RichardHowe.com – Voices from Lowell & Beyond

Seen & Heard: Vol. 19

Event – Doors Open Lowell – On Saturday, May 9, 2026, I joined hundreds of people in exploring some of the 29 historic buildings that were open for public viewing. The event was well organized with a shuttle bus making the rounds, distinctive signage at the entrance to each venue, and knowledgeable guides inside, dressed in branded yellow t-shirts. My first stop was the First United Baptist Church on Church Street. It’s the white wooden church that sits amidst the parking lot of the Central Plaza retail complex. Like Lowell, the church celebrates its bicentennial this year. I had never been inside and learned much from my visit. My next stop was the Whistler House Museum of Art on Worthen Street. I’ve been there many times before but each time I go, I see the place and the amazing art inside in a new way. The Smith Baker Center was on the list so I went there hoping to see the inside but there was only exterior viewing with a small canopy tent at the entrance with some interior photos on display. I crossed the street to the Pollard Memorial Library to pick up some books I had ordered. Although the library wasn’t an official Doors Open location, they had a self-guided art and architecture tour map available so I wandered around and was reminded of what an impressive library we have. My last two stops were outside of downtown. First was the Transfiguration Greek Orthodox Church which is next to the North Common. I had never been inside before and was very impressed with the artwork, the interior architecture and decoration, and the religious icons that fill the church. My final stop was the Stone House, most recently known as Bachand Hall, on Pawtucket Street. Before Lowell was incorporated this building was an inn with a tavern attached, then it became the home of James C. Ayer who became fabulously rich selling medicine, and since then it’s been used for various social service purposes. So congratulations to the organizers and participants of Doors Open Lowell, another great event in the city. 

Obituary – “Dean Tavoularis, 93, Oscar-Winning Production Designer for Coppola, Dies”by Richard Sandomir, New York Times, May 5, 2026. Tavoularis won the academy award for production design for Godfather II but also handled production design for all of the Godfather movies, for Apocalypse Now, and for many other films directed by Francis Ford Coppola. Mr. Tavoularis was born in 1932 in Lowell where his parents rented an apartment in Pawtucketville from the parents of the late former Lowell School Superintendent George Tsapatasaris. However, the Tavoularis family left Lowell for Los Angeles where Constantine, which was Dean’s given name, studied art and architecture. He was then hired to work in one of the old time movie studios. While there, he was hired by the director of Bonnie and Clyde to handle production design for that film which is how he got his start. This made him a “bridge” figure between the old studio system and the young new directors who revolutionized American cinema in the 1960s and 70s. Tavoularis retired from movie making in the 1990s and settled in Paris where he worked as an artist which he said was his dream job. 

Article – “Hope for print, in an unlikely place” by Aidan Ryan, Boston Globe, May 4, 2026. With each day seeming to bring news of the demise of another longtime print publication, this article provides a welcome counterpoint, the story of two print publications that are thriving in the digital age: Yankee Magazine and Old Farmer’s Almanac which are both published by Yankee Publishing of Dublin, New Hampshire. Notably, the company is now employee owned after the family that owned it forever decided to sell it to the employees rather than to some private equity firm that would liquidate it for spare parts. Although both publications are thriving in print – This year’s almanac has sold 1.2 million copies and Yankee has 220,000 subscribers – the company “uses technology for things technology is good at” and humans “for things that should be outputted by humans.” I used to subscribe to Yankee but let it lapse since I have so much else to read. I do buy the almanac every year, almost as a marker that spring is on the way after a long cold winter. I was happy to read that according to this article at least, I’ll be able to keep buying it in the years to come. 

Art Criticism – “At the Venice Biennale, Playing It Safe” by Jason Farago, New York Times, May 9, 2026. My first-ever visit to an art museum came as a senior in college on a class field trip. As life went on, I didn’t avoid art museums, but they weren’t a top priority. That changed about a dozen or more years ago when I suddenly enjoyed seeing works of art in person. Perhaps it was Lowell’s pivot to the cultural economy in the early 2000s and the arrival here of hundreds of artists who have since made our city their home. In any case, I am now a regular museum-goer but I also enjoy art vicariously through the writing of art critics. I’ve never been to Venice and likely never will, but I’ve become aware of a huge art festival held there every other year called the Venice Biennale. As I understand it, there is a huge international pavilion that becomes home to a curated exhibition of contemporary art from around the world, but there are also several dozen permanent national pavilions that each host a display by the country that owns the pavilion. As is the case with much of our government-sponsored art and cultural activities, the current US regime threw out existing plans and instead limited works to those that “reflect and promote American values” (as defined by the regime) and don’t involve DEI. The Times’ critic was not impressed with the result: “The State Department named the Mar-a-Largo-going owner of a Florida pet food store as the pavilion’s commissioner. The honor (or former) honor of representing the United States eventually went to Alma Allen, a competent but hardly compelling sculptor of bronze and marble plaques and curlicutes. The 2026 U.S. Pavilion offers a twinned sensation of outrage and exhaustion. The government’s selection process has debased what was once a major stage for American art . . .”

To replace or not to replace? That is the question.

To replace or not to replace? That is the question.

By Louise Peloquin

Six photo-illustrated pieces, posted between April 4, 2023 and May 5, 2025, covered the restoration of Notre Dame de Paris. (1) This top tourist attraction still makes the news as thousands continue to visit the “Limestone Ph0enix.” A giant crane towers over the majestic church since outside consolidation is ongoing, funded by single coins as well as by multiple-digit bank transfers.

A three-year-old debate about whether or not to replace grisaille panels is popping up in the media once again. (2) Signed by the Paris regional prefect, an administrative document announcing window replacement work has been posted directly on the cathedral. This is setting off proceedings in matters of administrative law and is marking the start of legal action. The Sites and Monuments Association has announced that opponents to the project can take legal action by filing an appeal at the administrative court. A debate of ideas is becoming a legal battle whose consequences will concretely impact the future of Notre Dame cathedral.

Behind the posted document is a very specific project. It entails removing the 7-meter by 4-meter (22 feet and 11.5 inches high by 13 feet and 1.5 inches wide) 19th-century medieval-style stained glass windows in six chapels south of the nave and replacing them with modern  creations. Contemporary artwork is not in itself problematic. However, its insertion into an already structured and coherent gothic cathedral is widely discussed because the 19th-century windows are deemed to be an integral part of the architectural ensemble.

Side chapel original windows

The new window project was initiated in 2023 by Laurent Ulrich, Archbishop of Paris. That year, on December 8, he invited President Emmanuel Macron to the cathedral renovation site. The President immediately gave his full support to bringing a “contemporary contribution” to Notre Dame. An official call for public procurement contracts was launched. One hundred and ten proposals were examined. French-born artist Claire Tabouret’s dossier was retained. (3) The Regional Directorate of Cultural Affairs endorsed the choice by stating that the new windows would be “a contribution from our era” to a monument built over the course of several centuries.

One of Claire Tabouret’s 6 new windows

One may ask why the project has triggered strong opposition given that history has already shown additions to the cathedral, for example, Viollet-le-Duc’s spire. (4) Opponents point out that this project is fundamentally different. It is not about adding something but rather about replacing elements which still exist. The 19th-century windows were not destroyed in the 2019 fire. They were dismantled, protected, cleaned and restored. In other words, they are perfectly preserved. Consequently, the question is: why dispose of something that works, is protected and is part of the history of the cathedral.

Original blue and grey window

Notre Dame is listed as a historic monument and so are its components. Windows are  not merely elements of decor but are just as protected as the heritage site is. This fact reinforces the legal constraints surrounding their modification or replacement. The opponents’ argument is that replacing these windows is aimed neither at conservation nor at restoration. The official mission of the public institution in charge of Notre Dame is precisely to preserve and restore the cathedral. Therefore, window replacement is considered acting outside of the legal framework. This will be the main argument for legal action. Opponents are also quick to point out that Claire Tabouret is a friend of First Lady Brigitte Macron.

A first legal procedure was initiated concerning the question of the legitimacy of the public institution to carry out this operation. The procedure was lost at first instance but is currently under appeal. Opponents particularly criticized the decision because of its failure to take the heritage aspect into account.

A second, more direct legal front opened, that of the project itself. Heritage experts find this point very interesting because the National Commission for Heritage and Architecture has twice opposed dismantling the 19th-century windows. Therefore, opposition is not just marginal. A real disagreement exists between the political project and part of the historic heritage world. Despite this, the decision to go ahead with the project was upheld. The experts’ opinions were not followed. The polemic is no longer just an artistic or a heritage discussion but seen as a political choice which disregards specialists’ recommendations.

Top section of an original window

Top section of Claire Tabouret’s window

     The project is moving along despite reservations and this is precisely what is feeding the polemic because opponents are not only contesting the final result, they are also contesting the way in which the decision was made. They find it to be a forced choice disregarding technical views. Some associations are even talking about a dangerous precedent for the future protection of historic monuments. If this type of replacement can be approved, the broader question comes up of who decides about the evolution of a monument such as Notre Dame.

In 2023, a petition was launched against the project. On April 28, 2026 it had 302,935 signatures, a considerable number for a question of heritage. It shows that the issue goes far beyond just specialists. It concerns the public which holds dear the integrity of the monument.

The project is also generating interest. Models of the new windows, illustrating the theme of Pentecost, were exhibited at the Grand Palais from December 10, 2025 to March 15, 2026 and attracted approximately 325,000 visitors.

Models of Claire Tabouret’s windows exhibited at the Grand Palais in Paris

Public opinion remains divided. One point comes up frequently in the discussion and that is cost. Some people find it shocking to spend nearly 4,000,000 euros ($4,694,668  – May 1 exchange rate) to replace windows that have already been restored (for a cost of several million euros) and are in perfect condition. Opponents feel that French taxpayers’ and donors’ money is being used to satisfy an aesthetic vision imposed by what some call a “presidential whim.” They maintain that replacing restored, intact windows by contemporary artwork is transforming not preserving. Therefore, beyond budgetary considerations, the issue remains whether or not to impose a new interpretation of the original windows.

What are the precise criticisms of the new windows? They represent Pentecost figures with a figurative, contemporary approach. Opponents insist that it is not just a question of taste. They put forward two main arguments. The first is linked to the idea of architectural coherence since the current windows are part of a progression of color and therefore, replacing risks upsetting visual balance. The second is an argument of principle. When working on historic monuments, adding, not removing, is acceptable.

Finally, some specialists bring up technical characteristics. For example, the new windows do not take into account the tracery (5). There are problems with delineating the characters depicted in the glass.

Detail of a Claire Tabouret window

It is really not a question of rejecting contemporary art at all. Some completely agree that contemporary art can have its place in the cathedral. Take, for example, the tapestries now hung in some of the side chapels. (6) The root cause of the problem is not integrating something new but rather replacing something sound.

Controversy over replacing stained glass windows at Notre Dame has already triggered controversy. An exhibition, held from June 22, 2024 to January 5, 2025, in Troyes, a city in the Champagne region, presented an ensemble of forgotten windows conceived for the 1937 Paris World Fair. Stored in the rear of Notre Dame’s south nave, they were rediscovered in 2019. They were created by twelve master glass-makers to replace Viollet-le-Duc’s grisailles. Louis Barillet, emblematic figure of Art Deco, was project manager. In 1934, he began working with eleven other master glass-makers to create a series of windows for the Pontifical Pavilion at the 1937 Paris World Fair. (7) When the fair ended, Louis Barillet sought to ensure the future of the creations because selling them was forbidden. In 1935, at a time when Viollet-le-Duc’s grisailles were judged to be “too dull”, Barillet offered the Historic Monument Commission to replace the old windows with his new ones by insisting that the latter were less outdated and more in keeping with medieval polychrome windows. The Historic Monument Commission gave the green light without making the initiative official.

Detail of Paul Lousier’s 1937 window of Saint François de Sales

Detail of Valentine Reyre’s 1937 window of Sainte Foy de Conques

The Pontifical Pavilion was conserved after the 1937 Paris World Fair and it was only at the end of 1938 that the new windows were finally installed, on trial, inside Notre Dame. A heated polemic ensued. The question of placing modern artwork inside an ancient monument divided art specialists, historians and the general public. It was the course of history, with World War II looming, rather than the artistic controversy, which ended the 1938 window replacement project.

In 1939, by precautionary measure, Louis Barillet’s workshop removed its windows, stored them in straw-filled crates and reinstalled Viollet-le-Duc’s grisailles. Seven of the Barillet workshop panes were recuperated by their master glass-makers and five were lost.

In 2019, just after the Notre Dame fire, the 1937 windows briefly came back to center stage. Recuperating them for the renovated cathedral was not seriously considered.

This whole debate ultimately goes beyond the question of window choices because it raises the question of whether or not we consider cultural heritage as something we receive and pass on or as something we adapt to our time.

Today, there is no consensus about the Notre Dame window project. What is certain, however, is the fact that the decision to be taken will be a landmark. It will serve as a reference, a precedent for other projets. Beyond the windows, a certain conception of cultural heritage is ultimately being played out.

The question remains: to replace or not to replace?

Keep the old or bring in the new – what do you think?

1) “Notre Dame de Paris, an Update” – posted on April 4, 2023

https://richardhowe.com/2023/04/03/notre-dame-de-paris-an-update/

“Gift-wrapped in Steel Notre Dame’s New Spire” – posted on December 18, 2023

https://richardhowe.com/2023/12/18/gift-wrapped-in-steel-notre-dames-new-spire/#comments

“Spire Update” – posted on February 2, 2024:

https://richardhowe.com/2024/02/21/notre-dame-of-paris-spire-update/

“Notre Dame the Limestone Phoenix” – posted on December 4, 2024

https://richardhowe.com/2024/12/04/notre-dame-the-limestone-phoenix/

“Notre Dame Inauguration New Flash” – posted on December 7, 2024.                        https://richardhowe.com/2024/12/07/notre-dame-inauguration-news-flash/

“Notre Dame Revisited” – posted on May 5, 2025

https://richardhowe.com/2025/05/16/notre-dame-revisited/

2) “Grisailles” are stained glass windows characterized by a non-figurative ornamental design painted in black lines on colorless glass. Small quantities of color were later introduced. This technique, which means, “paint in grey shades” was principally used to create contours and shadows. Many French cathedrals have grisailles, for example, Chartres, Beauvais, Tours, Troyes and Paris.

3) Born on September 25, 1981 in Pertuis, Vaucluse, in the Provence region, artist Claire Tabouret, admired by contemporary art collectors, is living and working in Los Angeles. The six large windows she designed are supposed to be installed in Notre Dame de Paris in December 2026.

4) See the 2nd and 3rd links of footnote #1 for information on Viollet-le-Duc’s spire.

5) “Tracery” is the intricate decorative framework that supports and divides the panes in medieval stained glass windows. Begun as simple plate tracery, it gradually became more complex and further enhanced both the structural support and aesthetic appeal of large windows.

6) See the second photo in:

“Notre Dame Revisited” – posted on May 5, 2025

https://richardhowe.com/2025/05/16/notre-dame-revisited/

7) The eleven master glass-makers who worked with Louis Barillet from 1934 to 1939: Jacques Le Chevallier, Valentine Reyre, Jean Hébert-Stevens, Louis Mazetier, Jacques Gruber, Rev. Marie-Alain Couturier, André Rinuy, Max Ingrand, Joseph-Jean-Kef Ray, Jean Gaudin and Paul Louzier.

A Trump trompe? Echos from the past? by Marjorie Arons-Barron

The entry below is being cross posted from Marjorie Arons-Barron’ own blog.

The Order of the Day by award-winning French novelist and film maker Eric Vuillard is a well-researched and creatively presented story of the Anschluss, Hitler’s move to take over Austria and incorporate it into Germany. It is a brief cautionary tale in narrative non-fiction form.

Where direct quotes are available, Vuillard uses them. Where they are not, Vuillard draws on memoirs, journals, court testimony, interviews and photographs to create conversations as he imagines them to have taken place. We see the gestures and personal peculiarities of the speakers, their clothing styles, the interior designs of halls where high-level meetings were held. We feel characters’ anxieties, fears, and frustrations.

The book opens in 1933, when then-Reichstag President Hermann Goering gathers 24 corporate chieftains (think Krupp, Siemens, Opel, BASF, Telefunken, Reichsbank) around a table to lay out the urgency of Hitler’s plan to consolidate power. The upcoming elections are important, he tells them, to ward off the Communist menace, end trade unions, and consolidate their own power as mini fuehrers in their own companies. Goering even jokes that these may be the last German elections for a century. A reader can’t help feeling that the invitees look very much like today’s oligarchs, captains of industry like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Peter Thiel, Jeff Bezos, and others. They go where the power is and fork over the money to ensure their personal success.

As if to make the point, Vuillard observes that “corruption is an irreducible line item in the budget of large companies, and it goes by several names: lobbying fees, gifts, political contributions.” The corporate types who had funded Hitler’s electoral success not only stood by as he executed his evil plans, but, by using concentration camp prisoners as forced labor in their factories, they became even wealthier.

The major focus of this short (140 pages) book is March 12, 1938 when Hitler marched into Austria, having bullied then-Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg to sign a document agreeing to be absorbed by Germany, having threatened military action if Austria failed to comply. Leading up to that day, Vuillard describes British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s appeasement strategy and the denial and timidity of the rest of European leaders. None of them was unaware of the Nazis’ brutal actions: the burning of the Reichstag, opening up of Dachau, sterilization of the mentally ill, the many atrocities to achieve racial purity, the purge of political opponents.

Vuillard cinematically describes a confrontation between Hitler and Austrian Chancellor Kurt Schuschnigg, who tried to stave off the inevitable by persuading the Germans that he has always maintained policies friendly to the Reich. Hitler screams his disagreement. Then the Fuehrer’s mood becomes childish and he tells Schuschnigg that he, Hitler, is going to build the largest bridge in the world. He goes on to say he’ll put up the tallest buildings, bigger even than America’s.  (Sound like any official that you know?)  Vuillard calls Hitler as “virulent as a gob of phlegm,” which kind of sticks with the reader. Hitler, he writes, is beyond any objections of constitutional law.

Other major characters are Nazi war criminals Arthur Seyss-Inquart, who shares Hitler’s talent for blunt threats and repetitious propaganda, and Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop, who just happened to rent a flat from Neville Chamberlain in London.

Nowhere does Vuillard say that Trump is a Hitler, nor does he specifically warn of events in our own day. But it’s impossible not to see parallels to some of Trump’s behavior: the authoritarian actions, megalomania, braggadocio, thirst for revenge, and disregard for constitutional precepts, values, and norms.

Also resonant are the appeasers, the oligarchs, the sycophants, and, yes, those who shut their ears and eyes and hunker down in the comfort of their daily lives.

Written in 2017 and winner of the Prix Goncourt, France’s most prestigious literary award, Eric Vuillard’s book stimulates pressing questions about how far down the road to authoritarianism the United States has already traveled and who is leading us down that path to the detriment of democracy. Readers may balk at the author’s preachy inserts, but there is a much-needed sermon in the story he is telling.

Lowell Politics: May 10, 2026

The Tuesday, May 5, 2026, council meeting lasted just over two hours with no single issue dominating the meeting. Perhaps the central theme of council discussions on Tuesday and at other recent meetings has been the fiscal challenges the city faces in the coming year.

Related to that, the council received a report from Finance Subcommittee chair Belinda Juran on that committee’s April 28, 2026, meeting and the minutes of that meeting. The PowerPoint presentation to the subcommittee from Chief Financial Officer Conor Baldwin on the FY27 budget process was also included. The presentation was filled with information that sets the table for upcoming council budget deliberations, so I’ll review it at length in today’s newsletter.

****

The proposed budget will be presented to the city council at this week’s meeting on May 12, 2026. The council will then schedule a public hearing on the budget and should adopt the budget no later than June 30, 2026, since Fiscal Year 2027 begins the next day. Under our Plan E form of government, councilors may adopt the budget as is, make cuts to it, or reject it entirely, however, the council may not increase the budget or any item within it.

On January 22, 2026, the Massachusetts Department of Revenue certified Lowell’s “free cash” from FY25 (which ran from July 1, 2024, to June 30, 2025). Recall that “free cash” is the city’s surplus funds from that fiscal year. Those funds may have come from several sources: Money that was budgeted for a specific purpose but was not spent by the end of the fiscal year; surplus revenue resulting from higher than projected income from taxes; or previously unspent free cash. Before the city can use free cash, the calculations must be certified by the state Department of Revenue. After that, the city can use the money for any legal purpose. However, the best practice is to avoid using it for recurring expenses like salaries. Instead, it is usually directed towards the city’s stabilization fund (which is a type of “rainy day” account); towards capital expenditures; or towards emergency expenses that could not have been anticipated in the annual budget.

In February of this year, the council adopted the city manager’s recommendation that $7.5 million of the newly certified free cash be sent to the stabilization fund to restore the amount used to close gaps in the FY26 budget, to subsidize the city’s parking operations, and to provide more funds to the Lowell Public Schools than the city manager had initially recommended in his annual budget. Another $1.7 million was used on “traffic calming investments” (I assume that means the much-desired “speed humps”); expenses from the two special elections for the vacant state senate seat; and a few other items.

Notably, all funding from the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) has come to an end. That money had to be obligated by the end of calendar year 2024 and spent by now. The presentation states, “Positions or programs previously supported by ARPA that continue will require General Fund appropriation.” When a financial windfall like ARPA became available, it would have been irrational for the city not to have taken advantage of it, but the question now is whether the use of those funds was finite and ended with the funding, or did it become so central to city operations that there is pressure to absorb those extra costs into the city’s regular budget and thereby increase the fiscal pressure on the entire operation.

For revenue, the FY27 budget estimates $320 million from state aid; $199 million from property taxes; $16 million from fees and excise; and $38 million from other sources. The state’s contribution, which is contingent on the legislature’s approval of a FY27 state budget, consists of $276 million for education; $32 million in unrestricted aid; and $9 million in reimbursements for charter school assessments.

When it comes to what the city spends money on, there are five big drivers of costs, all largely outside the city’s direct control:

• Pensions: $39.7 million in FY27, up 12.2% from FY25
• Debt Service: $23.2 million in FY27, up 35.8% from FY25
• State Assessments: $57.0 million in FY27, up 40.3% from FY25
• Health Insurance: $34.0 million in FY27, up 43.1% from FY25
• Energy: $9.4 million in FY27, up 8.0% from FY25

The bulk of “state assessments” are for charter schools. Since charter schools are public schools, their funding comes from the overall city budget in the form of a deduction from state aid. The amount of the deduction is determined by a complex calculation based on the amount per student the city is supposed to spend. The problem with that approach is that it oversimplifies the cost of educating a student. Fixed costs for facilities, infrastructure, administration, and other things must be funded regardless of how many students attend the district schools, so a greater share of the money remaining in the system must cover those fixed expenses. That leaves less money for the direct education of the students staying in the district schools.

The charter school reimbursement law seems to recognize this by providing reimbursements to the school district for a percentage of the per pupil money going to the charter school. The problem is that the reimbursement is “subject to appropriation” which means if the legislature does not allocate enough money to this line item of the state budget, communities like Lowell don’t get the reimbursement set by the statute. That has been a regular occurrence so this is a chronic problem which puts direct pressure on the budget of the Lowell Public Schools and indirect pressure on the overall city budget which is compelled to finance a greater portion of the school budget than would be the case if the legislature adequately funded charter school reimbursements.

These high-cost structural demands don’t seem to leave much room for discretionary spending in the city budget, which will make the coming budget sessions difficult for councilors. It’s easy to govern when there’s plenty of money; the challenge comes in tight times when you must disappoint people by saying no. Thanks mostly to the ARPA funding windfall, few of the current councilors have held office in tight fiscal times so it will be interesting to see how they handle it.

****

A pair of memos from the city’s Director of Elections & Census Will Rosenberry provided interesting information about the mechanics of holding an election, specifically where people vote. Now, voting places in Lowell are almost exclusively in school buildings.

For many reasons, including that we live in a country that tolerates mass shootings on an almost daily basis, it’s vital that school officials control access to their building. That is tough to do on election day when hundreds and possibly more than a thousand strangers enter the school building to vote. Consequently, for many years, Lowell Public Schools have closed on election days. In most years, that means one closure in September for the primary election, and another in November for the general election. However, this year, because of the two special elections needed to fill the state senate seat left vacant when Ed Kennedy passed away, the schools faced two additional days of being closed. Instead, the city election office worked with school officials to segregate the space within the school used for voting from the rest of the school, especially the students, and school was not cancelled.

Turnout in the special elections was quite low, so neither posed a true test of a modified system. However, studies and past practice have shown that even small changes to voting places (such as, which door to enter or where to park) tends to reduce turnout. Also, because so many children get rides to and from school, the immediate vicinity of a school becomes somewhat chaotic at arrival and dismissal times which would make it difficult for potential voters who arrive at those times.

As for making a building other than a school a polling place, that is feasible if the place is handicapped accessible, has adequate parking, and a room sufficiently large to hold all voting functions. A facility with a liquor license cannot be used as a polling place, but any other private building, including a church, is acceptable so long as the standards mentioned above are met. However, there are at least two challenges that come with using non-school buildings: the first is the city would have to pay rent, something that is not currently within the budget of the election office. The second challenge would be consistent availability. While the dates for general elections are known well in advance, the dates for primaries or preliminaries are more fluid, and the need to hold a special election can arise without much notice. Since research shows that consistently using a place for voting tends to help turnout, the city would not want to be changing polling locations with each election.

For now, it seems voting will continue to be done in city schools.

****

On richardhowe.com, please check out Dave Perry’s stellar review of last weekend’s The Town and the City Festival which includes his account of reunion appearances of several bands that dominated the Lowell music scene in the 1990s.

****

This week in my Seen & Heard column I wrote about the recent dedication of Eternal Flame a new public art piece by Lowell artist Jay Hungate that was commissioned by Lowell Cemetery for its newly opened West Meadow section; reviewed a New Yorker profile of Sam Altman, the founder of the artificial intelligence company, OpenAI; commented on a New York Times article on how professional historians are observing the semiquincentennial; commented on a New York Times Op-Ed about how elderly Americans went from being among the poorest group in America to the wealthiest and most powerful; and commented on another Times Op-Ed about Graham Platner, the Democratic candidate for US Senate in Maine.

****

Finally, Bob Forrant and I are teaming up to lead a free walking tour on Lowell and World War II to be held on Saturday, May 23, 2026, at 10am from the Lowell National Historical Park Visitor Center at 246 Market Street. The tour will take approximately 90 minutes and requires no advanced registration. Just show up.