Shady nonprofit to demolish historic church for surface lot

**eldondre** · 08-23-2010, 12:06 PM

The Church of the Assumption, which was placed on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places in May 2009, remains a source of contention between the owners and the surrounding community, as the condition of the building continues to decline...The property has been on the market since January, said Joe Lukach, executive director of Siloam. But no buyers who can afford the restoration “have surfaced,” he said...At the Historical Commission hearing next week, “we hope we will be able to get an understanding that the organization has a financial hardship and is suffering financially as a result of keeping the building up,” he said. Siloam’s goal is to get the permit to knock it down...The church was designed and built in 1848-49 by Patrick Charles Keely, the most prolific ecclesiastical architect in 19th-century America. Edward Furey, founder of the Keely Society that is dedicated to documenting the architect’s work, said the Spring Garden Street church is “most likely the last surviving example of the first year of his church designs.” ..Siloam recently requested the support of the West Poplar NAC in its hardship claim, Palewski said. “But as the primary civic association for the neighborhood, the NAC has consistently supported the preservation of the church since the threat of demolition arose early last year.”..“But the owner is pursuing a hardship claim with the Historical Commission. And to support this claim the owner must demonstrate, among other things, that it has tried to sell the building to no avail. There is a ‘for sale’ sign on the building, an agency listing the property, and an agent representing the owner. But at the end of the day, the owner holds all of the cards, and if they’re not motivated to sell, then the property is not going to sell.”..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..“If Lukach had been genuinely interested in selling the building, it would have made sense that he wouldn’t do interior demolition until potential buyers had looked at it,” Bill Schicktanz said.

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

not unlike the jokers in old city who removed some bricks to get the buildings at front and chestnut condemned so they could put up a surface lot.

this was also cited in the church brew works thread

**radiocolin** · 08-23-2010, 12:38 PM

Some things just can't be saved. If we saved every historic building, we'd still be living in grass huts because there'd be no room to build anything new. Does anyone want it? Clearly not. If someone can't come up with the money, then kiss it goodbye.

The building needs between $5 million and $6 million in renovations, he said. Potential buyers have not been able to come up with “a proposal to make it worthwhile to put a significant amount of money into it, use it, and get the money back. There are many more attractive buildings sitting on the market without buyers.”

**Outlaw Star** · 08-23-2010, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by radiocolin

Some things just can't be saved. If we saved every historic building, we'd still be living in grass huts because there'd be no room to build anything new. Does anyone want it? Clearly not. If someone can't come up with the money, then kiss it goodbye.

True. Yet, it's pretty clear that Siloam never wanted the building and has done everything in its power to get rid of it, including the interior demolition that has made it all but impossible to find a buyer.

It's not out of the question that the church could be saved, though, but Siloam has no interest in playing ball. That said, it would take some pretty deep pockets:

Philadelphia Church Project: Assumption, Inside Out

**eldondre** · 08-23-2010, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by radiocolin

Some things just can't be saved. If we saved every historic building, we'd still be living in grass huts because there'd be no room to build anything new. Does anyone want it? Clearly not. If someone can't come up with the money, then kiss it goodbye.

I don't think you actually read anything. they intentially ripped up the interior BECAUSE it had interest. the grass huts comment is also offbase, we're not talking about an upgrade, they merely want surface parking. doesn't sound like they're knocking down a grass hut to build something better. not unlike the traingle at broad/fairmount, ridge. the church knocked down the buildings hoping to get taxpayers to build them a parking lot...that hasn't happened and so it's a gravel lot. the organization shoudl be stripped of its property and tax exempt status for its unscrupulous dealings. people are always wondering why an area so close to center city can remain depressed, when an organization can knock down historic properties for a service lot merely for employees (and other nearby buildings are methadone clinics) it's not exactly rocket science. even if it collapses, the NAC should oppose the surface parking just to screw them over.

**DCnPhilly** · 08-23-2010, 02:52 PM

This place is surrounded by literally dozens of surface parking lots. And we all know once a surface lot appears in Philadelphia it never, ever goes away.

**radiocolin** · 08-23-2010, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

I don't think you actually read anything. they intentially ripped up the interior BECAUSE it had interest. the grass huts comment is also offbase, we're not talking about an upgrade, they merely want surface parking. doesn't sound like they're knocking down a grass hut to build something better.

My point is, regardless of the shady reasons, it's now in a state where several million dollars of rehab is required, and no one wants to spend the money - not the current owner, and not a new owner. And since no one wants to spend the money, it's just going to sit there dilapidated forever because God forbid we tear down a building because it's "historic".

Is someone going to spend the money to revitalize it? Is it going to be put to some useful purpose? No? Then tear it down because quite honestly I'd rather see a stupid surface parking lot than an abandoned building which is a victim to the elements and will probably become another home for squatters.

**eldondre** · 08-23-2010, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by radiocolin

My point is, regardless of the shady reasons, it's now in a state where several million dollars of rehab is required, and no one wants to spend the money - not the current owner, and not a new owner. And since no one wants to spend the money, it's just going to sit there dilapidated forever because God forbid we tear down a building because it's "historic".

Is someone going to spend the money to revitalize it? Is it going to be put to some useful purpose? No? Then tear it down because quite honestly I'd rather see a stupid surface parking lot than an abandoned building which is a victim to the elements and will probably become another home for squatters.

I'd rather see it fall over a number of years than see them get approval for a surface lot. the squatters are probably their clients anyway. fact is, they aren't interested in selling it. it hasn't been established there is no interest in the building; in fact, the NAC says the opposite.

**desolate** · 08-23-2010, 03:36 PM

haha... "historical"...

80% of this city seems to be historical.

No one wants an old beat up church. Just look at all the sucessful renovations of chur... oh wait. Ya like maybe save 1 or 2 if they are in gentrification central.

Death by ... well lack of flock.

Don't blame all developers owners when they can't save a purpose built structure

Even ****ty owners.

**DCnPhilly** · 08-23-2010, 03:38 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

I'd rather see it fall over a number of years than see them get approval for a surface lot. the squatters are probably their clients anyway. fact is, they aren't interested in selling it. it hasn't been established there is no interest in the building; in fact, the NAC says the opposite.

Unfortunately I think the problem is that this building was ever allowed to fall into its current state of disrepair. At this point there might be little that can be done to save it short of some wealthy philanthropist buying them out. We need to focus on making sure it doesn't happen again - Divine Lorraine, Hale Building, Family Court Building - all of which the city will easily let set and rot until they can convince L&I it's a "hazard," bulldoze, and sell to Sl-EZ Park.

**palvar** · 08-23-2010, 03:49 PM

Originally Posted by DCnPhilly

Unfortunately I think the problem is that this building was ever allowed to fall into its current state of disrepair. At this point there might be little that can be done to save it short of some wealthy philanthropist buying them out. We need to focus on making sure it doesn't happen again - Divine Lorraine, Hale Building, Family Court Building - all of which the city will easily let set and rot until they can convince L&I it's a "hazard," bulldoze, and sell to Sl-EZ Park.

But who, other than the owners, should be responsible for a building's upkeep?

**DCnPhilly** · 08-23-2010, 03:59 PM

It depends on the situation. In the case of an historic building, the owner has some level of responsibility in maintaining the building's historic integrity. You shouldn't buy an historic building if you plan on tearing it down. In the case of buildings like the Divine Lorraine that have tax delinquent owners, it is the city's responsibility to auction it off and get it into the hands of someone who can maintain it before it falls into disrepair. That goes for the hundreds of vacant, tax delinquent properties in the city.

**eldondre** · 08-23-2010, 04:00 PM

Originally Posted by DCnPhilly

Unfortunately I think the problem is that this building was ever allowed to fall into its current state of disrepair. At this point there might be little that can be done to save it short of some wealthy philanthropist buying them out. We need to focus on making sure it doesn't happen again - Divine Lorraine, Hale Building, Family Court Building - all of which the city will easily let set and rot until they can convince L&I it's a "hazard," bulldoze, and sell to Sl-EZ Park.

and making sure it doesn't happen again is not allowing them to get their desired end. if you let them knock it down and build surface lot, you're rewarding their behavior. stick them with it, make them supprt the structure until it falls down anyway. there are plenty of other locations in the city where they didn't need to knock down a historic church (and no desolate, apparently there is only one of these). who knows, maybe they're a scam like the medicaid billers in frankford.

yeah desolate, we know how you feel, everything should be demolished for a surface lot. that's your idea of development. I get it.

**radiocolin** · 08-23-2010, 04:06 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

stick them with it, make them supprt the structure until it falls down anyway.

What a grand idea. I'm sure it'll do wonders for the neighborhood.

**eldondre** · 08-23-2010, 04:15 PM

Originally Posted by radiocolin

What a grand idea. I'm sure it'll do wonders for the neighborhood.

so will a surface lot. the best thing that could happen would be to force this pricks out of the neighborhood. most likley they'd eventually give up and move, selling off the land, which seems the most ideal solution at this point. your solution is merely to reward a dishonest non-profit and allow them to further degrade Spring garden st. unacceptably low outcome IMO

**DCnPhilly** · 08-23-2010, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by eldondre

so will a surface lot. the best thing that could happen would be to force this pricks out of the neighborhood. most likley they'd eventually give up and move, selling off the land, which seems the most ideal solution at this point. your solution is merely to reward a dishonest non-profit and allow them to further degrade Spring garden st. unacceptably low outcome IMO

A surface lot in a neighborhood full of surface lots. From a distance this building doesn't look bad. Knock it down and it just makes the prairie of ashphalt and concrete look even more vast.

**radiocolin** · 08-23-2010, 04:48 PM

You want to oppose the surface lot, I've got no problem with that. You're right that we could use fewer of them.

But refusing to demolish a building because it's historic, even though no one wants to spend the money to upkeep it, is just as bad for the neighborhood as any surface lot would be. That's how blight starts. Because once one large building falls into disrepair, others always follow.

**DCnPhilly** · 08-23-2010, 04:52 PM

The same can be said for surface parking lots that can be said for vacant buildings. Once a building is torn down for a parking lot, adjacent properties are torn down for more parking. They're both cancers.

**billy ross** · 08-23-2010, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by DCnPhilly

This place is surrounded by literally dozens of surface parking lots. And we all know once a surface lot appears in Philadelphia it never, ever goes away.

Not true at all. Surface lots have been getting developed right and left. Witness Symphony House, for instance.

I am appalled at the plan to turn this church into a parking lot, though.

**DCnPhilly** · 08-23-2010, 05:17 PM

Wasn't Symphony House a gas station?

Other than that I can think of the Convention Center - which was a collection of surface lots created for the sole purpose of developing the Convention Center - and 777 South Broad. Most of the larger recent developments I can think of were done on pre-existing structures. It makes sense too. A surface lot is all profit and no maintenance. The owners can extort developers because they don't have any overhead.

**eldondre** · 08-23-2010, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by radiocolin

You want to oppose the surface lot, I've got no problem with that. You're right that we could use fewer of them.

But refusing to demolish a building because it's historic, even though no one wants to spend the money to upkeep it, is just as bad for the neighborhood as any surface lot would be. That's how blight starts. Because once one large building falls into disrepair, others always follow.

you have it all wrong. the blight started when the non-profit made like sam rappaport, not with their inability to prove financial hardship despite wrecking the church and falsely trying to sell the place. what you are supporting is how blight starts. there's no danger of the blight speading like a disease, the neighborhood is already blighted and other buildings will likely be fixed up anyway (some of them are in worse condition). this church should NOT be rewarded for their actions. moreover, there isn't even any proof for their claims....and their claims cannot be trusted. I couldn't disagree with you more. the nonprofit should be prevented from knocking the church down at all costs until they sell the property. symphony house is totally different AFAIK. this is to be a tax exempt surface lot for a dishonest non-profit.