>>Valley Patriot>>
|
Surreal
Estate
Not all Development is Good
Development
An open letter to
Havearhill Mayor Jim Fiorentini
Constantine A.
Valhouli
(04/04/07)
What kind of a town do we want
Haverhill to become? And what kind of a town will
Haverhill become if we continue on the current path?
Not all growth is good growth. But stopping development,
as has been proposed, is not the solution either. The
best approach is to ensure that development contributes
to our goal of returning Haverhill to what it was: an
affluent, beautiful and desirable place to call home. Our
current mayor justifies his rampant sale of city land and
buildings, and his refusal to support an architectural
review board as “making Haverhill friendlier to
developers.” A better approach would be to make the
city friendlier to its residents.
Haverhill residents have a justified con-cern about new
development. Beginning with urban renewal in the 1950s,
almost every major land use decision in the last
generation has left the town worse than before. To
com-pound this problem, our mayor has continu-ally
opposed creating an architectural review board. It seems
that preserving the historic character of our city and
improving the quality of life for Haverhill residents
rank beneath serving the interest of developers.
Since 1950, most of the buildings built in Haverhill have
not gone before an architectural review board. It shows.
A review board would reduce the chance that architectural
afterbirths like the Franchi building or the Monument
Square CVS are allowed to happen here again. These stucco
buildings don’t conform to our Victorian
neighborhoods, and they reduce the desirability and
property values of the nearby homes.
Consider this. We travel to intact historic places like
Woodstock, Vt. or Nantucket to spend time in their period
homes and charming downtowns. The lack of these qualities
is why we don’t spend time along the strip malls of
Plaistow, N.H. With each historic building that is
demolished, Haverhill’s history is erased. The
result? Towns without heritage or a sense of character
become unattractive places. And unattractive or dull
places only retain residents who can’t afford to
live elsewhere.
Haverhill pursues outdated approaches to city planning,
and then wonders why the city doesn’t recover. Our
mayor doesn’t feel that aesthetics are important,
and this determines which plans move forward and which
ones aren’t considered. Our mayor seems reluctant to
bargain with developers, especially on aesthetic
issues. After years of economic depression, there
appears to be a sense that we’re lucky to get any
development at all in Haverhill. Yes, this has put vacant
lots into use. Yes, this has generated permitting fees.
But at what cost to the city’s long-term
development? Each of City Hall’s poor decisions
changes the character of Haverhill, and lowers the bar
for the next developer.
If City Hall continues to pursue growth-at-any-cost
measures that do not respect Haverhill’s
architecture or history, then the town may come to
resemble a generic Anyplace, USA with nothing to
differentiate it from the next collection of strip malls
and suburban cluster developments. Our mayor doesn’t
seem to recognize that he is missing the opportunity to
turn Haverhill into a destination and to create long-term
value for the town and its residents. Instead of
preserving and leveraging Haverhill’s historic
buildings and scarce open space, the mayor seems to pin
the town’s future on a cycle of demolition and new
construction.
We must create incentives to rebuild or convert Haverhill’s
historic buildings instead of demolishing them. Towns
such as Newburyport and Deerfield can serve as effective
models of how Haverhill can leverage these assets into a
foundation for charming shopping and dining experiences.
But had these towns pursued the same strategies as
Haverhill – demolishing downtown and refusing an
architectural review board – then they would
probably be, like Haverhill, a place to drive through
instead of a destination.
Historic buildings are potential economic catalysts. In
Lawrence, sustainable devel-oper Robert Ansin is
converting the former Wood Mill into Monarch Lofts, the
largest ecoluxury development in New England. Many people
initially laughed at the thought of luxury condominiums
in down-town Lawrence, but affluent buyers from Andover
and Boston have driven the prices for some lofts above
the average home price in Haverhill. At $1.2 million, the
largest lofts at Monarch are more expensive than the
highest-priced homes in Haverhill. Monarch Lofts
demonstrated that historic down-towns are viable, and
raised the bar for future developments in Merrimack
Valley.
In contrast, Haverhill has been filling its downtown with
low-income housing, clin-ics, and shelters. Haverhill
could have at-tracted this sort of catalytic project
– a dis-tinct, stylish development rooted in
envi-ronmental principles – except that its stock of
former downtown mills and factories has been largely
demolished. For parking lots. Week by week, it is
frustrating to see each of the distinct buildings that
has the poten-tial to improve Haverhill get converted to
low-income housing or being approved for demolition.
As we move towards the next election, please consider
this. The best indication of the kind of downtown that
Haverhill is build-ing can be found in the fate of the
buildings currently on the block: the churches in
Lafayette Square, the Granite Street build-ing, and the
armory. In a neighborhood with a bright future, churches
and armories are converted into distinct upscale
residences. In towns on the decline, the architecture is
ignored and the buildings are treated as commodity space
to be converted into low-income housing or demolished.
All this talk of economics, urban planning and real
estate development comes down to a single question: are
we making downtown a place where people want to spend
time? The most beloved historic places in New England
– places like Cambridge, Ogunquit and Nantucket
– have architectural review boards that maintain a
certain look, and a master plan that ensures development
serves the city’s goals. By protecting the qualities
that attract residents – open space, historic
housing, and a lively downtown – everyone benefits:
property values increase, developers can have higher
returns, and the city improves.
Constantine A. Valhouli is a principal with The
Hammersmith Group, a real estate brokerage and consulting
firm that advises developers of luxury properties and
civic leaders on the revival of historic downtowns. This
column first appeared in The Haverhill Gazette.
D.J. Deeb is an
adjunct Professor of History and Government at Bunker
Hill Community College. He teaches Social Studies
full-time at Reading Memorial High School. He is an
elected member of the Dracut School Committee and Greater
Lowell Regional Vocational-Technical School Committee.
*Send your questions comments to ValleyPatriot@aol.com
The March 2007 Edition
of the Valley Patriot
The Valley Patriot is a Monthly
Publication.
All Contents (C) 2007, Valley Patriot, Inc.
We publish 12,000 newspapers and distribute in Andover,
North Andover,
Methuen, Haverhill, Chelmsford, Georgetown, Groveland,
Boxford, Amesbury,
Lawrence, Dracut, Tewksbury, MERRIMACK, Hampton &
Salisbury Beach, and Lowell.
|
Valley Patriot Archive
Valley Patriot Story
ARCHIVES
Prior Lead
Stories
Prior
Valley Patriot Editorials
Prior Columns by ...
Tom Duggan
Dr. Chuck
Ormsby
Paula
Porten
Ralph
Wilbur
Hanna
Ted Tripp
Valley
Patriot of the Month
Griselsilva.com
Patrick
Blanchette
D.J.
Beauregard
Jim
Cassidy
D.J. Deeb
Marcos
Devers
Bob
Desmarais
Regina
Faticanti
Jim
Fiorentini
Bill Kelly
Wilfredo
Laboy
Peter
Larocque
Vilma Lora
Ed Maguire
Billy
Manzi
Paul
Murano
Mark
Palermo
Hartley
Pleshaw
Debbie
Quinn
Raise Em
Right
Dr. Peary
Kathleen
Corey Rahme
Barney
Reilly
Angel
Rivera
Jim Rurak
Grisel
Silva
Mike
Sullivan
Sandra
Stotsky
Mike
Sweeney
Ken Willette
Scott Wood
Jim
Xenakis
|