By Gus Saltonstall and Carol Tannenhauser
West-Park Presbyterian Church on the Upper West Side appears to have moved closer to its fate on Monday, when a New York City sheriff served eviction papers to the arts center that has called the building home since 2016 and has stood in the way of the church getting demolished.
The eviction notice states that the Center at West Park has five business days to remove itself from the more than 130-year-old church at 165 West 86th Street, on the corner of Amsterdam Avenue.
“Please take notice that a judgement has been made in the above proceeding awarding to the plaintiff [West-Park Presbyterian Church of New York City] possession of the premises now occupied by you at 165 West 86th Street and that an order has been issued commanding the Sheriff to remove you and all other persons,” the notice delivered to the Center at West Park read.
The eviction notice comes after a decision by the New York State Court of Appeals on May 22 denying the arts center’s appeal of a previous decision from a lower court that declared The Center at West Park to no longer have an active lease at the Upper West Side church.
The court battle over the lease between the church and the arts center has gone on since August of 2022, and as West Side Rag reported in 2023, if the church prevailed in that legal battle, it would then have the ability to evict The Center at West Park.
And that is what has happened — around three weeks after the court decision — the eviction papers arrived at the door of the arts center.
The Rag reached out to Debby Hirshman, the executive director at The Center at West Park, for more information on what the plan of action would be for the arts organization. While she did not comment directly on the eviction papers, she did respond to the court decision.
“While we are disappointed by the court’s decision. The Center at West Park remains steadfast in our commitment to our community and NYC and to preserving the sacred landmark West Park Presbyterian Church,” Hirshman wrote. “We will continue to present affordable and accessible programming, support artists of all ages, build an inclusive and diverse intergenerational audience, and fight to preserve and maintain this self-sustaining sacred space, community arts and cultural hub, and community anchor for NYC whether we are on- or off-site.”
Upper West Side City Councilmember Gale Brewer, who has been a leading voice in the battle to save the church from demolition, told the Rag that the eviction papers arriving at The Center made her so angry “it was hard to express it in words.”
“It makes me furious. I understand the church has the right do it because of the court decision on the lease, but it angers me more than words can describe that they would take this route,” Brewer said. “The Center has the money to pay for rent, pay to fix the roof, even to buy the building, all of these things, but the Presbytery refuses to even have a meeting. Instead, they just send an eviction notice.”
Brewer added that her office was deciding on next steps for some sort of event at the church to show solidarity and continue the fight.
A Quick Recap of the Situation
In June 2022, West-Park Presbyterian Church’s 12-member congregation filed a hardship application with the New York City Landmarks Commission, claiming that they could not afford to repair and carry the church any longer, and asking the commission to rescind the building’s landmark status so they could sell the property for $33 million to a real-estate developer who planned to replace it with a 19-story, market-rate apartment building.
The news of the plan to replace the more than 130-year-old Upper West Side church with luxury condominiums was met with swift pushback from residents, local elected officials, and celebrities, including actors Mark Ruffalo and Laurence Fishburne.
Then, in January 2024, hours before the Landmark Preservation Committee was slated to decide on the hardship application, the church withdrew it due to complications related to the above-mentioned legal battle over the lease between the church and The Center at West Park.
A New York City building cannot be demolished if it has an active tenant, and a hardship application can only be granted if a property has no other barriers for demolition. That meant the church would have not been granted the hardship application at the time, because The Center at West Park still operated out of the building, according to a source familiar with the situation.
Now that the lease has officially been declared void, though, the church has the ability evict the arts center and reapply for the hardship application with the building no longer having a tenant.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
It was wrong for mere renters of the Arts center to block the sale of the Church for three years. It is completely dilapidated and needs over fifty million dollars just in repairs. Tear it down and build a high rise market rate apartments.
That’s a complete lie. Building is fully sound. There have been hundreds of performances and events happening in that space and all over that building for years. The shed on the sidewalk is only there because the church refuses to apply to have it taken down and they are the only ones as owners that can do so. They claim a hardship that simply DOES NOT EXIST so that they can sell to developers. Which is disgusting. A church should serve the community, not destroy the community. Absolutely shameful for the Presbytery to seek to demolish not just a THRIVING arts and cultural institution but an HISTORIC landmark building full of Tiffany glass and a deeply rich history.
It’s landmarked, and can’t simply be torn down.
You’re not offering a serious proposal that would house people other than the very well paid.
It in fact can be torn down, that’s what the Church asked Landmarks to allow.
I think this sort of first order reasoning doesn’t factor in (i) if you don’t build new housing for the rich, then they will just outbid the middle class and (ii) new housing is expensive at first but if you keep building new housing, then it becomes relatively more affordable decades later.
News to me that Landmarks approved the tear down.
Can you provide some examples of formerly “expensive” housing on the UWS that is now “more affordable”? ‘Cause I can’t think of a single address for which that’s true.
Yes *IF* you keep building new housing, which the UWS has not done.
This is pretty intuitive – generally a brand new 1,000sq ft apartment will cost more than an identical one that’s 50+ years old. Having lived exclusively in ~100 year old buildings, I know which I would prefer to live in!
This is a well studied phenomenon called ‘filtering’ I encourage you to look it up.
He can’t.
It’s a Milton Friedman level understanding of housing economics — so fraudulent.
A Nobel Prize Winning Economist level understanding? You realize that’s a huge compliment, right?
Not the same Robert
it will be as the hardship filings are back on and if not
it will just sit the way it is until more of it falls in and its declared a hazard and is ordered demolished by DOB’s emergency crew
If you look at the original filing, you will see the massive deterioration and how far the two facades at the corner have separated from the rest of the building.
I just hope the scaffolding can hold up when it comes down
what you don’t know is the main part of
the church has superior acoustics due to the age of the wood (100 yrs) which is very precious and csnnot be constructed today
i..e. Alice Tully at Lincoln Center redone 3/4 times at several
million each time trying to improve acoustics
To destroy that room would be terrible
Someway somehow this previous space
could be put to good use for benefit of the
community
It cannot be destroyed!!!!!!!
Maybe build over or around but it must be
preserved
Have. we learned anything after Penn Station!!
“Get off the cross, we need the wood!”
I agree with every word you have written!
“tear down this old church and build a high rise apartment”, said the totally non-dystopian man
I don’t think you know what that word means.
More Trumpian condos.
lol
GB: “The Center has the money to pay for rent, pay to fix the roof, even to buy the building, all of these things, but the Presbytery refuses to even have a meeting. Instead, they just send an eviction notice.”
Really, the Center is offering the highest price of all potential buyers?
When is this woman going to stop spewing economic and legal nonsense? What does “anger” have to do with anything?
The church enjoyed over 130 years TAX FREE, that’s MILLIONS of dollars other property owners had to make up for with higher taxes on THEIR buildings, after 130 YEARS on the welfare dole at city expense, the city should get the building for free.
The total value of the property was assessed at $3,177,450. Specifically, the land the property is located on was valued at $2,047,500.
The property tax rate in the city is as follows;
Class 1 – 20.085%
Class 2 – 12.500%
Class 3 – 11.181%
Class 4 – 10.762%
Even if we use the lowest rate and round it down to an even 10%, 10% of $3.1 million is $310,000 a year they arent paying in taxes that a nearby building of that value would pay. The highest rate of 20% is $620,000 a year.
So in the last 10 years they have not paid $3,100,000 or as much as $6,200,000 in taxes. It’s easy to see how if thats extended back 130 years, the taxes they didnt pay exceed the value of the building now, the city should get it for free.
All other houses of worship get that tax break, plus schools and non profits. I am not arguing the merits of giving them tax exempt status, but every other house of worship gets it they cannot be condemned for taking advantage of the tax laws. Further the money from the sale will go to outfit a smaller church and to New York Presbyterian Church to continue its salutary mission in the city.
They have never ever shown they can raise the millions for the needed repairs.
We taxpayers had to foot a good part of the bill when GB cut a deal with con ed a number of years ago to aid this group
It should be noted that due to political pressure the landmarking was bumped ahead of many other projects and approved in record time
You know for a fact that they cannot raise the money?!
I was going to post the exact same thing. Since when has the Center offered to to anything other than minor, band-aid repairs? I have been following this since Day 1, and they have NEVER offered to fix the roof, much less to buy the building – despite having several multi-million celebs who COULD do so if they wanted. But those celebs have NEVER been willing to put their money where their mouths are, other than in the most minimal fashion.
If Matt Damon, Mark Ruffalo, Scarlett Johansson, Matthew Broderick, Laurence Fishburne et al – who have a total net worth north of $500 million – REALLY wanted to save the Center, they COULD buy the building. It speaks volumes that they could EASILY outbid the developer, but have never offered to do so.
And if they REALLY want to “save” the Center – or make sure its work continues – they (again) have FAR more than enough money between them to buy some existing property on the UWS (or close by) and build their own Center. Yet I have NEVER heard THAT idea proposed. (They missed their chance by not buying the old Metro Theater, which would have been the perfect spot for them to build a venue).
It’s difficult to buy a building if it’s not for sale.
Yep. I have also been saying this. To deaf ears.
So the only WAY to keep the arts AFLOAT in a political climate that NURTURES contempt for
the arts IS for artists to own the facilities in WHICH they’re presented?
Could they buy both?
The center really has fifty million dollars to buy the building??
$50M?
Ha – the congregation is only getting $33M from the developer.
Actually that was the original figure from when this started I would bet its gone up
They have celeb supporters with a net worth north of $500 million – yet I have NEVER heard any talk of outbidding the developer (which they could EASILY do), and buying the building. These celebs apparently don’t want to put their money where their mouths are.
If you haven’t seen their books, you have no idea how much money they have. Your silly. argument makes me wonder if you’re a shill for the developer.
hasn’t she done enough damage?
The idea of more people moving into the neighborhood angers her more than words can describe
Yet I don’t hear her expressing the same outrage at Extell, which is planning a supertall (potentially 1200-foot) building on the old ABC site – which IS worth the outrage, and must be fought tooth and nail.
That one is good too actually.
It’s absurd that Gale Brewer has spent so much time lobbying for this commercial tenant and promoting such falsehoods about facade repair costs, while doing nothing to alleviate the burden of facade repair costs on the buildings in her district.
You can stand on the corner in front of this church and see it surrounded by taller buildings in good repair who have to spend millions per year because of this out of control FISP law. But a church that is visibly falling apart can repair itself for just a few million? What a hill she’s choosing to die on.
“The Center has the money to pay for rent, pay to fix the roof, even to buy the building, all of these things, but the Presbytery refuses to even have a meeting. Instead, they just send an eviction notice.”
Brewer added that her office was deciding on next steps for some sort of event at the church to show solidarity and continue the fight.
It’s funny. Rich New Yorkers travel to Europe to marvel at old churches and historic artifacts. Then they come home to tear down unique structures that are part of New York history that can’t be replaced. All to put up some soulless luxury condo boxes.
Where is the appreciation of history? Of architecture? Of having something unique and historical in one’s own neighborhood?
And please spare me all the “we need housing” stuff. A handful of luxury condos purchased by multimillionaires aren’t going to alleviate any kind of housing crisis.
BRAVO
Maybe MSG could step in snd plan for a
restored entertainment venue like they did
for the Beacon Theatre. Now That’s An Idea!!
So ask them.
The drooling pigs are shrieking over your calm and far-sighted observation, Katherine. Keep up the good replies! I love bacon 🥓
“Where is the appreciation of history? Of architecture? Of having something unique and historical in one’s own neighborhood?”
Where is the money to maintain the building and keep it operating and maintained? Unlike the Europeans cited in your post, no one here either has the money to pay for it or wants to donate to pay for it. Time’s up. Tear it down before it collapses and hurts someone.
The Center does have the money. And YOU”VE decided time’s up?
They have had since 2016 to raise the money. It was one of the terms of the original lease. As per their most recent tax return (which is public) they have $121,000. Not even remotely close to what’s needed. So yes, time’s up.
This thing is not Sagrada Familia. There is not a single tourist who is coming to New York to see this building. The people who insist we need to save every single building regardless of quality have more in common with hoarders than art lovers.
They’re the same people who want to save that ugly, dilapidated theater on Broadway just above 99th – and, in trying to do so, have kept it a vacant scourge on that block for over 20 years now. While I heard that there is a plan to open it again, I’ll believe it when I see it – plans for that eyesore have come and gone many times.
Wow, amazing negativity!
Anna, you don’t know what you’re talking about. The Metro building had no value to commercial developers because the owners had sold off all the air rights. After selling off the air rights, the owner refused to sell that building for decades for a reasonable price to a non-profit, which was the only viable use for the property. Only after he died did the owner’s son make a deal. That building is now being refurbished as a wonderful film center.
Now THAT would be the answer here! Why didn’t the several celebs who are supporting the Center – who have a net worth north of $500 million – buy the old Metro Theater? It would have been the PERFECT place to build a new Center – with room for other programs, even other smaller venues (perhaps a comedy club?). That way, the Center would own and control its own property.
Have you actually SEEN the inside of the church? Buildings are not interchangeable.
You’re right, this building alone won’t alleviate the housing crisis, so we need to repeat this as many times as possible throughout the city.
Imagine being the owner or landlord of a structure and being told what you can and cannot do. 🙂
The “landlords” have neglected this building and let it fall into this condition. They even refused to let the Center pay to have the scaffolding removed. It is a LANDMARKED building, therefore they cannot do with it whatever they wish.
I may have little love for landlords, but you are absolutely correct. A landlord has the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE right to determine what happens to its property. If the Presbytery wants to sell, demolish and have a developer build condos (plus space for the church), it is within its right to do so – no matter whether it it a “good” or “bad” thing.
Actually, you are not correct. This building was landmarked.
“A landlord has the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE right to determine what happens to its property”
Well, no. That’s not true and if you thought about it for even a few seconds, you’d realize that you don’t want it to be true. Would you want your next-door neighbor storing hazardous waste on their property? Opening a nightclub? We have laws about this for a reason, and you’re undoubtedly the beneficiary of these laws more than you’re a victim of them.
That has nothing to do with my comment.
Clearly you’ve never lived within an HOA. Besides the point, this sentiment is disgraceful.
Great, now let’s get this eye-sore torn down so we can continue to elevate our community.
Ugh………. Scaffolding forever.
Amazing I love to see it.
The center has been a bad actor, basically are trying to hold the church hostage via the political process.
At this point I really don’t care what they do. Just take down the scaffolding. All parties involved in this have been awful. Which is particularly sad when one of the main actors is a church.
How has the Church been “awful?” Even the most optimistic repair estimate is well into the eight figures, the Church does not have that money…nor does the Arts Center, so the Arts Center should shut up and find a new location if it wishes to continue operations. Other than GB crowing they have money to replace the roof, repair the building,then buy it, no one else has made that claim. (BTW, GB, how much cash in the bank does the Arts Center have? They’ve had years to fundraise. Show us a bank statement.) If the Center can pay the fair market value of the property and restore it and maintain it as a going concern, where have they been up until now? As per Occam’s Razor, the answer is they don’t have close to the sums needed, and after all these year no one else has come up with the money, either. As saliently pointed out by another commenter the actual value of the building itself is negative millions of dollars, because it will cost that much to bring up to repair and bring up code and provide sufficient funding to maintain into the future. Contrary to some posters misguided insistence, the mission of West Park Presbyterian Church on this earth is not to spend millions of dollars on maintaining a crumbling pile of red sandstone.
Instead, the Center has over half a dozen celebrities – with a net worth north of $500 million – who refuse to put their money where their mouths are.
Just what the uws needs, another generic glass clad stick of condos.
We’re losing, piece by piece, what makes the West Side more interesting and attractive than… So sad.
Do you mean those glass clad condos that you can’t afford to live in but secretly wish to?
Or those glass clad condos that don’t require endless years of facade inspection requiring endless years of scaffolding that blights our neighborhood and increases housing costs?
Those glass clad condos also fall under FISP. They need inspection, glass repair and replacement, new roofs and sealants like any other building. They will require sidewalk sheds as well!!
Just what the UWS needs: more housing.
Pigs gotta pig.
You are SO right! Just take a ride up 10th-Amsterdam Avenue, or the West Side Highway going north from midtown. You will see a wall of buildings that will be unaffordable for most and ugly in the bargain. Or, for a bracing experience, look south from, say, 86th Street at what Extel has done to the skyline and will soon bring to the West 60s as soon as ABC relocates to the new hot spot downtown. A healthy city keeps changing, but also keeps reminders of its own history.
Finally. Tear it down.
The Center at West Park’s most recent IRS filing shows net assets of $121,000 at the end of 2023. Hard to reconcile that with claims about the Center’s ability to fund repairs to the Church.
I have no opinion on who is right in this dispute. I would just like to say that the interior of the building is also a problem. It has been a few years, but in the interior, in unseen areas, there is so much piled up, broken wooden junk that if a fire started, there would be no putting it out.
I would join a clean-up crew to preserve and restore that building.
Duh!! What about the exquisite stained
glass windows. Trash those too?
It’s crazy stupid!!!
Stained glass windows can be removed and donated or sold to another church that would have use for them. It happens all the time.
By all means, buy all of the exquisite stained precious glass windows and preserve them as you see fit!
If the Church sells the property to a developer for $33 million, who gets the money?
Is “the Presbytery” synonymous with “congregation”? If so, it’s twelve greedy, religion-y people who collectively couldn’t care less about arts, community, or history — you know — “Philistines.”
The Presbytery – i.e., the landlord – gets the money, since they own the building.
Ian,
Does that mean the 12 members of the church split the $33 million? In other words it isn’t like the Catholic Church where there is a centralized body that owns everything?
No it does not go to the the 12 members, it goes to the Presbytery of New York which a broader church body.
One of the big reasons that housing is expensive in NYC is that any random tenant can block sale of a building. That’s crazy enough, but I at least understand the motivation. That the same rule is applied to *commercial* tenants is just absolute lunacy.
“Any random tenant” can’t block the sale of a building. A tenant with a valid rent-stabilized lease can. That lease is a contract between the tenant and the landlord in which the landlord agrees to allow the tenant to reside in their apartment for as long as they wish as long as they remain in good standing. If the landlord wishes to terminate that contract, shouldn’t the tenant get some compensation? The advice I’ve given to friends in this situation is that the payout should be enough to purchase a similar apartment with monthly expenses no greater than what they were paying in rent.
I get your point about commercial tenants, and I don’t know what the right answer is. It pains me that, over the past few years, so many mom and pop shops that have been here for decades and give the neighborhood part of it’s flavor have been forced out when their rent doubles or triples. Landlords absolutely have the right to make a fair profit off their properties. But a lot of what we’ve been seeing feels more like gouging.
These comments are rotten; my god. You’d think everyone here is a real estate developer. Surely some of you might understand why replacing this unique, brick, building with yet another glass rectangle might be a grievance for some?
Every building is ‘unique’ in some way, that can’t be the standard for preserving a building when the building owners want to do something else. Hard for some to understand they don’t have veto rights over other people’s property.
This building is a designated landmark!! What don’t you get about that? I might add that religious organizations are supposed to be non-profits. Apparently not this one.
When I’m in Europe I thank my lucky stars that greed is good New Yorkers have no control over their magnificent historic cultural legacy. going back not 100 years but often 700. If they did all of the great cities of Europe would be filled with soulless glass towers for bllionaires to use 2 weeks a year to go by chauffeured SUV to Hermes.
The church has decided their core mission is not best served by propping up a decaying building that holds a 12 member congregation. Who are you to insist you know better?
“Every building is unique” No not really. Have you visited Hudson Yards? And just like the Supreme Court’s definition of pornography—I can’t define what a landmark building is, but i’ll know it when I see it.
Brewer said. “The Center has the money to pay for rent, pay to fix the roof, even to buy the building, all of these things, but the Presbytery refuses to even have a meeting. Instead, they just send an eviction notice.”
No matter what one’s stance is regarding the future of this church this statement by Gale Brewer is so ridiculous it is beyond disbelief.
The developer offered to buy the church for $33M. How exactly does Brewer expect a tiny non-profit arts group to come up with $33M to match this offer?
This church has been a derelict shell of a building that has been surrounded by scaffolding for nearly a quarter of a century. It is reckless and irresponsible for Brewer to come up with fantastical claims about the availability of financing to restore this structure.
Losing the church would be a first-class tragedy for the UWS. Is there no billionaire who can spare a few pennies to save the space. We can find future uses later, if need be.
Billionaires are being demonized and leaving.
You better ask them quickly.
Only the ones that ARE demons. Who’s demonizing George Soros, or Warren Buffett, or Bill Gates?
Walmart ?
Personal observation only: I was inside this church about 20 years ago. The stairway to the second floor was narrow and dark, the steps were shaky, the whole place felt like a fire trap. I never went back. Has it been renovated so that people feel safe there? The facade certainly doesn’t give that impression. BTW. stained glass windows can be removed and fixed, as can certain wooden items.
Hypothetically, the owners deliberately let the building decay internally and externally.
I have to say these are some of the stupidest comments I’ve ever read on the WSR. The Presbyterian Church is one of the wealthiest in the country with assets of over $666 million. And yet, they purposefully allowed the building to go into disrepair for the sole purpose of then claiming that the building was unsafe – a condition which the church itself created. In other words, the Church created a situation and now claims hardship – as an excuse to circumvent a landmark ruling and enrich itself. It’s a MAGA/Trumpian move — neglect the property than complain that the property has been neglected and must be torn down. LOL. And this is being done by a church! Gee, what would Jesus make of this move?
Jesus did comment; see Matthew 19:21.
If the city wants to preserve the the building the city can buy it. Problem solved. If the arts center wants to preserve the building it can buy it. Problem solved.
If the Center “has the money” as GB claims, they could have purchased the Metro Theater space, for a lot less than buying the church.
https://www.westsiderag.com/2024/11/09/7-million-deal-reached-by-hopeful-new-owner-of-uws-metro-theater-ny-times
Its funny how people e get all upset about ” market rate apartments” and say they are for billionaires. No, they are market rate, meaning the typical price in the neighborhood fro the average renter.
What do we have laws and court decisions for when those decisions can be struck down? The building was landmarked! Let it be. There is a way out for saving it!! The problem would be that interested people would not be able to make a killing on it…..lots of money!
Just tear it down and build an Absolute Bagels.
Problem solved.
Thank you and have a blessed day.
$33 million sale price for a 12 member church? Not had to wonder about the motivation
My opinion is that building enjoyed over 130 YEARS of 100% TAX EXEMPT status while every other property owner around it were forced to pay higher property taxes on their buildings to make up the millions of dollars shortfall- the city is OWED the building for free if the now 12 members of the congregation cant afford it’s upkeep- they’ve enjoyed 130+ years tax-free, free fire and police protection etc too.
I do not have a hardliner stance on this issue, although I do live in the neighborhood. Both sides have some good points…I do enjoy the occasional rummage sale at the church, but it does seem to be a little skeevy under the scaffolding at times. I have passed by and seen how big name celebrities love to perform at this church. Here’s an idea- why don’t Scarlet Johanson and Mark Ruffalo and others who seem to love this space so much, provide the funds to clean it up??? It can be somewhat of an eyesore, but an old building with good acoustics that can’t be recreated seems like a good thing to preserve? If they could spiffy it up a bit? ScarJo is loaded. She has roots on UWS, doesn’t she want it to look a little better?