Cassandra Day
MIDDLETOWN — The formation of a naming committee to decide what to call the city’s new $87.35 million combined middle school has raised a good deal of ire among graduates of the former Woodrow Wilson High School.
Construction will begin in late June on the new Woodrow Wilson Middle School, which will incorporate Keigwin Middle School sixth graders into the seventh- and eighth-grade facility.
Naysayers believe the name Woodrow Wilson should remain because of its historic value, pride, and sense of identity thousands of graduates feel to this day.
The city used to have two high schools: Middletown high, in the area of the current high school on the since-renamed La Rosa Lane, and Woodrow Wilson, at the current middle school building.
“Those of us who attended Woodrow Wilson — either high school or middle school — have lost our entire high school identity,” Common Councilwoman Deborah Kleckowski said.
Middletown high students were moved to a new facility off Newfield Street in 1972, which caused “angst” among WWMS students and grads, because the school colors and Wildcats mascot was not incorporated into the new facility, Kleckowski said.
Middletown Republican Town Committee Chairman William Wilson also graduated from Woodrow Wilson High School. When the two high schools became one institution, he also expected the mascot and school colors of each would be blended.
Middletown high’s colors at the time were black and orange (now they’re blue and white), and Woodrow Wilson maroon and gray. The current high school mascot is the Blue Dragon.
“Each school had a real sense of belonging. There was a cross-town rivalry that really inspired students on both sides to perform better, whether it was in sports or academics. It inspired teachers because there was a real sense of community,” said Kleckowski, whose father also graduated from the high school. “Being a Wildcat meant something. We don’t have that anymore. There was a sense of pride, so when you left, there were certain attributes you were supposed to maintain.”
Board of Education Chairman Chris Drake said naming the new facility is part of the panel’s typical decision-making process.
“People feel very emotionally tied to it, so let’s form a committee, make it as diverse as possible, as far as racial groups, gender groups, viewpoints, age groups, and have a process where people can discuss it, hear from the public and then make a decision,” he said.
“This is an example of two people looking at a situation and viewing it completely differently,” he said. “The new one is going to be built in front, the existing building demolished. We have a two-going-into-one problem. It seemed an obvious question: What’s the new one going to be called?”
The Board of Education has formed a naming committee, which will eventually comprise 15 individuals: five community members, two from the school board, two administrators and two teachers (one from each of the schools), both principals and two students.
The district is taking applications (at bit.ly/2UoyRH5) from those interested in joining the panel. The deadline is April 26.
William Wilson created the Change.org petition Keep Woodrow Wilson Middle School Name six days ago. By late Wednesday afternoon, 210 people had signed it“People don’t want to lose that part of their identity. A lot of people from the ’50s, ’60s classes are very frustrated. At least give us a say at the table,” he said.
Drake is surprised he hasn’t heard from anyone who wants the new facility named for Ida Keigwin, former teacher and principal at Middletown’s now defunct Johnson School.
Keigwin began teaching at 16 and worked mostly in area school districts, including Colchester, Moodus, Chester and East Haddam, before becoming principal at Chester High School and then settling in Middletown“Everyone seems perfectly comfortable that she just gets cast aside, and they’re very excited about keeping the name Woodrow Wilson, but it’s totally acceptable in the process that we lose the name Ida Keigwin. At some point, a board of education thought she was important enough to name a school after her,” Drake said.Former common councilor Hope Kasper thinks getting rid of the Woodrow Wilson name will “destroy the history of Middletown.”She is open to the idea of both school names being on the new structure.
“That’s preserving the history of Middletown. If they want to name it something else that has no historical value, I’m opposed to that. The name Woodrow Wilson on a high school or middle school goes back to the ’30s. I think that should be maintained,” Kasper said.
Institutions across the nation named after the former president have come under fire in recent years because of his segregationist views. Woodrow Wilson taught history at Wesleyan University from 1888 to 1890 and lived in Middletown during that time.He founded Wesleyan’s debate club, and his staunch support of Wesleyan’s football team was well-remembered by students of his day, according to Wesleyan University Magazine.
In 2015, Princeton University students began a push to remove Woodrow Wilson’s name from all the buildings on campus. A compromise was reached in 2016, when Princeton’s board of trustees decided to keep his name from its School of Public and International Affairs and from a residential college, according to NPR“I’m tired of the political correctness. Woodrow Wilson was not a great man. He was our president, but he also taught at Wesleyan, and there’s a lot of history with that. People who went there don’t want to lose that history. They feel like everything has been taken away as it is,” William Wilson said.
There have been “rumblings” in the community over the school’s namesake during the past several years, because of that new view of the former president, said Kleckowski, herself an educator.“Regardless of what some may think about racist allegations, it was a different time. There was a reason why that school was named after Woodrow Wilson,” she said.
A new vision to replace the I-84 viaduct could drastically change the look and feel of downtown Hartford
Kenneth R. Gosselin
Botched
plans that gave rise to the hulking, I-84 viaduct and a tangle of ramps in
downtown Hartford decades ago could be erased from the landscape with a new
development of apartments, office space, storefronts and pedestrian promenades
if the state moves forward with lowering the heavily-traveled highway.
With
the replacement or reconstruction of the I-84 viaduct at least a decade a way,
any new development remains years off. State and city planners see a rare
opportunity for Hartford, tying together transportation, Bushnell Park and new
development.The vision for a new development that would knit back together downtown — west of Bushnell Park — with the Asylum Hill neighborhood is outlined in a new consultant study that examined a 108-acre area around the historic Union Station — part of planning for replacing the 49-year-old viaduct.
The study, led by the city of Hartford but paid for by the state, envisions 8- to 14-story buildings, a recreation field and pedestrian-friendly spaces stretching from the park to the corporate campus of The Hartford Financial Services Group. The new development, now named “Capital Gateway,” would be clustered around new train and bus stations, necessary if the highway is to be lowered. “Hartford really has suffered in the way I-84 was thoughtlessly done in the past, so we are hoping we can take a more deliberate approach,” Sara C. Bronin, chair of the city’s planning and zoning commission, said. “If Hartford has this I-84 cutting through it again, how can it be better than it was the last time around?”
While the study’s vision may not be exactly how redevelopment unfolds, Bronin, the spouse of Hartford Mayor Luke Bronin, said the study represents the city’s priorities for the swath of land. The city council still must formally adopt the study.
Funding must still be secured for design and construction of the I-84 viaduct project, which is expected to cost up to $5.3 billion. The state Department of Transportation is not expected to make a formal recommendation on the viaduct’s future until next year, although it is clearly moving in the direction of lowering the highway, sinking it below grade.
An earlier option to lower and bury a majority of the viaduct in a tunnel has been eliminated as an option, its estimated price tag about $10 billion. Recently, U.S. Rep. John B. Larson, D-Conn., a proponent of also burying the 1-84/I-91 interchange in a massive tunnel that could cost as much as $50 billion, said the state should not be too hasty in dismissing the tunnel option for the I-84 viaduct.
The city’s vision, developed by consultants HOK Group, which worked on the city’s Adriaen’s Landing master plan, and WSP, includes these priorities:
· CTfastrak,
which must be relocated to lower the highway, should connect directly with the
new bus station by way of a tunnel running under the new development area.
·
Since
the railroad tracks need to be relocated to the west to accommodate a lowered
highway, the raised train tracks and stone embankment on the west side of
Bushnell Park should be largely removed, opening up the park to Asylum Hill. A
new use would be found for historic Union Station.
·
Farmington
Avenue — instead of ending at a difficult to navigate “trident” formed in the
confluence with Asylum Avenue — would be extended to the south through the new
development area. In addition to easing traffic congestion, it would provide a
more direct route to the eastern end of Capitol Avenue.
Critical
to the success of future development would be capping portions where the
highway and one set of exit ramps would now run under the area targeted by the
city for redevelopment. The caps would be essential to attracting the interest
and investment of private developers.
“A lot of the purpose
and the need of this project is to remove blight from the landscape and so,
it’s important not to replace it with a different kind of blight,” Sandy Fry,
principal planner in the city department of developmental services, said. The
scope of the redevelopment would dwarf projects now planned for around Dunkin’
Donuts Park or for the expanse of parking lots to the east of The Bushnell
Center for the Performing Arts. The study says the development could add $38
million to state and city tax coffers.Donald Poland, an urban planner who has studied Hartford redevelopment for decades, said the thrust of the vision, tying development to train and bus transportation, is a good one, with a clear emphasis on spaces for pedestrians and bicyclists.
“So, on the design side, the planning side, I see this as a very good plan,” Poland said.
But Poland said he is concerned about financing such a project, especially because public subsidies are likely to be needed, and whether there is enough demand to fill the space.
The redevelopment, which could unfold in phases, could encompass as much as 3.6 million square feet of housing, office space and storefronts. The breakdown could shake out to include as many as 3,000 units of housing and as much as 900,000 square feet of office space, enough for about 4,000 workers.
Poland said the housing could likely be absorbed, but he has his doubts about that volume of office space, based on what he calls “jobs stagnation” in Greater Hartford stretching back to the late 1980s.
“If I use that as my way of projecting into the future, I’m not optimistic looking out 10, 20 years as to what the circumstances will be,” Poland said. “I could be totally wrong in that. Things could change, and things could improve. But at this point in time, the way the past and present inform me, I’m not sure there will be that much change.”
Replacing the viaduct with a lowered highway
Almost from the start, the I-84 viaduct — and most of the highway that tore apart neighborhoods elsewhere in the city — was seen as a mistake.
In 1970, a year after the highway’s completion, state and federal transportation officials conceded the viaduct had a “dramatic and overwhelming” presence in the heart of the city.
As support grew in the 2000s behind replacing the viaduct, the state Department of Transportation said reconnecting parts of the city severed by the viaduct would be a critical consideration. As the viaduct has aged, it is costing tens of millions to maintain annually, even as comes close to passing its 50-year, expected life.
The redevelopment of the area covered by the city’s study is driven in part by the building of a new train and bus center, plus the relocation of the CTfastrak busway.
The rail lines and the busway both run under the viaduct at various points. With a lowered highway, the new rail line would shift farther to the west, while the busway would shift to the south. Those moves would eventually allow the highway to be sunk below grade.
The elevated highway has created an artificial barrier between downtown and Asylum Hill, one that is not easily navigated by pedestrians.
Jennifer Cassidy, board member of the Asylum Hill Neighborhood Association, said the highway also established a boundary that constrains downtown and does not let it naturally flow into surrounding neighborhoods.
“I am eternally optimistic that taking the viaduct down will improve the connection with the neighborhoods,” Cassidy said.
Cassidy said she is concerned, however, that the project will move the highway and the train tracks closer to the neighborhood and within a smaller area. Placing the westbound on- and off-ramps near Myrtle Street will cut off a well-traveled route from the neighborhood to downtown and increase traffic.
“The neighborhood is still stinging with the closure of Flower Street,” Cassidy said. “Now, you would be taking away Myrtle Street and the backdoor to downtown.”
Flower Street -- a well-traveled route between Asylum Hill and Frog Hollow -- was closed to accommodate the construction of the dedicated lane for CTfastrak. The city’s Capital Gateway plan calls for a cap where the lowered highway would pass Flower Street, reestablishing the connection.
Mapping out a new route for CTfastrak
While there is general agreement on the location of new bus and train stations, state transportation officials say they don’t support the recommendation in the city’s study that CTfastrak be buried in a tunnel that would run under the new area of development to the new bus station.
The state sees two more viable, less costly options: using the now abandoned rail line heading into Union Station with a stop there; or using the new street that would run along the western edge of Bushnell Park.
Andy Fesenmeyer, a state DOT project manager, said it isn’t likely the state would support the tunnel as an option, mostly because of the cost.
“More importantly, there is the long-term maintenance,” Fesenmeyer said. “It’s a tunnel. It needs ventilation and those types of things. And probably the biggest concern that we have with the tunnel, it can’t be built until after the lowered highway is done.” The DOT has said it needs to relocate the rail and busway first and then work on the lowered highway. To build a tunnel, the DOT would have to build a temporary route for the busway and then dig the tunnel, “basically building it twice,” Fesenmeyer said.
The city’s study sees benefits in directly connecting the busway to the new bus station and keeping CTfastrak off city streets as much as possible. Fry and others view the option of using the old rail line for the busway as counter to the overall vision of lowering the highway and reconnecting downtown to Asylum Hill.
Some historians support retaining the elevated section of track in Hartford — dating to the 1890s when the train tracks were raised for fear horses would get scared by approaching trains. But Bronin and others say there are stronger arguments for knocking down the wall and trestle over Asylum Street, as the city moves deeper into the 21st century.
“If you have a wall there, it is very difficult to create this kind of open front door to Bushnell Park,” Bronin said. “The wall presents a real barrier to it. And if you bring buses up on that wall through the city, it doesn’t help you with visual connectivity, the feeling of safety.”
Rebecca Lurye
The
proposed developer for the long-awaited build out around Dunkin’ Donuts Park
visited city hall Monday evening to implore the city of Hartford to approve his
development agreement, even as the land itself remains tied up in litigation.
Randy
Salvatore, of Stamford-based RMS Cos., asked the city council to give
his company the green light to develop the first phase of Downtown North, a $46
million building with 200 mixed-income apartments, 11,000 square feet of retail
and community space and a 250-space parking garage.Speaking at a sparsely attended public hearing, Salvatore said he’s eager to start drafting detailed plans for the 200,000 square foot mixed-use project while the city continues its court battle with the former developer, Centerplan Construction Co., which has stalled development of the site since being fired from the expansive project in 2017.
“If you were to move this forward, we as a developer can continue our planning, our detailed drawings, in a parallel course so once the litigation is ultimately resolved, we can break ground immediately,” Salvatore said.
The site, known as “Parcel C,” is located behind the Red Lion Hotel in the northern tip of Downtown and is currently used for parking. It’s the first phase of a planned development of 13 acres around the ballpark that could add 800 apartments, 60,000 square feet of retail space and 2,000 parking spaces to the barren neighborhood.
Salvatore initially hoped to start construction as early as May. He now says he could start construction by the end of year, assuming all legal issues are resolved, and complete the building by fall 2020.
RSM would receive $8.5 million in state taxpayer-backed funding from the Capital Region Development Authority to help finance workforce or “affordable” housing, with at least 10 percent of the rentals priced for low- to moderate-income tenants. The company invested more than $10 million to buy and refurbish the Goodwin Hotel last year, and has completed other projects in Stamford, Norwalk, New Haven, Bethel and Danbury.
Salvatore added to the council, “We’re ready to go as soon as you all are ready to go, as far as your approval process,” and as soon as the legal issues are dealt with Centerplan won the original bid to build office space, housing and retail on all four parcels, but was fired from the entire project after it missed two key deadlines to complete work on the baseball stadium. Another firm finished construction at Dunkin’ Donuts Park, and it opened a year late.
Centerplan sued the city for wrongful termination in 2016, and placed liens on the parcels in 2017 to block the city from using any other developer for the expansive project. But as the lawsuit has dragged on, Hartford selected a new developer, RMS Cos., and began fighting the liens that left Downtown North in limbo.
The city is asking the court to order Centerplan to lift its liens and release the land to Hartford. A hearing on the motion was started in January, but has not yet resumed.
The next hearing is scheduled for May 24, with a jury trial in the lawsuit planned for June.
In March, Mayor Luke Bronin said he wanted to “do everything to move the ball forward and position the city for this development” while those processes played out in court.
City officials also hope to demolish a bunker-like former data processing center which occupies an entire city block between Trumbull and Pleasant streets behind the ballpark this summer, freeing up that land for future development. One hundred and fifty rental units are planned for that property, near the corner of Trumbul and Market streets, along with ample structured parking for ballpark spectators. The effort to take down the decades-old concrete building is backed by $12 million in state funds.
Over the past year, community members have raised concerns about a shortage of parking spaces in the area and the potential for gentrification to force longtime residents out of the Clay Arsenal and Upper Albany neighborhoods.
None of those objections were heard at Monday’s hearing, as only one other person commented on the project, the chairman of the Hartford Stadium Authority,
I. Charles Mathews said he firmly believes DoNo will attract more private investment in the area while still benefiting residents who live in the investment-starved neighborhoods to the north and west of the ballpark. And he asked council members not to dwell on the past.
He was referring to the previous administration’s decision to build the ballpark, something Bronin says he would not have done.
“Look to the future,” Mathews, a former deputy mayor, said. “You can’t change the past. All you can do is say, ‘What can I do as a council person to make life a little bit better for the people I serve?’ ”
The development agreement has been referred to the city’s planning, economic development and housing committee, which next meets on May 7.