By Carol Tannenhauser
If passion and enthusiasm were all that were required to save West-Park Presbyterian Church from demolition, the 135-year-old red sandstone edifice on West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue would surely survive.
Those qualities were in abundance on Monday morning when supporters of The Center at West Park, the nonprofit arts organization that has been leasing the church and trying to save it, came together in the main sanctuary for an upbeat press conference on what really was a sad day for The Center.
It was the day the group was supposed to vacate the premises, according to an eviction notice it received last week.
The underlying message, imparted by Debby Hirshman, executive director of The Center, was that they had accepted the ruling, but were committed to continuing their dual mission “off-site.”
No matter what happens, she told The New York Times recently, whether it is on- or off-site, “we will continue both our programming and our commitment to preserving this landmark building.”
Ultimately, the decision whether the building will be preserved lies with the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission, since West-Park was given landmark status in 2010. For several years now, the commission has been deciding whether to strip the church of that landmark designation, at the behest of the church’s congregation of 12, who contend they do not have the money to repair the rundown building. They’re pleading “hardship,” and wish to be free to sell the church to a waiting developer for $33 million. The developer plans a 19-story market-rate condominium once the church is torn down.
“Something felt wrong about it to me. It touched on my sense of social justice immediately,” said Mark Ruffalo, the actor and Upper West Sider who, with Hirshman, has been a driving force behind The Center. “But mostly, I fell in love with the space,” Ruffalo told the Rag.
“I started out in spaces like this as a young actor here in New York City,” Ruffalo recalled. “And when I walked in here, it reminded me of that. My humble beginnings, where you could come and work out your talent, where it wasn’t really expensive, where other people who are starting out just like you could meet, and you can really figure out what you’re doing.”
Though last week’s eviction notice may have sealed the church’s fate, Hirshman and other supporters of The Center vowed that, at a minimum, the nonprofit’s support of arts performances would continue. “It’s all about collaboration,” Hirshman said.” It’s all about community coming together and community being here for one another. We will continue to nurture our other organizations during this time. We will continue to bring all of you together.”
Among others who spoke out in support of The Center at Monday’s event were City Councilmember Gale Brewer; State Senator Brad Hoylman-Sigal; actor Christian Slater; film director, playwright, and screenwriter Kenneth Lonergan; and New York Landmarks Conservancy President Peg Breen.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
$33 million is pocket change to Mark Ruffalo. He should just buy it and then we don’t have to hear about this anymore.
He’s got 33 million in play money? Really?
How would you know that?
The fact is that the arts center’s existence is easily separated from the fate of this one building. It can and should go elsewhere and thrive.
But the notion that any one supporter of maintaining the building has the money to do so ought to be accompanied by some basis in fact.
Rich people don’t stay rich by spending their money – they stay rich by spending your money (or at least someone else’s money).
Agreed. He can finance an arts center for the “humble beginnings” of others. In its current state, it’s a blight on the neighborhood. I’m all for saving the facade if possible and reimagine the space.
Is there a Kickstarter or GoFundMe webpage for the church?
All I have heard on the UWS and from Dem politicians “no one is above the law.
They lost in court each time and have no legal standing, therefore they were severed with the legally binding eviction notice. Our local electeds should NOT do anything that puts the city and its taxpayers on the hook for more money. Anyone that does should be remembered at the ballot box
Just take a look at the huge amount of taxpayer dollars that went into buying the Metro.
This is white elephant if there ever was one.
Well, you are correct, but the state of NY paid for the Metro. The people who should be angry at the people in Syracuse, Rochester, Albany, Buffalo. Plus all the billions that go to the MTA and Port Authority reconstruction.
NYC council also put money in. The org that brought the Metro claims it will be several 100-250 seat theaters etc. And the councilman has said repeatedly he expects city council to pick up 50% of tab to redo it. Orgs estimate is 25 million and years to complete. Even if completed it’s not a viable biz plan, especially what the debt service would be. How/when will the city/state get their money back when it fails?
I have a lot of empathy for the congregation — they just want to be free of the baggage of this rundown building and they’re being obstructed by, it seems, squatters. The celebrities should step in to purchase the property if they’re so invested. Or, maybe the city could step in and buy the property for affordable housing and include space for an arts center.
The congregation is claiming financial hardship when The Center at West Park has raised millions of and wants to immediately put those funds into improving the building. There is no financial hardship – they just don’t want to accept these funds and want this landmarked building to be demolished. Shame on the congregation.
They have raised nothing; they have pledges from a handful of very wealth folks. But only between 1 and 3 million total form very wealthy folks. That amount will only put a bandaid on the structurally problems. The lowest number is 10’s of millions more to restore it not only outside but inside, think required by code electrical rewiring etc.
If these Hollywood folks are so concerned they each have more than enough money to buy it and/or pay for repairs.
Seems they want to rid themselves of these pesky tenants who don’t have enough money to fix the building and just want to obstruct any plan that doesn’t include turning the church into an arts center that they control.
How much has been raised? Both five million and eight million dollars have been tossed about the last few days. However their most recent tax filing states assets of $121,000. Can someone please definitively clarify how much money has been raised and is sitting in a bank account somewhere to do the work? Perhaps post a bank statement?
Mustn’t confuse revenue with any funds donated to purchase building or whatever separate cause.
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/center-at-west-park,814802422/
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/view_990/814802422/746f062a50ec447ef3aee1136b8afb38
Bravo! Long live the beautiful church and Arts Center. The snarky people on this column really disappoint me. The frustration of your life comes out in your comments and replies. There really is beauty in life . Why do you want to destroy it for “money”!!
People travel to Europe to see beautiful old buildings, but in NYC we tear them down. Senseless.
Oh please!
NYC has some of the oldest building stock in entire nation. Huge swaths of Manhattan alone fall under historical preservation designation and or properties themselves (if not area) are either landmarks. part of landmark district, part of historical district, and so forth.
Then you have zoning that pretty much has frozen many areas of Manhattan, Brooklyn and perhaps Queens in time.
Scaffolding has been up for 23 years. Time to take it down or do the work. If they haven’t been able to raise the funds to do repairs in two decades they can’t.
Completely agree. It makes no sense to cling to a landmark designation if the building will be forever covered in scaffolding — no-one will see it in any event. If the Center had the funds to restore it, as they claim, they could just buy it. No objection to the Arts Center per se — they do good work, and I hope they’ll be able to find another venue and continue elsewhere. But the church is no longer the place.
The Center has the money to remove the scaffolding; the church refused and will not come to the table. You can’t buy something that the seller won’t sell.
The Center has enough money to remove the scaffolding, but not enough to repair the building, bring it up to code or purchase it. There is not a serious offer to buy from the Center, the church has no reason to consider their “offer”
Great, glad to hear the center will continue their work in a new and less derelict location.
I don’t think one can expect a congregation of 12 to maintain a landmarked building indefinitely. That said, the enmity to the arts expressed in some of the comments here (and on other posts) is depressing. There’s such a hostility to everything that makes life kinder and more beautiful, especially if it might be shared with the community.
There’s some really offensive comments on here, and few facts.
1. CWP has raised the monies to both purchase the building for @ $4 million AND repair and renovate the building.
2. The Presbyterian Church is a three quarters of a billion dollar organization that is tax exempt – meaning we subsidize its actions. They had plenty of money to fix their church and chose not to. To claim “hardship” now is the height of hypocrisy. Where in the Bible does Jesus teach to bulldoze a landmarked house of worship in order to profit @ $33 million?
3. Regarding the eye sore of the scaffolding – CWP has the money to remove the scaffolding and need only apply for the proper permits to do so. But the Church stopped them.
4. For those ragging on these famous actors and artists as if their efforts to save the building are somehow disingenuous — the only reason the public knows about this fight is because these actors have loaned their celebrity. Without celebrities, the media would have no interest in this story or in the Center itself. To claim – as some below do – that Mark Ruffalo should pony up $33 million is plainly idiotic.
5. What if the City or the conservancies wanted to sell off chunks of Central or Riverside Park to building luxury high rise condos – I guess the commenters below would be all for that!
The only offensive thing is people under estimating the cost of maintaining this church and pretending anyone has the money to do it.
They absolutely DO NOT have the money that you say they do.
I agree, the apparent THIRST for tearing down a 19th century church to put up luxury condo boxes is very weird. Sign of the times, I guess.
The Presbytery of New York has no where near $50 million let alone ” a billion” in assets. New York Presbyterian Hospital has a $12 billion endowment, perhaps they want to buy the building and restore it? Not the same thing. The congregation fired all their staff and sold off all their other properties – there is nothing left to spend on the church.
Why is it idiotic to think Mark Ruffalo and his colleagues who are investing so much in this building would want to invest more than the $12,000 the 4 of them contributed? The Church asks people to tithe (1/10) of ones income to the Church. The 12 members doing that won’t cover the ceiling repainting, let alone all the other costs. Look at the celebrities who joined Mark, if they tithed, there would be enough to buy the church and endow the Center. The church members can give 10%, why can the wealthy be expected to do the same?
A $4m offer to purchase a building that appears to be worth $30m+ is clearly not serious. Would you accept a 86% discount on any property that you own? If so, please let me know, I am eager to make you an offer.
The Presbyterian Church’s mission is not to preserve old church buildings as some on here seem to believe. They’ve deceived they have better uses for the proceeds than maintaining an old building that serves 12 congregants. Seems hard to disagree with that, why do you think you know better?
Facts? I think there’s a confusion about what that means.
1. The price is $33mm, not $4mm. The owner determines the price, together with a willing and qualified buyer. Can I singlehandedly tell you the price of your apartment and make you sell?
2. Change the tax laws. A lot of people will be very supportive.
3. For the 100th time, CWP can’t do any of that as it is not the owner, nor does it have a valid lease. Can I come to your place and demanding a renovation so I can be more comfortable?
4. Are you seriously accusing the Rag of only reporting on celebrities? As for all the support, it was claimed very early on that “we’re buying a church.” Clearly, even 10 celebrities can’t muster enough public support to raise the required funds and purchase the building. That should tell you enough the level of ACTUAL commitment here, beyond just trying to twist the arms of a legal building owner.
5. Again, for the peanut gallery: The Parks are public property, owned by the City of New York, specifically the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. The building in question is not.
1. What do you think the purpose of a church is? To maximize profit on all its real estate holdings? Is this what Christ teaches? The fact that CWP has made a substantial offer to purchase and restore the building should be a win win situation for everyone.
2. Change the tax laws regarding exempt status for churches?. What are you buying at your local CBD store?
3. hahaha. For the 100th time the why would the church cry hardship on the one hand and yet refuse to allow an outside group to fix the building on the other hand?
4. We live in a celebrity culture. The celebrity support for CWP makes it newsworthy. Duh.
5. My point was that things of beauty, be they parks, churches, etc. make New York New York. You’ve never been inside the church, have you. It is spectacularly beautiful on the inside. It is rightfully landmarked. I guess you would like to get rid of all landmarked buildings in the city, get rid of the entire concept of preserving buildings of notable significance and history that are a part of the essential fabric of the city.
6. Landmarks will not revoke the status of the building. And when they don’t, then what do you think will happen?
Landmarks probably won’t revoke that status, but once the denial is appealed into the court system I think the Church has a much, much better chance of having that burden lifted from them.
“Something felt wrong about it to me. It touched on my sense of social justice immediately,” said Mark Ruffalo
I’ve seen examples of Ruffalo’s other “social justice” activism.
If he’s in favor of saving this church then I’m against it.
Can someone explain this to me? Is the building being sold or not? Is a horrible eyesore of a condo building coming soon? This would be devastating for this amazing neighborhood..
Perhaps the worst part of this story is that the UWS will have yet another market-rate ( eg, very expensive) condo built.
Why can’t the city officials at least insist that anything built will help to address the desperate need for affordable housing in the city?
New market rate housing is good actually.
If a 19 story residential building is put on the site, won’t the rich people who live there contribute many millions of dollars in taxes every year to New York City, whether real estate, income or sales taxes? One other thing, the shed is designed to protect pedestrians from a falling stone. But it won’t stop a ton on rocks falling from fifty feet.
Fact:
1. Bullet points are annoying.
Even worse is the Powerpoint presentation that duplicates the printed material you have in hand that you can read in 1/10th the time.