Conn. Church To Lose Its 1873 Rectory
By Margaret Foster | Online Only | Aug. 21, 2009
The rectory of St. Andrew's in Stamford, Conn., was designed by Henry Hudson Holly.
Credit: Joseph Conetta
A historic church in Stamford, Conn., has decided to raze its 1873 rectory, designed by Henry Hudson Holly, and sell the site to a condo developer.
Last month St. Andrew's Episcopal Church won permission from the city's zoning board to construct a new parish hall and a 94-unit condominium complex on its 2.7-acre property.
This week a demolition notice was planted in front of the stone rectory. The church has offered to sell the structure for $1 to anyone who can move it by November 15.
"The offer is still out there," says the church's attorney, William Hennessey. "The parish is in desperate need of money. … As appealing as the outside may be to some people, the interior and the structure are in very poor condition."
St. Andrew's will salvage some of the stone from the rectory for use in the new parish hall. Church officials also plan to restore the sanctuary, built in the 1860s, Hennessey says.
"The one nice thing that happened as a result of [zoning board] approval is that the church itself will be preserved," says Todd Dumais, associate planner in the city's zoning department.
That's no consolation for some residents. "The rectory is one of the handsomest buildings in town," says Renee Kahn, director of the Historic Neighborhood Preservation Program, based in Stamford. "There are a lot of alternatives, but this is the easy one—to demolish and start over. In the long run, it's a tremendous loss for the church itself as well as for the community."
Stamford has seen its share of demolitions, according to Christopher Wigren, deputy director of the Connecticut Trust for Historic Preservation. "A big portion of downtown was torn down during urban renewal. The city has lost a lot, but it does have a large collection of historic churches."
For more photos, stories, and tips, subscribe to the print edition of Preservation magazine.
Subscribe to the Today's News RSS feed
Comments
Submitted by K at: December 26, 2009
I don't get it. Who would want to move into a condo in an ugly, new, wasteful building, when you could move into a beautifully restored building like this, developed into condos, if need be. Avalon Bay did a nice job w/ that sort of thing w/ the old hospital/sanitarium at Danvers, Mass. If this building is destroyed, it will truly be a sin, and everyone involved should be ashamed of themselves, the Church included. Senseless. Have they tried Yale? Have they tried Avalon Bay? Have they contacted This Old House Magazine to get a national listing in the column "Save This Old House"?! It's 2009, not the Sixties and its Robert Moses destroy-anything-in-my-path mentality. Look at what happened w/ Pfizer in New London, after they demolished all those people's homes they took by eminent domain? Closed, abandoned, wasted, ugly. Something is seriously wrong here.
Submitted by :o( at: October 4, 2009
What a great loss to St. Andrew's Parish and the city of Stamford. Hopefully someone will come to their senses and save this magnificent building!!!
Submitted by rifka at: September 14, 2009
While St. Andrew's Rectory has been woefully neglected, the damage is superficial and the building could be restored much in the way St. John's Catholic Church on Atlantic Street restored their deteriorated rectory and turned it into a showplace....and building the parish at the same time. This is a very short sighted move on the part of the parishioners who seem to have been convinced by their leadership that their is no alternative. What a loss to the city if this goes through!
Submitted by vet50 at: September 14, 2009
Stamford seems to be the only area where we do not have a "Main" Street anymore. I remember the old Main Street before the Stamford Town Center was built. They should have left Main Street alone. It was a shopping area, and it could have been fixed nice, like Washington Street in South Norwalk. Apartments and Offices above the stores.
Submitted by vet50 at: September 14, 2009
I can't believe Stamford is going to allow this demolition to happen. I am really angry about it. I was born and raised in what Stamford used to call a "Town" and I am sick of these developers coming here to take over. I walked by the rectory yesterday, and it is such a beautiful building. They could keep it where it is and make affordable apartments out of it. Speaking of condos, why don't they build them across the street where some apartments were supposed to be built after they tore down the unemployment office. Or they should move the rectory there.
Submitted by davis house movers at: September 2, 2009
if anyone is interested in purchasing this building Davis Construction House & Building Movers (www.davisbuildingmovers.com) would be happy to put together a price quote. Due to its large size, weight and configuration the move site would have to be fairly close to the original location!
Submitted by Anonymous at: August 27, 2009
This is such a beautiful building. It would really be a shame to lose it to a bunch of cookie-cutter condos. Don't we have enough of those already?
Submitted by Jellybean at: August 26, 2009
Wouldn't it make more sense to take up a citywide fundraiser to fix up the interior to living condition and rent out the home as a multi unit. St. Andrews could be collecting thousands a month indefinetly instead of a large check which they would likely have to pay taxes on since the state needs the money too.
Submitted by lauren at: August 26, 2009
Just what Stamford needs - more condos!! Unfortunately, the City of Stamford does not seem to have much interest in preserving historic places. This has resulted in alot of buildings that look the same. Residentially, "builder-designed" townhouses and condos abound on small plots of land. There is no continuity. Downtown traffic is awful - total disregard for designing on a hunan scale. Many European cities seamlessly blend the old and new - the US attitude of "tear it down" is really disheartening. These condo developments that replace these historic structures are built quickly and cheaply with little character. And...isn't there a ton of inventory in Stamford?? Where are the people to buy these places? Stamford has lost alot of jobs and people from the downturn in the financial industry; supposedly the financial companies and hedge funds that relcoated to Stamford were going to support all this housing.
Submitted by Shaun Kelly at: August 25, 2009
What a tragedy. I hope that the good people of Stamford will come to their senses and preserve and protect this incredible structure.
Submitted by Dale Jones at: August 24, 2009
The church's attorney, William Hennessey, seems to contradict himself. On the one hand he says the offer is open for someone to move the building. However he then says the structure isn't sound. Well if the structure isn't sound, how could it be moved? BUT WAIT! Maybe if it could be moved, as he said, it must be sound! Now if that is true, then he loses the arguement that it needs to be demolished because of its' poor condition. An arguement that I'm SURE Mr. Hennessey and those who hired him put forth. (Surely if the building was in pristine condition the Church wouldn't DARE to suggest its demise. Would they).
Submitted by victoria at: August 24, 2009
what a beutiful historical structure, this should be remodled and kept to preserve the past and to teach younger generations.ir
Submitted by Dale Jones at: August 24, 2009
All that I can say, is; DON'T DO IT!!! You will regret it so much in the future! Please save that structure!
Submitted by Hmm at: August 24, 2009
What a loss of a potential beautiful house! Why in the world would anyone want to lose it!! BAD IDEA!
Submitted by Interior Structure Good! at: August 24, 2009
I hope you speak from first hand information GeWaMa...it is my understanding from reliable people working with the house, that the interior structure is still very stable and very strong, and yes while there are some trouble areas that need addressing from when the roof that used to leak, but nothing that would require demolition!!! I have spoken with individuals who have moved homes in far worse condition and saved them…
Submitted by GeWaMa at: August 24, 2009
"As appealing as the outside may be to some people, the interior and the structure are in very poor condition." Too bad that the congregation let it get to this point. Demolition by neglect.
Submitted by Brian at: August 24, 2009
Couldn't this building be converted into a common area for the apartments? For example, a party location, with small bar and kitchen, or offices for the managment?
Submitted by Alternatives at: August 23, 2009
St. Andrew's Church which sits on a grand piece of property lush and green in the middle of a very concrete and asphalt downtown Stamford. The rectory, reminiscent of what once was a rich and thriving congregation. Some where along the line, I can only speculate poor decisions were made leaving St. Andrew's desperate, out of money, and out of ideas. I can remember stories of a bygone era where members of a congregation (plumbers, carpenters, electricians) would all donate their time and skills to make their parish a special and sacred place. I am very surprised nobody has come forward to save this grand home and to inspire hope to the congregation of St. Andrew's Church. The answer is not RMS construction. Your property is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, have you reached out to this very magazine which provides money and aid to rehabilitate historic places? Why is tearing down the only alternative? It would be tragic to see such an old structure, which in its own right, has become a beacon of hope standing the test of time...be demolished.
Submitted by Anonymous at: August 23, 2009
There are not "a lot of alternatives" for St. Andrew's. This (removing the rectory and building on the fallow land) is the only answer .....in saving the "historic" and cherished church. Kahn is extremely limited in her views of this project as her only interest is to preserve the rectory. She has no interest in the needs of the parishioners of St. Andrew's. She should have no say in this matter. She should have no say in the "preservation" of (our)place of worship. There were many, many historic structures in Stamford that were torn down for far less need than St. Andrew's. Where was Kahn then? She has preserved nothing that was of value to historic stamford. Now she wants to take something as personal as a place of worship away by objecting to the removal of a useless building. Kahn is totally skewed.
Submitted by Valentina Martina at: August 21, 2009
It truly is a loss for such a beautiful and historical building to be torn down and replaced by a 94 unit condo structure. With so much inventory in real estate as it is, do we really have the demand to fill an additional 94 units to a profitable capacity? I personally don’t think we do. The developers really need to take a step back and reassess how profitable such a venture could possibly be at that particular location. It is a shame that we’re slowly losing our old historic homes. While it’s nice that we still have historic churches, I personally think that historic homes add more character to a city. When St. Andrew’s Church can’t afford to stay open anymore, I ask the question, will that be torn down too? I suspect yes. It will likely be replaced with additional housing structures that we don’t have demand for.