A More Nuanced Case of Development Strife
Today The NY Times writes of yet another example of the friction being caused by the current real estate boom. Unlike most cases in which the developer is swiftly cast as the villain, though, this story pits the Iglesia Presbiteriana del Cristo Vivo on Atlantic Avenue against the neighborhood old-timers who have invested time and…
Today The NY Times writes of yet another example of the friction being caused by the current real estate boom. Unlike most cases in which the developer is swiftly cast as the villain, though, this story pits the Iglesia Presbiteriana del Cristo Vivo on Atlantic Avenue against the neighborhood old-timers who have invested time and sweat in creating the Hoyt Street Garden in an adjacent lot owned by the church. And the emotions are running more toward sad than mad. The church now wants to build rental apartments to finance renovations on its own crumbling house of worship. Part of its decline has to do with the rapidly decline in the number of Spanish people living in the neighborhood, itself a reflection of the ripple effect of rising real estate prices. No easy answers here at all. The only other alternative we can think of would be for the church to cash in on both properties and use the money to establish a new location closer to its parishioners and establish an endowment so it doesn’t face a similar problem in another fifty years. Of course, that’s exactly the kind of scenario that the anti-gentrification camp decries, so what to do?
The Sanctuary vs. The Oasis [NY Times]
I live near this garden and it is a lovely underused oasis. I’ve never been in it but I loved getting the keys when we first moved in. This garden was fixed up 30 years ago at a time when the neighborhood was very different than it is now. The same people who built this garden also sponsor the neighborhood clean-ups, the annual plant sale and act as liaisons for community policing when crime was huge issue. There is a lot of sweat in that garden and the people who put it there bear a lot of credit for making this neighborhood what it is today.
While it’s sad to see it go, it isn’t used that much. The neighborhood is no longer down and out and doesn’t need this kind of boost as much anymore. As much as I respect the work that’s gone in, I don’t plan to help save it.
Perhaps “nuanced” was a bad choice of words. Of course it’s pretty straightforward in terms of the church’s right to do whatever it wants with the property. The interesting twist, we thought, was that it was more difficult to cast the “developer” as the big bad wolf when the developer happened to be an ailing church instead of a deep-pocketed mercenary.
Why is this “nuanced”?
Church needs money, church develops or sells land.
Individual owner needs money, individual owner develops or sells land.
What is so nuanced about that? Why the implicit bias against the individual owner? That is, if a church develops something, it is considered an understandable, but unfortunate development. When an individual does the same, it is considered bad.
Why all this implicit anger at growth and development? Why is it considered so cool to always trash anything that a developer puts up? True, there are developers putting up ugly buildings. But there are people buying apartments in those ugly buildings. If it’s not in a Landmarked area, then there’s little you can do about the appearance of those new buildings.
I think the answer is easy: Land belongs to the church, they can do whatever they want. I live near that “garden” and until I read about it in the paper this morning, I had no idea it was a garden. Really, if there’s any sweat in that place it’s about an hour’s worth.