The architects and designers of SPC weigh in on the lobby renovations

Hello there! 

First, a big thank you to everyone who participated in lobby sessions with the Board this week! These were very well-attended and we were able to learn even more about the plans. (We’ll share some more about this in a future update!) If you learned anything interesting that you think we should be aware of, please get in touch.

This week, our biggest update is that on Jan. 20, 2026, a group of architects, landscape architects, and designers who live in SPC sent a letter to the Board outlining their concerns with the planned lobby renovations. We are sharing the letter in full below. As of Friday, Jan. 23, the Board has not responded (though individual board members have acknowledged its content), but we will update you if we hear back!

Re: Seward Park Co-op capital improvements design proposal presented by the Board on January 7th 2026

The points below are the shared professional critique by shareholders who are architects, landscape architects, interior designers, and graphic designers representing some of New York’s leading practices. This assessment focuses on process, cost, and functional issues. The selection of finishes and other aesthetic choices also merit reconsideration but are of lesser concern than the issues described below.

While the Board has a legal right to make decisions without consulting shareholders, it is standard practice for projects that will have a significant financial and functional impact to include community engagement in the design process. Community engagement is not a free-for-all. It is a structured process that identifies the most pressing problems to solve, harnesses collective knowledge, creates alignment, and delivers a design that is made better because it is rooted in user knowledge.

The functional and cost issues we describe below are the type of issues that would be addressed by an inclusive, iterative, and transparent process that starts from users’ needs and priorities. An engagement process would make the design less arbitrary while mediating aspirations and cost constraints.

Currently, our building entries offer a curved path that leads to the street in two directions. This is more convenient than a straight in-and-out approach, and it is also more functional: you can pick the path that is more convenient for your destination, or the path that is less congested. If the dog walker with five dogs is coming up one path, you can simply choose the other. The paths reach the sidewalk 100+ feet from the corner, which is a safe distance for a taxi, rideshare or, more critically, an ambulance to stop. Could this access be achieved through side doors? Possibly, but side doors cannot replace a main entrance and are inaccessible to visitors, disabled people, strollers, and anyone loaded with bags. The main entrance doors are where residents, guests, and emergency services know they will have access to the building. Limiting access to these main doors via one approach from a congested corner (and then up a ramp) makes life less convenient from day to day and puts lives at risk in an emergency, where seconds count.

For Buildings 1 and 2, the proposed straight path is not enough to comply with ADA slopes without a detour around four 90° turns or a stair. Adding a set of steps on the direct path from the sidewalk to the front door is unacceptable. Residents of all ages (0-100+) circulate with wheels, strollers, bikes, walkers, pushcarts, and luggage carts. No one should be forced to take four 90° turns on a path made just wide enough to pass ADA. Meeting ADA minimum requirements doesn’t make it a good design.

In the proposal for Building 4, the main entrance is eliminated entirely, and all access to Grand Street is limited to the existing side entrance and to one 3 foot door.

The landscape presentation suggested that bike delivery people will park their bikes in designated areas at the sidewalk and then walk up to the entrance. This is unrealistic and reveals the flaw in the design. 

The Board suggested that there will be a separate receiving area for packages. This proposed area will likely require additional staff, with the associated impact on operating costs. Even if the separate entrance for packages and deliveries works, food deliveries will still be negotiating a single narrow path.

Keeping the paths in their current location is more convenient, more accessible, and safer. The proposed redesign adds cost while lowering value and functionality.

Front yards and rear yards serve different functions. Our co-op’s rear yards are bracketed by buildings and provide recreation space for residents. The front yards between the street and the buildings serve as a transitional space between the public and the private realm, while also providing passive enjoyment to residents and neighbors. The proposed design encloses a portion of our front yards with a 5 foot high brick wall to create a private patio. This duplicates the private gathering areas that are already provided by our rear yards, and carving these areas out of our front yards will leave small, awkward triangles of lawn that will be hard to manage and maintain. It will be even more awkward from the sidewalk and approach, creating blind spots that will make the lawn and surrounding sidewalks less safe. Finally, by walling off a portion of our front yards, we turn our backs on the neighborhood that is essential to our quality of life and the choice we made to live on the Lower East Side.

It is possible to create more ways for residents to enjoy our front yards that enhance, rather than undermine, the relationship between our buildings and the neighborhood.

With 14’ ceilings and 1,200 square feet of space, our lobbies were designed to give working families of the Lower East Side the same grand arrival experience that was previously reserved for wealthy residents uptown. For buildings with a population of more than 700 people each, as well as the guests, pets, and the staff and service providers on whom we all depend, an ample lobby is not a status symbol. It is a functional requirement.

The 18’ depth between the entry doors and the security desk in our current lobbies allows neighbors to move comfortably around each other. They can stop to talk or slip past each other as the urgency of their day demands. The proposed entry area is 8’ deep from the columns to the security desk. This depth is inadequate to serve our building’s needs.

This area will quickly and easily become congested with food deliveries; residents with strollers, walkers, and wheelchairs; people waiting to retrieve their packages from the new package room; and dogs on leashes. The tighter turning space will add to the already mentioned issues for emergency responders. The current lobbies have space for carts and wheelchairs that people can easily pick up. Where will these be stored? And how will people easily get to them?

The Board has indicated that the relocation of the entrances to one of the side corridors will improve security. That assessment is incorrect. The guards are currently able to see down the side hallways and monitor people entering and leaving from each end as well as the central entry. In the proposed design, the security desk is tucked into a niche in the hallway, limiting the guard’s vision and compromising security. Replacing direct sight lines with cameras does not provide the same level of security. Direct view plus sound provides much higher situational awareness; cameras can support that, but cannot replace it.

Create a new security desk, renew finishes and provide seating, but keep the main entry to our buildings in a space that has that capacity to serve the need.

The purpose of a residential lobby is to serve as the threshold between the public and private realm. It is a place where residents can wait for a ride because it provides direct access to the street. It is a place where visitors can wait for residents, and a place where public activities like voting can occur without compromising building security because the lobby is outside the building’s secure perimeter.

The proposed design shifts the entry and reception desk away from the current lobby into a much smaller area with limited space to sit and stand. When the area gets congested with visitors, these guests will inevitably flow into the lounge—thus entering the building’s secure perimeter, at which point they can proceed to an apartment or anywhere else without detection. When voting is held in these lounges, it will mean the public is inside that secure perimeter. This condition could be managed with extra staff (and extra costs) but is far from ideal, especially when the current configuration works better.

Our lobbies do not currently have seating, but it could be added. The presence of a 24-hour lobby attendant in the same space provides oversight to ensure that any seating areas within the lobby are appropriately used.

Seating can be added to our lobbies to serve residents and guests as they enter and leave. If a lounge is desired, it should be added in a location where its operation can be managed.

The Hugo Gellert murals are the outstanding artistic element of our buildings and part of the shared culture and history of the Lower East Side. The murals are intentionally placed facing the front door, where they can be enjoyed by residents each day as they enter the building, and viewed by guests and visiting scholars. The murals tell everyone who enters our buildings what the Seward Park Co-op is about; each offers us a historic instance of cooperation and human dignity and says that we, the residents, value these principles.

Changing the location of the building’s front door undermines the intent of the murals. Creating an echo of the murals on the ceiling does not respect the integrity of the art. In the presentation of the design, Woods-Bagot referenced the ceilings of Rockefeller Center as a precedent, missing the key distinction that the walls and ceilings of Rockefeller Center were painted by the same artist as a single work of art.

Hiding the murals behind a chandelier, as the current design proposes, further erodes their visual presence in the lobby.

Making the murals the defining element of our lobbies by carefully restoring them and properly illuminating them is a goal that will add value to our buildings. Moving the entrance to alter their perception, adding fake murals on the ceilings, and blocking their view with new decorative elements will actually diminish their value. 

Local Law 97 is the NYC ordinance that limits the greenhouse gas emissions for buildings and imposes penalties on buildings that do not comply. The Board has cited these requirements as part of the urgency for this project, and indeed, it is the one part of the project scope that is not discretionary and therefore a valid priority for the Board to pursue. However, if the project’s Local Law 97 compliance scope is limited to replacing the glazing in the ground floor public areas, the project will not substantially contribute to compliance because work beyond the lobbies is required for this compliance.

Meeting Local Law 97 requirements will likely require electrification of the building’s heating system and most likely installation of low-temperature hot water risers or electrical distribution upgrades for heat pumps in each unit. Completing this work may have impacts on the ground floor. Renovating our ground floors before having a strategy for Local Law 97 compliance means that the co-op will incur the needless expense of replacing newly-installed finishes.

Even more importantly, the capital improvements required to meet the requirements and avoid—or at least reduce—the fines we incur if we delay will be a burden on our finances. The scope of Local Law 97 compliance needs to be fully understood and budgeted before our available funds are tied up in a discretionary renovation.

Develop a master plan and a budget for LL97 compliance before committing to lobby costs.

Cost should be a factor in evaluating design options. Keeping our buildings relatively affordable allows long-time residents to stay in the co-op and makes it a more vibrant community for everyone.

The proposed creation of new entry vestibules, front yard paths, and walls significantly increases the cost of the project compared to a renovation that would improve finishes, lighting, mechanical systems, and landscapes for spaces within their current configuration.

The Board owes all shareholders a clear and conservative budget with ample contingency, prepared by a reputable cost estimator, before we start the project. It is irresponsible to do otherwise.

SIGNED BY: