Sorry this has taken so long for me to chime in... LZA conducted the most recent investigation of the structures, 2-years ago. We worked through an owners representative the church had hired. Even though we asked and tried, we had no direct contact with Rev. Brashear and extremely little contact with the elders. The last contact I had with the church was about 15-months ago. Because of our conditions report, I received a call from "Landmarks West", a nonprofit preservation group on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Landmarks West has been engaged in trying to work with the Church and save the buildings for, I think, close to 1-year. They were trying to figure out if preservation was feasible and what might be needed to get this done. Starting a few months ago they started gathering experts together in behind the scenes meetings then organizing the panel that presented the issues to an open community meeting on the future of West Park Presbyterian Church Sanctuary and Church House. Members of the panel included Rev Brashear, a member of the Presbytery, a Council Woman, a local historian, Peg Breen of the Landmarks Conservancy (a nonprofit group that advocates and helps fund preservation efforts), and myself. I limited my comments to the nuts and bolts of the condition of the structures and what it might take to restore and preserve. There certainly were audience members who did not want to "lose their view" or "lose a pretty building to an ugly new one". This will always be a part of preservation and it should be - aesthetics are an important part of quality of life and these are beautiful buildings that anchor the corner of Amsterdam Ave and 86th St. Landmarks West is now trying to put together a committee to continue this work. It appears that the committee will be made up of architects, construction managers, experts in space usage/planning/leasing experienced with successful leasing of religious spaces on the upper west side (really!). Based on this, I would not say the struggle to preserve the buildings is a bunch of "Johnny Come Lately." Like I mentioned, we had little direct contact with Rev. Brashear or the elders. We were never sure of what "they" wanted. I learned more about the church in Rev. Brashear 15-minute presentation at the meeting last Monday than before. Based on his presentation, I am not convinced that the congregation "really" cares about the structures. They provide an incredible amount of services including starting of "In God's Love We Deliver" but never spent any money on maintaining the structures. Fantastically laudable programs but the facades are hazardous. For example: they brought in a 20-lb piece of brownstone that had fallen from above the sanctuary entrance onto the sidewalk bridge that we begged them to install about 2-years ago. On top of this, they now only have about 100 congregation members. The congregation is now entertaining all options but simple economics appears to be pushing them toward the most extreme of options including selling off air rights, a portion of the site or the entire site. I think they believe that they would be able to provide the same inspired service from a skyscraper basement instead of below a 50-ft high laylight ceiling and Tiffany windows. No matter how weak the humanities are in the United States, subconsciously the inspiration would be diminished. I also strongly agree with Ralph that we are preservationists and it is our job to try to preserve and be building advocates. In our free, democratic and competitive society, the "other side" will be fighting to tear things down. As the old adage goes, "May the best man win". (forgive the sexism, man as in hu-man). Finally, I have a bone to pick. I grew up in a religious Presbyterian household with strong connections with the neighborhood church. As in this current scenario, all parties freely use the work "Church" when talking about the sanctuary building. Then as soon as it works in their favor, they point out the distinction that church really means a group of likeminded people NOT the building and try to paint the "outsiders" as insensitive. Chris, please don't get me wrong I am not singling you out, but you should have heard how often this distinction was made but then a few sentences later, everyone (both sides) fell back into the usual speech phrasing using Church to mean the building. My $0.02 Eric Hammarberg Interim Director of Preservation Associate LZA Technology 641 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10011-2014 Telephone: 917.661.8160 (Direct) Mobile: 917.439.3537 Fax: 917.661.8161 (Direct) email: [log in to unmask] -----Original Message----- From: Met History [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:31 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: "Sieving" a building.... In a message dated 4/29/03 10:19:34 AM, [log in to unmask] writes: It's messy. Our job is to save the buildings, and to advocate saving the buildings. Dear Tsar: The original post, from Yours Very Truly, a) remarked on the terminology of "Save the Church" and b) remarked on the failure of preservation/neighborhood organizations to develop an advanced, more constructive strategy for "saving" the Presbyterian church in question, no matter what "the church" means. (Did you know Presbyterians don't kneel? I think they're Jewish.) Signed, Bread and Wine <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> The information in this email and any attachments may contain confidential information that is intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). This message or any part thereof must not be disclosed, copied, distributed or retained by any person without authorization from the addressee. If you are not the intended addressee, please notify the sender immediately, and delete this message. <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> -- To terminate puerile preservation prattling among pals and the uncoffee-ed, or to change your settings, go to: <http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/bullamanka-pinheads.html>