Imagine if the Europeans, once they revolted and overthrew monarchies, decided that those big old buildings atop hills were just were better off as parking lots. We wouldn’t have all the castles representing hundreds of years of history, and delightful tourist destinations, like the world’s most visited art museum, The Louvre. Train stations, of the 1800s also became new things, restaurants and retailer destinations on the small scale and a contemporary art museum on the larger with the Musée D’Orsay.
In America, we find a different fate for our large buildings. Today a retrospective on train stations:
2. MEMPHIS – UNION STATIONWhen this city’s Union Station opened in 1912, it was the largest stone structure in town. But when the U.S. Postal Service announced that it needed new land in the city in the late 1960s, the magnificent building was chosen for demolition because it no longer attracted the crowds that it had once brought into the city. Any interest in saving the structure itself was ignored.
These days Memphis is expressing interest in being part of the Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor.
THEN: A grand Beaux Arts depot for a thriving city
-
WHAT’S THERE NOW: A windowless postal facility surrounded by barbed wire stands on site of the old station.
5. CHICAGO: GRAND CENTRAL STATION
Perhaps more than any other American city, Chicago’s destiny has been a result of its transportation links to the rest of the country. As such, it had something of an abundance of train stations. Even while it still has four commuter terminals inside the Loop, knocking down impressive stations like Grand Central did not yield much for the city. The site of this former station, prime real estate on the banks of the Illinois River, is still a vacant lot after nearly four decades.
THEN: Located on the banks of the Chicago River, the beautiful station with ornate marble floors, Corinthian columns, and a fireplace. It served travelers to DC and many other cities.
-
NOW: A vacant lot
h/t boing boing
Some buildings make sense to preserve, some don’t. In downtown manhattan, with the value of land as high as it is, it is very difficult to justify preserving a small old building that may have been around a long time when demolishing it makes way for a multi million new building with the ability to generate many millions of dollars for the City and for the builder/owners.
In less developed parts of the country, where land values are not so high, it is much easier.
Saving grand central station was a massive project and just barely succeeded.
I’m waiting for Second Hand Rose and Old Timer to come out in favor of the vacant lots and faceless buildings — jut to be consistent with their support to tear down Norwalk’s architecture and replace it with the faceless commercialism of the Norwalk Inn.
Bingo!!
The communities that could ill afford to wreck everything in the 1950′s – 60′s found themselves fortunate later.
New London is a good example.
It looked tired and run down 30 years ago; but now looks fabulous thanks to many 100 plus year old structures being totally restored.
This weird urge to make things look “new” but destroy our own heritage (Hyannis, Mass is the *best* example of planners and zoners on the take, probably in the US) is short-sighted.
Southington’s downtown has been made to look older – at great expense.
Our downtown is alive (again) and parking, while available is occasionally scarce. (never impossible and no meters).
Considering 20 years ago you could roll a bowling ball down the street at noon and not hit a thing , we think it’s an improvement.
Your readers might find this site I stumbled upon interesting as well. http://www.lileks.com/mpls/gone.html
I have no problem with preserving buildings that have some historical relevancy to the town. However, 93 East Avenue has been proven not to fit that bill. There’s nothing remotely worth saving in that building, when there are so many other fine examples of buildings of the same style of architecture and from the same time period that have been better cared for existing in other areas of the city. And it has also been proven time and time again that nothing of any historical value took place at 93 East Avenue for that matter.
(Of course, if you truly believe the lies being spouted by the NPT about the house being a “survivor” of the burning of the City at the hands of Gen. William Tryon in July 1779, then I can certainly sell you the Brooklyn Bridge or waterfront property in Desert Valley just as well as they have been selling you on their historical falsehoods and inaccuracies.)
Ta-Da!!!
I rest my case….
Let’s not confuse massive historical structures of truly historical significance with random homes a few hundred years old that happen to be located in the middle of new buildings. While a castle that was an integral part of a national historical event might be an economic boon to a local economy as a tourist destination, I doubt 93 East Av, even if completely restored to it’s original condition, would be a financial boon to the Norwalk economy
Search on historic districts in New England and you will find rare examples of “massive historical structures.” You will find predominantly late 18th and early 19th century frame buildings — buildings much like the Grumman St.John house and the others around the Green. Most have only local signifiance — in fact, most probably have less significnace than the Grumman St. John house.
Wooden buildings and homes are the very soul of New England history. It’s what defines this area. It’s what the founders built. And it is worth preserving.
93 East Av would not be a tourist attraction that would bring tourist dollars into Norwalk.
GET OVER IT!!! let the inn develope the property they paid for and stop waisting everyones time and money
“Most have only local signifiance — in fact, most probably have less significnace than the Grumman St. John house.”
Considering that 93 East Avenue has absolutely no historical significance at all – other than being a not particularly well executed example of a certain style of architecture – #8′s commentary is saying a lot.
get over it norwalkers…. might as well pray the duck boats come. i see nyer’s ‘flocking’ to come see your town.
Historical significance can be debated and strong arguments can be made from both sides. One thing that can not be debated in the 93 East Ave situation is that, unlike the subjects of the post, it is private property. Questionable is whether or not the State has violated The Norwalk Inns civil liberties. Undeniably the efforts are a waste of resources that could be applied to more significant issues.
Having actually been inside this house in the past months , I am always baffeled by people who say this or that to save this pile of rot, see I’ve been a carpenter in the past years and I know 1st hand that this house is not worth saving. Its not cost effective for us. If you want to save it you only need $1.00 to start buy it, move it, and off you go. The people who restored the Incerto house will be able to give you all the pointers you need. Shinola or ?
Lucky you, 14. The NPT and the State have been trying to get action on the judge’s order granting the right to inspect and are being blocked by the Inn. The State’s structural engineer inspected in 2006 and found the house sound. You’t think the Inn would be pleased to have things moving toward some conclusion. Why not cooperate if it is truly no longer sound? It would seem that this would work in the Inn’s favor.
93 East Avenue is private property that is subject to restrictions, particular to it. The Inn owners think that because they own something, they can do what they want with it. It simply doesn’t work that way FOR ANYONE, me, you and the Inn owners. And ANYONE can be sued and have to prove their case, me, you and the Inn owners, they don’t have special protection there either. No fan here of the attorney general but he is doing exactly what he is paid to do. And, ironically, the Inn owners want to destroy the only thing that would make them special. They can’t compete with 94/7 when it’s done, all big and shiny with new hotels with lots of amenities right off I95. The Inn needs a niche, a reason why someone would go there and history sells and draws. A 250 year old house by West Coast/MidWest standards, is ancient, people love that about New England, it’s why they come to see us. Wish the Inn realized that, it would be a win win for everyone.
The Inn thinks they do not have to follow the rules, which is why the courts have ruled against them repeatedly.
Property Rights? We should not have zoning, environmental, health, fire, safety, etc. codes?
Watch the Inn’s neighbor want to put a homeless shelter next door to the Inn and see how fast the handrinos switch gears on “property rights”.
Yeah, maybe, #17. Except that there ISN’T a homeless shelter next to the Inn, nor is there going to be, so your argument is nothing more than a “what if”.
to #16. sounds like you have a solid business model there. why not buy the house, move it, refurbish it and start your own little bed and breakfast….something Norwalk has always needed in the midst of all our doctors, funeral homes, and government offices. And yes, any slimy group of lawyers can mangle the constitution to their favor, but it doesnn’t make it right. Condemn or seize by eminent domain, but you can not force someone to make improvements they do not want to undertake.
Thanks Second Hand Rose in # 5:
The real pride and historic recognition of courage and leadership(in the Norwalk Motor Inn area) that we need to celebrate and support is that demonstrated more than 50 years ago. That’s when our community leaders and long standing families took money out of THEIR OWN POCKETS to buy $50 dollar shares in the dream of some day bringing a hotel to this area.
This Motor Inn has suffered greatly from the egotistical need for attention, demonstrated by a diconnected few, that have found a way of getting personal attention and diverting attention for those personal needs.
If only the Hour would research their archives and tell us about the people, the reasons, and the struggles of the original supporters..remind everyone how that area was mostly bleak, overgrown plot, reminded me of a place they dug and carted soil from…(the hill?)… Remind us of the Hotel in So. Norwalk that most people wouldn’t even drive by after dark, never mind put a relative or possible business contact in for the night.
And wasn’t one of the early supporters on of the St. John’s?
Too bad the NPT has such a limited view of what represents HISTORY.. I know these former leaders were not directly connected to today’s owners… but how proud they would be that through all this CHRIS didn’t give up on their vision and he has continued to provide a facility they has been so consistent and gracious in its quality of service.
From the very beginning some individuals have made it a vendetta to deny the Inn any opportunity for the growth despite it’s attempts to develop plans agreeable to the neighborhood. This last decade has proven that impossible..Although other facilities have come into the area and flourished…the Inn continues to be frozen in time by a group who wants SOMEONE TO TAKE A INVEST IN THIS HOUSE NO ONE WANTS… or SHUT UP.
Didn’t all those investors lose their money — including my good friend and mentor who went on to save a lot of “old” stuff in Norwalk …including the Lockwood Mathews Mansion.
I believe a group of the Inn’s neighbors (including some former investors in the hotel-motel corporation) brought suit against the Inn for violations of zoning agreements and non-adherance to deed restrictions.
So, sorry, but I do know the history and there are some large holes in your apologia pro vita Chris.
…on second thought, maybe you’re right about the Inn. It IS a historic part of Norwalk and — at older than 50 years and with that “community” history — could easily be listed on the National Register of Historic Places. That would be interesting….
#19 which slimy lawyers are you speaking of, the ones representing the Inn or the preservationists?
Re: #21 “STICK TO THE TRUTH”
Unfortunately, Norwalk seems to have many versions of ‘THE TRUTH’… My truth is when the stocks were called in, our $50 orginal shares paid $500 each.
Didn’t get rich? Correct!!! But that wasn’t the purpose in the whole venture…for most of us..
But back to the truth. It’s true the General Putnam Inn SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAVED!!! Really miss those Yankee Doodle Murals by Ed Ashe. In fact a former resident of that Inn, forced to move to the house you want to save, one night shared his ‘get even’ plan… claimed he had fixed it so the Motor Inn would never be able to get that house..etc. But did he really get those ‘historic papers filed? Isn’t that another version of “Norwalk’s Truth?”…And wasn’t the General suppose to be watching Norwalk burn from a hill not a house? Actually didn’t that dirt pile hill disappear long before the Inn appeared?
Are you wondering what the ‘pay back’ was for? Me too… conversation never made much sense to me at the time but he may have felt the Motor Inn was responsible for the loss of the General Putt which was hardly a facility for temporary guests…. but OK for a preservationist bar.
Why don’t you just admit it!!! You guys are 3 decades late…Buy the old General Putt now. it’s starting to look run down again so it fits your style and maybe Ed Ashe’s sons, Tammy & Mike can come down and redo the mural… After all, the ‘real thing’ isn’t one of your usual requirements.
The Old Putnam Inn was turned into that ugly structure at the head of the green because Norwalk leaders and investors wanted an inn at 93 East Ave? That’s disgusting, this story is getting sadder by the minute! By the way, you old geezers who like Norwalk being a hole in the donut and have no sense of history beyond your lifespans, the Norwalk Inn is not an ‘inn’, it’s a motel.
to #23.
slimy lawyers who weave their way through a corrupt judicial sytem that rewards political favortism.
most constitutional scholars agree that one of the declaration of indepence’s main tenants was the rights to acquire, develop, and dispose of personal property.
we are not talking about a train station or other public property. we are talking about personal property.
Actually ANON, 93 East Ave was referred to as a”HOTEL MOTEL”, “THE NORWALK MOTOR IN” but the term ‘hole in the donut’ came about in the mid to late 70′s about the time you had your ‘coming out party’ in this area. In fact those other ‘late arrivals’ loved to quote it…. kept them from exploring the place you escaped from…. while you tried to fill some shoes left by the prior leaders…
27 think you pegged me wrong, not sure who you refer to but I wasn’t here in the 70′s yet, your a couple of decades off.
The General putnam was here for years after the Inn was built. Merchants Bank was behind rebuilding the General Putnam for office space. Adam’s rib restaurant, which had been located in the General Putnam, relocated to the Inn. Eevrybody I knew that bought stock in the Norwalk Hotel-Motel Corp, lost their money. The Inn was built and operated as a Treadway Inn at first. I think there may have been a bankruptcy somewhere in the history of the Inn.