100 Bridge: Separating fact from fiction, fear from fantasy

In his letter to the editor, Tim Geller, executive director of the Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire, writes: "The 100 Bridge site is singled out in the Town Master Plan for precisely the kind of development proposed."

To the Editor: 

The Town of Great Barrington and the CDCSB have been working together on the redevelopment of the former New England Log Homes site, now referred to as 100 Bridge, for almost two decades. Over the last several years this cooperation and planning have been progressing nicely and are at the first stage of municipal permitting – a 40-B Comprehensive Permit for the affordable housing portion of the site. It’s called a friendly 40B permit because of the collaborative spirit and Town input into the design process along the way. The 100 Bridge site is singled out in the Town Master Plan for precisely the kind of development proposed. In 2015, the Town received a $2.1 million MassWorks grant from the State specifically in support of the economic development value of the current 100 Bridge redevelopment plan.

In a series of letters to the editor over the last several weeks, Bobby Houston, Sharon Gregory and Beth Carlson have made serious critical claims against the CDC’s redevelopment plan for 100 Bridge – both of the overall plan and specifically the 40-B Affordable Housing permit application now before the Great Barrington Zoning Board of Appeals. To a large extent, they have been the mouth piece for a small group of people calling themselves the “Green Tea Party.” Having met with this group, both as a collective and with individuals, I share many of their values and visions for the future. In the case of 100 Bridge, however, their efforts have become distorted and destructive to a process long in the making, built on healthy and sustainable community values. It’s time to separate fact from fiction, fear and fantasy.

Fiction/Fear (Sharon Gregory): remediation plans for 100 are unresolved.

Fact: There is nothing unresolved or ambiguous about the remediation plan for 100 Bridge. The site will be remediated under the direction of Mass. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and will be safe for housing and commercial use. The CDC had an approved capping plan in 2005 and only deviated from this with the risky decision to give an experimental bioremediation process a chance. When Mass. DEP halted the bioremediation process, we went back to Plan A. Capping contaminated sites is the standard for remediating sites such as this. Brownfields make excellent housing sites. In the last six years, the MassDevelopment Brownfields Program, which is funding most of the remediation at 100 Bridge, has helped produce more than 4,000 housing units, two-thirds of which are affordable.

Fear (Bobby Houston): The CDC does not have the funds to clean up the site, so the site will never get cleaned up if the CDC is involved.

Reality: From the day (11 years ago) that a capping strategy was determined by Mass. DEP to be the environmental remedy to make 100 Bridge safe for housing and businesses, the site work for the redevelopment was included in the capping budget. The capping and site work go hand in hand. There is no surprise here. The site-work budget for the 45-unit affordable development will contribute towards the overall site remediation costs. Other development on the site will also contribute. If the solution is to cap, this is how it works, regardless of who the developer is.

Fear (Beth Carlson): 100 Bridge “segregates by income” creating “economic stratification and alienation”, and violates fair housing laws.

Fact: Jane Jacobs, whom she cites (one of my heroes), would love this master plan: land reclaimed from failed industry, families with a vast spectrum of income levels living 40 feet from each other, walking to work, sharing common open space and amenities, with the added vitality and streetscapes of locally owned businesses. The location of the affordable units on the site is driven purely by the economics of the real estate value. They are located where they are for the same reason that we cannot afford to build affordable units on The Hill. Beth asks the question: “Will this project really improve the quality of life for the residents it is supposed to serve and the community as a whole?” Absolutely. For generations.

Fantasy (Bobby Houston): Let’s make it a park.

Reality: Given his high-end development plan for the former Dolby property two blocks to the north, an 8-acre park would be quite the amenity for his buyers. However, if a park were to be the plan for the site, to this day it would be filled with dangerous, burned out industrial buildings and would remain a fenced off, unusable, contaminated site forever. Virtually every nickel of assessment, demolition and reclamation funding for 100 Bridge has been contingent upon an end-use for economic development and affordable housing. Without this funding, the site was worth an approximate negative $4 million – which is what the CDC took on when it committed to this project. If anyone would like to write a $4 million check, we’ll gladly name a very nice park after you. (There is no profit motive here – the CDC is a nonprofit with a public mission, but one that does need to stay in business to build more affordable housing and create jobs.) 

Fiction (Sharon Gregory): the 40-B application before the ZBA violates the State 40-B statutes.

Fact: This project is a model “friendly 40-B” – developed in close partnership with the town over a period of several years. The likelihood that the State Housing Appeals Board would uphold any conditions on this project limiting the buildings to 3 stories or the density to less than 45 units is slim to none. Such conditions would serve one purpose only – to delay, for an additional year, State funding for the project. Current zoning allows 5 floors/50 feet; we are proposing four stories in a vernacular that is classic New England. 45 affordable units is modest in size – a for-profit affordable housing developer would propose five times this number with only 25 percent of the units being affordable; then negotiate down to, say, 180 units for the entire site. This is common practice in the “hostile 40-B” world that the Housing Appeals Board deals in.

Fiction (Bobby Houston): Comparing 100 Bridge to Pinewoods (Stockbridge) is comparing apples to oranges and is “highly cynical”.

Fact: Comparing Pinewoods to 100 Bridge is comparing apples to oranges. Other than the distance between the buildings and Water Treatment Plants (157 feet at Pinewoods and 140 feet at 100 Bridge), the two sites are radically different. Building appropriate housing is place-based. Pinewoods sits in a very rural setting on the edge of a town of 1800 people. 100 Bridge sits in the center of GB – four times the size and the economic hub of much of South County, western Columbia County and the northwest corner of Connecticut – and is walking distance to Main Street and hundreds of jobs, in a neighborhood that is transitional from residential to business; soon to have a 90-unit hotel with ancillary businesses within a few hundred feet. Interestingly, density was an issue in Stockbridge as well: If GB would come to the plate as Stockbridge wholeheartedly did, proportionally we’d be talking about building 120 affordable units on this site.

As for apples to apples: With landscaping, a restored riverfront a la the River Walk, two acres of public open space, balconies in every apartment and 1,200 sq. ft. of community space for residents, the amenities at 100 Bridge stack up nicely in relation to the amenities at Pinewoods.

Fear (Sharon Gregory): the CDC will “fire sale” the 6 acres of the site not included in the current permit application or “sell it to a “friend of the CDC” or “sell it back to the Town.”

Fact: The town actually never owned the site – they were not willing to take on the environmental liability. With the new permitting strategy, the Town now has significantly more control over what is developed on the remaining six acres. The remaining parcel will be permitted with a B-3 Zone Special Permit, as was the Berkshire Hotel.

Fiction (Bobby Houston): The B-3 Zone (where 100 Bridge is located) was ill thought through and the CDC was “tricked” into designing to B-3 Zone priorities.

Fact: The B-3 Zone was thoughtfully created (over several years) and was deliberately designed to guide higher density, mixed-use growth in Great Barrington towards the town center. This principle of infill is the bedrock of enlightened, people-oriented and environmentally restorative planning. This value is called out in the Town’s Master Plan and the Town’s Community Preservation Plan. The town received a State award for its Mater Plan, partly because of the robust public participation in the writing of it. The 100 Bridge is specifically called out in the Master Plan as appropriate for this kind of development. It is the CDC’s philosophy that every housing unit we build in the town center is one that is not consuming our farmland; every business we house here is one that is not expanding the “strip” on each end of town.

Fiction (Beth Carlson): there is no voice for “the segment of the population that might actually live there” in the CDC or its mission.

Fact: There is low- and moderate-income representation on the CDC Board and we have always designed projects with the Management Agency (primarily Construct, Inc.) at the table placing tenant quality of life front and center. This is a far cry from the “bureaucratic formulas and making money for developers” that Beth suggests are the CDC’s priorities. It’s interesting that the loudest criticisms of 100 Bridge are actually coming from relative affluence.

Fear (Beth Carlson): Monoculture in housing is just as bad for us as monoculture on our farms.

Fact: Healthy housing design is contextual – what is appropriate or affordable in one setting is not in another. Higher density, Net Zero, multi-floor living that is affordable in the center of town could not be healthier for the future of GB.

Fear (Bobby Houston): the stream of emotionally charged, disparaging remarks about the CDC.

Reality: Not really very constructive.

Tim Geller

Great Barrington

The writer is executive director of the Community Development Corporation of South Berkshire.