Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Hardship West Park topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
West Park Presbyterian argues financial hardship, opponents dispute TDR values during heated LPC hearing
Summary
At a March 10 Landmarks Preservation Commission meeting, West Park Presbyterian presented a hardship application to demolish its landmarked sanctuary, asserting repair costs exceed the congregation's capacity; consultants and commissioners pressed applicants on repair scopes, transfer-development-rights (TDR) values and a contested lease with a former tenant.
West Park Presbyterian Church, the landmarked complex at 165 West 86th Street, pressed the Landmarks Preservation Commission on March 10 for a preliminary hardship determination that would clear the way for demolition and redevelopment, saying restoration and ongoing maintenance far exceed the congregation’s resources.
Valerie Campbell, land-use counsel for the church, framed the request under Section 25-309 subsection 2 of the Landmarks Law and said the church’s trustees and administrative commission had concluded the building’s condition and financial picture require relief. “The overwhelming cost of addressing serious and ongoing building maintenance issues far exceeds the resources of its struggling congregation,” Campbell told commissioners. She said opposition analyses relied on unrealistic assumptions and that, if the commission grants a preliminary hardship finding, a statutory 180-day marketing period would follow to seek a purchaser willing to preserve the building.
The applicant’s financial consultant, Adam Wald of Stout, disputed an opposition technical report that placed market value on the church’s unused development rights (TDRs). Wald said the opposition “materially overstates the value of the excess development rights” by conflating theoretical zoning capacity with actual market demand and by failing to identify feasible receiving sites. He also challenged other experts’ scope and cost assumptions.
Roger Leaf, chair of the West Park Administrative Commission, described persistent structural and code deficiencies, saying some repairs would require comprehensive replacement of sandstone facades, new fire stairs and ADA access. Leaf contrasted the opposition’s short-term repair estimate of about $9.1 million with the church’s larger, multi-component estimate of roughly $26.6 million, and warned that continued occupancy without full restoration could expose the congregation to major liability.
Commissioners questioned the applicant at length about alternatives — adaptive reuse, phased repairs, revenue from renting space to cultural tenants, and attempts to market TDRs — and about the church’s prior lease with the Center at West Park, which was the subject of litigation. Commissioners sought clarity on the assumptions driving the reasonable-return analyses, the feasibility of identified receiving sites for TDRs, and whether the Center or other donors have a credible, documented funding plan to underwrite major restoration. The applicant said past attempts to secure long-term partners had failed because the building’s condition and associated costs made phased or partial approaches infeasible.
The applicant also described a contingent sale agreement with a developer (Alchemy Properties) and said a successful hardship determination would enable a purchaser to proceed promptly with demolition and new construction that would provide replacement space for the church and seed an endowment estimated at $25–30 million to fund social justice programs. Commission staff said consultants will review the submitted materials and return to the Commission for further analysis before any final determination.
No vote on the hardship application was taken on March 10; the record remains open and the Commission’s consultants will present findings to the panel in a subsequent session.
