Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Councilman Reynolds (votes for the temporary closure)

• You look at somebody with a private interest coming forward, of course . . . there are reasons that they want to do it.
• The key in the decision the governmental agency has to make is whether or not there’s overlap between the private interest and the public good or the public interest.
• We’ve heard from some citizens, we need to hear from more citizens.
• We are very fortunate here, in that a lot of time we have to deal with hypothetical benefits or hypothetical negatives . . . that is not always the best way to make decisions.
• The best way to make decisions is when you have rational, qualitative data.
• That’s what this is really about, giving the City and the public an opportunity to see whether or not there is a public interest in doing this.
• The real boundaries . . . are not physical.
• I really do give the Lehigh community a lot of credit for . . . directing more and more of their interest and energy toward how do we bring the Southside together in a way . . . how do we bring people up.
• How do we bring people together.
• What we’re not as good at is bringing people together that have different identities . . . to interact in that way that creates community.
• If this is done well, it is another step in that direction.
• Those two goals especially have an overlap between the City of Bethlehem’s public good and Lehigh University’s self-interest.
• But that all has to be proved before anybody’s able to take that next step.
• If this was just good for one group of people, it wouldn’t make sense to do.
• It’s really about how is this going to be done and whether or not the important questions are going to be done, some of which we don’t even really understand yet.
• Often times the groups that are most affected, they’re not here because they don’t exist yet.
• We often talk about how we don’t have more information to be able to make decisions, and this is an opportunity to gain information.
• The decision we make tonight is much smaller than the decision we are going to make, at the earliest, several months from now.
• It is people and institutions coming out to saying we see this or we don’t see this as a good thing.
• I think that there is an opportunity with this to really kind of go about doing this the right way.
• For me it will come down to do I think this is a step in the right direction for bringing the Lehigh community together with the Southside community that has often been at odds.
• We’re breaking down those kind of emotional and economic barriers one at a time, and that’s going to be the big question for me at the end of the day.
• Is there a public good here that is worth us closing down or vacating the street, and does that interest work for both the institution that is before us as well as our community and the public good?

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Ok, you are not new to the question about a test of the closing of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster.

And you probably don’t need to be reminded that the issue here is control over your neighborhood (though this issue does have ramifications for all of us who drive in Bethlehem).

Lehigh is asking “us” to conduct a test whose end result is, if positive, in effect, to end the main function of a busy, healthy street on the Southside. Is their reason compelling?

Even if you don’t live in this area, you need to be alert to the kinds of things that could happen in your neighborhood.

Gadfly loves to compare his thinking to our elected officials. Join him. The Council members gave us clear and substantial rationales.

Remember, too, that one of the main reasons for the Gadfly project is to help you know your Councilpeople better so that you can be the most informed voter you can be.

This is a good opportunity.

Whom do you agree with, disagree with? Who makes you think? Who gave you something new to think about? Whom are you glad to see with a seat at the Head Table?

Councilman Colon (votes for the temporary closure)

• I’m curious to see what comes out of the temporary closure.
• We’ve already vacated a couple streets that we didn’t have this opportunity to test.
• I remember how big deal it was when that street (Broad Street) was closed and then reopened.
• We have an opportunity to have a temporary closing and then come back to the table and see what happens.
• Now is a good time . . . to do the study. (students there, unlikely weather event, construction conditions on Lehigh campus)
• Where I stand on permanent closure, who knows.
• I’m encouraged by the Mayor’s comments about having another public hearing.

Councilwoman Crampsie Smith (votes against the temporary closure)

• I do have concerns about the temporary closure. One is the proximity to Broughal Middle School.
• I worry about their [Broughal students] maturity level.
• There’s also St. Peter’s Church . . .
• Also is the concern that the Southside is so congested already.
• For many walkability is not an option [people with physical disabilities, an aging population] impeding people attending Lehigh events.
• I wonder [from the community perspective] if this isn’t an extreme jump.
• Sophisticated crosswalk like done at Moravian . . . overpasses, walkways.
• I wonder if we’re not taking an extreme leap.
• I just have a lot of questions. Perhaps in the future I would be more inclined to agree.

Van Wirt and Reynolds next–

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Before we look at the interestingly different ways Council voted on the proposal to do a pilot study for closing Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster, let’s wrap up by looking once again at Gadfly’s stance.

Gadfly is a first premise, first cause, begin-at-the-beginning kind of guy.

He is very often most interested in the “why” kinds of questions.

Lehigh is proposing to close a section of Packer Ave.

Gadfly is neutral on the proposition. He stands to be convinced. As he assumes the Council members should be.

To Gadfly’s observations, the conversation about the pilot study moved too swiftly to the details of how a pilot study will be implemented. And that blurs the why question. It assumes the why question has been answered satisfactorily.

For instance, in the initial 4-minute Lehigh presentation at Council last Tuesday (there were four Lehigh speakers), one minute was spent on the reasons for wanting to close Packer, three for how the study will be conducted. Gadfly would reverse the percentages. He would not go to how the study will be done till he was reasonably convinced there was a compelling reason to do it in the first place.

So Gadfly rivets on the question of why Lehigh says it will be a good thing to close Packer.

Recognizing the similarity in the deliberative process so far to the process in which he participated hundreds if not thousands of times over five decades as a writing teacher, Gadfly notes that the Lehigh proposal has gone through three drafts: at the January 23 Broughal meeting, at the February 4 Council meeting, and last Tuesday at the February 18 Council meeting.

As one would expect, the drafts are somewhat different. As one would hope, the latest draft is somewhat stronger.

But, in Gadfly’s mind, the Lehigh proposal is “not there yet.” And as a Council member, he wouldn’t be ready to accept it, or even to accept the seemingly harmless first step of a free traffic study.

There are three points to Lehigh’s case that have shifted somewhat but remained basically the same over the three drafts. In the language of draft #3:  1) pedestrian safety 2) pulling the core of the campus farther in to the Southside 3) an improved pedestrian amenity for the campus and the community at large.

Listen to fussy, crotchety old prof Gadfly at the February 18 Council meeting calling for a yet stronger 4th draft before the Lehigh proposal is in shape to present to Council for their deliberation.  (If you want to see fussy, crotchety old prof Gadfly from his best viewing angle — the back — go to the City video min. 49:45.)

1) pedestrian safety: this third draft produced statistics on accidents and injuries at “the crossing” on Packer. But a) the crossing has been there for years. If conditions were so bad, why hasn’t the City done something/said something? Where is testimony from the City traffic and safety people? That would have more legitimacy than “partisan” testimony from the Lehigh officer. b) Still nothing addressing less nuclear traffic calming measures. As Gadfly said a few posts back, he feels that possessing that space is the prime reason for the proposal. The other options would not enable closing, would not enable possession of that space. The traffic rationale is a necessary means to possession. Lehigh has, in fact, said several times that safety is not their prime reason for proposing the closing but one of three “overlapping reasons.” So what bothers Gadfly is that the pilot traffic study is not addressing the main reason for the closing — which is the underdeveloped reason #3.

2) changing the face of Lehigh, pulling the core of the campus closer into the Southside: Sorry, Gadfly is not overpowered by the logic here. Closing Packer is not the same as moving Lehigh offices to the Flatiron building or to 3rd and New. Closing Packer is not the same as funding the Southside Ambassadors. We are talking here about moving the symbolic center of the University from the University Center flagpole/lawn to Packer Ave — about a one minute walk apart. Spitting distance. Gadfly agrees with the Mayor’s goal of more University and student involvement in the Southside but doesn’t see this move relating in virtually any way to that goal. On its own. But Gadfly must remember that Lehigh is talking not about three separate reasons but about “overlapping reasons,” which puts interesting emphasis on their third reason. Read on.

3) an improved pedestrian amenity for the campus and the community at large, providing a safe and welcoming east-west access for the community: go back and listen to the video of Lehigh’s Carolina Hernandez, the last of the four Lehigh presenters at last Tuesday’s Council meeting. She talked of programs in which Lehigh brings students to campus. Wow! thought Gadfly when he got up to talk — even smacking the podium table over this point (so dramatic, he is). This flips Lehigh reason #2. Not taking campus farther into the Southside. But bringing community members uphill, on to campus. Yes. Yes. Yes. This is the part of the conversation from Lehigh’s Tuesday night draft #3 that caught Gadfly’s attention — as well as Councilwoman Van Wirt’s, as we will see in the next post or so. Yes, yes. yes. Let’s think of how this vacated space might be used to blur lines, to bring more Southsiders over physical, symbolic, or emotional (an interesting term used by Lehigh in a past meeting) borders. So Gadfly ended up saying that the most important addition for the 4th draft of Lehigh’s proposal would be specific examples of boundary-blurring programing that Lehigh could institute in that space. If I were a Councilperson, such examples would make my mouth water and satisfy my need to consider approving such a proposal for the public good of the City. If I were Lehigh, I would lock Carolina Hernandez in her office till she developed two or three specific programs that would turn a vacated Packer Ave. into a truly shared space. Put as much detailed thinking about the use of the public space as has been given to the details of the traffic study. (We pretty much know where every traffic cone is going to go in the traffic study, but we get zero information about reason #3.)

So Gadfly urged Council not to approve the proposal for a traffic study. Yet. Wait for a 4th draft, he said. And then make your decision. (At such moments in conferences asking for a 4th draft, Gadfly had to keep sharp objects away from his students.)

But Council approved it.

Gadfly is not devastated.

The Council rationales were good. The Council rationales were clear. We’ll dissect them next. That will be instructive on several levels.

The idea of a test pilot is always good. The urban planning guru Jeff Speck whom Gadfly spent the last summer reading (you might remember he battered you with post after post of Speck’s ideas) strongly recommends such when possible.

But Gadfly says we shouldn’t think that the results of a test on traffic will touch the main issues here.

And debate about these three rationales will continue if the test pilot passes the test, so the thinking we do here and now is not wasted.

And maybe then Carolina will have been sprung from her office, 4th draft of the proposal in hand.

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Gadfly has had occasion to say several times over the course of his tenure that “done deal” is one of the most terrifying phrases in the English language.

Gadflies have a penchant for exaggeration.

But “done deal” is the death knell to citizen participation.

You are invited to participate, you participate, then you find out the decision has already been made or that the decision is made without you.

Screw it, you say, and turn into one of those who lose faith in the democratic nature of city government.

There is still some concern about genuine and widespread community knowledge of and involvement in the “conversation” so far. Of course that will change big-time March 9 when the barriers go up!

Breena Holland and Kim Carrell-Smith are familiar and, Gadfly jokingly says, “professional” commentators at Council meetings. Otherwise, though Carrell-Smith presented the results of some polling she did of neighbors, there was only one near-by resident voice at the meeting — Gail Domalakes.

While attracted to the uses that Lehigh might make of that space, Domalakes “uses Packer Ave. a lot” both car-wise and walk-wise and finds the street “very pleasant” and does not “feel unsafe.” Au contraire, where she feels “on very high alert, adrenalin-rush” is at Brodhead and Morton and Vine and Morton, and to push more traffic down there might not be a “responsible thing to do.”

Holland and Carrell-Smith (and Domalakes too) support the pilot study. But both women make the clear point that data collected in the pilot study be shared with the community before a decision is made to go ahead with a permanent closing of that section of Packer.

The Mayor himself was clear at the January 23 Broughal meeting that he wanted the widest range of information he could get. So we’re hoping/expecting that there will be an open meeting for the public to share data and ideas about it and other salient and significant issues with Mayor and Council before any final decision is made.

Let’s try very hard to avoid the mutterings of “done deal.”

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Resident Al Wurth raises three main objections to closing Packer Ave. at last Tuesday’s Council meeting: closing because of pedestrian concerns is overkill, it sends a bad signal to residents of the Southside, it endangers Broughal students.

Only one of Wurth’s concerns — the last, about the Broughal students — will be addressed by the pilot traffic study.

Though a pedestrian study now is more clearly articulated as part of the pilot, Gadfly’s worry from the beginning has been that the proposed — and now approved — study will not be studying all that needs to be studied. And it may not even be studying the main thing or things that need to be studied. For instance, though suggestions were made at the January 23 Broughal meeting about how to receive or collect resident commentary, nothing concrete has been heard about that yet.

Gadfly is a bit haunted by a comment Lehigh made at the January 23 Broughal meeting, that their preliminary study indicated that driving around the vacated area (for instance, Vine to Morton to Webster back to Packer) would only take 13 seconds more than the direct route between Vine and Webster on Packer. As if time on the road is the prime criterion for a decision. So that if the east-west/west-east delay for skirting the vacated area is reasonably modest, then the proposal would be acceptable.

Must be on the alert for that kind of thinking.

• You only really need to be concerned about the pedestrian interaction . . . during a few hours of the daytime.
• To close the road permanently would seem to be unnecessary.
• The smartest thing to do here is some sort of traffic calming.
• I’m a little bit anxious about the signal that it sends to say to the residents of the Southside that the road is closed and now it’s Lehigh only.
• When you take all the cars that are now crossing at Packer and send them deliberately past Broughal . . . I’m guessing the junior high school students are even less careful than Lehigh students.
• Pedestrian-car interaction and enhancing that by sending cars down Vine to Morton and Morton being the main way students might go home is also a little bit nuts and probably is unnecessary.
• To invite more cars to go by Broughal . . .?
• It seems to me that there’s a simpler solution.
• We’re going to have a road there, and we’re gonna have the run-off, and we’re actually turning the cars and the pollution down the hill to the community and away from the campus.
• I’m thinking of the kids at the school, and we really ought to pay more attention to the impact on them.
• I’m not sure the road needs to be closed and certainly if it’s closed 24hrs. all the time.

 Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Charles Malinchak, “Bethlehem closing Packer Avenue to study impact.” Morning Call, February 19, 2020.

As previously reported here, Lehigh made a presentation to City Council Tuesday supporting their request to do a pilot traffic study on the closing of Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster. Council approved the traffic study 3-2. It will begin March 9 and last 45 days.

As Gadfly also said previously, he thought it was a good meeting: improved Lehigh presentation, good resident comments, good (and diverse) Council comments.

Let’s take 2-3 posts and appreciate what went on.

First, the Lehigh presentation. This is the 3rd time Lehigh has presented its 3-part rationale: pedestrian safety, the changing core of the Lehigh campus, and a pedestrian walkway for the campus and wider community. Lehigh has already done a traffic study that shows “minimal impact” from the street closure, and the proposed pilot study will enable “proof of concept.” This particular point, as we will see later, seemed especially appealing to some Council members. Details of planning with the school district and the Bethlehem Parking Authority and other logistical matters were also covered.

The Lehigh consultant performing the study outlined such things as 1) observations morning, noon, and afternoon at Broughal for the safety of the students (a major concern raised at the public meeting on January 23), and 2) studies of 20 different traffic points, the goal being to document the changing traffic patterns.

Here the Lehigh Chief of Police addressed in more detail than ever before point #1 in the Lehigh proposal: pedestrian safety. He gave “numbers” for the first time about “pedestrian-vehicle conflicts” along that stretch of road, numbers that are “some of the highest I’ve seen in my law enforcement career.” (Where did your video of the Chief go, Gadfly?)

Here in support of the third point in Lehigh’s proposal, the Lehigh rep outlines the considerable community service work that Lehigh does on the Southside that is “blurring the lines” between the campus and the community and provides a basis to explore the possibility of closing the street (Lehigh has little flat surface on the campus itself) to offer other options for this worthy work.

Followers will remember that Gadfly has been grouchy at the quality of Lehigh’s presentation in its previous two stages. But this was definitely a better presentation. You will see Gadfly’s interesting generally supportive response to this third iteration of the proposal later.

Resident response to the Lehigh presentation was excellent. Going there next.

Resident voices. Gadfly loves them.

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Gadfly a bit pressed by other obligations this morning and just trying to get you the headlines from last night’s City Council meeting.Thus, the Mayor’s statement in the previous post and the Packer Ave. business in this post.

Council enabled the pilot traffic study on the temporary closing of Packer between Vine and Webster by a 3-2 vote (Councilpeople Negron and Callahan not present). The temporary closing will begin March 9 and last 45 days.

Gadfly thought it was a very good meeting. Lehigh made a more detailed proposal/explanation, there were a half-dozen resident comments, the Mayor made a statement, and each Council member gave a detailed comment supporting his or her vote. Lots of information, ideas, opinions flowed in a collegial way. The way it should.

Gadfly much pleased (ha! even though his “side” lost).

Gadfly will come back and break the discussion down for you when time permits, but he recommends going to the primary source (as always) first: go to the City video min. 9:40 to start.

 

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

“Gadfly is not demanding that Council completely reject the street closing. He’s asking they demand Lehigh make a compelling case. A case that compels them.”
Gadfly, February 11, 2020

City Council tomorrow night will vote to enable the closing of Packer Avenue between Webster and Vine for a traffic study that will be a key determinant in the decision about a permanent closing. Gadfly has taken some heat for opposing the street closing. He hastens to say that he has an open mind on that decision. What he opposes is going ahead in even a preliminary fashion without a compelling case. Council needs to require convincing argument before it acts. Gadfly could fashion such a convincing argument. He challenges Lehigh to do so. And he challenges Council to withhold approval for the pilot study till they do so. And thus he reposts his thoughts from February 11.

————–

As you can see from the video in Gadfly’s previous post, at the February 4 Council meeting Lehigh presented three rationales for the Packer street vacation as it did January 23 at Broughal, but the rationales were not the same. Rationale #2 was different February 4. But rationales #1 and #3 were no stronger.

Lehigh presented “three major issues overlapping one another”:

1) safety of pedestrians:

Lehigh simply presented some facts about the number of Lehigh pedestrians who cross Packer Ave. The number is “substantial.” But the number of pedestrians crossing a street, even though huge, doesn’t logically prove there is a safety problem. What would prove there is a safety problem? Facts. Number of accidents. Number of injuries. Number of deaths. No data has been given. Where are the facts? Has the City recognized the central crossing of Packer as a danger? If so, why have they not recommended some remedy? Even if the data backs up a significant safety issue, have any number of other traffic calming tools been applied? Why go immediately to the most drastic option? The answer probably is that the three rationales are “overlapping,” and the most drastic option enables goal 3: a Packer Promenade of some sort. Without the successful completion of rationale #1, there can be no Promenade. Gadfly sees the promenade as Lehigh’s main goal.

2) the changing face of the Lehigh campus as it shifts downward toward Southside:

The downward shift is partly due to projects on campus but partly due to “our investment in the city.” Investment. That is, we have put money in. Note that this rationale #2 is not the same as the rationale #2 that was presented at Broughal. At Broughal, the stated rationale was “Better connecting Lehigh with South Bethlehem to have more [foot] traffic supporting the businesses” — the change is a recognition that no logical connection could be made between Packer open or closed and foot traffic at Southside businesses. Now no mention of impact on business is made. What is mentioned is money Lehigh has spent. That’s a big difference. Lehigh had to shift the argument. (Maybe they were reading Gadfly!)  And in the shift we find a bald quid pro quo (wheee!). Now Lehigh reminds the City of their “investment” in the Southside and their “partnership” in developing it. In effect, they are saying remember what we’ve done for you and with you. Now it’s time for you to do us a favor. In addition, there is the completely new element of opening up a “point of connection” with the Southside but not in the north-south direction of the prior rationale #2 but in an “east-west” direction. This is the first time we hear of an east-west connection with the Southside as a Lehigh or City goal. But what is there to connect east-west? North-south was connection with businesses and other understandable aspects of city life. What’s the point, function, goal of an increased east-west connection even if it could be shown that closing the street would effect one?

3) improving the pedestrian experience not only for the Lehigh community but the public at large:

Value for the Lehigh community is obvious. But for the public at large — which should be the Mayor and City Council’s prime concern — it is not. How much east-west “public” foot traffic is there? Gadfly is tempted to say virtually none. But are there any facts? Is there any data? There is no expansion on this third point. No rhetorical support. No elaboration. No description. No argumentation. No example. No persuasion.

Which for Gadfly adds up to no reason for City Council to approve even so preliminary and costless a step as a traffic study.

In Gadfly’s view, Lehigh has demonstrably not made a case with enough mental rigor for even a baby step to be taken toward closing Packer Ave.

It’s hard for Gadfly to see that closing Packer Ave. was on any City agenda in the same way as, say, refurbishing South New St. But let the case be made. Strongly. Before any action is taken.

(Gadfly wants to note among all his negativity that Lehigh indicated response to concerns about Broughal safety and expanding the area of the traffic study raised at the January 23 meeting, as well as commitment to shutting down the study/closure early if things aren’t working out. These are good things.)

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

As you can see from the video in Gadfly’s previous post, at the February 4 Council meeting Lehigh presented three rationales for the Packer street vacation as it did January 23 at Broughal, but the rationales were not the same. Rationale #2 was different February 4. But rationales #1 and #3 were no stronger.

Lehigh presented “three major issues overlapping one another”:

1) safety of pedestrians:

Lehigh simply presented some facts about the number of Lehigh pedestrians who cross Packer Ave. The number is “substantial.” But the number of pedestrians crossing a street, even though huge, doesn’t logically prove there is a safety problem. What would prove there is a safety problem? Facts. Number of accidents. Number of injuries. Number of deaths. No data has been given. Where are the facts? Has the City recognized the central crossing of Packer as a danger? If so, why have they not recommended some remedy? Even if the data backs up a significant safety issue, have any number of other traffic calming tools been applied? Why go immediately to the most drastic option? The answer probably is that the three rationales are “overlapping,” and the most drastic option enables goal 3: a Packer Promenade of some sort. Without the successful completion of rationale #1, there can be no Promenade. Gadfly sees the promenade as Lehigh’s main goal.

2) the changing face of the Lehigh campus as it shifts downward toward Southside:

The downward shift is partly due to projects on campus but partly due to “our investment in the city.” Investment. That is, we have put money in. Note that this rationale #2 is not the same as the rationale #2 that was presented at Broughal. At Broughal, the stated rationale was “Better connecting Lehigh with South Bethlehem to have more [foot] traffic supporting the businesses” — the change is a recognition that no logical connection could be made between Packer open or closed and foot traffic at Southside businesses. Now no mention of impact on business is made. What is mentioned is money Lehigh has spent. That’s a big difference. Lehigh had to shift the argument. (Maybe they were reading Gadfly!)  And in the shift we find a bald quid pro quo (wheee!). Now Lehigh reminds the City of their “investment” in the Southside and their “partnership” in developing it. In effect, they are saying remember what we’ve done for you and with you. Now it’s time for you to do us a favor. In addition, there is the completely new element of opening up a “point of connection” with the Southside but not in the north-south direction of the prior rationale #2 but in an “east-west” direction. This is the first time we hear of an east-west connection with the Southside as a Lehigh or City goal. But what is there to connect east-west? North-south was connection with businesses and other understandable aspects of city life. What’s the point, function, goal of an increased east-west connection even if it could be shown that closing the street would effect one?

3) improving the pedestrian experience not only for the Lehigh community but the public at large:

Value for the Lehigh community is obvious. But for the public at large — which should be the Mayor and City Council’s prime concern — it is not. How much east-west “public” foot traffic is there? Gadfly is tempted to say virtually none. But are there any facts? Is there any data? There is no expansion on this third point. No rhetorical support. No elaboration. No description. No argumentation. No example. No persuasion.

Which for Gadfly adds up to no reason for City Council to approve even so preliminary and costless a step as a traffic study.

In Gadfly’s view, Lehigh has demonstrably not made a case with enough mental rigor for even a baby step to be taken toward closing Packer Ave.

It’s hard for Gadfly to see that closing Packer Ave. was on any City agenda in the same way as, say, refurbishing South New St. But let the case be made. Strongly. Before any action is taken.

(Gadfly wants to note among all his negativity that Lehigh indicated response to concerns about Broughal safety and expanding the area of the traffic study raised at the January 23 meeting, as well as commitment to shutting down the study/closure early if things aren’t working out. These are good things.)

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

In principle, I think making Packer a pedestrian space is a good idea and that most of the potential problems can be resolved. Unfortunately, I think “Lehigh sprawl” has already happened, with the development down to Morton Street — especially the new Health building — and the planned new building for the College of Business & Economics will extend this north of Morton.

There is a very big IF, though — if Lehigh won’t realize that what’s needed is far more than a “traffic study,” and that they need to commit to hiring an experienced consultant that is qualified to develop a plan that resolves the many concerns raised by the community. (The most pressing of which is probably a potential increase in vehicle traffic near Broughal MS.)

In addition, they need to really engage with the community to identify potential problems that haven’t even been discussed because many people haven’t been heard from.

It would be relatively easy for Lehigh to take community concerns seriously and to solve all the potential problems. Unfortunately, the historical record suggests they have little understanding or interest in this and will do as little as they can get away with.

Peter

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Lehigh University is asking the City to consider closing Packer Ave. between Vine and Webster. As part of the decision-making process, Lehigh is proposing a 45-day closure of that section of Packer beginning March 9 to test the impact on traffic.

Lehigh hosted a “community meeting” January 23 at Broughal Middle School and made a presentation at Council February 4. Council will vote March 3 on whether to enable the temporary street closing necessary to conduct the traffic study. The results of the study will be presented to the Mayor as part of his deliberation process. The Mayor has stated firmly that he has made no decision yet. If he decides after the traffic study to approve the road closure, Council will make the final determination.

Gadfly has posted over 30 times about this proposal, the last time “demanding that Lehigh make a strong case for closing Packer Ave.” “Demanding”! Your Gadfly is so pompous, isn’t he!

Gadfly spoke at City Council February 4, asking that Council withhold permission on March 3 to do the traffic study until Lehigh made a strong case for closing Packer Ave. Listen:

Why is Gadfly’s underwear so tight about this proposal?

As a historian, he is aware of Lehigh sprawl, aware of the bones of the lost neighborhood on which the north-Packer Lehigh campus rests. And he sees no sign that the current  Bethlehem community surrounding Lehigh has been much involved in deliberations. Gadfly is a community man, a neighborhood man.

As a rhetoric teacher, he is allergic to decisions made on weak, soft, slip-shod argument. He wants compelling argument. He wants mental rigor. He wants facts. He wants specifics. He wants to be persuaded. Packer Ave.’s been around since 1891. It’s a busy, beautiful, healthy street. It’s not the kind of derelict street that has been the subject of other street vacations Gadfly has seen during his tenure in office.

Gadfly is not demanding that Council completely reject the street closing. He’s asking they demand Lehigh make a compelling case. A case that compels them.

Gadfly is not against closing Packer Ave., far from it. He knows Lehigh would give us a masterpiece of a Packer Promenade. But he is afraid the Mayor may be in a political box. His goal of blurring the lines of campus and city is a good one. But simply because Lehigh can tick off its move into the Flatiron building and on to 3rd St, its funding of the Ambassadors and code enforcement officers, its aid in the development of New St. doesn’t make closing Packer Ave. a good idea. But it makes it a difficult idea about which the Mayor can say no if he wanted to.

To paraphrase a maxim from the legal world, if I were Lehigh I wouldn’t conduct a study I didn’t know the conclusion of.

Will the Mayor be able to say no (if he wants to) in this instance to the largest employer in the city, to an institution that brings the city national renown, and which is doing certifiable good for the City in other areas that align with the Mayor’s goals?

Say no? Even if he wants to. Gadfly doesn’t think so. And the Mayor may not want to.

A no is going to be hard for both the Mayor and Council. I think the answer is a foregone conclusion. I think the Mayor will recommend closing Packer Ave. after the traffic study. I think the decision will come to Council.

Gadfly would like mental rigor not political calculation or emotional beneficence to be guiding the decision.

It just so happens that a Lehigh contingent was in attendance at Council February 4 and made a presentation immediately after the Gadfly.

What timing!

Gadfly thinks the “show me” and slow down approach Gadfly took surprised Lehigh. They apparently are not Gadfly readers (not everybody in town reads Gadfly. Not yet, anyway)  and seemed unaware of his questioning. They did not alter their calm, descriptive approach even after hearing Gadfly challenge them to make a stronger case.

Listen to their presentation, and we’ll talk about it next time.

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Peter Crownfield is officially retired but spends most of his time working with students in his role as internship coordinator for the Alliance for Sustainable Communities–Lehigh Valley.

Gadfly:

This is the type of question-filled discussion that we should see more of. And of course Lehigh should be required to make the case by presenting clear analysis of all the points you listed.

That being said, I think we also need to recognize that

(1) we need to take steps to reduce dependence on individual automobiles, and some of those steps will make auto travel less convenient;

(2) that includes Lehigh’s overuse of small vans for delivering materials and getting around campus — how about electric “golf cart” vehicles that are charged by solar panels or run on fuel cells with the carbon-free hydrogen & oxygen fuel produced from water via solar-powered electrolysis?;

(3) one way to make this happen is to recognize that there will be some problems if Packer is closed, and then to concentrate on solving those problems (instead of using every inconvenience or problem as a reason not to do it).

Peter

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Gadfly walks with the ghosts of the lost neighborhood

Well, that might be true. But life goes on.

At the January 23 Broughal meeting, Lehigh did not say what would happen to a vacated Packer Avenue between Vine and Webster. However, in a May 2019 report the area would be turned into the “Packer Promenade.” It’s a sure bet that a “Packer Promenade” is what Lehigh would like. Gadfly bets as well that the result would be beautiful. The 2019 report and the 2012 Master Plan reference such classic projects as Locust Walk at the University of Pennsylvania as models. And Lehigh itself has already done laudable work on campus turning roads into walks. Gadfly can imagine marveling at a final product on the vacated Packer Avenue that would add to the beauty of the Lehigh campus.

Gadfly may be the only one walking with the ghosts of the lost neighborhood. The contentious history of neighborhood-university conflicts in the 1960s and 1970s and the squabbles in the 1990s referenced in the previous post may only be vestigial memory — the warriors long gone, the current nearby residents perhaps unconcerned and passive (has the growth of off-campus student housing widened the radius of single-family homes far from the University  flagpole?). Certainly there was no significant turn-out of residents at the Broughal meeting.

Gadfly not only walks with the ghosts of the lost neighborhood, but he has consistently walked in solidarity with homeowners and neighborhoods menaced by developers and other “outside” forces. Gadflies are by nature suspicious of the motives of people and organizations with money, power, influence. It “pays” to be careful in such situations.

So, before we have a vacated and promenade’d Packer, we must demand that Lehigh make a strong case.

Here are the reasons Lehigh gave for vacating the section of Packer at the January 23 Broughal meeting.

First, we should remember that the Mayor introduced the meeting by saying that he has worked very hard to have what is now an excellent relationship with Lehigh, that he has a goal to get Lehigh off campus and to have more students in the community, that Lehigh has indeed moved into the Southside, and that he wants the very good working relationship with Lehigh to continue. Though the Mayor firmly stressed that he has not made a decision about Packer, it seems clear that he is disposed to work with Lehigh, that his ear is open to their request.

The main purpose of the meeting was to elicit audience comments, so, unfortunately,  Lehigh’s three-point introductory rationale for closing Packer was not developed at length. The only elaboration beyond those introductory remarks was this rather off-point response to a specific question about the three bullet-points.

Gadfly finds this approach a bit of cart-before-the-horse. We are asked to approve a pilot study before agreement on the end product itself. If Lehigh persuaded us that their idea was a good one, then it would make sense to do a feasibility study. Now we are doing a feasibility study for something we haven’t been convinced is a good idea.

Think of the Lehigh river pedestrian bridge. There was discussion and general consensus it is a good idea before a feasibility study was initiated.

It cannot be said that the university has presented so consensus-compelling an argument for closing a portion of an important east-west street that initiating a traffic study would be a natural next step.

We need compelling argument.

Of what would such compelling argument consist? Join with Gadfly in thinking this through a bit.

Enhancing safety:

• One of the three reasons for closing Packer is Lehigh’s concern for the safety of its students, faculty, and staff.
• We are told that there is one huge crossing point at peak hours on Packer and that it is particularly bad at dusk.
• What is the basis for considering this portion of Packer unsafe for pedestrians?
• Accidents? Injuries? If so, what does the data show? Exactly how unsafe is it?
• If the data reveals a significant safety issue for pedestrians that must be addressed, what are the possible remedies?
• One might think of three categories of remedies: traffic calming, re-routing the pedestrian flow, closing the street.
• Traffic calming options include a stop light, a stop sign, a crossing guard at peak hours, a crosswalk, a crosswalk with a push-button light signal, sidewalk lighting to illuminate pedestrians at dusk or night, bump outs, speed bumps, narrowing the street, and so forth.
• A pedestrian bridge would route students safely over the road.
• A 3-foot wall or a landscaping barrier running along Packer might discourage promiscuous mid-block crossings and route pedestrians to safe crossing areas.
• Street closing seems logically a last resort, a nuclear option.
• Why was the nuclear option chosen as the first and best option?
• Were any other options tested?
• Granted, one would wish for no accidents or injuries on Packer, but how does one balance the incidence of such accidents/injuries now shown by the data with inconvenience to the general public and the possibility of creating unsafe conditions elsewhere?
• Regarding safety concerns elsewhere, what, for instance, would be the impact on Broughal and on the intersection of Morton and New, which might be an even trickier intersection than it is now because of changes planned as part of the “South New Street Streetscape Enhancement” project?

Better connecting Lehigh with South Bethlehem to have more [foot] traffic supporting the businesses:

• The second of three reasons for closing Packer is to better integrate Lehigh with the City, to put Lehigh closer to the community, and specifically to help local businesses by breaking down a once real but now emotional border and joining in the in-progress shift of the university center of gravity closer to the Southside.
• Encouraging Lehigh people to support local businesses is a laudable goal.
• But exactly how would closing Packer create more foot traffic on, say, 4th St.?
• Is there something about how Packer is now constituted that impedes students from making their way to, say, 4th St.?
• The pool of students available to patronize Southside businesses wouldn’t increase by closing Packer, would it? So exactly how would closing Packer create more foot traffic?
• The vacated Packer might most likely be turned in to a space encouraging students to sit, to gather, to stroll longitudingly –that is, to linger — rather than to walk on by, so how would that increase traffic to, say, 4th St.?
• Experience indicates that there are already plenty of students “down-campus” because of the classroom buildings, the library, the bookstore, the ice cream store, Saxby’s, the Campus Square plaza, the Farrington dorms — how would closing Packer bring more or encourage the ones already there to do more shopping?
• Wouldn’t a better question be how to get the already down-campus students to cross Morton and go one more block to the business district?
• Aren’t the nature of the businesses and services on the Southside what draws traffic? If we want more students there, more or different business magnets might seem a more powerful draw.
• Would the erasure of the now just emotional Packer border simply shift the real border to Morton? To erase a border completely, Morton might be closed and the Campus Square plaza extended invitingly to 4th St.
• Morton and New, virtually touching the Southside business district, is a Lehigh bus junction point, and bus service goes down virtually to 3rd St. — is bus service not a more logical way to accomplish this goal? Students from anywhere on campus have readily available bus service to the Southside.
• Is the hill an obstacle to increased student traffic on, say, 4th St.? For if you walk down, you must walk back up. Pretty steep. Ugh. Maybe having to walk back up is a discouraging bummer for students. And maybe once down-campus, students are not bus-people or are too impatient to wait for a bus that, once boarded, makes a circuitous, time-wasting route back to their up-campus destinations — so how about an innovative tram system that speedily goes straight up the gut of the campus from Campus Square to the University Center? (Ha! Whoa, Gadfly, whoa! Down boy!)

Improving the pedestrian experience for everyone walking across Packer Avenue:

• It’s clear from the Lehigh representative’s presentation at the Broughal meeting that this reason should read “along” not “across” Packer.
• The third of three reasons for closing Packer is to improve the pedestrian experience for everyone walking along Packer Avenue.
• That is, Gadfly feels, is to create the “Packer Promenade” of the May 2019 study done by a Lehigh class that, as we understood it at the EAC meeting, was commissioned by the Lehigh administration.
• Such a promenade could be a stunning addition to an already beautiful campus.
• But exactly what value would such a promenade have to the outside Bethlehem community as to warrant closing a street?
• The Lehigh representative would not admit that the promenade was Lehigh’s real desire.
• The Lehigh representative did not prioritize the three reasons for closing Packer but, rather, suggested/implied a mutuality , a synergy among them.
• But Gadfly feels a promenade is Lehigh’s main reason for seeking the closure of Packer.
• And the reason where the City (“we”) must put our focus.
• This reason, while the most important, seems the vaguest and softest and weakest of the three as presented so far.
• The vast majority of the “everyones” walking along the vacated Packer Avenue will be Lehigh people.
• We can see the value of a promenade to the university.
• Exactly what is the evidence, the argument that a promenade will have value to the neighborhoods around Lehigh and to the City at large to warrant sacrificing a street?
• Gotta hear more.

Even though Lehigh will probably tote the cost of all or almost all of the traffic study, there will be some traffic turbulence, and, frankly, Gadfly thinks that if he were a Councilperson, he would not vote to approve this seemingly harmless pilot study at the February 18 meeting without some more serious discussion and consensus building.

Gadfly is not sure the idea of closing this section of Packer passes the threshold of possible acceptance as presented so far.

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

“We cannot stand still.”
Lehigh representative Charles Seidle, 1965

“The foolish destruction of a whole community to appease a nontaxpaying institution.”
Southside resident Anne Pongracz, 1965

“There is no support in Council now or ever to close the street.”
City Councilman Paul Calvo, 1976

“The university has looked at Packer Avenue with envious eyes for a long time.”
Lehigh representative and former Bethlehem mayor Ken Smith, 1999

“As long as I’m on Council, I will never, never, never agree to let them have Packer.”
City Councilwoman Jean Belinski, 1999

“Maybe when that road needs $500,000 in improvements, they’d be willing to talk.”
Lehigh representative and former Bethlehem mayor Ken Smith, 1999

• City Council creates Packer Ave. September 1, 1891 (info thanks to Gadfly #1 Stephen Antalics)
• There once was a neighborhood here in the precise area bounded by the traffic study: “During the 1950s, the neighborhood between Packer Ave, Martel, Morton and Webster Streets was a bustling community” of 93 families. It is now “The Lost Neighborhood.”
  
• Maintaining that it has “a continuing interest in the economic, social and cultural welfare of the City, ” Lehigh argues, as reported in the Morning Call June 29, 1965, that “We cannot stand still” and advocates expansion to the north side of Packer Ave. as an example of the “mutual benefit” from university-city cooperation “to continue progress of our city.”
• As reported in the same article, legendary Southside resident advocate Anne Pongracz called Lehigh a “do-nothing landlord” and called the urban renewal program “the foolish destruction of a whole community to appease a nontaxpaying institution.”

Packer_Ave_6_29_65

• The Morning Call of April 16, 1967, notes that the Bethlehem Redevelopment Authority is petitioning to vacate Adams St. between Morton and Packer and “at a later date” will petition to vacate Packer from Adams to Vine.
• The Morning Call of June 21, 1976, shows legendary City Councilman Paul Calvo confronting Lehigh over Packer Avenue. In its mid-60s master plan, Lehigh shows Packer between Vine and Webster as part of the campus since it owns all the property on both sides. Lehigh says that it has no plans to ask for a vacation “in the foreseeable future” and “we are not asking to have it closed.” But the possibility is still there. Campus expansion is a “political football,” with City officials periodically stressing the need for “stopping the university” from “squeezing out the South Side.”

Packer_Ave_6_21_76

• The Morning Call of July 1, 1976, reports that Councilman Calvo tells Lehigh “there is no support in Council now or ever to close the street” and that Lehigh has nothing to gain from trying to do it “except a lot of bad feeling in the community.” For its part, Lehigh says there is no economic advantage for them to do it anyway. Control of parking seems to be Lehigh’s issue.

Packer Ave 7 1 76

• The issue is parking as the May 25, 1999, Morning Call shows. Lehigh admits “the university has looked at Packer Avenue with envious eyes for a long time.” We’ve talked about it quietly,” but now City Council action “makes it too emotional to even consider it.” “Council members argued that Lehigh was being “unfairly favored over South Side residents” in regard to a parking program. Councilwoman Jean Belinski says, “that’s an emergency route through the South Side. As long as I’m on Council, I will never, never, never agree to let them have Packer.” To which Lehigh retorts, “Maybe when that road needs $500,000 in improvements, they’d be willing to talk.”

Packer_Ave_5_25_99

to be continued . . .

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Gadfly:

It seems to me that one thing Lehigh is trying to do is make its campus less vehicle-centric and more pedestrian & bike friendly, and the Packer Avenue pedestrian mall would be a good example — especially if they make it a venue for events that are open to the community.

The city doesn’t seem to have any problem approving structures such as the new health building and the new business & econ building, both of which will make the pedestrian mall more valuable.

(The only concern I have is the possibility for increased congestion at Broughal MS at the beginning or end of the school day, something the traffic study definitely needs to consider & analyze.)

Peter Crownfield

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

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!

Gadfly,

As residents of the west side of Lehigh’s campus, we use two routes to cross the Southside while avoiding 3^rd and 4^th Streets, and based on our observations and the current traffic on Summit and W.8^th Street, so do a lot of other people.

The more common of two cross-Southside patterns now from 378/Wyandotte is to turn at the blinking light onto Summit Street, go down Summit to take a left on Brodhead, and a right on Packer. The other route which is less busy these days has drivers turning off 378 at the blinking light at W.8^th Street, one block above Summit. This is the route we take at rush hour or school bus time, crossing through Lehigh’s campus via W.8th Street, which becomes University Drive.  We often follow folks who are on the same cross route, heading for Taylor Street, E.6th Street, Hillside Avenue, and/or Hayes Street.

With the Packer Avenue closure between Vine and Webster, the current more commonly used cut-through at Summit may become less popular. Brodhead traffic already tends to back up the hill at rush hour and it will probably be worse with the new traffic patterns, particularly with the increase in Morton Street traffic turning on and off of Brodhead; we appreciate that the city has already promised to look at that as part of their traffic study. But maybe, as noted at the meeting, folks will wait out the backup, and go further down to take one of the big arteries rather than turning onto Morton? Both the 378 eastbound Summit-Morton cross-Southside route (including whatever may occur at the east end of that), as well as the 4th/3rd cross routes, should be part of the traffic study.

But we suspect that the W.8^th Street/upper campus eastbound route will become more appealing to drivers seeking to cross the Southside while avoiding major traffic backups. So, as one young man at the meeting said, the city’s consultants should also study the changes in traffic on the upper campus.

So please, city traffic consultants, study

• the W.8^th-University Drive cross-Southside route
• the Summit-Morton cross-Southside route
  • And please include the traffic that may bolt off of Summit or W.8^th Streets onto Carlton and Montclair Avenues…
• the effects on traffic on 4^th and 3^rd Streets, too.

And, please

• consider retiming the very long light at 4^th and Brodhead to ease the backup on Brodhead

Whew, these could be some busy traffic engineers! So I’ll leave any east-of-campus traffic study requests to folks who live over there . . .

Kim

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Gadfly,

I would raise a cautionary flag on Lehigh’s “three place-based strategies” where it calls for “area improvement through acquisition or rehabilitation.”

Each time any non-profit acquires real estate it removes that property from the tax rolls.

Then other property owners, including home owners, have to suck up and fill that real estate tax paying void that is created.

That is problematic for residents, many of whom live on fixed incomes or are lower income, and for whom maintaining their home ownership is already a difficult situation.

Dana Grubb

Latest in a series of posts about Lehigh University and the Southside

Why is Gadfly serving up this huge text omelette for your breakfast this morning?

The Mayor said graphically at the January 23 Broughal public meeting on the temporary Packer Ave. closing that he would be “crucified” if he decided to go ahead with the street vacation without providing substantial data and rationale. Crucified. That’s what he said.

Yes.

But Gadfly thinks it’s going to be hard for the Mayor and Council to say no to Lehigh. And that one of the arguments in favor will be that Lehigh does a lot of good for the City.

And thus how can we say no.

So Gadfly is anxious to see how Lehigh describes its relationship with the City — and to see how he feels about it. Is he going to be disposed in Lehigh’s favor? Should he be thinking of Lehigh as a benevolent partner with the City as it moves off The Hill?

Frankly, Gadfly worries about continued “Lehigh sprawl,” and he is the kind of person who walks with the ghosts of the Lost Neighborhood.

And we have to be realistic and acknowledge — as a Gadfly follower just reminded him — that Lehigh looks out for itself.

So let’s see what Lehigh says. Always to the primary sources in Gad-world.

The 2012 Lehigh Master Plan describes three “place-based strategies” in its actions related to the City:

• Area improvement through acquisition or rehabilitation
• Develop a dense mixed-use housing project through partnership
• Participate in a neighborhood improvement district

Remember that the following section of the Lehigh Master Plan would have been written a decade ago and thus might feel or be dated. But Gadfly is interested in the voice, the language with which Lehigh describes its relationship with the Southside.

Goal 3: Participating in the Renaissance of South Bethlehem

Objectives Of The Real Estate Strategy: As an integral part of the Campus Master Plan, and with a focus on implementation, the South Bethlehem real estate strategy is critical for achieving three objectives:

Expanding the quantity and quality of housing options for both undergraduate and graduate students as well as faculty and staff. The Campus Master Plan projects a need for approximately 150-300 graduate beds in new and existing housing and 250 undergraduate beds in new and existing housing.

Promoting economic revitalization of South Bethlehem. Universities across the nation, including Lehigh, have acknowledged the importance of engaging in improving their adjacent urban areas, to improve the quality, enjoyment, and safety related to the off-campus experience for students, faculty, staff, and neighborhood residents.

Creating spaces for additional University activities. The Campus Master Plan identifies key catalytic expansion projects for University programs and administration. As has been the case in other college towns, creation of a facility that can meet University needs while contributing life and vibrancy to the city can be a useful approach to downtown revitalization.

Principles when participating in the renaissance of South Bethlehem in the Campus Master Plan include:
• South Bethlehem should serve as a draw for faculty, staff, and students.
• Work with the local community to build opportunities for mutual benefit.
• Be a presence to help revitalize South Bethlehem.
• Create opportunities for students and faculty to live and work in South Bethlehem.
• Build upon academic strengths to address the issues of a post-modern urban environment: education, health, housing, small merchants, and entrepreneurs.

A Place-Based Strategy: The Campus Master Plan has identified two critical zones for South Bethlehem revitalization through the University’s potential intervention. Real estate efforts should be concentrated in these areas as much as possible.

The residential neighborhoods to the east and west of campus include numerous rental units within the older housing stock which serve Lehigh students. A partnership program with local landlords to rehabilitate these areas could both benefit the neighborhood and provide safe and affordable housing for the student population. The core commercial area of South Bethlehem from New Street to Polk Street and from Fourth Street to Third Street is one of the main gateways to campus and a key area for amenities and services that support both campus and community. This area includes the University-owned Service Building [4th and Adams], the South Bethlehem Greenway (a new linear park on the site of a former rail right-of-way), and several City-owned lots along the Greenway that could support new residential and retail uses.

A Partnership-Driven Strategy: The uses critical to a South Bethlehem revitalization strategy are generally those that are produced by market-oriented, private activity including housing, retail, and other commercial uses. In South Bethlehem, economic conditions have made success more difficult. The most efficient use of the University’s resources is therefore not always to develop and finance projects outright, but to leverage new activity in South Bethlehem through partnerships between the University, private developers and owners, and the City of Bethlehem. Implementation of the strategies through the partnership approach will nonetheless require a long-term commitment on the part of all partners and stakeholders in the process.

Options For The Housing Strategy: A combination of both “decentralized” and “centralized” approaches will be critical to improving South Bethlehem and the quality of off-campus housing. The University should aim to implement strategies that are not only maximally catalytic of South Bethlehem revitalization but also produce the desired number of new or improved quality beds for the reasonable University investment. The decentralized approach targets the substantial number of existing off-campus housing units leased by Lehigh students which currently offer sub-par living conditions and are in need of significant rehabilitation as well as a higher quality of management by their owners. To appropriately incentivize the private market to undertake needed investments in these homes for lower cash flow, the gap created by rehabilitation costs and likely rents would need to be closed.

Strategic steps would include identifying priority areas for housing improvement, setting a target for the proportion of housing to be rehabilitated, and partake in partnership opportunities. To offset the gap between rehab investment and likely revenue streams, the most effective approach would be for the University to subsidize purchase and rehabilitation of groups of houses by private parties, achieving the University’s goals at the lowest combination of cost and risk. The rehabilitation of a subset of the existing housing supply in the targeted areas would likely alter market dynamics in a manner such that the rest of the stock would be rehabilitated over time in response to changes in demand.

As a more centralized approach, the development of a currently-unoffered product type—multistory housing in an amenitized urban core—will be more attractive to both graduate students, faculty, and staff. The University could support either gap-financing for a multi-unit building built by a private owner/developer, or directly finance a residential building that would provide graduate student housing exclusively. A sizeable development in South Bethlehem would serve as a catalytic project for area growth and improvement.

As with the decentralized approach, the University’s goal should be to produce the maximum number of quality units with the minimum investment. However, the need for graduate dormitory housing creates a special case, since there are significant advantages to the University owning or holding a long-term lease for these units.

Service Expansion Strategy: Increasing the student, faculty, and staff population in South Bethlehem would induce increased retail activity and provide additional indirect benefits to the University and the neighborhood. Retail which caters to student needs could also potentially reduce car ownership among students and help reduce the University’s parking demand. An increase in retail activity would also add to the eyes-on-the-street factor and improve area safety. Placing retailers strategically between or adjacent to campus and residential areas will increase retail viability and pedestrian activity.

A strategic framework that would increase retail, food and beverage, and entertainment options in South Bethlehem would benefit the immediate area and provide much-needed amenities for the student population. The introduction of more retail space could potentially attract more residents to the immediate area, thus revitalizing the area nearest campus.

Safety And Community Strategy: The potential for South Bethlehem to become an even more vibrant and diverse community that is welcoming to both the students, faculty, and staff of Lehigh, and to local residents, centers around the perception of safety and security in the neighborhood. Adoption of the proposed Bethlehem Neighborhood Improvement District (NID), in which the University would play a key role, would lead to more area improvements in several ways. A Clean and Safe program would enhance neighborhood surroundings and would increase the presence of public safety officers in South Bethlehem. A retail tenant recruitment and storefront improvement strategy would support retail growth. Finally, capital improvements to the public realm would improve the quality of the pedestrian experience and help to activate key streets, building upon the existing successful endeavors in the neighborhood.

University Program Strategy: Lehigh’s location within South Bethlehem also creates opportunities for meaningful connections between University programs and community interests, in physical spaces that become “magnets” for campus-community interaction. As at other universities located in urban areas, academic and other programs can support or engage in neighborhood revitalization and generate day, evening, and weekend activity with public programs.

During on campus interviews, faculty and staff prioritized interaction with the community as the most important function of a potential Lehigh development in South Bethlehem. As opportunities arise to strategically embed University functions in the surrounding community, proximity to campus, maximizing available assets, and generating activity should be considered as key characteristics. As an exemplar, the Lehigh-owned Service Building represents these aspirations well.

The Service Building [4th and Adams] was built in 1894 as a cold storage warehouse served by an active rail line. Today, this historic industrial building houses workshops and storage spaces for the University’s facilities department. Originally in an industrial area, the building now sits at a location of strategic importance between the East Fourth Street retail corridor and the new South Bethlehem Greenway. While firmly part of the South Bethlehem context, it is only one block from campus along Adams Street. The Service Building could potentially be adaptively reused to create a new landmark and beacon of activity. The historic industrial building has architectural characteristics that could be well-suited for creative uses that would benefit from high ceilings and loft-like spaces. Ground floor spaces along the street, as well as along the Greenway, could engage the community through shared uses and by creating vitality during both day and evening hours to activate the area.

An improved streetscape along Adams Street could provide a safe and well-lit connection to the campus proper. Street improvements and better lighting in South Bethlehem were prioritized by students during on campus interviews. With a number of large redevelopment sites in the immediate area, the Service Building exemplar is envisioned as a catalyst to the revitalization of the core commercial district of South Bethlehem.

———–

to be continued . . .