BOWNE STREET COMMUNITY CHURCH, QUEENS Address: 143-11 Roosevelt Avenue, Flushing Constructed: 1891-2 The Bowne Street Community Church stands out as a shining star in Flushing, a neighborhood that has changed dramatically over the years. The church was originally built for the Reformed Dutch Church of Flushing, established in 1842. To accommodate the congregation’s rapid growth, this new church building was completed in 1892, designed in the Romanesque Revival style of red brick, with arches topping each of the windows and intricate brickwork and terra cotta details. The church is adorned with stained glass windows manufactured by the Tiffany Glass Company of Corona and designed by Agnes Fairchild Northrup, a colleague of Louis Comfort Tiffany and a life-long member of the church. The eastern annex, designed to match the existing architecture, was added in 1925. In 1974, the congregation merged with the First Congregational Church of Flushing to form the Bowne Street Community Church. The Bowne Street Community Church is home to the combined congregations of the Protestant Reformed Dutch Church of Flushing (1842) and the First Congregational Church of Flushing (1851). The two churches merged in 1970, but, tragically, the 1856 Congregational Church burned on Christmas Eve that year, even as the two congregations were at a dinner celebrating their union. Dedicated in 1892, the Bowne Street Community Church is a Romanesque Revival Style, red brick edifice, with arches topping each of the windows and intricate brickwork and terra cotta tile details contributing to the handsome appearance. The Romanesque style is carried out in the bell tower spire which dominates the corner. In 1925 a red brick addition provided room for classrooms, offices, and a social hall. What makes this church particularly worthy is the set of original stained glass windows created by the Louis Tiffany Glass Company in Corona. They were designed by Agnes Fairchild Northrup (1857-1953), a long time Tiffany artist and a life-long member of the congregation. This unique and exceptional church deserves to be experienced with sunlight illuminating the Tiffany windows.

In November 2014, the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) announced a plan to clear 95 properties that had been on its calendar for five years or more, but not yet designated as landmarks. The wholesale removal of these properties without considering each one’s merits would have represented a severe blow to the properties and to the city’s landmarks process in general, sending a message that would jeopardize any future effort to designate them. The properties represented years of research and support from New Yorkers, elected officials, community groups and the Commission itself. To broadly reject all of that through an administrative action would be disrespectful to the efforts and judgment of previous LPC Commissioners and staff. Further, the removal of these 95 sites from the LPC’s calendar would render the LPC powerless in the case of any proposed work or demolition project involving those sites. The Historic Districts Council acted strongly in opposition to this action, and advocated for a more considered, fair and transparent approach. To further prioritize this advocacy, HDC made the initiative one of its Six to Celebrate in 2015, calling it “Landmarks Under Consideration.” As part of this effort, HDC worked with Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer and a coalition of other preservation organizations to submit an alternative plan for the LPC’s consideration. The plan eventually formed the basis for the LPC’s initiative, entitled “Backlog95,” calling for a series of public discussions to evaluate the properties in geographical groupings. Announced in July 2015, the LPC’s initiative was the direct result of the advocacy of preservation groups and concerned New Yorkers, over 200 of whom wrote to the LPC to demand a fair process for considering the sites on their individual merits. In fall 2015, the LPC held four “special hearings” in which the items were grouped according to their location by Community District, with roughly 5-12 items per group. At these hearings, the public was given the opportunity to comment. HDC wrote and delivered statements for nearly every item. In February 2016, the LPC held another special hearing to discuss and vote on how to proceed. The Commission was given three choices for the fate of each property: prioritize for designation by the end of 2016; remove from the calendar by voting not to designate (based on a lack of merit); or remove from the calendar by issuing a no-action letter (this allows an item to be taken off the calendar without prejudice, meaning it could be brought forward for designation at a later date). On that day, 30 items were prioritized for designation, five were removed from the calendar with a vote not to designate and the rest were removed from the calendar by issuing a no-action letter. The five properties that the Commission voted not to designate were largely irreparably altered or had been demolished. This story highlights some of the sites considered throughout this 15-month process. HDC chose the following sites in order to provide a snapshot of the geographic, historic, cultural and typological diversity of the 95 sites considered by the LPC in its historic “Backlog95” action. This selection was not influenced by the outcome of the hearings. Many of the sites listed have now been designated as NYC Landmarks by the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission.