Pmolina Union Crossing LCW

Union Crossing: LCW and the revitalization of Lawrence, MA
Patricia Molina (patmola@yahoo.es), December 2010.
Redevelopment Policy (Prof. Susan Fainstein, Harvard GSD)

INDEX
1. INTRODUCTION
2. CONTEXT
2.1. Lawrence: a forgotten city.
2.2. Origin and philosophy of Lawrence CommunityWorks.
2.3. LCW revitalization efforts
3. THE UNION CROSSING PROJECT

3.1. Origins: the Reviviendo Gateway Initiative
3.2. The Site
3.3. The Project
3.4. Design and energy efficiency features
3.5. Development Partnership
3.6. Financing
3.7. Community and Economic Development, Participation and Equity
4. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
(Cover Image: Union Crossing entrance, Coldham and Hartman Architects)
“Union Crossing: LCW and the revitalization of Lawrence, MA”. Patricia Molina, 2010 2
INTRODUCTION
This paper explores the redevelopment of several 19th century mills into a mixed-used area in
the city of Lawrence, MA, led by a local Community Development Corporation, Lawrence
CommunityWorks (LCW).
The CDC model of urban revitalization is very distinct of the U.S. planning system. The U.S.
has a long tradition in community-based and participatory planning, starting in the 60s, when
urban communities attempted to increase control over their neighborhoods´ economic assets
(Goetz and Sidney, 1994). In the 80s, the number of CDCs expanded, as governments in debt
stepped back from the pressing problem of urban poverty (Stoecker, 1997) and community-
based organizations started providing affordable housing and services in the most distressed
neighborhoods. In fact, community-based organizations are nowadays the leading actors in the
revitalization of distressed neighborhoods, funneling public and private funds into specific
programs.
Ever since they were originated, CDCs have evolved from their initial definition, as economic,
social and political context changed, finding great difficulties to survive and accomplish their
initial goals. Moreover, it is questioned whether CDCs have enough impact to reverse urban
decline. In the late 90s, a strong debate was raised among critics and advocates of the CDC
model, and it is still alive, as some argue that the model is in crisis. Briefly, the debate revolves
around the following issues:
 The capital/community contradiction (Stoecker, 1997): on the one side, CDCs are
developers in need to get capital from external –usually private- funders; on the other
side, they are community organizers, and therefore they are asked to address the needs
of their community and give voice to all residents.
 The question of scale: it is questioned the extent to which CDCs are having enough
real impact to reverse urban decline or whether the development they are producing
would not had happened anyway
 The question of participation and equity: some argue that CDCs are losing their
grassroots origins, and it is questioned whether they represent the needs of the whole
community, including minorities, or only of those willing and able to participate in the
boards.
This paper examines the role that a local CDC is playing in the revitalization of the distressed
city of Lawrence, MA. First, it gives a contextual view of the city, to continue describing the
CDC in terms of its origins, philosophy and current redevelopment efforts. The core of the
paper is dedicated to a very singular project currently being developed by the CDC in
partnership with other city stakeholders. The overall objective is to evaluate the project and the
CDC´s role under the light of the issues described above.
CONTEXT
Lawrence: a forgotten city
The city of Lawrence is located 30 miles north of Boston, Massachusetts. It has a population
of over 71,000, of which 71% are Hispanic or Latino, and it is the poorest city in the
Commonwealth, with a per capita income of $16,080 versus the $33,806 of the total
Commonwealth (American Community Survey 2006-2008). It also holds an unemployment
rate of 15.6%, twice as high as the state´s (7.7%) (Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor
and Workforce Development, 2010). Recent scholarly research has characterized it as a
“forgotten city”: a small, old, post-industrial, and poor city struggling to recover from decades
of decline (Hoyt and Leroux, 2007).
The city was planned and built in 1846 by
a group of Yankee entrepreneurs that
would later form the Essex Company.
They constructed mills and drew energy
from a dam on the Merrimack River,
which runs through the city.

Image 1: Mills along the Merrimack River, 1880.
Successive waves of workers arrived to the city drawn by the promise of jobs in the textile
mills. First, they were mainly young women and children from rural New England, but by the
end of the 19th century they had largely been replaced by foreign-born immigrants, first from
Ireland, England and Germany, and in the early 1900s from Italy, Poland, Lithuania, and Syria
(Lawrence History Center, 2010).
The mill owners, primarily concerned by profit, controlled the city and ruled it is as a machine,
not as a community. The workers suffered from exploitative labor conditions, and mill profits
flowed out of the city; in fact, at the time, the Essex Company invested in several cultural and
educational projects in Boston. Lawrence workers responded with massive union organizing
and in 1912, under the leadership of the Industrial Workers of the World, they organized the
first great industrial strike in the United States, known today as the "Bread and Roses” strike.
Most of Lawrence’s 30,000 textile workers were on strike for nine weeks during the winter.
The strike was settled on March 14, 1912, on terms generally favorable to the workers: they
won pay increases, time-and-a-quarter pay for overtime, and a promise of no discrimination
against strikers. Despite the success, Lawrence workers of the early 20th century saw little real
improvement in their working conditions.
In the 1920s, textile producers began moving
to the non-union South in search for cheaper
labor, which produced the first stage of
industrial decline and job loss in Lawrence.
The process intensified again in the late 1960s,
as more manufacturers moved abroad, also
Image 2: Southwick mil, mending room, 1900. seeking low-wage labor. Between 1969 and
1988, the City lost nearly half of its remaining
18,000 manufacturing jobs. The recession of the early 1990s generated further unemployment,
as 5,000 local jobs -representing 20% of the city’s employment base-, were lost. Almost half of
these jobs were in the manufacturing sector.
But, there were still mill owners who decided to stay in the city and sought for cheaper labor.
They advertised for workers in Puerto Rico, starting a new wave of immigration that began in
the 1970s and continues today. Most recently, there has been an increase with the arrival of
Dominican workers, to the extent that at present, the majority of Lawrence residents are of
Puerto Rican and Dominican descent, but there are also emerging Vietnamese and Cambodian
populations.
Recently, this newly arrived population is growing as the major force driving change in the city.
Many Latinos are opening small businesses in the formerly empty main commercial corridor,
Essex Street. Moreover, the political context has substantially changed recently, with the
election of the first Latino mayor in the City -and in the State of Massachusetts- in January
2010. The arrival of Mayor Lantigua is a clear consequence of the consolidation and
empowerment of the Latino population in the city. For many years, Lawrence suffered from a
high level of disconnection between the majority of residents, mostly young adults of
immigrant descent, and the old political elite, mostly long-time inhabitants belonging to what
has been called the “old guard” (Hoyt and Leroux, 2007), an aging white population somehow
reluctant to change. It is too soon to evaluate the consequences of this political shift, but it
seems a clear indicator of the transformation that Lawrence is experiencing.
As mentioned above, present challenges for the city include a high unemployment rate and low
per capita income, as well as low education levels and very low homeownership rates1.
Moreover, there is a significant shortage of affordable housing in Lawrence. Following the
national real estate boom and bust of the 1980s, there was an arson wave in Lawrence, as
property investors burned down their buildings to collect insurance. Other properties were
abandoned, boarded up, and later demolished, many on the north side of the city. In total,
1,168 housing units were demolished between 1990 and 2001 (Lawrence History Center,
2010). Moreover, increased rent prices in the Boston area have created a greater demand for
housing in Lawrence, and with this increased demand but limited options, housing costs have
1 30% of the population has limited English proficiency and less than 60% of adult residents have a high school
diploma or equivalent, the equivalency rate being below 50% among the Latino population. The homeownership
rate is 35% in the city and 15% in the North Common neighborhood, where the majority of Latinos live
(Lawrence History Center, 2010)
risen. The recent foreclosure crisis has hit especially hard in the city, in part because of
predatory lending practices targeted to the immigrant population.
Another big challenge for the city is the management of the underutilized stock of mill
buildings, a heritage of its industrial past. Many of them serve as warehouse space and other
non job-intensive functions. They are costly to rehabilitate for housing and office use and,
having no elevators, truck access, or space for parking, they are not feasible for modern-day
manufacturing. At present, they are the city´s main assets and the principal targets of the
redevelopment strategies in Lawrence. Some of the mills have already been redeveloped by
commercial partnerships, while some others are still waiting for their opportunity. This paper
explores the first redevelopment plan for a group of mills in Lawrence led by a local
community development corporation, Lawrence CommunityWorks (LCW).
Origin and philosophy of Lawrence CommunityWorks
LCW was the first community development corporation (CDC) established in Lawrence,
created in 1981 as Lawrence Planning and Neighborhood Development Corp. After a period
of relative inactivity, it experienced a rebirth in 1999, when the board hired William Traynor, a
nationally acknowledged community development consultant, who was joined by three MIT
recent graduates in Urban Planning who, after studying Lawrence for a course on economic
development, decided to move there to work.
At present, it has more than 2,500 members, a staff of twenty-two full-time workers, plus
twenty-one part-timers, and a board of seventeen members (LCW webpage, 2010).
LCW approach to community development incorporates ideas from network theory to
overcome what they have identified to be the major problem in the field: chronic
disengagement. Their “network organizing” strategy builds in the idea of shaping strong
demand environments, as opposed to the most frequent supply environments, where community
based organizations are defining the problems and shaping the solutions. A demand
environment is one where “individual and collective voices of thousands of residents begin to
shape policy, service delivery and the community development agenda” (Traynor and Andors,
2005). In order to create such an environment, it is necessary to invest in the community´s
capacity to create demand, and that can only happen if there are spaces and opportunities for
people to come together. In that sense, the first step is to create choices, to offer multiple
opportunities and different levels of involvement. The network is designed to have multiple
points of entry (what they call “doors”), through LCW´s many kinds of programs, which target
a variety of people who have different needs and interests. Then, it is necessary to connect all
of those doors, through people that participate in different programs. A key element for the
development of a network organizing strategy is the identification of agents who have the
ability to engage and connect people to the network, called “weavers”. These agents are
residents as well as LCW board or staff members, whose job is to be intentionally curious
about people and facilitate the connections among them. They also acknowledge that networks
grow through both strong and weak linkages, which allow people to enter the network through
personal connections, but also to open new opportunities for people to “step out of their
comfort zone” (Traynor and Andors, 2005).
Network organizing is by definition non hierarchical, and therefore a key characteristic is the
provisionality of its leadership. By encouraging this sense of temporality, it should be easier to
constantly engage new members, as they would not perceive the network as a closed or
predefined structure, but rather one they can enter and transform.
Finally, they believe that it is critical to build the network not only within one organization, but
with the rest of the city´s institutions and forums as well. A healthy network is one with
“multiple hubs and nodes […] that connect people to each other and that can also take on
distinct projects that further the network goals” (Traynor and Andors, 2005). In
accomplishment of this goal, LCW has supported other organizations or projects to the point
of funneling its own resources in order to build stronger partnerships, better services, and
points of engagement for the residents.
LCW revitalization efforts
As explained above, LCW is engaged in a great variety of revitalization efforts, but its activity
can be classified under two main categories: personal, family and community building and
organizing (people-based), and real estate and public space development (place-based). Under
the first, there are activities of collective action and mobilization, such as the campaign to
explain the city budget to the residents, or the NeighborCircles, a series of facilitated meetings
among neighbors to build community. They also have a Family Asset Building department that
offers new skills training as well as a variety of programs, such as the Homeownership Center,
that offers pre and post purchase support, and includes an intensive foreclosure prevention
and mitigation work, or the Individual Development Accounts (IDA), that help participants to
match savings for asset ownership, as well as providing intensive financial literacy training,
credit counseling, and peer support.
As part of the commuunity-buildin
ng agenda, th
hey
have created Movemeent City, an empowermeent
network for
f children and teenagerrs between the
t
ages of 10-18. It is a virtual cityy where youung
people exxplore their potential th

hrough desiggn,
Image 3: Neighborhood
d Summit, LCW
W technologgy and perforrming arts. For
F adults, th
hey
have creaated the Network Orgaanizing Foruum,
aimed at advancingg the thinkingg and practicce of networkk organizing.. As part of their
t leadersh
hip
buildin
ng philosoph
hy, they estab
blished the Poder
P (“pow
wer” in Spaniish) Leadersh
hip Institutee, a
semestter-long train
ning for emeerging leaderss who want to become more
m effectivve in the effo
ort
to reviitalize the citty. With a sim

milar objectiive, the Reviiviendo Fello
owship progrram providess a
year of personal and professio

onal development opporttunities alon
ng with a stip
pend volunteeer
positio
on working in
n one of LCW
W´s staff dep
partments.
In terrms of real estate revitaalization effforts, LCW is working to increase the very lo
ow
homeo
ownership raate in Lawreence -and especially
e in the North Common Neighborhoo
N d-,
providding affordab
ble housing for
f first time buyers, with
h the assump
ption that “h
homeownersh
hip
is an im
mportant neiighborhood stabilization goal for urban areas [andd it] is also a critical “fam
mily
asset building
b strategy” to help families esscape the cyycle of persisstent povertyy”. So far, has
h
develo
oped nineteen
n units for firrst-time hom
mebuyers (LC
CW webpage,, 2010).
Howevver, they also

o acknowleddge that hom
meownership is not an op
ption for man
ny low-incom
me
familiees, and thereefore they allso provide and managee affordable housing uniits for renteers.
Since 1986, LCW has

h developeed more than
n 250 units of
o rental houusing, presen
ntly managingg a
stock of
o 71 rental units
u (LCW webpage,
w 20110).
“Uniion Crossing: LCW

L and the revitalization of Lawrence, MA”.
M Patriciaa Molina, 20110 111
Image 4: Rental and Homeownership housing units developed by LCW.
In the last three years, LCW has renovated two old buildings in the North Common
neighborhood–the St. Laurence O’Toole Parish and the Hennigan Center- and converted them
into the Our House Campus, which allocates the CDCs headquarters and community spaces
for the neighborhood.
In partnership with another non-profit, Groundwork Lawrence, LCW has developed several
projects for new parks, playgrounds and community gardens in the North Common, turning
vacant land, brownfields, and long neglected alleyways into developed open green space.
After the successful experience with the Our House project, LCW has now embarked on an
ambitious project known as Union Crossing that involves the redevelopment of part of the
city´s main physical assets: the 19th century textile mills nearby the river.
THE UNION CROSSING PROJECT
Origins: the Reviviendo Gateway Initiative
The project´s origin traces back to 2001, when the “Reviviendo Gateway Initiative” (RGI) was
established. At the time, the City government was working on a plan, known as the “Gateway
Project”, for the redevelopment of a brownfield contaminated site in the entrance to the City
from Route 495, just outside the North Common neighborhood. So far, they had been
working on the plan with GenCorp, a multi-national corporation who owned a contaminated
mill on site, and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and their idea was to build a 1,200
space parking lot and better road access to Route 495 by lobbying for federal public money to
support the project (Mandell, 2008). Needing community support to access federal funds for
their plan, they approached Lawrence CommunityWorks in 2000, only to find out that they
had already set an envisioning planning group (the “Reviviendo Planning Group” or RPG)
that included residents, small business leaders and church representatives. After a series of
technical meeting discussions -where RPG suggested including more resident participation, as
well as extending the planning process not only to the Gateway area, but also to the mill
district, downtown and North Common-, the two initiatives converged in the “Reviviendo
Gateway Initiative” (RGI) in a neighborhood summit held in 2001.
In 2002 RGI organized eight separate focus groups, so that different interest groups (residents,
mill owners, mill tenants, businesses, youth, government officials, and non profits) could put
forth their vision for the Gateway project. Unexpectedly, there was a consensus of what
different groups would like to see in Lawrence: new parks, street level small businesses and
restaurants, residential development in mill buildings, and, in general, a kind of development
that co
ould maintaiin affordabillity in the ciity and increease the artisstic and culttural life. Th
hey
develo
oped a plan and
a even seccured $12 miillion from th
he federal go
overnment after
a a lobbyiing
trip to Washington
n D.C.
Image 5: Lawrence, th
he Reviviendo Gateway
G Initiattive and the Un
nion Crossing site
The work
w of impleementing thee plan was orrganized thro
ough four wo
orking subco
ommittees. The
T
“Brickks and Mortaar” subcomm

mittee led th
he residents to
t push fortth a new zon
ning change in
Lawren
nce, which would
w allow mills
m to be co
onverted into
o residential units, and would
w commiit a
10% of
o the units to
o be affordab
ble (Mandelll, 2008). Afteer an eight month
m organizing campaiggn,
they were
w able to convince thee Lawrence City Councill to approvee the “Reviviiendo Gatew
way
Overlaay District” zoning

z propo
osal in Octob
ber 2003. Ass Madell (20008) points ouut, “this zoniing
changee would allow

w for creative reuse of th
he vast, underrutilized milll stock to incclude expeditted
“Uniion Crossing: LCW

L and the revitalization of Lawrence, MA”.
M Patriciaa Molina, 20110 144
permitting for uses compatible with RGI such as affordable housing, creative artist loft space,
small commercial and office development”.
Aside from the new zoning, RGI established an inclusive communication platform among
stakeholders, from which they could collectively envision a future for the area beyond cleanup.
As Beam (2009) has pointed:
[…] perhaps the clearest indicator of the success in the joining of the Gateway Project
and Project Reviviendo is that nearly a decade later, observers remarked that each side
felt it profited from the arrangement and achieved its own goals through the
discussions -the definition of “win-win.” This result was made possible through the
broadening each side’s cohort of partners, with the Gateway Project involving more
community participation and input and Project Reviviendo connecting with the
established political clout of the mill owners.
The RGI overlay, the first major change in the City’s zoning ordinance in over 60 years, set the
ground for the transformation of the whole mill area. However, most of the mills were not yet
ready to be developed. Some were empty, but others were being used as offices or working
space for manufacturing companies. In fact, the Union Crossing Project was born out of the
need for additional parking of one of the occupied mills, owned by the local entrepreneur
Sidell. In 2005, he approached the neighboring mill, where the Southwick Company was
located, about buying the parking lot they shared, but they were not interested. However, a few
months later, Southwick told Sidell that their 240,000-square foot complex and the adjacent
parking lot -5.5 acres in total- were for sale. Sidell put together a team made up of Lawrence
CommunityWorks, which at the time had an office in his building at 60 Island St., and the
Yepez brothers, two local commercial developers. After months of negotiation, they made an
offer to Southwick. In July 2007, Lawrence CommunityWorks bought the 5.5-acre site for $3.9
million (Eagle Tribune, 6 April 2008).
The Site
The mill area is a part of the North Canal Historic District, included in the National Register.
It is located on the North bank of the Merrimack River, which divides the city in two halves.
The mill area is in fact an island, as the North Canal separates it from the northern part of the
city. The Union Crossing project is located in the area surrounding South Union Street, the
continuation of the 19th century steel-made Duck Bridge. Lawrence's downtown, right to the
north, has seen a recent resurgence of business activity as Hispanic-owned businesses have
opened along Essex Street, the historic shopping street of Lawrence that remained largely
shuttered since the 1970s. Lawrence General Hospital, the major employer in the city, is also
located to the north of the mill area, just opposite the site of the initial Gateway Project.
Image 6: Lawrence, the Merrimack River and the Union Crossing Site
The Project
The project for Union Crossing, which will result in 400,000 square foot of renovated mixed-
use space, will be developed in two phases, with the first one being launched in October 2010.
The first phase consists on the redevelopment
of two mill buildings that were part of the
Southwick Clothing factory, which has moved
to another location in the Merrimack area. This
phase also includes the construction of a new
Image 7: Union Crossing. Phases of redevelopment public park built on a raised deck over part of
(first phase in red)
the existing parking lot. One of the buildings,
known as Building 9, will provide 140,000 square foot that will include eighty units of housing
in the fourth and fifth floors, both affordable and market-rate, all of them for rental for the
first five years, as prescribed by the use of Historic Tax Credits, after which some of them will
be sold to their occupants. Union Crossing includes a mix of unit sizes to accommodate the
differing needs of families, from one bedroom to three-bedroom apartments.
The third floor of Building 9 will be dedicated to congregate housing, leased in part by
Lawrence General Hospital. Lawrence CommunityWorks has signed an agreement with the
hospital to provide space to hospital staff with short-term contracts or on call at the hospital to
stay in either group apartments or one or two bedroom units. On that same floor there will be
additional work-force housing available to teachers and other local workers just getting their
start and looking for an inexpensive place to live. The second floor will allocate a child care
facility for 136 infants, toddlers and preschoolers, run by the Merrimack River Community
Child Care, a partner in the project that used to be located on the first floor of the complex,
and who will also lease some of the work-force housing. The first floor will be used for about
eighty parking spaces for tenants of the building, while the 550-plus parking spaces on the rest
of the site will be divided among the three property owners (Lawrence CommunityWorks, the
Sidells and the Yepez brothers) (Eagle Tribune, 6 April 2008).
The other mill to be redeveloped in the first phase is known as Building 4 and it will allocate
65,000 square foot of commercial and retail, including a business incubator for small firms and
startup companies run by high tech or environmental entrepreneurs. Moreover, a possible
lease to the University of Massachusetts at Lowell is under negotiation.
Image 8: Union Crossing Master Plan
As for the second phase, it will accomplish the redevelopment of the Dye Works -the third
building of the Southwick complex-, as well as the Duck Mill, on the other side of Union
Street, where tAll Things Sicilian Company is still located, until it moves to the Riverwalk
complex on Merrimack Street. The Dye Works building will accommodate a restaurant, some
retail and other community uses, while the 130,000 square foot of the Duck Mill, will be
devoted to 70-85 units of housing, with commercial space in the first floor.
Image 9: Union Crossing from the new bridge.
The project also includes the construction of a pedestrian/ road bridge over the North Canal,
to connect the new Union Crossing Project to the Gateway area and Lawrence General
Hospital through Canal Street. The bridge, already under construction, will allow hospital
employees to go back and forth to work from Union Crossing congregate housing units.
MassDevelopment, the state's finance and development authority, is providing the loans
through the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds purchased by Enterprise Bank (Boston Globe, May
10, 2009).
Design and energy efficiency features
Following LCW´s idea of building community as well as housing, the residential parts of the
complex have been designed to encourage contact between residents, with ample corridors, a
laundry area, a mail room and a community room in each floor. A unique aspect of the upper
two stories of Building 9 is a central corridor running down the middle of the building that will
be open to roof skylights, allowing sunlight to enter.
The project incorporates energy efficiency features and on-site renewable energy systems with
the goal of not only reducing its environmental impact, but also promoting the affordability of
the houses by cutting energy bills. These features include solar panels on the roof and an
energy exchange system that will tap the waters of the Merrimack. It will help reduce cost for
the municipality in terms of water supply, treatment, and waste disposal through innovative
rain water harvesting, materials recycling, and composting systems.
Another issue that is being tackled within the project is that of healthy home environments.
Given that Lawrence has one of the highest pediatric asthma rates in the state, special attention
has been put into the construction systems and materials used in order to maximize indoor air
quality and ambient comfort, reducing health risks for a vulnerable population.
Development Partnership
The project has been possible because of a complex partnership among the community,
represented by LCW membership, local mill owners and local commercial developers, with the
support of the city government. The partnership builds on the mutual confidence generated by
the previous experience of the Reviviendo Gateway Initiative and in the informal set of
relationships often found in small cities. Apart from Lawrence CommunityWorks, several
partners play an important role in the development of Union Crossing: the Sidell family, the
Yepez brothers, Lawrence General Hospital and the Merrimack River Community Child Care.
The Sidell family, helped starting the operation that allowed LCW to acquire Southwick
Clothing mills in 2007, and are the owners of a cluster of nearby mills including Duck Mill,
which they will sell to LCW in the second phase. The Yepez brothers, who are local
commercial developers, will buy LCW Building 4 to develop the commercial project in
partnership with Sidell.
LCW has signed an agreement with Lawrence General Hospital, who will lease the congregate
housing for its workers, whereas the Merrimack River Community Child Care will rent the
child care facility in Building 9.
Financing
When LCW acquired Southwick Clothing mills in 2007, they paid $ 3.9 million for the 240,000
square foot complex and its parking, a total of 5.5 acres site. However, the total cost of the
operation is expected to be $ 75 million, $ 45 million of which will be spent in the first phase
(Eagle Tribune, February 6, 2009). Lawrence CommunityWorks has cobbled together a variety
of public and private finance tools to complete Union Crossing. Most of the financing for the
housing portion of the project will come from a combination of state and federal tax credits,
while the commercial portion of the project to be done by the Yepez brothers will rely more
on conventional bank financing. Some of the funds collected are summarized below (Eagle
Tribune, February 6, 2009):
a. Private funds:
 $8.5 million from River Bank for construction and financing.
 $3.2 million from Yepez to develop the commercial space.
 $1.5 million from Community Group for the day-care facility.
 $3.3 million in acquisition funding from the Life Initiative.
 Other: The Home Depot Foundation, Enterprise Green Community, the Fireman
Foundation
b. Public sources:
 $2.1 million from local, state and federal agencies:
 $900,000 from the city of Lawrence
 $700,000 from the Federal Home Loan Bank
 $500,000 in State Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credits
 Expected: $20 million in Low Income and Historic Tax Credits, federal grant money
through the city, and earmarks in state bond bills.
Figures might have varied since 2009, but the overall balance is that 60% will come from
private investors and the rest from a combination of public funds and tax credits. Construction
on the project was supposed to have started in spring 2009, but delays in obtaining financing
for the project, caused by the recession, pushed back the start date more than a year (Eagle
Tribune, January 5, 2010). However, in July 2010 they were able to secure all the funding
needed to start construction, and the project broke ground in October 22nd 20102.
2 Interview with Katherine Easterly, Project Manager of the Union Crossing Project, LCW, 13 December 2010.
Community and Economic Development, Participation and Equity
Consistent with its overall philosophy, LCW has promoted community development and
residents´ participation throughout the process. As explained above, the project is grounded in
a community-driven vision for the mill district, the Reviviendo Gateway Initiative. However,
this was only the starting point: for the development of the master plan and the building
design, the project incorporated the input of the residents, through the Union Crossing
Planning Committee, a group of 20-30 volunteer residents who held bimonthly meetings to
review project decisions (MIT@Lawrence, 2009).
They also participated in
charettes with architects and
visited similar redevelopment
sites, providing valuable
input for some specific
features, such as the design
Image 10: Union Crossing Planning Committee of the recycling chutes and
the location of the community gardens (NeighborWorks Green Agenda, 2010).
In terms of equity, Union Crossing has been designed to allocate sixty affordable rental units
for a range of families from below 30% AMI (Area Median Income) up to 60% AMI. It will
provide the only housing for working families planned for development in the mill district,
where mostly market-rate, loft-style housing is being constructed, with only the compulsory
10% of the units being affordable to working families in Lawrence3. Originally, the project was
intended to house a greater variety of incomes, including a market rate component, but the
funding requirements and the market conditions made LCW revise the income mix. However,
their idea is to include in Phase Two a wider range of families at various income levels (LCW,
2009).
As part of their mission in helping families in Lawrence build asset ownership through
matched savings and financial literacy training, LCW will develop a program called “Wealth
Creation”, specifically targeted to the families living at Union Crossing. Building on the
experience of the Individual Development Account (IDA), this program will provide families
who choose to participate an average of two years of financial literacy, asset-specific education,
and credit building, and one additional year of asset-ownership preparation. In order to
facilitate access to residents, classes will be held on site.
In terms of Economic Development, the project is intended to generate more than two
hundred new jobs in Lawrence. These are expected to come from the commercial and retail
areas, the day care center and the business incubator.
3
Rents for family housing in Union Crossing will be $900 to $1,200 a month, depending on the size of the
apartment, family income and number of children (Liza Kozol, director of real estate for Lawrence
CommunityWorks. Eagle Tribune, 6 April 2008)
EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION
The complex and ongoing process of revitalizing a city differs substantially from one place to
another. Not only the physical and economic conditions are different, but so are the political
and cultural contexts in which the revitalization strategies are applied. There is certainly a
question of scale: small cities like Lawrence both suffer and benefit from that. On the one
hand, they have to compete for federal and state funding with many other cities with similar
characteristics, while a diminished employment and residential tax base leaves the city with
very limited capacity of action. On the other hand, they can benefit from a closer relationship
among different stakeholders, so that alliances are easier to build and projects such as Union
Crossing can arise.
The Union Crossing project has a special significance for the residents of Lawrence. For the
first time in the history of the city, the residents, represented by the membership of LCW, are
mill owners. Not only do they symbolically own the mills, but they have been an active part in
the process of making it possible. The community involvement in the process is certainly what
makes it different from any other tax credit housing development project. Moreover, not only
the community has participated, but it has done so in collaboration with other key local
stakeholders: the private commercial sector, the non-profits, as well as the public sector, giving
way to a complex and rich form of a private-public partnership. As explained above, this kind
of processes are self reinforcing, and therefore it can be expected that future partnerships will
benefit from the success of Union Crossing.
The mix of uses and types of housing, and the diversity of occupants that it will attract seem a
good recipe to add variety to the urban fabric and bring activity back to the city center.
Moreover, the space provided for new kinds of economic activities seems to be a good strategy
for the diversification of the economy, especially in a city that has chronically suffered from
relying too much on only one economic sector.
One question that critics of the CDC redevelopment model have raised is whether they have
enough impact to reverse urban decline (Stoecker, 1997). The high complexity of the operation
might not be seen as worth given the small number of affordable units provided. One would
argue, however, that Union Crossing has the added value of providing not only affordable
housing, but a whole set of new activities. It offers a new way of thinking about the
reutilization of the mills: beyond spaces available for trendy and expensive lofts, they can be
reconverted as new neighborhoods for the “common people” of Lawrence.
Another key issue of a CDC-driven project is that of access to participation. CDCs can end up
having such complex tasks that many residents do not have the time to participate in their
boards, especially those having economic difficulties. Moreover, the great complexity of the
projects is likely to remove even more control from the community, giving it to the staff, who
often live outside the community and are more likely to emphasize the technical details of
development over community empowerment (Stoecker, 1997). LCW has a very diverse board
and staff with a strong Latino and women representation, even if the Executive Director
(white-male) has remained in place ever since he joined the organization, most probably
because of the positive leadership he has developed. However, it is also noticeable that Union
Crossing´s project team is composed of seven white members with high technical skills, which
indicates that the community –represented by a majority of Latinos- is still not reaching the
more complex tasks inside the CDC. It has to be acknowledged, however, that the process of
empowering a community is a slow one, and that LCW is making strong and conscious efforts
to achieve it.
To sum up, one of the characteristics defined for “forgotten cities” is the lack of governing
capacity, which makes it difficult for change to happen. However, the positive outcome of this
situation might be a stronger civil society which steps in out of necessity to participate in the
improvement of the city. In that sense, it is possible that the empowerment process that LCW
is leading would not be have been possible in a city with a strong government and a very clear,
top-down approach of what needs to be done to revitalize the place.
REFERENCES
 American Community Survey (2006-2008): from http://factfinder.census.gov
 Beam, J. (2009): Holistic Revitalization in Small Post-Industrial Cities: Tools for
Urban Housing Development, Master in City Planning Thesis, Department of
Urban Studies and Planning, MIT (unpublished).
 Coldham and Hartman Architects (2010): http://www.coldhamandhartman.com
 Goetz, Edward G., and Sidney, Mara (1994): Revenge of the Property Owners:
Community Development and the Politics of Property, Journal of Urban Affairs,
Volume 16, number 4: 319-334.
 Holtzman, D. (2005): Back From the Brink, Shelterforce Online. Issue # 140,
March/April 2005: http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/140/brink.html
 Hoyt, L. and A. Leroux (2007): Voices from Forgotten Cities: Innovative
Revitalization Coalitions in America’s Older Small Cities, PolicyLink, 1-56.
 Lawrence CommunityWorks (2009): Union Crossing. Fair Housing Narrative,
working document provided by LCW to the MIT@Lawrence Practicum 2009,
Department of Urban Studies and Planning, MIT.
 Lawrence CommunityWorks (2010): http://www.lcworks.org
 Lawrence History Center (2010): http://www.lawrencehistorycenter.org
 Mandell, J. (2010): Picnics, participation and power: linking community building
to social change, Community Development Vol. 41, No. 2: 296-282.
 Mandell, J. (2008): Before, during and after bricks and mortar: Network
organizing as a community development strategy. Ph.D. dissertation, Boston
College, Massachusetts. Retrieved November 6, 2010, from Dissertations & Theses:
Full Text. (Publication No. AAT 3318144).
 Massachusetts Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development (2010):
http://lmi2.detma.org/lmi/town_comparison.asp
 MIT@Lawrence (2009): Who decides for Union Crossing?, video at MIT Tech TV:
http://techtv.mit.edu/collections/mitatlawrence
 NeighborWorks Green Agenda, (2010):
http://www.nw.org/network/green/greencommunities2.asp#unioncrossing
 Preer, R. (2005): Making connections, Commonwealth Magazine 2005.
 Plastrik, P. and Taylor, M. (2004): Lawrence CommunityWorks: Using the Power
of Networks to Restore A City, The Barr Foundation, online report.
 Traynor, W. (2008): Community Building: Limitations and Promise, in James
DeFilippis and Susan Saegert, editors: The community development reader. New York:
Routledge.
 Traynor, W. and Andors, J. (2005): Network Organizing: A Strategy for Building
Community Engagement, Shelterforce Online, Issue # 140, March/April 2005:
http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/140/LCW.html
 Stoecker, Randy (1997): The CDC model of urban redevelopment: A Critique and
an Alternative, Journal of Urban Affairs, 19(1).
Newspapers´ articles
 “Mill City Makeover: Southwick Clothing complex to be reborn as Union
Crossing”, Eagle-Tribune, April 6, 2008a.
 “Developers with a mission: Lawrence Community Works gives low-income
residents a chance for home ownership”, Eagle-Tribune, April 6, 2008b.
 "Union Crossing gets funding boost, on track for spring groundbreaking",
Eagle-Tribune February 6, 2009.
 "Mixed-use mill project forges ahead", The Boston Globe, March 5, 2009.
 “Grants boost Lawrence, Lowell projects”, The Boston Globe, May 10, 2009.
 "Reinvented Lawrence Has ‘Bright Future’", The Boston Herald, May 10, 2009.
 “Union Crossing in Lawrence gets $743K federal funding boost”, Eagle-Tribune
January 5, 2010.
Images´ credits
Cover: Coldham and Hartman Architects: http://www.coldhamandhartman.com
1. Lawrence History Center: http://www.lawrencehistorycenter.org
2. Lawrence History Center: http://www.lawrencehistorycenter.org
3. Lawrence Community Works: http://www.lcworks.org
4. Lawrence Community Works: http://www.lcworks.org
5. Original from the author, based on Bing Maps: www.bing.com/maps
6. Bing Maps: www.bing.com/maps
7. Union Crossing Fact Sheet, NeighborWorks Green Agenda, (2010).
9. Coldham and Hartman Architects: http://www.coldhamandhartman.com

Pmolina Union Crossing LCW

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pmolina Union Crossing LCW

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Union Crossing: LCW and the revitalization of Lawrence, MA

Patricia Molina (patmola@yahoo.es), December 2010.

Redevelopment Policy (Prof. Susan Fainstein, Harvard GSD)

3. THE UNION CROSSING PROJECT

4. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSION

(Cover Image: Union Crossing entrance, Coldham and Hartman Architects)

around the following issues:

of their community and give voice to all residents.

would not had happened anyway

CDC´s role under the light of the issues described above.

Lawrence: a forgotten city

Commonwealth (American Community Survey 2006-2008). It also holds an unemployment

and Workforce Development, 2010). Recent scholarly research has characterized it as a

of decline (Hoyt and Leroux, 2007).

The city was planned and built in 1846 by

a group of Yankee entrepreneurs that

would later form the Essex Company.

They constructed mills and drew energy

from a dam on the Merrimack River,

which runs through the city.

(Lawrence History Center, 2010).

improvement in their working conditions.

In the 1920s, textile producers began moving

to the non-union South in search for cheaper

labor, which produced the first stage of

industrial decline and job loss in Lawrence.

The process intensified again in the late 1960s,

as more manufacturers moved abroad, also

1988, the City lost nearly half of its remaining

these jobs were in the manufacturing sector.

seems a clear indicator of the transformation that Lawrence is experiencing.

Moreover, there is a significant shortage of affordable housing in Lawrence. Following the

predatory lending practices targeted to the immigrant population.

community development corporation, Lawrence CommunityWorks (LCW).

Origin and philosophy of Lawrence CommunityWorks

development, decided to move there to work.

twenty-one part-timers, and a board of seventeen members (LCW webpage, 2010).

2005). In order to create such an environment, it is necessary to invest in the community´s

comfort zone” (Traynor and Andors, 2005).

provisionality of its leadership. By encouraging this sense of temporality, it should be easier to

points of engagement for the residents.

LCW revitalization efforts

credit counseling, and peer support.

have created Movemeent City, an empowermeent

ages of 10-18. It is a virtual cityy where youung

people exxplore their potential th

have creaated the Network Orgaanizing Foruum,

to reviitalize the citty. With a sim

year of personal and professio

Howevver, they also

Since 1986, LCW has

“Uniion Crossing: LCW

for the neighborhood.

Origins: the Reviviendo Gateway Initiative

Gateway Initiative” (RGI) in a neighborhood summit held in 2001.

restaurants, residential development in mill buildings, and, in general, a kind of development

“Brickks and Mortaar” subcomm

Overlaay District” zoning

changee would allow

“Uniion Crossing: LCW

small commercial and office development”.

As Beam (2009) has pointed:

million (Eagle Tribune, 6 April 2008).