By Gus Saltonstall
The Upper West Side arts center that has fought for years to stop the demolition of the landmarked West Park Presbyterian Church on the corner of West 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue presented a $12 million plan on Monday “that would preserve the historic building while providing the congregation with a stable financial future,” according to a news release.
The Center at West Park, which operated out of the church from 2016 until it was evicted from the space last summer, presented a lease proposal and financial plan to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) that it says “challenges the premise that demolition is the only viable option for the church.”
Under the proposal, the Center at West Park would pay the church’s congregation $720,000 annually, or $60,000 a month, for 10 years. That comes out to $7.2 million over the entirety of the lease. The Center also says it has established a separate $5 million West Park Landmark Preservation Fund dedicated “exclusively to repairing and restoring the building, including the immediate facade repairs and the removal of the long-standing sidewalk shed” at no cost to the Presbytery.
The sidewalk shed has surrounded the more than 130-year-old church since 2001, when Rudy Giuliani was mayor of New York City, and Apple had just launched something called the iPod.
“The question before the Landmarks Preservation Commission has always been whether a reasonable alternative to demolition exists,” said Center at West Park Board Chair Mitchell Schamroth, in a news release. “Today, the answer is yes. This proposal provides financial stability for the congregation, restores the landmark at private expense, and preserves an irreplaceable community institution. Demolition is not the only option.”
A representative for the church’s congregation did not immediately respond to multiple requests from West Side Rag for comment on the lease offer.
There is no official date for LPC’s vote on the hardship application connected to West Park Presbyterian Church, but in June, the commission’s leadership said it was time to move forward in their deliberations and set July 10 as a final deadline for any submissions connected to the debate.
Organizers from both sides thus presume that a decision on the matter will come down in the near future. The LPC has meetings scheduled for July 21, July 28, and August 4, but none of the agendas for those meetings have been published yet. WSR will be monitoring closely.
As a reminder, the LPC is deciding on whether or not the congregation’s Hardship Application will be granted, which would de-landmark the building and clear the way for its demolition. The demolition would trigger a deal between the congregation and the real estate developer Alchemy Properties, which would turn the address into a high-rise condominium that included a space at the bottom of the building for the congregation to worship.
On Tuesday, Eli Northrup, the Democratic nominee for Assembly District 69, posted a video with actor Mark Ruffalo, who has been a consistent advocate for the Center at West Park and against demolishing the more than century-old church, that referenced the new lease offer by the arts organization.
Listen to @MarkRuffalo. Save West Park ♥️ pic.twitter.com/Sl2yz83s8k
— Eli Northrup (@EliNorthrup) July 14, 2026
On July 9, Councilmember Gale Brewer, along with Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal, Public Advocate Jumaane Williams, Assemblymember Micah Lasher, Comptroller Mark Levine, and State Senator Erik Bottcher, sent a letter to the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission imploring the group to deny the hardship application “before you allow the destruction of this building.”
“The West Park Presbyterian Church building is an anchor of its historic neighborhood, and its loss would change this corner of the Upper West Side for the worse,” the letter reads.
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
- West-Park Presbyterian Makes Its Case to Demolish the UWS Church So its Mission Can Continue
Subscribe to West Side Rag’s FREE email newsletter here. And you can Support the Rag here.
I understand wanting a Church building to remain standing. The destruction of a building that has been here longer than nearly all UWS residents is sad. But it also seems pretty arrogant to stop the congregation that owns the building from doing what it wants. Ideally, this money would allow the congregants to pray elsewhere, but that seems like it might be too little for permanent relocation. Or maybe the arts center does have enough money to fully renovated, and the congregation can then feel safe enough to still pray at the church. Maybe.
You realize the congregation aren’t the people who built this right? They just happen to be there existing in that present day space, and they’ve only been there for a very small slice of this buildings history. Which is exactly what landmarking a building is for. It isn’t a decision just for whoever comes along at any point in time and decides they want to do whatever with something that literally cannot be replaced and has meaning to all those in the community it’s been an anchor in creating
Not sure what your point is. The congregation has been using this space far longer than the arts center, and wanted to sell. The money the arts center is offering won’t cover the cost of the repaires
I know they claim that, but it seemed very unlikely
“seems pretty arrogant to stop the congregation that owns the building from doing what it wants.” Is exactly what the LPC is chartered to do. Love them or hate them they exist to stop building owners from doing whatever they want and instead conforming to rules meant to, well, preserve landmarks.
Correct, and the LPC granted them permission and the arts group has successfully blocked them. The LPC agreed to this, that is the problem
No other landlord would accept ANYONE telling them what they can and can’t do with their building. Yet they are forced to only if they are a house of worship that SOME people find attractive – the landlord and congregation be damned.
Sorry, but that’s NOT the way it should work. Particularly in a case like this, in which the building is literally crumbling both inside and out, a sidewalk shed has been up for well over a decade, and NO ONE seems to want to ACTUALLY repair and restore the building.
The Presbytery and the congregation should have the sole and exclusive right to determine what happens to the building – not a government agency. Can you even IMAGINE a private landlord accepting this?
“No other landlord would accept ANYONE telling them what they can and can’t do with their building.”
Do you live here? NYC has over 150 designated historic districts and that is exactly what landlords accept in every one of them. It is how we preserve our unique architectural history.
Such as the landlord of Grand Central Station? Oh wait – still up and thriving, along with dozens of similar examples. (Notably this excludes Penn Station, which we’re still doing penance for. And how about that rush to demolish Hotel Pennsylvania, designed by McKim, Mead & White? Nice gaping hole in the middle of the city, for years to come, instead of 1000 units of housing.)
Seems arrogant? The structure is a landmark. The landmark laws trump the congregation’s and presbytery’s desires.
No, it is arrogant to ask a group to keep a building up when no one has the money to upkeep it and it crumbles. If those who dmt want the building form down donate the money for its upkeep, I am sure that could work.
That is what has been offered.
Has not been offered, a group with a history of lying to the congregation and public put our an offer that it has no money to back up.
And this time, a manipulative and largely phony sop to save the building. Because the $5 million the group has offered hasn’t changed. All the group has done is try to get a new lease, at a slightly higher cost. Period. This does very little to nothing with respect to actually restoring the building. They have been offering this same amount since the beginning.
The building needs b/w $20 million and $30 million to be fully and completely restored, so that it is totally safe, both inside and out. Yet the arts group has consistently under-offered this amount (because, despite their several multi-millionaire celeb supporters, they have never been able to come up with more). All the $5 million would do is provide for a few external repairs – but not all that is needed – and NO repairs to the crumbling infrastructure inside.
The arts group is basically saying, “We want a new lease. So we will give you the same $5 million we have been offering since the beginning for repairs. And we will pay a higher monthly amount for a lease.” It is outrageously dishonest and manipulative.
Bet there are some honest, skilled and competent contractors and artisans from outside NYC who could do a commendable restoration for less than half of the amount proposed. Oh, but how would that ever happen when corrupt politicians and unions call the shots?
Actually, the reason contractors from outside the city don’t want to work here is because you have to be a licensed NYC contractor and carry an exorbitant amount of insurance. And you can’t just get, say, any old roofer to work on the building.
It is a landmarked building; the proposed repairs to the 19th century structure have to be approved by landmarks and carried out in kind, meaning modern materials, fiberglass etc, cannot be used for the repair. Replacing the slate roof alone will be in the millions. Additional engineering and architectural fees will be necessarily incurred to walk the plans through LPC and answer any of the myriad of questions LPC will come up with. If anything the costs would come in 25%-50% more than what’s being bandied about.
In a privately owned building? Your cynical take is nonsense.
What could stop it from being done cheap by a charity minded contractor?
LPC regulations requiring identical materials.
The same LPC issue that’s holding up the whole thing…
The same LPC issue that adds months if not years to scaffolding around apartment buildings undergoing safety upgrades and replacement of such as mortar and terra cotta.
Building renovations done on the cheap end in disaster. Besides, even if you squeeze margins ,what are you going to save on a $30 million project? 10?% The fixed costs are very high and materials and labor costs what they cost.
This is not an identical materials project at LPC. Brownstone is one of the materials that is not widely commercially available in the US today. A replacement material such as cast stone will be acceptable for use on this building. Like it or not the owner’s have not met the standards of hardship.
They have absolutely met the hardship standard. There are no funds left at the Church, there are no reasonable, credible options other than to sell to the developer. If the CWP’s offer was real, they’d have the funds to back it up, they don’t, this is just cheap theater to keep the building in its status quo for the neighbors that dominate the CWP Board.
In my opinion, they have MORE than met them. And I am someone with a bit of knowledge here. I was co-chair of the Landmarks C’te of CB7 for two years. I have been a member of the West End Preservation Society almost since they formed. I literally wrote the article on the 50th Anniversary of the Landmarks Law.
And most saliently, I helped the Frick Collection “shepherd” its LPC applications, working closely with both the former Exec Director of the Frick and his staff, and with the LPC, at both the staff and Board levels.
So I’m not just talking out of my butt. I have a great deal of experience with these things. And the Presbytery has MORE than met the “standard” for a Hardship Application.
Finally, note that LPC’s own engineer estimated the cost of BASIC repairs (i.e., external only, not complete, but just enough to remove the shed) at ~$7-$9 million. So the $5 million offer (which, as noted, has not changed since Day 1) does not even meet LPC’s OWN number.
Once again, this nonprofit and their celebrity and legislative buddies consistently underestimate how much is needed to maintain and repair a building like this.
I’m sure it sounds like a lot of money, and I know they accuse the church congregation of inflating repair coats. But anyone on any board in this neighborhood who has done facade work knows that $5-12 million is way too low for a crumbling and complex structure.
I used to think LPC should dismiss this case and let the church sell. Now I think they should force this alternative so that our political class can get a lesson in the costs of the facade and preservation laws that they push onto all of us.
Force the alternative? That seems very unfair to the congregation itself.
I agree!
The building is currently not safe and requires a minimum of 25-50 million just for basic repairs. It has been under scaffolding for 26 years. This is a prime location that is being wasted. Let the real owners do what they want and tear it down and build much needed market rate housing in the area.
Market rate?? Like 200 Amsterdam?!
Well said. Anyone who is in favor of more housing stock on the upper west side should be in favor of converting this crumbling structure into something useful. The celebrity supporters certainly don’t need additional homes. But many others certainly could.
What is your sourced for the 25-50 million figure?
And as far as “more housing on the UWS,” this would just be another non-affordable building full of pied-a-terres. Definitely NOT a boon to the neighborhood.
Cultural events, arts, historical architecture means something.
The last thing that area needs is another gross condo. Housing definitely needed elsewhere tho.
Leave our landmarks! Repair them if a reasonable amount of $ can be raised to realistically repair it. Let the neighborhood know money is needed. Stop building boring, ugly buildings in every damn space leaving no history and charm.
Actually, the previous drawings posted at the church showed a brick facade that would fit the neighborhood perfectly, certainly more than the white/glass building one block north.
To the person who said the UWS is dense enough, we’ve actually lagged behind many others and, disgracefully, have added little to no affordable housing over the past decade.
First, not every condo is “gross” – though it is sadly true that most of the newer buildings on the UWS are at best nondescript and at worst boring, even “ugly.”
But keep in mind that the developer is providing the Church with enough space – in the building – for a new sanctuary and lots of space to continue running their programs. There will be separate entrances for the church and the residence, and the congregation will be able to continue its mission – and possibly even grow, since it will now have a new, safe, beautiful space to hold services and provide outreach and other programs.
In no other case would a landlord “put up with” someone else telling them what they can and cannot do with their property. This should be no different.
ANY additional housing drives prices down. Some move up market freeing up homes all the way down the value chain. I see we need to teach basic economics … again.
This isn’t basic economics. It’s simplistic high school economics. There are many factors going into the cost of housing, only one of which is supply.
” Housing definitely needed elsewhere tho…. just not in my backyard….”
Is a “gross” condo the cousin of “soul-less” condo? Do you talk to them, and they just don’t vibe with you?
Or you just can’t afford the $6mm, and hence, you go through life eternally bitter?
So, non-bitter person named Peter, I guess you can afford the $6mm (again, where do you get these figures?). You are in the minority.
You think one’s net worth affects a rational assessment of the super complex conundrum of a brand new bright condo full of families, vs. a 26-yr-old rusty scaffolding enveloping a crumbling structure of 100-yr-old cheap and grimy limestone that virtually noone now uses and absolutely noone wants to invest what’s needed to maintain it?
You can stay in the majority falling for the populist tune of minor little local politicians and power-drunk (but budget shy) LPC bureaucrats who think they know better than us what the corner should look like for the next 100 years – after allowing it to turn into an eyesore over the last quarter century.
I think the laws of physics and money can sort this out a lot better and more efficiently, and if I’m in the minority on that, so be it.
Interesting that housing is always needed “elsewhere”.
I say more housing is definitely needed on the UWS too!
What have you done to advance the amount of housing needed to house area workers, business owners and everyone and their mother who wants the UWS today? What is being done in the 2029 primaries?
absolutely agree. You have said it time and time again (and I agree), housing is desperately needed in our neighborhood. I would argue that the UWS needs housing across all economic spectrums (well, maybe not any more twenty-million-dollar apartments).
This would NOT be affordable housing!
I didn’t say it would be affordable or otherwise. The fact remains, the UWS and NYC in general, need more housing at all economic price points.
I agree, it would be great to have incentives in place for developers to build for more modest budgets. New builds will always be on the expensive side, but when the cost of land on the UWS is so high the economic incentives favor ultra luxury price points.
A reality is that everyone wants the UWS. You cannot have enough housing on the UWS.
The UWS is one of the most densely populated areas of New York City. We do not need more construction here. There are many NYC neighborhoods with far fewer people per capital living there. Check out the map on the nyc.gov page.
Actually, the UWS is the second most densely populated neighborhood in the entire US (in fact, in all of North America), with only Yorkville over on the far East Side more dense.
I have never heard of the statistic “per capital.” What does this mean? If you meant “per capita,” that actually means “per person.” Thus you would be saying fewer people per person.
* “Per capita,” literally translated, is “per head.”
There’s a thing called a “typo,” or perhaps it was a mistaken “autocorrect.” I believe there are more autocorrects and typos on the Upper West Side than in any other neighborhood in NYC.
Interesting that landmarked buildings or buildings that have character / make a neighborhood desirable to live in in the first place are the first to go when needing housing is discussed. Meanwhile any number of totally sensical locations for affordable housing or luxury housing could be developed anywhere and everywhere at the drop of a hat. Sounds like you agree but are attempting some limp nimbyist accusations to sound progressive when really you’re just cheerleading the real estate industry – the ultimately progressive liberals, said no one!
Moved to the uws because west end ave felt like beautiful Europe with charm and historical buildings. Sick of the ugly high risers taking up every damn space. Plenty of spaces to build instead of tearing down all the hard work put into our landmarks. Lived in Chelsea and a gorgeous Inn was torn down with fire places, carved wood, such charm. Garbage was built in that small space.
There are legitimate uses for landmarking, but nobody lives on the UWS because of the vicinity to this crumbling church, its probably a huge detractor since its been covered in scaffolding for more than a decade
Good point – that old, classic and landmarked buildings create an area that people are drawn to.
“Brownstone” Brooklyn is popular because of the architecture and streetscape.
The real estate industry does impact the discussion with instant accusations of “nimby” and similar. It is basically Trojan Horse messaging by the real estate industry.
Even the people who are YIMBY or bike bros are attracted to the old, classic landmarked neighborhoods.
Mark Ruffalo doesnt even live in NYC! Tear this down already. Why dont the elected leaders ever listen to constituents? They should be stopping the supertalls casting shadows over Central Park.
Mark Ruffalo has an apartment not far from the church building. I’ve seen him walking in the 80s.
The Democratic celebrity and donor class would rather force new housing in the suburbs than the UWS. You can build all the dense housing near an LIRR or NJ Transit station you want, but at the end of the day, it isn’t the UWS, it isn’t the UES, it isn’t Chelsea, it isn’t Brooklyn Heights.
Actually our current laws FORCE almost no housing to be built near the LIRR. Relaxing the zoning is just allowing for housing to be built if there is demand for it. No force required.
UWS residents including yourself wouldn’t like it if the UWS was FORCED to build more housing to accommodate the true demand for the UWS. Have you taken the LIRR lately? There’s a ton of new buildings being built in Jamaica right near the LIRR station, 20 minutes from Manhattan, LIC and Downtown Brooklyn, but all the out of state transplants don’t want it. There’s plenty of new developments and apartment buildings near LIRR stations across Queens, Nassau and Suffolk, but you don’t get the same social advantages living in an apartment in Lynbrook, Bayside or Rockville Centre versus living in an apartment closer to or in Manhattan such as LIC or Williamsburg or the UWS.
Maybe the solution is to build more office parks and office spaces near LIRR stations so that more Manhattan residents reverse commute, whilst having the social advantages that Long Island lacks for young professionals no matter how much new housing you build there.
We’ve done many many events, shows + creative projects in this space over the years and I’ve seen just about every inch of this building. It’s a miracle it’s still standing. The church is crumbling and if it wasn’t a landmark, would have been condemned and torn down years ago. $30M in repairs is optimistic. I don’t another luxury condo building either but if Mark Ruffalo made a thorough inspection, he would have a very different opinion. It’s a great space and I wish it could be saved but sometimes reality doesn’t cooperate.
My old friend Ted Berger, who left us recently, would find this story hopeful. Ted was a pioneering arts advocate in New York and a Board member and officer of The Center at West Park.
Good lord, don’t these people have someone else they can go torture and leave the Presbyterians alone? There have been “plans” for this church crafted by no less a luminary than Gale Brewer herself over the course of close to 15 years and nothing has come to pass. There is simply not enough interest by anyone in coming through with the tens of millions of dollars necessary to restore the building and providing an endowment to keep it in good repair into the future. Thankfully the church has competent legal representation this time and I am sure the arts group’s “plans” will be afforded the consideration they deserve.
15 years and nothing done allowing it to deteriorate further. Just stupid talking with no action or adequate money to save it. Landmarks are precious. This has been treated like we treat old people. Where were the ongoing repairs before it got to this point.
You should read up on the backstory as to how the building got to this point. The archives of the WSR would be a wonderful place to start.
They had 15 years to raise the money – no one, not the Church least of all, stopped them from raising enough money to fix the building. They didn’t raise it then, don’t have it now, and likely won’t have it tomorrow. You can only pretend for so long…
I think it would be hilarious to see it get torn down and turned into 100% supportive housing for working class New Yorkers with fixed incomes. Which is what we desperately need, but the young urban professionals only want market rate neighbors who listen to Billy Joel and summer in the Hamptons.
NO,IT will not be hilarious if this Chirch is torn down.We need pir Churches,period.I pray it will be saved in Jesus name AMEN.
Demolish it, stop wasting the community’s energy. Great start for Eli…
Has anyone asked god what he /she thinks? Of course not, because that would add absurdity on this 20+ year absurdity. The Center doesn’t have the money, they never did and never will. The building should not be allowed to remain and be used by the public as long as it’s unsafe. Enough !
I’m all in favor of preserving buildings with truly significant historic, architectural or cultural value (age alone is insufficient). This building just doesn’t come close to deserving landmark preservation in any way.
Yes! We need to save this Church
It’s part of what makes people want to come to the upper west side and the arts are slowly dying due to lack of funding. Theater in the church is a good option. I loved performing there in a beautiful play about hostages.
I am no architect, but why can’t the facade be preserved while becoming a part of a bigger structure? This would allow to preserve some or most of the character, while turning the church into something that can sustain itself.
It is my understanding that the Metro is being renovated, and fund-raising is under way. Why doesn’ this group make common cause with the group at the Metro, pool their resources and operate that space together? That would leave the Church congregation free to demolish the decrepit building and use proceeds from the sale of the lot for good works – provided the Lanhdarks Commission can swee its way to taking the Church off the registry.
The Center at West Park is not a true party to this transaction, they are merely an evicted ex tenant trying to blackmail their way back into a lease. This disaster is all on the LPC.
Several posters, myself included, have long thought the arts center’s interest in the building was more nefarious than altruistic. It seems to me the Center has been trying to strong arm the congregation to sell to them at a knockdown price. Then after a year or two the Center will spin around put in its own hardship application and sell the building and land at fair market value. and pocket the cash. No one, the center or the church has raised, or can raise, nearly enough to perform the necessary repairs and set the building up for financial solvency.
Do you ever get the feeling that this debate will just continue, for years or decades until fire or collapse just destroys the thing? I just hope the disaster occurs in the middle of the night when no one is inside.
That sounds like great news. Let’s hope everyone concerned finds the good sense and grace (and, for the Congregation, a good understanding of what Christian charity indicates in this instance) to go ahead, finally, and make a go of this.
Has anyone even considered that maybe, just maybe, the LPC has either outlived its usefulness or that its power and authority needs to be tweaked so that farces like this don’t occur?
It’s difficult to believe that this is still going on. The amount of time that politicians are wasting on this unimpressive, crumbling building when there are so many other pressing public priorities is inappropriate to say the least. But it is totally believable that the LPC would continue to be mired in this mess.
The Center has set up a $5M fund to restore this dilapidated church. By ALL accounts this is a drop in the bucket for how much is needed to actually make the church safe and inhabitable.
Furthermore, the $5M is simply a goal. The Center is working under the assumption that somehow this money will magically be raised. As far as I know there is not a single person so far who has donated anything towards renovating this church.
Marc Ruffalo has plenty of money. Since he’s so in favor of keeping this church intact I recommend he make a contribution.
Have these arts organizations documented sufficiently where the kind of money they are talking about will come from. I’ve been involved with several large, very fine arts organizations and with all of them raising money is a constant struggle. I find it hard to believe they can consistently come up with the numbers they are presenting.
How is that arts center around 62nd and Broadwy doing? I understand that the opera’s attendance has been around 72%, and with its significant debt burden, institutions there need our support!
The UWS is sinking under the weight of therse enormous and aesthetically unattractive buildings
There are many reasons why we save historic places. We save historic places to acknowledge and document our full history, serving as a reminder
(YORKTOWN, NY)
Instead of buying it and tearing it down. Be creative with space after 20 years, the Metro theater space is set to house a multicultural space (Sorry it took 20 years though) Why not this building too
Repairing it could be an attractive investment. Historic buildings can be affordable for businesses to rehabilitate there are the possibility of tax incentives, grants, and other support for that activity
It could attract visitors to the USW in a way that another glass building won’t. It housed an art community that’s wonderful, bringing in more like that
Preserving the building helps to provide a sense of place and continuity; it helps us keep our UWS intact, which is little by little disappearing. Contributes to community pride;
Comments seem more concerned with landmark law rather than with why the UWS needs to fight to preserve the building for historic and cultural reasons.
If you want to preserve stuff, then you can’t have social desirability of the UWS overwhelm the neighborhood with housing demand. That’s why street parking is important. It is a safety valve that allows others to enjoy the neighborhood without being forced to live here.
Tear it down! It is a disgrace. Only use now is for sleeping homeless, pigeons and rats.
SAVE THE CHURCH! An Arts Center is wonderful for the community! I thought this was already solved and the church was not to be torn down or sold to real estate moguls.
It will fall down if something isn’t done. The Church has no more money left. The Center has no where near enough money to repair the building.