Home Posts tagged Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse
Commercial Real Estate Features

An architect’s rendering of the courthouse that is the centerpiece of the Liberty Junction Team’s proposal.

Rendering Opinions

The region’s long wait for a decision on the site and development team for a new regional justice center (RJC) is over, with the state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) accepting the recommendation of the Massachusetts Trial Court to select the Liberty Junction Team, led by Virginia-based FD Stonewater and Boston-based CoJo Partners.

What is just beginning, however, is fierce debate — and even a lawsuit filed by two of the rejected developers (more on that later) — about the state’s choice of a site and team to replace the troubled Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse, and speculation concerning what this $600 million initiative means for Springfield and its business landscape, the region, and even the legal community.

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right, and they didn’t get it right.”

Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno and others — from Hampden County Clerk of Courts Laura Gentile to Hampden County Sheriff Nick Cocchi — have been vocal in their criticism of the chosen team and site, noting that the former is not local and the latter is too far from downtown to have a positive impact on Springfield’s central business district. They’ve also focused on the fact that the chosen proposal comes with the lowest price tag for the state, and that this is not necessarily a positive.

“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right, and they didn’t get it right,” Cocchi told BusinessWest. “Sometimes, the least expensive proposal isn’t the one that creates the most long-term value for our community.”

But DCAMM Commissioner Adam Baacke and Claiborne Williams, a principal with FD Stonewater, have much different takes.

Baacke told BusinessWest that the proposal submitted by the Liberty Junction Team wasn’t merely the cheapest, but the cheapest by a considerable amount — an estimated $600,000 per month less than the next-lowest price — and “one of the strongest, regardless of cost,” boasting everything from a 42-month delivery schedule to proximity to Union Station, 21 bus lines, and regional highways, to a partnering architecture firm, Boston-based Leers Weinzapfel Associates, that specializes in courthouse construction.

“While this was not a low-bid procurement — it was more of a best-value procurement — when you have multiple proposers offering comparable quality, and one of them is at a considerably lower price, that one inherently is the better value,” he said. “That was ultimately the differentiating factor for why the Trial Court ultimately recommended the Liberty Junction project as the preferred proposal, and DCAMM accepted that recommendation.”

Meanwhile, Williams, while noting his firm’s experience building and managing large government buildings, also stressed that this is a courthouse that will serve 23 cities and towns, not simply Springfield, prompting a hard focus on access, which this site provides. But it also offers additional development opportunities at adjoining parcels, including 280 Chestnut St., home to Baystate Health’s corporate offices, and its adjoining, 550-space parking garage.

Adam Baacke

Adam Baacke

“While this was not a low-bid procurement — it was more of a best-value procurement — when you have multiple proposers offering comparable quality, and one of them is at a considerably lower price, that one inherently is the better value.”

“Part of the RFP involves economic development in and around the courthouse, and we knew we needed additional parcels to make that happen,” he said, adding that the development team put 280 Chestnut St. under contract, as well as 616 Dwight St., properties likely to be used for some combination of housing, office, retail, and parking.

“We’ve heard everyone loud and clear, and we want to work with the community organizations, politicians, the city, even our competition, if they’re willing, to come up with the best mixed-use development plan for our three parcels,” he told BusinessWest, adding that, contrary to what some critics of this selection have said, this development will be more than a courthouse.

But the courthouse will be the centerpiece, and its location has bearing on several constituencies, including the legal community.

Another architect’s rendering, this one an interior perspective.

In the decades after the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse opened in the late ’70s, most law firms were clustered into the blocks surrounding that facility, with many leasing space in buildings along State Street. They started spreading out a little when MGM acquired several properties along State Street for its casino complex, forcing them to move.

But, overall, they stayed downtown, joining dozens of other firms located in or near the central district’s four main office buildings. With the new courthouse representing a longer walk for some, there is speculation about whether there will be more shifting.

John Gannon, an employment law specialist with the firm Skoler, Abbott & Presser, located in Monarch Place, doesn’t think that will happen, noting that the planned new regional justice center is roughly the same distance from the downtown office towers as the current courthouse.

But for some firms, adjustments will be needed. That’s certainly the case for Bacon Wilson, located across State Street from the current courthouse, and a dozen blocks from the planned new site.

“All the courthouse constituents — court officers, probation, clerks, judicial staff, as well as all the attorneys and all the clients, are going to have to acclimate to a new geography and a new way of doing business,” said Managing Partner Jeff Fialky, noting that the firm’s current home, leased from owners that include several retired partners of the firm, includes a large parking lot that sees heavy use from visitors to the courthouse, revenue that will be lost when the new facility opens. “I’m sure that’s how it was 50 years ago when this was courthouse was built.”

The Verdict Is In

When asked about general criticisms leveled at DCAMM for not selecting a local developer, Baacke responded simply by saying, “the name and address of any of the proposers was not a decisive factor in whether they could deliver the product that the Trial Court needed.”

Factors that were considered include access, parking, design, a site’s ability to stimulate economic development, delivery date, and, obviously, cost, and these essentially decided the four finalists, if you will, among the 10 proposals:

• The Liberty Junction proposal for 125 Liberty St. and adjoining parcels;

• A proposal for 413 Dwight St. submitted by USPB JV LLC, led by Jeb Balise, president of Balise Motor Sales;

• Park View South LLC, a proposal led by Peter Pan Chairman Peter Picknelly that involves several parcels off Avocado Street on the riverfront; and

• A proposal submitted by Greatland Realty Partners for 1860 Main St., the Springfield Republican building.

The nod went to the Liberty Junction Team and FD Stonewater, which, Williams noted, has extensive experience with large construction projects, many of them involving government agencies at the federal, state, and local levels as well as government contractors. And many of these are what he called “secure spaces” — a courthouse falls into that category — which is a specific niche for the firm.

Claiborne Williams

“We’ve heard everyone loud and clear, and we want to work with the community organizations, politicians, the city, even our competition, if they’re willing, to come up with the best mixed-use development plan for our three parcels.”

The portfolio for the 20-year-old company includes the 500,000-square-foot U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration Headquarters in Arlington, Va., a facility that includes courtrooms; the new Hanover County (North Carolina) Government Center; the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Mobile, Ala. District Headquarters; a U.S. Coast Guard Sector Air Station in Corpus Christi, Texas; the U.S. Department of Homeland Security Customs and Border Protection Southwest Science Center in Houston; student housing at North Carolina State University, the University of Tennessee, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill; and many others.

“Our ability to finance these high-dollar-per-square-foot spaces is our niche, and we’re successful at it,” Williams said. “This is what we do day in, day out — government real estate — and we’ve been successful numerous times on analogous projects of size and scale, and we’ve delivered on time and on budget.”

He noted that the Hampden County courthouse project came on the company’s radar via the state’s RFP for proposals.

“We were excited about it, and therefore, we pursued it,” he said, noting that this interest preceded any specific site in Springfield or elsewhere. The company eventually focused on the 125 Liberty St. site after it scored high (second among 13 sites scattered across Springfield and surrounding communities, behind only the existing courthouse) in a state assessment of proposed locations for a new courthouse in 2023.

“We wanted to focus in on the North Blocks area, or the northern end of the city,” he said, adding that this section of the city offered perhaps the best blend of access — with Union Station and nearby highways — and opportunities for economic development.

Williams said the Liberty Junction Team, put together in response to DCAMM’s preference for diversity, includes several local players, including O’Reilly, Talbot & Okun, a woman-owned environmental consulting firm based in Springfield, and VHB (Vanasse Hangen Brustlin), a national planning and engineering company with a local office in Springfield. Meanwhile, Andrea Leers, a principal with Leers Weinzapfel Associates, has Springfield roots.

“We have a well-qualified team, and an experienced team,” Williams said, noting that Leers Weinzapfel Associates has designed several courthouses, including the Franklin County Justice Center in Greenfield, and been involved in several DCAMM projects.

“The architect for this team has a really good understanding of what the Trial Court needs in terms of a modern court facility, particularly around security and the character of the courtrooms themselves,” Baacke added. “The primary driver of designing a court is figuring out to manage three very complicated security pathways that cannot intersect, so that the public, the detainees, and the judges and jury members don’t pass one another in the hallway as they move through the building both vertically and horizontally. It’s actually a very complex exercise, and this design firm has mastered how to do that, not only for DCAMM, but for courts across the country.”

As noted earlier, however, DCAMM’s decision was met within days by a lawsuit filed by two of the rejected bidders: Balise’s USPB JV LLC and Springfield Tower Square LLC, owned by Dinesh Patel. They seek to prevent the Commonwealth from finalizing the 40-year lease, citing a conflict of interest — CoJo Partners’ John Barros was named interim executive director of the Massachusetts Convention Center Authority while DCAMM was actively evaluating proposals — as well as questions about whether the Liberty Junction Team demonstrated sufficient site control for the project location and alleged failures by DCAMM to apply procurement requirements consistently across bidders.

“I got into this for one reason: the good of Springfield. My family has lived and worked in the Springfield area for four generations, and a new courthouse done the right way could be a generational boost for our downtown. That’s the goal, no matter who ultimately wins,” Balise said. “This is not an effort to stop Springfield from getting a new courthouse. It is an effort to prevent the Commonwealth from locking taxpayers into a 40-year lease before serious questions about the award are reviewed.”

Courting Opinions

Jeff Fialky stands outside Bacon Wilson’s headquarters across State Street from the current courthouse.

As for speculation about the site for the new courthouse and its overall impact, it comes in many flavors.

Evan Plotkin, owner of NAI Plotkin, a commercial real estate brokerage and management firm, as well as the office tower known as 1350 Main St., told BusinessWest that he favored the existing courthouse site as the location for the new one, basing that opinion on convenience for visitors and the broad impact on downtown and individual businesses and properties.

The Liberty Street site, a property his firm had managed for more than 50 years, and he co-owned for some time, won’t have that same impact, he said.

“There just aren’t enough amenities around there — it’s somewhat landlocked,” he explained. “And it doesn’t have proximity to the core of downtown. I think the priority should have been placing this as close to the epicenter, the core of downtown, as possible to try and revitalize Main Street.”

Williams, meanwhile, chose to focus on the North Blocks area and the potential impact of the new courthouse there.

“I think it will be transformative — that neighborhood is prime for redevelopment,” he said, noting that there hasn’t been much growth in that area, created through a massive urban renewal effort in the ’60s, in years, if not decades, and the courthouse will likely stimulate some activity.

Noting the more than $100 million in federal and state investments to revitalize Union Station, he said the courthouse could build on those efforts and bring vibrancy to the area, possibly creating something it isn’t considered now — a neighborhood.

Other speculation concerns the sites not chosen for the courthouse and what happen with them. Sarno and Tim Sheehan, Springfield’s chief Development officer, said redevelopment of the existing courthouse will be a linchpin project for Springfield given its location off the highway and also to 31 Elm St. and other nearby housing projects, as well as Old First Church.

Meanwhile, Balise has said that he is committed to developing the Dwight Street site, which has been cleared of existing buildings, even if he loses the contest to build the new courthouse.

He declined comment for this article, instead issuing a statement shortly after DCAMM announced its decision (and before announcing the lawsuit), noting that “our commitment to this city is bigger than any single project. We invested in these downtown parcels because we believe in this neighborhood’s future, and we remain fully committed to seeing this site become what Springfield deserves.”

Plotkin noted that, while some of the non-chosen sites are more challenging than others when it comes to redevelopment options — he put the riverfront location in that category, for example — many have potential, especially as sites for new housing, which has long been considered a key to bring more vibrancy to the downtown.

And while office use is possible at some of the sites, especially with some law firms possibly looking to move closer to the new courthouse, he doesn’t believe there’s much appetite for new office construction given the amount of space already available. Also, new office construction will likely result in businesses such as law firms moving out of downtown, hurting buildings like his, which houses several firms, including a few displaced by MGM.

Fialky, meanwhile, said the legal community will be making some adjustments, and that will likely include some firms migrating to the North Blocks area, creating opportunities for new development.

“If you build it, they will come,” he said. “As we get closer to 2030 and nearer to completion, and we start to work through what some of those logistics look like, maybe we’ll see some other developments in that area, and that was the hope for any new courthouse location — that it would spur some type of development.”  

Daily News

‘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.

Daily News

Several weeks back, we opined that the ongoing search for a new courthouse site in Springfield has been much like the race to locate the Western Mass. casino more than a decade ago — an exercise packed with speculation, hope, and … more speculation.

Now that DCAMM (the state Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance) has released the list of proposed locations and developers, we’d have to say this search is like the casino hunt on steroids.

In all, 11 proposals have been submitted, covering a wide range of properties across downtown Springfield, many of them vacant or underutilized to one extent or another — everything from Steiger Park to the building that was home to the closed Mardi Gras strip club; from the Springfield Newspapers property to the current courthouse itself; from the former YMCA building on Chestnut Street to office properties on Main Street, Maple Street, and State Street.

It’s quite a list, and together these proposals tell the story of just how much real estate downtown falls into the categories of ‘non-performing’ and ‘underperforming.’

Indeed, the quest for a new courthouse offers an intriguing answer to the question — and in some cases it’s been asked for years, if not decades — ‘what to do with…?’ Examples include:

• Steiger Park. Created after the demolition of the Steiger’s department store on Main Street, it was then called by some ‘a little park for a little while.’ That was nearly 30 years ago. Meanwhile, the park has become a popular gathering spot, home to a farmers’ market and at least one art exhibit. Many would like to see it stay a park.

• The Republican building. Built during a much different time for newspapers and for a staff exponentially larger than the one now working there, the property has been the subject of considerable speculation in recent years and was a big part of one of the proposed Springfield casino plans. In a few signs of the times, a considerable portion of the property is now being leased out to a cannabis dispensary;

• The Liberty Arts Building (125 Liberty St.). Built in the mid-’60s as part of comprehensive urban renewal in the North End (as was the Republican building), this property has certainly seen better days and now has a relatively high vacancy rate. It would be combined with another parcel to create the requisite space for a new courthouse.

• The Mardi Gras building (91 Taylor St.). The strip club has been closed for years, and the building that housed it has been mostly vacant. Housing has been proposed as a new use, but this would be an expensive retrofit.

• The existing courthouse site. It has long been considered a second development opportunity if and when a new courthouse is built elsewhere. It has some advantages as home to the new courthouse, but a temporary facility would have to be found while a new facility is being built, and that might prove problematic. The theater section of the former Eastfield Mall had been suggested for that role before it was torn down.

We can continue this exercise with the other properties on the list, including the former YMCA, the office building at 55 State St., and two mostly vacant office and medical buildings on Maple Street.

Unfortunately, the courthouse project will only solve one of these problems. It will be up to the city and the development community to solve the others.

Meanwhile, Springfield Mayor Domenic Sarno is calling for a courthouse project that will be ‘game-changing.’ We interpret that to mean something that will do more than solve one of the above-listed problems, a project that could help transform a part of the downtown.

It remains to be seen if any of the projects actually fit that description. So let the speculation begin. Actually, it began a long time ago, so … let it continue.

Daily News

SPRINGFIELD — The state has released a list of 10 possible sites to replace the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse in Springfield. The Division of Capital Asset Management and Maintenance will now review the proposals. The list of proposed developers and sites are:

• Greatland Realty Partners LLC, 1860 Main St.

• HYM Investment Group LLC, 50 State St.

• Iconic Real Estate Holdings LLC, 130 & 120 Maple St.

• Liberty Junction Team, 125 Liberty St.

• Park View South LLC, off Avocado Street

• Springfield 1550 LLC, 1550 Main St.

• Springfield Tower Square LLC, 275 Chestnut St.

• Springfield Tower Square LLC, 1515 Main St.

• State Street 55 LLC, 55 State St.

• USPB JV LLC, 413 Dwight St.