By Thomas McDermott
At its July 21 meeting, the Greenwich Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed a demolition pre-application from Greenwich Avenue Properties LLC and MBMB Greenwich LLC. The applicants are proposing to demolish the iconic Isaac Lewis Mead Building at 2 Greenwich Avenue, constructed in 1878 and remodeled in the Tudor Revival style in 1910. They would also demolish 10 Greenwich Avenue and 10 and 12 West Putnam Avenue.
The applicants propose to consolidate the lots and construct a single mixed-use building on the site that would include retail space and 14 apartments on the second and third floors, with an additional parapet above, overlooking the avenue.
A Proposal at the Avenue’s Gateway
The existing buildings are considered by many residents to be the gateway to Greenwich Avenue. Many residents and local officials believe they represent the heart of the town, and compare their possible loss to that of once-nearby Pickwick Arms Hotel, which was demolished in 1972.
The applicants propose to reconstruct “in the spirit” of the Isaac Lewis Mead Tudor Revival character. District 1 RTM Chairman Frederick Lee Jr. on July 7 wrote a letter to state Environmental Review Coordinator Todd Levine opposing the plan and requesting that the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review it. In it, he told Levine, “My constituents and I believe reconstruction is not preservation.”
Prior to Tuesday’s meeting, a number of residents, officeholders, and local groups rallied in an attempt to save the buildings which are in the Greenwich Avenue Historic District. They are in the National Register of Historic Places but are not protected from demolition. First Selectman Fred Camillo wrote to SHPO in opposition to the proposed reconstruction. Selectman Rachel Khanna also wrote to Mr. Levine about her concerns.
Commission Chairperson Margarita T. Alban and the regular and alternate members present anticipated a lively, civil discussion. They were not disappointed. At one point, Alban noted there were 80 viewers present on Zoom. In her opening remarks to attendees and Jonathan Marcus, representing the applicants, Alban stated that the commission did not have the legal authority to deny demolition but was reviewing the proposed construction project.
Applicant Says Review Is Preliminary
Mr. Marcus opened by telling the commission, “I think there’s been a very big misconception of what we’re doing. We own a lot of property in Greenwich; we understand this is a very special property.” The applicants want to build something special, according to Marcus, something the entire community could appreciate. “The only way to get feedback is to submit a pre-application,” Marcus told the commission. “It was designed for having an early discussion.”
Reconstructing the buildings, the applicants thought, would help maintain their historical nature. “We want to build something solid that would last another 100 years,” Marcus said. “It’s not perfect. There are aspects we like and others that still need some work. Our first option was how do we save the corner building.” According to Marcus, they worked with HDC and Todd Levine from SHPO. “We’re willing to work with them, to work this out.”
Marcus also told the commission he was “disheartened” to find that people were talking about possible lawsuits to stop them, rather than to have a dialogue. He stated that there were “systemic” problems with 10 and 12 West Putnam Avenue. “Those buildings have 7-foot-high ceilings, a lot of issues: ADA, elevator, fire issues.” The applicants wanted to save the corner as much as possible, and would be walking the property with SHPO and the HDC soon, Marcus said, to see how to solve the problems.
Responding to Mr. Marcus’ remarks, Chairperson Alban told him the commission needed two things from him: the first is a complete civil engineering report regarding what can and cannot be saved. She also said that the commission may decide to obtain its own civil engineering report. “We’re always happy to do a site walk,” she told Marcus. Second, Alban said the applicants’ statement that demolishing and reproducing the building was historic preservation gave the commission pause. She requested he find a historic preservation expert, rather than rebuilding “in the spirit” of the existing buildings.
Commissioner Mary Jenkins noted that the renderings showed contemporary buildings that were overwhelming. “The building there now has sky, and space, and frankly, the taller buildings look like a ‘Tudor sandwich,’” Jenkins said. “You’re restoring at a much more trivial level.” Commissioner Arn Welles wondered whether the parapet at the top of the proposed building was too commercial, overwhelming the architectural element. Other commission comments were about the mass and loss of historic context.
Mr. Marcus wondered: “How do we have dialogue? It’s not really a dialogue. I’d like to sit down with the drawings.”
Alban told him: “Why say it can’t be preserved? Why are you saying that? You say a reproduction is saving the building. Come back with more information.”
When Marcus mentioned that he didn’t have a civil engineering report, Alban asked, “Then how do you know the building can’t be saved?” Mr. Marcus answered that SHPO is coming down to look closely at the building and offer suggestions.
Residents and Officials Oppose Demolition
When the time came for public comments, the views were not mixed: Everyone who spoke opposed the demolition, the proposed replacement or both.
The proposal to replace the historic buildings drew unanimous opposition from the residents who spoke.
First Selectman Fred Camillo led off.
“There’s a lot of frustration on the part of people in town, a feeling of ‘Here we go again’. Just feet away from the biggest zoning mistake we’ve made, the tearing down of the Pickwick Arms Hotel. I’m shocked this one has become a target…The people of Greenwich do not want to see this altered in any way. I’ve reached out to the state. We are 100 percent in favor of keeping this building as is.”
State Representative Tina Courpas said she strongly supports a state review and she, too, has initiated dialogue with state officials, based on two questions: what public benefit is gained by demolition? “It’s not clear what we gain but very clear what we lose,” she said.
Carol Cadou, Executive Director and CEO of the Greenwich Historical Society, made the point that in the 1950s when the construction of I-95 threatened buildings, the community came together to divert the highway. The Society itself owes its HQ location today to that preservation effort. Cadou said the Isaac Lewis Mead building is also an important part of Greenwich history, supported by many historic papers held by GHS. “Preserved documents lose meaning without the building.”
Frederick Lee Jr. reiterated the points he made in his letter to SHPO. He told the commission the buildings were part of Greenwich’s memory. “District 1 asks, let no formal application proceed without the state’s findings.”
Rachel Khanna echoed the many concerns that others had about Greenwich losing its gateway. She has also written to Todd Levine.
Among the public comments: Amy Keohane of Riverside thanked Alban, the commission, and elected officials who showed they care deeply about an authentic resource that would be lost forever if demolished. Diane Fox of the Preservation Network urged an independent structural engineering report. The group has sent a letter to SHPO. She noted that the Isaac Lewis Mead Building was identified as a contributing resource in the Greenwich Avenue Historic District’s National Register documentation.
Jane Schnitzer, whose family owned the Isaac Mead building for decades, called the building the “Magic of Greenwich” and its “Grande Dame.” Her grandfather had owned the Pickwick Arms Hotel. She told the commission that the new structures would dwarf nearby Presbyterian Church and “that is hard to do.” Melinda Carroll made the point that it’s a special thing to own a historic property that needs to be celebrated and honored.
Property Rights Enter the Debate
Clearly, the proposal to possibly replace a beloved Greenwich “icon” has touched a nerve. After other residents had spoken, Mr. Marcus seemed frustrated but hoped that people would reach out to him. He said he was happy to try and work things out. “If the town wants to turn this into a museum, we could figure out how to do that,” he said. “That’s up to the town.” He asked that people try to take a balanced approach, not just for him but for all Greenwich owners of private property.
Alban told him, “It would be different if you hadn’t bought a property that is on the National Register of Historic Places.” As to the unsupportive public feedback, Alban told Mr. Marcus, “Residents’ task is to tell us how they feel and what they believe. The public just need to be who they are.”
