City gone wrong

[Betsy Voinovich]

A friend from Michigan showed me this site, I found it so alarming I wanted to share it. How could things have gone so wrong?

Proof that we have to work together and do things right. Proof that Lakewood must have been doing a lot right to still be standing-- and proof that comparatively, there is still a lot right with Cleveland. (I hope.)

http://www.marchandmeffre.com/detroit/index.html

If I can figure out how to post the actual pictures on here, I'll do it tomorrow.

Betsy Voinovich

[Meg Ostrowski]

Betsy,

I went to the Akron Art Museum late last year to see the Detroit Disassembled exhibit of Andrew Moore's photographs. It was an overwhelming experience. I found myself standing before larger than life images of my high school's abandoned interiors.

http://www.akronartmuseum.org/exhibitio ... ?unid=1499

I suspect it was the Preservation Alert thread that prompted you to share the devasting deterioration of Detroit. Unfortunately preservation dollars are limited and difficult decisions are made about significant properties all of the time in this country.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Betsy,

I went to the Akron Art Museum late last year to see the Detroit Disassembled exhibit of Andrew Moore's photographs. It was an overwhelming experience. I found myself standing before larger than life images of my high school's abandoned interiors.

http://www.akronartmuseum.org/exhibitio ... ?unid=1499

I suspect it was the Preservation Alert thread that prompted you to share the devasting deterioration of Detroit. Unfortunately preservation dollars are limited and difficult decisions are made about significant properties all of the time in this country.

Meg

I would have loved to have seen the show. Truly amazing images.

Thinking of heading up there myself for a conference
of hyper local media, and the future of cities.

Pretty wild.

.

[Betsy Voinovich]

Betsy,

I suspect it was the Preservation Alert thread that prompted you to share the devastating deterioration of Detroit. Unfortunately preservation dollars are limited and difficult decisions are made about significant properties all of the time in this country.

Yeah, in some ways it's like keeping beautiful large antiques in your house when you need the room for a dining room table or a bedroom for your third child. At the same time, though I know our rebuilt schools have won awards for their historical value-- Emerson, Horace Mann, Garfield-- I know that all of the excess cost of rebuilding those buildings was paid for by the city of Lakewood. The state of Ohio-- the Ohio School Facilities Commission-- only pays what it pays, a set price for the template that the state requires, anything different than that or BIGGER than that, the city pays for on its own.

I know they are different pots of money but they all end up coming from the same taxpayers. I wonder if Lakewood taxpayers knew that they were paying all of this extra money to renovate historical buildings ALONG WITH renovating schools. Maybe it seemed like a good idea, killing two birds with one stone, except if taxpayers hadn't paid extra for those schools, could we have used some of that money to save some of our other, possibly more valuable historical property? And was it right to spend money that the state of Ohio had earmarked for 21st century schools, updated to serve the educational needs of our children, on historical renovation? Emerson is too big, hence the ABLE program, which shouldn't be there and is now being moved. If we try to fill Emerson Elementary School (it used to be a Middle School) with all elementary school kids, they are going to have to walk a long way to get there, because it's not in the most appropriate position to serve the neighborhood families of Lakewood. Moving a school farther from kids-- so it would be harder to access their 21st century education-- wasn't what the state of Ohio had in mind.

And when we consider that Lincoln Elementary school was chosen for renovation-- because of its historical value? A school that is in the wrong location to serve Lakewood for the future, and whose renovation will cost at least 12 million dollars more than renovating a school that does serve the population in terms of density and distance, all you can say is here we go again.

Is the District really going to ask the citizens of Lakewood for 12 million dollars more to preserve Lincoln because of its historical value? If we're spending money on preserving Lakewood's history, couldn't we spend it better on buildings that are perhaps more valuable to Lakewood's history? And is it fair to ask citizens of Lakewood to "rebuild the schools" when what you're really asking them to do is invest in historical renovation that can be shown in no way to have anything to do with educating children in the best way for the 21st century?

I'm sure there are those out there who have a broader perspective, with experience that goes back a lot further than mine, who could describe this situation in more depth. This is what it looks like to me, from here, I apologize if the connections I'm making have holes, or I left out significant pieces of reasoning. As usual, I'm trying to understand.

The ego and the ambition in the architecture in Detroit is horrifying when you take in the magnificent ghost town its become. The joke's on them, those are houses and theaters and train stations of god-like wealthy humans. They left the books in the libraries, the microscopes in the cabinets of the science labs of the schools, the grand pianos in the hotel ballrooms---

We aren't Detroit (except we're ON Detroit) but if these pictures illustrate anything, it's the need for an overall plan. Twentyfirst century schools, historical renovation, thoughtful, responsible development-- obviously, to survive and sustain, in these uncertain times, we need to dig in and work together on a plan that takes everything and everyone into account.

Betsy Voinovich

[Meg Ostrowski]

Betsy,

I doubt that the 50 Year Committee that began the school facilities plan felt they were putting historic renovation before education when they recommended the renovations of Emerson and Horace Mann and the facade of Garfield. They probably just felt it was icing on the cake at a time when economically it all seemed possible.

Unfortunately during Phase III the game had changed but many participants from the 50 Year Committee could not move past the initial thinking to deal with the new reality.

It will be interesting to see how things play out later this year, considering enrollment, budget woes and strapped taxpayers.

Stay tuned.

[Meg Ostrowski]

Betsy,

I doubt that the 50 Year Committee that began the school facilities plan felt they were putting historic renovation before education when they recommended the renovations of Emerson and Horace Mann and the facade of Garfield. They probably just felt it was icing on the cake at a time when economically it all seemed possible.

Unfortunately during Phase III the game had changed but many participants from the 50 Year Committee could not move past the initial thinking to deal with the new reality.

It will be interesting to see how things play out later this year, considering enrollment, budget woes and strapped taxpayers.

Stay tuned.

Betsy,

On second read, I am concerned that my comments may have dismissed some important points made in your post that need to be highlighted. With Phase III of the school district's facilities plan as it stands (Roosevelt rebuilt/Lincoln renovated or rebuilt/Grant decommissioned), Emerson and Horace Mann are larger than necessary and we probably overinvested. This plan will cost taxpayers more and will leave an even larger gap in the center of the city for families with elementary students. I think it will have a negative impact on downtown businesses and our community as a whole.

Meg