UPDATE: Thursday, October 30, at 7:45 a.m.: After a two hour and 45-minute meeting on Wednesday night, Community Board 7’s Preservation Committee voted not to support the hardship application for the West-Park Presbyterian Church at the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, which would strip the property of its landmark status.
The outcome came as somewhat of a surprise, as the committee had posted a draft of its resolution on the subject earlier on Wednesday that stated the criteria had been met for a hardship application at the more than 130-year-old church.
However, after more than two hours of testimony from the public at the CB7 meeting later that night — and a passionate discussion among members — the committee decided it could not be certain that “the building [the church] is no longer ‘adequate, suitable, or appropriate’ for carrying out the current or historic charitable use,'” which is one of the four criteria needed for the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to grant the hardship application. The church says the building requires costly repairs that it cannot afford; it wants to sell the property to a developer who would tear it down to build luxury apartments, but it needs the commission’s approval to do that since it is a landmarked.
“And thus, the Landmarks Preservation Commission should not grant a hardship application to the owner of this building,” one of the co-chairs of the Preservation Committee said near the end of the meeting.
Members of the committee then voted in favor of its resolution that said it did not support the hardship application at West-Park Presbyterian Church. The full CB7 board will vote on the issue next week; any resolution it passes would then be sent to the Landmarks Preservation Commission as its official recommendation.
You can watch the full meeting on Wednesday night, below.
By Gus Saltonstall
A draft of a resolution posted to the Upper West Side’s Community Board 7 website on Wednesday indicates that its Preservation Committee believes that the criteria for a hardship application have been met for the West-Park Presbyterian Church, which would strip the more than 130-year-old building of its landmark status.
The text is labeled as a draft, and thus is subject to change before any final action by the committee or the full board. But the timing of the posting was unusual, coming just hours before the CB7 committee meets on Wednesday night to hear more public testimony about the possible demolition of the church. Public debate on whether to preserve it or tear it down to make way for a luxury apartment development has been fierce and long-running.
Once any resolution is finalized, both the Preservation Committee and the full CB7 board would vote on it; any final resolution from the board would go to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission as a recommendation. But a final decision on the fate of the church would be rendered by the commission.
The draft posted Wednesday says that “[T]he Landmarks Preservation Commission, per statute, should issue a ‘preliminary determination of insufficient return,’ noting that the criteria for a hardship application have been met.” In explaining why it believes the UWS church meets criteria for a hardship application. CB7’s draft says: “The existing property is incapable of earning a ‘reasonable return’ under the scenarios the applicant presented; The building is no longer ‘adequate, suitable, or appropriate’ for carrying out the current or historic charitable use.”
The draft’s conclusion, that the church’s application meets criteria for a grant of hardship, is in contrast to the stance taken by CB7’s Preservation Committee in 2022, when it voted to deny the hardship request. That vote came when West-Park Presbyterian Church first applied to the landmarks commission for a hardship designation; the church later withdrew that application.
After the CB7 committee states in the resolution draft that it believes the criteria for the hardship application have been met, it adds the following paragraph, which appears to suggest that the committee would like for the city to find a different developer, who would buy the church and develop the land around it without demolishing the church building.
“[T]his building is important to many in the community,” the draft resolution says. Therefore, “the Landmarks Preservation Commission should proceed to initiate the 180 day process, together with community members, organizations, elected officials, government agencies, etc. to seek an alternative purchaser of an ‘identical’ interest, not subject to the contingency of demolition, so that the building ‘may be preserved and perpetuated’ as intended by its landmark designation and ‘rendered capable of earning a reasonable return,'” reads the resolution.
West Side Rag will publish a piece in the coming days on the CB7 meeting on Wednesday night and on any final version of the resolution that is voted on by the committee and the full CB7 board.
For now, you can read the full draft of the resolution related to the hardship application — HERE.
Read More:
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
But CP7 isn’t the deciding party; that’s the Landmarks Commission.
And if this destruction deal is approved by Landmarks, all sorts of developers will find landmarked buildings with money trouble.
Good. Build housing.
You mean “housing”.
You’re also advocating for exactly what I said, using the excuse of poor finances to destroy landmarked buildings, eg GCT post PennCentral bankruptcy.
The UWS is already one of the most densely populated neighborhoods in the entire country. Build housing literally anywhere else. Keep the 19th century landmark.
Housing….luxury housing. That is what will go up!
Good. Build housing.
Good lord these people are a pip! Either the building is landmarked or it’s not. The city cannot lift the landmark designation and continue to control and encumber the church’s property. The congregation has found a purchaser that will pay north of $30m for the building; it should not be forced/strong-armed/swindled into accepting any amount less than the maximum amount on offer. Any other party willing to pay fair market price for the building and maintain it “as is” has had years to make themselves known. That said, no one should have any reasonable expectation the LPC decision will be the final say on the matter. Whatever LPC decides will be challenged in NY Supreme Court in an Article 78 proceeding. We are still a long way from the wrecking ball starting to swing.
The city should get the building for free, something about that 1–+ YEAR free ride they enjoyted paying ZERO taxes of any kind on the property while also getting free police, fire and other city services.
Just to clarify — are you saying the city should have the power to seize property from tax-exempt organizations, like what happens under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes? You scare me.
Good, this entire process has been a huge waste of everyone’s time, its taken years while we are stuck with a massive eyesore in the community and has delayed the construction of new housing .
Eyesore?
This process hasn’t delayed or denied new housing; it may have inconvenienced some developers of 3rd “homes” for the very well off. Big difference.
Wow in agreement with UWS Dad
Many people are saying this!
As demolitions of beautiful, historic buildings go, I suppose only the razing of the East Wing of he White House could afford greater pleasure, right?
I would like to understand you better. Is the church an eyesore because of the scaffolding, for example? Or the architectural style? Or the state of disrepair? Is there any recent new housing that you would point to as an improvement to the community? If so, would a similar project here be a purely functional improvement, or an aesthetic improvement, or both? Thank you.
The decade+ of scaffolding and state of disrepair with no prospect of either being remedied. New housing on this site would provide new homes (which are in short supply) as well as associated property tax revenue. This particular project would include a new space for the church to continue to operate. In my view, new homes is a benefit for the community beyond the aesthetic improvements from removing the current dilapidated structure.
I agree, provided the new housing is affordable.
“Affordable” housing is just a buzzword people use to prevent any housing from being built. All new housing makes housing in general more affordable, it’s basic supply and demand.
Gahh I spoke too soon. Seems the NIMBYs will continue to fight this until the building falls down. Probably landmarks will then decide its a historically significant pile of rubble…
What you keep leaving out is The Center raised 4mil for the repairs which would have been done over last summer and the shed would be gone by now. The Presbyterian Church refused to allow The Center to do those repairs. The 4mil is still sitting in an account ready to make the repairs regardless of The Center remains at the Church.
I understand that money isn’t a concern for you but those of us without millions of dollars to spare would prefer a large supply of housing leading to cheaper rents
$4m will not even cover the cost of a replacement slate roof. The building, as a landmarked structure, must be repaired in kind. Meaning a slate roof has to be replaced with slate, not asphalt tiles. Red sandstone has to be used to replace red sandstone. That goes for all the necessary repairs. In addition to the obscene costs associated with acquiring and using nineteenth century style materials, design professionals (“DPs”) will have to be engaged to walk all the applications through LPC because LPC has to approve all the repairs before they can begin, the DP fees will run into the hundreds of thousands.. $4m is a risible number when dealing with a landmarked structure of that size and in that condition.
What on earth do NIMBYs have to do with a plan to tear down a historic church and put up luxury condos? NIMBYs are people who oppose projects in their neighborhood that they consider “hazardous or undesirable” (OED). NIMBYs oppose things like affordable housing, landfills, and rehab clinics. Not luxury housing. Housing more wealthy people in their neighborhoods is not something NIMBYs have ever been known to oppose.
Have you ever heard of supply and demand?
I am honestly undecided on this subject and I asked you some questions. But I guess I understand you better.
Exactly.
“The existing property is incapable of earning a ‘reasonable return’ under the scenarios the applicant presented; The building is no longer ‘adequate, suitable, or appropriate’ for carrying out the current or historic charitable use.”
In other words they want to cash in and pocket the profits selling to a condo builder. They had 100+ year free ride paying ZERO taxes on this property while the city had to furnish free police, fire and other services all that time too, by now, if the congregation is too small/poor to maintain the building, the place should become city property in exchange for the over 100 years of paying ZERO taxes of any kind.
The Center offered them 30k a month lease nearly 10x what they were paying before. The Center was full of music, film, dance and theater events, dance, acting playwriting classes, pickle ball, Ballet, and art. It was a thriving cultural center capable of maintaining the building and doing the repairs and bringing in 27k audience members over the last 2 years. That’s 27k people looking to eat and drink before and after the events there. This is not a blight but a thriving cultural center for the UWS. A place that being an UWS Dad myself am happy for. Our kids have a wholesome place to be after school where the city’s best actors, play-writes, directors, writers, dancers and musicians are willing to perform and share with the next generation of artists. Come on Dad! Cheer up. It could be great for your kids. I know it’s been great for the 1000 of kids that have been served there. You should come to the non neurotypical music performances. These kids are beautiful and The Center held events for them there when very few other places would. There is more to life than high rise luxury apartments and increased tax revenue, brother.
Why would the Church have any reason to believe the Center would live up to any of its commitments? It failed to live up to the terms of its 2018 lease, when the Church signed a five-year lease for the entire building; that lease provided for the sharing of the Center’s income with the Church, but over the term of the lease NO FUNDS WERE EVER PAID over to the Church. Yet, while the Center never paid the Church any money above the base rent, it seemed to be able to find funds to fight the church tooth and nail when the church filed a hardship application to have its landmark status revoked, and of course there was plenty of money for attorneys’ fees when the Center fought its eviction up to the Court of Appeals.
No matter what happens no one could ever reasonably expect the church to allow the Center into its premises ever again.
That’s not how our system works, and see the above comment from Bee. The “free ride” is afforded to tax exempt organizations. If the congregation can’t afford the upkeep of the property, they’re entitled to sell it and receive the money. That would be the case for any tax exempt organization owning property. Hopefully, they’ll use the money to further their charitable goals.
A Landmark building with no adiquate funding to support or repair it properly is a tear down.
Hard stop. Time to move on.
So you’d have torn down Grand Central circa 1970?
Do you think even a tiny bit before posting?
The main fight with this building is that if they win and remove the landmark status for redevelopment, it opens a Pandora’s box of future situations where developers and landlords will use this as a precedent to argue for further removing of landmark statuses elsewhere. To some it’s a corner with a shoddy looking scaffolding, to others it’s an omen of a possible future where residential development is left without legal boundaries.
I seriously doubt it.
And that might be a good thing.
Good. Build more housing.
We have a severe housing shortage. The problem is underdevelopment, not overdevelopment.
We have a housing shortage for people who earn less than $200,000 a year and aren’t willing to live in a studio or a one-bedroom. If they’re willing to sacrifice space and live in a tiny one room apartment like I am, then there is no shortage. People have no right to live in a city that’s too expensive for them.
Develop along the train line leading to and from the city, the city is oversaturated with new housing. Long Island, Westchester, and New Jersey however…
Why not both?
Do you live in the same neighborhood? There is barely any new housing in the Upper West Side. Most of the buildings near me on West End Ave are over 100 years old.
Then you force people to spend more time commuting and more time away from their families. The city is not “oversaturated with new housing” – lots of people would love to live in an even denser neighborhood. And those would do feel that it is oversaturated are free to move to Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, etc!
“lots of people would love to live in an even denser neighborhood”
Really? I don’t hear a lot of complaints like “the 1 train isn’t crowded enough”, or “the lines at Trader Joe’s aren’t long enough to suit me” or “there isn’t enough traffic on the UWS”. Who exactly are these people ?
I would love to live in one of the most expensive and sought after neighborhoods too, but what right do I have to demand that? You say you are pro development, but you just nixed one of the least utilized solutions that would alleviate the pressure of the city tremendously. We should be expanding out. New train lines, new developments. If you want to live in an even denser neighborhood, advocate for that in ways that make sense like developing parking lots and areas that are underutilized. Not tearing down 100+ year old landmarked churches.
build a Science and Learning Center specializing in Critical Thinking in its place, something useful.
The use of the term luxury apartment is so hackneyed. It seems to be pasted to the description of anything new. I’ve looked at photos and floor plans of some of these luxurious spaces. They usually have one main room with kitchens that are open to the living room and a dining area, bedrooms that are smaller than a parking space, and bathrooms with no windows. I saw one 2bed/2bath layout like this that only had three windows. The price: $2.6 million. It tells me that it’s too expensive to build in NY and that putting another luxury building up on this corner isn’t going to solve anything.
Obviously any one building will only be a drop in the ocean compared to the supply that is needed. 50 years of blocked developments have created this supply shortage, it will take many projects like this throughout the entire city to start making up the deficit we are in
There are many more people who want to live in NYC than there is room for. This will always be the case as long as the city’s crime rates remain low. People who think building more housing will fix the problem are deluded. There is endless demand.
So long, NYC. It was nice back when I lived there. Loved it but now…?
Can’t turn back the clock.
Terrible. So this means it is going to lie dormant for the next decade.
So a community board made up mostly of non-christians, decided a landmarked church doesn’t need to exist.
Actually, the congregation and the church made the decision. Community boards also have zero power. Their vote actually means nothing.
Let us not forget it is a church with a handful of “members” be they Christian or not. The “church” serves no religious purpose in the neighborhood.
that is a pretty serious accusation to make…..Please tell us how you know the religious background of every member on the community board.
Finally some halt to the outrageous construction of a giant luxury building. The UWS has been ruined by these building in the 90s & low 100s. One can’t see the sky & as we have more and more of these monstrosities we have less and less commerce (more empty storefronts than ever before) & less stores selling goods for life’s needs as opposed to only overpriced food & drink.
Actually, the planned building is not a “supertall” or even particularly tall. It is planned as a “normal” height building for the area; i.e., ~14-16 floors.
It’s NYCHA and homeless shelters that cause empty storefronts. We need real estate that can support storefronts. Market-rate buildings=good grocery stores, gift shops, clothing stores. Go visit the UES to see what thriving neighborhoods look like. And yes, they have high-rise apartment buildings. Not the worst thing for NYC.
It’s such a mystery to me why the East Side has maintained vibrant retail and we’ve lost ours.
“Not the worst thing for NYC”
From an architecture standpoint, it kind of is.
The real monstrosities are all the old ugly crumbling buildings on the UWS with poor sanitation and little money for repairs due to the crazy real estate taxes and other burdens on landlords. Since the whole area is landmarked little can be done to revitalize so much of the UWS.
Also the new buildings maintain their sidewalks much better, have better exterior lighting and garbage control along with security and doorman. And most of the new buildings and architecture is quite nice especially compared to what was built in the 60’s and 70’s.
How exactly do tall buildings lead to empty storefronts?
Perhaps online sales have something to do with empty storefronts. Maybe even big box stores.
Possibly even the rise of the NYC minimum wage to $16.50 (which is crushing small businesses) is causing empty storefronts. I bet even the rise of shoplifters have something to do with empty storefronts.
If you’re against the demolition of the church, fair enough. But don’t post nonsense.
Well, if you think that the majority of the tenants in these new tall buildings are actually shopping in the neighborhood (or in many cases even living in it at all), or if small businesses will be able to be tenants in those new tall buildings I guess you have a point.
On 100th street and Broadway there were several small, family owned, longstanding businesses that were demolished to make way for the two towers on both sides of the street. That area has not seen stable commercial activity since. Just because you don’t believe in the sky, doesn’t make it any less blue.
Oh, ok. Now you can keep seeing the sky from under the 20-year-old scaffolding for the next 10-15 years, while shopping for the great “goods for life’s needs” at the church’s store under the aforementioned scaffolding.
That church has enjoyed its tax exempt status for generations, their stubborn insistence that the only solution to their difficulties is selling to a developer smells more like a personal payday. If the many celebrities claiming to want to save the building are serious, then form a legit entity to get the funding to purchase the property at $30 million. Then construction loans. If The Mob™can figure these things out why can’t they?
Build affordable housing.
Yes but where?
here is an easy solution – just mandate daylighting in front of every church and then after they lose a dozen parking spots, the community wont want to save the church in favor of free parking.
I don’t know who this community board represents but it’s not the residents on the UWS.
Thank heaven! Community – minded people exist! That building is beautiful…needs some repair but can be done! Bring back the “Center” with concerts, talks, and exhibits. We need this. There’s enough luxury high rises…does anyone ever think about the infrastructure of our city providing services to these new buildings: sewage, sanitation pick-ups; water, congestion, transportation, safety? I hope the Landmarks Preservation Committee honorably does it’s job and preserves noted landmarks….and not give in to money-makers.
I agree. The church is is history, beautiful and a landmark. I moved to the UWS because it reminded me of Europe. I live on 85th and WEA & hate looking at all the tall modern ugly buildings along broadway. The church is so very special.
“[T]his building is important to many in the community,”
Not as important as a new building would be.
“This building is important to many in the community.” REALLY?!?!? Exactly HOW many? In fact, what percentage of a community of 250,000? Enough to warrant this outrageous farce?
Nope. And its’ funny that not one single article ever mentions one of the unspoken reasons why it is always neighbors in the IMMEDIATE vicinity of the building who are the most vocal: that they don’t want to lose their “light and air” with a new residential building, and don’t want to put up with the noise, dust, etc. of a demolition and construction.
In fact, I would bet dollars to donuts that a goodly number of the people fighting the Application and demolition don’t actually give a rat’s — for the “beauty” of the building, but only for their own selfish reasons. This has ALWAYS been the case in these situations, no matter how vocally they may protest to the contrary.
You’re quite right, Ian, but where does taking away the “light and air” stop? The charm of the UWS is “light and air”. Compare and contrast to block after block of 40 story housing towers on the East side.
Sad that there seems to be no middle ground here. Either it remains in disrepair or it’s razed. Money for repairs doesn’t seem to be in the cards. High-rise housing is all over the city, and the new construction is garbage. Once something like this church is gone, it’s gone forever. Nobody’s building Romanesque Revival anymore.
Hooray!!! So happy that the right decision was made. No need for more luxury high rise housing in Manhattan!!
I was on the side of preservation for years. But now I believe there will never be enough money to even stabilize this structure let alone convert it to another use, despite the celebrities rallying their support.
Eventually, once it’s gone replaced by a retail/residential tower, no one will even remember what the corner looked like. That’s the New York story.
Good! There must be a way that this rich city and neighborhood could save this essential landmark and architectural treasure without unfairly burdening the (former) congregation.
A crumbling church with no attendees isn’t serving anyone. There’s no money to restore it and, just my opinion, it’s not a design that should have ever been landmarked to begin with. If there has ever been an example of a total waste of tax payer dollars, both in terms of years of non profit write offs and political time wasted, this has got to be it. This building will eventually come down but someone should have audited the endless wasted hours it took to get to that inevitable, common sense decision as an example of the need for more oversight of the LP decisions and its inappropriate and expensive impact on the effective functioning of the city as well as the countless City Council hours that could have been devoted to more urgent issues.
I agree with you Susan. The building in my opinion is not worthy of landmark status. The use of the building was minimum and for only an extremely low number of UWS population . It was not serving a purpose and is beyond repair financially.
When will this farce end?!!?! It has gone on long enough. Let us hope the Full Board of CB7 does not confirm the Committee’s 180-degree reversal from its original position. And if the Full Board votes in favor, let’s hope that LPC “ignores” it and moves forward with the Application.
This is becoming an increasing headache for EVERYONE. But the Presbytery and the congregation OWN the building, so THEY should have the greater say in its final disposition. If there were not an LPC “in the way,” THAT is exactly what would happen. And this ongoing travesty would have been over long ago, the developer would have long since built a building that provided the Presbytery with tens of thousands of sq ft of space for its services and programs, and we would have some new neighbors in whatever housing is built.
Instead, we have a fiasco of epic proportions – all caused by the LPC. While I generally support their existence and their work, in this case they have f—ed up big time. And all they are doing is extending the pain – and actually ADDING to the final cost of repairs, since the building continues to deteriorate as they hold the Application in abeyance.
I had thought this farce would end when the Presbytery and congregation LEGALLY evicted the Center, so there were no further subtenants to keep it going. What a tragedy that there are.
Would be great Zoran can build a 90 story project with 1,000 apartments in this lot . Just increase the tax’s on the upper west side and it is paid for.
The celebs involved in this just staged a “reading” of a play. The cost for admission was $300 per person. So let’s look at what’s really happening here.
These celebrities are (pardon my French) full of s—. They have ZERO connection to West-Park, particularly now that the Center has a new, wonderful and inviting home. If these celebs REALLY cared, they are worth a combined total of over $500 million, and could EASILY afford the ENTIRE $30+ million that West-Park is seeking to either FULLY restore the church building or develop it. But notice that these celebs are NOT “putting their money where their mouths are”; instead, they are charging “the locals” $300 per head to hear them read.
This tells you al you need to know about what is REALLY going on.
If the LPC denies the application, this will go to court with the risk that the landmark law will be held unconstitutional or that the denial violates the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. I’m not sure this is a desirable outcome and supporters of landmarking should look for a reasonable compromise.
As a participant in West Park’s Open Mic for the past 16 years I would like to see the building saved. It seems everything landmark in this city is expendable. So sad.
Only in New York! An ugly, foreboding building that is falling apart, with no funds to repair it cannot be sold to raise money and build housing. If those pushing to support it, really care, put up the money yourselves.
Build a beautiful luxury high rise overlooking Central Park and this will bring in millions to the neighborhood in terms of construction jobs, investments and taxes to the city.
So much of your post misrepresents the reality of Amsterdam in the 80s, and no, a giant glass tower wouldn’t change that reality.
It reminds me a little of many of the appliances in my apartment. They are old and do work the way they used to. But I can fool with them and sort of get them to work. Eventually the old appliances just totally break down and have to be replaced. The church is old and broken down like my appliances but is still usable. What would be the church equivalent of my appliances totally breaking down. Right. Collapse or fire.
I was at both Community Board meetings. last night someone on Zoom that was a member of the congregation said that the congregation was only 5 people !
This church building has been Collapsing in front of our very eyes for the last 25 years
It has no Congregation and it’s only uses are for community groups. I fully support community groups, but the purpose of this church and it’s tax-free status is not being used appropriately in any way.
Moreover, the church is falling apart, and has had scaffolding surrounding it for a very long time. This Congregation has no money nor intent to repair this building or any church related activity.
The sole reason this building has remained in place because several neighbors in the adjoining building do not want to lose the views they have out there side windows
There are people who won’t be happy until the UWS becomes a synthetic “neighborhood” with no views, skyscrapers only, no independent shops, “affordable” as defined by developers as the poorest of the wealthy.
This is a welcome result of great community organization and a well informed community board who took this matter under serious consideration. Thank You, Community Board and those members of the community that spoke both eloquently and passionately about the Church and it’s valuable role as a cultural center for the UWS.
If this is the real Mark Ruffalo- you have the funds along with other celebrities to purchase the building and take on the full in- and-out gut renovation that is needed. Let us know your plan.
Pigeon poop crusted sidewalks, homeless encampments on the steps, Good save.