Besides another church, as mentioned before. But, yeah, not only that but often standalone churches are in residential neighborhoods, so they can’t be as easily switched to, say, a concert venue w/o significant rezoning and permitting (easier to go the opposite way, theater-to-church as it will usually be in a commercial use zone already).
Some former church buildings are converted to residential use.
Here’s a picture of Mercato Mayfair, a food court in a former church in London. It’s actually a very popular place.
My parents moved into a planned community, basically a new town that displaced thousands or acres of farmland in the late 1970s (I mean the development occurred in the 1970s, my parents moved there around 1990).
A parish was established in 1980, but they shared a building with first a United Methodist and then a Lutheran church. They moved into their own digs in the 1990s, but they couldn’t raise the tens of millions for a “proper” church, so they “temporarily” outfitted a space that was part of a retail + office complex.
I just looked it up and they are still in those temporary digs, but they have now taken up a much bigger chunk of that complex. So I’m guessing they’ve given up on a purpose built structure.
It used to be a predominantly white, blue collar place. But now is overwhelmingly Hispanic and Black.
My mother was on a committee to outfit the church, but it seemed like most of the decisions were made by “professionals” at the archdiocese.
Right. I think a lot of people assume that the Church is a lot more centrally controlled than it is. Instead, it’s a sort of confederation of bishops and archbishops and their associated dioceses and provinces, with the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) as first among equals, and the leader of the Church.
They’re all pretty much independent, except on matters of doctrine/dogma.
They do something called deconsecrating them, which I suppose removes any supernatural mojo associated with the building, and then they just sell the land I think.
Deconsecration isn’t the issue - the issue is that there is little that can be done with most church buildings. That food court is an interesting idea , but it won’t work for a lot of churches because of their location - how well is a food court going to do in a totally residential area ? Assuming a food court is even allowed in a residential area. They can sell the land - but whoever buys the land is going to have to account for razing the building and putting something up, depending on what is permitted. Might not be worth it.
Count me among those, and my ignorance is now fought. Until this thread, a thought that pretty much every decision that requires a signature (writing a check, approving a transfer, etc.) was at least given at least ceremonial approval from someone in Rome. Clearly not.
I’ve seen a few former church buildings here and there that have been repurposed for residential or commercial use. In fact I used to work in a warehouse that had previously been a Protestant church. Nowadays it’s a used car dealership.
The church I was baptized in (formerly a rural Methodist church) is now a craft shop.
That’s why I said most - if a church is in a commercial area, it might be able to be used as a warehouse or a car dealer or a food court. And a small church might be able to be converted into residential use. But this
is not going to work well as a either a single residence or multiple apartments , not without such extensive renovations that it might as well be knocked down and rebuilt. ( insulation, plumbing, electricity, heating) So if it’s not in a commercial area, there’s not much that can be done with it except sell it to a different congregation.
There are a lot of church conversions here into 6-20 condo units. I’m guessing most of them were built between 1900-1940. The historic features are big selling points and using the existing structure allows them to do things current bylaws don’t allow.
You’re in Finland?
Around here, I know of at least two that were converted to art galleries: One of them houses statuary from other churches that have closed, while the other is now owned by an artist who uses the space to show off their own work (and also lives in the building). But there’s only so much demand for art galleries.
Most any other sort of old building around here gets converted into condos, but I’ve never heard of it being done with a church.
Nope, Canada, Toronto specifically.
Pretty much the complete opposite. Administratively, the Catholic church is highly decentralised. Diocesan bishops have a high degree of control and it’s culture and tradition, more than any administrative structure or bureacratic oversight above the level of dioceses, that leads them nearly all to exercise that control in very similar ways.
I recall reading some time ago that the number of officials working for the Vatican is rather less than the number working for the London Borough of Islington (one of the 32 local government districts into which Greater London is divided.) If so, that’s a pretty slim head office for a global organisation with more than a million clerics and religous worldwide. So the local churches pretty much have to run themselves; Rome doesn’t have the people to do it.
The centralized administrative control is at the diocesan level - I think many people ( including Catholics, I’m sure ) aren’t really familiar with that sort of set-up with lot of centralized control ( parishes don’t hire their own priests, for example) at a fairly low level (priest assignments don’t come from the Vatican). Usually the control is either from the very top or very local - it’s hard for me to think of any other organization similar to the Catholic Church in this respect.
We’ve covered the establishment of new parishes quite extensively, so I’m adding that not every Catholic church is a parish church. Many parishes have other churches (“filials”) in addition to the main one; sometimes these are the results of several parishes being merged, sometimes they arise for other reasons, e.g. someone fulfilling a vow to build a church. You can even have a en entirely privately owned chapel; this is not so rare in hospitals, and in the past wealthy aristocratic families would sometimes have that. Those are not parish churches, but you still need permission from the local bishop to build one.
I don’t see the issue. Once it’s deconsecrated, it’s just a building and can be reused or torn down or whatever.
Zoning is a bigger issue I’d think, with many churches being smack-dab in the middle of residential areas. Regardless of the building itself, it may be tough to use that lot for much.
As far as the Church’s decentralized structure is concerned, it’s a LOT like the Boy Scouts of America. Which is interesting considering the abuse scandals both organizations experienced.
But at the same time, I feel like public misunderstanding of how both are organized contributes to the level of culpability assigned to the umbrella organization.
Middle suburbs of London are so full of church buildings that you can’t spit without hitting one* Most of them have been repurposed.
*exageration. Actually, there are probably only 5-10 within walking distance of any pre-war residential building.
The problem is this : let’s say the church is in a residential area. It’s the sort of building that can’t easily be converted into residence(s). You have to either spend a lot on renovations or spend a lot to knock down the building and rebuild. All those costs get considered when someone is thinking about buying it - I know a church that has been closed since the nineties. A few years ago (maybe 5) Catholic Charities started building senior citizen housing - it’s going to cost around $50 million to tear the old church down and put up the new building(s). If there are 150 apartments, that means each apartment will cost something like $330k. In a low income neighborhood. Only a charity could do it because it will not be profitable.