Plans for new Westhill High School get good marks from city's Planning Board
STAMFORD — Stamford planning officials received a progress
report on the proposal to build a
new Westhill High School, and the Planning Board liked how the project was
coming together.
The presentation at the Planning Board Monday was part of
the approvals process required by the state, which
is funding 80% of the work.
"We are currently wrapping up our local approvals and
will be shortly submitting to the state for their pre-bid authorization,"
said Adam Levitus, senior project manager for the construction work.
Financing
for the new high school and the demolition of the old one has been
through a number of modifications. The most recent estimate for the project to
tear down the 1971 building and construct a brand new building is $446
million.
The work on the new building at 125 Roxbury Road is expected
to start in April of 2026, and the structure would be completed in the summer
of 2029, Levitus said. The demolition of the old building would take place in
2029 and 2030, Levitus told the Planning Board. He ran through a presentation
on the timeline, the phasing of the project and the modernist design of the new
building.
"It's quite a challenge," said Kemp Morhardt, the
lead architect on the project from the SLAM architectural firm.
The high school campus will have 513 parking spaces, up from
the current number of 475 to meet an anticipated rise in the number of teachers
at the new school. The enrollment is expected to be 2,458 students in eight
years.
Planning Board chair Jennifer Godzeno said she appreciated
the design team's "updating us on the project's progress." The board
will send a letter to the office of Mayor Caroline Simmons, stating the project
was consistent with the the city's charter and the master plan, and supporting
"the continual implementation" of the work, Godzeno said.
Bridgeport’s iconic smokestack is set to fall — but one architect has a different vision
BRIDGEPORT — Mark Halstead used to "hate" the
towering red-and-white smokestack that looms over the city's South
End, downtown and harbor.
He recalled watching minor league baseball games in the since-shuttered stadium nearby, looking up from the stands at the 500-foot industrial edifice and thinking with disgust, "That thing."
But with
the wrecking ball looming over Bridgeport's so-called candy
cane, Halstead is not cheering the pending demolition on. He is instead
circulating renderings he drew up on social media that incorporate the landmark
into a future redevelopment, hoping to inspire an effort to save the tower.
"It has so much potential," Halstead said.
"Make it something that looks clean and beautiful, rather than old and
smoky. .... A beacon ... that says, 'We're Bridgeport, welcome, come
see.'"
The striped stack is the tallest and most distinctive of
three jutting skyward from the shuttered coal-fired power plant along the
harbor and, Halstead claims, the tallest structure along the coastline
between New York City and Boston. New
owner Bridgeport Station Development is preparing to
raze the bulk of the facility Sept. 28. The trio of towers are scheduled to
come down in the spring.
Born and raised in Bridgeport but now living in
Fairfield, Halstead will celebrate his 40th anniversary as a professional
architect next year. His primary business has been residential, though he has
done some commercial and retail work, and also taught architectural history
and been
involved in other area preservation efforts. And he is president of the
Greater Bridgeport Symphony's board of trustees.
Bridgeport Station Development announced in May that the
candy cane would be torn down despite some local interest in preserving it. And
that pending loss got Halstead thinking.
"I just had some night with nothing to do, so I just
kept drawing," he recalled.
While the owner has yet to make specific redevelopment plans
public, it is expected housing will be the centerpiece. And Halstead
incorporated all three smoke stacks into a two-building apartment/condominium
and hotel complex, with large letters spelling "Bridgeport" and
"BPT" displayed vertically on the candy cane.
"I know nothing (about what is planned)," he
emphasized. "I'm looking at the architecture that exists and trying to
think of something that can be done."
It does not seem impossible. A former power plant in
Savannah, Georgia, was
renovated into a J.W. Marriott hotel that opened in 2020, still
boasting its looming stacks.
For months members of the Bridgeport community have debated
whether the striped edifice should stay or go, with some agreeing
with Halstead it is a landmark that helps to pinpoint and define the city,
and others arguing it is a negative symbol of pollution whose time has passed.
Chad Parks, a partner with Bridgeport Station Development,
said the plan remains for the stacks to be demolished, likely next April. Parks
has previously stated the striped tower must come down because it
would otherwise require significant maintenance and be much more difficult to
remove in the future when surrounded by new construction.
"I know there's a lot of work involved," Halstead
acknowledged. "I don't kid myself. ... The ongoing maintenance, painting,
if you do lighting and such. There's costs with that, yes. (But) this is
something that benefits the city as well."
"There's obviously no reuse for the stack," Parks
had insisted in May. "The only reason it would stay is if people
wanted it to stay, (and) I'd say close to 80 percent want it down. The other 20
percent just kind of like it as an icon."
Mayor
Joe Ganim had previously advocated for salvaging the candy cane but
his administration appears to have since backed off.
"It's not viable for them (the three smokestacks) to
stay," said Constance Vickers, the mayor's deputy chief of staff who has
also expressed some sentimental feelings for the red-and-white tower. "In
theory we're all going to miss it. It's a big part of the Bridgeport
skyline."
But, Vickers continued, "That plant hurt the
health of a lot of South End residents. While it's a symbol of nostalgia,
it's also a symbol of how industry impacts poor communities, especially
communities of color."
Halstead understands, but argued the candy cane does not
have to be torn down to turn the page.
"We had an industrial past that built this city.
Now we're looking for new things," he said. "This is a symbol of the
old industrial era of Bridgeport coming into a new age."
Shortcut or setback? Proposed bridge from CT to Long Island would risk Sound’s fragile ecosystem
For nearly 90 years, backers of a bridge straight
to Long Island from Connecticut or mainland New York have
promised less traffic, faster commutes, new jobs and increased revenue.
But some experts warn that the mega-project could
jeopardize the health of Long Island Sound and
halt the painstaking progress that has been made in restoring one of the
region's most important ecosystems.
Plans for a Sound crossing have been tossed around since at
least the 1930s, championed by scores of prominent figures, from New
York's infamous master builder Robert Moses to the fictional
Frank Underwood in "House of Cards." Stephen Shapiro,
an Easton developer, is the latest to revive the idea, with visions of a
14-mile-long bridge connecting Bridgeport to a state
parkway in Suffolk County, Long Island.
While many of the project's details need to be worked
out, Shapiro says the bridge would generate $8 billion to $10 billion in
annual revenue and ease traffic on Interstate 95 and
the Merritt Parkway, two of the country's busiest corridors.
Despite those benefits, some experts say the massive project
could seriously harm the Sound if not done carefully, threatening to displace
certain species, disrupt habitats and introduce pollutants that affect
water quality.
One of the biggest concerns would be construction noise
caused by pile driving and other intense underwater activity, which creates
high-frequency sound waves capable of damaging marine life. This noise can
impair hearing, induce stress, disrupt communication and force animals to
relocate, according to the National
Marine Fisheries Service. In severe cases, the loud noises could cause
bleeding, tissue damage and even death for some animals, including
fish.
Many of the effects of noise pollution on sea
creatures don't show up right away, said Bill
Lucey, the Long Island Soundkeeper for Save
the Sound, an environmental advocacy organization. He compared it to
chronic traumatic encephalopathy, or CTE, a brain disease found in athletes who
have suffered repeated blows to the head, where symptoms emerge gradually.
Lucey said he was particularly concerned about how bridge
construction would affect Atlantic sturgeon, an endangered fish species
that has been making a comeback in the Sound. He pointed to the
replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge about a decade ago, when reports
of dead sturgeon in the Hudson River increased. Investigators later said
they couldn't find evidence to link the sturgeon deaths to the construction.
Heavy bridge traffic also would have the potential to affect
the Sound's water quality, with vehicle emissions such as carbon monoxide and
nitrogen oxide contributing to pollution, Lucey said. Excess nitrogen in the
Sound has long been a concern, as it can lead to hypoxia, a condition
in which organisms don't receive enough oxygen to function properly.
Since 2000, nitrogen pollution discharged into the Sound
from sewage treatment facilities in Connecticut and New York has decreased
by nearly 60%, the result of coordinated environmental efforts.
Lucey recommended that any bridge plan include
stormwater catch basins that could filter runoff and carry it to water
treatment plants on either side of the Sound. Construction itself should
be carefully timed to avoid fish spawning and the presence of dolphins, which
have become
more common in the Sound.
"The noise impacts need to be seasonal," he said.
"You can’t be making a bunch of noise at critical times."
Shapiro acknowledged that the construction phase wouldn't be
"fantastic for the wildlife in the vicinity," but said the long-term
environmental benefits outweigh the short-term disruptions. The bridge would
reduce carbon dioxide emissions by more than 1.4 million metric tons annually,
shortening average commutes from several hours to just 15 minutes, he said.
"I think the fact that saving all that carbon emission
— the equivalent of 300,000 cars coming off the road — and not having that
pollution in the vicinity of the water, is a more positive impact than
(wildlife) just having to avoid the one structure," he said.
Shapiro also highlighted the safety benefit of having a
direct evacuation route out of Long Island in case of an emergency.
A 2017
feasibility study estimated that a $45 toll placed on a potential
bridge or tunnel at the Sound would bring in about $700 million per year.
Shapiro envisions an approximately $40 toll that he said would "fully
recoup" the bridge's cost, which previous studies have pegged at about $50
billion.
The report identified Bridgeport and Milford as possible
endpoints for the structure but noted that those two municipalities would be
less able to handle adverse environmental issues than other construction sites
being looked at in New York.
Peter Auster, a professor emeritus in the University of
Connecticut's Department of Marine Sciences, said a bridge would come with
ecological effects that are both good and bad for the Sound.
Depending on its height, the bridge could impede travel for
migratory birds, including several endangered species that nest and fly in the
area, Auster said. Much like tall city buildings, the bridge could increase
the risk of bird collisions and disorient them with its artificial
lighting. Construction noise also poses a threat to marine life, he added.
The bridge's abutments could create new habitats and allow
for the spread of invasive species that are better adapted to environments with
physical structures, according to Auster. The abutments, he said, could
act as "small islands" for invasive organisms that feed on the growth
forming on their surfaces.
Costco pursues new warehouse in Plainfield over alternative CT sites
Alexander Soule
Nearly 35 years after opening its first Connecticut warehouse club store in Brookfield, Costco wants to build its first New England distribution hub at the other side of the state — creating shorter trip times from its closest distribution center in New Jersey.
Last week, Costco representatives held a public meeting for Plainfield residents on plans for a distribution warehouse that could span 1.1 million square feet of space if approved by the town and officials in Canterbury, with the target property crossing the town line.
The center would serve Costco's New England store base, which totals 18 membership-based stores, all but three of them in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Costco's closest distribution center to New England is located in Monroe Township, New Jersey, about a three-and-a-half hour drive from Plainfield.
The site eyed by Costco is a nearly 440-acre tract between Norwich Road, Butts Bridge Road and Tarbox Road that is screened today with trees, a short distance from Lowe's Way where Lowe's Home Centers has a similar-size warehouse. Lowe's is the town' largest taxpayer with a net assessment of just over $56 million in the most recent year on record.
Ryan Brais, a town planner with Plainfield, told CT Insider that Costco convened the informational meeting without the town's involvement, and declined comment in advance of any planning documents Costco might file in time.
It would be the latest big development project for Plainfield, on the heels of shipping supplies vendor Uline's planned distribution facility with construction now under way. Smart Technology Systems is also pursuing a waste recycling and incineration plant in Plainfield, which the company says would operate far more cleanly and efficiently than Connecticut's current roster of trash incinerator facilities.
In choosing Plainfield, Costco passed up on possibilities at other points along I-395 corridor like Killingly where a 550-acre site on Westcott Road has been floated as a candidate for a 1.3-million-square-foot warehouse, as well as the Interstate 84 corridor to the north.
New developments there include the East Hartford Logistics & Technology Park, where Lowe's is leasing a newly built warehouse totaling 1.3 million square feet, in addition to the slightly larger facility Lowe's has in Plainfield which opened in 2004.
Wayfair has tabled plans to occupy an adjacent warehouse in East Hartford totaling 1.2 million square feet for its CastleGate in-house logistics and fulfillment operations. Cushman & Wakefield continues to list the entirety of the Wayfair warehouse as available for sublease to other tenants.
Compared to East Hartford, the Plainfield site would require just over 370 miles of extra travel in the aggregate for Costco truck drivers to make round-trip hauls to each of the company's stores in Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine.
Spokespeople for Costco and Wayfair could not be reached immediately Monday on whether Costco explored East Hartford as an alternative site.
"That site currently has a lease with Wayfair and they are working on subleasing the space," said Eileen Buckheit, East Hartford's director of development. "Those efforts are being handled entirely by Wayfair and they have shown the site to several end users, but the names are confidential."
Town approval would be required only if a new user wanted to modify the building or property, Buckheit said.
Lowe's and Wayfair lease space from Massachusetts-based National Development, which owns one more undeveloped parcel in the East Hartford Logistics & Technology Park it is marketing as a potential site for a high-tech manufacturer.
East Hartford has a few advantages to Plainfield, including access to larger numbers of candidate workers. Major nearby warehouse operators include Amazon, JCPenney and Adusa, the grocery distribution affiliate of Stop & Shop, and the Connecticut Department of Labor in the past has staged career fairs at Rentschler Field adjacent to the East Hartford Logistics & Technology Center.
As of August, DOL estimated the unemployment rate for Plainfield residents at 2.8% compared to 5.9% in East Hartford. The difference was negligible in the larger labor markets that include surrounding cities and towns, however, at 3.7% for the Plainfield area to 3.9% in greater Hartford.