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.
Churches are volunteer-run; volunteers don’t want to do unglamorous stuff like paint steeples, unless they are highly motivated. That is not something most churches can do reliably.
Montrose;
My use of the term “eye-candy” and “adult disneyworld” were intended to represent what these buildings are to NON-believers. I suggest that you re-read my post with that understanding.
I’ve said my piece. If the preservationist movement wants to over-reach once again and try to tell churches how they should run their affairs, be my guest. History shows what happens to movements that over-reach. Have at it!
Good day.
“the preservation of those sacred sites IS important”
No it is not.
Oh yes, it is. Maybe not to you, but it is important. Church buildings are more than simple “eye-candy”. As a Catholic, you know that. They are a tangible representation of God’s house. It’s where people of any faith go to worship, thank, and petition their creator. Yes, you can do that in a shack, or on a beach, but we have chosen to do it in buildings especially built to honor God.
The Church’s decision to abandon hospitals has absolutely NOTHING to do with the upkeep of its churches. Were that so, they wouldn’t be closing them, selling them, or in the cases of Our Lady of Loreto, or that church in Vinegar Hill that was demolished a couple of years ago, looking to tear them down.Every Catholic church in the world would be gleaming and looking brand new. That is certainly not the case. That’s a red herring of the largest and smelliest kind.
And “Disney World”? If ANYONE else on this site had used those words to describe a church, or the Catholic church, specifically, you’d have gone up in flames. I guess if it is in regards to preservation, and preserving a building that YOU don’t think has merit, because it’s not St. Patrick’s, well then, no problem.
I agree that half the community or more is probably unaware of the historic nature of this structure and that doesn’t speak to well of the neighborhood. Brooklyn continues to lose historic sites all the time. In particular this neighborhood, Sheepshead Bay that once looked more like Ditmas Park and Prospect Park South, has lost its charm because most of the neighborhhod bulldozed their Victorian mansions and put up craptacular brick boxes. So instead of pastoral blocks filled with one family Victorian mansions, you have instead streets crowded with multifamily brick boxes built in the 1970’s. This will be one more scar for the neighborhood.
On a lighter note…..
……that brick building to the right of the church complex was the former site of a now-defunct restaurant chain called “Beefsteak Charlie’s”. I don’t remember the exact price, but for something like $9.99 pp you would get steak, a salad bar (including unlimited shrimp) and unlimited sangria. Thirty-five years ago, a poor Benson used to take the future Mrs. Benson there for special dates. I was showing her a night on the town. A salad bar!! Unlimited shrimps!!! Sangria!!!!
Minard, modern construction has advanced considerably in the past 142 years. I WOULD like to see a church completely reinvent its building. That would be some kind of awesome case study. People who think they know, never know.
The only safe anwser – let them decide for themselves. Free action, unfettered by interlopers. The American way.
What is a church’s mission? Preserve a structure and be a museum, or alter the brutal facts of life for people in a positive way? I bet half the community has no idea about any of the supposed historic nature of this place.
This thread has devolved rather quickly.
This little church is cute but it is no major architectural monument. Nonetheless, had the congregation wanted to restore it they could have pursued several avenues and I’m sure done very well.
I find infinite jesters post really shocking. This is a church we are talking about. You really should show a little respect and some control of language.
There are certainly many sacred sites that are in danger today, mostly from a lack of funding from congregations who are either unable or unwilling to maintain their aging buildings. According to the article, it will cost almost $100K to take down the towers. It is a wooden structure, I wonder how much more it would have been to restore them. Also, if preventive mainteance had been done over the past few decades, like maybe a coat of paint, this decision would probably not have to be made. The landscape of Brooklyn changes again, and not in a good way.
“they just don’t want to bother”
And that is their right. Stop being a busybody.