BCD Special Report on
Historic Churches
17th annual edition
11
maintained and used it attracts little attention.
However, deteriorating interiors, defective
heating, plumbing and electrical conditions
can collectively develop into insurmountable
problems requiring radical solutions including
the sale of the property. And when fnancial
burdens become too great, become publicised
and even politicised, it is often too late to
ofer fnancial assistance, even if there is a
rush from the public to ‘rescue’ a house of
worship. All too often, generous gestures are
neither enough to change the fnancial outlook
nor to solve the internal issues that caused
the decline. Furthermore, ofers of assistance
are often interpreted as interference.
When a local community gets involved
in the fate of a neighbourhood church which
is deemed at risk, they create additional
pressures on the church congregation and
administration. Te community’s well-
intentioned eforts to fnd tenants, raise funds,
and/or press for designation complicate the
congregation’s decision-making process. Tis
can delay landmark designation for decades
or force the church’s sale or even demolition.
In the case of West-Park Presbyterian
Church (title illustration), a 20-year
battle between the congregation and the
neighbourhood ended in 2010 with landmark
designation, but at the potential price of
losing the congregation. Designation had
been opposed by the church leadership, which
wanted to demolish part of the building –
already closed due to deterioration – for a new
development. Te church’s pastor described the
decision as an infringement of religious liberty
(‘City Council Upholds Landmark Status of
West Side Church’, Robin Pogrebin, Te New
York Times, 12 May 2010). A massive efort is
under way by advocacy groups including the
council member representing the district to
raise funds to repair the church exterior while
the congregation and presbytery at large seek
a solution for their occupancy of the interior.
Clearly, the relationship between an ‘at
risk’ church and its non-member community
is fraught with difculty. One pastor on the
Upper West Side of Manhattan has suggested
that, rather than trying to rescue the church
from without, community members could
ofer much more efective support by joining
the congregation and providing support
from within. In any event, churches and
communities increasingly need to fnd common
ground and work in partnership if mutually
acceptable solutions are to be found.
Tere are, of course, success stories too.
Indeed some congregations seem to thrive
under pressure to raise money to upgrade
or preserve their buildings, or to fund
outreach and other projects. Madison Avenue
Presbyterian Church, for example, drafted
an extensive master plan and undertook a
fundraising campaign culminating in the
comprehensive restoration and rehabilitation
of its property in the late 1990s (top left).
Other churches have been able to secure
grant funding to supplement their own
fundraising eforts. St Andrew’s Episcopal
Church, Harlem, was in need of major exterior
repairs to a slate roof. Trough the Episcopal
Diocese Property Support Ofce, which helps
congregations to help themselves to care for
their buildings and grounds, both technical
and fnancial assistance were provided.
Te congregation raised a proportionate
share of the restoration cost (top right).
Sharing space to raise
rental revenues
One way for religious properties to boost
dwindling revenues is to ofer space for
rental. For many houses of worship the idea
of sharing a sacred place with secular uses is
unpalatable, so typically, it is only when the
house of worship has a secondary communal
space that sharing is considered an option.
Some churches fnd it relatively easy to rent
out their non-sacred spaces because they
are located close to schools or community
groups that have no permanent home.
Religious properties are perceived as
inexpensive because they are non-proft, and
this can reduce the rent per square foot that
churches can demand. Placing a value on a
church building and equating the cost per
square foot for fair market rental can also be
problematic as for-proft and not-for-proft
users sharing space may not be compatible
in terms of tax codes. While sharing space
has many benefts, it should be noted that
additional property management and the
responsibilities of being a landlord can impose
other burdens on the congregations, trustees
and administrators of the religious property.
One often overlooked success story is
St Mark’s Church-in-the-Bowery (1795),
which re-invented itself in the 1960s and
opted for non-proft partners as tenants. Its
setting is remarkable and the old churchyard,
with its ledger-type grave stones set into the
cobblestones, hosts a variety of festivals and
cultural events. Te Parish House is now the
Neighbourhood Preservation Centre, whose
tenants include the Historic Districts Council,
Te Greenwich Village Historical Society
and the St Mark’s Historic Landmark Fund.
Te church is multicultural and describes
itself as ‘not only a house of worship, but
a centre for modern dance, experimental
theatre and poetry and a community gathering
place for the Lower East Side’ (page 12).
Air rights and urban
development
Another tempting source of funding is through
development. Before the credit crunch began
to bite in 2007, ferce competition for property
in established neighbourhoods, particularly
Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn, had
been ongoing for decades. Te potential for
high fnancial rewards for new residential and
commercial development spurred the search
for underused or ‘soft’ sites. Tese are plots of
land with potential for further development
under the relevant zoning regulations, giving
the owners the right to redevelop their site
with a larger building if they wish. Needless
to say, in areas of dense urban development
these rights are highly prized. Religious
properties are now coveted by a new category
of property developers for their enlargement
and improvement potential because of their
location, often in gentrifed neighbourhoods.
Developers recognise that houses of
worship are often short of funds, and that
maintaining historic buildings can be expensive.
Madison Avenue Presbyterian Church (James Ware & Sons, 1899, altered by
Adams & Woodbridge in 1966; restored and rehabilitated 1996–2001, Page Ayres
Cowley Architects LLC): the church faces Madison Avenue and the sanctuary
is visible through a glass-enclosed narthex allowing passersby to look inside.
St Andrew’s Episcopal Church, Harlem (Henry M Congdon, 1873).
Congdon designed this church on a site 2½ blocks away from the present
site on Fifth Avenue. Rather than abandon the church at the original site
when the congregation found a more prestigious location, Congdon was
retained 16 years later to dismantle the church and re-build it on the
new site, where the tower height was increased and a clock added.