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
lots of chruches in London have been converted to interesting apartments maintaining the architectural integrity of the streest they are on. Can’t say the church in question seems much of a loss tho.
Benson – you are the worst of the busy bodies. Keep your nose out of this.
I don’t know, Benson, the Venetians that I have met are very proud of their city’s history and architecture, and consider its preservation to be integral to the financial future of the city, as well as to their own personal pride of being Venetian. A Disneyland would be the faux Venice of a Las Vegas casino. Venice is a unique city in so many ways, and the efforts to preserve a city half underwater already, are amazing and an enormous undertaking.
More importantly to our discussion is the idea that preserving the past, and in this case, a possible creative re-use of buildings, is somehow profane. Why? As a previous poster points out, churches are de-sanctified all the time. Why not allow the possibility of the building to live on in another capacity? As a shell for an expanded structure, or remodelled into apartments or as a cultural center, or as something. That would be a win-win situation. The church gets needed money for the continuation of good works, the rest of us get to enjoy the sight of, or the use of, a beautiful building.
If we think that churches were built to glorify God, in our human and humble attempts to house and celebrate the Divine, is that not better accomplished by preserving the building in some way, when that building is no longer able to serve a congregation? God created beauty, and gave us the capacity to create and appreciate it through the mediums of architecture, design, and craftsmanship. I’ve never been in that church, but I can imagine the stained glass windows catching the light, the stone and wood buttresses and arches, the beauty of the painting or mosaic work. If the opportunity exists for that to survive, what’s wrong with trying to preserve it in even some secular kind of way?
Funny how the ones that cry the loudest about churches being demolished are the ones who never step foot in a church or dig in their pocket to support it.
Benson, I don’t think this particular church is worth preserving, particularly. But as far as your question, “Why is it assumed that we are no longer capable for achieving further advancements in the use and aesthetics of land in this city?” – I think the answer is pretty obvious. Whether or not we are capable theoretically, it doesn’t seem to be happening in reality. The reason why opposition to new development has gotten so widespread is because most it is really ugly to most people, and degrades our lives rather than enriches them.
The percentage of landmarked buildings in New York is actually very small, almost minuscule.
Venice is not a Disneyland because it’s old buildings haven’t been demolished. It’s a Disneyland because millions of people from horrible new cities like Houston and Phoenix need to go there to experience something beautiful for a change.
Oldmark
Benson,
Obviously this is not the most architecturally significant church in town but do you actually think there’s a chance in hell that the Toccis are going to build anything even remotely attractive? Adaptive reuse is also the more environmentally friendly approach to take, something you’d think a religious organization should be in favor of.
Just so the writer of the article knows – the so-called investor who said it was not on the market is wrong. I too am a developer who bid on this piece of property and lost. So, at least get your facts straight.
I’m with Benson. Let the neighborhood grow.
Brooklyn needs housing, it does not need more empty, decaying buildings. The demographics of this neighborhood will not require more church space.
11.15 AM;
I appreciate your comments, but they are telling, and go to the heart of my problem with today’s preservationists. You are assuming that all beauty lies in the past. You are assuming that this former church building represents the ultimate aesthetic achievement for this site. In other words, we are incapable of progressing.
Why is it assumed that we are no longer capable for achieving further advancements in the use and aesthetics of land in this city? It is mind-boggling to me that New York has morphed from a place that once epitomized a forward, confident belief in the future into the present-day “religion” of preserving all that is old.
It is one thing to call for the preservation of the truly historic site or a Chrysler building. It’s another thing to wring your hands at the site of a demolition of an ordinary church from the previous century.
About 10 years ago I went on a tour of Venice. I happened to stay at a hotel that was built in the early 1960’s – one of the few modern structures in Venice. While the hotel was certainly not a masterpiece, it was a decent structure. My tour guide, a Venetian, was beside herself that such a modern, ugly structure had been built on her precious city. At the very same time, she lamented that it had become a Disneyland, yet could not see the connection.
Think about it.
Benson
The borough of churches is becoming the borough of condos.