West-Park Presbyterian Church

[krulltime]

About two years ago, the building committee approached several developers and chose the Related Companies to explore what might be done. Related came up with a plan to raze the existing structure, a combination of two connected buildings, and to put up a 23-story condominium tower with new quarters for the church projecting outward at the corner.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/04/25/realestate/cov.184.2.450.jpg

The blueprint for the apartment tower, currently 18 stories, calls for 40 condominium units. In return, Related would extend the church $16 million in credit toward construction fees.

http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/04/25/realestate/cov.church184.450.jpg

The design produced for the Friends of West-Park by a collaboration between Peter Samton, a partner in Gruzen Samton Architects, and Page Cowley of Page Ayres Cowley Architects, would more closely resemble the original building, at least on the exterior, with three of the walls expected to be retained. Described more as a concept than an actual design, the plan calls for reconfiguration of the roof into a convex shape, repair of the red sandstone walls and preservation of the stained glass windows. But the interior would be gutted, and the sanctuary, now about 40 feet tall, would be raised to the level of the balcony, opening up space below for other uses.

[krulltime]

There is a debate about what to be done for the church...and those are the 2 proposals.

I hope they built that apartment building! It looks amazing!

What do you think? :wink:

[krulltime]

Oh in case you don't know the church is on the Upper West Side at the corner of Amsterdam Avenue and West 86th Street.

[londonlawyer]

Tearing that church down would be an utter tradgedy. I had hoped that the time had passed in which beautiful, pre-WWII buildings were razed. Tearing this church down to put a modern glass box would be horrible. There are many shitty, white brick buildings in Manhattan to tear down. I would really be sick if the church is demolished.

[krulltime]

West-Park Church
A Neighborhood Gets Involved

From the NY Times: Published: April 25, 2004

If any one church exemplifies the dilemma facing houses of worship with diminishing membership and mounting debt, it is the West-Park Presbyterian Church, a stately 112-year-old Romanesque Revival structure at the corner of Amsterdam Avenue and West 86th Street. Partly covered by scaffolding to contain chunks of sandstone, some as large as 20 pounds, that have been coming loose, it requires an estimated $2.8 million for facade repairs and $8 million for a more comprehensive restoration.

There are currently two distinctly opposing plans for the building: one for total replacement with an ultramodern glass structure, the other for a historic preservation, albeit with significant alterations. These plans are moving on parallel tracks through an approval process that involves the church itself, its trustees and various levels of the Presbytery.

In a meeting held on Monday, the trustees of the Presbytery voted not to give a green light to either plan but to refer both back to their sponsors for revision. The board's reservations concerned financing rather than design, according to the Rev. Dr. Robert L. Brashear, the church's pastor, who added that he still hoped for final approval before the summer.

West-Park's leaders began acknowledging that drastic measures might be in order more than 10 years ago, and a merger with Rutgers Presbyterian Church at 236 West 73rd Street was proposed. It was defeated.

The questions that followed were vexing. "Do we simply do nothing and see how long we can continue to stretch things out?" Dr. Brashear said. "Do we seek another merger, or do we rebuild for rebirth? The congregation voted to pursue the development option."

About two years ago, the building committee approached several developers and chose the Related Companies to explore what might be done. Related came up with a plan to raze the existing structure, a combination of two connected buildings, and to put up a 23-story condominium tower with new quarters for the church projecting outward at the corner.

The proposed church and the apartment building were both designed by the firm of Franke, Gottsegen, Cox. Subject to modification, its design of the church is basically a prow-shaped base of stone, from which would rise a sweep of transparent glass panels culminating in a 125-foot carillon tower.

"When you enter the sanctuary, your eye will be drawn up to a luminous well of light," said Erika Franke, the partner leading the design team for the project. "You will see the crisscrossing of the structure, like a canopy of trees, but you won't be able to see the top, which we think is an expression of sacredness.

"The sanctuary is very flexible and interfaith use is possible so that space can be shared with other denominations. The church told us it wanted a refuge and a sense of `communitarian communality.' We took our cue from them." The 28,000-square-foot building would double the space for social service and education programs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When neighbors, particularly ones in adjoining buildings, learned that the plan involved a high rise that could block air and light and that it called for demolition rather than alteration, they swung into action, organizing a group called Friends of West- Park. Its goal was not only to protest but also to come up with a viable alternative plan and the funds to help support it.

As Thomas Vitullo-Martin, co-chairman of the group, put it: "I was not interested, as a community leader, in telling the church that it had to maintain itself for the community good without the community taking some role. We have formed a development company capable of doing what we say and working on a partnership with the church."

The Friends assembled a team of architects and economic and business consultants who were paid for their efforts and who suggested that a portion of the church be sold. "We would find what we call a capital partner and are looking for a not-for-profit entity, probably a school, that would pay for the right to develop a part of the building and their own cost of renovation," Mr. Vitullo-Martin said.

In addition, two neighboring buildings have already agreed to the terms of a lease of easement for air rights, under which they would pay for air and light. The final figure for the easement has yet to be determined, but it will probably exceed $2.5 million, Mr. Vitullo-Martin said.

"The whole interior would hark back to the original design, but it would suit the way worship is performed now," Ms. Cowley said. "It will have movable seating, altar, lectern and table. We will replicate the wood graining to show the ceiling and walls the way they intended, and the stained glass windows will be restored."

Pointing out that there was no more similarity between the two designs than there is between a cat and a horse, she said: "Successful rehabilitation allows the character and original intent of the first architect to come through. So the question is, If not every square inch is sacred turf, how much modification can the structure bear without losing what makes it special?"

For the time being, church leaders are neutral about which design and which financial arrangement they favor. Neighbors at an informational meeting held in the church on Wednesday clearly favored the Friends alternative. Each member of the congregation can vote, with final approval up to the entire Presbytery, a legislative meeting of representatives of all the churches.

Despite the fact that the Friends of West-Park proposal represented widespread opposition to the church's original plan, Dr. Brashear said: "I didn't object to that at all. On the West Side, this could have gone to lawsuits and people walking around with signs. Instead, in a relatively short period of time, a great deal of positive and creative energy has gone into trying to find solutions that would meet the interests of both church and community."

[krulltime]

^This is the article that explains what is going on with the church.

[fioco]

Krulltime, thanks for this info. IMO, neither design is that exciting and the first design (new construction) creates a very weak corner. Obviously, the congregation must decide what is feasible financially. One question: Will the adaptive reuse enable the congregation to take full benefit of improved physical space for worship, offices, and interfaith uses?

One sentence in the article alludes to the West Park congregation being open to sharing their new/renovated space with a congregation of another faith. This could be a very practical solution for a church of few members with a large and aging building to maintain. If this is so, then new construction might better express a building that shelters more than one faith community. This will be an interesting project to follow. It could become a model for other struggling congregations. I'm glad this process has remained free of rancor (so far).

[londonlawyer]

They could also save the church's shell (a la Hearst on 8th Ave.) and build a tower over it if they deem that necessary. It appears that the plan which keeps the original building keeps just the exterior shell in tact.

[Stern]

Both designs are great but the first is gorgeous.

[londonlawyer]

Both designs are great but the first is gorgeous.

The first design is nice, but it wouldn't even fit in in that location. If Mr. Kurtz from the Heart of Darkness could witness the possible razing of this beautiful, old church which could never be replicated, his response would be quite predictable, namely: "The horror! The horror!"

[krulltime]

Partly covered by scaffolding to contain chunks of sandstone, some as large as 20 pounds, that have been coming loose, it requires an estimated $2.8 million for facade repairs and $8 million for a more comprehensive restoration.

Well at the current moment it is an eyesore of a church. Plus the church needs to follow what other new religions are doing these days...building new modern churches to make them attractive and brighter and not just dark rooms when is the case once stepping in it. They are in a lot of debt and their membership worship attendance is diminishing.

Sometimes there are sacrifices to make and sometimes there are not. I said this is a sacrife to make. :wink:

I think this residential building mix in with the church is one of those amazing ideas out there so far and it will be really interesting to see how it will turn out in the end. In the design, the building mix-in with the church looks like they are happy and in harmony with eachother I must said. I wish the tower was bigger but most of the buildings are of the same size and that is alright I guess.

[Derek2k3]

Both designs look good. Here's more on the one with the tower.

http://63.240.68.126/~admin11/index.cfm?Action=casestudies&case=Media%20Coverage &categoryname=88%2DV%29N%5C%3D%20%21T%2EWFEQ%2EVLT VDI%221%3F%3AW%3AD%2C%5B%2D%0A&categoryname1=%2E%3 BMF%3EMX8S%2C%25FEEDM%3CG%3FP%20%0A&ProjectID=%25% 25H%5B%28Z%2D%2C%20%0A

[krulltime]

^Wow thanks for the website!

Yeah I defenetly like the idea for the modern church and residential building. It will be a mistake otherwise to pass this opportunity to something so creative.

[fioco]

http://63.240.68.115/FirmFiles/79/images/ACF21B0%2Ejpg
The interior worship space has a strong focal point and should be easily adaptable for another faith tradition. Furnishings appear to be movable which increases multiple use for other functions and possible additional income. However, I find the exterior to be a "wall" on this highly visible corner and hope that the design can be improved at street level.
http://63.240.68.115/FirmFiles/79/images/ACF21B4%2Ejpg

[krulltime]

Wow the more I see it the more I like it...Thanks for posting the renderings...

Yeah the 'Wall' of the church seems odd but cool in its own sort of way but most of the structure is amazing inside and outside.

I am not very religious but this church if built will more likely make me go back to church more often :wink:

[krulltime]

I read this in the NYTimes and so I went to the West-Park Church later that day and the church was closed. I asked this person at the door of the church and comment him about what I read and he said that he thinks he heard something like had happen inside.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by Jill Horowitz
June, 7, 2004

My friends Cathy White O'Rourke, a pianist, and Jean Brenner, a cellist, gave a concert recently at a West Side church. I was the page turner. Jean played an unaccompanied suite for cello by Bach. Then she and Cathy began to play Schumann's "Fantasiestücke."

All of a sudden, there was a huge crash. From the stage, we thought it must have been a bench that had broken, so they continued playing. But it was actually pieces of plaster falling from the ceiling at the rear of the church. The sexton suggested anyone sitting in that area should move. The concert went on.

Cathy began to play the very difficult "Valses Nobles et Sentimentales" by Ravel. Another crash! The ceiling plaster started falling down in large chunks. I don't know how she was able to continue, but after stopping briefly, she finished.

By this time, the church administrator had arrived, and he and the rector determined that the concert could not continue.

Is this what is known as bringing down the house?

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

[krulltime]

West-Park Presbyterian Church:

http://www.pbase.com/image/30762134.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/30762135.jpg

[krulltime]

I walk by this church the other day and it looks horrible. There is still scafolding all around and homeless people hanging on the steps and all around the area. I dont know what is going on. Is been like that for more than a year.

[krulltime]

West Park Tower (proposal):


http://i.pbase.com/o4/55/435155/1/59030988.WestParkTower.JPG


This Upper West Side church was seeking options for the construction of an adjoining residential tower to help fund its restoration. The firm's proposal preserves the church's exterior historic facade, guts its interior and excavates below so that the new residential tower can rise from the existing foot print and emerge from within the 19th century walls. The church sanctuary is re-imagined and rebuilt. Thus, in combination with the new residential tower, a new urban image is created in which old and new complement one another.

@2004 Alexander Gorlin Architects LLC

[londonlawyer]

West-Park Presbyterian Church:

http://www.pbase.com/image/30762134.jpg
http://www.pbase.com/image/30762135.jpg

With all of the run-down, rent-controlled tenements lining Amsterdam (many of which genuinely warrant demolition), it is truly incomprehensible that someone would want to tear down this great old church.

[lofter1]

If done right the re-use of the facade with the glass tower rising from within could be fantastic.

[vc10]

They don't want to, they have to -- need money to keep hearth and home together.

With all of the run-down, rent-controlled tenements lining Amsterdam (many of which genuinely warrant demolition), it is truly incomprehensible that someone would want to tear down this great old church.

[czsz]

What are they paying to renovate if the entire interior of the church is to be disposed of?

This is a conspicously elegant corner. I would hate to see it maligned with a Chelseaesque glass novelty. There are parts of the city worth preserving from these things.

Perhaps some city agency could mandate a fee payed by all the developers of new properties in the area in order to pay for the church's upkeep. It does considerably enhance the architectural quality of the neighbourhood and, certainly, its property values.

[ablarc]

This church is really beautiful --somewhat reminiscent of London's Westminster Cathedral (not the Abbey): Romanesque Revival going over into Art Nouveau. Czsz, I say with you keep it the way it is, but if it's going to be permanent, I'd give those two exposed apartment building end walls a dressier treatment (preferably not modern).

[lofter1]

[quote=czsz... some city agency could mandate a fee payed by all the developers of new properties in the area in order to pay for the church's upkeep.[/quote]
The church is currently operated by a tax-free institution ...

If that organization is unable to make a financial go of it under those circumstances then I doubt that they would be the best ones to give funds to so that the structure can remain as it is.

And if the option is that either the church come down altogether or is re-used in a new way then I say go for a structure that plays off and against what now exists rather than trying to be too "contextual" -- because we might end up with something like this ( THREAD (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=2468&postcount=4) ):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2005/01/23/nyregion/feat.584.240.jpg

[lofter1]

... I'd give those two exposed apartment building end walls a dressier treatment (preferably not modern).
Good idea, but fat chance getting the one on the left to do much in the way of a face-lift ... you can see that the cornice has been ripped off and they've left either exposed under-brick or a swath of stucco in its place.

[ablarc]

Don't know what your point is with that CPW project, Lofter; that's a truly splendid example of how to do it right --exemplary in almost all respects. If something like that happened to this church it would be just right, but that's not really what I see proposed. Or was that your point?

As an architect, I'm supposed to like "playing off" --part of the training-- but honestly I think much of the time it's just disrespectful, and has ruined many a nice old building. Not everyone has Foster's talent or insight (not even, sometimes, Foster); the CPW approach is much better, imo. (Except when there's a certified genius on the case.)

[lofter1]

My point is that the CPW project -- particularly when seen in person and not through the rosy renderings of a developer or the obscuring brances of the trees of Central Park -- looks like a somewhat "cheap" brick tower (the flush placement of windows to the facade, for one example; the mundane uniformity of the coloration of the brick, for another) rising from a magnificent old building.

Also the CPW tower is differently situated than the site of the Presbyterian church -- which is in the middle of the city and flanked on two sides by fairly blank and utlilitarian brick walls.

IMO a contrasting NEW archticture would be best.

Of course we're thinking in terms of GOOD architecture in either case. So I guess we'll both be disappointed ;)

[ablarc]

My point is that the CPW project -- particularly when seen in person and not through the rosy renderings...

When I saw it I was favorably impressed. Not spectacular but handsome and respectful. Renovation of the old buildings and landscape integration: sensational.

IMO a contrasting NEW archticture would be best.
Why? Even Renzo Piano doesn't always pull this off (Cf. Morgan Library), and he's at the top of his form. That approach takes too much genius; it just isn't in plentiful enough supply.

It worked with Hearst, but most of the time you get a miserable botch like the Brooklyn Museum. Contrast that with the stunning entrance to the Metropolitan Museum. Bet you didn't know that was put on in recent times by modernist Roche --or if you did know you forgot it. Right?

Well, which do you prefer?

Of course we're thinking in terms of GOOD architecture in either case. So I guess we'll both be disappointed ;)
Sure. You suspect it, and I know it. That rendering posted above by architect Gorlin tells me all I need: he doesn't even grasp what it is he's proposing; if he did it would be clearly delineated. And what he does show tells me that if it's "GOOD" architecture you want, this is not a point of departure. No genius here, I can assure you.

.

[czsz]

That approach takes too much genius

I don't necessarily think so. Most people agree that this contrast works very well, but the background architecture is by no means masterful:

http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/fnart/fa267/18th/stat1712.jpg

I also don't think the Roche example is instructive. The Met looks and seems as if it were designed and built at the same time; an apartment tower popping out of a church, no matter how much it were to hew to its Romanesque Revival looks, would be conspicuously awkward, like someone who wears clothes of all the same colour rather than attempting to match them via the skillful use of the right contrast.

Of course my first preference would be to preserve this building the way it is, but I would concur that I would prefer a very neutral, offsetting modernist building to provide an appropriate backdrop for the church's architectural detail should a redesign take place.

[ablarc]

Most people agree that this contrast works very well...
Truly a fortuitous serendipity.

but the background architecture is by no means masterful
...nor is it an addition to the building, but a completely separate project. Not intended as an extension, nor conceived as such by the anti-contextualist Belluschi. The fact that it actually improves the little gem in front was unforeseen by all. Sometimes sheer chance yields dumb luck.

I also don't think the Roche example is instructive. The Met looks and seems as if it were designed and built at the same time
That's the whole point. Seamless. No schism, no shear. Not one person in a hundred knows it, and 100 persons in a hundred like it.

an apartment tower popping out of a church, no matter how much it were to hew to its Romanesque Revival looks, would be conspicuously awkward, like someone who wears clothes of all the same colour rather than attempting to match them via the skillful use of the right contrast.
That's not necessarily what's advocated. As it happens, Boston yields a paragon of sorts for this too: the burned-out Romanesque Church at Mass. Ave. and Beacon that was so cleverly folded into a larger apartment building by Graham Gund.

He didn't slavishly mimic the Romanesque style, materials or even colors of the original, nor did he go for jarring contrast. He went instead for the middle path; by extrapolating themes from the original in a gentle and sympathetic way he produced an interesting whole. Not exhibitionistic but rewarding to behold, like the buildings Fabrizio lauds.

If you don't have genius, at least you can exhibit a little taste. Essence of taste is restraint.

Of course my first preference would be to preserve this building the way it is, but I would concur that I would prefer a very neutral, offsetting modernist building to provide an appropriate backdrop for the church's architectural detail should a redesign take place.
And there you are: turns out we agree.*


(*Though I'd leave out "offsetting" and "modernist"; if he's a man of discretion, we can trust the architect to decide how much "offsetting" is appropriate; and it's not for us to specify the style --lest we set a bad example for those who actually have the power to do this.)

[czsz]

Do you have a photo of aforementioned building at Mass Ave. and Beacon?

[lofter1]

From what I can ascertain Roche's work on the 5th Ave. facade of the Met was limited to extending the staircase across all three entrance arches (formerly the staircase had risen only to the central bay). Which in itself was probably a more complicated job than it might seem. Is there other work that Roche did on that facade of the Met?

[ablarc]

Do you have a photo of aforementioned building at Mass Ave. and Beacon?
Church Court Condominiums, 492 Beacon Street. Tomorrow I'll scan it from the AIA Guide to Boston.

[lofter1]

Here's something (http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/papers/pmitowson1.htm) on the Church Court condos (small pic, enlarged on that site) ...

Mt. Vernon Church (http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/papers/churchcondo1.jpg) in the Back Bay area of Boston (now Church Court Condominiums, architect Graham Gund Associates, Boston)http://pegasus.cc.ucf.edu/~janzb/papers/churchcondo1.jpg

What is notable about this place is that it stands as a disruption precisely because it engages its past, rather than simply ignoring it. The architects could have decided to raze the building and start over, or on the other hand, to simply restore it to its former state, in a nostalgically imaginative leap to the time it was built. But they did neither of these. They recognized that the church had meaning in that place, that the place would not be the same without it. And yet, to simply restore the church would not be to engage in place-making imagination.

The result of conjoining an apartment and a church raised questions, even if only at a subconscious level.

Where is the line between the sacred and the secular?
Where is the line between the public and the private?
Where is the line between tradition and modernity?All of these questions were raised in this project. This place disrupted any easy account of life in the Back Bay area of Boston, and in doing so, required people to think about the kind of place it was.

It is worth noting that not every question was raised in this project. It did not, for instance, interrogate the line between privilege and lack of privilege. The condos that were constructed were luxury condos, and there is a certain irony in a church, whose doors had presumably been open to all, being converted into an exclusive site. And, this exists as part of a movement to reconfigure former public spaces into expensive and exclusive private ones. One could legitimately raise questions about the kind of place that was imagined in this project, and these questions would necessarily highlight omissions of the imagination. And yet, if the place does not interrupt in some way, no questions can be raised at all, or rather, the true questions about place are assumed. Interruption and disruption are always risky.

[ablarc]

From what I can ascertain Roche's work on the 5th Ave. facade of the Met was limited to extending the staircase across all three entrance arches (formerly the staircase had risen only to the central bay). Which in itself was probably a more complicated job than it might seem.
That's right, that great rollicking pyramid of an amphiteatre was entirely Roche's doing. Before he got to it, Hunt's dessicated stair led to the center bay. Roche simultaneously improved Hunt's building and concealed any evidence of doing it. He basically finished Hunt's opus for him; you can't imagine that building without that stair. It grows so organically out of the building's design that visual inspection won't reveal its recent provenance.

Compare that with the hideous "modernist" disfigurement wrought by Polshek on the poor Brooklyn Museum: the architectural equivalent of tagging. Pure egomaniacal vandalism. We don't need to encourage that here.

Is there other work that Roche did on that facade of the Met?
Had to ask, didn't you, because you couldn't tell? The fountains, the sidewalk treatment and the trees are all Roche's --and they all look like they could have been part of the original building.

This is respectful architecture, mindlessly despised by ideologues who insist that new construction has to look different from what it's an addition to (...when and if they discover it's recent!). To that I say: Pshaw! It's the same modernist theory that destroyed Penn Station.

Respect for context is unusual for Roche, an egomaniacal modernist whose list of exhibitionistic turkeys is as long as your arm. You like, perhaps, the Morgan Bank or the New Haven Coliseum? How about that stepped pyramid down by the Battery?

Don't know what got into him here. Maybe it was the Met's management. Or maybe it was the Fifth Avenue NIMBYs ...I mean, preservationists. ;)

[czsz]

I don't understand how "completing" the stairway of a classicist building is at all a project similar to topping a church with an apartment tower. It doesn't seem like the appropriate precedent to invoke. There's nothing about the church that bears "completion" in that sense.

[ablarc]

I don't understand how "completing" the stairway of a classicist building is at all a project similar to topping a church with an apartment tower. It doesn't seem like the appropriate precedent to invoke. There's nothing about the church that bears "completion" in that sense.
Oh, that's not hard to answer. Again from Boston: the Custom House Tower skyscraper "completes" the Amni Young building of eighty years prior. Not one person in ten thousand unversed in architecture can tell by inspection that the building was built in two eras by different architects.

Like Peabody and Stearns, I'm no genius but I'm fluent enough in styles that, if asked, I could finish that church as an apartment building, and most folks would think it an organically integrated project.

Or I could do a gryphon, if asked to do that.

[czsz]

Good explanation.

I can rest assured you're not advocating anything as ghastly as this:

http://www.urbanohio.com/OtherStates/DC/March06/WashDC06March26.jpg

[ablarc]

^ Good golly, where is that?

[lofter1]

YIKES!

A case of "Facade - Ism" ...

When you click the "properties" function on the pic it says it's in D.C.

[czsz]

I think it's in or near DC's ersatz-"Chinatown".

[Fabrizio]

That is DC and I saw it in the flesh. It´s shockingly stupid looking.

Doesn´t that photo look like a scene from "Independence Day" where you look up and this humongous thing is floating over your town?

[czsz]

Apparently it's meant to "blend" with the adjacent Chinatown gate:

http://static.flickr.com/25/47493953_2ab5f0e36a_m.jpg

[kurokevin]

Urban Washington DC, a joke if ever I did see one. Some of the worst cases of facadectomy I've ever seen in my entire life. Yes, they call this area Chinatown. It consists of a Bed Bath and Beyond, a Quiznos, Fudruckers, Urbanoutfitters, and one or two take out joints- ethnic urban enclave- I think not.

To make matters worse, all these new constructions must preserve the original facade's creating a very odd experience that never fully meshes and comes across as a mix between Main Street USA Disneyland and a suburban shopping mall. Not to mention during my recent visit there was not an outdoor eating area in site.

Boy, seeing this area again really reminds me how spoiled us New Yorkers truly are.

[NYCG]

I will be moving into the neighborhood in a month or two and am curious about what's going on with the church. I saw an article that said the church had sold air rights for $15 million and a 21-story condo would be built.

Is this true? If so, does anyone know who the developer or the architect is? Is there a website with renderings of the building? I would like to see what is proposed.

Thank you,
NYCG

[krulltime]

Church plans tower with condos and affordable rentals


http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1162506855_westpark.jpg


02-NOV-06

The West-Park Presbyterian Church on the northeast corner of 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue is hoping to conclude negotiations with Richman Housing Services soon for a redevelopment of its site that would preserve its main sanctuary and tower and erect a mid-block 21-story apartment building with a total of about 70 affordable rental and condominium apartments, the Rev. Dr. Robert L. Brashear, the church’s pastor, told CityRealty.com today.

In his superb book, “From Abyssinian to Zion, A Guide to Manhattan’s Houses of Worship,” David W. Dunlap wrote that “one of the finest Romanesque sanctuaries in Manhattan, West-Park Presbyterian Church is a landmark in every sense but the official one.” The building is not an official city landmark.

The first sanctuary of the West Presbyterian Church or Carmine Street Church was built in 1831 and designed by Town & Davis and that church moved in 1862 to a Victorian Gothic Church at 31 West 42nd Street, according to Mr. Dunlap.

The Park Church was founded in 1854 as the Eighty-Fourth Street Presbyterian Church in a wood-frame structure on West End Avenue designed by Leopold Eidlitz and that church moved in 1884 to 86th Street and in 1890 moved into the “rugged and ruddy main church in 1890 at 539 Amsterdam Avenue” designed by Henry F. Kilburn, according to Mr. Dunlap’s research.

“It is marked on the skyline by a corner tower with bell-shaped roof so vigorous that it stands in confident counterpoint to even the enormous Belnord apartment block across the avenue,” Mr. Dunlap observed, adding that the two churches merged in 1911.

Many preservationists have long been concerned about the future of West-Park and yesterday Landmark West!, an Upper West Side civic organization, sent out an e-mail announcing that the Citizens Emergency Committee to Preserve Preservation would hold a “Preservation Summit” meeting at the General Society of Mechanics and Tradesman at 20 West 44th Street on Monday, November 13, at 6PM. The meeting will address preservationists’ concerns over the status of the former Dakota Stables on the southwest corner of 77th Street and Amsterdam Avenue, the former Colonial Club on the southwest corner of 72nd Street and Broadway and The First Baptist Church on the northwest corner of Broadway and 79th Street because the Landmarks Preservation Commission “has shown no real interest in protecting these buildings.”

“…given the fact that the landmarks process is increasingly owner-driven (not public- or community-, or citizen-driven), we are not hopeful that the Landmarks Commission will rush to the defense of this building [The First Baptist Church]. They didn’t for the West-Park Presbyterian Church….when development plans for that site re-surfaced several years ago,” the e-mail maintained.

The Rev. Brashear told CityRealty.com that Franke Gottsegen Cox is the church’s architect and SCLE is the architect for Richman Housing Resources.

He said that the congregation will not be moving this week to the Methodist Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew on the northeast corner of West End Avenue and 86th Street, but hoped that its negotiations with Richman Housing Resources will advance sufficiently to permit it move there soon. Noting that the church has been studying its facility “stone by stone” and that the planned development would not alter the exterior at the corner, he said that he hoped that more than half the units in the planned tower would be affordable rentals.

At one point, the Related Companies planned to redevelop the site with a 23-story tower with new quarters for the church at the corner but when some neighbors and community leaders learned that the existing church would be razed they formed a group called Friends of West-Park, which commissioned Peter Samton, a partner in Gruzen Samton Architects, and Page Ayres Cowley Architects, to come up with an alternate scheme that preserved much of the church structure.


Copyright © 1994-2006 CITY REALTY.COM INC.

[londonlawyer]

I am ELATED that this church will not be razed. Does anyone have a photo of the side street to show where the apartments will go?

[Derek2k3]

I will be moving into the neighborhood in a month or two and am curious about what's going on with the church. I saw an article that said the church had sold air rights for $15 million and a 21-story condo would be built.

Is this true? If so, does anyone know who the developer or the architect is? Is there a website with renderings of the building? I would like to see what is proposed.

Thank you,
NYCG
Alexander Gorlin Architects LLC
http://www.gorlinarchitect.com/

>Religious

[Hot Soup]

That's not the building, at least not any more.

[antinimby]

But this one is...


West-Park Church redevelopment plans shown


http://www.cityrealty.com/graphics/uploads/1173824844_westparkz.jpg


13-MAR-07

The design of a 21-story apartment building on part of the site of the West-Park Presbyterian Church on the northeast corner of 86th Street and Amsterdam Avenue was presented to the housing committee of Community Board 7 last night by the church and Richman Housing Services.

The presentation was informational and does not require review by Community Board 7.

The building will contain 50 "affordable" rental apartments and 27 "market-rate" condominium apartments, 25,000 square feet of community space and new skylit congregation space near the top of the existing sanctuary structure just to the west of the church's prominent clocktower, which is being preserved.

Bill Traylor, president of Richman Housing Services and an 86th Street resident, told a crowded meeting at the Goddard Riverside Community Center at 593 Avenue that the affordable apartments, all studios on floors 5 through 10, will have a separate entrance that will be part of the surviving red-sandstone facade and that the condo apartments will have their own entrance with a marquee in the new mid-block tower that cantilevers slightly over the rear of the sanctuary structure. The condos will be on floors 11 through 21.

Some members of the public attending the meeting said that separate entrances was "segregation" and Mr. Traylor replied that for financing reasons the church, the affordable housing section and the condo sections needed to be legally separate and that the intent is for the affordable units to be in perpetuity and not subject to the whims of the condominium owners.
Mr. Traylor's company is the sixth largest residential property owner in the United States.

In response to a question by John Michael Ziegler, the head of the board of trustees of the Church of St. Paul and St. Andrew on the northeast corner of 86th Street and West End Avenue, where the West-Park Presbyterian Church will conduct services during the construction project, Mr. Traylor said that the physical condition of the existing church was poor and that his company is paying the church $15 million for the development rights and that $5 million of that will create an endowment fund for the church and that if the renovation and construction of the church space costs more than $10 million his company will pay for it.

He said that construction will start probably in May and is expected to take about two years to complete, adding that the plan is not using about 10,000 square feet of the church's development rights. He said his company was not pursuing other development rights that have been offered by adjacent properties and that his company and the church want the project to be in context with the neighborhood.

A single person making less than $24,000 would be eligible for the affordable units, he said, adding that the Goddard Riverside Community Center, which is on 88th Street, has a waiting list of about 4,000 seniors.

Franke Gottsegen Cox is the church's architect and SCLE is the architect for Richman. The buff-colored brick tower will have a limestone base that apparently is modeled a bit after the sinuous curves at the base of 19 West 72nd Street.

The Rev. Robert Brasheer told the meeting that that a plan advanced by the Friends of West-Park did not generate sufficient funds to cover the renovation costs especially when the Trevor Day School opted not to pursue the venture.

One speaker at the meeting, Mosette Broderick, said that West-Park "is the only Richardsonian building left in Manhattan" and that Henry Richardson did not try to "clone" Europe and that the church's planned new space in the project was "rather sad looking" and that the new project should not be "banal" and "look like Houston or Dallas."

The building is not an official city landmark and was designed in 1890 by Henry F. Kilburn.

Copyright © 1994-2007 CITY REALTY.COM INC.