« More Retail on Horizon for Jay Street Interiors: Affordable and Attractive »

September 22, 2008

On to the Afterlife for Green Church

greenchurch_0908.jpg
Looks like it's curtains for the 109-year-old Green Church in Bay Ridge, which preservationists had been pulling for all summer. The DOB approved demolition permits on Friday, and work will begin to remove the roof and tower. In July, a permit for a seven-story, 72-unit new building was filed. That one, however, is still not approved.
Final Prayers for the Green Church? [Brownstoner]
Deconstruction of Green Church. Photo by cbder.




Posted by lisa at 11:02 AM | Comments (12)
Categories: Bay Ridge, Preservation

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/6355

Comments

This is a shame. I understand the church's need for money for feeding and clothing people, and believe that helping people is more important than any building, BUT, it's really a shame that this important structure couldn't have been saved. I kept hoping a Trump, a Bloomberg, a movie star, or some really wealthy person would come along and rescue it.

I hope the windows, pews and furnishings are saved. That's something, I suppose.

Posted by: Montrose Morris at September 22, 2008 11:18 AM

I agree---why couldn't they even offer it for people to MOVE? Whose to say they couldn't have sold it for a sufficient amount of money to do what they want, too?

Posted by: Minmin at September 22, 2008 11:23 AM

The fight to save the Green Church have been going on for over 2 years...not just the summer.

There were serveral rejected offers (both saved the church), one was to create senior citizen housing (where the 2-story school is) and to use the church as a community center. I'm not sure why they were rejected. The church has not been very forthcoming with information.

It has been a very ugly battle between the church and the community. There has been alot of mud slinging.

It was on the National Register of Historic Places. Landmarks Preservation Committe should have designated it.

This is a very sad chapter in Bay Ridge History.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at September 22, 2008 11:49 AM

Also, 'Olde Good Things' was there carting off truck loads full of things. So, if you're looking for a church pew or the stained glass windows...

I have tears in my eyes.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at September 22, 2008 11:52 AM

I thought the following article in the Eagle summarized nicely the deals that were proposed to save the church:

www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=27&id=23232

Posted by: g man at September 22, 2008 12:05 PM

The pastor will have to live with his decision for the rest of his life and be know as the priest who killed the green church. I don't know anyone who didn't want to see this saved.

Posted by: italiana71 at September 22, 2008 1:06 PM

I'd be interested to know why they rejected the other offers. I know some members of the congregation, who initially approved the sale of the church, but are not happy with the proceedings.

Posted by: bayridgegirl at September 22, 2008 2:54 PM

As I understand it, the Green Church is actually more of a co-op owned by a handful of parishioners, which is all that's left of the congregation. They will all share in the proceeds of the sale. Their interest was #1: the money and #2: a smaller church on the property for themselves.

As beautiful as the church is, it desperately needed millions of dollars in restorations because it was literally falling apart. One analysis I read cast doubt on whether it could even be repaired given the ravages of time and the elements on the serpentine stone.

Posted by: Steve at September 23, 2008 12:01 AM

Steve -

the serpentine stone is only a facade, a curtain wall. It is not load bearing. The church is a brick building. This is not unlike the limestone in yours or the brownstone in mine.

The Rev Emerick did his best to try to convince everyone that the building was literally falling apart.

That being said, serpentine is a very poor building material for external use. It spalls much worse and faster than many other sandstones. This is the reason that you don't see many buildings standing today constructed with that material. The rarity of this type of construction remaining in our city is percisely the reason why it should have been preserved.

The shame of this situation is two fold: 1) that the congregation was much more interested in every last buck that they could squeeze rather than working with the community to find a situation that world work for everyone.

AND 2) the community in Bay Ridge is not yet preservation minded. Not enough people were even willing to say "This building should be saved, I hope we can find a solution that will work for everyone."

I feel that at least half of this loss must be blamed on the complacent citizens of Bay Ridge.

Posted by: SenatorStreet at September 23, 2008 10:41 AM

It's the stone. That serpentine stone is seriously deteriorated and would have cost millions to replace or repair. The church just didn't have the cash.

Posted by: BrooklynButler at September 23, 2008 11:07 AM

No one is questioning the fact that the congregation couldn't/wouldn't pay to restore the building.

One of the options refused by the congregation would have:

1) paid them the 9.75M (same as they have now),

2) reserved them part of the property to build a new church (same as they have now) and

3) preserved the building, constructing 'affordable' housing (as opposed to demolishing the building and constructing 72 units of 'market' priced housing as with the deal that they currently have).

The one request of the congregation for this to have played out was a request that the congregation delay demolition for about 90 days so that the developer could confirm that he could get his funding in place for the affordable part of the project from state and federal authorities (in light of the current real estate and economic situation).

As I had said earlier, the congregation did/does not care about the community or the historic value of the building. They have a deal that already gives them what they want. It would appear that their attitude is: 'why should we delay 90 days to save a building when we already have what we want.'

Posted by: SenatorStreet at September 23, 2008 11:54 AM

Clearly a deal with the devil.

Posted by: timmarkus at October 25, 2008 5:04 PM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions