« Tuesday Links Ratner: 'Fort Greene, I've Got You Surrounded' »
May 22, 2007
Green Church: Will LPC Be The Deus Ex Machina?
The situation is getting quite desperate at the United Methodist Church, aka the Green Church, on 4th Avenue in Bay Ridge. The congregation has forsaken the turn of the century structure and is reportedly already in contract with a developer for $12.5 million—or about $200,000 per congregant. When the deal closes, the developer plans to tear down the entire structure, which, Forgotten NY points out, is notable for being the only serpentine stone facade in New York City. Here's how we wish the whole thing had played out: The congregation (which has dwindled to about 60 souls) could have put an easement on the church, sold it to a developer to rehab and preserve, donated the proceeds to a worthy religious cause of its choosing and then started spending Sunday mornings at a different church. Barring divine intervention, the only way the destruction can be averted at this point is if the Landmarks Preservation Commission steps up to the plate pronto. For some reason, LPC hasn't exactly been tripping over itself to help out though. The group Save the Green Church is holding a meeting tonight at 7 o'clock at 7027 Ridge Crest Terrace to marshal a last-ditch effort. For more information, contact SaveTheGreenChurch AT yahoo DOT com.
Save Bay Ridge United Methodist Church [Forgotten NY] GMAP
Congregation Wants To Sell Soul to Devil-oper [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1211
Comments
Take hundreds of photos, the one above stinks. Email the photos to your politicians, how about Shuman, he likes to
show his face for good causes.
It was after the Astor Hotel, a grand piece of architecture, was knocked down that Jackie Kennedy= Onassis, became the champion of lost buildings. Brooklyn needs a saviour of lost buildings.
The photos must be better to convince others to help, plus you can put togethter a book: The Lost Churches of Brooklyn. Just go to FG see what's coming down. I know of too many serrt heart deals in the nabe. Someone, I know who, but someone bought a huge RC landmark years ago for virtually nothing. I would ask the church to seriously look at its books and wonder why such a property went for so little and why the secondary owner sold it for so much. Kickbacks? Anyway, the first owner after the RC just opened up the hatches in the roof for two years. Rain, snow, coming through the roof and beams for two years can show damage a landmark
Shall I go on, no need you have it.
Oh Progress,what deeds are done in your name.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 9:28 AM
Forgive my ignorance, but I don't understand how the buying of churches work. Who "ownes" the church building? It is one individual or the congregants? And if it is the congregation, who gets to be one of them? The regular Sunday churchgoers or the ones who attend semi-regularly but donate a standard amount? And once the church is sold, who gets the money? I never went to church so I am curious as to how a tax-exempt building gets to profit from capitalism.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 9:51 AM
I meant "owns".
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 9:52 AM
What am I missing here? Why would the developer rehab and preserve a church for 12 plus million dollars? Are you saying that the developer would "condo" the church? It is too bad that the church is going to be demolished but it is also very sad that there is no need for it anymore. Are we looking for a Norman Rockwell nostolgic world where we pretend people go to church but don't? A congregation of 60 can't maintain and heat such a structure. I went to Notre Dame in Montreal where I couldn't get in until I paid an entrance fee. "People don't go to church anymore" when I expressed surprise.
Posted by: anon at May 22, 2007 9:56 AM
No, we're saying they should have sold it for a lot less to a developer who would preserve the existsing structure.
Posted by: Brownstoner at May 22, 2007 10:02 AM
Who gets all the money from the sale?
Posted by: SPer at May 22, 2007 10:55 AM
Good luck trying to get better pictures - they wouldn't let me in with a camera. Emerick has "NO TRESSPASSING" posted all over the lot. It's obvious the seller (not necessarily the congregation) is leery of promoting any impression that the church may be of historic and aesthetic value. It's downright insidious.
Posted by: Ovingtoner at May 22, 2007 11:39 AM
Another possible "act of god" could come from the direction of the New York State Supreme Court judge who has the task of approving the sale. The church is likely subject to the NYS Religious Corporations statute, which means it would then be subject to the rules governing non profits on the sale of substantially all of its assets. I am a little hazy on the process (having not done one of these in over ten years), but, the entire deal, benefits to congregation and community, and planned uses for the proceeds by the congregation would be subject to scrutiny. The Save the Green Church group may want to get themselves a lawyer and have their voices heard during that process.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 12:18 PM
Did not intend to be anonymous. I have been away from this site for so long, I forgot how post.
Posted by: crouchback at May 22, 2007 12:20 PM
To the question of who gets the money of the sale of the church? It's the congregation.... What about the families that went to the church in the past and donated money to the church? what about them? I Live in bay ridge, the congregation and the pastor Emerick, refuse to talk to the community or the local press and get their input. How can a tax exempt church not even allow community input? I'm not saying they have to except the communities proposals, but the sheer arrogance of the church and the congregation is what disturbers me. Doesn't being tax exempt mean the community subsidizes the church? shouldn't the community, in that regard, have a say in the sale? I don't mean the community has a right to block the sale, it's inevitable, the congregation doesn't give a shit about the church anymore, but the community and the local politicians have came up with alternative plan where the sale took place but the land would be used for elderly housing and community/ theater space. Sad to see the "borough of churches" turn into the borough of crappy development.
Posted by: Steven at May 22, 2007 1:01 PM
Umm, do any of you attend a church? Do any of you volunteer at the social service programs your local churches provide? You all have reduced the building to a pretty building or folly to view from the outside, and forgotten the need for a religious organization to sustain itself and fund its programs. Despite Brownstoner's implication to the otherwise, the proceeds will not be divied up between the remaining members, but rather used to create a new affordable space and fund appropriate programs. Anyone who says otherwise is just fanning the flames of ignorance. We may prefer it be preserved, in which case the outside could be landmarked - but not the inside as that would infringe upon the right of a religion to freedom of worship. In the absence of such landmarking, perhaps there could be a little more sympathy for the plight of a dwindling congregation which is "land poor." It is nice that Mr. Brownstoner suggests the church give up potential funds to preserve architecture, but on the other hand this reduces its ability to further its mission - which may or may not be accomplished by simply worshipping at another church around the corner.
Posted by: putnam-denizen at May 22, 2007 2:30 PM
This will be a tragic loss for the neighborhood....the loss of a beautiful landmark built over a century ago for a 21st century staple....the Fedders apartment building.
I'm shedding some tears over this one, this is my turf, I live at 68th and 4th. I went into this church on 9/11 to say some prayers. It took me 10 minutes to realize I was surronded by Chinese people who were having a service, but this church holds a place in my heart....it's part of my "hometown" if you will.
:(
Posted by: hi! at May 22, 2007 2:49 PM
Lapsed Catholic here, but back when I did practice, I remember one thing they always emphasized was that the "church" was the people, not the building.
Assuming that the congregation is using the money to fund a new site, programs, charity, etc., that's a much more worthwhile use of money--from the standpoint of a religious group anyway--than the preservation of a pretty building.
Sorry, realize that's heresy (so to speak) at this site.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 5:12 PM
Was this Falwell's last stand?
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 9:57 PM
BP 9:08, There are many appropriate sites for you to brag about your stupidity. But not here.
Posted by: Anonymous at May 22, 2007 10:58 PM
The proceeds of the sale of the Bay Ridge United Methodist Church belong to the United Methodist Conference, not to the congregation, and the Conference will spend the money as it sees fit. The Conference spends the better part of its annual budget on administrative costs such as the Bishop's salary. Sadly, the congregation and the Bay Ridge community, which has carried the Church's tax burden for over a hundred years, are being duped out of their heritage.
Posted by: Kip at June 18, 2007 11:25 PM
For a lot more photos of the "Green Church", go to Flickr:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?q=bay+ridge+united+methodist+church
Posted by: guest at January 1, 2008 10:18 AM
I have nothing to do with this church, or its denomination, but I agree with several comments above: I think that too many are looking upon this church as a piece of scenery or a property-value-enhancing tool, rather than as a house of worship.
Like it or not, many mainline congregations are dwindling, nationwide. In the Catholic Church, the cardinal/bishop can just shut churches down and force parishes to merge. In Protestant churches, this hard decision is up to members, in conjunction with the denomination. It's never based on whim, and the proceeds don't "enrich" anyone, since they're earmarked for religious purposes. (And yes, in every case, some people are disappointed ... because that happens with any human "voting.")
I'm as non-Methodist as you can get. But just as a lifelong churchgoer, I know that the Methodist Church is famously committed to "Jesus' priorities" and social/economic justice: It's NOT into empire/cathedral-building, wealth, or gold Cadillacs.
I've also known (non-Methodist) churches that felt it was unjustifiably off-mission to engage in "building worship" -- spending large sums to repair buildings that, in many cases, were meant for the huge congregations of another century. They also didn't want to cede use of the property to others, and be dependent on the income from it -- since the church's fate would then be overly entangled in, or skewed by, non-church business.
Instead, they came up with some way to move on, scale down, or otherwise put their assets to better mission use.
That's what the Green Church seems to be doing. To me, many of the accusations being hurled are grossly unfair, and show little -- if any -- awareness of churches' actual purpose, their need to exercise responsible stewardship, or even how this particular denomination/church works, on either the local or larger level.
And some criticism has TRULY crossed the line by attempting to define the church's mission, dictate its use of assets, claiming that restoration would increase membership (as if preservationists knew more than churchfolks did, and were now in the "evangelizing" business), or slurring leadership.
I was most shocked by one preservationist's recent letter to a Brooklyn paper: It stated that since the Green Church opposed renovation, church-seekers should worship elsewhere ... and specifically suggested local non-Methodist churches -- as if people had no faith-preferences, denominations were interchangeable, and building issues should dictate belief. Even worse, it implied (inadvertently, I hope) that the landmarkers' previous much-voiced concern about the congregation was a sham -- that having lost the "battle," they wanted the church to fail.
Finally: Houses of worship aren't just scenery. Their tax-exemption (like that of cultural, educational, and other groups) isn't based on "prettiness," pleasing others, or enhancing property values. It's based on the belief that their varied, intangible ideals, values, ethics, fellowship, learning or mission somehow are good for us all. Sometimes they CAN compromise, re "inessentials." And sometimes they can't, since compromise would negate their core purpose-as-they-see-it.
Posted by: guest at February 20, 2008 4:57 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.