Green Church Can't Go Co-op... Yet
For months, preservationists and architecture-lovers of all stripes worked diligently to prevent the demolition of the 1899 Green Church in Bay Ridge, but to no avail. By the end of October, the building was being dismantled, its details carted off to salvage companies. The church’s plan for the site was 70 condos, having sold the…
For months, preservationists and architecture-lovers of all stripes worked diligently to prevent the demolition of the 1899 Green Church in Bay Ridge, but to no avail. By the end of October, the building was being dismantled, its details carted off to salvage companies. The church’s plan for the site was 70 condos, having sold the property to developer Abe Betesh for $9.75 million, though the DOB rejected their earlier permit requests. Such hurdles continue, reports the Brooklyn Eagle. “At the site of the ‘green church’ destroyed in mid-October, Betesh has posted a ‘For Sale or Lease’ sign this week, the same week the site, at Fourth and Ovington avenues, was featured in a New York Times article about preservation of houses of worship in the city.” The sign apparently reads, “School, Medical, Not-for-Profit or Residential.” Could the bad publicity be the cause of the sale? Seems like a lot of work to go through, to raze a beloved property and then unload it to the highest bidder.
‘Green Church’ Co-op Plans Fall Through [Brooklyn Eagle]
Photo from cbder.
Its far easier to sell a vacant lot as a development site than it is to sell a nice old church with a potential landmarking in its future as a development site. Call it prophylactic demolition – it happens all the time. Con Ed at the BRT Power Plant site in Williamsburg flat out admitted the property was easier to sell vacant than occupied with a building (there were landmarking moves in that case too, but the real impetus was probably fear of environmental remediation).
Truthfully, I didn’t read the article. And I’m not sure I can. I knew this was happening a couple of days ago. Someone had emailed me about it. Biff, I spent hundreds of hours on this fight. It’s hit close to home. Every time, I hear something about this, or somebody emails me with an update. I get very upset.
I was just pointing out to, Lisa, that her opening sentence is incorrect. I wasn’t invloved all three years…two, and, I was privy to alot of information during that course. And I can share information that would raise some hairs, but I won’t.
“the pastor and parishioners now have nowhere left to congregate.”
The pastor doesn’t care…The pastor has congregated at the bank with the money. His pockets were indeed lined. Yes, I’m speaking ill of a pastor.
BTW – they are worshiping somewhere. They’re renting space, I forget where. After the demolition, I distanced myself from it all. I was truly drained and disgusted by the outcome.
Adapative re-use should have been the course for this site. It should have been the offer that they accepted 2 years ago, when it was made to them.
I don’t feel bad for the parishioners or the pastor.
I feel bad for the community, that could have had a performance center in that church.
I feel bad for the senior citizens that could have been housed in the building that would have gone up where the school building is.
I feel bad for the neighborhood because it lost an architctural gem.
I’ll feel bad for the community when a building does go up on that site and our community and infastructure is over burdened by the added housing, but not added services.
Isn’t it time for the inevitable “you can’t stop progress” comment?
While I have little regard for the excesses of the landmark preservation system, I think that all buildings with ANY significance should be automatically landmarked and the owners should then have to prove why it should not be. Sort of an opt out instead of an opt in system.
As one who has at least a working knowledge of re-purposing buildings, I can say that in the majority of cases where owners claim they can’t renovate, it’s only true to a point. Most of the time the reason for the teardown is to build something bigger and uglier.
To BRG’s point regarding the length of the battle, according to the Brooklyn Eagle link, “The historic church was bulldozed after a three-year campaign to save it by local preservationists”. This is really awful.
To Bob Marvin’s point, one of the many pathetic (and karmic) results of all of this is the pastor and parishioners now have nowhere left to congregate. Unfortunately, we’ve grown to expect certain developers to be involved in these travesties, but what’s harder and perhaps more appalling to swallow is that leaders of the church itself are also responsible for the destruction of their own beautiful and historic houses of the holy.
I was one of the preservationists and architecture-lovers of all stripes worked diligently to prevent the demolition”
Lisa, it was YEARS, not months, that we worked on trying to save this…about 2 years more or less (I came into the fight a little later than others).
Italian71…we probably know each other.
What is never shown or discussed in these stories, is:
This lot is bigger than what is shown in this picture. It extends probably another 50′ to the left and there’s a school building on that portion, which was also slated for demolition. Also, on this site(around the corner, on the right) was a limestone that ended a row, that was demolished along with the church.
Yes, this was one disgusting battle, riddled with accusations of deceit, power, underhanded manipulation of the system, etc.
I have not one nice word for the developer, not one nice word for the pastor. The community of Bay Ridge will suffer because of greed.
I’m so riled up right now.
That “Di$grace” sign says it all
I guess it’s ironic justice that the congregation and minister have done themselves out of a home, since a new, smaller church was to have been part of the delayed–or dead–new development.
As a Bay Ridge residisent and one who stood in protest on cold day in March to try to save this church, this story becomes more and more sickening with each headline. So now we will probably be staring at a hole in the ground for the next 5 years instead of a magnificent structure.
Sale/lease opportunity would be because financing challenges today for resi development: new condo market dead; amount of equity needed to do anything at all huge; foreign money inflow way down.