WestportNow Teardown of the Day: 10 Godfrey Lane

12 thoughts on “WestportNow Teardown of the Day: 10 Godfrey Lane”

1. It never seems to end!  Each week it gets worse.  Before we know it, Westport will have few if any homes built before the McMansion era.

   A. Beasley, M.D.

   Reply

2. What’s wrong w/ renovating a home?  I’ve spent nearly a year on mine and am nearing the end, finally.  However, it’s been worth every moment. I’ve taken breaks, mostly to give myself a chance to breathe.  If I had it to do over, again, I wouldn’t do it any differently.  Now, I’m in the process of finishing up the landscaping and am so pleased w/ the outcome.  It’s been a labor of love and looks nothing like it did when I initially moved in.  Not only that, the neighbors are happy, too and didn’t have to endure a tear down and rebuild.

   Reply

3. Renovation absolutely!  It’s far different than tearing the house down completely and replacing it with a McMansion as is usually the case.

   Reply

4. Forgot to mention that I get the opportunity to use my creativity to create what I want out of what’s there.  Mix and match.  It’s too easy to rip it down and start over.  That takes no imagination.

   Reply

5. What’s wrong with the concept of private property and the owner having more of a say in the matter? This running narrative about practically every house that is coming down is amazing. This isn’t Westport, the commune. The owners didn’t buy a share in a coop, they bought real estate, ie property. Why do you have to be so negative about their plans without even knowing what they are?

   I can’t wait til you fight to save the rest of the boxes built in the 1960s – a lot of ugly buildings are nearing the magic-50 marker so you can have a field day.

   Seriously, pick your battles, not everything old is worth saving, and unless you are their neighbors, how can you say they won’t be happier with the new house?

   Sure, there are places with historical significance, and that’s what the rules are for – not to ensure that nothing ever changes. I like this house, and would probably keep it as is, but I don’t own it, and apparently, neither do you. If you don’t like “mcmansions”, lobby to change the rules about what can be built. Personally, I have no problem if this is replaced by a more modern, energy efficient home that employs a few people during its construction.

   Reply

6. Adrian- Agreed. There hasn’t been an online peep about the 60s-era ranch houses that have appeared in “teardown of the day” here.

   Reply

7. There’s nothing wrong w/ doing what you want w/ your own property.  That’s not the point.  Take a look at the number of foreclosures/short sales and maybe you will get the point.

   Many of these what you refer to as individual properties are being sold to developers, built from the ground up as McMansions and then they sit, forever.  That is, if they actually are completed.  Some go into foreclosure prior to completion due to the lousy market climate…you know, the current one?  The one that’s causing all kinds of cutbacks, etc.

   Therefore, I’m not being negative as you said, I’m being realistic. 

   As to the 60;s era ranch teardowns, lots can be done w/ those, too.  Again, all it takes is some imagination which, once more avoids foreclosure.  But, hey, if you enjoy driving through or around town seeing half built homes sitting there, or other ones that have been completed w/ for sale signs in front of them, year after year, knock yourself out 🙂

   Lots of old things are worth saving and you can still employ just as many by doing so.

   Let’s not be so hasty to throw things out just b/c we can.

   Reply

8. You know, if people don’t agree w/ you, they’re considered to be negative.  Thanks for allowing me to have my own opinion, Adrian.

   However, that being said, take a peek at the tax base, the one that’s shrinking due to empty homes, for instance.  Has not one thing to do w/ regulations, either.

   Please allow others their pov, yours is not the only one.

   Reply

9. “There

   Reply

10. I wasn’t trying to stifle a point of view, but you said one thing and then appeared to defend it with something entirely different. I just happen to disagree with both your arguments, not with your right to express them.

    I said you were negative for the comment about imagination, and being critical of people you don’t know in public without knowing any of the facts about their circumstances. It’s also common on this site to accuse people of intentional neglect to make teardowns possible, which is a pretty skeptical position to take as a default. The main theme of responses to teardowns is negative.

    Just remember that the people who look at a teardown as an opportunity for improvement – not always bigger, but more efficient, greener, etc, don’t usually post but a lot of them exist (including the ones doing the tearing down). I am working with leading tech firms to create more efficient office and municipal buildings which sometimes involves retrofits and sometimes new construction, but always ends up in more efficient use of natural resources. That can happen with houses in Westport, and it should.

    I know we have empty homes, and I personally know people facing foreclosure here and in other towns in the region, and acknowledge that there is a real problem out there. But I still challenge you on the facts – every home in danger in my circle of friends is one that has gone through renovation, not a teardown, and none was neglected intentionally.

    Enjoy your point of view, and know that I’d fight vigorously to defend your right to post it. Please understand my comment about regulations though, as you appear to be in the group that constantly complains about teardowns, and looks for ways to make it stop. The alternative to market forces is regulation, and may people on this site have been clamoring for more. The great houses you want to preserve were the product of individuals with vision and few regulatory constraints, and builders of great houses of tomorrow need the same opportunity. If we go through a few McMansions in the meantime, I can live with that.

    Reply

11. Adrian, appearances aren’t always what they “seem” to be.  In other words, this is the very first time that I’ve ever, key word there, posted in this forum regarding teardowns and were you at the ready to pounce.  In fact, eager to do so.  And, yes you were trying to stifle my pov.  In fact, you squashed it from get go to the point that I’m sure you anticipated that I would go away, quietly.  Not the case.

    I know individuals who have faced foreclosures and have had to give up what they’ve worked for.  It’s heart rending to watch.  I also know developers who’ve not been able to sell their McMansions for several years and have had to fire sale it.  That’s also sad, b/c they too have families to support and lose as well.  It’s not a win win situation for anyone.  And, yes they build green homes w/ the hopes that they’ll sell quickly, but in this down market, it hasn’t happened.  They know they’re taking a gamble, but are willing to do so since that’s they’re business.

    I also know Realtor’s who are having a tough time.  It’s what it is.  I know other builders who’ve had to lay off workers and it’s incredibly difficult for them.  Their workers are like family to them.

    I also know that a town’s architecture adds a tremendous amount to what a town is.  It attracts a variety of people, which is what makes a community thrive.  If it’s all McMansions, that won’t happen b/c again, you’ll lose your cross section of individuals as well as your tax base.

    When you renovate, you can go green, too.

    God knows I don’t want regulations any more than you do; we’ve enough as is.  However, let’s not continue w/ tearing down everything in site.  Wouldn’t you agree there needs to be a happy medium.  Somewhere.

    Reply

12. “…yes you were trying to stifle my pov” – wow, are you psychic about my intent? NOTHING I said indicates that I wanted to do that, only that I thought it was shortsighted when applied to houses of dubious historic interest. If you post in a public forum, you’ll get feedback. If you think my comments were trying to stifle a POV, I am sorry. That was never my intent, only to get people to take a more positive view of progress. I don’t want anyone to go away, just to consider their words and most of the teardown comments are negative, which is how I interpreted yours.

    I also argue for a happy medium, which is the reason I don’t care about tearing down houses with no apparent significance other than their age. I said pick your battles, and this one doesn’t seem worth it to me. Your little comment about today’s teardown makes it look like you’ve been attacked, which is just silly – we’re debating ideas here. I don’t see anything special about that one either. Create jobs, build something new and better.

    Your last comment, though, reinforces my point exactly. Your reaction to my first reply was to say you were talking about teardowns and foreclosure – which was nowhere in your first post – but you acknowledge that the foreclosure problem goes beyond teardowns. It is simply not true that it is cause and effect as you have implied.

    I’m not trying to make this personal, and I am sorry that you have apparently taken it that way. I was reacting to a position that I don’t support, which was then backed up by a completely different argument that I simply don’t believe. Please don’t go away, just understand that what works for you doesn’t work for everyone. If you’re going to argue a position about the economy, you should give some real evidence, and if you are going to argue against teardowns because you think preservation is always better, you’ll get resistance on that one.

    Reply