By Gus Saltonstall
On Tuesday, the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) heard testimony on the West-Park Presbyterian Church’s request to strip the more than 130-year-old Upper West Side house of worship of its landmark designation. If the commission eventually grants that request, made in the form of a “hardship application,” the church plans to sell the property to a developer, who would demolish the structure to make way for a high-rise apartment building.
But an LPC decision is still pending. Even before public testimony began on Tuesday, a commission member announced that the application will face further consideration in “early 2026,” when the church will be asked to respond to questions from the public and the commission.
At that point, if there is no other fact-finding needed, members of the commission will finally vote on whether to remove the landmark status of the church at the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue.
“The most helpful and relevant testimony you can provide is whether the applicant has satisfied the hardship criteria,” Mark Silberman, general counsel for the LPC, said before Tuesday’s testimony. “Testimony about the good work of the church or the importance of art to the Upper West Side or how much you appreciate the historic building is not relevant to the Commission’s ultimate resolution on this matter.”
Speakers who presented testimony on Tuesday repeated points that have been made throughout the many months of debate on the fate of West-Park Presbyterian. Those in favor of granting the hardship application, which includes the Presbytery — the church governing body — argue that the application is justified because of the poor physical condition of the church and the amount of money it would cost to restore the building, including removal of the more than 20-year-old sidewalk shed. Those arguing that the church building should be preserved — which includes the Center at West Park, a nonprofit arts organization that operated out of the church for years until this summer — spoke to the importance of saving the historic structure that could continue to serve as a community, theatrical, and religious facility.
Upper West Side City Councilmember Gale Brewer, who played a large part in getting the church landmarked, testified on Tuesday that it was the commission’s duty to “do everything possible to preserve buildings in New York City, and this is a building that can and must be saved.”
Actor and Upper West Sider Mark Ruffalo, who is a longtime supporter of the church and The Center at West Park, also testified.
“I’m also really an Upper West Sider. My kids were raised there. I love it there. I believe in us as a community,” Ruffalo said. “We’re here to oppose this hardship request. Yes, I’m a celebrity, but behind me are a thousand young actors who were just like me, who came to New York looking for a dream. And these spaces fulfill that ability. We can’t let them go.”
You can watch the more than three hours of presentation and testimony on the hardship application for West-Park Presbytery Church, below.
Read More:
- Process Begins to Determine Fate of Upper West Side Landmark Church
- UWS Community Board Committee Votes Not to Support Hardship Application for West-Park Church
- UWS Community Board Makes Its Official Recommendation on Fate of 135-Year-Old Church
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Has the LPC had an independent architect evaluate the plans from the presbery and from the Center at Park West for what it would cost to bring the building up to code? The numbers each side gives are wildly different.
Yes. The LPC’s own engineer assessed the MINIMUM cost of “basic” repairs (i.e., to make the exterior safe enough to remove the sidewalk shed – which would still leave the interior and SOME of the exterior in need of repair) at $9 million.
That is the LPC’s own estimate. So if the Presbytery and congregation cannot prove that they do not have that amount, or that there is “other” legitimate hardship involved, the Application is unlikely to be approved. However, if the Presbytery and congregation can prove that they cannot meet that amount, or there is legitimate “other” hardship, then the LPC will probably grant the application.
One thing to consider. It comes under the category of “be careful what you wish for.” If the opposition “wins,” and the application is not granted, we are likely to have that sidewalk shed up for ANOTHER 20 years. If the point of landmarking a building is to make sure it IS “beautiful” (which is hopelessly subjective) and “significant,” then its current condition, including the presence of the sidewalk shed, diminish BOTH of those factors. The ONLY way to “undo” this is for the entire $30+ million to be raised so that the church can be fully and completely repaired and restored. Otherwise, we will simply keep putting band-aids on it.
It’s not like droves of people from all over the country and the world are coming to see this church. And if they were, the word “disappointment” wouldn’t even begin to describe their reaction.
In my opinion (which is well known), unless the building is COMPLETELY repaired and restored to its former glory, I think the LPC needs to end this farce and grant the application.
The church has let it deteriorate for years! It is unfortunately much more complicated than what you describe… the church doesn’t want the building in good condition because they want it sold. They have even intentionally damaged it, to make it worse! If you let a building rot for over 20 years, the more money it will take to repair. But at this point there is no fighting chance unless the LPC opposes the application. The Center at West Park has over 11 million dollars waiting to be spent on updates, but since the church is the owner, they have to sign off. The Church is bound by the contract they signed with the develops. The contract is binding and the only way out of it is if the application is opposed. I think that, while the current owners are not interested, the building is very much loved and want to put it to good use! How is a new luxury high rise going to fix anything?
A decision was delayed. The sun rises in the east. Upper West Siders whine. The Jets stink.
man the jets can’t stop catching strays
The arts are essential. This building is a landmark. The Upper West Side must protect this neighborhood. New York City is the greatest city in the world
Bulldoze all of NY while you’re at it! Who needs it! Landmark it first, hold a commission, de-landmark it, then re-mark it Southeast Bismark, ND. Cronuts all around!
An unbelievable waste of everyone’s time. The decaying church is not a particularly special or important building and can’t be sustained by a congregation of 10 people. Bulldoze it and building the apartments that will be better for the neighborhood.
Have you been in this church? Have you seen it’s beauty? Have you been to any function there? There have been many functions ! Forget it, How many vapid luxury high rises do we need? This church must be saved . What good is the Landmarks Preservation Society, if it could demolish an already Landmarked building for the sake of money???
Puffalo (along with other like-minded celebs) can certainly afford to take care of this.
I like the place very much. Don’t much care for him.
. Save the landmark! Appreciate what makes this a neighborhood. The church can be repaired, and the center should remain and be kept. During the hearing, we heard from many preservationists and center staff that these repairs are possible and that funding is available to make this happen. We do not need a high-rise building on the Upper West Side. This building can be brought up to code and kept. The degradation of the building was self-imposed by the congregation. The church should remain and be kept as a center of arts, culture, and worship in this neighborhood.
If you were on the Zoom call during the public hearing, you would have seen firsthand the deceptive tactics used by the potential developer, Alchemy Properties. Their employees spoke in support of the “hardship” claim, even after the commission told them they could not speak. They also had their construction partners join the call. This is purely a money grab by a large development company with deep pockets, trying to destroy another landmarked building for their own financial gain.
Lasting implications of this decision. If they remove Landmark status nearly every building will be able to be sold to the highest bidder regardless of architectural or historic benefit. UWS will be UES. Developers are salivating at the prospects.
West-Park Presbyterian Church never should have been landmarked from start. Gail Brewer and notably residents of buildings on lots adjacent got at LPC to “save” the place for reasons of their own.
Ms. Brewer promised then and has continued to say “funds would be found” to renovate and maintain WPPC, knowing fully well that government money could not be used due to separation of church and state. Ms. Brewer and others have responded to that bit by basically brow beating congregation to sell the church to a private entity so it then could receive taxpayer money. Thing is Brewer et al wanted congregation to basically sell their property at well below market.
Perhaps best thing is for LPC to turn down application and let WPPC congregation take legal proceedings against city for violating takings clause of USC and so on.
Far too often LPC slaps landmark status on properties it otherwise previously has ignored once “concerned persons” get whiff there is going to be a RE deal.
That is simply ridiculous and hopelessly inaccurate fear-mongering. Each application is considered on its own merits, or lack thereof. There is NOTHING to suggest that this building losing its landmark status will “endanger” any other landmark.
Agree. Also, proponents of keeping the church have yet to show the money they have. It seems to be a lot of talk. I like the church building but have never felt that, inside, it was sturdy and safe.
If Mark Ruffalo opposes the hardship application he should take the money he makes doing Marvel movies and pay to fix the building so the congregation and not for profit can both stay.
The five major celebs supporting the “opposition” have a net worth of over $500 million. They could EASILY afford to raise the full $30+ million that it would take to fully and completely repair and restore the building back to its former glory, instead of just continuing to put band-aids on it.
In fact, they probably wouldn’t even have to touch their liquid assets; they could all get lines of credit that would allow them to provide the $30 million guarantee.
Otherwise, even if the application is not granted, we will have that sidewalk shed up for ANOTHER 20 years. Is that REALLY what the opposition wants? Do they REALLY think there are droves of people coming from across the country and the world to come and see this church? And even if there were, what would they see? Dilapidated, and dangerous building with an ugly sidewalk shed around it. I don’t think that’s what anyone wants.
So unless the $30 million is raised, and the building is restored to its former glory,, the application should be granted, since few if any people are coming to NYC specifically to see this “landmark” church. And if they are, they are almost certainly disappointed.
So what is the point of keeping it? It couldn’t have anything to do with the “light and air” of those oppositionists who live near it, could it?
This whole thing has become a farce, and it needs to end: either restore the building completely, or allow it to be demolished to that SOMETHING can go forward and we don’t have what is now an UGLY site, not a “beautiful” landmarked building.
The building needs to stay.
It is the pinnacle of all NYC stands for.
Also agree with this comment. I walked by the church last Thursday evening, just after sundown. The scaffolding makes the sidewalk dark and potentially dangerous. There is little life on that corner in terms of lights, activity, etc. Time to move along.
NYC should take control of the building through eminent domain and maintain it as a cultural center for the UWS. Everyone wins. The Presbytery gets money, and the neighborhood gets a cultural center.
Even with NYS broad and almost unlimited powers of taking via eminent domain that process is not always certain nor inexpensive.
Owners must be compensation for true current market value of property, not some low ball number that suits whoever’s purposes.
Next neither NYS nor NYC have private funds, any money used to acquire properties comes from taxpayers. It’s going to take some heavy lifting to convince people, outside of select few with a dog in this hunt, that NYC acquiring WPPC is a good use of taxpayer money.
As for rest of it NYC cannot even maintain NYCHA/public housing and other properties it owns. Just what makes you so certain it will have vast sums to spend on renovation, repair and maintenance of this old barn of a church?
Except anyone who needs housing.
The people who will most likely be able to afford the new housing built on that location would not be the most destitute and needy members of our community. Unless it opened up as a 100% supportive housing for seniors and low income New Yorkers, or if it became Mitchell-Lama type housing maybe. Otherwise it’s just another overpriced particle board and granite countertop yuppie castle.
If you don’t build housing for the Google software engineers they will simply outbid the next person for the other available housing which makes it marginally more expensive for the rest of us.
The city has tried for years to build 100% affordable housing for seniors at the Haven Green site downtown and has faced non-stop opposition. There is always another objection to every attempt to add new housing.
If the celebrities want to pay for the renovations, fine. Otherwise, it is crumbling, unsafe and should be torn down for high rise apartments.
> Upper West Side City Councilmember Gale Brewer, who played a large part in getting the church landmarked, testified on Tuesday that it was the commission’s duty to “do everything possible to preserve buildings in New York City, and this is a building that can and must be saved.”
What a ridiculously unserious person. This is not what the landmarks commission is for.
She is tiresome, isn’t she?
She also commented that she could raise the money. I don’t believe that happened.
Brewer also said she’d raise the money to rebuild the Soldiers and Sailors Monument at Riverside and 90th Street. She never did and now she’s termed out.
The bottom line is that there is NO money to repair this building no matter which estimate you use. If you use the lower figure you still don’t have the money to repair it. Lots of rah rah talk and no putting up the money going on. They have been trying to raise this money for decades and nothing has come of it. So it just sits there crumbling more as each day goes by. My kids were babies when it first got scaffolded up and now they are adults with kids of their own. How many more years will it sit there like this? Are we just destined to watch it fall down?
One would THINK that the point of landmarking a building is because it is “beautiful” (which is hopelessly subjective) and/or “significant.” But how beautiful and significant is the building if it is so dangerous that a sidewalk shed has been up for over 20 YEARS?
The condition of the building seriously diminishes both the “beauty” AND “significance” of the church. In that regard, unless it is FULLY repaired and restored to its former glory, it remains an eyesore, one that tourists (from the U.S. or overseas) are either NOT coming to see, or are seriously disappointed by if they do.
This farce has gone on long enough, and the opposition is now essentially fighting to keep a dangerously damaged and now ugly building, and a sidewalk shed that is a SERIOUS eyesore, all to continue to put band-aids on it as it continued to deteriorate.
This farce must end. Either find the $30 million or so that it would cost to FULLY repair and restore the building, or allow it to be demolished. The “middle ground” – which has continued for over 20 years – is NOT acceptable, and band-aids are not going to help, or to bring back the “beauty” and “significance” that allowed the building to be landmarked in the first place.
Yep, it’s time. Let’s move along since nothing is happening from those who say the money can be found to do a complete and accurate preservation.
Maria:
Have you taken any active steps in this regard? Just wondering. For example, I provided written testimony to LPC in favor of the Hardship application for their most recent hearing. (And I am not the only one.) Have you done anything similar? Given the vociferousness of the opposition, it is critical that anyone who supports the Application needs to let LPC know that.
Thanks.
This church is coming down irrespective of what happens at LPC. If LPC does not grant the application the New York Presbytery will file an Article 78 proceeding in New York Supreme Court, which they will likely win. They just can’t file an Article 78 now because administrative remedies must be first exhausted before going to court. There is simply not nearly enough money available to repair the church pursuant to landmark regulations, nor is there any hope the church could generate enough funds to maintain the structure moving forward.
who gets the $50 million from the developers???????????????
I hope you are right. If the LPC does not grant the Application, the Presbytery and the congregation will have only four months to prepare and file an Article 78 proceeding. One hopes they are already pre-preparing for it. I have been in touch with the Presbytery and spoken with people there, but have not spoken with their legal people. I am hoping to get a call from them shortly.
Gale Brewer is the entrenched sinecured weathervane whose opinions don’t matter. Forcing the OWNER of the dilapidated structure of insignificant historic or aesthetic value (20 years old scaffold is the proof) to continue being enslaved to the whims of commissions with no skin in the game is pathetic.
But good for the LPC to put the sanctimonious “celebrity” multimillionaires into their place.
Hope the church owners will finally be free to do with THEIR property what they see fit.
I don’t know how to solve this, but in a few years the ugly sidewalk shed will be older than the World Trade Center ever got to be. A whole generation of children grew up and probably moved away from this blighted corner.
Actually, the sidewalk shed has now been up for OVER 20 years. And if the opposition prevails, it is likely to be up for ANOTHER 20 years. Is that REALLY what they want? If they are serious about their belief that the building is “beautiful” (which is hopelessly subjective) and “significant,” then why continue to allow the building to deteriorate, thus diminishing BOTH its “beauty” and “significance?” I don’t believe that they have truly thought this out.
A “win” for them is actually a continued LOSS for the building, since it means that is will simply keep deteriorating (and becoming MORE dangerous), and the sidewalk shed will remain up unless and until the entire ~$30 million is raised to FULLY repair and restore the building to its original “glory.”
Since that is highly unlikely to occur, it would actually be a “mercy” to the building to allow the Presbytery and congregation to move ahead with their plans.
Maybe this is asking too much, but maybe Mark Ruffalo and some of his rich pals could put up the needed $9 million? 9 rich people $1 million each.
Keep in mind that the $9 million is LPC’s estimate of the BASIC repairs that would allow the sidewalk shed to be removed; it is NOT the amount that would be needed to repair the ENTIRE exterior, much less a single inch of the interior.
The estimate for a FULL and COMPLETE repair and restoration of the building is ~$30 million. Unless and until that amount is raised, the building will continue to deteriorate (particularly internally, and even SOME of the exterior).
As for the celebs, the five major celebs have a combined net worth of ~$500 million. So they could EASILY raise not just the $9 million for BASIC repairs, but the $30 million to restore the building to its original “glory.” And they probably wouldn’t even have to touch their liquid assets; they could all get lines of credit that would allow each of them to provide $6 million toward the total. And since there are actually more than five celebs (though not all are worth over $100 million), the $30 million amount would be even EASIER to reach.
But these celebs are FOS. They don’t want to put their money where their mouths are (or, at least, no more than a piddling amount). And they are also mostly Johnny-come-latelys, few of whom actually have a presence on the UWS (e.g., Ms. Johansson just famously purchased a huge apartment on the UES). So don’t count on them to save the church – even though they could easily do so.
The USW does NOT need another high-rise tower for the 1% in a historic , classic neighborhood. There is no infrastructure to support another huge building with people bringing their cars in, a small subway station, overcrowded local schools, etc. That church is a gem and very unusual – it’s the largest church of that style (forget the architectural name for it) in NYC. It houses a thriving cultural arts environment. Find the money to fix it and keep that corner absolutely charming, historic (across from the classic building with its own courtyard), open-air and beautiful! You cannot recreate those kinds of buildings. High rise crap buildings are a dime a dozen. Do you really want the UWS to turn into midtown north, like Lincoln Square and 200 Amsterdam Ave? Caveat Emptor.
It will not be a “high-rise tower.” I don’t know who told you that. It will be of the same height as most of the buildings along West 86th Street; i.e., 14-16 stories tall or so.
And please explain how that corner is “charming,” with a continually deteriorating (and increasingly dangerous) exterior, and a sidewalk shed that has been an eyesore for over 20 years, Do you REALLY think people are flocking there from all over the country and the world to see it? And even if they were, their reaction would be one of extreme disappointment, given the condition of the building, and the eyesore shed.
The ONLY way to “correct” the current situation is for the FULL $30 million to be raised so that the building can be FULLY and COMPLETELY restored to its former “glory.” Otherwise, it will continue to grow as an eyesore, and arguably a blight on the neighborhood.
That corner is anything BUT “charming” right now. And the only way it COULD be is for the building to be completely and fully repaired and restored, both outside and in.
Find the money where, Wendy? People have been looking for money to forestall the inevitable with that church for close to a quarter century. But if you have some special insight as to where $30m can be found to buy the church, another $25m or so can be found to repair the building, and finally another $40m or so to endow the building so ordinary maintenance and repairs can be made, by all means tell us all where it may be found.
I am very lucky to be nearby on a high floor and thus I can see over the church’s roof. It is in Complete Disrepair, and no-one involved is telling the truth re the decades of work and money required for renovation of this church