At last night’s Springfield City Council meeting, plans for a new Peoples Bank on Sumner Avenue near Allen Street were presented by Frank Colaccino, president of Windsor, Connecticut-based Colvest Group. Two neighbors of the property showed up to speak more or less in favor of the plan.
The lone voice of dissent was that of the Office of Planning and Economic Development‘s Philip Dromey, who spoke of being an East Forest Park resident himself in his argument before the council for a safer and pedestrian-friendly plan. In response to developer Colaccino’s claim that hardly anyone walks on Sumner Avenue; everyone drives, and therefore the need to accommodate pedestrians is weak at best, Dromey said, "I live in that neighborhood, and there are people walking there all the time."
A resident who lives on Clement Street, just across from the potential site—which used to be a Friendly’s restaurant—told the council that he feels concerned for the many people who walk their dogs on the side street, which lacks a sidewalk. When the Friendly’s was open, he said, it was dangerous. The site is located at the intersection of several streets in an asterisk pattern, like many of Springfield’s urban economic hubs. And they each pose a potential major safety hazard for walkers.
Colaccino was starkly dismissive about pedestrians in his presentation, doubting that walkers are a significant part of the vitality of East Forest Park. In response, Councilor Angelo Puppolo raised questions about schoolchildren heading to or from Frederick Harris Elementary School, for instance, as there is a crossing guard at Allen Street. Colaccino replied, "Our property doesn’t extend all the way to Allen Street," and Puppolo responded that the issue is that children would walk by the bank to get to Allen Street.
Colaccino dodged by saying bank traffic and walking children certainly pose no morning problem, because buses are done with their runs by 7:30 am. Not so for an elementary school, which begins its day at 8:50 am, and the bank’s hours would begin at 8:30 or 9:00; but no councilor objected to this misunderstanding. Instead the council appeared to accept Colaccino’s mollifying statements that the afternoons would be the only potential challenge for walking schoolchildren trying to navigate the intersection and bank traffic—and that such traffic would only increase around 4:00 pm, when children are presumably safe at home.
Indeed, banking traffic may not be as heavy as restaurant traffic, but safety is a major concern at this location, and is likely not being addressed thoroughly—to say nothing about implementing the ideas contained in the new zoning ordinances currently being drafted, which encourage smaller setbacks and less parking-worship.
Councilor William Foley remarked that some of the businesses at the intersection, like Gus and Paul’s, have been there since the 1940s, implying that parking wasn’t in such demand back then, and more people walked. Today, everyone drives to these places, he said. Most striking, however, were Councilor Tim Rooke’s statements about the nature of the neighborhood.
"Any pedestrians in that area are taken away by an ambulance," he said.
I thought for sure, or I hoped, Rooke was going to use that statement as an argument in favor of increasing safety. Instead it was an argument in favor of catering to cars. Or is it catering to developers?
As for Dromey, he lobbied hard for a more pedestrian-friendly feel overall for the bank’s site plan, pointing out that a minimum setback for the zoning is only seven feet, and the design calls for 30. The sidewalk "landscaping" calls only for mulch, which Dromey didn’t consider much of an effort. (This later prompted Councilor Puppolo to launch into lengthy remarks about attractive and "dressier" shrubbery options.) The bank being situated at the center of the site, rather than up close to the sidewalk, represented what Dromey called a "cookie-cutter" suburban plan. The developer himself and many councilors acknowledged that this cookie-cutter plan is working in other locations—although none of them are exactly urban in nature. Doesn’t this Springfield neighborhood deserve individual consideration—like any site plan being developed? (More on the State Street CVS later, which also came up at last night’s meeting.)
Certainly there is an art to negotiation that can always be improved upon. When the developer began to complain about the lengthy permitting process, in partial response to Councilor Rosemarie Mazza-Moriarty’s steamrolled suggestion for a two-week wait for a more thorough review of the current site plan, the councilors’ longing for this project to pass became almost palpable. Where is the city’s spine? Self-esteem? Self-worth? It is hardly giving this developer pains to ask for a two-week wait to avoid more problems down the road.
There seems to be an unwillingness to put creativity and negotiation skills to work in planning urban-friendly, and zoning-updated, sites. It’s cheaper, easier and faster to implement the cookie-cutter plan. The developer can get what he wants, with a single long-winded discussion at City Hall to stand in his way.
