By Gus Saltonstall
The saga of the potential demolition of West-Park Presbyterian Church on the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue may unexpectedly take another turn next week.
After not appearing on the initial agenda for the Landmark Preservation Commission’s January 9 meeting, the first of the year, the 133-year-old landmarked church was suddenly added on Tuesday as the first topic.
The LPC agenda does not specify what the conversation around the church will be, but a source familiar with the situation said that its inclusion could mean that a vote on the church’s “hardship application” will take place during the session.
In June 2022, the church’s 12-member congregation filed the hardship application, claiming that they could not afford to repair and carry the church any longer, asking the commission to rescind its landmark status so they could sell it, for $33 million, to a real-estate developer who planned to demolish it and replace it with luxury condominiums.
The commission has only approved 13 hardship applications since its creation in 1965.
There is also a legal battle going on between West-Park Presbyterian Church and the Center at West Park, a nonprofit community-arts organization that operates out of the building. In 2018, the organization signed a five-year lease with the church, with an option for an additional five years, which was exercised in February 2022.
The building cannot be demolished as long as the court case remains ongoing and the Center at West Park remains a tenant, according to Mark Silberman, General Counsel for the commission. That court case is still ongoing, with the most recent legal filing taking place on December 6, 2023.
The ongoing court battle does not necessarily mean that the congregation has to wait in its attempt to get the hardship application granted, the source familiar with the situation explained. Another source, however, stated that a prolonged court battle would prevent the demolition from occurring with “reasonable promptness,” which is required by the Landmarks law in the case of hardship applications.
The news of the church’s possible demolition spawned a strong negative response from the community, local elected officials, and the local community board, which voted against removing the church’s landmark designation.
The LPC’s January 9th meeting does not have a set start time yet, but you will be able to watch it live on the city agency’s Youtube page — HERE.
Look for further coverage of this developing story in coming days.
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here.
How is a 12 member congregation going to raise the $9 million in repair costs that the LPC’s structural engineer said that the building needs?
Please explain why the church only has 12 members. I find that number to be peculiarly small.
The way forward seems to be to sell the church building to a non-profit like the Center at West Park, which then will be responsible for maintenance.
Why should congregation of West Park be forced to sell their only or major asset of value?
West Park would, could and should have been torn down years ago. The building is a crumbling hot mess and neither congregation nor anyone else has funds to keep it standing much less for needed repairs.
It’s largely a bunch of busybodies often with vested interests (residents of buildings on either side who risk losing lot line views), that are up in arms over West Park.
Houses of worship are being closed and demolished all over NYC, what makes WP so special?
Gail Brewer and others keep telling same load of flannel; that huge amount of money will be found or otherwise raised in aid of keeping WP. Well that hasn’t happened has it? Nor has any white knight come forward with a pubic or anonymous huge donation either.
RC church St. Brigid’s was saved by a $20 million donation. Am not seeing anyone putting up anywhere near that sort of money for WP
https://www.villagepreservation.org/2020/12/02/saved-from-the-wrecking-ball-st-brigids-church/
What makes this church building special is its landmarked status.
Can’t dictate who they sell to.
Right, everyone seems to agree now that maintaining the building is a financial impossibility for the church and that it needs to be sold.
It’s a question of 1) selling it to a developer and using the proceeds to advance the church’s mission or 2) selling it to The Center at West Park at substantially below market value and giving them the benefit of buying a building for less than it is worth.
Personally, I don’t think it’s right to force a church to sell at a below market value to a secular non-profit. It sets a very bad precedent.
It sets a very bad precedent to wave away the landmarks law if the owner of the landmarked property fails to demonstrate “hardship.” There are strict criteria that must be met for “hardship” to justify decertifying a landmark.
Not at all….
LPC caved into St. Vincent’s when they wanted to demolish O’Toole building to build a new hospital jointly with Rudin real estate. This was against vocal wishes of many in community and elsewhere in city.
What LPC and city do not want is a court case that sets precedent regarding hardship applications.
LPC feared near bankrupt St. Vincent’s hospital if denied their hardship application would bring legal action.
Happily (or not) as case may be St. Vincent’s went bankrupt anyway, and Rudin family moved in to grab entire Greenwich Village campus. Rudin family turned around and sold O’Toole building to Long Island Jewish-North Shore (now Northwell) healthcare system who turned it into Lenox Hill “south” urgent care.
Why not another denomination that has a large congregation? Why isn’t the Presbytery supporting this church? Why did its membership decline so much? Perhaps it just needs a new minister.
We’ve done this in previous WSR threads on this subject.
NYC Presbytery has stepped up previously with funds for WP. They don’t have unlimited resources and there are other congregations and missions in need.
If and or when this WPC deal closes the congregation will give substantial sum to NYC Presbytery.
https://www.nycpresbytery.org/congregations
Sorry, but demographics change over time. The congregation shrank because of the smaller number of Presbyterians in the community.
No one, for or against, demolition, reasonably thinks the decision by the LPC will be the final word on the matter. All a decision by LPC will accomplish is open the way to the years of litigation and appeals that lie ahead. To paraphrase Churchill, it will not be the end, or even the beginning of the end, but it will be the end of the beginning.
Is the article saying that the Center at West Park which has a lease till 2027 cannot be kicked out till 2027 even if hardship application is approved?
There are many ways to terminate a leaae early, depending on the lease terms. They could be bought out of their lease. There could be a clause that terminates the lease in the even of sale or change in ownership. Etc.
Thx WSR. Meeting location and time?
Knock it down, build housing
I agree! More housing will bring jobs and businesses to the neighborhood. Isn’t this what we all want?
They won’t build housing for anyone but billionaires.
Housing for the wealthy is not a priority.
Telling people what to do with their private property shouldn’t be a priority either. Upgrading housing stock is always a good thing no matter who will live there. Would you prefer a degrading neighborhood instead?
Housing is housing
It has become abundantly clear that the Church needs to be sold. And whether the repair price is $19 million or $50 million (or somewhere in between), neither the church nor the Center has the financial ability to buy and repair the building. And I seriously doubt that any of the celebs who came on board late in the game is simply going to fork over $20-$50 million.
The whole issue seems to revolve around the Center. But all they are being asked to do is wait until the new building is completed: the landlord has promised enough space to the church to build a small sanctuary, program space for the church and its missions, and a new Center space.
The Center simply needs to be patient. As this point, they are only prolonging their ability to have a new, useable space for their programs.
The owners of the building want it sold. The congregation wants it sold. In this regard, if this were anything but a religious building, everyone would be on church’s side, since it, as the landlord, SHOULD have the sole discretion to determine the fate of the building – property rights being a foundational element of U.S. law. (Despite the legal authorities of the LPC, this makes the landmarking an illegal “taking” of property, which is almost certainly going to end up as part of lawsuits that could go on for years more). As well, there is the First Amendment issue of refusing to allow the church to worship as it best sees fit – a foundational element of the Constitution (this, too, is likely to end up in any lawsuit that may arise).
Let the church sell. Let the landlord build. The Center can wait a couple of years for a new space. In the meantime, have they spent ANY time looking for a temporary alternative space? I’m sure there are such spaces on the UWS,; in other churches, in community centers, in large empty storefronts, etc. For a creative group, they don’t seem to be very creative in their thinking.
It is time to end this fiasco. I hope the LPC sees fit to grant the hardship and allow the church to do what it wants to with ITS building. From both a legal and moral standpoint, this is the only legitimate solution.
That is not a good site for another high-rise as there is one next to it whose windows would be blocked off. Churches must work harder to raise the funds they need.
That is not a reasonable justification to prevent high-rise construction. One could build a 10-story building and block windows; it doesn’t have to be a high-rise. If you want to protect your views, live next to a cemetery.
People lose lot line views in NYC (especially Manhattan) all the time.
While it may be sad or whatever for current owners or renters of said apartments, lot line windows are bricked over all the time when property on adjoining lot is being redeveloped.
Only way to prevent this is for owner or owners of a building buying adjoining property themselves.
https://ny.curbed.com/2019/7/22/20703797/chelsea-condo-extell-development-views
Renters not so much, but anyone buying a condo or co-op unit with lot line views needs to do due diligence and or have a long think about possibility of property next door being redeveloped.
https://goncharrealestate.com/articles/lot-line-windows-buyers-beware/#:~:text=The%20problem%20with%20lot%20line,it%20must%20have%20a%20window.
https://www.hauseit.com/lot-line-windows-nyc/
Lot line views… This is how you roll.
Developers of new luxury condo building on East 79th between Second and First purchased air rights from building next door. Thus those lot line windows will never be bricked over.
https://newyorkyimby.com/2023/03/the-matteo-nears-completion-at-323-east-79th-street-on-manhattans-upper-east-side.html
When and where will the meeting take place?
“LPC’s public hearings are held in the agency’s hearing room at 1 Centre Street, 9th Floor, Borough of Manhattan. Please bring a state-issued ID to enter the building. Participation by videoconference may be available via the Zoom teleconferencing application, which allows applicants and members of the public to participate using the Zoom app on their computer or smartphone or by telephone using a dial-in number.”
https://www.nyc.gov/site/lpc/hearings/hearings.page
https://www.nyc.gov/assets/lpc/downloads/pdf/calendar/01_09_24.pdf
I am not sure where the hardship is? Are these individuals solely responsible for this Church? They are certainly painting it that way… So if sold these same 12 individuals will direct how this $33 million is to be spent?
When was the last election. Why are they not actively defending the church, its mission, its history. Why not allow third party organizations to take over, under an agreed upon charter?
Odd how the best thing for this historic church is to put $33 million at their disposal. What is the point of Landmarking something, if one can just plead hardship… Going forward any other building would just have to cease paying Insurance on the building and oops….
The Boards mindset should be to do whatever necessary to save this building. If you accept responsibility for something, fulfill it…. There is more than enough support to get the job done.
“There is more than enough support to get the job done.” At what point is this support expected to materialize? The only support that matters is the green kind…and *lots* of it. To date none has been forthcoming.
They can’t afford to repair it, so they must be able to sell it. What the new owner does is a different story. But step one is, they must be able to sell.
Let’s be very clear: No one is preventing anyone from selling anything. The problems are: the owner, a congregation is effectively broke and has a property with a famous church on top of it that is a) in poor/dangerous/illegal condition and b) a designated landmark. Meaning it is illegal to remove or alter the building, at least the exterior portion. So, it’s worth very little money to anyone at this point. It might even be a liability. It would be a huge windfall for the congregation if the LPC removed the landmark status, because that would drastically increase the value of the property. You can argue that the landmark law is a horrible idea on balance. And I will agree with you. But this is the law and everyone else has to suffer under it as well. Personally, I don’t see why a failing non-profit congregation with 12 members and a real estate developer get a free pass. And I would be surprised if the LPC gave them one.
How is it “huge windfall for the congregation?” LPC encumbered the building about 14 years ago with landmarking status, a status the congregation fought vociferously. From the day the church was built, until LPC impaired the owners’ property rights, the congregation was free to sell to whoever it wished. The “windfall” is to the adjacent property owners who maintain their Hudson River views at the entire expense of West Park and the NY Presbytery who is picking up the shortfall for the necessary bills on the structure.
I recall the neighborhood celebutants held a fundraiser in November, with Matt Damon and a few others who no one ever heard of. Do we know how much was raised from that endeavor? Since we heard nothing of its success, is it safe to assume it was an abject failure, just like every other fundraising endeavor put forward by “The Friends of West Park” who wish to keep the crumbling pile of red sandstone at the expense of congregation and the NY Presbytery?
Maybe “windfall” is a poor word for this situation. I actually don’t think we disagree on much. My point was that no one is actually stopping a sale. Rather, the problem is the landmarks law, the LPC. Everyone knows the origin story, the tragedy of Penn Station. But Penn Station is still gone. The medicine — an unaccountable, unjust, and often just plain stupid LPC — is worse than the disease. As you point out, it is often used as a weapon by neighbors. And if you have ever had to manage a landmarked building, you understand how much cost and pain the LPC blithely and idiotically inflicts on routine maintenance and care. So, I can’t believe the LPC is going to let this congregation off the hook. That’s just not how they play. What we need to do is change the law and get rid of this ridiculous, bureaucratic, useless monstrosity…. but good luck with that.
The LPC was created SPECIFICALLY for the reason to protect landmarked, architectural buildings from predatory real estate money makers….It was created after the teardown of the beautiful, functional Penn Station! Landmarks Preservation Committee, DO YOUR DUTY AND SAVE THESE PRECIOUS BUILDINGS. There are plenty of other places and buildings these real estate luxury builders could go, tear down, make their profits and leave. We live in a community. They vacate the community!!
Yeah, nothing vacates a community like replacing a 130-yr-old dustball bin of crumbling brick used by 15 people once in a blue moon, with a building inhabited by potentially hundreds of families.
“Precious” buildings usually attract the appropriate investment. Guess what doesn’t.
Not true that the building is “used by 15 people once in a blue moon.” The Center at West Park puts on many programs there.
How about turning it into an UPPER WEST SIDE MUSEUM? Certainly the West Side is a plethora of history from its very beginnings to now.
Of all the arguments, I’m most receptive to the argument that this will create a path for more hardship exceptions to Landmark’s laws. HOWEVER, the church resisted landmarking years ago because they claimed the building was impossible for maintain without massive funds.
10+ years later, they were right. Whether it’s $9M or $50M (I kinda believe the real number is higher), Landmarking this site was possibly a mistake.
The Landmarks laws need to be revised so that property owners with Landmarked buildings (or those in Landmark districts) can more easily sell unused development rights.
Anything but luxury housing. Many developers don’t give a hoot as long as there are super bucks for them. A place of worship should be looked at as just that and if demolition is in the cards it has to be done for the common good.
Hey maybe this would be a great spot for the delivery charging and rest hub. Trans Alt could take it over – they have tons of money – and this could be their new home base? Win win for everyone and how lucky to get to work and rest in such a fabulous historic building?
Currently this property is a blight on, and a danger to, the community; functions as a religious center for only 12 people; and generates no tax revenue. The city should seize it by eminent domain, citing Kelo v New London; provide reasonable compensation to the church (less than $33 million); sell the property to a developer with requirements to provide public amenities (including, potentially, preservation of sight lines from adjoining buildings or other locations) and accommodations for the church (providing a rationale for compensating the church less than $33 million) and the Center at West Park; and then collect taxes on the property and its improvements.
The current plan provides the church with $33 million for their mission plus a new, updated space for the congregation and West Park. There is no rationale for seizing their property and providing them less than that. Sight lines from private (expensive) apartments adjacent to the church are in no way “public amenities.”
Josh, there is only a current plan if the LPC agrees to withdraw landmark status. It’s not clear to me why the LPC should provide that amount of added value to a group of 12 members that hasn’t maintained their building for years and pays no taxes. I’m suggesting a solution that spreads around the benefits of doing something to solve this problem, thereby creating lots of winners, and enabling something to be done. The “sight lines as amenities” was facetious – but many commenters have raised this as an issue if a luxury tower is built. But there are in fact many possible public amenities when a new building is built. Not to mention that putting this issue behind us would be a blessing in itself.
The church is NOT a blight and a danger. It functions as more than a house of worship for 1 denomination of worshipers, there is another’, It functions also as an arts center, a theater group, children’s play area, has a pickleball court, and rooms for rehearsals, small concerts, and serves as a pride for native Upper West Siders! The sanctuary is absolutely beautiful!
The church only has 12 members because people don’t belong to churches anymore. Its not a priority for people. The Center for West Park has had 5 ears to raise the funds to restore the church and they have not done so. Theyclearly don’t have the ability to raise that kind of money.
I truly do not understand why the arts center and other users of the church building cannot do the same uses elsewhere, including in a new space on the same land, and with better access, services, space, and yes safety. I have been to many independent theater performances, some truly amazing, in both new buildings and old buildings. Yes the old are unique and charming but often grubby or uncomfortable and always with barriers to entry and use. The performances in the new buidlings provide the same opportunity for emerging writers and actors and fans, but with clean and accessible bathrooms, elevators, filtered air systems, and other things that simply cannot be offered to patrons at the current West Park church arts programs. Frankly the theater/arts Center would have more not less supporters and patrons in a new space. Why is the Center (and Matt Damon and Mark Ruffalo et al) refusing to do what it should to provide more and better and inclusive arts? Why do they insist that magical, transformative theater by emerging artists can ONLY be performed at the current location in the current building? I am baffled. Maybe if their argument made any sense, more people would support it.