Ron Wilkoc
New York Landmarks Conservancy
Common Bond Fall, 1990 vol. 6 no. 4

Preservation Profile: Landmarking Comes to Covenant

When the present Church of the Covenant was dedicated in 1871 its steeple was the tallest structure on East 42nd Street in Manhattan. Our church was constructed by a small congregation that had previously met in a room over a stable on East 40th Street-a congregation that wanted to expand its ministry to the poor people nearby on East 42nd Street. Today the steeple (about seven stories high) is dwarfed by surrounding commercial skyscrapers and the residential towers of Tudor City near the United Nations.

The Church of the Covenant really consists of two buildings that share a common wall. One building, known as Fellowship Hall, was built in 1927 and replaced an earlier, smaller hall. The Fellowship Hall's brick, Elizabethan-style detail was designed to blend with the neighboring Tudor City, a residential complex built in the late 1920's.

The other building, the sanctuary, was shortened slightly when Fellowship Hall was built, but otherwise retains its original 1871 architectural details. Further alterations were made in 1950 when 42nd Street was lowered. This necessitated the addition of a granite and limestone base below the entry level of the building, the repositioning of the entry doors and the addition of a new flight of bluestone steps leading up to these doors.

Church of the Covenant is a small, neighborhood church. Without any sizable endowment, the raising of sufficient funds to finance the church's programs and the seemingly constant repairs to its physical plant are chronic problems. The buildings are heavily used for both religious and community purposes.

In addition to worship services, Bible study, pastoral counseling and other church related programs, Covenant sponsors a well-attended weekly senior citizens program called "Adult Day." Outside groups such as Al-Anon, Overeaters Anonymous, The Counseling Center for Human Development, The United Neighbors of Midtown as well as local tenants and cooperative groups also meet regularly on the premises. In short, the church is important to many people for many reasons. It is truly a community resource.

In the early 1980s, representatives of realty companies began approaching us about the possibility of selling or leasing the air rights above the church's structure for the construction of an office or residential building. Because Covenant holds title to its property, it was entitled to consider these approaches. The prevailing reaction of the Session (the church's board) was one of reluctant interest. The Session preferred not to capitalize on its air rights if this meant the destruction or the radical alteration of the church building.

The Session hoped to preserve the church as it was. But it was clear that the paramount duty of the Session was to keep the church's doors open to those who worship there and otherwise use the building. In the face of steady deterioration of the structure, coupled with serious financial insecurities, the Session began to view some sort of air rights sale as its best hope for continued survival.

We Oppose Landmarking for Churches

In 1985, while struggling with these hard issues, we were also faced with the local effort to include our church in the proposed Tudor City Historic District. In light of our recent deliberations, the Session felt compelled to record its opposition, not to the district per se, but to Covenant's inclusion in it. The Session requested that our church be specifically excluded from the district so that we would be free to take whatever steps necessary to protect our congregation's future.

Then, as now, I serve on the Session. I felt that, while both preservationists and proponents of unfettered property rights of religious institutions had valid arguments, people were more important than buildings.

 Thus, I came out on the side of a church's right to deal with its property as it chooses. This also was the general viewpoint in our congregation at the time, and we repeatedly expressed it at the various hearings, which were part of the local landmark designation process. I don't think our decision made us popular in the neighborhood, and we regretted that fact. Nevertheless, we thought our opposition was necessary.

We Change Our Minds

Now, as you might have gathered, our opinion has changed. What happened?

Through education we came to view the landmarking/freedom of religion issue more as an opportunity for assistance and partnership than as an occasion for inevitable conflict. We also discovered that a cooperative course, rather than an adversarial approach, solves more problems.

First of all, in a search for funding sources which intensified during 1986 and 1987, we found that more foundations and non-profit organizations were interested in supporting efforts to preserve landmark buildings and districts than in contributing to particular religious institutions.

Secondly, as we approached groups to request funding, we discovered that preservationists are not two-headed monsters at all. We found caring people with a point of view slightly different from ours in focus but broad enough in scope to include all our concerns. This was a very important step in our growth on this issue, and it cannot be overemphasized.

The real turning point for Covenant occurred at a February 1988 meeting, organized by the New York Landmarks Conservancy. Among those attending were our pastor, The Rev. Karl Gillmeister, two of our Elders, Claire Lloyd and myself, as well as The Rev. Thomas F.Pike, Pastor of Calvary/St. George's Episcopal Church, (and a member of Common Bond's advisory board) who is deeply involved in both religious and preservation issues. At this meeting, we hoped to learn more about the complex question of landmarking/religious freedom.

The discussion during this meeting directly prompted us to reconsider our priorities, to change our mind and eventually to support the designation of the Tudor City Historic District, with the Church of the Covenant included within the district boundaries. It was clear that these preservationists understood both sides of the issue and were working in good faith for fair solutions acceptable to as many people as possible.

The regulations and procedures of the local landmark law were explained and possible exceptions to established policies noted. With cooperation, not just between the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission and individual churches, but also with other groups, such as the New York Landmarks Conservancy, answers could perhaps be found.

As a result of this meeting, we realized that the existence of a particular church building, in harmony with neighborhood buildings, creates a feeling of community for both parishioners and neighbors. The structure and its surroundings contribute to both the religious experiences of those worshipping at the church and to the quality of life of the community. Perhaps "people over buildings" was too glib and simplistic an analysis.

The reaction of Covenant's representatives at the meeting was conveyed to our full Session, which voted to change its position and to approve the inclusion of the church within the proposed Tudor City Historic District. On March 8, 1988, we officially notified the Landmarks Preservation Commission of our change in thinking. By the end of May 1988, the Commission had designated the Tudor City Historic District, and the Church of the Covenant was included within the district boundaries.

What's happened since?

The events of the subsequent years have been very gratifying to those who took a chance on a cooperative approach to the landmark/religious freedom issue, by working with technical experts from the New York Landmarks Conservancy. The technical experts, who are familiar with the regulations and requirements of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, were able to accomplish two of the most important projects on our list-a that desperately needed roof repair.

A condition survey executed by an architectural firm and its engineering consultant helped assess and prioritize the needed repairs to our old buildings. As a result of this second project, we now have a detailed, written report on the overall condition of our building and a list of recommended steps to address its considerable problems. Costs are estimated in the report, so that we will no longer be operating solely on the basis of the knowledge and experience of our own parishioners.

For both of these projects, we have received matching grants from the Sacred Sites and Properties Fund of the New York Landmarks Conservancy. These funds were extremely helpful and, just as valuable in my estimation, were the sense of commitment we feel from the Conservancy to helping us deal with our building. We feel "plugged" into the preservation community in our city, and are not alone in the care and stewardship of our church.

I can see that there may be times when our landmark status might get in our way. But a continuation of the good will and cooperation, which has evolved over the past few years, will stand us in good stead. Our case proves that a cooperative approach to the difficult question of designating religious building as landmarks can work. It is my belief that we made the right decisions for both the present and the future of Church of the Covenant.

"Landmarking Comes to Covenant" by Ron Wilkoc, Elder at Church of the Covenant, 310 East 42nd Street, New York, New York 10017.