Let’s do away with “That Guy”

Latest in a series of posts on development

ref: Type 3 developers a key to affordable housing

Another “sharing your reading” kind of Strong Towns post from Councilwoman Van Wirt. This “sharing your reading” feature is now back on Gadfly’s menu. If we’re not reading, we’re not learning and growing. Send your suggestions.

————-

Ha! I think I know THAT guy. Do you? This is more insight on how the development process works, and is is very applicable to Bethlehem. This article is short and to the point. Give it a read. In Bethlehem, we need type 3 developers- see my last post on this topic- and That Guy does not work for type 3 developers.
Paige Van Wirt

from Daniel Herriges, “Have You Met This Guy? Strong Towns, March 17, 2021.

I periodically attend public hearings where a development proposal is up for approval (or denial) by local elected officials. It was at about the 10th such hearing I attended in my current city where I really noticed him: “Hey, it’s that guy again.”

That Guy is a land-use attorney. His job is to represent clients who are trying to get a development project approved that requires some sort of special permission. Need a variance or other special exception to the normal zoning rules? A change in the zoning for a property? Putting together a more elaborate master-planned development, which bundles together a lot of rule changes in one request? Negotiating complexities involving wetland mitigation, historic preservation, impact fees, mandatory traffic studies, easements, transfers of development rights? (If you don’t know what all of those mean, don’t worry: that’s kind of the point here.)

For any of the above, That Guy is your guy. He’s not just any land-use attorney. He’s the one you want if you’re in the big leagues. When virtually any development of significant size or scope is on the agenda, That Guy seems to be there at the meeting as the developer’s lead attorney. He’s reliable like death and taxes.

He steps up to the podium and launches into his PowerPoint. That Guy is very good at his job. He’s polished; he’s prepared; he’s amiable and breezy. The reason so many clients use his services is that he knows the zoning code inside and out. He knows it better than the city planners know it: every technicality, every loophole. Certainly better than the elected officials know it. He’s been in this work a long time. He might have a planning or engineering degree in addition to his law degree. He probably worked in the public sector for a time.

Our particular That Guy is a principal in the firm that bears his father’s name, which is also his name (he’s a “III”). Their office is in a prominent building not far from City Hall. Their website boasts that, in addition to his “nationally recognized practice” in all areas of land-use law, he is “a regular speaker at growth management and land use conferences and has published a number of articles” and “has actively served his community as a board member on local civic and charitable organizations.”

That Guy is in the know. He knows people, and people know him. At some point the meeting will enter a brief recess (because there are hours worth of speakers lined up for the public comment period), and you’ll head out to the lobby. You’ll see That Guy chitchatting with reporters.

Perhaps more surprisingly, you’ll see That Guy chitchatting with one or more of the firebrand community activists who are there to rail against the developer (his client) as a money-grubber ruining the community’s quality of life. I’ve seen this happen firsthand. They all know each other. The activists have been going toe-to-toe with That Guy for years. They’ve probably met his kids. There’s a grudging respect there. It’s not that the issue doesn’t have real stakes; it’s just that it becomes like a sports rivalry after a while, where you’ve grown to kind of like the other team’s captain.

What does it mean if your community has a That Guy? That Guy is an indicator species: his presence tells you something important.

Fundamentally, it tells you that the system you’re using to regulate development is too complicated.

Make the rules simple and predictable—the zoning code tells you what you can build, and you can build it as of right—and the smallest developers with the shallowest pockets can play. Make the rules complicated, and the ante to participate gets much higher. The little guy can’t enter the game anymore: the ”return on brain damage” (h/t R. John Anderson) for trying to navigate a modest-sized project through the system is no longer worth it.

I don’t have anything against That Guy. He seems nice, he’s certainly very smart and competent, and I bet he and I would have a great conversation about land use over beers.

I just don’t want the way my community grows to be dependent on people like him.

The old Bethlehem Steel east annex on 3rd St. has “potential to be the most modern and forward and unique business or office space in all the Lehigh Valley”

Latest in a series of posts on new development

selections from Sara K. Satullo, “A look at what’s envisioned for the Bethlehem Steel General Office annex.” lehighvalleylive.com, April 15, 2021.

Developers envision linking the storied Bethlehem Steel General Office building with the adjacent east annex via a glass atrium and transforming the annex into a modern office building for 600 people, who work on a campus that includes a roof deck with views of the blast furnaces.

Peron Development offered the public a first glimpse into its vision for the 120,000-square-foot building at East Third Street and Founders Way in Southside Bethlehem, during a Thursday afternoon meeting of the Bethlehem Revitalization and Improvement Authority.

Peron principal Michael Perrucci, who owns the five-story annex and the 13-story general office building, sees the smaller annex as the perfect way to launch a phased redevelopment of the site. But first he must environmentally remediate the annex to attract tenants.

Peron’s director of development, former Bethlehem Mayor John Callahan, told the authority redeveloping the Steel General Office building property has long been his own white whale. This property is the lynchpin and tipping point fo Peron’s ambitious plans to reimagine the Third Street corridor into a live, work, play, knowledge community, Callahan said. This requires bringing more employees into the neighborhood via office space.

“We’re certainly looking and attempting to try to restore the entire complex back to its grandeur,” he said.

Early concepts call for reorienting the entrance of the annex onto East Second Street and creating a sprawling plaza fronting the campus that Peron hopes is a selling point to companies. The building could feature a roof deck and open concept office spaces.

“I think this building has the potential to be the most modern and forward and unique business or office space in all the Lehigh Valley,” Callahan said.

Fully redeveloping the entire Steel General Office complex will be a massive undertaking and require an unprecedented public-private partnership, Callahan said. Applying for the state remediation grant is just the first step.

The massive 115-year-old SGO building was headquarters for Bethlehem Steel Corp. until it moved its executives to Martin Tower in 1972. It has sat vacant since the mid-1990s.

Across from the annex, Peron is in the midst of a three-phase urban infill redevelopment on former Steel parking lots on East Third Street. Five10 Flats features 95 luxury apartments anchored by a first floor Starbucks, the Mexican eatery El Jefe and the future home of Mister Lee’s Noodle’s second location. Back in February 2020, Peron shifted its plans for Six10 Flats from office space to another 74 apartments with ground floor retail, and the developer plans more office space in a third Flats building at East Third and Fillmore streets.

The Bethlehem Parking Authority also selected Peron and J.G. Petrucci Co.’s plan for a mixed use development fronting the planned Polk Street parking garage at East Third and Polk streets. Plans call for a five-story building with 32 luxury apartments on the upper four floors and a unique first floor retail user. Before the coronavirus pandemic struck, Polk Street was ready to break ground, but financial uncertainty paired with unexpected emergency repairs at the Walnut Street Parking garage have stalled the deck. The city is awaiting a parking garage condition study to determine its next steps.

Even with the coronavirus drastically upending traditional working environments, Peron still believes the Steel annex is best suited for office space, Callahan said.

Type 3 developers a key to affordable housing

Latest in a series of posts on development

“Do you ever wonder why ‘developers’ don’t build affordable housing in Bethlehem? It’s because we are relying on Type 2 developers, deeply and consistently. We need Many Hands- small, incremental growth- Type 3, as in this article. Understanding our market — and our options to encourage type 3 developers — is one of the ways to see affordable housing start to flourish in Bethlehem.” (Paige Van Wirt)

Councilwoman Van Wirt, who has professional training and background in Urban Planning. has often praised Strong Towns and recommended articles.

This one is especially thought provoking and timely.

Gadfly had often wondered but has always neglected to ask.

Are we as a city passive in regard to developers, that is, are we dependent on who comes to us, or do we go out and approach and attract and “recruit” them?

For instance, Councilman Callahan’s oft repeated remark that there are only a few developers working in/on Bethlehem and that we need be careful not to chase them away has stuck deep in Gadfly’s mind the idea that we are passive. That we are dependent on the kindness of strangers.

For instance, Gadfly has always wondered the several times that Kim Carrell-Smith has made her thoughtful comments that history is our brand and that we need new architecture that blends with our history whether there are developers whose forte is exactly, is precisely such blending that we ought to be actively soliciting or seducing.

Gadfly used to run a feature called “Share your reading.” This article prompts him to think about reviving it.

———–

from Daniel Herriges, “There Are 3 Different Kinds of Developers” (October 13, 2020):

Developers are a major source of political influence in cities large and small, but also a major political football—you’ve no doubt heard claims like “(Such-and-such city council member) is backed by developers” or “Developers are pushing for (such-and-such plan or proposed law).” The reality is probably that a much more specific subset of people are doing it. And that’s important to understand. Overgeneralization is not helping your ability to understand the forces actually shaping what gets built in your community and where, let alone change it.

There are actually different types of developers who operate by almost completely different business models. They build different types of buildings, in different places. They use different sources of financing. Local rules and regulations affect these different groups very differently, and—importantly—their interests often do not align.

If we focus specifically on residential developers, we can group them into three rough categories that barely overlap with each other.

Type 1: The Big National Homebuilder

Type 2: The “Big Urban Box” Developer

Type 3: The Incremental Infill Developer

These are the people whom our friends at the Incremental Development Alliance are dedicated to championing and teaching how to get started. They work at smaller scales: mostly individual, scattered lots, almost always in already-established neighborhoods. They tend to build a lot of Missing Middle housing, rarely over 3 stories or more than 20 apartments or houses in one project. They are often sole proprietors, subcontract locally, and often live in and are personally invested in the neighborhoods where they work. They often, in fact, live in the very same buildings they’ve built or renovated—because getting a home for yourself out of the deal is one way to afford to do these projects on a limited budget. They don’t have organized clout or speak with one voice, so they’re not The Developers™ in the same boogeyman sense that critics of outsized developer political influence usually mean.

Smith puts eyes on the plan for 3rd and Polk

Latest in a series of posts on 404 E. 3rd St.

Anna Smith is a Southside resident, full-time parent, and community activist with a background in community development and education.

404 E. 3rd St.
Planning Commission
Thursday, April 8, 5PM

https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/184879645
1(872)240-3212
access code 184-879-645

ref: Establishing community-centered principles [the Smith principles] for responsible Southside development

Gadfly:

Here we go again! The latest proposal for Southside Bethlehem is up for approval, and since it lies outside the Historic Conservation District, residents and business owners only have one chance to weigh in on the project—the upcoming Planning Commission meeting on Thursday, April 8 at 5 pm. Based on my experience with the current Planning Commission, I have little hope for any discussion that extends beyond minute technical details and congratulatory remarks to the developer, and a swift approval of everything as designed and presented. But, hey, we could be surprised. Regardless, I encourage folks to attend to remind our Planning Commission that residents and small business owners are interested in weighing in on proposed projects, which they are charged with ensuring represent “the best possible development” for our community.

The project under consideration is a 7-story (85 ft) mixed-use building proposed for the corner of Third and Polk streets in south Bethlehem, to be developed by Lou Pektor’s Ashley Development Corporation (owners of the mixed-use building across Polk Street). The current site is a parking lot that was previously slated for development as a two-story building with a major restaurant tenant, which went through a few different iterations over the years. Times have changed, and post-COVID, Lehigh Valley-housing-crisis projects are flooding in, as are proposals hoping to sneak in before height limits are changed for the Southside commercial districts. The new project consists of two floors designed for commercial use, with two retail spaces on the first floor, a large commercial space on the second floor (medical office? gym?), and then five floors that will include 25 studio apartments, 35 1-BR apartments, and 20 2-BR apartments. While they have not specified it, I believe that the apartments are likely going to be targeted as college student housing, given their size, location, and the developer’s recent conversion of their adjacent property to student apartments.

Support projects that incorporate locally owned businesses into their plans, and that lead to a net increase in small businesses.

Here’s a big question for the developers, and one that I hope is addressed at the Planning Commission. Based on Ashley Development’s track record at their adjacent Third Street property, I’m nervous about the first-floor retail spaces. To their credit, after years of persistent vacancies, they have finally filled the huge holes in their first floor (and upper floors, for that matter, which were vacant for years following the departure of St. Luke’s). However, having worked with small businesses that were interested in locating in the property, I know that the developer was willing to sit on vacant properties for years rather than lower prices to attract a small, local business—a trend that is all too common (and unfortunately, makes financial sense). The types of businesses that can afford a large, unfinished storefront are few and far between.

So, the questions we need answered here: Are the developers working with specific local businesses on this project? How will they ensure that the first and second floor spaces meet the needs of actual businesses in our community and remain filled?

Prioritize development of vacant industrial properties over demolition of historic properties.

This seems like an apt location for new development. Parking lots don’t add much to the neighborhood, and extending the commercial corridor along Third Street has been a goal of the City’s for a long time. No historic properties will be harmed in the construction of this building, so that’s always a plus!

Encourage new development that does not exceed the size of surrounding properties and blends with historic architecture in order to create a cohesive sense of place and encourage walkability.

This is an interesting one. Once you get to Polk Street, Third Street becomes an eclectic mix of sizes and styles, particularly considering proposed structures for the many parking lots of the redevelopment area. There is no master plan for design for this area (that I’m aware of) to encourage developers to build in any consistent way. Here’s where something like a form-based master plan could have been helpful. But it’s too late for that, so let’s look at what we have in front of us.

Personally, I think the building is pretty ugly. The dark, set back retail spaces under the massive overhang of several stories of apartments do not look inviting. Ashley Development’s other project on Third Street made an effort to blend in with the surrounding neighborhood, probably because it was required to as part of the historic review process. But the Historic Conservation District ends at Polk Street (along Third Street), so I suppose they are going for a cheap look rather than one that blends with their next-door neighbor. What do you think?

When it comes to building height, most folks on the Southside seem to agree that this end of town is best suited for large buildings given the tall historic structures that already characterize the area. The project requires a significant number of variances due to the proposed density on such a small site, but the location within the industrial redevelopment area means that it will be easier to get these and that this site in particular would not be affected by proposed height reductions throughout the rest of the business district. At 85 feet, the building will be taller than most of the surrounding properties (existing and proposed), although the developers indicate that it will be similar to the Northampton Community College building.

I’m not thrilled about the building’s appearance and don’t think it fits very well into the surrounding area. But I want to hear the thoughts of other residents and business owners.

Support projects that incorporate diverse residential and commercial offerings that are accessible and affordable to South Bethlehem’s population.

This project will offer a range of studio, one-, and two-bedroom apartments. I hope that the developer will indicate if these are intended to serve college students or another population. Given the small size of the units and the likely price range, I don’t see much of a market for these studios beyond students. A range of apartments in these sizes is needed in our community, but it is highly unlikely given construction costs that the developer will charge prices that would actually meet the affordable housing needs of our community. I look forward to hearing more about this point.

Support adaptive reuse of historic buildings.

This is not an adaptive reuse project and doesn’t seem to have potential to be one.

Support projects that incorporate green space and/or the development of public spaces into their design.

This project proposes covering 95+% of the lot with impervious surfaces and removing 17 12-foot sycamores from the property, so green space looks to be a net loss (not that there was much to begin with). The second-floor commercial space and residential entrances will be located on the Mechanic Street-side of the building, so at least the view from the Greenway will be more than just dumpsters. Not much else to say here.

Support projects that are developed in response to community needs identified by residents and stakeholders, and that engage residents and stakeholders in idea development and the design process.

There’s no indication that residents and community stakeholders were consulted in the development of this project. I know it’s not the norm, but I will continue to insist that the best projects require community input.

Support projects that prioritize sustainable development practices and take proactive approaches to addressing challenges presented by our changing climate.

Thus far, this project does not address this point. I hope that the developer’s presentation will include an analysis of the environmental impact of the project.

Avoid projects that cause displacement of long-time residents, low-income residents, and locally owned businesses

No businesses or residents will be displaced through this project, so that is definitely a plus.

Do not use projects that are nearly universally considered planning and design failures as precedent for elements of new development (e.g. Urban Renewal projects like Rooney building, Litzenberger House, Lehigh’s Brodhead House; Rite Aid shopping center)

This doesn’t seem to be an issue in this particular case.

All in all, I’m not extremely excited about this proposal. I’m interested in learning more. I agree that this is an appropriate location to direct development, but I wish it were more attractive, and I hope the storefronts will be filled immediately with small, local businesses that serve Southside residents. I’m interested in hearing if this will be student housing. I’m also curious to see if the project will actually move forward, since the developer has been sitting on the property for years.

I hope that the Planning Commission will take the final point on the City’s letter seriously and condition approval on obtaining contracts for parking spaces at the specified Parking Authority lots. Given the explosion in development proposals on the Southside, it will be a race for developers to acquire a finite number of spots. I believe other developers have cited some of these same parking spots in their calculations, so we will need to keep an eye on approvals to ensure that spaces are not double-counted.

You may have noticed that my analysis is less robust than usual. This is a factor of time; as a community, we were made aware of this project on April 5 thanks to a Morning Call article. The actual plans weren’t published on the City’s website until late in the day on April 5, leaving the community three days to analyze the proposals in preparation for the only opportunity to provide input in a formal setting. I’m staying up far later than I would like to finish this analysis so that it can be published by The Gadfly and hopefully encourage a few folks to come out to the Planning Commission meeting. Do you see the problem here? I hope so. Responsible and community-oriented development requires doing a lot better.

Anna

172 new apartments up for review

Latest in a series of posts on development

Apartments aplenty! “Affordable” is the question these days.

The first two projects will be familiar to us.

This is the first Gadfly has heard of 404 E. 3rd — across Polk east of Molinari’s, catacorner to Charter Arts.

———-

selections from Christina Tatu, “Bethlehem planners to review projects that would bring 172 apartments to the city.” Morning Call, April 5, 2021.

The Bethlehem Planning Commission on Thursday 5PM will review site plans for three major projects that, if approved, would bring a total of 172 new apartment units and new retail space to the city.

Skyline West: 143 W. Broad St., a 50-unit apartment project.

The project is proposed by Musikfest founder Jeff Parks and attorneys Dennis, Garrett and Brandon Benner.

Dennis Benner on Monday said he’s already received 30 or 40 inquires about the project, even though construction has yet to start. He believes it is because Skyline West will bring residents within walking distance of the historic downtown.

“I think it’s because of its proximity to the urban core and North Side of downtown Bethlehem. This will be fabulous for the merchants on Main Street,” Benner said.

The project will be five stories set into the hillside. It would also include a 68-space parking deck below the building and amenities such as a courtyard, outdoor deck and gym for residents. Even though plans are being presented Thursday, the project will still need additional zoning and planning approvals, Benner said.

250 E. Broad St.: This project, which would lease space to the Bethlehem Food Co-op, calls for demolishing an existing one-story building and constructing a new, four-story building with the co-op’s full-service grocery store on the first floor and 42 residential units above.

The project is being proposed by Michael Perrucci’s Peron Development. Peron is partnering with Boyle construction on the project.

The Bethlehem Food Co-op had been looking for a space for a community-owned grocery store for 10 years when they announced the new location last month. The store is expected to open some time in 2022.

It will be 6,500 square feet with 4,500 square feet dedicated to retail.

A capital campaign will launch in the spring to raise $1.7 million to build and outfit the store. The funds will be raised from donations, member loans, bank loans and grants. Each of the nine members of the co-op’s board of directors also has signed a “leadership commitment” to financially support the new store.

It will be open to all shoppers. Plans include soliciting local vendors to supply produce and products, as well as the inclusion of bulk bins, a community kitchen, community meeting room, small area for outdoor dining, a bike rack and off-street parking.

404 E. 3rd. St.: Developer Lou Pektor, under Mechanic Street Development Associates LP, is proposing to turn an empty parking lot at the site into a seven-story mixed-use building with first and second floor retail and 80 dwelling units above.

Pektor is looking to “cultivate the perfect combination of captivating retail users and premier residential units,” said a Monday afternoon news release from the developer. “This blend of two commercial/retail floors and 80 dwelling units will be the highest and best possible use for the location.”

We need eyes tonight on a proposed Southside project again

Latest in a series of posts on 14-18 W. 3rd. St

Tonight!
Historic Conservation Commission meeting
Monday, March 15, 2021, 6PM

ref: Another opportunity to apply the “Smith Principles”
ref: Is the proposed 14-18 W. 3rd. St. a good addition to our community? Part 1
ref: Is the proposed 14-18 W. 3rd. St. a good addition to our community? Part 2

First meeting tonight on a major Southside project in the historic district: 14-18 W. 3rd.

The two smaller buildings on 3rd St. wall to wall with the new Benner/Zest building at 306 S. New.

The proposal is to demolish the two buildings in sad shape and construct a new 8-story building with retail on the ground floor and 80+ apartment above — aimed at students.

Gadfly reminds you of the wonderful Smith Principles — Anna Smith, that is — to help us think about new development on the Southside (see links above).

Anna’s discussion of this proposal in regard to each of her principles in the above referenced posts is delightfully fresh, just like thinking out loud.

Gadfly suggests that you read through her posts again.

She raises several questions that she looks for the HCC to seek answers for at this meeting.

Her conclusion: “With the help of the HCC, the Planning Commission, and some resident voices, I think there’s potential to turn this into a project that truly adds to our neighborhood. Maybe reduce the height a bit, secure some first-floor tenants, commit to finishing up the Greenway and integrating it into the building plans, and think about whether undergraduate student housing is truly the best use for a building in this location. Maybe even make it a green building! What do you think?”

The community smartminds turned out nicely for the HCC consideration of the proposed development nearby at 319-327 S. New.

And we could use that good presence again.

———–

Here are some more images.

First, the layout:

What about the thorny issue of height? The side view makes anything less than matching the Zest building look a little weird, no?

Is the proposed 14-18 W. 3rd. St. a good addition to our community? Part 2

Latest in a series of posts on 14-18 W. 3rd. St.

Historic Conservation Commission meeting
Monday, March 15, 2021, 6PM

Anna Smith is a Southside resident, full-time parent, and community activist with a background in community development and education.

ref: Another opportunity to apply the “Smith Principles”
ref: Is the proposed 14-18 W. 3rd. St. a good addition to our community? Part 1

continued . . .

6) Support projects that incorporate green space and/or the development of public spaces into their design

I am a bit confused by the early renderings of this project, and I hope that additional clarification is offered by the developer’s presentation. The project extends along the South Bethlehem Greenway’s final yards, and the renderings seem to show a potential integration of a seating area for a small business on the Greenway. If the developer plans to finish this section of the Greenway as a part of their project, I think that would be fantastic. We’ve been waiting on this final section of the Greenway for too long, and, unfortunately, no requirements to finish the Greenway seem to have been included in Dennis Benner’s approval for the adjacent building.

However, another one of the renderings seems to show a small sliver of Greenway as a walkway between the building and a parking lot. I hope that this is not the plan, since it would likely prevent the public from using this piece of the Greenway if it is perceived to be a private walkway for residents of the building to get to their cars.

How does the developer plan to integrate the Greenway into their development? I look forward to hearing more.

7) Support projects that are developed in response to community needs identified by residents and stakeholders, and that engage residents and stakeholders in idea development and the design process

I’m not sure that anyone thinks we need substantially more student housing on the Southside. I’m not sure that we need any more large commercial spaces that are not built out and are unaffordable for most local, small businesses. I suppose that this project would place more students in the downtown area, but I’m not sure if they will really spend much more money at local businesses. My conversations with students and surveys conducted over the years indicate that there is a small range of small business types that truly benefit from student presence in their neighborhoods—mostly restaurants, bars, and cafes, with an occasional targeted hair or nail salon, laundromat, barber shop, gym, or fitness studio. Yes, we have a lot of these on the Southside, but will moving students onto Third Street make a difference in their business? I’m curious to see. I would be more likely to support one- and two-bedroom apartments targeted at a broader population than undergraduates in this location, since I think it would have more of an impact on the local business community.

Like most development projects in our community, I doubt that the developer will consult with community members to see what residents would like to see in this location. They might do focus groups with students to see what types of businesses they would like to see on the first floor, but I will continue to emphasize that responsible development should take into consideration the ideas and perspectives of the people that live in a community.

8) Support projects that prioritize sustainable development practices and take proactive approaches to addressing challenges presented by our changing climate. Examples: The Flatiron Building

Thus far, this project does not address this point. I hope that the developer’s presentation will include an analysis of the environmental impact of the project.

9) Avoid projects that cause displacement of long-time residents, low-income residents, and locally-owned businesses

No businesses or residents will be displaced through this project, so that is definitely a plus.

10) Do not use projects that are nearly universally considered planning and design failures as precedent for elements of new development (e.g., Urban Renewal projects like Rooney building, Litzenberger House, Lehigh’s Brodhead House, Rite Aid shopping center)

While this project seems to be designed to avoid the pitfalls of the Southside’s ugliest developments (street-facing parking lots, massive towers, character-less architecture), it does use a controversial, non-historic property as precedent for height. I suspect that the HCC will address this at their meeting, and I look forward to hearing their analysis.

————

All in all, this isn’t a bad project, but it’s not a very exciting one either. I still have a lot of questions, and parking is a big one. If these are mostly students, hopefully there won’t be too many cars involved. I know that some could be parked in the garage next door, and others in the Mechanic Street lots, as the developer of the last project to come before the HCC had mentioned (but what if that project had been approved?). One image suggests that the developer is planning on building a lot behind the building, which would be unfortunate for the extension of the Greenway.

With the help of the HCC, the Planning Commission, and some resident voices, I think there’s potential to turn this into a project that truly adds to our neighborhood. Maybe reduce the height a bit, secure some first-floor tenants, commit to finishing up the Greenway and integrating it into the building plans, and think about whether undergraduate student housing is truly the best use for a building in this location. Maybe even make it a green building! What do you think?

Anna

Is the proposed 14-18 W. 3rd. St. project a good addition to our community? Part 1

Latest in a series of posts on 14-18 W. 3rd. St.

Historic Conservation Commission meeting
Monday, March 15, 2021, 6PM

Anna Smith is a Southside resident, full-time parent, and community activist with a background in community development and education.

ref: Another opportunity to apply the “Smith Principles”

Gadfly:

Another month, another development proposal for South Bethlehem. This time we’re looking at an 8-story building proposed by local developer Joseph C. Posh for the partially-vacant triangle adjacent to Dennis Benner’s Third and New Street building. The project would require the demolition of two vacant properties, one of which most recently housed “Style You Need” printing company, which was another small Bethlehem business lost to Easton. The properties are in pretty bad shape, and the apartments have been vacant for at least five years, according to the developer. The proposed structure would include what appear to be two commercial spaces on the first floor and a fitness center for tenants, and the upper floors would include a total of 38 studio, 38 one-bedroom, and 11 two-bedroom apartments with study lounges and community rooms on each floor. While they do not specify it in their application, it appears that the project is designed to be student housing.

Given the location of the project within the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District, the project requires the approval of the Historic Conservation Commission, whose members will consider the request to demolish two properties as well as the historic appropriateness of the proposed structure at their March 15 meeting.

Here’s another test for the responsible development principles I developed a few weeks ago. Is this project a good addition to our community? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. The developer has not included a narrative describing the project, so there are significant missing pieces when we think about the overall benefit to our community.

Support projects that incorporate locally-owned businesses into their plans, and that lead to a net increase in small businesses

The renderings of this project show two large commercial spaces on the first floor, but there is no indication yet that the developer has confirmed specific plans for these storefronts. One of the storefronts seems to include glass doors opening on to a seating area along the Greenway, which suggests that the developer may be planning for yet another restaurant or café.

The persistent vacancies at the adjacent property and the well-known difficulty of finding local business tenants for first-floor commercial properties following construction makes me wary about these storefronts. I will be looking for confirmation from the developer that there are small businesses included in the planning of these storefronts in order to ensure that they are built out to meet the needs of specific businesses. Otherwise, we may be dealing with a repeat of the neighboring structure—and adding even more vacant storefronts to the gateway to our side of town is not a great look for our community. Research shows that many residential developers prefer to keep first floor commercial properties vacant for financial reasons, so we need to keep an eye on this part of the project. On the bright side, however, this project would not displace any existing small businesses.

Prioritize development of vacant industrial properties over demolition of historic properties

This project would require the demolition of two historic properties, but much of the building would be developed on vacant land. Both historic properties are in pretty bad shape, so the likelihood of someone acquiring them and rehabilitating them to the point that they are truly inhabitable by residential or commercial tenants is slim. The historic properties look quaint and a bit strange along a corridor that has lost much of its historic architecture, and which is slated to lose more with the construction of the new Banana Factory/ArtsQuest complex. I am concerned about the precedent of encouraging demolition of historic properties in a historic district. But, is this a good place for development? Overall, I think this is a pretty good location for development, and I’m not too concerned with the demolition of these particular historic properties. Maybe there’s a way to include elements of the historic facades in the design of the new structure. I’ll look to the HCC for their thoughts on that.

Encourage new development that does not exceed the size of surrounding properties and blends with historic architecture in order to create a cohesive sense of place and encourage walkability

While coming in at 8 stories, this project is designed to be the same height as the 6-story building next door due to the difference in story-height between commercial and residential floors. I moved back to Bethlehem right as the Benner building was being approved, and I remember residents speaking out with major concerns about height. Since the project was constructed, I’ve heard regrets from a wide range of individuals who initially supported the project but didn’t realize just quite how big and out of place the building would look. I’ve heard a lot of folks say that they will make sure something this size doesn’t happen again in the neighborhood, since it doesn’t match the surrounding historic buildings that max out around 4 stories. A proposal of the exact same size and height doesn’t fit the character of our historic district. I suspect that the HCC will ask the developer to consider going a couple of floors shorter, but it may be hard for them to back up that request given their approval of the Benner building next door. I would like to see something a bit smaller.

I don’t know too much about design, but I don’t think the proposed design is terrible. I will rely on the HCC and other more knowledgeable people to give more feedback on that point. The glass tower at the western end seems a bit weird to me.

Support projects that incorporate diverse residential and commercial offerings that are accessible and affordable to South Bethlehem’s population

While the developer does not indicate proposed usage of the building, it appears that the apartments are designed to be student housing, given the study lounges on each floor. While Lehigh has indicated their intention to expand the student body significantly over the next several years, they have also committed to housing all of the additional students on campus and are actively working on several dormitory projects. Where will the 87 students come from? Will this free up housing in the neighborhoods for other renters? I’m not sure—I don’t see students who live in 5-bedroom party houses being the first to sign up for a studio, so I suspect that they will draw from elsewhere. Depending on the rents, they may be able to attract some graduate students who currently live far from campus. If they offer furnished apartments, they will probably be able to attract international students. The one and two-bedroom apartments at Lehigh’s new Southside Commons dorm were reserved quickly, so I expect that these will also be popular. If the developer is committed to student housing, however, there is little to no likelihood that families or non-student individuals will live there due to perception issues. This is not an affordable housing project, but it seems to be designed to serve an important part of our local population—our college students—without causing displacement of residents or quality of life issues for neighborhoods.

As far as the commercial component goes, as I mentioned above, I’m anxious to see what the developer has planned and I hope that they take the commercial component of the project seriously.

Support adaptive reuse of historic buildings

This is not an adaptive reuse project, and doesn’t seem to have potential to be one.

to be continued . . .

Another opportunity to apply the “Smith Principles”

Latest in a series of posts on new development

ref: Establishing Community-Centered Principles for Responsible Southside Development
ref: Testing the principles for responsible development on the S. New St. project, part 1
ref: Testing the principles for responsible development on the S. New St. project, part 2

Things stick in Gadfly’s head.

He thinks it was Councilman Callahan who said something to the effect of “we are lucky we have developers who want to build in Bethlehem, but we make it hard for them.”

Yeah, we are lucky. But, yeah, frankly, we should make it hard, especially in the historical districts.

So here we go again on the Southside.

“Another month, another proposal for South Bethlehem,” quips Anna Smith, one of our sharpest heads on local development.

This time it’s 14-18 W. Third St., the two buildings next to the Benner/Zest building at 306 S. New.

The developer has requested permission to demolish those two buildings and has submitted plans for a mixed use building there for consideration at the Historic Conservation Commission meeting March 15.

Now let’s just stop for a minute and reflect on the great thing Smith has done recently to help us, to help everybody focus attention and discussion and think about how to judge this new development plan.

She’s done her own “development,” a set of principles.

“The Smith Principles” for responsible Southside development.

We’ve seen her apply those principles to 319-327 S. New.

In the next post or two on this subject, she will apply those principles to 14-18 W. Third.

Anna Smith’s Community-Centered Principles for Responsible Southside Development:

Support projects that incorporate locally-owned businesses into their plans, and that lead to a net increase in small businesses. Examples: Riverport Market, Flatiron Flats
Prioritize development of vacant industrial properties over demolition of historic properties. Examples: The Factory, 510 Flats
Encourage new development that does not exceed the size of surrounding properties and blends with historic architecture in order to create a cohesive sense of place and encourage walkability. Examples: Polk Street building
Support projects that incorporate diverse residential and commercial offerings that are accessible and affordable to South Bethlehem’s population. Examples: proposed Palace Row redevelopment
Support adaptive reuse of historic buildings. Examples: Brinker Lofts, Flatiron Flats, Grace Mansion (in progress), Goodman building (proposed), Wilbur Mansion project (in progress)
Support projects that incorporate green space and/or the development of public spaces into their design. Examples: Brinker Lofts opening onto the Greenway
Support projects that are developed in response to community needs identified by residents and stakeholders, and that engage residents and stakeholders in idea development and the design process
Support projects that prioritize sustainable development practices and take proactive approaches to addressing challenges presented by our changing climate. Examples: The Flatiron Building
Avoid projects that cause displacement of long-time residents, low-income residents, and locally-owned businesses
Do not use projects that are nearly universally considered planning and design failures as precedent for elements of new development (e.g., Urban Renewal projects like Rooney building, Litzenberger House, Lehigh’s Brodhead House, Rite Aid shopping center.

to be continued . . .

The Martin Tower site — almost two years later

Latest in a series of posts on Martin Tower

May 19, 2019, is one of those red-letter days in Bethlehem history.

The day Martin Tower disappeared from the City skyline.

Here we are almost two years later.

Gadfly passes the site pretty frequently on his way to rendezvous with the family drug dealer.

He loves the open space.

But he can literally feel the ground ready to “break” and sprout man-made artifacts.

The developer is asking for some changes in parking, the nature of which Gadfly doesn’t quite understand yet.

But he was interested in these renderings that are part of the paperwork heading to the relevant City committees reviewing the parking change request.

The first here below pictures the whole site.

The second rendering cuts off a bit on the right side and on the bottom of the site, but it labels the buildings. If Gadfly’s memory serves, what’s cut off on the bottom left side is a gas station.

Gadfly finds these questions in a thinking outloud post of March 4, 2020. They are still on his mind as we get closer and closer to seeing action at the site.

Are we really going to have 500+ apartments there?
Will they be less cookie-cutter looking than the renderings we saw?
Will any be “affordable” like the memorable old guy asked at the very tail end of the Nitschmann public meeting?
Will the whole area be imperviously paved?
Will we get sidewalks along Schoenersville to the Monocacy so there’s a walkable connection from there to North Bethlehem?
Will there be a crosswalk or other traffic calming at the foot of the Schoenersville hill?
Will there be a recreation trail/path access to Burnside and the trail along the Monocacy?
Will there be better pedestrian/bike access to the youth recreation areas along Schoenersville up to Illick’s Mill?
Will there be better pedestrian/bike access to Westgate Mall?
Will there really be a gas station down by 378?

Testing the principles for responsible development on the S. New St. project, part 2

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

Anna Smith is a Southside resident, full-time parent, and community activist with a background in community development and education.

ref: Establishing Community-Centered Principles for Responsible Southside Development
ref: Testing the principles for responsible development on the S. New St. project, part 1

continued . . .

5) Support adaptive reuse of historic buildings

According to the HCC, only one property slated for demolition on this project has relevant historic value, and the developer has incorporated its façade into their design. Adaptive reuse seems to be off the table for this project (and debatably not an option), but, of course, there’s always the possibility of looking elsewhere for a historic property to rehab.

6) Support projects that incorporate green space and/or the development of public spaces into their design

It’s clear that the developers of this project were told by City staff that they need to think creatively about the adjacent South Bethlehem Greenway. The developer has repeatedly assured the HCC that they will work to “activate the Greenway” through events or contributions of some sort to its livelihood, although the details have not been made clear. Despite these assurances, I’m interested in exploring the impact of a massive, looming structure that will be built nearly on top of the Greenway. Will this be a good addition? The Greenway will certainly be a fantastic asset for the residents of this building, but I’m not so sure about the impact of this new building on the users of the Greenway.

I’m sure that there are business owners who are excited about this project. 82 apartments-worth of residents living in the middle of the business district! I get the appeal to local businesses who envision hosts of new regular customers. However, luxury apartments have not been among the “needs” or even “wants” that residents have identified throughout recent community visioning processes. Affordable housing, youth-serving organizations, and “everyday” retail and service businesses usually come out on top. Restaurants are also popular, so the food court would undoubtedly have fans among some residents. I’d like to see the developers engage the community in the development process. Although this seems like a long-shot for this particular project, I don’t think it’s an unreasonable expectation of developers—at least the kind of developers that will build what’s most wanted in our neighborhoods.

8) Support projects that prioritize sustainable development practices and take proactive approaches to addressing challenges presented by our changing climate

Based on the developer’s initial presentation, I am not aware of any attempts to prioritize sustainable practices or address the climate impact of their project.

9) Avoid projects that cause displacement of long-time residents, low-income residents, and locally-owned businesses

I discussed the potential displacement in earlier responses, but, as a reminder, this project stands to displace three small businesses and an unknown number of residents. Tenants of the apartments at 325 S. New Street were evicted three years ago when the developer’s business partner acquired the property. Ideally, a proposal like this would take advantage of vacant land to build, rather than displacing existing businesses and residents.

10) Do not use projects that are nearly universally considered planning and design failures as precedent for elements of new development

Yes, there are massive apartment buildings in south Bethlehem. The Rooney Building, Litzenberger House, and Broadhead House at Lehigh were all constructed during the Urban Renewal period and would never be approved today due to their design. Since then, urban planners have shifted to recognize the value of place-making and the importance of historic conservation, and I would hope that this developer sticks with contemporary research when modifying their project, rather than depend on obsolete examples.

Testing the principles for responsible development on the S. New St. project, part 1

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

Anna Smith is a Southside resident, full-time parent, and community activist with a background in community development and education.

ref: Establishing Community-Centered Principles for Responsible Southside Development

Gadfly:

New York-based Chef Rafael Palomino and developer Jeffrey Quinn have proposed a 12-story mixed-use development project for South New Street that includes 82 one- and two-bedroom apartments and a first-floor food court made up of Palomino’s restaurants. The current proposal includes a roof-top terrace, basement fitness center, and two community rooms for residents. The project requires the demolition of four structures: 319-323 New Street, which includes a single-story retail property currently occupied by JC Jewelry and Gifts, and a three-story structure with Lara Bly Designs and Car Village Title and Notary on the first floor and apartments on the second and third floors; 325 New Street, which is a three-story structure that was acquired several years ago by the developer’s local business partners, Juan Carlos and Cara Paredes, and has been left vacant ever since, but which previously housed a bar on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors; and 327 New Street, which is a single-story building that was home to Pat’s Newsstand. The project will also extend to cover Graham Street from the third floor upwards.

Here’s the first test for the principles for responsible development that I proposed in a prior post. As the project winds its way through the Historic Conservation Commission and the Planning Commission’s approval processes, let’s think about what this project means for quality of life on the Southside. Is this a project that aligns with principles for responsible development?

1) Support projects that incorporate locally-owned businesses into their plans, and that lead to a net increase in small businesses

The proposed project would add a food court owned by Chef Rafael Palomino, which he says would feature several options–Mexican, Vegan, Italian, Tapas, and American. Data shows that restaurants tend to keep more money in the local economy than other types of small businesses since labor makes up a significant portion of their expenses, and the food court would likely create some jobs. I imagine that a sort-of fast casual food court would be popular with college students and folks working on the Southside, and the location is easy walking distance from Lehigh’s campus. The idea seems sound from a business perspective, and the fact that the developer is also the owner of the food court means that he will build out the space to the appropriate specifications. That is, if the developer sticks to his plan, I don’t think we’ll be dealing with vacant storefronts.

However, the project will result in the loss of several small businesses—a jewelry shop, designer-owned clothing store, and a notary. All three are women and/or minority-owned businesses, which is a category that receives special consideration by organizations promoting small business development. Will these businesses survive the cost of moving elsewhere? Will they find another place on the Southside? Maybe, maybe not. Are these businesses that we want to keep in our community? I’d like to hear the thoughts of Southsiders on this point.

I appreciate the integration of small businesses into the planning, but I do have concerns about other businesses being displaced without an option to relocate in the new development.

2) Prioritize development of vacant industrial properties over demolition of historic properties

Rather than choosing a vacant site on which to build, the developer has decided to demolish properties in the heart of the downtown, although the properties slated for demolition have less historic value than many other Southside landmarks. From a City perspective, however, I would rather see a development like this proposed for an empty lot in the redevelopment areas.

3) Encourage new development that does not exceed the size of surrounding properties and blends with historic architecture in order to create a cohesive sense of place and encourage walkability

While the developers have made an effort with the design, and their willingness to integrate the one historically-relevant façade into their project deserves recognition, I’m afraid that the massive scale of the project cancels out most of the efforts made on design. Twelve stories in an area characterized by 2, 3, and 4 story historic properties just doesn’t seem appropriate. The impact of a huge, out-of-place building on the street-level feel and sense of place on New Street will be significant. Rather than a quirky, small-town neighborhood feel, the narrow street will be darkened by the shadow of this monolith and converted into a channel that funnels walkers from Lehigh to the Fahy Bridge.

4) Support projects that incorporate diverse residential and commercial offerings that are accessible and affordable to South Bethlehem’s population

This project proposes 72 two-bedroom and 10 one-bedroom apartments with approximately 10% slated to be affordable housing (9 apartments). Once the height is reduced (as it would have to be to conform to the HCC’s requests), the number of affordable apartments will inevitably decrease as the 10% rate is maintained. The first floor will contain a food court that will serve the broader community, although judging from the portfolio of restaurants owned by Rafael Palomino, pricing will likely be on the higher side in comparison with the average of 50+ other Southside dining establishments.

So how does this project fare when analyzed from an accessibility and affordability perspective? According to the most recent Census data available, 32% of South Bethlehem residents live below the poverty line (an annual income of $26,500 for a family of four). 72% of homes on the Southside are occupied by renters, and 45% of them are classified as “cost-burdened”—in other words, they pay more than 35% of their income in rent. That is, their housing is, by definition, unaffordable. Median rent hovers around $1,000. The data makes it clear: there is a huge need for more affordable housing in South Bethlehem. When the developer says that they will add affordable units, this sounds like a no-brainer. We need affordable housing, and here is someone willing to build it! But there’s a lot more to consider here. Let’s talk a little more about affordable housing in south Bethlehem.

The City of Bethlehem offers zoning-based density incentives to developers who are willing to include a minimum of 10% affordable apartments in their developments. By federal (and City) definition, “affordable” means that the rents will not exceed 30% of the income of families making 80% of Area Median Income, and the rent will not exceed Fair Market Rent. For a one and two-bedroom building, this translates to a maximum rent of $891 for a one-bedroom (which is affordable for a family making over $35,640 a year) and $1,139 for a 2-bedroom apartment (which is affordable for a family making over $45,560 a year). Applicants for these apartments would be restricted to 80% of Area Medium Income based on family size: that is, a maximum income of $43,800 for one person, $50,050 for two people, $56,300 for three people, and $62,550 for four people. Now, I don’t want to diminish the value of building housing that conforms to these definitions of “affordability,” since these numbers do represent lower rents than many luxury apartments throughout the City. However, we have to take these numbers into the context of this proposed development, which is not occurring in a vacuum.

The proposed tower would displace two buildings that contain multiple apartments. While I cannot find public information on the total number of apartments at 321 and 325 New Street, a conservative estimate of two per floor multiplied by four floors would suggest a minimum of eight apartments. When the developer’s business partner acquired 325 New Street, he gave all of the tenants 30 days to leave. One of the tenants solicited my assistance since he had nowhere to go and was concerned about finding another place that he could afford as a single person making $10 an hour. At the time, he was paying somewhere between $300-400 per month. While I don’t have concrete data on all the existing apartments, I think it is fair to assume that the existing apartments could be rented out at more affordable prices than the proposed new development, given the costs of demolition and construction of a new building.

Affordable housing is extremely difficult to build. Having spoken to affordable housing developers and collaborated on a team that was seeking to build workforce housing in south Bethlehem, I know just how challenging it is to make the numbers work—even with generous subsidies and zoning incentives. Construction is expensive, and contingency funds are often eaten up by unexpected costs that are par for the course when you’re building in small spaces, demolishing old structures, and potentially dealing with environmental contamination issues. It’s understandable that this new project would limit its affordable apartments to the minimum necessary and maximum rent possible to obtain zoning benefits and improve the optics of the project.

But we are considering this project from a community perspective. If affordable housing is so tough to build, we should make sure that we preserve as much existing affordable housing as we can, and create incentives to prevent apartments that could easily be rented out affordably from sitting vacant. If we consider this project from an affordable housing perspective, our community will be demolishing affordable apartments to build unaffordable ones. Once older, affordable apartments are gone, there’s no bringing them back.

Affordable housing is complicated. We desperately need more, but we need to carefully analyze every proposal that comes before us to ensure that the end result is truly beneficial to our community. What would I like to see? Prioritize new construction of apartment buildings for vacant land, and incorporate 10% affordable apartments where it will be a net addition to the community. Don’t knock down existing affordable housing to put up less affordable housing.

to be continued . . .

Establishing community-centered principles for responsible Southside development

Latest in a series of posts on new development

Anna Smith is a Southside resident, full-time parent, and community activist with a background in community development and education.

Gadfly:

The February 22^nd Historic Conservation Commission meeting was a win for proponents of responsible development, but I worry that the phrase is most frequently used in discussions of what we would NOT like to see occur in our neighborhoods. The process by which development projects are proposed, reviewed, and approved in our city—which is not unique to our community but represents standard operating procedure for most cities like ours—does not make much space for proactive discussions of community-centered development. No one wants to say “no” all the time, so let’s talk about what responsible Southside development could look like. There are great examples of creative projects that got each of these principles right and that can guide us as we envision the future of our community.

Establishing Community-Centered Principles for Responsible
Southside Development
Anna Smith

The City of Bethlehem has seen a remarkable number of development projects proposed for its downtowns over the last several years, from mixed-use retail, restaurants, and housing to office space and luxury apartments. Some projects have been in the works for decades, carefully strategized with every detail scrutinized by developers and their partners, while others seem to have been thrown together at the last minute by novice teams of folks new to the Lehigh Valley. Regardless of how they come together, each project undergoes a similar evaluation process that includes review by City officials, the City’s Planning Commission, and often an historic and architectural review or an appeal to the Zoning Hearing Board. Every board or commission has a narrow scope to consider, and although some occasionally overstep their boundaries, no group is charged with actively working to ensure that each project is a productive addition to a long-term vision for a viable community. Residents and small-business owners often attend these meetings to express their views, but the technical aspects under consideration can be intimidating to folks unfamiliar with the City’s ordinances, and many committee members are professionals with a background in development themselves who are capable of quickly checking the appropriate boxes regarding stormwater, architectural design, and sidewalk grading. Throughout these review processes, many of the components of projects that are most important to those who live or work nearby receive only minor consideration.

Let’s take a moment to think about what our approval processes would look like if they truly centered impact on the quality of life residents and small businesses in our community. What if we had a resident- and small business-centered framework to evaluate each development proposal that comes in front of our City government? After all, our residents and small businesses are the foundation of our community, and our City government exists primarily to serve the interests of these constituents. We are the voters and taxpayers; we are the ones who live, work, and play in the neighborhoods and downtowns, and our interests should play an important role in thinking through the costs and benefits of any new development project proposed for our community. And those interests extend beyond the technical aspects of projects outlined in the City’s ordinances. What would that framework look like? Here’s my first try at a list of principles for responsible development on the Southside with some examples of recent-ish projects that I think have successfully embodied each approach. What would you add or change?

Support projects that incorporate locally-owned businesses into their plans, and that lead to a net increase in small businesses. Examples: Riverport Market, Flatiron Flats
Prioritize development of vacant industrial properties over demolition of historic properties. Examples: The Factory, 510 Flats
Encourage new development that does not exceed the size of surrounding properties and blends with historic architecture in order to create a cohesive sense of place and encourage walkability. Examples: Polk Street building
Support projects that incorporate diverse residential and commercial offerings that are accessible and affordable to South Bethlehem’s population. Examples: proposed Palace Row redevelopment
Support adaptive reuse of historic buildings. Examples: Brinker Lofts, Flatiron Flats, Grace Mansion (in progress), Goodman building (proposed), Wilbur Mansion project (in progress)
Support projects that incorporate green space and/or the development of public spaces into their design. Examples: Brinker Lofts opening onto the Greenway
Support projects that are developed in response to community needs identified by residents and stakeholders, and that engage residents and stakeholders in idea development and the design process
Support projects that prioritize sustainable development practices and take proactive approaches to addressing challenges presented by our changing climate. Examples: The Flatiron Building
Avoid projects that cause displacement of long-time residents, low-income residents, and locally-owned businesses
Do not use projects that are nearly universally considered planning and design failures as precedent for elements of new development (e.g., Urban Renewal projects like Rooney building, Litzenberger House, Lehigh’s Brodhead House, Rite Aid shopping center.

to be continued . . .

Resident suggests sending an “unambiguous message” to the developer

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

ref: Another developer thinking big . . . er, tall
ref: The HCC discusses the proposal for 319-327 S. New
ref: “The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate”
ref: “What we have in front of us is going to be a big stretch for us”
ref: “Going to 5-6 stories definitely wouldn’t work”
ref: Southside developer blows some smoke
ref: The developer plays hard ball

Historical Conservation Commission meeting on proposed new construction on South New St. February 22, 2021: chapter 3.

HCC chair Lader turned to public comment.

Which public comment — calling out the developer for a clearly improper proposal and calling on the Commission to do its sworn duty — made Gadfly proud and provided the coup de gras for the proposal in its current form.

The comments are all short, and Gadfly encourages you to at least listen to some.

Model public participation. Democracy in action.

Gadfly loves your voices. Take the opportunity to listen.

It’s difficult to choose between them, but if you have time to listen to only one clip, Gadfly would recommend Seth Moglen’s.

Hard, economical, no nonsense, bulls-eye words there.

They sum up the situation for Gadfly.

———-

Anna Smith: “You’re here to filter out the argument that things can only be done one way and that passing up a single development opportunity will doom our community forever after. . . . You know that the developers have learned how to play the game, ask for 12 stories when you want 8, which the evidence suggests is what the developer is aiming for.” A conclusion that Smith backs up very nicely by doing some math with the data about parking spaces.

Kim Carrell-Smith: “Compatibility, that is, being context-sensitive . . . is vital in historical areas.” Carrell-Smith draws on research studies such as we’ve seen in her “Historical preservation pays” posts, reminds the Commission of the guidelines, reminds them that height matters. She points out that there are no renderings of the streetscape from the north, which perspective would clearly show how out of scale the proposed building is. “I urge you to maintain the integrity of your guidelines.”

Dana Grubb: Grubb, who helped write the ordinance, wonders why we have guidelines when he sees this proposal. He worries about creating a canyon in this area of New St. “It’s almost disingenuous” for a developer to come in with this kind of proposal. What would happen if such a thing were to be proposed on the Northside. He questions the sincerity of the developer. Too many open questions. “Your charge is to help protect that district.”

Rachel Leon: “Affordable housing doesn’t always mean accessible housing.” The price of these apartments is double, triple the amount of a mortgage. Leon is also worried about the negative affect on the air quality from the construction, even if short-term.

Al Wurth: The historical district is a small place, and it’s not good to jam such an inappropriate structure in. Worth is worried about the building looming over the street and encroaching over Graham Place and especially the Greenway. And how about air rights? “I’m depending on the Historic Commission to protect us from this overreach.”

Breena Holland: You must evaluate the building for its compatibility with predominant building size in the district between 1890s and 1950? Why is the developer and some of the public referencing more modern buildings. The size at the Zest building is the exception that tests the rule not the exception that proves the rule. The Zest building does not fit. We still need the rule. Imagine the sun being blocked on the New St. corridor. This proposal would create a dark canyon, a tunnel kind of feeling.

Seth Moglen: “This is a simple and straightforward situation.” The project is “grossly out of line” with the guidelines. The developer has indicated a “deep disrespect” for the Commission and the Southside. The people speaking here are deeply committed to the vitality of the Southside, people who would support “responsible development” at this location. “This is simply a project which is entirely out of scale,” and the Commission should send an “unambiguous message” to the developer, who is trying to “strong arm” the Commission. Tell them they must bring a project which is in scale.

———-

So The HCC decided against voting on the developer’s request to approve demolition. They approved a motion to do nothing at this time.

What’s next?

Gadfly is not sure.

At the end of the meeting chair Lader offered to the developer that he had received “clarity.” The developer agreed. But said nothing more.

We’ll have to see what happens. Ball in the developer’s court again. HCC in the middle again.

Gadfly worries about the politics.

He hears the developer several times refer reassuringly to his several meetings with the Mayor, City Administrators, and even Council members.

Even Council members.

And wonders what signals and what support he is getting from those sources.

The developer plays hard ball

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

Proposed streetscape February 15 — HCC meeting February 22
showing Rooney Building***

Historical Conservation Commission meeting on proposed new construction on South New St. February 22, 2021: chapter 2.

Gadfly has said that the developer blew some smoke.

No malice intended. That’s what developers do. Just part of the dance.

But we expect our volunteer representatives to be street smart.

Listen in now as the Commission members engage with the developer during this second visit on the project.

Frankly, Gadfly feels a bit tentative about new HCC chair Gary Lader. Chair Lader felt at times a little too willing to compromise on the height guidelines for Gadfly’s liking. For instance, he suggested that the developer include the Zest building (306 S. New) as a point of reference and said that “we” were “hoping” the developer would come back with a proposal in the 8-story range. Maybe Gadfly is not being fair saying so. Maybe in his role as facilitating chair, Lader feels he needs to keep the conversation going with the developer on amicable terms, keep him hooked, as it were. But there’s a time or two in the meeting when Commission members speak back rather strongly to their chair. For instance, when chair Lader talks about the 8-story “building across the street” as point of reference for a “compromise,” he is immediately and rather dramatically met with a chorus of “Hold ons” from his committee, reminding him that the Zest building is 6-stories, was itself an exception to HCC guidelines, and is not considered a contributing factor to this proposal. “Right, ok,” he replies. As if awakened.

In any event, Commission members responded firmly to the developer. This “isn’t close to what I suggested,” says Seth Cornish. “I’m afraid I find it somewhat discouraging that it comes back one story taller,” says Beth Starbuck.

In response to a direct question about the new 13-story design from Commissioner Starbuck, the developer explains that it was added (“in haste” — an excuse? — since they had to submit new plans for this meeting) because of an adjustment made necessary to keep the facade on 321-323 that the HCC requested last meeting and that some details in the design would be “rectified” later.

Felt like more smoke to the Gadfly.

And for the second time Commissioner Cornish pointed out that “we’re avoiding the elephant in the room.”

Now it becomes really interesting. You have to listen to this.

The point in the dance when the developer plays hard ball.

Listen in.

We will continue to do our “homework” on such things as the size of the building (implying a belief that a size above HCC guidelines is negotiable), says the developer, but if the HCC doesn’t give approval now to demolish the building, “then the project goes away today.”

The project goes away today.

Badda-boom!

Do you have a “comfort level” to cut the size of the building in half, asks chair Lader pointedly? “Not yet” is the reply. But “we want you to vote tonight” on the demolition.

Watch what you ask for is always good advice.

At which time chair Lader turns to comment from the public, of whom there were a healthy 30 or so Zoomed in.

*** Even Gadfly knows the Rooney Building is grandfathered in and should not be part of the discussion. Including it is more smoke from the developer.

to be continued . . .

Southside developer blows some smoke

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

Proposed streetscape February 15 — HCC meeting February 22

You are wondering how last night’s meeting at the Historical Conservation Commission on the proposed development of 319-327 S. New turned out.

Gadfly was rather astonished at what occurred.

Remember that the ball was in the developer’s court.

The upshot of the January 25 HCC meeting on this project was the identification of several issues for the developer to address last night — especially the 12-story height of the building.

On January 25, Chair Gary Lader had called the 12-story height a “big stretch” for the HCC.

To a person, the Commissioners who spoke January 25, while recognizing appropriate stylistic elements in the facade design and positive aspects in the concept (apartments plus Food Court), had substantial concern about the height.

Commissioner Seth Cornish, for example, laid down a marker: a 5-story limit for the new project.

You will share Gadfly’s astonishment when you hear that the developer came back last night with the 13-story design that you can see in the rendering of the streetscape above.

13 stories. One more than last time.

WTH!

Without mentioning the height issue, the developer proposed dividing the issues. His desire for last night’s meeting was solely that HCC vote to approve demolition of the 3+ buildings (they would save the facade at the 4th building 321-323 S. New, as HCC had requested) with the understanding that the developer would not “pull the permit” for demolition nor actually perform the demolition till the issue of the size of the building was decided.

Gadfly likes to give you the flavor, the drama of the meetings he covers, not just the bottom line, so he invites you to listen to the developer make his pitch. You will recognize that, like on January 25, he again heaps up positive aspects of the project to obscure the height issue.

However true and good in what the developer says, it is all off-point, off the main point. He’s blowing smoke.

Commissioner Seth Cornish has a good smoke filter, though, for he immediately responded to the developer’s peroration with “I want to cut through, you know, to the elephant in the room, which is the height.”

to be continued . . .

Historical preservation pays, part 4

Latest in a series of posts on new development

Kim Carrell-Smith is a 31-year resident of Bethlehem’s historic Southside, where she taught public history at Lehigh University for almost two decades. She is also an aspiring gadfly, buzzing in on issues of historic preservation, public education, city government, and other social justice issues. She tips her wings to the master gadflies who have served our community for so long!

ref: Historical preservation pays, part 1
ref: Historical preservation pays, part 2
ref: Historical preservation pays, part 3

part 4 Conclusion

So as we march into the future in Bethlehem, could we look to the value of the past? Could we more intentionally blend our new buildings and development to harmonize with, and enhance what is good for our economy — that which we already possess in Bethlehem and other cities may not? We have three centuries of historical architecture and building stock composed of diverse historical materials; we have great old storefronts, historical vistas, and a compelling industrial/urban vibe, thanks to the presence of the blast furnaces and older industrial buildings.

Why use our mistakes of urban renewal –e.g., the Rooney Building or Brodhead House complexes on the Southside, or the City Hall or One Broad Street Plaza complexes on the Northside — as measuring sticks (literally and figuratively), when making choices for new design and construction? Why not embrace the ideas in “Older, Smaller, Better” and so many other studies? Upgrade, paint, and tweak the exteriors of older structures to enhance the historical vibe, emphasize adaptive reuse, and build new infill that is “context-sensitive.”

With every development proposal, ask city planners, historic district boards and developers to answer the question: does it honor and complement the historical value that its proposed setting may already possess? How might they blend in the new with the old,

through compatible scale and massing
by creating a complementary aesthetic
using compatible materials
and thinking strategically about infill rather than demolishing whole blocks at a time.

We don’t want to create copies of existing buildings or even keep every old building. But we definitely need to find ways that the new may peacefully and profitably coexist with the old, while maintaining Bethlehem’s historical vibe. SO MANY studies show that it’s worth a try!

Fourth and final in a series

Share your thoughts on the proposed 12-story building on south New!

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

TONIGHT
HISTORIC CONSERVATION COMMISSION
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2021 AT 6:00 PM
*THIS WILL BE A VIRTUAL MEETING*
Members of the public may enter the meeting via GoToMeeting at
https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/598085605
or via the phone at: +1 (571) 317-3122 Access Code: 598-085-605

This is the important meeting on the proposal for a 12-story building in the 300-block of south New St. that Gadfly has spent several recent posts describing. This is your chance to weigh in on the proposal and to see an important resident-run City ABC (Authorities, Boards, and Commissions) in operation.

Gadfly,

I’m writing to share information on a significant development project proposed for the Southside downtown area and an upcoming opportunity to share your thoughts on the project at a public meeting on Monday, February 22 at 6 pm.

New York-based chef Rafael Palomino and developer Jeffrey Quinn have proposed a 12-story mixed-use development project for South New Street that includes 82 one- and two-bedroom apartments and a first-floor food court made up of Palomino’s restaurants. The current proposal includes a roof-top terrace, basement fitness center, and two community rooms for residents. The project requires the demolition of four structures: 319-323 New Street, which includes a single-story retail property currently occupied by JC Jewelry and Gifts, and a three-story structure with Lara Bly Designs and Car Village Title and Notary on the first floor and apartments on the second and third floors; 325 New Street, which is a three-story structure that was acquired several years ago by the developer’s local business partners, Juan Carlos and Cara Paredes, and has been left vacant ever since, but which previously housed a bar on the first floor and apartments on the upper floors; and 327 New Street, which is a single-story building which was home to Pat’s Newsstand. The project will also extend to cover Graham Street from the third floor upwards. The developer’s original plans and an update can be downloaded here: ORIGINAL and UPDATE.

Since the project is located with the South Bethlehem Historic Conservation District, it must go through a review process to ensure that it aligns with the Design Guidelines for the district. The Historic Conservation Commission reviewed the developer’s application at their January meeting and will continue to discuss the project at this month’s meeting, which is scheduled for Monday, February 22 at 6 pm. The HCC is currently discussing the proposed demolition of the four properties as well as the proposed height of the structure. They have recommended incorporating the historically significant structure at 319-323 New Street into the project and they have asked the developer to look into reducing the height of the structure.

As community stakeholders, I encourage your followers to attend the meeting to learn more about the project and express their thoughts during public comment. At this point, the HCC will accept public comment on the appearance of the building, and in particular on the proposed height of twelve stories. HCC members have emphasized that the area is characterized by primarily four and five story historic buildings, and have mentioned that the City is currently working with a consultant to better align existing zoning regulations for the historic district with the historic guidelines interpreted by the commission. Restricting building height has been a major component of the public feedback provided to the consultant.

It is extremely important that residents and community stakeholders are involved in determining the future direction of our downtown and neighborhoods. I hope that your followers will take some time to review the proposed project and provide feedback on the building’s appearance at Monday’s meeting, which will be held virtually.

All the best,

Anna Smith

Historical preservation pays, part 3

Latest in a series of posts on new development

ref: Historical preservation pays, part 1
ref: Historical preservation pays, part 2

Part 3 “Older, Smaller Better”

Did I hear someone say “More evidence, please?” Coming right up! Last installment I introduced a plethora of studies which provide evidence that historic preservation and compatible new development can be a significant economic driver for cities. Now it’s time to get more specific . . .

I offer up one study that seems particularly applicable to our current development climate. Comprehensive, yet succinct, the 2014 study by the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s Greenlab, “Older, Smaller, Better: Measuring how the character of buildings and blocks influences urban vitality” focuses on Seattle, San Francisco, and Washington, DC. But as the authors note, there are some general principles that can be extrapolated for cities of any size. Hang in there, I’ll get to those.

First a few of the “key findings” from the Executive Summary found on pages 3-4, with many more details found elsewhere in the study.

From the Executive Summary:

“This study demonstrates the unique and valuable role that older, smaller buildings play in the development of sustainable cities. Based upon statistical analysis of the built fabric of three major American cities, this research finds that established neighborhoods with a mix of older, smaller buildings perform better than districts with larger, newer structures when tested against a range of economic, social, and environmental outcome measures.”

Key Findings:

Older, mixed-use neighborhoods are more walkable.
Young people love old buildings.
Nightlife tends to flourish in areas with a mix of building ages that provide character to the area.
Older business districts provide affordable, flexible space for entrepreneurs from all backgrounds.
The creative economy thrives in older, mixed-use neighborhoods where there is “a smaller-scaled historic fabric.”
Older, smaller buildings provide space for a strong local economy (i.e., small local businesses).
Older commercial and mixed-use districts contain hidden density (both business and residential).

But how do we employ this as we contemplate new development in our city?

In the section “Principles for Other Cities” on pages 5-7 of the Executive Summary, the authors cite some key ideas that cities of any size could follow (with my italics in some sections):

Realize the efficiencies of older buildings and blocks

“smaller buildings and blocks ‘punch above their weight class’ when considering a full spectrum of outcomes on a per-square-foot basis—from the number of jobs and businesses to the vitality of nightlife and presence of young residents.” [And the author provides more specifics on what else this includes: see p.5]

Fit new and old together at a human scale

“mixing buildings from different vintages—including modern buildings—supports social and cultural activity in commercial and mixed-use zones. Many of the most thriving blocks in the study cities scored high on the diversity of building-age measures. Scale also played an important role. Grid squares with smaller lots and more human-scaled buildings generally scored higher on the performance measures than squares characterized by larger lots and structures. These results support the concept of adding new infill projects of compatible size alongside older buildings.”

Support neighborhood evolution, not revolution.

“While this research indicates that successful commercial and mixed-use districts benefit from new construction, these changes should be gradual. The rate of change is important. The higher performance of areas containing small-scale buildings of mixed vintage suggests that successful districts evolve over time, adding and subtracting buildings incrementally, rather than comprehensively and all at once.”

Steward the streetcar legacy

That is, “As cities seek to re-establish transit corridors and foster mixed-use development, the armature of streetcar-era commercial districts provides a head start.” [Bethlehem’s two downtowns are, in fact, built along these transit corridors from the past]

Make room for the new and local economy

“[Our] research confirms . . . a correlation between a higher concentration of creative jobs and older, smaller-scaled buildings and blocks. These areas also support higher levels of small businesses and non-chain business, helping to keep dollars in the local economy, and providing more resilience against future economic storms.”

Make it easier to reuse small buildings

“[Our] research illustrates the value of keeping older, smaller, diverse-age buildings viable and in full use. In some cities, however, older commercial buildings languish, with empty upper floors or vacant storefronts. Cities can help unlock the potential of these spaces by removing barriers, such as outdated zoning codes and parking requirements, and streamlining permitting and approval processes.”

Yes, “Older, Smaller, Better” is just one study, but it is one of many from 1999 to 2019 that have looked at the efficacy and economic impact of promoting and supporting the historic look and feel of cities with compatible, complementary new development. And it provides strong evidence and clear, specific recommendations for cities of any size. Historic preservation clearly pays, both economically, and in terms of quality of life, making cities attractive and resilient.

Third in a series . . .

“Going to 5-6 stories definitely wouldn’t work”

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

With a focus on developer arguments now, we can finish our examination of the proposal for a 12-story building on the Southside presented to the Historical Conservation Commission January 25.

It’s valuable that we have a grip on the issues for this controversial project since it is again on the agenda for tomorrow’s meeting of the HCC, where, perhaps, a vote will be taken.

Remember that chair Gary Lader called the proposal a “big stretch” for the HCC.

Indeed, for all of the Commissioners who spoke, the 12-story height of the building was a stab in the heart of the proposal.

How did the developer respond?

As you might expect, the developer shied away from the subject of height as much as possible in making his pitch and answering questions, though he did eventually clearly say “going to 5-6 stories definitely wouldn’t work.” Here is a climactic interchange between the developer and HCC chair Lader. Lader seems to suggest to the developer that in further discussion, in order to better make his case, he might talk of height in relation to the Zest building across the street and talk in terms of feet rather than stories.

Instead of focusing on the problem of the height, the developer stresses:

other decisions such as the tall building approved at 4th and Vine
they’ll save the facade of 321-323 (but not the inside of the building)
that the apartments will include affordable housing (details not specified)
they’ve already modified the height from a previous higher height design (nothing specific)
that it’s a great design, appropriate for the area, for the future (not specified — is this a look away from history?)
if you want to keep things as is, that’s up to you (ironic to say that in front of an “historic” body — is this a denigration of history?)
that there have been multiple meetings with the Mayor and DCED
they’re doing stuff for the community, for the Greenway
they have passion, they’ve worked hard

Gadfly can see that economics — which, remember, is not the purview of this committee — is the elephant in the room. The building will plunk lots of people smack on the New St. corridor, and the Food Court has the potential for creating a lot of energy, a lot of vibrancy in what the food guy implies is a sleepy Southside. Listen to the developer and his food guy in full court press mode throwing everything but the kitchen sink into their case for their project. “Everything is spot on,” says the developer with wonderful understatement, “except for the height a little bit.”

All good except for the height.

In the only “public” comment at the meeting, Missy Hartney — much respected head of the Southside Arts District — positively drooled at the economic security and stability that infusion of new bodies, patrons of business on the Southside would provide.

A compelling point, thought the Gadfly.

Ok, understand the positions?

The ball is in the developer’s court.

They will return with design revisions and/or arguments to sway the committee at the Zoom meeting tomorrow Monday February 22.

What’s in your mind so far?

“What we have in front of us is going to be a pretty big stretch for us”

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

ref: Another developer thinking big . . . er, tall
ref: The HCC discusses the proposal for 319-327 S. New
ref: “The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate”

We’re going slow (as usual for Gadfly!) trying to get a sense of the dynamics that played out when the proposal for a 12-story building (82 apartments!) on the Southside came before the Historic Conservation Commission on January 25.

In the last post we looked in detail at Historic Officer Jeff Long’s opening presentation, one in which, while finding good things in the proposal, Long advised against total demolition on the site and advised that the height of the building was inappropriate.

Now let’s look at the discussion that followed Long’s presentation: first by the Commissioners in this post, then by the developer in the next post.

To a person, the Commissioners who spoke, while recognizing appropriate stylistic elements in the facade design and positive aspects in the concept (apartments plus Food Court), had substantial concern about the height. One Commissioner stressed that economics was not part of this Commission’s purview.

HCC chair Gary Lader:

Lader, who has called the project “exciting,” here lays out the mission of the HCC for the developer. The HCC focuses on “maintaining the historic exteriors of the buildings . . . the streetscape . . . the scale and massing . . . maintaining the integrity of these neighborhoods . . . We’re in a challenging position . . . We want to see development . . . help enhance and protect the community . . . We want to encourage folks like you to come in and do great stuff, but we gotta preserve some of these buildings . . . Right now what we have in front of us is going to be a pretty big stretch for us.”

Craig Evans:

“The building is attractive . . . The problem I deal with is the 12 stories being beyond what’s anywhere around it, and I’m not sure how to deal with that, but that’s the challenge I have to grapple with first. Stylistically, I think it’s commendable. In terms of development, I think it’s important to do. But we have to do it right . . . How high is it?”

Roger Hudak:

“It’s high, high, way too high . . . It’s like a cavern . . . The size of that thing bothers me . . . It’s way too tall . . . I just think it’s too tall.”

Seth Cornish:

“As a real estate broker, I’m really fond of development . . . make money . . . revitalize areas . . . a Southside that is predominantly 2-3-4 stories high . . . couple notable exceptions . . . that rhythm of 2-3-4 story buildings is one of the most important keys to our historic district . . . We are a historic commission, and while we are supposed to be concerned with economics, the economics are not really what drives us . . . What really we are charged to do is preserve what is there, the vibrancy of the theme of the area . . . My opinion is that in that particular location, 5 stories is historically appropriate . . . Above 5 stories, I’m probably not going to agree that it’s historically appropriate.”

Beth Starbuck:

“Something’s coming down the pike . . . we will have some more restriction on height, and it’s certainly going to be quite a bit lower than 12 stories . . . We need to make this building a lot shorter . . . That being said, there is a lot about the building that is very nice, and I really appreciate the effort that has gone in trying to making it have some of the character the surrounding buildings do.”

“The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate”

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

video
Historic Conservation Commission meeting January 25
mins. 46:40-1:43:52

“The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate for the immediate streetscape and, more generally, for the overall historic conservation district.”
Jeff Long, HCC Historic Officer

ref: Another developer thinking big . . . er, tall
ref: The HCC discusses the proposal for 319-327 S. New

The discussion at HCC on the proposed 12-story mixed-use building on the east side of the 300 block of New St. during their January 25 meeting took about an hour.

Let’s break the lengthy meeting down into parts in order to more easily grasp what went on.

Per usual practice, HCC Historic Officer Jeff Long sets the table for the discussion between the Commissioners and the developers (mins. 49:30-1:09:20):

Min. 49:30: Long describes each existing building to be demolished in physical detail and historical context. The buildings date from the period 1880s-1900. For the most part original architectural facade features have been lost in alterations and renovations over the years, so several of the buildings now lack a defining architectural style.
Min. 56:20: Long lists each of the guidelines used to render his judgment about the appropriateness of the proposal. This is an official “historic district,” and it is governed by a set of national and local guidelines.
Min. 58:04: Long summarizes the developer’s proposal. A report submitted by the developer justifies demolition on the poor condition of the buildings.
Min. 59:40: Long identifies the 3 components of his evaluation/analysis: the demolition, the size and scale, the facade construction itself.
- Min. 1:00:20 demolition: Long’s judgment is that buildings 319, 325, and 327 warrant destruction, but the building that houses 321 and 323 does not.
- Min. 1:04:04 size and scale and proportion: Long concludes, “The current proposal for a 12-story structure is inappropriate for the immediate streetscape and, more generally, for the overall historic conservation district.” He uses what I will call the 4-story “Subway” building to the south of the site as the point of reference to say that the proposed 12-story building is out of scale with its surroundings.
- Min. 1:06:58 other guidelines: Long finds some positive elements here and makes suggestions for some other elements and resources to be further considered. There are things that the developer does well in aligning the facade with its neighborhood and historical context.

Ok, where do things stand after Jeff Long “set the table”?

As Gadfly sees it (and he’s ready for correction), Long’s role is to be objective. He stops short of a judgment on the entire project. He does not render an up or down.

In Gadfly’s experience going to HCC meetings, the Commissioners can choose to follow him or not, just as City Council in a future step in the process can choose to follow the HCC judgment or not. Council has the last word. And they have rejected HCC rejections in well known “hot” cases.

But let’s think about where we are at this point in the meeting.

Long’s split decision on demolition seems very awkward. What is the developer to do with his plan or any plan if it has to work around keeping a structure right in the middle of his site?
The height of buildings in the Historic District here has been a particular sore point in the past. Witness approval for a tall building at 4th and Vine that has not been acted on yet. Witness the “Zest” building at 306 S.New. Long is categorical in saying the height is not appropriate. But there are tall, though not as tall as the proposed building, buildings across the street.
In talking about his last point, Long seems to be giving positive advice if the proposed height is approved or for a revised proposal for a shorter building if not.

The Commissioners must consider what Long has laid out, but experience would show that they are not bound to it.

Which has not set well in many quarters in the past.

Gadfly can remember a City Council meeting in which Councilwoman Negron bitterly decried the lack of attention to rules and guidelines.

And look at how follower Peter Crownfield responded to Gadfly’s previous post: “It is the HCC’s responsibility to enforce the historic district guidelines. This building does not fit the guidelines, so the developer should simply be told to come back with a proposal that does. The HCC is making itself completely irrelevant if it spends its time on the details of signs while ignoring glaring non-compliance with the guidelines.”

So, should a developer who proposes a 12-story building in an area predominately made up of 2-3-4-story buildings simply be told straight out that it won’t fly?

Let’s go on in the next post to see how the discussion went.

How would this situation play out in the north side Historic District?

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

Dana Grubb is a lifelong resident of the City of Bethlehem who worked 27 years for the City of Bethlehem in the department of community and economic development, as sealer of weights and measures, housing rehabilitation finance specialist, grants administrator, acting director of community and economic development, and deputy director of community development. He is currently a candidate for the office of Mayor.

Gadfly,

I’ve been reading the commentary provided by Kim Carrell-Smith concerning development in general and in the Conservation District in South Bethlehem. As always, Kim’s analyses are spot on in my opinion and on point with the amazing research she completes. In fact it agrees with everything I’ve felt and learned as a former city administrator.

The other thing that should be reviewed when considering demolition of the existing structures is whether any of them were recognized by both the City and Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission as contributing resources for the creation of this district. If so, and I suspect they may have been (I just can’t recall since it has been about twenty years since I helped to craft the Conservation District Ordinance as a city administrator), then the erosion of the base line through this proposed demolition should be of grave concern.

Finally, one has to wonder how this situation would play out in the Bethlehem Historic District on the City’s north side. Is there less concern because it’s just the south side? Old attitudes towards the “other side of the tracks and river” may still be at play, and I firmly believe that it is time to draw a line in the sand when it comes to development anywhere in Bethlehem, and specifically on the south side.

Development in any city is organic to a city’s progress forward, but that development must respect the existing built environment, be appropriate, and not destroy the charm that gives a community its essence to begin with.

Dana

The HCC discusses the proposal for 319-327 S. New

Latest in a series of posts on 319-327 S. New St.

“It’s way too high.”
Roger Hudak

ref: Another developer thinking big . . . er, tall

Apropos of what Kim Carrell-Smith has us thinking about, let’s begin to examine the recent proposal for a 12-story building at 319-327 S. New St. on the Southside.

Gadfly was mistaken when he posted about this last time. Then he said the whole block from the Subway on down to the Greenway was involved.

Not so. Only the 4 buildings, 5 addresses marked here: 319-327 S. New St.

It is proposed that these 4 buildings, 5 addresses will be replaced by the 12-story rendering below.

This proposal was discussed at the Historical Conservation Commission on January 25. HCC members are Gary Lader, Craig Evans, Seth Cornish, Roger Hudak, Mike Simonson, Beth Starbuck, Jeff Long.

The scale of the proposal was a significant issue.

No vote was taken.

Get oriented to the proposed project, and Gadfly will return a time or two and go into more detail about the meeting.

selections from Ed Courrier, “Board gets new leadership.” Bethlehem Press, February 16, 2021.

Gary Lader and were unanimously elected president and vice president respectively at the Bethlehem Historic Conservation Commission’s first meeting of 2021 on Jan. 25. New member Mike Simonson replaced Phil Roeder, who retired in December 2020.

Lader and Evans presided over an agenda that included discussion of proposed demolition of a row of vintage buildings that comprise 319, 321, 323, 325, and 327 S. New St. to make way for a 12-story mixed use apartment building.

The team representing the ambitious project included developers Rafael Palomino and Jeffrey Quinn, architect Jordan G. Clark and Anthony Scarcia Jr. from Allied Building Corporation. They sought consent from the board to tear down all four buildings and replace them with a structure with a 6,500-square-foot ground floor. As the new building’s height increases, the structure would span the existing alley at E. Graham Place to increase the footprint of each story to approximately 8,000 square feet. The support columns and upper stories would include a strip of land at 317 S. New St. which abuts the South Bethlehem Greenway.

The single story wood frame building at 319 dates from circa 1900. The painted brick Italianate building at 321-323 is three stories, with residential over retail. It dates from 1885 and rear additions were built during the 20th century. Its neighbor is a heavily altered 3-story vacant stuccoed building also built around 1885. A single story retail building at 327 and its rear addition are circa 1900. According to historic officer Jeff Long, defining architectural details for this building and two others have been lost over the years. He recommended retaining the existing building at 321-323, as it contains original architectural details.

Long argued the proposed 12-story structure “is inappropriate for the immediate streetscape and more generally, for the overall historic conservation district.”

The applicants produced an engineering report that pointed out various code violations and structural deficiencies found in the row of buildings, in an effort to support demolition.

When asked, Quinn said they could look at saving the façade of the building at 321-323 S. New St., but emphasized that, “everything inside the building is a public safety hazard and finished its useful life.”

According to Quinn, the design and materials for the new construction would reflect the historic nature of the surrounding district.

“The building is attractive,” said Craig Evans. But its 12-story height was a problem for him.

“It’s way too high,” exclaimed Roger Hudak.

Seth Cornish noted the structures on the Southside were predominantly two to four stories high, “with some notable exceptions.” He said this rhythm was key to the district’s identity and he was not willing to approve anything over five stories.

With his restaurant business background, Palomino described his vision for a food court on the first floor of the project.

The applicants explained that post-COVID technology for occupants would be built into the project to make it safer. There was an affordable housing component, as well.

When Lader called for public comment, Downtown Manager Missy Hartney spoke in favor of adding the “beautiful looking building” to the “heart of the downtown.”

The board agreed to table the proposal, with the applicants to return with a revised design. Ken Loush recused himself from this one agenda item.

Historical preservation pays, part 2

Latest in a series of posts on new development

ref: Historical preservation pays, part 1

Part 2: The evidence mounts

Okay, so if you don’t want to read through all of those regional, state, and city studies from the last installment, how about a summary of key ideas drawn from a number of reports?

You don’t just have to take my word for this: in her 2012 study “The Economic Impact of Historic Resource Preservation,” author Mimi Morris, the Executive Officer of the California Cultural and Historical Endowment, examined a host of data-based studies, and summarized:

The dozens of reports written on the topic of the economic impact of historic preservation all identify these three main economic impacts resulting from historic preservation:

Increased Property Values
Job Creation
Increased Heritage Tourism

Related social impacts that have a lesser but still important economic impact include decreased criminal activity, increased housing supply, better quality of life, and increased pride in cultural assets and communities.

Pretty convincing, especially when you take the time to read the details that underlie those conclusions!

But what about a couple of specific studies that Bethlehem can really learn from, given our city’s historical “branding,” our current historical building stock, and the powerful and predominant aesthetic impact of our historic architecture and views, in both downtowns?

One study that could be very useful for Bethlehem planners and developers is the fascinating 2017 data-rich project conducted by Edge Research — and funded by American Express for the National Trust for Historic Preservation — called “Millennials and Historic Preservation: A Deep Dive Into Attitudes and Values.” This study specifically discusses the economic and social impact of historic preservation when it comes to millennial consumers and residents in US cities. There is very powerful data here, indicating the clear preference of millennials to live, work, and spend their time and money in places with a “historic feel.”

Aren’t these young people the future of our city? Don’t we want this generation to spend their (rent, play, and tax) money in our commercial areas, and nearby?

So our stockpile of evidence is beginning to grow: historic preservation pays in a number of ways. Maintaining the historical vibe of a community is good for jobs, tourism, property values, and feet on the street for retail, dining, and business growth and sustainability . . . and we know it appeals to young people, in particular!

But there is one more study that explores aspects of successful cities and offers recommendations for cities to follow when it comes to historical settings, scale, aesthetics, mass, and context in city development or redevelopment. It is perhaps the most useful for Bethlehem folks to contemplate: Part 3 coming soon . . .

Kim

Second in a series . . .

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly

The Bethlehem Gadfly