The pending doom of demolition fencing surrounds the Ravenswood Presbyterian Church at 4300 North Hermitage Avenue in the Ravenswood neighborhood. Sources confirm that a developer plans to tear down the 110-year-old church and replace it with a half-dozen or so single-family homes.
Ravenswood Presbyterian Church, March 2018. Photo by Daniel Schell
Taken in March 2018. Photo by Daniel Schell
October 2025. Photo by Daniel Schell
The two-bedroom caretaker house on the alley will also be demolished. The church has a cornerstone etched with 1914 as its building date, while the consensus of online resources says it was completed in 1915. The cornerstone also cites the church’s 1949 rebuilding. The congregation left the building and moved to Mayfair in fall 2024, according to Block Club.
The caretaker house is at right. Photo by Daniel Schell
There are reports of single-family homes coming to the site, with indications that community meeting will be held soon to introduce plans to the public.
The church was designed by the Chicago architectural firm Pond & Pond. The stone-faced building was extensively remodeled in 1949 by architect Benjamin Franklin Olson, who replaced the earlier parish house and modernized the sanctuary. Pond & Pond, founded by Michigan brothers Irving and Allen Pond, are perhaps best known in Chicago for the Jane Addams Residents’ Dining Hall on South Halsted Street. Irving Pond was a founding member and the first president of the Cliff Dwellers Club, which was open to the public again during Open House Chicago this year.
The Jane Addams Residents’ Dining Hall at 800 South Halsted Street
According to listing information from Berkshire Hathaway, the church was put up for sale in October 2023 for $4,995,000 and then pulled from the market in August of last year. It was later relisted for $4.375 million, which is the price Coldwell Banker shows it sold for in June.
Photo by Daniel Schell
Photo by Daniel Schell
Photo by Daniel Schell
Photo by Daniel Schell
Rear of the church looking southeast from the north-south alley. Photo by Daniel Schell
Photo by Daniel Schell
Site context, via Google Maps
If YIMBY hears confirmation on a time and place for the community meeting about redevelopment, we will pass that information along.
Subscribe to YIMBY’s daily e-mail
Follow YIMBYgram for real-time photo updates
Like YIMBY on Facebook
Follow YIMBY’s Twitter for the latest in YIMBYnews
🙁
This is not something, that when replaced, will go unnoticed. The neighborhood is losing an essential landmark.
These structures could’ve be easily adapted into residential conversion. The parrish building to the West of the church is 2 storeys above ground and has regular repeated windows suitable for housing units. It could even add more floors level. The main church structure would need to have floors inserted to subdivide the special volume. The courtyard/cloister would be perfect for residential communal outdoor space. The grassy side yard and parking spot would be for a brand new construction. But it is typical Chicago mentality to demolish everything and build suburban mchouses. Shame shame shame.
“easily” for anyone willing to put millions of dollars into it. Apparently, no one was willing.
The exact same thing happened to another church property a few blocks away in that neighborhood. The church and the associated parrish building were demoed to building generic suburban stick frame houses with curb cut garage
These developments make me (irrationally????) angry. I’ve never even been religious it’s just a waste of something beautiful for something ugly.
Agree
🙁
To be replaced by soulless boxes.
Dare i say, this move is a *sin*.
Awful awful.
This is the soul of Chicago worth fighting for.
Alderpersons need to pay a price for major demos like this. Yes, repurposing will cost more, but there’s many examples of religious repurposing on the north side that were successful. Developers always cash in their campaign contributions when historical architecture is demolished at the expense of neighborhood integrity. I still love seeing a street of beautiful grey and brownstones with large ugly cheap 1960’s 4+1 mixed in. This is a 2020’s repeat starring boring and boxy new homes.
A sad example of being unburdened by what has been.
Agree with a previous comment, this could have easily been repurposed residential. Such a lack of vision and respect for contextual urbanism.
The developer could express hommage’ to the church and neighborhood, by reclaiming the stone facade for use in new building veneer.
A church building with no congregation is no longer a neighborhood asset or anchor. A few small abandoned churches have been redeveloped as quirky residential buildings but this is much bigger than the ones I am familiar with, so demo and redevelopment is understandable. It’s a great neighborhood for families. New houses will certainly fit in.
Agreed. Time to finally get some property tax from this parcel. Would I like the new project to have more character? Of course. Okay then, so those of us who want the church to be repurposed into residential can start a fund to give to the developer to do just that. Hello? You still there?
can’t wait to see some of those ugly and totally inappropriate “modern farmhouse” Joanne Gaines specials
Tearing down the church is one thing… but for single family homes?! This is so close to the brown line and bus lines. Why isn’t there more density??
The area is zoned for single-family homes, so that’s what will be built.
I know that it’s tough to convert the church into housing, but it would have been nice to at least try to save the school building. Ravenswood is in such high demand that I’m sure you could get buyers/renters to cover even a costly full conversion and then some. At the very least, I would have liked to see some apartments or condos in this neighborhood if it’s going to lose a church but its sadly just $1m + homes
If the plan is really for just 6 SFH’s to replace the whole site, then they are gonna be BIG houses.
Zoning map says the lot is 192.5’x162.5′, so dividing the long dim by 6 gives lot sizes of ~32’x162.5′, which under RS-3 allows an FAR of around 4,700 SF as of right.
I think $2M+, or even $3M+, is a safer bet here, given the location.
Still though, that’ll at least take 6 potential buyers away from 2-flat deconversions elsewhere in the neighborhood…… which is nice.
Congregation moved and sold it, no different than any other property transfer. High bidder gets ownership and all rights within the law. No more tax breaks for religious organization and high-end homes add big income stream to local revenue. Win for capitalism; win for freedom.
Agree
Alderpersons need to pay a price for major demos like this. Yes, repurposing will cost more, but there’s many examples of religious repurposing on the north side that were successful. Developers always cash in their campaign contributions when historical architecture is demolished at the expense of neighborhood integrity. I still love seeing a street of beautiful grey and brownstones with large ugly cheap 1960’s 4+1 mixed in. This is a 2020’s repeat starring boring and boxy new homes.
If you were the alderman, what would you do here? This is an as-of-right development. Would you force a developer to spend their money the way you want it spent? Let the church crumble while waiting for a sale to someone who’s willing to put millions of dollars into saving/repurposing it? You love blaming aldermen. Can we see the renderings of these boring, boxy new homes you speak of?
Please look at the church repurposing in the area of Southport. It can work. I respect, commend and appreciate the work you do here for open discussion, but for too long Alderpersons have bowed to developers for cash. Now days it’s more subtle and indirect than direct. I use to work in city government and know the back room deals. No longer, so yes I’m hard on Alderpersons. On the boring boxes topic, please walk the hoods…hopefully you’ll understand what I mean about destroying good architecture and putting up “repeat” flat roof type architecture with big windows and boring brick or siding on the street elevation. All the same basic facade except for the change of colors. I’m being extreme here to hold onto the city’s architectural integrity, be that historical or new.
Yes, it can be done, by those willing to put the money into it. This church didn’t sell to someone willing to put millions of dollars into turning it into apartments. The alderman can’t control that. They can encourage buyers to renovate, and they can put out a call to attract someone who’ll save the building, but they can’t stop demolition just by saying “we want it saved.” That takes money.
As far as new architecture, everyone is a critic. If you don’t like it, I can’t say that you’re wrong. But when you assume sight unseen that you don’t like them, that tells me you don’t like anything, so folks should just build what they’re able to build and tune out the noise.
And if you assume corruption touches everything, that’s your worldview. I can’t prove you’re wrong, but I choose not to think that way.
Another unnecessary and tragic loss of HISTORY. Unfortunately we live in a world no longer concerned with anything from another time. As the song says *PAVE Paradise to put up a parking lot* Or *little boxes made of ticky tacky* Even the President has destroyed part of OUR White House. I cannot begin to imagine what this indicates for the future.
Maybe just maybe the builder will re use some of the limestone stones in the buildings along with all of those true 2×4 / 2×6 Joyce
“There are reports of single-family homes….” What reports? Where, from who, based on what knowledge?
Big big big Chicago YIMBY fan here; not at all a fan of passive-aggressive rumor-deploying in its updates. Maybe we aim a bit higher than the professional mediots?
The land is only zoned for such. Unless some developer is planning to go big and not fight the by-right, it’s going to be single-family homes.
This site would be a perfect opportunity to deploy another courtyard, but if they’re not willing to give this chunk of limestone a second chance, they’re not going to go above and beyond with zoning.
Based on my knowledge. That’s what I have from sources. If you want to consider that a rumor and not believe it, I understand that. No one should believe everything they read, even if it’s on the internet. But if it was just something I saw written on a bathroom stall, I wouldn’t have passed it along.
The city’s heritage is dying. Tear down all of Chicago and make it a common city that no one cares about, developers really don’t care. The city doesn’t really seem to care either.