By Carol Tannenhauser
On Tuesday, July 19, at 9:30 a.m., the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) will hold a public meeting via Zoom, regarding the future of the West Park Presbyterian Church.
The public will not be permitted to testify, but may submit written (emailed) testimony to testimony@lpc.nyc.gov by this Friday, July 15.
This may be your last chance to weigh in on the future of the church — and the intersection where it sits — Amsterdam Avenue and West 86th Street.
Right now, two of the city’s 1,445 individual landmarks face each other across the avenue, the Belnord apartments and the church.
But the church’s congregation (about a dozen strong) is seeking to have its landmark status removed on the basis of “hardship,” so the church can be demolished and the land sold to Alchemy Properties, a developer who plans to build a condominium on it.
The congregation claims it will take $50 million to restore the church, which they don’t have. The opposition, led by Councilmember Gale Brewer and populated by elected officials, preservationists, community groups and neighbors, say it will cost much less and they will raise it, though no one has done so in the past 12 years since the church was landmarked. A nonprofit performing arts group that is currently leasing space in the church, says they will buy it — though for significantly less than the developer is offering.
We will get back to you with the details and zoom link for next week’s LPC meeting when they are released. Meanwhile, the link to testify is above.
As someone who has no horse in this race, it was abundantly clear at the public hearing in June the Church did not make the case for granting the hardship decision. Rather than work with the community, the Church has wasted a lot of time and their own money hiring top shelf law firm that could have been better spent on working with the Center and community to repair the building.
The people opposing the sale keep saying it won’t cost $50mm, but haven’t put out their own number. Their estimate was promised immediately after the CB7 meeting (as if they just couldn’t finish it two hours earlier), but I have not seen it posted anywhere.
I think the reason is obvious – whether the number is $50mm, $25mm, $12mm or $6mm, there is no way that a congregation of 12 people can raise sufficient funds. But if you just keep saying “$50mm is wrong!!” you can smear the church without tying yourself to a hard number.
The $50mm cost is the best and only estimate out there. The opponents have had plenty of time to submit their own number – please stop spreading their unwarranted uncertainty until they do so.
I am not in a position to opine on the structural repair costs for that building, but I am on my co-op board and we just blew through $3m on LL-11 façade repair; the church clearly needs significantly more more than we had to do (and we are not landmarked, which will *significantly* raise the costs). As for Ms. Brewer’s bloviating, the church’s latest plan to sell is not new, we’ve all known about it for months…how much money has she and her team been able to raise? Since the residents of the two adjacent buildings who will be most affected, how much have they tossed into the pot? As breezily as she suggests city money will be forthcoming if it is no longer a religious institution, It must be remembered Ms. Brewer does not get to write the check for $xxx millions; the City Council and Mayor have to approve first. Does anyone really think all the council members/Mayor Adams with their own pet projects are going to approve the vast sums needed to repair this UWS building? To me it looks like Ms. Brewer, et al are trying to strong arm the church and sell it to a non-profit at a vastly reduced price. But then what? Two years from now, will the non-profit be able to raise the money, or will it take the windfall by selling to the developers?
My own coop is facing gigantic landmarking costs because some decorative stonework from 110 years ago has to be exactly duplicated. And once you spend however many millions, and I think 50 million is possible, it has to be maintained in perpetuity. Millions more. Tear it down.
I’ve said it repeatedly. Re-zone the lot so that a huge building cannot be built there. Sell the land to a developer (who will likely pay less since they can’t build as big of a building). That way we get rid of this dangerous eyesore but those who don’t want a huge building there are appeased – instead a smaller building can be built.
The “profits” are going to a church, not a for-profit entity – normally I would not make this suggestion but the church is not supposed to be profiteering off of this.
This will never happen because it is not in the binary consideration set and no one is willing to think outside the box here and find a happy medium.
Going around rezoning properties out of spite will land city in legal hot water. It also sets a dangerous precedent as you know every other council member present and to come will see such action as an out for something a few in their district don’t like.
NYS and NYC already interfere four thousand ways from Sunday in business and other transactions. It is one reason why everything built in NYC cost more than elsewhere, and why comparatively little housing is built.
Why should we appease people who don’t want to live near tall buildings in Manhattan? We should respect peoples right to live in a neighborhood that fits their preferences. There are a million small towns in America, and plenty in the NYC metro region, where you’ll never need to live near a tall building. For those of us who like dense urban environments, and all the social and environmental benefits they bring, Manhattan is all we’ve got. Let us big city folk live in a place that isn’t afraid of being a big city!
No-one, repeat no-one uses that church ! The have no services for the congregation of less than 25 people. They have practically no activities or organizations that use the space. The only reason that the neighboring bldgs want to save it is that people in 161 West 86 Street and the bldg on Amsterdam Ave above Barney Greengrass want to save their views. The church bldg is a filthy eyesore, with a perpetual scaffolding around it that will Never raise enuf $ to restore it or create any other use of it !
What’s wrong with wanting to save your views? Do we have to stick a tall building in every possible place?
The church isn’t a “filthy eyesore” it’s one of the most magnificent examples of a Romanesque Revival church in New York. It commands that corner. The presence of scaffolding in no way undermines its significance. Demolishing a historic landmark because it is surrounded by an unsightly side-walk shed is insane. By your logic, we’d have to demolish countless buildings that have had sidewalk sheds up for years due to Local Law 11.
It’s actively used by multiple arts groups and open to the public. I attended an event there just a few weeks ago.
As picturesque as the church is, I have to agree with you. At one time it might have added charm to that busy corner, but that time is long past. Age, neglect and context (including the buildings surrounding it) have destroyed any beauty it might have had.
More to the point, religion is not about grand edifices but about communities of faith. Worship by a congregation of 25 people can be accomplished anywhere, from a rented room to a vacant storefront, like the one-room schuls my immigrant grandparents attended, or the Hispanic church at 82nd and Columbus. People can pray and sing and find fellowship anywhere.
My issue is not with saying farewell to WestPark but with the building proposed to replace it. It is the definition of mediocre, something that looks as though it was designed from rejected 1970s plans. The WestPark site and its neighborhood deserve something more interesting, something less hulking. Perhaps something with green space. But not another white box.
Tradition is part of faith! Continuity and memory provide meaning and bring a lively disorder to what could be a bland, orderly, soulless city. Even an atheist can experience the fascination that a tangible historical edifice contributes to a city. And even big city folk don’t want all their culture to be stuffed inside the walls of a museum. Lastly, what about the tourists? Europe must be laughing at us for this bland, flatness of feeling. Does everything have to be shiny and new? Other cities have transformed churches into community centers and theaters. I can’t believe NYC can’t do it. Sigh.
And who do you think will win out in the end? The one with the most money, of course.
Another waste of time and money. It is not in a condition to be repaired by the owners and now the taxpayers will be footing the bill for millions of dollars. So either, our tax dollars once again being used for pet projects instead of things we NEED like a quality of life and safe streets or this building will become a bigger eyesore for another 10 years while slowly falling apart. Nice job UWS, fighting for nothing that will help this neighborhood or our lives with our tax dollars. I am so tired of my tax money paying for all these pet projects while our neighborhood is unsafe, the stores are closing all around us and the UWS looks like a mental institution.
I don’t believe that tax payers money can be used to do any improvements on the church. As unfortunate as it is, sometimes we can’t save an historic building. It can’t be maintained and just can’t continue to exist like it is. Its a mess and at some point something destructive will occur and someone will get hurt. Say good bye. Life goes on.
No, neither federal, state, nor local NYC rate payer money can go directly to houses of worship outside of some unique situations.
Gale Brewer and rest have said all along their desire is to force WP congregation to sell property (at far below market value) to a community or other private group. Then they are “sure” will be able to raise necessary funds.
Only in NYC do people use landmark status in an aggressive fashion to protect non-existent NIMBY rights. The church is falling down. There haven’t been enough people to keep it going since the Roosevelts left town. It is unconscionable that people who moved to the city that never sleeps want to make sure no change can happen once they move in. If you want to keep the church, then join it and help them raise the 50 Million or else let them do the right thing and tear it down before it falls on people.
“The opposition, led by Councilmember Gale Brewer and populated by elected officials, preservationists, and community groups and members, say it will cost much less and they will raise it, though they haven’t done so in the past 12 years since the church was landmarked.”
I understand the impulse to editorialize in your articles, but this is silly. Based on your other reporting, the church hasn’t been interested in financial support to fix up the building, so your point is irrelevant. You can do better.
Nonsense. Brewer has been in office every single day since this church was landmarked, she claims credit for the decision to landmark it, she said, three months ago, that she’d come up with plans (like this three months is different from the 48 three month periods that came before, since landmarking),
Where are the plans?
That is a fair question and the failure to note it would be journalistic malpractice.
You really think this is “editorializing” ? The writer is simply establishing context – lest someone think the alleged money-raisers are 100% genuine in their promise.
Will this affect the Barney Greengrass restaurant which is next to the church?
Wow, this church is legendary. I remember when it was in a state of near complete decay, but it persevered through the hard times only to see this fate. A gorgeous 86th St. LANDMARK set to be torn down and replaced by an architectural atrocity. The church is the one giving in, too. This is awful, at least make sure the replacement is of quality. This new building is simply amateurish.
If Assembly Member Brewer can oversee the creation of a plan that preserves the building for the community why not let her try? I can’t think of a single argument or reason not to… well, other than the financial gain for a commercial developer and for an organization with few members that describes itself as having “diminished attendance and role in society” has not been a good steward of what the AIA calls “…one of the West Side’s loveliest landmarks”. When you consider that the UWS community has subsidized the building and property through a tax free status for years (do the math on lost revenue) one could say it belongs more to the 200,000 upper west siders who moved here to enjoy this unique neighborhood…,than it does to a “community” of 12 who chose to abandon the building completely in 2008. There is a reason for a Landmarks Commission. Please do what’s right.
Because she has a terrible track record. Brewer said it would be “easy” to raise the funds. If she is serious, she should put in a time bound plan – outlining sources of secured funds, architecture plans, cost estimates based on actual contractor bids, etc. she should commit to submitting this within six months.
An open ended statement has zero value, especially coming from her.
There is also the question of the Soldiers and Sailors monument … not a peep from Brewer … meanwhile it continues to rot and the cost to fix it will continue to increase.
Agree. It needs a time frame.
I lived across the street from this church and marveled at all at beauty everyday. If they can Un preserve it due to hardship what’s to stop others from doing the same. It’s a dangerous loophole. The congregations greed is what is preventing this building from being saved and it’s outrageous. They could have found many solutions to save this church but instead they were only interested in the highest bid. Shame on them. Please stand up to big real estate and save our city.
Which is it – the church’s greed or big real estate?
You think a crumbling church clad in old scaffolding for the next 5-10 years until collapse – or even a repaired one with all its beauty – is “saving” the city any more than a brand new apartment building?
To those who say that the church is engaging in “demolition by neglect” – imagine the congregation had done every single repair to the church immediately when it was needed. How much would that have cost? How much does just routine maintenance cost for a 100+ year old landmarked building in New York City? Do you think that a 12 member congregation could afford to pay those ongoing costs?
I really don’t think that a small, all volunteer congregation engaged in a decades long “demolition by neglect” scam to make someone else rich. The reality is that maintaining old buildings is expensive and the congregation can’t afford it anymore. Selling the building is the only option they have to get a new space they can afford so that they can continue to exist.
“The opposition, led by Councilmember Gale Brewer and populated by elected officials, preservationists, and community groups and members, say it will cost much less and they will raise it”
Everybody agrees the church is unsafe and rundown and in urgent need of repairs. Whether it will cost $50M or $5M to restore it is besides the point.
There is absolutely no way Brewer or anyone else will be able to come up with the funds needed to modernize this building. Even if they miraculously did nobody is explaining why we should keep this structure. The congregation has been reduced to a dozen or so people and even they don’t want to keep the building. There are already plenty of other spaces available for community groups to hold activities.
The opposition to razing this church stems from a handful of NIMBY malcontents who simply don’t want a new tower in their neighborhood. They didn’t care a wink about the church at all until the proposition came along to build a tower there. Unfortunately, Gale Brewer is exploiting this sentiment for cheap political gain. With all the crime and grime and empty storefronts in the neighborhood it’s a travesty she is wasting valuable time and resources on this nonsense.
My prediction is that this church will continue to stand as an unsafe and blighted eyesore for many more years to come.
Tower or empty lot isn’t so much the point… it’s a loss of architectural heritage that defines a city and neighborhood. Someone found a way to save Grand Central Terminal in the face of similar “can’t afford it” objections, and that kicked off the Landmark Preservation movement that makes this a richer city. For anyone who doesn’t value that or care, there’s not much to say. And if it’s to be a purely economic discussion, then return the 100 years of tax breaks from the developer and church proceeds so the community can invest it elsewhere.
Grand Central Terminal serves a purpose, ie transporting commuters. The issue with Grand Central was whether to restore the building or to construct a new transportation hub in its place.
Eventually a robust public/private partnership agreed to restore Grand Central.
The church, on the other hand, has no apparent use other than as a place for vaguely defined community events. Yes, it WAS a pretty building but now it’s old and unsafe and it is likely not worth millions of dollars – that don’t exist – to restore as it will serve no apparent purpose.
They don’t have the money to maintain it. It will just rot and fall apart and become a drug den. Please build something else there.
if the building is so valuable to so many start a fund TODAY. no one is stopping you. put your money down and pay for what you claim you value so much. or stop talking.
if the community wants the benefit of landmarking they should pay for it. put up the money by dec31 or stop whining and unlandmark it. landmarking sounds to me like an unfunded mandate with property owners footing entire bill. I’m a little to the left of Lenin and even I don’t like this.
That’s exactly what they are proposing. The Church would sell the building to a non-profit who would pay to maintain it.
Who is the non-profit Ms. Brewer et al has in mind? If we are thinking about the “Center at West Park,” as of its most recent filing with the New York State Attorney General’s Office (which keeps a publicly accessibly database of all NY non-profits), its most recent 990-EZ short form filing (posted on 2/25/22) states The Center at Park West had assets at the end of 2020 of -$186,176.(they are in the red for close to $200k).
The Center has already made a fair market offer for the Church but the city can’t kick in the funds for repairs until it is transferred to a secular non-profit due to constitutional restrictions on funding faith-based groups.
That would be nice. However, the long, not-so-benign neglect leads me to suspect that they are looking to sell to a developer of tall, ugly buildings, such that both groups would take the money and run. It’s an unholy mess. I ain’t superstitious, but I do get suspicious.
You left out fact Gale Brewer and others want to force congregation of WP to sell at substantially lower number than other offers.
Sad thing about NYC is it is made up largely of renters, and many of those in regulated housing. No one else who actually owned or has owned property would understand nor particularly welcome being forced to sell at far below other offers.
We don’t need more condos for foreign money or weekenders. We need more affordable rentals.
This neighborhood doesn’t get foreign money and weekenders buy studios and one bedrooms in places like Lincoln Towers.
That’s great. Throw your hat in the discussion and convince the church of selling to a developer of affordable rentals, without the rest of us subsidizing them.
I don’t understand how this church has only 12 members. It sound like there are financial shenanigans taking place. .
It is same thing going on across board for past few generations now, people are just less religious than in past.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/dec/15/us-religious-affiliation-study-results
In case you’ve not noticed look around Manhattan alone where Roman Catholic Church has been shutting down churches and schools at a good pace. Ditto many synagogues and Protestant houses of worship are closing as well due to shrinking or in many cases nearly non-existent active congregations.
https://ny.curbed.com/maps/mapping-26-nyc-houses-of-worship-being-replaced-by-condos
West Park like many other houses of worship were built at a different time in American history. Days when everyone observed their faith’s sabbath and went to services.
Last big wave of synagogue building in NYC (especially UWS) occurred in years between WWI and post WWII to accommodate influx of Jews fleeing or otherwise leaving Europe. That’s all gone now. Just as with Christian congregations many shuls have very small numbers of active members, yet they are landed with big barns of synagogues.
None of this is going to change in foreseeable future. Even in Harlem once known for being land of 100 churches is seeing places close and or congregations do deals with developers.
The new building can be easily cantilevered over the church building preserving the exterior with minimal intrusion on the interior spaces. This would allow for a significant restoration of this landmark structure. There are numerous cantilevered high-rises in NYC.
Most are cantilevered for architectural design reasons I am amazed that it is not offered as a solution. It appears the church wants to walk away with a pot of gold and the developer interest is building a bland boxy building
In recent developments St. Michael-St. Edward Church in Fort Greene, Brooklyn is coming down with property being redeveloped.
https://bkreader.com/2022/03/11/historic-fort-greene-church-to-be-replaced-by-11-story-apartment-building/
On UES Church of St. John the Martyr has been torn down as part of huge redevelopment of 72nd and Second Avenue.
https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/future-nyc/historic-upper-east-side-church-razed-make-way-new-development-chetrit-group/43381
https://nypost.com/2022/03/29/massive-half-block-section-of-the-upper-east-side-faces-demolition/
SHAARE ZEDEK also was demolished and replaced by multi-family.
https://www.westsiderag.com/2017/07/26/shaare-zedek-gets-final-court-approval-to-sell-94-year-old-synagogue-which-will-be-demolished
I just sent this letter to the LPC:
—
I write in strong support of preserving West Park Presbyterian Church on 86th and Amsterdam. I have followed the process closely, and am aware of the complexities. I also believe strongly, in general, in building more housing, not less — I see it as an ethical issue which NIMBY mentality usually gets wrong, leading to inequity and housing shortages. Replacing the church with housing would be a boon, in that sense.
However, there is something bigger at stake here. I read recently about the clearing of the old houseboats along the Nile River in Cairo. Done for the sake of modernising the city, but missing the deep loss to its longer-term history and character: https://www.economist.com/middle-east-and-africa/2022/07/07/historic-houseboats-fall-victim-to-egypts-addiction-to-cement.
I would see the razing of West Park in the same light: a short-sighted action that misses what makes New York Great.
Another comparison comes to mind: the building of Central Park and some of the monumental buildings here (NYPL at 42nd St and the like). These are deeply problematic monuments to iniquity and undue privilege. They cost truly obscene amounts of money, to the direct harm of people at the time, and they displaced communities such as Seneca Village.
And yet, Central Park and these buildings stand as monuments that make New York an international monument, the greatest city in the world.
More housing can be built for the UWS regardless; this one church does not solve that problem. Keeping it is a sacrifice worth making.
Let’s not make NY a cookie-cutter of every other bland city center in this country. Let’s not share the short-sighted mentality of Egypt’s current government.
Thank you,
Robin
Is there any place other than Manhattan where people feel as fully justified in telling other people what they may do with their property?