Op-Ed: Historic Preservation in New Canaan

New Canaan vs. Historic Preservation 

Is New Canaan Anti‐preservation? Last week’s Advertiser’s “Main & Elm” compared New Canaan to a Florida city which puts preservation as a priority. New Canaanites actively involved in preservation as a profession and others throughout the state might beg to differ. 

New Canaan seems to frequently be faced with a number of significant issues concerning historic preservation. It seems as though the structures and landscape that have given New Canaan its unique history, culture and character are constantly under threat of disappearing forever. Preservation is seen as a roadblock to “progress” and those who support preservation are bullied, badgered and labeled as uninformed, silly, building‐huggers by many who have no immediate knowledge of what historic preservation is and the process of incorporating old structures into our lives. 

Historic preservation is not static. It is not a mothballing or freezing in time of a community. In reality, preservation is dynamic and when appropriately incorporated into community design and planning, results in a richness of environment and experiences unachievable by any other avenue. Preservation is conservation because when we save and reuse or repurpose old structures, we don’t toss good building materials into a landfill or negatively impact the environment by depleting additional resources. In general, older buildings are better built; contain materials having longer life and fewer harmful chemicals than those used today; and can actually be more energy efficient as they were built to incorporate natural cooling and heating, which is better for our environment. 

The Historic Preservation Act was enacted as a reaction to the disastrous period of “urban renewal” in America. Decades of discussion, experimentation, documentation, development of standards and laws, and implementation have resulted in guidelines for preserving and adapting older structures. Preservation is a discipline incorporating professionals with knowledge, training and experience in the field. Just as one consults a doctor, lawyer or financial expert in their fields of expertise, consulting a preservation expert is always a wise choice. Speaking out on preservation topics when one does not have sufficient knowledge or expertise is like giving medical, legal, or financial advice without adequate credentials. 

Addressing some of the current preservation topics in New Canaan, and some of the anti‐preservation comments being presented as knowledgeable, here are some clarifications: 

4 Main Street – Scofield‐Tompkins (most recently Talbot) House Replication Counts as Preservation? 

Concerning the concept of demolishing the historic portion of the property located at 4 Main Street, and “replicating” the structure so that nine‐foot ceilings may be incorporated, and uncommon elements may be eliminated, it is simply not appropriate, nor should it be allowed. The Historic District Commission abides by a very clear set of guidelines known as The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. The National Park Service states that replications of historic properties are discouraged, specifically, “a replacement copy of [a] historic house is not historic—it is merely a new house that looks like a historic house”. Therefore, such an action should remove the building as a contributing structure in a historic district. 

The 75,000 Properties on the Connecticut State Register 

There seems to be an odd conclusion that since there are 75,000 properties on the Connecticut State Register and all of these properties are not available on a database, then properties listed on the State Register are not significant. This to some degree is like saying that since the Louvre contains a total of 380,000 works of art, the works of art in the Louvre are not significant; or similarly the 120,000 works of art in the National Gallery are not significant because there are too many; or the 120 million items (beyond books) in the Library of Congress are not important because there are too many. 

The State Register includes not only those properties included on the CT State Register, but also all individual properties and Historic Districts in Connecticut listed on or eligible for the National Register and all properties approved for Local Historic Districts and Local Historic Properties. Concerning the lack of all these properties being available on an internet accessible database, that is a result of lack of funding, certainly not a lack of significance. All properties in Fairfield County and the four coastal counties are available on line. 

64 Richmond Hill Road or Richmond Hill Garage or Mead Park Brick Barn 

Beyond the conjecture on both sides as to whether this should stay or go, it has been listed on the Connecticut State Register of Historic Places, meeting two of the three criteria. It was designated by a committee of professionals highly experienced and knowledgeable in both history and preservation. At last count there were a total of 23 individual properties listed individually on the State Register in New Canaan, two having been demolished. Many of these are our moderns, such as the Gores Pavilion, the Laszlo Papp House and the Gary and Janet Lindstrom House. During the recent hearing on this property much emphasis was placed on the statement that during the approval process, the State Historic Preservation Office had noted that the property is not individually eligible for the National Register. Those stressing this statement omitted to note whether the property would qualify as a contributing structure in a historic district, which certainly it would, and therefore be included in the National Register as part of a historic district. 

“Not Every Old Building is Historic” 

Another strange argument frequently made by local officials or members of the public who lack qualifications to make such determinations. Designation of a property as historically, culturally and/or architecturally significant is not conjecture, nor subject to opinion, but is based on research, documentation and applicable criteria. In addition to the State designation of 64 Richmond Hill Road, the National Park Service’s Chief of the Heritage Documentation Programs (which includes the Historic American Engineering Record) noted that the structure is architecturally and historically significant. Both the Executive Director of the Connecticut Trust and a United States Senator have recognized the importance of the structure and have forwarded letters to the Town encouraging its preservation and re‐use. Perhaps even the Town has actually recognized the historic significance of the site as evidenced by an approved landscape plan of the north end of Mead Park which retains the footprint of the building and includes “Commemorative signs describing historical significance of the site”. New Canaan does not consider itself to be a radical town, but for a Town to overrule decisions by higher, more experienced authority, is rather radical. 

Conclusion 

New Canaan is a 21st Century community with a citizenry which is highly educated, and one well‐traveled to places where current processes of preservation are understood, supported and an integral part of the fabric of the community. It is an odd situation then that in New Canaan, there is such an out of date perspective on preservation and consistent push back when the words “historic” and “preservation” are brought forward. 

Maybe we need new words, or perhaps we just need to better understand what historic preservation actually is and the appropriate processes involved. If supported and incorporated appropriately into our community’s future, New Canaan can keep in step with other communities which have benefitted aesthetically, experientially, and yes, financially. Perhaps then “preservation” won’t be such a bad word in New Canaan.