Not Every Building Can Be Saved

There has been much distortion by those seeking to retain St. Vibiana’s existing building, and a failure to comprehend the stakes for all who live in and love Los Angeles.

Cardinal Roger Mahony and the leadership of the Catholic community have determined that the old cathedral, built in 1876 when the city had barely 10,000 people, cannot meet the needs of the 4.5 million Catholics in greater Los Angeles today. A new cathedral also is needed because post-Vatican II liturgical reforms require a new spatial relationship between the congregation, the priest and the altar--a relationship that simply cannot be met in the small, old building. It is presumptuous for any group to tell another how or where they should conduct their worship service.

While religious needs are the primary concern, it is important to understand that the existing structure has no architectural merit and relatively minor historical value. The archdiocese engaged Tim Vreeland, a distinguished professor of architecture at UCLA, to study the existing building. Vreeland found that while the original 1876 structure had architectural merit, later alterations, particularly those of the 1920s, destroyed its integrity and value. Vreeland further determined that, from a historical standpoint, better and purer examples of the work of St. Vibiana’s architect, Ezra F. Kysor, exist in Los Angeles, including the Pico House and the Merced Theater in the old plaza by Olvera Street.

The archdiocese also engaged Nabih Youssef, a seismic engineer who has been recognized by the Los Angeles Conservancy for the integrity and quality of his work. The cost of implementing recommended repairs simply to make the building structurally safe and in compliance with codes is estimated at between $15 million and $21 million. And this work would require the destruction and replication of much of the structure’s remaining historic fabric, while still leaving the building inadequate as a worship space.

The conservancy has repeatedly stated that the building could be saved for $5 million. However, the conservancy has not responded to the archdiocese’s repeated requests to see a breakdown of this number or the seismic strengthening plan. Indeed, all we have heard is that their plan provides for external, exposed, steel braces to hold up the existing building. I question how the implementation of such a plan would impact the alleged architectural and historic integrity of the structure.

Since 1994, the archdiocese has repeatedly met with the conservancy’s designated leadership on this issue. Since being retained as project executive, I have held numerous meetings with the same leadership. Together with the conservancy, the archdiocese sponsored a two-day workshop on the cathedral. In these meetings, the archdiocese made it clear that, for the stated reasons, it will not devote time or money to preserve the severely damaged building. The archdiocese also repeatedly stated that it will work with the conservancy to meaningfully memorialize the old building on the site. Cardinal Mahony also committed to the conservancy that the entire building would not be demolished until after the architect for the new cathedral met with the conservancy to hear their concerns. This meeting took place June 13. Nevertheless, at no time has the conservancy leadership offered any proposal other than the total retention or “‘saving” of the existing building.

Downtown Los Angeles is the center of a rapidly maturing city, the seat of secular, cultural and economic power and the hub of our evolving transportation systems. It is the birthplace of this region, and it is or should be the physical expression of our heart and soul. But the historic core, putting it gently, is downtown’s rotting center. For 30 years, it has been deteriorating and the many courageous efforts by the city, the Community Redevelopment Agency, private parties and the conservancy have not truly reversed this trend.

Cardinal Mahony’s commitment to place the largest cathedral in western America for the largest Catholic population in the United States in the center of the historic core is a courageous and socially progressive act.

It is time for the conservancy to end its destructive and wasteful lawsuit, for nothing profound will be achieved by continued litigation except the loss of a historic opportunity for our city and the destruction of the conservancy’s credibility and viability, which so many have built up over so many years.

The conservancy should accept the dismantling of St. Vibiana’s as reality and cooperate with the archdiocese on memorializing this structure. We can remember the past and build for the future, and in so doing advance the cause of responsible preservation and create a great cathedral for the Catholic community and for the entire City of the Angels.