By Carol Tannenhauser
At Tuesday’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) hearing regarding West-Park Presbyterian Church, Chair Sarah Carroll made it clear from the start that no final action would be taken this week “or in the immediate future.”
The LPC is taking its time for good reason; whereas its mission is usually to preserve historic buildings, this time it must decide whether to allow one to be torn down.
The congregation of the 132-year-old church on the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue has filed a “hardship application,” declaring the building to be beyond repair, when assessed in terms of “return on investment.” They estimate the costs of restoration to exceed $50 million, a figure those fighting to save the church contest.
Tuesday’s meeting was a time for the church, represented by congregant Roger Leaf and his team – a lawyer, two engineers, an accountant, an appraiser, an architect, a developer, and others — to respond to questions raised by the public at the last LPC hearing on the church, held on June 14, as well as to testimony submitted online. The LPC commissioners, who have spent the last month reviewing the material, some making site visits to the church, would then have time to ask questions.
But, first, Leaf introduced some new information. “Both the north and south walls of the sanctuary are leaning outward,” he said. This information was not submitted at the June 14 meeting, because the church only received a letter on July 15 from structural engineers stating ‘the outward lean of the north and south walls is, quote unquote, excessive.’ They are currently monitoring whether this movement is ongoing.”
Leaf said the engineers determined the church’s south wall is about 27% overstressed, though that did not necessarily imply an emergency. “But it implies that it’s a structural condition that they recommend to be addressed.”
Estimated cost? “Another million or so.”
Commissioner Carroll did not respond directly to the announcement, but said the commission’s own engineering consultant had been asked to review and comment on all submissions. She said the commission is also hiring an outside expert to assist in reviewing the church’s application. “We will reconvene at a public meeting after Labor Day where these experts will present their findings to the commissioners.”
You can view the entire LPC hearing on YouTube below.
Thank you for the coverage. It is a shame that so much time and money is being wasted on engineering studies and the like. The money could be put to better use.
As a style point for WSR, when you are quoting someone, you can generally leave out the “um” and “uh” unless there is an important reason why it adds context, and it does not do so here.
I disagree. Filler language is not necessarily a “style point.” People’s speech should in fact be quoted accurately, and I commend the writer for being true-to-life.
What do you mean? Even when insurance company totals a 10,000 car, it makes an appraisal. This decision has important implications for the community so both sides need to be comfortable with the decision.
If anyone is wasting time, you can blame the church for rushing through this ridiculous hardship application when it is obvious they have artificially inflated renovation costs, refused to make basic repairs, refused to utilize historic tax credits, refused to explore opportunities to sell their air rights, and refused to fundraise on their website or social media platform to repair the facade. They have allowed the building to rot for a decade through malignant neglect in order to force the city to allow it to be demolished so that the Presbytery can earn a major developer windfall. The congregation is on its last legs. Anyone who believes the profits from developing the site will lead to a revitalized congregation and social services for the poor must have been born yesterday.
The congregation has about a dozen members. How do you expect a handful of people to support the costly repairs & maintenance needed to properly maintain this old building?
This is a problem all over the city. Houses of worship are old and crumbling and their memberships are down. There is simply not enough people to support the buildings. It oftentimes makes much more sense to sell the structures to a developer. If the developer provides space for the congregation in the building – which is often the case – then it’s a win for the congregation and the entire community.
You can rant all you want about malfeasance on behalf of the church but this is simply incorrect. If this church had a large and thriving membership chances are it would not be in danger of demolition.
If this “PRESBYTERY can earn a windfall” will the money be accountable and to whom? To us?
We will lose a landmarked piece of UWS HISTORY..
What will WE gain from their ‘Windfall”?.
We know what the developers will gain.
Thank you.
Wow. Who cares dude.
The church’s two reports over some 500 pages is loaded with misinformation about preserving the structure. It is commonplace for historic buildings to need repair, and in this instance, due to planned neglect which has put the public in danger.
This neglect suggests the church is hostile to the public and does not deserve to remain in charge of the facility.
Instead, it is urgent for a responsible party (with official participation) to take over the property and arrange for emergency repairs with proper consideration of the valuable historic elements and safety of those using the building and passersby.
Happily, the church’s reports provides documentation of planned neglect and a guide to what needs to be done to stabilize the structure as soon as possible.
Can you explain how a congregation of 12 people engages in “planned neglect?”
We understand that a congregation of 12 people named Gates, Buffett, Musk and Bezos could easily do it. But otherwise?
I think we all appreciate a congregation of 12 would not be able to raise the funds necessary by themselves to restore the building, But how much have the “Friends of West Park” raised and offered to kick in for the repair of the building in the last 12 years?
It’s frustrating to see so many people who clearly have little/no experience with building structural maintenance or historical preservation rant about “inflated costs” and “planned neglect”. It’s conspiratorial, and we have enough of that in our society right now.
Building maintenance is expensive. Older building maintenance is even more expensive. And it’s wildly expensive to maintain a church which is actually two separate structures re-clad in sandstone a hundred years ago. Only yesterday at the hearing did I learn that the church is actually two separate structures that were merged and re-clad to have a uniform exterior appearance — interesting!
What makes the church so unique is that it’s clad in sandstone. There’s a reason you don’t see lots of buildings entirely clad in sandstone; it’s very porous stone and very hard to maintain.
This is a difficult case, but it’s not helpful to have so many loud voices fomenting this conspiracy theory that 12 parishioners are conspiring to neglect a building they clearly can’t afford to maintain. It’s not clear anyone can afford to maintain it.
“There’s a reason you don’t see lots of buildings entirely clad in sandstone . . . ” There are literally thousands of buildings in NYC entirely clad in sandstone. Brownstone is simply brown sandstone. True, sandstone is soft and porous, but it will hold up if maintained properly and can be repaired when it fails. Just look at Trinity Church Wall Street, a brownstone structure that is nearly a half century older than West-Park.
You realize Trinity Church is one of the largest landowners in NYC. Has been that way for centuries.
Recent estimates put value of Trinity Church’s portfolio at $6 *billion* USD.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/nyregion/trinity-church-manhattan-real-estate.html
As such TC could well afford $12 million dollar price tag for restoration work recently undertaken.
https://www.6sqft.com/behind-the-scenes-at-trinity-churchs-112m-historic-restoration/
Yes, of course. My point was simply that West-Park is not constructed of some uniquely fragile material. There are many, many well preserved sandstone buildings throughout the city — row houses, churches, early office buildings. Maintaining them only becomes problematic if you neglect them for too long.
Dear” DUDES”
Our church, WEST PARK PRESBYTERIAN 86th and Amsterdam:
Is this piece of UWS HISTORY ‘worth” saving ?..For what reason and for whom? If it can be ‘restored’ can it be re-purposed ? RE-PURPOSED..Made USEFUL to the community?.
We know what and for whom it will be of use to a Muti Unit Glass Condo Tower developer and it’s high income earning tenants..
Please remember once this piece of our HISTORY is deemed of NO VALUE either to the city, or to US it will be erased forever..
Thankyou
Leave aside for the moment that it is a religious building. If this were any other building, the present owners would have sole and exclusive right to decide how, what and when to do with it. It is called “property ownership.” If it were, say, a six-story tenement building and the owner wanted to raze it and build a taller condo building, they would have the sole right to do so (within certain DOH, DOB and other City regulations).
The only difference here is that the building is a church, and a City agency has determined that it is a “landmark” – at best an arbitrary designation, at worst an illegal “taking” of property. (Two attorneys with whom I spoke, one a landmarks attorney, both told me that if the LPC rules against the hardship application, and the church decides to sue, it would win on both an “illegal taking” and under its First Amendment right to “the free exercise of their religion, which is being impinged.)
From every standpoint – legal, ethical, moral – it should be axiomatic that the congregation should have the sole and exclusive right to determine the disposition of the building. Period.
Save the church, restore and rebuild it after selling to a non profit. The non profit can raise the money to fix it with the help of Gale Brewer. She said as much. She cant raise money for a religious institution but she can raise money for a non profit. Dont let them tear it down. Its a beautiful structure, an original UWS landmark. Restore it. Rebuild it.