I've written about London's Fugitive Slave Chapel here but to give readers a short recap: The tiny building shown on the right was built by London's fugitive slave community in about 1848, was threatened by demolition at its original location on Thames Street, and was moved in 2014 to its present location beside its daughter church at 432 Grey Street, SoHo. Despite the efforts of the Fugitive Slave Chapel Preservation Project, it's been decaying ever since.
According to the BME Church of Canada, the restoration project stopped due to COVID, but that's not true. The project stopped long before the pandemic arrived. From the rumours I've heard, the real problems were financial issues and - whether it's polite to mention it or not - a personality clash among committee members. The project that began so well seemed destined to fail altogether.
Now the word is that the chapel will be gifted to Fanshawe Pioneer Village. Various community groups are hoping to raise $300,000 for the move, restoration to the building's mid-1800s appearance, and an education scheme about the building's history and the origins of London's black community. The addition of the chapel to FPV will add another dimension to its portrayal of local history.
I'm a bit conflicted about the move, though. Arguably, the chapel belongs next to its daughter church. The people who built the chapel also built the church so the connection makes sense. Furthermore, in recent years I've sensed that many Londoners want to move any unwanted building, such as this one, out to Fanshawe, making the pioneer village a bit of a dumping ground. And usually without suggestions as to where funding for the move will come from.
The debate, as I see it, is whether our community should wholeheartedly embrace and promote the habit of relocating buildings for the convenience of today's needs, or leave them in situ. The chapel was first moved from Thames Street so its original site could become a parking lot. When a building is moved, does it not lose some of its authenticity? Is its cultural significance not at least partially bound to its setting? Perhaps a building should only be moved under exceptional circumstances. Moving costs money and risks damage to an already fragile structure.
But in this case, with the BME Church apparently uninterested in its preservation, to leave the chapel where it is means further deterioration and the risk of losing it altogether. This little building means a great deal to lots of people. At this point, moving it for the second time is the best that can be done.
Those wishing to donate to this excellent cause may do so here.
As a former member of the Fugitive Slave Chapel committee, I can assure you that the pandemic had nothing to do with the abrupt stop to the restoration project. But there was a disconnect between what the then minister and BME Church officials wanted for the slave chapel and what the majority of committee members wanted. The committee was trying to follow the wishes of donors and members of the public who had voted on what role they wanted the restored chapel to play within the London community. We had a very dedicated heritage architect hired who had drawn up plans to the recommended future of the chapel. My concern, now that there is no longer any active congregation at the BME Church, is that once the slave chapel is removed, the historic site may be put up for sale. SoHo residents had hoped to see both the church and the chapel preserved in our community, once the home of most of London's black settlers.
ReplyDelete