BCD Special Report on
Historic Churches
17th annual edition
13
but when there is opposition the delays in
resolving conficts can take years and involve
further fnancial burdens. Although there are
justifable reasons for public intervention, these
can polarise neighbourhoods as news spreads
that there are plans to sell, alter or demolish a
redundant or underused religious property.
Code compliance and replacement of
antiquated systems are equally problematic,
but no one truly considers that religious
properties should be exempt from life safety
or zoning and planning regulations and
requirements, as these become matters of
public safety, and any religious building should
be safe for the congregation as well as any
member of the visiting public. What is at stake,
according to several members of the clergy
interviewed during the preparation of this
article (and who asked that their names be
withheld), is the preservation of the centre of
worship where the buildings are of secondary
concern. Tere have been recent cases of
signifcant churches resisting the landmark
designation process, primarily because of a
reluctance to disclose and/or submit to external
review from public agencies and funding
sources for what is seen by many religious
groups as interference in the administration
and management of their property.
Signifcant cultural heritage is built into
the fabric of religious structures – from
the exterior stone carvings, stained glass
windows and unique architectural massing
appreciated by the community and the
tourist from the outside; to the exceptional
liturgical furnishings, organ casework and
consoles, ornamental light fxtures and other
features that often survive inside. Tere
is a fundamental realisation among some
architectural historians that because historic
religious buildings are largely intact, they
have become ‘period pieces’ and worthy of
appreciation as important social and cultural
milestones, particularly in areas subject to
extensive growth or re-development. On the
other hand, the very notion that a religious
building could be expected by preservationists
to remain static, as a private repository of
museum quality artefacts, has caused confusion
and resentment from congregations, who feel
that the preservationists fail to appreciate
the mission and outreach of a church. Who
are churches for? Do they exist only to house
the mission and celebrate the liturgy? Or
are they supporting features in a streetscape
appreciated by passers-by with no knowledge
of or intention of joining organised religious
groups? Tese viewpoints may seem like absurd
extremes but this, in essence, is the opposition
that exists between those on the one hand who
determine the signifcance of a structure based
on its age, architect, and historic resonance,
and those on the other who control the
property’s administration and may view it as
an asset ripe for change, development or sale.
Tere is no longer a guarantee that a
religious building can remain viable as an
anchor for a neighbourhood or community
in the face of escalating operating costs,
demographic and social changes. Religious
buildings now also face the inevitable
development pressure generated by the
shortage of large sites, particularly in desirable
residential urban areas where there is a need
for afordable housing, schools and healthcare
facilities. Underused properties or those
showing signs of neglect are seen as sites ripe
for development, as it is often not possible
to alter the interior to suit the changing
needs of the congregation. Additionally,
alteration or adaptation for other uses may
not be able to satisfy current code and life
safety requirements. Sadly, even with the
best intentions of the federal, state and local
designation process, protection is not always
possible. Hardship cases are often won when
the church mission is at risk: suddenly the
preservation issues become secondary.
Michael Rebic, Property Support Director
at Te Episcopal Diocese of New York,
recently stated that there is no ofcial policy
when it comes to landmarking within the
diocese: ‘Te merits of landmarking are on a
case-by-case basis for both National Register
listing and local designations’, he explained,
and was then pleased to add; ‘both aspects of
preservation can work together and be mutually
benefcial’. He admitted that initially there
was some hesitation about placing buildings
on the state and national registers and some
congregations sought designation without
diocesan approval. ‘However,’ he explained,
‘once it was understood that designation did
not entail restrictions and that it could make
properties eligible for state grant funding,
most opposition disappeared immediately’.
Te Episcopal Diocese of New York
maintains a cordial relationship with the New
York City Landmarks Preservation Commission,
although it is sometimes frustrated by the
extent of detail enforced or called for. Michael
Rebic is not alone in this concern – the clergy
is primarily concerned with keeping the rain
and wind out of the buildings and their church
open and occupied, while preservation ofcials
often seem more concerned with the use of
appropriate methods and materials for repairs.
Grant aid1
Much of the current debate about landmarks
and stewardship focuses on the cost of the
work and funding sources which almost
always exclude buildings that are not already
on the National Register or are not eligible for
listing. Tere are advocacy groups, such as
the New York Landmarks Conservancy that
ofer low interest loans and grants, and the
State of New York has grants available under
the Environmental Protection Fund, if the
property qualifes under the grant criteria.
Te Episcopal Diocese of New York has
come up with a partial solution to help its
congregations by ofering grants for certain
types of repairs: the Roof Reserve Fund, the
Energy Stewardship Grants, and the Material
Grant Program. All grants are targeted
towards the most signifcant stewardship
and maintenance problems. Michael Rebic
encourages preservation planning as a
starting point to avoid crises. Knowing the
building history and the lifespan of particular
building materials and types of structure can
save money in the long term. It also helps
congregations budget and pay for repairs that
will be durable and cost-efective over time.
Substitute materials are acceptable only if they
meet certain life-cycle criteria (40–70 years
depending on type and installation). Energy
grants are outright grants designed to reduce
energy consumption and utility expenses.
From an outsider’s perspective, the
Episcopal Diocese is perhaps unique in
thinking of ways to keep congregations working
to keep their mission and purpose strong
and their buildings healthy. Michael Rebic
admits ‘it is far easier to manage a fnancial
portfolio than a real estate portfolio’. As
the landmark issues recede and re-building
communities, not just religious centres, come
into focus, there is a need for churches to
fulfl obligations that the government can
no longer provide. If this continues to be
the case, what other options are there than
to protect our religious built heritage?
Page Ayres Cowley
FAIA RIBA LEED AP is a
principal of Page Ayres Cowley Architects LLC, a
New York practice that specialises in the design,
adaptive reuse and restoration of historic buildings.
1 For more information on grants and
fundraising for houses of worship in the US,
see Tuomi Joshua Forrest’s article, Historic
Church Preservation in the US, page 6.
Te Church of the Transfguration (‘Te Little Church Around the Corner’), built in 1850 and later extended by
Henry Clark Withers. Tis church is an oasis in midtown. Te sale of the air rights has made a comprehensive
building repair campaign possible.