By Carol Tannenhauser
For nearly a quarter of a century, since 2001, a sidewalk shed has surrounded West Park Presbyterian Church on the northeast corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, to protect pedestrians from falling pieces of its crumbling façade.
The reason repairs weren’t made during that time, according to the owner of the church (called the Presbytery), was that the Presbytery lacked the funds to pay for the work — and, besides, the church was a wreck beyond repair, “totaled,” in their words.
Now, a nonprofit group that leases the church for arts programming says it has raised the money to pay for the exterior repairs required before the sidewalk shed can come down. The Center at West Park has also submitted engineering and architectural plans to the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for carrying out the repairs.
“Forty-eight pages of architectural plans were submitted in the fall of 2024 to restore the façade, roof, and gutters in accordance with landmarks requirements,” Debby Hirshman, executive director of the nonprofit Center at West Park, told West Side Rag. But months later, the repair work has yet to be started, and the sidewalk shed remains in place. Here’s why, according to Hirshman and The Center’s attorney, and the Landmarks Preservation Commission.
In 2022, the Presbytery got an offer: a developer wanted to buy the church for $33 million — provided it was demolished — and build a market-rate high-rise condominium in its place.
Two things stood in the developer’s way. First, the church is landmarked, meaning you can’t even change a window, let alone tear it down, without the approval of the LPC. To that end, the owner filed a “hardship application” with the landmarks commission, stating, in essence, that the 135-year-old red sandstone building had driven the Presbytery to the edge of bankruptcy, and the only way for the congregation, which numbers 12, to survive and thrive was to sell the building.
Salvaging it would cost $50 million, the Presbytery estimated.
The second roadblock to demolition was The Center at West Park, the nonprofit arts organization that leased space from the church. Its lease was signed in 2016, with a five-year option to renew, and in the wake of the announcement of plans to sell the building, The Center announced its own plan to save the church and turn it into a community performing arts center.
Over the years, The Center at Park West has thrived, according to Hirshman, bringing in funds from ticket sales, space rentals, foundation grants, and individual gifts. It also brought in a private engineering firm to reassess the cost of the repairs required to allow the removal of the sidewalk shed.
“The estimate was roughly $5 million for just the exterior repairs. We had hoped to start the work last December 2024 and be done by this fall,” said Hirshman.
Months later, no work has been done, and there are no plans to start that work anytime soon. So what’s the holdup?
“The commission staff approved the plans,” said Michael Hiller, attorney for the center. “But the formal approval by the commission cannot be granted if the commission decides the center had no authorization to submit those plans,” Hiller explained. Which is what happened. “The Landmarks Preservation Commission refused to grant a single permit because the papers were not signed by the owner of the property,” which is the Presbytery, not the arts center.
The Landmarks Preservation Commission, in response to an email query from West Side Rag, confirmed that work cannot move forward without the Presbytery’s signoff.
“Long-standing rules stipulate that LPC cannot accept an application that does not include the owner’s signature,” a spokesperson for the commision wrote to the Rag. “Regarding West Park Presbyterian Church, LPC received an application submitted by the tenant (The Center), not the building’s owner (the Presbytery). LPC notified the applicant that the missing owner signature was needed for the application to move forward. For any additional questions on that application and the owner signature, we’d refer you to the Presbytery.” The Presbytery has not responded to multiple inquiries from the Rag about why it has not signed the application.
“What’s frustrating to the many supporters fighting to save the landmark is that this work would come at zero cost to the West Park Presbyterian Church,” said Hirshman. “We’re ready to renovate and restore the landmark, remove the shed, and insure the building for future generations. But instead of helping us to get the job done, the church administrators continue to push for demolition as the only path forward.”
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Tear it down and build affordable housing. If developers can make millions building as luxury properties then a developer can also make the purchase and make a bit less doing something for the benefit of the city.
Why doesn’t the city take the $100+ Million for the 79thst Marina and purchase and develop. $33 mil to purchase and $40 mil to build 17 stories.
Bet you’re a developer. They are the rats that are destroying the city.
How many 19th century architectural landmarks does this neighbor have? I’d rather keep this one. What is this impulse to tear down quirky, unique structures? Especially with the aim of cramming even more housing into one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the country.
Keep the church, renovate it, turn it into a permanent cultural center. Actually value history.
Literally thousands. The majority of the UWS is landmarked. https://www.landmarkwest.org/map/
What gives you the right to put your hand in other people’s pockets? NYC socialist housing policies are the reason NYC apartments are a crap show.
Thanks MAGA
It’ll be luxury housing, not affordable housing so I get your desire to destroy a landmark if you’re ultra sympathetic to the luxury housing cause.
Bart, I invite you to take a look at how much any market housing costs in NYC, it’s not cheap. When you are paying $30m for the land alone, you can’t get cheap housing.
So how much have they actually raised? The $5M mentioned?
And what if they’re wrong, given the other side’s vastly different estimates and general risk in construction? What it costs $7-10-15M?
If the (renewed) lease b/n the parties expires in 2026, wouldn’t the Church just kick out the Center – which, at this point, they must see as an impediment to potential sale?
The only thing that will work is to raise hell with The Presbytery of New York City to do the right thing and sign off on the application that costs them nothing. Without sustained pressure from the community and our representatives, they will wait for the building to collapse so they can complete their real estate deal. They are headquartered in “the God box” at 475 Riverside Drive.
Why to you think signing off on the plans is the right thing to do? The primary mission of a church is spread its good news and work for betterment of others and the money it will get from the market rate sale will go a long way to furthering its divinely inspired objectives. Existing for the purpose of repairing and maintaining a sandstone pile is not part of its, or any church’s, mission statement. No one here reasonably disputes the needed facade, roof and interior repairs will run well into the eight figures, and heat, routine repairs and annual fixes costs probably well north of million dollars/year. The church simply cannot afford it.
ARTS CENTER! In the current greedy rush to destruction, an arts center is a welcome defense against barbarism.
This is a great idea because there are no arts/cultural centers on the UWS. Except Lincoln Center, Symphony Space, Manhattan Movement and Arts Center, W83, etc.
Affordable (worker) housing would be the way to go. The City should be negotiating with the Presbytery and an affordable housing developer (WSFSSH) to develop the site for much needed affordable housing. The Center is only a tenant, with a lease that will soon expire. Perhaps they should focus their energy on finding a new home,
Seems like the owners aren’t enthused about the plan to fix the facade and nothing else.
The owners don’t want to be kicked out of the building they built and paid for and maintained for +100 years before the center came in and designated the property against their wishes. Kicking out property owners because someone else wants the property more is not a good way to decide land use on the UWS.
Because they want the cash
sorry, but if 25 yrs passed with the facade crumbling, this is a health hazard and a community nuisance. Tear this thing down. Sorry for your feelz.
I think if the shed doesn’t come down before next year it will then be 25 years old and can be landmarked itself..
this comment is extremely funny
Please. This church is a Leopold Eidlitz masterpiece. If you’ve never heard of him, learn. This building needs to be restored and remain exactly where it is here on the UWS.
I agree. I don’t know why the movie stars who supported the idea of a community arts center are hardly at all supplementing their words with some funding. Talk is cheap. Always.
I hope everyone understands that Leopold Eidlitz was a Gilded Age Jewish architect who was a pioneer in the development of organic architecture and wrote a book on the subject (“The Nature and Function of Art, More Especially of Architecture”) years before Frank Lloyd Wright or Louis Sullivan ever designed a thing. Yes, precious few of Eidlitz’s buildings still stand, including some of his greatest works, but I believe it is nothing less than bigotry that has stood in the way of the legacy this man deserves…
Indeed. If those who keep parroting the “let ’em eat cake” song have the curiosity, let them check out Hudson Yards or, stay local, and look at West 66 Street, or the ugliness of Amsterdam Avenue in the upper 60s and the coming transformation of Columbus Avenue near Lincoln Center. There is no shortage of unaffordable housing above 59th Street, nor developers champing at the bit to build more and more. Eidlitz had his day and we should enjoy what little of him remains. One of the great pleasures of walking around Rome is seeing souvenirs of the range of its long history alongside the contemporary buildings being built. New York has a fabulous history. Don’t erase it! And think adaptive re-use instead of demolition.
Like they did in Quebec with the all the dead churches. Landmark listed the important ones at public expense and adaptive reused the rest.
Yes, in many other countries, rich to poor, the “ruins” are what makes the places worth visiting and worth keeping, with pride and historical value added. Don’t know what’s wrong with New Yorkers sometimes, wanting more and more housing, while office buildings are being converted already. We are not going to build housing for the working class in NYC. Not in Manhattan, anyway. So stop dreaming. Or fear-mongering, if that’s the case.
Who’s paying for that? Not a great use of tax dollars so don’t say the city
Crooked Mayor Adams is lining his pockets with cash thanks to his pardon by Trump. I’d say that’s a criminal use of tax dollars. How about you?
Of course it is, sucks having a crook for mayor and now we have one in the White House too. Doesn’t make this a good use of city funds.
false. 25 years is long enough to have this eyesore in our community. demolish it and build a Science Library
Part of the predatory developer class, obviously.
Hmm, could you have a science library within the current, refurbished landmarked building? That would be cool.
The behavior of the Presbyterian church is an embarrassment. This passive aggressive behavior is not OK. I don’t really care what they do but they need to do something.
I say tear it down sell the land at a moderate price and build mixed-income housing without making it too big of a building. And have a significant portion of the proceeds go to a legitimate good cause, not the church.
Legitimate good cause here would be to make sure public officials get their usual kickbacks, the corrupt church members get their cut and the greedy developer gets the most cash.
Sell the land at a moderate price! Well aren’t you generous with other people’s assets. The land the church sits on is valuable and a market rate sale will both allow the Presbytery to pay off its debts and fund its religious mission. The lease expires next year and if the arts group wishes to stay intact it should take the $5m it claims to have and start looking for new space.
Rules are perfectly clear and rationale.
NYC like other areas with landmark laws gets around violating takings clause of USC by saying (among other things) they are not removing rights of property owner.
Center at West Park have leased the church, they don’t own the property and thus absent contractual agreement (spelled out in original lease) cannot make major alterations, alienate or cause any work on said LLs property without explicit and express consent. If LPC/City of New York granted CWP’s request it would almost certainly lead to legal action against both by WP Church which latter surely would prevail.
Really. Proxies for developers is all the “church members” have in mind. Where is the Sulzberger “Trump Times” or The New Yorker to investigate the seamy corruption at the bottom of this situation????
The Center has put on wonderful performances.
While I am strongly in favor of demolishing the church and allowing the developer to develop the property, I would like to see a detailed plan of their development, including exterior renderings, floor plans, etc. I would also like to know whether they plan any set-asides for affordable housing, whatever that term means these days. Will the Presbytery or Alchemy provide those to the public so we have a clearer picture of what is planned? That might sway some people one way and some people the other.
Why would they share that with a bunch of busybodies who will only criticize it and never be happy with anything. I wouldn’t.
They have submitted reams of this documentation to Landmarks and presented in great detail at public hearings.
I just found it. As I read it, there would be 20 units: 5 studios, 3 one-BRs, 2 two-BRs, 5 two-BR + “den”, and 5 three-BRs. Rents would run from $3300 to $12,000/mo. That’s an average of $73/sq ft in an area that commands FAR more than that. Sadly, there would not be room for “affordable” units, as that term is generally used.
That is sad. But the Presbytery is the owner/landlord and has a right to do with its building as it chooses.
I am also wondering if the Center can strike a deal that allows it to use whatever “worship space”” (sanctuary) is provided to the church when that space is not in use. And since it would rarely if ever be in use in the evening, the Center would continue to function. If not, there is ample empty space on the UWS to find a new location.
This feels absurd. In no world does a commercial tenant get to start pulling permits to perform facade and structural work on a building.
The Center’s behavior in this issue has been abhorrent, trying to manipulate the public to secure a property for far below land value that the Center cannot possibly afford to maintain — at which point they will surely beg the public for tens of millions of dollars.
This neighborhood is filled with people who volunteer on boards that go through hell for the facade inspection process, and we can see through this charade.
Submitting a permit to Landmarks does NOT mean the Center has the contractor or the financial means to do this work. It does not mean the work would satisfy the DOB given existing owner engineering inspection detailing a scope of work needed that is far greater than what the Center wants to pay for.
Was there even a DOB filing? Who is the contractor that the Center has ready to pull a permit? Who is the engineer that the Center has retained to inspect and attest to the repairs at the penalty of losing their license?
This is a publicity stunt by the Center to file a permit that would never get approved and then complain. The public should stop falling for these antics. The Center is a nightmare tenant, seeking to pressure the church to relinquish a property so that the Center can use celebrity connections to get a massive City bailout. There is no way this work will cost a mere $4M.
Another developer in sheep’s clothing.
Perhaps rather than calling names, you can provide either statutory or case law whereby a commercial tenant has the right to perform this type of work with our without the approval of a property owner……
Absolutely right – the Center is trying to hold the church hostage
I find it extremely hard to believe that the Church can be fixed for $5M after almost 25 years of degradation (plus the degradation that caused the scaffolding to be put up in the first place).
I am on the board of my condo association and LL11 work cost over $1M every 5 years (this is a scam, but that’s for another post).
Fixing the red sandstone, rest of the facade and the structural damage cannot cost $5M … it has to be a lot more. Engineering costs are 20% of the budget, so effectively the “work” is budget for ~$4M? Impossible.
And besides all the legal issues mentioned, proof of the funding, detailed plans and budget should be released.
Agreed, the Center’s estimate is almost comically too low considering it costs a comparatively boring brick building $1M every five years to do mandatory facade maintenance. This church is far more unique and complex, and has been neglected for decades.
The calls to demolish a great piece of architecture and put up a high rise show the poor taste of local residents; all they think of is money and are in great need of remedial education in the humanities.
I think you are in need of a remedial education in economics and finance.
The church is old and falling apart. By all accounts it will take many millions of dollars to rehabilitate it. Unfortunately, NOBODY has come up with a plan to obtain this money.
I’m all in favor of keeping architectural gems standing. But this church has been an empty hulk of a building surrounded by scaffolding for nearly 25 years. Chances are it will remain this way for many years to come.
1. The congregation is numbered 12?: Why can they not thrive in another congregation in a structurally sound facility. If they cannot grow members in situ, something else is wrong
2. The church, presumably owned by the Presbytery? NOT THE 12 member congregation, has benefitted from years, presumably, of tax , exemption, something given, according to the rules of the US Government and no doubt NYC, to entities that benefit the community. Perhaps they have been paying income tax for the revenue provided by the Center….that’s between the IRS and the Presbytery….
3. If the Presbytery cannot sustain the maintenance on the building, especially with virtually NO congregation then they should give it to an organization that creates housing for community benefit, and quite possibly, that project could also include a Community Center in it’s midst.
4. I’ll reiterate: a CHURCH for heaven’s sake, should be facilitate the BUILDING of this housing, not selling to the highest bidder.
5. My Rotary Club is 19 members strong, and we helped BUILD veterans housing. Our annual budget is less that $20,000. We raised the money to allow a non profit community housing and job training facility to add to their apartment totals for the Vets!
Our churches and other beneficiaries of the PUBLIC’s gifts (tax exemptions, for ex) should be using their assets to benefit society, not their coffers
“If they cannot grow members in situ, something else is wrong”
This is an outrageous statement that betrays reality.
Demographics change over time. Period. I grew up in Eastern Queens where Jewish congregations abounded. The area is now Asian and many if not most of the congregations have dissolved, their buildings having disappeared or been converted into offices or schools.
That’s reality. The reason why the congregation on Amsterdam is 12 is the Presbyterians have been replaced by a population that practices different religions.
And this aspect of reality is the main reason why the idea that a house of worship should be landmarked is a bad one.
It’s not landmarked under the description, “house of worship,” since there are many houses of worship that are not landmarked. It’s landmarked under the description, “building of historic, architectural significance.” This building is the only Romanesque Revival structure on the UWS, dating from 1890.
The church has been open about the fact that they want to use the money from selling the site to fuel their other charitable work.
And I’m sorry but with all due respect to your rotary club, construction costs in NY can easily be $1,000 per square foot. The 12 parish members can’t raise enough to pay to build and operate housing in NY..
The best way to raise enough money for more housing is to sell the lot for $30M and build housing in a less expensive neighborhood.
The inside of the church is totally falling apart as well and repairs to the exterior will do nothing to repair the space for the worshippers which would probably grow in number if the interior was not s danger to those inside. The Presbytery must make decisions in the best interests of the church and its mission.
Before it was Landmarked, Gail Brewer said she’d raise the money to restore the church. What does Gail Brewer have to say now?
Gail Brewer is termed out. At last. She never had the ability to help resolve this situation.
Because the P wants the $55 million. So they can let it rot and be an eyesore to the community.
That church was built with a poor grade of stone and bits have been flaking off as long as I can remember. The shed is there to protect pedestrians from random pieces falling on thir heads like what happened in 2019 on 49th street. Unless there’s some technology I’m unaware of the building is going to continue to deteriorate. Everyone hates the shed but if it’s taken away someone is going to get killed. It’s only a matter of time. I’m a huge history nerd and want to see as many of these old structures preserved as possible but this one is just beyond hope.
Why would anyone want to preserve what is probably the ugliest edifice on the UWS? If the pious Presbyterians (all 12 of them) wish to cash out, let them. Even if a building built to house fat cats takes its place, it’s better than that pile of architectural detritus.
While I’m sympathetic to landmark preservation, it’s obvious at this point that after 25 years…25 years!…plans to address problems with the structure are simply not feasible nor practical. This structure and the scaffolding are an obvious blight on the neighborhood. It’s time to raze the building and allow new development consistent with prevailing zoning regulations.
I’m in the middle. I don’t think the arts center should spend money on something they don’t own.
Tear it down???? I guess the arts and culture have no place in your life
Great reporting Carol!
I have been in the building a lot, but not recently. There is lots and lots of wood. In the areas open to the public many items are heavily worn. But in the closed areas and underground areas there is lots of stacked up old wood and unused, broken items also made of wood. I have no opinion on whether or not the church should be demolished. But when I used the church building including the backstage and underground areas it occurred to me that if this place catches fire it is going to be really bad and there will be no way to put it out.
Do the members of the Presbytery get the money if the building sells?
It’s a church. A house of God. Isnt religion about altruism and not corporate greed? I say they should give it to the poor.
That is exactly why the New York Presbytery wants to sell the building, to use the proceeds of the sale to continue the mission of the Presbyterian Church in New York.
Mark Ruffalo loves this neighborhood eyesore so much why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is and either by the whole place or just live in it till it collapses. Either way it’s a dump and needs to come down.
I like his acting sometimes but can’t stand the man. Wish he’d get some of his many celebrity friends are do something real. Or is he just a one-trick pony–actor.
With all the activities going on in there, all it will take is a short circuit or human carelessness to take care of this.
If the Presbytery is ready to sell to a developer for $33 million, and salvaging it would cost ~$50 million, consider the following. Matt Damon is worth $170 million. Scarlett Johansson is worth $165 million. Mark Ruffalo is worth $100 million, Matthew Broderick is worth $100 million. Laurence Fishburne is worth $50 million. Amy Schumer is worth $50 million.
If they (and the other celebs involved) “put their money where their mouths are” – and didn’t just loan the “clout” of their names – they could EASILY afford to make a bid higher than $33 million – and could even afford the $50 million. (After all, they don’t have to use all cash; they could get loans and/or lines of credit as well).
That tells me a lot about their degree of seriousness in saving the Center.
How do you know what these people are worth?
Has Mark Ruffalo announced that he is worth $100 million and climbing?
Mark Ruffalo has commented on WSR articles about this church, so maybe he’ll weigh in! But in all seriousness, alleged net worth does not equal liquidity.
If any of these folks were worth this amount, why would they plunk half of their net worth into a church?
I see cherry picking of facts on all sides here. The LPC has designated the building as a landmark. So, as a matter of law, the building may not be demolished. The landmarks hardship clause does not apply to the church owners. That’s why they withdrew their application to ask for special treatment, because you can’t just wait 25 years, breaking the law (that scaffolding is not permitted for 25 years) and then turn around and claim hardship. Also, let’s not forget that this particular congregation, which owns the building and land, is part of one of the richest churches on earth. And they are a non-profit. They pay virtually zero taxes. So, instead of arguing about philosophy and economics, try to focus on the particulars of this case. The building will not be demolished unless the law is perverted beyond recognition, or unless we change the law. If this congregation refuses to cure the violations then by law property should be condemned by the city and sold to the highest bidder. There is a price for this property as it stands. It’s just not what the congregation wants. Such is life. Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s to paraphrase a famous rabbi. 🙂
“richest churches on earth” – I wish. I was a member of the congregation in the 1990s. We struggled to maintain the building then, even with our membership in the +500 range. We fired most of our staff and sold off two condos we owned to maintain the building. There was nothing left to sell and no more expenses to cut. It is the definition of a financial hardship or demolition by poverty, not neglect.
Interesting logic. However if the building is condemned, I doubt there would be ANY bidders, if indeed the repair costs run $40-50 million. Essentially, as a protected landmark, with no hope of demolition, and unrealistic repair costs, the building currently has a net value of less than zero..
Just a question: if a landmarked building is condemned as unsafe… can it be demolished?
It’s being demolished right now; it is called, “demolition by neglect..”
I was the founding artistic director of the Riverside Shakespeare Company of New York City, dedicated the Shakespeare’s center in 1980, by Joseph Papp and Helen Hayes. Happy to give personal testimony while I’m in New York over the next few weeks.
Contact Debby Hirshman at the Center of West Park!
I was the founding artistic director of the Riverside Shakespeare Company, who made it home at West Park Church, creating the Shakespeare’s Center, dedicated in 1980 by Joseph Papp, Helen Hayes, Peter, Brook, and others. I’m strongly in support of doing whatever can be done to keep the church as a Center for the Arts on the Upper West Side where my wife and I lived for a number of years. The church has become an invaluable center for the arts in recent years, and I applaud their endeavors in keeping it a place for the art to flourish in the area. (My wife and I will be in New York over the next few weeks and would be happy to lend our voices to these endeavors. Keep up the good work!)
The church has a soul! the glass luxury building does not! Just another piece of soul-less architecture ! People go to that beautiful building for worship, concerts, community affairs. Fix the building! People want to save it! Neighbors want to save it.
*Some* people and neighbors want to save it in the general sense, others merely want to preserve their views. Neither are willing to pay what it actually costs to repair this building.
I don’t think so! I and Many of my neighbors have contributed…..money, time and advocacy. Let the church live! You want a luxury building? More water consumption, more waste disposal, what about more wifi consumption…..more, more more! Apparently those who have money don’t care what consequences could be caused by this huge “luxury” building for those who can afford it!!
Unless you and the neighbors have raised close to $45m for the repair work (it is a landmarked building, repairs must be made in kind and therefore will be millions more than you think) and also a sufficient additional sum set aside to generate dividend/interest income to cover the ongoing expenses of the building in perpetuity your efforts,are meaningless. Money, a lot of it, is what is needed to repair and keep the church operating. So far no one has come remotely close to raising the sums needed. Otherwise we just wait for the pile to collapse in on itself. Hopefully no one will be injured when it does.
“ ‘The Landmarks Preservation Commission refused to grant a single permit because the papers were not signed by the owner of the property,’ which is the Presbytery, not the arts center.” a) Would have been nice to inform the arts center about the signatory requirements LONG before this, and b) what the hell is the Presbytery waiting for?
The arts center has its own attorneys; if they did not tell them in advance of the signing requirement, then they need new attorneys. However that is unlikely, and as noted above, this is pure grandstanding by the Center because its lease is up next year.
The arts center has a lawyer. I am sure they were fully aware that the actual owner of the property has to sign the paperwork. If they weren’t, then shame on their lawyer.
The Presbytery isn’t waiting for anything. They are the owner. they don’t have the money to do the work. While the arts center may have the money, they are a tenant, not the owner and don’t have a right to do the work.
FROM THE WEST PARK PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH WEBSITE:
https://www.westparkpresbyterian.org/future/
“The Church would retain a 10,000 square foot space in the new building for worship, arts programs and community activities, and receive cash proceeds from the sale that would support its mission-driven work. It would also create an endowment for the Presbytery of New York to support congregations and communities across New York City.”
So, the developer will be adding a big space in the new apartment building on that site for the church and for arts and neighborhood activities. And it would have the added bonus of being new, clean, not in need of tens of millions in repair work, not be a fire hazard, not have to have a shed around it to stop falling debris from killing people, and the space would be in a mixed use building supported by other tenants so upkeep wouldn’t solely fall on the 12 members of the church.
We can disagree about whether the church is gorgeous or hideous… I grew up 4 blocks away and I always thought it was an awful structure. Others love it, and that’s perfectly reasonable, as well. But to stubbornly insist that a building that cannot sustain itself, is almost beyond repair, will cost a fortune (that will not be magically appearing) to restore, must sit there rotting rather than be turned into something useful, because you don’t want rich people to have more opportunities to buy apartments, is ridiculous.
1) How will the rotting church provide housing for anyone?
2) Why is a new, clean, usable church/event space not a benefit to the community?
3) It’s literally a free church that is being given to these people AND they also get $33 million to do good works… instead of spending years begging for $50 million to fix up a mess.
4) It solves a problem that has plagued the neighborhood for 25 years.
5) Even if they can somehow raise the massive amount of money needed to restore, renovate, re-wire, re-plumb, re-finish, and re-paint the place, there’s no chance in hell that a church of 12 people supplemented by some neighborhood arts programs will be able to sustain and keep up the space. Local Law 11 alone will cost the church a million bucks every 5 years. Some sporadic readings of plays by well-known actors isn’t going to be able to cover those costs.
6) I hope people don’t forget that property taxes pay for much of what our city can provide in services and to those in need. It takes from the wealthy and gives it to the disadvantaged, which seems morally correct and is a pretty good deal for people who need help. It pays for police and firefighters that are intended to serve everyone, regardless of whether they pay taxes themselves. The people who buy those fancy new apartments will be paying a hefty amount into the city’s coffers. It’s at least one way we can reverse the endless flow of money that seems to constantly go toward the rich, and, instead, transfer some of that money to people who really need it.
It’s time to be done with that sandstone mess and move into the future.
I hope people listen to you!
I think “housing” is a political ploy for politicians and real estate developers. I see plenty of empty apartments in the city, it’s amazing. Tear down, tear down, build, build. Forget about fixing what’s already here! Put those glass monsters up! 30 floors and more…..Nobody thinks of what it’s doing to our infrastructure and services….water, electricity, garbage collection, sewage removal – how about subways, buses, traffic? What a strain on our city. A friend of mine visited a friend who lived in one of those pencil-thin buildings, and couldn’t leave the apartment….. the elevator wouldn’t work because it was windy out and the building swayed…….she couldn’t leave until the elevators were safe to operate! Have you ever really looked at some of the older buildings…..the artwork that went on the outside of the building? Someone took the time to be creative. Of course there are those buildings that were “modernized” on the outside into nothing! New York has beauty. Fix what doesn’t work…..don’t tear down.