YourCT.com header image 2
← CT State Ethics Chief Resigns Norwalk: All You Need Is Law →

Norwalk: Historic at 50?


by turfgrrl


July 13th, 2007 · 26 Comments

The demolition delay bill which moved the state suggested guidelines from 90 days to 180 days prompted some discussion on whether 50 years is old enough. From today’s Hour:

“I strongly support historic preservation,” Coffey said. But “I’ve heard from some residents that a house that is 50 years old is not historic. Some people have mentioned (the delays) deprive property owners of their property rights. It’s an important balance. We need to have hearings and discussion and see if it’s appropriate for the city.”

50 years ago is 1957, and for anyone to think that the post war modernist style of architecture isn’t historic hasn’t been paying attention to the retro revival. All those shiny stainless sub zero appliances in the kitchens owe their streamlined look to the styles of the 50’s where industrial and modern were the reactions to the depressing gothicisms of the depression years. The second world war, and the dawn of the nuclear age set the stage for the future looking modernism that even today, looks futuristic.

But not all old things deserve preservation, which is why age alone should never be used as the single criteria to determine the worthiness of preservation or restoration. From the Hour:

Under the base legislation adopted by the state, a building must be 50 years or older and meet eligibility criteria for inclusion in the Norwalk Historic Resource Inventory, State Register of Historic Places or National Register of Historic Places, to be eligible for demolition delay.

How disappointing it was when Oklahomans discovered that the 1957 Belvedere to be rusted into oblivion. Of course, I’m still waiting for my flying car, jet pack and moon base too. For a trip through the cool retro future, check out  plan 59.

source: The Hour, Demolition delays extended to 180 days, By ROBERT KOCH, July 13, 2007

Tags: In the News · Norwalk

26 Responses so far ↓ “Norwalk: Historic at 50?”



  • 1 Watchdog // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:00 am

    Mornin, Turf!

    Sorry, but this is a test. I tried to post in response to M. Lyons under “No Cuts” and it wouldn’t take. Once, twice, thrice. If this takes, that means this post was accepted in the newest thread, but not in the past “No Cuts.” Have any idea why this would happen?

  • 2 Joe Carlotti // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:03 am

    50 years old. We will have half the building in this city rated as possible historic sites. This could and would slow down re development to a dead stop. It would have to be something very exceptional to be 50 and a historic site. Something like the WTC might come to mind. At 100 I might agree. This is a very broad statement and will cause lawyers to get rich over it.

    I bet many of the folks on this blog live in 50 year old homes.

    Could this make the Norwalk Motor Inn a historic site?

  • 3 turfgrrl // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:11 am

    watchdog: Ya know, the comments spam protector has been working overtime lately, so it makes mistakes. I found them and removed the duplicates. Now to wade through the other 100 spam posts to see if there are any more false positives. Good morning, btw.

  • 4 L'arlequino // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:20 am

    Norwalk is basically being run by developers, they have the City eating out of their hands. Not much will stand in the way of them getting what they want.

    The cluster development at the intersection of Highland Avenue and McKinley is a good example. The Victorian house that was there was the home of a noted female architect. The property was sold to a developer, who basically offered to give the house away to anyone who wanted to move it. Logistics prevented that from happening.

    Now Rowayton has a half dozen more monstrous McMansions where there once was open space and a charming old house with a story behind it. Will those McMansions ever be considered historic 50 years from now? Will they even survive that long?

    Fifty years as a benchmark for historic preservation is a guideline. I don’t believe anyone would want to see a raised ranch or cookie cutter colonial saved just because it’s 50 years old but the question more people should be asking is “How do we insure that the characters of a neighborhood and community are preserved?”

  • 5 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:27 am

    I agree somewhat with what L’ar said but you have to admit that 50 is going to cause some serious problems to both development and home owners. Any bill that is that vague HAS to cause problems. Right now I know of several people who have discovered historical wells, foundations, and remnants of the past history of Norwalk. These were found while excavating for additions and other improvements. These were just filled in and buried to prevent any problems to the owners. Many of these finds dated back to the 18th century.

  • 6 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:29 am

    I hope that they don’t find any Historic value to that Rock at the end of the Rt 7 Connector. It might be there for another 10,000,000,000 years.

  • 7 Savit // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:49 am

    What folks should keep in mind that age (whether it’s 50, 100 or a bazillion years) is not the only critieria — the building also has to have some significance that wuld make it eligible for local, state or national recognition. So, I suppose in thoery, would the rock wall. If it had Indian glyps on it, you proably would make a case for presrvation. Clearly, most of the capes and raised ranches in town will not hit that bar even if they are 50 years old. In terms of the demo delay, it is simply a “talking period”. If the “talking” doesn’t come up with logical and eocnomically feasible alternatives, then the owners do as they will. In terms of National Register designated buildings (like 93 East Avenue) there is a broader level of protection but — again — no gaurantee. The laws still respect property rights — as they should. In the case of historic properties, a demo delay simply gves some space to 1) think about whether this buidling is worth saving for the community and the future and 2) see if the owner is amenable to other solutons that might meet his/her objectives jsut as well — if not better — than tearing it down. It’s not a given that every buidling over 50 years is worth saving; it’s just one of the things that could be considered.

  • 8 Jerry Aldrich // Jul 13, 2007 at 1:10 pm

    OK! I can agree with you. The only point I am trying to make is that the law has good intentions. The problem comes when the law is abused, which the wording on this one, certainly leaves a lot of loopholes for misinterpretation. The difference is the enforcement, will it be by the letter of the intent of the law?

    The road to hell is paved with good intentions

    (not said by Samuel Johnson 1709-1784)

  • 9 turfgrrl // Jul 13, 2007 at 3:11 pm

    Jerry Aldrich: Here’s the wording on the bill:

    That section 7-147y of the general statutes be amended to increase the delay for the demolition of a building within the boundaries of an historic property from ninety to one hundred eighty days.

    And when we look at the original statute:

    Sec. 7-147y. Exempted acts. Delay of demolition. (a) Nothing in this part shall be construed to prevent the ordinary maintenance or repair of any exterior architectural feature within the boundaries of an historic property which does not involve a change in the appearance or design thereof; nor to prevent the erection or alteration of any such feature which the building inspector or a similar agent certifies is required by the public safety because of a condition which is unsafe or dangerous due to deterioration; nor to prevent the erection or alteration of any such feature under a permit issued by a building inspector or similar agent prior to designation of such historic property.

    (b) If a building within the boundaries of an historic property is to be demolished, no demolition shall occur for ninety days from issuance of a demolition permit if during such time the historic properties commission or the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism is attempting to find a purchaser who will retain or remove such building or who will present some other reasonable alternative to demolition. During such ninety-day period the municipality may abate all real property taxes. At the conclusion of such ninety-day period, the demolition permit shall become effective and the demolition may occur. Nothing in this section shall be construed to mandate that the owner of such property is under any obligation to sell such property or building.

    http://www.cga.ct.gov/2007/pub/Chap097a.htm#Sec7-147y.htm

  • 10 inout // Jul 13, 2007 at 7:27 pm

    The key word here is the incentive

    “During such ninety-day period the municipality may abate all real property taxes.”
    Norwalk does not have a provision in its demolition delay.
    Secondly 50 years is not a realistic bench mark without very specific criteria.
    History Lesson
    Developers have been building in Norwalk since 1651.
    Roger Ludlow purchased property from the indians then sold it to developers for farming, etc. the beat has gone on for over 350 years.
    Most people who are on this blog live in a structure that was built by a developer or a farmer who sold lots for profit. It is the constant evolution of a City. No development means stagnation.
    Otherwise most Norwalker’s would be living in dirt floor log homes.
    The key is trying to preserve representation of period historic housing through incentives, this even includes a 50’s style commercial piece.

    But all is dictated by land value.
    Just ask your self if you owned an historic property would you sell it significantly less than market value to preserve the house through deed restrictions?
    Almost no one can afford to do that.

  • 11 Marital Woes // Jul 13, 2007 at 8:26 pm

    No development means stagnation — true. But I think we all know what uncontrolled development means. What’s best for the developers wallet needs to be balanced with what’s best for the rest of us. Not all old buildings add to the value of the community. Not all new buildings do either. Look at 50 Washington Street.And, I don’t know why people get so hung up on this demo delay. It’s been in effect in Norwalk for a few years now (thank you Alex) and I don’t see that development has come to a screeching halt. In fact, we may be seeing some BETTER development BECAUSE of the increased interest in preservation. Like Moccia, a lot of Norwalk Republicans start getting all red-faced and puffy when you mention “historic preservation”. And then head for the Norwalk Inn for a (free) drink.

  • 12 Mr Greenpeace // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:20 pm

    Nice article today on how Labatt USA shuffles off to Buffalo in the Hour,,Buffalo officials who were never approached for economic incentives were pleasantly surprised by the Labatt relocation.

    We talk development but when do we talk increasing public service, do we increase fire and police by what numbers? number of business’s people or just studies?

    When do we talk adding another police station, another four man crew for the fire dept, more highway workers or do we just have enough for a while?

  • 13 Anonymous // Jul 13, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    If there ever were a case for the fitting use of eminent domain to improve a city, 50 Washington is it. What a hemorrhoid on the face of Norwalk.

    And to think what was torn down to build it. That is truly a travesty.

  • 14 old timer // Aug 24, 2007 at 9:48 pm

    50 years is a good amount of time to consider saving a home from being torn down only to be replaced with a McMansion. Rowayton in particular looks nothing like it did 30 years ago; lots of open space gone thanks to the planning idiots who had no real vision for the future. Many reasons for moving here and raising a family are disappearing quickly. The congestion of the area is horrible. What happened to the quiet open spaced enclave we cherished so much?

    The home at 9 Sunwich Road is going to be torn down soon and replaced with an ugly huge home. Thanks for waiting 2 years after your purchase to destroy a famous author’s home. What ever happened to refurbishing/updating?

    Newcomers have destroyed our community.

  • 15 Thank Briggs // Aug 24, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    Well you can thank Walter Briggs and his wife Gwen for all those self serving subdivisions in Rowayton. Follow the money folks.

  • 16 anonymous // Aug 25, 2007 at 9:12 am

    There you go again distorting the facts. The Briggs live in a modest 50’s/60’s ranch style house in Rowayton.

  • 17 Anonymous // Aug 25, 2007 at 9:17 am

    Walter Briggs chairs the planning commission and Gwen Briggs sells real estate. Do you have to be so transparently stupid?

  • 18 marital woes // Aug 25, 2007 at 9:44 am

    Would be interesting to see how Moccia’s “personal finances” have changed since being mayor…

  • 19 indiga // Aug 25, 2007 at 10:15 am

    Gwen Briggs was there and fully supportive of the NPT and HC efforts to save the Margaret Hoyt Smith house — the subdivision refernced here. Moccia did not show up during the walk through with the developer nor did he provide any help in trying to find alternatives.

  • 20 turfgrrl // Aug 25, 2007 at 10:47 am

    indiga: tsk, tsk, The public hearing for the Margaret Hoyt Smith house was MAY 18, 2005, so that would be Alex Knopp who was mayor, not Dick Moccia. And no Gwenn Briggs did not speak out against the development at the hearing, nor did anyone except for neighbors show up. I was very surprised by that at the time.

  • 21 Anonymous // Aug 25, 2007 at 2:42 pm

    Indigna, you ahve been caught again, how about answering the questions posed before. I will ask everytime you make statemetns that are blatantly false. How is your property value doing since you helped stop the Inn expansion? Again historical values or property values from your end. I thought you were not going to blog anymore. Still wating for answers.

  • 22 indiga // Aug 25, 2007 at 2:44 pm

    I was referring to the walk through of the house the NPT. some HC members, and other interested citizens did later in the summer — might have been as late as July (as the 90 day delay was about to run out). The HC and NPT continued working to try to find a place to relocate the house after the public hearing. Gwenn Briggs may have come to the walk through as an interested Rowayonite or a candidate. Whichever it was, her interest was in preserving — as it has been consistently. She is a terrific supporter of historic presrvation in Norwalk.

  • 23 Anonymous // Aug 25, 2007 at 6:03 pm

    Right, Gwen sells the new houses that her developer friends stick on subdivided lots that her husband rushes through and writes a $25 check to get rid of the guilt.

  • 24 mattw // Aug 25, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Walter Briggs chairs the planning commission and Gwen Briggs sells real estate. Do you have to be so transparently stupid?

    by Anonymous — August 25, 2007 @ 9:17 am

    You’re behind the times, friend.

  • 25 indiga // Aug 26, 2007 at 10:18 am

    If 15,17, and 23 think Briggs’ and the Planning Commission are too much in favor of development, I assume that the poster(s) are in favor of LESS development and MORE strenght in the preservation laws. Is that true, anonymous’s? Let’s hear where YOU stand on historic preservation. Come on out if you are a secret preservationist. We can use the help…and, hey, nothing wrong with sending a $25 donation to NPT.

  • 26 indiga // Aug 26, 2007 at 10:39 am

    Poster 2, JC, if the case could be made that the Norwalk Inn is notable as an example of 1950’s motel arhcitecture or some other architectural or cultural reason, it could be considered “historic”. If, for example, it had been designed by a notable architect or were the centerpiece of an intact “modernist” neighborhood, you could make a case for preservation. My point is that “50 years old” is not the single (or even most important) criteria. It’s just a starting point for thinking about it.

Leave a Reply