BLICKENSDERFER HISTORIC TYPEWRITER FACTORY IS NOT A WHITE ELEPHANT
Stamford’s leaders are at risk of allowing an important symbol of Stamford’s history to be condemned as a white elephant. Pardon me for mixing elephant metaphors, but our city’s governing boards and its land use department should be looking at the whole animal rather than just the leg or just the trunk.
The Planning Board held a hearing May 12th to consider changes to the city’s master plan that would allow high density development in the South End historic district and ultimately, we believe, would result in the demolition of the former Blickensderfer Typewriter factory.
Despite the developer’s (Building and Land Technology–BLT) assertion that it wants to take down only the ca. 1935 section of the building—which itself is problematic—and not the 1860s section, its demolition permit is for the whole building, and we believe BLT would ultimately demolish and replace all of it with a 25-story mixed-use structure.
It is not our place as preservationists to say whether they can build a tower. It is our place to object to it being built in the middle of a low-density historic district and to do it by demolishing an important symbol of Stamford’s industrial history, which I will talk about in my next blog post.
Following is my testimony to the Stamford Planning Board on May 12, 2020. Officials said this testimony was irrelevant to their proceeding because the body was then addressing only a narrow part—the master plan—of the overall issue, and not the widening of Garden Street, which is the pretext for taking down the two Queen Anne houses on the corner of Garden and Henry. Such remarks dismiss preservationists as uninformed and allow the city and developers to deprive the land use/development process of sunlight, which hides the true ramifications within technical and bureaucratic detail.
This area should be developed with Blickensderfer and the other historic buildings intact. These historic buildings can help drive a healthy economy through adaptive reuse. Citizens of Stamford deserve transparency and whole-animal planning.
Hello, I’m Judy Norinsky, President of Historic Neighborhood Preservation. Thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. I will address issues regarding the historic district.
We oppose the proposed change in Stamford’s master plan on the west side of Garden Street, the widening of Garden Street and the rezoning that will surely follow because these actions will lead to the destruction of properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Such an outcome conflicts with municipal public policy, state statutes—namely the Connecticut Environmental Protection Act and Connecticut Environmental Policy Act, and federal public policy in the National Historic Preservation Act.
Development and preservation can and should co-exist. In the last half century, rehabbing historic properties in development projects has a proven track record of stimulating positive economic development and creating vibrant urban places, but development must respect preservation’s goals and historic structures. Although what is proposed on the east side of Garden Street from the Loft Artist’s parking lot south might foster these goals, the rest of the proposal would clearly be detrimental to the historic district.
Everyone likes to say they support preservation, but the City administration’s proposal seems, for the most part, like lip service. The five-year-old master plan and the barely-two-year-old South End Neighborhood Study—accepted by this board. These two documents both concluded that the historic buildings in the South End should be preserved.
The South End Neighborhood Study has an appendix (attached) showing, however, that the historic district has been gutted since its establishment in 1986. Since 2017, which is the date of the maps in the appendix, the original group of Queen Anne houses on Henry and Garden Streets has been further reduced by three. The widening of Garden Street would put the nail in the coffin on the remaining two Queen Anne houses on the east side of Garden Street and the 1935 addition of the Blickensderfer. All three are already the subject of demolition delays.
Why isn’t BLT being required now to tell us what its plans are for this area? After demolishing the 1935 addition of the Blickensderfer building, will they decide they can’t do anything with the Nineteenth Century building and then replace both with a much higher density development than is currently allowed there? Such actions segment the planning process and prevent the public from seeing the full consequences of development.
Historic districts should not be up-zoned. Their low density reflects their origins, which is the very point, but this master plan amendment is indeed the precursor to rezoning.
Why is the Department of Transportation Traffic and Parking proposing for Garden Street: two 10-foot wide travel lanes, two wide sidewalks and two bike lanes? Is it based on conclusions in a traffic study? No. Transportation has not yet conducted the traffic study for which the city has allocated $250,000.
Allowing the street redesign and widening would destroy the historic street and important elements of the historic district. In 2016, John Freeman of BLT told the city that the company’s plan was to make Garden Street a thoroughfare. Not 300 feet away on either side of Garden Street there are already thoroughfares: Atlantic and Pacific Streets. Is there really a need for another one between them? Transportation has not proven its case.
Representatives of BLT and Transportation called Garden Street a dangerous wasteland at the last HPAC meeting, implying that the danger was because of its narrowness. But BLT or one of its entities owns most of the land on both sides of the street, so who is responsible for its condition? If it is dangerous, is it because the streets and sidewalks are narrow or because BLT demolished buildings, leaving the remaining ones to rot amid the vacant land?
Maybe Garden Street should be reconfigured in a different way to protect the historic district. Rather than being a straight through-street, an HPAC commissioner suggested that perhaps it should curve to the east. Mr. Travers’ response was that the road can’t curve to the east because the city would have to pay for private land on the east side of Garden Street, north of the Loft Artist’s parking lot, whereas BLT offered to donate the land on the west side. What he did not mention, but surely knows, is that BLT owns that land too. So, what’s going on here?
The City is proceeding in a way that avoids the preservation process. It is using $6.6 million of Charter Communications money for Garden Street. In funding the project with private money and without any federal or state funding, a section 106 proceeding isn’t required, and there will be no mitigation for the destruction of historic buildings and no required consultation with stakeholders. That’s what I mean by lip service to preservation.
We oppose development at the expense of National Register historic buildings. These sites and others like them are Stamford’s heritage, and must be protected. A grouping of houses such as this one represents an important part of Stamford’s social and architectural history.
It is no mere footnote that the Blickensderfer complex is an integral part of Stamford’s industrial history and that of the portable typewriter. Both parts of that building are now historic. You should not allow one to be destroyed and its absence used to justify destroying the other one.
The remaining historic fabric in the South End is what gives Stamford and the South End its sense of place, and that must be preserved. To quote Mr. Blessing, “The South End will define the Stamford Skyline for decades to come. We want to get it right.”
Thank you.
Judy Norinsky, Historic Neighborhood Preservation President