Brian T. Watson
The town of Swampscott faces a significant challenge in its efforts to determine a development plan for the 1.5-acre parcel of land now occupied by the Hawthorne-by-the-Sea restaurant.
The town purchased the site for $7 million and has hired a consulting firm, HDR, Inc., to assist it in looking at future uses.
I am writing this because — so far — the process by which the town and its consultant are examining the site has been deficient. The process has moved too quickly, omitted certain necessary steps, and has prematurely funneled diverse opinions about the site into three very similar plan options.
At the recent Select Board meeting, several members spoke up to express concerns similar to mine. They pointed out that no revenue-producing option has been drawn or considered thus far.
To date, town officials and HDR have held two public meetings — one in January and the other in April — to discuss the site. In the January meeting, citizens were asked for their ideas for the parcel. HDR brought three drawings to the April meeting that it claimed represented three different options, or “visions.”
In reality, the three plans were substantially similar, all showing the site nearly fully covered with lawn, walkways, and various types of park space. All were park plans, and all proposed to border the Humphrey Street edge of the parcel with predominantly open space.
Two of the plans did show a relatively small building structure abutting Humphrey Street in one corner of the lot, but the building was not for commercial, residential, or other private use. It was meant for public uses and would be town-owned.
What was glaringly missing from the consultant’s drawings were three truly different options.
For example, one dramatically different concept that the town should explore is to reinforce the traditional “town center” identity of Humphrey Street by adding buildings along the edge of the site’s sidewalk. This would create a sense of enclosure and “place” on the street, and add to the retail and commercial mix already there. The new buildings could be three stories in height, with retail on the first floor and office or residential apartments (not condos) on the upper floors.
A substantial archway or break in the middle of the row of buildings could provide views and public access to the remainder of the site, which would still be an enormous area for use as a park.
A plan of this type would generate significant revenue for the town annually. Private developers would be able to buy a 60- or 70-foot-deep strip of land adjacent to the sidewalk and construct buildings within the architectural and programmatic guidelines of a town-written RFP (request for proposal).
The town would receive revenue from the land sale, and thereafter receive annual tax payments from the businesses and landlords who would own the buildings.
For residents who are interested in Swampscott’s history, buildings lining the Humphrey Street sidewalks were the norm along the Hawthorne site from 1900 to the early 1960s. There is a large photo on the wall in Kell’s Kreme that shows that very streetscape. That kind of building pattern is traditional and widely embraced because it creates a vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, comfortably-scaled, and memorable downtown area.
But creating a stronger downtown is only one concept possibility that the town should look at for the Hawthorne site. There are several variations of this concept, as well as entirely different schemes that we should consider.
The mistake that we have made so far is embracing a park plan without having investigated other concepts. What we have done so far does not qualify as investigation.
Another mistake is that we have entirely skipped the part of a site-planning process that involves education on how to go about evaluating different concepts.
The consultant should have recommended this step (if it did not). Before we got to the presentation of specific plans or the consideration of specific concepts, there should have been a public discussion — perhaps led by the consultant — to illuminate how one should approach thinking about and evaluating site plans.
That discussion could and should still be held — before the town goes further with any particular plan.
Such a discussion would give the townspeople the necessary tools to better sort through alternative plans. The consultant could give the town needed guidance by explaining that before we select a concept or a scheme — whether a park plan, a downtown plan, or some other plan — the advantages and disadvantages of every reasonable scheme should be explored and understood.
Every plan will have pluses and minuses, and the town should be able to articulate these. There is a wide range of considerations that new land and building projects are typically evaluated by. Those factors include programmatic content, environmental sustainability and resilience, appropriateness for the site context, degree of user needs met, and the likelihood of user use.
In addition, and especially important for any parts of a project that will remain under public ownership, the considerations of financial feasibility — both short- and long-term — and the maintenance burden created are critical elements that must be illuminated before a concept is selected.
These last two items — financial and maintenance considerations — will be especially significant factors when evaluating any Hawthorne plan that proposes park land and public buildings.
In a publicly-conducted process to determine a site’s use, it is even more important than in a private-sector process that these educational steps be taken.
While 400 people attended the first Hawthorne meeting, and 150 came to the second public meeting, the total number of citizens who will participate in the public process is always going to be a minute fraction of the 15,000 residents in town. For that reason — and others — the Select Board, the consultant, and the meeting attendees have a duty to perform due diligence on behalf of the entire town.
Another reason to adhere to a disciplined, investigative, and well-organized process is to avoid a major mistake in the conclusion. It is my belief that a plan with only a public park and public buildings will be a financial disaster. I also believe that it is a mistake to border Humphrey Street primarily with open space.
But the point of this is not to persuade anybody to endorse any particular plan. It is to sound an alarm about the process to date, and to say that it must be improved. The Select Board and the consultant have repeatedly said that “everything is still on the table.” If that is truly the case, then why did the consultant bring only park plans to the last meeting? Why is public-only development of 100 percent of the land the only option being considered?
The Select Board and HDR need to take a step back and enlarge the field of site-development concepts. And the townspeople need to be better served with a discussion that allows them to learn how to better identify the pros and cons of each concept.
Brian T. Watson is a retired architect. He was a 10-year member of the Swampscott Planning Board and a 22-year representative for the Metropolitan Regional Planning Council. His email is [email protected].
