Lexford Park (formerly First Christian Church)

[Pete]

Today in city council, the resolution to commence the historic landmark process was tabled for another month.

However, the planning commission can also start the process if they pass a similar resolution at their next meeting in early April.

[BronchoSilverback]

Yes, I really appreciate the efforts of OKCtalk as well. FWIW, I have posted links to the site in various places.

I also appreciate reading comments those of you who have informed opinions and actual knowledge of the factual circumstances.

I planned to attend the city council meeting today, but was just annihilated by flu and strep. Can anyone provide context to the tabling of the resolution, and/or the sentiment of the other members of council about the resolution?

[Urban Pioneer]

Greenwell was adamantly against it due to his opinions about property rights, socialism versus a republic, and church/state conflict beliefs.

Meg Salyer was admanent for delaying and allowing more offers and dialogue to occur. She pressed for preservation.

The Mayor acted great as a moderator and allowed everyone to speak as long as they wanted. It was extremely civil.

The resolution was postponed with a verbal commitment from the pastor and church board president that a demolition permit would not be filed in the interim.

David Box had a scheduling conflict with the upcoming council meeting. That means that the item gets kicked until after the preservation commission takes it up. Then I guess an automatic moratorium kicks in.

There was quite a debate dialogue between Stonecipher, Meg, and Box about how many offers have been received. Meg attested to being contacted by two interested parties making offers. The church via Box claims that they have only received one “legitimate” offer. This caused a fairly testy conversation.

In any case, some time was bought through today’s meeting but it was clear that the church leadership won’t prohibit a buyer from destroying the buildings although that is not their preference. If those offers do exist, someone needs to make sure they get to right people in the church and that the congregation knows about them.

[Urban Pioneer]

This now means JoBeth Harmon and James Cooper have a say in this matter. I’ve been told JoBeth is ambivalent.

[BronchoSilverback]

Greenwell was adamantly against it due to his opinions about property rights, socialism versus a republic, and church/state conflict beliefs.

Meg Salyer was admanent for delaying and allowing more offers and dialogue to occur. She pressed for preservation.

The Mayor acted great as a moderator and allowed everyone to speak as long as they wanted. It was extremely civil.

The resolution was postponed with a verbal commitment from the pastor and church board president that a demolition permit would not be filed in the interim.

David Box had a scheduling conflict with the upcoming council meeting. That means that the item gets kicked until after the preservation commission takes it up. Then I guess an automatic moratorium kicks in.

There was quite a debate dialogue between Stonecipher, Meg, and Box about how many offers have been received. Meg attested to being contacted by two interested parties making offers. The church via Box claims that they have only received one “legitimate” offer. This caused a fairly testy conversation.

In any case, some time was bought through today’s meeting but it was clear that the church leadership won’t prohibit a buyer from destroying the buildings although that is not their preference. If those offers do exist, someone needs to make sure they get to right people in the church and that the congregation knows about them.

Thanks so much!

I just did a quick scan of the city code, and this section seemed the most applicable:

"3300.2. Powers. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the Historic Preservation Commission shall have the following powers:
...
E. To recommend to the City Council the acquisition of development rights, façade, conservation, or preservation easements and the development of historic preservation plans. "

So I guess a formal recommendation from the HP commission will, in theory, inform the council members' votes.

[Buffalo Bill]

Thanks so much!

I just did a quick scan of the city code, and this section seemed the most applicable:

"3300.2. Powers. Unless otherwise specified in this chapter, the Historic Preservation Commission shall have the following powers:
...
E. To recommend to the City Council the acquisition of development rights, façade, conservation, or preservation easements and the development of historic preservation plans. "

So I guess a formal recommendation from the HP commission will, in theory, inform the council members' votes.

Looks like First Christian is on the agenda for next weeks HP commission meeting. There’s also this ominous sounding agenda item:

Enter into executive session on advice of the Municipal Counselor to receive confidential communications from its attorney concerning the threatened litigation related to initiating the Historic Landmark designation process for the First Christian Church located at 3700 N. Walker Ave as authorized by 25 O.S. (2018 Supp.) §307(B)(4), because disclosure would seriously impair the ability of the public body to deal with the threatened litigation in the public interest.

[Urban Pioneer]

Is that essentially a threat to sue the city?

[TheTravellers]

Is that essentially a threat to sue the city?

Sounds like it to me, which matches up with the story that the owners/pastors/whoever does *not* want an historic designation at all for the church (and maybe other structures on the property). And I'm kind of confused by that - yes, historic designations make some things harder to do (you couldn't paint it green, for example), but not sure what they would want to do that would run afoul of the designation. Sounds like they just want to be able to do whatever they want to with it (including sell it) without anybody having any say in it. But that's just my take, I'm not part of the congregation, and may not know the full story, but I can't understand why they're opposing the historic designation so vociferously.

[Pete]

Holy cow, 'threatened litigation'... That is not at all the same thing as the owner of a property opposing the efforts to make it a landmark. THAT has already happened. First Christian had their attorney file a letter with the city stating that.

So this is different. They are now threatening to sue the city over this matter.

The only reason they would sue is because they feel like the landmark designation being forced upon them would diminish the value of their property; and that would only happen if they planned to sell to someone who wants to demolish or significantly alter the buildings.

It does indeed sound ominous, especially in light of the fact that other potential buyers have emerged.

[Urban Pioneer]

I can't understand why they're opposing the historic designation so vociferously.

It's pretty simple- The congregation has been dwindling for years thus incrementally ratcheting up the pressure on the church entity's actual existence. They feel like they have been good stewards with the property and anchor in the community. They are offended that people concerned for the property aren't concerned at all with their liturgical mission in life.

I thought the video of the council meeting was interesting. David Box was clearly aggrieved and emotionally conflicted. He sees the statutes clearly and that they favor the church. Box typically has a professional relationship with the council and wins big for his clients again and again. I think he probably sees this as a race against the clock that undermines and threatens the church's ability to execute their lawful rights.

As I have stated in earlier posts, I personally think the building should be saved. To not think it is a landmark is laughable. However, this entire fiasco can be directly blamed on former City Manager Jim Couch. The plans for a landmarking statute have been sitting on the Planning Department's shelf for years collecting dust. Couch has always been beholden to corporate interests and held a pro-economic belief that businesses should do whatever they want at all costs to generate jobs and anchor the community economically. Right or wrong, that philosophy has led to countless destruction of landmark-worthy properties imop.

This entire situation is ridiculous and directly due to his recalcitrance in allowing former Planning Directors to implement a reasonable mechanism to assess historic and architecturally significant properties. Expect a policy to be rapidly implemented with Couch gone and this raging debate about this landmark happening. The question is after a policy is implemented and assessments occur, will anything be left of this property's stature?

[Urban Pioneer]

And it should also be pointed out that the church board president spoke as well and was against landmarking because of its potential implications to building modifications that included ADA compliance. So there is the demolition issue but also an architectural modification issue.

[Pete]

^

And any change to come through the planning department is still going to take a while.

I've heard they are still at least a year away, which supports your points about this being a low priority for Couch, especially since he was city manager for 18 years.

[Urban Pioneer]

This whole thing would not be such a big deal if we were building interesting buildings all of the time. I can understand why people are emotional about it. This was from an era when limits were meant to be tested. There is definitely an embodiment of the space race in First Christian Church's architecture.

They are also dealing with the evolution of liturgical preferences of people and the shift to secularism by many. There are a great many reasons as to why some of those congregants and pastors are emotional about this public debate.

[Pete]

^

It has more to do with shifting demographics than anything else.

Tons and tons of churches inside the Kilpatrick Turnpike are struggling.

Yet, you have a bunch of megachurches thriving out where people are building new homes and raising young families.

[Urban Pioneer]

I agree but still yet format, structured liturgy, and worship style has a great deal to do with it as well. Older churches want to hang on to their older base of support by not changing from a highly structured, traditional, and ritualistic format.

In the case of Frontline downtown for example, you actually have many people commuting in to downtown from the suburbs.

First Christian in Edmond is my wife's church. You can observe that it is stable but not exactly growing either. I think that this is something of a post-Catholicism phase that our country has entered into. Disciples of Christ, Methodist churches, and other symbolically Catholic-lite churches are often having a hard time.

But you are right, suburban money does generally prop up those areas and urban churches overall often are struggling. But it definitely both and often reliant on highly individualistic tastes and relationships. Churches that essentially have a high entertainment value (pc- "engagement") and a strong childcare facility have an edge.

[TheTravellers]

Thanks, Pete and UP, had forgotten about the ADA compliance part, and did not know about Couch's heinous hand in all this (I'm soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo glad he's gone, he needed to be gone many many years ago!!!!!!!!!!!).

[okatty]

^

It has more to do with shifting demographics than anything else.

Tons and tons of churches inside the Kilpatrick Turnpike are struggling.

Yet, you have a bunch of megachurches thriving out where people are building new homes and raising young families.

In this regard, the foresight that Crossings had back in the mid-90s was pretty amazing. Others have followed suit and have thrived as Pete said.

https://crossings.church/about/history

[Pete]

I agree but still yet format, structured liturgy, and worship style has a great deal to do with it as well. Older churches want to hang on to their older base of support by not changing from a highly structured, traditional, and ritualistic format.

Many churches saw the need to appeal to younger people and newer styles of worshipping, and many started to offer services with this approach while keeping separate, more traditional services.

I don't have a lot of sympathy for leadership that has been watching these methodical, predictable trends for decades and waited until they went from hundreds if not thousands of members to only a handful, then tries to gain sympathy by claiming they have no real choice. They've had choices all along and should never have let things get to desperation, especially as caretakers of property that is important to the community.

They also were completely unrealistic in their asking price for a long time.

[Urban Pioneer]

If you’re suggesting I’m being sympathetic, I’m not. I’m just trying to provide context.

And regarding different types of services, I just stating that denominations such as Methodist and Disciples have a structured format that generally revolves around communion, advent, etc even in their “contemporary” services.

[bombermwc]

That's not totally true. I'm in my late 30's with kids, and i chose First Christian in MWC because its a traditional model church. I don't feel connected at all in large churches (previously went to St. Luke's downtown) and the contemporary services are equally un-moving for me. We try to balance both by encouraging contemporary elements in our service as we have people willing to contribute though (and i definitely support that). There's a whole other debate about megachurches and their actual impact, but i'll save that. Our church picked up and physically moved East back in 2000 to adjust to the moving demographics of the area where our old building was (MWC original mile). It's definitely been a way to help keep our church alive, but of course not all church have that option.

I say that just to say that there are people on both sides of the contemporary/traditional models.

[Pete]

The point is that this particular church has been watching their membership dwindle for decades; from thousands to about 40 (!) currently.

Whatever the reasons, they had half a century to prepare and deserve no sympathy for now getting themselves is some sort of self-described bind which will likely result in the total destruction of the property for which they were caretakers.

Threatening to the sue the city over an entirely legal process demonstrates open hostility and my hope is that any council members previously on the fence will be less likely to support them.

[Dob Hooligan]

The "Church Of Tomorrow" won't live to retirement age....

I thought this building was a break from the shackles of pre-war church structure and a bold vision of the optimism of the post war era. In physical structure and ministry effort there was a clear display of the limitless, modern Christian ministry of the great Americans who won WWII and were changing the world for good. Letting it go away is a failure of their vision by those who came after, IMO. I think Oklahoma wants that vision to continue today and there has to be a way for current leadership to allow it to move that way.

[mugofbeer]

The point is that this particular church has been watching their membership dwindle for decades; from thousands to about 40 (!) currently.

Whatever the reasons, they had half a century to prepare and deserve no sympathy for now getting themselves is some sort of self-described bind which will likely result in the total destruction of the property for which they were caretakers.

Threatening to the sue the city over an entirely legal process demonstrates open hostility and my hope is that any council members previously on the fence will be less likely to support them.

Find someone who attended the church around 25 years ago. There was a big split in membership support for Rev. Don Alexander causing a great many of the members, especially the younger ones, to leave the church. It wasn't just a case of dwindling. I don't know the details but it is key to the much smaller church.

[bombermwc]

Speaking as someone that's involved in church leadership, Pete, that comment may be overall true but the solutions are far more complicated that that makes it sound. Churches are living things that require cooperation among all ages. You will see the older folks in the more traditional churches that are stereo typically less willing to adjust. Thankfully, we dont have that problem in our congregation. But it's always a struggle because those older folks are typically the elders and control what the church does. In most of those failed churches, either demographics changed where there just aren't younger folks there any longer or the leaders failed to adjust to attract/keep them. With OKC, you saw both problems.

With ANY church, you need to attract younger families to keep the church alive. Those people are the future of the church just like when those elders were the younger folks. You need things for the younger folks to do together...support structure. You need CHILD CARE for activities. Whether you're traditional or contemporary, same things apply.

It's super easy to simply say 'they didn't adjust so they deserve to close', but that's very not fair to any church.

[Dob Hooligan]

I think it is fair. And I think it is accurate. It is common for us in the church to say that "we are of the spirit" and "not of the business world", but, in truth, we are in the business of the spirit. We build physical structures and engage in financial transactions. We want our version of the cause of Christ to attract other people. When we are not attractive, people do not attend our church.