Here is the Church, and There Go the Steeples
Yesterday Sheepshead Bites had a post on a story it’s been tracking concerning how the current congregation of the church at 3087 Ocean Avenue intends to tear down the steeples on its 142-year-old building. An organization called the Bay Improvement Group (BIG) is advocating for their retention and tried at one point to convince the…
Yesterday Sheepshead Bites had a post on a story it’s been tracking concerning how the current congregation of the church at 3087 Ocean Avenue intends to tear down the steeples on its 142-year-old building. An organization called the Bay Improvement Group (BIG) is advocating for their retention and tried at one point to convince the church’s owners to pursue landmark status: “We at BIG tried in the early 1990′s pleading with their Board of Directors/Trustees to Landmark the Church and they were sadly, ignorantly afraid of ‘Landmark status’ even though we tried to persuade them with experts in Church preservation, Engineers & Architects and myself, as an Attorney, to explain the great help they would have in obtaining Landmark status. They could have received State, City, Federal and private grants to restore the Church!” Today The Daily News picks up on the story, and has a quote from the church’s pastor about how the steeples are unsafe and the congregation can’t afford to renovate them: “‘We are concerned really about safety,’ said Pastor Jay Kyung Kim, who said the spires are cracked and leaning precariously. ‘If it falls down, it’s a tragedy.’ He hopes to eventually raise the cash to build new steeples, but has no idea how long that will take.” Sad stuff.
BIG Pleads For Savior Of Methodist Church [Sheepshead Bites]
Historic Steeples of 142-Year-Old United Methodist Church Will be Torn Down [NY Daily News]
Photo from Sheepshead Bites.
“Beefsteak Charlie’s” !!!
That was a great place back in the day,
inexpensive and good food.
My parents even let me drink the sangria.
…and don’t forget that great garlic bread
benson.
Jester–I do believe that there are plenty of landmarked buildings that have updated to solar, gotten LEED certified, etc. It is far from impossible. It is more complicated, however.
“And what should we do, let all the churches fall down and sell the art, what does that accomplish. Preserving these works of art for future generations is a responsibility that we all must share.” I would add architecture.
But there isn’t an anti-Catholic bias here. My point was to counter those arguments that say let the churches fall down. And yet here you are, saying the same thing I was. You’re expressing a dual responsibility for the RC- its works and its preservation of great art (and architecture)as a responsibility. I agree with that.
Some people here are all too quick to claim anti-RC prejudice, but have no problem showing their own. I can ask questions without being biased against the Church. On the other hand, BIG’s ignorant comment was very unprofessional and certainly did nothing for their cause.
1. Benson called ME a busybody, not BIG. So what’s that about?
2. As mentioned, the advantage of being landmarked is that there is more access to funds for renovation. Of course that needs to be balanced with other factors. But considering that these are very small congregations, it could be an essential source of funds.
3. I don’t think BIG could have started fundraising or setting up any kind of program without the approval of the congregations. Do you? (I do agree that “ignorant” is a pretty aggressive use of language. Like much of what shows up on these kinds of threads, btw.)
4. Sometimes I just love things. Like this little church. I even got a kick out of the Russo signs.
5. The pastor sounds open to accepting a large donation from an angel of the more pedestrian sort. So a nice outcome would be if the publicity helps to bring that about. It DID happen in the East Village at St. Brigids and that was for 20 MILLION!
You can preserve a building better and more easily when it’s non-landmarked, IMO. You can add green energy cells on the roof and save money. you can switch from oil to natural gas and install the necessary components. And on and on.
Landmarking does not magically confer eternal life, only eternal legalism for the church members.
Brooklyndreamland;
Thank you.
“there are far more important things for a church to be doing than to be preserving eye-candy for non-worshipers. ”
agreed
cough up or shut up.
A point of view is fine – calling the church people “ignorant” and bemoaning to the press that “I’m an attorney and they turned down my totally selfless offer of help! The nerve!” is total BS. And bringing up something from the early 90s – bitter much? Talk about nursing a grudge.
The steeples are unsafe and nonessential to worship – let them be gone. It’s not like they want to convert to Brutalist-style of architecture.
OK let me stand up for the Catholic Church and open up a can of worms. Firstly, the Catholic Church is one of if not the largest charitable organizations in the world. Unfortunately many Catholic Churches are in varying states of disrepair because of rising costs of maintaining aging structures and changing demographics. I’m more than a little tired of the anti-Catholic bias on display here and let’s give up the b/s about what the Vatican can do with their money. Much of it goes to fund charities around the world and fight epidemics like AIDS. And what should we do, let all the churches fall down and sell the art, what does that accomplish. Preserving these works of art for future generations is a responsibility that we all must share. OK, let the attack begin.