Protected historical buildings or the last resource of dwindling congregations

How should the city of New York deal with buildings deemed historic that happen to be places of worship for religious peoples?

Once a place in New York City reaches landmark status it receives protection from the bulldozery of real estate venture capitalists. However, if the building in question is a church or synagogue issues arise from the resulting entanglement of church and state (i.e. the state regulation of church lucratives), and preservationists watch an architectural gem get auctioned off to the highest bidder by way of religious freedom. Why would a congregation allow demolition of their beloved place of worship? Money, and/or survival of their assembly, depending on if you're developer and/or a religious leader...but how to discern? Or do we need to?

The New York Times' Robin Pogrebin writes,
Houses of worship are among the most sensitive issues facing the Landmarks Commission. Mandating that a church be preserved can not only impose heavy financial burden on a congregation, it also raises the specter of state interference with religious freedom. So the commission has been especially loath to take on churches or synagogues that don't want to be designated.

RP explains how the 1899 building shown above burdened its congregation with the cost of maintaining and repairing the old Methodist church. According to this article the estate sold for 9.75 million dollars to developers planning a 70-unit apartment building. Brooklyn Methodists will "erect a smaller church" amongst the eyesore of yet another monstrous condo tower. Fair enough; the business parties involved both walk away happy. However, "many preservationists and at least one commission member argue that the landmarks commission has not been aggressive enough in protecting churches from the overheated real estate market of the last few years." Indeed, neither the beauty of architecture nor the bailing-out of burdened congregations seduces NYC developers--Just money, just business.

Rev. Robert Emerick defends the demolition of the Greene Church in Bay Ridge pictured above, "Christianity is not about a building, its about people doing work in the name of Christ...Now we have the chance to be a real Christian church and not have to worry about fixing the roof all the time." Then why not sell your property to some organization dedicated to Christ-ly work, Rev? How do overpriced condos amount to God's work? Was there really no other option, Rev? I should hope there wasn't, otherwise we have everyone involved taking the easy profitable way out through a religious freedom loophole.

According to one commenter the changing demographics of the city have eroded the membership of many congregations. "They're constantly in need of resources to carry out the mission, What do you do when your entire parish is gone, and there's nobody left, and you have this marvelous building, and it's frightfully expensive to maintain?" Well, apparently one gives in to impending economic tendencies and makes for a quick profit--so as to further God's work, of course.

The aforementioned occurrence wouldn't be such an issue if it were a few isolated cases, but as the NYT's three part article-series on the issue demonstrates this is a growing trend in our dismal economic atmosphere. One example, involving the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in Morningside Heights, illustrates an unapologetic capitalist move, "[the church] persuaded the commission in 2002 to omit two parcels on the 11-acre grounds of the Episcopal cathedral from the agency's hearings calendar to allow for development." The rest of the property received landmark status, thus saving it from the demise of becoming a "20-story, 300-unit rental apartment tower." Columbia University laid claim to the other parcel, nary a redeeming aspect of the business transaction. Why couldn't these parcels be leased to something involving 'God's work"? $$$.

In the past, religious groups have viscerally argued against designating of their buildings to "serve instead the cause of architectural preservation." in 1982 a 40-page report arguing how the NYC counsel's designation of church-buildings as landmarks "[threatened] religious freedom," was submitted by the Committee of Religious Leaders of the City of New York. Now it seems the only threat to religious freedom is a good contract lawyer, a seedy inner-city developer, and a conveyancing inept preacher.

The article ends at West-Park Presbyterian on the Upper-West Side, where Rev Dr Robert L Brashear says, "It's not just about saving one small little church...It's preserving a place of active vital ministry for the future." He simply wants his congregation to have a place to worship. Currently, his assembly meets at a near-by modest church. It has neither the homeless squatting in the building's archways nor the burden of high-cost maintenance.

But is it necessary, Rev Doc, to allow the church property to be so exploited, to be bulldozed under the guise of economic need? Has not your church survived a much worse depression before? Or could it be Nietzsche's philosophy has come to realization amongst your congregation, or lack thereof, that persuaded you to downsize? Poverty, indeed, is a blessing hated by all.

Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: "I am looking for God! I am looking for God!"
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

"Where has God gone?" he cried.

"I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers."

-- The Nietch.