Church Reboot on Clinton Avenue
Another church—just what the neighborhood needed. After years of lying fallow, it appears that the steel frame at 145 Clinton Avenue is finally getting some walls; the job was initially applied for in the early 1990s and the steel frame has been there as long as we can remember. The Celestial Church of Christ, which…
Another church—just what the neighborhood needed. After years of lying fallow, it appears that the steel frame at 145 Clinton Avenue is finally getting some walls; the job was initially applied for in the early 1990s and the steel frame has been there as long as we can remember. The Celestial Church of Christ, which has headquarters facing Waverly Avenue and owns the entire through-lot, is the entity behind the job. It’s really too bad that at a time when there are plenty of dwindling congregations in the area having a difficult time maintaining beautiful old churches that resources are being allocated to building a new structure that’s sure to be an aesthetic bummer. GMAP P*Shark DOB
It’s in threads like these where I miss the What.
the people next door will be bummed, since their views will be blocked thereby decreasing the value of their investment
> Another church—just what the neighborhood needed.
Well, leaps aside, that opening comment sounded totally snarky even to me (one who is snarky by nature and has no use for any church).
this is real estate website. its perfectly reasonable to talk about the aesthetic aspect of this, and to be criticial of it in the same way you would any real estate development. Why should a religion (yes, as it happens, a cultish insular one) be an exception? Fugly condos and their buyers are also not hurting anyone. This doesn’t mean anyone is saying the value of their religious congregation is inherently linked to the building aesthetics– that’s quite a leap, Ditmas Snark, and bxgirl, you’re all over the place.
Fair enough bxgrl, I can understand taking issue with the statement “just what the neighborhood needed” – even if I agree with the statement (how snarky of me ;-))
I do think that the practical aspect of this (renting space at struggling existing old church buildings) makes a lot of sense though. It would be more cost effective for a small congregation and would serve to preserve our beautiful old church buildings.
Perhaps if, as residents of the block, we thought that the building of this structure, religion aside, was done with planning and care that would, perhaps, be different. As it is, when the steel beams went up several years ago, they cut a hole in the chain link fence that borders the sidewalk on Clinton Avenue and passed the beams through the small hole. They then had a cement / concrete truck that also passed the concrete (for the foundation) THROUGH this small hole (in some small tube – I’m no expert on this terminology) and into what would become the foundation. At the same time, that same concrete substance, went ALL OVER someone’s car and all over the street. (I witnessed workers trying to get the substance off the car.) So, religion aside, there are better ways to go about building. And if you don’t have the money for it, don’t do it.
No 1842. It was this opening line: Another church—just what the neighborhood needed. And then the comments by randolph and others. Seeing as the frame stood unfinished for years my bet is that the congregation was trying to raise funds. And I ma a lover of old architecture and preserving it but maybe this congregation is too poor to take over an old building and renovate it or reconfigure it to their needs. Before I condemn anyone I like to know all the facts. Ditmas put it perfectly:
“It’s good to see that the value of a religious congregation is measured only by the aesthetics of their meeting place.”
criticism of religious organizations (or intimation thereof) is definitely a no go in our touchy society. I agree with the premise that an already existing church building (of which there are plenty in Clinton Hill) could be repurposed and be more attractive, but the “just what we need” eye rolling is the factor that arouses people. I am completely agnostic and find the puritanism of our American dialogue mystifying but it was easy to see how this thread would provoke people.
Why in the world would I donate to them. Bstoner had a practical suggestion – allocate your resources to another stuggling small congregation like St. Bart’s by renting time to use their facilities, thereby maintaining an already existing beautiful old church.
The alternative is to build a POS. They should sell the land if they have no money. They’d have plenty after that that they could use to rent time/space in an existing church that needs help in maintaining their building. Of course, with what has been described as the dogmatic nature of this particular congregation, affiliation with any other congregation would not work.
Basically, people seem to take great umbrage at any critique of church developments simply because they are churches. They, bxgirl, read snarkiness and snobbery into it. A POS development is a POS development regardless of who does it and what its purpose is. Just because it is for a church doesn’t mean that the community should ignore its ordinary concerns about streetscapes and quality of life issues.