|
 The
oldest portion of the present Worcester County Courthouse dates back
to the 19th century and looks it. The adjacent early-20th-Century
courthouse’s massive columns give it a classical air, as if it is a
prominent component of a real, big city landscape. But that’s the
romance. Now, imagine the reality. Think what it takes to wire a
building with more than 100 years on it for the Internet, or to heat
and air-condition the thing.
The answer: A new
360,000-square-foot courthouse on the block of
Main,
Thomas, Commercial and Central streets that is currently at the
25-percent design stage. The new building will house the Superior
Court, Worcester Central District Court, and Housing Court. The old courthouse
will continue to house the Probate Court and the Registry of Deeds.
Plans are still up in the air as far as what will happen to the
newer courthouse, facing Harvard Street, the one built in the 1950s
and connected to the older portion. It might be torn down or it
might be renovated.
Definitely being torn down
is the Gilman building on Main Street. With its two nightclub
tenants, this is one of the few sources of downtown night life — one
that will be totally lost.
There is also that enormous
structure to the right of the present courthouse, the one that looks
like one of the WPA’s bigger ambitions. The Worcester
Auditorium, built after 15 years of political struggle as a memorial
to Worcester’s war veterans (and for “the use and benefit of the
people of the City”), is in preparation to be ripped up and remade.
Instead of a grand host to concerts and commencements, the main hall
will be sliced and diced to make room for courtrooms for juvenile
court. The Auditorium, its façade made grand by eight 40-foot,
fluted, Doric columns and five large bronze doors, will become a
courthouse for juvenile delinquents.
To some, it seems
disrespectful. The Auditorium was built to memorialize young local
men and women who fought and died in war. As the late Chief Justice
Arthur P. Rugg put it, in words then cut into the side of the
building, “to honor the services in war of her sons and daughters
and to nourish in peace their spirits of sacrifice, a grateful city
erected this building.”
To others, it seems the
wrong move. Register of Deeds Anthony Vigliotti, for example,
contended from the beginning that Juvenile Court should be
moved to the third and fourth floors of the existing courthouse so
that his own offices could be relocated to the auditorium building,
where there would be plenty of space. Last year, he told the
Telegram & Gazette, “The state does screwy things,’’ which seems
to say it all.
|
The Worcester
way
During Worcester Mayor Pehr Holmes’ inaugural address
in 1917, he said, “I believe that Worcester
needs an auditorium. That is undoubtedly one of the next
largest activities toward which public sentiment should direct
itself.”
While he was speaking, the Great War was raging over in
Europe, a conflict in which 355 soldiers from
Worcester would be
killed. On November 18, 1918, a week after the signing of the
Armistice, a commission was set up to plan construction of a
grand memorial, a civic auditorium, to honor the dead and the
city of their birth. Worcester was growing and needed such a
venue. And it was the right thing to do.
Well, it was Worcester, so ground was not
broken and the cornerstone laid until 1932. Why did it take so
long? Hey, why is it taking so long to develop Union Station?
In this town, some things never change.
The better question is, how did they
finally pull it together? The answer is that Worcester’s most
prominent citizens, people with names like Stoddard, Jeppson,
Whittall, and Higgins, got embarrassed over the longstanding
argument in City Hall over where to put the thing. A committee
was formed, the present site was privately purchased, and it
was given to the city — with the condition that construction
begin within a year or the gift was forfeit.
So it did. Worcester spent the week of
September 26
to 30, 1933,
celebrating and dedicating its new, imposing
structure.
Now, in 2002, it sits. It has been almost
five years since a performance was held there. The stirring
mural in Memorial Hall lies hidden away. And even though most
city citizens have memories of important events they have seen
at Memorial Auditorium, nobody has come forward to champion
saving it for its original purpose - not even the usual
building-huggers.
“We at Preservation Worcester felt that
it was a practical solution that the juvenile court go into
the Auditorium,” says James Igoe, executive director of
Historic Massachusetts Inc. and former director of
Preservation Worcester. “It was a trade-off and at the time,
the best alternative. They could do something with the roof
and windows that were in need of repair. The re-use might
bring some stabilization. And it wasn’t going to change the
[external] memorial look. We were also concerned with people
who were advocating to demolish it because it wasn’t being
used. Plus, all this was going to be done with state
money.”
 |
|
A portion of
the mural in the Auditorium’s Memorial Hall painted by
Leon Kroll between 1938 and 1942. The figures are
life-size. |
David Leach, the new executive director
of Preservation Worcester, says the full extent of the
building’s remaking has been relatively unknown. “We
actually weren’t aware it was happening,” he says, adding,
“I’ve only been here a month. It’s happened quietly, a little
under the radar. It’s definitely one of the city’s
treasures.”
Sheriff Michael Flynn, who runs some of
the operations now housed there, is furious over plans for the
Auditorium. “First of all, I did not put us in there and I
wouldn’t mind if they kicked our asses out of there tomorrow
morning,” he says. “They ought to kick our asses out and kick
the Juvenile Court out of there. That’s a veterans’ memorial
from World War I and the city should be ashamed of itself to
let that go. We don’t belong there and neither does the court.
That should be held in respect for the veterans. That should
be kept as a memory of World War I and all the other wars. I
think this is the worst misuse of that building I can think
of. I’m a veteran of World War II and I am just fed up. We
keep forgetting. Now, I know it takes money. But we wouldn’t
have a great country like this if it wasn’t for those in the
wars.”
Flynn goes so far as to offer the inmates
in his charge for washing the mural. His feelings have been
strong since the first day of the plans, but other factors
held sway.
Michael Traynor, deputy city solicitor,
explains it this way: “Generally, it became too
expensive to operate the building. We weren’t able to bring in
enough entertainment acts and users to offset the cost of the
building for a least a couple of years. SMG, who manages the
Centrum, managed the Auditorium for several years, and it was
a losing proposition every year. Ran in the red. It just got
to the point where they couldn’t make a go of it. We were just
throwing good money after bad trying to keep it operating as
an entertainment venue.”
SMG, or Spectator Management Group, Inc.,
also helps run the successful Lowell Auditorium and Tsongas
Arena, also in Lowell. Peter Lally, marketing director for the
Lowell Auditorium, says that the two performance centers work
in the same town together because they hold different types of
shows. The Tsongas Arena has an audience capacity of 6,000 to
7,000. The Lowell Auditorium seats just under 3,000. Here, we
have the 3,580-seat Auditorium and the Centrum Center, with a
capacity of 14,780. You’d think the two would be perfectly
complementary.
Lally says there’s another factor: The
city of Lowell works very well with SMG and that has made all
the difference.
By contrast, Worcester has not been as
aggressive in bringing ceremonies and events to the
Auditorium. Ask Becker College, which in 1998 planned to hold
graduation ceremonies there. With 11 days to go, it was told
by the city to find another place to hold its graduation.
Officials of Becker, which had held its graduations at the
Auditorium since 1935, were not happy. But that’s our fair
city.
— A.
O’C. |
No matter. The simple fact
is that this cash-strapped city, one that seems to have a shorter
memory than it did when the memorial was built, will transform the
building into a clearinghouse for mostly young men and women who
steal cars and sell drugs — along with their lawyers, judges, and
keepers.
The need for a new
courthouse is a real one. Lawyers, judges, and court employees are
sick of trying to deal with cramped quarters and other problems with
the present courthouse. As attorney J. Gavin Reardon says, “The
courthouse is inadequate. It’s hardest on staff, court officers, and
judges. It’s not large enough. The heating and air conditioning
don’t always work. It’s an old and worn-down building. Trying a case
in the summer is hard because the jury is burning
up.”
Relief is coming, albeit
slowly. The $145 million project to build a new courthouse on the
block of 201-249 Main Street is under way. According to state
Division of Capital Asset Management (DCAM) spokesman Kevin
Flanigan, there is still more than a year’s worth of design left to
do. (DCAM, which operates like the Commonwealth’s real estate agent,
manages $200 million annually in new construction and renovation
projects, as well as redevelopment of more than 3,000 acres of
surplus state property). The construction should begin in the late
summer of 2003 and finish in early 2006.
Worcester City Manager
Thomas Hoover says that DCAM is controlling the construction and
design with the Boston firm of Shepley Bulfinch Richardson Abbott,
which isn’t ready to discuss the project (or reveal a rendering of
any proposed design). A schematic design is anticipated by July,
when it will be shown to the public. “We typically do things in
three stages, “ says Flanigan. “We do a study, design, and then we
actually bid. The design work is under contract. We have an
architectural firm working on that. Once the design is completed
then we have a set of plans and specifications that we can actually
put on the streets and have general contractors bid on. And that’s
what we’ll do”
Small details of the plans
have already been disclosed. The intention right now is to place the
front door right on Main Street. Inside, there will be 22 holding
cells, including single-cells and group-holding cells for male and
female prisoners; space for non-judicial assistants; rooms for
alternative mediation-type conferences; a law library; hearing
rooms; a grand jury room; and space for the district attorney. All
of that is standard for a courthouse.
What has also been standard
at the old courthouse and is definitely planned for the new one is a
lack of any kind of ample parking. Worcester City Manager Thomas
Hoover says there will be some interior parking available for the
judges. Everybody else (or at least, anyone without police stickers
or a government vehicle) will have to fend for themselves and find a
parking spot somewhere downtown.
The design is subject to
review by a design board that includes Hoover, District Attorney
John Conte, two members of Preservation Worcester, and Mark Love,
head of the Chamber of Commerce (which had opposed using the present
site for the new courthouse). The committee met on April 12 and May
1. It has another meeting tentatively scheduled for May 29.
Being on the board and being
the district attorney, Conte is able to shed a little more light on
the project than has been discussed before. “Of course, you’re going
to have facilities for victim/witness, space for the sheriff, you’re
also going to have some administrative offices for the district
attorney’s office,” he says. “You’re also going to have entry
assistance for the public.”
Hoover mentions other
priorities. “My main concern has always been the exterior of the
courthouse,” the city manager says. “What they do with the interior
is up to the judges and the courts and everything. But the exterior,
I certainly would like to see it being compatible with the urban
landscape. Size, height. We’ve got a couple of buildings downtown
that aren’t people-friendly, like the AT&T building and the
police station. I’d like to see more glass, even though this has to
be a secure building. It has to be welcoming because it’s a public
building and I’d like to see something that stands out or works well
with the sidewalk. Some glass in the building. Some windows. What
I’ve seen so far, they seem to be accommodating all of that. So, I’m
pretty pleased with what I’ve seen so far.”
David Leach, executive
director of Preservation Worcester, says the design board is hoping
the new facility will be built to fit well within the 19th-Century
cityscape of North Main Street. The courthouse will be an important
presence, even an anchor. It should feel accessible and manageable
to individuals.
He reveals that the
architects have presented the committee with a spectrum of designs,
ranging from classical to modern and all the variations in between.
The building will probably be constructed of stone or brick and will
look something like other prominent civic buildings on Main Street.
Part of the building will come up to the street, but the front door
will be pulled back from the road. Landscaping will include trees. A
pediment might be placed on top to echo Mechanics Hall. “The
exterior will reflect the gravitas, if you will, of what’s going on
inside,” he says.
Leach admits that this
design process is in the very early stages and it is still unknown
what each proposed design would cost to realize. In the end, as with
the Auditorium, that’s what will decide everything.
As Hoover mentions,
security is incredibly important. The actual manner in which the
design board and architects will deal with this is still unclear.
“Security is something that we’re always mindful of, and certainly
since Sept. 11,” Flanigan says. “This courthouse, in terms of
surveillance and controlling entryways and things like that, will be
state-of-the art.”
In the past 10 years, there
has arisen a new school of architecture with a different spin on
security, one likely to be incorporated into the design of the new
courthouse. The strategy calls for different circulation patterns to
be established for each of the different populations that will pass
through. The public, judges and staff, and detainees, each have
their own traffic patterns through the building, each with unique
points of access to and through the courthouse.
The proposed new courthouse
started to become reality in July 1998, when the state Legislature
adopted a $730 million bond bill that included $125 million for the
Worcester facility. Of course, that was then, so the budget for the
courthouse has since risen to $145 million. Flanigan stresses that
because this is a capital budget-funded project; the money won’t be
threatened by other considerations, even in this time of budget
crisis.
In November 1999, the state
selected what was called the “Shwachman site” or the “Gilman Block,”
between Main, Thomas, Central, and Commercial streets, as the location of
the new courthouse.
The site was owned by Philip
Shwachman, the local businessman who had developed Brockelman’s on
Main Street (a.k.a. the Worcester Market building), into state
offices some years before. DCAM took the 2.7-acre property by
eminent domain in May, 2001.
As to the current status of
Schwachman’s claims, “We settled the lawsuit that challenged their
ability to take the property and that was the subject of a final
agreement for judgement,” says his lawyer, David Lurie. “He had sued
DCAM — along with other taxpayers — saying that they didn’t have
authority to take the property and they had not complied with the
appropriate environmental and historical protection laws. That case
has been settled. The state has the land. But the eminent domain
piece, a potential lawsuit against the state to recover what the
property is really worth, has not been filed. You’ve got three years
to file it. That is something that Mr. Shwachman will be pursuing
very aggressively. He feels the state took the property for far less
than it’s worth and will be looking for a jury to award it true fair
market value, when the time comes.”
Early reports said that the
state was willing to pay $6.5 to $7 million, while Mr. Shwachman
sought $34 million. The property was assesses at nearly $1.3 million
in 2001. One of the buildings that will be demolished is the
four-story brick building, the Gilman building located at
213 Main
St.,
that is listed on the national and state registers of historic
places. “They’ve reached an agreement with the Mass. Historic
Commission on the procedures that they would follow to document its
historic value and to incorporate certain architectural elements
from it in the new building,” says Lurie. |
|
At the same time, the
city is also planning to tear up the inside of the 1933 Auditorium,
a move that has been highly controversial to those who know what is
planned. (See sidebar, page 13.)
There are those who think
this is a great idea. “The building has sat fallow for so many
years,” says City Manager Hoover. “So, with the new use of the
building, we can assure its viability long into the future and
protect the significance of the veterans’ memorial. That’s going to
lead, hopefully, to the improvement of the exterior façade and the
steps and things like that.”
There’s a plan to place the
city’s veterans’ services offices in the Auditorium, just inside the
bronze front doors, directly underneath Memorial Hall and the
massive mural commemorating those from Worcester who died in war.
Yet because the building will be stripped and remade in the image of
juvenile court, we are probably losing the Auditorium forever; at
least as far as a venue for civic events and entertainment is
concerned. In its history, that’s meant everything from graduations
to welcome-home ceremonies for local soldiers to performances by
Jerry Seinfeld, Rodney Dangerfield, or Fr. Ralph DiOrio.
Again, some don’t mind. And
surprisingly, that includes Pierce Gould, the veterans’ services
agent for the city. He thinks that using the Auditorium for offices
to help veterans is a wonderful idea. “It will enable us down the
road to let the community come in to see the beautiful mural,” Gould
says.
He’s happy that
schoolchildren now have a chance to come in to Memorial Hall. Gould
points out that that hall “absolutely positively will not be
touched. The court won’t interfere. I’m excited that people are
using it.”
Gould also buys into the
company line that any use is good use to keep the Auditorium’s
appearance up. “It’s a win-win situation. And I’m glad that it’s
being used again,” he says.
Juvenile Court Chief
Justice Martha Grace says, “There isn’t any sense of a war memorial
where we’ve been operating.” She’s talking about the basement, which
currently holds the juvenile court in 27,000 square feet of space
that was supposed to be much more temporary. The lease with
the city is good until July 2004. Negotiations are under way for
another agreement, one that will allow a build-out of approximately
38,000 square feet on the first floor and the
basement.
Hoover explains it this way:
“A couple of years ago, we built-out the basement of the structure
to accommodate the juvenile court, which used to be in a building
that was standing on 75 Grove St, which has since been torn down.
The accommodations that we gave them were a lot nicer than their
former digs. But the long-range plans call for building out the
first and second floor of the structure, which is the Auditorium
itself. It would call for courtrooms on the first floor. Offices and
courtrooms on the second floor, spanning a ceiling and a floor over
the balconies that are in the current Auditorium.”
 |
|
Deco grandeur:
Looking toward the rear of the main hall in the
Auditorium. |
Today, walking through the
Great Hall, which has a seating capacity of 3,508, is sobering. The
Auditorium’s organ, celebrated as a proud civic achievement in and
of itself, is covered up (see sidebar, page 18) The fire
curtain is lowered almost completely, hovering inches above the
empty, 116-foot-long stage. “Right now, architects have been working
on drawing up the plans to turn that center portion of the main hall
into the juvenile court space,” says Deputy City Solicitor Michael
Traynor. “Maybe four courtrooms. That’s almost like gutting the
interior. Walls will be knocked down and moved. It will be totally
rebuilt from the outside walls in. There will be a new ceiling for
the courtroom. Balconies will be above the ceiling of the courtroom.
That will just become dead space.”
The second floor now has
7,000 square feet of space occupied by the family and probate court
administration offices and the probate and family information and
technology department. There’s also a female and juvenile community
corrections program. Worcester County Sheriff Michael Flynn runs
both of the programs out of the space.
“They’re there already, but
we’re formalizing a lease agreement that will take us up to 2005,”
says Flanigan. “Long-term plans for this space are, they are looking
at a full second-floor renovation. It’s a separate agreement but
it’s going to be along a similar timeline as the other 10-year
agreement in the other space. So, it can be done in the same general
time frame. But that has yet to be fleshed out. We’re still working
on exactly what the terms of that agreement will be. The other one
is much further along. The exact scope of that renovation still
needs to be determined. There are a lot of moving
parts.”
The city is the landlord.
The idea, according to Hoover, is for the lease to
eventually cover the cost of operations and pay off the debt from
the build-out.
The last major component is
the Little Theater, which seats 675. The city is currently working
with the state to keep it as an active theater or to RFP it as such.
“Instead of mothballing it, our hope is that we can do that,” says
Worcester Chief Development Officer Philip Niddrie. “Through our own
funding and their funding or a combination of the two. It really
depends on what happens in the front.”
Either way, it’s the final
hold-out for an actual ceremonial and entertainment venue in the
building.
That leaves the current
courthouse as the third major component, after the Auditorium and
the new construction where the Gilman building stands, of a massive,
legal-industry complex on Main Street. The building is actually two
connected structures; the turn-of-the-20th Century building, the one
that proudly and chillingly proclaims that “Obedience to law is
liberty,” and the other side, the one facing Harvard Street, which
was built in 1956.
|
Pipe dreams
The
organ grinds to a halt
Sitting
at the console, you feel like the Phantom of the Opera. With
its banks of stops and knobs, its racks of foot pedals and
rows of keyboards, you feel as though every sound in the
universe is at your fingertips.
You
lean into a chord and the heavens crack open, firing thunder
and lightning overhead. The wall of pipes flanking the stage
at left and right roar out, feeling like smoke and fire. A
Bach cantata would be a cosmic experience.
The
organ built into the cavernous hall of Worcester Memorial
Auditorium was designed not only for epic concerts, but also
for social, religious, patriotic, and civic functions. It need
not simply shake the earth. It’s range is apt for other
things, for the “Skater’s Waltz” or “Take Me Out to the
Ballgame.”
You
open your eyes and realize that the rapt audience you play to
is only a dream. You stop and the sound of silence is
deafening. “Hey, buddy,” the custodian shouts. “You ready?
It’s time to go.”
Custom-built
in 1933 by the W.W. Kimball Co. of Chicago, the massive pipe
organ at the Worcester Memorial Auditorium still sits in
waiting. Unlike most large American concert organs, battered
and worn by misuse and neglect, the Auditorium’s Kimball is
nearly pristine. Except for normal tuning and maintenance over
69 years, it has never been altered in any way. Now, as plans
move forward for gutting the hall to make way for the
Worcester Juvenile Court, the instrument’s future is in
question.
The
Auditorium organ is public property, built by the city for its
citizens. Many critics view it as an outstanding example of
such instruments on the East Coast. The thing is huge, with
6,719 pipes that reach 32 feet in height. The console has 186
knobs and tablets with 58 adjustable combinations. Built on an
elevator platform that ascends from the basement, there are
five divisions of sound — great organ, swell organ, choir
organ, solo organ, and pedal organ. It took the experts who
designed it two years of study to come up with specifications
for an instrument which would fulfill requirements to meet the
varied demands of the Worcester building.
At the time, Kimball said this about the Worcester organ:
“Tonally, it represents sane ideas in designing and voice
which, while rooted in the best traditions of the past, are
advanced and modern in every respect, yet far from radical.
The tonal effects of this splendid organ will delight and
interest both the organist and layman.”
In
October 1933, the 74th Worcester Festival (now Music
Worcester), was held in the Memorial Auditorium for the first
time. A highlight of the program that night was the playing of
“Dedicace,” a sonata written especially for the new Kimball
organ.
Sixty-five
years later, in 1998, City Manager Tom Hoover met with the ad
hoc Kimball Organ Committee, which will decide how its grand
purpose will be met in the future. “That’s one thing
that the city manager was very cognizant of in any of the
plans for the auditorium — how to carefully preserve and take
care of the organ in the best possible way,” says Jill
Dagilis, one of Hoover’s assistant city managers. “It is a
magnificent jewel in the organ industry. There are only a
couple of them across the country of this
magnitude.”
The
committee assembled by Hoover includes an impressive list of
local citizens, each with a vested interest in the organ,
including those who have been responsible for oversight of the
Auditorium, as well as members of Music Worcester, the
American Guild of Organists, and the Worcester Cultural
Commission, among others. “They suggested that with whatever
build-out occurred, that the organ would stay in an encased
condition,” says Dagilis; “that the organ would not be part of
a build-out plan.”
Estimates
for simply storing the instrument run in the $150,000 range.
Dagilis says to disassemble, pack, crate, move, and then
reassemble the instrument would be a multi-million dollar
proposition. “There’s been some sporadic interest over time
from other communities, other organ enthusiasts,” she says.
“We do investigate all options but the priority is that organ
stays here in Worcester. [The committee] would like it to stay
here. If another venue can be found, there would have to be
some considerable work in fundraising to restore, move, and
reinstall it.”
Because
of its size, the organ can be housed only in certain venues.
The Centrum, The Convention Centre, The Palladium, and even
Union Station had all been considered. “The most likely venue
currently is the Showcase Cinema building,” Dagilis says.
“There has been some discussion. It really hasn’t gone any
further than that.”
 Like the Auditorium, the Showcase Cinema building is
also a city treasure in transition. Paul Demoga is a lawyer in
the city who is a stockholder in Palace Management, a group
currently negotiating with the present owners to turn the
building into a performing arts center. “If it will fit and we
can find a place for it in the theater, we’d love to have it,”
he says. “It could be used in organ recitals. We could avail
ourselves of several dates just for organ programming. It
could cost as much as $2 million to move it and set it up.
That certainly wouldn’t be our responsibility. It’s not our
plan to pay for it.”
The
Showcase building, remembered by some as the old Poli’s, is
owned by National Amusements, which has been trying to sell it
for the past few years. “At this point we have a commitment
from them to donate this theater to a not-for-profit
corporation [a tax-exempt organization], which we plan on
forming,” Demoge says. “They were looking for several hundred
thousand for the building. I think they wanted to make sure it
wasn’t going to be a movie theater [which might compete with
Showcase North] and secondly, I think they wanted to do
something good for the community.
“We
plan on using this building for the performing arts, including
traveling shows like Broadway plays, things like Miss
Saigon and Les Miserables.”
But
when Kimball built the organ at the Auditorium, it was
specifically designed for that building, designed to be a
glorious civic instrument that could accommodate a variety of
services. Retired priest Father Willette remembers those glory
days. Beginning in 1954, and for 22 years, he was the Diocesan
Director of Liturgical Music. He played the organ, directed
choirs, and organized religious events at the Auditorium for
the Diocese. “If you sat in the chair and played as the organ
console rises from the basement, it’s quite a sensation,” he
says. “The console is on an elevator by itself. It’s part of
the elevator of the very front of the orchestra pit. You could
easily start playing down there and press a button and the
organ just rises up. Virgil Fox used to love doing that. He
was quite a showman. He loved playing that organ. When I was
listening to it, I said, you know, I don’t hear it. I feel
it.”
“In
the days of Bishop Wright and Bishop Flanagan, we very often
had functions at the Auditorium,” he says. “So, I got to know
the organ very well. The organ was used more at that time as a
background thing. You can almost make it sound like a circus
calliope and also make it sound like a great entrance fit for
a queen. I used it for religious performances.”
Willette
knows it will be tough to set the thing up somewhere else.
“You’ve got to realize that you don’t just move an organ like
you move a piece of furniture or something like that,” he
says. “It has to be completely rebuilt so that it will fit -
not only in place but also tonally — as far as the way the
music reverberates and so forth. It would probably cost twice
as much to move it and rebuild it than it cost in the first
place.
“Every
pipe organ that is built is built specifically for the
building in which it is built,” Willette says. “When they
first started speaking about closing up the building and
turning it into a temporary courthouse, I remember speaking to
someone saying it seems a shame just to box the thing
up.”
— Chet
Williamson |
Each stage represented a
huge leap in capacity from Worcester’s earlier courthouses. The
first was built in 1734 on Court Hill, which is now State Street,
the same site as the present courthouse.. That was only 36 feet
long, 26 feet wide, and 13 feet high. A larger building replaced it
in 1751. The third court house, which was called the “brick court
house,” was built from 1801 to 1803. (Printer Isaiah Thomas laid the
cornerstone.) From 1843 to 1844, part of a stone courthouse was
built. There are portions of this courthouse still standing. In
1897, more land surrounding the area was purchased, the brick
courthouse was taken down, and the “stone court house” was finished.
That is the older section that stands today.
The 1956 addition, badly
needed, was built only after a 30-year struggle (seemingly the
Worcester way, although it only took 15 years to site the
Auditorium; see sidebar, page 13). The price tag was only $2
million, and we got what we paid for. The two courthouses always
were awkward together, built in styles incompatible to the eye.
These will continue to house probate court and the registry of
deeds. Sorry, Tony.
That may not be the final
word, since Hoover has some ideas about those buildings. Like razing
a piece to put in a parking lot. “Ultimately, I think the long-range
plans have been to tear down the backside of the courthouse, what
they call the 1950s addition, and keep the historical part,” he
says. “Parking is sorely needed. There’s no money in place, to my
understanding, to do the demolition of the backside. So, what DCAM
and the state and the trial court have in mind for the future, you’d
have to ask Conte.”
The D.A. remembers another
possibility. “The original plan for the 1956 courthouse? It would be
torn down and an annex would be put up in conjunction with the new
courthouse. They weren’t very set plans,” says
Conte.
Conte also says that
there are no estimates on how much any of this work, tearing it down
versus keeping it for storage, would cost. “At this point, it’s
probably going to be remodeled to a point, but not necessarily for
court use,” he says. “I mean, there are a lot of things that are
being kicked around. They need space for storage and they need a
whole lot of other things.”
Conte is one of many with
special feelings for the old courthouse. “Oh, yeah. There was never
any question that it was going to be restored,” he says. “We all
insisted on that. It’s a beautiful courthouse. The courtrooms are
beautiful. But it needs a lot of
work.” |
