Something's Brewing Over at Strong Place
One of our eagle-eyed correspondents telexed in an update on the Strong Place Church at the corner of Degraw. She reports that there is “suddenly a lot of activity.” Not only were there a bunch of guys carting out wood and debris last week but today she spotted “a bearded man in a cherry picker…
One of our eagle-eyed correspondents telexed in an update on the Strong Place Church at the corner of Degraw. She reports that there is “suddenly a lot of activity.” Not only were there a bunch of guys carting out wood and debris last week but today she spotted “a bearded man in a cherry picker giving the exterior a once over.” There are also reports of surveyors and much talking on cell phones. Sinister indeed.
Why do you feel it isn’t worth saving, Anon 12:29? I rented in the President St. condo conversion awhile back and “lived” in the choir loft. It was a truly unique apartment, and the building was left standing. A win/win situation IMHO.
propshark show deed transfer last month for $7.3m to an
incorporated realty.
NYC bldgs dept site shows no applications or work permits yet.
BTW: the catholic church sold it for $7.5
I guess they need cash for settlements.
If I were developing the site, I’d demo the whole damn thing and put up about 10-12 brownstone-ettes a la State Steet. The church ain’t worth saving trust me.
There are first amendment issues when governments regulate religious institutions (ie, LPC regulating a church). However, churches are not exempt from regulation under the Landmarks law. While Landmarks may tread lightly around church *designations* (St. Thomas the Apostle, eg), the Commission does have the weight of the Supreme Court behind it (cf. St. Barts and Boerne, a good summary is at http://www.landwater.com/histpres/histpres.html) when it comes to regulating designated buildings.
And churches which are in private hands (condo conversions, eg) are definitely subject to LPC regulation.
What are you talking about? I don’t care if Hare Krishnas take over the place. It has the bones of a beautiful old Gothic Revival church, which I’d like to see restored back to its glory days. I mentioned it being used as a religious institution because that would mean it would be exempt from Landmarks.
I honestly thought this site was about discussing beautiful architecture…what’s with all the bashing and insinuation? It’s popping up on every thread lately…
I agree that condos would be ok. Anything that would leave the facade intact (restored, of course). There have been rumors that it will be a religious school, which might leave the facade open to “re-interpretation”. The building was Landmarked in 1970, so if it turns into condos, they can’t touch the outside without going through that process.
Anyone out there have the skinny on how it works with Landmarks as I’ve heard that churches are exempt from laws that forbid major changes to historical landmarks? This would be a huge shame as Lafever was a noted architect in Brooklyn.
*I* never said it was sinister. Condos could be okay, although I’m sure the construction noise will be annoying for a while. As it is, the place is falling to pieces.
Says who?