Hacker News Reader

Comment by paul_f | Hacker News Reader

Maybe this is a dumb question, but why couldn't they have found another location for the new church? Why did it have to be on the same plot as the Citicorp building?

View on HN

It was an agreement between the church who owned the land and the Citicorp company that wanted to build a building on it.

Sure you could have move the church, but where would you put it? It's in downtown Manhattan. You could probably find space pretty far away, but it's unlikely church members would stay members.

It was an old church. The chuch allowed the Citicorp building to be built around it, which ended up being above it.

EDIT: spelling

They tore down the old church and built a new, modern one on the site. This is what makes this whole story so absurd to me.

Churches are parts of their community. Moving them isn't always an option. In NYC the Catholic churches are particularly tied to their neighborhoods, historically, so there really aren't many places to move to and still provide a place for that same community.

The church could have been established as floors 2 through 10 (or indeed, floors 70 through 80) of a conventional rectangular box skyscraper, instead of building what is effectively a large shack at ground level, and designing a risky skyscraper without corner supports because one of those corners would pierce the shack.

http://www.saintpeters.org/your-church/the-building/

That makes logical sense in the same way as turning central park into a "park skyscraper" makes logical sense.

Why?

Where in the Bible do they demand masonry construction and a lack of elevators?

And when the poor and homeless show up looking for the soup kitchen and temporary shelter? That should fly real well with the monied gentry on the 50th floor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com