Downtown Allentown Pennsylvania

45 Pages·2004·1.08 MB·English

A N A D V I S O R Y S E R V I C E S P A N E L R E P O R T
Downtown Allentown
Pennsylvania
$
Urban Land
Institute
Downtown Allentown
Pennsylvania
Energizing the Vision for Downtown
March 21–26, 2004
An AdvisoryServices Panel Report
ULI–the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
About ULI–the Urban Land Institute
U
LI–the Urban Land Institute is a non- resented include developers, builders, property
profit research and education organiza- owners, investors, architects, public officials,
tion that promotes responsible leadership planners, real estate brokers, appraisers, attor-
in the use of land in order to enhance neys, engineers, financiers, academics, students,
the total environment. and librarians. ULI relies heavily on the expe-
rience of its members. It is through member in-
The Institute maintains a membership represent-
volvement and information resources that ULI
ing a broad spectrum of interests and sponsors a
has been ableto set standards of excellence in -
wide variety of educational programs and forums
development practice. The Institute has long been
to encourage an open exchange of ideas and shar-
recognized as one of America’s most respected
ing of experience. ULI initiates research that an-
and widely quoted sources of objective informa-
ticipates emerging land use trends and issues and
tion on urban planning, growth, and development.
proposes creative solutions based on that research;
provides advisory services; and publishes a wide This Advisory Services panel report is intended
variety of materials to disseminate information on tofurther the objectives of the Institute and to
land use and development. make authoritative information generally avail-
able to those seeking knowledge in the field of
Established in 1936, the Institute today has more
urban land use.
than 23,000members and associates from 80 coun-
tries, representing the entire spectrum of the land Richard M. Rosan
use and development disciplines. Professionals rep- President
©2004 by ULI–the Urban Land Institute
1025 Thomas Jefferson Street, N.W.
Suite 500 West
Washington, D.C. 20007-5201
All rights reserved. Reproduction or use of the whole or any
part of the contents without written permission of the copy-
right holder is prohibited.
ULI Catalog Number: ASA073
2 An Advisory Services Panel Report
About ULI Advisory Services
T
he goal of ULI’s Advisory Services Program ipants in ULI’s five-day panel assignments are
is to bring the finest expertise in the real able to make accurate assessments of a sponsor’s
estate field to bear on complex land use plan- issues and to provide recommendations in a com-
ning and development projects, programs, pressed amount of time.
and policies. Since 1947, this program has assem-
Amajor strength of the program is ULI’s unique
bled well over 400 ULI-member teams to help
ability to draw on the knowledge and expertise of
sponsors find creative, practical solutions for
its members, including land developers and own-
issues such as downtown redevelopment, land
ers, public officials, academicians, representatives
management strategies, evaluation of develop-
of financial institutions, and others. In fulfillment
ment potential, growth management, community
of the mission of the Urban Land Institute, this
revitalization, brownfields redevelopment, military
Advisory Services panel report is intended to pro-
base reuse, provision of low-cost and affordable
vide objective advice that will promote the re-
housing, and asset management strategies, among
sponsible use of land to enhance the environment.
other matters. A wide variety of public, private,
and nonprofit organizations have contracted for
ULI’s Advisory Services. ULI Program Staff
Each panel team is composed of highly qualified
Rachelle L. Levitt
professionals who volunteer their time to ULI. Executive Vice President, Policy and Practice
They are chosen for their knowledge of the panel
MaryBeth Corrigan
topic and screened to ensure their objectivity.
Vice President, Advisory Services and Policy Programs
ULIpanel teams are interdisciplinary and typi-
cally include several developers, a landscape Nancy Zivitz Sussman
architect, a planner,amarket analyst, a finance Senior Associate, AdvisoryServices
expert, and others with the niche expertise
Nicholas Gabel
needed to address a given project. ULI teams
Associate, Advisory Services
provide a holistic look at development problems.
Each panel is chaired by a respected ULI mem- Jason Bell
Panel Coordinator, Advisory Services
ber with previous panel experience.
Yvonne Stanton
The agenda for a five-day panel assignment is in- Administrative Assistant
tensive. It includes an in-depth briefing day com-
Nancy H. Stewart
posed of a tour of the site and meetings with spon-
Director, Book Program
sor representatives; a day of hour-long interviews
of typically 50 to 75 key community representa- Stella Tarnay
tives; and two days of formulating recommenda- Manuscript Editor
tions. Many long nights of discussion precede the
Betsy VanBuskirk
panel’s conclusions. On the final day on site, the
ArtDirector
panel makes an oral presentation of its findings
and conclusions to the sponsor.Awritten report Martha Loomis
Desktop Publishing Specialist/Graphics
is prepared and published.
Kim Rusch
Because the sponsoring entities are responsible
Graphics
for significant preparation before the panel’s visit,
including sending extensive briefing materials to Diann Stanley-Austin
Director, Publishing Operations
each member and arranging for the panel to meet
with key local community members and stake-
holders in the project under consideration, partic-
Allentown, Pennsylvania, March 21–26, 2004 3
Acknowledgments
O
nbehalf of the Urban Land Institute, the Planning Department, and Linda Kauffman of Al-
panel members and staff wish to extend a lentown Parking Authority.
special thanks to the Allentown Economic
The panel is indebted to the dozens of community,
Development Corporation, participating
business, and government leaders who provided
private sponsors, the city of Allentown, and the
unique and valuable insights during the interview
county of Lehigh for their leadership and support
process. The panel thanks all of these people for
during this Advisory Services panel.
offering their time and expertise, and for helping
Special thanks are extended to Mayor Roy Affler- the panel understand the issues facing downtown
bach, County Executive Jane Ervin, Rob Osborn Allentown from all perspectives.
of the Allentown Economic Development Corpo-
Panel members appreciate the hospitality ex-
ration, Ed Pawlowski of the Department of Com-
pended to them by the people, businesses, and
munity and Economic Development, Bob Wood of
government of Allentown, which made their stay
Allentown Ahead, Jack Bradt of the Hamilton
enjoyable.
Business Center, Roland Sigal of the Hamilton
Business Center, Michael Hefele of Allentown
4 An Advisory Services Panel Report
Contents
ULI Panel and Project Staff 6
Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment 7
Overview and Summary of Recommendations 10
Market Potential 13
Planning and Design 23
Development Strategies 29
Implementation Strategies 34
Conclusion 39
About the Panel 41
Allentown, Pennsylvania, March 21–26, 2004 5
ULI Panel and Project Staff
Panel Chair F. Anthony (Tony) Orbe
Managing Member
Anne Warhover
Equinox Consulting, LLC
President/Chief Executive Officer
New York, New York
Downtown Denver Partnership, Inc.
Denver, Colorado Richard T. Reinhard
Principal
Panel Members Niagara Consulting Group
Atlanta, Georgia
Guillermo M. Aguilar
Vice President ULI Project Staff
TELACU
Santa Ana, California Anita Kramer
Director
Elinor R. Bacon
Retail Development
President
E.R. Bacon Development, LLC Nancy Zivitz Sussman
Washington, D.C. Senior Associate
Advisory Services
Thomas Curley
Director of Urban Planning Jason Bell
HOK Panel Coordinator
New York, New York Advisory Services
H. Cales Givens
Principal/Vice President
EDAW,Inc.
Denver, Colorado
Hermann J. Kircher
President
Kircher Research Associates, Ltd.
Toronto, Ontario
Canada
6 An Advisory Services Panel Report
Foreword: The Panel’s Assignment
CORTLAND CHENANGO OTSEGO
New York
11
SCHUYLER TOMPKINS
9 2 The city of Allentown has been unusually ac- DELAWARE
STEUBEN TIOLGaAke Erie
C AUGUS ALLEGANYtive over the last seven years, underCtHaEMkUiNnGg 88 NEW YORK
BROOME
numerous activities and programs focused
E
on downtown. The list is long and compre-
hensive, and includes grant programs for BfRaAçDaFdOReD
MCKEAN TIOGA Scranton
improvements, loan programs for conversion of 81
C 6 upper floors to housin6g, tax leniencies for develop- SUSQUEHANNA WAYNE Wilkes-Barre
tmoewnnt honoPu OpsTaTinErRtgi caunPldaEr Nr seNittSaeiYsl L,m VspAareNkcIieAftics ,s atnudd iae sm oafs dtoewrn- OHIO 6 1L1ACKAWANNA PENNSYLVANIA SULLIVAN Bethlehem JNERESWE Y
M 1 V 2 ELK CAMptErRlOiacNnt .f or the CcLuINlTtOuNral arts and en15tertLaYiCnOmMINeGnt d220is- SULLIVAN WYOMLIUNZGERNEPiSttcsrbaunrgthon 84 PIKEHarrisburg Lan2c0a9ster AlRleenatdoiwngn Trenton
Philadelphia
Camden
C Torh eim opvleermalel ngtuiindge tthoe psuer psruoinggr,a dmesv8 0ehlaosp ibnege,n a nthde/ COLUMBIAWEST VIRGINIA Wilkes-Barre80 MONROE MARYL2A06NSDUSSEX Wilmington CHhilelrry
Hunter report, a 1997 consultant study. It iMsO NcTlOeUaRr
7 L 1 CLEARFIELD tahnautC mEtNhTbRiesE rr eopf odretv healosp smerevnetds tinh ep lcaitcUyeN IwoONre wll.e Nll ouwn,d werit-h11 CARBON 209 WAR46REN Alebfto: vRee: gLioocnaatli omna mp.ap. At
B way—the PPL P3l22aza, the streeStNsYcDaERpe imNpOrRToHvUeMB-ERLAND SCHUYLKILL NORTHAMPTON MORRIS
ments on HamiltonM SIFtFrLIeNeJtU, NtIhATeA reuse of Hamilton LEHIGH 78
O 3 A P BLAIRPSolaczieat Hy omteuls,e tuh52m2e ,n aenw a Lddehitiigohn Ctoo Su22nytmyp Hhoisntyo20 r9Hicaalll, 81 78 222 Allentown Bethlehem HUNTERDON
W C 22 expansion of the AllentowPnER ARYrtMuseuDmAU,P tHhINe7 8ini-LEBANON 422 ReaBdEinRgKS 476 BUCKS 1
tial phase of the Arts Walk, andHa trhriseb uArgmerica on
B WHUhNTeINeGlDsO MN useum—the city believes it is time for 176 MONTGOMERY TrentonMERCER
O 7 BEDFORD an updated road7m6 ap fCoUMrB tEhRLeA NnDext round of action. 76 276
Lancaster LANCASTER PHILADELPHIA
G 4 CsFUteLrTruOtNgaginle ks eFwyRAi NtcKhhL aIaNltlternagcetsin rge menAaDoiAunMg.S Th hveib crita3yn0 ts trielltailYORK 222 30 CHESTER DELPAhWilAaRdEelphia Camden
S 220 70 and5 2c2ommercia11l development to change the image Cherry
Wilmington GLOUCESTER Hill 206
6 4 LEGANY 68 otof doWonASweH IntNhGtoaT40OwtN ins far ocemn tae pr loafc ec itthya ltif “en. CoBA RoleRnOseLsL”e dco wmitehs83 atonH,ARFORDterest back CtEoCI Lthe dCoA9N5SwETWLnEtown 2d95istrict32.2 SpecifCiAcMaDlElN3y0,
G MORGAaNBrErRaKyEL EoYf o81rganizatiMonaFsrRy EalDanEndRdI CdKepartments enthBuAsLTiaIMsO-RE th1e panel was asked t13o: SALEM
tically interested in downtown, the city still must
make a great effortto coordinate these interests • Identify uses—commercial, residential, visitor,
for maximum efficiency and effectiveness. and higher education facilities—that can thrive
in downtown Allentown;
In recognition of these challenges and the suc-
cesses to date, the Allentown Economic Develop- • Recommend planning and design guidelines
ment Corporation (AEDC), in partnership with that support recommended market components,
the city of Allentown, the county of Lehigh, and a
improve aesthetics, and improve circulation;
group of private sector sponsors, asked the panel
to assist in identifying key strategies that would • Propose development strategies and specify pri-
result in bringing community and development in- ority projects; and
Allentown, Pennsylvania, March 21–26, 2004 7
willing to trade a longer work commute for lower-
priced housing. Still, Allentown and the surround-
ing Lehigh Valley are essentially a separate econ-
omy, providing employment for most of
Allentown’s resident population. According to the
2000 U.S. Census, 78 percent of Allentown resi-
dents work in Lehigh County and an additional 11
percent work elsewhere in Lehigh Valley.
Allentown is the seat of Lehigh County and the
largest of three cities in Lehigh Valley. Allen-
town’s population, which was 206,632 in the 2000
U.S. Census, has remained fairly stable over the
last ten years. Bethlehem, immediately east of the
city, has a population of 71,329, and further east,
Easton has a population of 26,263. About 35 per-
Above: The panel dis- cent of the population in the Valley resides in
cusses observations these three cities while 65 percent lives outside
during a walking tour the cities’ boundaries. It is interesting to note that
ofdowntown Allentown. Allentown is the third largest city in Pennsylva-
Right: Mayor Roy nia, after Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but it is
Afflerbach introduces the closer in size to Erie, Reading, and Scranton then
panel’sfinal presentation. the two largest cities.
Downtown Allentown was once the commercial
center of Lehigh Valley—the main shopping dis-
trict and employment node. Hamilton Street
hosted thriving retail with department stores
and a variety of smaller stores, as well as the
county courthouse, county government, city gov-
• Provide implementation strategies that create
ernment, PPL headquarters, various bank re-
structure and coordination among the large
gional office/service facilities, and Class A office
number of downtown supporters.
space tenanted primarily by attorneys’ offices
who chose to be near the courthouse.
Context and Background Information
Downtown Allentown’s role as a commercial cen-
Downtown Allentown is centered along Hamilton ter has dramatically been impacted by a series of
Street from 4th Street to 13th Street. It is this developments, including major retail projects
street segment specifically that defines the health within two miles of the center, the demise of
and image of downtown, both practically and per- downtown department stores, the loss of a Class
ceptually. The briefing materials provided to the Aoffice building to a sinkhole, and the develop-
panel also defined downtown as including blocks ment of suburban office parks. The courthouse re-
north of Hamilton Street to Linden Street and mains, but attorneys do not appear to need imme-
south of Hamilton Street to Walnut Street. diate proximity as they once did. While specific
changes in the city core would have, by them-
Allentown is in southeastern Pennsylvania, about selves, impacted the downtown profile, develop-
80 miles west of New York City and Newark, and ment patterns elsewhere have seriously impaired
60 miles north of Philadelphia. Over the past the ability to easily replace those losses. Further,
decade, Allentown has become attractive to a the demographics of the city have changed, with
small but growing number of people who are em- apredominantly lower-income ethnic population
ployed in these major metropolitan areas and are concentrated in downtown neighborhoods.
8 An Advisory Services Panel Report
The new population could very well represent
fresh opportunities, although the current percep-
tion is that these demographic changes have taken
downtown Allentown one more step away from
what it used to be. Further, a major concern
voiced by the city and stakeholders is that the
general public—seeing high vacancies and lack
of foot traffic—perceives downtown to be unsafe.
The city’s police data prove this to be unfounded.
Thepanel believes that it will be critical to change
this common perception as part of downtown’s re-
vitalization, and it addresses the issue in its analy-
sis and recommendations.
Allentown, Pennsylvania, March 21–26, 2004 9