Interview with Evan Plotkin, Part 1
Posted on Wednesday, April 30 2008 by Heather Brandon
A few months ago I sat down with Evan Plotkin (pictured) of Samuel D. Plotkin and Associates, Inc., based at 41 Taylor Street in downtown Springfield, to discuss some of his ideas about what the city needs to become revitalized.
In Plotkin’s view, the arts are an essential component to bringing life back into the central business district. For about five months, he maintained a blog on MassLive.com called Metro Musings where he shared some of his thinking.
Plotkin, who lives in Somers, Connecticut, has been working on a project to secure a location for some of his plans to take root. In the last several months he launched a Web site, Creative Capital Springfield, to help foster some of those ideas, along with his colleagues Ann Black and Linda McInerney.
The site mentions the former Paramount Theater, known also as the Hippodrome, as a potential location for both a performing arts venue as well as living space for artists upstairs. Plotkin said the location is one of many possibilities in Springfield, but he sees much potential in the surrounding neighborhood and the city in general.
In this first portion of our interview, we discussed some of the history and role of his real estate company in Springfield, some aspects of the conditions downtown, and an example of challenges faced by real estate professionals looking to attract workers to the central business district.
Evan Plotkin: The automobile, basically the first gas engine, was built in this building [on Taylor Street]. They called it the horseless carriage in 1895. The ironic thing is the car is what really [caused] the decline of the city. My grandfather, who started here in the 1920s, talked about this in speeches he gave in the 1940s—the decentralization of urban cities—and he started to see what was going on in the suburbs, that development was going outside because we had automobiles.
Heather Brandon: Was he excited or worried about that?
He was worried about it. [Shows framed maps] These are the real estate maps my grandfather made of the downtown central cities. I have one of Springfield. He coined the term “100 percent location.” He used to stand on street corners with a number counter, and count how many people walked by at 12 noon.
Did you grow up here?
For the most part. I was born in Chicago, and lived there for five years before I moved here. My father came here and joined my grandfather, who made the real estate atlases, and whose building is right over there. In fact, from my office, I can see where my grandfather started. So that was like, 1961, and my father sort of came to work for my grandfather, helping him to lease his office buildings, and manage his properties, and eventually Plotkin Associates Company formed from that. He started to develop relationships with a lot of doctors, quite frankly, and the idea was born of building medical office buildings.
In those days, that didn’t exist, buildings dedicated solely to the medical office profession. His idea was that doctors in multi-use office buildings would be, you know—there’s a referral network; it’s just something about having all the physicians in one building that benefits everybody. So he created partnerships, and he developed 125 Liberty Street, and 1795 Main Street, and several other medical office buildings. That got him going, when he developed those properties. He then also did the management of it, and the whole company grew from there.
When I joined the firm in 1981, ‘82, I came from a hospitality management background. I’m a chef, a restaurant person. But I had a keen sense of hospitality, of customer service, and all that. The property management business was a natural to me because I realized that you had to, number one, be service-oriented; you had to follow up to get things done, and keep your clients and tenants happy.
I pretty much took the burden of property management away from my father, and my brother, Oscar, who was working with him at the time, so they could do brokerage deals and development deals. They were working with KMart at the time, when I first got here, developing all the KMart shopping centers. They brought KMart into the area, and they brought CVS into the area. My father basically did a program for KMart, and developed all their shopping centers, and we managed those. Our property management division was growing, and the retail area, medical office—and at the same time, residential. Condominiums were just starting to take a foothold in the region.
What decade was this?
This was in the early ’80s, late ’70s. Nobody really understood condominiums; for that matter, I didn’t understand condominiums, but I knew that someone had to manage them, and they were an association of owners that didn’t necessarily have any expertise in any kind of management.
So they hired us, and we started with one, and we did a pretty good job with that, and through word of mouth, we started taking on others. We ended up managing over 4,000 units at one time. We’ve kind of cut back now, but we were up to over 4,000 at one time.
We have a pretty broad mix of property we manage. A lot of it is downtown. Last May, I acquired the Sovereign Bank building, a 330,000-square-foot office building. We bought the top 12 floors. It’s got a somewhat complicated ownership structure, but we control and manage that entire property.
We also manage the property (pictured) across the street from the MassMutual Center, all the way down to Harrison Avenue, which is about 280,000 square feet.
So there’s almost a half a million square feet of real estate that we manage right in the central business district.
Can you explain what a management role is, differentiated from ownership?
Well, I’m an owner and a manager, in that case, but there’s third-party management, where there’s no ownership, and there’s management where you own.
There’s really, in theory, no difference. I’ve always had the philosophy that I manage the property as if I owned it anyway. I would do for this building as if it were for me, and I think that’s part of the reason we’ve had some success.
It gives you a good reputation.
Yeah, it has, and that’s why we have right now almost six million square feet of property that we manage, not just here, but around the country. Owning, where there’s risk involved—you know, the only risk you have when you’re managing for others is losing the account, losing the business. You don’t ever want to lose business, but certainly it’s not the same risk as if you have money invested in the property.
That’s right; you have more at stake. In this case, you own and manage the top of the Sovereign Bank building—
The 12 floors of that, which is about 260,000 square feet.
You mentioned the property on Main Street to Harrison Avenue. Do you own and manage that as well?
No, that I don’t; I just manage it for Glenn Edwards [of Chart Organization]. He owns that plot.
He’s been slowly acquiring—
Exactly. Now he owns everything from the MassMutual Center—not including it—but from that corner all the way down to Harrison Avenue, on Boland Way.
How much of the space you just described is vacant right now?
Don’t quote me on the exact numbers. On Glenn Edwards properties, it’s not a lot. In our building there is quite a bit. On 1350 Main Street [the Sovereign Bank building], we’re [less than 50 percent] occupied right now, but we have proposals out there for at least 60,000 square feet of occupancy. Some of [the potential tenants] are government entities—there’s one proposal for the state, and there’s one for the city that we’re going to be working on, to try to lure them to our building.
We have a couple of high-tech businesses that I’ve actually—I think this is where it really gets into my head. It’s a good segue into this whole arts thing.
When I put the stake in the ground on this Sovereign Bank building, and I had that kind of risk—I also own this building we’re in now. I own a little bit of the building down at 125 Liberty Street, so I have a lot at stake in this city.
I realize it’s not just the building that we own that is important; but it’s the entire city. I look at it holistically. You have to understand systemically what makes the city work right, and to be successful in this location, the whole city has to be successful. It’s not just doing everything right here. It’s doing everything right everywhere. So crime, perception of crime, art, culture—all the things that make this place a desirable place—are all important things to lure businesses here.
When you’re on the front lines dealing with prospective tenants, you’re listening closely to what their objections are, coming to an area. It causes you to think deeply about what their concerns are, and of course, how you can not just address their concern to close the sale, but to think about it in a much deeper sense.
When I talked to this one individiual who has a high-tech business, a software development company—it’s grown 60 percent per year in the last three years. He came to look at 1350 [Main Street] back in June or July [2007]. He looked at it and sort of said he liked the building, but wasn’t sure, and that was the end of it.
A friend of mine who works for MassLive [located in downtown Springfield on Hampden Street] said she had encountered this individual who had looked at our building at some sort of conference. She said she had talked to this individual who was considering Springfield but was on the fence about it, wasn’t sure what to do, and she said, “I thought you would be the one he had talked to.”
So I reached out to him, and I said, “I’d love to meet with you and talk with you,” and he goes, “Well, my employees just won’t come to Springfield.” And I said, why? I said, what is it about Springfield? Oh, it’s crime this, and safety, you know, and it’s parking.
So, again, all of these barriers come up. Overall, there’s this quality of life issue, which is sort of a nebulous term, quality of life. Everyone has a different perception of what that means. I understand it to mean you want a place that’s fun, a place that is more than just work, a place that has beauty, a place that has art. Those are things that attract me. And I realize that we’re devoid of many of those things here. At least they’re not apparent. They’re not obvious. They’re there, but we just don’t see them.
It feels like it’s this close. If there were just a couple more things in place, you would have a sale.
Exactly.
Bike trails happen to be one of his hot buttons. Very interesting. And I thought, he’s sort of an athlete, he likes to ride his bike to work, it’s good exercise, he happens to be into that.
I went to the tourist information center, called them up, and I said, I know there’s a bike path. This kind of underscores my point. I said, I don’t know where the bike path is, but I know there’s one around here. Nobody’s ever really talked about it, and they probably don’t want to talk about it, because it hasn’t been maintained, and there’s a lot of bums, because of the jail.
There’s been murders a murder.
There’s been all kinds of problems.
Yeah. It’s very isolated and cut off, so it’s not that safe.
Yeah. So here we have an asset, or a resource, that might otherwise be something we could build on. Instead, it’s lying in ruins.
So in talking with this individual on the phone, I said, “If I wanted to go to this bike path, how would you describe to someone to get there?” And they said, “Well, you go down State Street, cross over, and it’s over there.” I said, is there a sign? He said, no. He said there’s no sign.
I think there is.
Is there? Okay. He didn’t know that—
Yeah. And it is maintained.
He didn’t know that.
That’s bad. It is maintained, but it doesn’t feel safe. And there is overgrowth, but you can ride on the path.
Okay. Yeah. Well, that’s important, though. I mean, the river is what it’s all about.
The people at the visitor’s center should sell it to you—
—should have a handle on it. Exactly. And he went on to tell me that the reason they don’t have better signage is that the city won’t pay for it.
I said, I’ll pay for it. You know? What does it cost? If that’s what it takes to get this guy to come in, who wants to grow his business.
He wants 8,000 square feet now; he wants to grow to 20,000 square feet in five years. His company started with three people five years ago, and he’s like, 30, 40 people now. I said, this is what Springfield needs and wants, and we need to listen to them. Find out what they would like to see in Springfield. That’s who we need to be listening to. So I’m listening. But nobody’s listening to me on things that I’m trying to express, necessarily—
And what kinds of things would you say?
Well, I would say, for one thing, a bike trail—or they call it a rail trail—is important, and I know that there’s a plan afoot to create a rail trail through Springfield. I don’t know if you know about this.
Yeah. There’s an existing trail that could be developed.
Right. And they’re trying to develop that, and get control of that, and develop a rail trail. I went on to discuss that with the person who is pushing this, thinking, what a great idea. It should connect to Forest Park somehow, and then get it so it can connect to what’s already on the riverfront, and then over to the South End bridge to the Agawam rail trail, now you have something, that would be huge. So those are the kinds of things that I—that’s an example of something.
I think that Forest Park itself is underappreciated. It’s one of the most beautiful parks I’ve ever seen. I’ve loved it since I was old enough to—I mean, that’s where my first love for animals—and I’ve been on the board of the zoo there for 18 years. I mean that’s one of my passions, the animals. I’m also on the board of the MSPCA. So those are two things that I really care about.
If I’m talking to somebody that’s new to this area, I want to take them to Forest Park. And I’d love to be able to get there from [downtown] Springfield without a barrier, without something in my way, without crime, if that be the barrier, or the perception of safety being in the way of getting from point A to point B.
The park needs to be somehow integrated, like it is in New York, or any other great city—Boston, I use those two examples of where parks are integrated in the city.
You mean a kind of corridor from downtown?
Exactly. I believe that somehow we need to connect the dots on all of these assets available to people who live and work downtown. And create more energy for people to want to live downtown, if they knew it was not a hard thing to get from here to Forest Park, and be in nature, to be looking at ponds and ducks and go to the zoo.
And maybe by bike.
Yeah, by bike.
Let’s say you’re driving from downtown Springfield to Forest Park. What routes do you take, and what does it look like, and how does it feel, if you’re taking a visitor? What contributes to the sense that crime is a problem?
I think the South End is the scary part, once you get—
On Main Street.
Yeah. Once you get past the Red Rose, and south.
A couple of years ago, I was in front of Glenn Edwards’s building, actually before I bought 1350 [Main Street]. I was talking to a police officer who was checking on the building, he was kind of walking—I thought it was great that he was even there, and there was a presence of a police officer on the street. I was talking to him and saying thanks, you know, for being here, you’re obviously going into the stores and seeing how things are going.
Someone was [driving] north on Main Street, and stopped, and asked how they got to someplace in East Longmeadow. The officer tried to explain it to him. I said, “Well, you can head down here—” and he goes, “No, no, no. You don’t want to head down South Main Street. If you do, roll up your windows and lock your doors.”
I was like, “What? Why? Are you serious?” and I said that to him. I didn’t say it in front of this guy. I said I cannot understand—coincidentally, I actually had a meeting with [former mayor] Charlie Ryan, like, the next day. I told him what the guy said. I said, “Your own police department doesn’t think it’s safe, so what are strangers to the area going to think if they say it’s a combat zone over here?”
You can drive through there and you’d be fine. Go hang out for 12 or 24 hours on the same street corner, and you might not.
Right. I believe there probably is a legitimate concern for safety if you’re a pedestrian, or a single person, walking at night down in the South End.
Particularly at two or three am… not advisable.
Right, not advisable. So I think that needs to be addressed somehow, and I’m not sure I’m the expert on how to do that.
The media exploits the crime that does occur down there. I know the Urban Land Institute study addressed that, and even in a separate study—more needs to be done to take down some of the buildings to make it more accessible to the police to patrol those areas, where there are dead ends, and some things like that.
There’s so much boarded up, too—when you say it feels scary—
I think they need to knock down some of that housing there, and—
That is what the ULI recommended. The city is following up.
Yeah. And I think that’s great. The other thing, though, is really a function of what you see on television, or you read in the paper.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
April 30th, 2008 at 12:24 pmWell, with knowledgeable people like the fellow Poltkin ran into working for the Visitor’s Bureau, Springfield can’t go wrong, eh? Too bad the Convention and Visitors Bureau is so tied to the Spirit of Springfield and the rest of the usual downtown suspects that they haven’t even figured out that the bike trail is right across the train tracks from the Visitor’s Center. And before rushing to email that the elevator connecting the Visitor’s Center to the bike trail is still broken, how about just getting it fixed? How hard can that be?
As for cops telling citizens and visitors at every opportunity how dangerous the city is: this is a big problem and an old one that nobody has gotten a handle on. What can cops be thinking when they do this? Is the macho buzz they get from giving people the impression that they go to really scary places? Do remarks like this point to class or racial prejudice? It’s high time that leadership in the city and in the police department make slandering the city by scaring people and warning them away from daylight trips down South Main Street a No No.
Re: putting a railtrail on the old Highland Division right of way, would Plotkin spearhead a private fund raising drive to foot the bill, maybe even pledge a significant amount of money himself to get things started? The merchant class is long on ideas for spending the city’s money, but first in line when it comes to wanting a break on the property tax. It would be refreshing to have one of them step up to the plate on something like this.
Herb http://www.cross-spectrum.com/weblog
April 30th, 2008 at 1:23 pmWTF? We’re doomed.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
April 30th, 2008 at 2:02 pmYes, let’s scare away prosperous, law-abiding people from our major arterial streets and just turn them and the residential streets that feed into them over to the Baddies and people who cannot afford to leave. That is just SO forward looking, SO constructive, and SO responsible.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
April 30th, 2008 at 2:19 pmRegarding the attitude of local police: I’ll never forget the time a detective came to my house in Springfield to take a report. I had been quite disturbed to witness a vagrant-seeming man rummaging through garbage and furniture to the rear of my home being beaten up by a neighborhood youth, with no one else apparently witnessing it along with me. I was afraid to be seen simply looking out my window, which is all I was doing. By the time the detective left, I was under the impression that I should feel pity for him, and his idea of sympathy was to tell me how eager he was for retirement.
Regarding the convention and visitors bureau, two of their officials recently met with the AQCA downtown neighborhood association to talk about their efforts to market the region. Anna Brandenburg put together a report (PDF) about their meeting.
NoPolitician http://
April 30th, 2008 at 3:32 pmWhen the majority of police officers live outside Springfield simply because they wouldn’t be caught dead living in Springfield, is it any wonder that they would exaggerate the problems?
On a similar note, there haven’t been “murders” (plural) on the bike path. There was one in 2006, David LePage was robbed and murdered by two men, one of who was homeless individual who was living in the woods by the trail. It was tragic, but there was just the one incident, murders are not prevalent or a pattern on the path.
I know you didn’t do this maliciously, but too many people think that because crime happens in Springfield, that crime is omnipresent in Springfield, and they think that every wild exaggeration of crime is fair game. I’m sick of hearing people say “there’s a murder every week in Springfield”, or “if you go there you’re going to be shot”.
Breaking through this cloud of crime perception is a difficult task. A few weeks ago I was downtown and two young women, maybe 20 or so, were walking on Main Street across from the Mass Mutual Center, towards the South End. They were seemingly in town for a convention; they were dressed wearing hokey t-shirts, and seemed out of place.
They asked me whether they would reach a McDonald’s if they kept walking south on Main Street. My immediate reaction was “whoa! what are you doing walking around down here at this time going in that direction!” But why did I react this way? There haven’t been any incidents involving young women getting harmed downtown. And if I didn’t think it was safe, why would I be there?
It’s strange — although there have not been any incidents that have harmed people downtown, there is still a negative cloud out there, fueled by people talking, gossiping, etc., based on perceptions, biases, and prejudices rather than facts and reality. How do you dispel that?
I will point out my observation that since the mayoral election, most crime-pushers on Masslive have disappeared. I will also repeat my observation that crime was not a community concern in the 2003 mayoral election even though by all accounts, this was the time frame when crimes increased. No, it was not until the Morgan Quitno report came out a few weeks later that people started talking about it, and only mid-campaign, in 2005, Tom Ashe started beating on this as his “issue”.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
April 30th, 2008 at 3:39 pmThanks for clarifying the murder issue. I think what I was getting at was “deaths,” not simply murder, but I wasn’t referring to a set of crime statistics by any means. I’ll note a correction. Indeed during the interview I was underlining the notion that the bike path problem is not just one of “a lot of bums” - really the problem is that it is so vacant and forlorn, and so there is a tremendous feeling of a lack of safety, and a history of negative incidents including at the 2006 murder.
NoPolitician http://
April 30th, 2008 at 4:38 pmHave there been other crimes or deaths on the path? None stand out in my mind, but maybe I just missed them. I can’t say I’ve ever been on it — primarily because of the lack of access points, but also due to the same safety perception, mostly because no one ever uses it (or so I think).
How much of the “unsafe” perception is tied to Springfield in general? The bike path in Hadley has sections just as remote as the riverfront path, yet there is no overwhelming fear of security there. If there was a murder on the Hadley bike path, and they caught the murderer, would people say “that path isn’t safe”, or would they say “hey, they got the guy, it’s safe to go back now”?
I agree that getting more people onto the path would greatly increase the perception of its safety. And its dead-end design is really pretty stupid. I wonder if it had a destination on it, would be attract more people? Or is it just a boondoggle that should be swept under the rug?
I think the Highland rail trail could be a positive thing for Springfield. It passes through populated areas, so it’s not desolate at all. There are significant logistical problems with it, though, including the fact that it crosses several very busy intersections. Problem is, due to the same perceptions of safety, underground crossings would not be welcome. But if such an underground crossing existed 1 mile up the road, in East Longmeadow, would the same unsafe perception be there? Does EL have a force field keeping crime out?
How do we change that very clear perception that the city line is what dictates your public safety?
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
April 30th, 2008 at 4:51 pmI wonder how the fact that the Army Corps of Engineers has ordered the city to cut down trees and remove excess vegetation on the levee has improved conditions on the riverside bike path. Once completed, this work should result in removal of the wooded areas where several riverside homeless encampments were located as well as opening up sight lines to the river.
Maybe instead of just flailing away at our keyboards, Urban Compass participants might organize a riverwalk so we can get some fresh air and check out current condition on the riverfront bike path. We could try out the elevator and connector take photos to share with the general public.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
April 30th, 2008 at 5:22 pmI think the view of the river must be a lot better by now, but when I was at the bike path taking photos there was a man sleeping right on the open lawn, no extra vegetation required. I do think the removal of the brush has probably already had a really good effect as far as the view of the river goes.
The main problem with the bike path and its isolation is its relative inaccessibility and being so cut off from downtown and not having clear nodes of access at its ends or along its stretch. The seclusion is accomplished with great finality thanks to I-91 and the railroad tracks. In the Hall of Fame lot you don’t even know you can get over to the trail, but I’m pretty sure somehow you can. All along the trail there are fences, fences, fences, making it seem as though if by some horrible chance you did get jumped there, you would just have to run and run and run and you would have nowhere to go to escape but into the river itself, and there would be no one for miles to hear you or lend you a hand. Even if you had an injury while walking or biking this is an issue (probably a more realistic one).
Some serious effort would have to be applied to overcome that in my opinion and work to populate the trail and improve access points. It would help if the Hall of Fame and visitors center and so forth on the southern reaches of the trail made it feel more welcoming or kept up, if that’s still at all an issue. I can envision people being very interested in biking to the new fitness center, but only if there’s a good place to park near the northern end of the trail to make the bike commute logical. Having some kind of destination(s) does help, or it can just be a nice walk. The way it is now, it seems to have so little purpose.
There is also a stretch of the trail that goes under Memorial Bridge, and at that point there is a lot of graffiti and if you are on foot if feels kind of sketchy. On a bike it might not be a big deal. When I walked it I did not want to go as far as under the bridge and I had no way of knowing what was beyond it, what the condition of the trail was. And all along there is that stubborn fence, which seems to be redundant considering all the other barriers to reaching the other side.
Incidentally, May 10 to 18 is Pioneer Valley Bike Commute Week. There are some events (PDF) planned, a couple in Springfield. The closest event to the bike path in question is a May 15 breakfast, 7 to 9 am, at Court Square. Craig Della Penna is giving a talk in Amherst later that day at Jones Library, 7 pm, on rail trail development. He is also giving a talk (PDF) the previous evening, May 14, also at 7 pm, in the Chicopee Comp High School auditorium about trail and greenway development in the area.
If a tour of the bike path is of interest perhaps we could pull one together. People from Chicopee would probably also be interested. The PVPC had at one point a Friends of the Riverfront Bike Path group or something like that, which I remember Bill Dusty checked out, but I haven’t heard anything of it since the one meeting he reported attending. Fresh air? What a thought.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
April 30th, 2008 at 7:22 pmLet’s put together an Urban Compass assessment walk along the bike trail. We can note problems (graffiti, hobo camps) and solutions (potential parking and signage locations), things that work and things that don’t. Maybe Evan Plotkin and somebody from the Planning and Parks Department could even join us.
Bloggers and bureaucrats squinting together into the spring sunshine….
John
April 30th, 2008 at 10:42 pmI occasionally jog on the bike path at Riverfront Park and have not experienced problems. I do go only during the day, carry a cell phone, and try to acknowledge others who are on the path - this seems to disarm most people. My hope is that other runners will use the path when LA Fitness opens since there is easy access using the pedestrian bridge behind the building and is, at least in my opinion, better than running on a treadmill!
Heather: I hope you will blog about the Charter Oak Cultural Center. I attended a First Night concert there and was impressed with the space and the programs offered. Could this be a model for the future re-use of Old First Church?
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 1st, 2008 at 8:26 amThanks for providing current information on the state of the bike path, John, and providing tips for using it with safety and confidence. Aknowledging others on the path is an excellent suggestion for the bike path or just walking down the street. A friendly greeting and a warm smile from a stranger can make a person’s day.
If the Visitor’s Center elevator and connector are still problems, maybe LA Fitness has the clout needed to get them and KEEP them in working order. As John points out, the bike path is a perfect neighbor for a fitness center.
Employees of Baystate Medical Center and elsewhere in the North End might consider a noontime walk along the north end of the bike path off Plainfield Street. This segment borders borders the quiet, tree-lined streets of Brightwood and, being far from the railroad, is especially pleasant and quiet.
NoPolitician http://
May 1st, 2008 at 9:22 amIt would be interesting to try and figure out why the perception of the path being unsafe exists. Are there any physical improvements that could be made? Is it tied to the perception of the city or neighborhood in general? Is it “viral marketing”, where people tell each other that it isn’t safe even though they have never been on it themselves? If there are no incidents on the path, then the problem is probably more with perception, not reality.
I have been on a number of bike paths in various communities, some of which were between a highway and a river. I’ve never felt unsafe on any of them. What makes this one different? Remember, few people used the path even before the murder (which actually took place in a place that people probably consider “safer”, near WMAS and Avacado St.).
It sounds like one problem here might be the fence — which is probably necessary due to the train tracks. As you mentioned, when you’re fenced in on one side, with a river on the other side, you have nowhere to go. But “viral marketing” and “community perception” seems to be a problem too, since people who have never been there pronounce it unsafe.
One way to combat this perception would be to have some events down there, get people comfortable with the path, let them see what it is all about. It sounds like tackling he graffiti under the bridge might be something too, I can agree that this could be very foreboding.
Unfortunately, the railroad and the highway are the biggest obstacles here; it would be great to connect the path with Forest Park, but there’s no crossing from the river to the park without going over or under both the railroad tracks and the highway. It might be nice to connect with the Agawam path, but unless someone can slip something into a legislative bill when the Julia Buxton bridge gets rebuilt, that seems unlikely too.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 3rd, 2008 at 2:37 pmNoPolicitian, Bill Dusty and I and a few others are going to assess the trail to identify specific problems and solutions. If, to maintain your anonymity, you would prefer to check out the trail independently and post your observations here, we could add them to the list. As an example of what an individual can find out about the Riverwalk in just a short time, I visited Riverfront Park, LA Fitness, and the Visitors’ Center today.
At Riverfront Park (easily accessible from downtown via the State Street/I91 underpass) there is parking for 40+ cars (two late model cars were actually parked there) and planting beds were freshly mulched. That’s the good stuff; the bad stuff includes litter (particularly along the railroad tracks), dilapidated fencing, and graffiti in many spots.
At LA Fitness, good stuff includes abundant parking and the fact that the access stairway and elevator to the skybridge over the railroad tracks is right outside the picture windows of their new swimming pool. The bad stuff includes 1) the fact that access to the elevator/stairway/skybridge is blocked by a big dirt pile and orange mesh construction fencing apparently installed by LA Fitness’s landscape contractor and 2) the inability of anyone at LA Fitness to answer questions about the stairway/elevator/skywalk and the bike path including when their landscaper would free up access to the stairway/elevator/skybridge and who in the city was responsible for it.
As for the Visitor’s Center next door (which also has abundant parking) I had trouble even getting inside and had to try three doors before finding one that was unlocked. The good part was finding copies of “Walking and Dining Map of Downtown Springfield, Massachusetts” which clearly showed the “CT River Bikeway/Walkway” and several places along the riverfront to park. However, no bikeway access points were indicated. When I asked about the elevator/stairway/skybridge, the attendant knew where it was, but when asked if it was open, said “No, it’s probably too early in the season”—not exactly an encouragement to use the trail and since when is May not walking season??!. Then, apparently noting my gray hair, she said that if I had trouble using the stairs, I could access the trail at grade elsewhere, apparently meaning Riverfront Park—not exactly tactful or particularly useful, if an attempt to be helpful.
When, entering the Visitor Center parking lot, I saw a security company sedan cruising along slowly, I was glad to see that this particular concern being addressed. However when leaving, I was disappointed to see the same sedan idling in an out of the way area where the driver seemed to be absorbed in his IPOD or Blackberry.
Jim Scheffler
May 5th, 2008 at 12:08 amAt one point I heard that the South End (Julia Buxton) Bridge will have a bike/pedestrian lane of some kind to connect the Agawam and Springfield Riverwalk trails (when it is eventually replaced). I even spoke to someone at the Pioneer Valley Planning Commission who confirmed that. However, I’m sure when it hits design phase there will have to be a letter writing campaign to make sure it actually happens. I’m not sure about the timetable for replacing the bridge, but I don’t think it will happen in the next few years.
If the bridge does get a bike/ped lane, I would bet that the Springfield Riverwalk would see a lot more use, and at least a few people would bike commute into downtown from Agawam and Southwick. I think the crossings currently available (Memorial Bridge and North End Bridge) are pretty intimidating to cyclists because of the rotaries and narrow travel lanes. In the absence of a bridge link, it would be great if the Riverwalk got more publicity and better signage, etc. so that more people would use it for recreation.
When the Highland Division RT was being discussed, I think a number of people were concerned about the crossings at Sumner Ave and Allen Street. The message never quite got through that the signals would be redesigned to allow trail users to cross safely. (Which I think would be ok, rather than using underground crossings. Besides, I think there are high-voltage electric and natural gas lines running under the proposed trail). The Allen St/Davidson/Island Pond intersection currently has no pedestrian signals, so a redesigned intersection would have been a big improvement from the status quo….
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:14 amMain objections to the Highland Division RT came from abutters on Daviston Street for whom the trail proposal came as an unexpected and unwelcome surprise. City planners had assumed that since abutter demographics and streetscapes north and south of Sumner Ave. were nearly identical, that Daviston Street residents would be as supportive as those in the LaBroad neighborhood who had initiated the idea. Not so.
At planning meetings, objections were raised to a number of specifics (fence and planting barrier style and height, safety and security, emergency access, encroachments, trespassing, etc.) and were noted and addressed by planners and the engineering firm hired to design the trail. To their credit, opponents participated actively in the planning process and were willing to consider the accommodations and alternatives suggested. They admitted that pedestrian improvements at grade crossings at Allen Street and Sumner Ave. would make crossing the street safer for pedestrians as well as trail users. As meetings went on, even the police who had initially been skeptical became supporters of the trail.
Unfortunately, opponents were also swayed by scare tactics raised by bike trail opponents across the country, although the impatience, intolerance and elitism of trail proponents certainly didn’t help. In any case, work on the Highland Rail Trail stopped when available funds dried up. The plans were very promising though and flexible enough that, if built, even opponents would probably be able to live with the result.
A significant barrier to expansion of the railtrail system has to do with the potential that “undesirables” (thieves, perverts) will use the rail trail to prey on abutters. Sadly, some opponents include racial minorities on the list of “undesirables.”
Jim Scheffler
May 5th, 2008 at 12:31 pmDo you know the current status of the Highland Division RT? Is it officially dead or just on life support?
State funding for RTs did dry up for awhile, but the money seems to be flowing again. (For example, I think the Chicopee Riverwalk has funding for FY2009 and part of the East Longmeadow RT is moving forward). I recall the neighbor opposition, but also that the project’s champion in the City Planning Department, Linda Petrella, passed away. Is there any chance the project could be revived?
I remember a trail opponent standing up at a public meeting and stating that the trail ran right by a prison, the implication being that escapees would have a superhighway straight into the backyards of trail abutters. Never mind that the prison is all the way down in Enfield and the trail would be one of the first places the police would look. Anyway, sometimes you have to laugh to keep from crying.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 5th, 2008 at 1:11 pmI’d class the Highland Division RT as shelved. State funding dried up and layoffs at the engineering firm resulted in loss of the lead engineer on this project. For specific information, contact the planning dept. at 787-6020. If you have more leads on current funding, please share them. You are correct; Linda Petrella did die. Reviving the Highland Division RT would make a wonderful memorial project.
Jim, I know you probably didn’t mean to make a destructive comment, but when you dismiss opponents’ comments about the jail, it doesn’t help the rail trail cause. Everybody has a piece of the truth, even if at first hearing they sound off the wall or the speaker seems naive or clumsy. The person whom you heard speak was correct; if continued on into CT, the Highland Division railtrail would pass a prison. From time to time, escaped prisoners do find their way into woods along the East Longmeadow/Forest Park border where an extended rail trail would go. Those who live nearby actually do sometimes see the searchlights from the helicopters flying low and looking for them. The more respect railtrail proponents show opponents, the better.
Jim Scheffler
May 5th, 2008 at 5:07 pmI think we need to carefullly categorize fears that are legitimate and those that are not. In my opinion, the use of the rail trail for prisoners to make their way into Springfield is not a realistic fear.
Yes, of course the prison is there, prisoners do escape, and they could find the rail trail. On the other hand, the prison is miles away, the police would be fully aware of it, and it would be paved and wide enough to admit police vehicles. Construction of the trail would involve clearing brush and trees that would otherwise help a fugitive hide, making it easier to spot him from the air. Presumably, there would be lighting on some parts of the trail. For all these reasons, the trail would not be a good place for a fugitive to hide or travel on for long. Development of the trail may in fact make the corridor safer from a crime perspective because it would give police access to the RR right of way that they don’t have now. Certainly, it would not makes us less safe from escaping fugitives than the exisiting streets between Enfield and East Forest Park.
I’m sure you’re aware of all this. I’m just pointing it out to show that this fear, based simply on common sense, is not legitimate. By all means, we should be respectful when pointing this out to people, so perhaps I should have been more careful. However, it would be disheartening to have to abandon all attempts at humor when discussing these issues. And honestly, humor and irony sometimes do sway opinions when cold analysis does not.
Sheila McElwaine http://!?
May 5th, 2008 at 11:00 pmIntellectual arguments never have been and never will be effective against emotional positions. You make solid INTELLECTUAL points, Jim, but irony and humor will never, ever be effective in gaining support of the Highland Division railtrail of genuinely fearful people. Thoughtfully planned security measures (including lighting and police patrols), patience, encouragement to take risks, courtesy and the genuine respect and empathy of railtrail supporters would be more effective. Fear is best combated with protection and empathy.
In any case, all this is moot because plans for a Highland Division railtrail have been shelved.
Heather Brandon http://urbancompass.net
May 6th, 2008 at 10:47 amHere is some documented history of the Highland Division Rail Trail for those not very familiar with it. I also posted some photos of a stretch of it a year ago.
The issues faced in developing that trail are likely rather different than the issues faced in developing the riverfront trail. But lessons learned from working on one can be applied in working on the other.
In talking with Nicholas Caruso recently, who is an architecture grad student taking time off from school to work on a Hartford-based project related to city corridors and the Park River, I heard him say so much of what is needed to accomplish these complex, non-auto-oriented corridor development endeavors is coordination and advocacy, with perhaps relatively few design hours in comparison. I think auto-oriented projects are much more straightforward and there is protocol in place to get them done. A corridor meant for walkers and bikers is harder to comprehend and has fewer precedents to guide our processes.
Speaking of precedents, Caruso told me about NYC’s High Line, an abandoned, weed-covered elevated railway that is being transformed, hopefully, into a public park. Read more about it and see photos here and here.
Regarding Springfield’s downtown riverfront access, I think there might be benefit in learning more by taking a look at Riverfront Recapture in Hartford, which has been toiling away at making the city’s riverfront more accessible for years. The organization helpfully provides directions showing where to access the the riverfront, where the handicap access is, photos of what all the access points look like, and so on. An interactive map of all the CT river parks along the banks of Hartford is here.
Urban Compass | Blog Archive | Springfield’s Riverfront Gets A Close Citizen Inspection http://urbancompass.net/?p=1352
May 14th, 2008 at 11:12 am[...] city’s riverfront bike path this morning, in part as a result of comments emerging from an interview with local real estate professional Evan Plotkin, published here on April 30. In the piece, Plotkin [...]