Our ask to the SPC Board

Taking on a project of this scale, with an estimated $32.7M price tag, is a huge responsibility. Unfortunately, the Board’s current plan for the lobby and landscaping renovations was developed without shareholders’ input and raises serious questions about long-term costs, safety, accessibility, and quality of life.

The good news is that there’s still time to make changes. That’s because…

A brief pause to make sure we get this once-in-a-generation renovation right doesn’t mean we have to give up on nice new spaces, and it doesn’t hurt us. In fact, it can only help.

Keep reading to learn more about each of these issues and why they are so important.

Some Board members and cooperators have argued that engaging a broader group of stakeholders in design decisions is not a worthwhile effort because “design is subjective” and “you’ll never get 3,000 people to agree.” But gathering meaningful input in a structured way and identifying collective priorities is standard practice for large-scale projects, including residential buildings in NYC that house as many or more people than our co-op. Doing this research allows architects and designers to respond to the needs of a community as a whole rather than just a small group of individuals. 

Community engagement isn’t design by committee or an attempt to get everyone to agree on finishes and colors. Instead, it’s a well-established way of creating a design that is rooted in data and responsive to a community’s needs and broadly-held priorities. It’s also standard to publicize the research and constraints that have informed the design and budget choices and to have in-person meetings where people can ask follow-up questions and get clear and honest answers.

↳ Read more about how the shareholder input process could work from here

The 2016 and 2018 surveys that the Board claims guided this renovation are not sufficient. They were undertaken under completely different circumstances (a possible air rights sale), lacked accurate cost estimates for the plans (just $4.4M for all four lobbies), are at odds with what the Board claims shareholders want, and are outdated to the point of being useless. (Think about how much has changed in the world and in the Lower East Side in the last decade! R.I.P. Gertel’s.) 

↳ Read everything we’ve learned so far about the old surveys

Affordability is central to everyone’s quality of life at SPC, and to individuals’ ability to stay here for decades. It is imperative that any project that is costing tens of millions of dollars of borrowed money be part of a larger capital improvements plan, and that the Board is transparent about the way our money is being used while continuing to protect sensitive information. 

If we commit $32.7M to non-essential projects in 2026, we risk having to borrow more later—at higher interest rates—when necessary capital projects arise. We want to ensure that the Board has considered any other potential capital projects well ahead of 2031, when we have to pay the balance of about $88M on our existing mortgage, or we’ll need to refinance and roll it into a new loan at a much higher interest rate, causing our maintenance fees to go up. 

↳ Learn more about the loan financing these renovations

The Board must also be more transparent about its plans to comply with Local Law 97, which will require making tens of millions of dollars in capital improvements to our buildings to achieve net zero by 2050—or start paying fines as early as 2030. Some members of the Board have suggested the proposed lobby project is directly related to compliance with Local Law 97. The implication is that we have to make building improvements to satisfy the law and avoid fines, so we might as well make aesthetic upgrades to our spaces at the same time. But Board treasurer Chris McCartin admitted in the Jan. 7 webinar that the planned renovations will only make “a small dent” in what is needed for compliance. And the Board has not responded when asked if comprehensive plans for Local Law 97 currently exist.

If the lobby renovation goes forward as planned, then the only way to make required Local Law 97 upgrades over the next two decades will be to take out another mortgage at a much higher interest rate, which will make our maintenance fees go up.  

Good design isn’t arbitrary. It’s rooted in a clear understanding of how a space will be used, and should be done with real people in mind—not to court future buyers who are looking for a luxury apartment. After a new survey is done, the designs should be revised to deliver on the co-op’s shared priorities, and all amenities should serve a purpose (e.g. improve our collective quality of life, increase revenue, etc). 

After looking at every aspect of the current designs and talking to the Board about the function of the various spaces (like the package rooms, resident lounges, and co-working space), it is clear that we have been presented with multi-million dollar “solutions” that aren’t responding to actual problems, and that are likely to introduce more issues and costs down the line. 

For buildings with a population of more than 700 people each, an ample lobby is not optional; it is a functional requirement. The main entrances to our buildings need to remain in their current locations, where they have the capacity to serve the need. With 14 ft ceilings, 1200 sq ft of space, and the historically significant murals, our current lobbies also play an important civic role: serving as a front door to, and gathering space for, our community. Shifting the entrances to small and narrow spaces will undermine not only function, but also the identity of our lobbies and buildings. 

↳ Read what a group of architects, landscape architects, and designers think about the proposed renovations

Everyone who passes through our buildings deserves to be safe and comfortable during their time here. That means not just meeting minimum ADA requirements, but designing our spaces thoughtfully, with extra attention paid to the fact that our co-ops are home to people ages 0-100, who might be moving around with wheelchairs, walkers, strollers, carts, shopping bags, and dogs. The renovations present an opportunity to make our spaces more accessible, not less. 

↳ Read a 90-year-old shareholder’s response to the new designs

Many shareholders have expressed concerns that the current designs will make all of our lives more difficult. Longer paths, new stairs, complicated ramps that have multiple 90° turns, and smaller lobbies for people to queue or wait in makes everyday activities less convenient and puts lives at risk in an emergency, when every second counts.

↳ See what a paramedic who lives in Seward Park Co-op thinks about the proposed lobby designs