On October 6, 2026, a group of architects, landscape architects, and designers who live in SPC sent a letter to the Board asking about the designs presented on July 22 and how these plans relate to core principles that 3×3 outlined based on the shareholder feedback sessions.
You can read the letter in full below, and please be sure to attend the webinar the Board is holding on Nov. 5, 2026 where they will share the latest updates on the renovation!
Dear Seward Park Cooperative Board of Directors,
We are Seward Park residents who are also architects, landscape architects, artists, interior designers, and graphic designers. We wrote to you in January of this year with serious concerns about the lobby renovation, urging you to pause and seek shareholder feedback.
Although we appreciate your recent update letter, in order to properly continue the engagement process, it is essential that a final report, including the results of the July share-back questionnaire, along with actual design updates, be distributed as soon as possible.
The design revisions presented on July 22 were developed in parallel to, and without the benefit of, the 3x3 engagement feedback. Therefore, while they addressed some of the larger issues identified by shareholders following the December 2025 proposals, the designs contain decisions that run contrary to the four principles identified by 3x3: contextual integrity, stewardship, functionality, and social continuity
The update letter notes that “we don’t always agree on building aesthetics”, but as professionals, we know it is possible for large groups with disparate backgrounds to agree on design solutions as long the outcomes of the engagement guide the decision-making process. Many of the decisions that will be made during the next phase of the design process are not simply surface-level and subjective; they should represent our community’s shared values. Below, we have outlined a few points where the community’s feedback was not represented in the materials presented on July 22 and in the latest round of design drawings that were made available at the management office.
1. CONTEXTUAL INTEGRITY
The renovation should strengthen the buildings' existing character. Improvements should feel durable, contextual, and shared, with aesthetic choices centered in care instead of luxury signaling.
The Seward Park Co-op buildings are not landmarked, and the lobby redesign is not a conservation project. Nonetheless, contextual integrity means that modifications should be appropriate to the character and context of the buildings.
One of the main features of our lobbies are the Hugo Gellert murals. To strengthen the buildings’ existing character means, first and foremost, to preserve and restore the murals as central features of our lobbies. We remain concerned about the proposal to install terrazzo panels below the murals over the existing hand-glazed tiles. Covering the tile alters an integral part of the existing composition, affects the curved transitions at the ends of the murals, and overlooks structural issues that need to be studied. These interventions should be reconsidered in keeping with best practices.
We are also concerned about the overall material palette and lighting, which seem to misguidedly reference the Art Deco aesthetic of Rockefeller Center instead of building onto the Mid-Century character of our late 1950s, Herman Jessor-designed buildings. We recommend that these finishes and design interventions be re-evaluated against the principles of contextual integrity, and the community’s stated preference for aesthetic choices centered in care instead of luxury signaling.
2. STEWARDSHIP
The renovation should advance a stewardship approach that prioritizes the long-term care of the buildings, responsible use of collective resources, and continued affordability for residents.
We are concerned that several proposed modifications add significant construction and cost without providing a corresponding improvement in building performance or everyday use.
Extending the breezeway windows to the floor increases the amount of exterior glazing, demolition, and associated construction while providing limited additional useful daylight. The new glazing low to the ground increases maintenance requirements and replaces existing operable windows with fixed ones, denying the possibility of the natural ventilation we often enjoy.
The proposed new opening for access into the package rooms from the breezeway is a harsh violation of the original mid-century decorative splayed walls, is impractically narrow for the movement of carts in and out, and could be avoided by providing better access from the rear corridor.
These examples raise a larger concern: where an existing material or assembly is serviceable, replacement or substantial modification should provide a clear improvement in performance, functionality, durability, or accessibility. Otherwise, those resources may be better directed toward more necessary improvements, including unresolved accessibility conditions.
3. FUNCTIONALITY & SOCIAL CONTINUITY
The renovation should make everyday use easier, safer, and more comfortable for residents, staff, and visitors. Accessibility, usability, comfort, and adaptability should be treated as core design requirements.
The renovation should reinforce the co-op as a community. Design choices should support the relationships, routines, shared history, and everyday encounters that allow residents to feel that they belong here.
We are concerned that several existing circulation paths become narrower in the proposed design. The entrance to the central elevator bank is reduced by approximately sixteen inches, and the entrances to the breezeways and mailbox areas are also reduced. These are active spaces that must accommodate residents, staff, visitors, carts, food deliveries, strollers, leashed dogs, and mobility devices throughout the day.
The enlarged gym also necessitates further study. Although the gym gains area in the proposed design, some doorways and circulation connections become narrower, and we have concerns about accessibility clearances at the gym restroom.
At the same time, several existing accessibility problems remain unresolved, including the Management Office public entrance and the south entrances to Building 3. Adding automatic door operators alone does not address all of the underlying access conditions.
There are also important operational questions that should be resolved before the design is finalized. These include the reduction and location of recycling areas; the relationship between proposed package rooms and existing residential storage; maneuvering space for the proposed luggage cart and wheelchair storage; the size, location, and operation of security desks; mailbox and mailroom functions; and the adequacy of proposed janitorial and service spaces.
These may appear to be small-scale issues, but they directly affect how successfully the renovated spaces will function every day and how residents and staff feel as they move through them.
4. COST
While financial responsibility was not one of the four principles defined by 3x3, it is an essential component of Stewardship as summarized by 3x3: responsible use of collective resources, and continued affordability for residents. It is also key to ensuring Social Continuity by preserving the affordability of Seward Park and preventing the displacement of its most vulnerable residents.
Cost was a top priority communicated by residents, cutting across and affecting all four principles. For that reason, the cost of all of the proposed interventions should be considered alongside their actual benefit. Significant expenditures should improve functionality, accessibility, durability, building performance, or the quality of our shared spaces, and not simply increase the visibility of the renovation.
As noted in our first letter, before any construction begins, shareholders should have a clear and conservative project budget, with an appropriate contingency, prepared by a qualified cost estimator.
The four principles developed through the engagement process provide a strong framework for moving the project forward. We believe the next design iteration should demonstrate more clearly how the proposed work responds to them: respecting the character of the buildings, using collective resources judiciously, improving everyday functionality and accessibility, and supporting the long-term continuity of the Seward Park community.
If that work has already been done, as your latest communication implies, it is necessary that those designs be released as soon as possible, for meaningful community feedback.
Filling out an open-ended Google Form in advance of the release of any design updates and the July share-back results is premature; instead, shareholders should be able to see the progress made by the designers and the Board during the past two months in order to provide input.
SIGNED BY:
John Bellettiere, RA, LEED AP, Architect
Thaddeus Briner, RA, Architect, Founding Partner, Architecture Outfit
Jennifer Carpenter, AIA, LEED AP, Architect, Principal, Verona Carpenter Architects
Glen Cummings, Graphic Designer, Principal, MTWTF
Brian Fell, AIA, Architect, Associate Partner, Robert A. M. Stern Architects
Sarah Gephart, Graphic Designer, MGMT. design
Maria Ibanez, RA, Architect, Principal, IDSR Architecture
Margarett Jolly, NYU Adjunct Professor, prior Seward Park Board Member & President
Cathy Lang Ho, Architecture Critic Curator / Deputy Director, Gensler Family AAP NYC Center
Anne Lewison, AIA, Architect, Yoshihara McKee Architects
Alex Patsikos, Architectural Designer WLA
David Reinfurt, Graphic Designer & Educator, Princeton
Michelle Rosenberg, Architectural Designer and Artist
R.Todd Rouhe, RA, Architect, Principal, IDSR architecture
Carmelle Safdie, Artist, Director of the Irwin Rubin Archive, Educator at Cooper Union and SVA
Sommer Schauer, RA, Architect, Design Director, A+I / Perkins & Will
Elisa Testa, AIA, Architect, Associate, Marvel
Irina Verona, AIA, Architect, Principal, Verona Carpenter Architects