Freshly re-elected to office after an uncontested race, Springfield-based Congressman Richard Neal made some rounds in the media recently. He appeared on WGBY‘s "The State We’re In" with host Jim Madigan, just prior to election day, to discuss national and state politics. And he also wrote a piece for the October 30 issue of Business West, "Don’t Give Up on Union Station." From that article:
I am delighted that the city has decided to continue to pursue the redevelopment of Union Station as a priority project. This opportunity was underplayed by [the Urban Land Institute], but it makes good sense to continue to focus on Union Station for a number of compelling reasons:
- Union Station is an important part of Springfield’s history, and it has great potential for anchoring the northern section of downtown;
- As a multi-modal transportation facility complete with commuter rail, Union Station could serve as the transit hub for all of Western Mass.;
- A large portion of space in this handsome building could see new life as office space with ancillary retail uses;
- More than $40 million in public funds have been committed to the project;
- Much has already been accomplished; the property is in public ownership. Its roof has been repaired and the asbestos removed. Architectural and engineering studies are complete; and
- Union Station will complement the other critical initiatives recommended by ULI, and it will not compete for the same public resources.
Make no mistake about it, we need to move quickly to bring this project to fruition. A new project manager should be designated, replacing the Pioneer Valley Transit Authority. All the work products prepared by the consultants and engineers should be reassessed with an eye toward devising a practical redevelopment plan that is firmly grounded in market reality.
From the Madigan interview:
[Neal:] When you attend the rallies for Deval Patrick, you’re astounded by the new faces in the audience, and I think that’s very healthy for our political system.
This brings to mind the op-ed piece Neal wrote for the Republican about a year ago, arguing for a revival of Springfield Central. From that piece:
Politically speaking, we need to get past the finger-pointing that exists in the city today. Quite frankly, I have been surprised by the tone of the political dialogue in the city. The way we talk to each other has changed and it’s not for the better. …
We need an aggressive marketing effort in Springfield that focuses on these and the city’s many more positive attributes. Business leaders and elected officials together need to better tell the story of Springfield.
In the 1970s and 1980s, we had something called Springfield Central, a public/private partnership of community representatives whose interests, though varied, were commonly vested in making Springfield vibrant and healthy. We should replicate this model in Springfield once more.
What did you think of Springfield Central? And is there a better model for marketing the city?
Tune into "The State We’re In" tonight at 7:30 for a western Massachusetts mayoral round table with Madigan, the first in a new ongoing series called "Saving Our Cities." (The show airs again on Sunday at 10:30 am, or you can catch it later on podcast.)
