Is Bigger Better for Glenwood?

Proposal by Glenwood Development, LLC. The 20-story hotel would be the tallest building in the Eugene-Springfield area.

Last Monday evening’s meeting of the Springfield Economic Development Agency (SEDA) featured presentations by two teams vying for the opportunity to develop a 9.5-acre riverfront parcel in Glenwood brimming with potential. I joined the virtual audience online to see the proposals, either of which holds the potential to trigger a radical transformation of the metro area’s long-neglected, shabby backwater.  

 

Even though I watched already knowing a bit about both proposals,(1) I was still blown away by the ambitious visions presented by the two team. Both contenders—Glenwood Development, LLC, and LOCALIS Partners--propose massive projects. The enormity of the proposed budgets and the projected paces of development are likewise staggering: Glenwood Development, LLC estimates it would spend between $311 million and $340 million, and complete all construction by January 1, 2025. LOCALIS anticipates spending roughly $400 million, executing its project in three phases over an equally short period. In recent memory, few projects in the Eugene-Springfield market have rivaled the magnitude of the two proposals, with the possible exception of the Sacred Heart Medical Center at RiverBend.

 

Significantly, because Glenwood is an IRS-sanctioned Opportunity Zone, both Glenwood Development, LLC and LOCALIS Partners anticipate extensive backing from interested investors. Investment funds are attracted by the tax benefits associated with moving capital to investments in an OZ. I can’t profess to understand the mechanisms involved, but I believe one upshot is there would be no burden upon local taxpayers associated with either proposal (i.e. no commitment of public monies in the form of general obligation bonds to fund the development). Indeed, any significant project within the OZ would generate considerable new tax revenues for the City of Springfield, Lane County, and the Glenwood Urban Renewal District well in excess of any waiver of systems development charges or partial deferral of property taxes.

 

Due to the requirements of opportunity zone investment (I think it has to do with what is called the “31-Month Working Capital Safe Harbor”), once the project’s funding is lined up it must proceed expeditiously. So, this means if the funds are committed, we will see whichever project SEDA favors take shape in very short order.

Glenwood Development, LLC building massing & program diagram

As the images here show, both proposals are nothing if not audacious. At first blush, the design concept by Morphosis Architects for the LOCALIS Partners team breaks the mold, whereas by comparison the plans by LRS Architects for Glenwood Development, LLC appears conventional. The way each scheme addresses the site context is likewise dichotomous: The Morphosis approach is campus-like, while the LRS design seeks to kickstart a desirable pattern of urban development between Franklin Boulevard and the river by introducing walkable streets and blocks. Both development teams propose a possible collaboration with Homes for Good to include a sizable complement of affordable or workforce housing.

 

LOCALIS Partners proposal - View from the east. A new soccer stadium and a hockey arena are centerpieces of the proposed design.

LOCALIS Partners proposal - View looking north. The landscaped plinth conceals parking and commercial spaces below.

I’m not going to address the specific design merits of either concept; instead, I’ll discuss my concern with the scale of both. Fundamentally, is bigger better for Glenwood? My answer to this question is a qualified “no.”

 

My unease with the size of the proposals stems from my long-held preference for piecemeal or incremental growth. As I wrote way back in 2012 upon the unveiling of the overly large 13^th & Olive student housing project by Capstone Development Partners in downtown Eugene, the benefit of piecemeal or incremental growth is that it allows for fine-grained adjustments over time. Development in smaller increments is less likely to result in undesirable outcomes. I argued that an effective process for improving our urban environments has been trial and error. Minor missteps provide feedback useful for recalibrating future choices. Small errors are relatively easy and inexpensive to correct. Bigger, coarser mistakes are far less so. Unfortunately, the Capstone project stands today as an example of a big, crude blunder.

 

An immense project built within a short timeframe also risks being unremittingly sterile. Inevitably, it will lack the richness, patina, and variety characteristic of a series of unrelated developments that evolved organically over many years. Some architects ill-advisedly attempt to compensate by generating an illusion of natural complexity; however, the results inevitably appear disingenuous and artificial.

LOCALIS Partners - Site Plan; the red rectangle is the proposed new soccer stadium.

Don’t get me wrong; I applaud the City of Springfield and the two proposing teams for their faith in Glenwood’s potential. And based on the little I know I do believe the Opportunity Zone investment program presents the most practical and realistic means to spark development. Glenwood has laid fallow for far too long. The time is right; accordingly, I do want to see one of the two proposals proceed because the alternative is too likely to be a continuation of Glenwood’s decades-long torpor. Sometimes incrementalism isn’t the best course. The clear prescription in some instances is catalytic change, a dramatic challenge to the status quo. Beneficial evolution in nature doesn’t always progress in a linear fashion; sometimes it surges forward.

 

SEDA meets again on April 26 to deliberate and select between the Glenwood Development, LLC and LOCALIS Partners proposals. I’ll be tuning in to see which team SEDA rewards with the privilege and responsibility to unleash Glenwood’s substantial potential.

 

(1)  The Eugene Emeralds withdrew their expression of interest and did not submit a formal proposal for consideration by SEDA.