|
Dizzy Monks and Public Institutions
By Tom Ethier, Torrington
In order to reinforce their well-deserved reputation for casting fate to the wind, 13th century Franciscan monks devised an unusual method to determine the course for their daily begging and ministering. The monks would stand in the yard of the monastery and spin around and around until they were so dizzy that they fell to the ground. Whichever way their head pointed determined their route for the day. Frequently the guidance provided by the pirouetting priests did not coincide with where the people were, and the Franciscans were known to end up evangelizing to forest animals—which is one of the reasons that St. Francis is associated with animal shelters.
State officials who advocate a new courthouse in Litchfield seem to be using a method of planning that is not all that different from the Franciscans of eight hundred years ago, yet the results may not be so innocuous.
The idea that architectural form and location make a difference has been around for a couple of thousand years. According to Aristotle, it was Hippodamus, born the 6th century BC, who showed us how cities should be designed and constructed. Crucial to the Hippodameian model is the idea that there is a center or locus of activity that identifies the center of gravity within an area. The Greeks called it the "agora" (pronounced like "agara," as in Niagara Falls). Hippodamus advocated a design of the man-made environment that was planned, not haphazard; and he proposed that the location of public buildings does make a difference.
For four years advocates of a Litchfield courthouse had their hearts set on the state's chosen (and illegally purchased) site, a decision that one Connecticut legislator called idiotic. The Anderson property, which is adjacent to land that the state had recently purchased as open space, was so obviously environmentally suspect that it would seem only a dizzy monk could have found it. Now that the Anderson site has finally been deemed inappropriate for the courthouse, advocates for a Litchfield location have turned to the Cattey property, a sort of no-man's land along the Litchfield-Torrington border.
I can appreciate that Litchfield officials are concerned about tax revenues for their town—specifically the money supplied by the state though the PILOT program—but surely people must realize that there is more at stake than just money. As a county and a region, we need to step back and take a broad and long-term view of this issue. When we are most able to avoid doing so, we should not be contributing to a splintered, spread-out and disjointed man-made environment.
There are considerable differences between public institutions like a courthouse and a new Wal-Mart or other similar private structures. We have a choice where we can construct public buildings, and we don't have to build just another piece of architectural detritus like the countless similar structures that litter our landscape. After all, we are talking about the judicial system, one of the three branches of government. A courthouse is likely to be around for a hundred years or more, so why not make it significant? Let's build one that we can be proud of and one that contributes to the concept of public space.
The rationale for locating the new courthouse in downtown Torrington is not based on municipal pride, jealousy, or money from the state. The new Judicial District Courthouse (it is not a county courthouse) belongs in downtown Torrington because it makes sense for the region and it is consistent with appropriate location of public institutions.
There are other reasons for choosing downtown Torrington over a no-man's land a few miles up the street. In the center of Torrington we can leverage existing public infrastructure and gain some economic synergy, but the centrality of our public fabric is foremost. A public facility like a courthouse best serves the community when it is connected to other centers of human activity.
It is time for leaders to step forward and say that a downtown Torrington location for the courthouse is in the long-term interests of the judicial district. The Torrington City Council has acted appropriately by passing a resolution calling for the courthouse in Torrington. By doing so they are saying that Torrington is ready to be the urban hub of the region that is generally Litchfield County. This is not about pitting one town against the other; it is about what is best for the region. It is time for state officials to begin evaluating sites for a new Judicial District Courthouse in downtown Torrington.
| 
