By Carol Tannenhauser
West-Park Presbyterian Church, on the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, is back in the news – and foremost on the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s agenda at a hearing next Tuesday.
When we last heard about the 133-year-old landmark church in July 2022, those petitioning to demolish it on the grounds of “hardship” — namely, its own 12-member congregation — had produced evidence that the north and south walls of the 19th-century, red-sandstone structure were tilting outward, causing the south wall to be 27% “overstressed.” It was one more example of the precarious condition of the church — the restoration of which would cost $50 million, according to the congregation’s estimate.
That price tag is at the heart of the congregation’s argument that landmark status should be removed, allowing demolition of the church and sale of the land it’s on for $33 million to a developer who is waiting to erect a 19-story condominium. The new building would include space for the congregation, which would receive $8.8 million to build it out and funds for an endowment, with the balance of the sale proceeds gifted to the administrative body of the Presbyterian Church.
Led by City Councilmember Gale Brewer, opposition to this plan has been fierce. At a Community Board 7 meeting one year ago, which 160 community members attended, dozens testified, along with board members, in favor of saving the church. In addition, a local community arts nonprofit organization that has been renting space in the church since 2010, offered to buy it, albeit for far less than $33 million. City Councilmember Brewer — confident that private money can be raised — has not given a recent update on fundraising, nor has the nonprofit.
Back on CB 7’s agenda
The CB 7 Preservation Committee is meeting tonight, June 8, at 6:30 p.m., to provide a “quick recap” of the issue before next week’s hearing at the Landmarks Preservation Commission, according to Board Chair Beverly Donohue. (Register for the June 8th Preservation Committee Meeting here.) The committee will not hear public comments.
Expression will be encouraged, however, at a rally organized by Brewer for Saturday, June 10, at 1 p.m., on West 86th and Amsterdam, outside or inside the church, depending on the smoke, according to her office. At the most recent CB 7 meeting, Brewer said celebrity donors will be there.
Then on Tuesday, June 13, the landmarks commission will hear public testimony (written submissions are also welcomed), but “the Commission will not vote on the application on June 13,” a commission official told the Rag. Specific instructions on how to observe and testify at the hearing will be posted on the LPC’s website, under the “Hearings” tab, on the Monday before the public hearing. (We’ll post the link in Monday Bulletin.)
Back in 2022, when the church released information about the “overstressed” walls, the commission said it had retained its own experts, who would report back with their independent findings on the church’s condition after Labor Day…2022!
Will the case be decided before Labor Day 2023? Check the Rag for updates.
Correction: We originally said City Councilmember Gale Brewer was confident private and public funds would be raised. She referred only to private money.
Make it easy — Sign up for WSR’s FREE newsletter here.
By all accounts this church is rundown and falling apart and it will take millions of dollars to make it structurally safe and functional.
There are a handful of malcontents in the neighborhood who are against the demolition of the church simply because they don’t want a tall building to replace it. Fair enough, but they should at least admit as much instead of professing their sudden love for this church.
Seeking political gain, Gale Brewer is exploiting these sentiments and leading the charge to oppose the sale of this church. However, despite years of empty boasts money can easily be raised she she has yet to come up with a plan to fund as much as one dollar to rehabilitate this church.
Instead of having a shiny new tower – that will incorporate a church and a community space – the neighborhood will likely be stuck with a decrepit and nonfunctional building for years to come. This is NYC progressive politics at its worst.
No towers. Preserve/repurpose.
Gail Brewer has it right: this is an essential part of the fabric of the UWS and should be preserved and repurposed or otherwise used. We are too venal about our heritage, which will disappear quickly if we are not careful. What we need is to recruit some rich person to put up the (relatively modest to a billionaire) money needed to restore and refurbish the church. We should not take the myopic easy way out of allowing demolition.
How exactly is it essential? The church has been in disrepair and is providing no benefit to the neighborhood as is. Much better to allow new housing and a new church / community space.
We have plenty of shiny new towers and don’t need more population congestion in the hood. That would be corporate capitalism at its worst.
In this case the tower would replace a church, but in many cases, “luxury” condo towers actually provide fewer units of housing than did the demolished buildings that they replace. Case in point: the tower at 15-19 W. 96th.
You are completely right. The church is an unsafe eyesore on 86 ST and the pols have not raised any money to restore the church.
not an eyesore
I live nearby and walk by it all the time for decades and it has been an eyesore for decades. It’s not safe and surrounded by scaffolding. The money the pols said would be raised to fix it has never materialized. I see no reason why suddenly now the millions needed will be raised no matter what Gale Brewer said since she said the same thing decades ago and nothing happened. It is an eyesore. It used to be a beautiful building but al it is now is crumbling.
Was wondering about this mess of a situation, thanks for sharing updates.
The building is falling down and not habitable. It will take tens of millions just to make it safe. Tear it down and build something new there.
Haven’t we witnessed buildings crumbling to the ground due to structural issues? Let the church go. It’s a danger to West Siders and it will be a danger to workers if the scheme to save the structure is approved.
Is it not possible to build something that is low rise and offers a service or amenity to the neighborhood and fits architecturally? When builders come in, does everything have to reach the stars? Reminds me of my dad who once bought a tv that “fell off the back of the truck.” It never worked. It sat on his workbench as a reminder to us all of lesson learned. When is enough enough and level heads lead vs. kowtowing to donors? Or until some terrible tragedy happens in that eyesore space.
I agree. Approve only the new building plan that would be acceptable for the location and nothing less.
Cost of land and construction is very high. The only way to build without losing money is to build lots of units.
Honestly I’m beginning the feel the landmarking process should have included a sale or open auction of air rights. The people in the surrounding buildings benefited from this landmarking process by ensuring their views would never be obstructed. It’s basically a windfall for the neighbors. But no one seriously considered the financial costs of maintaining the church.
If people agree that the church structure is valuable and there are unused development rights on the site, the church should be allowed to auction them to anyone at the time of landmarking.
The only ones losing money are the church and frankly I don’t feel too sorry for them. If ever there were a time for compromise, this would be it. Sell it for less than the max value and build something that doesn’t maximize the size. That way the crumbling church is gone, the neighbors are less upset, and the intersection doesn’t fall into total darkness.
It really is not that hard. I know that not maximizing real estate value will give many New Yorkers a nervous breakdown, but this piece of land hasn’t been maximizing value for years so if it isn’t now, it isn’t a big change.
I can see both sides of this. But to lose this church is to continue to lose those things that make New York, New York–for another glass building?
This is NYC and if a developer wants the property to build a high-end condo tower, we all know what talks and what walks. Anyone for a demonstration for affordable housing on the sight?
That corner is the gloomiest spot in the neighborhood because of the scaffolding which seems will never come down as long as the church is up. What purpose is served by its landmark status?
While I’d love to save this building. It’s not clear how this place would ever be able to sustain the ongoing repairs it will need in the future. Lets say it gets funding to repair the building now. 10 years from now we’re back having the same conversation.
The church is only considered “falling apart” by the real estate conglomerate that wants to tear it down. They hired their “experts” to estimate the huge renovation costs. No private independent cost analysis has been done. I have attended many wonderful productions in the church produced by the arts organization that wants to purchase and use the church. There are only about 300 church parishioners remaining. This is a money grab by the evangelical Lutheran Church headquartered in Chicago. The real estate entity offers a tiny church/community space in its design and a lot of money to the Lutheran Church. Gale Brewer cannot obtain renovation funding for reconstruction and reuse of this historical Romanesque Revival building until the Lutheran organization releases the property. Since 1799 churches in NYC do not pay taxes. West-Park was built in its present location in 1889. How about the real estate conglomerate offers to pay those back taxes to our City for real housing needs. What is proposed is not desperately needed lower or even middle class housing but one more Upper West Side multi-million dollar high rise for investment, often foreign investment, purposes, I’m sure you’ve noticed the mass of similar expensive buildings recently constructed in our neighborhood with many empty apartments.
Isn’t it a Presbyterian Church, not Lutheran?
Actually no. The scaffolding went up because the city deemed it unsafe.
The scaffolding is not holding the building up LOL
Do you live in NYC? This type of scaffolding is keeping pedestrians who walk on the sidewalk next to it safe from the possibility of falling pieces of the building hitting someone. No one said the scaffolding is holding up the church.
The developer is willing to pay $33M for just the property. It will cost tens of millions of dollars more to raze the church and to construct a new building.
The developer is a for profit business, not a charity. It is under no legal or ethical obligation to provide “lower or even middle class housing”.
The developer needs to provide the type of housing that will allow it to recoup its massive investment in this project.
We need a new developer. Perhaps the city can prepare the ground for development and then be in control of the type of building that goes up. Hopefully it will be a building for low and middle owners or renters and will be a quality building that looks great in the neighborhood .
That is a very dangerous road you want to go down.
There still is such a thing as private property in this country you know.
Sure, the city is already in the housing and development business. Just let NYCHA buy it and put up something.
This building is a unique asset, not just as an architectural monument to a period of really interesting American architecture, but as a relief from the overall mediocrity of more recent UWS building. It could also be a great asset as an arts and community center, if not as a church. There must be some truly philanthropic billionaire out there who could take it over and realize that potential.
People who want to tear down the church have little to no understanding on why there is a landmarks commission. The preservation of buildings and architecture are what makes New York City beautiful and habitable. To allow owners to reap incredible profits from developers as a reward for neglecting their landmarked buildings to the point where they are “rundown and falling apart” is beyond absurd.
BTW, my play The Soap Myth performed there with the iconic Ed Asner (R.I.P.) and the wonderful Tovah Feldshuh. The church is beautiful. If you’ve never been there it’s worth a visit. You’ll agree that this beautiful building should be preserved for generations to come.
It is long past time for the those who wish to preserve the building to have put up or shut up. Even now nothing is stopping you from coming up with $33m and buying the building, and then investing whatever additional millions will be needed to stabilize the structure and maintain it, as a landmark into perpetuity However more than a year into this most recent chapter of this epic, I am aware of no one else who has stepped and offered to buy the church and maintain it. In fact I am surprised the Congregation and the local authorities of the Presbyterian Church have not sought relief in the federal courts claiming the restrictions on the sale violate their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion, and RILUPA 42 USC 2000cc, et. seq. The money from the sale could be used to further the church’s mission and by landmarking the building the sole asset of the congregation is being encumbered.
What’s your point, Glen? The dozen or so people that call themselves parishioners of the church have no interest in protecting the church. Read my post: They want bio be rewarded for doing nothing to maintain the building. They want $33 million. The landmarks commission’s purpose is to preserve New York buildings and protect them from exactly this kind of $$$$ game. I’m certain that a coalition of individuals and non profits could take over and repair the building. The Arts Group that is the current tenant has said they are in a position to do so. They are an ideal alternative. What won’t they do? Pay $33 million.
Why should a church that already receives an enormous tax benefit for being a church also be allowed to auction off their landmarked property? It’s lunacy.
Jeff,
They won’t pay $33 million, the haven’t even raised $100k for repairs in 10 years! By the way, the church is only down to a dozen members from hundreds when I was there in the 1990s because they don’t have a safe, habitable building. Many people have moved on (like me), but that doesn’t mean the church should lose the property it spent over a hundred years building and preserving.
This was so avoidable – back when it was designated (over the Church’s proposal for affordable housing), everyone said the Center would raise money to preserve the Church building. They’ve had 10 years and haven’t raised even enough money to pay the rent. While the Center has put on a number of nice performances that I have attended, they’ve been averaging 40 attendees per week since the takeover of the building. That was less than half the average attendance of worshippers in the 1990s. Perhaps with the new building, the Church can go back to what it was in the community, not a building, but a beacon of hope for the hungry, poor and marginalized in society.
The church has a ‘congregation’ of eight? Is the term ‘congregation’ being used correctly here? (As in, a group of people assembled for religious worship.) Or does the article mean eight people who are the ministry and who reside on the property? In any case, “the new building would include space for the congregation, which would receive $8.8 million to build it out and funds for an endowment.” For eight people? Clarification, please.
The Church had hundreds of members in the 1990s. As the building fell into disrepair, many families started worshipping at other Presbyterian churches. When the new building is built with worship space, many will return. The church has laid off all their staff in order to pay for maintenance of the building. Effectively 100% of the church’s funds have been going to building maintenance in the past decade. It just isn’t enough.
This church is a landmark only because it’s old. There are no other outstanding architectural characteristics warranting a landmark designation. This community deserves better.
The church is not a landmark only because it’s old. It is a landmark because it is a palmary and, in NYC, rare specimen of Romanesque revival architecture.
The trustees of the church should be investigated to make sure they are not the beneficiaries of its sale to developers. It may be just me but I am suspicious of the actions of trustees, who did not seem to have taken steps for the last 10+ years to prevent the deterioration of the building.
The community has to come together to find a buyer or repair fixer. If not the building will be gone . If the building is sold there should be ample requirements for space for theatre, for live music and for exercise.
What more could they have done? They sold off all the property the church owned, fired the staff, and shut off utilities. What was left to do, sell the stained glass windows? They asked landmarks not to designate 10 years ago, because there was no plan to help the congregation. There is still no plan, except to try and force them to give the building to the Center for pittance. Given the Center’s finances, I wouldn’t be surprised if the building is turned into condos by the Center in 10 years …
There was a time in NYC’s history when Grand Central Station was nearly decimated and a 50 story office tower built sitting right on top of it despite its status as a designated landmark. Those who believed that this was a terrific idea were very sure of themselves. They were also led by one of the biggest real estate magnates of that time who was responsible for demolishing Penn Station despite all the opposition to that unthinkable act. A monumental loss which is still decried to this day. Grand Central Station at that time was called a “long neglected faded beauty”. Could they not say the same of the Coliseum in Rome or the Parthenon in Athens? Were it not for the likes of Jackie Kennedy, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Architecture critic Brendan Gill, it most certainly would have been met with a fate that would have for all intents and purposes destroyed one of the finest pieces of architecture and history of the past 200 years in this city and this country.
West-Park Church is certainly not the same as Grand Central but it is an iconic piece of history of another important time in New York’s history. It is also a designated landmark. It’s an extraordinary example of Romanesque architecture and one of the few on the UWS. The story of its neglect is a very sad one-one which is induced by the knowledge that a developer is waiting in the wings to one day make for an incredible payday. That is what’s wrong with the way this city looks at historic preservation. It’s well known that developers have been targeting churches and synagogues to build more and more luxury housing.
For West-Park to go this route would be a great loss for our community. It would rob our city and the UWS of one more of its most distinctive “faded beauties”. But worse it would mean that the term “landmark” and the process of landmarking in NY is meaningless. There is no architectural or historic monument that couldn’t be demolished given enough money and/or enough neglect. That is a very dangerous precedent for the Landmarks Preservation Commission and for the historic legacy of New York.
What needs to happen is for this community and this government to protect and preserve this church with the will and the money to make that happen.
Your post fails to mention Grand Central *Terminal* was not saved by Penn Central losing their bid to build said 50 story tower, but fact Mrs. Kennedy and others subsequently pushed New York State (via MTA) to take a long term lease on property then pour billions of taxpayer and bonded money into the place.
https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-penn-cent-transp-co-v-new-york-city-814952966
Everyone knew bankrupt Penn Central had neither the money nor really interest in keeping up GCT much less doing anything else with the place but let it fall into rot and ruin.
MTA subsequently finally purchased GCT and former Penn Central ROW for $33 million. https://rew-online.com/mta-takes-ownership-of-grand-central-terminal/
That is how things should be done. If city wants to keep this barn of a building standing it should pony up.
It’s hard to imagine that the government spending $33 million to maintain an old church is a good amount of money.
People keep saying this is a made up number. Given the trajectory of construction costs in NY it doesn’t seem far fetched.
The amount of $33 million would be the pay-out from a developer wanting to build luxury condos on this property to make many, many millions of dollars. Luxury condos in an over saturated area of luxury condos I might add without a stitch of affordable housing in a city with an affordable housing crisis. There are other uses for the church and others who want to buy it. A church on the UWS was bought for many millions for a museum. There are other uses for this church that would respect its legal landmark status.
Sorry, a good *use* of money.
I am in full support of The Landmarks Commission but this is way beyond ridiculous now, The church should be demolished; I’m so tired of looking at it!!!!
Save the church! Have any of those opposing saving it actually been in it?? Have they been to any concerts from there? It’s marvelous. Let the real estate moguls tear down some of the vacated glass office buildings! Let them tear down dilapidated walk-ups. Another ugly 30 story apartment building is unnecessary. Have you seen how many vacant apartments are available already? People can’t afford the prices . Do the real estate moguls care? Of course not. They just want to push their agenda to build ugly. The church is special. Much work could be done on it. There are ways to fund the historic church.
Hey, I live in a dilapidated walk-up!
Who will received the 33 million if the property is sold. What will be done with the 33million?
Isn’t that of importance in making a decision?
The tax free church receives the money.
All this sturm und drang will make a nice theatrical play for the community center once this beleaguered building is restored.
set a deadline. if renovation has not started with a rigid schedule by then tear it down. enough hand wringing.
I will say now what I have been saying for a while. The Church is owned by the Presbytery of New York, and run by the pastor and the congregation. THEY are the ONLY ones who have ANY right to determine the future of the building. Anything else is an illegal “taking” of property. And several Constitutional scholars have said so. If this were any other landlord than a church council, or any building other than a church, everyone would be screaming about government interference in the ownership (and sale) of private property. And they would be right. and there is no argument for “eminent domain” here. The issue is not the City’s desperate need for the land. It is simply some Johnny-come-latelies who happen to like the building and don’t want their “light and air” affected by another residential building on the site.
If the LPC rules in favor of these selfish people, and the Presbytery decides to sue, it will win – handily – and the building will be demolished anyway. All that anyone will have been able to do is put off that date by a few months, maybe a year.
Terrific spin. Congrats! The Landmarks Law is a LAW!! Seems to me it’s pretty selfish to create your own PR not based on the facts and the LAW but on your own selfish beliefs!! But I do admit that’s very popular among the real estate set in NYC.
We’ve been around on this issue before. The LPC with its powers was established by a law. Courts have upheld its powers to restrict a property owner’s liberty to dispose of the property ad libitum.
https://www.farrellfritz.com/case-law-and-statutes-govern-landmark-designations/
If the property is landmarked will the city eventually declare it unsafe for all purposes?
Interesting, but the article you posted seems to support tearing the church down. The case cited. Matter of Society for Ethical Culture in the City of New York Spatt, 51 N.Y.2d 449 (1980), which held, [B]ecause charitable organizations were not created for financial return in the same sense as private businesses … to permit a landmark designation restriction only so long as it does not physically or financially prevent, or seriously interfere with the carrying out of the charitable purpose. While the Ethical Culture Society did not meet that test, it would be difficult to argue West Park is not seriously impacted by the restriction on the sale of its asset. Further, the rights of religious organizations have been expanded by the Federal courts since that decision was rendered in 1980. Bottom line, no one who wants to save the building has come up with the money to buy it in the more than 12 years since this stared, and the building was landmarked. No charitable benefactor, no public official, no one. Any additional deadline to raise the money is just kicking the can down the road. Gale Brewer has raised nothing, and the NYS Attorney General’s Charity website shows the “Friends of West Park,” have not updated its annual report in years. Further buying the building to those who think it should be saved is just the start, as a landmarked building the restoration will have to be “in kind” costing far more than modern alternatives and run in the tens of millions. The annual upkeep will easily run more than $5m once the restoration is done. Under no imaginable scenario will that building be able to generate revenue like that through legitimate business.
See the testimony provided by the Historic Districts Council on this point. They make a good case that the Ethical Culture case does serve as a precedent for upholding the landmark status of the West Park church building.
https://hdc.org/testimony/west-park-presbyterian-church-hardship-application-testimony/