Good News/Bad News

The good news is that repairs have begun on the sidewalk and steps leading to the Mayfair Drive entrance to the narthex. The bad news is that we may not be doing a good job of the repair.

Last Sunday, I saw plans for the repairs posted, without comment, in the undercroft. (See picture at right, and click on it for a much larger image.) The plans call for replacing the steps more or less as they have been. The steps are to be concrete. The plans were marked “OWNER/REVIEW SET/NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,” which I took to mean that demolition and construction were not imminent. I learned yesterday, however, that this was a misinterpretation; I passed the church and discovered that the existing steps have already been demolished. (See below.)

I have two concerns: the materials called for and whether we are ultimately planning to provide handicapped access at the front of the building.

All of St. Paul’s is faced with limestone. The front steps and the lower Mayfair entrance steps are limestone. The upper Mayfair steps, that is, the steps just demolished, were mostly concrete. (From the rubble pile, it seems that there was some limestone used. The deteriorated steps were definitely concrete, however. See picture below of the steps as of sometime last May.) The existing stone steps are largely in good repair, except that there are significant cracks where railings were installed. (I suspect that none of the iron railings are original.) In any case, I believe the integrity of the building demands limestone steps. I was told Sunday, however, that limestone cost too much. Shouldn’t it be parishioners, or at least the Vestry, who decide this? (I am told that the Vestry has not been shown the plans or approved the project.)

It is clear from the recent feasibility report on Fulfilling the Vision that parishioners are very concerned about the physical plant of St. Paul’s, and I suspect that they might well opt for limestone steps if asked, even if such steps were more expensive than concrete ones. No one has asked, however, which seems to have become the way business is conducted at St. Paul’s these days.

The second issue is whether we are going to provide handicapped access at the front of the building. I suggested back in May—see “Do We Really Want to Repair the Steps”—that we could use the excuse of repairing the steps to the narthex to provide handicapped access via a ramp from Mayfair Drive. The plan for Fulfilling the Vision—now on hold, of course—proposed an alternative plan that would have sloped the pavement in front of the building upward to provide handicapped access from Washington Road. (See “Fulfilling the Vision, Part 1.”) The plans for the present repair connects the front pavement to the Mayfair entrance exactly as it has been. But what if we alter the pavement in front of the building? (It is in poor condition in any case, and a good case could be made for replacing it.) I question whether we should carry out any project involving access to the narthex before we have a comprehensive plan for the front of the church. Because the appearance of the building is affected, that plan should be one at least presented to parishioners, if not actually endorsed by them.

Do we need handicapped access to the narthex? Whenever I bring up the subject, I am told that that is what the elevator is for. After all, we wisely spent the money necessary for an elevator that reaches every level of the church, save for the choir room and chancel. (One might ask for a sign pointing down Mayfair and labeled “Parking and Handicapped Access” or some such, by the way.) One must admit, though, that there is something symbolic in everyone’s being able to enter the church at the front. The parking lot entrance for the handicapped seems a bit like a back-door entrance for “colored.” (I grew up in the South.) Perhaps a more compelling argument for accessibility, however, is for a handicapped exit. In case of fire, the elevator should not be used. What is someone in a wheelchair supposed to do if there is no exit without stairs?

That said, neither plan for handicapped access to the narthex is without its problems. A ramp from Mayfair Drive would have to be long if it were not to be too steep. Access from Washington Road as proposed in Fulfilling the Vision would have significantly changed the building’s façade. Moreover, Washington Road is not an ideal place to discharge passengers, particularly handicapped ones, from an automobile. Even if we installed some sort of driveway in front of the building, the lack of parking would be problematic, particularly for handicapped drivers. The only good solution I see to this problem would be to provide handicapped-only parking parallel to the street but cutting into the existing sidewalk and lawn. Such parking would need to be without a curb to facilitate egress from vehicles.

My current idea for providing handicapped access in front of the church would indeed add a parking area off Washington Road as I have described. I would build a larger paved plaza in front of the church, leaving the front steps as they are. I would build a ramp from that plaza to the side door of the narthex. As it happens, the existing sidewalk from the front of the church to the side entrance actually slopes downward; we had more steps on the side than in the front. This sidewalk could be regraded to go upward. This plan, of course, would require demolition of much of what is about to be built.

Great Day for Music

It was a wonderful day for music at today’s 10:30 service! I hardly know where to start in describing it.

The hymns included “Lift high the cross” (#473) as the processional, “Praise the Lord through every nation” (#484, employing the familiar “Sleepers wake” tune harmonized by J.S. Bach) as the sequence hymn, and “Praise to the living God!” (#372, to the Hebrew melody “Leoni”) as the recessional.

The choir sang Martin How’s “Day by Day,” which was lovely, but which was outshown by solists. Mezzo soprano Kathleen Hendricks sang Adolphe Schlosser’s “He that keepeth Israel” during communion. (This seems to be a popular solo, though I know nothing—and could discover nothing—of Schlosser.) Doug Starr played the very interesting “Galeries ancien” by contemporary composer Dennis Janzer as the postlude.

Despite those lovely performances, the star musician of the day was Alexandra Thompson. Alexa played two movements from Bach’s Cello Suite No. 5. Before the service, she played the Prelude, and, during communion, she played the Allemande.

I first heard Alexa play at St. Paul’s when she was about 12, and I was struck by her musicianship even them. She is now studying to become a professional cellist, and she has passed the point where I can identify any imperfections in her playing. After the Allemande, I just wanted to sit quietly and meditate on what I had heard.

Alexandra Thompson is not the first musician to grow up at St. Paul’s. Doug should be commended for providing what encouragement he has to these musicians by allowing them to play at services and concerts. Certainly, the parish has greatly benefited from their musical talents.

Executive Summary of Feasibility Study Report

“Copies of a summary of the Episcopal Church Foundation Feasibility Study Report are available in the parish office and in the parish hall/undercroft. The summary consists of excerpts of the key findings made by the Episcopal Church Foundation concerning the proposed capital campaign.” That was the announcement at the bottom of the page in today’s bulletin. That summary, and the report it summarizes, are still not on the church’s Web site, but you can read the summary here and the full report here.

As explained in the summary itself, the document “is taken from the ECF report without editorial comment.” This was a wise decision, though, as I noted in “The Episcopal Church Foundation Feasibility Study Report,” the foundation went out of its way to mitigate the sting of its conclusions. Those excuses are reproduced in the executive summary as item 4 under “Concerns.”

Update Needed

The Fulfilling the Vision proposal included a number of building improvements that were widely anticipated, such as repairing the steps at the Mayfair entrance to the narthex. It did not—not explicitly, anyway—include other maintenance and enhancement projects that many of us would like to see. (See, for example, my post “Fulfilling the Vision, Part 2.”) While taking pictures of the banners on the front lawn yesterday—see “Lawn Signs”—I was reminded that there is a bronze plaque on the front of the building that needs updating.

A number of people have mentioned to me that we have never inserted a nameplate into the bronze tablet for our current rector. There is clearly more wrong with it than that, however. Our forebears realized that the parish rector would change from time to time, but they apparently failed to recognize that services and service times might also change. Such details are not cast in stone and should therefore never be cast in bronze.

It should be obvious—was it not obvious to the capital campaign committee?—that our bronze tablet needs to be fixed, and not by chiseling off the text as was seemingly attempted in the past. No, I’m afraid we need professional help. It may be that our current plaque is hopeless, and a new one will have to be manufactured, but I would hope that we could modify what we have, if only for tradition’s sake. (Admittedly, one could make a case for a new plaque that leaves off the rector entirely. The rector changes but the Lord abides.)

I suspect that the COMMUNION, MORNING PRAYER, and CHURCH SCHOOL lines can be removed by a foundry. The space between the two horizontal rules will then need to be filled with something. I suggest adding a bronze medallion in the space, either of the St. Paul’s dove or of the Episcopal Church shield. In the latter case, the medallion can perhaps be painted or enameled.

Publicity—Second Thoughts

This morning, I posted an appreciative post on this blog about the banner signs that are currently displayed in front of St. Paul’s. (If you haven’t read “Lawn Signs,” do so before reading on.)

One of those signs is promoting the forthcoming Refuge service. Looking over my post once it was uploaded to the Web, I was reminded that the banner and the ad in Mt. Lebanon Magazine both point the reader to a Web page, namely that at http://www.stpaulspgh.org/refuge. This is what that page looks like as of today (click for a larger view):


What’s wrong with this picture? To begin with, there isn’t much here. Supposedly, Refuge is a big deal. Why aren’t there more pictures, more explanation, and more information about the church and personnel who are making this service a reality? There certainly are more pictures on the service’s Facebook page, but, even there, there isn’t much of a pitch for attending or caring about the church’s new initiative.

What really made me think I had to write this post, however, was this line:

Visit us at Mt. Lebanon’s First Friday, on September 10

One doesn’t have to look at the calendar to know that, even in Mt. Lebanon, the first Friday can never fall on the 10th of the month. The post on the St. Paul’s Web site is dated July 29, 2010, and, in more than a month, no one caught that egregious error!

While on the subject of the St. Paul’s Web site, let me offer a thought or two. (I will defer a full critique of the Web site for another time.) I am sitting at my computer that says the outdoor temperature is 90 degrees, but the banner picture on the Web site shows a winter scene, snow included. The picture is not refreshing, just insensitive and irrelevant. And the colors look like they were chosen for a Halloween makeover. How welcoming is this on September 2?

Lawn Signs

Banner signs on church lawns tend to be tacky, but St. Paul’s often does as good a job with such advertising as anyone. As we enter a new program year, St. Paul’s has two banners on the lawn facing Washington Road, each an attractive, two-sided pitch for Episcopal worship services.(Click on any of the pictures in this post for a larger view.)

The sign nearer the corner of Washington Road and Mayfair Drive employs the now-familiar “Joyful Morning” motif. It is a pleasing design with legible copy. One has a fair chance of reading all or part of it while driving by.

New this year is a sign for Refuge. It is smaller than the other banner, and, because of the font used, is somewhat more difficult to read. It is nicely designed, but its placement is more problematic, being more nearly parallel to Washington Road. Also, as can be seen in the picture at left, the two green steel poles holding up the banner are not quite parallel, giving the installation an amateurish quality.

As I said, however, the design on the banner is quite nice. It is virtually the same as the advertisement St. Paul’s placed in the September issue of Mt. Lebanon Magazine. (Back issues of the magazine are posted on-line, but the September issue is not on the Web as I am writing this. When available, the issue can be found here.) The design actually works better as a print advertisement, but we can hope that the sign on the lawn also gets some attention from passersby.

It is good to see St. Paul’s getting more imaginative in its publicity. The magazine ad is well placed, well executed, and well timed. Attracting worshipers is no easy task, however, and it remains to be seen how much the new advertising will help.

Update, 6:30 PM: I drove by St. Paul’s a little while ago and was gratified to see that the Refuge sign had been repositioned. It is now perpendicular to the roadway, so it can be seen easily by travelers moving in either direction. The stakes holding the banner are still not parallel.

Update, 9/4/2010: I visited downtown Mt. Lebanon last night for First Friday. Kris had has table on Washington Road promoting the new Refuge service. A Refuge banner was behind him. I assumed it was yet another banner, but the banner had apparently been removed from the St. Paul’s lawn. As of Saturday afternoon, it has not been returned to the lawn. Meanwhile, the other banner has apparently suffered wind damage and is largely disconnected from its supports.

Vestry Delivers the News

The Vestry has now sent its statement responding to the feasibility study report on Fulfilling the Vision to parishioners on the church’s e-mail distribution list. (See posts “Fulfilling the Vision Postponed” and “The Episcopal Church Foundation Feasibility Report.”) The statement is not on the St. Paul’s Web site, but those who did not receive a personal copy can read it on the Constant Contact Web site. (Constant Contact is the e-mail distribution service used by St. Paul’s. An image of the Constant Contact page is shown at the left.)

Alas, the statement does not suggest that the Vestry has any regrets for having handled this matter poorly. We are told, however, that it “ will take the time necessary to revise and refine the various aspects of a capital campaign to focus on those items of greatest interest and concern to the congregation, and then explain more fully the need and rationale for each of them.” This is all well and good, but it is not clear that the Vestry really intends to consult parishioners in any effective way before presenting yet another take-it-or-leave it package. The congregation as a whole needs to be involved in charting our future.

More disappointing is the news that the church “will be providing a summary of the feasibility study report in the near future,” but not yet. “A copy of the full report is available to be read in the parish office.”

Why is there no copy of the report on the parish Web site? Why is the message from the Vestry not on the parish Web site?

In case you missed it, the report is available here. It is a quick and informative read. Don’t wait for the executive summary or the promised report on the Web site. Read it now!