|
|
Home >
Preservation News >
Modern Masterpiece Demolished in Westport
On a rainy Saturday morning in January, police chased onlookers away as wreckers’ claws dug into the layered beams and window walls of a spectacular Modern house in Westport, ending a preservation struggle that touched on questions of Modernism, teardowns, and how legal action can be used to protect historic buildings. This issue also represented the first time that the Connecticut Trust initiated a lawsuit to prevent the destruction of an historic property.
The house
The Westport house, built for Dr. and Mrs. Louis Micheels in 1972, was the creation of architect Paul Rudolph (1918-1997). Rudolph had been chairman of the Yale Department of Architecture from 1958 to 1965 and designed a number of buildings in Connecticut. After leaving Yale, he continued to develop a reputation for complex and richly textured buildings with a rich variety of spatial effects and went on to build an international practice. In the words of Michael Sorkin, Director of the Graduate Program in Urban Design at City College of New York: “Rudolph’s architecture often used relatively simple means to achieve environments of astonishing complexity. He had no peer in his deft and dramatic articulation of the flow of space, and to visit any of his beautiful works is to embark on a rich and revealing architectural journey.”
In the Micheels house, this complexity of architectural scenery was achieved with white wallboard on the inside, and stucco studded with Arctic quartz gravel on the outside, combining the roughness of Rudolph’s Brutalist designs with the all-white, floating qualities of later works. Sited so that every room would share in panoramic views to Long Island Sound, the house sat atop Compo Hill, firmly anchored to the earth at one end but cantilevered at the other, where the master bedroom, supported only by slender piers, seemed to float above the ground. The result, again according to Sorkin, “…shows Rudolph’s characteristic structural ingenuity and verve, his careful sense of orientation and climate, and his unshakeable dedication to joyful living.”
Demolition
Dr. and Mrs. Micheels, both now in their late 80s and wanting to live nearer their children, put the house on the market in September, 2005. They hoped to find a buyer who would appreciate and preserve the house as they had, but after more than a year with no serious offers, they contracted to sell the property to David Waldman, a local developer who wanted to demolish the house and build a new dwelling on the spectacular site. WestportNow.com quoted Waldman as saying, “We have a family of three young children, and a modern structure wasn’t appealing to us.” The sales agreement allowed him to have the house razed before taking title to the property.
Teardowns—the demolition of houses in usable condition in order to build larger and more pretentious dwellings—have become a leading preservation issue in the past decade, one that the National Trust for Historic Preservation has called a nationwide epidemic. Changes in taste and stratospheric property values have made Modernist houses in Fairfield County especially vulnerable. Recognizing this, the Connecticut Trust included New Canaan’s Modernist houses on its 1999 list of the Most Important Threatened Historic Places.
Westport also suffers from teardowns; in 2006 the town issued more than 92 demolition permits. While not all of these were for houses with historic importance, together they represent not only the loss of historic fabric, but also a significant and largely uncontrolled change to the overall character of the town. WestportNow.com, a local website, has covered the issue extensively and even has a regular section called “Teardown of the Day,” which featured the Micheels house on November 16, 2006.
This coverage brought the house to the attention of Westport citizens and the town’s Historic District Commission. Unfortunately, the house was not old enough to trigger Westport’s delay of demolition ordinance, and the Historic District Commission agreed not to interfere in exchange for access to take photographs. In early December, Waldman began removing hazardous materials from the house, including parts of the roof.
The lawsuit
At the urging of several Westport citizens and the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Connecticut Circuit Rider Gregory Farmer visited the Micheels house and determined that it was of great significance but had no legal protections to prevent demolition. However, that lack changed when, convinced of the house’s importance and the urgency of the threat, the State Historic Preservation Office approved the house for National Register study.
Official recognition put the house under the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (Connecticut General Statutes, Section 22a-19a), which allows any citizen to file suit to prevent the unreasonable destruction of historic properties listed on or under consideration for the National Register. On December 21 the Connecticut Trust filed suit to stop demolition in Stamford Superior Court.
One of the strongest arguments in the Trust’s case was the presence of an interested potential buyer who had already restored Rudolph’s own apartment in New York City. Having someone willing to restore the house, and who had the proven ability to carry out such a project, strengthened the Trust’s claim that razing the Micheels house was unreasonable, since property owners often argue that demolition is necessary because restoration would be too expensive.
After a preliminary hearing, Judge Taggart D. Adams persuaded the parties to stop all action until he could hold a hearing on issuing an injunction. The hearing began on January 2, and on January 5 the Trust and Waldman (on his own behalf and that of the Micheels) came to a settlement calling for Waldman to negotiate with the would-be buyer for one week. If at the end of that time (by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, January 12) he and the buyer came to an agreement, the house would be saved. If not, Waldman would be able to demolish the house. Judge Adams specifically charged Waldman with making a good-faith effort to come to an agreement.
At the same time, Waldman and Micheels also gave the Trust access to take photographs and measurements to document the house to the standards used by the Historic American Buildings Survey.
Unfortunately, the deadline came without an agreement. The buyer offered $3.8 million, several hundreds of thousands of dollars more than the contract price of $3.24 million, but Waldman held out for $5 million. At that point, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal stepped in on behalf of the State of Connecticut (having earlier declined to do so) and filed for a new injunction forbidding demolition. However, Judge Adams turned down Blumenthal’s request.
Demolition started at 9:00 the next morning while police drove onlookers away, threatening them with arrest and charges of trespass, since the site is in a private association. A photographer from WestportNow.com managed to take photographs from a neighboring property, with permission of that property owner.
Lessons learned
Despite a decade or more of attention, Modern architecture commands only limited appreciation from many preservationists and from the public at large. In hotbeds like New Canaan and individual structures like the Micheels house, however, Connecticut can boast a collection of Modernist buildings that has national, if not international, importance.
Because this collection has received only limited study, much of it is still not adequately understood. It is of vital importance that the preservation community broaden understanding and appreciation of Modernist buildings, lest the most important examples perish before they attain the 50 year age necessary for most preservation protections and incentives. Surveys and studies are the first step, followed by National Register nominations where appropriate and perhaps zoning incentives like those adopted to protect Modernist houses in New Canaan (CPN September/October 2004).
National Register listing should be undertaken before a property faces a threat. Last-minute nominations initiated specifically to block demolition can occasionally succeed, as with Abel Bradley house, also in Westport, where a nomination and lawsuit persuaded the developer to preserve and add to the historic house (see CPN January/February 2006). More often such efforts fail, and in the process they provide confirmation for the image of preservationists as obstructionists.
Implementing preservation tools must be accompanied by activities aimed at the general public, such as tours, exhibits, publications and public statements of the value of Modern architecture. Another need is for assistance in marketing important examples of modern architecture as they come up for sale. There is a market for these buildings, but it is specialized and often not tied to local pools in quite the same way as that for ordinary housing stock.
Innovative structural techniques and materials used by Modernist builders sometimes fail, as, for instance, the stucco cladding of the Micheels house cracked as some of its wooden beams warped with age. Such failures are sometimes cited to justify razing Modernist buildings, but all buildings suffer from age and weather, and addressing such issues has always been an important task for preservationists. So, another need is for technical information to assist owners maintain or restore Modernist buildings. The only law of its kind in the nation, the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act (CEPA) is a valuable tool for preservationists. Even where no legal action is undertaken, this law can serve as an incentive to property owners to reconsider demolition plans. As with many laws, the wording of CEPA leaves several questions unanswered. For instance, the law protects buildings listed on or under consideration for the National Register, but just what does “under consideration” mean? The Attorney General issued an opinion saying that “consideration” began when the State Historic Preservation Office approved a site for National Register study, but in the Micheels case Judge Adams suggested that he might not accept that definition. A more basic question is how judges who don’t have any background in historic preservation can make informed decisions? In some cases, judges have based their rulings on an inaccurate understanding of preservation regulations and procedures. Is there a way to provide them with accurate information about preservation law?
What the Connecticut Trust is doing
This was the first time the Trust ever initiated a lawsuit under CEPA, even though the Trust’s charter specifically mentions taking action to oppose demolition as one of the organization’s intended activities. In the case of the Micheels house, the Trust found itself filling a vacuum created by the locals’ inability to take action and the unwillingness of the Attorney General’s office. Since then, the Trust’s Board has begun considering what criteria to use in the future in determining whether or not to take legal action. On the whole, the Board has expressed a strong preference for leaving lawsuits to be led by the State, with its greater resources and years of experience in litigating CEPA cases.
For more information…On teardowns in Westport and the Micheels house story:
www.WestportNow.com
On teardowns across the nation: National Trust for Historic Preservation, www.nationaltrust.org/teardowns/resource_guide.html
On Paul Rudolph: Paul Rudolph Foundation, www.paulrudolph.org
In its effort to save the Micheels house, the Trust ran up legal bills of more than $20,000—an unexpected expense. However, the house was of such importance and the threat so urgent that we felt that we had to speak up for its preservation and do all in our power to save it. To help us meet that expense, please consider sending a tax deductible donation payable to the Connecticut Trust at 940 Whitney Avenue, Hamden, Connecticut 06517.
|
