I have not decided yet whether this
emerging trend from the DC area is merely interesting or somewhat
disturbing. Churches in that region have had to come to grips with
their financial situations and some of the more cash-strapped are
looking to become mixed-use developments in order to remain in
existence.
The First Baptist Church of Silver Spring, Md. is asking to
replace their current facility with apartments, shopping and a new
church building. To be truthful, it is in a neighborhood which has a
good transit presence, great walkability, a proposed Metro line stop
and is transitioning toward higher density. What the area does not
need is a wide expanse of parking and the setbacks off of the streets
which presently exist.
Whether due to declining attendance or growing ambitions, other
area churches are pursuing similar tactics. A church in downtown DC
has been given permission to demolish their old Brutalist style
building to erect an office building and church. In Arlington, Va.,
a church sold the air rights so as to construct several floor of
apartments above.
This scenario brings to mind the recent
removal of the Faith Covenant (formerly the Woodland Ave Baptist and
originally the Immanuel Baptist) Church building for the High Point
Condominiums. Though built on a much smaller scale the idea is much
the same. The small church, which was losing its congregation and
financially unable to adequately maintain the structure, opted to
sell and re-establish elsewhere.
The theme which ties most of these
instances together appears to be the involvement of the historic
preservationists and their claims that these building are
“significant”, either historically or architecturally, and should
be saved. I guess that it could be argued that ecclesiastical
buildings may be “community” or civic properties in a visual
sense and therefore merit saving. I tend to weigh the value of what
may replace the existing, visually and not economically, for my
opinions.
What makes this interesting is that it
is happening in quite a few localities, many of which are rapidly
intensifying in density or transitioning to more urban uses. This
intensifying is something which the Planning staff has urged for many
years, through several comprehensive plans and when combined with the
reluctance to expand the Urban Service Area mean that we could be
facing similar issues.
We have some history of removing a few
of our older churches over the years. The University took the
Porter Memorial location on S Limestone and Baptist Healthcare
(Central Baptist Hospital) took both the Centenary Methodist and the
Central Baptist structures for more intense uses. Still others
remain on highly traveled arteries at the edges of neighborhoods
where “real mixed use” could be used as a catalyst for a
transformational moment.
Given the general feeling toward
downtown preservation, I think that our oldest church facilities will
not consider such options at this time but there are a few which
could see economic sense in such an endeavor. That is where the
disturbing aspect of this trend may emerge.
I do not pretend to understand the
congregational or financial health of our inner ring churches, but I
do see when they add property (usually for parking). There is always
the possibility of being land rich and congregant poor which can only
be exacerbated during times of economic downturn. In times when
folks cannot travel to services it may be advantageous build
something where they don't have to drive.
A true mixed use.
No comments:
Post a Comment