Today’s news:

More ‘Green’ to be torn down

for The Brooklyn Paper

Preparations to tear down the 108-year-old “Green Church” continue to move forward, but The Brooklyn Paper has learned that the Bay Ridge United Methodist Church’s plans also include tearing down the church’s limestone parsonage next door — and one family is praying for a higher authority to step in.

“We’re afraid our walls are going to collapse,” said David Kimball, whose 360 Ovington Ave. limestone townhouse shares a wall with the Green Church parsonage.

“It’s bad enough the church has to go, but they’re also planning on taking down the corner limestone, which is next to our house, to make room for their new church building,” Kimball added.

The current plan for the site calls for the erection of a new church for the Methodist congregation on land that overlaps a parking lot and the current parsonage at 362 Ovington Ave.

The remainder of the parking lot and the soon-to-be demolished church will be sold to Abe Betesh of Abeco Management Corp. and turned into residential units on the corner of Ovington and Fourth avenues.

The crumbling Green Church has been at the center of a see-saw battle over the past two years between the congregation — which wants to sell — and preservationists and local elected officials who adore the structure.

“There’s a lot of confusion about what we’re trying to do,” said Bay Ridge United Methodist pastor, Rev. Robert Emerick. “Someone said we’re looking to take the money and run. Not so. We are a part of the community and want to continue serving Bay Ridge.”

But Kimball is concerned that not only will the demolition of the parsonage change the character of Ovington because it’s the anchor for a row of 12 limestones on the block. He’s also worried about the structural stability of his own house once the parsonage comes down.

Emerick downplayed the danger.

“I’m not a demolition expert,” he said, “but our architect says the [Kimball] home will stay intact. Our interior wall will be refurbished as their exterior wall.”

Meanwhile, Emerick has begun being far more aggressive about reminding elected officials to stay out of church business.

Twice this month, Emerick has led a group of parishioners in protest in front of the offices of Councilman Vince Gentile (D–Bay Ridge) and Assemblywoman Janele Hyer-Spencer (D–Bay Ridge) — both of whom have sought to block the sale and demolition of the “Green Church.”

Gentile asked the Landmarks Preservation Commission to review the matter, though Landmarks has already rejected designating the church as a landmark.

In addition to protesting, Emerick is now pitching the positive side of the demolition of the historic church.

“Not only will the new church be structurally sound unlike the current building, but we are committed to making it environmentally friendly as well,” Emerick said, mentioning solar panels, better insulation, and an atrium that will naturally heat the sanctuary.

Pin It
Print this story Permalink

Reader Feedback

louis pappas from bay ridge says:

Why not move the church to 67st and 4ave. buy part the of park from the city.
this is a beautiful location to admire the
beauty of the church and a grand entrance to Bay Ridge.
It problely be cheaper to move it instead of tearing down.
Feb. 11, 2008, 1:09 pm
TE from Bay Ridge says:
Why not tear it down?
Last time I checked, we live in society that values private property rights. The building has an owner. It's church authorities' business how they want to manage their property. If they concluded that it's not fiscally advisable to continue to maintain this building, they are within their right to demolish it, to sell it or to do anything they deam appropriate.

The proposed plan has only advantages, as I can see it. The church will fund a new building for their parishioners (a "green" one, btw. In environmental sense) And a developer will build a residential condo building next to it - hooray. This borough needs more housing, and the more diverse, the better. The apartments on offer in this part of Bay Ridge are mostly in poorly maintained 1920's and 30's buildings, some in 60's buildings, both categories are outdated. If there are people willing to shell out big bucks for upscale living right here - good for them, and good for us, long-time residents. Gentrification is good, people!
Feb. 16, 2008, 4:04 pm
Kip from Bay Ridge says:
Have you noticed, TE (guess not) that gentrifiers are all over old, beautiful and still-affordable? New, cheesy and overpriced just don't pull 'em in, unfortunately, or you would be right.
Feb. 17, 2008, 8:16 pm

Enter your comment below

By submitting this comment, you agree to the following terms:

You agree that you, and not or its affiliates, are fully responsible for the content that you post. You agree not to post any abusive, obscene, vulgar, slanderous, hateful, threatening or sexually-oriented material or any material that may violate applicable law; doing so may lead to the removal of your post and to your being permanently banned from posting to the site. You grant to the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part world-wide and to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

First name
Last name
Your neighborhood
Email address
Daytime phone

Your letter must be signed and include all of the information requested above. (Only your name and neighborhood are published with the letter.) Letters should be as brief as possible; while they may discuss any topic of interest to our readers, priority will be given to letters that relate to stories covered by The Brooklyn Paper.

Letters will be edited at the sole discretion of the editor, may be published in whole or part in any media, and upon publication become the property of The Brooklyn Paper. The earlier in the week you send your letter, the better.