In a lengthy meeting Tuesday night on Zoom, Community Board 7 rejected a proposal that would have allowed West Park Presbyterian Church, on 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, to be torn down and replaced with a high-rise condominium.
The community board’s vote is advisory only, but it carries significant weight as a conduit for public sentiment. Around 160 community members attended last night’s meeting, and dozens testified, along with board members, most in favor of preserving the church.
In contrast to the many calls to save the church, several community board members spoke strongly in favor of allowing it to be torn down and replaced with the proposed condo development. They argued that it was highly unlikely the church — or anyone else — could raise the funds needed for repairs.
The church has already been surrounded for more than 20 years by a sidewalk shed put in place to prevent possible injury to passersby in case pieces of the crumbling facade were to fall on the sidewalk below.
City Council Member Gale Brewer, who also spoke, expressed confidence that the money will be raised.
The final vote was 24 in favor, 13 opposed, 7 abstentions.
The next step is for the congregation to take its case to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) on June 14, for a final, decisive ruling on their application.
The congregation is seeking to have the landmark designation removed from the church on the grounds that it can no longer sustain the building or pay for the estimated $50 million dollars worth of repairs the church needs.
Removing the landmark designation would allow the congregation to sell the church to Alchemy Properties, with plans to raze and replace the 19th-century structure with a 19-story condominium, including a new 10,000-square-foot space for the church.
At the same meeting, the community board voted to accept the amended bylaws submitted by its Bylaws Task Force, 30-8, with 7 abstentions. However, the opposition was strong, particularly regarding new rules concerning the interaction of board members with the media and the conflicts of interest of some board members.
We will keep you posted about both stories.
You can view the full board meeting below.
Once again, WSR covers this story with zero mention of the severe housing shortage facing the city. We need housing and CB7 wants to keep a decrepit church with little historical significance instead. That’s the story.
CB7 has become a very embarrassing and out of touch institution. Normally I’d say get out and vote, but unfortunately they’re unelected and don’t represent the community by design. They just want to keep their property values high and keep their free parking – everyone knows it. WSR should cover them with a much more critical eye.
AMEN! And when you see your small businesses suffering because there aren’t enough customers to keep them in business, you can thank Gale Brewer, the outdated dictatorship of CB7 and the decrepit church still there in 5 years because a new building was denied going up that would have been full of PEOPLE.
Don’t complain when you walk down avenues with empty vacant stores. This would have helped all the small businesses nearby. Thank you so much, Gale and CB7 for hurting businesses once again!
Living on the Upper West Side is not an inalienable human right. There are plenty of places to live in other boroughs and neighborhoods. Tearing down historical structures that add color to the neighborhood and replacing them with soulless condo units is not the answer to anything.
Tell that to the hundreds of UWS residents living in below market rent regulated apartments.
Absent RC or RS they wouldn’t be able to afford living in area. Then you’ll hear a different story about “inalienable right” to live on UWS.
You can add those who bought decades ago when prices were far cheaper into that lot as well.
Either way UWS has a surplus of those who got theirs when they could, but now seem intent on freezing UWS in some sort of past because it suits their purposes.
When your city is facing a severe housing shortage and has very little developable land, then building more housing on unused lots like this one is very much the answer.
People who can afford to live in these luxury UWS condos are not the same people facing a severe housing shortage. Come on.
Frequently these condos include affordable housing units, and increasing the supply of housing overall is what will moderate prices for the broader market.
Sorry Mr. Real Estate-There is no shortage of luxury housing in NY and that includes the UWS! Can’t you think of some excuse based on a modicum of truth? You know that this proposed development is more housing for very rich people, many of whom buy for investment with no intention of living in our community.. This has zero to do with a severe housing shortage as there is none-except for affordable housing which won’t be built here. Period.
The church has been covered in scaffolding for 20 years and has no congregation. How is that adding color to the neighborhood besides blight?
I think the 100+ families that would live in the condos (which are very in line with the look of the surrounding neighborhood) would add a lot more color to the neighborhood.
100%. It’s an absolute shame that it came to this, but at the end of the day what do we value more – dilapidated buildings or people? I fear Ms. Brewer and a majority of CB7 made their choice last night.
As an NYC taxpayer, I truly hope Gale Brewer fails in this effort to get the city pay millions to restore a church that has no congregation or historical significance. That is an absurd use of public funds.
if I an not mistaken, neither Gale nor anyone can allocate city funds to the church (given the separation of church and state) in its current ownership. The property would need to be sold to a not for profit or some private third party and then can city funds be directed to restore, redevelop and maintain the property. Then the next question becomes, how does a not-for-profit have the $ to acquire the property without the church willing to sell for a discount.
Gale Brewer was around the last time and said the same thing and no funds were found or raised. I predict if they refuse to take away the Landmark protection that the same thing will happen this time and that scaffolding will remain for another decade. Heck the church may just collapse. I also predict that the small non profit won’t be able to raise the necessary funding,
Finally!!!
CB7 does something great.
Thank you.
We need the church more than we need another high rise condo.
Kudos!
This is not about religion. In fact, it is unethical, to have let the church rot, like slumlords do.
We don’t need a ticky tacky development city. We wouldn’t even go Jetson! We’d go Trump, like those ugly high rises blocking our beautiful waterfront.
When we talk about Europe, one hears about historical buildings and eclectic and charming architecture. Can’t we also have good things?
And speaking of the latter, who is it we are talking about, when we say we need more housing? Where the heck will the teachers and housekeepers live? A three hour commute is exploitation. Who are we, as a city?
The church has been surrounded by scaffolding for 20 years. It will very likely still be surrounded by scaffolding 20 years from now.
Where does Gale Brewer expect to get the funds – whether it’s $50M or $5M or $500K – to restore this building?
This church has been a dangerous eyesore for 20 years. Why is she only now expressing “confidence the money will be raised” to restore the building?
The UWS needs new modern housing. It doesn’t need a crumbling and seldom used church. Even the few remaining congregants want the church torn down.
BTW, CB7 does not “reflect public sentiment”. The members are selected by political hacks like Brewer.
Gale has always been nebulous about the funding; she seems to think the other members of the City Council and the Mayor’s Office will sign off on this eight figure commitment to restore the building, because none of the other council members have their own pet projects in need of City money. As another poster observed, the current arts group in residence at the WP has $78,000 on account according to their annual filings with NYS. Even if the city were to fund the entire $50m to repair and restore, there is no indication the arts groups could maintain the building as a going concern. I live one block from WP and will no longer walk on that side of the block, because when the walls collapse, the scaffolding will not be sufficient to protect anyone underneath.
The most charitable thing to do would be to give those intent on saving the church a deadline (say 6 months) with which to raise the money, and not some “plan to raise the money.” If they cannot come up with cash on the barrel, the building should be sold at market rate and the wrecking ball moved into place.
Why should we taxpayers shell out a minimum, that’s minimum I say, of $50,000,000 to restore a church that has no congregation or in fact any religious house of worship? Taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to financially support religious organizations, they do already have tax exempt status. On the other hand however if a private individual would want to restore the abandoned church for use as a concert venue and event space I would be all for a partial government subsidy and a tax exemption of some sort. The church should add substantial value to the community and since there is no longer a religious purpose for the building maybe a private nonsecular purpose could be found. Or raze it.
Decrepit brick building with minimal maintenance will cost fortune to bring up to code. Whatever the “experts” estimate, try 10x that much.
Perhaps some people would have voted differently if the alternative was a more modest sized building and/or one that will not be super high end.
The church has been anything but Godly for many years. Perhaps they can give back to this community by accepting a smaller amount from a developer who will build a smaller middle class building? Or at least use some of the $50 million windfall to help the UWS.
“City Council Member Gale Brewer, who also spoke, expressed confidence that the money will be raised.”
From where? Mrs. Brewer has been saying this for decades now, and thus hasn’t produced much if any significant funding.
What Mrs. Brewer means she along with rest of “Save WP” supporters want to strong arm the congregation into giving up the property. Once it is no longer a place of worship working theory goes piles of money could be raised.
If LPC rejects WP’s application my money is congregation’s next move will begin legal proceedings.
The developer behind this proposed construction has the ability to fund a lawsuit as far as they want to take it. I can easily see the current Supreme Court striking down NYC’s Landmarks Preservation Law as an unlawful taking of property in violation of the Fifth Amendment (and please do not think because there is precedent to the contrary it’s going to matter now).
As a 60 year resident on the UWS, I say NO MORE LUXURY APARTMENT BUILDINGS. Developers are ruining this area. There must be other ways to improve our area
YES! New, clean, modern buildings fit for the next 50 years are ruining the neighborhood. We need more crumbling 120yr-old brick, the sweet, enriching smell of mold from the 1950s, beautiful 20yr rusty scaffold, select, green-colored lumber and plywood from the salvage yard to adorn more of our sidewalks and bring us forward. It’s a win-win for everyone and such a beautiful, practical and meaningful daily reminder of the deep religious roots of future generations (or at least that of 12 people in the congregation). I urge everyone who’s lived here for 60+ years to keep informing us how they see the future of the neighborhood developing. The humility in that is truly… humbling. Their role in shaping our future will be vital, as will their thoughts and prayers when dilapidated buildings with no use fall on someone’s head.
I am long gone from the UWS, but for several years, in the ’50’s, I passed the church when I rode the 86th Street crosstown bus to work. I was always intrigued by the catchy titles of the sermon of the week. I’d hate to see this beautiful nuilding disappear.
Gale Brewer has been clear all along that she opposes tearing down the church. Gale is also totally in support of affordable housing. The two positions can go together.
If Gail Brewer has access to money to spare, why in her multi-decades in public office in Manhattan has she never found the money to renovate the fenced off Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Riverside Park? Can she answer this question before the Parks Dept. lets this magnificent gem crumble into rubble?
Why not use the existing building as the lobby of the new condo building. At the same time they could repair the existing building and perhaps have a small chapel for the congregants.
For all those bashing Gale Brewer let me beg to differ. Gale Brewer was instrumental in saving the First Church of Christ Scientist-a Carrere & Hastings church on Central Park West by the most distinguished architects of the Gilded Age-a landmark which was also trashed by some of the same obviously pro-real estate people commenting here. It was called obsolete even though a Congregation still worshipped there. Sadly the church was sold out from under them by their West Coast father church seemingly for the money as the residing Pastor made an offer to assume the mortgage to no avail. After it was bought by a developer it was then flipped to another developer as religious sanctuaries are seen as hot commodities by developers. This developer came up with a bewildering plan to condo it. By punching some 40 windows into the solid century old granite among many other things. Did I mention it was a designated landmark?
Through solid community involvement the church was saved for a much better use when the developer could not get the many variances he needed. Brewer and those who protected this landmark indeed helped find a community group who bought the church for a hefty sum to turn it into the Children’s Museum and helped to raise funds for it. Not only could money be raised, money has been raised for the ambitious construction project soon to begin.
So a world class museum will come to the UWS from a landmark many wanted to see demolished. Or turned into condos for the mega rich. That’s how big real estate is transforming this city-a city is increasingly losing its history, and its character.
Almost the only thing developers want to build are luxury condos. Developments that are neither wanted or needed contributing to the affordable housing crisis. The one proposed for West Park would be the same at the cost of an irreplaceable piece of New York history. Another homogeneous building for the very rich of no particular distinction that could be any city USA.
If you’re looking for one of those go to Broadway between 85th and 96th. You’ll find about 6 of them- newly built and ready for investment-for all those claiming a lack of housing out of reach to most who actually live here.
what you’ve described is the so-called “unicorn.” There are not many organizations that can simply afford to purchase this church at fair market value and then fund the costs to restore and maintain the church building, even if the City earmarks some dollars for the work.
Also, if I recall, many people spoke out against the Children’s Museum planned restoration and conversion.
People spoke out against the scale of additions to the roof that CMOM wanted. Those people, though, were glad about the overall outcome for CMOM, the landmark and the neighborhood.
I understand that some people would rather have a new (luxury?) condo building and others would rather have the WP building used by an arts group or the like. An issue that few have spoken to, however, is the landmarks law and the way it’s applied. Our city can’t have a functional law protecting landmarks if owners can allow the landmarks to deteriorate and then get the buildings decertified by pleading “hardship.” We can’t have zoning and landmarks protections and then allow them to be flouted on a scale even greater than what we often see.
The community wanted to assure the design proposal for the church reuse was appropriate for its landmark designation and fair to its neighbors. The Children’s Museum was always welcomed as the new owner of the church. There is nothing wrong with differing opinions as to how to achieve the best outcome.
From the beginning there was nothing but naysayers about the fate of First Church. I’d never heard more-“it can’t be done”. Wrong. It can be done with a commitment from all involved.
Empty store fronts are the result of too high rents and people ordering on line. We have more than enough people to buy in stores, but, as anyone who breathes can see we have elected to buy on line.
I wouldn’t want to question the motives of those in these pages who support tearing down this historic structure, but will say that I see no credible arguments from them, only personal attacks and claims of concern about affordable housing, empty storefronts, etc. Really? Another high-end condo will fix all that?
I see no comments on the specific plans put out by Council Member Brewer which, to at least one person’s taste, show the type of activism and creativity we need from our elected officials.
As a 40 year UWS resident, I trust the Landmarks Commission to do its job and help keep what’s left of the unique history and sense of place we have in NYC. If the Commission needs to factor in the views of the community at large, all it needs do is look at the CB7 vote or take a quick poll of actual residents.
Why not suggest a combined approach? Renovate the church into condos. Maybe to make that project profitable, you have to allow building up above the church. But at least you would be retaining the original structure and the beauty of the architecture. Regardless, the church should not be rewarded with a big payday for neglecting its property for so many years!
A high rise condo is NOT going to contribute to alleviating an affordable housing shortage (there’s no shortage of super $$$ housing – that’s all that’s been built in the past 10 years) – don’t know what these people are going on about in the comments section. Totally misguided. It’s only going to put another incredibly ugly building in the middle of a gorgeous pre-war architectural area for multi-millionaires to live in. Keep the architecture that makes the UWS unique and beautiful.
And yet if a developer proposed replacing the church with a building consisting solely of affordable housing units, many of the commenters here would complain about it attracting “homeless” people to the UWS. NIMBYism is a disease.
That doesn’t even make sense. How are they homeless if they are literally paying to live in a home?
I have no idea how money can be produced to fix the church (and I’ve been to a couple flamenco performances there pre-pandemic, it definitely needs help), but having lived in this neighborhood my entire life I hadn’t realized how much I would miss that little red church until I saw the rendering of corner with the proposed new building. Hurt my soul a little.
Thank you, thank you. The building lives, and it will continue to live….and prosper. I’m so sick and tired of tearing down building – strong buildings – to build flimsy, up quickly, hi-risers – not to mention their cracker-jack appearance! Look what’s happening to Eagle Court on the corner of 84th and Broadway….and right next door to it……. affordable housing????
I am a fundraiser at a large non-profit. There is no way they will be able to raise enough money to conserve and restore this building. The time to sell was 20 years ago; unfortunately now we have an unsafe building with old scaffolding, and a spot where people loiter and urinate all day long. The city should seize it and develop it into affordable housing. The church should not make a dime from the sale; they were poor stewards of a beautiful building which was allowed to rot.
Lets be honest: Its an ugly building. Have you ever been inside it? Its even uglier.
But the truth is, which some people have referenced, this “preservation” is really only about preventing the building of yet another expensive condo in the UWS. If we could use the space for attractive low-rise, low-price apartments, perhaps CB7 would approve the re-designation of West Park.
Has there been any discussion to incorporate part or all of the existing Romanesque Revival structure into the new building’s design? Would that be feasible?