(Google Maps)
Friend or foe: Saving a church or destroying a historical landmark?
West-Park Presbyterian Church, located at 165 West 86th Street on the corner of Amsterdam Ave, has decided to appeal the landmark designation of its 140-year-old church in order to sell the site to a developer — which plans to raze the church and construct an apartment building, according to a breaking report from Commercial Observer.
Advertisement
This historic landmark has certainly seen better days, as the 12-member congregation would need to spend $50 million to bring the crumbling building back to life, or at least back to a state of functionality. Instead of restoring the building, the church found an alternative option: partner with Alchemy Properties to demolish the building BUT with a contingency. Of course, a new apartment building would be erected, but Alchemy Properties also would guarantee a 10,000 square foot worship space so the church could continue to function.
READ MORE: Tenant of Landmarked Church Fights to Keep it Alive
On the surface, the plan seems promising. However, red tape complicates matters (classic New York City). In 2010, the New York City Landmark Preservation Commission designated the building a historical landmark, so the church can’t simply sell to the first interested buyer. Ideally, the church would save the landmark, but they have absolutely zero resources left to fix or even maintain the structure.
If sold to Alchemy, the church would stand to make $8.8 million in addition to the purchase price. Alchemy has not released any statements on its development plans.
New York City certainly takes pride in its historical landmarks and the Landmark Preservation Commission tries to be mindful of the efforts and costs it takes to maintain these buildings. The Landmark Law does have a hardship provision for extreme cases, but this is very uncommon. Since 1965, when it was created, there were only 19 hardship applications where 13 were approved, 4 denied, and 2 did not reach a decision. Even before the church can submit a hardship application, there needs to be a public hearing as well as approval from Manhattan Community Board 7.
Advertisement
It will be a battle between the church and the Landmark Preservation Commission to see what happens next. The church has a deep history, not just on the Upper West Side, but in New York City more broadly, as the building is highly regarded as one of the finest examples of Romanesque Revival-style religious buildings in the city.
While the church is no longer what it once was with a crumbling building and a nearly extinct congregation, the question remains: “Can you put a price tag on history?” Does New York City need another apartment complex, or is there another way to save this historic piece of the Upper West Side?
We reached out to West-Park Presbyterian Church and a representative provided us with the following statement:
“In the face of our steep financial challenges to address the church building’s safety and maintenance needs, the congregation’s only viable choice to support West-Park’s ongoing mission is to pursue the sale of the property and the application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission to demolish the existing building on the grounds of financial hardship. This plan ensures a new spiritual home for worship and community space that will help West-Park continue to be a resource for our neighborhood and fellow New Yorkers.”
My feeling: tear it down. It’s already undergoing “demolition through neglect,” as they say, and surely after all these years it’s time to recognize that preservation is a lost cause. “Does New York City need another apartment complex?” Yes! We absolutely do need more apartment buildings, real ones for actual working New Yorkers, instead of more hotels and more safe deposit boxes in the sky for Russian oligarchs.
Peter, the choice is not between the landmarked church and a real apartment building for actual working New Yorkers.
The reality is that tearing down the landmarked church will get what you fear: “more safe deposit boxes in the sky for Russian oligarchs.”
Absolutely do not tear it down. Little by little we are losing our historical landmark buildings which not only represent our history but also give beauty, architectural depth and diversity as well as personality to our community. Once they’re gone they’re gone forever. I’ve been an upper west sider for over 60 years and have seen so many changes here and in the rest of the city. I believe it’s so important to preserve what we have. We do not need another apartment complex in that exact spot.
Agree 1000% – I’m sick to death of this refusal to maintain beautiful old buildings and replacing them with stark, soulless glass boxes. NYC needs another “luxury condo” like it needs a Category 5 hurricane. I lived on the UWS for over 20 years and still miss it terribly – the wonderful old architecture is a treasure that’s irreplaceable. Don’t sacrifice this gem on the altar of corporate greed. Please.
I completely agree! What irks me in particular is that churches are tax-free entities so it is the fault of past congregations/management that failed to accrue for expenses. So please stop crying poor and trying to get a Landmark designation removed. Go join another church and find a much larger/well-endowed congregation to take over your church.
This is beyond unacceptable. I am so tired of this trend to destroy important buildings and commercial entities in favor of up-scale housing. Why is there no money to repair this structure?
Or better — why was it allowed to fall into such disrepair that would make it a prime target for developers?
“Why is there no money to repair this structure?”
Because the church only has 12 members. Passing the collection plate comes up well short of $50 million.
Are you seriously asking why there isn’t $50 million to repair the building. Because you haven’t raised it?
Too sad… I recall Gale Brewer et al saving it years back… It has no function anymore but it is important NOT to tear it down.
RE guys and gals just do not care and in many cases just ruin our City. It is all about $$$.
What else is new?
TY, Neal on UWS since 1962
What happens if the congregation just walks away from it?
For those who don’t think it should be torn down:
How do you “landmark” an economically unsustainable building? Who pays for the upkeep and repairs (which, by definition, cost extra to maintain the landmark look)?
How can you saddle a non-profit with diminishing resources with the costs? Or should those who insist on keeping the building as is pay for it themselves?
Paul— Good questions.
How about starting with the NYC need to preserve our heritage?
How about all the ugliness that most new buildings bring?— do we have the worst architecture, no imagination in the USA?
Where is the AIA?— seem to be useless.
You landmark buildings that should be kept alive! For all the good reasons you know Landmarks mentions.
Why not use public resources to save these landmarked places? Why leave it only with the commercial private sector?
You know about the Metro on W 101— kept empty for decades!!! Bialek there— shameful.
No one maintains the landmark ‘look’— you know that I assume…
Do you like how the RE guys and gals run NYC? You like Extell? Do you have any aesthetic interests? Isit always just $$$?
Thanks, Neal at Columbia since 1962
So you’re saying that if the LPC decides to landmark a building then the government should pay to keep the building up and viable.
OK, why not push for the necessary legislation and taxes?
Agree. The history of NYC must include preserving its historical architecture, so much of which has been lost due to overdevelopment and luxury buildings. Most new buildings are seriously ugly. When tear down is the option, you know what’s coming and it ain’t affordable housing, kids.
Blame the congregation for not preserving our heritage. I certainly don’t want any government money to go into a religious building unless it was to convert it into a community center or clinic or something like that. And for $50 million you can get a much better community center or clinic than an old renovated church that will require ridiculous amounts of maintenance and upkeep in the future.
WELL IF ..it has anything to do with GALE BREWER..it will be razed..She is no friend of Landmarks..She works for big developers all the way..Check out her record..
Lianne,
That is NOT TRUE! Gale supported Landmarking the church and was active in it getting that status. Read this:
https://www.landmarkwest.org/advocacy/Wish%20List%20Items/West%20Park%20Presbyterian%20Church/CM%20Gale%20Brewer_West%20Park.pdf
Yes… TY! I was there for that… Gale was good.
IF YOU CARE ABOUT OUR CITY PROTECTING IT’S ARCHITECTURAL HERITAGE!
CB7 will be discussing demolition of this beautiful building on APRIL 14th at 6:30.
Get on the zoom and voice your concern!
Register Here: https://us06web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_hfs-0bPlSYKNLvHmYoVz6g
165 West 86th Street, West-Park Presbyterian Church (Amsterdam Avenue) Application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission to demolish the existing structure, an individual landmark designated in 2010, on the grounds of hardship pursuant to NYC Administrative Code § 25-309.
Couldn’t there be a compromise? Perhaps incorporating the façade into the design of the new building? Some thing of that sort could retain some semblance of historic preservation while allowing development at the same time and saving the congregation?
Westward, I’ve thought the same thing. Other cities have done that to keep the beauty of the original building. Something for NY to consider. Get on the CB7 zoom I posted and suggest it!
These nice-sounding solutions are impractical.
From the days of Bonwit Teller double-cross to today (where Community Board 7 got snookered over preserving the PowerStation facade on 96 Street) there is NO ONE WHO WILL STAND UP FOR SAVING FASCADES!
The deal is, once the Developer gets the site, it’s demolished.
I love that church. It’s so pretty and is really a part of the neighborhood. Plus they have a soup kitchen and a place where we’ve donated clothes and other item, like a kid’s bicycle. When it was my polling place they’d have musicians entertaining us while we waited in the pews for our turn to go on. A woman would carry around basket of fruit and treats, and they always had coffee and cookies. Such a nice vibe to the place.
When they changed my polling place to a local school, I was brokenhearted. I loved going there to vote.
You want it, you pay for it. Leave the rest of us alone.
Why are you commenting on a Community site?
Same reason you are I suppose.
If the building truly is not viable and will inevitably come down, how about mandating the new building must reverse current trends and be 80% low income housing and 20% luxury housing & see if Alchemy still wants it?
You guy’s crack me up. Where do you think the money is going to come from to maintain a decrepit building? Who’s gonna fork over the dough? Any of you “save the building whiners” wanna come up with the “… $50 million to bring the crumbling building back to life, or at least back to a state of functionality.”
Yes it’s old, yes it’s historic, but unless you’re willing to come up with the funds, you’re soon going to have a rat infested abandoned building when the 12 members of this congregation give up and walk away. Oh, and just wait until the homeless realized it’s abandoned and move in, good luck getting them out!
Reality must be faced. There is no money to rehab and maintain the site. I suggest the site be given to a developer, preferably a non-profit, on condition that only truly affordable apartments be built.
I’m not an UWS resident.
Is there any potential for converting to interior into something revenue-producing while keeping/renovating the exterior? As an occasional visitor I see startling growth of monstrous apartment and office buildings but little or no growth in infrastructure. As the number of apartment dwellers and office works rises are there more subways being built or upgraded proportionately? Is the congestion being dealt with? As an outsider, I don’t see the need for more apartments.
To all those Landmark Lovers on this chain: WHO’S GOING TO PAY FOR IT?
It seems to me that NYC should help pay for Landmarked sites!!! It is a community issue so make it a community responsibility.
You want Extell to run NYC?
Federal and State funds could help as well— NYC is a NATIONAL TREASURE! Worldwide interest!
And at least Landmark Lovers KNOW there is plenty of $$$ around in NYC for private funding of public essential matters!
(BX billionaire Schwarzman got his name carved in 2X at the front of the NY Public Library on 5th. For $100 million.)
Brother, can you spare $50 million? RE industry needs to help Save and not just destroy NYC.
First tried googelizing, no luck. 6 years prior, I did actually see clear renderings posted online- the lush brownstone tower being preserved in unison with new structures. That particular (and probably previous Developer) stated Landmarks was preventing the multiuse, multicentury concept from moving forward. Anyone else familiar? Current climate is a strong opportunity to revive it. Can anyone honestly accept our 21st century neighborhood without the late afternoon sun flooding that Romanesque palace? How can any price be fairly placed on this daily experience of visual splendor?
It may have been beautiful decades ago, but it’s been a blight for a generation. Take it down. Nothing lasts forever, folks.
They might say the same for cranky when he/she is old eh?
And then there were none….
“Does New York City need another apartment complex….”
Yes it actually does. A lot more than it needs that old falling down church. Put an image of the old church on the side of the new building.
Mark Moore— We would much rather put your pic in the lobby of the church on the Donor’s plaque after your munificent gift to rescue the place!
Cheers, Neal
You know there’s a reply button.
I don’t have $50 million sitting around but if I did I’d tear the church down and build something useful there, like housing or a clinic to donate to the public hospital system. Fifty million is just the minimum to get the building to code. Ten years after that you’ll be right back where you started with scaffolding all over again.
OK— there are very practical and important reasons to tear it down— practical, economic.
There are also very compelling other reasons NOT to do so.
I always strive for balance these days!!!
And, yes, it has been a tough situation there for many years!
Maybe the greatest City on Earth can find a way to honor and preserve its worthy past. And is another hi-rise or too-tall good for the Amsterdam and 86th Street corner.
TY, Neal
This is very informative! Thank you so much for doing such a great job. keep sharing good content.
Nearly 20 years ago, I lived in an adjacent apartment building. My recollection is that NYC has many Presbyterian churches but dwindling parishioners. And unlike Catholic Churches owned by the Diocese (and collecting resources from parishioners and the Vatican (though that’s often not enough), religious congregations like Westpark are financially on their own weak feet… and declining affiliation isn’t exclusively Westpark’s problem.
At that time many neighbors (including myself) contributed (and some even joined the church) even though we weren’t members of the Presbyterian flock. Monetary gifts were a way to demonstrate that we either supported their mission or just wanted to help our neighbor in need or acknowledge that we appreciated their presence didn’t box our apartments and intersection into darkness.
In the decades since scaffolds were raised to catch crumbing pieces of the Westpark facade goals of rental performance and event space obviously didn’t come to sufficient fruition. I’m sad that politicians, parishioners, business owners and neighborhood voters didn’t stick together to “save the sunlight” which Westpark provides (the tax revenue from a tall apartment building isn’t going to stay at 86th and Amsterdam). It’s a shame that landmarking a building which desperately needs repair doesn’t also include consulting guidance on finance and neighborhood publicized plans for rehabilitation and maintenance. Blame to share it appears. Very sad,