Church Doesn't Want to be Saved; Brutalism Goes To Court
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 08.12.08
We have noted previously that I.M. Pei's Church of Christ Scientist in Washington is under threat of demolition; Brutalism isn't in style these days and Churches don't have a lot of money, and they want to tear it down. The City says it is of historic importance.
Now, according to the New York Times, the Church as filed suit against the City, "accusing it of trammeling religious freedom by declaring the church a historic landmark and refusing to allow church leaders to tear it down." and now, design is on trial.
The Church says “We believe this brutalist, unwelcoming, bunkerlike building is not a proper representation of our practice or our theology and, that without a compelling government interest, our members, not the Historic Preservation Review Board, are in the best position to determine that representation."
Church Interior
David Maloney, State Preservation Officer for the District of Columbia, responds “Third Church is a rare Modernist church in the city,” Mr. Maloney said, “and the complex possesses amazingly high integrity (in all respects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association), down to the original carpeting and seat upholstery in the church auditorium.”
Church Converted into Bookshop
It is an old story playing out around the world; churches are big while congregations are getting small, so they sell out to developers who build them a smaller church and give them a whack of dough that covers operating costs. In many cases the church is converted to condos or offices; in Europe it is almost impossible to demolish one, and it Toronto they are prized as lofts. Here, it was just going to be knocked down for offices and retail (and a smaller church.)
We say there is almost no building that cannot be repurposed and restored, put to an imaginative new use, and that demolition is a crime. (Or in the case of a church, a sin.) As Professor Richard Longstreth of George Washington University says:
“This is a major work of architecture,and given that, it is worth the effort to work with anybody and everybody so that the church can afford it, and it can be saved for posterity.” ::New York Times
More on the I.M. Pei Church
Landmarks, not Landfill: I.M. Pei Church in Washington Under Threat
Ban Demolition!
\Big Steps in Building: Ban Demolition
Ban Demolition , Especially by Greedy Universities
Demolition by Neglect: Use It or Lose It
Preservation is Sustainability
Thirsty for more? Check out these related articles:
- Geo-Engineering Risk Potential Not An Excuse for Inaction, Scientist Says
- How Bad Is Taking a Cab to the Airport, Compared to the Flight Itself?
- The Best of the New York Times' Year in Ideas
- California Safe Schools Org Hosts Environmental Health Summit
It could be made a lot less brutalist. Grow some ivy on the outside, maybe some moss, and it will look like a cool Mayan ruin. Very tropical.
I am not a fan of granting religious beliefs and groups special rights when it comes to historic preservation and other government policies, but as a historian, I seen how historic preservation has turned governments and groups of people into hoarders of old junk (buildings, parks, objects) that would be better off being torn down or otherwise disposed of. Not all old buildings have value or should be saved. Sometimes you need to take out the garbage.
Sorry, that's one ugly church. Tear it down and put something attractive in the space.
That is a depressingly austere church building.
I feel there is no harm in tearing down anything by I.M. Pei. That is not design, it is what kids do with cards. I worked in a Pei building for a while and the environment is terrible. I can totally see why they want to tear it down. And they should be allowed to.
I have no problem with Brutalism, underused church buildings or the phenomenon of architects becoming famous. Howver I have to note a particular thread of logic, especially appropriate for Treehugger - just how much room do we have for 'Major Works of Architecture'?
'Room' in my thoughts has several meanings. The Church of Christ Scientist has a limited budget, and they've decided they have no room for this building in their operating scheme. Obviously there's the purely physical 'room' - there's an austere tall glass office building in NYC that hovers over the adjacent neo-Gothic stone church, allowing it some 'room'. This last also touches on my real concern as an architect and armchair theoretician...just how much mental, or aesthetic room do we have for Architecture with a capital A?
If they don't like the design of the building and the city will not let them tear it down, then the simple solution is to sell the building and wither move or build a new one for themselcves elsewhere.
it seems simple to me...
Turn it into a hall for indoor and outdoor rock climbing!
"We believe this brutalist, unwelcoming, bunkerlike building is not a proper representation of our practice or our theology..."
As far as I know, Christian theology doesn't specify how it should be structurally represented. The idea of a grandiose building is a construct of human nature and desire, not God's.
The true church is represented by the body of the people, no matter what style building they worship in.
I say let it stand.
Frankly I think Notre Dame is a hole of a church. A horrible dank cave. That doesn't mean I think it should be torn down.
That is truly ugly, and I don't think anyone will miss it ever.
I think this is a case where if the city wants to keep it they should buy it.
Makes me wonder how many building and homes of much greater long term value they have allowed to be destroyed over the years, and they decide to save this thing.
Clearly, the church wants it both ways. They want to keep the location and ditch the building.
Like many people in possession of an historic building, they're not allowed to do the latter.
The mature, adult solution would be to sell the property to someone who doesn't mind the aesthetic or the lien on the property and use the funds to relocate or rebuild.
Instead, the church has decided to bring out their all purpose tantrum/argument ender- religious persecution - to try and muscle the local politicians into pandering to their demands.
Churches. make. me. sick. They love their rules, but want to ignore everyone else's. When they can't, they whine that they're being "persecuted."
Because having a building you own declared of historic significance is exactly equivalent to being thrown to lions in the arena.
this is another example of tyranny at its most pernicious.
it's the church's land, it's their building, and they want to tear it down. some architecture professor thinks it's "important" and so it can't be torn down.
i think the church has more right to decide what to do with their land than a disinterested academic.
tear it down.
Of course this church should be saved - it is a wonderful clean building. If there are problems they will stem from the use of fluorescent lighting, this always causes an unpleasant environment, replace the lighting with directional spots (LEDs if possible.) and the interior environment will change. Soften the exterior with planting in the terraces and the outward facade will become infinitely more appealing. This is clearly about money grabbing. No doubt a developer is offering big bucks as per your comments. NO, there is no way they should be allowed to demolish, and if pay-offs are involved they should be exposed publicly...
"We believe this brutalist, unwelcoming, bunkerlike building is not a proper representation of our practice or our theology..."
Funny, that's not how they felt when they commissioned the building originally. So, has the practice of Christianity or it's theology changed? Or is just fashion!
I used to walk by this "church" every day when I worked in DC. I always thought that it was a front for some cold war missile defense site protecting the White House (just 2 or 3 blocks away). Either that, or maybe the dark lord (I mean vice president) slept there during the day.
It really is ugly and impersonal, and should not be kept, no matter how famous the designer was who made it. It think it is a very narrow slice of the public that would want it kept there. There are truly historic buildings 1 block away, meaning they were build in the 1800s and served millions of people in their lifetimes. Keep them, replace this with an office building and condos that will put the space to good use.
I heard about this on NPR today and wanted to see what all the fuss was about. I am -slightly- familiar with brutalism. Maybe this is a nice photo, but it doesn't look -so- bad. I was expecting worse.
Remember when all those "truly historic buildings 1 block away, meaning they were build in the 1800s" (i.e., Victorian, etc.) were all considered old-fashioned eyesores and had expensive upkeep? Everyone was tearing those down in order to build "modern" buildings (1950s and 60s mid-century modern) which many later (1980s) considered eyesores.
Architectural fashions come and go.
It would [might?] be a shame to lose this building, but unless someone can step in to buy it or pay for he upkeep, which has become a burden to the owners, then I think the owners have a right to do with it as they please.
Historic preservation has become the new government-mandated religion, has it not?