Window Options for Vintage Buildings
| Description | Pros | Cons | Cost Index* and Estimated Payback** | Sustainability | |
| 1 | Add 1950’s Style “Triple-track” Storms | Not recommended due to quality and durability issues.
Unattractive appearance. |
N/A | Neutral. | |
| 2 | Remove original sashes and replace with vinyl “replacement” windows | Not recommended due to quality, durability, and environmental impact issues.
Plastic windows look “cheap” on vintage Chicago architecture |
N/A | This approach generates massive amounts of landfill waste, and the vinyl manufacturing process releases dangerous toxins into the atmosphere | |
| 3 | Retain original windows and add modern storm units incorporating low-e glass | -Highly cost-effective
-Retains vintage architecture on interior and exterior -Excellent energy-efficiency |
-To fully realize benefits, repairs and weatherstripping of original sash may be required | 68
Est. Payback: 4.5 years |
-Whether wood or metal storms are utilized, this system is highly sustainable
– Nothing sent to landfill |
| 4 | Add modern storm units and repair and weatherstrip original sashes | Same as (3) plus virtually the same energy-efficiency as a completely new window assembly | -Some maintenance, although minimal, may still be required | 100
Est. Payback: 6 years |
-This option is also very sustainable and energy-efficient
-All materials in this system can be repaired or worst-case easily recycled |
| 5 | Remove original sashes and install high-quality wood or wood/aluminum-clad “replacement” window | -Good energy efficiency, depending on installation quality
-Minimal maintenance |
-Expensive
-Since only sashes are replaced, cold air can still leak through original window frame -New sashes must be painted or finished at additional cost and may not match existing interior -Exterior wood must be covered with unattractive aluminum coil to avoid maintenance -Size of window opening will be reduced -Lifespan will not be as long as original windows |
244
Est. Payback 13 years |
-Irreplaceable old-growth wood sashes will be sent to landfill
-The seals in thermopane windows will eventually fail (in 5 to 50 years, depending on quality of the window) , resulting in fogging, and the entire sash will be sent to the landfill and replaced with a new one |
| 6 | Remove entire window including jambs and install completely new high-quality wood or wood/aluminum-clad window unit | -Excellent energy-efficiency if installed properly
-Attractive appearance if specified properly to match original architecture |
-Expensive
-Very dependant on quality of installation carpenter to achieve energy savings and proper appearance -New sashes must be painted or finished at additional cost and may not match interior -Interior trim details must be re-worked -Lifespan will not be as long as original windows |
355
Est. Payback: 20 years |
-Irreplaceable old-growth wood sashes will be sent to landfill
-The seals in thermopane windows will eventually fail (in 5 to 50 years, depending on quality of the window), resulting in fogging, and the entire sash will be sent to the landfill and replaced with a new one |
*Cost Index shows comparative installed costs (not actual dollar value) of different options. Comparative costs were generated using a large (typical) Chicago window as a model. Window replacement options were estimated using a high-quality window, such as Marvin. Storm window options were estimated using high-quality metal secondary glazing units.
**Payback was determined using a baseline of option 3, as determined by the study “Field Evaluation of Low-E storm windows”, (Chicago, IL 2005). Relative energy efficiency was estimated at 80%, 90%, 95%, and 100% for Options 3,4,5, and 6 respectively.
