Window Replacement Policy – DRAFT
As we are all aware window replacement polices have to relate to three types of determinations the Historical Commission must make from time to time. These are appropriateness, hardship, and environmental review. In the past the assumption was made by many people that windows in historic homes had generally outlived their useful life, and should in most cases be replaced either as part of ongoing maintenance of the structure or as part of any major restoration project.
Unfortunately this assumption has proven to be mistaken. Not only have many replacement windows been wildly incompatible architecturally, which has been addressed in the present policy, many have also had remarkably short service lives. Where original 19th and 20th Century windows typically have lasted 90 to 150 years in service with appropriate maintenance, many of the “replacement” windows have failed in ten years or less, long before their alleged ‘efficiency payback’ would have justified the monies invested in their purchase and installation.
In fact, recent research in both Europe and the U.S., most lately by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, has suggested that the old-growth wood used in older windows makes them more durable than the newer windows, and that, with appropriate maintenance and retrofits, such as storm windows and drapery, original windows can be as energy-efficient as replacement units.
The assumptions that underlie existing policies have been proven erroneous, it would therefore seem logical to
Appropriateness: Whereas this is generally a consideration of preserving what can be seem from the public street, it would seem logical that window replacement should be allowed when no change will be visible from the public street. This should mean that the dimension of the panes, the dimensions of the rails and stiles of the windows, the “Boston” or New York” characteristics of the window millwork, the exterior appearance of the stops and balances, and the appearance of the glazing, should not change, except that, in districts where paint color is not controlled, color should be optional, unless it is permanent. In cases where it is permanent it would seem to be logical to require that it be one of the traditional sash colors.
Hardship: Often applicant assert that the maintenance of the existing windows is a hardship, as the additional heating costs they see being caused by the existing windows and the cost of repetitive maintenance (Painting, glazing, etc.) if felt to be a burden. Typically this seems to be precipitated by one or two windows being in particularly bad condition due to neglect. In these instances it would seem logical for the applicant to be required to prove with comparable estimates from vendors of acceptable new windows and window maintenance contractors, and compare these options based on the “Life cycle cost of the options. Where replacement is markedly more advantageous the approval of the window replacement project would seem warranted.
Environmental Review: This area of review once again relates to visual impact from the public street, but also to overall environmental impact.
Relative to the first criteria it would seem that projects in which windows do not meet the appropriateness standards should be opposed as having “An adverse impact” on the cultural resource in question.
Relative to the second criteria it would seem that projects which propose new windows with out demonstrating both a life cycle environmental advantage, similar to that described in the “Hardship” standard proposed above, should be found to have a negative effect on the environment by imposing negative impacts on the environmental due to unnecessary and unjustified imposition of extraction, transportation, construction, and disposal impacts on the planet.
(NOTE: In many instances project sponsors may be interested in obtaining Federal energy-conservation-based tax credits, and may have been advised that only new windows meeting certain standards are eligible for these credits. As the Federal Programs appear to be subject to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, it would seem logical to suggest that these proponents request approval for similar tax treatment of appropriate retrofit work, based on the recent research noted above.)