YourCT.com header image 2

Preserving Modernist Homes


by turfgrrl


August 20th, 2007 · 5 Comments

The Courant is running a good story on the preservation challenges of modernist homes. Most people would recognize that Phillip Johnson’s glass house is iconic, but there are many other homes in the area that represent this period of architecture.

From the Courant:

People are coming looking for these houses, so the tear-downs have slowed down,” said Janet Lindstrom, executive director of the New Canaan Historical Society. “They seem to be much more respected. Many of them are in the process of being refurbished and it could be that maybe five years ago, they would have been torn down and lost to us forever.”

Efforts to preserve the houses, all by noted modernist architects, got another boost recently when the Connecticut Commission on Culture and Tourism and the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation provided funds for a $65,000 survey. The survey will focus on houses built by Johnson and four other famous modernist architects and on houses that were built by architects who were influenced by them.

One reason that the survey is important, organizers said, is that no one knows yet how many modernist houses have survived in New Canaan, although estimates put the number somewhere between 80 and 100. The records of tear-downs are also spotty, but historians estimate that as many as 20 have been demolished.

The significance of the survey reaches beyond Connecticut.

“When you look at national preservation standards, there’s verbiage on what makes a Victorian significant or what makes a Georgian home significant, but that language doesn’t exist for modern homes,” said Christy MacLear, executive director of the Phillip Johnson Glass House.

The language developed in the New Canaan survey can be applied across the country to identify significant modernist homes.

“This will highlight moderns in the eyes of our country, signify to the country that these assets are significant,” MacLear said. “When you look at saving a modern home, much of the preservation is reactive, jumping in once a home is threatened. We are working to ensure these assets are highlighted and to put in place protections so they are not threatened in the future.”

source: The Courant, A Trove Of Modernist Homes,

Tags: In the News · current affairs

5 Responses so far “Preserving Modernist Homes”



  • 1 L'arlequino // Aug 20, 2007 at 8:55 am

    How many of these houses are less that 50 years old? The article states they were built up until the early 60’s.

    How can an arbitrary date predicated on somebody’s notion of what “old” is be applied to define what is historic and what isn’t?

    I would suggest that anyone who believes that should be the case - and who is in a position to determine the City of Norwalk’s role in preserving its heritage - should be required to take courses in both the history of the area and of 20th-century architecture.

  • 2 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Aug 20, 2007 at 10:35 am

    Poster #1 wrote
    “How can an arbitrary date predicated on somebody’s notion of what “old” is be applied to define what is historic and what isn’t?”

    Maybe these babies should be torn down. They just get in under the line. 7 years or so is peanuts, you going to let the slip by and stay standing. Thank god they were not on EAST AVENUE.

    Gee, the Frank Lloyd Wright homes in Stamford and New Canaan were built in 1952 and 1955.

    Frank Sander House “Springbough” (Storrer S.354), Stamford, Connecticut, 1952.

    John Rayward House “Tirranna”, (Storrer S.383), New Canaan, Connecticut, 1955.

  • 3 Vet Park Junkie // Aug 20, 2007 at 12:56 pm

    L’arlequino said that he has an Arts & Crafts house. That is very neat. I’ve always enjoyed the Arts & Crafts style. However, I remember the “adults” reactions when I was young – let’s rip out that old crap, how much oak can anyone stand?

    I also expect that the current “Small House Movement” will create many keepers and they aren’t historic in an age-sense.

    Still, I keep wondering what might be a better proxy instead of a “50-year” trigger for evaluating a property.

  • 4 L'arlequino // Aug 20, 2007 at 1:18 pm

    VPJ - Good point, I am sure that 50 Washington St. was considered a jewel of SONO in the 70’s redevelopment era, so the definition of “desirable” changes from generation to generation and also as society infuses us with tastes through exposure to the media and the arts.

    At that time 50 Washington surely was expected to be the cornerstone of the new South Norwalk, but look at it now. I cannot imagine anyone ever considering it worth saving, it is completely out of character with the area.

    This example should be instructive for those who are looking at the redevelopment of Wall St. and Reed Putnam.

  • 5 #13 of the Miserable 25 // Aug 20, 2007 at 5:57 pm

    Tear it down and make a bus parking lot……………

Leave a Reply