Sunday’s New York Times spotlights the Westport controversy over the battle to save the Paul Rudolph-designed house at 16 Minute Man Hill and cites WestportNow as spreading news of the planned demolition.
Architect Paul Rudolph designed the house at 16 Minute Man Hill, which is slated for demolition. (CLICK TO ENLARGE) Dave Matlow for WestportNow.com
“In this stylish town where residents are waging what seems to be an all-out campaign to bolster its colonial image, teardowns are hardly an unusual sight. But many people are horrified that a Modernist home designed by a renowned architect is about to be razed,” the Times said.
“Since a local Web site began spreading that news last month, a debate has erupted about the character of Westport and the future of the house, which is on sought-after Minute Man Hill Road.”
The Times said: “In an interview on the Web site, WestportNow.com, Morley Boyd, the chairman of the Westport Historic District Commission, said: ‘If you’re looking for shock value, it’s hard to beat the loss of this house. There is not much to top it.’ (See WestportNow Dec. 13, 2006)
The newspaper added, “But in a town where 92 demolition permits have been issued so far this year, a celebrated lineage alone is not enough to save the house. Because it is not at least 60 years old, the historic commission does not have jurisdiction.”
Six years after Paul Rudolf completed his magnum opus, the Yale School of Art and Architecture, the students attempted to burn it down. See “Form follows Fiasco” by Peter Blake.
That building, as most of the work produced by that bunch of frauds known as Bauhausers, was a fiasco and so is the house on Minuteman Hill.
Walter Gropius and his cronies (of which Paul Rudolph certainly was one) are directly responsible for the present day disconnect between the field of architecture and the single family dwelling. Their arrogant posture taken from the late twenties on, that classical architecture was irrelevant (or worse—Alfred Loos called ornament on buildings “a crime”) despite the vast majority of American home buyers insistance on it, is the reason home design in this country is at the nadir it is.
I would like to be at the head of the line to take the first swing with a sledge hammer at this affront to the local (and American) landscape.
Mr Grimm;
Mr Wright and I have cited independent sources regarding the perceived value of these designs. It would be appropriate if you could respond in the same fashion. It’s not polite to insult Mr Blake or Mr Loos by calling them anti-intellectuals.
There is a house on Surf Road that also has a water view from every room, but the design is very different.
And you don’t support your argument by suggesting that flat roofs are a good design choice anywhere that substantial rain or snow is likely. Unless you are trying to collect the water, a flat roof does not follow the function of keeping the water out. Architects have known this for thousands of years, and have devised intricate methods for working around this constraint. Even mobile homes have a slanted roof.
Properly designed, flat roofs are no issue in areas of “substantial rain and snow”. Mine has one here in Westport and it’s had upwards of 4 feet of snow on it and survived several major rainstorms with no ill effect.
Please scroll down further to the earliar entry about the house if you wish to see more comments/disputation – over 30 entries.