Off to the Dump: House by Paul Rudolph
by Lloyd Alter, Toronto on 01.14.07
OK, it probably was not a TreeHugger correct house at 4200 square feet and made of concrete, but we do believe in re-use, recycling and preservation. It is happening all over when people don't think that anything modern has historic value- Preservation Societies will go nuts to save a rotting turn of the century Victorian but a building from the 50's through 70's? Get rid of it. Said Nepal Asatthawasi of the Paul Rudolph Foundation: "“as more and more architecturally significant modern homes reach critical points of neglect and eventual demolition, the consequences of devaluing the artifacts of our recent history will be felt by future generations.” ::New York Times
UPDATE: Westport Newspaper on why the Trust was not able to save the house. Westport Now, pictures below fold
Demolition got underway today of the Paul Rudolph-designed house at 16 Minute Man Hill following failed efforts by preservationists to save the 1973 house. A court-imposed moratorium on demolition which provided time to find another buyer expired at 5 p.m. Friday. The house was the WestportNow Teardown of the Day on Nov. 16, 2006. Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
pictures at 10:18
press denied access at 10:22
Almost all gone at 3:35
Here's an important part of this NYT article not mentioned:
"Neighbors who walked by in the morning rain were curious. “That house was on the market for months and no one bought it,” said one who declined to be identified. “Where was the Paul Rudolph Foundation then?”
Well?
LA: because a) it isn't true and b) it isn't relevant what an unknown speaker on the street says.
"LA: because a) it isn't true "
My apologies. You are correct. It turns out the property was not on the market "for months" -- it was on the market for several years:
" In September 2005, he and his brokers began searching for a buyer who would appreciate the house’s architectural merits and be willing to pay almost $5 million for it. But there were no offers, and the price was reduced by about $1 million. “People are not interested in houses from the 1970s,” said Marina Leo of the Higgins Group real estate agency, who was one of the brokers."
-- http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/nyregion/17house.html?ex=1168923600&en=2d291cc1532232b5&ei=5070
"and b) it isn't relevant what an unknown speaker on the street says."
Certainly no more relevant than what anyone else has to say, who don't actually own the property.
Nepal Asatthawasi from the Paul Rudolph Foundation here. The property was on the market for just a little over a year - NOT several years. The Foundation was contacted about it and we did assist the realtors to the best of our ability. However, we were largely inactive at that point and had not the resources to aggressively scout for a buyer (I've only been coordinator since late last summer) who would value it for what it was and rehabilitate it accordingly.
In reviewing the marketing of the house by the agency, it is my own personal opinion that the job was badly done. This no doubt contributed to the relative anonymity of the listing and its eventual purchase by an individual intent on pulling it down regardless of the uproar surrounding its preservation. However, I don't blame the realtors. They were unaccustomed to dealing with a listing like this. I think the culprit - if I can even say that - is the general lack of interest and appreciation for 20th century modernist architecture in the northeast. this is the task of everyone - architect, design professional, concerned citizen - through actions big and small.
"I think the culprit - if I can even say that - is the general lack of interest and appreciation for 20th century modernist architecture in the northeast. this is the task of everyone - architect, design professional, concerned citizen - through actions big and small."
The only action that counts here, would be actually legally purchasing the title to the property. I don't think most people would have a problem with that.
In this case, however, nobody with a taste for what looks like a double-wide mobile home designed by Albert Speer, ponied-up with the cash. Rather, the legal system was tied up in a failed attempt to interfere with a person's private property. That hardly strikes me as a very noble cause.
Modern architecture is under attack? Funny, no one is razing the works of Frank Lloyd Wright, Mies van der Rohe, Richard Neutra or Louis Kahn. Perhaps the loss of buildings by Paul Rudolph is due to an inevitable sifting by time, which separates great architecture from derivative, form-forgot-function period pieces.
The comment by Travis makes a good point. Modern-style homes built over the last 100 yrs by people such as Wright and Rohe aren't being demo'd. In every building period there have been building saved and maintained and others that have fallen away. In the past 10 yrs there has been a growth in restorations of mid-century homes in the Palm Springs area. These are all "California" style homes of steel and glass with low profile flat and swing roof lines. Some are by famous architects and others aren't. Most were built from the '50s to the early '70s. They are still sought after because they followed the idea of form follows function and still fill the needs of those living in that area.