Connecticut’s Historic Character Lost (New Haven, Milford: appointed, for sale, apartment complex)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So Connecticut is known for its wonderful historic character and charm yet little by little it is being lost to developers more concerned with profits than character. Here in Glastonbury a developer is proposing to build a large scale mixed use development on the site of a charming 1860’s commercial building. A couple years ago an apartment complex replaced a pair of historic homes dating to 1700’s and 1800’s. And in Branford a pair of historic homes were demolished for new development. A couple of builders defended the move saying the homes weren’t worth saving. I’m not so sure about that. Across the state new development is replacing old. I think it’s time to discuss this problem and is it negatively affecting our state. What do you think? Jay
This is a big deal, because the precedent for this home apparently will influence a lot of others in the state. There's a lot of litigation on both sides with the preservationists and the developers.
Not much has moved forward since that article was written. Apparently there's still some people fighting it. I hope it doesn't happen and the home can be restored. I'm all for TOD in Milford's downtown but this street is historically residential 19th century homes and single family home in character. Prospect Falls apartments should've never been built either.
But because it's just outside the historic district, the zoning/historic protection isn't as strong.
I heard that one homeowner on that street previously blocked it from being converted into a historic district. Guess which one? The lot that is not Prospect Falls apartments.
There was also a push to convert Gulf Street south of New Haven Ave into a historic district, but a few neighbors prevented that from happening as they didn't want any restrictions. A 1700's home was torn down a few years ago (in rough shape, but absolutely restorable) by the family and a bland modern Colonial box was put up in its place.
Baldwin House was a great compromise that should be emulated elsewhere. I do not expect preservation at a loss, so deals must be struck to make it both financially viable for the owners, and still retain as much of our past as possible. Not sure if those Jay mentioned had any sort of compromise offered from the cities and towns interested in preserving their past.
Last edited by BobNJ1960; 06-13-2021 at 08:28 PM..
I hate seeing things like this happen. I see beautiful old houses in Farmington and they are being allowed to fall apart due to widening of the roads to handle even more traffic. There's another house here that I read about that the town won't bother saving--can't recall the details.
It's all about money. CT, to me, is losing its charm. I see so many industrial parks and apartment complexes that it's getting bland and boring, and even ugly. I got the chance to live in EMass for a few years and they preserved the old houses, many of which you could tour for a small fee. That was on the North Shore, I don't know about the Boston area.
A very long time ago, I lived in Glastonbury and my favorite drive was down rte 17. I would pass a beautiful old house that I loved. It wasn't some treasure from the 18th C, admittedly, but it was an attractive older home. Last time I went to Glastonbury, that house was dwarfed by big houses on both sides and the ordinary old house that I loved was looking neglected. Probably has been torn down by now.
The old houses are treasures. They were well built and they stood the test of time. Their old fashioned appearance mirrors the era in which they were build and is part of our history. Shame that some people don't even care and would tear these treasures down for a big, usually poorly constructed new house. I know it has happened in the Boston area, not with historic old houses, but with perfectly good, lovely houses (nice Capes, for instance) being completely torn down just so that someone can spoil the appearance and feeling of the neighborhood by building a money make monstrosity or just a big box of a brand new house. The neighbors usually hate it but the people who rule the town, seem to like the idea. Money. And ugliness that goes with it.
I can’t believe they tore down the Warner house in Branford. I’m in shock. We lived on Grove Ave., a few doors down, and that home was among the most beautiful in all of Branford. Everyone who visited us commented on it and I always loved seeing it on my morning jogs. I never knew who lived there but it was always so well kept on the exterior that I can’t imagine it wasn’t well cared for on the interior. What a damned shame.
The other one that really disappointed me was the demolition of downtown Derby. I understand it was greatly neglected but it didn’t have to be if the city and/or state took proper steps to ensure the beautiful architecture was maintained. So many amazingly beautiful buildings, gone.
Last edited by kidyankee764; 06-14-2021 at 02:17 AM..
It would seem, if towns wish to preserve these homes, the best option is purchase them when they come up for sale, by the town itself. Not as an expense, but as a capital expenditure. In most cases, we are not talking immense costs.
To give some context, Milford spent over $10 million buying the jai alai property, before flipping it, just to insure the Kingdom Life Church did not acquire it. A home, here and there, would cost perhaps 5-7% of that, max, assuming it is of normal size.
In Portsmouth, NH they have the Strawberry Bank Museum. It's an outdoor area where historical homes had been moved to a single location and was made into an outdoor museum with live actors teaching in the homes of various styles and eras. Really cool place. I wish more of that was done around here. I grew up near Palisado Ave in Windsor and their historic district, I would hate to see that demolished.
But again people want CT to grow, which means more housing, which then leads to development of very old areas/homes. (in before but go to Litchfield County where there is nothing.)
Baldwin House was a great compromise that should be emulated elsewhere. I do not expect preservation at a loss, so deals must be struck to make it both financially viable for the owners, and still retain as much of our past as possible. Not sure if those Jay mentioned had any sort of compromise offered from the cities and towns interested in preserving their past.
36 apartments in a three story building instead of 44 units is not much of a compromise. I can’t imagine how that monstrosity can relate to the historic home especially when the lot is under an acre.
I agree with you that compromises need to be made but I also know that developers rarely can be trusted to do what’s best for a community rather than their wallets.
In the Glastonbury project, it was just a preliminary proposal and not an application. I was shocked that there wasn’t more outrage at it. Some members of the zoning board even praised the project and its stark architecture that lacked scale and charm. We will see what the developer comes back with. Hopefully it is something more appropriate. Jay
36 apartments in a three story building instead of 44 units is not much of a compromise. I can’t imagine how that monstrosity can relate to the historic home especially when the lot is under an acre.
I agree with you that compromises need to be made but I also know that developers rarely can be trusted to do what’s best for a community rather than their wallets.
In the Glastonbury project, it was just a preliminary proposal and not an application. I was shocked that there wasn’t more outrage at it. Some members of the zoning board even praised the project and its stark architecture that lacked scale and charm. We will see what the developer comes back with. Hopefully it is something more appropriate. Jay
36 units beats losing the home. the time to compromise is ahead of the plans of the latest buyer, and being proactive is not government's specialty, unfortunately.
Compromise means not sacrificing either community or developer's wallets.
CT doesn't have that much in the way of strong laws. My house is dated from 1900 and there's some nice Victorians in the area. My girlfriends is from the 1700's. I am technically the 5th owner of the house. First family until late 1960's, then a couple until around 2010, then the town, then the flipper. I've seen some differences of beams and the foundation and walls to think what it might have looked like generations ago (significantly smaller for starters). I've tried asking the local historical group for any history but to no avail. Neither one of us is in a historical district. I also know people on historical committees that try preserving quite a bit.
I would argue to have form based code to at least keep the design there regardless of what is there. I know of historical buildings that have duncan donuts inside but it was kept OK.
There are three local entities that govern buildings. The fire dept, health department and building department. If you have violation they can't really have an exemption. Naturally there are some things that frankly can stay but can be issues if they are exposed (lead paint and asbestos for starters).
If a town does not have an active historical committee historical preservation will be iffy at best. The *ONLY* thing that legally can preserve historical buildings is local laws with designation and maybe a deed restriction. Ok so who pays for this? CT could take a page from Mass and have a community preservation act. It's a property tax surcharge that is matched with the state for local projects in housing, recreation, open space and recreation. But again they have to have a committee for them.
It can also help to have some type of local community based organizations obtaining CDBG funding. Sometimes you can do things for more than one reason and it can help. If you go to the feds and say "We need to save this building" and that's it that's one thing but if it's "We need to save this building so it can provide program xyz for group abc" that's something else. CT might just be too affluent outside of cities to obtain additional funding.
to note the Milford house is NOT being demolished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
