By Carol Tannenhauser
After many months of wrangling, West-Park Presbyterian Church has withdrawn its request to the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to grant a “hardship application” that would have cleared the way for the 133-year-old church to sell its property to a developer who planned to demolish it and build luxury condominiums.
The move was confirmed to West Side Rag Friday afternoon by Michael Hiller, an attorney who represents the Center at West Park, a nonprofit operating out of the West-Park Presbyterian Church on West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue. “It’s over,” Hiller told the Rag, when we called him. The lawyer said he first learned of the church’s move when a member of the landmarks commission phoned “to tell me the application had been withdrawn. I then heard from various other people confirmation of that.”
The commission, which held multiple proceedings to consider the church’s request, was scheduled to consider it again on January 9. The church, given landmark status years ago, could not sell the property unless the commission agreed to its “hardship application,” removing the status and allowing the building to be torn down.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission confirmed to the Rag that the application has been withdrawn.
The congregation of West-Park Church issued a statement resolving “to resubmit our application to the LPC when the litigation is resolved so that we can finally invest in the modern, accessible worship and community space that the Upper West Side deserves and further support our mission in our neighborhood and across New York City.”
Subscribe to WSR’s free email newsletter here.
Great, so we’ll have to live with an abandoned, decaying structure and 0 new housing units, just bc some celebrities complained. Hopefully the updated proposal will come quickly, given the housing crisis.
But housing for whom? The building was for luxury units. Does the UWS need more apartments that the average middle income family can’t afford?
No, the UWS needs the housing that families can raise children in; families that go to the good public schools, libraries and parks.
You will not be living with an abandoned, decaying structure. This is a beautiful building, just a lovely landmark that adds so much to to the increasing bland upper West side. We will never see anything like that built again. It would be a crime to tear it down. There are many better ways to work out the housing crisis that don’t involve tearing down landmarks.
For the record as one of those “celebrities” I can attest that a lot more than “celebrities” were on the LPC public commenting zoom where the “no to economic hardship” ratio’d the yes group 7-1 and people cared so much about saving this beautiful land mark building The happened to stay in that call for up to 4 hours in what was a historic turn out on any zoom public hearing held by the LPC. The fact is people want to see it saved rather than demolished for another luxury condo building in the UWS. You will be pleased to know the actual cost to immediately fix the building and begin to remove that unsightly scaffolding is is shy of 2million! That’s in comparison with the heavily inflated 50 million quote by Alchemy Property’s own self serving estimation.
With the help of the celebrities and theater and music talents with Debby Hirshman now leading and managing The Center, we have already raised 1.4 million. Tony Kushner has promised to do a work shop production there in the near future. They have purchased a digital projector and screen to begin showing independent films, and have completely upgraded the sound system and put 240k into improvements of the sanctuary.
Have some faith in good things. A thriving cultural and art center on the UWS is something we should all support and be happy about.
Thank you
Mark, the people who live here full time want to live in a city, not a museum. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/30/opinion/new-york-housing-costs.html
Really? Clearly you didn’t read the Comments section to this piece! If the readers from world over and this city could have thrown tomatoes at this writer they would have! This city is so far from being a museum that the concept is completely laughable. People want our historic monuments and landscapes respected and supported. We are sick to death of the specious arguments feigning “affordable housing” be built when that’s NOT what’s being built and certainly not what was proposed for the West Park site if demolished. It was to be another developer’s dream luxury condo to add to the other 8 or 9 built within 10 blocks of the church in the last 4 years. Please. Mark Ruffalo is exactly right! The community wants preservation of our landmarked properties and cultural centers that enrich the community instead of the developers! We have enough largely empty luxury apartments metastasizing all over this city that have demolished affordable housing and historic properties as well.
The area within 10 blocks of the church has added exactly zero net housing units in the last five years. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/f66b67ab40b44637ab04898a19559875 Look at the Upper West Side Central NTA (74th St to 96th St, from Riverside to Central Park). From 2019-2022 the area added 145 new units and lost 145 units to demolition and renovation.
Too many of our neighbors are misinformed about one of the most important facts about our neighborhood. We are not in a building boom that is flooding the neighborhood with luxury housing. For years now, new housing has grown at a rate of less than 0.5% per year. We aren’t building. But for some reason everyone thinks we are. Something that local media could help correct in 2024!
“This city is so far from being a museum that the concept is completely laughable” – A supermajority of the UWS (71%!) is already landmarked.
https://citylimits.org/2016/06/01/new-research-on-how-historic-districts-affect-affordable-housing/
The city is not the Upper West Side. Step outside of your little comfort zone. Less than 3% of the area of New York City is landmarked.
Thank you celebrity Mark Ruffalo. I have tender feelings for that church, where I did work in the anti-nuke movement in the basement common area, and met Bella Abzug. The leadership has been a great community partner for the homeless, as well.
Thank you Mark! In 2019 I was fortunate enough to bring my play to the sanctuary with a cast that included Ed Asner and Tovah Feldshuh. It was an absolutely beautiful performance space and everyone should support the non profit arts organization that is ensconced in the church. A well funded, community arts and performance space is exactly what the neighborhood needs!
Ya-s-s! Agreed! One of my most spectacular opportunities was to see an event, by Soledad Barrio, a stunning flamenco performance for several nights given by she and her fabulous company… She also teaches dance. Greatly loved… Perfect stage setting and absolutely adored by many fans. Having this lovely old church as a venue for the arts is so fantastic. Keep it going fellas!
Fantastic and Great Job! Thank you on behalf of Upper West Siders who don’t even know how important it is to keep a thing of beauty because it is a joy forever. I’ve loved that church all my adult life, as an Upper West Sider. I walk past it, out of my way, just to admire it. Hoping it could again be filled with the sounds of people laughing, chatting, sitting together and enjoying the space, the light and the camaraderie.
And I hope for rainbows and lollipops every day but get real. The place is a beautiful death trap waiting to happen. Idealist vs r realistic – How much time have you spent in this beautiful hellhole?
you just called a church a hellhole.
I done did. I chose my words carefully.
Thank you Mark for helping save this beautiful building.
I weirdly love that Mark even cares and wants to make it a cultural institution. Also glad to hear that Tony Kushner cares. Oxooxxx
To say nothing of the fact that he considers himself enough of a member of our community to read the West Side Rag and then take the time and make the effort to write a reasoned, thoughtful response.
Welcome, Neighbor!
Not to mention putting the property back on the tax rolls.
Housing for whom?Not individuals who truly need Housing. I still remember all the SRO’S that were on the UWS that were turned into luxury coops/condos. I hope this building is returned to it’s former glory and gets upgraded hvac, fire protection and electrical systems and doesn’t blot out the sun
The housing crisis will not be helped by tearing down this 19 century landmark.
It’s not, and has never been, abandoned. It’s a vibrant performing arts center. An independent analysis performed by a structural engineer also found it to be in better shape than the church claimed.
I’m glad you mentioned that. Amore Opera is one of the performing groups. I have played in the orchestra and have loved accompanying their singers, who are often excellent. They’re performing Mozart’s Don Giovanni this month and I recommend it!
Exactly, no new badly needed housing and the eyesore will remain but at least some neighbors will get to keep their views
Yes we need new housing but I don’t see new housing being built that regular people can afford!!
I’ve lived on UWS since I was in nursery school and I love it but the average secretary, teacher, bank teller, hairdresser, teacher etc. can’t afford to rent here in any new housing being built. I know people say too bad, go live elsewhere but what made this area great was the immigrants, teachers, bakers, seamstresses,
firemen, grocers etc. Now they can’t afford to get a studio, much less an apartment for a family!
Luckily I’ve lived in the same apartment for many years. I honestly couldn’t afford to move.
Million dollar apartments are what are being built; affordable housing not so much!
I just don’t understand the “badly needed housing” argument. Does anyone actually believe that this will be NYCHA housing or housing for the migrants that were deposited on the city’s doorstep? Oh pity the poor billionaire class with their limited housing options on the Upper West Side. If only someone would advocate for them : ))
The only thing that made my eyes sore is your comment and not the beautiful church. Maybe you need to see an eye doctor, Upper West Side dad?
What WILL we do without another soulless box of luxury condos for the 0.1%??
You may not like it, but increasing supply of housing even at the high end helps keep rent in check for everyone plus the real estate & city income taxes are what pays for our libraries, teachers & police.
The people complaining about rich people and their condos won’t acknowledge they are dependent on the taxes those people pay. Those taxes fund the services you use and rely on. Try some humility and gratitude.
Majority of time UWS residents moaning about “housing for the wealthy” fall into two distinct camps.
They are either renters in RC, RS, or otherwise subsidized housing, or they purchased their homes ages ago when prices were unbelievably low.
Not truly fully affected by market forces they are content pulling up the drawbridge behind them. Because God forbid others move into area, especially if they earn more money and or don’t think like themselves.
There is a huge shortage on UWS of decent family sized apartments. Ditto of modern new construction.
Not everyone wants to live nor end their days in some clapped out building with ancient HVAC systems, vermin, and host of other ills that is about size of their dorm room at college.
I’ll address this to both “Peter” and “UWS Dad” :
I don’t know many “rich” people who happily pay their fair share of taxes for the common good of everyone. Their goal is to pay no taxes and they use their influence on politicians and their very high priced tax accountants – and they brag to one another about how they evade local, state and federal taxes. Remember Trump boasting how he paid $0 taxes? Tax avoidance (cheating) among the very wealthy is a time honored sport.
Tax evasion is not the same as tax avoidance. The former is illegal, but the latter is not. There is nothing wrong with avoiding taxes if the tax code is followed as written.
Isn’t that how it works in sports? One plays by the rules but takes advantage of opportunities.
I know one is illegal and one is legal (though that line is often blurred). My point is that touting the taxes the rich pay as a reason to get behind billionaires and their palatial high rise condo developments is just a marketing slogan and a canard.
I think what you describe is called “trickle down economics”. The 80s are calling and they want their ( failed) economic theory back.
“Trickle-down” economics when taxes on high income people are reduced, the excuse being that the “trickle down” effect when they spend all their extra money benefits the rest of us. I don’t know of a single reputable economist who supports that theory. It’s just a political excuse to justify pandering to the donor class with undeserved tax cuts.
If the Art Center is not a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization property taxes are direct taxes.
Notice, I said ” failed” economic theory. My comment was in response to the guy who said the taxes from expensive condos would be a great benefit to all.
The reality is that it’s not “trickle down”, it’s “tinkle down.” Isn’t everyone tired of getting wet?
But don’t most new developments get tax decreases or even not pay taxes at all for 20+ years?
No, they don’t. That only applies to developments that apply for and receive various tax abatement schemes such as (now defunct) 421-a.
https://www.joindaisy.com/blog/what-is-the-421a-tax-abatement#:~:text=If%20you%27re%20in%20the,typically%2010%20years%20or%20more.
https://www.nyc.gov/site/finance/property/landlords-coop-condo.page
Tons of new buildings have gone up in Manhattan, and more are online that were or are built “as of right” and did not apply for nor receive special tax treatment from NYS or NYC.
What frequently happens with co-op and condo units is those who bought early (as in when building first went up) will try to flip or otherwise sell as end of tax abatement period nears. This way they can avoid paying what surely will be increased property taxes.
Property taxes tend to have an inverse relationship to prices. Where former is high it tends to decrease latter.
The 20 or so luxury condo units that would inevitably be built in this lot would do absolutely nothing for the housing crisis or tax revenue. It would be less than a tiny drop in the overall scheme of things. It’s not worth demolishing something that has been in the neighborhood since the 19th century.
I truly don’t understand the fervor UWSers have for destroying this church/community center.
By that logic then nothing should ever be built in Manhattan much less NYC.
Every newly built unit helps someone, even if they are a household with higher income than yours.
Something like 70% of UWS properties are either landmarked, in landmarked districts, in historical districts or otherwise protected. As such despite all the moaning and gashing of teeth fairly little new housing is built on UWS.
https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/market-insight/features/future-nyc/upper-west-side-new-development-round-up-west-park-presbyterian-church-due-before-landmarks/45702
People complain much of UWS remains “poor” or otherwise undesirable, full of homeless shelters, supportive housing, run down, etc.. Yet they don’t want anything torn down and or new housing to be built.
With one tuchus , you can’t dance at two weddings! For new housing to be built the old has to go.
Amen to that, Katherine!
It’s demoralizing how self-defeating some of the comments on this thread are.
How does building “20 or so” units help? It helps by giving 20 or so of “the 0.1%” (like, say….Mark Ruffalo) places to live. Those people, in turn, won’t compete for pre-existing apartments, leaving those apartments available for someone else. And so on and so forth, down to you, the people who apparently never took economics.
Building helps *everyone*, particularly those of you who are immensely bitter about the existence of folks who do understand math and economics, and therefore earn more money than you do.
If you want lower rents, you must build. Period.
To earn more money is one thing. To earn infinitly more is another. And it’s not money that is spend and passed down, but “saved”, i.e., not put to use.
Explain. Every time a residential skyscraper goes up, people living nearby benefit? How??
..More likely those new suburbanites (?) or whoever they are they ain’t New Yorkers! Moving into skyscrapers they’re undoubtedly the ones ‘ordering in’ and causing us all to get run-over by the barristers!
Rents go down from simple supply and demand. Maybe you recall during Covid when all of a sudden people left NYC (demand decreased) and rent dropped like 20%? Building more housing (increasing supply) would do the same thing. Of course one building is not going to add enough units by itself but if we didn’t tie every project up in red tape / endless community board review we would be able to make some progress
Rents don’t go down. Nor do the prices of condos and co-ops. Arguing your claim re: a 6 month natural catastrophe is worse than absurd, it assumes you think the folks who disagree with you are uniformed.
1. It is far from empty or abandoned, the Center (the nonprofit who has been trying to buy the building from the church for restoration) has been running daily artist and community programming for years. The building is as active as ever on the inside. Go see one of their many theater performances or sign up for indoor pickleball.
2. The developers that the church was selling to were planning to build high-rise luxury apartments— eyesores only making the housing crisis worse.
If you are concerned about the housing crisis and abandoned eyesores, then this is GOOD news!! The Center’s campaign has been raising the necessary funds these last years to restore the building’s beauty and continue its positive contributions to our neighborhood.
Pickleball??!
I have to look into this!
I’m thrilled this beautiful building will stand. I love the off-the-beaten-tracks arts scene there. But pickleball? I must learn more!
This is welcome news. I was a member of this congregation for over 50 years until I had to relocate to be near family out of town. From what I understand the congregation is a shadow of its former self, down to 6 members and no pastor. It’s unfortunate that the Presbytery persists in the delusional bid to try to demolish this building and build condos. They’ve tried demolition by neglect for decades and they’re content to sit on it for another decade while the legal process plays out. They should sell the building to the Center and allow the community to repair the facade. I’m sure that’s what will eventually transpire. I say to them, “let them go after the stubbornness of their hearts, that they might walk in their own counsels.
How can you say demolition by neglect? The congregation sold every other property on the UWS to pay for the building upkeep. They fired all the staff. What more could they do? The Center doesn’t want to buy the building, it wants to steal it and evict the owner. For all those who celebrate that they like the Center more than a Church, I fear popularity isn’t a great way to decide land ownership questions.
The Center does not have the money to buy the building – much less pay for even the minimal repairs that would be needed to continue using it. They have tried bringing in celebs to help them, but that has not helped either. “Allowing the community” to repair the facade? First, the Center has already tried to raise the money for this, and failed. And if you mean the actual people in the community, that would be illegal, and the DOB and other agencies who oversee these things would never permit it.
As for the “stubbornness of their hearts,” in this case I would go with the plain text of the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” By not allowing the Church to demolish THEIR property so that the developer can provide them a space that fits their needs, they are being prevented from the “free exercise” of their religion within the broader context of the Constitution.
By the way, I would say that the “stubbornness of their hearts” applies as much to the Center and its supporters as it does to the members of the Church and the Presbytery.
The establishment clause does not grant religious organizations which are tax exempt immunity from land use regulations, much less the law. They are not prohibited from selling their property and earning a reasonable return, which is how the hardship application process works and how SCOTUS has determined in precedent ruling that landmarking houses of worship cannot be construed as a taking. They likely pulled the application because LPC’s own consultants found that they vastly inflated the costs of repairs and thus cannot claim a hardship under the reasonable return calculation. LPC does not take extraneous litigation into account in their rulings. As Mr. Hiller put it, this is over.
Exactly Grace. It’s sad that many here would like to rewrite the law without understanding or even acknowledgement of it. Not to mention the applicant trumping up the cost of repairs in its application to the LPC.
Years ago, I testified in support of a proposal to remove only the eastern and less architecturally compelling half of the West-Park Church building, and put up an apartment tower. I seemed to me to be a reasonable & attractive compromise, & still think is was a good idea. Perhaps it could be revived?
I can send a rendering if you’d to share it with readers.
Let Barney Greengrass move in.
I also testified on that, and actually worked with Rev. Brashear on it. I believe I was a member of the community board at the time. It was an elegant solution to the problem. But the “supporters” of the Church (or rather, its building, since NONE of them support the Church) would not even permit that small carve-out.
Actually, Hiller is “spinning” this desperately. It’s not over; it’s just beginning. This is the first we are hearing of “the litigation,” which is not explained in the article. The litigation could involved several things, and my bet is that the Church will win on all of them.
I would love to know what went on behind the scenes vis-a-vis the LPC and the decision by the Church to withdraw its application – because I am guessing that the Church has or will name the LPC as a respondent in that litigation.
Sadly, the Center is only postponing the inevitable; the litigation will be won by the Church (whether on “private property” grounds; on overstepping by the LPC (i.e., “illegal taking”); and/or the First Amendment issue (preventing the Church to worship as it wishes to on its own property).
The building will come down (even if the litigation takes years), and a new building will be built. What I don’t understand is why the Center is so adamant about remaining in this damaged, dangerous eyesore of a building. The developer has promised to provide the Church with enough space for a small sanctuary, space for Church programming, AND space for the Center. Why the Center can’t simply wait for ~18 months or so for a new space makes little sense. I am guessing that they could find a temporary space somewhere on the UWS in the meantime.
They have won a pyrrhic victory – and a temporary one at that, Hiller’s “spin” notwithstanding.
Agreed, it sounds like some kind of legal maneuvering.
Proper title would be “it’s over…. for now…”
As clearly noted in article West Park congregation is currently engaged in legal action with The Center at West Park over terms of lease.
WPPC has made it clear they intend to refile hardship petition once court case with TCAWP plays out.
This is not “over” nor will it be until either someone ponies up the tens of millions to buy building from congregation, or for repair and maintenance of structure.
I don’t understand this. I’m also disturbed that members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission are phoning members of the Center at West Park.
CWP is merely the tenant of the applicant for the hardship designation. They are also in an active legal dispute with the Church. Members of the LPC should not be back channel communicating non-public information with CWP. It suggests a bias at LPC against the church’s application.
Good news. Now some major funders need to step in here and save the building, if not the congregation.
It’s so weird and dystopian how many people are actively craving for this quirky 19 century church (not many of those around) to be torn down so that…more luxury condos are built.
It’s just bizarre, for lack of a better word. So many Americans just have no sense of history, no value for art or architecture.
The church does need to be renovated, and the scaffolding needs to go. But don’t tear it down.
New York really doesn’t get it: European visitors must be laughing at us as our city becomes uglier and uglier every year.
I have to disagree – I don’t really think that many European tourists are visiting the Upper West Side to visit this church…..
I agree. I’ve lived not far from the church for 50 years and never once looked at it with admiration. The fact that it’s old isn’t enough to make it worthy of preservation.
It is positive that the building will bring cultural offerings to the neighborhood as that will likely also attract tourists as well as residents far more than the building ever did.
However, living in a landmarked building and district myself, I can testify to the hardships involved dealing with the LPC’s decisions-making. My building had to spend over $400,000 extra to restore some decorative elements on the building’s exterior’s upper floor that no one can see unless one is literally up on the 15th fl scaffolding because of the LPC’s directives. Those of us in the building living on a fixed income were angry and frustrated by this decision but told “There’s no way to fight these people.” I wonder how a group of unelected people can have so much power when their decisions can cause economic hardship to so many.
The fact that “you” haven’t looked does not speak for the entire neighborhood.
Who will pay for it? Estimates range from $9 – $50 million.
It would be one thing if people let the church sell development rights, but they have no source of revenue. Heck, most co ops in the neighborhood struggle to afford basic facade maintenance.
The city has wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on the migrants in the past year alone. Maybe some of that taxpayer money could be put to restoring this landmark.
Separation of church and state.
Neither NYS nor NYC can give taxpayer money directly to WPPC except under some very limited conditions that pass constitutional muster.
Gail Brewer et al knew this when they pledged after pushing landmark status through that “city” and others would provide funds to restore and maintain WPPC.
Years later now Ms. Brewer and others are saying if WPPC was sold to private or non-profit then funds would flow from both government and donors.
How do you know that most co-ops in the neighborhood struggle to afford basic facade maintenance? My co-op paid for basic facade maintenance by levying an assessment on the shareholders. It wasn’t a big deal.
My coop did it also, wasn’t a problem or a struggle.
I don’t know why this comment wasn’t approved so here goes again…
I’ve been on neighborhood co op boards for 15 years and frequently meet with other neighborhood co-op board members as part of CCNY, which is an organization devoted to board members across the city.
FISP/LL11 facade work is becoming a growing burden for more of our neighbors, especially with Landmarks. Even the comments of WSR have been filled with people complaining about the skyrocketing costs of facade work.
I’m glad it was easy for you. But that is increasingly rare. A 15 story pre war building in the many landmark districts in the neighborhood can expect FISP costs of $500-$900K every five years. That’s for a well maintained facade. The number goes way up if there are decorative elements that need replacing. And eventually they all need replacing.
The amount of Landmarks-approved work needed for this church far exceeds the average pre-war residential facade.
I’ve been following the developments but for the life of me, it isn’t easy to understand. An attorney for the Center states, “it’s over,” but at the end of the article, it states that the Center will resubmit the hardship application at a later date.
It still seems bogged down in a never-ending quaqmire of legal motions, public opinion, policies and celebrity advocacy.
It’s helpful to read the comments and I applaud the civil discussion and great points being raised by proponents and adversaries.
“the Center will resubmit the hardship application at a later date.”
I think this is a lapse of the typing. It’s the Church that will resubmit the hardship application. And surely they will rewrite it and use different numbers.
If the church is to stay, the celebrities who spoke out in favor of keeping it should pay for its restoration. It’s an eyesore–and this is coming from someone who works in art world. I’d rather have new , high-end condo construction; its presence would make me feel safer in this now unsafe and increasingly unkept neighborhood.
Funny, I live there, and the neighborhood seems amazing, vibrant, and relatively safe. Unkept yes, but that’s the whole of NYC.
Yes. Unless it’s for a charity, I can’t stand celebrity mouthpieces. Here, they could put their money where their mouths are. And they have more than enough money to fix the place up and put their names on plaques. Hurry up already! (Thanks in advance;)
The Center has raised 3.5 million in 2022 alone to fund repairs for the church. The cost to repair the facade and remove the side walk shed is 1.5 million.
How is this bankrupt tiny congregation going to be able to maintain this decrepit building? It will now be vacant and abandoned for a decade with scaffolding instead of useful housing.
As others have pointed out, the church building is not vacant and abandoned. It is the home of vibrant arts and other programs.
WPCC does not own the building, they are tenants. Whatever rights they have to occupy and use space is spelled out in contractual agreement (lease).
With respect, I note that no one contests the fact that the Center is leasing space. I and others are contesting the claims that the church building is “vacant and abandoned.” Those claims are false.
Useful for who? Lots of units in the new ugly towels for one-percenters are still unsold.
Useful housing for rich people who aren’t exactly desperate for shelter?
I believe the reason the applicant withdrew the application was because they knew the application for hardship was about to be turned down by the LPC. The application had major flaws. So they pulled it rather than be rejected and expose themselves to the negative appearance that would create.
There may be another attempt to reapply but it will most likely be unsuccessful. The Center has brought in the right people to resurrect this church who know how to raise major funds and who actually care about this landmark for all the right reasons. The group of celebrities will grow larger and the church will be sold for a reasonable price and brought back to its original beauty as an iconic landmark and a cultural center for New York and the community.
Just where are these “major funds”?
According to 2022 tax filings The Center at West Park reported:
Total revenues of : $621,925
Total expenses of: $688,679
Total assets of: $60,855
For fiscal year 2022 they reported in revenue:
Total grants, contributions, etc..: $355,548
Program services: $266,377
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/center-at-west-park,814802422/
A fundraiser was held raised $300k of a goal of over $2 million.
https://hudsonvalley.news12.com/star-studded-fundraiser-battles-congregations-plans-for-historic-west-park-presbyterian-church
Matt Damon isn’t exactly poor. If he believes WPPC is such a worthy cause why not lead from the front with a substantial donation?
Indeed from 57th street to 96th from CPW to Riverside UWS is full of well off actors, performing artists and others connected with theatre or entertainment. Is Mr. Damon and others working their connections to get donations?
One keeps hearing all these famous and powerful persons want WPPC saved. Fine and dandy but they haven’t exactly been generous with contributions.
LPC is not final word on any hardship case.
Owners of landmarked property can bring legal action against NYC/LPC seeking redress from courts.
Well, I just hope that the owners have the necessary funds to properly restore and structurally repair this crumbling landmark. Otherwise, it’s kind of a Pyrrhic victory. We just saw a huge building collapse in the Bronx a month ago due to neglect and deferred maintenance.
This church has been derelict and unsafe and surrounded by scaffolding for a couple of decades.
My guess it will continue to be derelict and unsafe and surrounded by scaffolding twenty years from now.
Okay… so here is the cynical new “Game Plan” as stated by the Presbytery.
The “litigation” they are talking about is the lease that The Center At Westpark has with the Presbytery. They want the lease nullified. Why? Well the one thing in the way of trying to destroy this beautiful and vibrant landmark for a big cash payday is The Center. So the play here seems to be to cynically get rid of The Center’s Plans to ease any financial burden on the Presbytery, fix the building and save this landmark building.
There have already raised 1.4 mil and 240k has already been spent for improvements including the addition of a digital projector for a. new film center, which will play independent films. They have modernized the theater lights and sound system and already begun the process and repairs for taking down the unsightly shed. The LPC brought in an independent construction company to assess the actual costs to fix the building at 1.7 million. That included taking down the scaffold. The rest of the funds that will be needed over the next 10 years come to 9 million. That is in stark contrast to the 50 million quoted by Alchemy Property’s very own self serving estimators. The Center is also on their way to raising a considerable amount of money to make an offer to the Presbytery to buy the church d alleviate the congregation’s “hardship”.
The Center is alive with new and important artists, including Kenneth Lonergan, and Tony Kushner. Talent from all over the city is re-discovering the space and it’s bursting with creative and community endeavors. There is a great revitalization of West Park under way, led by the deeply committed efforts of Debby Hirshman. Beyond the demoralized comments on this page there is a beautiful and vibrant future ahead, as well as the possibility of the Upper West Side’s very own version of Public Theater, or Brooklyn’s BAM. Have some faith folks, it’s not all doom and gloom. There are great opportunities here.
The only way, the Presbytery can get a hardship grant is to stop the efforts of The Center and allow the building to fall in greater disrepair, suffer loss of revenue, stop any kind of cultural or community activity happening there, and. allow the building to become condemnable so that it can legitimately get a hardship grant. This will finally allow them to sell the building for 10’s of millions, and tear it down for luxury condominiums that the Upper West Side already has a plentitude of.
You think the building is bad now, wait for the five to ten years it will take for it to get so bad they will be able to finally get their hardship grant if ever at all.
What has become abundantly clear is the community at large loves and wants this landmark building to have its rightful place here. We want the economic driver of a vibrant performance art space to fill the vacant restaurants and shops all around it. We want the building to serve its intended purpose of community development and worship, Let’s not forget the 7 to 1 ratio of people on the the LPC’s last public zoom meeting; all for saving the building, all against economic hardship and all willing to wait 5 hours in line to state their love, connection and passion for the building. That means a lot. That is community in action. That is what is still so beautiful about the Upper West Side and something that should give you a lot of hope and faith in who we are on the Upper West Side
Mark,
As a former member of the Congregation who left after landmarking +10 years ago, the Center has been horrible for the congregation. They are effectively being evicted by the Center for the building they built and occupied for the past century.
I now am a member at a different church and I look very cautiously about leasing space to arts groups. Normally churches and arts groups have a lot of syngergies on space usage. My experience with the Center shows that bringing them in can have you risk losing the building that was yours.
You and the Center should be ashamed of killing this congregation which was one of the most progressive lights in the UWS for decades on a wide range of issues.
While I respect your involvement in our neighborhood — and your willingness to comment on this residential blog! — your numbers just don’t add up. There is no way it would cost $1.7 million to repair this church.
Many in our neighborhood (like myself) volunteer time on our co-op boards, where we run facade maintenance projects and also approve apartment renovations. I’ve been doing so for 15 years, and networking extensively with other co-op volunteers in the neighborhood.
This church clearly needs much, much more repair and renovation work than $1.7 will cover to avoid facade collapse. I want an arts space for this neighborhood as much as anyone, but I’ve seen many facade repair estimates and I think the Church has credible numbers.
Just want to add that the neighborhood has made great use of the church’s kitchen in the past as well. In the 1990s, the kitchen was a place where we prepared the food for God’s Love We Deliver, hot meals for home bound people diagnosed with AIDs and other life-threatening illnesses. I loved volunteering in that kitchen and it would be wonderful if another community-based food preparation project could use it as well.
The city seems to find $ for anything and everything these days. They should step in and help fund the repairs needed to bring the structure into compliance with modern safety requirements.
The City cannot provide public funding to restore/repair a religious institution. The Church would have to be sold to a non-religious organization in order for the City to be able to provide any funding.
Gail Brewer is pleased. But even she seems to realize only way to “save” this building is for someone to purchase it that does not have plans to tear it down.
“I’m ecstatic,” said Gale Brewer, a City Council member who represents the Upper West Side and who helped make the building a landmark, over the objections of the congregation. She said she hoped the hold could lead to someone else buying the building with plans not to tear it down.
nytimes.com/2024/01/05/nyreg
Thank you, Mark Ruffalo and others for being far-sighted, “seeing” the situation in a broader context, and using your star power for good.
Want to help save the building easily? Just go to one of the many arts programs. I’m sure tickets are pretty cheap. J.U.S.T. G.O. Audiences are vitally important. Where audiences go, money for upgrades follows, and vice-versa. Just look at David Geffen.
Money is the only thing that is going to talk here, either way.
You’ll probably like what you go see anyway.
Does anyone know why the application was withdrawn? It would be helpful to know what motivated this action.
Mmmmm yeah keep deriding those pesky rich folks y’all and see what will happen. Did you know that in New York State that the top 1% earners provide 46% of the taxes here? When they leave, as has been happening, there won’t be any $$ to fund a lot of what makes NYC run. So keep complaining about those pesky rich folks and reap what you sow. City council members should sit up and take notice too. We have lost tens of billions of tax dollars as a lot of the wealthiest people have left for other states due to crime and quality of life issues that don’t make paying the highest taxes in the nation worth it anymore. So consider yourselves lucky that some of these pesky rich folks or celebrities care about your neighborhood and haven’t just left, taking their tax dollars with them.
It should be a landmark. It’s such a beautiful church and such a beautiful building. If they keep tearing down beautiful old structures and force the mama papa stores out, what will be left but a city of steel structures with no charm left.
I am so glad.
All religious buildings should be preserved for the future generations.
It has the potential to be an attractive building, I look forward to it becoming something that then adds positive value and vibrancy to the block. Something that brings people who support local businesses and bring tax revenue to the city. Tired of its run down dilapidated state for so long. We need things other than housing in this neighborhood. Spaces for people congregate and I love the idea of an arts and culture center. Enough with all the politics, let’s just get moving on it. The corner is a mess.
So what now? We watch the building continue to decay until it falls down? We, the public, do not own this building and do not pay for its upkeep. For goodness’ sake, let them do what they want with it. Many comments I’ve read over the years stress how awful it would be to let the Presbyterian church make money off this deal. Why? Why shouldn’t the church make money? No one seems to have an answer.
FWIW: I think there are two different people using the moniker “Susan” commenting on this thread.
Thank you! I am thrilled. The community will remain a community, a place to gather, a place to be entertained, a place to worship, a place where we all can benefit from. Have you noticed the empty luxury apartments that are available……quite a number. Who can afford them? And those that do are rarely there! Ergo…gone community! We have a pride to exhibit on the Upper West Side. Let’s keep it going.
What a shame. I’ve lived in NYC 25 years and I’ve never seen this building without scaffolding.
I’m tired of every building being a homeless shelter and a migrant center. Yes, we do need more housing for people that can afford it, not for those who can’t. Those that contribute to society and not those that drain it.
It’s time for this building to be fixed and renovated or torn down and replaced.
It’s just not acceptable to leave it in this poor condition indefinitely.
I’m NOT a ‘celebrity’, just another theatre person who spent 1000s of hours at West Park. Our Theatre Company was looking to make it home 10 years ago. We did 3 full productions there. I actually know of what I speak. The place is a beautiful deathtrap beyond saving. We invested 1000s of man hrs as a 25 person company, the majority by myself. Until you have swept pounds of vermin poop up and corpses of dead whatever, as I HAVE, you don’t have credibility in my book. The 3 casts of our shows can verify what I say, but even they didn’t see the worst. I went late at night and did that by myself as I feared they would be afraid to return. No one wanted to save the place more than I did. Pretty sure, no one has put in the hours and money, personally and company money that I did. I ignored the lights raining down sparks on us, we fixed them, I ignored the homeless that would wander in, the always drunk ‘tenant’ who claimed squatters rights and the resident ‘painter’ who we had to finally have to have thrown out (at least while we were there) because he was sexually harrassing all the females.
Someone will be killed there (if they haven’t already). Having gotten access to SOME of the locked rooms, I’ve seen the massage table, knives, bongs, broken windows with rain blowing in and piles of leaves. The church wouldn’t offer a legit lease, just an agreement. I was dealing with a CHURCH, what could go wrong? Stupid, stupid me. The place was dangerous. It wasn’t cared for on purpose. It needed upkeep 30 yrs prior, and it could have been salvagable. ReGroup Theatre spent easily $10,000 to make it bearable. It was a facade. Fake walls were already constructed to hide the damage when we got there. Yes, I certainly feel some responsibility for people thinking it is salvagable. It’s an illusion. We, over 2 dozen of us, worked months to make it appear acceptable. I personally spent one entire Saturday cleaning the oxidized outdoor brass fixtures. They sparkled like new. It was stunning. After we left, they went back to being coal black because no one gave a shit. NO, unkempt brass, broken glass poster boxes without re-fixed lighting displays that featured content aren’t crucial, but they take very minimal upkeep and make it look important. That couldn’t be upheld for 1 yr. The mold growing on the bathroom walls that required intensive work and repainting to be at a Port Authority level are more important. The basement, which I was warned ahead of time, “You didn’t see this,” is typical of the building. Also, the number of rooms that were locked and deemed ‘unsafe’ by the ‘residents’ that lurked in the place were unsettling. Like Mr. Ruffalo, I WANTED to save it. I too saw the potential. We were just 30 yrs too late, and that was 10 yrs ago. I spent most of my days/nights there for 6 months, and as ideal as it would be to restore it to its imagined original splendor, the building is on life support and terminal. We brought in multiple experts of our own to see what it would cost to permantley fix areas up and they all said it was hopeless. It’s like a gorgeous person with insides rotted by time.
So yes, it will be sad to let it go. It is beautiful but unsafe. None of the contractors we brought in would even touch it. Some neighborhood people seem to be in a toxic relationship with a building they know nothing about. She’s a beauty but toxic. Yes, Mr. Ruffalo, I speak of you and the like. We were all decades too late. Again, I actually speak from experience. I haven’t just made an appearance there. I’ve carried out rat or possum corpses. I’ve painted the rotting doors, and then repainted it, after the preacher blogged the red we picked for the outside doors was ‘bordello red’. Instead of telling us, he bitches about it online. But even after we left the church, I went back, repainted the doors a red he picked out. They were painted twice in 2014. Likely more times than they were painted the 50 yrs prior.
WHY can’t the city buy it and construct an arts center, Mr. Mayor? WHY can’t others do the same? The ReGroup Theatre will rent an area. Making it a giant luxury tower doesn’t have to be the ONLY alternative. It didn’t fall in to disreapair on accident. Having dealt with those involved, there’s a reason it is a 10 or 12 person congregation. (Boy, do they like toting out that number!)
Truly shocked by the praises for Mark and Tony generally and specifically a Jewish community considering the other causes they support. Researching who you follow, allow to set policy and praise is enlightening as it often deviates from your values.
Whatever, people! Just get rid of that ugly shed that has been a blight on the neighborhood since God was a boy. If that means stabilizing the church in a timely fashion or if it means tearing the whole thing down, at this point I am exhausted by the never-ending arguments and beyond being able to care anymore. Make a decision. DO something. Give us our street back.
Sometimes I wonder if WSR readers/commenters have ever left their own block, let alone the US. I beg of you, GO SOMEWHERE. Get off your couch. Venture beyond Zabars. You’ll find a whole world that embraces the beauty and remarkable stability of old structures. They support them, update them, preserve them. And they laugh at us Americans for constantly tearing down beauty, quality and history only to replace it with cheap substitutes that simply make more money for the already wealthy. They also seem to have forged into the 21st century whilst sharing roads with cars, SO MANY bicycles, scooters, motorbikes, etc. Open your minds.