Q&A talks with Jody Blankenship, executive director of the Connecticut Historical Society, which has opened a new exhibit, “(Re)Building Hartford: A City Captured by Artist Richard Welling,” that explores the Capital City’s development history.
Q. The CT Historical Society has launched the exhibit “(Re)Building Hartford: A City Captured by Artist Richard Welling.” How is it relevant to the ongoing debate about the baseball stadium in Hartford?
A: Decisions that were made 50 years ago affect people today, and will continue to do so for many more years into the future. This exhibition examines the building projects that dramatically changed downtown Hartford during a period of time called “urban renewal,” beginning with the interstate highway system in 1958 and continuing with massive construction projects like Constitution Plaza and the Civic Center.
It can be argued that the proposed site of the Downtown North (DoNo) development plan, including the stadium, never recovered from these sweeping changes, which included the displacement of residents, a disconnection from downtown, and sprawling parking lots.
Any proposal, including the Hartford stadium and redevelopment of DoNo, should be carefully considered with the long-term implications in mind. An examination of history allows us to see and consider the actual, as well as the intended, consequences of our actions.
Q. What made the historical society tackle this topic?
A. The CHS believes that history provides the necessary context for understanding our world today, and as such, it is most useful when it can be applied toward understanding the big ideas and issues that we’re grappling with today.
Secondly, in 2011-2012 CHS received a large donation of Richard Welling’s work from the Welling family. Among his work, Welling documented Hartford’s rapidly changing built environment between the 1960s-1980s through detailed ink drawings. The collection is perfect for studying urban renewal, which is a fascinating and complicated period of time that helps us to understand why Hartford looks the way it does, or faces certain urban development challenges and advantages.
Q. Has Hartford learned from past mistakes in trying to develop Downtown North? What indications can we take from Hartford history that might point the way towards the development’s success or failure?
A. One of my favorite sayings is, “Historians don’t explain the past, they complicate it.” In other words, history doesn’t provide clear answers, but rather allows us to examine issues and events through multiple viewpoints in order to gain greater clarity. Two people exploring the same story and the same historical sources might come away with two different conclusions. The discussions and debates that occur from these differing conclusions are as valuable as the ultimate interpretation.
Like history, urban planning in Hartford should involve many perspectives and sources. One development, whether it is a baseball stadium, a busway or an office park, is not going to bring success by itself.
It’s also easy to get caught up in the excitement of a new project without considering the long-term consequences. Looking in the CHS collection at the construction photographs and drawings of these huge, modern, sleek buildings, it’s easy to see how so many people thought this was a step into a bright future for Hartford, and couldn’t imagine the implications of what the city was losing.
Historic buildings, small businesses, and residential neighborhoods were razed in the name of “progress” and while replacing housing stock lost in the Front Street area was considered, adequate contingency plans weren’t developed should budget cuts come, which they did.
Also, those projects came with a lot of federal funding and private investment and, as a result, sometimes tough questions weren’t asked. In addition, they didn’t have historical examples to look back at when undertaking these ambitious plans.
Today’s DoNo project is a different situation than Constitution Plaza in many ways. For example, this project doesn’t involve relocating residents or neighborhoods. Instead, it is attempting to revitalize an underdeveloped area where people were moved out 50 years ago, and incorporating residential units back into an area where they were previously removed.
Q. How can a historical perspective shape our future habits? It seems with technology evolving so rapidly and people’s focus constantly changing that it would be difficult to predict future behavior beyond a narrow window of time based on past events.
A. While history cannot predict future behavior, historical perspective allows us to understand how a situation has come to be. There are very few situations that we face today that have not been developing over time; they have been caused by a series of decisions and actions made over an extended period of time. Understanding what the situation is and how it came to be helps us to determine the causes and effects of a situation so that we can react appropriately.
Historical perspective also provides us with examples of situations similar to those that we face today. By examining these situations — what was the economic or social context in which they took place; what were the causes; who was involved; what were their motivations; and what was the intended vs. the real outcomes in the short- and long-terms, we are able to develop better questions about the contemporary issue in order to more fully understand it, to look at the issue from multiple perspectives, and to involve people in a conversation about the core of the issues, and what we hope the outcome will be.
The evolution of information technology is fantastic. It allows us to access more information, faster, and wherever we need it. This leads to greater transparency and more dialogue. While information may be ubiquitous, knowledge isn’t. The use of history helps us to think critically about this body of information, and to make practical use of it by applying it to the situation at hand in the appropriate context. This is not an easy thing to do, but it is at the core of the study of history.
Q. One of Richard Welling’s drawings is of Constitution Plaza in 1973. It opened in 1964 and by the late ’70s already seemed tired and irrelevant. What can history teach us from Constitution Plaza so the DoNo development doesn’t suffer a similar fate?
A. As early as 1969, a development plan produced by the city of Hartford recognized that “the central city has done well in terms of office development in the 60’s. However, it has lost nearly all its color and vitality with the elimination of its former residents and evening entertainment activity.”
In doing our research for this exhibit, we found that, while original development plans often included a balanced approach (housing, retail, office space, even community input), things got dropped along the way due to budget and space limits, or politics.
In the case of Constitution Plaza, housing was one of the first elements to be sacrificed. No matter what the building project is, it is ultimately about a larger community of people — how they interact, what they can accomplish, and how our values are reflected. There needs to be intentionality, balance, and commitment to see the project through to a positive outcome.
Q. Historically, Hartford seemed to shine brightest when it had a vibrant entertainment and retail district driven in large part by a strong workforce. Or is that just a reimaging of history? Has its vibrancy been more driven by its corporate fortunes?
A. This is a complicated question that doesn’t have exact or simple answers. Our history is full of examples when we choose one element and sacrifice another, and we continue to deal with the impact of those decisions.
What has worked best in the past is when we have created a vibrant community, when the built environment has brought people together — in both an economic and a social context — to create a sense of community that evoked pride and unity. After all, both long-term economic success and cultural vibrancy are driven by a healthy community.
In the case of Hartford, suburbanization has had a dramatic impact. Since the 1970s people have had options closer to home, so they didn’t need to travel to Hartford to see movies or shop. The decline in Hartford’s entertainment and retail district during this time had to do with people not living in Hartford, rather than a choice between vibrant entertainment and retail or corporate fortunes.
