Opinion: Springfield Should Be Disappointed by Courthouse Choice

‘Game changer’ is loosely defined as event, person, or product that fundamentally alters an existing situation, strategy, or industry.

As the Massachusetts Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) and the Trial Court went about reviewing proposals for a new regional justice center, Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno urged them to pick a game changer. When the decision came down last week, many observers quickly concluded that they didn’t.

But we’ll get back to that later. Let’s start by noting it might be unrealistic to look upon any courthouse as a game changer. One can be a nice addition to the landscape and an architectural gem, such as Boston’s John Joseph Moakley United States Courthouse, or even Springfield’s federal courthouse. But it would a stretch to say that a courthouse, by itself, could be a game changer.

What a courthouse can (and should) do is support the local business community and perhaps be a catalyst for some new business development, such as with restaurants and after-work gathering spots. And we’re not sure the selected site chosen by DCAMM and the Trial Court — 125 Liberty St. and adjoining properties — can even do that.

The site is, to borrow a phrase, on the wrong side of the railroad tracks. It is just 300 yards from another proposed site, the former W.F. Young building and adjoining properties off Dwight Street, and 350 yards from still another proposed site, the former Mardi Gras building. But it’s separated from those sites and the rest of downtown by the railroad bridge, which has proven to be a barrier historically. Can a new courthouse prompt people to cross that barrier? Maybe, but that’s being optimistic.

Meanwhile, the Liberty Junction Team is comprised of FD Stonewater, a Virginia-based boutique development, brokerage, and asset management firm; Co-Jo Partners, a development team that includes John Barros, head of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority; and Boston-based Suffolk Construction. In choosing that project, DCAMM overlooked several local developers who have made significant commitments to this region and have serious skin in the game.

People like Peter Picknelly, who was part of the team that transformed the former Court Square Hotel into market rate and workforce housing. And Jeb Balise, president of the Balise Auto Group; co-owner of 1441 Main St., an increasingly significant player in commercial real estate development in the region; and someone who has given back to the community — for example, with sizable contributions to Square One. It would have been good to see the state give this contract to someone local, someone who would likely have more investments in the city and more philanthropic contributions.

Overall, it appears the state went with the cheapest proposal, and the one that could arguably have the least positive impact on the city.

That’s not to say there won’t be some benefits and some trickle down. There will be hundreds of construction jobs created, obviously. Also, Union Station, which is across Dwight Street from the site, could certainly benefit and might see some additional development and office rentals, meaning it might become more self-sustaining and less reliant on public subsidies. Meanwhile, Baystate Health benefits from selling its headquarters at 280 Chestnut St. and adjoining parking garage to the developers, a sale that comes at a time of real financial hardship and need to consolidate.

But these benefits pale in comparison to the impact of a courthouse in or much closer to a downtown that is being hurt by remote work and is desperate for a spark that might accelerate developments, like the new restaurants open, or soon to open, on Worthington Street.

Meanwhile, something to watch is what happens with Baystate’s headquarters building; if it is intended for office use — meaning lawyers who would frequent the courthouse — this will only create more vacancies downtown and more hardship for property owners there.

Optimists might look at the selection of the Liberty Junction proposal and note that the city could get two, three, or perhaps four or more development projects in sites not chosen for the courthouse, such as the former W.F. Young property, Tower Square Park, the existing courthouse, the Mardi Gras building, and the riverfront site in the North End.

Perhaps, but these sites had gone undeveloped for years, or decades in some cases, for a reason — it’s very difficult to develop them. Housing is certainly needed, but it’s a stern challenge to make a housing project pencil in this part of the state as construction costs continue to rise. New office space? There’s already plenty of vacant space downtown, and there will be more as the trend toward remote work and hybrid schedules accelerates. Retail? That sector is being clobbered by Amazon and likely won’t be making any kind of comeback.

Realistically, the only way those properties were going to be developed was with a can’t-miss, 40-year contract from the state for a new courthouse that would generate hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue over the life of that contract.

Assuming negotiations go smoothly, that contract will go to the Liberty Junction Team, which is not local and doesn’t seem have the best site from the standpoint of potential impact. But it has the cheapest proposal, and that’s apparently what the state is most interested in.

Time will tell, but this proposal doesn’t look like a game changer, or anything approaching one.