The current (left) and proposed (right) facade.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission denied an application last week to turn an historic church on the corner of 96th street and Central Park West into condos, sending the architects back to the drawing board for the third time, according to New York Yimby.
The Crenshaw Church (previously First Church of Christ, Scientist), was built in 1903, and is now being gutted to make way for the condos. But it needs final approval from the LPC to alter the facade, and has now been denied twice by the LPC and another time by a community board committee.
The sticking point seems to be the windows on the Central Park West side of the building. The developers want to add six windows and take the religious iconography out of the stained glass windows (as depicted above). The commissioners were concerned about that, Yimby reported.
“The applicant argued that they need that light for their apartments and would not relent on that point. Srinivasan suggested that a more loft-like layout might help the applicant to work without those windows. While Bland seemed ready to approve the new windows, none of the other commissioners was ready to do that. So, the applicant has to re-work the proposal and return to the LPC.”
Landmark West president Kate Wood walked out of the meeting to protest the lack of public input into the design; the public gets a say at the first LPC hearing, but after that, the commissioners hear the developer’s proposal without allowing public comment.
“She called the LPC’s session a ‘farce’ and then called on anyone who agreed with her to join her in storming out of the room. Some people did join her.”
For more photos and analysis, check out NY Yimby.
I don’t see a whole lot of differences between existing vs proposed. A few windows added to the front seems like a pretty small change to me. In fact, IMO it looks better with them. Donate the stained glass to a museum. Turn a beautiful, but empty, ghost church into a useful neighborhood building again.
I’m interested to hear what others think. Try to refrain from name-calling.
If I were buying an apartment there I’d *want* the stained glass windows intact. It would be part of the charm of living in a former church. I wonder why the developer wants to replace them. Maybe they’re in poor shape and require expensive restoration?
I would absolutely want them as well. But if an owner didn’t like them, they might “accidentally” break them, necessitating replacement anyway.
The proposed six new windows on the east façade don’t bother me at all and as a matter of fact I think it helps open it up to the street. However, I do wish they would keep the stained-glass windows intact. Not only for the charm factor as Nathan mentioned, but it’s an important historical and identifying feature of the structure. Sounds like the developers are concerned with potential buyers taking offense at the religious iconography, but if I were LPC I would press harder on that issue.
Yeah, according to the NY YIMBY article it does appear that they just don’t want the religious iconography. Well, tough. If somebody is offended by a stained glass Jesus then maybe he shouldn’t buy the condo. This seems like a no-brainer for the LPC to push back on, and it appears they did.
I’ll go one step further. If you think your buyers might be offended by a stained-glass Jesus, then don’t try to turn a church into condos.
The stained glass windows are an integral part of the architecture.
They should remain.
Developers you knew you bought a landmarked church. Deal with it.
Did Landmarks West have any comment on the neighboring 3 townhouses about to be torn down for a truly bad looking tower?
I agree with those who resist these changes, but I take a different tack.
If we read UC Berkeley architect Christopher Alexander (dismissed by many mainstream architects but championed by many NYC urbanists who value our quality of life here), we’ll see that what we’re reacting to mainly is a tension between facade and interior; that is, that the “inner forces” of the building are not resolved. When the exterior says “church” and interior says “condo,” it sets most of us up for an emotional reaction. There’s a long history around The Church of the Holy Communion (then Limelight, now David Barton Gym) at 656 Sixth Avenue related to this same tension.
Therefore, I’d advocate for the LPC and architects to find an even *more* aggressive approach to converting the building into a useful neighborhood property. Don’t try to keep it “looking like a church,” because it will not be one. Retain a few useful elements, but go all-in with a design for a condo that says “condo” both inside and outside, resolves the “inner forces” of the building as Alexander would say, and we might be surprised at how comfortable the conversation becomes around the result.
I can see your point, and I’ve seen that done elsewhere with additions to historical buildings where there is no attempt to match the existing style. Might as well make it obvious where the additions are than ambiguous.
But in this case, if the building so so unsuited for condos as-is and we’re also not concerned with preserving the integrity of the facade (the interior has already been destroyed, sadly), then why even bother with *any* preservation? Why not just tear it down?
> why even bother with *any* preservation? Why
> not just tear it down?
Are they at all allowed to do that? I’ve been under the impression they are jumping through all these hoops for just that reason…
No, I was asking a rhetorical question.
What a stupid waste of everyone’s time. Either allow it to remain a church and allow some other Christian religious faction take it over, or demolish it. You can’t have your cake and eat it too!
I don’t feel even remotely sorry for the developers if they were naive enough to think that purchasing a former church and converting it into a high-priced condos was going to be easy or have the support of the general public (maybe 1% of the public at best).
It is inevitable that most all of the older buildings on the UWS will be torn down and replaced by large silver buildings. Then in in another 125 years those buildings will be torn down and the city residences will be nostalgic about those ‘older silver’ buildings. It’s the cycle of life in this city and to stop it is like yelling at the wind that blew off your hat.
What is wrong with the windows? I don’t get it. It’s not going to be a church anymore and the windows they want to insert look absolutely fine.
LPC this kind of stuff is what gives landmarking such a tough time. Let it go. You should have been so diligent about the three townhouse replacements on West 96th. That building from top to bottom is a total disaster. Get working on that, please!!!
So true!