At first glance, the continuing clash between the Third Church of Christ, Scientist, and Washington’s Historic Preservation Review Board looks like dozens of others that have roiled American cities. A declining congregation considers demolishing its expensive-to-maintain church, only to be opposed by local preservationists, who argue that the building should be made a landmark.
The actions taken are the familiar ones. The congregation, which bitterly opposed landmark designation in December 2007, filed a federal lawsuit this August arguing that the designation violated its First Amendment rights by restraining its ability to practice religion freely. The District of Columbia responded by asking the court to dismiss the complaint on technical grounds, but urging the court to wait until the mayor’s agent — the chairman of the office of planning, which oversees the review board — makes a decision. The mayor’s agent has scheduled a hearing for Tuesday. If her decision goes against the District — which seems unlikely — all will be settled. Otherwise, both parties will return to federal court.
But this case is more outrageous than the norm, given the structure in question. Most such controversies swirl around church properties of a certain age, as when, in 1981, St. Bartholomew’s Church on Park Avenue in New York sought, in vain, to demolish its lovely community house in order to build a modernist tower alongside its renowned Byzantine church, constructed in 1916.
The Third Church’s building, by contrast, is relatively new — indeed, too new to be designated historic under federal law.
Perhaps this could be moved to New York used by the folks at 815. Aren’t they developing a “bunker” mentality?
You have to see this church to believe it. Picture at http://christiansciencedc.org/church.php?id=dc-3
or go to Google Images and type in Third Church of Christ, Scientist, Washington DC.
Nice bunker. I see what they mean.
It is ugly, but is it a church? I’ve heard it said Christian Scientists are an odd bunch as they are neither Christian nor Scientist. Does anybody know if they are either?
Okay, let the local conservationalists buy the “..historical landmark..”, repair it, and open the doors for people to visit (and charge them an admission fee – of course). Church does not equal church building.
One acronym to the congregation: RLUIPA: Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Look it up. It’s the law that can help you.
My office is at the other end of the block from this carbuncle, a more honest photo of which is attached here. This story is typical of the problems with the DC Historic Preservation Review Board, which is one of the more enthusiastic practitioners of what amounts to culture tyranny.
They’ll need to flank it in order to destroy it…
It may well be a historic building (in a one of a kind sort of way).
[i] They’ll need to flank it in order to destroy it [/i]
Or put BeerKat in charge of preserving it.
Maybe a 20,000 lb bomb could chip it. I have seen similar structures overlooking Ohama beach.
I have always liked these places that are called things like “Third Church of Christ, Scientist.” The grammatical form implies that they are wanting to let you know what Christ does for a living — that he wears a white coat and works for Dow Chemical or Fermi Labs.
It reminds me of the moment in THE PURPLE ROSE OF CAIRO where Tom Baxter introduces himself to Mia Farrow’s character:
Oh, I’m sorry… (extending his hand)… Tom Baxter. Poet, explorer, adventurer — the Chicago Baxters.
Wow. That is one ugly building. Maybe they can sell it to the Air Force to use for testing depleted uranium tipped bunker buster bombs. Steven in Falls Chuch, if you happen to notice an F-117 swooping over your block with a GBU-28 coming out of its bomb bay, you may want to duck.
It’s actually a breath of fresh air compared to the boxes that surround it. The whole ugly neighborhood should be removed.
Why don’t they cut their losses, deed the property to the historical society, and buy property somewhere else for their congregation?
Jim Elliott
Florida
I’ve seen the building (I like the poster quoting scripture they have on the side), and only an architectural historian with no taste could want to see it preserved. Unfortunately, there seem to be a lot of those. I hope the congregation can prevail. My suggestion: propose a totally green building be built in its place. Once it is down, build whatever you like. John Silber wrote a book on all this recently (“Architecture of the Absurd: How ‘Genius’ Disfigured a Practical Art”).