|
by Lori Segal
Zabar, Esq.
Preservationists be warned! Location
in an Historic District may no be sufficient to prevent insensitive
change to a building. Continued vigilance and shareholder savvy are
often required, as the recent personal experience of one LW! board
member shows.
565 West End Avenue, an Art Deco-style
cooperative (H.I. Feldman, 1938) located in the Riverside Drive-West
End Historic District, is one of the few left on the Upper West Side
with all its original, multi-paned steel-casement windows intact. Last
spring, the co-op's Windows Committee, looking into the question of
window replacement, met with the Staff of the Landmarks Preservation
Commission (LPC), where they learned that installation of double-paned
aluminum-framed casement windows might very well be approved by the
LPC.
In response to this unsettling news, I
sent a memorandum to the co-op Board of Directors. It pointed out the
significance of our distinctive windows in making our building an
outstanding example of the Art Deco style, and noted that selective
replacement of windows would create a hodge-podge effect on the facade
and would ruin its current cohesiveness. Nonetheless, the Board voted
overwhelmingly to proceed with the proposal for aluminum window
replacement.
Spurred inot taking more aggressive
action, a neighbor and I gathered enough shareholder signatures to
call a special meeting of the Board to discuss the window repair
program (already in progress). Prior to the meeting, sympathetic
shareholders distributed a memorandum stating our arguments against
new aluminum windows and urged our neighbors to attend or execute a
proxy, as a quorum was essential for a vote on the windows.
Persistence pays off; a quorum did
appear for the meeting. We were advised by the salesman who gave a
presentation on the proposed aluminum window replacements that his
product had been approved by the LPC for other buildings. In response,
a shareholder presented measured drawings comparing the profile of the
glass, sash and corner post of an existing window with that of the
proposed window, which clearly demonstrated that the thicker
dimensions of the frame and glazing, would change the exterior
appearance of the building, and the view from the inside looking out.
The result of the vote by written ballot was 52% against the window
option. We had won.
There were several factors responsible
for the defeat of the new window option. Some shareholders were
concerned with the historic integrity of our building; others, whose
existing steel casement windows had already been repaired, were very
pleased with the result and had communicated this sentiment at the
meeting; and many were not interested in purchasing the new windows
because they were costly. As I see it, the moral of this story is that
regular building-sponsored window maintenance can, and should, prevail
over the quick fix push for new windows, whether by salesman or co-op
board members. Landmark designation does not insure the protection of
original windows.
Lori Segal Zabar,
Esq., is president of Kurland-Zabar (Antiques) and an architectural
historian.
Return to
top |
