By Dean Evaniak:
Last evening, I attended a discussion at the Cathedral of Christ the King in Atlanta about the proposal to move St. Gerard's Church. The event was sponsored by the Institute of Classical Architecture and Art and the Parish of Mary Our Queen in Norcross, Georgia. I must say, I went in skeptical, and left somewhere between livid and terrified.
The first speaker was Fr. David Dye, Pastor of Mary Our Queen. I was struck by his particular reasoning for the effort to move a traditional church rather than construct a modern building. As he noted, buildings that carry tradition and history with them become much more than mere buildings in the community where they are located. He mentioned the difference that can be made by foregoing a modern structure that simply houses the location of worship, and the greater community spirit that surrounds and is fostered by traditional churches. A church such as St. Gerard became appealing to him because it comes pre-invested with history and spirit and can immediately become a cornerstone of a community, even beyond the flock that gather within its walls to celebrate.
The audience of about 60 people certainly agreed, and were eager to embrace this "just-add-water, instant community cornerstone" idea. I, however, wondered to myself why the eager desires of a new community were apparently outweighed by the resignation and apathy of the community which is about to lose such an important focal point.
The second speaker was an ICAA member from Notre Dame University, who is closely monitoring the Moved By Grace process. He spoke quite eloquently about the timelessness of classical architecture, including its resourcefulness at housing a variety of building functions, as well as the durability of traditional construction methods over time. While describing the history of St. Gerard's and its inspiration, St. Paul's Outside the Walls in Rome, he all but listed the versatility of the floor plan for use as everything from ancient judicial use to worship space to residential and commercial space. Examples were given of churches turned into restaurants in Pittsburgh and condos in Boston.
Somehow he managed to praise the congregation who managed to reproduce a smaller copy of the famous St. Paul's, while at the same time pointing out that it would be impossible to reproduce yet another copy in Norcross. The only option is to remove the building from its current site and move it to Georgia. I wonder if the thought had ever crossed the minds of the Buffalo parish to remove a church from Rome and bring it to America.
One of the great advantages of the move, as he pointed out, is the 'green factor' or 'sustainability' of reusing older buildings. Modern construction, he noted, involves large amounts of resources and effort, (wood shipped across the country, materials mined in remote locations, technology imported from Asia, and artists that can only be found in dwindling numbers in Europe). The comparison was made that America's older cities are virtual quarries from which we can extract the labors of previous generations. He likened it to shopping at Home Depot and buying a pre-made house.
Lastly, the advantages of older construction vastly outweigh modern building methods. Churches built by contractors require constant maintenance and repair, while the sturdy buildings of previous generations simply last longer, are built stronger, require less maintenance and significantly less heating/cooling costs than steel and glass. As his presentation went on, I wondered to myself why such inefficient modern churches keep popping up while we ignore and abandon buildings that he admits are so much stronger and cheaper to operate. Why do we continue to invest in buildings that require constant care, yet the buildings that can survive a few years between maintenance sit idle?
The last speaker of the evening was Bill Harrison, the architect who is supervising the move. I shuddered in my seat as he called St. Gerard's a "Blue-Light-Special", a structure that would take $40-60 million to be recreated, yet could be boxed and shipped for under $16 million. The increasing notability of this project is attracting corporate sponsors based in or around Atlanta, which could reduce the price even further. There are discussions with CSX Rail to cover the cost of transport, and Home Depot to contribute toward reconstruction costs. Currently, $3 of the $16 million has been raised. It is expected that once the first corporate sponsor is secured, additional donations will become even easier to obtain.
A church that was built by poor immigrants, and was expanded during the worst years of the Great Depression, is now about to be moved by corporate giants. I can't help but wonder if the pennies and dollars that built this church can also save it, especially when confronted by the checkbooks and contributions of nouveau riche Southern suburbanites.
When I asked if this project was simply a cash-for-merchandise transaction, Fr. Dye responded that the community in Buffalo would certainly benefit also. The single mothers of Gerard Place would have a lovely new lawn on which to enjoy the outdoors. The Catholic community would be welcomed with open arms any time they wish to visit their old church in its new home. And we would all rest assured that a priceless building sat safely in a green suburb instead of on an abandoned and crime-ridden street corner. His answer attempted to be diplomatic and he likely thought these were truly good reasons for the move, but a certain amount of smugness still seeped through. He praised the city of Buffalo for its wide avenues and beautiful architecture, and thanked the people for their generous gift. But he appears to honestly feel that the people of Norcross are more deserving of the task of keeping this building.
Other notable comments that arose from the question-and-answer session included a virtual denial that there is any opposition to the relocation. Obviously, there are few if any in Atlanta who would speak out against this project. The only opponent Fr. Dye admitted to knowing was a "crazy city council member" [Franczyk] who {insert hillbilly accent here} "doesn't want a rebel stealing his church". Perhaps the overwhelming support from the Georgia side of this project has blinded them from the debate which is truly going on up in Buffalo.
There is one last thought that was reiterated over and over during the presentation. It is what left me shaking in my seat, and is the reason I call this a Slippery Slope. The Moved By Grace project is receiving national attention. It is being scrutinized by preservationists and architects and universities across the country and the world. All three speakers mentioned that this is not a done deal, and there are still many hurdles to overcome, the outcome is still far from certain. But it was repeated several times that if it is successful, it will open the doors to more projects like this in the future. If it fails, it will be a lesson for others on how to better approach similar projects in other cities.
Apparently, St. Gerard's will not be the only piece of architecture to be moved, only the first. Keeping St. Gerard's in its home will not win the war to save our architectural heritage, it will only be the first battle.
The Moved By Grace campaign admits that it may take years and perseverance (and a lot more money) to attain their goal. This gives Buffalonians some time to make their feelings known to their city council members, as well as to the Moved By Grace project (though only positive comments seem to appear on their website).
Photos attached are taken from movedbygrace.com.
These good church people make me absolutely sick. This is not "preservation by relocation"-this is rape and pillaging. Let's call it for what it is.
Buffalo is on the rebound, but we have some very struggling areas, where architecture can still be "picked off". This is, unfortunately, an example.
We don't need the help of this fine parish, thank you very much. Build your own damn church-you've already pillaged, and broken, an important statue in the process. Honestly, I would rather see the Church implode than see it carted off to these vermons and, even worse, "set a precendent" for the future.
The whole situation is disgusting-the fact that we cannot secure/stabilize the building for future use (how about a charter school, community center...which will go much further than a "plot of grass"), to the manipulations of this Parish to the self dealing of the "expert" architects.
Let's make some noise, obstructionists.
I have to ask what the atheists and agnostics are doing to help the situation?
the atheists and agnostics are doing about as much as a fish does when pondering how to ride a bicycle.
if we're all made in Gods' image then why aren't we all invisible?
This atheist says "good riddance", honestly. This is an honest transaction and if you religious peeps can't figure out how to snooker enough people back into the pews to pay to keep it here, well then, tough noogies.
I'm happy the old stone is going to be reused, and might as well put it down south where they're so much more in thrall of invisible guys in the sky.
I agree, Jesse.
you know you're down south when the ratio of churches to gas stations is 1 to 1...
I also agree Jesse.