Board 7 gives thumbs down to First Church redesign
BY CHRISS WILLIAMS
A once sacred house of worship is in the process
of transforming into a secular space — and
it’s not going well.
Community Board 7 voted to disapprove the Children’s
Museum of Manhattan’s (CMOM) proposed
design plans for the former First Church of Christ,
Scientist, at their Jan. 7, full-board meeting.
The church was purchased by CMOM for $45 million
back in 2018 with plans of moving in by 2023.
This vote marks another community set back for
the church, as the design fi rm’s fi rst proposal was rejected
by the community board’s preservation committee
back in early December of 2019. The designers
returned to the CB on Tuesday with a revised version
of their 78-page-long proposal.
The park-facing former First Church of Christ,
Scientist sits at the corner of Central Park West and
West 96th Street. and was built some seven years after
Mary Baker Eddy founded the Church of Christian
Science in Boston. Some of the early followers that
built the fi rst parish in the city include Laura Lathrop
and Augusta Emma Stetson.
Lathrop eventually left the fi rst church to found the
Second Church of Christ, Scientist less than 20 blocks
away at Central Park West and West 68th Street.
In 2005, services at the First Church of Christ, Scientist
were folded into the Second church, a year after
the building’s sale to the Crenshaw Christian Center
East.
The Crenshaw Christian Center, according to its
website, is a Los Angeles-based, “non-denominational,
nonsectarian, multi-racial church” and started
holding services at 361 Central Park West in 2001.
Crenshaw later purchased the sanctuary from the
First Church of Christ, Scientist for $14 million in
2004. For the next decade, they held services in the
PHOTO BY CHRISS WILLIAMS
Lynda Starks, a member of Fresh Start New
Beginnings Christian Church, speaks in support
of having the church return to its original
purpose, being house of worship at the
Upper West Side’s Community Board 7 on Jan.
7, 2020.
7-story building including an auditorium designed to
hold 2,000 people.
In 2014, Crenshaw sold it to developers Ira Shapiro
and Joseph Brunner who intended to turn the building
into a condominium. Their proposed plans for the
building were also disapproved by Community Board
7.
The project eventually fell through and it changed
hands once again to CMOM in 2018.
In the modifi ed design proposal, CMOM’s called
for roof reconstruction and the removal of all but one
of the building’s stained-glass windows in lieu of clear
glass. One of the windows will be kept, design fi rm
reps said, in order to teach future visitors to the museum
about the history of the building. As for the remainder
of the windows, CMOM is negotiating with
the National Building Arts Center in St. Louis to take
one, while the others remain in on-site storage.
Pastor Terry Starks, of the Fresh Start New Beginning
Christian Church, implored the board to disapprove
the resolution.
Starks lead a congregation for several years at 361
Central Park West when the building was owned
by Crenshaw Christian Center East and sought the
board’s support in returning the building to its original
purpose, a church.
“It’s been a church for 117 years. They are trying
to do everything they can to cover it up as a church,”
Starks said. “That’s my assignment. My purpose is to
stop it from being a museum.”
Dr. Deborah White, a member of Starks current
congregation, also pushed back against the proposed
redesign describing the plan as “architectural vandalism.”
Other Upper West Side residents expressed excitement
over the museum’s presence in the neighborhood
but were concerned that altering the roof and
removing the stained-glass windows would affect the
integrity of the building.
The resolution was debated for several hours before
being disapproved on the grounds that the roof reconstruction
and stained-glass windows were not appropriate
to the character of the historical landmark.
Although the proposal was originally slated to be
heard by the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission
on Jan. 14, it is in the process of being rescheduled,
according to an LPC spokesperson.
SoHo/NoHo ‘Envision’ plan a no-go for many
BY ALEJANDRA O'CONNELL-DOMENECH
SoHo and NoHo residents packed into the auditorium
of the Scholastic Building on Jan. 8 for the
fi rst of three meetings for community members
to respond to the Envision SoHo/NoHo report, which
could set the foundation for long-awaited zoning reforms
in the area.
Supporters and critics of the report were equally as
vocal during the meeting.
“This is an open process, it’s a transparent process
and we intend to keep it that way,” said Manhattan
Borough President Gale Brewer.
The report — released in November by the City
Department of Planning, Brewer and Councilmember
Margaret Chin — came after six months of public input
meetings and touches on how quality of life, diversity
and economic vitality can be improved in the
neighborhoods to meet modern-day challenges. The
area has not seen a land use change since 1971 when it
was a declining manufacturing neighborhood.
Top recommendations from the report include increasing
the amount of affordable housing, easing
of the area’s residency laws and doing away with the
10,000 square foot cap in fl oor size for businesses.
The neighborhood sits in an M1-5B zoning area
which prohibits storefronts larger than 10,000 square
feet from setting up shop. But over-sized stores have
still been able to creep into the area by using loopholes
and special permits via the city’s Uniform Land Use
PHOTO BY ALEJANDRA O’CONNELL-DOMENECH
SoHo resident Linda Schrank listens to her
neighbors promote or pushback against the
Envision SoHo/NoHo report at the Scholastic
Building on Jan. 8, 2020.
Review Process.
Critics of changing the square footage for zoning
allowed for stores, fear that the neighborhood will be
overrun with big-box stores; increasing density and escalating
rent prices. They argued the infl ux of largerscale
retail would destroy the area’s identity as the artistic
heart of the city.
“We want to avoid the quality of life disasters we see
moving into our community such as Showfi elds, Zara
and Uniqlo,” said Laura Tenebaum, a SoHo resident
and former chair of the Community Board 2 Land Use
Committee. “Our buildings have already been re-purposed,
let’s not re-purpose them again for that.”
SoHo/NoHo would have plenty of affordable housing
and diversity if the rents weren’t so high, some
said.
“If I had my way, it would be artists, it would be
small box retail, it would be zone contextual,” said
Brewer. “But we have to work as a movement, as a
group, as a city.”
Supporters of the report expressed a need to move
with the times.
Owners of apartment buildings and business reps
charged that the report addressed the quality of life issues
not directly linked to larger businesses in the area.
Others argued that more development was needed in
order to combat the city’s housing shortage.
“Density is affordability,” said one pro-development
meeting goer.
SoHo/NoHo residents will have another opportunity
to respond to the report at the Community Board
2 Land Use Committee meeting on Jan. 15 and for a
third time at the full-board meeting on Jan. 23. Community
members are also encouraged to submit questions
and comments soho-noho@planning.nyc.gov.
4 January 16, 2020 Schneps Media
link
link
