In Vinegar Hill, Another Church Biting the Dust

I believe that the Vinegar Hill Neighborhood Association, perhaps in coordination with Councilwoman James, did approach the diocese about finding a developer that would adaptively re-use the building. Can anybody confirm that?

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:01 AM

"... which isn't surprising given that the church probably wanted to avoid public criticism for its complicity."

does that ring any church bells?

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:12 AM

Are these the same guys that just bought St. Elias Church on Kent Street in Greenpoint? Can they tear that down too? Would be a shame.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:19 AM

I think that "Brownstoner" and his allies in the "Forgotten New York" crowd have reached the point of silliness.

I am a church-going Catholic. To me, I would rather see this building torn down and a new use found for the land than it serve as a habitat for folks who have no regard for its original purpose. It is a desecration to use this building merely as a condominium for those who wish to preserve the city in amber, which somehow fulfills their vision of what it ought to look like.

I'm sure "Forgotten NY" will soon be on the case with another "What we're losing" feature. The apotheosis of that silly column was his feature on the Underberg building on Atlantic Ave. - a delapidated eyesore that sat fallow for years.

You want to see the results of such a "vision" for a city: go visit Venice. Thanks to the "historic preservationists" it is a virtually dead city. Venetians no longer live there - it is just a Disneyland for preservationists.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:59 AM

Benson, as a self-proclaimed "church-going Catholic," you must know that there are formal ceremonies to deconsecrate a church, after which it is just a building.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:24 AM

10.24 AM;

You don't say! Who knew?

My point remains. It is the height of silliness for a church to be used as a condominium, and it shows no regard or respect for the church, which is exactly why the Diocese did what it did.

If other congregations have no problems seeing their former church buildings used a "Limelight" or wine bar, that's their business. As a Catholic, I do have problems seeing 22 year olds using a former bapistry as a venue for a party.

Stop being busybodies with other people's property, and let this be a living, breathing city. For you information, the Diocese did make a go at preserving this parish. The combination of a dwindling membership and a crumbling building pushed it to this point.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:35 AM

Benson,
You, sir, are an idiot.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:43 AM

10.43 AM;

I suppose that you are unable to debate the issue on its merits, so you resort to name-calling.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:48 AM

Benson, you may be right that Venice has become a dead city, and residents can no longer live there. But that is because it is such a beautiful city, one of the few in the world, that millions of people want to visit it. Strange that your solution to the problem is to make the few beautiful places more ugly rather than make the many ugly places more beautiful.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:15 AM

11.15 AM;

I appreciate your comments, but they are telling, and go to the heart of my problem with today's preservationists. You are assuming that all beauty lies in the past. You are assuming that this former church building represents the ultimate aesthetic achievement for this site. In other words, we are incapable of progressing.

Why is it assumed that we are no longer capable for achieving further advancements in the use and aesthetics of land in this city? It is mind-boggling to me that New York has morphed from a place that once epitomized a forward, confident belief in the future into the present-day "religion" of preserving all that is old.

It is one thing to call for the preservation of the truly historic site or a Chrysler building. It's another thing to wring your hands at the site of a demolition of an ordinary church from the previous century.

About 10 years ago I went on a tour of Venice. I happened to stay at a hotel that was built in the early 1960's - one of the few modern structures in Venice. While the hotel was certainly not a masterpiece, it was a decent structure. My tour guide, a Venetian, was beside herself that such a modern, ugly structure had been built on her precious city. At the very same time, she lamented that it had become a Disneyland, yet could not see the connection.

Think about it.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:30 AM

I'm with Benson. Let the neighborhood grow.

Brooklyn needs housing, it does not need more empty, decaying buildings. The demographics of this neighborhood will not require more church space.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:37 AM

Just so the writer of the article knows - the so-called investor who said it was not on the market is wrong. I too am a developer who bid on this piece of property and lost. So, at least get your facts straight.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:47 AM

Benson, I don't think this particular church is worth preserving, particularly. But as far as your question, "Why is it assumed that we are no longer capable for achieving further advancements in the use and aesthetics of land in this city?" - I think the answer is pretty obvious. Whether or not we are capable theoretically, it doesn't seem to be happening in reality. The reason why opposition to new development has gotten so widespread is because most it is really ugly to most people, and degrades our lives rather than enriches them.

The percentage of landmarked buildings in New York is actually very small, almost minuscule.

Venice is not a Disneyland because it's old buildings haven't been demolished. It's a Disneyland because millions of people from horrible new cities like Houston and Phoenix need to go there to experience something beautiful for a change.

Oldmark

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:52 AM

Funny how the ones that cry the loudest about churches being demolished are the ones who never step foot in a church or dig in their pocket to support it.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 11:55 AM

lots of chruches in London have been converted to interesting apartments maintaining the architectural integrity of the streest they are on. Can't say the church in question seems much of a loss tho.

Benson - you are the worst of the busy bodies. Keep your nose out of this.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:03 PM

how do old buildings finding new uses equal "dead city"? plenty of former churches have found new life as buildings for other christian denominations/religions and as community centers, theaters - not just condos. but so what if a deconsecrated former church becomes condos? at least materials are reused, the earth is happy, and a church didn't end up in a landfill to make way for a parking lot.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:03 PM

Brownstoner;

I dispute your assumption that adaptive reuse is more environmentally friendly. I used to own a house that was built in 1928, and spent a sizable sum to upgrade it. Yet, despite this upgrade, the house still required far more energy to heat than the brand-new condo I currently live in (even normalizing for the difference in living space). Moreover, if one accounts for the cost of upgrading older structures (which represents the resources consumed) then I think the case becomes even weaker.

As for the use of this land: I believe the Tocci's are in this to make a buck, and I mean that in a good way. If they decide that the best and highest use for the land is a parking lot, well, that speaks volumes about its current potential. If a private owner can only find the highest use to be a parking lot, who thenwould pay for an adaptive reuse??? The taxpayer??

Moreover, if the land sits as an empty lot for a few years,who knows what will eventually be developed a few years down the road, when the neighborhood's prospects improve?

Let our city live and breathe! Don't put a straight-jacket on development by trying to preserve every old structure.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:06 PM

If a developer did an adaptive reuse you would find something to complain about that too!

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:19 PM

If they were the buyers of the church in Greenpoint then I see something more cynical happening here.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:19 PM

They are not the same buyers as in Greenpoint - look it up.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:25 PM

the environmental argument for adaptive reuse really isn't about energy efficiency. older buildings can be retrofitted for better energy efficiency just like newer (pre-2007) buildings. it's about materials conservation - not putting existing materials and new construction waste into landfills. in most other countries these evil "preservationists" are called "conservators."

building hugger

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:29 PM

Rehab, Building Hugger and all;

Your posts actually prove that organized religion is actually very much alive in these parts. It exists in the form of current-day environmentalism, which has morphed into earth-worship. The current-day devil is the developer and the private owner. As these posts prove, you have no confidence that they can be a force for good.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:36 PM

Thank you MM.
Rehab, dangerous territory.
Benson, get a grip on the anger.

All in all, we could use some decent urban planning.

Anyone notice how mobbed the trains are at rush hour? If there is one blip, a train is tied up and is running behind, people sometimes can't even get on trains at the stops at the greater downtown Brooklyn stations they're so packed. Waiting for the Q this AM at Atlantic (which had a fire situation yesterday in the stairwell…a mess), I let two B trains pass…both very crowded…but when the third showed up (also very crowded) I took it because a Q hadn’t show up and that meant it would have arrived with 10 people trying to stand in every 2 square feet of space…a proverbial sardine can.

What will happen when all these (what Benson seems to imply will be innovative and exciting) towers have people stuffed into them? How will this instant, rather sudden and huge, additional population burden be handled by a stressed transit system, the roadways, food delivery networks, incoming water supplies and sewer system?

FG\TGL

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 12:47 PM

Montrose;

Your post was quite thoughtful, but I disagree on several fronts.

I am certain that many Venetians are "proud" of their city. That does not take away from the fact that Venice is a dead city. This is not my opinion: please go look at the statistics concerning the actual number of residents left in Venice (and of those left, most are quite old). Their "pride" in the city is akin to those ex-New Yorkers who tell you how great the city was back in the day - but they left.

Moreover, I believe my Disneyland analogy was correct in the most essential way. Venice exists as just a place for tourists interested in beautiful architecture. It no longer functions as a place to live, nor does it have any economic purpose other than tourism: just like Disneyland. Such is the price of placing preservation above all other considerations. What is especially tragic about this situation is that Venice was once the world's great centers of commerce and art. All in the past.

I appreciate beauty as much as anybody. I agree with you fully that it is one of God's gift. However, I also know that it is but one facet of life, and others are also necessary. Among these are industry and commerce, which sometimes do not provide beauty. I also know that a city that does not allow private property and development to flourish will eventually die, as did Venice.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:28 PM

Just goes to show you that money speaks and people and children get thrown to the side without any restitution. What that neighborhood needs are jobs and a good supermarket. Why couldn't this have been transformed into something like that and in this way benefit the people that live there. Would be very interesting to see who would have the nerve to live there.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:31 PM

benson, you lost me with that 12:36 comment. i dream about being a private property owner in this city. and i don't see developers as the devil. these are people with the money to make re-development, re-hab, re-use happen. there are many options for re-development once a building has outlived its intended purpose. i just think issues like the environment, architectural creativity, community needs, scale, density, etc. should enter into the debate.

new construction doesn't always mean progress.

building hugger

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:52 PM

Building Hugger;

I apologize that I addressed my 12.36 comments towards you. I was angry with Rehab's anti-religion, anti-development comments, and threw you in the mix. Sorry about that.

I am not opposed to adaptive reuse. If you want to be a developer who focuses on adaptive reuse, then bully for you!! My point in all of this is that it should be the choice of the private developer/property owner, unless we are talking about a site of truly outstanding historic or aesthetic value.

Peace.

benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 1:58 PM

The loss of an historic church is always sad. Don't know why, it just is. Especially when it is the only attractive thing in the immediate area.
It's sad. Nothing will be built here. It will become an empty lot like the site of the former St. Ann's.
I can't imagine why anyone would be happy to see buildings like this go. Sometimes demolition is necessary but it is not something to be celebrated.
A fine restoration on the other hand, is something to be celebrated.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 3:21 PM

Rehab;

I'll take the Limbaugh association, with honor!!

Like others on this post, you are so anti-organized religion that you don't even bother digging into the story.

You state that "It's not as if this property owner has done anything to deserve a defense." For your information, the Brooklyn Diocese educates TENS OF THOUSANDS of poor inner-city kids who could not otherwise afford a private education. Moreover, there are thousands more parents who would love to put their kids into these programs, but the Diocese has had to actually close some schools because of their funding.

In an effort to improve its finances, the Diocese has been closing down churches that are sparsely attended, and require alot of money to keep going.

So, which would you have: a restored church in the middle of a non-populated area, to please folks like yourself, or free schools giving poor kids a chance at life?

I stand by my comment about environmentalism being a religion for some. I did not say that those who are concerned about the environment all treat it as a religion. What I did say is that folks like you do, and your posts serve as ample evidence.

John Tierney of the New York Times wrote an interesting article on this phenomenon a few years ago. He noted that this mentality harkens back to the original concept of a "muckracker", as detailed in the book "Pilgim's Progress". It is a person who doesn't believe in the infinite creatvitiy given to Man by God. As such, he believes that the earth is a zero-sum game, and all must be preserved, or it is lost.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 3:42 PM

Venice was built as an island in order to aid in its defense from invaders centuries ago. It's main reason for being the center of regional commerce and culture has long faded, leaving behind a glorious record of art and architecture. That it exists primarily as a place of wonder and beauty is testament to its importance - not its irrelevance. Nothing could be more detrimental than to have permitted those old churches to be torn down so someone could put in something "useful."

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:13 PM

4.13;

Really,please think about it:

-New York was first built as a shipping/trading post (similiar to Venice). Unlike Venice, however, it progressed with the times, to the point today where there is little shipping that takes place in NYC (and none at all in Manhattan itself).

-New York then moved on to be a great manufacturing city. It also transitioned from that phase (though not so gracefully).

-New York is now moving into a new phaseas a HQ for global finance and creative content development. Why do you want to hinder that by insisting that every old charming building be preserved? Do you think that NY would have gotten to where it is today if 150 years ago folks were insisting that every charming wooden church building be preserved??

-You state that Venice is "important". Really???? Other than as a fantastic museum of art and architecture, what is Venice's importance in today's world?? How many ideas flow from Venice these days?? You state that it outlived its original purpose, but so what?? So did NYC, but it grew to ever greater things.

-Finally, are you sure that every building you so admire in Venice is the original one on that site? To take an example from another Italian city (I'm Italian): are you aware that there was a previous St. Peter's Basiclica, which was torn down to make way for the present one?

Upwards and onwards! As BrooklynLove likes to say "Keep building, Brooklyn".

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:36 PM

Rehab;

Here is exactly what you wrote a few posts ago:

"Granted, I was being inflammatory in my disparagement of religion, which was not necessary. It's just frustrating to see people callously destroy our history all around us, and then read others defending them. It's not as if this property owner has done anything to deserve a defense.

If, as you state in your latest post, you were attacking the new owner (the Tocci's), not the diocese, then why, in your own words did you feel the need to be "inflammatory in my disparagement of religion"
Who is being incoherent???

I would also like you to cite a reference for your statement that the Brooklyn Diocese destroyed the lives of THOUSANDS (emphasis mine) of kids."

You are an anti-religious bigot.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 4:45 PM

Rehab;

I noticed that you once again dodged my question. You throw out "facts" to disparge the Church. When challenged on them, however, you dodge and just engage in more aspersions. That, Rehab, is the sign of a bigot. You are also entitled to your beliefs, but don't go around publicly pissing on someone else's faith unless you've got some facts to back them up.

As to your question to me: I am confident that this developer will do what's best for this property because he put up his own, cold cash to buy the property. As long as he follows the law regarding zoning and building codes, then he will decide the best use for this property, and that is fine with me. I believe that liberty and free enterprise works.

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 5:07 PM

I can't believe I'm going to wade into this but here goes...

Clearly, there needs to be a balance. New York has always erred on the side of tear-down, and that has not always served her best interests. Indeed, in the few cases where an area slated for tear-down was for whatever reason given a reprieve (say, SoHo), it invariably came roaring back in ways that were more unique, valuable, and treasured than ever could have been predicted or imagined.

Preservation and re-use should be based on a variety of factors; not every old building is worthy, but the problem--especially today--with tear-down & build-up is that it is almost always done (particularly in Brooklyn) with almost purely functional criteria in mind. At least when New York was in the throes of tear-down & build-up in the 1830s, the 1850s, the 1870s, the 1920s, and even the 1950s and '60s to a certain extent, there remained in the equation some sense of aesthetic purpose, some degree of civic pride, a modicum of architectural attainment. It seems that in the vast majority of cases today, we can't be bothered with such principles. It becomes another argument for re-use.

I happen to be someone with a deep interest in antebellum Brooklyn (coincidentally, I was researching this very corner just last week), and yet live in a brand-new Dumbo high-rise. I lament the loss of so much of Brooklyn's historical streetscape (which has for the most part been replaced with much worse than what was there before), but also wouldn't give up my double-paned triple-glazed windows, my HVAC, or my garbage disposal, either.

Each case must be taken on its own merit. This church is neither important nor even terribly historic (1909), and is not even, to my mind, particularly attractive. But dollars to donuts whatever goes up there will be worse.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 5:12 PM

looking forward: the diocese of brooklyn is in the middle of their planning process to merge/close parishes en mass (a la new york, boston, etc.). a church recently closed in williamsburg near grand and union. this is all on their website. anyway, if we use this church as an example, the sensitive reuse of some really old and beautiful churches (or continued religious use as a baptist church, etc.) is not looking good. if a church in your neighborhood becomes slated for closure, contact your community board or a preservation organization. thank you and drive through.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 6:01 PM

"Your posts actually prove that organized religion is actually very much alive in these parts. It exists in the form of current-day environmentalism, which has morphed into earth-worship. "

Benson- are you really calling us environmentalist types "Wiccans?" Well- thanks, actually. But I must say I do find it strange that someone with your supposed "family and religious values" ((although I wonder how someone who admires Rush Limbaugh would define them)would so casually toss aside the idea that the Earth is a gift of G-d and we are its caretakers, ergo shouldn't we be doing the best possible job we can? Frankly, if you believe as strongly in G-d as you would have us believe, then protecting the earth is your sacred obligation and that would show far greater respect for Him than you obviously have.

I found your convoluted defense of rip-it-out- build-it-new more the reply of a developer than a strongly religious person. But then again, if you can admire a hypocrite like Limbaugh, you can convince yourself of anything.

Oh yes, about Venice- have you told the Venetians? Its sad (for you, that is) that such beauty is simply wasted on you. Now, where's my broomstick? Us Druish types gotta go worship the soil or something.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 6:30 PM

BORING!

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 8:20 PM

In Omnipotent Sky Daddy's house are many condos, with superluxe high-end finishes.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:02 PM

As a resident of DUMBO I have seen this neighborhood rise from the ashes and like it or not development and actual people moving into our once deserted enclave is a huge positive. We can have ten different opinions on what the building should look like architecturally but the bottom line is this isn't remotely a religous matter. The church was dormant for over 6 years and new families will inevitably take the place of a barren structure.That translates into a more vibrant community, more money being spent, more opportunities for new businesses and jobs etc. Progress and development trumps urban blight.

RC

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:27 PM

Folks;

Keep the fan mail coming in!

I especially like this comment:

"Oh yes, about Venice- have you told the Venetians?"

To which my reply is "What Venetians -arwe there any left??? See this article (note that it is from the left-leaning Guardian!):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,,1858848,00.html

Note the statistics about the number of residents over 65 years old. Good-bye Venice - Heeeellooooo Disneyland for architects.

Is this what you want for our great city? I say NO!! Build, build, and build some more!!

To those who questioned my comments about environmentalism becoming a religion, I ask that you read it more carefully. I am stating that there is a strain of environmentalism out there that has morphed into a pagan earth-worship. I consider myself an environmentalist, and do think it is our responsibility to be good stewards of the earth. However, I draw the line at folks who would rather preserve a mediocre, non-historical parish church building, in the name of a green zero-sum environmental "religion", rather than diverting resources into more useful endeavors like teaching poor kids. This world is here to serve humanity, not the other way around.

Ciao, ciao!

Benson

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 9:29 PM

i'm not bored at all actually! great reading.

not on any side particularly, but pointing out the re-use of SOHO as a protected area actually strengthens Benson's position.

I have worked in SOHO for many many years and I have thought that it has indeed turned into Disneyland. it now has many stores that you can find anywhere and seems just to be filled with tourists.

it was a very creative area that is now kinda dead to the actual people who live in work in the area. when are lease is up, we are going to move....

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:06 PM

10:06 - You are making a different argument. I happen to agree with you about the monied homogenization of Manhattan, and particularly SoHo, but the architectural appeal and sense aesthetic diversity (at least) is of great value to the city regardless. If Robert Moses had had his way, there would have been a highway through SoHo and housing projects everywhere. That's neither a remedy for nor a preference to mallification.

Posted by: guest at November 13, 2007 10:51 PM