Devin Colman isn’t the first to describe Burlington’s Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception as an oasis in an urban landscape.
Its 2.2-acre plot is boxed in by the downtown transit center, the stalled CityPlace Burlington project, and busy Cherry and Pearl streets. On any given sunny day, people lounge in the dappled light on the lawn, resting beneath the leafy canopy.
“That grove of trees really sets that building apart from the hustle and bustle,” said Colman, the architectural historian at the Vermont Division for Historic Preservation. “In the sanctuary, you’re not really aware of the outside city, the urban environment,” he said. “It’s this really quiet, peaceful place, and that’s intentional.”
It might also be fleeting: The church is on the market. The asking price is a whopping $8.5 million, causing preservationists to worry that only a large-scale commercial or residential developer will be able to afford it.
“It’s not in bad shape at all, and to just throw it away seems sad,” said Emily Wadhams, a member of the Preservation Trust of Vermont board. “It would be much more appropriate to find a way to appreciate the architecture and reuse and recycle the building to a new use.”
The church closed last December after its dwindling congregation could no longer afford to keep the doors open. Its parishioners now worship at the Cathedral of St. Joseph on Allen Street, just a few blocks away in the Old North End.
The Immaculate Conception property has been on the market for about a month, according to Steve Donahue, principal of Donahue & Associates, which is serving as broker for the parish.
Architects told Donahue that the site could be redeveloped with up to a half-million square feet of space, he said. The city assessed the building and land at $4.5 million, but Donahue and parish leaders priced it for the maximum build-out potential in what is arguably the highest-valued commercial area in the state, he said.
The cathedral is in Burlington’s “downtown core” district, which permits buildings up to 10 stories tall, city planning director David White said. Zoning calls for a “vibrant urban center with a variety of high-density building types” and “very active and engaging street frontages.”
Preservationists say the building is historically significant, though it’s not listed on the state register. However, it is eligible for the national historic register.
When arson destroyed the original Civil War-era Gothic cathedral in 1972, the Roman Catholic Diocese of Burlington commissioned well-known modernist architect Edward Larrabee Barnes to fashion a new building. He partnered with Daniel Kiley, a former Charlotte resident who is considered the foremost landscape architect of the 20th century, to design the grounds.
The choice was progressive for the custom-conscious Catholic Church, and the result is not your typical house of God. There are no spires pointing heavenward or Stations of the Cross depicted in stained glass.
Immaculate Conception is angular and modern, outfitted in green and brown bricks that mimic the 123 honey locust trees that surround it. Kiley organized the trees geometrically in an evenly spaced grid, aligning them with Barnes’ angular walls.
“The landscape and the building are linked,” Colman said. “You can’t have one without the other.”
It’s one of the few sites in Vermont that combines a modernist structure and landscaping and that was designed by a duo “as prominent as the Barnes-and-Kiley team,” Wadhams said.
Last Friday afternoon, more than a dozen people congregated on the church lawn. One man had suspended a hammock between two trees. A German shepherd and his owner took a break in the shade.
Jay Appleton was waiting for his bus on Pearl Street. He scoffed when asked about the church’s historic trees.
“We need housing more than we need trees,” he said. “These trees are actually not in the greatest shape. It’s cool, but there’s nothing sacred about them as far as I think. The city has a lot of parks.”
South Burlington resident Ben Richmond stood on the nearby GMT bus platform. Gazing out at the green space, he said it would be “too bad” if the plot were razed.
“It’s pretty. A lot of people come here and hang out,” he said. “It’s peaceful.”
Preservation Burlington, a nonprofit that aims to protect historic architecture in the Queen City, lists the cathedral’s status as threatened, along with Memorial Auditorium and the Moran Plant.
State architectural historian Colman serves on the organization’s board, as does Gwen Langdon, who said the group doesn’t want the church to be demolished and pledged to push for preservation once a project comes up for review.
Langdon, who researched reusing religious structures in graduate school, said the conflict between preserving and redeveloping old churches is not unique to Burlington. Many of them were built in town centers where real estate is scarce and expensive.
“It’s very attractive, and we see this could be a possible concern depending on who the sale is awarded to and what type of design is planned for the site,” Langdon said. “We’re not necessarily an organization that says, ‘Save it and turn it into a museum.’ We see the need for a modern use of a historic structure.”
When it was open, Immaculate Conception was operating at a $3,000 loss every week. When Reverend Lance Harlow joined the parish in 2016, he estimated that the 270 members would have to pay $25 a week to keep the church going, he told Seven Days last year. They voted unanimously to put it on the market.
The Cathedral of St. Joseph isn’t without its own financial challenges. Its steeple was just replaced after a windstorm knocked the original one askew in 2010. That project was primarily financed, according to Vermont Catholic magazine, by the $2.15 million sale of the former St. Joseph School to the Champlain Housing Trust in 2017. Today, the cathedral’s front steps need repair, and proceeds from the Immaculate Conception’s sale would help pay for it, said Donahue.
He suggested that selling to a housing developer might be the “responsible” choice, but he said the parish members alone would make that decision. Harlow did not return repeated calls for comment, and Ellen Kane, the spokesperson for the diocese, declined an interview.
The cathedral property isn’t yet listed on Donahue & Associates’ website because the firm is first marketing it to potential buyers who previously showed interest, Donahue said. He declined to name names.
“It’s an exciting opportunity for somebody,” he said. “We’re certainly hoping for a lot of interest both from local folks and from folks from out of state.”
Should the buyer want to redevelop, they’d have to first pass the city’s extra layer of review for historic structures, White said. The Development Review Board must consider whether the new use would have the same community value that the historic structure originally provided.
White said such redevelopments “have typically been approved.” He pointed to the demolition of the historic U.S. Naval Reserve building to make way for the ECHO Leahy Center for Lake Champlain, which opened on the city’s waterfront in 2003. A Navy memorial was later erected nearby.
Wadhams said the Preservation Trust of Vermont has successfully rescued other threatened historic buildings, such as the Watershed Tavern in Brandon, heavily damaged by Tropical Storm Irene, and the Vermont Marble Museum in Proctor, which had closed and was up for sale.
Ideally, Wadhams said, someone would come forward with a plan for Immaculate Conception that preservation groups could present to the diocese as an alternative — an art gallery, performing arts center or other community space. The former St. Joseph School is now the Old North End Community Center, she noted.
Wadhams knows that Burlington could use more affordable housing, but she doesn’t think Immaculate Conception is the right place for it. It’s too special, she said.
Colman, the architectural historian and Preservation Burlington board member, agrees.
“That piece of land has been used for religious purposes for over 150 years,” he said. “It’s been a gathering place, a place of congregation for the people of Burlington. It would be great to see that continue.”
Related Stories
Blight Sites: Burlington’s Vacant Commercial Buildings Are Eyesores and Potential Safety Hazards. Some Remain in a State of Ruin for Years.
This article appears in Jun 26 – Jul 2, 2019.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Forget it. Steven Goodkind says nothing will ever be built there!
The location is great, the landscaping is truly pretty but lets be honest the architectural worth of the actual building is worthless.
I understand that Don Sinex is interested in it.
I too wish Sinex would buy it, if he runs out of funding before anything comes down.
I strongly disagree with “there are plenty of parks in town.” Especially after City Hall Park is reduced to a play plaza (with no playground). We do need the trees, but why not build on the parking lot? Zoning for a ten story building covering that whole block? Fooey.
[Mr. Assumptions?]
“A tree falls the way it leans. Be careful which way you lean.
Dr. Seuss, The Lorax
No one is going to pay 8.5 mil unless they can get a return on their investment. Just hope that who ever buys it knows that the small group of goodkindites will stop every move just because.
The point is – what do we want Burlington to be like? Did you come here for the skyscrapers? I didn’t. They’ll block the lake from hundreds who can see it now. There are two schools of thought, no doubt. We shall see.
While the trees are nice, honey locusts are a short lived species, and on a long enough timeline (certainly one that could be considered a ‘historic’ timeline) the Grove is ultimately doomed. While perhaps architecturally unique, that doesn’t make it beautiful. Personally, I always thought it looked a bit like a cross between a a house of God and some sort of dark Satanic Mill. The industrial production of superstition to put it brutally. We run the risk of declaring so many things special that nothing ever gets done. We desperately need housing, as evidenced by the sheer number of homeless people who tend to populate this idyllic Grove, and engage in far less socially acceptable behavior than playing with their dog. The article makes no mention of that. We need housing close to the commercial core. Period.
and if I hear Coyne itching about money again…nice little price for the mini plot. As for the Church itself- was never anything like the original- cold and uncomfortable- maybe it could be a huge lifeguard tower for the new swimming hole which was once the mall? That what it seems to be becoming of late from the deal with the mayor and his snakeskin peddler Sinex.
I am much more concerned with Mount- St. Mary’s thank God the Bishop’s hands aren’t involved in that transfer.
Priced for a build out? Come on, to repurpose this building will turn developers away based on a total price tag of 9 or 10M+. Where does the Diocese come up with their hypothetical projections based on as developed? Housing and Conservation can’t touch that, tax credits options are ruled out based on a highly inflated appraisal for mixed use development. This building will sit based on unrealistic numbers.
“While the trees are nice, honey locusts are a short lived species, and on a long enough timeline (certainly one that could be considered a ‘historic’ timeline) the Grove is ultimately doomed. “
Well, ultimately we are all doomed. Long enough timeline indeed.
As for housing, I can’t think of a worse place for it. No, wait – the Moran Plant would be worse.
Charlie Messing’s constant Moran plant rag is tiresome
My apologies, Mr. Moran,
There must be some confusion – I haven’t been ragging on the Plant – perhaps on the allocation of funds? Or its historical value? Something published a year ago? Anyway, I don’t mean to offend anyone, and all else I’ve talked about lately is far more important. Sorry.
Maybe somebody could buy it, tear it down, and leave an empty hole.
Mr Messing, how is housing within easy walking distance to public transportation, a major grocery store, three drug stores, half a dozen stores that sell furniture or home supplies, all you can eat Iin terms of restaurants, several parks, not to mention lots of other housing whereby community networks are built, count as “the worst place” to build housing? I love Burlington, but Burlingtonians can get some weird ideas. It’s also in one of the few areas that can go above four stories to ten stories. With two government building right next door it could even take cars off the street. But of course what we really need is yet another concert venue for mediocre bands who can barely book a paying gig in any other town, or an art gallery to highlight some rich kid’s earnest sculptures made from recycled freaking whatever. Cause yeah, that’s how cities work.
Mr. McGill,
I do know what you mean – if it was empty, like the block next to it, I’d say it was fine. Having TWO ten story buildings next to each other is, in my opinion, too much. New buildings rarely have any kind of affordable housing ($500-$700 rent) because they’re paying off the bank. You’re right about the location being convenient. It’s the skyscraping of the City that is the problem. A few years back they put together “Plan BTV” which allowed four to six story buildings. Then they decided to make a little exception – a big exception, actually. [I won’t try to tell the whole tale; perhaps you know about it.] We do need blocks like that because of the trees, but we do also need a lot of affordable housing. I agree about the concert venue thing.
Thanks for a cogent letter!
I’d love to see the church selling the lot for top dollar, developing it as the the developer sees fit, and gave the entirety of the sale price to the victims of the clergymen’s sexual deviance.
Charlie, it may not be what you like but if the zoning is already there then it’d be a great addition to the tax base. Another tall building would bring in significant amounts of tax dollars to a city that continually taxes and spends at a very progressive rate. This is no idle concern with a potential 5% tax increase coming this upcoming fiscal year and in a city that has one of the highest tax rates in the country per $1,000 dollars of assessed value at 2.6% when the national average is 1.1% to 1.2%. Yes our tax bills are priced at more than double the national average.
https://vermontbiz.com/news/2019/june/18/b…
We simply need more tax payers and businesses to pay for our growing town budget. The Coalition against everything will reflexively oppose the development of this property if recent history repeats itself even if the majority of people vote for it or their city council representatives because the Coalition Against Everything knows better and will get hung up on the process or some aesthetic fiddle faddle. As for skyscraping, come on Charlie, no one in America would consider a 14 story building a skyscraper except the sky is falling crowd you represent. Let the people decide Charlie and god forbid they might disagree with you but holding projects up with endless lawsuits and appeals is no way to respect the will of the people or the duly elected city council.
Hello again, Mr. Man,
The “endless lawsuits” you complain about are actually based on facts – promises broken, permits violated, etc. You would like things to move in a simple, straight-forward manner, but they do not. The big building project was based on a number of qualifications for its height-exception (and size of project). It was to provide parking, it was to construct in a timely fashion, it was to make intentions clear when plans were changed. The system is not being perverted to annoy you.
In New York City, this would not be a skyscraper, but in Burlington it would. Look at the old Hotel Vermont, on the West corner of the Flynn block, facing the Park. Picture a building twice that height. Plan BTV itself had advised that buildings not be that tall, yet we made an exception for Mr. Sinex, and he in turn was to provide certain amenities, upon which he reneged. Thus the suit. It all makes sense. We shall see what happens, won’t we? I agree that the people should decide, and if you recall, the project was only passed by a majority of 4%. It seems that there are two schools of thought on this.
Hello Charles,
I would believe your arguments if the following weren’t true.
The democratic party did not hold up every project that came down the pike when the progressives were running things. And let’s not split hairs just about everyone involved in all the Coalitions Against Everything are eyeballs deep in progressive politics or are outright former members/administration folks. Democrats didn’t put up endless lawsuits when they lost the vote on projects over the 30 years they were out of power. Every project of a certain scale can always be found to have technical errors but the Democratic party didn’t feel the need to call all of them out over the last 30 years. They just took it on the chin and persevered. Now that the democrats are in power it’s non-stop obstructionism. Every major development has had protests and delays or threats to do so by progressive oriented folks. They include the mall redevelopment, Cambrian Rise, City Hall Park, Memorial Auditorium, The Champlain Parkway and on and on.
Yes there are two schools of thought on this but 50% plus one is the fairest way to decide things which you don’t respect. If you can name a decision making process that respects majority will that’s better than this I’ll eat my shoe but sometimes one school of thought wins and you have to deal with it which is what your side doesn’t want to do.
The Grownassman abides
Howdy GA-Man, [and that’s Charlie. It’s only Charles on bills and checks.]
You say “Yes there are two schools of thought on this but…(if we know a better way, etc.) I’ll eat my shoe…”]
“I would believe your arguments if…” is quite amusing also.
I respect your right to an opinion. As far as “obstructionism,” nope, we’re not it. We have proposed alternatives in every case. However – despite your salutation “The Grownassman abides,” you don’t seem to abide at all. Each and every one of your comments has an insult or two, and this one is no different. Because you have no case, you must resort to calling us names. “Endless” hyperbole. “Non-stop” hyperbole.
Why don’t you name your “majority” group? Maybe “Coalition for Approving Everything No Matter What.”
I’m done with you here – you’re just bitter. I know you like to have the last word, so I hope you enjoy having it.