First United Methodist Demolition Coming Faster ( 8. July 2006, 08:09 by Derek Young) ~
In an apparent bid to head of preservation efforts, ownership of the First United Methodist Church has been passed back to the church.
Background from the Washington Trust for Historic Preservation:
Frederick Heath, a prominent architect in Tacoma, designed First United Methodist to accommodate 1,150 people, making it one of the largest sanctuaries in the Northwest at the time of its completion. In addition to holding worship services, the church served as a hospital during a flu epidemic and as a community meeting hall, hosting speakers such as William Jennings Bryan and Clarence Darrow. First United is one of a cluster of historic churches surrounding Wright Park in the Hilltop Neighborhood. Collectively, these structures provide a richly layered narrative about the social and economic development of Tacoma.
MultiCare has purchased the building from the congregation and now plans on tearing it down to put in a new emergency room. Public outcry was starting to complicate the plans of MultiCare and the congregation. The Washington Trust for Historic Preservation put the church on their list of endangered places for 2006 and even announced the list in front of the church. Then it gets more interesting. This week the ownership was handed back to the congregation. So, according the article, a 1996 state Supreme Court ruling exempts churches from historic status against their wishes. By passing ownership back to First United Methodist, the congregation will take care of stripping the building and demolishing it. Demolition could come as soon as early October. Check. Check mate? We’ll see.
Link to The News Tribune
Commenting Is Closed
Comments are allowed for two weeks from the posted date. If you want to make a comment or reopen this discussion, please contact us with your request. Thank you for visiting.
I was wondering what was going on with the now green Bekins storage building on Tacoma Ave- FUMC has been getting it ready for them to use as a church.
Looks like the current owners paid $1.3M about a year ago and now sold it to FUMC for $2.4M – not a bad return!
Still, I hate to see a perfectly fine commercial building taken off the tax roles.
Hmmm… an old storage warefouse being used as a church… there’s a story in there somewhere…
1 | Posted by morgan | Jul 8, 08:33 AM
As a local Methodist, I find the future of FUMC (known as First Church)exciting. This church believes in Tacoma, in a very real way. They run one of the most active foodbanks out of the basement. For the congregation, the finances of maintaining the building have become a burden. With the sale of the old building, coupled with the purchase of their new home, the church will be able to continue the fulfillment of their call to social justice while allowing them to expand their activities. The movement will be a good thing for the city. It may not bring in tax dollars, but it will bring help to a section of our population that needs it. It’s the human improvement we need if this city is to fully blossom.
3 | Posted by Jane | Jul 8, 10:50 AM
Here is a quote from the story:
“Bernstein said MultiCare architects will show drawings that do not save the sanctuary in one piece. But she added MultiCare is interested in talking about preserving portions of the building.”
I hope they can maintain the facade at least.
Unfortunately, it is usually more economically efficient to simpy tear down old buildings. Tacoma has already lost a slew of them.
The fundamental question is how can the rights of individual owners be balanced with Tacoman’s interest to have some of Tacoma’s character and historic buildings preserved?
Social justice, in the Methodist tradition, is a call to working in a way to make the world we live in equitable to all. Each of us does this in a different way. First Church has established many ways to do this. I do understand the the importance of managing the social/material fabric of our community, as do the members of First Church and the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church.
Stewardship is a good thing to talk about. Stewardship requires that we have to admit when we cannot maintain something. In this case, it’s a matter of the congregation maintaining the building with the finances available to them. To keep the building up, it would require that they close the food bank and other services they provide to the community. For the church, this is poor stewardship of what they have. The decision was not made easily by the members of this church, or the Pacific Northwest Annual Conference.
I wonder, those who are so upset about this building being sold to the hospital, when was the last time you were in the building? When was the last time you gave money to the congregation for upkeep? Are you willing to foot the bill to keep the building safe in earthquakes? Are you aware of the other issues the congregation has to deal with concerning the building, and are you willing to help them tend to those concerns?
Jane:
Yes, I’m fully aware of the issues at work, and have spoken to many people directly involved in the battle to save this building on the inside and out of the congregation. FUMC did not come to the city or community in advance for help, did not reach out to organizations like Partners for Sacred Spaces, stonewalled the historic preservation community and commission in Tacoma, and allowed flawed studies of the building’s condition guided by Multicare to sway their decisions. It was completely against the spirit of the congregation’s responsibility to the community.
FUMC wanted out and Multicare gave them the money to blow part of our history away. Social justice?
I appreciate what happens in FUMC. I happen to know folks involved with several organizations based out of the build(s). Not too long ago though I went there for the first time for a meeting. Expecting to find paint peeling off the wall and walls collapsing, I found the interior to be very well kept- if a little worn. Nothing unusual for an old church.
What strikes me though in this dialog is the apparent disconnect in the minds of some in the congregation between what happens IN the building and the building itself – as if the two are unrelated. It appears that we (Tacoma) have still not learned the importance historic buildings and how to hold on to them. Did the Hilltop improve after an entire block was bulldozed to make way for the Rite-Aid building? Are we better off now with a massive building that takes up one quarter of a block with nearly three quarters of a block devoted to surface parking? I seriously doubt it!
There are (were) many options available to the First Church congregation for maintaining their building. It seems like it’s too late for FUMC, but I hope other churches actively seek other options before deciding that bulldozing is their best one.
8 | Posted by morgan | Jul 9, 10:53 AM
It would be nice if a new bidder came and everyone slowed down just a little to considered different options rather than a demolition:
New bid could be historic church’s salvation. Developer’s offer may save it from the wrecking ball
By KATHY MULADY
P-I REPORTER
Seemingly destined for demolition, the historic First United Methodist Church in downtown Seattle may yet be rescued, with a preservationist developer sweetening its offer for the 100-year-old building even as the deadline neared for the church to confirm its sale for a teardown.
So far, the congregation apparently hasn’t been given the details of the latest, $23.2 million offer from developer Nitze-Stagen.
Could the same happen in Tacoma.
At any rate, I think the recent tear down trend of Tacoma landmarks needs some pro-active response.
It is mentioned that First Church did not go to the community for help. What type of help? Are there community members who are willing to pledge to make monthly payments for the maintaing of the electricity, water and heat? You state that First Church used faulty reports. I saw the reports—I served on the committee for the PNWAC of the Methodist Church that deals with property; the reports compiled were done by a reputable company and pointed out several serious issues, among them the retrofitting of the building for earthquake safety. What is the evidence that the reports presented were faulty?
It seems that there are those that believe the congregation should take on financial strain simply for the sake of keeping an historic building. While I believe in the importance of saving history, I must also balance that with services needed in the community.
First Church did not want out of the building. First Church wanted a way to have a home in which they could continue their services and not continually worry about finances. Do you know that the average attendance on Sundays at First Church is 85? How can this group of people be expected to keep a building for the city?
Those that do not want to see the building gone need to come up with real finances, for a very long time, to keep the building as a real source of service to the community. A building that houses nothing does nothing for the community.
11 | Posted by Jane | Jul 9, 03:52 PM
“Do you know that the average attendance on Sundays at First Church is 85? How can this group of people be expected to keep a building for the city?”
Wow – 85 is a subtantial number! I wonder over the past 100 years or so how many others have passed through the church- that number would be staggering, I’m sure.
Does the church have an endowment program? One would think that if even a small percentage of previous congregations would have left gifts to the church in the form of real estate or money, operations could be paid in part from just earned interest alone…
12 | Posted by morgan | Jul 9, 04:29 PM
Jane:
I think that you reveal the core issue here. Your congregation is dying. FUMC believes that the sale of their building will produce a lifeline that will help revitalize your flock. That won’t happen, and for reasons that have nothing to do with architectural preservation. I’d suggest you read Philip Jenkins, The Next Christendom, to understand why. In the end, you will have neither a flock or an architectural legacy to remind us that you were once here.
Your answers beg most of my questions. Did FUMC make the study of their building available to other experts? Not to my knowledge. Did they approach the wider community for financial support? No. Did they reach out to the historical preservation community for ideas and support? On the contrary, they refused to speak with them, lest they provide alternatives contrary to your preferences.
The earthquake retrofitting is also a red herring. What percentage of houses of worship, public buildings, or homes are earthquake retrofitted? There was no need to do this, but by listing it as some kind of regulatory necessity you were able to make it appear as though the building were beyond repair. By your logic, most churches in Tacoma should be torn down, since they are old and wouldn’t stand up to an earthquake well. Indeed, most of our houses should similarly be demolished.
In the end, of course, you’ve won this battle. But please don’t expect the community to thank you for destroying our—and your—sacred past.
The alarming new factor in the civic conversation about FUMC Tacoma is that the congregation is colluding with MultiCare to develop a legal manuver around historic preservation protections. I think many of us accepted the burdon the building represented for the congregation and understood how valuable the MultiCare $$ would be in pursuing their social mission. Their concept of social justice is my own and I celebrate the work they do.
But what MultiCare-a $billion per year corporation in a very competitive industry-is attempting to do is create a blueprint for bypassing social responsibility and ethics related to conserving the built environment and communicating with neighbors about awesome physical change. The strategy they are following requires the cooperation of a religious organization willing to work as an agent on their behalf. MultiCare becomes owner of the historic building but averts responsibility by handing it transparently back to FUMC.Its akin to U.S. corporations that conduct business from offshore republics in order to evade envornmental protection laws and income taxes.
So much of this is kept in secret-the terms of the purchase agreement, the vote by congregants and the ballot title and speeches at that vote, the actions FUMC has committed to on behalf of MultiCare. It is clear however that FUMC has not simply stiffened it spine to take the unwanted step of selling their beloved building in order to have money to advance their social mission. FUMC is willing to partner with a huge copration in creating a formula for evading landmark protections. They are willing to demolish their own building and in so doing demonstrate how any private property owner can circumvent public interest in historic places. When the people conducting the business of the Methodist Church took the building’s title back solely to asure its destruction I think they forgot the social justice goal that justified this whole mess.
Makes me wonder what FUMC expects to find in the rubble and ashes of their ruined church? Less perhaps than they counted on.
14 | Posted by Michael | Jul 10, 11:15 AM
If as much energy were spent on dealing with hunger and homelessness as is put into wanting to keep a building, we would not have the problems. I am dumbfounded that a building is put in higher esteem than people. That’s the bottomline for me.
None of those complaining loudly have spent one dime to help the church, or stepped inside the building other than for a community meeting.
I do not see a way to resolve the disagreement. I understand the love of historic buildings; I just don’t value them more than people. Those who want the building preserved will not see anything other than deceit in how First Church operated in this matter. For that I am sorry; they did not collude with the hospital.
15 | Posted by Jane | Jul 10, 12:26 PM
Just as an aside, Jane, I’m glad you’re sticking around and feeding the discussion. I’m firmly in the preservationist column, but I appreciate your thoughtful insights a lot.
I sincerely hope that, even if FUMC does not grow in membership in a future location, that they are indeed making a choice that will allow their budget more flexibility to serve the community in ways that will help people. I just slightly question whether this is the reality.
I find the tactics of MultiCare pretty disturbing in their blatant manipulation of the rules as to historic designation. I hope that FUMC will work with preservationist groups, social services groups, and the community in general to look at the options and see if there is a way all can benefit, if it’s not too late.
Jane:
You’ve avoided answering the questions we’ve asked and resorted instead to questioning our values.
Talking about “putting people before buildings” is a false dilemma. It’s not a zero-sum game; we can have and serve both. I fear your option will mean that your congregration in the end will have neither. Time will tell.
You can’t blame us for “not spending one dime to save the church” when you never asked the community for financial or, indeed, any other support. Those of us who tried to reach out were rebuffed. The conclusion I drew from your church’s stonewalling was that you were uninterested in a transparent community conversation—in other words, the very social justice model you and others have used as the rationale (among others) for destroying the building.
If there is to be a silver lining in this situation, it will be if other churches learn from this case to reach out to the community when times get tough. My understanding is that the Christian Science Church just by FUMC, for example, is talking about landmark status for their own building, moved in part by the example of FUMC.
That’s my last comment on the matter.
“My understanding is that the Christian Science Church just by FUMC, for example, is talking about landmark status for their own building, moved in part by the example of FUMC.”
That’s nice to hear.
There are actually quite a few stories about historic churches in Seattle and Tacoma being saved by everyone working together.
However, it takes time and patience and a look to the long term for the community.
Patrick,
I am not a member of First Church; I am a member of the Pacific Northwest Annual conference. I did not, at any point, say I was a member of the congregation. I do not have all of the answers to your questions, because I am not a member of the congregation. My experience is different from yours. I understand that this action will leave many people angry and hurt. For that I am sorry. Time alone will tell if this is a good move or not.
19 | Posted by Jane | Jul 10, 09:07 PM
Churches in our society are extended certain privilages such as freedom from taxes and exception from government regulation. In exchange, we recognize that they pursue an extraordinary role, that of providing spiritual comfort, chariety and social conscience.
It is one of the delicate, even gracful ways we as a community see to our well being. It is a wonderful expression of good faith that we make as a collective-a social contract that we all depend on and something that should not be abused.
When MultiCare borrowed the privlages of FUMC Tacoma to circumvent the protections we observe for our cultural heritage and environmental quality they both violated that good faith. The local paper called it “hard ball” in this morning’s editorial.
Its difficult not to become cynical about FUMC and MultCare’s social mission when they are so willing disregard conservation concerns. More shelter, social assistance and comfort for the needy is provided in old buildings than new. The older buildings in Tacoma provide a much larger share of social services than the freshly built, convient parking available, suburbs. Its the solid old buildings that provide affordable places for those among us who have little money and status.
When you come down on the tools that help conserve usable but aged buildings and structures its not the wealthy and indifferent that are affected most severely. And when you resort to hard ball in advancing not only your own wants but those of every other developer who comes along wanting to erase a historic or unused building, there’s not high moral about people over buildings to hide behind.
FUMC could have sold the building, got the $$ and then hoped that MultiCare would fully explore whether it could be reused in conjunction with new construction in the parking lot and 60’s addition property. By serving as demo contractor for MultiCare, they indeed set out on a social mission, one that might well be counter to the people and values they both serve.
20 | Posted by Michael | Jul 11, 08:39 AM
I’m gratified to hear this level of civic engagement around this issue. Others have expressed many of my concerns, but I am dismayed by the church’s willingness to take on “the burden” of demolition. The state Supreme Court case upon which MultiCare’s tactics rely are different than the situation we are in now. In Seattle, the church has retained ownership. In Tacoma, ownership is being transferred back and forth to blatantly circumvent public process.
Well… it seems about time to establish a non-profit devoted to preserving Tacoma’s architectural heritage… not just the high style, but the vernacular and neighborhoods. We hope you’ll join the discussion on July 20th, 5:30pm in the Olympic Room at Tacoma Public Library.
21 | Posted by sharon | Jul 12, 01:22 PM
MultiCare must to do a much better job recognizing the needs of the neighborhood. Preserving the FUMC should be a priority of the hospital. Architecturally it is a treasure; acoustically it is a great venue. It enganges the street corner in a welcoming and intimate way; and if not utilized religiously, the building still holds promise as a fixture in Tacoma’s urban core.
With the their vast property holdings, the hospital has overwhelmed the surroundings, eliminating housing and business. What chance did the FUMC congragation have of holding on hemmed in by medical buildings and parking lots. Although a great institution and employment center for Tacoma, MultiCare is destroying the surrounding neighborhood. As a campus it is ill-conceived, its buildings oppressive, its parking excessive.
MultiCare clearly has plans that will add land and building area. With prominant frontage on MLK and I street accross from Wright Park, the Hospital could greatly improve the neighborhood. The City of Tacoma code suggest large institutions develop Master Plans to strategize growth and integrate with surroundings. After years of resident concerns, University of Puget Sound finally developed and approved a Master Plan with the community that now guides its development. MultiCare should voluntarily do the same or the City should make it a requirement. As neighbors we need to push MultiCare to do what’s best for the neighborhood and the FUMC building.
22 | Posted by Brett | Jul 20, 10:28 AM
O Sacred Head, Now Wounded
O sacred Head, now wounded,
with grief and shame weighed down,
now scornfully surrounded
with thorns, thine only crown:
how pale thou art with anguish,
with sore abuse and scorn!
How does that visage languish
which once was bright as morn!
What thou, my Lord, has suffered
was all for sinners’ gain;
mine, mine was the transgression,
but thine the deadly pain.
Lo, here I fall, my Savior!
‘Tis I deserve thy place;
look on me with thy favor,
vouchsafe to me thy grace.
What language shall I borrow
to thank thee, dearest friend,
for this thy dying sorrow,
thy pity without end?
O make me thine forever;
and should I fainting be,
Lord, let me never, never
outlive my love for thee.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
This hymnal was from Sunday’s organ concert at FUMC. How fitting and emotion filled. This is the last concert series to be preformed in the building and one performace remains:
Sunday, August 13, 5:00 pm.
23 | Posted by Brett | Jul 31, 10:23 AM
Commenting is closed for this article.
