Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 271

Thread: St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church

  1. #151
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    And what was the date that the "agreement" states the site (where ever it is) will be available for the Church to begin construction?

  2. #152
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    This recent ruling by the Appellate Division, First Department of State Supreme Court in Manhattan (now again under appeal) may have some effect in this case:

    E-Mail May Be Binding, State Court Rules

  3. #153

    Default

    Under New York law, a party can acknowledge an agreement with any subsequent writing. Here is what the PA told the world in a 2008 status report (document attached below, courtesy of Lofter):

    St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church – Land Rights Claim

    Context
    St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church (Church) was destroyed during the attacks on September 11,
    2001. The World Trade Center Master Plan, approved in 2005 after several years of public discussion,
    calls for the land on which the structure once stood to be part of the VSC, which serves the entire
    WTC site. The Church agreed to accept land a short distance to the east, on the same block, for the
    construction of their new Church. However, the Church and the Port Authority needed to negotiate a
    compensation package to effectuate this concept and allow the Church to rebuild. Otherwise, the
    issue would have continued to delay the VSC. Negotiations had been ongoing on for some time, but
    no resolution could be reached

    Without this property, the Port Authority could not proceed with the construction of the VSC, which not
    only increases the direct timeline and cost of the VSC, but affects those facilities like Towers 1, 2, 3
    and 4 and the Memorial and Museum that depend on the VSC being open in time to service those
    facilities.

    Resolution
    The Port Authority and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church have reached an agreement that will allow
    the 92-year-old church to be rebuilt near its former Cedar Street location – allowing for the VSC, a vital
    artery that will serve nearly every facility on the site, to begin construction immediately. This agreement
    on one of the linchpin issues for the site brings to a successful conclusion months of negotiations.
    Under the agreement, the Church agreed to convey property at 155 Cedar Street – where the church
    was located before it was destroyed on 9/11 – to the LMDC. LMDC, in turn, will transfer a portion of
    the parcel at 130 Liberty Street to the Church for its new building. LMDC will then transfer property at
    155 Cedar Street, 140 Liberty Street and a portion of 130 Liberty Street to the Port Authority for
    construction of the South Bathtub, which will house the VSC.

    The Church will receive up to $20 million to offset direct costs for the rebuilt church, including $10
    million from the Port Authority to mitigate the impact on the cost of building the church over the VSC,
    and $10 million from a third party as part of a future development agreement for the Tower 5 site.
    The Port Authority will provide up to an additional $20 million to build the infrastructure needed to
    support the church on top of the VSC and for interim access and temporary use of the Church’s
    property until the transfers take place.

    As a result of resolution of this property issue and the elimination of federal funding involvement, the Port Authority was able to move forward with the award of the construction contract for building the slurry wall and basement area for the entire VSC complex, a major milestone in the VSC’s construction.
    Attached Files Attached Files

  4. #154
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    It seems, based on various reports, it was sometime after that October 2, 2008 PA Report when the church added / requested changes to their proposed new structure that were deemed untenable by the PA.

    On Page 7 of the Complaint (Par. 22) a 2010 letter from former Governor Pataki remarks on "the original agreement entered into in 2004." The Complaint notes that more than one "term sheet" traded hands between the parties over the years. The Complaint notes a "term sheet" dated July 16, 2008 (Page 10) and the Church's response to the "term sheet" with "comments" dated August 7, 2008 (a July 28, 2008 article in the NY Observer marks a "deal" between the parties: "Port Authority, St. Nicholas Church Reach Ground Zero Deal").

    The Complaint also notes another "term sheet" dated October 7, 2008 and states the "Church responded with a memorandum, delivered to the Port Authority on October 14, 2008, reconfirming the principal terms of the agreement" (Page 13, par. 43). The Complaint notes another "term sheet" dated March 10, 2009 "Agreed to Construction, Payment and Access Terms for Church Site"; Page 13, par. 47). It also cites yet another "term sheet" dated March 16, 2009 (Page 3, the "final offer"), also referred to as a series of e-mails with attached memorandums dated March 15 & March 16, 2009 (Page 14 & 15).

    In the Complaint the Church notes March 2009 as the time when the PA "summarily disavowed a long-standing agreement between the Agencies and the Church to rebuild St. Nicholas at 130 Liberty Street".

    Other conflicting and varied reports (including the NY Times from March 18, 2009: "Church Destroyed at Ground Zero Is Still at Square One") claim that subsequent cost cutting by the PA in regards to the VSC structure made any construction of a church building at that site non-viable (apparently including a new church of the size as previously "agreed" to by both parties).

    The log jam is noted in a NY City Council Resolution (dated November 30, 2010):

    Whereas, According to an article in the New York Times dated March 18, 2009, the agreement between the Port Authority and St. Nicholas Church never came to a resolution; and

    Whereas, The above-referenced article reported that the Port Authority stated that St. Nicholas Church wanted more money than what was offered by the Port Authority, further delaying construction of the Vehicle Security Center and leading the Port Authority to end negotiations with St. Nicholas Church; and Whereas, The above-referenced article also reported that the Port Authority limited the size of the new St. Nicholas Church and would not provide the plans for the Vehicle Security Center for St. Nicholas Church’s review, and in addition, St. Nicholas Church wanted the full $20 million provided by the Port Authority in one payment rather than in stages; and

    Whereas, St. Nicholas Church still holds the right to rebuild on its original location; and Whereas, Although the Port Authority and St. Nicholas Church have not reached a final agreement, and have not even discussed the matter in over a year, both entities are believed to be willing to reach an agreement; now, therefore, be it

    Resolved, That the Council of the City of New York calls on the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to reenter into negotiations with St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church in an effort to have the church rebuilt after being destroyed in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    What the full and actual facts are, and what was understood and agreed to, still remains unclear.

  5. #155

    Default

    The one thing that is clear is that the PA has seized and excavated the Church's property without a Court order, and without any agreement to do so that they have announced publicly (other than the agreement in October 2008 which the PA has now renounced). Since when do governmental agencies simply steal privately-held land in this fashion? This is the sort of thing that happened in the old Soviet Block, but hard to believe the PA still operates in the same manner.

  6. #156
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Where do you see that the PA has nullified or renounced the 2008 Agreement?

    And why would a Court Order be required for an agreement between two parties? It wasn't until the Church filed the legal Complaint that the Court enters the picture, and that only happened within the last week.

    From what we've read the Church admits that the agreement allowed for the exchange of the original Church site for a new site at 130 Liberty -- and possibly included unstated specifics in regard to some future date (once the VSC is substantially constructed) when the church could build at the new site (and also included a provision for an exchange of money, but the date that those funds are due & payable remains unclear).

    It seems that the PA is now moving ahead in a way that is in line with their view of the agreement. And that their position is that the Church's actions are what violate the agreement (insistence on a building larger & costlier than the one previously outlined in the agreement).

  7. #157
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Chicago, Illinois
    Posts
    613

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lofter1 View Post
    Where do you see that the PA has nullified or renounced the 2008 Agreement?
    The fact that they planned and are building the VSC without the ability to support the church on top of it at the announced location (130 Lib) is a pretty good indicator that they Welched. In fact, reports say that there is nowhere on the plot where a church could be supported, even on the original plot.

    My personal guess is that neither acted in good faith. The church probably asked for too much. The PA probably changed plans when they had to cut costs.

  8. #158
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The PA seems to continue to claim that rebuilding on the original site is viable ...

    Greek Orthodox Church Sues Port Authority for ‘Seized’ Land Share

    TRIBECA TRIB
    BY MATT DUNNING
    UPDATED FEB. 22

    The years-long feud between the leaders of the tiny church destroyed in the Sept. 11 attacks and the Port Authority might finally need to be settled by a federal judge.

    Parish leaders of the St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America formally sued the Port Authority this week in federal court. The church claims the agency effectively stole its land at 155 Cedar Street so it could begin construction of the new Trade Center’s underground vehicle security garage.

    “This case arises out of the arrogance, bad faith and fraudulent contract of the Port Authority,” the church wrote in its 37-page complaint against the Authority and several other agencies, filed Feb. 14. The suit accuses the Authority of fraud, trespassing and defamation in addition to unlawfully taking the church’s land.

    “Their shabby and unlawful treatment of the church will be fully revealed,” the church wrote in the complaint.

    After years of negotiations, the Port Authority offered the church a plot of land at 130 Liberty Street—the site of the former Deutsche Bank tower—and up to $60 million to build a new church in July 2008. In exchange, the agency would absorb the church’s former site at 155 Cedar Street as part of its above-ground entry into the Vehicle Security Center. The next month the church agreed in principal to the deal and bowed to the Authority’s request that the bulk and height of the planned church be reduced. But no agreement was finalized and nine months later the Authority abruptly broke off negotiations, saying it had to start excavating the site for its underground Vehicle Security Center or risk falling further behind in developing the World Trade Center.

    “The Port Authority renounced a long-standing agreement with the Church to rebuild at Ground Zero, seized the Church’s land [and] barred the Church from access to it,” the Archdiocese said in a statement released Monday. “Since that time, the Port Authority has rebuffed all efforts by the Church to work with it regarding the rebuilding.”

    A Port Authority spokesman said the agency would not comment on the specifics of the church’s suit against it, and that it remains open to the idea of rebuilding the church above the security center’s entrance at 155 Cedar. The church has repeatedly dismissed that proposal, claiming it would put the church building’s entrance several stories above street, hampering handicap access.

    In its suit, the church claims that because the Port Authority never finalized the agreement for the 130 Liberty Street site, it unlawfully began excavation at 155 Cedar Street. The church also accuses the Authority of purposely stalling on the land swap until March 10, 2009. It was then that the agency sent the church its “term sheet” on the deal and, subsequently, an email from the Authority’s Chief of Capital Planning David Tweedy requesting “any remaining issues and/or questions” regarding the agreement, according to court documents.

    But, the suit goes on to say, the church’s request for “relatively minor points of clarification and finalization” was met by an abrupt response from Tweedy, breaking off negotiations. In that response, the church says Tweedy wrote: “Our final offer was the term sheet and the associated plans that you received last week. We have made a generous offer and have negotiated in good faith for months. We are terminating negotiations and proceeding with an alternative approach. You will be hearing from our attorneys.”

    The church claims that if it had known the term sheet was being treated as a “final offer,” it would have accepted the deal on the spot. The suit names Tweedy and Port Authority Executive Director Christopher Ward as co-defendants.

    “The Port Authority deliberately misled the Church into believing that the term sheet was not a final offer by explicitly asking for [our] comments,” the suit claims.

    “The demands of the Orthodox Church continued to increase over and above what was originally agreed to in 2008,” agency spokesman Steve Coleman countered in a statement. “The Port Authority had to make a practical decision to move on or risk further delaying the entire World Trade Center project, which was a completely unacceptable alternative.”

    In court documents, the church denies asking for any more money than the Authority offered. Both sides have accused the other of refusing to meet on the issue since negotiations broke down in 2009. The church is seeking unspecified damages in addition to a judge’s order directing the Port Authority to complete its deal with St. Nicholas Church.

    Copyright © 2009 The Tribeca Trib

  9. #159

    Default

    An equitable settlement might be for the PA to buy the 25 Thames site and transfer it to the church. It was bought at a bankruptcy auction last year for $19.6 million, less than half the price three years earlier. It's C5 zoned (church was C6), but at 6100 sq ft, 2.5 times bigger than the church property.

  10. #160
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Crain's report from August 2010 on the sale of the lot at 25 Thames / 133 - 135 Greenwich:

    Vacant downtown lot sells for $19.6M

    It was bought by an entity called Greenwich Thames Realty:

    "It is unclear who is behind Greenwich Thames Realty. There were two competing bidders at the auction which lasted a few hours, according to Kevin Nash of the law firm Goldberg Weprin Finkel Goldstein LLP who represents the owners of the property Greenwich Street Developers, a subsidiary of Ofek International Real Estate, which was forced to file bankruptcy protection during the recession. Mr. Nash confirmed the name of the buyer and the price but declined to elaborate."

    The lot on Google Map

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	25ThamesGMap1.jpg 
Views:	254 
Size:	128.4 KB 
ID:	12313

  11. #161
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The timing of the Spitzer / Client 9 brou ha ha and how that effected progress here is of interest ...

    The Other Controversy at Ground Zero: Church vs. State Over Tiny Site

    NY OBSERVER
    By Matt Chaban
    February 22, 2011 | 8:27 p.m

    A bitterly cold wind tore across the 50th floor of One World Trade Center on Dec. 5, yet the crews in hard hats kept their pace, driving the most important building in the city skyward a floor a week, putting to rest years of complaints about indecision and inaction at the world's most famous construction site.

    Hundreds of feet below, on the other side of the 16-acre site, nearly 1,000 Greek Orthodox congregants had gathered for the annual vespers honoring St. Nicholas. The faithful crowded about the trailers, heavy machinery and sundry materiel of ground zero, preparing for a ceremony they had undertaken annually ever since the attacks of Sept. 11 destroyed their tiny church honoring the patron of sailors, bankers and bakers. TV crews stood ready to film.

    Three Port Authority officials told them to cut.

    "In nine years, we'd never seen anything like it," the Rev. Mark Arey, a spokesman for the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, told The Observer last week. "They were hiding their badges; they were clearly uncomfortable doing this. Only when one of our priests put in a direct call to Chris Ward did they relent."

    Mr. Ward, the executive director of the bistate Port Authority, has had to answer many such calls since taking over in 2008. All ask the same thing: Why has the authority reneged on a three-year-old deal with the church to give it a grand new home at 130 Liberty Street, something promised personally by Governor George Pataki back in 2004?

    The church has found every opportunity, including within the recent "ground zero mosque" mania, to remind everyone of its plight. The December vespers were another deliberate reminder, a mingling of protest and sacrality. "Church left out of 9/11 renewal," declared the next day's USA Today. (The local church had agreed to no media at the vespers, prompting the Port Authority's intervention.)

    Now, even with all the recent progress at the once international punch line, the church last week filed a federal lawsuit that could bring everything at the site to a halt. Again.

    In 1916, a growing Greek community bought an old four-story, wood-framed tavern at 155 Cedar Street; placed a belfry on top; and called it St. Nicholas. It was the only religious institution destroyed on 9/11.

    Well before it was decided what would become of the rest of the site, it was agreed that the church would be rebuilt. As the site's master plan began to take shape, the church was granted a more prominent plot at 130 Liberty Street, atop the Vehicle Security Center. "It always seemed like it was a settled issue where it was going to be," a former Port Authority official said. "It just kept getting inherited and passed off from one group to another. It wasn't until later when they really realized what that would mean, building on top of the security center."

    Like God directing Noah, the message the church took from the Pataki administration was one of trust and deliverance. But instead of captaining the ark, the church was but cargo. "Other than us pledging to rebuild the church, that was all that was said," a Pataki administration official told The Observer. "It never got down to that level of detail." (The former governor continues to lobby on the church's behalf.)

    As plans were drawn and redrawn between the numerous stakeholders, the church in 2005 set about creating schematics for its own project, hiring architect Nicholas Koutsomitis. The plans called for a new chapel along with a non-denominational interfaith center--24,000 square feet total.

    One person described it as "trading a brownstone for St. Patrick's." An obvious exaggeration, it belies the concern many public officials, especially those post-Pataki, had when they saw the project's parameters. Still, the church has a point. In light of the development rights at 155 Cedar, it is not building anything larger than it would legally be allowed to. "We were never asking for more," Mr. Koutsomitis said, even though were he building on the old site, he would effectively be replacing the four-story parish with a 20-story one.

    In spring 2006, the Pataki administration and the Port Authority reached its deal with Larry Silverstein, the twin towers' leaseholder, to build out the site, but an agreement was never formally reached with the church. When the Spitzer administration began to grapple with what its predecessor had promised, it was somewhat taken aback but still happy to work with St. Nicholas.

    Even as plans were drawn up to bring JPMorgan Chase to the former Deutsche Bank building site behind the church, its new tower was designed with a "beer belly" for its trading floors overhanging the church, quite the accommodation by one of the world's most powerful banks--and yet another gonzo project of the real estate boom.

    Then the BlackBerrys began lighting up.

    A morning meeting between the church, JPMorgan and government officials was just starting in a conference room inside 115 Broadway on March 10, 2009, when phones began buzzing. They were checked and set aside, as preparations continued, but the buzzing continued unabated: The Times' Client 9 scoop was about to upend everything.

    "I thought it was a prank at first," a person present said.

    The meeting was canceled in preparation for Governor Spitzer's press conference. The church continued to wait, continued to make its plans.

    "The Port did not want this fight," a person working at ground zero said. "Let me underscore that--they did not want this at all."

    In one of his first acts as the authority's executive director, in early 2008, Chris Ward, a Paterson appointee, announced he was preparing a report that would identify all major issues at ground zero and create a timeline for addressing them. Issued in July of that year, it was full of bad news, but Mr. Ward promised to forge a path forward.

    Just weeks later, eager to show signs of progress, he announced an agreement with the church for its land. St. Nicholas would receive $20 million toward its new building, as well as up to $40 million for additional infrastructure work to support a larger church structure atop the security center.

    This is where things began to unravel, in no small part due to the recession ushered in by Lehman Brothers' collapse a few months later.

    The July announcement was never an official deal, and it was set aside while the authority focused on other matters at the site. Both sides continued to negotiate and worked on drawing up plans to finalize the deal. Father Arey said the church was accommodating throughout, scaling down its plans when the Port Authority asked. The Port Authority argues that whenever it reached a tentative agreement, "the goal posts would move," spokesman John Kelly said. "At a certain point, negotiations had to end or risk delaying the WTC project further."

    In March 2009, the matter came to a head. The authority sent a standard term sheet and asked for comment. According to the church's lawsuit, the document's real purpose was to find signs of disagreement so the Port Authority could cancel the deal. Mr. Kelly said the church had ample warning, and that it was demanding the impossible: control over the design of the park and security center.

    Negotiations ceased, the deal was off, and the two sides have barely talked since. Mr. Ward announced that the authority would go ahead with construction of the security center, and St. Nicholas was welcome to build on its original land once the authority was done with it.

    As is so often the case at ground zero, conspiracy theories abound.

    "First they asked us to shrink the church, which basically meant taking off the cross," Mr. Koutsomitis, the architect, said. "Then they move us back to 155 Cedar. I think someone decided they did not want a church on this prominent site at ground zero."

    Some believe Larry Silverstein wants the site. Others point to Mr. Ward. George Demos, a onetime unsuccessful G.O.P. Congressional candidate from Long Island, blasted a press release the day after the December 2010 vespers ceremony: "Atheist Blocking Ground Zero Church." Mr. Ward had once told a trade publication, "I'm probably the biggest non-believer in terms of religion. If you are not going to believe in God, you have to be smarter than the people who do, because you have to answer tougher questions about why you don't." He was responding to a question about why he has a master's in divinity from Harvard, a fact left out by critics. (The church's suit also includes the quotation.)

    As things stand now, more than two and a half years after the July agreement, a federal ruling in the church's favor could create months of delays at ground zero and add hundreds of millions in costs.

    The authority won't even entertain that scenario--though those involved in the fight over the years describe the church as tough and aggressive. They had lost their home. The other stakeholders were getting new ones, so why not them?

    "They failed to realize the world had changed again," the former Port Authority official said. "They were used to getting so much."

    Copyright 2011 © NY Observer

  12. #162
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    The Bird and the Cross: How an Over-Budget PATH Station Helps Explain a Missing Church

    NY OBSERVER
    By Matt Chaban
    February 28, 2011

    Last week, the board of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey approved yet another increase in the budget for Santiago Calatrava's winged transit hub at the World Trade Center, bringing the price of the station up to a level once deemed untenable while also dipping into the Port's ground zero reserve funds for the first time.

    The station will now cost a total of $3.44 billion, up from an initial $2.2 billion, after it was determined the signature spines that comprise the structure's roof would cost an additional $180 million. It is the first time the project's budget has risen since executive director Chris Ward released his overarching review of the entire World Trade Center site more than two years ago, when the project was budgeted at $3.26 billion.

    Ward told The Times that while not ideal, this situation is within the realm of acceptability because most of the PATH project had been bid out, so the odds of prices rising further were remote, and the need to strengthen the structure was crucial. Also, that is why there is a reserve fund, "for these types of circumstances."

    Yet if the Port could find money to fortify Calatrava's design, why could it not execute plans for the new St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox church on the other end of the site? On the one hand, this underscores the Port's arguments, that the decision to terminate the church's plan was not one of economics but logistics, that the church was being too demanding and it could not be reasonably accommodated.

    But this latest announement also underscores a storyline delivered both by the church and government officials who discussed the matter with The Observer for a feature last week. Not long after the Port made its initial deal with the church, Lehman Brothers collapsed, the world changed, and $60 million began to look like a lot of money to an public authority whose finances were suddenly a little less certain.

    Even if money remains a non-issue with the church--as the Port told to The Observer after the Calatrava announcement--the fact that the transit hub continues to be a source of ballooning budgets and uncertainty serves as a reminder of just how complicated and uncontrollable ground zero can be.

    There are still plenty of pieces, such as the completion of Silverstein's two towers, the Performing Arts Center and the Deutsch Bank site that remain an open question. Adding yet another volatile piece to that mix, as the church very well would have, could have only made keeping things moving at the major projects like the memorial and One World Trade even more difficult than the hardest job in the city already is. Indeed, it remains to be seen how many more hiccups there could still be.

  13. #163

    Default

    This article sheds light on nothing. It's always more economic simply to steal something from one's neighbor (in this case, the Church's plot of land) rather than to pay for it. The question is whether it is legal.

  14. #164
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    Not necessarily better economics to steal if one gets caught and is held accountable. The cost of that can be quite high.

    The question as to whether any theft occurred here is still unanswered, as we do not know the actual specifics of the dealings between the PA & St. Nick's.

  15. #165
    Disgruntled Optimist lofter1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    NYC - Downtown
    Posts
    32,654

    Default

    St. Nick's in context ...

    Thanks to
    Quote Originally Posted by erickchristian View Post

    ... 1981 ...
    Aerial view of the Twin Tower of the World Trade Center, July 1981 ...



    Aerial view of Lower Manhattan looking south from Hudson River, April 1981 ...


Page 11 of 19 FirstFirst ... 789101112131415 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Cathedral Church of St. John the Divine - by Heins & Lafarge / Ralph Adams Cram
    By Kris in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 164
    Last Post: August 31st, 2015, 06:34 PM
  2. The Riverside Church - 490 Riverside Drive - by Allen, Pelton and Collens
    By ddny in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: July 2nd, 2010, 10:29 PM
  3. Federal Building - 90 Church Street - by Cross & Cross / Pennington, Lewis & Mills
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: April 19th, 2009, 12:26 AM
  4. First Corinthian Baptist Church
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 11th, 2002, 05:32 AM
  5. Parishioners restoring Annunciation Church
    By Edward in forum New York Skyscrapers and Architecture
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 28th, 2002, 11:53 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software