Build a Great Building

UPDATED - Here's a look at the building proposed to replace the St. Andrews rectory. In the words of Eric Cartman, "Ah Weak!" Hope that's not final.



I’m going to step in and solve this St Andrews Rectory controversy.

First the background.

St. Andrews is a downtown parish next to UConn along Washington Blvd. Their campus consists of a Gothic church, a Victorian style rectory, and a funky old graveyard (complete with what looks like a couple busted open tombs I've noticed). The parish though is broke, saddled with crumbling buildings and the desire to carry on in their current location ministering to the flock through mass and a number of social services.

The church has had an on and off again hope of selling part of their property for development to remain solvent, in their current location, and to keep their church building standing. It had been suggested the rectory could have been moved and a few proposals for condo towers were put forward over the years. They were tall… and never built. (v1 & v2)

Now the church is sitting on a slightly more modest proposal for a 93 unit, 5 story residential building and a new church hall. Now for the controversy. Moving the historic rectory, estimated at $400,000 isn’t a priority for the parish who has no physical use for the building anymore. They have offered it for sale for $1 – but the buyer would be responsible to move, and there haven’t been any takers for that expensive project. The historic building would come down under this plan.

On one side you have the preservationists. Notable members of this camp include Renee Kahn of the Historic Neighborhood Preservation Program & Don Russell, columnist for the Advocate. They are arguing against a historic building & example of Victorian architecture disappearing from the city.

The parish stand is pro development. They need the infusion of cash in order to survive. A new hall is also more conducive to their current work. Other groups, like the DSSD is interested in the idea of more downtown housing the development would bring.

Here’s the question no one has bothered to ask – what will the new building look like? How will it physically relate to the church, the street, the downtown? Will it be attractive and add to an active streetscape? From my perspective, deciding to put up a great building is the answer and could be something that bridges both sides. So far – it doesn’t seem to be a concern to either side.

Pro development seems to be working off the assumption that the building will be shit. Most anything built in American cities after WWII is either uninspired or confounding so it’s a safe assumption. I see no reason though why the RMS building can’t be something that enriches downtown.

The preservationists might have the same fear, but my hunch is the “historic” nature of the building trumps anything that could possibly go in its place for this camp. Don Russell has made the case to keep the murky pond making Mill River Dam on historical grounds. Renee Kahn was involved with getting the “white shoe box on a hill” Lord & Taylor building put on the historic register.

The reality is the owner of the property doesn’t need or want the rectory. The building is “historic” on the grounds it is old – other civic & architectural reasons to grant it that designation are there, but mostly limited. Size, structure, and location limit it’s reuse for other purposes. An equally historic church stands next door in need of repair.

Replace the rectory with a great downtown building. Make that the focus going forward. Stop apologizing like you are dropping some giant turd downtown. Don't position the decision as "people vs. buildings". RMS – show us renderings!