The Wagon Wheel myth

Locally, the big college rivalry is between Kent State University and The University of Akron. Both schools are roughly the same size and since they're only about 10 miles apart, it's pretty natural that not only would there be a rivalry, but it would something that is regularly contested in sports. Like most rivalries, the biggest games are the football and men's basketball. The rivalry also features a trophy that goes to the winner of that year's football game. For Kent State and Akron, that trophy is an old wagon wheel pained blue and gold, which are the school colors for both schools. While the trophy itself continues to be held by the team that wins that year's football game, since 2011, the Wagon Wheel Challenge is held involving all sports. The background of the actual Wagon Wheel, though, is another example of folk history that has become accepted as truth despite having no real basis.

Wagon Wheel Challenge logo showing the current point total for each school. Points are from wins in head-to-head competition between the two schools. In addition to winning the actual Wagon Wheel trophy in 2011 and 2012, KSU also won the challenges each year.

The Kent State-Akron football rivalry was first held in 1923, a 32-0 Akron win, though it was not a regularly held contest at first. No games were played between the two schools from 1924 until 1928. It became an annual game from 1928 through the 1936 game, all of which were Akron wins except a scoreless tie in 1932. The game took another hiatus from 1937 until 1940. After one more more Akron win, Kent finally broke through in 1942 with a 23-7 win. World War II would be the next interruption for the series from 1943 through the 1945 season as neither school fielded a football team during those years, which was the case for many other schools across the country. The game resumed in 1946, which is the first year the Wagon Wheel was contested. Kent State went on a dominating run from then on, including a 31-0 win in 1948, a 47-0 win in 1949, a 48-7 win in 1951, and a 54-19 win in 1953 culminated by a 58-18 win in 1954. After that game, which was Kent State's 10th consecutive win over the Zips, the series was discontinued as being noncompetitive. It would not be played again until 1972, which resulted in a 13-13 tie. After that, it was played in 1974, 1979, and 1981 and has been played every year since the 1983 game, with the exception of 1991. Akron joining the Mid-American Conference in 1992 made the game a conference game again for the first time since 1950, when both teams were members of the Ohio Athletic Conference.

The Wagon Wheel in 2012 after Kent State won 35-24 in Kent.
Photo is originally from the Akron Beacon Journal and was also used
on Cleveland.com.

The Wagon Wheel trophy was the idea of Dr. Raymond Manchester at Kent State, who was the dean of men during the 1940s. How or where he got the wheel is not recorded, but he had it in 1945 and suggested it be used as a trophy between the schools. He concocted a myth about the wheel's history connecting it to both John R. Buchtel (pronounced BOOK tul), the namesake for the original name of The University of Akron (Buchtel College), and Kent State, near where the wheel was reportedly found in 1902, to make it something that both schools would want to play for.

The legend passed around in the newspapers and media guides for both schools is that the wheel was part of a wagon of John R. Buchtel, who was searching for a site for a new school. While in Kent around 1870 near the future site of Kent State University, the wagon got stuck in the mud and the horses pulled it apart as they tried to break free. One of the wheels got buried in the mud and was found in 1902 during construction of a pipeline or a building (different accounts use one or the other). Eventually, Buchtel chose Akron as the site for the school, known as Buchtel College, which eventually became The University of Akron. An "account" of the story from the 1955 KSU yearbook Chestnut Burr states that Buchtel chose Akron right after the horses broke his wagon in the mud. In any account, that's the basic legend and while there are some real people (John R. Buchtel) and places (Akron and Kent), the rest of the story fails miserably when put up against actual history.

Explanation of the wheel from the 1955 Chestnut Burr at Kent State, the year after the rivalry was ended until 1972.

First is the role of John R. Buchtel in the founding of the University of Akron. Yes, it is true that the school originally was named after him. What is not true is that the decision of what town to put the college was Buchtel's to make nor is it true that it was Buchtel's school. The University of Akron was founded in 1870 and was first known as Buchtel College, because of a large monetary gift from Buchtel. According to the 1908 Centennial History of Summit County, Ohio, initially, the Universalist convention wanted to name the school "Murray Centennial College" or "Buchtel Universalist College." When Buchtel was asked what his opinion was, he said: "name it what you like. The college is yours, not mine. It shall have my hearty support. If prospered, I expect to give it one hundred thousand dollars." The account continues: "Then it was unanimously voted to name the child of the Ohio Universalist convention Buchtel College, in honor of the man who financially most loyally aided it in its infancy."(pp. 203-204) The University of Akron's own history page also states "The Universalist Church founded Buchtel College, the forerunner of The University of Akron, in 1870."

John R. Buchtel. One of the high
schools in Akron is also named for him

So, the school was created by the Ohio Universalist convention, not Buchtel, and was associated with the Universalists until 1913, when the school was sold to the city of Akron. It became a state university in 1968. Buchtel did have ties to Kent as he was a member of the Kent Universalist congregation, founded in 1866, which, for a time, was the closest Universalist congregation. Akron had previously been home to a Universalist congregation, but it closed in 1853 and a new Akron congregation wasn't established until 1872 when the college opened. That means he was certainly in Kent multiple times during this time period and he most definitely had a horse-drawn carriage.

In their search to locate this new college, the Universalists did consider Kent, along with some other cities in the state (Mt. Gilead in particular and initially Oxford, home of Miami University). The site in Kent offered was the eventual site of the original campus (what is known as Front Campus) at Kent State University, the former William S. Kent farm at Lincoln and Main. While Kent had financial backing to secure the school, "there was a strong prejudice on account of its reputation of unhealthfulness" (Centennial History of Summit County, Ohio, p. 202) which basically eliminated Kent as a possibility. The convention nearly put the school in Mt. Gilead (more centrally located in Ohio) as they had investigated Akron as a site but with "unsatisfactory results." Later, several Akron businessmen met together and convinced the actual man in charge, financial secretary Rev. H.L. Miller, to come back to Akron and "re-investigate." The second visit was much better than the first as there was an organized push to get subscribers. Buchtel became a strong supporter of putting the school in his hometown and donated the initial $6,000 for the $60,000 building fund and $2,500 for the endowment.

So, Buchtel clearly did not establish the school himself (though he is sometimes referred as the "founder" and clearly played a large role in the establishment of it), nor did he go out and search for a host community. Again, it was not his decision and he clearly advocated for Akron to host the new school.

Statue of John R. Buchtel on the campus of The University of Akron that describes him as the
"Founder" of Buchtel College (photo from Wikipedia)

Kent's other connection to the founding of Buchtel College is that the person who first proposed the Ohio Universalist convention establish a school was Rev. Andrew Willson, who was the pastor of the Kent congregation at that time and also served as the chairman of the convention's Committee on Education. He first presented the plan in 1867 in Mt. Gilead and again in 1868 at Dayton. Willson, of course, favored putting the school in Kent, but after it was apparent that Kent would not be chosen, he supported Akron as the site for the new school.

The other issue in the story is where the wheel came from and if that's true. 1902 for the discovery of the wheel seems plausible at the very least. Kent had a municipal water system by the late 19th century, so a pipe could've been constructed, or a building, depending on exactly where it was found. There really wasn't a whole lot in the area where campus is now even in 1902, but an old wagon wheel buried in the mud is entirely possible. Heck, it could've very well been John R. Buchtel's own wagon, but he certainly wasn't scouting a site for the Universalist college.

In conclusion, while the evidence does not conclusively rule out the possibility that the Wagon Wheel was part of John R. Buchtel's carriage, it seems to indicate it's most likely not his, though. The evidence certainly eliminates the possibility that even if it did happen to be from Buchtel's carriage, it certainly wasn't part of him scouting for a site for a school in Kent and it had absolutely no bearing on the college being located in Akron. What is true, though, is that the histories of Kent State University and The University of Akron do have connections, which is hardly surprising considering how close they are to one another. What is now Kent State University could very well have started off much earlier as a Universalist college. Who knows, if history had been different, maybe the rivalry would be between The University of Kent and Akron State University?

School Colors

I published this on the Kent Patch back in January 2012 and figured I should post it here since I don't really blog there anymore, and it was on my mind recently when I read through a game program at the KSU football game yesterday. Anything I have added that wasn't part of the original post will be in italics.

Ever wondered why Kent State University's school colors are Navy Blue and Gold? Well, if you go to the university's website or one their athletic media guides, you will likely find the following story: the school colors were originally purple and orange in the charter that established Kent State Normal School. Later, the basketball team had their uniforms taken to a cleaner and the hot water faded the purple to blue and the orange to gold. The student body liked the new colors and voted to change them. Sounds simple enough, but is that the whole story? Is it even close?

Growing up in Kent, I often heard the oversimplified version of how Kent got the university and Ravenna got the county seat. Basically, it was that Ravenna was given the choice of being the county seat or having the university and they chose the county seat with Kent getting the university.

Where that story came from is beyond me, because the two events had absolutely nothing to do with each other and happened about 100 years apart. Ravenna was named the county seat in 1807 and Kent won the state normal school (which became Kent State University) in 1910. Both Kent and Ravenna competed for the county seat (via their original proprietors) and the normal school. As further proof that Ravenna's status as county seat had nothing to do with the location of the state normal school is the fact that Bowling Green, Ohio, is the county seat of Wood County. It was also chosen as the site for the state normal school (for northwestern Ohio) in 1910.

What does that have to do with the school colors for KSU? It just goes to show how "folk history" often simplifies and puts two facts together that were never meant to be together and draws conclusions from them or creates a new story all together.

The first item I would like to see but haven't had a chance is the actual charter document. According to the "faded colors" story, the original school colors of orange and purple are listed as such in the school's charter. I have not been able to track that actual document down.  That could at least verify that the colors were orange and purple at one point. (After publishing this post, I found an FAQ page from Kent State's Special Collections and Archives that stated: "The founding of Kent State University was a gradual progression encompassing several years; there is no evidence of an official charter." That page has since been changed and has no mention of the school colors or the charter and searches for anything related to the university charter come up empty. It is worth noting that Bowling Green State University, Kent's sister school founded on the same bill in 1910, states their colors of orange and brown were suggested by a professor who recommended them to the board of trustees. If BG didn't have their school colors written into their alleged charter, why would Kent?) 

What I have been able to track down thus far, however, lists not purple and orange as the original school colors, but blue and orange. One of the great resources available from Kent State to study their own history is the digitized library of every yearbook published by the university.

From 1914-1985 (except 1920), KSU published a yearbook that was called the Chestnut Burr. Not only is every year available online, but it's also digitally indexed, so searching for keywords within one book or across all of them is very easy. I've referenced old yearbooks before because they are very valuable tools in research. Sometimes they directly say something that is a fact you are looking for. Other times, there are references to events or people that prove a certain fact. Many other times they have pictures that can tell us a lot about an event, building, group or person.

Being contemporary sources of the period, they also offer us glimpses into the way things were; how people dressed, how they thought, what was considered humorous, what was considered important, etc. For this, we have some direct evidence for orange and blue as the school colors.

Both the 1914 (first yearbook) and 1915 books make direct references to the school colors as orange and blue. The 1914 yearbook has a page that says "School Colors: Orange and Blue" at the bottom, and later has a page entitled "Our School Song" which references "her orange and blue." The 1915 yearbook has a school song "The Orange and Blue" on a page. The earliest reference to blue and gold as school colors in the Chestnut Burr is the 1921 edition, which has a picture and description of the "Blue and Gold Debate Club." (In later views of the yearbooks, I found an earlier mention of blue and gold as the school colors as part of a poem. Page 87 of the 1916 yearbook has a line that says "To Normal, her blue and gold." The next year, though, there is another clear reference to the colors as blue and orange, showing how both gold and orange were apparently being interchanged. There are multiple references in the early 1920s of the athletic teams being referred to as the "Blue and Gold" as well.)

1914 Kent State yearbook page clearly showing the school colors to be orange and blue, not purple.

Page also from the 1914 yearbook with a school song mentioning orange and blue as the colors.

Page from the 1915 Chestnut Burr with another song mentioning the school colors of orange and blue. "Orange" is highlighted because it was a search term I was looking for when I searced the online Chestnut Burrs.

But where did orange and blue come from? According to the first history of Kent State, The Years of Youth, written in 1960 by Phillip Shriver, the orange and blue originated from the university's first president John McGilvrey. He cites a March 13, 1913, article in the old Kent Courier and writes that McGilvrey "determined" that the school's colors would be orange and blue. Shriver credits McGilvrey being a "staunch Illini," though even in his own book, he also writes that McGilvrey was from Indiana and while he was on the faculty at the University of Illinois for a time, it was only for three years. He did not attend school there (McGilvrey had degrees from what is now Indiana State University and Indiana University, so if anything he's a Hoosier!). McGilvrey also served twice as a principal for two high schools in Illinois and was at what is now Western Illinois University just prior to coming to Kent.

So, is it a definite that the school colors of orange and blue were inspired by the University of Illinois? Shriver seems to think so, but the connection doesn't seem so obvious to me. It's definitely possible. In doing further reading, the first four faculty hires by McGilvrey were all from the state of Illinois, three of whom had degrees from the University of Illinois. So there was definitely some connection with the University of Illinois at Kent State in those early days. Shriver states that blue and gold were used interchangeably with the orange and blue for a period (doesn't appear to be very long) before blue and gold officially won out in 1925 by virtue of a committee. No mention is made of any vote from the student body, nor any mention of faded uniforms. There is also no given reason as to why blue and gold were selected or any significance behind them.

In looking at the difference between the color gold and orange, it's easy to see how they could be used interchangeably. Often times today we use yellow instead of gold, but gold as a color (not a metal) is much darker than yellow and is actually a yellow-orange blend. Was it a matter of fading? Perhaps, but it could also just be a matter of general use.

When the committee made the colors official, they were royal blue and gold, but now are shades of Navy blue and gold. Today, the colors are officially "Kent State blue" (Pantone 281; color hex #003876) and "Kent State gold" (Pantone 124, color hex #f0b310). Black is listed as a complimentary color.

 Of note, Kent State is one of three schools in the Mid-American Conference that use blue and gold as school colors, the other two being the University of Toledo and arch-rival the University of Akron. All three schools use slightly different shades of blue and gold. For instance, Akron uses a slightly darker shade of blue and a darker, more metallic gold. On sports uniforms, the shade of metallic gold looks almost tan. Toledo uses more of a yellow ("Rocket Gold") with a shade of midnight blue known as "Tower Blue." As far as fan support goes, Kent State has emphasized the "gold" more as the main color ("Get your gold on!"), while Akron seems to emphasize the blue more or white. Toledo tends to use the blue and gold pretty evenly.

I'm planning to search the archives of the Record-Courier here in Kent soon to go over some of the articles from the old Kent Courier that Shriver mentions in his book as sources. Hopefully they will have some additional information that can give me a little better understanding of where the colors came from. UPDATE, 10/15/13: In searching the archives of the Record-Courier, I found a mention of the school colors in 1913, but the date of the article was 2 months after the citation given by Shriver. The article, which covers several developments related to the school, simply states that the colors are blue and orange. That's it. No reasoning is given for them or who even made the suggestion. It was simply a matter of business.

Ravenna State University?

Most people who are familiar with the history of Kent State University are aware that the state of Ohio awarded Kent with what was known as a "normal school" (a school to train teachers) in 1910.  They also are familiar with the somewhat embellished story of how local leaders here in Kent were able to convince the commission that was sent from Columbus to scout various sites in both northwestern and northeastern Ohio for two new normal schools that Kent was the best spot and how the Kent visit was nearly a total disaster.  Not only did the weather not cooperate in the least, but the local welcoming committee didn't meet the search commission at the right place (the train station downtown) believing that the commissioners would be arriving by car.  Only a wonderful blue gill dinner at the Frank Merrill home in Twin Lakes saved the day, enough that Kent eventually won the normal school which later became Kent State University.  The next stop for the commission was Ravenna, where they were expected by lunchtime but arrived about three hours late.  It's most often presented like the committee in Ravenna knew their bid was doomed and that Kent would win.  But was Ravenna really ever a major consideration for the normal school?  And was it a competition exclusively between Kent and Ravenna?

Locally, many people are aware that Ravenna was one of the cities that tried to get the normal school along with Kent, but for some reason, many also believe that it was a choice the state made only between Kent and Ravenna.  This has evolved into an even more bizarre myth that Ravenna was given a choice between having the county seat and the university and chose the county seat so Kent got the university.  Where that story came from I have no idea, but it's pure folk history (and false).  Ravenna and what would later become Kent did compete for the honor of being the county seat when Portage County was formed, but that was in 1807, over 100 years before the state of Ohio passed the Lowry Bill to establish two new normal schools in northern Ohio.  In 1807, neither city was much of anything in terms of buildings or a city layout.  Ravenna won because its founder, Benjamin Tappan, was able to convince the powers that be to give his settlement the county seat (on his land, which is now downtown Ravenna) over what had apparently been the favored location in Franklin Township, owned by Aaron Olmstead.  Had Olmstead's land been chosen, the county seat would've been located about where Standing Rock cemetery is today in northern Kent along SR 43, and Kent itself likely would've been located further north that it is.  As it turned out, Olmstead died before the deal could be worked out and his heirs used the land for other purposes, so the county seat went to Ravenna.

Front page of the Ravenna Republican,
September 22, 1910

On to the normal school.  The first important fact to know is that the search for the normal school site in northeastern Ohio included far more than just Kent and Ravenna.  Over 40 communities statewide applied for consideration for one of the two schools.  In northeastern Ohio, Kent and Ravenna were just two among a group that included Ashtabula, Canton, Chagrin Falls, Columbiana, East Liverpool, Geneva, Hubbard, Hudson, Lorain, Massillon, Medina, Poland, Salem, Seville, Urichsville, Wadsworth, Warren, and Youngstown.  Eventually the commission narrowed the list down based on a number of criteria like central location in the region, access to railroads, etc.  They then heard presentations from each candidate city and made further cuts.  After those two "rounds", the commission visited the remaining candidate cities, which totaled 14 for northeastern Ohio.  Both Kent and Ravenna made those first cuts as both cities shared a central location in the region and rail connections.  Also included were Wadsworth, Medina, Hudson, Salem, Warren, Poland, Youngstown, Ashtabula, Geneva, Chagrin Falls, Canton, and Massillon.

Front page story from the Ravenna Republican, September 29, 1910

After the commission narrowed down the list, they started making their official visits.  Each community's first visit was highly planned and announced ahead of time.  I already mentioned Kent's first visit, which was plagued by bad weather and poor communication and was preceded by a visit to Wadsworth.  Most of the details about the time the commission spent in Kent are accurate as far as I can tell.  They did arrive without anyone to greet them; the weather was miserable, and they did go to a dinner at the Frank Merrill home in Twin Lakes, which was on the "road to Ravenna" (which is technically correct; it's just the "road to Ravenna" between Ravenna and Hudson, not Kent and Ravenna).  It is also true that they were originally expected around lunchtime and arrived later in the afternoon.  However, if the Ravenna committee felt their bid was dead-on-arrival, they certainly didn't let on in the press.  The Ravenna Republican makes no mention of the commissioners being late and they felt like the Ravenna committee showed off what they needed to and that it was received well.  The feeling the bid may have been doomed from the start is expressed in Philip Shriver's 1960 history of Kent State, The Years of Youth, but the footnote says it was from an interview in 1958, so 48 years later and a lot of time to put hindsight into the view.  Further, a few months later, the commissioners made surprise visits to the same cities, including Ravenna.  I hardly think they would've made a second visit to Ravenna if they weren't still considering it as a site.  Shriver notes that most of the cities the commissioners visited felt confident about their respective bids.  Hudson in particular, which had an entire campus (the former campus of Western Reserve College and current campus of Western Reserve Academy) ready and waiting, felt they had a strong case for the new school.  The positive feelings of Salem, Warren, Chagrin Falls, Hudson, Canton, and Wadsworth (as expressed trough their newspapers) are also recorded.

By the time of the decision, the front runners weren't exclusively Kent and Ravenna, however.  For whatever reasons, the front runners were seen, at least in the media, as Kent, Warren, and Wadsworth.  Ravenna certainly believed they were still in the running as a newspaper article seems to suggest, as did Hudson, but that may have just been pure optimism on the part of the newspaper.  And remember, newspapers in those days were a lot more editorial than papers today and often acted as the mouthpiece for an entire town or a specific family or group within a town.

Ravenna Republican front page,
November 24, 1910

Obviously, Kent won the normal school since Kent State University exists today.  This was after those visits by the commission (the 2nd visit being much better than the first for Kent), and final hearings in late November 1910.  The news of Kent getting the normal school came at the end of November and was met with disappointment in Ravenna, but still the Republican offered Ravenna's "heartiest congratulations" and found some solace that the school would be located in Portage County.

Two sites were presented to the commission in Ravenna (2 sites were also presented in Kent and both of them are now part of the KSU campus).  The first was the Beebe farm, which straddled the line between Ravenna and Ravenna Township.  Today, that area is roughly bordered by Washington Avenue, North Walnut Street, Freedom Street (SR 88) and the railroad. It's largely residential, but includes Carlin Elementary School on Washington Avenue and Bethel Baptist Church on Coolman Avenue.  The other site was known as "Bunker Hill" in the southeastern part of town.  I have not been able to pinpoint exactly where that was as it is a name that was apparently not all that common (not on any period maps) and certainly isn't used today.  All I can narrow it down to is in the part of Ravenna south of Main Street and east of Chestnut Street, probably a few blocks out of downtown.  It is apparent that the commission wanted, or at least preferred, a site that was on a hill as both sites in Ravenna were on a hill (or at least purported to be) and the main site in Kent, where KSU's original front campus is now located, is a hill (over 60 feet above Main Street and about 100 feet above downtown).  Sites in other towns mentioned also indicate that hilly sites were offered.  Indeed, the KSU history indicates that one of the primary features of the Kent site that really attracted the commissioners was the hill (some views below).  Obviously in northwestern Ohio, hills are hard to come by, so it doesn't seem like it was a priority or preference there (Bowling Green State University has no hills anywhere on its campus and the entire town is roughly the same elevation).  Below is a map of Ravenna that has the former Beebe farm outlined.  Had this been selected, it would be the nucleus of what would more than likely be called "Ravenna State University".  However, as we can see, there was a more likely possibility of a "Warren State" or "Wadsworth State" than a "Ravenna State University".

View Ravenna Normal School locations in a larger map

View of Kent from N. Mantua Street looking east showing the relative height of the KSU campus in the background (water towers on the right, pitched roof building just to the left of the crane) over downtown Kent.  

View looking northwest from the KSU campus in 1919, similar to the view the commissioners would've seen in 1910
(image from Kent State University Special Collections & Archives)

View looking west over Kent from the KSU campus, similar to the view the commissioners would've seen in 1910
(image from Kent State University Special Collections & Archives)

Sisters of Titanic

With all the renewed interest in the Titanic recently as we observed the 100th anniversary of its sinking on April 14-15, 1912, most of the attention has been on the Titanic itself and the sinking in particular.  While I have always been fascinated with the infamous sinking and the exploration of the wreck, I have always been very interested in the ship itself.  Probably the biggest reason I was excited about the movie Titanic in 1997 was being able to see what the ship was probably like on the inside.  That alone made the movie worth it to me.

Olympic on the left and Titanic on the right, just before completion of Titanic in 1912.  This is before Titanic had its upper promenade enclosed, which was one of the differences it had with Olympic.  I have always loved this picture.  Too bad there was never a chance to get all three ships together.

Understanding the Titanic means realizing it was part of a class of ships.  Most Titanic enthusiasts are aware that the Titanic was the second of three ships known as the Olympic-class.  The first ship, the RMS Olympic, was launched several months before the Titanic and in many ways was identical to the Titanic.  The third ship of the class, the Britannic, was launched in 1914 (2 years after Titanic) and never saw service as an ocean liner because of World War I.  Instead, it served as a hospital ship before sinking after hitting a mine.

Olympic was the first of the new class of ocean liners from the White Star Line intended to be the most luxurious on the market.  This is in the days before air travel, so the only way to cross the Atlantic was by ocean liner (not to be confused with a cruise ship).  Being first of the class, like most first-time products, meant that the later sisters overall had the same shape and basic design, but also had slight improvements on the Olympic.  Because the Titanic sank on its maiden voyage, there are very few photos of the ship, particularly the inside.  Most of the shots used to show the interior of Titanic are actually those of Olympic because in most respects they were identical.  They had the exact same base plan and were largely built side-by-side.  It's not uncommon for exterior shots of Olympic to be mistaken for Titanic since they had very similar exteriors and identical paint schemes.  There are differences, though, that are easy to spot.

The biggest visible difference between the Olympic and Titanic was on the forward Promenade Deck (originally labeled as A-deck, the first deck below the top level or Boat Deck).  The Olympic's promenade was open the entire length.  During its initial runs, there was apparently some complaint about spray from the wind, so Titanic had the forward part of the promenade enclosed.  The later sister ship, Britannic, also had the forward promenade enclosed, but Olympic never did despite having several refits over the course of its career, many of which added features the Titanic had.  This is probably the most frequently used feature to distinguish the two ships, though it's not a perfect difference.  Titanic did not have that modification made until the very end of construction, so early shots have the same fully-opened promenade as Olympic, which often results in some Titanic enthusiasts believing they are looking at Olympic when, in fact, it is Titanic in latter stages of construction.

Comparison picture from  "The Great Titanic Switch" highlighting some of the differences between Olympic and Titanic

There is another way to distinguish the Olympic from Titanic in the early photos, but it's very small.  On the bridge level, there were two "wing" cabins on either end.  In the original configuration, the outer walls of these cabins on the Olympic were flush with the edge of the ship.  On the Titanic, however, these cabins protruded 2 feet over the edge of the ship.  After the loss of Titanic, several changes were made to Olympic, one of which was altering the wing cabins to protrude outward (among other changes; the bridge of the Titanic was quite different than the original configuration of the Olympic and was a major improvement).

Olympic on the left and Titanic on the right showing the subtle differences in their bridge wings.  After the loss of Titanic, Olympic had a major refit, part of which extended the bridge wings like Titanic's (Olympic below, 1929).  Britannic's bridge wings also protruded out

There are several other small differences between Olympic and Titanic, all of which have been documented and studied due to the conspiracy theory that the ship that sank was actually the Olympic redressed as Titanic.  While the idea is tantalizing to say the least, the idea that the ships would be switched (allegedly because the Olympic had received major damage in a collision with the HMS Hawke and was sunk on purpose to get insurance money), it's pretty much impossible not only because the immense amount of money required to change them, but the very obvious problem that Olympic's parts were stamped with the hull number 400 and Titanic's were stamped with 401.  Pieces of Titanic recovered from the wreck have had 401 on them.  Oh well!

Britannic painted in hospital ship colors.  The huge lifeboat arms can be seen here as well, a defining characteristic of the ship.  Like Titanic, Britannic had a partially enclosed upper promenade.

Britannic was the third and final sister of the Olympic class and was the largest of the three both by tonnage and by width.  The Britannic is much easier to differentiate for two major reasons: first, because it was never used as an ocean liner, pretty much all pictures of the ship show it as a hospital ship, which was a far different pain scheme than the White Star Line used for its ocean liners.  The only pictures of Britannic in its White Star paint scheme are postcards or artists' renditions, not actual photos.  Even so, the other very obvious difference on Britannic was the huge lifeboat davits that were installed.  They were supposed to be capable of launching lifeboats on the opposite side of the ship (in the event the ship started to list to one side to prevent lifeboats from being launched on that side), but the huge funnels made that pretty much impossible.

Cool picture of Britannic under construction with the Olympic's funnels visible in the background, from Kevin Scott Bolinger's post

Britannic (officially the HMHS Britannic for "His Majesty's Hospital Ship"), had a tragic end, though not as tragic as Titanic.  It struck a sea mine in the Adriatic sea of the coast of Greece and sank in about 400 feet of water.  30 people died in the sinking, and pretty much all of those deaths were the result of loading lifeboats prematurely before the ships engines had been shut off.  Britannic's low loss of life was also aided by the fact that it had recently unloaded most of its patients, so there were far less people on board.  The wreck of the Britannic was discovered in 1975 by French explorer Jacques Cousteau.  Unlike Titanic, the Britannic sank in one piece, though the front of the ship is bent since it hit the seabed before the ship totally sank (the water was 400 feet deep and the ship was just over 882 feet long).  The wreck is explored regularly and can be explored by scuba divers since it is at a far higher depth than Titanic, which is some 2 miles below the surface.  Britannic is also far better preserved than the Titanic.

Olympic served a long and eventful career, finally being retired in 1935 and scrapped about a year later.  It served as a troopship during World War I and actually rammed a German U-boat in that capacity and, of course, had a long career as an ocean liner between New York and Southampton.  It is likely that if Titanic hadn't sunk, it would have also been used as a troopship in the war or some other military purpose.

This painting and the picture below show Olympic in "dazzle paint" during its time as a troopship.  The dazzle paint was supposed to act as a camouflage to protect against submarine attacks

Origins of Easter

I had a request to do a blog post similar to my post "Understanding Christmas" about the origins of many of our Easter traditions as we approach Easter Sunday.  In many ways, the way Easter has evolved both religiously and secularly is similar to how Christmas has developed over the centuries.  Like Christmas, Easter has many traditions and symbols that pre-date Christianity and are rooted in ancient paganism.  Also like Christmas, it wasn't a simply matter of the early Christian Church inserting a Christian holiday in place of a Pagan one; rather, it was a gradual association of Pagan symbolism and tradition with the Christian holiday simply because the two occurred around the same time.  What I intend to focus on here are the most visible secular symbols of Easter: the Easter Bunny and the Easter Egg, both of which seemingly have no connection to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ.  I'll also touch on the name of Easter and the reasoning behind its date.

The first thing that always seems to throw people for a loop is the date of Easter.  Every year it's on a different day and can be anywhere from late March to late April.  What gives?  Easter is different from most holidays because it's not a fixed day like Christmas, Valentine's Day, Independence Day, etc. are.  Instead, Easter is based on a "lunisolar" calendar, similar to the way Passover is determined in Judaism.  Basically, the cycles of the moon are included in the calculations where our typical measure of time on our Gregorian calendar is made using the Sun.  The rule for Easter (which seems to be first established in 325 AD at the First Council of Nicaea but was debated many times after) is that it's the first Sunday after the first full moon following the vernal equinox (first day of spring in the Northern Hemisphere).  Because the spring equinox is March 20 or 21, Easter cannot happen before then.  Easter and Passover are normally celebrated very close to each other (according the the Bible, the events celebrated in Easter happened during Passover), but because the calendar used by the western world (Gregorian calendar) is not identical to the Hebrew calendar (Passover starts on the 15th day of the Hebrew month of Nisan), the two holidays occasionally are weeks apart.  While Passover is a fixed day in the Hebrew calendar, because of the way the Hebrew calendar is determined and measured, it appears to move around when compared to the Gregorian calendar.  For your info, next year, Easter will be on March 31st again, which last happened in 2002.

The next thing about Easter that is confusing on the surface is the name itself.  Where on earth is the name "Easter" from and what does it have to do with the Resurrection of Christ?  From what I can find, the name Easter is derived from the Pagan goddess Eostre.  The ancient Anglo-Saxons worshiped Eostre, who was the goddess of fertility and "new beginnings", during the springtime.  Her symbol was the rabbit, since the rabbit is a symbol of fertility, as are eggs.  In other languages, the word for "Easter" is the same word as "Passover" (based on the Latin "Pascha" from the Hebrew "Pesach").  Why did English adopt a pagan word for this holiday?  From what I have read it was simply due to the fact that the two events were at the same time of the year, so it simply evolved from common usage.  One source mentioned that the ancient month for the goddess Eostre (also spelled Eastre), known as Eostremonat ("Eostre's month") was at the same time as April.  As Christianity replaced Paganism as the dominant religion, it is natural that many of the wordings and cultural traditions would carry over, similar to many of the symbols associated with Christmas.  In many Christian churches and movements, they will refer to Easter as "Resurrection Day" as a way to avoid using a Pagan name.

Eostre seems to be the source for the most common Easter symbols: the Easter Bunny and Easter Eggs.  Both of them are ancient symbols of fertility and re-birth that pre-date Christianity by hundreds, even thousands, of years, and thus were used by the Anglo-Saxons in association with Eostre and the spring festivals in her honor.  Even so, they were not used in any way similar to how we use the Easter Bunny or Easter Eggs, but it does explain where the idea came from.  The legend of the Easter Bunny bringing eggs to children seems to come from Germany with the earliest mention being in the 1500s.  What I found interesting about the early use of the Easter Bunny was that kids would make "nests" for the rabbit (where we get our "Easter grass") using their hat (boys) or bonnet (girls) and later using sticks in their garden.  They would put them in secluded places and then go and find them the next morning.  Of course this has now evolved into using Easter baskets instead.  The German custom seemed to be a way to help their children be better behaved similar to Santa Claus, since the Easter Bunny would only bring these colorful eggs to good kids.  When German immigrants came to the United States, they brought this tradition with them, though it wasn't until after the Civil War that we see the emergence of the Easter Bunny and Easter in general as any kind of major holiday celebrated around the country.  Christmas is similar in that it wasn't widely celebrated early in the history of the US simply because it was considered British.  The German immigrants also introduced making pastry bunnies and later, chocolate bunnies.

As for the Easter Egg, as I mentioned, were long symbols of fertility and re-birth associated with Spring.  In the Middle Ages, eggs were forbidden during Lent, so any that were laid during Lent were boiled or preserved in some other way.  At the end of Lent, eggs were a major part of the menu and were a seen as a wonderful gift for children and even servants.  Early Easter Eggs were sometimes decorated with gold leaf or were dyed in colors boiled from flower petals.  Over time, different kinds of candy have been added along with eggs (does anyone still put real eggs in their Easter baskets anymore?).

Of course there are other symbols and traditions that are associated with Easter, but these are the biggest ones.  In doing this little study of the history of Easter, it's interesting to come to understand how everything came to be and how the Pagan symbols were worked into a Christian holiday.  In the end, Easter is just like Christmas in that it has a very serious religious side (the Resurrection of Christ) and a very secular side.  Both Christmas and Easter have elements of Paganism in them (though hardly anyone uses the symbols as they were originally intended or even thinks about the original symbolism), but they also have the general recognition of when they take place.  Easter is generally associated with spring because that's when it happens.  Christmas is generally associated with winter because that's when it happens too (and yes, even in the Southern Hemisphere I've heard of people viewing a "White Christmas" as basically the iconic Christmas even though in the Southern Hemisphere, Christmas occurs at the beginning of summer!).  As such, many of the symbols and traditions associated with Christmas and Easter on the secular side are more appropriately associated with the season rather than the religious aspect and as I said before, no longer have any Pagan association to the average person.  I imagine that like any convert, these early converts to Christianity from Paganism over 1,000 years ago didn't just wholesale drop all their customs and beliefs, but sought to make sense of what they knew compared to that they were learning in their new religion and it gave them new meaning to some of their previous beliefs.  I can also see why there was an association with a Pagan spring holiday and the Resurrection since both have rebirth and renewal at their core.

Personally, I love many of the Easter traditions (especially the candy and chocolate!!!) :).  Does it lessen the religious aspect of Easter?  Hardly.  I'm also a big proponent of having Sacrament Meeting on Easter be a little more special than your average weekly meeting (we do it for Christmas, why not Easter?) with extra music and talks.  But just like Christmas, it's not like I only think about the wonder of the Resurrection ONLY at Easter, so why can't I enjoy some of the cultural fun that has developed alongside the religious rite?  The fun, secular side of Easter is part of our culture and there is nothing wrong with having fun, especially when so many of the secular traditions associated with Easter involve spending time with family (Easter dinner, Easter egg hunts, doing Easter baskets, decorating eggs, etc.).   How can that be bad or negative?  Yes, you CAN take part in the secular aspects of Easter and still not lose any of the value or meaning of the religious side.  It's a matter of balance just like anything.  Just like with Santa Claus, my parents also did the Easter Bunny thing and would you believe I STILL go to church and still believe in the Resurrection and have a testimony of the Atonement?

For more on Easter and its history see the Wikipedia articles on Easter, Easter Bunny, Easter customs, and Eostre, as well as:

• Easter Symbols and Traditions by David Johnson and Shmuel Ross
• The History of Easter and the Easter Bunny by Arlene Wright-Correll

I also found a great answer for the calendar question on Yahoo answers (it has sources): "Why didn't Passover and Easter coincide this year?" (2008)

Giving a Second Look

I had one of those unexpected history moments this past week where looking closely at a photo made me realize it wasn't from the time period and event I (and seemingly everyone else) thought it was.  As fun as those can be, the search for answers (and ultimately finding them) was the most fun.  Now, I'm left with the question of exactly when one of the photos was taken.

This first picture was a photo I had seen many times online and in print.  It was thought to be of the great flood of 1913.  The flood in Kent was part of a larger flood across the state over several days at the end of March.  Virtually every city in the state has some kind of story related to that flood.  Over 100 people each died in Dayton and Columbus because of the flooding in those respective cities among countless losses of property all over Ohio, including the dynamiting of several old Ohio & Erie canal locks in downtown Akron.  The damage in Kent was mostly restricted to areas right along the river, helped in no small part by the fact that through downtown, the Cuyahoga River is around 40 feet below street level.  The Baltimore & Ohio tracks (known locally as the "lower tracks" because of how they pass through downtown) suffered the most damage simply because they are closer to the river.  The stone arch dam, built in 1836, suffered severe damage and the adjoining lock was pretty much totally destroyed (though by then it had long been bricked over).  The dam would eventually be repaired in 1925, but only after a long debate over whether it should be removed since it no longer served a purpose for the canal or industry (in addition to the adjacent canal lock, the dam also fed a mill race on the opposite side of the river that initially served the old Kent Flour Mill near Stow Street).

Photo posted by Henry Halem; from the collection of the Kent Historical Society

Now, at first glance, this seems to be a photo of that flood.  I have seen this photo many times in books and online and never gave it a second thought about its timing.  Then, a few days ago, a friend of mine posted a photo in the possession of Kent State University's Special Collections and Archives that is from virtually the same angle and is also of a flood.  He and I both assumed it was simply another photo of the same event since it also featured flooding and shared the vantage point of the photo above.

Photo from the Kent State University Special Collections and Archives

Again, at first glance, these seem to be photos of the same event.  When I first saw this, I thought briefly that it was simply an untouched version of the previous photo, since the first picture is clearer.  Then I thought it must be a picture from a little later since the water level in the bottom picture is higher than in the first picture.  But then I looked more carefully at the first photo and noticed some big differences; differences that give an idea of when each picture was taken and that they weren't THAT close together.

The first that jumped out to me was the absence in the top picture of the large tower just to the right of center in the bottom picture.  This was a 150-foot flagpole (which included a bell) that was built in late 1895 on the site of the current gazebo downtown.  It stood until sometime in the 1910s and is often in the background of photos taken of downtown during its existence.  Next I noticed that the trees along the riverbank at the bottom of each picture were noticeably larger in the bottom picture than they were in the top picture.  The third major thing I noticed was the mill on the far left of the picture (and adjacent smokestack) was also absent in the first picture.

Now, with those obvious differences clearly visible, I still had to do a little digging and some more visual inventigative work to determine A) which (if either) photo was of the 1913 flood, and B) when the top photo  was taken since it was definitely not 1913.  I found a few clues in three Kent history books I have that allowed me to say with almost certainty that the bottom picture is of the 1913 flood and the top picture is probably sometime in the 1880s for a flood that is not mentioned.

The most detailed history of Kent ever written is the 1932 History of Kent by historian Karl Grismer.  He mentions three major floods for Kent: 1832, 1904, and 1913.  At first I thought the top picture was possibly the from the 1904 flood, but the absence of both the mill and the flagpole eliminate that since both were also there by 1904.  It's definitely not from 1832 since there wouldn't be clear photographs from then not to mention that where downtown Kent is now wasn't developed until circa 1836-37.  The large mill building seen in the bottom picture was built in 1890.  At that point, I was looking pretty carefully at the top picture to see if there were other details I could find.

The first additional detail I could find was the retaining wall that separates the upper tracks from the lower tracks is simply the natural rock cut away.  In the bottom picture, that has been covered with large bricks (still there today).  In a book I have called Images of Kent by Michelle Wardle, I found two photos taken of downtown in the 1880s that show that same rugged drop (as opposed to the brick wall), as well as the absence of the mill (and obviously the flagpole).  The pictures are dated in the captions as "1880s".  From that, I could definitely date the top picture as being from the 1880s at least.

Even with that, I still couldn't date the top photo or totally confirm that the bottom photo was, in fact, from the 1913 flood (instead of the 1904 flood).  Since the mill and flagpole were also present in 1904, I needed something else to give me more clues.  I looked at Roger Di Paolo's book Rooted in Kent, which is a compilation of many of his more recent Portage Pathways articles on Kent history.  I was looking to see if there was a larger version of the top pic so I could possibly see more detail.  Well, instead of seeing more detail on the picture, I found mention of a building that could help me date it.  From 1884-1905, there was a small building along the lower tracks immediately south of the Main Street bridge (accessible via a staircase from the bridge) known as the "boxcar depot" since it was a depot station for those tracks (Baltimore & Ohio or B & O) made from an old boxcar.  When I looked at the top photo again, sure enough, there it was right adjacent to the bridge.  When I downloaded the full-sized photo from Henry Halem's Facebook page, I could see the boxcar depot even clearer.  In the lower picture, there isn't anything in that area at all besides the staircase, which was there much longer than the depot was (a new and nicer depot for the B & O further down the tracks opened in 1905).

I was able to see several other photos from the 1913 flood, all of which match the bottom picture with certain background details like the flagpole, absence of the "boxcar depot", and presence of the mill.  As for the top photo, it is of a flood that is not mentioned in Grismer's history.  It was taken during or after 1884, but before the construction of the mill's prominent grain elevator in 1890.  So, in other words, sometime in the mid-to-late 1880s.

It just goes to show how valuable photos are in studying history and even more so how valuable dating them is!  This is why I like to get pictures around town (especially as things are changing) and I try to make sure my digital camera's date and time are set correctly.  It also goes to show the value of looking for details.  You never know what you're going to find!

UPDATE: February 2, 2012
I found a picture of the Kent Opera House, which is visible in the left backgrounds of both pictures.  It was built between May and November of 1889, which reduces the time frame of the top picture to about a year.  The fact it is in the picture and the mill is not tells us the picture was taken sometime after enough construction of the Opera House was done so that it was visible and before any visible construction began on the mill expansion.  If construction started in May, I would guess based on how it looks in the top picture that this picture was taken very close to its completion if not after.  If I had to pick a date based on what I know, I would say this is probably sometime in the early spring of 1890 since there are also visible leaves in the trees along the river.  Even today, the Cuyahoga gets very high from spring rains and snow melt in March and April (other times too).  The fact that it's not mentioned in the detailed History of Kent makes me believe it wasn't that big of a deal when it happened and if it were just another typical spring flood, that's what it would be.

The Fall of Old Ravenna High

Sometime during 2012, the old Ravenna High School will likely be torn down if plans proceed as they are currently laid out.  The building has been vacant since mid 2010 after it was replaced by a new, $26 million building on North Chestnut Street.  Now, I know what some of you are thinking.  Why write about the old school building of Kent's biggest rival?  As much as I enjoy the sports rivalry between Roosevelt and Ravenna, as a historian and fan or architecture, I can also appreciate the history and character that the old Ravenna High School has, especially the original portion of the building, which opened in 1923.

Front of the original portion of "old" Ravenna High School, which opened in 1923.  I took this picture in 2009

The building at the corner of Clinton and East Main near downtown Ravenna is actually the 4th home of Ravenna High School (3rd permanent home).  The school was first housed in an old grocery store when it was established in 1858.  Like the original Kent High School, that was only temporary while Ravenna's new Union School building was finished.  That building opened in December 1859, about 10 years before Kent's Union School opened (March 1869).  A "union school" was simply a type of building that consolidated local school houses into one structure and allowed for the students to be separated by grade level.  The Ravenna Union School was the home of Ravenna High School until 1883 when a new high school building opened at the corner of Walnut Street and Bowery Street (now Highland Avenue).  It also housed 7th and 8th graders, which occurred at the original Roosevelt High School on several occasions.  An addition was built on the front of this building in 1910 and it still stands, though it is no longer used as a school.  The original part of the building was torn down in 1960.  By the early 1920s, enrollment growth necessitated construction of a larger building, which is the one most of us are familiar with.

Ticket booth at the entrance to the auditorium wing from Clinton Street

Ceiling above the entrance to the auditorium wing facing Clinton Street

Having attended school at the original Roosevelt High School (now Davey Elementary and known as Davey Middle School while I was there in the early 1990s), I had long wanted to see the inside of "old" Ravenna High School since I knew the two buildings were built at roughly the same time.  I finally did in 2010 when the Ravenna Schools hosted an open house of the old building just before they officially closed it.  What I found was a lot of similarities in the overall feel of the original sections of both Davey and Ravenna, but some big differences as well.  Construction on "old" Roosevelt (now Davey) began in May 1921 and finished just under a year later in May 1922.  Ravenna High School was started in August 1921 but was not completed for almost 2 years.  It was dedicated in August 1923.  I haven't been able to find out why it took so much longer to complete Ravenna High School.  The buildings are pretty much the same size and the site in Ravenna is mostly a level grade, while the Kent site is on the side of a hill, so it doesn't make sense.  In any case, the two schools have a similar feel to them, even though both have been modified extensively since they first opened.  I'm hopeful there will be one more walk-through before the building is finally razed.

Ravenna High School ca. 1923 when it was new.  The entrance visible on the right faces East Main and was covered up by the addition of Whittaker Hall in the late 1960s

The biggest difference between the two is their layouts.  Davey is 3 stories of classrooms with a partial basement, due to the building being on the side of a hill.  Old Ravenna High is also three stories, but it's confusing for visitors and new students because the main entrance is on the 2nd floor.  The building is also on a hill, but it's parallel to the hill rather than perpendicular like Davey is, so the bottom floor is slightly below ground level on the front of the school, while fully exposed on the back.  The other differences in the layout are the gym and auditoriums.  Both schools are largely symmetrical, but Ravenna High School is almost perfectly symmetrical from the outside, at least originally.  The only thing that keeps it from being perfectly symmetrical is the entrance to the auditorium from Clinton Street, which includes a porch and stairs.  There is no entrance for the opposite wing (which is the gym).  Davey is symmetrical up to the gym, which is slightly off-center, shifted to the east.  I'm not sure why that was made, though the original site plan from 1920 has the building completely symmetrical on the north-south axis of the center of North Prospect Street.  At Ravenna, the gym and auditorium were on each end of the building with the classrooms in the middle.  At Davey, the auditorium and gym are both in the middle of the building, but on the back, with the classrooms on the front.  The sites for each school are very different, with Ravenna High on a 5-acre block adjacent to downtown and Davey on a 10-acre site that, at the time, was the edge of Kent.  Kent nearly built the school on a lot similar to what Ravenna did before a firm from Columbia University recommended they not build on such a confined lot.  As a result, the Board took some more time to design a larger school and find a more suitable lot that could accommodate growth and campus with athletic facilities.  Ravenna, on the other hand, had to have athletic fields in other parts of town (old Gilchrist Stadium was located several blocks away) once the school had to be enlarged in the 1950s.  Only with the opening of their new high school in 2010 did Ravenna finally get a single, unified campus.

Aerial of Ravenna High School from the 1947 yearbook showing its symmetry.  The auditorium is in the wing on the right side of the building and the gym is in the wing on the left side.  A baseball diamond can be seen on the left, later to be occupied by the first addition to Ravenna High School, the Coll Annex in 1958.  

Aerial of "old" Roosevelt (now Davey) from the 1950 yearbook.  The long building in the back that is separate from the school is the vocational area, added in the late 1930s.  The symmetry of the front part of the building can be seen here with the auditorium the long part in the middle with the gym in the back.  For whatever reason, the gym does not match the symmetry of the building and is shifted slightly to the east (you are looking to the northwest in this picture).  The football field visible on the left was known as Bowers Field and was the home of the Roosevelt football team until 1970.  

The auditorium was an interesting bit of history for me.  The Ravenna Republican reported at the school's opening in 1923 that it had a "1,000 seat auditorium".  The auditorium at Davey, according to Karl Grismer's 1932 The History of Kent had 833 seats when it opened.  Today, the Davey Auditorium has about 500 seats, though the balcony no longer has any seats on it and the remaining seats have been modified with wider seats, reducing capacity, so 833 seems plausible in its original configuration.  1,000 seats in Ravenna's auditorium is simply not possible and can be attributed to a gross exaggeration or simply trying to make it look bigger (and thus, better) than it was (or a combination of both).  My mom and I counted 399 seats in that auditorium when we toured in 2010 with no sections having seats missing (like the Davey Auditorium balcony being totally void of seats).  While it is likely the original configuration had more seats than it does now (mostly because they were narrower with narrower aisles), there is not enough room in there for an additional 600 seats.  Despite the obvious that there is no way 1,000 seats could've ever been in that auditorium, it was repeated multiple times by the local newspaper and the Ravenna Schools themselves as the history of that building was discussed just prior to its closing.

Old Ravenna High School auditorium as seen from the stage.  Yeah, NO WAY there were EVER 1,000 seats there!  I would love to see an interior picture of this when it was new. 

Davey Auditorium in 2009 as seen from the stage

The original gyms in each building were also very similar, with Ravenna's simply a smaller version, but with a balcony that went completely around the gym where Davey's went around three sides but was much deeper.  Ravenna's "balcony" today looks more like a walking track (which is what is was mainly used for most recently), but old pictures show people sitting there for basketball games.  The estimate is about 200 people could fit in the gym for games, though in those days the basketball courts were smaller.  The Davey gym seated an estimated 300 people.  They gyms were similar enough that I mistakenly thought a picture of a basketball game was taken in the old gym at Davey and was actually at Ravenna.  The fact that it was in a Roosevelt yearbook AND a large banner that said "ROOSEVELT" was hanging off the balcony threw me off too, but sure enough, it was Ravenna's gym when I compared pictures I had of both.   

Can you see why I thought this was the gym at what is now Davey?  This is from the 1955 Roosevelt yearbook

Interior of the original gym at old Ravenna High in 2010 showing that yes, the picture above was taken in THIS room, not in Kent!

One cool feature of the original part of Ravenna High School is the skylights that line the hallway on the top floor.  They can be seen in the aerial picture above.  The idea was to have as much natural light as possible, so there were small class panels put in the floors to let that natural light flow down to the lower levels.  For the last few decades the skylights themselves have been covered up by the ceiling tiles in the school, a later modification used to bring heat costs down.  Unfortunately, the windows weren't exactly economical in terms of heating, so rather than modify them, they were just covered.  When I toured the building in 2010, some of the ceiling tiles were missing, so I could see the skylights.  I'm a big proponent of natural lighting (I HATE rooms that have no windows for no purpose!), so I thought that was a very cool feature.

There were two large additions to old Ravenna High, the first being the Coll Annex in 1958-59 and the other being Whittaker Hall in the late 1960s.  The Coll Annex was built north of the original building and housed a larger gym (which opened the same year that the original part of the current Roosevelt building did) and other classrooms like the band and choir rooms.  It is connected to the original building by way of a bridge on the top floor.  Whittaker Hall was a two-story addition of classrooms on the south side of the building and covered up the entrance to the original building for East Main (which is actually the school's address even though the main entrance faces Clinton Street).    

The gym in the Coll Annex, which opened in 1959.  I went to a few games in here, usually as a fan of the rival Rough Riders.  Sorry Ravens, but my best memory in here was in late 2000 or early 2001: Roosevelt 88, Ravenna 38.  What was funnier was the Record-Courier's headline the next day on the front page was simply "Roosevelt Over Ravenna, 88-38".   

Now, of course, the talk has been about the demolition of the building and why it couldn't be used for something else.  Once the new high school was approved, the old building's future was virtually sealed.  Because the state paid for most of the new building, the stipulation is that the old building cannot be renovated and used for a school, like making it a middle school.  This point was made very clear to voters at the time the bond issue was approved in 2006.  The line of thinking with that rule is that the state will help a district build a new building if the cost of renovating the old one is over a certain percentage of building new.  In the long run, it will be less costly to build new.  Since the old building is in bad enough shape to warrant replacement (verus renovation) and the district needs help to build new, then logic says there is no point keeping the old building for a school.  Included in the money the state offers are funds for demolition or the district can sell the building, which they tried to do.  While adapting an old school into something else is possible, it is also very expensive.  For a building the size of old Ravenna High, it's VERY expensive and time-consuming, so the only hope, really, is for someone to come forward that has a love of the building for whatever reasons, and more importantly, deep pockets.  You also need a person or group that needs the amount of space available in a building that size.  Remember, not only are there tons of classrooms, but two gyms and an auditorium.  Face it, large high school buildings really don't work well for anything except, well, being a high school.  Not only does the building need extensive renovation just to bring it up to code, remove asbestos, and fix other issues, but then it would need renovations to convert it to something else.  Apartments always seem to be popular re-uses for old schools, but that requires tons of new wiring and even more so plumbing.  Even using it for offices would need tons of work.

Dedication plaque

There was talk of separating the three sections of the building, but nothing came of it because even that option would require costly renovations.  On top of the logistical problems of converting a high school to something else, you also have much more of a time limit on deciding what to do with the building because it is publicly owned.  Many people were quoted as saying they didn't want old Ravenna High to become Ravenna's "old Kent Hotel".  The difference with the old hotel in Kent (which was recently sold and will finally be renovated) was that it was privately owned, so no tax dollars were being spent to maintain it even as it sat vacant and was a total eyesore.  The Ravenna Schools were spending somewhere around $12,000-$15,000 per month just to maintain a building they could no longer use.  When they tried selling it and later auctioning it off, no offers were worth anything close to the property's worth.  Basically, if they sold it for what they were being offered, they would've had to return the demolition money to the state, which was more than what they would get from the sale.  So, while it's sad from a historical perspective to lose a structure like this, it's not surprising at all, especially in an economy like we are experiencing and in a town the size of Ravenna, along with simple logistics.  If something similar happened in Kent with Roosevelt or Stanton, it's unlikely either building would be saved for a non-school use.  Bottom line is if the people of Ravenna really didn't want to lose the old high school, they wouldn't have approved a ballot issue that guaranteed it could no longer be used as a school.  There were previous bond issues that were rejected by voters that would've built a new high school and renovated the old one for use as a middle school.  In Kent, the only reason that "old" Roosevelt has been saved as a school is because Kent hasn't relied on state help for funding new buildings.  With the demolition of the old Ravenna High School building, the site will be much more marketable for redevelopment because it won't have a large three-story building on it that needs demolition or millions of dollars in renovations just to be viable.  Sometimes history has to give way to economics.

2010 view of the front entrance