I’d like to state up front that I believe the Round House lot is ideal site for a project of significance that will contribute to the continued revitalization of Northampton. It is seeing what has finally been proposed, that has left me disappointed, disheartened, downright angry and here today.
I’m angry because it is just plan bad, out-of-the-box architecture that looks like it could be anywhere; angry because I cannot believe that this city would put a building so out of scale, smack in the middle some of the most historic structures in the city; angry because of lack of a public conversation about the potential impact on the many daily arts & community activities that take place in Pulaski Park; and angry because of the impact on the residents that live right next to the site.
In one of my conversations where I described the design, someone mentioned to me "at least its brick." Is that what we’re willing to settle for when it comes to development in Northampton? Just “brick?” Were it true that was the only thing we had to worry about in Northampton was whether things would be brick or not when they were built.
I’m surprised that the city did not use the power it has to call for an architectural design of distinction. I’m surprised at the vagueness of “park enhancements” in the winning proposal. I’m surprised that the city did not mandate a project that, at some level, would be designed and built to be green and sustainable.
For a city that is currently touting itself as a future model of sustainable economic development, if the Round House project goes ahead as it stands today it will certainly be remembered as its questionable start.
The touted benefits of this project include increased foot traffic for businesses on the New South Street end of Main Street, a solution to the perceptions of Pulaski Park as ‘dingy’ and ‘dangerous’ and the attraction of more tourists and tourist dollars to Northampton.
It is to this last benefit, tourism; I would like to ask a few very specific questions for the council to consider as this plans moves ahead:
A point of fact: According to www.hiltongardeninnfranchise.com the "Hilton Garden Inn is designed to provide the finest quality of essential services and amenities and eliminates the costly trappings of large-scale properties." Hilton bills this as their "mid-priced" hotel brand.
In a decision making process that seems to have hinged on the impact of this project on the city’s coffers, has the city explored the option that building a smaller boutique or luxury hotel might have returned more dollars in occupancy taxes?
Would a company that could have developed an additional blue-chip hotel, like our own locally owned Hotel Northampton, have been a better decision? How does the addition of this particular brand of hotel add to the retail and restaurant mix of downtown Northampton? Were companies like Starwood (that promotes their commitment to building sustainable luxury hotels) or the Fitzpatrick family of Red Lion Inn fame in Stockbridge (who have a started to build in NYC and beyond) solicited to submit a proposal in response to the RFP?
Was the RFP publicized broadly enough to attract these kinds of developers?
Ultimately, only two proposals were submitted in response to the RFP. Is that a deep enough pool of candidates to find the best developer?
Does the Hilton Garden Inn brand name and the customer-base that it attracts dovetail with the economic development and advertising campaigns to attract tourism to the Northampton-area that are being advanced by such groups as the Northampton Chamber of Commerce and the Greater Springfield Convention and Visitors Bureau? Has any survey, demographic study or analysis of the potential impact on tourism by this particular project been undertaken?
Once the city knew it was building a hotel did it seek information or consultation from the UMass Department of Hospitality & Tourism Management (currently ranked 4th in the country)? Was a possible partnership with them raised or even considered as was proposed with a luxury hotel project in Springfield a few years ago? Should their expertise be solicited as this project moves ahead?
Lastly, the Round House has generated limited income from parking for the city for a number of decades. Doesn’t It seem frivolous to consign one of the last major opportunities for economic development in the heart of the city to a process that appears too incomplete, too rushed and to be suffering from a from lack of public input?
I’ll leave you with the question I sent in mass email to around 200 people in town that I don’t have the simple answer to: “As a innovative, creative city, can we do better than this and is there a chance we can?” Without exception, all of the responses I have received to date from my email indicate that the city should seek a different developer.
I hope others will join me at the Planning Board on the 14th, express their opinions on the project and seek answers to their questions.
Thank you.
Mary Kasper opposes the current plans in remarks she delivered to the city council.
Former mayoral candidate, 93 year old Phyllis Rodin, asks that Pulaski Park be closed immediately to protect the public from toxic fumes.
Disabled resident Bill Pastore speaks to the ill effects he has experienced due to the environmental clean up.
City councilors Richards, Spector, Carney, and Bardsley prepare for the meeting.
The Round House parking lot cleanup continues. Here is the lot as the sun sets the evening of the city council meeting.
