Famous, Decrepit Building Must Be Repaired

Photograph of the Windermere by edEx on Flickr

A judge ordered that the second-oldest apartment building in New York City must be repaired by its owners. The Windermere, at West 57th Street and Ninth Avenue, has been the scene of of landlord and tenant struggles and evacuations as the fire department has found its conditions unsafe.

The NY Times reports that Judge Karen Smith ordered "the permanent repair and restoration" of the building. The Windermere was landmarked in 2005 (PDF), and owners of landmarked buildings are required to keep them in good shape (sometimes owners rebel). However, owner Toa Construction did not, and the city sued the company in March.

The city will determine what needs to be fixed and Landmarks Preservation Commission chair Robert Tierney told the Times, "The Windermere is an invaluable part of the city’s heritage and now will remain so for future generations." And the New York Landmarks Conservancy describes the merits of the Windermere:

Built in 1881, the Windermere was the pinnacle of Manhattan apartment and social life in its prime. The second-oldest large apartment building in all the boroughs, its exterior boasts intricate brickwork and three-story bow-front windows, and when it opened its doors, its interior featured engraved marble fireplaces, mirrored parlor walls, carved hazlewood moldings and parquet floors that since have been lost to years of water damage and neglect. Now, the Windermere's base has remained under scaffolding and most of its 169 street-side windows have been covered for years.

One famous former tenant: Steve McQueen.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Jen Chung in News on May 10, 2008 8:55 AM

Comments [rss]

BoerumHillJo

Masako Yamagata has owned the building since 1986.

The Manhattan on 86th Street and Second Avenue, dating from 1880, is considered the oldest large apartment building in the borough.

Spirit of 76

How long does it take to fix problems? Certainly not 30 years. Even if you just maintain the same decrepit condition you bought it in, 30 years is too long. You bought it, you fix it, plain and simple. It's not like they didn't know the building's condition before they bought it.

ANGRYGOD11

Should the courts force anyone to maintain a neglected building that's over 100 years old? Unless the current owners held the building's title for the last 30 years, they cannot be responsible for all the long term neglect.

Spirit of 76

The owners haven't done anything and the judge is trusting them to follow the order? By the time she finds them in contempt, the building may have fallen down. Who's to say they won't hire substandard contractors anyway? I would have set the penalty during the verdict at immediate forteiture of the building. If building owners won't fix up a structure, then the city should give it to somebody who will.