Monday, June 12, 2023
Rain developing during the afternoon. High 73 degrees.
Notices and News
By Carol Tannenhauser
Our calendar has lots of local events! Click on the link or the lady in the upper righthand corner to check.
As the saga of West-Park Presbyterian Church progresses toward its denouement, only one thing seems certain: if the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) ultimately decides to remove the 133-year-old church’s landmark designation, and a developer called Alchemy tears it down and transforms it into a shiny new 19-story condominium, it will be irreversible.
The church was completed in 1890, but it is not a landmark just because it is old, as one Rag commenter has suggested. When it was awarded the designation in 2010, the LPC wrote: “… the extraordinarily deep color of its red sandstone cladding and the church’s bold forms and soaring tower anchor the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue and produce a monumental and distinguished presence along those streets….” It crescendos with the words, “the West-Park Presbyterian Church is one of the Upper West Side’s most important buildings.”
Who is responsible for the deterioration of this historic structure, which for 22 years has been surrounded by a sidewalk shed to protect pedestrians from pieces of the façade that have fallen off? The city that landmarked it? The congregation that owns it and is now claiming hardship because its condition is too compromised and costly to maintain? The community — one of the most affluent in the country, housing numerous billionaires — that professes to cherish it, but in two decades hasn’t raised the money to restore it? Or is there a collective responsibility, shared by all who have watched this tale of neglect unfold over decades?
Money really is the crux of it. The congregation wants to sell the church land to the developer for $33 million, because, the church claims, it will take $50 million to repair it — $50 million the church doesn’t have. A nonprofit performing arts group that has been renting space in the building since 2010 says that number is greatly inflated and has offered to buy the church — for far less than $33 million — and raise the money to restore it.
On Tuesday, the LPC will pick up the process, begun over a year ago, of deciding which side will prevail. The commission has already announced that it will not be taking the all-important vote to determine the church’s fate that day. Rather, it will be hearing testimony from the congregation and the public.
This is where you come in. If you have something to tell the commission about why West-Park Presbyterian Church should or should not be demolished or preserved, this is your opportunity. Below are all the links you need to participate.
June 13, 2023 Landmarks Preservation Public Hearing/Meeting
- Public Hearing/Meeting Agenda (This agenda has West-Park coming up in the afternoon, but times are subject to change) **Update: We have learned that the church discussion is scheduled for 1:15 PM. Those registered to testify are encouraged to join the Zoom meeting by 1:00 PM.
- Applicant presentations can be read here.
- Sign up to speak here (closes at 7 AM on the day of the hearing)
- Send written testimony to testimony@lpc.nyc.gov (written testimony is accepted until 12 noon on Monday.)
- The livestream will be available on the commission’s YouTube channel
Join the Zoom meeting using this link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85807710153?pwd=ajFmUyt1ZVZqQzR1UVUyeEZ4ZjBQQT09
Have a great week!
So sad. I think we can agree that landmarking the building 10 years ago didn’t make the situation better. The church continued to lose members and even the ability to use the space, the Center failed to raise any significant funds to maintain the building, etc., etc.
Whether the building needs $50 million in repairs or $35 million, the fact that the Center raised $65k in 10 years means any hope of some massive windfall of funders is a pipedream. If they had the money, they could have repaired the building 10 years ago for less…
I have no sympathy regarding saving the church. Upper West Siders have no qualms making it harder for area workers, visitors etc. to drive to the UWS; Upper West Siders have no qualms about being at best nonchalant about public transit concerns of those commuting to the UWS from outside Manhattan or at worst are fine with service between Manhattan and elsewhere being eliminated; Upper West Siders have no qualms about supporting overriding local zoning outside Manhattan while the UWS is the most in demand neighborhood. While the UWS gets celebrity support to save this church, people in the outer boroughs and suburbs get a hosing through making transportation infrastructure worse + overdevelopment on top of it.
I am not against historic district landmarking or against saving churches like this, but the way certain Upper West Siders treat people who work here like me while getting celebrity support when it’s THEIR concerns make me lose all sympathy toward concerns like this church.
Upper West Siders and Manhattanites south of 96th Street want their cake and to eat it too. This developer wants to build much needed housing on the UWS. I just hope that more people would be able to afford the UWS.
Without more housing, the upper west side will soon be affordable ONLY to people with over a 100 million in the bank.
By knocking down this admittedly historic structure, we can continue to keep the upper west side affordable for people who merely have 10-20 million dollars on hand, and we can preserve that affordability for threes of additional years.
People with merely 8-10 million dollars in the bank need our help, and if that means destroying irreplaceable architecture, so be it!
🙂
Wow how endearing your post is. We’re happy to have such a positive and unbiased voice in our discussion. Please come again.
Also, I nearly spit my coffee out from laughing after I read your ‘this developer wants to build much needed housing on the UWS.’ That was a good one. Yes, the mega rich do have many desires they consider ‘needs’ including luxury housing and opportunities to money launder by creating shell companies that purchase these homes and leave them vacant while the ultimate buyer lives overseas. I am pretty sure there is no shortage of housing on the UWS that caters to the fabulously wealthy – they’ll be fine.
In all seriousness, there is actually a housing crisis in the city and state. Please do not conflate that issue, that disproportionately affects poor and middle class people, with a few units of luxury housing.
All the housing built in the last few decades is not for middle class. Barely some of it is for upper middle class. Most of it is luxury developments for the very rich. Generous supply of these luxury condos makes no difference whatsoever to make general housing affordable. It is like offering more and more caviar when all people can afford is chicken legs.
You nailed it, MJB. We have more than enough of this “caviar” in our neighborhood. It does nothing for the community other than blocking air and light. It only benefits the developers who have a free reign with the city.
I want to preserve the church but we need to hear a viable strategy to save it with a reasonable timeline to fundraise. The scaffolding cannot sit there indefinitely. I have no doubt that the congregation inflated the repair costs because they really want to pocket the $35mm and become rich, but we also need to get on with the plan to solicit the more realistic bids for the work.
It is not that the couple dozen luxury condos units serve any purpose other to please the mega rich. It’s that if you don’t present a realistic alternative with a finite timeline, we have no choice but to give in because the current building is not safe.
It is very very costly to do construction in a way that passes landmark. My building had a door repaired. 40k. Not a new door. Repair of a plain regular door that was simply old. Xavier downtown did a restoration, nothing like disrepair we see here, if the inside but so it still looked how it always did I believe that was over 10m. No repairs like foundation required.
Perfectly stated. Thank you. Give them a year or two and move on.
If Gale Brewer and others were doing their jobs, they would be trying to negotiate a solution. Because there likely is some sort of potential middle ground. Stalling is not a solution. If it crumbles in the meantime, we will know who to blame…
I will send an “official” comment to the right email this morning. But, even as a long-time architectecture buff, I believe it is time to let this church go. Let’s hire a professional photographer to document this excellenit building for future study, then tear it down. Sadly, one of the shortcomings of the “blue” states (I’m clearly a liberal here but… ) is the refusal to build housing when needed for all income classes. Equally, sadly, the red states do a much better job of limiting those arcane zoning rules that only favor a tiny upper class majority. Thst is one of the sad reasons why housing is so much cheaper in most red states. Yes, this is all inter-related.
If you’re going to make it harder for area workers and frequent visitors to drive, make it harder to use transit, then you’re going to have to build more housing. It’s a hard truth.
But, as you well know, the potential buyer here will NOT be building housing “for all income classes,” but simply another copycat glass tower for the rich. So who benefits here but the developer & the dozen people who pocket the $33 million?
Hi Ken. Point of clarification – the 13 congregants do not pocket this money personally, it goes to the presbytery that owns the building
If a developer pays 33 million dollars to purchase the land, to whom does he pay it?
To the congregation, which will use it to operate the 10,000 square foot space in the new building, as well as an endowment to support mission programs which this church was long-famous for operating in the 70s, 80s, and 90s. None of this goes to any individuals.
I thought landmark didn’t prevent the sale of property. Seems like the owner whether congregation or otherwise should be able to sell to who they want then landmark deal with that buyers intent once they are the owners.
No real estate developer wants to buy a landmarked church building unless said developer is sure that LPC will either grant a COA for major changes to the structure – e.g. creating big windows for “light and air” for the prospective apartments, taking out “religious iconography,” etc – or will decertify the landmark altogether.
So far we are not aware of anyone who has put in a credible offer. “The Center at West Park” according to its 2022 tax filing, it had negative income of $186,176. As a non-profit its tax returns are available for public review at the NYS Attorney General’s website, so there is no point in arguing it is a credible buyer. Further, even if the church were strong armed into surrendering its property for less than the $33m offered price, whoever buys it has to be able to repair and restore in kind (as per the landmark law) and maintain it otherwise, we will be in the same situation as we are now. I live very close to it, and I cross the street rather than walk under the sidewalk shed, when that bell tower goes, no sidewalk shed will protect whoever is unfortunate enough to be underneath.
Sorry the building is not salvageable structurally or financially. Rather than having an abandoned boarded up property for the next ten years, please build something new there. If the new builders can save some of it, fine. If not, no loss.
The solution is to landmark the scaffolding, which is by now historic.
Post of the year!
Church scaffolding – keeping those waiting in line for Barney Greengrass or for the bus dry for over 20 years!
HA! There is scaffolding on nearly every block –that have been there for YEARS. It’s great if it’s raining out and you don’t have an umbrella, but is ugly, screws up sidewalk space for pedestrians, the people who erected them and allowed them to last for YEARS are unaccountable. I grew un on the UWS. It was NOT LIKE THIS!
And don’t even ask me about outdoor dining sheds.
This is the winning comment of this whole fiasco.
Funny. Actually it’s a “sidewalk bridge” or “sidewalk shed.” If there were scaffolding, that would bespeak work being done on the facade. If only.
The celebrities who seem to care so much about it should pay for the renovation!
Is this “should or should-not testimony” process even useful in its current format at this point? I imagine 90% of people, myself included, can and would make an emotional plea that the church SHOULD be saved. At the same time, virtually noone has made or is likely to make a coherent, dispassionate argument where all the tens of millions will come from and how quickly – other than the people who’ve actually made offers,
And this has been the status quo for at least 18-24 months now. So LPC needs to hear more sentiments – but not actually vote on a decision?
They question shouldn’t be IF we can preserve the church. The real question is HOW we can preserve the church.
I was born on the UWS in the 90s, and that church has been under scaffolding as long as I can remember. Time for it to go!
This is not about what should be done in an ideal world. We all know the church should be saved. That would be nice. However, the in the real world, that takes millions of dollars (anywhere from $20 – $50 million no doubt), and without a funding source the building will continue to sit there and deteriorate, with the horrible, light blocking, dirty shed in place, Eventually a giant peice will fall off and kill someone, then all the people who fought to keep the it there will cry that “someone” should have done something. Sadly, there is no someone coming to the rescue and inaction will only lead to another 10 years of nothing happening, or worse, tradgey.
How about we force the developer to build something suitable and appealing. It will never replicate what is there, but it can be better than another glass tower, which no one wants.
Celebrities fighting to save a historic UWS church shows that the UWS is a big part of the housing crisis as its the most in demand neighborhood. Not Bayside or Wantagh.
As a lifelong neighborhood resident, I will be very sad if the church is demolished. However, I acknowledge that I also don’t have $30+ million to help out, and I dread the day a chunk of that gorgeous red stone cladding lands on someone’s head. Every time the WSR publishes an update on the church, I go grab a bowl of popcorn, since this whole situation is practically a farce. I’ve been following closely, and it seems the church congregation leadership is pretty hostile to any efforts to help, based on accounts from one (or a few?) commenters who tried to fix it up a decade ago. I think the only way to get out of this is either to tear it down, or actual, meaningful city government intervention. I have to imagine the situation is compounded by the fact no one on the landmark commission wants their name permanently attached to greenlighting the demolition of the 100+ year old historic church (I wouldn’t either!) I look forward to tuning in for the next episode after the CB7 meeting!
In the late 1950s (pre-LPC), Carnegie Hall, facing bankruptcy, cut a deal with a developer to be acquired and replaced with a skyscraper. Violinist Isaac Stern ( an 86th St resident btw) and others persuaded the city to match the developer’s offer, buy the hall, and lease it to a new not-for-profit, the Carnegie Hall Corp, which operates it to this day. If LPC wants the church to survive, it should effect a similar arrangement. If that’s not possible (I doubt that it is), it should remove the designation and let the market take its course.
Save the past for the future
Just sell it, operate the new church to create affordable housing and community programs. Not a really an architectural loss to the UWS
The Historic Districts Council makes strong arguments against the congregation’s “hardship” claim. Here is the HDC’s testimony:
https://hdc.org/testimony/west-park-presbyterian-church-hardship-application-testimony/
The gist of it: “… nonprofits do not have the right to the “highest return” or “best use” of their property… courts, including the state’s highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals, have opined that a request to demolish a landmark will be denied when the applicant is trying to claim “best use” of its property, and the applicant does not, instead, meet the “charitable purpose” test… and the restriction here involved cannot be deemed an abridgement of any First Amendment freedom, particularly when the contemplated use, or a large part of it, is wholly unrelated to the exercise of religion, except for the tangential benefit of raising revenue through development.”
The State’s highest courts, the Court of Appeals, affirmed. The landmark designation, fought by the owner, was upheld.”
The building does not meet the current needs of the congregation. It does not have a valid COO, it doesn’t have accessible bathrooms, doors, elevators. The cost to add these to meet the needs of the congregation exceed the resources of the Church. The developer is proposing building a new building that will include ADA accessible facilities, better serving the needs of the congregation. It isn’t about financial returns, it is about the need of the current owner.