Astoria Church Faces Emotional Issue: 

Astoria Church Faces Emotional Issue: 

Photo Anthony Lombardo The Presbyterian church of Astoria, 33-30 33rd St., is faced with demolishing the 82-year-old structure or insolvency.

Find Funds To Save It Or Demolish And Rebuild

By John Toscano

Members of the Presbyterian Church of Astoria are caught up in an emotional quandary trying to keep their 82-year-old church in existence while facing huge financial obstacles.

But the diocesan leader who must approve any such plans, indicated in an interview that the prospects of finding a solution to their dilemma are not too bright.

The Rev. Douglas Grangeorge, pastor of the Central Presbyterian Church in Manhattan and chairman of the Council in the Congregational Ministry, which has jurisdiction over the 100 Presbyterian churches in New York City, stated:

"Many of our churches are struggling with old buildings greatly in need of repair, but the congregations are not able to deal with this financially."

The church leader, 61, said that while many Presbyterian churches in the suburbs are flourishing, with large, wealthy congregations, those in the city have had a sharp decline in membership and have had a huge financial burden thrust upon them.

"How much money can we put into these churches," he asked.

The Rev. Don Olinger, pastor of the Presbyterian Church of Astoria at 33-30 33rd St., said his church’s problems stem from a list of needed repairs that total between $750,000 and $1.5 million, which the church does not have.

The pastor at the Presbyterian Church of Astoria for almost 10 years, Olinger, 52, said that about 30 years ago, there were about 600 members on its rolls. Through deaths and families moving elsewhere, the membership has shrunk to about 100 members. "On Sundays, only bout 20 or 30 of them show up for mass," Olinger said.

Since the church survives mainly on the voluntary contributions of its members, there is not an ample base from which to collect funds. Some funds do come in from "facility usage" of the sprawling church, such as a day care center, but while this helps to meet operating costs, it doesn’t leave anything for the major plumbing and heating repairs, Olinger said.

Presently occupying the property is a five-story sanctuary, Olinger’s residence, the day care center, a homeless shelter, meeting rooms and a gymnasium. The Astoria Performing Arts Center also occupies space in the complex.

Many of the other Presbyterian churches that are facing the same predicament as the Astoria church are considering demolishing their existing churches and replacing them with smaller buildings, Grangeorge said.

"Actually, many of our churches are thinking how can we be decent, Christian people and do something for the community, too. Many are thinking of using the real estate to get money and do something in the neighborhood. It’s the same situation in Astoria. It’s a big building, the last of its kind in Astoria, much bigger than they need.

"One way out is to let a developer come in because what the community needs is more housing. Should we restore the three old-fashioned buildings we have in Astoria, should we restore the old historic church building that we don’t have the funds to maintain or build new housing? We can use these resources to help others in the community."

Olinger said his church is thinking along the same lines—considering plans to save money, including razing the old church and replacing it with a new, smaller facility that is not so costly to maintain.

As part of this plan, he said, 100 units of senior citizen housing would be built, as would a pastor’s residence, a day care facility and a smaller, multi-use church with room for community activities and performance oriented events.

However, he continued, "the major downside to this would be razing the church."

This has become a major emotional problem among the members as discussions on the church’s future go forward, the pastor said.

"Many in our congregation were born and raised here," he explained, "were baptized in this church and got married here and had loved ones buried from this church. These are very emotional issues and the financial reality of our situation doesn’t apply when there are emotional issue such as we have here."

Olinger said a meeting was held on January 18 at which the members were supposed to decide on trying to continue to seek solutions or to demolish and let developers build anew. However, the vote was put off because of the emotional issues still binding so many members to the old church.

One possible way to satisfy these personal problems would be to salvage parts of the church, such as the large stained glass windows. "There are six which are one-and-a-half stories high and one that is twice as large as those," Olinger explained.

Many in the congregation would like to save the stone facade of the church, he said, "but the developers say this is impossible, it’s too costly." However, this hasn’t discouraged some members from asking for mementos of the church, "pieces of the church for them to have and cherish if it is to be torn down."

The reverend said this is the second church to occupy the site since the church was founded 150 years ago.

"We have been serving this community for these many years and we’ve got to serve it for another 100 years," the pastor said. "How do we do it? The biggest part is to give the church members a church—we’ve got to do this.

"How do we continue to serve the community? With senior housing, co-ops—there’s a great need for that in this community. Another great need is day care. The present structure barely accommodates the number that needs to be served, including a pre-K facility. We need room for 75 to 100, that’s a rough figure."

Olinger emphasized, "A central focus of the discussion has been that we must continue to serve the community and to save some architectural pieces. We don’t want to abandon the community, we want to continue to serve the community."

However, there are elements in the community that appear to be much more in favor of saving the church. Foremost among these is the Greater Astoria Historical Society (GAHS), whose central mission is to preserve the past.

GAHS President Bob Singleton made several points in a statement indicating the organization’s position. Among these are that more can be done to find some financial assistance to get the church through this rough period, that more housing and development may not be best for the community and that the cost of repairing the church has "suspiciously skyrocketed" recently, thereby making that course of action less acceptable to church members.

Singleton said in his prepared statement, "We in the community are trying to keep an open mind on the development scheme, but there is little substance beyond the developer’s pitch. It might be a little premature to vote on, or to form an opinion on, this scheme with so much revolving around the whims of the unnamed operator, the restriction of the congregation’s use of their own facility, the apartment layout, affordability, etc. The devil is in the details."

Singleton claims, "Every elected official and civic group in the community has come out against adding to ‘Asthma Alley.’ What impact does an 8- or 10-story building, out of scale with the rest of the neighborhood, have on the power grid and traffic on a busy street?"

Singleton said there are organizations in existence that may provide financial assistance, such as the New York Landmark Conservancy Sacred Sites program, which is working with the Astoria Center of Israel on a similar problem. He said Olinger hadn’t reached out to this group or others like it.

He stated, "For the dozens of civic groups making up the United Civic Congress, concerns relating to church development are on a front burner. Why has every community from the West Side of Manhattan to Downtown Flushing opposed development of sacred property? Before our community and the congregation is rushed into this, we want to know why."

When the members of the Presbyterian Church of Astoria finally decide what course of action they want to take, their plan must be approved by the Council of the Congregational Ministry, chaired by Grangeorge and by all the other Presbyterian churches in New York City.

Olinger said, he’s not rushing or pressuring his members to make a decision.

"We want to make sure everybody’s voice in the church is heard," he said. No meeting has been scheduled to take a vote at this point because he wants to give the members lots of time to consider and discuss their alternatives.

Grangeorge said he has not yet received any official word from Olinger about the Astoria church’s predicament. He said he had been called by Singleton and presumably was informed by him of the situation in general.

But, he stated, when the Astoria church reaches a decision, "They will need the permission of 99 other churches and we’re not going to let them go off on their own—we own all those buildings.

"Will they get permission to go along with their plan? I don’t know," he said.

He repeated that the majority of churches under his authority are in the same situation as the Astoria church, so there couldn’t be a simple solution for one which wouldn’t set a precedent for all the others in need.

"How much can we put in?" he asked. As to whether financial subsidies could be used, he answered, "That’s not possible. It’s not a practical way to deal with it. It’s a dilemma for all the churches."

Grangeorge also made mention of a church’s obligation to be a part of and to help the community around it.

Of his discussions with Singleton, he said, "The Astoria Historical Society says ‘no’ to razing the church, but should we be saddled as a church with the upkeep of old buildings no longer meeting the needs of our congregation? If they want it, why not attend the church?"

Grangeorge, speaking of the broader problem, said, "The city has got to look into whether these 19th century structures should be preserved, but the cost is getting to be too much to bear."