June 15, 2025

The Lowell City Council met on Tuesday night. What seemed like an innocuous item on the agenda, a vote to accept the draft 2024-2028 Lowell Housing and Housing Production Plan, generated considerable discussion.

In his transmission letter to the council, City Manager Tom Golden explained the purpose of the plan:

Housing Production Plans are rooted in the Massachusetts Regional Planning Law, Chapter 774 of the Acts of 1969 and provide certain regulatory benefits, including providing preferred status for certain state grant programs. The Lowell HPP covers the years 2024 to 2028 and serves as a framework for zoning changes, CPA (Community Preservation Act) fund expenditures, housing programs, and other actions the City and its partners can undertake to meet shared housing goals.”

In its needs assessment, the plan provides some context:

• Lowell’s population is expected to grow and to age which indicates a need for more flexible housing stock.

• The cost of housing in Lowell has grown at a rate that greatly exceeds the increase in median income of residents of the city which puts housing out of reach of more and more residents.

• There is a substantial need for more affordable and subsidized housing in Lowell.

• Lowell has a growing number of housing-insecure individuals including those living in emergency shelters and outside. The number of unhoused families in Lowell tripled from 2007 to 2023.

• Racial segregation persists in housing with people of color disproportionately impacted by the high cost of housing and have fewer ownership opportunities.

The goal of the Housing Production Plan is to ensure that all residents have access to safe, healthy, well-maintained, affordable homes that are resilient to climate change and accessible to transportation options. Representatives of the city emphasized that this plan only provides a roadmap of possibilities and a big picture context for future decisions affecting zoning and housing production. The plan by itself would not make any tangible changes to city ordinances or the role or authority of city regulatory boards. Adopting the plan also provides access to state funding for housing.

Surprisingly, the council rejected the plan by a 6 to 5 vote. Councilors who spoke in opposition to the plan dismissed the administration’s explanation that the plan made no real changes to how the city regulates housing going forward, portraying the plan as a foot in the door that would lead to affordable housing and multifamily housing infiltrating the city’s single-family neighborhoods. Claiming that this plan would ultimately “destroy the character of these neighborhoods” and was an attempt to “move the middle class out of the city,” the opposition seemed grounded in fighting efforts by state government to expand housing opportunities by diluting the power of local government to hinder such expansion.

As is frequently the case when homelessness is discussed, councilors said Lowell does its share (both with caring for the homeless and providing affordable housing) and that other communities should be required to take on more of both. Of course, that is exactly what the state is trying to do with statewide requirements such as Housing Production Plans like this one. However, when statewide mandates such as HPPs, ADUs, and the MBTA Communities Law which are designed to cut through local obstacles to housing also affect Lowell, councilors embrace and defend the same arguments used by suburban leaders to uphold “local control.”

In the end, those voting to reject the Housing Production Plan were Councilors Corey Belanger, John Descoteaux, Erik Gitschier, Rita Mercier, Corey Robinson, and Kim Scott. Voting for the plan were Councilors Sokhary Chau, Wayne Jenness, Vesna Nuon, Paul Ratha Yem, and Mayor Dan Rourke.

The proposed Housing Production Plan is available on the city’s website.

****

The council also discussed the fate of the two vacant courthouses in the city, the District Court on Hurd Street and the Superior Court on Gorham Street.

Regarding the District Court, the Commonwealth and the city previously agreed to a “partnership sales agreement” which ceded responsibility for maintaining the property to the city, allowed the city to take the lead in seeking a developer, and allows the city and the Commonwealth to share in the proceeds of any sale. According to Assistant City Manager/DPD Director Yovani Baez-Rose, a request for proposal (RFP) drafted by the city is now under review by the state’s Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM). She anticipates the RFP will be issued sometime in July with a three-month response window which means the fate of that court might be known by November 1.

My sense is that a viable proposal to construct housing on the District Court site will emerge from this process. The city certainly needs more housing and, with the Lower Locks Parking Garage located across the street to provide parking, this seems like a good site for that.

The core building of the Lowell District Court was constructed in 1924, and the building was expanded in 1945 and again in 1967. While practicing law here in Lowell before being elected register of deeds, I spent many days in the building and know it well. It was functional, but some of the courtrooms and offices were not easily accessible, especially to those with mobility challenges. From an architectural perspective, I don’t believe there is anything unique or notable about the building.

While it would be great if a developer was able to incorporate the existing structure or a portion of it into the proposal, if instead the plan seeks to demolish the entire structure and start anew, there should not be much opposition from preservationists.

The same is likely not the case with the Superior Courthouse. In imagining potential uses for that building it is critical to understand that it is two different buildings joined together by a common wall. The back building, made of red brick, was constructed in 1848. It was initially located right along Gorham Street. Fifty years later when Middlesex County decided that a bigger courthouse was needed, the first part of the expansion was to move the existing structure 60 feet backward on the lot. Then, the new building, made of gray sandstone with imposing Greek columns framing the entrance, was constructed in the space vacated by the original building. (The next time you are in the vicinity, pull over on Elm or Hobson Street and look closely at either side of the structure at the seam where the two buildings meet to get a better idea of how they fit together.)

Between serving as register of deeds and practicing law before that, I spent 35 years in that building. While it has amazing architectural and decorative features, its idiosyncratic layout, which was quite advanced for 19th century design and construction, would make it more difficult and expensive to repurpose for modern use, especially for housing.

Because it was known for some time that the Superior Courthouse would need a new tenant, before the registry of deeds moved to the new Justice Center, I asked anyone who came into the Superior Courthouse who had some experience with real estate development for their thoughts on converting it to housing. I don’t remember a single person who thought it was financially feasible given the design and characteristics of the building. Quite a few people without development experience volunteered that it would make a great museum, archive, or some other cultural use, but none could answer where the funding to rehabilitate the building and, more importantly, the cash flow to keep it operating as a cultural center would come from. Assistant City Manager Baez-Rose likely heard from the same people because she pre-empts the cultural usage idea in her memo, explaining why it was unlikely that Lowell could “absorb a new cultural space of the size and scale of the Superior Courthouse.”

The legislation that allowed the city-state partnership underway with the District Court was also available for the Superior Court; however, the city has shunned that opportunity. In the motion response, Assistant City Manager Baez-Rose specifically stated, “DPD does not recommend pursuing” a sales partnership agreement between the city and DCAMM as was done with the District Court.

Instead, according to Baez-Rose, “DCAMM intends to utilize an auction process to dispose of this property. This site has been identified, along with 17 others by the state as priority locations for the development of new housing.”

However, the auction process will not necessarily resolve the future of the building. Back in 2010, the state held an auction sale for the Superior Courthouse in Worcester which had been similarly vacated when a new courthouse was constructed in that city. When the auction for the old courthouse was held, only one bidder emerged. DCAM canceled the auction, and the building sat vacant for nearly a decade more until another effort was made that ultimately succeeded in getting the building renovated and reused.

Councilor Corey Robinson during Tuesday’s meeting forcefully argued in favor of the city taking ownership of the building notwithstanding the bleak prospects for redevelopment, not out of any concern for preserving a historic structure but to prevent it from being used by the state for a homeless shelter or some similar purpose. City Manager Golden tactfully argued against doing that, saying about six different times that it was a bad idea with comments like “I’m very concerned about the city taking control of the Superior Court” and “I don’t expect anyone will bid on it” and “I don’t believe there is a project that will fit.”

No other councilors spoke on Robinson’s motion. Cautioning that “the Superior Courthouse is the Smith Baker Center on steroids,” Mayor Dan Rourke handled the motion with a voice vote and sent it off to the City Manager for a future response that will likely be overcome by events.

My own feeling is that the best hope of preserving the Superior Courthouse is to mothball it and let it sit unoccupied and unused until circumstances change. With interest rates the highest they have been in years and with no prospect of them going down given the huge increase in the federal deficit that will result from the big fiscal bill now pending before Congress, the feasibility of real estate projects will remain much reduced.

Lowell has an unfortunate history of being too quick to tear things down. Such was the case with the various urban renewal projects of the 1960s that destroyed neighborhoods but also numerous mill buildings. At the time, no one could conceive of those buildings having any future but today the mill buildings that survived have occupancy rates at 97 percent or higher. Lowell also has a poor track record of preserving old buildings. Renovating the Smith Baker Center today would be much more likely had some basic repairs been made to the building’s roof two decades ago. St. Peter’s Church, a majestic Gothic cathedral that stood across Gorham Street from the Superior Courthouse, would still be standing today had the Archdiocese of Boston fixed its roof in a timely manner. While I don’t expect the redevelopment of the Superior Courthouse to occur anytime soon, I do not advocate or consent to its immediate demolition. That would be shortsighted, but it is also important to strictly guard against demolition by neglect over the long term.

****

The Brush Art Gallery & Studios at 256 Market Street will present a new exhibition called “Lowell and Beyond: James Higgins Photography, A Retrospective” which will run from June 14, 2025, to July 27, 2025. Jim Higgins arrived in Lowell in 1976 and has spent the past 50 years photographing the city and its people. More information about the exhibit is available on The Brush website.

Lowell’s annual Franco-American Week Festival is fast approaching. It begins on Sunday, June 22, 2025, with a Mass at noon at the Immaculate Conception Church and continues to Saturday, June 28, 2025, with French Quadrilles and Contra Dances at Mt. Pleasant Golf Club from 6 pm to 10 pm. More information is available on the Festival’s Facebook Page.

****

This week on richardhowe.com:

Steve O’Connor wrote a story on artificial intelligence called “BAItter Books for a Brave New World.”

Leo Racicot recalled Lowell High’s Field Day from May 1968.

Steve Edington reposted an Op-Ed he wrote that was recently published in the New Hampshire Union Leader called “The Pleasure and Sadness of ‘Owning the Libs’”

I recount that Battle of Bunker Hill from June 17, 1775 – which makes this Tuesday its 200th anniversary.