Melani, > Kimm, I know you've written in the past that you don't always have time to > read the listserv, so I guess you missed my earlier posts explaining that I > support the project because it will restore the Italianate building.
Actually, I did read your earlier posts about why you were supporting the project, and that is in part what I was responding to. You seemed to accept awfully quickly and easily that this is the best option for the site, an option that many consider horrendous. The post sounded like it was written by Lussenhop¹s or Penn¹s PR staff. I just cannot see how you could possibly find this project acceptable. > The UCHS-inspired Friends of Calvary committee, of which I was a member, but > certainly not leader, worked with Calvary members who did NOT want to close > down the building - members of your church who felt that its longtime home at > 48th & Baltimore was an important factor in its spiritual life. Your > congregation was not all of one mind on a possible move. The vote to sell the buildings and the domes was unanimous. I know because I was present. No one ³wanted² to move. The decision was one of necessity. There was no ³working with² Calvary when the Friends intervened to stop the sale. It was an exceedingly adversarial relationship. And, just for the record, there was never any plan to ³close down² the building, nor was there ever any plan to leave it ³vacant.² It was to be sold to another congregation. It had to be sold in order for the congregation to buy other space. The legs on that myth never cease to amaze me. It¹s absurd. > We were looking at the bigger picture as well as the building itself. The > effect on the community. Same as folks are for this hotel project. So it > seems to me that if you are categorizing my involvement as "hypocrisy" I might > ask: why do you find fault with me for supporting a new use which would > preserve an historic building at 40th & Pine, same as I supported bringing new > uses to preserve the building housing Calvary United Methodist Church? Because at 40th and Pine the effect on the community of the project that is being proposed is so obviously and apparently a negative and destructive one, but that doesn¹t seem to matter in this instance. Most neighborhood residents never would have registered a difference if Calvary sold the domes and a new congregation bought the building. Lussenhop¹s tower will be hard to miss. Because there seems to be two different standards one for small, poor religious institutions, and another for deep-pocketed developers and universities. If the latter plead economic necessity, then you just roll over and accept whatever they try to sell you. For the former, no quarter is given, regardless of the potential consequences or burden imposed. > If somebody comes along with a better project, then I would be happy to hear > the details and reconsider what I'll support. If Lussenhop is permitted to proceed, no one will have an opportunity to come along with a better project. > Your sanctuary is about to be restored. Not mine anymore. Kimm On 11/13/07 11:03 AM, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Kimm, earlier last evening you wrote: > > In a message dated 11/12/07 9:44:34 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > <<I'm more interested in fact-gathering than in judgment right now. > Then debate the merits and not the personalities. > Kimm>> > > So I'm not sure why my lament about our lack of historic districts changed > your strategy into attack mode: > > In a message dated 11/12/07 11:54:42 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > <<...You valued buildings, I valued people. But now I don¹t know what the > f*** you value. It looks to me like the answer is nothing. I assumed that of > course Melani Lamond and the UCHS, who I am usually opposed to, would of > course oppose this. To see you, of all people, line up to support it . . . > .Melani, we have had our differences, but I¹ve always liked you, and I¹ve > tried to respect you, and I¹ve tried to understand you...You have utterly lost > my respect and understanding.>> > > Kimm, I know you've written in the past that you don't always have time to > read the listserv, so I guess you missed my earlier posts explaining that I > support the project because it will restore the Italianate building. It > seems to me that if you were indeed fact-gathering rather than judging, you > could have written to me off list and simply asked me what I value! And > then, as you stated so reasonably at 9:44 p.m., we could have debated the > merits and not the personalities. > > Your summary of events at Calvary suggests that we will probably not find > common ground, however. The UCHS-inspired Friends of Calvary committee, of > which I was a member, but certainly not leader, worked with Calvary members > who did NOT want to close down the building - members of your church who felt > that its longtime home at 48th & Baltimore was an important factor in its > spiritual life. Your congregation was not all of one mind on a possible > move. > > In addition to concerns for the preservation of the historic building, many > Friends also felt that having a vacant and cannibalized (once the decision was > made to sell the leaded glass domes) building of Calvary's prominence at that > location would have a terrible effect on Baltimore Avenue, our "main street." > We were looking at the bigger picture as well as the building itself. The > effect on the community. Same as folks are for this hotel project. So it > seems to me that if you are categorizing my involvement as "hypocrisy" I might > ask: why do you find fault with me for supporting a new use which would > preserve an historic building at 40th & Pine, same as I supported bringing new > uses to preserve the building housing Calvary United Methodist Church? And > why isn't it hypocrisy when you say I shouldn't have been involved in the > efforts to preserve the church, but neighbors should be involved in what goes > on at 40th & Pine? > > The Friends of Calvary didn't just sit around and say "no," though, as folks > seem to be doing today for 40th St.! We worked to help solve the > difficulties! I haven't seen anyone who is saying "no" to the hotel project > coming up with reasonable ways to get the Italianate building at 400 S. 40th > St. restored. It seems that it's okay with the opponents to let it sit and > rot, as long as nothing tall is built next to it. Well, I don't think it's > okay to see it sit and rot. I'm in favor of a project which will restore it. > If somebody comes along with a better project, then I would be happy to hear > the details and reconsider what I'll support. I hope this gives you a better > understanding of my position. > > The Friends group was made up of neighbors on the block, other local Methodist > ministers, local architects, UCHS members, and Bob Jaeger, a UC neighbor and > the director of a Partners for Sacred Places, a national organization based > here in Philadelphia to help churches like Calvary regain their footing and > find ways to survive and thrive in old buildings. I'd say that every single > one of the other members had more talent and expertise than I did in bringing > resources to Calvary. > > Partners' experience and advice was extremely helpful, and their ability to > generate funding for repairs was invaluable. It was Bob - certainly not me, > as you accuse - who made the contact with the dome buyer and found that he had > been misled. The architectural antiques "middleman" had told him that the > building was being demolished and his purchase was the only thing that would > "save" the domes. When he found out that the building would remain standing, > he canceled his purchase - AND proceeded to donate $60,000 to your > congregation, with no strings attached! I believe that Calvary used that > donation to replace the dying heater. > > That was only the start of the renovation money that came in as a result of > the building's historic significance. Friends had urged you to use its > historic significance as a resource to bring you money on an ongoing basis, > rather than sell off your stained glass and run out of physical resources. > And it's worked! Today, with additional fundraising and grants, the > building's leaning walls have been rebuilt, so the roof no longer will > chronically leak and there is no longer the possibility of collapse. Your > sanctuary is about to be restored. Additional uses including community group > office rental space, a synagogue and additional church congregations, and > Curio Theater help pay the bills. And I couldn't end this note without a > special thanks to Richard Kirk and John Schnepp, neighbors who have spent > countless hours, years of their lives, dedicated to Calvary. Rich became a > member of the church and a trustee; John volunteers there out of the kindness > of his heart although he is not a Methodist. That is the result to date of > "my" <<launching a vicious, personal and unrelenting assault on the poor, > tiny, empoverished congregation of Calvary United Methodist Church>>, as you > put it. > > So we have different opinions. But I hope that you have time to read this > email and that you now understand what I support, and why. > > Melani Lamond > > > ************************************** > See what's new at http://www.aol.com
