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.
“the preservation of those sacred sites IS important”
No it is not.
As IJ just said, there are far more important things for a church to be doing than to be preserving eye-candy for non-worshipers. Speaking as a Roman Catholic (I’ll limit myself to what I know), the Church has had to withdraw from its work in health (there is not a single RC hospital left in NYC) and schools (huge numbers of parochial schools have been closed). I’ll be damned if non-worshipers are going to dictate that the Church spends its resources on the preservation of every old church, for the sake of those who wish to build adult disneylands. If we’re talking about St. Patrick’s Cathedral, that is one thing. That is not the case here.
maintaining church buildings is expensive. There is no way around it. Building a new church is even more expensive and it will need to be maintained as well.
Sounds disingenuous, saying that repair is beyond their means, since they didn’t try to raise money or apply for grants. The Landmarks Conservancy (NOT the LPC) has a program just for this sort of situation called “Sacred Sites”. It really does seem like there are other motives involved (landmarking would get in the way if they want to knock it down for new construction or sell it to a developer)…or they just don’t want to bother?
http://www.nylandmarks.org/programs_services/grants/sacred_sites_program/
Fundraising for a church building will not work – people wonder why the money is not going to charitable activities. IF BIG cares, write a check. Otherwise, go fuck yourselves.
The landmarking of sacred sites is always tricky. On the one hand, I understand what jester is saying, and the arrogance of some people, and I’m not saying these particular people are arrogant, either, can be grating, and often very paternalistic. And, a church’s mission is to its community and flock, not solely to the upkeep of its building. Money is tight, and in poorer neighborhoods, soup kitchens vs steeples really is a no brainer.
That said, the preservation of those sacred sites IS important. They are a tangible record of a community’s growth and history, sprititual and secular, and often are the finest physical representation of that community’s sacrifice and hard work. The inherent beauty of some of these houses of worship cannot be denied, and should not be easily discarded. Whether the work of a famous or particularly great architect, or the humble work of parishoners, great thought should be taken in deciding whether or not to save these buildings. I am always saddened to hear of the destruction of a sacred building.
I tend to think the above mentioned engineers, architects and attorneys were thinking more about saving the building, not getting rich. Trust me, there is no big money in this for anyone, and they would more than likely be volunteering their services. They MAY have not been thinking of what it would cost the congregation, or how the congregation would come up with the money, and there is probably a dose of paternalism there, but unless I read otherwise, I tend to feel that they were only trying to help preserve a unique building.
benson,
there are so many congregations in the city and upstate that are struggling financially and trying to cope with increased maintenance cost and decreasing numbers of worshipers. If every cash-poor church decided to tear down their steeples, or flatten their roofs, or sell the stained glass, there would not be many historic churches left. The crucial thing is that the folks using the church reach out for help and actually have a desire to repair their historic building. I bet you dollars to donuts that this pastor and this congregation do not wish to spend any funds on their current church building because it is “old”. Instead they probably wish to build a new church. And that is perfectly alright but they should not pretend that they are in some special situation unknown to the majority of other church communities throughout the state. Where there’s a will there’s a way.
I agree with benson. though I’m in favor of landmarking blocks so that fugly development doesn’t happen, foisting this upon this church when they don’t have the funds to address it is absurd.
I love how you can just make some organization, put out a press release, and condemn people and agonized-over decisions, without knowing anything about the facts.
Calling the church officers “ignorant” – total disgrace.
“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!”
How about trying this, for a change: instead of being busy-bodies, why don’t the good folks at BIG dig into their own pockets and help out this congregation, if they love the steeples that much? How about organizing a fundraiser? How about getting local youths to pitch in to repair the church?