Peter & Paul) and show no signs of imminent demise.

I don't know the details on Assumption's architecture but it has survived over 160 years, which may not qualify as "lasting" per se, but it's still an impressive run. Eventually, though, it's maintenance and restoration funds that will determine a building's fate, which can be done as long as finding those funds is feasible, and we actually care enough to invest in the building (and learn to treat historic buildings outside of a handful of national landmarks in touristy districts with greater priority).

Although choice of materials does go a long way towards controlling those funds. The Municipal Services Building? There's a building that was built to last...

A cursory glance at Holy Trinity Church on Rittenhouse Square or St. Clement's Church on 20th at Cherry will show how buildings of precisely the same construction are not only in good shape but are treasured by their owners. Here's a brownstone building finished in 1362:

Carlisle Cathedral - Medieval Stained Glass, Medieval Vaulted Ceiling, Medieval Paintings

**Colin P. Varga** · 07-22-2012, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by Titus

I'll grant it's not built of solid stone, but there are plenty of wood construction buildings standing in Europe for hundreds, hundreds of years. The church itself did not take care of the structure as it ought to have. Any historic building needs constant maintenance and care - these are expensive - and I'm dubious the new owners will be any better at caring for the building, which will likely soon be demolished.

I'm familiar with wood churches in Europe, but they are probably still used as churches so there is a parish supporting it or have been preserved as museum pieces. I cannot speak for the Archdiocese of Philly but generally it is not the business of the Archdiocese to solely preserve historic buildings but to keep and maintain churches that have viable parishes. ("Viable" being the operative word for the Archdiocese.)

Some churches were built to last and some just weren't. From what I remember one of the architects that was hired by one of the neighborhood organizations, this church wasn't worth saving. This was the consensus of other architects as well.

**eldondre** · 07-22-2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

As to Siloam being shady? Just a cheap shot.

a deserved one at that.

**Outlaw Star** · 07-22-2012, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

Some churches were built to last and some just weren't. From what I remember one of the architects that was hired by one of the neighborhood organizations, this church wasn't worth saving. This was the consensus of other architects as well.

The oldest surviving work of prolific church architect Patrick Charles Keely isn't worth saving? Some of those "architects" may need a new line of work.

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

As to Siloam being shady? Just a cheap shot.

No, a perfectly justified shot. What you have there is an organization that didn't just ignore the church, they purposefully did everything to destroy it. They ruined the interior, ripping out fixtures and furnishings, and then had the gall to claim that the place was in too bad a shape to sell.

**billy ross** · 07-22-2012, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Outlaw Star

The oldest surviving work of prolific church architect Patrick Charles Keely isn't worth saving? Some of those "architects" may need a new line of work.

No, a perfectly justified shot. What you have there is an organization that didn't just ignore the church, they purposefully did everything to destroy it. They ruined the interior, ripping out fixtures and furnishings, and then had the gall to claim that the place was in too bad a shape to sell.

I completely agree. In ten years, when that strip of Spring Garden is all cleaned up with the East Coast Greenway running right along it, people will be amazed that there was even a discussion about whether this church should have been saved or not. It is connected not only to a great and prolific architect, but to two different saints of the Roman Catholic Church. It is one of the few remaining buildings from its era in that area, it is a real landmark, and it is a very pretty building. We're not quite at the level of the Penn Station argument in 1964, but we're getting close, and we all know how that argument went down.

**Colin P. Varga** · 07-23-2012, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by eldondre

a deserved one at that.

Siloam's mission is to save people, not buildings.

**Colin P. Varga** · 07-23-2012, 08:48 AM

Originally Posted by Outlaw Star

The oldest surviving work of prolific church architect Patrick Charles Keely isn't worth saving? Some of those "architects" may need a new line of work.

No, a perfectly justified shot. What you have there is an organization that didn't just ignore the church, they purposefully did everything to destroy it. They ruined the interior, ripping out fixtures and furnishings, and then had the gall to claim that the place was in too bad a shape to sell.

It may be a beautiful example of a certain architect but it was built on the cheap. It's not an unusual story for Catholic churches in Philadelphia.

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.

**billy ross** · 07-23-2012, 09:08 AM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

It may be a beautiful example of a certain architect but it was built on the cheap. It's not an unusual story for Catholic churches in Philadelphia.

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.

Probably? Why do you talk when you have zero knowledge of what transpired? It really cheapens anything you have to say.

**eldondre** · 07-23-2012, 09:18 AM

Originally Posted by Colin P. Varga

Siloam's mission is to save people, not buildings.

they should have chosen a building more suitable to their needs. instead, they chose buildings unsuitable to their needs, then did everything in their power to destroy it so they could tear it down for a parking lot. I doubt anyone believes dubious claims that it was built on the cheap, it's still standing, even after the suspect actions of siloam. had they been more responsible, they'd still be in business.

**Titus** · 07-23-2012, 09:27 AM

Originally Posted by eldondre

they should have chosen a building more suitable to their needs. instead, they chose buildings unsuitable to their needs, then did everything in their power to destroy it so they could tear it down for a parking lot. I doubt anyone believes dubious claims that it was built on the cheap, it's still standing, even after the suspect actions of siloam. had they been more responsible, they'd still be in business.

I couldn't agree more.