Theological Thursdays: St. Gerard

depressing

I like that you are running with hot topics, and that you take positions.

This is not just about a building-rarely is it ever. Those for keeping the Church local are driven by deep emotions concerning the situation, as are those proponents of the move.

I can only speak to the former mindset: shipping off St. Gerard's represents (and underscores) loss, both to our built environment and our community. It speaks to years of failure, decline, and disinvestment. It's like a gaping wound having vinegar poured on it (I find the denial and smugness of the Atlanta church leaders particularly loathsome.) It also seems dichotemous to the re-use and restoration of sites throughout the city, from the West Side to Blackrock.

Keeping and restoring St. Gerard's is representative of so much: hope, re-investment in a struggling community, etc. And, more importantly, it let's others know that Buffalo's architecture cannot be picked off-that we are a proud and rebounding community.

Look at the difference Urban King Life (housed in the threatened St. Mary of Sorrows) has made to that neighborhood. The school is flourishing-and St. Gerard's have the same outcome.

This building should be boarded up and saved for the future, even if we have to wait 100 years.

It's irreplaceable, and at some point will be developed. But once it's taken down, it's gone forever. 100 years is nothing compared to "forvever".

I keep going back and forth on this. I don’t want to see this church neglected and end up being torn down. If that was the case then obviously I would like to see it moved to Georgia. However, I do not like the idea of this starting a trend of our architecture being picked over by other parts of the country.
We have a lot of renovation/repurpose projects going on in our area and you get a sense that because it is in a bad area a lot of people are just saying “who cares”. What if this had happened ten years ago in the Larkin District or the West Side, Medical Campus area, Cobblestone area? How many of our structures would we have lost to wealthier areas of the country?
These boom and bust areas can change. The obvious example is Arizona, Florida, and Las Vegas. Right now the Larkin District and the West Side are doing great, what happens when the opportunities dry up. Who is to say the East Side can’t make a comeback. I know, a lot of people will laugh about that but Buffalo does have momentum, Black Rock is just in the early stages of it, so why not the East Side down the road?

I couldn't disagree with Rev. Drew more.

The main argument is NOT that it should be the center of Bailey/Delevan neighborhood.

The main argument IS that it's an architectural treasure that the Bishop Kimec/Catholic Church doesn't care about or feel is worth anything to the entire area. The slippery slope argument matters, and if this bldg is auctioned off and dismantled to go elsewhere, the entire area suffers.

And for Rev. Drew to throw in separation of church and state as an argument local gov't shouldn't/won't do anything to stop the destruction irks me...a lot. Separation of chruch and state--not paying property taxes being the benefit--is just another entitlement that needs to stop.

Think about it: This church and property never had to pay assessments yet the local diocese will reap and keep economic gain from its sale.

When churches (any religous group) start paying property taxes I'll be more sympathetic to Rev. Drew's view.. and stop laughing at his moral argument.

Coul'nt it be re-used as a performance and art space? Just like Asbury/Babeville on Delaware & Tupper?

Rev. Drew,

If you look at this irreplaceable building with a long view--as part of Buffalo's evolving restoration as a city, and with a wide view--as a building that belongs to the entire city of Buffalo, not just one neighborhood, you begin to see why making it disappear breeds a vexing swarm of issues: the removal of sublime grandeur and craft that can't be replicated from a neighborhood that sorely deserves that beauty... all in the name of the great accomplishment of a vacant, weed-strewn lot....reeks of the kind of cynical complacency that has been eroding Buffalo for 60 years. That pragmatic attitude has failed this city. In this instance, the taking of this elite building opens the window to a poisonous way to look at cities like Buffalo: as once beautiful places open for scavenge.

A city that is rebuilding its reputation on its architectural pedigree and authenticity cannot afford a loss like this or the signal it sends. Buildings like this can be reborn, as Asbury Methodist Church, Mary of the Sorrows, and the Richardson Towers prove. To look ahead a few years and fret about a vacant building instead of looking ahead a couple of decades and embracing the possibilities this unmatched building presents--that pinched vision feeds the stale, pragmatic let-it-go sensibility that has made Buffalo so arthritic. Take this building away and you gain nothing, not even a legal assurance that it will be preserved in steamy Georgia. Leave it here, and you have at least the chance, the hope, of something for the city that gave it birth.

No one should be surprised to hear that all catholics do not do exactly what the church tells them to do. This is the beautiful thing about free will and self determination.

St. Gerard's had a parish size of 1600 families in the 1950s and 1960s, that number was down to less than 100 parishioners by 2005. Those families have made a conscious choice to do what they felt would be best for their loved ones. I am pretty sure that the decision to move from their homes was not an easy decision, especially for those leaving family, friends, and their churh communities behind. My grandparents drove back to their churchm, in Buffalo, every weekend for 30 years after they moved from Buffalo to Snyder in 1951. They still did their shopping in Buffalo until the late 1970s, but eventually stopped heading to the city. My grandmother told her grandkids repeatedly that seeing the city overtaken by crime and drugs was too depressing to go back. She never saw herself as part of the problem, she only blamed the new neighbors who moved in and, in her opinion, ruined the neighborhood. She didn't see an option to stay after awhile, and most of her neighbors and friends felt the same way.

It is impossible to truly understand what was happening in the 1940s - 1970s through the lens of the 2000s - 2010s. The times were very different, community was very different, and importance of religion in the community was very different. Remember that John F. Kennedy's religious preferences were a big deal when he was running for office. He is still the only Roman Catholic President in the history of the US. It was a big deal that a Roman Catholic was running for President, when most of his predecessors had been Episcopalians, Presbytarians, and Methodists. Do you think that religion would be as big of an issue today in government elections? I doubt it, unless the religion was a fundamentalist religion with extremist views.

I can see all the arguments for keeping the building, and keep it you should if you can. But there is an inevitable push to triage; if it's good resources after bad, then let it go.

The unassailable position here is to make it difficult, and that soul-searching be built in. The last thing you want is to have a run on these just to bolster somebody's bottom line.

St Gerard's is a unique treasure, and will be missed, but if attention and resources are put to the buildings that have a chance, the city will be all the better for it.

I believe that the sale of St. Gerard's will remain local, both to the home on the adjoining property and through the many chartiable organizations run by the Diocese. I cannot think of another organization that will donate $10.6 million to the local community each year.

Honestly, this was my first thought too when I heard about St Gerard's relocation. It's a nice building, but hardly the best looking or most historic church in the city. By comparison with other Buffalo buildings and churches, it might even be somewhere between dowdy and run-of-the-mill. If the issue was just about this ONE church, I wouldn't care at all what happens to it.

But it isn't about this one building. It isn't about the one issue of selling it off. St Gerards just happened to get caught up as the poster child for a whole LIST of issues. Buildings being sold off in whole or in part like the the deco ornaments of the Central Terminal and the FLW windows of the Martin House. Property-owners rights to neglect or demolish buildings like Riverside Men's Shop or the GLF. Urban properties being neglected to support suburban projects like ECC and and UB. Diocesan closure of churches without concern for properly maintaining or mothballing the buildings like Transfig and St Barbara and St Joe's New Cathedral. Resident apathy for the decline of neighborhoods, as well as the surprising resurgence of others (east side, Larkin District). The role of government and private/corporate action in charting and shaping our future, whether that be the Canal Harbor, the Buffalo River, or the Peace Bridge Plaza.

In the overall scheme of things, St Gerards is a blip. Our problems have been getting worse over the past 50 years, and they will no doubt continue over the next 50. But this is a blip that is making national headlines. This is a blip that is happening at a point where we are finally learning to overcome our past mistakes and do right for the future. This is a blip that signifies to ourselves and the rest of the world that we are either going to continue our downward spiral, or we are going to start patching up the hole we've dug for ourselves.

I know I've been quite vocal about the St Gerard issue. It's not because I really give a crap about THIS building. Honestly I think it's kind of ugly. But I am pissed off about the buildings we've already lost, and I am sincerely worried about the buildings that we might lose next year or 10 years from now.

St Gerards is the turning point, and fate has decided that this is where the world is watching to see if we either stand our ground or give up completely. I'm not willing to give up. If that means fighting now for a building I don't particularly care about, so be it. It will make tomorrow's fight a little easier when we have to face these issues with Michigan St Baptist and St Louis and the Great Northern and the Statler and the Richardson Complex and all the other buildings that I DO care about.

I really get that a church should be a church. And we can’t use it as a church, and since the catholic church owens it, its not going to be allowed to be anything but a church. In the two years I have looked at 4 churches for a brewery. The first was bought by Ellicott Dev. before I could. The second was owned by the catholic church and they said no before I got to the W in brewery. The third needed over a million poured into it to bring it up to code and another 350-500k to reuse it. The 4th I’m just looking at now and well see if I can make something work out. Its not that people don’t want to save these buildings. I and many others really do and have put allot of energy into trying to make it work out. But aside from someone just giving me 750k I can’t seem to make it work.

Second part is that this makes me think of the late 3rd century Roman Empire were they began to take apart there magnificent temples to build lesser buildings from its remains. Watching that civilization crumble makes me want to protect my own.

So far through all the posting on the several St Gerard's stories these last few days, no one has come up with a REALISTIC plan to re-use this building, besides (perhaps) mothballing it. Even if it is mothballed (who will pay for that), what happens in 50 or 100 years? Even assuming that the Bailey/Delevan area comes back in 50 or 100 years (that is probably a great stretch of the imagination), will those future residents have an interest in re-opening a mothballed catholic church for use a catholic church (or as another denomination)? Church attendance has steadily dropped since the 1970s, and there is no sign that the slide in attendance and religious observation will reverse. If anything, it will likely accelerate. Unfortunately, there is not a "market" for a large church there now, and it is unlikely that there will be a market for it in 50-100 years either.

So, what to do with this large and beautiful building? Watching it rot and deteriorate is not something I look forward to. Having it re-used in another location is better than its eventual demolition where it is.

And again: This building is not going away. All of the structures around it will be going away. Yes, think "100 years" into the future.

This building no longer has anything to do with any religion. It is a magnificant piece of architecture built so well with such fine material that it is irreplacable at any price and will stand there just fine awaiting reason bypassing stupid stuff... The Central Terminal is also awaiting but will resurrect as a transportation hub even more far reaching than it was and much sooner than in 100 years.

The entire area around that building is deteriorating fast--roofs can't last forever and no landlord will replace a roof while no live-in homeowner should take on the expense anymore--that means deterioration has already exhilerated. That will mean an area of plenty of exterior space and in not too long a time.

I believe the interior of that former church is already gutted (or it should be because pews and altars are usless in there now) making plenty of interior space on the ground floor. And, the ceiling is so high that I'll bet two additional floors could be added.

After the economy finally bottoms out, which won't happen for a while, and with necessity being the mother of invention, finer minds than prevail today will find uses for that structure that will NOT include shops or lofts or private living quarters. Didn't someone already render at least one great idea for that former church here at Buffalo Rising a year or two ago?

And the Humboldt Basin will also be a landmark for everyone and people will come into these areas via The Central Terminal. no lol because all three of these areas are near each other...

going to have to voice some rare disagreement with the good rev. drew.

what worries me about this is precedent, precedent, precedent. if st. gerard's goes, it sets a terrible precedent. any place lacking architectural merit of its own can harvest buffalo's.

yes, i understand the burden than your grand edifice, lafayette presbyterian, places on you & your congregation and i don't envy your heating bills. but i argue that if you could be rid of your 'white elephant' overnight to be replaced with an efficient, economical little box, you'd lose in respect and moral stature (i mean that) what you'd gain in budgetary relief.

People want unbridled capitalist society they got it. Where everything goes to the highest bidder. Our beef goes to Japan our beef comes from China, Our natural gas goes to the highest bidder and it maybe not us. Atlanta must have more value in our assets than we do. So make them pay for it KA ching.

for those of you concerned about this 'slippery slope' and 'precedent', I say that the day that rich groups drop $16m on transporting and reconstructing such assets are very few and far between. Many, many more Transifigurations will transpire before the next church is recycled. Precedent? What about the precedent of them falling down or being demolished to prevent liability from injury? Surely this solution (recycling) is worlds better.

As to those who pine for another arts performance venue, two questions deserve real answers: Where's the market? Where's the money?

Babeville cost upwards of $12m. How many of those can we afford? And even if we had the money to do them, even if they were cheaper by an order of magnitude (as below), what then? Where's the market?

I sold Neal Radice (Alleyway Theater) the church at the corner of Richmond and Ferry for an arts center (price paid for that brownstone: $75k plus $20k for the organ). He put (through grants and donations, mostly) close to $1m into it. It was in great shape to begin with, and because of that and its unusually theatrical architecture it has only a half mil more in improvements to go to make it a viable performance venue. He'll sell to a responsible group for a few hundred thou. Anyone who wants to continue the arts performance incarnation can buy it for a song. Any takers? And that's in a prime neighborhood, where gentrification is strong and patrons aren't afraid to venture. Where's the market? Where's the need? Where's the business plan?

We have many, many more churches than we can afford to maintain. If the good folks in Atlanta want to pony up to save this building, I'm all for it.

Has anybody noticed a little trend lately called immigration? It's one of the fastest growing sectors of our population. Legal and illegal immigrants from Latin America are THE fastest growing part of our nations populace. They are largely Roman Catholic, and are turning away from states like Arizona and Georgia because of the new immigration laws there. New York has always relied on immigrant populations and will likely remain a safe haven for them well into the foreseeable future.

Unrest in Africa and Eastern Europe and the Middle East are also fueling large numbers of Muslim immigrants from those regions. Detroit, Gary and Milwaukee continue to decline as we do, but that decline has proved to be a magnet for Muslin populations which are at least slowing the decline. Somewhat vibrant immigrant communities are even beginning to emerge. Not the type that drain resources, but the type that create their own small businesses and actually add to the wealth of those forgotten areas.

I don't think we can count the Kensington neighborhood as dead yet. There's still a lot of potential there if it's marketed right, and the rest of us get over our fear of brown skin. Immigrants built the area, maybe they can help save it too.

I have read many comments that call for the relocation of historic properties (like the PAN-AM house) to the waterfront, or somewhere else, just to save them. They are moved and are no longer in the same context they were before they were moved; yet we see this is a triumph for preservation.

Is the real issue that this church would be moving to Georgia, like so many of our residents already have?

For the "let it rot where it stands" crowd... who will be the first of you to move your family to Bailey and West Delevan?

Put your money where your mouth is, as STEEL says. Any takers?

if the Georgians are told they have to take all the pigeons that hang out on the belfry that might be the deal breaker and the building stays...

The thing that bothers me about these arguments is that so much of the wording (even here in Drew's article) is almost identical to the typical argument put forward by suburbanites that the city of Buffalo should just be firebombed and bulldozed flat.

"[L]et [Buffalo] go". "[H]as it not already had a chance to [...] attract a new population, or local investment[?]". "Whether or not we like it, people have voted with their feet, and with their dollars."

These are the same words used by those who believe that there is no point in putting a single dollar of investment across the city line.

Lego1981 is right about Harlem. It is a hot area now, but no one could have predicted its revival in the '60s, '70s, and '80s, when it was one of the worst ghettoes in the entire country. You can say it is apples and oranges, but pretty much NO ONE in the '70s believed that Harlem could ever come back. Manhattan was NOT a growing area during these years, losing almost half a million people between 1950 and 1990.

We need to take the long view on these issues, and not be so quick to have a fire sale of our irreplaceable heritage buildings just because a neighborhood is temporarily in disrepair.

Since Bailey and W. Delavan do not connect, does that negate that person's comment? lol

To those who were taught that a church is God's house, it's a sorry thing to say it isn't so.

The immigrants who are coming in droves head straight for public assistance. They are not in a financial position to maintain magnificant structures such as the former St. Gerard's or the still functioning Lafayette Presbyterian. What those immigrants are is tenants of the landlords who are overtaking old houses where the roofs are rotting fast. no lol

The story of Ellis Island is interesting in what sort of limited public assistance was available in 1900 compared to today.

So then, what chance might there be that Lafayette Presbyterian (or all such really big, really beautiful, really irreplacable, presently used church buildings) save on heat and electric bills by installing drop ceilings no higher than 9 feet?

Protect any window frames and stained glass ABOVE the low ceiling from the outside of the building, cut off the heat and electric pipes and wires above the much lower ceiling, install some catwalks, install dehumififiers (which means save some electrical wiring above the new ceiling), have a means for maintenance workers to go up 9 feet to maintain the actual height of the building. At only 9 feet, ladders could be had from Home Depot...

About Home Depot: Where has all the sturdy lumber gone?

(Back to church): THEN ask if anyone will still want to worship together, and stick together as an in-building "community" coming from both outside and inside this City, if they will still worship there when they cannot still see all of the man-made eye appeal that causes going to a church, temple, synagogue or other large-magnitude house of worship such an awe inspiring experience???

THEN, heading into 100 years from now, because the structure(s) did survive, future folks can make a joyful deal out of removing those low ceilings and re-discovering the hidden beauty of the entire artifacts!!!

Thank you for weighing in with this. I admire what your father did. The Diocese tries to maintain that folks formerly associated with the church support the move, but I suspect there are many more who would agree with what you've expressed.

The Diocese has also, from the beginning, tried to portray this as an all-or-nothing choice between carving up and shipping off the church (which will include stripping and destruction of much of the interior, as I understand), or letting it sit and rot in place. And unfortunately, in the absence of any organized community dialog on this issue or real exploration of alternatives, that mischaracterization and false dichotomy has become entrenched and widespread. So perhaps excusable -- if not understandable -- why some former parishioners and their family members have bought in to this Orwellian idea that we have to destroy the church in order to save it.

I love all these comments, and feel bad that I have not been interacting more. The thing that I regret leaving out of the article is the connection to the "lighter-faster-cheaper" idea of Canalside. The St.Girard site is the "aud site" of the neighborhood. It might be the big unoccupied building or the hole in the streetscape. Now, in the case of canalside, the aud is already gone, but in this case, there are more options. That said, what the neighborhood needs (and again, I fully realize that money and mouth are the west side and in the Presbyterian church, so it doesn't count too much) is jobs--not a big old building. I get the idea to board it up and wait, but I wouldn't want to follow it unless there was actually something we were waiting for.

I realize that the article is a bit of a downer, but please listen to the hopeful part of it. I don't think its unreasonable to make the departure of this building into an economic stimulus. I would rather have new life now, without the building, then maybe later with a building.

Sometimes the bird in the hand is short-sighted, but the birds in the bush are a long way off, and the need for an cash infusion is a very present reality.

As for those who worry about disgracing those who gave over time, I refer to the old economic law that "sunk costs are sunk." A lot of people have invested a lot of money in a lot of things that simply didn't hold their value. Its harsh, but true.

That said, I believe that for any religious community,the building is the box that the real things of value have been delivered it. Honor the memory of those who built the box by living out the best and the highest of their ideals.

??? Isn't this spam?? Why would anyone give this 'thumbs up'? Why is it even still on this thread?

Grad94 and NBuffguy: Thank you for your info. My ancestors came to America around the 1900s--big, big diff in public assist from then to now. Oh, the stories I could tell...

Rev. Drew: I am serious about drop ceilings in the huge works-of-art houses of worship. The cost of heating, lighting and maintenance would drop to a fraction while such buildings could remain open and looked after.

I was in your church a LONGGG time ago. I don't remember why (possibly because my mom had a passion for church sponsored rummage sales and loved dragging me with her to them) but I remember the beauty. I occupied my little self by climbing steps of church basements into the "sacred" areas and being awestruck.

I remembr your church because there were several such non-denominational rummaging occasions at your church (and the same for several other churches my mom said were in 'ritzy-ditzy neighborhoods') in my childhood. I have stories about that too...

The problem with Buffalo is that the population largely has no respect for where their family and heritage came from...Look at the great churches in the city - St. Louis, St. Ann's, Holy Family and the list could go to include 10+ others - These churches are probably lucky to be filled 10-20% for a regular mass - And the main reason is convenience - Most would rather go to the drive-thru mass at some sad 70's looking church in the burbs than drive to appreciate a majestic structure that their great-grandparents donated money to help get constructed in the first place

Would the Catholic Church even sell St. Gerard's to a local buyer for $200,000? Perhaps Terry Pegula would buy it to keep it in Buffalo! Does anybody have any information about other religions interested in buying it, such as the Episcopalians? Could the city of Buffalo designate St. Gerard's as a Historical Building and that would end the proposed sale? St. Gerard's really needs to remain in Buffalo, at any cost. And also, no offense intended, but the person who wrote the article is kind of an idiot. Or maybe he's still in High School.

If this church is empty let it go. I know that sounds horrible but letting it sit will only damage it someone below said that once its gone its gone forever and we should keep it it for 100 years in buffalo boarded up. Thats the dumbest thing you could do just 1 year alone would damage it and in 100 years the building would be in pieces and have graffiti all over it. The people in Georgia currently pray in a pizza hut looking building let them have that beautiful church they would fill it to capacity unlike here in buffalo. they will take good care of it unlike here they got the $ to fix it.

more spam filters in . . .