More institutions owned by the Catholics

[snopes]

Comment: Dear Whomever,

I have heard, alternately, the persistent rumor that the Catholic Church
is the owner of the most property on Manhattan in NYC or that is owns the
most valuable property in NYC; specifically St. Patrick's Cathedral in
lower Manhattan.

Originally Posted by snopes

I have heard...that the Catholic Church
is the owner of ....St. Patrick's Cathedral in
lower Manhattan.

No, we just rent it from the Jewish World Church....

[Judecat]

Since there are more Catholics in Manhattan than any other religious affiliation, then it might be true to say that most of the residental property is owned by Catholic families but that doesn't mean the Catholic Church owns them.

And as far as St Patrick's being the most valuable propety, how are you measuring value. I can't think of any measure of value where any church would be more valuable than a high rise, or a mansion. Even if you are talking about the just value of the real estate if it were vacant, would not be any higher for the land St Patric's sits on per square foot, than the property next door.

[Errata]

Originally Posted by Judecat

And as far as St Patrick's being the most valuable propety, how are you measuring value. I can't think of any measure of value where any church would be more valuable than a high rise, or a mansion. Even if you are talking about the just value of the real estate if it were vacant, would not be any higher for the land St Patric's sits on per square foot, than the property next door.

I agree that its pretty questionable. I'd think a skyscraper would be worth more.

But a mansion, seriously? Have you seen the cathedral? Its looks more valuable than any celebrity private home I've ever seen, and most people living in manhattan don't own houses. Even rich people in manhattan generally have luxury apartments in the city and mansions in the suburbs, not mansions in manhattan.

According to this report, the cathedral is estimated at $155 million. But really its difficult to properly appreciate its value since who is going to buy a catholic cathedral and be able to get the same use out of it?

In comparison, Bill Gates' 50k square foot private mansion, one of the most expensive in the world, owned by the richest man in the world, was only assessed at $125 million.

[jimmy101_again]

Originally Posted by Errata

I agree that its pretty questionable. I'd think a skyscraper would be worth more.

But a mansion, seriously? Have you seen the cathedral? Its looks more valuable than any celebrity private home I've ever seen, and most people living in manhattan don't own houses. Even rich people in manhattan generally have luxury apartments in the city and mansions in the suburbs, not mansions in manhattan.

According to this report, the cathedral is estimated at $155 million. But really its difficult to properly appreciate its value since who is going to buy a catholic cathedral and be able to get the same use out of it?

In comparison, Bill Gates' 50k square foot private mansion, one of the most expensive in the world, owned by the richest man in the world, was only assessed at $125 million.

I would think the land Gates' home is on is probably worth a few million, the home itself and other improvements make up the rest of the $125M. For the catherdral I would suspect it is reversed, the land is worth more than the building(s).

Besides, even if you spend $125M on a house and you still have to add a room when the first baby is born.

[Judecat]

Yeah, but St Patric's is in the neighborhood of Rockifeller center, where 1.000 sq ft condo recently sold for 1,2 million. So I would really bet that that building is way more valuable than the measly $155 million for St Patric's. I think Value is a measure of what you can get out of it. My neighbors house is more valuable than mine because he is collecting rents while I am just living in mine.

And in that link from Erratta that 155 mil is estimated market value. It's only worth that much is someone is in the market for an expensive white elephant -- not even the other buildings are included.

I just got back from NYC. Our tour guide told us that it, St. Pats, is the richest church in the world. Not only is the land the church sits on worth millions BUT it also OWNS the blocks that surrounds it. The church did not sell the land when they built high rises on it but leased it instead. So it, in effect, owns numerous skyscrapers most likely in the billion dollar range. It does not own the majority of Manhattan property but sure owns some expensive stuff.

[Ana Ng]

Originally Posted by Judecat

Since there are more Catholics in Manhattan than any other religious affiliation, then it might be true to say that most of the residental property is owned by Catholic families but that doesn't mean the Catholic Church owns them.

Ah, but you forget, all Catholics have a direct line to the pope! I went to Catholic school, maybe I can get a sweet deal on a loft somewhere...

[KathyB]

The cathedral and other property are not owned by the Catholic Church, per se, but rather by the Archdiocese of New York.

According to this article the Archdiocese is "the largest religious property owner in New York" (emphasis added). It goes on "If a single entity owned New York's 579 synagogues—as the Archdiocese owns as corporation sole most Catholic churches—it would be the largest religious property owner in the city."

The article also discuses the value of church properties in NY that the Archdiocese is selling, as well as the plight of other denominations that are "land poor."

[Kev]

Originally Posted by Duckie Queen

I just got back from NYC. Our tour guide told us that it, St. Pats, is the richest church in the world. Not only is the land the church sits on worth millions BUT it also OWNS the blocks that surrounds it. The church did not sell the land when they built high rises on it but leased it instead. So it, in effect, owns numerous skyscrapers most likely in the billion dollar range. It does not own the majority of Manhattan property but sure owns some expensive stuff.

The church may own the land the buildings are sitting on, but that doesn't mean it owns the buildings, "in effect" or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Kev

The church may own the land the buildings are sitting on, but that doesn't mean it owns the buildings, "in effect" or otherwise.

My property law is a little rusty but if the building owners defualt on the lease then the church can take back the land and everything on it.