Tuesday, July 3, 2007

AM NY covers plight of St. Saviour's


Online version here: Endangered church looks for new life

Photos here: Photos of St. Saviour's

"Probably 100 percent of people in the best of all worlds would want a park," said Councilman Dennis Gallagher (R-Queens) but "there's no money in the 2030 plan to purchase that property."

The association and other groups have blamed Gallagher for supporting rezoning that would allow housing, and for what they say is his close relationship with the developer's lobbying firm.

Gallagher said he would only support a zoning change that preserves the church, but maintained that a "nice development, reasonable in scope, would be advantageous." He denied any conflict of interest and said he is talking to the developer to reach a compromise.


Advantageous? To whom? You?

51 comments:

Anonymous said...

"There's no money in the budget for it"

This asshole had 2 years to request money in the budget for it.

Anonymous said...

I really hate this guy, Pinky. I'm glad Serf sent his people. I also think it's disgusting that no other civic or politician representing Maspeth showed up.

Julie said...

Why no questioning of Gallagher's reasons for not supporting a land swap? Even the developer is in favor of that at this point.

Anonymous said...

LPC is a disgusting bastion of spineless WASPy twits who wouldn't know a real landmark if it bit them in the ass.

Anonymous said...

An adaptation of a song lyric from the classic hit Broadway musical "Damn Yankees":

"Whatever Parkside wants......Parkside gets.......and little man ("Pinky") Parkside wants you (to sell out Maspeth) " !

And we all know how well the "The Pinkster"" dances to that their tune !!!

verdi said...

Oh there will be plenty of money in the city's coffers to "buy out" the "obstinate" Willets Point business holdouts......but alas.....when it comes to St. Saviour's......the city cries "poverty" !

HOW ABOUT USING EMINENT DOMAIN for the purpose for which it was intended FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD !
In this case the creation of a St. Saviour's park & museum site ? !!!

No, no, no, it can't be done......that would set a "bad example" for the cozy relationship NYC politicos have with developers !!!

Anonymous said...

Look, the problem here is not that LPC is not doing their job, or that Pinky thinks he can get into a p*ssing match with the community and win, although both points are true.

The point here is the city wide preservation community simply lacks balls
And until they find them, they are a joke. Everything they have accomplished will be swept away once the landmarks law is overturned.

They know what is going on and simply refuse to stand up to this nonsense. Like everyone else, they too have ties to the politicians through funding. And if they depend of the politicians, then they too are in the developers’ pocket.

And yes, the law must be overturned. As long as it, and its advocates, permit travesties like this, it ain't worth the paper its printed on.

Anonymous said...

When you first mentioned overturning the law in this blog I thought you were a bunch of crazies. But now I am not so sure...

I live in Manhattan and they would never permit something like this to happen in our borough.

I am a bit disturbed that the preservation community is not making more noise about this place. With the exception of a few highly publicized problems (all in Manhattan) they are doing a poor job of making the public aware of these issue.

If it wasn’t for Queens Crap, I would not know this is even going on. Good job and keep up the good work!

Anonymous said...

I dare HDC, MAS, etc to stand up and clearly state what we all know is true: LPC is not doing its job, no matter how much you tinker with minor stuff like budgets and commissioner selections.

And you know what, until they do, HDC, MAS etc. are not doing THEIR jobs.

Anonymous said...

I was disappointed that the last HDC conference did not get into the issues that we are facing in the outer boroughs: the misinformation in the media, the outright lies from our politicians, the climate that makes community preservation all but impossible.

Look at that mess in Sunnyside. If a top HDC person did not live there, they would have treated that community the same way the are now treating St Saviours.

Ignoring them.

And as long as they are silent on examples like St Saviours, they are not part of the solution, but part of the problem. They let this happen by creating a vacuum that the developers and politicians are only too happy to step in.

We are losing too many buildings to politics and they are simply glossing over this.

Kim said...

HDC will no doubt write another letter telling Dennis Gallagher's constituents how great he is. Notice that no one from that bunch showed up at the rally to show support.

Anonymous said...

E-BULLETIN OF THE HISTORIC DISTRICTS COUNCIL: There is no such thing as St. Saviour's, that's why we won't mention it to our thousands of subscribers.

Anonymous said...

Atlantic Yards rallies they show up for.

Anonymous said...

Absolutely true about the preservation community always quaking in their boots like nervous Nellies!

I've served on the board of one of those "hysterical societies" in Queens !

All they were ever concerned about was not making any waves or enemies of any possible funding sources by strongly speaking out publicly on any controversial preservation issues !

Anonymous said...

The Sun is a joke, like USA Today for NYC. No effort at writing, just froth.

Tired rehash.

I would not let it disturb you in the least.

Anonymous said...

Can someone please explain to me what the big deal is about this site? From the pictures, it looks like a rundown lot with an old, beaten ugly building on it. If this structure was so important to the community, why hasn't the community been attending it and maintaining it? Why not create something more useful on this site, whether a park or quality residential or retail development? Based on the location, this doesn't seem like a place that people will travel to see an old church museum, and without that, who would pay for the upkeep?

Taxpayer said...

"Probably 100 percent of people in the best of all worlds would want a park," said Councilman Dennis Gallagher (R-Queens) but "there's no money in the 2030 plan to purchase that property."

Wow! A plan must be like an Act of God, or a force of nature, utterly invulnerable to any change by mere mortals.

Is that what this lazy, greedy, lying, pink panty-wearing moron wants people to believe? That although he would be overjoyed to join in making the location into a park, he is just too weak and sniveling to make a try?

Or, does he want us all to continue believing (knowing) that he has to nourish his many expensive perversions, so that sucking at the ass of developers is what he is compelled to do in order to pay for his sumptuous life.

Plus, developer sucking is a true joy!

Anonymous said...

Oh, Parkside is at it again: "Why not create something more useful on this site, whether a park or quality residential or retail development?"

They are asking for a park and community center. What would be more useful than that? It's something the entire neighborhood can use and enjoy.

Jen said...

"If this structure was so important to the community, why hasn't the community been attending it and maintaining it?"

Because the developer has sealed it off from them and allowed it to deteriorate. Take a look at it just before Maspeth Development, LLC got their hands on it and turned it into a dumping ground.

Anonymous said...

"Can someone please explain to me what the big deal is about this site? From the pictures, it looks like a rundown lot with an old, beaten ugly building on it."

30 years ago people said the same thing about Ellis Island, too.

Anonymous said...

Well the question then is: Who would pay for the property in order to make a park and community center? Would the city, meaning the taxpayers, have the budget to pay millions (or give up city land) for the property and convert it? If not, there must be a reason that the prior owners sold to the Korean Methodists, and that the Methodists then sold; maybe because the property was no longer being used enough to maintain it. This is similar to the Niederstein's issue - we can't just keep unused property as is because it has been around a long time.

Anonymous said...

"Well the question then is: Who would pay for the property in order to make a park and community center?"

The city. People in Maspeth pay taxes, too. I mean if they could do it for a rusty relic like the high line...If they can give tax abatements to developers like Ratner...

"Would the city, meaning the taxpayers, have the budget to pay millions (or give up city land) for the property and convert it?"

There is a budget surplus of billions of dollars. The city has the money.

"If not, there must be a reason that the prior owners sold to the Korean Methodists, and that the Methodists then sold; maybe because the property was no longer being used enough to maintain it."

Actually, the Korean Methodists had sunk a lot of money into the property in the year just before someone had come along with the right price. They had maintained it meticulously.

"This is similar to the Niederstein's issue - we can't just keep unused property as is because it has been around a long time."

The Niederstein's property was in use for 150 years, up until it was sold to Arby's, who demolished it. St. Saviour's was in use as a church up until Christmas 2005. The day after that, the dumpsters moved in.

Adaptive reuse is what it's all about. We don't have stand for treasures being destroyed just so some developer from outside the community can turn a quick buck.

Joe said...

The Mayor and all the city people in control of the money are Jewish.
They couldn give 2 craps about some Christian church and graves.

This should be played as "save the Maspeth woods" and not bring up the word "St."

Pinky needs a good butt kicking; he was a devious punk in Junior High School and still is. I wonder if he and his possie still sneak off to smoke the stinky Mexican tobacco. (like they did in the cematary by the railroad tracks-tunnel

In my opinion this guy is crazy, and may be under the influience of drugs. He does not belong in any form of public office.

-Joe (Formally from Ridgewood)

Anonymous said...

So now we have anti-Semitic complainers on this blog. Great.
Niederstein's was not in use for 150 years. It was losing money for years because no one went there anymore. What should we do, keep around a business that loses money (because the community is not supporting it with their business) just because the same people in the neighborhood don't want to see anything change? When you make blatantly ridiculous statements like: "Niedersteins was in use for 150 years before Arby's came in and destroyed it," you lose credibility and I can't trust any of your other statements.

Julie said...

The stupid statements continue:

"What should we do, keep around a business that loses money (because the community is not supporting it with their business) just because the same people in the neighborhood don't want to see anything change?"

The quality of Niederstein's food deteriorated and that's why people stopped going there. No one suggested keeping a business that is losing money there, we're talking about the building, which was a neighborhood landmark. I guess everything historical which contains neighborhood character that makes people feel good about where they live should be turned into oversized crap and then this genius would be happy.

Tiffany said...

Yeah what's wrong with
a) getting a new owner for the business
b)selling to someone who has a plan for adaptive reuse

Anonymous said...

"Can someone please explain to me what the big deal is about this site? From the pictures, it looks like a rundown lot with an old, beaten ugly building on it."


Dear Preservation Community:

After more than 40 years of protecting certain neighborhoods, that is your own backyards, you have also done a fabulous job of communicating the importance of preservation to the politicians, media, and general public.

Every day we see evidence, as the statement above, of your long standing commitment to public education.

If it wasn't for this long standing dedication to public education, we would think that preservation is only for a small group of the elect, that is you and your friends.

But we know that is differenct. Afterall, you write grants for the entire city, and public (taxpayer) funds are used to support your effort.

We a looking forward to hearing about your renewed and expanded efforts at public education.

Next year, when you conduct your various seminars, we khow you will respect the public's wishes, and make this a centerpiece of your agenda.

Signed

Grassroots preservationists from Queens.

Glendale said...

"Pinky needs a good butt kicking; he was a devious punk in Junior High School and still is. I wonder if he and his possie still sneak off to smoke the stinky Mexican tobacco. (like they did in the cematary by the railroad tracks-tunnel

In my opinion this guy is crazy, and may be under the influience of drugs. He does not belong in any form of public office."

-Joe (Formally from Ridgewood)

Joe, you obviously know Dennis Gallagher. He has continued his underhanded ways as an adult and has shown to be a thug as an elected official. That's who he is through and through.

Laura 78 st said...

I originally supported Councilmember Dennis Gallagher because I thought he genuinely cared about the community.

However I didn't much care for his attacks on the Juniper Valley group.

But Gallagher's latest quote to AMNY proves to me that he has sold out to developers as far as St. Saviour's is concerned.

georgetheatheist said...

Would you have wanted to have a dinner at "romantic" Niedersteins's surrounded by graves and tombstones?

Anonymous said...

And what is with the fascination over the old Neiderstein's building? It really wasn't anything spectacular, it had already been substantially altered 30 years ago, and it was in disrepair. It was a losing business, so the only valuable asset the owner had to sell was the property. If the potential buyer was forced to keep the building, the value plummets. That's not the way things should work in this country. I'm glad they built something there that is now useful.

Anonymous said...

"It really wasn't anything spectacular, it had already been substantially altered 30 years ago, and it was in disrepair."

Some people think that a former stagecoach stop pre-dating the civil war is something historical. The founding of Niederstein's pretty much led to the founding of the rest of Middle Village. It was altered by the same dimwit that allowed it to fall into disrepair.

Anonymous said...

I'm glad they built something there that is now useful.

Yes, an Arby's. Keeping your local cardiologist in business.

Anonymous said...

Some of these idiot bloggers that couldn't see the value of Niedersteins and think that an Arby's is more useful should get off their fat backsides (from eating junk food) and take a long walk around Queens to see what has happened to our borough. Get your heads out of your enormous asses.

Anonymous said...

"The value of Niederstein's"?? You seem to be having a hard time communicating why it was valuable. "A former stage coach stop"?? Well I still haven't heard any good reason why the city should have forced a property owner to keep the building. We're not talking about any significant architectural masterpiece- it was an old, non-descript building. I personally thought it made the area look run-down and hokey. That location is not conducive to a nice restaurant the way it might have been 100 years ago. It is audacious to say that the owner should keep things as is or take less money on a sale so that you can still have your old building to look at. More people will frequent the Arby's than had been to Niederstein's, and they also built additional buildings for retail use that could bring business to the area that residents could find useful. Should we have kept the Atlas terminals as they were because they had been there since before WWII? No- thankfully the owners knocked them down and put the site to better use. I guess if some of the bloggers on this site don't have any intelligent, educated things to say, they just spew some ignorant insults.

Anonymous said...

I think Bloated Boy is back.

georgetheatheist said...

"Yes, an Arby's. Keeping your local cardiologist in business."

That's right, eating Wiener Schnitzels and Knockwurst/Sauerkraut platters washed down with steins of beer was your idea of healthy cuisine?

Joe said...

"Joe, you obviously know Dennis Gallagher"

Yes Glendale, at the time I was a punk also (I wont lie)
Our group hung out on Fresh Pond Road by the hardware store. One and a wile we would cross the tracks and cemetery into Middle Village where some CB radio friends lived. We would hang out & smoke pot, blasting Ted Nugent, Sabbath, and Pink Floyd on the early Panasonic cassette boom box radios.

In a way I **WAS** just as guilty as Pinky however I repented 20 years ago.
Our group never stole, sold drugs--emm "assorted contraband" or damaged property

At the time they were building the Robert Hall Village to give you some idea of the timeframe.
The railroad tracks were very common paths to get around

Funny I still have my 007, leather bomber, Dungaree (bluejean) jacket and Lafayette Comstat 25B

-Joe

Anonymous said...

"That's right, eating Wiener Schnitzels and Knockwurst/ Sauerkraut platters washed down with steins of beer was your idea of healthy cuisine?"

Niederstein's didn't have a drive-thru and I am sure most people wouldn't have eaten there multiple times a week. Arby's was built and is marketed for just that purpose.

NOT WORTH SAVING? said...

Niederstein’s Restaurant was located at what is now 69-16 Metropolitan Avenue near 69th Street in Middle Village. Years ago 69th Street was called Juniper Avenue and Metropolitan Avenue was the Williamsburgh & Jamaica Turnpike. Land at this intersection was valuable for a restaurant, hotel or tombstone yard. Isaac Ferguson, who lived in Middle Village and who made his living as a market man or trader, owned slightly more than one half acre near the intersection. He decided not to sell his land on the Turnpike to the Geissenhainers of Lutheran Cemetery as he thought it was worth more than they were willing to pay.

Isaac Ferguson sold about one third of an acre with a frontage of 169 feet to John Heuss for $1,500. Heuss made the purchase as an investment and also as a possible site for a tombstone yard. Ferguson retained ownership of about one quarter acre to the west of the land that he sold to Heuss.

Later John Heuss sold the land to Henry Schumacher, a saloon keeper from New York City. Schumacher was 27 years old and was a native of Wurtemberg, Germany. He had two saloons in Manhattan and was married to Catharina, age 23. Schumacher sold his saloons and paid Heuss $5,000 for the land. He built a two story wooden building on the site and established Schumacher’s Lager Beer Saloon and Hotel. As soon as the building was completed he moved his family to Middle Village.

In 1864 Ferguson sold the one quarter acre of land to the west of Schumacher’s Hotel with 101 feet frontage on the Turnpike, for $1,000 to John Heuss. Heuss established a tombstone yard on the site. The population of Middle Village was growing. Public transportation was available with the North Second Street and Middle Village Railroad operating horse drawn cars on steel rails from the ferry in Williamsburgh along the turnpike to Dry Harbor Road. Long Island farmers were bringing their fruits and vegetables by horse and wagon along the turnpike to the ferry landing where they were loaded aboard and crossed the East River to go to the Catherine Market in Manhattan. The farmers patronized the hotels along the Turnpike. Also burials were increasing in Lutheran Cemetery and funeral processions were stopping at the hotels after graveside services.

By 1868 Henry Schumacher decided to expand and he paid John Heuss $7,000 for the one quarter acre to the west of his hotel. Schumacher now had 270 feet frontage on the turnpike. By 1880 Henry Schumacher was 44 years old and his wife was 38. They had five children. Henry Schumacher died and his widow Catharina continued to operate the business with the help of her children. Eventually she married John Sutter, who had a tombstone yard.

In the spring of 1888 Catharina Sutter decided to sell the hotel and restaurant. John Niederstein, who operated a saloon and hotel in New York City, decided the business opportunities on Long Island were better than New York City and he purchased the premises on May 24, 1888 for $28,000.

As per the custom he made the purchase in his wife, Apolonia’s (Pauline) name. Saloon and hotel keepers usually held their property in their wife’s name to protect them from law suits.

Johann (John) Niederstein was born in Bonn, Prussia in 1838. As a young man he served as an apprentice cook in the kitchen of Frederick Wilhelm IV, King of Prussia. After his apprenticeship was completed, he was employed as the head cook at the Hotel Masquardt in Stuttgart. Prussia had military conscription and we believe that Johann served his term in the army when he was 20 years old. After he was released he became head cook at the Duval Restaurant in Stuttgart. In 1864 Prussia and Austria fought against Denmark and Johann was called to active duty. He was 26 years old.

When Johann Niederstein was 28 years old, he emigrated to America. He got a job as head cook at the Metropolitan Hotel and the same year he married Apolonia Bauer, also a native of Prussia. Between 1868 and 1888 he owned three or four saloons and hotels in New York City. He and his wife eventually had six children, three of whom died in infancy. A son, John was born in 1871 and another son, Louis, was born in 1873.

In 1880 John, Jr., who was nine years old, was sent by his parents to Germany to receive a proper education. He traveled alone on the steamer Elba to Bremen and then continued on to Bonn, which is on the Rhine River, where he attended school for four years. Another son, Richard, was born in 1881.

In 1884, John, Jr. who was now thirteen years old, returned home on the steamer, Westernland. He then helped his father manage the saloon and hotel.

In early 1888 Johann Niederstein became aware that Catharina Sutter wanted to sell Schumacher’s Hotel in Middle Village. He bought it and moved his family to Middle Village.

Wallabout Market had opened in 1884 in Brooklyn and Long Island farmers no longer had to make the long trip to Manhattan to sell their produce. Accordingly some of the farmers preferred to take Myrtle Avenue to Wallabout Market rather than Metropolitan Avenue. This probably accounted for Catharina Sutter’s desire to sell. John Niederstein decided that one way to overcome this problem after he bought the hotel, was to cater to the funeral processions after the graveside services at St. John’s, Lutheran and Mount Olivet Cemeteries. One of the meals he featured was pot cheese with sour cream, boiled potatoes and chives. For the entertainment of children visiting his restaurant with their parents, he installed in the back of his hotel a small zoo with monkeys and bear.

In 1888 John, Jr. met Minnie Siebs. Romance blossomed and on October 28, 1890 they were married. He was 19 and she was 22. They had two children: Henrietta and another child who died in infancy. Minnie became ill and on March 10, 1895, she died.

About 1895 Louis Niederstein married Katherine Walters. They had four children: May who married Leo Koller, Louis, Adeline, who married Mr. Lardon and Gladys, who married Francis Ludes.

In 1896 New York State passed the Raines Law which restricted the sale of alcoholic beverages on Sunday to hotels, and then only when served during a meal, or in the bedrooms of the hotel. Because most men worked a full six day week, Sunday was the only day for rest and relaxation and it was a big day for the saloons. As a result of this law a number of saloons became hotels by adding small furnished bedrooms.

On March 25, 1896 John, Jr. married Louise Reimers and a few days later his father turned over to him the active management of the restaurant and hotel, Apolonia and John, Sr. continued to live at the hotel along with nine of the hired help. John, Jr. increased the number of bedrooms to 32 and called it the Grand Hotel. Eventually, John and Louise had two children, Maxine and Lillie. In the early 1900’s as gas lines were laid along Metropolitan Avenue, gas lights were installed, replacing the kerosene lamps. Gas was also used for cooking.

In 1903 Richard Niederstein married Grace Reimers and he continued to help John run the hotel and restaurant. Richard and Grace had a son, Karl. Apolonia died in 1903 and John, Sr. died in 1905.

In 1904 the Bruckner Company installed a “central air conditioning” system to cool the restaurant during the hot summer months, one of the first of its kind. A large motor in the basement turned a heavy leather belt which ran through an opening in the ceiling to the main floor where (driven by elaborate series of mechanical drive shafts and belts mounted on the ceiling of the main floor) two bladed fans mounted on the ceiling in the restaurant rotated to cool the premises for the comfort of the patrons.

John Niederstein, in addition to running the hotel and restaurant, also operated the Prospect Park Hotel near Prospect Park in Brooklyn. John became actively involved in the Democratic Party in Queens County. In 1906 he and his brother, Louis, deeded to their brother, Richard, their share of Niederstein’s Hotel and Restaurant. Subsequently John was elected County Clerk for Queens County in 1910 John died at the age of 40.

In 1920 Henrietta Gabriel, daughter of Minnie and John, purchased Niederstein’s from Grace Niederstein for $18,000. With the decline in the use of horse and wagon by farmers to bring their produce to market, and the change to gasoline engine trucks which moved at much higher speeds, the hotel trade that catered to the farmers fell off sharply. It was no longer necessary for a farmer to stay overnight at a hotel as he journeyed from his farm and back.

In addition when prohibition started in January 1920 this affected Niederstein’s as it became more difficult to make an adequate profit without serving alcoholic beverages.

In 1927 Adeline Niederstein, cousin of Henrietta, started working at Niederstein’s. She was 24 years old. In 1940 Henrietta decided to lease it to her cousin, May Koller. In 1946 May Koller, with the permission of her cousin, Henrietta, sublet the premises to her cousin, Adeline Niederstein Larden and Marie Burke.

In 1969 Henrietta sold Niederstein’s Restaurant to Rainer Realty Corp. (Horst and Reiner Herink) they hired Agusta & Agusta, architects from Glendale, to draw up plans to modernize the building. The porch facing Metropolitan Avenue was enclosed, a new bar room and reception area was built, modern rest rooms and a modern kitchen were installed and the ceiling fans (with the exception of a few that were left for nostalgia) were replaced with a modern air conditioning system. The restaurant reopened in March, 1970. Adeline Niederstein Lardon for several years continued to greet guests at the restaurant.

In February 2005 Reiner Herink sold the building to Tom Clarke, a Burger King and Arby’s franchisee. Clarke plans to build an Arby’s and retail stores on the site. He demolished the historic building on September 23, 2005.

RIGHT ON POSTERS, THERE IS NO HISTORY HERE.

Anonymous said...

That was a nice commentary on the history of the business - I still haven't seen a good reason to require keeping a non-descript two story wooden structure that had lost its usefuleness once the horse and wagon went out of favor. The owners in 1969 had no problem with significantly changing the structure. If they hadn't, they would have lost more money even sooner. Again, who are we to tell the owners that they have to maintain their property in a less valuable way because we don't want to see the old building torn down?

Queens Crapper said...

Then according to you, no landmarks should be designated based on historic significance, only archaeological significance. That would eliminate a whole lotta landmarks in this city!

Anonymous said...

Name 5 landmarks in this city that are based solely on historical significance. I seriously doubt you can. Arnold Rothstein built a whole bunch of cheap houses in this area in the 1920s, maybe we should have kept those too since they were historic.

Queens Crapper said...

The Onderdonk House, the Stone House at Gowanus, Theodore Roosevelt's birthplace, Fraunces Tavern and Poe Cottage - The first 4 are not even original structures, but recreations.

What do I win?

Anonymous said...

The Onderdonk house is architectually significant for its Dutch-Colonial features and stone structure. I don't believe the Old Stone House has official Landmark status, nor does the Theodore Roosevelt birthsite. They have other historic designations, but not Landmark status. I'm not sure about Poe Cottage or Fraunces Tavern, but I do not believe they have Landmark status either.
In any event, didn't the new owners of the site consider using part of the existing building for the Arby's, but it was in too much disrepair? I guess that didn't matter to the complainers.

Queens Crapper said...

The Onderdonk House burned to the ground and was rebuilt from scratch. The only original part of it left is the fireplace. It's the first thing they tell you when you walk through the door. The Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace was designated a landmark by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission in 1966. Fraunces Tavern was designated a New York City Landmark in 1965. Poe Cottage became an official city landmark in 1966.

The Old Stone House at Gowanus, like Poe Cottage, is administered by the NYC Parks Department Historic House Trust and therefore does not need landmark designation in order to preserve it. BUT you asked for landmarks that were based on history and not architecture. So we could substitute any of the landmarked cemeteries throughout the 5 boroughs to replace the Stone House on my list. If you're going to limit it to buildings, then how about the Peter Claesen Wyckoff House in Brooklyn, also part of the Parks Department's Historic House Trust?

If the Parks Department saw fit to incorporate the Peter Claesen Wyckoff House and Poe Cottage sites into parks that they administer, then they can do the same for St. Saviour's, which has both historical AND architectural significance and is supposed to be the topic of this thread.

Kevin Walsh said...

Garibaldi-Meucci Museum, Tompkins Ave, Staten Island. Meucci, who invented the telephone before Bell, welcomed the Italian revolutionary as a guest in the 1850s.

Alice Austen House: true, it is a colonial home built in the early 1700s and has been altered repeatedly over the years, but it's chiefly known as the longtime home of the famed photographer.

The Richmond Hill Republican Club has hosted a number of Presidents of both parties, which likely led to its designation. In a similar situation to St. Saviour's it has been left to deteriorate *despite* and Landmark ruling in 2002.

The Louis Armstrong House in Corona is nondescript on the exterior. Its landmark ruling is due to Louis' fame.

The Apollo Theatre is landmarked chiefly because of its importance in American entertainment, not for its architecture.

www.forgotten-ny.com

Anonymous said...

looks like someone should crawl back to his whore house/council office.

Anonymous said...

If people like Gallagher had their own way, your grandparents bones (along with your own personal families' history) would be "displaced" from their original resting places and condos built right on top of that location!

This would be his idea of creative re-use of a historic site ! He might even consider using those sacred bones in the aggregate that's mixed into the concrete when the foundations are poured !

This man's got a screw loose....continually making war against his constituents instead of serving them !

Anonymous said...

Regarding the Onderdonk House - it did not burn to the ground, but was damaged by fire in the 1960s. The stone walls, fireplaces and 1820 wooden extension are original. Visit www.onderdonkhouse.org for info.

Queens Crapper said...

When I visited, the woman in charge told me "nothing you see here is original except the fireplace." Nevertheless, the building was damaged in a fire and rebuilt. So there's no reason St. Saviour's can't be landmarked using the same criteria.