In Vinegar Hill, Another Church Biting the Dust
We’re sad to report that Brooklyn is in the process of losing another piece of history, as demolition is set to begin on St. George’s Church at 203 York Street in Vinegar Hill. (Workmen on site confirm that the entire structure is coming down.) The 10,000-square-foot church and adjacent 5,000-square-foot parish hall were purchased from…
We’re sad to report that Brooklyn is in the process of losing another piece of history, as demolition is set to begin on St. George’s Church at 203 York Street in Vinegar Hill. (Workmen on site confirm that the entire structure is coming down.) The 10,000-square-foot church and adjacent 5,000-square-foot parish hall were purchased from the Roman Catholic Diocese on October 24 by the Tocci family, a long-time landowner in the area, for $3,200,000. The Toccis, formerly proprietors of a waste management business, already have an illustrious track record in the neighborhood: they were responsible for tearing down another church, St. Ann’s, at 251 Front Street back in 1992, and paving it over after their own business expansion plans failed. The lot is now, charmingly, lined with corrugated metal and rented out as truck parking. They’ve wasted little time on their latest anti-beautification effort, as a small rear addition on Gold Street has already been reduced to rubble (inset). There’s nothing posted online yet about what plans lie in store for the church site post-demolition but it’s a bit of a tough spot for luxury condos, given its close proximity to the Farragut Houses. According to one investor who’s active in the neighborhood, the property never even came on the market, which isn’t surprising given that the church probably wanted to avoid public criticism for its complicity. Seems like it would have been worth the effort to at least put the property on the market and seek a developer who would be open to adaptive reuse. GMAP P*Shark DOB
Benson,
I’m finally getting back to the computer, and have to answer you on your statement that Venice is now “dead” except for tourism. I think you are wrong. Industry has always been outside of Venice proper, concentrated in the (mostly incredibly ugly) industrial towns on the mainland. Even the great, and famous glass blowing industry of Murano is not technically in Venice – it’s on the island of Murano. Venice was a seat of commerce and international trade: a city state full of merchants, soldiers, diplomats, artists, clergy, intellectuals, a fabulously rich aristocracy, and those who served them. Because of its location, it was the gathering place of people from all over the known world.
Hmmm, sounds like another city I know of. As Venice’s glory days passed, they wisely held on to the uniqueness – the canals, the palazzi, piazzi and the architecture that made it a tourist destination for the last 200 years. It doesn’t matter if it is original or a replacement or not, it is what has survived. We, here in America, just don’t get that the destruction of the past can be detrimental to the future. Do we want to live in a city that continuously consumes its past as it races towards the future? I don’t.
Even if Venice is only “a fantastic museum of art and architecture”, then it still has purpose. We need those those things too, perhaps now more than ever. One could easily argue that no ideas have flowed from a lot of cities nowadays – Washington DC comes immediately to mind. Do we scrap Washington? How about Bismark, or Biloxi? A viable city is alive with the people who live and work in it. It is constantly changing, but that doesn’t mean that everything old is scrapped, especially for no reason.
I understand the Church cannot keep open every church that has no congregation. But how about letting them go to those who would reuse the building in some way, because as I said earlier, it is an example of architecture and craft used to honor the Divine? As someone said earlier, seeing churches torn down is sad. Just because it is legal for the owner to do whatever he wants, that doesn’t mean he should.
Oh, Benson. Your argument that this schmuck will build something good because he put up the cash to buy the land is realllly persuasive. As for facts, the pattern of rampant child molestation by priests is hardly in dispute. I guess you’ll do whatever you need to do to rationalize your faith.
To paraphrase Guns N Roses, use your delusion!
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.
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
Oh, and I suppose if we’re only talking about the Brooklyn diocese, I guess only several hundreds of kids have been/are being molested. By the way, how do you feel about the gloriously restored Pratt mansion on Clinton where your archbishop lives in such opulence? At least HE appreciates historic preservation (on the backs of his flock, of course).
I’ll bite, once more. Anti-religious, you betcha. Bigot? No. I’m just done forgiving the criminal behavior of people who cloak themselves in the church. If you feel the need to spend your time on that stuff and it makes you feel better, fine. Just keep your padre away from my kids. Now, then: what, exactly, makes you so confident that this developer, with his proven track record of destruction, is going to build something of quality on the rubble of this once-beautiful building?
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
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
Benson, aside from aligning yourself with that drug-addled radio hypocrite, you’re becoming incoherent. I wrote that the property owner deserves no defense–the guy who bought the church and tore it down–not the diocese. Which, in addition to its many manifest good works, has destroyed the lives of thousands of kids by protecting clerical criminals. But back to the issue–how this guy intends to develop the property. Anybody know?