I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with the members of the First Unitarian Universalist Church, and I was impressed with your dedication and enthusiasm.
This report is the result of my observation and suggestions as well as those compiled from the meetings held during my visit. I hope that my stay was helpful in the process of determining the future of your church buildings. I have summarized each of the various topics we discussed.
I would like to think that our time together was not just a dialog with me, but that the congregation was also becoming aware of each other's concerns, and in the future will be translating these into a building direction that is reflective of the spirit and outreach of the congregation.
The current building complex has many attractive features. The location in the Wayne State and museum section is one of the best areas of Detroit. The sanctuary and bell tower are appealing and the interior worship space has a feeling of quiet dignity. The house is, of course, a delight as a historic residence, although it is in need of repair and the social hall/classroom facility is a very serviceable building.
The members of the church, led by Dan and Earl, have done a remarkable job of maintaining a vast and complex facility. The membership has shown initiative in such recent projects as the installation of outdoor lighting, a new sign, and the purchase of a new boiler.
One of the most dominant characteristics of the facility complex is its size, A 1999 architectural report indicated a size of 38,245 sq. ft. Members assumed this was allocated as 8,000 sq. ft. in the sanctuary, 6,000 sq. ft. in the house, and 18,000 sq. ft. in the social hall/classroom building, which totals approximately 32,000 sq. ft. Some of the difference between the two totals is probably the inclusion of a variety of basement storage areas.
The church cannot provide the types of outreach, member programs and community service desired by the membership because of the disproportional amount of the church budget allocated to building maintenance and utilities.
The age and size of the buildings require continuous maintenance just to remain functional. The current church budget does not allow the level of permanent repairs that are needed, especially on the house. The large size of the structures also requires high utility costs to maintain spaces, many of which are rarely used. With the current world markets, energy costs will continue to rise, causing increased burdens upon the congregation's budget.
The primary concern is accessibility caused by the different first floor levels and the multiple floors in the house and social hall/classroom building. Members indicated some concern for security of the building and member safety in the neighborhood.
Membership growth has stagnated, causing several problems. The size of the facilities could easily accommodate a much larger congregation, but puts a strain on a small congregation. There are not enough church volunteers, especially for the many tasks required by such a large facility.
This is an incredibly detailed report by SHG, Inc., an architectural consulting firm. The purpose of the report was to review and estimate the cost of bringing all the church buildings up to date with repairs, upgrading of physical elements of the building (cornices, stairs, gutters, etc.), as well as the heating and electrical systems. The study also included the addition of more toilets and an elevator in the house. This report, although dated, could provide a cost comparison of maintenance needs in the individual buildings. The cost of the refurbishing and improvements of all buildings in 1999 was $2,404,000 with a total projected cost of $3,054,800 when contingencies, cost escalation and other factors were included.
The SHG, Inc. representative said verbally that even though the report seemed extensive, they felt to truly bring the buildings to their full potential as much as 10 million dollars could be spent. Some excerpts from the report are assembled in this report's Appendix.
There is little question the report is correct that the church needs to focus on growth through programs, publicity and a membership commitment to invite others to attend. Without growth, the church will not continue. In every church there is inevitable attrition from many sources, including deaths and members moving away. More members would make a stronger church and the current facilities could easily accommodate them.. It is unlikely, however, that given the demographics of Detroit and recent history of church membership that the church can grow enough to solve its current building-related financial difficulties. Alternative solutions need to be found.
The church is currently facing a financial crisis, The budget has been supported, as is typical of most churches, from the income and growth of its investments of approximately $50,000/year. This year's budget required an additional $50,000, for a total of $ 100, 000, which reduced the principal of the trust. At that rate, the trust could be depleted within a decade. These figures do not even include exceptional items such as taking $50,000 when needed for a new boiler.
These funds are a valuable resource for the church and should not be dwindled down because of excessive property costs,
With the current size of the membership and the extent of the facilities, sharing the space with another appropriate congregation seems reasonable. The Strategic Planning Report indicated the membership would not like the variety of inconveniences this space sharing would cause, but considering the financial realities of the church, readjustment of current patterns would be a small price to pay for a good sharing tenant. Part of the problem is finding a suitable tenant. It was speculated that such a shared use would generate an income of approximately $24,000/year, which would be very helpful, but would not solve the long term financial concerns of the church,
Leased use is a variation of shared use, but might apply more to the house or social hall/classrooms than to the sanctuary. Leased use is a special financial arrangement that would require study by financial and real estate professionals. Initially, this approach does not seem to be a viable option because the arrangement would not seem to be attractive to commercial interests. In general, churches are not good at administering land holdings because of the slow, deliberate nature of volunteer organizations.
Relocating to an existing church of a more appropriate size that is for sale can be explored, but rarely does the availability and size coordinate with a church's needs. The members would be giving up their tradition in the current location, and the number of suitable locations is limited because of the church's commitment to stay in Detroit. The current situation in the Wayne State area is one of the best locations in the city. It is possible that there is a church available nearby. A variation on buying an existing church would be to join with an existing church in their location, but his option is also limited in possibilities.
Building a new building is a very expensive alternative that would require the acquisition of land and the building of a new structure. To present an idea of the cost for a new building, a program for a medium size Unitarian Universalist church is listed below. If the church is engaged in a building program, there would need to be a more thorough analysis of the church's needs and expectations in conjunction with the architect. The sizes listed below are averages and are largely for purpose of comparison in reviewing the church's alternatives.
| Program | |
|---|---|
| Building Area | Total Sq. Ft. |
| Sanctuary - 240 seats x 10 sq. ft./person | 2400 sq. ft. |
| Chancel | 450 sq. ft. |
| Lobby | 600 sq. ft. |
| Minister's Office | 250 sq. ft. |
| Administrator's Office & Workroom | 300 sq. ft. |
| RE Office/Classroom | 250 sq. ft. |
| Kitchen | 400 sq. ft. |
| Fellowship Hall (located for sanctuary expansion) | 900 sq. ft. |
| 3 Classrooms (3x350 sq.ft.) | 1050 sq. ft. |
| Meeting Room/Classroom | 450 sq. ft. |
| Add 20% sq. ft. for toilets, storage, corridors, etc | 1410 sq. ft. |
| TOTAL | 8,460 sq. ft.,/b> |
| Alternative Smaller Program | |
|---|---|
| Smaller Sanctuary (200 seats x 10 sq. ft.) | 400 sq. ft. less |
| No Fellowship Hall (Sanctuary Multi-purpose) | 900 sq. ft. less |
| General Reductions | 500 sq. ft. less |
| NEW TOTAL | 6,660 sq. ft. |
The costs are an estimate and can change dramatically based upon the level of building activity at the time, labor and material costs, and especially the quality of the construction and finishes of the designed structure.
| PROGRAM | 8460 sq. ft. x $200/sq. ft. = $1,692,000
8460 sq. ft. x $250/sq. ft. = $2,115,000 |
| ALTERNATE | 6660 sq. ft. x $200/sq. ft. = $1,332,000
6660 sq. ft. x $250/sq. ft. = $1,665,000 |
The totals listed above are only the costs of the building. Another major expense would be the cost of the land. As an example of land value, the church was offered $90,000 for the parking lot across the street. There would also be legal and architectural fees and site development, parking etc.
Sell Property - The consultant who met with the Strategic Planning Committee estimates that all the church properties might sell for a total of $600,000 to $1,000,000. Assuming a mid-range, the properties could sell for $800,000, minus commissions and fees.
Trust Funds - The church could use some of its Trust, but this, of course, would have an adverse effect on the total investments for future use in the operating budget.
Capital Fund Raising - The church could conduct a Capital Fund Raising Campaign. The usual estimate of a goal for such a drive is three times the annual pledge giving, or $100,000 times three equals a $300,000 goal. There did not seem to be much enthusiasm for a fund drive. Such a drive would be especially difficult before a new minister is well settled in the church.
Mortgage - Mortgages have the advantage of spreading responsibility for payment to future members who will use the building. The mortgage option must be coordinated with other funding sources; for example, if members have already contributed to a capital fund drive, it may be difficult to get them to increase their pledges to carry a large mortgage in the operating budget. The actual amount of payment needs to be checked with amortization tables. Guidelines indicate the church should not borrow more than 2.5% of annual pledge giving. A mortgage at the maximum level could be a heavy burden for the church budget.
This scenario is a very unlikely possibility. Even though the house is very attractive, with many lovely details inside and out, it is also the building that requires the most architectural work. A remodeled first floor for worship would probably be adequate for a small fellowship, but after the grandeur of the existing sanctuary, such an informal space may not seem satisfactory to the congregation.
This alternative would allow the retention of the two most attractive properties and a consistent architectural frontage along the dominant street. The rear of the sanctuary would need to serve as the social hall for coffee hour, which could be accomplished by removing some of the rear pews and installing some type of facility to allow the serving of coffee. Coffee could also be made in the existing kitchen and transported to the sanctuary. In the house, the existing offices and meeting rooms could be upgraded and the current religious educations program would be located upstairs. Toilets to serve the sanctuary would need to be added, and a connecting corridor to the sanctuary would need to be added, The third floor could remain unfinished, but because of code upgrade could probably not be occupied and only be used for storage. The biggest difficulty with this option is that the church would still own and be responsible for the house, the property with the largest maintenance and upgrade costs.
A variation on selling the social hall/classroom building would be to retain the property but demolish it, using the remaining space for parking. The cost of the demolition could be paid for by selling the existing parking lot across the street. The economies of this option would need to be studied, but it would allow the church to retain its current contiguous property, yet substantially reduce maintenance costs.
This option would be a dramatic change, but the combination of these two buildings might be attractive to a developer. With the funds from the sale of these properties, the church could provide for new offices, kitchen, classrooms, a meeting room, and toilets. The social hall function would be at the rear of the sanctuary. These new rooms could be added to the existing sanctuary in three different ways. Each of them would require a substantial commitment by the congregation.
First, a new addition could be extended into the existing parking lot. The social hall function would be at the rear of the sanctuary by removing some of the rear rows of pews. This arrangement has been successfully accomplished in a number of older churches that have sanctuaries much larger than their current membership needs. The space can still retain the dignity of the original building, yet has the convenience of an easily accessible social area. This alternative would require a major initiative by the members and will certainly be influenced by the sale price of the properties and a more exact cost of the new construction.
The second possibility is adding a floor at the rear of the sanctuary, providing offices on the first floor and classrooms above. A portion of the sanctuary, as in the new addition alternative, would also need to have pews removed to provide for a social area after services. An adult meeting/religious education space could be created in the old choir loft in order to preserve the integrity of the existing stained glass window. With the space limited to the existing sanctuary, the building program may need to be reduced with a master plan to add a new addition for more rooms at a later date. This alternative needs further study to determine if there is adequate space to meet the church's needs.
The third possibility would be to create a basement space under the existing sanctuary. This area could have an areaway along the parking lot side of the church to create a space for play at a lower level and to allow natural light to enter along that wall. This proposal also assumes the rear portion of the sanctuary would have the pews removed in order to use it for the after-service social time. A major unknown in this alternative is the soil conditions under the church. Digging under existing structures can be expensive, especially if there are ledge conditions.
| Addition Program | |
|---|---|
| Building Area | Total Sq. Ft. |
| Minister's Office | 250 sq. ft. |
| Administrator's Office & Workroom | 300 sq. ft. |
| RE Office/Classroom TD>250 sq. ft. | |
| Kitchen | 400 sq. ft. |
| 3 Classrooms (3x350 sq.ft.) | 1050 sq. ft. |
| Meeting Room/Classroom | 450 sq. ft. |
| Add 20% sq. ft. for toilets, storage, corridors, etc. | 600 sq. ft. |
| TOTAL | 3,300 sq. ft. |
Costs
The costs of construction related to the existing building could be higher than new construction in order
to be consistent with the quality of the sanctuary. As with new construction, an addition to the building
would require the expenses of professional fees and the separation of the buildings.
| ADDITION | 3300 sq. ft. x $250/sq. ft. = $825,000 |
| 3300 sq. ft. x $300/sq. ft. = $990,000 |
Even though it would be difficult to part with this very attractive structure, the house probably has the best market appeal, and of course, its sale would relieve the church of the costly burden of maintaining it. The advantage of the social hall/classroom building is that it currently has facilities that meet the needs of the church. There is a social hall, toilets, classrooms, and plenty of room on the first floor to add a small kitchen and offices to replace those lost in the sale of the house. The RE office could be upstairs in one of the existing classrooms. The money from the sale of the house should cover this remodeling and the installation of an elevator into the building.
The church facility is so large and complex that one weekend does not allow enough time to thoroughly study in the detail the options before the church, but it did allow enough time to confirm what the congregation already knows. The facility is too large for your current needs. I put some numbers to this reality. The total church is 32,000 sq. feet. A church of your current membership could easily exist in 6,000 to 9,000 sq. feet. As I discussed in our weekend of meetings, I have tried to provide a way to clarify the complexity of the problem and a method of thinking about possible solutions.The membership response was consistent in all the meetings. Everyone agreed that the buildings are too large and too expensive to maintain for the size of the current congregation. I have provided an extensive list of options. I believe some of these can be eliminated without further study, such as selling all the properties and building a new building. Another option that is unlikely, but could be explored, is finding another empty church for sale that would be a more suitable size.
One option that is worth exploring is selling the house and social hall/classroom and reconstructing or adding on to the existing sanctuary; however, such new construction requires a financial commitment by the membership in the form of a capital fund drive. I did not sense, at least at this time, a willingness for such an undertaking.
The most viable options are the sale of the house or sale of the social hall/classroom building. The sale of the house provides the most saleable property and eliminates extensive maintenance. This option also requires a minimum amount of construction for the church. The membership will still have much more space than is needed.
The sale of the social hall/classrooms would allow retaining the house, a valued and attractive building that provides a continuous facade along Cass Street. The house size is more compatible with the church needs and even though it has more potential maintenance concerns, it has less square footage to heat. The retention of the house would require the construction of new toilets, a connection to the sanctuary, and the use of the rear of the sanctuary as a social area.
I would recommend that the church form a Building Committee, which is separate from the Property Committee, to study the options before the congregation. The Committee could call upon other members to assist, especially those with real estate knowledge, to get firmer facts about the purchase of other sites or buildings and sale of church properties. It would be appropriate to retain an architect to provide further study of some of the options. This architectural work would only need to be of a preliminary nature, but would provide a clearer, more accurate study of possibilities, including current projected costs.
With your active and dedicated membership and Diana's leadership as an Accredited Interim Minister, Jim Harvey as President, and a new minister to be selected, I am sure the church has a promising future. I know you will find the appropriate solution to meet your building needs and continue as a significant force for religious liberalism and community service in Detroit.
Edwin Charles Lynn
Architectural Consultant
2005
