Can’t be the only one who thinks this is a supreme waste of perfectly good buildings.

For a damn prayer garden

While it's somewhat relieving it would be a 'green space' (although I'm not exactly sure what a prayer garden rendering entails or how it contributes to the neighborhood -- will it be public or private?), those buildings are beautiful and I wish they could be retained somehow.

It is depressing the beautiful buildings like that are left to get into such disrepair that it is cost prohibitive to do anything with them.

Check out the prayer garden at the Basilica. It is locked about 100% of the time to keep the homeless people out. Pretty sure that’s how this will end up.

It will also decimate this block, with buildings being retained on either end and the middle buildings gone. It is a contiguous block of houses so not sure the block will make sense without the entire row.

Plus, the majority of the people who are members of this congregation come in from the county and don’t care what happens in the city.

Also, there is a reason that this this row is still standing and it’s because the design of this row exists nowhere else in the city and it’s architecturally significant

You definitely are not.

This is fucking criminal. A Greek Orthodox prayer garden in mt Vernon sounds stupid, and housing is needed. Plus these are beautiful.

Go tear down some delapidated vacants somewhere, not usable building in mt vernon

👎👎👎

They’re structurally compromised though. It sounds like they can’t be saved and are barely standing. Maybe with enough money and a second opinion they could be but in the mean time they do pose a risk to the neighborhood. Tearing them down might be the best option.

You know, the Christian thing to do would be to fix these buildings up and use them to house the homeless, Central American immigrants, Ukrainian refugees, etc. etc. etc.

The Loyola School is a school for children Pre-K2 to 1st grade) whose families make less than $29k/year. The buildings were not approved for classrooms, hence their need to rise 3 buildings.

Cant believe this would be allowed to happen. Mount Vernon usually is pretty strict about shit like this

I’m talking about the Greek Orthodox Church owned buildings. They are demolishing for a prayer garden, not school expansion

[deleted]

Another reason why corporations/churches shouldnt be allowed to own property like this. Absurd that you can run historic properties into the ground and then go oops it must be town down for our benefit.

This is really sad. I’m all for de commercialization but like..people need safe places to live here and mt v is on of the few good and affordable places left not to mention that is beautiful architecture. Sigh.

This narrative that building that are standing can’t be savaged is ridiculous. You put braces up and underpin doesn’t take a world renowned developer to oversee a project like this.

Shows how disconnected churches are from the communities they “serve”.

They are not perfectly good buildings, the article says they are dilapidated and can’t be restored. It says the church was gifted these buildings and has paid a lot of money to try to keep them up, but they are structurally not sound. The other thing to consider is you know what happens when there’s a vacant building in the city. I do think it’s very sad but it is also not right to force the church to keep this up when they are saying it is near impossible.

The article says they have been trying to keep them up and have put a lot of money into them.

Lol it says 10s of thousands of dollars... For several houses over 3 decades. That's like the cost of a new ac unit per house. Your typical homeowner puts more money into their house than that

My understanding (an this is only from limited experience with older buildings in the city) but I think that code enforcement requires they maintain their historic features. So while it might not be unreasonable to repair the structure the historical architecture makes the cost prohibitive. There are only so many companies and skilled workers that can do this kind of work. We ran into this problem in cherry hill a few years ago with my great grandmothers house.

It's like there's a script to follow I'd you want to tear down something in MV: "We'd love to save this old beautiful building that has been entrusted to us, but sadly it's not structurally sound and can't be restored." Worked for the Basilica to tear down the Rochambeau building, worked for the developers of the old Grand Central buildings when they "accidentally" damaged the foundation of the beautiful Italianate mansion behind Grand Central after they were initially denied a permit to tear it down, and it will almost certainly work for these buildings owned and neglected by the Greek Orthodox church that owns them. SMH

Beautiful Italianate building? That building was a shithole and furthermore it wasn’t the developer it was the structural engineers…if anyone is to blame it’s the engineer who didn’t seem to think it was prudent to brace that building.

Shithole? Man you're fucked up, that was a beautiful building. And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell to you cheap if you really believe the developer didn't coordinate that entire fiasco.

Read past that part sounds like a mixed use events space to me weddings etc. If I lived in the area and didn’t want this to happen I think I would asked for an agreement that they not rent the space or no amplified sound from the space if they truly want a prayer garden that would be no problem.

Unfortunately if you’ve got money CHAP has proven to be as spineless and toothless as they come.

Yeah you’re so full of shit, I know people who lived in that building, it was no different than any other mansion converted into apartments in MV up until the developer “accidentally” damaged it beyond repair

Just neglect your property for three decades and magically it's too decrepit to fix, so sad 🤷‍♀️

The "other hardscape improvements" don't sound like green space and I guarantee it won't be open to the public.

Coincidentally the church also happens to own a banquet hall/wedding venue on that block...

Na fuck them, they could sell the properties.

Many/most of the congregation are county residents. Maybe not intentionally, they are giving a middle finger to the neighborhood.

Edit: 5 houses is significant. That will be a gaping hole in that smallish block.

The Archdiocese of Baltimore tore down the 54 unit Rochambeau Apartments for a prayer garden in 2006. The city cannot allow organizations to keep tearing down historic buildings for more "green space" or prayer gardens. Mount Vernon's urban fabric is some of the densest and most historic in the entire city, it makes zero sense to tear even more of it down with no adequate replacement.

The majority of church members live in the counties and don’t give a shit about what happens in the city.

Especially when the “green space” isn’t public.

I live downtown. I walk pass the prayer garden often. It’s open more often than not. You’re a liar.

These stories always bring out the kooks who think a building can be restored to habitability by the power of positive thinking.

Right. People complain just to complain here. People don’t like the ugly vacants, but when something is done to beautify the city, it’s a problem. I swear, everyone loves to complain about change AND the status quo in this city. Hopeless. Miserable. Oblivious. People here can be so weird.

Good. Shit has straight up collapsed in my neighborhood because historical preservation whiners obstructed redevelopment.

For everyone that thinks this is wrong and needs to be preserved, make sure you come out the CHAP meeting when it's date is finalized and make your voice heard!

Midtown-Belvedere doesn't have vacants problem, this is just degrowth.

Unpopular opinion: while seeing history go away is a loss, trying to preserve every single historical building mutates into the NIMBYism that holds America back.

Seriously? I am a liar??? Perhaps I am mistaken, but my understanding is that the garden is kept closed because they do not want the people getting food and services from the church congregating there.

i used to pass the prayer garden twice a day, every day on my walk to and from work--a good 75% of the time it was locked, and the rest of the time it was empty. i was tempted to walk through it a few times, but it's really unwelcoming because it seems like they don't actually want people to use or enjoy it!

someone broke down the cost, and iirc the church has spent about $1750 per building per year on them, which is really barely anything and hardly enough to cover upkeep. they're allowing them to fall into disrepair via neglect, honestly.

not to mention that a lot of this architecture is just plain impossible to replicate in this day and age! some of it is prohibited by zoning, some of it has been made by craftsmen who just don't exist anymore, some of it is just cost prohibitive to build new. this would be a really irreparable loss to historic architecture for the sake of "hard scape space" (a private concrete lot?) and a "prayer garden" in an area with several good sized, public parks within walking distance.

> They are not perfectly good buildings, the article says they are dilapidated and can’t be restored.

No, the article says the church claims they are dilapidated and can’t be restored. So let's just say I'm not just gonna take them at their word on this.

I can't remember who (I think it is Dorsey) is pushing the city to go after religious orgs' tax exemptions on properties that aren't used for religious services. These houses likely fall into that category, while a 'prayer garden' would not...

tearing unique historic buildings that could easily be used for housing down, potentially structurally compromising other historic buildings (it's not easy to tear down just one/one chunk of row houses!) to make a private prayer garden/"hard scape space" (so like... concrete slab?) in the middle of a very dense urban area is the opposite of helpful, though! it's not NIMBYism to say that a tax-exempt, wealthy religious institution with a congregation that comes from mostly outside of the city may not have the priorities or the needs of actual city residents in mind. like sure, if you want to fall into whataboutism what you're saying could feasibly be true somewhere, but the material reality at hand here makes it inapplicable to this situation.

I agree with you. Change in moderation can be revitalizing, even if it's a bit counterintuitive for a historic district. That block in particular feels lifeless. Though instead of demolishing places I wish they would build on top of all of those parking lots in Mount Vernon. It's ridiculous how many there are.

Thx for that, good info to have!

The majority of the time I walk or bike by it is locked. Admittedly it's only once or twice a week. So no, they're not lying.

100% gonna be a parking lot

Cool, they should sell them to someone. It's a unique, historic, dense block of incredible housing that someone could absolutely profit off of redeveloping even if they have to underpin and brace.

There will be one more when they demolish this. They just are being clever by calling it "hardscaping."

Do you have inside knowledge? Have you read the engineers report? Do you have any experience renovating historic buildings and determining which ones can be saved and which can't? If no, why do you have such a strong opinion on the topic?

This isn't redevelopment. This is tearing down 5 historic rowhomes for a private prayer garden. It would be a different story if they planned on building new housing on the lot, but they're not.

Oh no not the owner of the building deciding what to do with it! I better use the power of whining to make sure this rotting shit heap goes untouched until it falls down in a stiff breeze.

Exactly. Not to mention that these houses are blighted beyond repair (even if it doesn’t look like it). That said I do wish they would replace it with additional housing.

Yeah, the fact that it’s housing being replaced with a private park rather than more housing (or even a public park) is what makes this more gray for me. Unfortunately it seems like these cannot be “easily used for housing” due to decay (as opposed to a total teardown and replacement).

Given the expense of all the work it would take to make the buildings actually livable/leasable, there are no buyers willing to take the properties in the state they are in. Believe me when I say they would prefer to sell - they’ve been trying to repair and maintain for nearly three decades, but they can’t afford it much longer, it’s a literal fire hazard, and nobody is buying. Nobody. You may think 100k isn’t a lot for a church, but they aren’t Catholics - each parish must fund itself and be self-sustaining. Every dollar going into those properties is a dollar less for the homeless shelters, soup kitchens, furniture sales/donations, hosting community programs like AA, etc. that the church would prefer to put back into the community.

Yeah, everyone knows people ffs. Except that building wasn't the same as other mansions converted to apartments. The architecture of that building's exterior was fairly unique for B'more and the stonework was still impressive. The interior still had a lot of original details despite the efforts of cheap landlords to screw it up over the years.

They already have two, plus the use of the MedChi lot.

But they'll want 10!

I’m so confused. We went from “about 100% of the time” to “a good 75% of the time” to “the majority of the time,” by someone who concedes to “walk or bike by . . . once or twice a week.” 🙄😒. OK.

A reasonable person could say that the majority of the people in the city “don’t give a shit about what happens in the city.”

from what i've been hearing, the "decay" isn't really that extensive and is really just beyond what the church is willing to put into maintenance! they say they've put like $91,000 into these houses, but that was over the course of several years, which shook out to just a few thousand dollars per year per house (which is way, way less than basic upkeep costs for houses like this should be.) unique, very easily habitable historic properties like this being left empty and neglected by a private entity for the purposes of total demolition is just an entirely different issue than some potential NIMBYism. in a case like this, historic preservation and housing density go hand in hand, because preserving these houses would also preserve density in the neighborhood, and the net benefit would be that a dying form of architecture is preserved and maintained while also being used to its full potential for living space. it's important to evaluate the nuances of each individual situation when we can!

It’s called “Demolition by Neglect” and a lot property owners do that to get around Historic Preservation laws

If you’re tearing it down for a big new building or something that actually benefits the neighborhood, you have a point. But the church wants to flatten these for a “prayer garden”. Quit hollowing out all the neighborhoods for empty space

Totally agree

Ok I will state I don’t know the details of the buildings’ decay - I’m just going off of what I read from the other comments. If what you said is true though, it is symptomatic of Baltimore’s age old problem of absentee landowners not maintaining their properties.

I will admit my initial post was a knee-jerk reaction to seeing this thread, since so many times NIMBYs would use historical preservation as an excuse to block new housing (or transit). But since in this case it’ll result in less nominal housing stock, not more, I can see why this situation would be different.

Reading through your and others’ comments I see your valid points. If this was a public park this would totally fall under “benefits for the whole neighborhood.” But since it’s not then yeah.

Regardless of the percentage of time that it’s open, I almost never see anyone utilizing the space. It’s a complete waste, and I remember when there used to be actual housing there.

So much for the church serving the people 🙄

They put $91,000 into 5 rowhouses in the 3 decades they owned them in a neighborhood where rowhouses that are properly renovated go for $1 million+. 5 rowhouses that they got for a gift they could sell for pennys on the dollar and recoup the money they put in easily.

This only supports my point that the building wasn’t a shithole

Interestingly enough, the Archdiocese of Baltimore has several charities that deal in housing, education, healthcare, and food security. We are, of course, a nation of laws. The Church has a constitutional right to do with its property as it pleases, within the bounds of local zoning laws. I’m sure the Church does not consider it a waste of space. Otherwise, it would not have built it. If I were upset about this, I’d be displeased with my elected officials than private entities. Perhaps their intervention could have prevented this. But, I’m not from here; my rationale is obviously out of place here.

Have a blessed holiday season.

I mean they’re currently vacant and boarded up, I have a really hard time believing the assessor would be valuing them so significantly that the church would find it cheaper to tear them down to pay some measly property tax values in a hypothetical situation that hasn’t happened yet

i understand the reaction! i feel like as someone in the building trades i feel both suspicious of NIMBYs and YIMBYs at times—typically restoring historic housing in streetcar cities and row house neighborhoods is a better move than tearing it down and replacing it with rickety, cheaply made 5-over-ones, because inadequate housing is nearly as bad as no housing at all and i know firsthand how quickly shitty new "luxury" housing falls to moisture issues and mold and mildew, how its thin walls make life hell for people (and their heating/cooling costs), and how they encourage short-stay tenancy for young couples and single people rather than providing long term family housing. i think most people don't go that deep into the minutia and i don't fault them for being as boring as i am, but i do definitely get passionate about it! row homes and historic houses like this are fantastic for housing density without encouraging too much car dependency (bc too much car dependency leads to an actual lack of true density bc things like schools and grocery stores are pushed too far away to access on foot/via public transport bc of parking needs, so cost of living goes up, etc etc etc, shit, i'm rambling again) so my drive for density is also coupled with a strict need for dignity/quality of life for low income residents. lots of things in the balance!! i get heated!! sorry for the massive walls of text there! this situation is a mess, damn

Idk why everyone is getting so mad at the church here. The church is not obliged to renovate & refurbish vacant, boarded up buildings at their own expense because we think they look pretty. I like them too, but unless we’re gonna crowdfund the repairs I don’t see the point of just letting blighted building rot

What even is the insinuation here lol? You think the church decided years ago that it wanted a garden so badly it needed to purposely let these buildings rot and cross their fingers the zoning board would approve their changes?

My mistake, I totally misread your comment. All apologies here.

It is also entirely possible the church didn’t have a shit ton of money laying around to pump into these buildings. Their revenue is probably some donations and the offering at their services, they’re probably not just sitting on millions of dollars to renovate and refurbish random property. This isn’t like the Catholic Church owns it

That makes the assumption the church has the (likely) hundreds of thousands of dollars in capital needed to renovate and refurbish these properties so that they’re livable for the aforementioned folks.

Then sell them. They had 3 decades to make that decision. Like what's the argument here? It's crazy to just sit on huge houses like this when there is a shortage of housing in that neighborhood. Some developer I'm sure would have loved to chip the houses up into multi family apartments or homes

Okay, maybe the church is full of evil, conniving people. Or, hear me out:

The church was gifted these buildings and probably had plans or ideas for what they could do with them. Due to limited funds or declining congregation sizes, they probably realized they didn’t have the money to support that. However, it’s still property nearby that they wouldn’t be able to purchase down the road if it was in private hands, so they figured it was probably best to just keep the properties until the church had more resources, because the opportunity wouldn’t present itself again. However, the problems grew bigger and as such, got more expensive. Fast forward to today, and the church realizes it’s fruitless to keep this property but due to the condition of the buildings, it likely wouldn’t be beneficial to keep them either. So they decide they could be torn down and converted into something relatively cheap and easy to maintain, aka an outdoor plaza that requires minimal maintenance compared to aging buildings.

I’m not saying every decision the church made was amazing or that they’re strategized particularly well, but I feel as though people here are being very, very presumptuous and just immediately jumping to accuse the church of nefarious activity when it’s likely that they just made poor, if well-intentioned, choices

Bro this isn't some local church strapped for cash. It has 560 parishes and 500k members. Why you defending this so hard?

Because I’ve yet to hear a compelling argument from the other side. I’m supposed to believe the church wanted a garden so badly that they concocted this decades long scheme to let the buildings deteriorate that completely hinged upon getting approval to tear them down from the preservation/zoning board?

You do realize that is exactly what is happening all around the city right? Like this isn't a new thing. Developers have been buying up and leaving thousands of houses across the city. It's not that the church is evil they are just engaging in the same bullshit as every other scummy developer in the city. Except they are doing it in the affluent part of the city.

Rochambeau all over again. Fuck the churches man, no respect for the city and its heritage

You're really on one about this for some reason, but the difference between you and a church or, say, JHU, is that a tax-exempt entity has every incentive to acquire adjacent property without a plan to use it, because there's no cost to carry it until a plan is developed.

And if those properties should fall into disrepair before there's a plan to use them, so much the better--I'm guessing JHU's going to hear a lot less opposition about whatever they decide to build at the corner of 29th & Maryland now that it's just a vacant lot than they would've while the houses were still habitable.

CHAP has failures in both directions.

quite clearly, I stand corrected.

then sell all but one and work on that one. I would gladly pay $100k for one of those, even if it meant major renovations inside.

I have rehabbed houses and seen many rehabbed. these are totally salvageable. row-houses in fed hill have gotten their basements dug, foundations underpinned, stripped to the brick, floors raised, new stairs put in, new roof, all new plumbing, all new electrical, exterior walls strapped and more for less than $200k. these places would definitely be worth more than that if they had the same treatment. calling them structurally unsound is bullshit because it's actually quite easy to reinforce walls and foundations and to repoint bricks.

they can sell them. they could partner with a developer to renovate them and rent them out. there is no reason to tear them down. these houses would be snatched up in a heartbeat if they were to sell them. they would have 20 years ago and they would be today. they church isn't required to let them fall apart, that was a choice they made, and there is still time to save the buildings if they would just sell them.

I'm about as anti-NIMBY as it gets, but this is complete horse shit. those buildings would go for hundreds of thousands of dollars each and a developer would make them structurally sound and sell or rent them, preserving the nicer than average architecture. cutting out a bunch of buildings from the center of a block and putting ugly concrete block along the occupied ones will be a net negative to everyone.

how about the church auctions them off. if nobody bids on them, they can tear them down.

these should absolutely not be torn down. the Loyola School one was different, though. they only wanted to demolish the rear part that was already a later addition. they also wanted to do it to make a school for low income and immigrant children, which is a much better cause than an empty plot of grass.

I say the church should auction them off. if they're really too far gone, nobody will bid. but we all know the church is full of shit and someone would definitely want these and be able to renovate and reinforce them. it's not actually that expensive to reinforce Baltimore row houses.

Unfortunately for you I was very involved with that entire thing and the destruction of that ancillary building was a fucking fiasco for the project.

Maintaining or replicating trim or wood windows on front facades have no structural effect. Just maintaining the front facade and underpinning with cinder blocks or wood framing. There’s grants for these type of projects as well.

I think residents are purposely mislead into thinking preservation is more difficult than it is to allow agencies to have discretion for demolition. If non developers knew everything could be preserved and isn’t cost prohibitive the political pressure to keep architecture would be too great to overcome.

Agreed.

I live in Charles Village and St. Philip and James has a prayer garden that is supposed to be 'open.'

I tried eating a sack lunch there since it's across the street from my job and was kicked out in less than 5 minutes.

I wouldn't hold my breath that a new church's prayer garden will be much different.

Fuck outta here

[removed]

This is a Greek Orthodox Church, with a specific focus on that specific community. They don’t have any more specific obligation to serve people located nearby than a Korean Presbyterian church in Lagos or an African AME church in Reykjavik would. And that’s just staying within the generally Christian sense of a religious community.

I think the bigger (and only) issue is that it’s a tax exempt institution that appears to primarily serve people outside the city, and wishes to make architectural/zoning changes to buildings that are completely separate from infrastructure critical to the functioning of the institution itself, and the changes (at least seem to) negatively impact the neighborhood without providing any tangible benefit. That’s it.

One thing to also keep in mind — if we value the Greek Church structure itself historically, somebody has to maintain it, and those funds have to come from somewhere…

To everyone talking about affordable housing — it’s unlikely these buildings themselves would provide affordable housing if rehabbed; the benefit would come from increasing the total supply of housing in the immediate vicinity.

(edited partially in light of kermelie’s comments below)

Yes, a different poster (me) than the one you called a liar said they had a different experience (that's still with the property being locked frequently).

Hope that clears it up for you.

This is before my time here, so can’t comment specifically. I will only offer that they also provide substantial services and refuge to homeless folks through their facility on the other end of the block. It’s a different kind of benefit, and perhaps things don’t really net out in that way, but it bothers me less.

If the price is right, there are buyers. But if they don’t even try to sell…

[deleted]

Not sure where you disagree with me but I don’t disagree with any of your points.

Well the only party here in the article claiming they are 'dilapidated' is the parry that wants to tear them down for redevelopment. If that's all the proof you require to believe it.... wanna buy a bridge, trust me bro?

These buildings were gifted to the church, so they were essentially free. The church has no incentive to repair the buildings, rather, they can now have a large outdoor space for a pretty low cost.

The request to raze these buildings should be denied. Instead, the church can sell them and use the $ to improve its own building or pad its savings account. Or perform more Christian outreach to whatever community it seeks to serve.

TL:DR - the church doesn’t care about these buildings bc it didn’t pay for them. Make church sell buildings to somebody with $ who does care.

Of course you were. Now make me an offer on that bridge...

> This is a Greek Orthodox Church, with a specific focus on that specific community.

True.

> They have no more specific obligation to “serve” people located nearby

Not true. They actually do, ethically speaking, just not legally. (ETA: meaning their obligation is due to the religion to which they belong, not due to any contract or state or federal laws.) And they do - there’s a “Loaves and Fishes” program that makes food for local soup kitchens and shelters, pre-pandemic we had an active food and clothes bank running from the church itself that’s starting to get back on its feet, Weekend Backpacks delivered to city schools with cereal and canned goods to send home with city students who are food insecure, AA meetings in the church to serve the immediate area, leftover furniture from the annual flea market fundraiser donated to organizations to furnish homes for low income renters… not to mention straight monetary donations to local non-religious organizations. Like I get people on reddit are generally anti-religious, but there are a lot of assumptions in this thread that are entirely off-base from the actual reality.

Yeah you’re probably right. I hardly know enough about tax assessment here to know. tax exempt orgs sitting on vacants is a separate and remarkable problem, too.

Just to be clear, your theory is that the church actually has been spending money to properly maintain these buildings over the past few decades and that they’re in perfectly adequate condition, but that the church decided it needed a garden so badly that it’s decided to fabricate this whole story of the buildings being dilapidated? Yeah ok.

I already couched the explanation within the Christian tradition and the examples I mention speak to the dual religious-ethnic focus of similar communities.

And while I think you already mean this, I think it’s more apt to say that they have a “religious” or “ethics-religious” obligation, not a generally ethical obligation, but I’m starting to split hairs ;-)

You’re conflating redeveloping property into a profit-making building versus a garden. Not the same

Hey, apologies — I read into your comment too much. Edited my comment partially to reflect that. Thanks.

Make it an indoor prayer garden and spare the houses. They're pretty nice, and Baltimore absolutely does not need decent buildings to disappear. There's way too much crap in the city, yet the good things make the city intriguing enough to stick with it.

It's just more lackluster civic pride by Baltimore's movers and shakers. OTOH, there's always lack of resources as well, as those houses cost $$$ to maintain. This is why I get so exercised over the massive diversion of resources to DC. If some of that stream came to Baltimore, there would be enough money to save those houses and keep them in top condition.

I don't have any 'theory' other than I require 3rd party confirmation of claims other than from the party most benefiting from the claim. Just like I wouldn't 'trust' a used car dealer about the state of a car until I got another mechanic to look it over.

But hey, you do you. Believe those Amazon reviews, don't get a house you're looking to buy inspected (just trust the seller) and please DM me about some land I have to sell. It never floods.

Fair. I wasn’t arguing with you so much as using your comment (which I only had the minor picky issue with) as a springboard to try to correct presumptions made by others in this thread. It’s just really disheartening to be constantly compared to the Catholic churches, or a mega-church, or some tax shelter for county residents when none of that is true. It’s plenty expensive maintaining the historic structure of the cathedral itself (built in the 1880s by Protestants, 50 or so years later left to rot after that parish had financial issues before being bought and restored by Annunciation). People are acting like these buildings were ever remotely habitable in the time the church has had them (nope, at least not without massive amounts of money being sunk into them) and that the hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to restore them is something that a self-sufficient church just has (it does not).

I understand people’s concerns with historic value and architectural character. Maybe with the threat of razing the buildings, perhaps UB or another local institution with far more resources might now consider buying them (when they haven’t wanted to previously), and honestly there are plenty of folks in the parish that would prefer to rid themselves of the burden entirely.

Point taken; thanks.

And to be clear, I have no issue with the (claimed) assertion that the majority of the members of that community tend to live in the county rather than the city. It’s only nominally relevant to the question at hand, and I am generally in favor of people from the county having some relationship to the city, whatever the form that may take, and vice versa for city residents. The city/county distinction is rather arbitrary in Baltimore.

Who knew that followers of Christ could pick and choose which communities they served. I thought Christ showed by travel preaching all over, providing relief to those in need that it was their mission.

So wherever you go, make disciples of all nations: Baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Matthew 28:19

I don’t think 91k for 5 four story buildings even qualify that they took diligent care. It probably took that amount to secure the buildings. 91k won’t even rehab a three story row house in the city.

Then the poster tells you to have a “blessed” holiday season after obnoxiously calling you a liar. Gotta love the nice nasty Christians 😂

You’re being so facetious right now that it’s absurd. Nobody, and I mean nobody, is saying to not verify their claim. But your allegations still seem unlikely at best.

They were founded by immigrants. They chose to stay in the spot those immigrants established and continue to give back to the city in which these congregants still have a spiritual home. Are you saying they should just be transient evangelists? They baptize people in the Trinity - they’re Trinitarian, and also don’t rebaptize other Trinitarian converts. I don’t understand your point.

Are they Christians? Are they followers of Christ? Do they use the Bible as a source of Knowledge? Because I listed the Christian scripture Matthew 28:19 that is attributed to Christ as a commandment to ALL Christians. I thought the Greek Orthodox Church was Christian in foundation. Christian means followers of Christ. How can any Christian, believe they don’t have an obligation to those around them. That’s the tenet of Christ himself. I didn’t say they should be traveling evangelist.

Just a correction: The Greek Orthodoxy was founded by Christ’s Apostles.

>How can any Christian, believe they don’t have an obligation to those around them.

So here’s why I’m confused, because you responded to my comment in which I literally listed the various ministries in the community from this one particular parish that results from such a religious obligation.

Old Testament came before the Church (of course), the Church started with Christ (rather a given, there), and the growth of the early Church coincided with writing the New Testament (see epistles), and the Church later codified all those into the Bible. Scripture and tradition (handed down starting from Christ, then thus to the apostles [see Pentacost], and so on and so forth) are considered inseparable in Orthodoxy. So yes, we follow scripture since it’s an integral part of Christianity. I’m still not seeing your point.

The confusion is there because you took my comment as disagreement when I agree that the church has an obligation to the community around it vs the commenter who posted this church has no obligation to the community. Apologies for the confusion. I listed the scripture to show that the church has a responsibility to the community around it. Not legally but ethically and definitely binding by Christ command.

Ah! Understood now, thank you for clarifying. There are a lot of misconceptions flying around elsewhere in this comment section, so I was already feeling a little defensive, but it is definitely still my fault for presuming negative intentions; please forgive me.

I understand. Don’t be defensive though. Many people are misinformed but become aware through your grounded debate. When dealing with Christian matters I add evidence text so people can’t refute especially since the Bible is the foundation of Christianity. I don’t get into doctrine debates only the words that are attributed to Christ words. Keep on teaching!

I walked by these buildings today, and know the block well. I also slipped behind the alley to check how deep the lot is and check the buildings’ condition.

In short, it’s a disaster. These units are all extremely narrow, and the lot is very shallow — so shallow that one can’t really extend the structure to the rear, in part because there’s little option to include needed fire egress and windows, both due to the inherent shallowness of the lot and another structure directly abutting the lot behind it (keep in mind, code requires all bedrooms to have a window).

Literally the only thought I had when looking at the back was “holy shit”. There’s no amount of money you could pay me to convince me to walk into those buildings. Substantial parts of the rear exterior brick walls have actually collapsed up through multiple floors, with open views to the deteriorating interior — a majority of the floor joists have likely been rotted out for many, many years, and general damage looks to be multiple decades old — perhaps even predating the donation to the church. Was there a fire here many years ago?

I would also be shocked if the roof were salvageable at all, from what I can see. Large sections obviously collapsed long long ago.

Anyone renovating this structure is facing a complete demolition and rebuild of everything except the facade, and in the end, I don’t think you can squeeze more than 5 extremely narrow and relatively shallow row homes out of this, or perhaps 6-10 smaller apartments. I also suspect you would need to dedicate the current middle house to a central lobby and stairwell, further reducing your options. You could conceivably build more by extending upwards, but then you require an elevator ($$$) and have to engage in some post modern architectural features up top. The lot is situated such that retaining the facade AND trying to get large machinery and equipment in there would be extremely difficult, if not impossible.

This project would cost SEVERAL hundred thousand dollars, not unlikely pushing over the $1M mark, for a small handful of relatively awkward 1BR or studio units. At the same time, the Church’s already functioning center on that block is identical in style and represents at least half of the current total linear street footage of total structures in question (especially once taking into account the Preston Street side).

I’m all for expansion of residence options in this neighborhood and preservation of historical structures, but this lemon really just doesn’t seem to be worth the squeeze to me, and demolition still retains a substantial portion of the historical architectural heritage.

I also don’t subscribe to the notion that “gaps” on a block are inherently problematic — that’s an unnecessary and unfounded broad strokes aesthetic assertion, or at least one that’s highly dependent on individual context at best.

Feel free to see my comment below after visually inspecting the rear of this particular structure.

Feel free to see my comment on the state of the building below after visually inspecting it from behind.

I went ahead and visually inspected the buildings, comments below. In short, these buildings are in a frightful state, and have likely been like that for many many years.

I’m not making any allegations, I’m just not believing theirs without further proof. Now would you like to buy a 2003 Honda Accord with only 465,877 miles? Runs perfect, never had a problem. Cash only and you can’t see it first. I mean you wouldn’t ‘make allegations’ against me by not believing me right.

I really don’t think they are. Feel free to see my comments below after viewing the property from behind.

Buddy the analogy is not really working since nobody said you can’t check on the status of the buildings. I encourage the city to do that. So you’re just not really making the point you think you are. The fact that a possibility exists this church is lying (which you’ve yet to give a credible reason for) does not mean it’s likely.

if they really aren't, the church should be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for being a public nuisance because we all know that if they sold them, they would have been turned into apartments or homes and been salvaged decades ago. that is a high rent part of town and it's obvious they intentionally let them fall apart.

They haven't listed the properties, so it's really impossible to say if there are any buyers.

Oh that's good to know

I agree with you absolutely especially when it's not for the public to use.

Fix up the houses (somebody) and use them for people to live in.

[deleted]

OK. You’ve obviously left the world of the reasonable at this point. No thanks.

Yes. How often would it even be used? From a practical sense it's pretty clear that these houses need to be rebuilt.

I do wonder why they were given to the church in the first place?

That's the thing. This doesn't seem to be well thought out. From the looks of it it appears to be holding onto the land for the sake of holding on to the land.

The last thing that neighborhood needs is even MORE concrete. Fix the houses up sell them and be done with it.

I read your comment and appreciate your observations for sure. But to be clear, is this an area of expertise for you? Because I also saw a comment from a person who does this as their work professionally.

Hmm. I was thinking the same thing to be honest.

Setting the example really goes a long way after all. But dishonesty and taking advantage of others is definitely not Godly.

I have nothing but respect for them from a religious standpoint. My contention is merely where it comes to the houses and what they plan to do with them.

Why did they acquire the homes in the first place and did they originally have an intent to rehab them?

Which raises the question of why they would accept or hold onto properties if they do not have the means of repairing them?

If anything selling those properties would make available more funds that could be used to maintain their building and to assist others as they have been doing.

Please forgive me if I have said anything wrong.

If they don't have the money to renovate and refurbish the properties then why not be rid of them in the first place? If I'm missing something please clear it up

Agreed

Which raises the very big question of why these particular properties were allowed to deteriorate to this point in the first place?

someone else mentioned that wall in the back has collapsed, which certainly does complicate things from when I wrote this. I still think it could be saved, but once a wall goes, it's much harder because you have to get a structural engineering company to make sure it's safe to work on. if it's not safe to work on, it's much harder. I'm so irritated that the church would let them get that far gone.

Why did they accept those buildings in the first place then?

That block loses a large chunk of it's irreplaceable historic features if those buildings aren't preserved.

Ok, thanks for the update. My question now becomes: "What condition were those buildings in when they were first given to the church?"

If they were already in poor condition why did that happen in the first place and why would they be allowed to be dumped on someone else?

they were definitely in fine condition for a long time. google photography shows they were not collapsed brick in the back until recently. someone probably sat on them, as Baltimore deadbeat homeowners do, hoping property values would go up. then they probably donated to make the tax write-off. the church was fine with just letting them collapse because the ~90k they've paid over the years is well worth it for a nice empty lot they can use to bring in more revenue for weddings.

It was a donation from a parishioner, along with the second parking lot across from MedChi. There were initially hopes to be able to use the buildings for something, but the money wasn’t there and really hasn’t been there to be able to do anything substantial with them.

Quoting myself from another reply: >It was a donation from a parishioner, along with the second parking lot across from MedChi. There were initially hopes to be able to use the buildings for something, but the money wasn’t there and really hasn’t been there to be able to do anything substantial with them.

As for why accept… the church is not in the habit of turning down donations. They wouldn’t be able to survive if they were.

[deleted]

[deleted]

>big developer, or some luxury apartment builder which we actually don’t want either

Who is we? I 100% would want luxury apartments or a big developer building in Mount Vernon instead of demolition and a prayer garden or surface lot. Are you kidding me with this?