BIKEPGH MESSAGE BOARD ARCHIVE

« Back to Archive
19

#SaveAlbright - Church at corner of Centre & Graham needs your help

Hello! I am hoping that the BikePGH folks will be interested in this and will help spread the word. Especially because the proposed development will create more traffic at this intersection. Albright United Methodist Church is located at the corner of Centre & Graham, next to the Wendy's and Levin mattress store (old Blockbuster). My good friends are life long members of the congregation and have been working for the past year to find a plan for the future of the church that preserves the building. The congregation is united in wanting to preserve the building. A developer has plans to demolish and put in a drive-thru Starbucks. There is a zoning hearing this Thursday 8/20 at 9:30 am. The congregation is working to use volunteer labor to get the doors open in time to host the Thanksgiving dinner in November. Albright has hosted a free community dinner for the past 40 years. The building is in excellent condition - no structural damage, just needs a little TLC and clean up. Here is how you can help: - Attend zoning hearing and oppose the variances: http://bit.ly/1J1dCPs - Spread the word - follow @AlbrightPGH on Instagram & Twitter, use #SaveAlbright - Sign up to volunteer at AlbrightPGH.com - Join the #SaveAlbright Facebook group here: http://on.fb.me/1JrxJt4 If you have any questions - I will be happy to answer them. Thank you!
lindsayp
2015-08-18 08:17:19
Just curious, as I didn't see the info in any of the linked pages: Who sold the property to Ross Development Company in the first place? You say "get the doors open", so I take it the building is currently not in use at all? When did it close? (The web site you linked to has a history section, but it begins and ends in 1906.)
steven
2015-08-18 08:58:09
The building has not yet been sold. I believe the developer has an option to buy, the congregation has been clear that preservation of the building was the top priority. There was a heating issue about a year ago, and the congregation had been meeting at another space. The parsonage was rented until this spring. The congregation has now been holding services on the front lawn and is eager to return to the sanctuary. We are working on adding more to the history section - this is one of the oldest congregations in Pittsburgh. The cornerstone from the original church in 1850s is in the basement of Albright. The building that sits at Centre & Graham was built in 1906. Several congregations have merged into Albright over the years. I believe there was a church that is at the site of the now Boston Market and I know there was another one on Scotia Street (I have seen some of the load docs for the Scotia street church).
lindsayp
2015-08-18 09:31:42
So then who owns the property? If the congregation owns it, I don't understand how another party like Ross Development could wind up with an option to buy it and tear down the building. Or is this one of those deals where the national organization (the Methodists, I guess) owns the building and is planning to sell it out from under the congregation?
steven
2015-08-18 11:37:15
It's a nice old building. If the congregation cant afford to hold on to it you would hope that they could at least find a better use than to tear it down.
marko82
2015-08-18 11:49:22
^What Steven said.
edmonds59
2015-08-18 13:22:40
We really don't need another starbucks here. There is a starbucks at the hotel literally a block away at liberty and center.
benzo
2015-08-18 13:41:16
The deed to 486 S. Graham Street says that the Albright congregation owns the building. The congregation has been working to to create a community centric use for the building going forward. If you don't want to see another drive-thru in the area. Please come to the hearing on Thursday 8/20.
lindsayp
2015-08-18 13:48:15
Don't take the question the wrong way, I'm sure there are people who would happily support your cause. But something is not adding up. Is there a lien on the property or back payments or something that is forcing a sale? Or is the city somehow forcing a sale? If the property is deeded to the congregation, and the congregation is unified in trying keep and re-open the property, how is it possible for a developer to have a plan to demolish it? That I think is the question. I think people would just want to understand the whole story before fully jumping in in support.
edmonds59
2015-08-18 14:51:40
Yes, that's exactly what I'm not clear on either. Maybe the congregation owns the building but somebody else owns the land? For those who haven't gone through the links to find the hearing agenda PDF, it says they want to: Construct new one story, multi-tenant building with 27 parking spaces. Special Exception: 911.02/913.03.F drive through is a Special Exception in UNC zoning district Variance: 904.04.C minimum 20ft rear setback required and 0ft provided for accessory parking and dumpster Variance: 914.10.C.4 loading spaces are located in vehicular drive lanes Variance: 914.09.C queue lane shall be designed to not conflict with other vehicular traffic From that, it sounds like there would be more than just a Starbucks drivethrough. Is the last variance saying they want permission for the queue lane where people line up for coffee to extend out into the street?
steven
2015-08-18 15:50:10
What Edmonds59 said. I don't understand what the situation is. I'll be standing by until I know what's really going on.
srpit
2015-08-18 17:46:20
Hello @LindsayP! Did the owners (the congregation) at one time sell the Developer the option-to-buy? That would align with everything described. If the Owners sold the developer the Option-to-buy (accepting money or value in exchange), then they can't legitimately complain when the developer follows through on that Option (which the congregration agreed to, took money for, signed and sold away). The community can object to the zoning variances (which did, for instance, prevent an AutoZone at BabyWorld but did not prevent the transfer of the property). The congregation could attempt to buy back the Option, at a price the Developer agrees to. @LindsayP please set us straight on this. Did the Owner sell the Option to the Developer? If so, what are you/they really asking for? Is it legit to ask for help/support and talk about DriveThroughs and MoreTraffic if the Congregation sold the Option but later have seller's remorse? I wish you and your friends well in their efforts, but I think the situation and your request aren't made clear yet. But I'm wrong about a lot of things.
vannever
2015-08-18 20:14:57
As someone who lives relatively nearby and who walks or runs past the building several times a week--this past winter the sidewalk in front of this church was one of the places I had to do my careful-old-lady walk and hope I didn't fall and break a limb on all the accumulated ice on the sidewalk. Now that I know that the congregation wasn't meeting there, I at least understand why they neglected to clear the sidewalk all winter. However, property owners are responsible for clearing the sidewalks of snow and ice regardless of whether they're currently using the property. I certainly don't think we need another drive-through, and I have no great love for Starbucks. It's a beautiful building and I hope it can be preserved. However, I find it ironic that the congregation is now looking to the community for support when they failed to meet even their most basic obligations to their neighbors this past winter. Good luck to you and your friends.
ratatosk
2015-08-19 05:23:10
"But I’m wrong about a lot of things." Perhaps, but probably not this. It sure sounds like the congregation sold the developer an option to buy (presumably because they needed the money), but now the congregation wants to undermine the economic value of that option, and in turn prevent the option from being exercised, by thwarting the developer's efforts to get a zoning variance. In other words, it sounds like the congregation is trying to render the option economically worthless after having taken the developer's money. Lindsayp, if there are other "moving parts" to this situation, please enlighten us. Some of the board's readership might support this, but the core issues here are far too murky.
jmccrea
2015-08-19 11:45:13
Kicking it meta for just a moment, I think we're seeing a lot of change in Pgh and one of those changes is: the bike community and BikePgh are increasingly seen as successful change agents. And when people have a need or want to build support, perhaps now some are thinking "how do we get the bike folks involved?" which is such a turnaround from a few years ago.
vannever
2015-08-19 19:39:40
Ah, at last. After all these years, we have become a sought-after constituency, graciously offered a role on the broader civic stage... But now we get to opine! Let's get to it: -- It's a nice building. Why isn't it on the historical register? -- Developers are, as rule, an embarrassing though lamentably necessary lower specie of human life. Diversity and stuff. But they're not all ogres. Can't the congregation lobby the current option-holder to do something positive that preserves the existing building? Or find one who might be willing to exercise some imagination? Is there not a crafty lawyer who worships among them? Or one to maybe borrow one from some other congregation? (There's a seemingly successful one next door!) -- Ok, the congregation has no money and the property has to evolve. No need to demolish completely! How about placing that coffee shop in the sanctuary? And other shops in different alcoves? Maybe an underground parking garage? (It's up on a hill, after all.) How about some community space in there, somewhere.Think of the laudatory articles in Pittsburgh magazine. Maybe even some civic award for the developer! Yes, I'm being flip; but try, something, anything. We're just a bunch of bikers and we have no standing. As an example of successful compromise: Consider what happened to that church at the corner of Bellefield and 5th. They got to keep their belfry and were provided with a permanent sanctuary; pretty good deal all in all. Could that be negotiated? But maybe that would need consensus from all of the current stakeholders. Is there one? and where's the diocese on all of this?
ahlir
2015-08-20 00:06:42
Why is this on a bike forum?
mick
2015-08-20 01:47:49
I think the rationale is that if the property were in more active use, there would be more cars on Centre, resulting in more contention with cyclists.
steven
2015-08-20 06:47:23