Community Board 7 on Tuesday will consider the future of the landmarked West Park Presbyterian Church at Amsterdam and West 86th Street. A developer wants to demolish the 19th century red sandstone building and replace it with a residential tower that would also include space for the church – which currently has just 12 members. The project has generated extensive opposition within the community, including from City Council Member Gale Brewer.
Last month, a community board committee voted to recommend that the church remain landmarked (which would kill the development project but without resolving the issue of how to finance badly needed repairs to the building and its façade). That recommendation comes before the full board at its 6:30 p.m. Zoom meeting Tuesday. To join the meeting, register here. To file a comment on the issue, submit statements in writing before noon Tuesday. Those who wish to speak can register in advance but the number of speakers and time allotted to each is likely to be limited.
Whatever position the board takes will be forwarded to the Landmarks Preservation Commission, which will have the final say on whether the church remains landmarked or can be torn down for a new development. The developer will address the commission at a June 14 meeting, Information on how to testify or join that online meeting will be posted on the agency’s website, under the “Hearings” tab on the Monday before the public hearing.
We don’t need more luxury condo towers. We need housing for working people. The plan to declare hardship for the West Park Presbyterian Church does not aim to provide affordable housing. Moreover, it subverts the Landmark law. By this logic, any owner of a landmarked property could allow the property to deteriorate so as to get the Commission to remove landmark status. And in the present case, hardship is not an issue, since it has been shown that the costs of renovating the structure for non-profit use is 1/3 what the owners and developers claim is the cost.
It’s one thing to have no new housing. It’s another to have new housing pitched ONLY to higher end clients, driving out other people. The building can be used to generate income and benefit the neighborhood as an arts center, for which public funds can be made available.
Who is this “we” you are referring to?
WP never should have been landmarked in first place. It was rot and ruin then, and things have only gotten worse.
LPC only became involved when Gale Brewer opened her mouth about if building were landmarked she would see to it vast funds for required work would materialize. That didn’t nor hasn’t happened and Ms. Brewer knew then and now why. Neither federal, state or local taxpayer money can go to religious organizations except under limited strict circumstances.
It was residents of buildings flanking WP that would lose their lot line views who agitated most about “saving” that pile of bricks. Head of major group to “save West Park” indeed lives in one such building.
Please explain how anyone will be driven out if this decrepit church is torn down.
Anti-development folks always claim that somehow people will be driven out of the neighborhood by increasing housing supply. But they can never point to a single example of this actually happening.
We need more housing in the neighborhood, not an unused church that is literally falling apart.
Not only is this falling apart and posing a danger from falling debris, it has become a safe haven for people who are homeless, aggressive and use this as a public toilet.
Having lived in the area for 20+ years, it has only gotten worse, How about a school with some affordable housing?
Where are my property and city taxes going?
School and/or Arts Center and affordable housing — YES. We have more than enough luxury housing going up all over the neighborhood, with little to no affordable housing.
In many cases, high-end condo towers replace buildings that provided lower-cost housing. They also raise the real estate tax base of the neighborhood. That in turn raises housing costs. In the case of West Park Pres, the second of these factors will hold if the developer’s proposal becomes reality.
Actually, you’re wrong.
Virtually all “lower-cost” housing is rent-regulated. Therefore, it is next to impossible for anyone to tear down these buildings to replace them with a new building. In the rare situations these buildings are torn down it is because the tenants agree to very generous payouts to break their leases.
Second, the real estate taxes of other buildings will not go up if a new building is constructed. I’m not sure where you come up with this assertion. If anything, residents of the city will benefit because the city will be collecting MORE taxes from this new building.
Third, not a single person will be displaced if this church is replaced. The last time I checked nobody lived in the church.
Tax assessors review the market values of all the properties in a community. They determine changes in assessments based on changes in the real estate market in an area. Many people complain that their taxes rise as nearby properties are expanded or replaced by bigger structures. Bloomberg News has been writing about this.
What the West Side doesn’t need is another expensive Condo or Rental building where the prices are out of reach unless you are an Investment Banker. The need is for affordable housing. If the plan was for that I think it could be more palatable. I understand the congregation can’t afford the repairs. I also don’t understand why people think some magic fix is out there for a non profit or the government to help when that didn’t happen the last time when they first landmarked it and they said that would happen. It didn’t happen last time what has changed so it will happen this time?
If the church sells the building and it’s converted as an arts center or the like, public funds that can’t support a church can be used to help support the arts center. When the building was landmarked, the church was (as it still is) the owner.
And where pray tell are you going to find $50 million in funding for a small non profit? Again it’s looking for a unicorn solution.
An Arts Center could be part of a new building dedicated to affordable housing for middle-class families with a percentage of apartments for those with lower incomes as was done in the original Upper West Side Urban Renewal buildings.
I understand that The Center at West Park, an arts organization, has offered to buy the building and go about fixing it. That won’t cost the $50 million that the developer’s team said. Experts who argued for preserving landmark status estimated repairs would cost much less – I think c. $15 million.
Years ago they wanted to tear down St. Paul & St. Andrew, but it’s doing well and is used by many groups. West Park Pres is already being used by arts groups.
There’s also the problem that the building was allowed to deteriorate. To decertify a landmark over deterioration basically guts the landmark law, since any owner who wants to sell could just let the building deteriorate and then claim “hardship.”
If the developers were to offer 40%-50% of the units as affordable and create market rate units instead of luxury ones, I think the public would be way more in favor of this development.
PS: I like the new posting format, WSR!
KEEP THAT CHURCH HERE…restore it and the wonderful stage inside too for plays….it’s our HISTORY here on Uppe West Side…lets NOT remove all our history!!
It’s private land. Owners should be allowed to do what they want with it.
From what I know, I’m totally in favor of the plan to build high-end apartments in place of the church. My reasons: Affluent people in a neighborhood do contribute to the overall level of amenities, as families and as consumers. Think of schools (public and private), restaurants, stores, parks, civic life, and on and on. What’s more, NYC needs the tax base for all the good things that NYC does. Last, aesthetically, I’m just not at all impressed with the aesthetics of the church building.
I think the church should stay because it looks nice. No more reason than that should be needed.
If you owned the building, it would be your call!
Since you don’t, it’s unclear why the church/developer should take your aesthetic preferences into consideration….
I am not in favor of tearing down this beautiful building. It is landmarked for a reason and it should be preserved. The obvious question of course is where does the money come from to preserve this beautiful building. Affordable housing is certainly not the answer. There are plenty of affordable places to live if one actually searches for it. There are many neighborhoods outside of Manhattan that are affordable. What ever happened to people actually living where they could afford? Why do people believe it is their right to live wherever they want without having the means in which to do so?? I would like to live in Greenwich, CT or Bel Air, CA. Oh….. wait….. I can’t afford to live there. So those cities should build special affordable housing just so I can live there?? Absolutely ridiculous. Enough with the affordable housing talk. Go live where you can afford to live. Just like I did and many others like me for many many years.
I do not understand the objections to this project, and I count myself among those who wish that this handsome building was well maintained and enriched the corner of 86th and Amsterdam.
However, we need to take stock of reality. Unfortunately, the building has become a blight; it is covered by scaffolding and the steps are used as an encampment. The congregation has 12 members and has no way to fund the restoration of the building. There is no plan to find funding to fix this building, nor would any plan, including hand waiving about “non-profits,” be realistic. This proposal would build apartments and find a new home for the church. Saying “no” is not constructive. It simply ossifies the status quo and ensures the building will continue to fall into disrepair.
At the end of the day, this project will provide a path forward for the congregation that clearly no longer has the means to maintain this building and will result in a net increase in the housing supply. You may not like this outcome, but it is objectively better than any other option on the table.
How many affordable housing units will preserving the church create?
The one thing I can’t find on the newly updated site is a place to say thank you for the newly updated site. So I’ll put it here. My first thought when the update was announced was “It ain’t broke so don’t fix it.” But I like it! A lot! Looks newsier, more journalistic, easy to navigate, while retaining much of the local charm. (Thank you for keeping the newsboy.) Good work, Carol et al!
I want to add (and echo Otis) that more housing is always better for everyone, even if it’s luxury housing. More luxury housing means fewer higher income residents in affordable housing, which means more affordable housing being available. You can’t see these effects when you’re not building sufficient housing but that’s how it works!
The church is unsafe and falling down. It will take millions to stabilize that no one has. Build something new there.
In the small city my relatives live in, a church – which had a very tiny congregation – was converted into a community workshop and educational center where people could do woodworking and crafts, classes could be taught, space used for tutoring etc.
Maybe this could become a legal marijuana dispensary. Some large individual dispensaries generate over $10million in revenue per year. That amount could be sufficient to fund the repair work.
a jewel surrounded by hi risers
God. Save this bldg.
I’d much rather see a little piece of history decorating the neighborhood than yet another condo building.
Me too. Nothing decorates the neighborhood better than aging scaffolding for another 15-20 years, enveloping crumbling red brick. It’s (ancient) history in the making.
The West Side Presbyterian Church could be converted to a neighborhood (arts)center. With all the money businesses, and individuals have, this would be a perfect place to endow.
It could fill a real need on the Upper West Side by inviting retired adults to teach classes in theater, comedy, painting, drawing, sculpture, music (guitar, harmonica, banjo, piano, etc.) cooking and baking to young people.
It’s a way to interest kids in something other than hanging out and can boost their confidence.
Instead of worrying about the so called dangerous streets, we would be doing something for the members of our community.
With help, I know we can do it. It’s more important for our future than anything else.
Nothing was stopping WP from becoming a “neighborhood arts center” now. Yet do you see anyone ponying up funds to make such a place happen?
Have never understood this mania from certain inhabitants of New York City that everything be donated or otherwise given free of charge. Someone wants a “cultural center” or whatever, buy the property at seller’s price, then are free to do whatever with real estate they now own.
I have asked before and will ask again: if it is sold for $50 million (or any other amount), who gets the proceeds? The Presbyterian Church? How about some of that money is reinvested in the community in another way? So the high end apartments get built but the community also benefits. For example, they can use the $50 million to build affordable housing in a less desirable area where the money will go a lot further. Not sure why no one is discussing the obligation of the current “owners” here. They strike me as the greedy ones here.
Congregation of WP are actual owners of property, so they will benefit from any sale, same as any other nonprofit.
WP congregation has said they will donate portion of funds from sale to Presbytery of New York.
https://www.nycpresbytery.org/congregations
Churches, synagogues and other houses of worship often are built and owned by respective congregations or a religious order. Presbyterian churches like other Protestant congregations often raised funds to build a church by charging members a fee to rent or buy their pews. Hence even today you can still see names of original or last owners of pews on attached little placards.
It is time to move on and demolish this eyesore . It is dangerous with the pealing paint continuously falling. The church has no means to raise money and rehab the building.
Much drama as this hearing is expected to generate, community board votes are only advisory. While various city agencies including LPC do listen to such recommendations, they aren’t binding.
As stated in another thread on this matter, LPC gave in and approved Saint Vincent’s hospital’s plans to demolish O’Toole building to build a new hospital. This over objections from local community board. LPC feared Saint Vincent’s would bring legal action, and given their dire financial situation likely would have found a sympathetic ear in court.
Happily (or not, depending upon one’s point of view), whole thing became moot as Saint Vincent’s went bankrupt. O’Toole building was sold to North Shore-LIJ who didn’t demolish, but repurposed building instead.
Save the church. Don’t destroy more of the Upper West Side.
It is part of our history. Save the church.
The church has 12 members and no money. The Presbytery has no money and dozens of other churches in the five boroughs needing repairs. Who will pay to restore, repair and operate this old building? It is not fair to oppose the project with no alternative and to let the building g crumble.
You live long enough in this New York and anything is likely to happen. And now an Upper West Side organization/church wishing to remove its landmark status on a Romanesque church more than 130 year old because it cannot appear to make a compromise deal with potential buyers who would wish for the landmark to remain. And having allowed it to deteriorate through neglect seemingly hoping to go this route.
As the founder of a community organization that helped save a landmark Christian Science Church on Central Park West, the community found it could be done. And a very poorly thought out plan to turn the First Church of Christ Scientist into condos for billionaires was completely nixed and a much better plan for the Children’s Museum to reside there was finally achieved. And the community will be the richer for it as a world class museum comes to a historic and important landmark loved on the Upper West Side. A win-win despite substantial compromises.
It was done once on the Upper West Side and it can be and should be done again. There is no point to really arguing with the” no amount of luxury real estate is ever enough” crowd. They would bulldoze the Roman forum if given a chance and build luxury towers there. But there would never be a chance in a great Euroopean city that respects and maintains its historic monuments unlike here in NY. It’s just the way it is.
Whether the community gives into this continuing penchant to turn our city into more and more of an investment vehicle for the super rich to dump their money and live elsewhere is up to the citizens who actually live here. And wish to remain.
hurrah Susan!!! So well said.
Sell the church to the non profit who can raise money for restoration, and have a community center there. Its beautiful architecture thats been neglected. Do not tear it down for another high rise. The congregation have been negligent and stand to gain financially from their neglect of this architectural gem. Shame on them. That cant be allowed.
Tonight CB 7 voted against decertifying West Park Pres as a landmark. I invite concerned citizens to go on to submit testimony to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. It is in the interest of the neighborhood and in the City’s interest that Landmarks laws be implemented, not subverted.
This LANDMARK need not be demolished. The “hardship” argument is bogus. Let’s defend our city’s heritage and the health of its neighborhoods.