• MAIN
  • Podcast
  • Features
    • Where’s My Jetpack?
    • What’s Right – What’s Wrong
    • “I” Candy
    • Real or Fake? (Cheap Shots at Suburbs and Post War Design)
  • Blog
  • Archive
Rational Urbanism
Home » Rational Urbanism » We’ve Been Here Before

We’ve Been Here Before

“The thing that many people forget about today’s urban revival is that people are actually moving into our downtowns again. ”

Mattoon Street

Stockbridge Court

Armoury Commons*

Morgan Square (now Silverbrick Lofts)

Ashford Place* (now Museum Park)

Classical*

The Macintosh

Chestnut Towers

122 Chestnut

The Kimball

Park Street Lofts

From the mid 1970’s all through the 1980’s Springfield saw these areas and buildings rehabilitated, refurbished, or repurposed as housing; some as condos or townhouses, most as apartments. While most of these projects at first attracted what were then called yuppies and now hipsters, as well as a few empty nesters, all but a handful saw a radical transformation to housing poor individuals and families or some level of serious decline.

I lived in three* of these developments in four intervals from 1987-2008 and experienced both as a resident and as a representative of the civic association the changes each has undergone. Almost all of these projects created fairly unique, stylish living spaces even by today’s standards: high ceilings, enormous windows, exposed beams, brick walls, historic built-in carpentry; one unit at Classical has its own observatory! Today perhaps 3 have maintained their value and their clientele, 3 have been redone and are striving to remain market rate, and the rest, at best, represent a challenge moving forward.

More importantly, their existence didn’t in any noticeable way slow the decline of general livability downtown; retail shops continued to close, small groceries didn’t move in, cafes didn’t open and stay open, all the diners closed. 

Now, on the other hand, there is a real chance, albeit only a chance, for the downtown to have all of the amenities I’ve looked for and dreamed of since I moved downtown 30+ years ago, but it comes tied to (cue ominous music and thunderclaps) a huge “silver bullet” resort casino designed to attract visitors to my community. Jane Jacobs forfend.

Anyone who reads my work knows that I am critical of a number of decisions and priorities of the local economic development cabal, but mobilizing in favor of the MGM proposal for the tornado ravaged South End was not one of them for the following reasons:

*The Commonwealth specifically designated this region of the state for a casino development, there was little to no chance that no casino would be built in the area, and the other four proposals had all of the drawbacks with few of the positive attributes of the MGM plan.

*The enormous tornado damage to block after block of historically significant structures in this economically struggling neighborhood made it very unlikely that a patient incremental response would be up to the challenge of remaking the neighborhood before even more vacant, undeveloped structures began to further erode what remained of our good bones.

*ALL smaller scale projects in the last 20 years in the South End have followed a suburban auto-oriented design model and MGM showed a commitment to good urban design principles even going so far as calling on Jeff Speck as a consultant.

*The MGM proposal takes an area which paid roughly $500,000 a year to the city in taxes and guarantees to increase it to more than $20,000,000.

The simple truth is, inviting this behemoth in is a risk, for the last 40 years different pundits and experts have promised a resurgence based primarily, believe it or not, on many of the very same arguments the most sober commentators make today. The city put lots of effort into façade grants, quality of life improvements, schools, parks, and library enhancements in the urban core; all to no avail. Yes, other silver bullet approaches were tried too: the downtown mall, the no car zone, large scale “urban removal”, the giant arena, the convention center (phases 1 and 2), and the Basketball Hall of Fame (versions 2 and 3).

There is a nagging voice in the back of my mind saying “this is too easy, this is too simple, this is too good to be true”. From the movie theaters to the street level retail this project produces ex nihilo all of the amenities I’ve been waiting to see return downtown for the last 30 years: in many ways it isn’t “promising” to bring what I want, it IS what I want. At the same time it could be, I think only without looking at the specifics, the most un-strong-townsy project ever.

Moving forward everything good or bad that happens in the city will be claimed to be a consequence of MGM. Given that there is no way to double blind the future we’ll never know, if “Mom and Rico’s” closes, it will truly have been because of MGM or if it would have happened anyway. Maybe the TD district will thrive as an alternative to the Vegas environment, or maybe it will fail because the billion dollar resort casino consumes all of the available development “oxygen”. What I do know is that most opponents will claim the city was destined to thrive if not for the project, and opponents will say doom was inevitable without it. 

I know that I don’t know and that I’ll never know. but since MGM IS coming to town, my town, I want to make it work. It should work. Not because casinos are a wise economic development model but because the city is built on a fundamentally strong foundation of prewar design, extremely high quality housing stock, dozens of walkable neighborhoods and arguably the best designed municipal water system in the country.

« The Noho Curbside Chat
Don’t Go to Memphis »

12 thoughts on “We’ve Been Here Before”

  1. Johnny says:
    October 28, 2017 at 7:06 pm

    Hara hachi bu. When it comes to our collective situation – urban, suburban, or rural – it might be time to embrace a future of solid mediocrity along the lines of the old 80% rule. Perfection is really hard to pull off and prohibitively expensive. Cheap halfassidy is fast, easy, and pretty livable. I’ll take Springfield in its current state of not-quite-there-yet any day.

    Reply
    • Steve says:
      October 29, 2017 at 7:06 am

      No question. I don’t think we’re in danger of clawing past mediocre, but having enough vitality to keep from withering away altogether is important. As you know, I’m what some people call “a doomer”, to me what can’t go on forever won’t, but using the present to improve what we’ve got demands investment…and I want what we can get of “non crap”!

      The other issue to me is the simplistic “design/use decisions can cure all ills”: Nope. You can do everything right and still get your ass handed to you; no good deed goes unpunished.

      Can’t wait to meet your people out here, plenty to show off!

      Reply
      • Johnny says:
        October 29, 2017 at 7:02 pm

        Personally, I’ve come to the conclusion that we aren’t going to reform any of our prevailing institutions. They can’t be tweaked or cajoled into anything significantly different than what they already are. Turns out, I don’t need institutional change to achieve my goals. I’m content to live in a mediocre environment so long as I’m surrounded by good people who look after each other. I’d much rather be embraced by poor Puerto Ricans at the poverty level than a lot of rich white people from Connecticut who’ll report you to the HOA if you have the wrong color drapes.

        Reply
        • Steve says:
          October 29, 2017 at 7:37 pm

          True story. I’d like a balance of cultures in my chosen environment. I’m a bit of a baby in that regard, I like this place.

          Reply
          • Andrew says:
            November 2, 2017 at 7:23 pm

            I don’t understand what you mean by this. Being comfortable around those who aren’t exactly like you is a mark of adulthood. It’s those who want everyone else to look like them, talk like them, dress like them, and listen to the same music as them who are the babies.

          • Steve says:
            November 4, 2017 at 4:57 am

            I don’t understand the relevance of the comment, but thanks for commenting!

          • Andrew says:
            November 2, 2017 at 7:27 pm

            I think you’ve got it exactly backwards. It’s childish to want (or expect) every to look like you, talk like you, dress like you, and have the same taste in music as you. Being comfortable around those who are different from you is a mark of adulthood; one that many presumed adults never achieve.

          • Steve says:
            November 4, 2017 at 1:43 pm

            I think I understand it now: I mean I’m being a baby about staying here, in my hometown-place of birth.

          • Andrew says:
            November 6, 2017 at 2:48 pm

            I posted twice because I thought the first one didn’t go through. I was going to ask you to delete one of them, but my revised comment was clearer, so I guess it worked out.

  2. Matthew Dovell MPA says:
    October 29, 2017 at 12:17 pm

    I live in one if the developments you mentioned and work for the city. I know some interesting policy changes you might want to know. If you’d like to talk over coffee I have an pretty open schedule. Keep up the good work.

    Reply
    • Steve says:
      October 29, 2017 at 7:32 pm

      Very cool. “Policy changes”; I like the sound of that…I think!

      Reply
  3. Pingback: Rational Urbanism | Wrong Again

Leave a comment Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 123 other subscribers

[Valid RSS]
May 2022
S M T W T F S
« May    
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  

Archives

Recent Comments

  • Eric on Hey Friends
  • Tom on Hey Friends
  • Eric on Hey Friends
  • John Sanphillippo on Hey Friends
  • Neil on Hey Friends
© Rational Urbanism - Hammerfold Media