By Bobby Panza
The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) met on Tuesday to discuss the findings of two independent consultants about the condition, cost, and feasibility of restoring West-Park Presbyterian Church, the 133-year-old, red sandstone building on the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue. Described as “one of the Upper West Side’s most important buildings” by the LPC, it was landmarked in 2010, despite opposition from Church representatives about the state of disrepair it was in. It has been surrounded by a sidewalk shed for 22 years.
There were two important takeaways from the October 31 LPC meeting.
(1) In June 2022, the church’s 12-member congregation filed a “hardship application,” claiming that they could not afford to repair and carry the church any longer, asking the LPC to de-landmark it so they could sell it, for $33 million, to a real estate developer who planned to demolish it and replace it with a luxury condominium. Their team of lawyers, engineers, and accountants set the cost of restoring the church at $50 million, then, dropped it to $26 million.
At the meeting, Donald Friedman, of Old Structures Engineering PC, the structural engineering firm hired by the LPC, said, “My cost for immediate safety work [in order to take the sidewalk shed down]…is, roughly, $1,700,000. “My cost for the entire project, if you include the stained glass windows, gets up to a little over $9 million over five to 10 years.” (The full report is here.)
“The applicant/developer wanted to create the false impression that this precious landmark building is a lost cause,” said Michael Hiller, the Center’s attorney, by email to the Rag. “Well, it’s not a lost cause. And now the Commission knows it.”
(2) Even if it weren’t a landmark, the church cannot be demolished at this point in time, because it is tied up in court in a lease disagreement with its tenant, the Center at West Park, a nonprofit community-arts organization that is fighting to save the building. “In 2018, the church entered into a five-year lease with the Center to operate the property, with an option for an additional five-year term, which the Center exercised in February 2022,” said Mark Silberman, deputy counsel for the LPC. “Depending on the outcome of the litigation [the church] might not be able to be demolished until around 2028.”
There was also a lot of talk about whether the church could yield the 6% return on investment required by the commission if the renovations were done. The church says no, and an independent appraiser seemed to agree with him. Hiller called the appraiser, hired by the commission, “inexperienced in terms of historic buildings” and “incompetent,” pointing out that “other community facility properties throughout the Upper West Side generate upwards of twice that amount.”
Following the meeting, a spokesperson for West Park Presbyterian Church told West Side Rag in an e-mail, “While we are still reviewing the details of the studies commissioned by the LPC, we appreciate that the independent review of our hardship application confirms the studies and analysis we presented. Our congregation remains focused on ensuring a path forward to create a safe, modern worship space in the Upper West Side where we can gather and invite our neighbors to celebrate arts and culture in our community.”
No public testimony was allowed during the October 31 meeting, but the public can submit comments for the record until November 14 by e-mailing: testimony@lpc.nyc.gov.
Currently, the next meeting in this never-ending saga has not been scheduled.
To receive WSR’s free email newsletter, click here.
This is a joke, right?
$1.7m to fix immediate safety issues? Not a chance … simple LL11 work on a moderate size building costs $400-500K (I know because I’m on the Board of my condo and have participated in multiple LL11 cycles). This church requires a lot more work after being neglected for 20+ years and with all the red standstone is a more specialized effort.
Other issues:
– Whether it is $10m or $20m, where is the money going to come from? Gale Brewer certainly is not providing it even though she said it would be “easy” to raise the funds
– What is the plan for ensuring the Church is sustainable? Who is going to provide on-going funds to ensure this situation does not repeat?
And most critically, where is the plan to get rid of the 22 year old scaffolding?
Anyone looking for “the plan” to take down the sidewalk shed can find it in Donald Friedman’s / Old Structures Engineering’s report to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (see link in WSR article).
Friedman’s $1.7mm Phase 1 covers all work needed to resolve the outstanding Building Department violations, as well as to eliminate other identified near-term hazards (<2-5 yrs. out). Upon completion of Phase 1, there will be no near-term safety hazards – and no shed.
The shed could disappear sooner than anyone might expect. As Friedman told the LPC, this Phase 1 "work can be completed within a few months from regulatory approval. . ."
I've recently learned that based on Friedman's report and with more than $1.5mm in firm commitments specified or generally available for correcting the safety hazards, the Center at West Park will soon announce Phase 1 of its longer-term capital project.
In addition, despite the building’s uncertain status, this is only the first visible fruit of a larger capital campaign the Center at West Park launched in May. It is designed to fund repairs, improvement, and purchase of the church and is guided by its new Executive Director, one of the city’s most successful fundraisers for community centric programming and building development.
I suggest that anyone who doubts the cost estimates read the engineering report – especially the executive summary and the Phase 1 analysis and estimates (pgs. 4-5). Friedman very clearly lays out his findings on the building's condition, their implications, and the resulting, prudently staged scope of work. Wherever possible, his estimates simply apply the church's marked-up cost estimates to the new scope. It appears that, if anything, his Phase 1 $1.7mm estimate is on the high side.
In terms of Friedman's credentials and credibility, as other commentators have noted, Friedman is a recognized expert in scoping work for and restoring "old buildings," most of them in NYC. He is no stranger to the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
The author is one of the most experienced historic restoration experts in the United States, not just New York. As an independent expert hires by the LPC, he really has no reason to inflate the numbers. I’ve had extensive work done to repair our historic home, and while it can be high, it does not cost 50,000 to repair a single window frame as the church claims. Get real.
Correct about the engineer not having a reason to inflate their estimate, and this is only an estimate. He has no idea of the problems that will undoubtedly be uncovered after work begins. With this type of work, there are always change orders (i.e., cost increases) to the actual contracts. Unlike your home, this building has been neglected for decades so cost overages will be significant.
You could just as easily argue that unexpected cost overruns could derail the Church’s private development scheme, which will cost significantly more and increasingly becomes less secure as inflation remains high. Even assuming LPC approves the hardship demolition, the Center still has five years left on their lease, so the shovel ain’t hitting the ground any time soon…
Since the Center has expressed willingness to buy the building and take on all the costs of repairs through fundraising, city grants from Gale Brewer, and state/federal SHPO grants/tax credits, why do you care? Why argue in favor of demolishing one of the nation’s foremost examples of Richardson Romanesque architectures when there is a non-profit willing to restore it and use it as a community performing arts venue?
We care because we pay taxes and our massive city budget is bursting despite 15 years of above inflation property taxes that are increasing the cost of living in this neighborhood.
Tax credits for historic restoration projects are enormously popular with most Americans. I’m sorry you don’t value preserving history, but perhaps living in the city with the greatest number of designated landmarks isn’t for you.
The big difference is that any development cost over runs will be the responsibility of the developer and will have no impact on the Church.
And as far as funding goes, Brewer and her band of celebrity friends have raised almost ZERO DOLLARS. I’m all for maintaining the church, IF AND ONLY IF:
– There is a proper estimate created for the repairs, backed up by specific plans, contractor proposals
– A plan for MAINTAINING AND SUSTAINING the Church once the repairs are complete (this means a reliable source of on-going funds)
– Actual funding identified … no hand waving, words, etc.
The unfortunate status is that NONE of this has been done.
If the Church sells to the developer (who has committed to providing dedicated space to the Church once construction is completed) then any funding is not the responsibility of the Church.
It’s a little difficult to fundraise when your lease stipulates you cannot make repairs. That notwithstanding, the Center has secured pledges for $3 million.
Has the process of St. Peter’s Lutheran on Lexington Avenue being torn down and the church being established on the street level of the Citicorp building at 51st/Lexington been studied, for positive and negative factors? https://sideways.nyc/discover/79Ym1aO77M41VQKq3L1lgF/st-peters-church
Agreed. There’s no way it’s $1.7M. Maybe $1.7M before more architects, engineers, permitting, deadbeat contractors, and political payoffs 😂
If they can’t afford it, they can’t afford it. Let them sell. They shouldn’t be forced to stay and renovate.
Would sell fast for another 90 story building for our recent arrivals
They’re not being forced to stay. The Center has given them a fair market offer. They just want a more lucrative deal from a developer. Too bad the church leaders never bothered to study Luke 12:15.
It’s not fair market if they have a significantly higher price from another party
The “fair market offer” is $30m. If that is what someone is willing to pay for the building, that is the market price. The church will use the money to continue its charitable mission on this earth, as commanded by Luke 18:22.
” the public can submit comments for the record until November 14 by clicking here.”
Link doesn’t work.
Thank you. Checking with LPC and will fix.
I read the Church’s submission which is available on the LPC’s website. I am gratified to see it has engaged a large, sophisticated law firm to steer it through this process. At some point I would hope the firm files an Article 78 against the LPC to force it to make a decision one way or another. Then the entire matter can move along into the court system, where we all know it is going to end up anyway. In the meantime, is there any update as to how much the “Friends of West-Park” have raised? Last I heard it had raised about a cool 16,000 whole dollars (including Mark Ruffalo’s stunningly generous $1k). That should pay the rent on the scaffolding for about two months.
This Mark Ruffalo? https://www.newsweek.com/mark-ruffalo-refuses-back-down-israel-palestinians-hamas-1837282
https://www.i24news.tv/en/news/israel/culture/1621950204-hollywood-actor-mark-ruffalo-apologizes-for-accusing-israel-of-genocide
Hmmm …
Those looking to save the church seem to be using the Donald Trump playbook. They are masters of stalling. Because if nothing is done, then the church is still standing, which is their goal, regardless of if it is being used productively and is a potential safety hazard. Their stalling techniques are truly remarkable.
I don’t really care what happens – my vote is to tear it down and rather than selling it for the maximum amount and building the biggest building possible, sell it for less and build something moderate size. The church would be the beneficiary of the proceeds and their goal should not be profit maximization, but rather achieving the greatest social good.
I think that if the plan was not to build a giant building to replace it, a lot of those who are claiming to want to save the church but really only are neighbors who don’t want a big building on the land would suddenly change their opinion and be more supportive of tearing it down. They don’t care about saving a church – they care about saving their property values. And I don’t totally blame them.
And what if ‘profit maximization’ would ALSO yield the ‘greatest social good’?
Dem
I suppose its fair enough that neighbors want to keep their property values high, but the city of New York should not be abetting them when low housing supply is keeping the cost of living incredibly high.
That would mean people would have to finally acknowledge that new buildings need to be BUILT. Yes, even those tall ones. Compared to many neighborhoods, we have so few tall luxury buildings and when even one more is talked about it’s “Oh my God, the sky is falling! We can’t see the sun!! This is terrible!”
This is a growing city and the reason rents are so high, especially on the UWS, is because there is BARELY any housing on the UWS. Build more buildings, and the wealthy people will move into those new luxury buildings and guess what? Moderate income earners can find apartments they can afford and lower income earners will find more available to them too. Simple logic.
I foresee and support a new luxury condo complex. As lovely as it one was, that property has been/continues to be an albatross.
Yeah, we definitely need more of those.. 🙄
I’m for restoring it. We should preserve the history of the neighborhood as much as we can. The problem is they’d rather sell it and I’m sure they’ll drag this beautiful landmark building through more bureaucracy before that happens. God knows we don’t need another luxury high rise in this neighborhood that working class people can’t afford. (And if you do want them, there’s already two going up now)
I wish I had $15 million to give – great service for the Church and a fab writeoff for the wealthy – don’t they have a bunch of wealthy Celebrity backers? Each can put in $1-2M and just get it done. I have loved that Church my entire life of 56 years living on the UWS
one of the most depressing hideous buildings in NYC
Anyone that lives in a coop or condo in this city knows full well that $1.7-9 million is a ridiculous estimate. Local law 11 work can easily be in the $2 million range for a building of this age. And because it is a landmark building, everything that is done to the exterior has to exactly match the original. It seems pointless for the current owners to take this project on. They are likely to run out of funds at any time and then what?
Has anyone considered saving the facade and building within the shell? Keep the height low and create affordable housing.
Yes, developers are just lined up and salivating to create more affordable housing.
I am going to make the same comment I made prior to this hearing. After speaking with two attorneys who specialize in landmarked structures, and two Constitutional attorneys, they all agree that:
1. Despite the “legal administrative powers” of the LPC, its very existence is predicated on a very thin interpretation of property law. In other words, if an attorney were willing to take on the LPC on the basis of landmarking being an “illegal taking” of property (particularly with respect to a religious building), they would probably win. The church owns the building, therefore they are its landlord. And ONLY a landlord has the legal right to determine the disposition of a property s/he owns. S/he can sell it, gut it and build whatever s/he wants, or simply demolish it – DESPITE its status as a “landmark.”
2. Even if the “illegal taking” argument did not win, if the Church (or Presbytery) decided to sue on First Amendment grounds, they would absolutely win such a lawsuit, since this situation is preventing the congregation from “exercising its freedom to practice their religion” in the (fully legal) manner in which they wish to. The congregation (no matter how small) and its leaders want the building demolished and replaced with a building that will give them the sanctuary and program space they would need to continue carrying on their worship, outreach and in-house programs (including the Center, which has been lying through its teeth about this; yes, they would have to relocate during the process, but they would get back their space as soon as the project is finished. Funny how they never mention this in their comments and complaints).
There is an old saw that a church is not a building; it is a congregation of people. That congregation wants to tear down the building that IT owns, in order to worship and provide programs in the manner IT wishes to do so. It is constitutionally, legally, ethically and morally wrong to oppose this.
I feel that the trustees of the church have gained a financial incentive by not repairing the church. for decades. If the building is turned into a condo how much will the trustees of the church personally collect, directly or indirectly, from the condo’s sponsors for making the deal?.
The congregation sold the two condos they owned in the neighborhood, fired all their staff and spent every last penny they had. What more could they have done to keep up the building? Remember – they tried 10+ years ago to demolish the Parrish house to build a mix of affordable and market housing, which they were going to use to preserve the church. That plan was axed when they were landmarked. There was nothing else they could have done.
As far as as I have been able to figure out, the “Church” is in reality a dozen people looking to receive $33M from a developer. May I join that congregation? I’d be happy to join as member 13 & receive my cut of the $33M. But I fear my membership application would not be well received.
The congregants don’t own the building, the denomination does. The congregation acts as stewards (and has spent all remaining assets of the Church to preserve the building over the last 10+ years. The members won’t benefit from the sale, but the Congregation will when the new building, which includes new worship space is built.
I’d rather see a new luxury condo there than that mess.
I agree. Luxury condo will attracts higher tax payers. New condo building can be designed for extra church space in lower floor, lent out to community events, plant trees on open ground floor. Unless west-park church has amazing history to share, attracts visitors.