By Scott Etkin
The saga over whether to grant West-Park Presbyterian Church a hardship application, thereby removing the church’s landmark status and facilitating its sale and demolition, is not over. But a hearing Tuesday before the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) took another step, after years of debate, toward a final decision.
At Tuesday’s meeting, representatives from the church responded to arguments made at a meeting in December, where members of the public and the Center at West Park, an arts organization that had rented space in the church for more than seven years, had presented their arguments for saving the historic church at 186 West 86th Street. The church’s presentation disputed an analysis by the Center at West Park, arguing that the group underestimated the cost of renovating the building, and that there is no viable path to raise funds for the needed renovation.
“It’s not that the building is too unsafe for short-term rentals to groups with no responsibility for its upkeep,” said Valerie Campbell, a lawyer speaking on behalf of the church. “Rather, it is that the overwhelming cost of addressing serious and ongoing maintenance issues far exceeds the resources of its struggling congregation.”
Core to the disagreement between the church and the Center at West Park is the cost of the renovations needed to fix structural issues and bring the church up to modern fire safety and standards for disability access. There is a roughly $15 million difference between each party’s estimates.
“There has been a long-running debate over the cost of restoring the building, but there is no disagreement that it’s in terrible shape,” said Roger Leaf, chair of the West Park Administrative Commission.
Adam Wald, executive vice president of Appraisers and Planners, Inc., who spoke on behalf of the church, said that the Center at West Park’s calculations are based on “flawed assumptions” and include only short-term repairs, excluding necessary repairs to the building’s interior. Historic elements of West-Park Presbyterian are beyond what can realistically be repaired, the church has argued.
Church representatives also said that the repairs would have to be done all at once, not in phases, because no tenant would rent the space knowing that there’s more construction ahead. They also cast doubt on the prospect of using funds from a lease to finance the repairs, claiming that the rent they collected from the Center at West Park was not enough to cover the church’s insurance bills. (Center at West Park is currently operating out of St. Paul & St. Andrew United Methodist Church on West 86th Street.)
Fundraising has been a challenge for both the church and the Center at West Park. Leaf told the hearing that Center at West Park has been kept afloat financially by the anonymous donations of one person, and church representatives said that the Center and City Councilmember Gale Brewer haven’t fulfilled promises to raise millions for the renovations.
“During its tenancy, the Center had ample opportunity to become a positive force and a true partner to the church but it failed at every turn,” said Kramer. “The burdens of maintaining this landmark have taken precedence over the mission and bankrupted the church.”
Commissioners on the LPC probed for more information about potential sources of revenue to fund the church, such as selling its unused air rights. The church values its Transferable Development Rights at $1.5 million, but it says there are no buyers for those rights – and that even if there were, this sum wouldn’t make a dent in the cost of renovations.
If the LPC does not grant the church’s hardship application, the church said it would struggle to find a buyer for the building, since no developer would take on the cost of fixing it, given its landmark status. Since the church is already in debt, this decision would effectively end the congregation.
If LPC grants the application, the church would complete a sale to Alchemy Properties, a real estate firm, which plans to build a residential building that includes a space for the congregation. The church said it would use proceeds from the sale, approximately $25 to $30 million, to start a social justice fund to further the church’s philanthropic mission.
There was no public testimony during this session, but the record remains open for the public to provide written comments.
The LPC did not set a date for the next time they discuss this matter. When that meeting happens, consultants will present findings from all the meetings and the LPC will determine if they need more information, or if they are ready to vote.
The full meeting can be watched HERE, beginning at 1:00:37.
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
Maybe a daft question, but why couldn’t the current facade be incorporated into the new building, thus preserving some of its character?
Because of things like this on West 36th Street between 8th and 9th:
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7541483,-73.9940999,3a,90y,213.13h,90.27t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXfRjer7lccjoDmp1fmyDPg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-0.26673640167364%26panoid%3DXfRjer7lccjoDmp1fmyDPg%26yaw%3D213.12589685788922!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDMwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
That facade is brick; the facade of West Park is red sandstone that is slowly crumbling. Why any architect would design something of sandstone is difficult to fathom, but here we are.
What do you think brownstone is?
Most New York “brownstones” aren’t brownstone at all. They’re brick homes faced with a thin brownstone veneer, a sandstone once carved by hand and ferried down from Connecticut by barge.
Right, but the brownstone is still red limestone, much like the church.
You meant something else.
The carvings in brownstone were largely done with machines following a pattern, then the results were touched up by hand.
This looks kinda cool, decent way to find compromise between need for update and preserving the feel of the street at lower levels
No, it looks like an afterthought, like the details on AM Stern buildings.
It’s worse when you see the the whole hotel tower.
Actually, there WAS a proposal years ago from a different developer who only wanted to demolish a small section of the church in order to build a smaller building. But wouldn’t you know it – out of the woodwork came a group of “concerned neighbors” who fought vehemently against THAT. Of course, none of those people belonged to the church, had even stepped inside it, or even knew anything about its congregation or its broader missions. And many of them weren’t even as passionate about the “architectural landmark” as many of the current oppositionists are. So THAT plan died on the vine.
Agreed, that’s a daft question.
Some advice to WSR readers: don’t waste valuable time and energy proposing solutions to this problem; limit your involvement to avoidance of walking under the church scaffolding; resign yourself to the fact that your grandchildren not yet born will still be reading about this when they are grandparents; spend your time reading Bleak House instead.
This has been going on so long that I’m not only concerned about the structural integrity of the church, I’m worried about the structural integrity of the scaffolding which has been up there forever! What is their monthly payment for this? Dayenu!
Bleak House indeed. This Park West saga makes Jarndyce v. Jarndyce look like a picnic in the park.
“If the LPC does not grant the church’s hardship application, the church said it would struggle to find a buyer for the building, since no developer would take on the cost of fixing it, given its landmark status.”
If the LPC does not grant the application the church will immediately file an Article 78 proceeding in NYS Supreme Court. It has good attorneys, I am sure the papers are already drafted.
One question that has never been answered though, after all this sturm and drang, how much did the Center actually raise for the repairs? Not promises or pledges,actual cash on the barrel.
The LPC should be forced to pay for all the legal costs forced on the church for having to deal with them. I can’t believe I’m reading another chapter in this saga. If there was ever a reason to investigate and reimagine the mission of the LPC, this is it.
While the LPC has a near-sacred duty to protect all landmarks under its care, there are simply some instances in which that will not be possible – for a variety of reasons. This is one of those times. It time for them to end this farce and grant the application.
I have to agree The building is impressive and crumbling, the interior dreary (stained glass notwithstanding). Preservation energy better projected to nearby St. Andrews and the Gothic church opposite North corner (87th st.)..
I asked Gail Brewer why, after all these years of promising solutions to this, had she done nothing.
She insisted she was right about landmarking the church and assured me that she would have something soon.
That was three years ago and still crickets.
Anyone interested in knowing whether anyone is worse than trump in such as promising a health care plan “soon” can look to Ms. Brewer.
Tear it down already
The point is that’s against the law.
Everyone else has to read Bleak House. You have to read The Fountainhead.
Ayn Rand was a fraud, who was happy enough to be on Mediwelfare in the 1980s.
Really hard to ignore that the LPC is illegally and unconstitutionally infringing upon this congregation’s right to freely exercise its religion.
Wonder how that would play before the current supreme court.
Perhaps someone should mention it to The President.
I don’t think the issue is with the LPC anyway
I am pretty sure the LPC had agreed, or maybe had just agreed provisionally, to overturn the buiding’s landmark status so the building could be demolished
But the arts center wants to stay there and is fighting the building’s landmark status getting overturned.
Personally, given that the arts center sometimes operated out of the church on 86th and West End, I don’t know why it can’t just move, so the church can do with it what it wants.
Having said that, not sure how the LPC is infringing on a practice of religion. The congregation can sell it to the arts group, which is what the art group wants, and rent space at another church building. Anyway you look at it, the congregation will not and does not want to keep work shipping at that buildong
The so called “Arts Center” was unceremoniously evicted from West Park last summer. I don’t see the owners of the church letting troublemakers like that back in.
Churhes, etc are not required for worshipping. The Bill of Rights does not guarantee freesom of action.
There is no – nor for years has there been – a congregation left to populate this beautiful landmark. As just stated in the article, the plan if dedesignated is to: “…use proceeds from the sale, approximately $25 to $30 million, to start a social justice fund to further the church’s philanthropic mission.” So put down the tiny violins and try to muster some appreciation for the city’s cultural and architectural history.
Someone on this thread noted that, if the application is not granted, the church would likely file an Article 78 proceeding, which they might well win. However, as you suggest, they could also file a lawsuit based on an infringement of their First Amendment right to worship. And my guess it that they would win THAT lawsuit in a landslide.
Have you looked at case law before making that guess? Precedent would say otherwise.
How so? The landmark law is neutral in that applies to all buildings and doesn’t focus on religious buildings. It regulates property use generally, not religious practice specifically.
Juan K notes LPC appears to be infringing on freedom of religion. I don’t know about that but LPC’s power sure seems like an illegal taking with no real benefits to the owner.
Anyway, I hope the future developer keeps a red stone facade with glass above to reflect the current outline of the building.
The NYC Landmarks law is settled case law.
So was Roe and Chevron. Look how easily SCOTUS overruled that “settled case law.” I would think the last thing LPC wants is for this case to go up the federal court ladder, because they could all easily be out of a job.
Look at the “legal scholarship” from the likes of Thomas and Alito.
And as long as Barrett, Gorscuch and Kavanaugh sign on….PRESTO! We have controlling case law.
Could happen.
Isn’t it both an illegal taking & an infringement on free exercise of religion? It is hard to freely practice one’s religion when Landmarks is trapping you in a derelict building.
Goes back to the Penn Central case, but you are correct, should the current Supreme Court have an opportunity to re-look at that precedent, I believe much of current historic preservation law would be overturned. It is a regulatory taking, the question is if it is one that is allowed (general zoning restriction) vs. one that is targeted (religious non-profits in particular, where reuse is expensive and unlikely to yield proceeds).
This case is a perfect example – the property is worth $40mm without being designated, with designation, they have gotten no offers for the property, only a speculative offer for $3 million from a group with $1 million in the bank and a repair list that is $5-50 million long!
“free exercise of religion” does not mean freedom of action.
In fact, worshipping does not even require a physical church, mosque, synagogue, temple, etc.
“…a $15 million difference between the opposition’s estimate (~$5 million) and the church’s estimate (~$20 million).” Yet nowhere does the article note that the LPC’s own engineer estimated the most MINIMAL repairs at ~$ 9 million – almost DOULBE the opposition’s estimate, though about half of the church’s. And the opposition is no closer today in raising that amount than they were when this farce began.
Also, “Center at Park West has been kept afloat financially by the anonymous donations of one person…” Anyone want to bet that that person’s initials are Mark Ruffalo?
If it’s so important to MR maybe he should buy it and donate the repaired building to the public. I’m sure he can afford it and has almost single handedly kept this dangerous eyesore in place for tears.
Bless MR’s heart for caring about the arts and giving so much to the enrichment of artists and our neighborhood, when he could easily divert his energy and any financial assistance (if true) in many different directions. I appreciate him and all that CWP gives to our community – as audience members and as artists.
The sheer eagerness people have to destroy a 19th century landmark and replace it with condo boxes for the wealthy is very discouraging.
Enjoy your vacations to Europe where you will marvel at 19th century churches.
The sheer eagerness to preserve it is reflected in the amount raised – a small fraction of what it’ll cost to buy it. How much did you donate?
The notion that the congregation is arguing for the churches destruction without trying, unsuccessfully, to save it in countless ways, for over twenty years, is exactly the cluelessness and magical thinking that has resulted in this stalemate.
My flat looks directly at the church and I very much want it to survive. In the meantime, there has been no proposal for saving the structure that has been realistic, and the “save the landmark” people have raised a tiny fraction of the funds necessary to repair the church, even after decades of desperate fundraising, and even if their clearly inadequate cost estimates were sufficient. Even soliciting the adjacent homeowners for significant pledges toward the work did not approach the funding the lowest estimate claims is needed for this project.
It’s clear that it makes you feel good to virtue signal your love of 18th century churches and your loathing for the wealthy, and hatred of new construction (aren’t you sophisticated!), but I note that you don’t propose any plan for accomplishing anything here. You just stamp your feet and say, “Save the church. Making it happen is your problem, and if you don’t do it, it’s obviously because you are very bad people, eager to destroy a landmark and go on vacations to Europe.” In addition to being a very silly position, I don’t see how that is productive.
Having a love of old architecture is not virtue signaling. Bizarre comment. I don’t loathe the wealthy and in fact I could be among their number. What I do loathe is the ugly condo boxes that have taken over the city, adding nothing of value to it. I don’t think that makes me sophisticated, whatever you meant by that bizarre comment. And the Europe comment was to highlight the hypocrisy of traveling to see old landmarks while being eager to destroy them at home.
So congrats on misunderstanding pretty much everything I wrote.
Frankly, I think it should be on the city to save unique historical structures, not individuals or tiny nonprofit organizations. We have a budget of over $120 billion a year. That’s more than some countries, not just cities. It would be basically spare change to save this unique church, and the city should value its historical integrity and actually do it. I’m not familiar with the mechanisms or specific organizations it would take to undertake that kind of project, but I do think we’re looking for funding in the wrong places at present.
Given that budgets are fixed what project or needy person would you take money from in order to fund the five to $25 million needed? It’s very easy to look at a $120 billion budget and say hey 10 million bucks is really small versus that number. This is no way to run a city. Would you run your home this way? If an individual is making $1 million a year doesn’t make sense for them to spend $500 on a pizza? Budget matter cost matters money is not unlimited. Fund one priority you sacrifice another. Actual governance is difficult. Nobody in this city is stepping up to fund what is needed to preserve this landmark. The people have spoken. Tear it down.
You’re going to lose your lot-line window?
If you don’t build it, they won’t come.
Another generic overpriced condo is the answer? If the parish hasn’t been able to increase the congregation, throwing money at the problem isn’t likely to help either. Most likely they’ll drape a rainbow flag everywhere and most of the $ will go to “marketing” and increasing their own pay. I’m guessing there is no intention of providing space for social outreach, which is what a church IS.
I think it was pretty clearly laid out that the intention of the church’s plan is exactly to create a space for social outreach in the new building, no? And also using the proceeds from the sale specifically to start a fund to enable social outreach and community support city-wide.
And they’ve acknowledged that they aren’t able to increase the congregation given the condition of the building–I think it’s less about throwing money and more about creating a functional space
Hopefully this structure will retain its religious purpose. If the church congregation cannot support it, I am aware of several growing muslim community groups who would be delighted to convert it into a mosque. The church tower could seemlessly be converted into a minaret, where the call to prayer could be broadcast five times per day, enriching the fabric of our community for generations to come.
Ooohh, good idea!!!
It’s been years and nothing changes. Why, because Center at Park West doesn’t have the money. Read this(https://www.centeratwestpark.org/mission) and ask, Would I invest in this organization. I may be banished for saying this but would they be missed?
BTW, the scaffolding is Photoshopped out!! Wishful thinking on their part.
I’m all for the preservation of history & the landmarks commission but I’m also for living in reality and working towards a healthy progression for our city! It seems clear to me that it’s time to tear this dangerous eyesore down and move towards the future!
Good God! Save the church! Stop the lawsuits and let the building become the Community Center that it wants to be. The Presbyterians will be paid money …. not the millions they want, but construction and rebuilding could begin. It’s a beautiful building, if people would just let it be the beautiful structure it is,…. with church services, arts programs, community rooms.!! We have enough luxury buildings! Enough construction! Enough infrastructure breakdowns, without adding more!!
The building wants?
Sorry, we’re not living in a Stephen King novel.
There is no bad housing, all is needed. And the Presbytery has a mission, agree or disagree, that serves a purpose and isn’t corrupt or self serving.
It’s not for us to dictate how little it can realize from a sale because of our opinion about use or subjective beauty.
The Methodist church two blocks away hosts multiple arts and community services. The Presbyterian church on Broadway at 114 hosts a school and symphony orchestra concerts. There’s nothing unique or essential to the arts in a building where others are available.
Sounds like a lot of real estate for a congregation of 12 people to pursue their mission!
So much energy and time wasted on this. NIMBYs and specially tenant NIMBYs are a plague. The congregation has spoken.
Please let they sell it and build something else there.
Mark Ruffalo is for it therefore any decent person must be against it.