Issuu on Google+

NEW LIFE FOR OLD SCHOOLS PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA SCHOOL OF DESIGN DEPARTMENT OF CITY AND REGIONAL PLANNING SPRING 2013 JESSE BLITZSTEIN SARA BRANDT-VOREL PETER CHOMKO CHRISTOPHER CUMMINGS

LINDSEY GAEL DANIEL RHINE ELANA TAUBMAN LIZA WALLIS

CONTENTS

Cover Photo Credits: Bardley Maule, Hidden City Philadelphia Katrina Ohstrom, Hidden City Philadelphia The Notebook

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 BACKGROUND 3 POLICY 4 SITE REUSE 5 NEXT STEPS

Photo Credit: Katrina Ohstrom, Hidden City Philadelphia

1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CLOSED + CLOSING SCHOOLS ACROSS PHILADELPHIA

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Across the country, urban school districts have closed and continue to close significant percentages of their public schools. As a part of this trend, Philadelphia has gone through two rounds of massclosings in the last two school years. On top of schools closed in previous years that remain unused, this will leave the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) with 32 vacant buildings at the end of the 2013 school year. While the closures have generated animosity between communities and the SDP in the short-term, the issue of what to do with the buildings presents its own set of long-term problems that require further attention.

private household wealth. The 2013 round of closings alone will add 65 acres of vacant land to these already extensive citywide problems and compound the associated effects for communities in which closings occur, many of which are in already struggling areas of the city.

As with other cities, Philadelphia has been forced to close schools due to three main factors: decades of population loss, the rise of charter schools, and fiscal distress. Between 1950 and 2000, Philadelphia’s overall population declined steadily, which eroded the city’s tax base and hampered the SDP’s ability to continue maintaining school facilities at a high level. The citywide population loss also decreased school enrollment, and these negative effects were further compounded when Pennsylvania passed charter school-enabling legislation in 1997, effectively introducing a direct competitor to public schools in Philadelphia. Although the city has experienced slight population growth since 2000, this positive trend has not been great enough to overcome the decline of the past decades. Together, the reduced tax base and reduced enrollment have placed the SDP in a bind financially, with half-empty buildings and an estimated $1.24 billion deficit by 2017.

of areas around closed and closing schools lost population between 1990 and 2010

[ 33% ]

of Philadelphians live within a half mile of a closed or closing school By shuttering schools, the SDP aims to consolidate its facilities portfolio and plug its deficit hole. But doing so also raises a new set of worries for the neighborhoods experiencing closures. Foremost among these are vacancy and blight issues, which already cost the city millions of dollars annually in services, and significantly reduce

[ 75% ]

While closing schools is intended to help the SDP fill its budget gap, this strategy creates new issues for it as well. Maintaining a closed school can still cost the SDP as much as $5,000 a month. In light of its increased rate of closures, the SDP developed a formal policy in 2011 to dispose of its unused properties. In 2012, the SDP put 12 properties up for sale via brokers and successfully sold six, largely in stronger real estate markets. But with half going unsold, questions remain about what happens at those school sites and in those communities where buildings continue to sit vacant, and what will happen when a large number of newly closed schools comes on line. Again, this problem is not entirely unique to Philadelphia. An analysis of several cities nationwide that have recently closed numerous schools shows that similarly, only about half have been repurposed thus far. The SDP recognizes that its current approach has only worked for more marketable properties and does not do enough to provide alternative solutions for closed schools in weaker markets or poor condition. Thus, a more nuanced approach is needed, and an opportunity exists for the SDP and the city to step up as leaders in regards to school disposition and reuse.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

middle markets would have economic development financing packages attached to them by the task force, who could then use pre-existing disposition policies at appropriate city agencies to sell those properties. Finally, schools in weaker markets or very poor condition would be demolished or sold at nominal value for community-benefitting uses.

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA headquarters on Broad St. POLICY FRAMEWORK In light of the issues highlighted on the previous page, the policy recommendations in this report outline a new framework for school disposition and reuse in Philadelphia. The proposal calls for Mayor Nutter to make school disposition and reuse a priority in the remainder of his second term and convene a closed schools task force, bringing together key organizations and resources in the city to address this challenge. Doing so would not only relieve pressure on the SDP - allowing it to concentrate on education instead of real estate - but would also create a process in which school repurposing could be intertwined with other citywide initiatives and redevelopment goals. In addition, this process could allow repurposing to be done in a manner that is more sensitive to community context than has traditionally been the case.

If the task force were convened in the summer of 2013, a solution could be in place for each closed school by the spring of 2015, before the end of Mayor Nutter’s administration, based on the time required for the different components of the analysis, community engagement, and disposition processes. The task force members would bring to the table a variety of skills and expertise necessary to meet this goal, including local real estate knowledge, economic development financing expertise, and planning and community engagement experience.

CASE STUDIES The other main component of this report focuses on four detailed case studies for reuse at different closing school sites in Philadelphia. To select sites to examine, a model was created to quantitatively analyze all of the closed and closing schools in Philadelphia, similar to the process of analysis proposed in the policy framework. After checking the results against more qualitative observations, four sites in the range of middle to weaker markets were selected, in the hopes that such case studies might help shed light on reuse

The key to this new policy framework would be the application of different strategies to different types of properties. To do so, the SDP and task force would undertake a mix of quantitative and qualitative analysis to assess the buildings and the neighborhoods around them. After carrying out a community engagement process with those neighborhoods, the analysis and community input would be combined to assess the closed schools and categorize them into three different “buckets” to which different disposition strategies would be applied. Properties in stronger real estate markets would stay with the SDP, who would take them through a slightly modified version of the SDP’s existing sale via broker process. All other closed schools would be transferred to the city and become the joint responsibility of the task force (of which the SDP would be a part). Schools in

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

GERMANTOWN HIGH SCHOOL - built in 1914, closing in 2013.

At the Fairhill School in the North Philadelphia neighborhood of Fairhill, reuse at a 1960s era building in a low-income ethnic enclave was examined. The reuse proposal at Fairhill combines the school site with other vacant, publicly owned land adjacent to the site for a redevelopment that would bring in senior housing, workforce training, and community recreation space in response to community-specific needs and context. At Germantown High School and Fulton Elementary School in Germantown, reuse at two historic school buildings along a similarly historic commercial corridor in a middle market neighborhood was examined. Here the proposal calls for a mix of senior housing and artist live and work space that meets new market demands in Germantown and preserves the historic nature of the buildings, with the potential to catalyze further redevelopment along the corridor. At the Sheridan West Academy in the River Wards neighborhood of Port Richmond, a more outside-the-box reuse proposal calls for the redevelopment of the school into a food hub and community center. Combining uses such as aquaponics, a distillery, a cafĂŠ, and offices at one site, the Sheridan West reuse proposal marries the

residential and industrial features of this part of the city in one creative redevelopment. And finally, at Vaux High School and Reynolds Elementary School in the North Philadelphia neighborhood of Sharswood, the reuse proposal calls for a mix of affordable housing, social services, retail space, and public space to catalyze reinvestment in a low-income, high-vacancy area of the city. By combining the two school sites with several small blocks of vacant land in between, such a proposal could prove the city’s capacity to undertake a new type of comprehensive, forward-thinking redevelopment in this part of the city while putting vacant land and buildings back into productive use. All of these school reuse proposals involve complex financing and partnership schemes, as detailed in the case study section and appendices. But this further stresses the need for a comprehensive policy through which the city can foster such partnerships and target economic development incentives. By making school reuse a priority and finding creative and expedient solutions, Philadelphia can repurpose schools in ways that meet school district, neighborhood, and citywide goals while emerging as a leader in school disposition and reuse policy.

A 3-D rendering showing the Fairhill School, on the right, and additional public facilities, on the left, reimagined through a proposal for reuse.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

11

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

possibilities at some of the more challenging sites in the city where a reuse may not be obvious, or a traditional developer may not be immediately interested.

Photo Credit: Kate Hartman & Ben Griffiths, Temple MUR

2

HOW WE GOT HERE.............................. 14 KEY PLAYERS........................................ 22 LOCAL CONTEXT.................................... 24 NATIONAL CONTEXT.............................. 32

BACKGROUND

BACKGROUND

HOW WE GOT HERE

Vacancy and blight have significant wealth and quality-of-life impacts. Vacant lots and buildings lower nearby property values, negatively impacting both private household wealth and public tax revenues, and generate safety, health and maintenance issues that degrade neighbors’ quality-of-life while further straining public services and coffers. Left unaddressed, these effects build on one another, creating a vicious and difficult-to-break cycle of decline and disinvestment.

Students entering Bok Technical High School in South Philadelphia.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

All of these processes are closely tied to the School District of Philadelphia’s (SDP’s) recent closures of 32 public schools across the city. Declining populations and chronic underinvestment left many schools “beyond saving” in the eyes of SDP officials, with widespread closures representing a triage approach to District management in an era of tight budgets and large deficits. Closed schools represent a microcosm of the cyclical vacancy and abandonment problems plaguing Philadelphia: these empty buildings are not just grim symbols of the loss of people and industry experienced by the city, but for the current struggles of urban public education across the country as a whole. When left vacant, schools beget blight and despair in great magnitude - if one vacant home can weaken a block, a vacant school building casts its shadow over an entire neighborhood. But vacant land and abandoned buildings, while representing a significant challenge, can also be viewed as community assets, providing opportunities for transformative new land uses that can

Photo Credit: Bradley Maule, Hidden City Philadelphia

VACANT SCHOOLS ARE VACANT BUILDINGS: THE CASE FOR A CITYWIDE RESPONSE TO SCHOOL CLOSURES Philadelphia – once the “Workshop of the World” – has always been a hard-working city. In recent years, one of the issues it has worked hardest to address is the pervasiveness of vacant land in the city’s former industrial core. As population and economic activity declined in Philadelphia and other powerhouse cities of the manufacturing era, countless empty warehouses and factories, and far too many vacant lots and houses, were left behind.

Concentrated in many of the city’s struggling low- and moderateincome neighborhoods, where vacancy already presents a potent challenge to local civic and economic capacity, the latest round of school closings in Philadelphia should serve as a wake-up call to public officials, neighborhood activists, and the local business community. With economic inequality rising across the nation, evidence is mounting that cities cannot succeed sustainably unless their prosperity is shared by all their residents. As Center City and its surrounding neighborhoods continue to boom, Philadelphians from all walks of life should strive to see the painful process of school closure as an opportunity to spread this prosperity fairly, evenly, and justly across the city’s many neighborhoods.

This report suggests a number of ways in which Philadelphia, and Philadelphians, can begin to do just that. The following pages will lay out “How We Got Here:” the decades-long process, recently accelerated, by which the SDP fell out of favor with, and under the control of, the Pennsylvania state government; was forced to borrow $300 million in order to make payroll during fall 2012; and finally had to close the doors of approximately one-fifth of Philadelphia’s public schools.1 This section will be followed by a detailed look at the network of closed and closing schools, as well as the neighborhoods in which they are located, and in which the effects of these closures will be most profoundly felt. Finally, Philadelphia’s case will be reviewed alongside that of other cities experiencing similar pressures on their public school systems, and the approach those places have taken to the sensitive issues of school closure and reuse. Resolving the crisis these school closures have triggered will not mean the end of Philadelphia’s extensive vacancy and blight problems – most of the city’s 3,555 acres of vacant land will remain just that, even if all 32 closed and closing school can be quickly and successfully repurposed and reused. But by the same token, if Philadelphia can deploy its resources to address this issue before these closing schools become significant new contributors to the problem, then there is no reason why the city cannot build on that success as it works to combat vacancy and blight going forward. School closures represent an unpleasant challenge, but a vigorous, creative response may just be enough to transform that challenge into a real opportunity.

Philadelphia has 3,555 acres of vacant land, which costs the city $20 M annually to maintain BACKGROUND

15

BACKGROUND

break the cycle of decline and influence redevelopment to serve the public good. By the same token, closed public school buildings can be seen to also represent large-scale opportunities. Closed school properties are some of the largest publicly-held, redevelopable parcels available to the cities like Philadelphia, without the use of eminent domain. With smart planning, vigorous community engagement, strong public leadership, and savvy private investment, closed public school buildings can be repurposed as assets enabling Philadelphia to catalyze positive neighborhood change.

FINANCIAL REALITIES The SDP’s 2012 announcement that it would close as many as 37 public schools, a number later reduced to 23, has initiated a chain of such fast, furious, and frenzied activity that the process sometimes seems to have occurred overnight. In truth, however, the closings announced this year are the result of several decades of changes to public education in the US and Philadelphia. While the pace of this change has accelerated in recent years, leading to the SDP’s current fiscal crisis, the extent and location of this year’s closures are rooted in Philadelphia’s school-building program during the post-war era of urban renewal. A City in Transition: Philadelphia and Its Schools, 1950s-1990s Population decline in post-war Philadelphia is a well-documented phenomenon. Like many of the Northeast and Midwest’s other great industrial cities, Philadelphia struggled to cope with employer and the middle class flight to the suburbs. The city’s population peaked at just over 2 million in 1950, and began a steep and decades’-long decline immediately thereafter, a trend variably described as “white flight,” “suburbanization,” or just simply “disinvestment.”2

As those terms suggest, Philadelphia’s economic and population declines were not distributed evenly across the city. Some neighborhoods continued to grow during the 1950s-60s even as the city began to shrink, while other neighborhoods’ populations remained numerically constant as they experienced dramatic racial and ethnic transitions. Philadelphia’s black population actually grew significantly in the post-war era, particularly in many of North and West Philadelphia’s older industrial neighborhoods. 3 Partly as a result of this migration, the trend lines for Philadelphia’s total and school-age populations diverged sharply during the 1950s: Philadelphia’s public school population grew by more than 67,000 between 1950 and 1970, while the city lost nearly 125,000 residents. Many of these new students were children in the black families who settled in North and West Philadelphia, placing significant new demands on already-aging school buildings in these neighborhoods in particular.4 By the late-60s, overcrowding and physical deterioration in these school buildings forced the SDP to announce “an all-out attack on

300K

3.0 M

250K

2.5 M

200K

2.0 M

150K

1.5 M

100K

1.0 M 1950 Source: U.S. Census Bureau.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

City of Philadelphia Population

School District of Philadelphia Student Population

City of Philadelphia Total Population Compared to School District of Philadelphia Student Population

low-income urban areas, including Philadelphia. New superintendent David Hornbeck, an urban public education activist as much as an administrator, made the SDP a party on two civil rights lawsuits filed against the State government, demanding equitable funding for public education. With its schools chronically under-performing on standardized tests and the SDP facing a deficit of more than $200 million, Hornbeck’s legal maneuvering served only to antagonize a new gubernatorial administration in Harrisburg. Governor Tom Ridge threatened a state takeover of Philadelphia’s public schools; in 2001, despite some sustained academic improvement, his successor Mark Schweiker declared the progress insufficient. The Philadelphia School Board was dissolved in December, and a new “School Reform Commission” (SRC) was appointed in its place.8

[ $3.4B ]

The SRC gave Harrisburg a significant degree of control over both the SDP’s long-term vision and its day-to-day operations. Three of the SRC’s five members were appointed by the Governor; the other two appointments were granted to the Mayor of Philadelphia, with the precondition that the SDP’s still-pending lawsuits against the State were dropped immediately. Local control of Philadelphia’s schools was effectively terminated.9

It was during the early 1970s, just as the SDP began ramping up its capital improvement plan, that the shift from overcrowded to underutilized school buildings began to slowly reshape Philadelphia’s educational landscape. Throughout the 1970s-80s, labor disputes, leadership changes, and budget deficits became nearly-annual rituals, while draconian cuts to the SDP’s capital budget meant many school buildings began slipping into disrepair. Some measure of financial stability was finally achieved in the mid-80s under new superintendent Constance Clayton, with a familiar cost: the last significant wave of school closings to affect Philadelphia until the two years of closures beginning in 2011.7 Origins of the Current Crisis: Enrollment Decline Continues as Competition Increases, 1990s-2000s By the mid-1990s, the tenuous financial stabilization achieved during Superintendent Clayton’s tenure had again begun to collapse. Successive state budgets failed to adequately fund local school districts, with particularly egregious shortfalls affecting

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

SDP building program, 1968-72

Pennsylvania State Capitol Building.

BACKGROUND

17

BACKGROUND

current levels of overcrowding and obsolescence” across the city, but particularly concentrated in North and West Philadelphia’s growing black neighborhoods. Many older school buildings were rehabilitated at this time, and a number of new, high-capacity schools were constructed. Located predominantly in areas now affected by recent and upcoming closures, enormous structures like North Philadelphia’s William Penn High School (475,000 square feet, constructed 1972) and West Philadelphia’s University City High (416,000 square feet, constructed 1971) were built to address the long-term problem of overcrowding5 - a feat they accomplished all too well. When its closure was announced in late-2012, University City High School was at just 25 percent capacity, with less than 660 of 2,200 potential seats filled.6

[NUMBER OF ACTIVE PUBLIC SCHOOLS]

EVOLUTION OF THE SDP’S TROUBLES Clemente closed

End of last wave of school closings

255

1985

1990 CLAYTON

[SUPERINTENDENTS]

B W c

End of early 80s labor troubles and school closings

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

1995 HORNBECK Options exhausted for resolving budget crisis; Hornbeck files civil rights lawsuits Charter enabling legislation

200

;

Walton closed

BACKGROUND

K

Beeber Wynnefield closed

William Penn closed Harrison closed Drew + 4 others closed 23 schools closed

215 2000

2005 VALLAS State takeover; creation of SRC

2010 ACKERMAN

2013 HITE

Corbett’s budget cuts Global financial crisis

Boston Consulting Group report released

BACKGROUND

19

FINANCIAL REALITIES State control of the SDP enabled the Ridge and Schweiker (and later Rendell) administrations to more aggressively pursue a “school choice” agenda, then popular in Harrisburg. Charter schoolauthorization legislation, signed into law in 1997, essentially created direct local competition for school district funding streams and student populations. Charter authorizations began booming in Philadelphia in the years following the SRC’s creation, siphoning students and financial resources away from Philadelphia’s public schools. Thus, even as Philadelphia managed to reverse its decades of population decline after 2000, the SDP’s student population actually decreased, with greater and greater numbers of students enrolling in charter, cyber, and other alternative schools. Additional state subsidies tied to the creation of the SRC provided the SDP with several years of financial stability, but Philadelphia’s growing charter school population would undermine the SDP’s financial sustainability in the long term.10

[ 30% ]

of Philadelphia’s students are currently enrolled at charters “These Things Should Have Been Done Years Ago.” Overbuilding in the 1960s-70s, underfunding during the 1990s, and the post-1997 growth of the charter school population presented the early-21st century SDP with an almost insurmountable challenge. While the relative economic prosperity of the city endured during the mid-2000s, a Philadelphia Democrat in the governor’s office helped to keep the SDP financially afloat, and new superintendent Arlene Ackerman took office in 2008 with ambitious plans for Philadelphia’s public schools. Unfortunately, a global economic crisis and local financial mismanagement would see the high hopes which accompanied Ackerman’s inauguration derailed, her tenure eventually ending amidst accusations of corruption, incompetence, and a host of other negatives, and the SDP’s finances slid further and further into the red.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

In Pennsylvania as in much of the US, school districts are primarily funded via a mix of state and local sources. In Philadelphia, the state foots roughly 50 percent of the SDP’s budget, with 50 percent of District funding coming from local coffers; less than one percent of the local education budget is federally funded. Unlike the federal government, however, state and local administrations are constitutionally required to submit balanced budgets. In the wake of the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the worst economic catastrophe since the Great Depression, this has meant collapsing tax revenues and deep local cutbacks in education and other areas. Philadelphia, its education system already underfunded even during the “boom” years of the 1990s and early-2000s, has been severely affected by these cuts. Local tax collection collapsed in the aftermath of the crisis, and the 2010 inauguration of another unfriendly Republican administration in Harrisburg has yielded significant cuts to local public education funding, while charter school enrollment has continued to grow. 11 The 2011-12 schoolyear saw the end of Superintendent Ackerman’s controversial tenure, and the beginnings of even greater controversy as the first of what is projected to be several-years’worth of school closings took effect. URS Consulting, retained by the SDP using a combination of in-house funds and a significant contribution from the philanthropic William Penn Foundation, completed a very broad-based assessment of the SDP’s finances.

Exterior of the William Penn High School on Broad Street.

Photo Credit: Tommy Rowan, Metro Philadelphia

While generating significant public opposition, and helping to reveal the truly dire budgetary straits in which the SDP found itself at the close of the Ackerman administration, the 2012 closures recommended by URS were not sufficient to plug the SDP’s ever-widening structural budget deficit. As the 2012-13 schoolyear opened, the District and SRC were forced to float a $300 million bond offer simply to pay operating expenses, and the Boston Consulting Group (BCG) was retained to explore further opportunities for savings via the SDP’s Facilities Master Plan.

BACKGROUND

Their report contained a number of recommendations calling for the District to be “right-sized” via the elimination of underutilized schools. Numerous closures were proposed, with five immediate closures and two phased closures confirmed by the schoolyear’s end.12

Superintendent Hite at a School Board meeting.

SDP structural deficit, 2012-2013

were eventually approved by the SRC in March 2013. The SDP’s structural deficit, still projected to balloon to more than $1 billion over the next five years, will likely define Hite’s tenure, and BCG’s recommendations remain the SDP’s official roadmap for navigating its way out of the current crisis.14 While the frenzied activity associated with this round of closures may be nearing its end, the public debate and drama caused by school closures is by no means over. Unless it is addressed immediately, the problem of vacant school buildings threatens to become a chronic issue for Philadelphia in the decades to come.

BCG identified several areas in which the SDP might find the savings necessary to balance its budget, personnel costs, in particular, are targeted for significant cuts, but the most headline-grabbing figure found in the revised Facilities Master Plan was the recommendation that 50-70 underutilized schools should be targeted for closure in the short- to medium-term. Roughly half of these closures were recommended for Year 1 of the Plan, 2012-13, resulting in a projected savings of nearly $125 million over five years. School closures alone would not close the SDP’s budget deficit, but they could help to staunch the bleeding for a District badly in need of financial help.13

Philadelphia public schools closed, 2011-2013

[$280M+]

As the 2012-13 schoolyear opened, the SDP welcomed a new superintendent, Dr. William Hite, to the helm of Philadelphia’s public school system. Dr. Hite has already taken some steps to alter and influence BCG’s initial recommendations, trimming the SDP’s list of proposed closings from 35 to 29 schools; just 23 closures

[29]

[$101M] Projected savings

BACKGROUND

21

KEY PLAYERS While the SDP’s budget and operations are closely scrutinized and tightly controlled, actual responsibility over the SDP’s funding and policy decisions is dispersed among many different actors in the public, private, and non-profit sectors. The complex interaction between these various sources and forces guides the SRC and SDP’s decision making, and its management of the local portfolio of public, charter, and “Renaissance” (charter-operated public) schools. This convoluted and somewhat murky system will need to be accounted for and accomodated during the closed school disposition and reuse process, and the various interests involved balanced against each other. Understanding the system in which these closed and closing schools are embedded is essential to understanding what kind of approach to reuse will or will not work.

FUNDING DECISION MAKERS

POLICY DECISION MAKERS GOVERNOR SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION MAYOR

CITY COUNCIL EDU. COMMITTEE BOSTON CONSULTING GROUP

PHILADELPHIA CITY COUNCIL BILL GATES FOUNDATION SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA WILLIAM PENN FOUNDATION

ACADEMIC INSTITUIONS RENAISSANCE SCHOOLS

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

CHARTER SCHOOLS

BACKGROUND

SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION SCHOOL REFORM COMMISSION: Created in 2001; replaced Philadelphia Board of Education, ended local control of SDP. Photo Credits: School Reform Commission Website

PEDRO RAMOS [CHAIRPERSON - APPOINTED 2011] JOSEPH DWORETZKY [APPOINTED 2009] FEATHER HOUSTON [APPOINTED 2011] WENDELL PRITCHETT [APPOINTED 2011] SYLVIA SIMMS [APPOINTED 2013]

SCHOOL DISTRICT of PHILA SCHOOL DISTRICT OF PHILADELPHIA: Created in 1818; responsible for the day-to-day operations of Philadelphia’s public schools. DR. WILLIAM HITE [SUPERINTENDENT - APPOINTED 2012]

MAJOR FUNDING SOURCES

Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons

COMMONWEALTH of PENNSYLVANIA: Funds 50% of SDP annual budget CITY of PHILADELPHIA: Funds 50% of SDP annual budget

Photo Credit: Office of the Governor, Office of the Mayor

MAJOR POLICY INFLUENCES PA GOVERNOR TOM CORBETT [R]: Appoints 3/5 SRC members PHILA MAYOR MICHAEL NUTTER [D]: Appoints 2/5 SRC members

BACKGROUND

23

LOCAL CONTEXT Philadelphia’s closed and closing schools are not concentrated in a single section of the city, but spread across many different neighborhoods and areas. Some regions are affected more than others; North Central Philadelphia, for instance, is facing a particularly high number of closures. Still, school closures are a citywide issue, and the vacancy that will result is a citywide concern. For some time, Philadelphia has struggled with an over-sized and often-disorganized inventory of vacant land, a good portion of it publicly-owned. The 101 acres occupied by closed and closing schools will only add to a problem that costs the City more than $20 million each year in maintenance and uncollected property taxes, and accounts for $3.6 billion in lost household wealth citywide.15 With local government agencies still reeling from cuts in state and federal aid to Philadelphia, and households across the country struggling to recoup wealth eliminated by the bursting of the mid2000s real estate bubble, this significant addition to the city’s vacancy problem cannot be ignored.

[ 32 ]

total closed and closing schools in Philadelphia Even more significant than the additional citywide vacancy costs may be the more localized effects that school closures will have in many of Philadelphia’s low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. Though a whole 33 percent of Philadelphians live within a half-mile of a closed or closing school, these Philadelphians are not entirely representative of the citywide population. As opponents of the closures have repeatedly pointed out, the population clustered around closing schools is less white than Philadelphia’s (71 percent versus 59 percent citywide), earns a lower average income ($26,000/year versus $37,000) and lives in significantly lessvaluable housing ($138,000 median home value versus $157,000). Many of these neighborhoods are also struggling to cope with disproportionately high levels of vacancy and blight – already, 24 percent of the city’s existing vacant land lies within a half-mile of one or more of these school sites.16

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

The collective impact of these school closures not only increases the social, economic, and even mental burdens associated with vacancy and blight, but does so in a way that disproportionately impacts those Philadelphians already bearing the brunt of those costs. This unfortunate coincidence of social ills results not from any particular desire on the part of the SDP to injure the socioeconomic opportunities of low- and moderate-income Philadelphians, but rather from more than a half-century of demographic changes in Philadelphia that have not been reflected in the SDP’s management of its facilities. Even as Philadelphia’s population began to stabilize after 1990 and finally increased between 2000-2010, many of the neighborhoods impacted by school closures continued to lose population: 24 of 32 school sites saw the population living within a half-mile decrease by as much as 35 percent between 1990-2010.17 This raw population decline had its most severe impact on neighborhood schools, causing a further drain on enrollment above and beyond the lure of charters and other alternative schooling options. With the SDP determined to minimize the number of “empty seats” in its buildings, these neighborhoods, many of their schools with capacity to spare since the late 60s-early 70s school-building boom, were unfortunately the natural targets for closures.

HOW WERE CLOSURES DECIDED? The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) was hired by the SDP to provide it with a process for evaluating school buildings for closure. BCG’s recommendations took the form of a two-tiered system, which allows for an initial survey of buildings based on 1) Academic Performance, 2) Current Building Condition, and 3) Building Utilization (with school academic performance weighted most heavily). A second round of analysis allows for a more nuanced study of each school which considers additional factors, including academic performance trends, safety of the school, neighborhood demographic trends, and the feasibility of student reassignment, among others. The ultimate goal of this analysis was to identify strong academic programs and place them in well-maintained buildings so that students receive a quality education in a safe school building.

In short, shutting these schools’ doors will resolve neither the SDP’s financial problems nor the host of issues plaguing many of these neighborhoods. School closure is only a small part of what it will take to move the SDP, City, and the communities surrounding closed and closing schools through the current crisis. To date, the process, and many of its participants have focused almost single-mindedly on closures, with only limited attention paid to (arguably) a much more important component: positioning these properties and these neighborhoods for closed school reuse.

BACKGROUND

Sadly, shuttering schools in these neighborhoods does not mean the end of the closure process. The SDP is just as responsible for the integrity and safety of student-less school buildings as it is for those continuing to serve students. SDP monthly operating costs at permanently-closed schools can run as high as $5,000 per building: securing the premises against vandalism and theft, hiring security personnel, and performing some baseline maintenance to prevent further deterioration of the properties. Beyond these buildings, SDP responsibilities also include easing students’ transition from one school to another, possibly entailing the renegotiation of busing and other service contracts, as well as new investment in improvements to student-receiving school buildings.18

M. Hall Stanton Elementary School, which directly abuts existing rowhomes.

! ! !

! !

Providing Local Context for Closed School Reuse The remainder of this report will focus on school reuse, some forms it might take, who will need to participate in the process, and what will be necessary in order to stimulate school reuse. In many cases, those forms, players, and processes will be determined by the schools’ local context, both at a citywide scale, and at a more nuanced neighborhood scale. The following pages will present all 32 schools in these geographic contexts, first mapping the location of all closed and closing school sites against major socioeconomic variables across the city (pages 26-27), and then considering the sites in nine more nuanced, subregional groupings (pages 28-31). Neither of these sections will even begin to touch on the full extent of local variables and variation that will influence any and all potential school reuse projects but together, they will begin to paint a picture of the challenges being tackled in the Policy (page 34) and Reuse (page 50) sections of this report.

! ! !

! !

! !

!

! !

!!

! ! !

!

! ! !

! !

!!

! !

! !

A map of Philadelphia with 25 schools slated to close in 2013, along with the 7 previously closed schools.

BACKGROUND

25

SITE DEMOGRAPHICS POPULATION CHANGE, 1990 - 2010

POPULATION CHANGE, BY CENSUS TRACT -100% -50% -50% to -25% % -25% to 0% 0% to 25% 25% to 50% > 50%

POVERTY CONCENTRATION, 2010

PEOPLE BELOW FEDERAL POVERTY LINE, BY CENSUS TRACT 0% to 31% 32% to 62% 63% to 94%

75% OF NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING CLOSED SCHOOL SITES EXPERIENCED POPULATION LOSS BETWEEN 1990 AND 2010

34% OF RESIDENTS WITHIN A HALF MILE RADIUS OF CLOSING SCHOOL SITES LIVE BELOW THE POVERTY LINE

Analyzing population change across neighborhoods in the city shows how neighborhoods with declining populations have experienced the greatest number of school closures. The correlation between declining population and school closure is not surprising. The declining population near closed and closing school sites makes these sites less desirable for developers, and thus a challenge to sell.

Closed and closing schools are concentrated in the lowest income neighborhoods in the city. As the map above shows, the majority of closed school sites are in census tracts that had a significant proportion of residents living below the poverty line in 2010.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

OF HOUSEHOLDS WITHIN A HALF-MILE OF THE CLOSED SCHOOL SITES HAVE

VACANT LAND ACRES OF VACANT LAND

THE CLOSED AND CLOSING SCHOOLS ADD 101 ACRES OF VACANT LAND TO THE CITY Vacancy is a massive issue in Philadelphia and the closed and closing schools contribute a significant amount of vacant land to the City’s already sizable vacancy challenge. A closed school has a large effect on the surrounding neighborhood because school buildings and the parcels they sit on are large and thus a noticeable blight when they sit vacant. The 23 schools that were voted to be closed in 2013 will add 65 acres of vacant land.

INCOMES BELOW THE CITY AVERAGE.

$138,000 IS THE MEDIAN HOME VALUE WITHIN A HALFMILE OF CLOSED SCHOOLS. THE PHILADELPHIA MEDIAN HOME VALUE IS $157,000.

BACKGROUND

27

BACKGROUND

88%

VACANT LAND, 2010

NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT SCHOOL CLOSURES ACROSS NEIGHBORHOODS

1

2 3

4

2 NORTHEAST

5

3 RIVER WARDS

6 7 8

1 GERMANTOWN

4 NORTH PHILADELPHIA

9

5 PARKSIDE 6 UNIVERSITY CITY 7 LOWER SCHUYLKILL 8 SOUTH WEST 9 SOUTH PHILADELPHIA

While school closures are a citywide issue for Philadelphia, the neighborhoods and other sub-regions of the city where these individual closures are occurring will feel these effects most acutely. As a number of these schools were constructed in the early 20th century, they have weathered the city’s often-difficult recent past and present, and therefore occupy a unique place in Philadelphia’s history. Particularly for sites in weaker markets, these sites have an opportunity to play a role in those neighborhoods’ futures. Some sites combine to make up smaller “clusters” of school closures. These clusters may make reuse more difficult in some areas of particularly high vacancy, but as some of the case studies found on pages 60-83 demonstrate, clustered closures can also create the potential for catalytic reuse opportunities with the power to help renew whole neighborhoods and grow local economies. The clusters of closures described in the following pages were not derived through a scientific analysis of spatial relationships between closed school sites. Though significant in-cluster variation does exist between sites, most clusters correspond roughly to Philadelphia sub-regions in which similar social, economic and demographic factors are at work. Each school site located within these nine clusters, discussed on the following pages, will require its own approach; but any citywide response to the closure process as a whole must necessarily deal with the unique challenges posed in the nine sub-regions, as well as to the general challenges around vacancy, blight, and disinvestment facing all these areas as a whole.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

KINSEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

1

Located in the northwest section of the city, Germantown is a predominantly African-American neighborhood centered around Germantown Avenue, which is both a commercial and historic corridor. Germantown Avenue also serves as a dividing line between economic strength to the west, and high residential vacancy to the east. It is one of the city’s oldest settlements, originally settled by Mennonite and Quaker, German-speaking immigrants, from Holland. The neighborhood’s rich history is a source of pride to residents, who have a strong community presence.

GERMANTOWN HIGH SCHOOL FULTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

2

3 INE

DL

R

KET

MA

SHERIDAN WEST ACADEMY

N

FRA

“OLD” WILLARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

CARROL HIGH SCHOOL DOUGLAS HIGH SCHOOL

NORTHEAST The Northeast neighborhood of Philadelphia is located north of the Riverwards and along the Delaware River. Rapid industrialization early in the 20th century contributed to these neighborhoods’ growth. This trend, coupled with the building of the Market-Frankford Line and new arterial highways, such as the Roosevelt Boulevard (now Route 1), attracted a middle class and led the area to develop a “garden suburb” feel. This area has not mimicked the city’s population trends; currently, it is economically stable, and the population is racially diverse.

CARNELL ANNEX AT FELS

R KFO

GERMANTOWN

5

I-9

RIVERWARDS The Riverwards is a working class neighborhood located in northeastern Philadelphia that is beginning to face development pressure from the south and west. The area grew from the industrial uses along the Delaware River, and today comprises dense rowhouse neighborhoods, largescale industrial, and big-box retail commercial centers. The neighborhood’s population is diverse across race, ethnicities, and age. Although the neighborhood was traditionally dependent on industrial uses, it has remained stable despite the city’s decline as an industrial powerhouse.

BACKGROUND

29

BACKGROUND

ADA LEWIS MIDDLE SCHOOL

NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT 4

GILLESPIE MIDDLE SCHOOL WHITTIER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

North Philadelphia is located directly north of Center City. Throughout the first half of the 20th century, the neighborhood grew in population. Since then, it has seen a decline both in population and economic prosperity. Today, the population is predominantly African American and Puerto Rican. Overall, the neighborhood holds a disproportionate share of the city’s vacancy, poverty, and blight; however, it is a large and heterogenous area, with varying concentrations of community assets. Notably, there are pockets of investment near stronger communities and large institutions, such as Temple University.

FAIRHILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL STANTON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

REYNOLDS MIDDLE SCHOOL

WILLIAM PENN HIGH SCHOOL

VAUX HIGH SCHOOL

FERGUSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

HARRISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

5 BEEBER-WYNNEFIELD ALTERNATIVE PROGRAM

6

LEIDY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

6

UNIVERSITY CITY HIGH SCHOOL

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

PARKSIDE Parkside is a predominantly African-American neighborhood located in the northern portion of West Philadelphia. It borders Fairmount Park and the Philadelphia Zoo. Largely built during the 1876 Centennial Exhibition, the area is considered a National Register of Historic Places Historic District. Many buildings still retain their original Victorian architectural style. Building conditions vary, as many homes have fallen into disrepair due to disinvestment and declining population in recent decades. The neighborhood has experienced some new investment, including big-box retail commercial centers.

I-7

DREW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

NORTH PHILADELPHIA

UNIVERSITY CITY The University City neighborhood is located in the eastern part of West Philadelphia, across the Schuylkill River from Center City. It is defined by its proximity to three major educational institutions, Drexel University, the University of the Sciences, and the University of Pennsylvania. The neighborhood’s landscape changed significantly during a1950s during an urban-renewal effort, when these universities pursued large-scale redevelopment projects, destroying much of the neighborhood’s preexisting fabric. Since then, these institutions have made significant quality of life improvements, enhancing conditions, but also leading to gentrification fears.

WILSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

The Lower Schuylkill neighborhood is an historically industrial area, located along the Schuylkill River in the southern portion of the city. Although the area includes many dense residential neighborhoods, parts of it are walled off to investment by I-76 and the river. The area’s industrial past has also left much of the land contaminated, which has served as a disincentive to new development. The recent Lower Schuylkill Master Plan, a collaborative effort between the city and various public and private foundations aims to create a blueprint for sustainable redevelopment.

ALCORN ANNEX

6 I-7

8 COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL

5

I-9

9 I-95

CHILDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

BROAD ST. LINE

BOK TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL

ABIGAIL VARE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

SOUTHWEST Southwest Philadelphia is remote, and separated from South Philadelphia by the Schuylkill River. The neighborhood includes diverse land uses: dense residential areas (Kingsessing and Elmwood), environmental preserves (Bartram’s Garden and the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge), and heavy industrial sites. The neighborhood’s southern end is dominated by the Philadelphia International Airport and I-95. The neighborhood suffers from high crime rates, recent population decline, and decades of disinvestment.

PEPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL

SMITH ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

LOWER SCHUYLKILL

SOUTH PHILADELPHIA South Philadelphia, located south of South Street, east of the Schuylkill River, and north and west of the Delaware River, is one of the city’s larger geographic neighborhoods. A diverse immigrant population has settled in the area, and the neighborhood remains ethnically diverse. The neighborhood fabric is also varied, ranging from tight knit rowhouses, to big-box retail, to the Sports Complex. Overall, South Philadelphia is relatively stable economically, and includes many growing neighborhoods, which are creating development pressures in bordering areas.

BACKGROUND

31

BACKGROUND

7

SHAW MIDDLE SCHOOL

NATIONAL CONTEXT Widespread school closures are not unique to the SDP. Across the nation, financially-strapped districts have begun shuttering schools in response to declining enrollment (linked in many cases to the growth of charter schools), aging infrastructure and diminished financial capacity in an era of public and private austerity. In 2012, the Pew Charitable Trusts’ Philadelphia Research Initiative commenced a seven-city study of large-scale school closures, looking for best, or at least common, practices and policies.19 Pew’s research into closures in Chicago, Detroit, Kansas City (MO), Milwaukee, Pittsburgh, the District of Columbia and Philadelphia identified several common precipitating conditions which hastened the process of declining public school enrollment. In all cases, postwar deindustrialization and overall population decline represented a major contributing factor, along with associated declines in school system revenues (which accounts for inflation). Heavily reliant on local taxes for their funding, school districts’ financial capacity shrank along with their host-cities’ economies, leaving fewer and fewer resources available to fund either capital or programmatic improvements and diminishing schools’ ability to attract or retain pupils. Where public schools have failed to retain students, in many cities charter schools have succeeded handily. Directly competing with public schools for enrollment and funding, charters benefit from a relative freedom from stringent oversight and regulation, and frequently offer pay and benefit packages well below those provided to unionized public school teachers and employees. The

greater financial flexibility that results allows successful charter school operators to plow more funding into student resources, including their schools’ upkeep and rehabilitation: in fact, Pew’s research has revealed that charter school operators have led the way in reusing closed schools, accounting for roughly half of the total reuses studied. Finally, it is worth noting that while the factors precipitating school closures in all seven cities were similar, the relative scale of those closures varied widely. Kansas City, for instance, closed a full 50 percent of its public schools (29 schools out of 47 total – see page 38 for additional information); Detroit, on the other hand, closed the largest absolute number of schools (59), a figure which accounted for nearly one-third of the district’s total public school portfolio. Since Pew’s research began, Philadelphia and Chicago have emerged, for better or worse, as leaders in the school closures. Once all closing schools have shuttered their doors at the end of this school year, the SDP will have closed roughly 20 percent of all Philadelphia public schools over the past half-decade. Chicago Public Schools is presently trailing the SDP’s process by a matter of months, with 53 schools proposed for closure, but not yet voted on and confirmed, when this report went to press. Huge though these numbers are, not one of the cities studied has formulated an efficient or effective approach to school closure and reuse as yet. While studies such as Pew’s can help to uncover cross-city commonalities, there at unfortunately few real “best practices” to report at this time.

School Closings in City School Districts

Source: The Pew Charitable Trusts, 2011.

50% = 29 schools

Kansas City, MO 31% = 59 schools

Detroit, MI Pittsburgh, PA

26% = 22 schools

Washington, D.C.

16%

= 23 schools

13% = 20 schools

Milwaukee, WI Philadelphia, PA

12% = 32 schools

Chicago, IL

7% = 44 schools 0%

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

50%

100%

Ithaca, NY Built in 1914 in downtown Ithaca, a local architect transformed Ithaca High School into a multipurpose space in the 1970s. DeWitt Mall occupies the ground floors, while 47 apartments, 15 offices, and one penthouse fill the upper floors.

Photo Credit: User “Ex-Ithacan,” City-Data.com

ITHACA HIGH SCHOOL

BACKGROUND

NATIONAL SCHOOL REUSE CASE STUDIES20

Photo Credit: Croxton Collaborative Architects PC

SWD Architects converted the D.A. Holmes School, built in 1904, into a senior housing facility, in 2004. This building hosts 46 apartments for seniors, community space, and amenities, which support a thriving senior community.

MARY CHANNING WISTER SCHOOL Philadelphia, PA In 2003, the Philadelphia Police Department rehabbed the Mary Channing Wister School, built in 1929, as its new forensics lab. Compared to the cost of constructing an entirely new facility, rehabbing the school cost 20 percent less.

JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS SCHOOL Washington, D.C.

Photo Credit: Results Gym

Kansas City, MO

Photo Credit: Wallace Architects LLC

D.A. HOLMES SCHOOL

The former Joshua Giddings School, constructed in 1889 in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, was transformed into a gym in 2001 after being sold in 1999. This successful transformation occurred with the aid of Historic Tax Credits.

BACKGROUND

33 33

Photo Credit: Katrina Ohstrom, Hidden City Philadelphia

3

CURRENT POLICY................................... 36 BEST PRACTICES................................... 38 POLICY PROPOSAL................................. 40

POLICY

POLICY

CURRENT POLICY IN PHILADELPHIA While no city or school district has mastered the process of closing and disposing of public schools, the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) has already emerged as more of a leader in thoughtful school disposition than local headlines might lead a casual observer to suspect. Of the large districts whose school closings were studied by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the SDP was the first and (as of 2012) only to adopt a formal, written policy governing disposition decisions. First implemented in 2011, the policy has utilized a small pool of real estate brokers to market school sites, with disposition decisions made through a Request-for-Qualifications/Requestfor-Proposals (RFQ/RFP) process to allow open and competitive bidding. Qualified bidders’ proposals are vetted by a review committee which includes representatives from the City Planning Commission, District City Councilpersons’ offices, and locallyactive community organizations. Though tending to honor all review committee decisions, the School Reform Commission (SRC) maintains final approval of sales.1

Photo Credit: Tommy Rowan, Metro Philadelphia

During review committee evaluation, bids are weighed against the SDP’s pre-established criteria and priorities; educational uses which would allow the schools to remain youth-serving community assets are the top reuse tier, followed by community or non-profit use, and finally private or commercial development. Consideration is given to developers with “solid financial backing, a strong track record, a quick timeline, and a plan that fits with the surrounding neighborhood,” though the RFQ process tends to weed-out underqualified developers in advance of any potential bid.2

Superintendent Dr. William Hite.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Anecdotally, the SDP has reported that the existing process works well, but does not necessarily work as it is written. In 2012, the SDP and its qualified brokers placed 12 closed schools on the market. Of these 12, only three schools have reached final agreements of sale, while another three agreements are being negotiated. However, many of these schools received either single bids or multiple bids for the same type of reuse, undermining the SDP’s tiering strategy for bid-evaluation and resulting in a less-nuanced process than the policy, on paper, might suggest. Actual sales have varied widely in price, running the gamut from nominal dollar-sales (the old Roberto Clemente School) to the mid-hundred thousands, to the $6 million sale of the former West Philadelphia High School. Sale prices were influenced by a plethora of factors, but building age and condition (which tend to influence the ease with which the schools can be repurposed) are particularly influential, with location having perhaps the single largest influence of any factor. Tellingly, six of the 12 schools put up for bid in 2012 – those in the least-marketable locations – received no bids at all. Philadelphia has not mastered the challenge of managing school closures, nor will the path ahead – with 32 schools heading on or back on to the market – be an easy one to navigate. However, the SDP has achieved some success with its current policy. The SDP can learn from other cities’ and other entities’ experiences with similar challenges, but its current policy framework already offers some lessons for other school districts facing closures and looking for a way forward.

Photo Credit: Quate Goodman, PCAPS

POLICY

COMMUNITY OUTREACH & COMMUNITY ANGER While this report accepts the reality of the SDP’s ongoing financial crisis and the unfortunate necessity of school closures, the process has excited significant local opposition. Closures are concentrated in low-income neighborhoods that have tended to suffer disproprtionately from the unintended negative impacts of urban renewal and other public programs, and where trust in government has long stood at a low ebb. For many students, parents and concerned neighborhood residents, the process of deciding closures seemed secretive and altogether lacking in community engagement. Across the city, closure announcements triggered protests and demonstrations by concerned Philadelphians and national activists focusing on the school closure issue. Anti-closure protests in Philadelphia have been led by parent and student activists on the one hand, concerned about school closures in their neighborhoods; and on the other hand by labor activists and rank-and-file union members - both teachers and other members of staff - fearing that job losses will inevitably follow on the closure of so many public schools. The Philadelphia Student Union in particular has taken on a prominet role in these protests, including the organization of media-savvy demonstrations such as a Michael Jackson-inspired zombie flashmob outside of the SDP’s headquarters. While closure decision-making is not explicitly addressed in this report, the SDP should consider the degree of public outcry that the 2012-2013 closures have elicited and seek to involve “upstream” public input in the process. Members of the public are not fundamentally opposed to the SDP’s resolving its financial crisis, and the SDP has a clear interest in restoring public trust and goodwill; neither is this irreconcilable with continuing to make closure decisions, but doing so in a way that incorporates and involves the public in a very real and significant way. The SDP cannot resolve its current crisis alone - doing so will require public trust, support, and goodwill, which can only be built through real engagement and public participation.

POLICY

37

POLICY BEST PRACTICES. BRAC

KANSAS CITY

4

Photo Credit: Robert AM Stern Architects

Photo Credit: Historic East Neighborhoods Coalition

3

A master plan for the repurposed Navy Yard in Philadelphia. BRAC, or Base Realignment and Closure, is a process utilized by the United States Military to facilitate the closing and repurposing of military bases around the country. Under BRAC, a base slated for closure has three to five years to implement a gradual closure. During this time, a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) is established containing members of the military base, local planners and members of the community. The LRA is tasked with establishing a plan for reusing the base which includes community input for the redevelopment phasing and reuse. However, the Department of Defense reserves the right for all final reuse approvals. Strengths of this process include clear lines of delineated authority, explicit expectations for the process, and a strict timeline to which all parties must adhere. This helps government stick to deadlines and community members understand dramatic changes while giving potential developers a sense of when financing would need to be in place and redevelopment could realistically begin. Challenges to adapting the BRAC process for a school district include the difference in scale between closing a military base and a public school, and the difficulty in identifying applicable community members, should a local LRA be established for each school slated to close.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

The former Seven Oaks Elementary School in Kansas City is slated to become senior housing.

When Kansas City closed half of its public schools, it turned to the local community to solicit ideas for reusing the school sites. Prior to community input, the school district in Kansas City conducted an analysis for each site to determine the marketable strengths of each closed school and created an informational marketing document for each site. The school district then implemented a community driven process which utilized community meetings to gauge public support for proposed school reuses, solicit additional ideas, and to garner support from the local communities. Now that the school district in Kansas City is soliciting RFPs for each of the schools, the community has continued their involvement in the process and has a role in approving or denying redevelopment proposals. Kansas City’s process has notable strengths, such as its high level of community engagement throughout the entire process, a strong marketing process, a transparent website which keeps the community informed on the progress of each school, and a staff member dedicated to the repurposing of these closed sites. However this process has a few drawbacks, including a long timeframe to obtain approval to reuse the site, which deters local developers and costs the school district each day the schools are unused.

Photo Credit: Penn Public Policy Challenge

5

POLICY

FELS POLICY CHALLENGE

KEY POLICY BEST PRACTICES TAKEAWAYS SETTING CLEAR TIMELINES AND EXPECTATIONS HELPS GUIDE THE PROCESS.

A group of UPenn students won the 2012 Fels Policy Challenge for their plan to redevelop closed schools in Philadelphia.

The School Redevelopment Initiative (SRI) was the winner of an academic challenge at the Fels School of Government. The authors proposed a portfolio management approach to manage the disposition of closed schools. In their plan, the SDP would deed schools to the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) who would utilize a portfolio to balance the strengths and weaknesses of different school properties. Sales proceeds from stronger market schools would enter a revolving fund to support weaker market schools by maintaining the buildings and marketing to potential developers. In addition, the SRI proposed an RFP process which included local market analysis and community input. At the conclusion of the sales process, any long term sales income would return to the SDP. The strengths of the SRI plan included their innovative approach to leveraging different school assets off each other, the ability to solicit other funding to aid the process, such as philanthropic or government grants, the removal of the school maintenance costs from the SDP’s budget, and the ability to divide larger sites up and allow multiple uses per site. One drawback to the SRI proposal is that it calls for major capital investments into buildings with an uncertain future. In addition, the SDP would have to give up ownership of their properties and the proceeds of the sales would take awhile to return to the SDP.

INVOLVING COMMUNITIES IN REUSE DECISIONS EASES TENSIONS BETWEEN GOVERNMENT, DEVELOPERS, AND RESIDENTS. BRINGING IN PARTNERS AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING SOURCES COULD HELP RELIEVE PRESSURE ON THE CASH-STRAPPED SCHOOL DISTRICT. DIFFERENT STRATEGIES FOR REUSE COULD APPLY TO DIFFERENT TYPES OF CLOSED SCHOOLS. POLICY

39 39

POLICY PROPOSAL: Summary. Drawing on the lessons learned from previous SDP experiences with closed-school sales and those modeled by the case studies described on the previous page, the SDP and SRC should revise and expand their existing disposition policy. More importantly, SDP and SRC officials must make the case that school closures on this scale are a citywide issue with the potential to become an especially thorny citywide problem.

We propose that Mayor Nutter convene a School Reuse Task Force, led by the Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development and the Mayor’s Chief Education Officer, with support from the SDP’s Department of Real Property Management. Task Force operations – described in detail in the following pages – would be managed by a small staff and call on the staff and organizational capacity of other public and quasi-public agencies as appropriate.

For better or worse, the 101 acres of vacant land that closed schools create in Philadelphia will be among the city’s most visible vacant acreage from the final bell of the 2012-2013 schoolyear, until the sites have been put back into some sort of productive use. However minor his role in the closure process may have been, Mayor Nutter’s administration will be viewed by many Philadelphians as one of the parties most responsible for stimulating the speedy reuse of vacant schools. A proactive strategy for managing this process should be directed from the Mayor’s Office, but call on the skills and support of other public, private, and quasi-public entities; this approach will help to ensure that reused schools become a boon to the Nutter legacy, whereas vacant school buildings would serve only to diminish and overshadow some of his administration’s other achievements in a truly challenging fiscal environment.

The School Reuse Task Force would be responsible for providing the support, capacity, and planning vision that Philadelphia’s portfolio of closed schools will require. Tapping into the resources and expertise of its members, the Task Force would develop innovative approaches to the marketing, sale, and reuse of SDP properties that quickly return these buildings to productive use, and prevent the long-term vacancy and abandonment of these significant public assets.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

The Task Force’s mission would be first and foremost to devise and move forward with a reuse strategy for all of Philadelphia’s closed public schools, and to ensure that those strategies contribute to positive outcomes for neighborhoods surrounding closed schools and the City of Philadelphia as a whole.

The Task Force will also coordinate and collaborate with agencies responsible for: - Securing and maintaining closed schools during the visioning process, to preserve the buldings’ structural integrity and ensure community safety - Negotiating and ensuring compliance with agreements of sale calling for timely project completion

School closures and school reuse present the Mayor, City Council, and other Philadelphia public servants with both a major challenge and a significant opportunity. The work of the School Reuse Task Force will at once help to demonstrate the citywide nature of Philadelphia’s extensive vacancy challenge, and bring together all of the resources and expertise the City possesses to turn around the problems of vacancy and blight in ways that empower neighborhoods and ignite local community and economic development. The Task Force’s success would not only help the SDP stabilize its finances and the Nutter administration stabilize its legacy as an effective responder to Philadelphia’s unfortunate series of post-2008 financial crises; it would also help to stabilize communities and channel public resources to many neighborhoods all too often bypassed by much-needed private investment. This would represent a major victory in Philadelphia’s fight to transform one of the key challenges associated with its twentieth century decline into an important engine for its twenty-first century growth.

ALIGNING SCHOOL REUSE WITH OTHER PHILADELPHIA PLANS & PRIORITIES While the most immediate impacts of school reuse will be in the reduction of vacancy and blight, these projects can also serve to advance other citywide goals, priorities, and planning efforts. School reuse - and even school demolition, where it is necessary - can support Philadelphia’s work in areas such as stormwater management, job creation, and green space accessibility. More specific school reuse strategies should, when and where appropriate, interact with and support other efforts by city planners and policymakers to establish Philadelphia’s reputation as a progressive, innovative and successful twenty-first century city. Under the Nutter administration, many public and quasi-public agencies have launched strategic planning efforts that have the potential for high public-spending and private-investment impacts; these impacts should not be overlooked when school reuse scenarios are analyzed, and when synergies between school reuse and civic goals exist, those pathways should be doggedly pursued. The sheer scale of school closures can hardly be overstated: fully one-third of all Philadelphians live within a half-mile of a closed or closing school, and are thus likely to feel a fairly immediate impact from closures. More optimistically, this means that one-third of Philadelphians live close to a potential school reuse project, and are thus likely to feel the immediate impacts of school reuse as well. With a potential impact this large, school reuse should not be pursued in isolation from other city plans and goals. If school reuse means that one-third of Philadelphians fall directly in line to benefit from enhanced stormwater management, human capital development, economic improvement or enhanced environmental services, then all the more reason for the Nutter administration to aggressively pursue productive reuses at these sites.

POLICY

41 41

POLICY

Task Force responsibilities, described in detail on the pages which follow, would include: - Convening members and calling on their resources (both financial and personnel) and expertise - Engaging with local communities and collecting public input in a structured way that captures community values and moves the reuse process forward - Analyzing the reuse possibilities at closed school sites, and creating inclusive visions for the realistic reuse of closed schools as productive community assets - Fostering partnerships between public, private and nonprofit actors to generate and finance school reuse - Establishing and maintaining a clear timeline that moves all sites through an organized process towards an eventual reuse

PROPOSED POLICY: Organization Fragmented local and state control over closed and closing school buildings - owned by the SDP under the SRC’s management, with the SRC’s members in turn appointed by the governor and mayor - will be of no help in moving these buildings to market and back into productive use. The agency most directly concerned with school reuse, the SDP, has minimal real estate expertise; on the other hand, more experienced agencies under mayoral or gubernatorial control have no immediate stake in the school reuse process, and would likely be reluctant to take on such a large and challenging project. As this report has argued, however, school reuse is, and should be, viewed as a citywide issue, affecting city agencies and their missions as much as local communities and their residents.

[ ] “Whether you’re a mayor who is in charge of public schools or not, eventually, good or bad, it’s going to end up at your door.” Mayor Michael A Nutter

CEOs for Cities “Talent Dividend” Meeting, Philadelphia, April 2013

While the SDP has weathered its ongoing financial crisis, Mayor Nutter has showed an admirable willingness to stand behind the SDP in difficult times, providing a financial backstop that has at least kept the crisis from escalating even further. He has acknowledged that the SDP’s problems are inseparable from the City’s, a statement that most certainly applies to school closures. Alone, the SDP simply lacks the necessary resources to successfully move all 32 closed and closing schools back into productive use. We therefore propose that Mayor Nutter create a Mayoral School Reuse Task Force, to be convened in the summer of 2013 and to continue its operations until all closed schools have been removed permanently from the SDP’s books.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Leadership of the Task Force would be shared by three co-chairs, all of whom would bring essential skills to bear on the challenge of school reuse. The Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic Development’s citywide purview and cross-departmental mission, the Chief Education Officer’s high-level access to both the Mayor and SRC members, and the SDP’s intimate knowledge of all closed and closing school buildings will collectively guide and inform a holistic but flexible process, which moves each school through an analytic system and into the hands of an eventual buyer. The Task Force’s size should be kept in check to ensure that it remains nimble, while ensuring that its membership includes actors with the skills, vision, and expertise necessary to ensure that all schools can be reused in some fashion. Between them, the Task Force’s members should possess sufficient knowledge - of local real estate markets and dynamics, project development financing (including public financing), regulatory compliance and real estate/land use law, and economic development - skill - in community and civic outreach, architecture and design, strategic visioning, and demographic and statistical analysis - and experience - building strong relationships with local communities and other stakeholders in Philadelphia’s education system, understanding the challenges associated with the sale of public properties such as school buildings, and working in Philadelphia neighborhoods of varying contexts and with different levels of capacity - to achieve their collective mission. Everyday operations of the Task Force will be managed by not more than two or three appointed staff members, meaning that many Task Force members will be expected to contribute staff time to the school reuse project. The level of commitment required of different agencies will vary widely as schools move through the process, with different actors called upon at different times, depending on their respective skill sets. Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) staff, for instance, may be seconded to the task force during site analysis and community engagement phases of the school reuse process because of their existing expertise in those Task Force functions. PRA and Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) staff, on the other hand, would likely be more effective in outlining the challenges associated with the sale of public assets, and in managing that sales process once closed schools hit the market.

To prevent schools’ getting bogged down in this process, or remaining vacant due to insufficient coordination or lack of buyer interest, it is essential to create and maintain a consistent timeline through which all schools must move in a carefully regimented process. This framework, outlined in the pages that follow, provides the foundation on which our policy proposal is built.

No matter how many agencies can be brought to the table, the

MAYOR NUTTER DEPUTY MAYOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPOMENT

MAYOR’S CHIEF EDUCATION OFFICER

SCHOOL DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE

PHILADELPHIA CLOSED SCHOOLS REUSE TASK FORCE

PCPC

COMMERCE

PIDC

PRA

GPCC

PACDC

POLICY

43

POLICY

The City, the SDP, and their partner agencies are highly professional organizations, possessing between them all the skills and more that any high-price consultancy could bring to the school reuse process. With the City and especially the SDP strapped for cash, keeping as much of the process as possible in-house could not only save money, but also demonstrate the competence of City actors and operations to businesses considering locating in Philadelphia, and thereby supporting the local economy. This represents yet another opportunity to use the school closure and reuse process not only to break the vicious cycle of vacancy, abandonment and blight in many parts of Philadelphia, but also to initiate synergistic, virtuous cycles that can reverse neighborhood decline.

task of envisioning and realizing reuses for all 32 closed and closing schools will be a difficult one. At some sites, many potential uses may both receive community support and advance city goals, while elswhere those values may conflict, or no apparent uses emerge.

PROPOSED POLICY: Framework Our proposed policy framework sets clear guidelines and expectations, moving all closed and closing school buildings through an articulated process from closure, to sale, and eventual reuse. The policy flowchart on pages 46-47 presents a clear and complete picture of this process, from start to finish; a higher-level analysis follows below:

ANALYZE PHASE ONE: Decisions about school reuse should be informed by more than basic market factors. The work of the Task Force begins with collecting, collating and comparing qualitative and quantitative data about the 32 closed and closing schools, the neighborhoods which surround them, and the real estate markets in which they are embedded. This baseline knowledge will shape the treatment of each property as it moves forward through the disposition process.

ENGAGE PHASE TWO: Just as we recognize that real estate markets alone should not determine school reuse options, we acknowledge the importance of incorporating community input “upstream” in the disposition process, before any decisions have been made about a single one of the 32 sites. A program of structured community engagement, informed by the research performed in phase one, should not weigh specific land uses or design considerations against each other, but instead should seek to get at the deeply-held values which underlie and determine community opinion. These universal values can be incorporated into any RFPs which may later be issued to potential developers of reused school sites.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

CATEGORIZE PHASE THREE: As this report has made clear, vacant schools are never identical and, in many cases, not even particularly similar. School buildings’ marketability will vary dramatically depending on location, building type and condition, and a plethora of other factors working with and against each other to shape the hyper-local real estate markets in which these schools are embedded. To simplify an incredibly complex data set, closed and closing schools can be “bucketed” into strong, medium, and weak markets, based on information obtained during the first two phases of the disposition process. Schools in strong markets are likely to be in good physical condition, and located near high-traffic transit nodes or major institutions or employers. Schools in middle markets are likely to be more difficult to sell, suffering from a more remote location, a difficult building typology or condition, or some other mitigating factor. Finally, schools in weak markets are likely to be located in low-income or low-capacity neighborhoods, which may be struggling already to cope with significant vacancy and blight. Each of these “buckets” will require a different approach and level of intervention from the Task Force and other actors, shaping the work which will occur during the next disposition phase. This will significantly complicate the SDP’s current process, but we feel that such complication can be easily justified: while it works for the “hottest” properties or those with a single keen buyer, the current one-size-fits-all system is not sufficiently effective when it comes to schools in middling and weaker markets. At such sites, a new approach will be necessary.

PHASE FOUR: Once “bucketed,” the 32 schools would move forward along three distinct but articulated pathways, all terminating at the same point: successful and productive reuse.

Strong market sites would be marketed using a modified version of the SDP’s existing broker-sale process, incorporating market research and community input from the first two disposition phases into a more targeted RFP than has been issued in the past. The SDP has successfully disposed of some of its more marketable properties using this process, and its tight budget will benefit from the proceeds generated by any sales.

Middle and weak market sites would embark on a very different journey indeed. These sites would be handled by the Task Force – in other words, by the SDP acting in concert with other public agencies to marshal all the City’s resources behind their sale and reuse. First, title to these properties would be transferred from the SDP to the City, under a cost- and revenue-sharing agreement that would ensure the buildings are secured and maintained throughout the process. Next, the Task Force would perform a more detailed visioning exercise for each site, framing how each school proceeds through the rest of this phase. Middle market sites are not impossible sales: in fact, with some public incentives attached, these buildings may attract significant buyer interest. The Task Force’s primary role at these sites would be to create bundled public financing packages designed to advance the vision set for each closed school; PRA, PIDC, or another agency (as appropriate) would

Weak market sites, on the other hand, may not attract any private developer attention, however creativelyfinanced the attached incentive packages may be. Barring significant changes to local real estate market dynamics, these sites’ only logical reuse is likely to be in the provision of civic or social services. A public developer, such as the Philadelphia Housing Authority, could incorporate one or more of the sites into its development plans if the sites were conveniently located; alternatively, a non-profit organization may be interested in purchasing the sites via dollar-sales, repurposing them into community-serving venues. This approach has already been pursued successfully at some existing closed school sites, with the former Roberto Clemente School in North Philadelphia most recently sold to the multi-service organization Esperanza for $1. Other weak market sites, however, may simply be unusable in their present form. Building condition, site contamination, or other factors may render these facilities unviable for even non-market uses, requiring demolition and site-grading or even remediation. Though difficult to face, this situation may well be the reality at some or even many of these sites, and decisions regarding demolition are better made sooner rather than later, sparing neighboring communities the psychological and socioeconomic effects of long-term vacancy and the potential trauma associated with a fire, building collapse, or other tragedy. Demolition decisions should not be made lightly, nor should “demolition” always mark the end of the road for these properties. Some school sites are located in neighborhoods significantly lacking in open space, a deficiency which numerous Philadelphia planning documents have attempted to address. Demolition at these sites should be coupled

POLICY

45

POLICY

REUSE

then move these properties through a modified version of their conventional RFQ/RFP process, with those creative public financing packages attached to the schools and available to any qualified bidder.

PROPOSED POLICY: Framework PROPOSED POLICY: Framework 2013 MAY

JUN

JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

MAR

APR

SDP MAINTAINS

IMMEDIATE SALE POTENTIAL

LIST PROPERTY

SALE via BROKER

REV

RFQ / RFP

MOTHBALL / REUSE CERTIFIED APPRAISAL

SITE ANALYSIS [SDP BUCKETING}

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

ASSESS COMMUNITY INPUT

CONVENE TASK FORCE

REQ. TF SUPPORT

SITE ANALYSIS

TRANSFER TITLE SALE/TRANSFER to PUBLIC REQUIRES PROPERTY ADDITIONAL SUPPORT

ANALYZE ENGAGE DECIDE REUSE PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

CREATIVE FINANCING PACKAGE

/

PUBL

2014 APR

MAY

JUN

2015 JUL

AUG

SEP

OCT

NOV

DEC

JAN

FEB

POLICY

POLICY

REVIEW BID PACKAGES

SRC APPROVAL

$$ SALE $$

RFQ / RFP

TASK FORCE REVIEWS BIDS

AGREEMENT of SALE

NO BIDS

ASSIGN SALE MGR. [PRA/PIDC] MODIFY PRA/PIDC PROCESS /

PUBLIC INCENTIVES

$$ SALE $$

AGREEMENT of SALE

NO BIDS

PUBLIC or CIVIC USE

PROGRAMMED SPACE

PARKS & REC [URBAN AG or RECREATION]

DEMO + SITE GRADING PASSIVE SPACE

PHS

[OPEN SPACE]

TBD

[LAND BANK]

DEED TO PHA

DEED TO CDC /NON PROFIT

POLICY

3

POLICY

47

PREVIOUSLY REUSED SCHOOLS IN PHILADELPHIA

Photo Credit: PMC Property Group

Former Wister School, now a police forensics lab.

Photo Credit: JoAnn Greco, PlanPhilly

Former Board of Education building, now condominiums and offices.

Former Hawthorne School, now Hawthorne Lofts.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Proceeds from the sale of middle and weak market sites would not revert wholly to the SDP, as some percentage of the eventual revenue from sales would be diverted to compensate the City and Task Force agencies for carrying costs associated with the additional attention these buildings received. In fact, maintenance costs, as many readers may have noted, will actually be a huge and heretofore unaddressed factor in Task Force operations. As implied above, these costs will not be new or in any way introduced by the more progressive approach to school disposition we are recommending; without the implementation of such an approach, in fact, the SDP is likely to shoulder these costs alone and over a much longer period of time, as many schools remain unsold and demolition difficult or even impossible to finance. Task Force operations, including even a small staff and of course any large-scale public engagement process, will also need to be budgeted for, a difficult ask from a school district already seeking significant financial assistance from City government. Less obvious but potentially even more costly is the price that the City, SDP, and the neighbors of these closed and closing buildings - roughly one-third of all Philadelphians - would be forced to pay were even a fraction of these 32 buildings to remain vacant. Vacancy and blight already cost the City $20 million annually in maintenance costs, a major drain on tax revenues at a time when every penny counts. Paying for the costs associated with school closures is not optional; the only choice is between paying for school vacancy, and paying for a process that moves school buildings back into productive and often tax-paying reuse. We propose that the City of Philadelphia conduct a dedicated bond issue - modeled on, but significantly smaller than, the Mayor John Street administration’s Neighborhood Transformation Initiative bond issue - to cover the cost of this approach to school disposition. A bond issue would not represent more debt for debt’s sake, but rather an investment in Philadelphia’s future, and a solid promise to

Philadelphians that their City is going to put its all into not just moving closed school sites to market, but moving them back into productive and community-serving, job-creating, quality-of-life-enriching uses. No matter how much time and money is directed at the problem, however, some school sites may simply disappoint, failing to generate bids through either the strong or middle market processes. In such cases, Task Force members must acknowledge that neither their market research nor any “gut feeling” they may have about the building has been borne out by the market; properties which are not disposed of via either of the top two tiers of the proposed disposition process can and should move steadily through the lower tiers. In other words, properties which cannot be moved through traditional broker sale should migrate downwards into the Task Force sale process, and properties which cannot be sold with financial incentives attached should be considered weak market properties requiring public intervention, public redevelopment, or publicly-funded demolition. It is not necessarily important that the Task Force correctly bucket every school on its first try; what is important is that each school is followed all the way through the process, ensuring that none of the 32 are abandoned and allowed to serve as a large and lasting negative influence on nearby neighbors’ quality-of-life. We recognize that these recommendations are ambitious, but ambition will be necessary if many of these properties are to become anything other than blighting influence on their surroundings. Philadelphia is faced with a huge challenge, but also with an opportunity to become a national leader in the area of closed school disposition and reuse, and to turn around a problem that could depress future investment in large swathes of the city’s neediest regions. Transforming this challenge into an opportunity is both an economic and a moral imperative, and we believe that the City of Philadelphia possesses the talent, forethought and capacity to emerge from the current school closure crisis stronger, more united, and more prosperous.

POLICY

49

POLICY

with redevelopment as community-serving park or recreation space, with stormwater management infrastructure and other “green” interventions incorporated when and where possible. Thus, even after the buildings themselves are long gone, these school sites can continue to serve and enrich the communities in which they have long been located.

4

INTRODUCTION..................................... 52 STRONG MARKET/BROKER................... 58 FAIRHILL............................................... 60 GERMANTOWN + FULTON..................... 66 SHERIDAN WEST.................................. 72 VAUX + REYNOLDS............................... 78 WEAK MARKET/CIVIC USE................... 84

SITE REUSE

SITE REUSE

APPLYING OUR RECOMMENDATIONS Following more than two months of independent research, careful attention to local news coverage, discussions with the School District of Philadelphia’s (SDP) Department of Real Property Management, and intense discussion of what a hypothetical disposition policy might look like, we tested how this policy might be implemented. Running all of the closed and closing schools through a carefully-constructed quantitative model to forecast potential land use suitability, and simultaneously visiting all of the sites to compare and confirm our research findings with the model’s recommendations, we assigned each of the 32 sites to a category, or “bucket,” corresponding to its market range, as described on the following pages, before proceeding to work through potential reuse strategies for a limited number of these sites. Whilst attempting to model potential reuse scenarios at these sites, we were able to confirm our immediate intuition that analysis of closed and closing schools should focus on far more than simply economic factors. In order to truly understand what made the area around each school site “tick,” we looked at physical conditions and social capital, and examined equity concerns including environmental quality and access to open space or recreational amenities. The results of this more nuanced analysis differed dramatically from those which would have been achieved using only economic and financial factors to look at each school site, and provided a more holistic view of each location’s unique surroundings.

MECHANICS OF THE QUANTITATIVE MODEL We constructed the model to evaluate sites according to a multibottom line approach, which provided us with a comprehensive initial assessment of each site’s market potential within three market categories: strong, middle, and weak. The model included five primary categories of indicators: economic, social capital, equity, environmental, and physical condition (see following page). This enabled us to evaluate sites in a comprehensive manner . To categorize the sites according to their varying marketing potential, we established different indicator thresholds for different markets. For example, affordable housing market potential was considered to be appropriate for areas with median home values and median household incomes lower than Philadelphia’s

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

The studio group visited William Penn High School and other closing schools to confirm neighborhood conditions. average, less than five percent population growth, a percentage of residents within one half-mile of the site living below the federal poverty line that was higher than Philadelphia’s average, and with population growth for residents over age 65 living within one half-mile of the site that was greater than Philadelphia’s average growth for this age cohort. We conducted the same process for five categories - market rate housing, light industrial or manufacturing, hub and office space, child care, and areas in need of open space or recreational opportunities. Each indicator threshold corresponded to varying point levels, such that sites ultimately received an overall score. Natural break points in these total scores were aligned with the three general market strength categories. While the model results provided insight into the general marketability of each site, further on-the-ground analysis was needed in order to confirm the model results with reality.

SITE REUSE

VISUALIZING & OPERATIONALIZING OUR VALUES

- PROXIMITY TO RCOs

SOCIAL CAPITAL

CON

NT AL

A

SIC

AL

TY EQUI

PHY

- BUILDING AGE - SDP CONDITION INDEX

LYSIS MOD NA

EL

ECONOM IC

- HOUSEHOLD VALUE - INCENTIVE ZONES

DITIO N

E N VIR

O

E NM

- H.M.D.A. DATA - ACCESS TO TRANSPORTATION

- PERMEABLE SURFACE - PROXIMITY TO GREEN SPACE

The model incorporates five primary categories of indicators.

IMAGE OF MODEL ON THIS SPREAD - MAYBE SCREENSHOT OF EXCEL?

This snapshot shows a portion of the model, which was constructed in Excel.

SITE REUSE

53

MODEL RESULTS FOR SCHOOL MARKET CATEGORIES

!! !

!

! !

!

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

! !!

!

! ! !! !! ! !

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

!!

MODEL RESUULTS: SCHOOL MARKET CATEGORIES STRONG MARKET MIDDLE MARKET WEAK MARKET

icon appears in the policy framework on pages 46-47). At this point, sites would generally be identified as being marketable via the SDP’s broker sales process, or requiring further attention from the Task Force, in order to inform discussions during the community engagement process. The model would be utilized again, after sites were assigned to the Task Force, in order to distinguish those sites in middle market areas that could be marketed through PRA’s or PIDC’s RFP process, from those in the weakest markets that would be given to a non-profit or public entity for a non market-driven use. In attempting to imagine what possibilities existed for some of the SDP’s most challenging assets, we ran several schools through a (significantly condensed) simulation of the Task Force site analysis and disposition process. Our model offered us a starting point for

INITIAL FINDINGS: 38% OF SITES ARE IN TRANSITIONAL NEIGHBORHOODS 6% OF SITES ARE NEAR ANCHOR INSTITUTIONS OR UNIVERSITIES 10% SITES ARE REMOTE AND/OR DIFFICULT TO ACCESS 25% OF SITES ARE LOCATED ALONG COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS

“bucketing” the school sites, which we followed up with site visits. We visited the closed or closing schools over the course of several weeks, exploring their surroundings, and acquiring a more nuanced sense of each site’s neighborhood characteristics. Looking at sites in further detail enabled us to get a sense of those assets from which a school could draw in order to be positioned appropriately within the market. Assets could include strong community organizational capacity, proximity to a transit stop, and proximity to open space. These visits provided an important check against an overreliance on a well-constructed, but still-fallible model, to test its recommendations with reality and put them into a larger context.

CASE STUDY SELECTION FROM MODEL RESULTS In order to maximize the value of this report to the City and SDP officials, as well as to community members and community groups hoping to stimulate the productive reuse of schools in their area, we focused our site case studies (detailed in the following pages) on schools from both the middle and weak market buckets, and from a wide variety of different neighborhood types. These site case studies should be considered illustrative rather than prescriptive or in any way restrictive: it is our deeply-held conviction that all closed schools should be reused in such a way as to balance market- and community-driven concerns while advancing citywide goals - not to serve the particular agenda of any group or lobby. The important lesson of these case studies is not that these particular reuse strategies are possible, but that a very wide variety of reuses can and should be considered and pursued. Closed schools need not and should not sit vacant, acting as blighting influences on any of Philadelphia’s neighborhoods; reuse is possible, whatever the market, and should be pursued actively.

19% OF SITES ARE LOCATED IN HIGHVACANCY OR DISINVESTMENT ZONES SITE REUSE

55

SITE REUSE

In practice, a quantiative analysis tool akin to the model would be utilized during the initial site analysis phase to “bucket” properties according to their general marketability (at the points where the

CASE STUDY SITES SELECTED FROM MODEL RESULTS

GERMANTOWN/ FULTON

! !

STANTON

FAIRHILL

! !

BEEBER

!

SHERIDAN WEST

!

VAUX/ !REYNOLDS UNIVERSITY/ DREW

! BOK

!

! !

PEPPER/ COMM TECH

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

MODEL RESUULTS: SCHOOL MARKET CATEGORIES STRONG MARKET MIDDLE MARKET WEAK MARKET

BOK

DREW

SITE REUSE

Photo Credit: Alan Jaffe, PlanPhilly

UNIVERSITY CITY

FAIRHILL

GERMANTOWN/FULTON

SHERIDAN WEST

VAUX/REYNOLDS

BEEBER-WYNNEFIELD

PEPPER/COMM TECH

Photo Credit: Office of the Controller, City of Philadelphia

STANTON

SITE REUSE

57

STRONG MARKET/BROKER SITE EXAMPLES In 2012, the SDP used a process to sell 12 properties that involved brokers through a RFQ/RFP process.

BOK

The SDP used three local real estate brokers to move the properties, which included both schools and service buildings. Each broker was given a bundle of four properties to sell. These properties ranged in marketability from weak to strong markets. The solicitation for each of the 12 properties was structured as a two-stage process consisting of a RFQ, used to pre-qualify and determine the qualifications and capacity of individuals or organizations who wished to purchase and use the properties, followed by a RFP, used to select the best bids for each of the properties listed. BOK TECHNICAL HIGH SCHOOL

An evaluation committee comprised of various stakeholders then reviewed the proposals on a range of criteria, including economic feasibility and context sensitivity to the neighborhood. This committee then selected the proposals that best met these criteria, awarding the bidders with the property in an agreement of sale.

Edward W. Bok Technical High School, located in South Philadelphia, sits is in the middle of a traditionally working class and stable community.

The broker-led disposition process led to the successful sale of the six of the 12 buildings. However, representatives from the SDP noted that overall, the process had some flaws. The SDP received fewer bids than anticipated for many properties, and found that many bids were similar to one another.

This area has seen major investment over the past decade and is up-and-coming; the redevelopment of Passyunk Avenue west of Broad Street has spurred the influx of young adults in the nearby communities. As the real estate market continues to strengthen, the school site is uniquely positioned to assist the neighborhood’s continued growth.

The properties sold were those in the strongest real estate markets; the broker process failed to attract interest for difficult sites or for those in weaker markets. This demonstrates that the broker process worked best for the most marketable sites. Thus, the proposed policy framework suggests maintaining a process similar to the soliticitation used in 2011, for those properties in stronger markets. The framework recommends modifying this process slightly by combining the RFQ and RFP processes into one, and streamlining the time frame.

Despite these positive market forces, the potential reuse of Bok will by no means be easy. Bok is an extremely large building; the structure occupies a full block and reaches eight stories high at points. The juxtaposition of the school against its surrounding neighborhood, comprised primarily of densely packed twostory rowhouses, makes Bok seem even larger than it is. The size and density of Bok make it unclear what redevelopment opportunities exist.

It is through this lens that buildings in strong markets were examined, noting the specific challenges that may still exist in selling and repurposing (Bok) or on possible best practices for reuses that benefit both developers and the community (University City and Drew).

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

While there has been increased residential demand around Bok, it is unlikely that there is enough demand to convert the school solely into housing. This stresses the point that poor building design may prove to be a greater challenge than weak market location for some buildings.

SITE REUSE

UNIVERSITY CITY HIGH SCHOOL

Photo Credit: Alan Jaffe, PlanPhilly

UNIVERSITY CITY/DREW

DREW ELEMENTARY

The Charles Drew School and University City High School Promise Academy offer a redevelopment opportunity to create a nexus between the community of West Philadelphia and large anchor institutions of higher education nearby, such as the University of Pennsylvania, the University of the Sciences, and Drexel University. The community has historically been harmed by institutional developments, and there are growing concerns about displacement associated with the gentrification and encroachment of the institutions. If properly redeveloped with a reinvestment and stabilization strategy that seeks to add academic, economic, and social enrichment, both the nearby institutions and community may benefit. The institutional partners should examine developments that support neighborhood investment. Three opportunities arise: 1) Repurposing the schools for community workshops or other neighborhood assets, such as neighborhood-serving retail or small scale facilities, such as day care, pre-kindergarten, or arts space. This would act as a gradient between the large institutions and the neighboring communities, and would generate foot-traffic and keep this area lively. Additionally, this approach would provide local jobs and opportunities, and would keep the neighborhood from losing control of two strong community spaces. 2) Redeveloping the schools with a focus on procurement for the nearby institutions. This would result in new business opportunities and provide an economic benefit to the neighborhood, as the nearby institutions purchase an aggregate of billions in goods and services annually. Prventing leakage outside of the neighborhood by sourcing these goods locally would generate jobs and a direct benefit for the neighborhood. Some examples of business opportunities include food processing, uniform manufacturing, or scientific and medical supply shops. 3) Developing these sites as institutional extensions, with space reserved for neighborhood-serving programming. This could include a library, a community theater, or activities such as workshops and job training, run by local community development corporations. Building this partnership could lead to additional institutional involvement and long-term neighborhood vitality. The redevelopment of these two schools into community-serving spaces can add both economic and social value. By leveraging strategic investment and capacity building, the redevelopment of Drew and University City can be an asset to the neighborhood and lead to economic opportunity for the community.

SITE REUSE

59

CASE STUDY: FAIRHILL LINDSEY GAEL + LIZA WALLIS

FAIRHILL SITE STATISTICS YEAR BUILT: 1968 BUILDING SIZE: FAIRHILL SCHOOL: 74, 725 SF ADMINISTRATION BUILDING: 17, 280 SF PARCEL SIZE: 2.74 ACRES FACILITY CONDITION (FCI): 0.253 PROPOSED USE: MEDICAL CLINIC & TRAINING FACILITY AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING WORKFORCE TRAINING CENTER RECREATION FIELD & CENTER

FAIRHILL SCHOOL: 601 W SOMERSET ST

CONTEXT FOR REUSE The following reuse proposal for the Fairhill School site is driven by the existing, bordering land uses and the neighborhood dynamics that surround it. It is intended to be context-sensitive and truly meet resident needs, as supported by a better understanding of the Fairhill neighborhood’s development over time, its current household and resident demographics, and the dynamics that are influencing local changes. Fairhill, located in eastern north Philadelphia, was not always the Puerto Rican enclave that it is today. The neighborhood was initially established as a Quaker burial ground in the early 1700s.i It did not become residential in nature until a wealthy Quaker merchant, Isaac Norris, constructed his estate, known as “Fairhill,” in the area in 1718.ii A Quaker community grew up around the estate, and became more established throughout the 18th and 19th centuries.iii In the early 1900s, numerous industrial jobs along the rail lines running through Fairhill encouraged African Americans moving up from the south during the Great Migration to settle in the neighborhood.iv In the 1930s, industrial jobs began attracting Puerto Rican immigrants to the area.v Since this time, Fairhill has

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

evolved into an established Latino neighborhood in Philadelphia.iv Currently, two-thirds of the people living within one-half-mile of the Fairhill School identify as Hispanic or Latino.vii Fairhill’s population has been declining steadily, while also becoming increasingly elderly.viii Although the half-mile area surrounding Fairhill School has lost one-quarter of its overall population since 1990, the age bracket that includes residents over age 65 increased by almost 20 percent during this time period.ix Those households remaining in the area are predominantly lowincome. In 2009, households living with a half-mile of the Fairhill School earned a median income of $12,083, which is significantly below Philadelphia’s 2009 household median income of $37,000.x In total, 60 percent of households living within a half-mile of the Fairhill School live in poverty.xi Compounding the negative effects of high poverty rates within the neighborhood, Fairhill residents’ educational attainment is significantly lower than the average Philadelphia resident - 36 percent of residents earned a high school diploma or General Equivalency Diploma, as compared to the City average of 63 percent.xii Less than 10 percent of residents attended college, with less than five percent earning either an Associate’s or Bachelor’s degree.xiii The neighborhood’s physical characteristics have shaped, and

The rail lines also prevent investment from pushing downward from the north. Lehigh Avenue, the neighborhood’s southern border, does not function as such a barrier and would not bar development pressure from extending into Fairhill from Temple University’s expansion plans and the Asociación de Puerroriqueños en Marcha’s (APM) community development efforts. Like Lehigh Avenue, Germantown Avenue is not a concrete barrier to either investment or activity; however, it demarcates significant demographic differences between the areas to the east versus the west. Two-thirds of residents living in the portion of Fairhill that lies to the west of Germantown Avenue are African-American while two-thirds of residents living to the east identify as Hispanic or Latino.xv While Germantown Avenue previously attracted activity

and investment from the east and west, its strength has waned in recent years.xvi The Philadelphia Department of Commerce and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission have developed an investment plan to strengthen this commercial corridor, which could reinvigorate the Avenue and its ability to serve as a bridge once again.xvii The community organizations in Fairhill operate on a place-based nature, such that investments are targeted within defined areas. Recent investments include a new headquarters building for Congreso, a local, high-capacity community organization; affordable housing developments sponsored by the Women’s Community Revitalization Project (WCRP); The Village of Arts and Humanities’ investment activity; and corridor improvements along 5th Street, also known as El Centro de Oro, or the Golden Block, which is a prominent Latino commercial corridor in Philadelphia. Investments that are currently underway include the City’s economic development plans along Germantown Avenue, and the new shopping center and senior housing development, “Edison Square,” being constructed at the old Thomas Edison School site between 7th St and 8th St, fronting Lehigh Avenue.xviii

NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT MAP

SITE REUSE

61

SITE REUSE

continue to influence, the neighborhood dynamics mentioned above. Fairhill’s northern boundaries are clearly delineated by two active rail lines, and an abandoned rail line, the Lehigh Viaduct, that runs along its northeastern edge. While the City of Philadelphia’s Office for Community Development has begun considering the Viaduct’s reuse potential as a community asset, formalized investment plans do not yet exist, and the site remains a haven for crime and illegal activity.xiv

CASE STUDY: FAIRHILL

EXISTING CONDITIONS 2

1

1

Existing Blacktop

Fairhill School

2

3 3

<<< W. SOMERSET AVENUE

4

4

5 Administration Building

Retention Basin

8 6

7

<<<LEHIGH AVENUE >>>

5

6

Old Thomas Edison School

7

Abandoned Pump House

8

Lillian Marrero Library

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Abandoned Firehouse

Mirroring the targeted nature of investment in the area, residents tend to congregate in select locations around the neighborhood. One of the most prominent gathering places is along 5th Street. Residents also tend to gather near transportation stops, such as the North Broad Street stop on the Broad Street line, and the number 23 bus stop at Germantown Avenue and Lehigh Avenue. The neighborhood library, the Lillian Marrero Library, is another location where residents of all ages gather. With Internet access and a Community Food Center in its basement, the library offers many reasons for residents to visit. This proposal seeks to recognize the barriers facing the neighborhood, while building on its many assets - both in terms of physical investment and social fabric - in order to contribute positively to the neighborhoodâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s future. In doing so, reusing this site can ideally help contribute positively toward the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s goals, as stated in its comprehensive plan, and regarding public open space.

story administration building. To facilitate reuse of the site, it is recommended that the parcel initially be divided into two distinct parcels (see Appendix X). Additionally, the parcel’s southern edge is adjacent to both underutilized and abandoned large-scale, public infrastructure (see “Nearby Uses” above), which could limit the positive impacts generated by new development at the Fairhill School site. Therefore, this proposal recommends repurposing these public assets concurrently with new development at the school site.

The ultimate goal of this proposal is to reinvigorate the civic uses directly to the south of the site and generate synergies that extend beyond the site’s immediate boundaries by building on the strong social fabric and organizational capacity of neighborhood organizations, as well as recent, nearby investment activity in the neighborhood.

Recognizing the lack of housing options for seniors, and Fairhill’s growing senior-age population, one component of this reuse proposal includes senior housing. Part of the Edison Square development on the old Thomas Edison school site will include 60 units of affordable, senior housing, but this is the only new apartment development that has occurred in the neighborhood in the past three years, and apartment vacancy rates are currently at five percent.xix As noted above, the building’s interior and exterior would require significant rehabilitation in order to accommodate apartment units. In total, rehabilitating the school’s top three floors could allow for 46, 700-square foot apartments units. Given the neighborhood’s high poverty rates, it is recommended that these units be affordable, and targeted toward those earning annual wages in lower income brackets. The units would ideally be targeted toward seniors desiring assisted living accommodations, in an effort to distinguish this development from the nearby Edison Square units. Ideally, a well-established, experienced affordable housing developer in Philadelphia (e.g. Pennrose, Diamond, WCRP) would construct the units, and a local service provider would operate the site.

The unique challenges inherent in both the building design, the parcel layout, and the site’s neighboring uses are guiding reasons behind selecting the Fairhill School site for closer examination. While the building’s first floor contains an adaptable layout (including a large gymnasium and cafeteria), the top three floors include large, triangular rooms, and very few windows. Significant rehabilitation is therefore required for many reuse options. The parcel itself is L-shaped, including both the Fairhill School and a separate, two-

Building on the concentration of seniors both at the Fairhill School site and at the nearby Thomas Edison redevelopment, as well as the strength of the medical field as a sector within Philadelphia, the current administration building could be converted into a medical clinic and training facility. The building currently has two floors, the top floor of which could be used for training purposes, while the bottom floor could be used as exam room space. The clinic would offer a

<<< W. SOMERSET AVENUE

<<<LEHIGH AVENUE >>>

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

SITE REUSE

63

SITE REUSE

REUSE PROPOSAL

CASE STUDY: FAIRHILL

SITE PROGRAM COMMERCIAL: 52,280 SF MEDICAL CLINIC: 17,280 SF WORKFORCE TRAINING CENTER: 35,000 SF HOUSING: 49,056 SF RECREATION: 78,229 SF TOTAL COST: $24,262,109 FINANCING PARTNERS/SOURCES (TOP 3): DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (FEDERAL) PHILADELPHIA INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT CORP. POSSIBLE SERVICE PARTNERS: CONGRESO DE LATINOS UNIDOS TEMPLE UNIVERSITY MAYOR’S OFFICE OF REINTEGRATION SERVICES FOR EX-OFFENDERS (RISE) significant benefit to the nearby senior housing developments, as on-site medical care access is significantly cheaper than off-site services.xx The training facility could focus on nurse aide training, a profession which is a good entry point into the healthcare industry for those without a college degree, and which would align well with Philadelphia’s current job market. It is recommended that a certified institution or program establish a formal partnership with the clinic and offer on-site courses. Temple is an ideal candidate to fill this role, as they have an established and reputable School of Nursing, and they are located close to Fairhill. In addition to offering a nurse aide training program, this proposal recommends constructing a 35,000 square foot workforce training center on the school’s existing blacktop. It is recommended that the center be structured primarily as a prisoner re-entry training center, and secondarily as a general training center for local residents. Despite its controversial nature, providing this programming opportunity in this area is vital, as proportionally, Fairhill has one of the highest incarceration rates in the City of Philadelphia. xxi Based on conversations with previous ex-offender employers, existing training models, and prisoner re-entry research, it is recommended that the center’s training focus on entrepreneurship and Information

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Technology.xxii Prisoner re-entry training and/or housing programs are not often located in the communities they serve. By locating a training center in the center of Fairhill, with its existing high incarceration rates, this program would set a precedent and could serve as a replicable model in other cities. It is recommended that a local, established organization, operate this facility. Congreso de Latinos Unidos, a well-established, high-capacity community organization in Fairhill currently offers workforce training, and could potentially serve as the center’s operator. Although Fairhill offers numerous cultural and artistic opportunities for both adult and youth residents, the closest sports field is over one-half mile away, and the neighborhood lacks a designated neighborhood space - something akin to a village green - where all residents can gather informally. To fulfill both of these needs, the southern portion of the site could be dedicated to recreation opportunities that could be constructed over time in a phased development approach. In the short-term, the closed retention basin could be converted to a soccer field, with stadium seating built into the existing basin walls. The Philadelphia Water Department acknowledges that it is cost-prohibitive to raze the basin entirely, and that identifying an adaptive reuse is preferable.xxiii The first floor of the school is currently a gym and auditorium, and could be modernized to offer indoor recreation opportunities for both the community and the seniors. One advantage of programming the site such that it includes senior housing on the school’s top floors, overlooking the recreation field, is that it allows for “eyes on the street.” This can help add an element of safety and contribute positively to strengthening the neighborhood’s existing social fabric. The second phase, proposed over the long-term, includes converting the old Pump House into an indoor recreation space. The Pump House’s interior is free span, and open from floor to ceiling; therefore, the building would not require significant renovation in order to be adapted as an interior recreation center with a basketball court. The abandoned firehouse could ultimately be redeveloped as public restroom facilities, as well as a field house to store equipment. By proposing a variety of uses that cater to residents from a variety of ages, the site could ideally be activated 24-7. Ultimately, it could then spawn additional development activity in the neighborhood.

SITE REUSE 3-D PERSPECTIVE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONCLUSION While redeveloping the Fairhill School site can directly benefit Fairhill residents, it also offers an opportunity to generate positive impacts on a larger scale by connecting with, and supporting larger, citywide initiatives. Currently, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission is writing the City’s comprehensive plan, Philadelphia 2035, which is centered on three themes: thrive, connect, renew. Many of the ideas included in the proposal above can link to these themes. For example, reactivating the underutilized civic uses to the south of the school site (including the retention basin, the pump house, and the abandoned firehouse) can help support the City’s theme of “renew,” part of which focuses on activating the public realm. Additionally, the proposal’s approach of building off of existing neighborhood assets, relates to the Plan’s “thrive” theme, and specifically its desire to focus on neighborhood-level development. Philadelphia is also working to improve the quality of its natural environment, and has undertaken a number of planning initiatives to help achieve its environmental goals. The adaptive reuse of

the retention basin connects with two of these plans: Greenworks Philadelphia and Green City, Clean Waters. Greenworks Philadelphia aims to add 500 new acres of publicly accessible green space to the City by 2015.xxiv By repurposing the basin as a recreation area, its 1.2 acres can contribute positively toward achieving this goal. The Philadelphia Water Department’s initiative, Green City, Clean Waters, focuses on enhancing the City’s stormwater and green infrastructure.xxv Redeveloping the basin with an adequate stormwater infiltration system would further support the City’s environmental goals. In addition to these specific initiatives, redeveloping the Fairhill School site in a timely manner would ensure that it does not contribute further to the City’s existing vacancy problem, or generate blighting affects on nearby properties. Regardless of how it is ultimately redeveloped and programmed, the Fairhill School site has the potential to serve as a catalyst for new activity within the neighborhood, and to contribute positively toward achieving greater, citywide goals.

SITE REUSE

65

CASE STUDY: GERMANTOWN + FULTON SARA BRANDT-VOREL + DANIEL RHINE

GERMANTOWN SITE STATISTICS YEAR BUILT: 1914 PARCEL SIZE: 6.4 ACRES BUILDING SIZE: 350,000 SF FACILITY CONDITION (FCI): 0.2529 PROPOSED USE: SENIOR APARTMENTS SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING COMMUNITY GYM CONTINUING EDUCATION ART CLASSROOMS

GERMANTOWN HS: 40 E. HIGH ST. CONTEXT FOR REUSE Once the heart of a strong vibrant neighborhood, Germantown High School and Fulton Elementary School will close their doors after the 2013 school year. While the buildings may have outlived their use as schools, they retain the ability to bring new life and commercial activity to the community. Located six miles northeast of downtown Philadelphia, Germantown is a historic neighborhood founded in 1683 by a group of German families. The neighborhood grew until it was incorporated into the City of Philadelphia in 1854. The area’s historic origins are well documented, and Germantown has numerous colonial homes and sites listed on the National and Local Registerof Historic Places. During the 1900s, Germantown grew in wealth and importance as a middle class suburb, fueled by Philadelphia’s industrial economy. The original Germantown HS building was constructed in 1914, with additions added in later years. Fulton ES was constructed in 1937 to serve younger children in the neighborhood. Germantown Avenue was a strong commercial corridor, serviced by a regular trolley which connected Germantown to downtown

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Philadelphia in the South and wealthier neighborhoods to the North. However, the Germantown community faced decline and disinvestment during the “white flight” of the 1950s and deindustrialization of Philadelphia. The struggles of Germantown HS are a reflection of the larger community. Germantown HS experienced a declining student enrollment, reduced building utilization, consistently low test scores, and persistently dangerous conditions. Paired with a prohibitively expensive renovation cost, the School District slated the closure of both Germantown andFulton. The demographics of Germantown indicate a community that could either continue in a cycle of disinvestment, or with the right market forces and incentive packages, could bring Germantown back to a stronger middle class community. A former trolley line divides Germantown Ave into western and eastern neighborhoods. Looking at a half-mile radius around Germantown HS, the western side of the study area has higher educational attainment, higher home values, higher median incomes, lower vacancy rates and increasing population over the past ten years. Meanwhile, the eastern side of Germantown Ave has a strong family-based community with high homeownership rates but with lower educational attainment and financial mobility than its western counterpart. One goal of adapting the Germantown HS site would be a combined

SITE REUSE

FULTON SITE STATISTICS YEAR BUILT: 1937 PARCEL SIZE: 1.7 ACRES BUILDING SIZE: 60,800 SF FACILITY CONDITION (FCI): 0.3801 PROPOSED USE: MARKET RATE APARTMENTS ARTIST GALLERY SPACE

FULTON ES: 60 E. HAINES ST.

SITE REUSE

67

CASE STUDY: GERMANTOWN + FULTON

EXISTING CONDITIONS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

6

1 The historic main building of Germantown HS was primarily classroom space, along with the cafeteria and dining hall for the school, storage, and administrative spaces. 2 This wing historically contained classrooms, but as student enrollment declined at Germantown the wing was closed.

4

3

5

3 The Industrial Arts Building contained vocational classrooms and has an entrance onto E. Haines Street. 4 A gymnasium has two basketball courts on the upper floor and accompanying mens and womens locker rooms below.

1

5 Fulton ES contains all academic uses in one building. In addition to classrooms, cafeteria and kitchens, the school has a large auditorium. 2

6 Current park space owned by the City is poorly maintained as a baseball field.

GERMANTOWN + FULTON REUSE

mixed use development, which could pull the market strengthens of the western half of Germantown Ave into the strong neighborhood fabric that exists in the eastern side. The two school sites offer a unique repurposing opportunity due to their close proximity to each other and the large amount of space available: 416,172 square feet on a total of 8.1 acres. Their location in a stratified market and area assets, such as a strong transportation system, a blend of historic homes, and the remnants of a vibrant commercial corridor with connections to downtown Philadelphia provide a foundation for new uses at these sites.

A mixed-used development strategy to successfully utilize all available square footage and create community serving assets.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

SENIOR ASSISTED LIVING: 70 UNITS SENIOR INDEPENDENT LIVING: 24 UNITS GYMNASIUM SPACE: APROX. 18,500 SF ARTIST WORK SPACE: APROX. 34,000 SF ADULT EDUCATION CLASSROOMS: APROX. 25,000 SF MARKET RATE APARTMENTS & STUDIOS: 30 UNITS ESTIMATED TOTAL COST: $46,500,000 ASSISTED LIVING: $29,293,500 SENIOR INDEPENDENT AND GYM RENOVATION: $6,670,950 ARTISTS HOUSING AND WORKSPACE: $9,441,400 FINANCING PARTNERS/SOURCES (TOP 3): HUD SECTION 232 LOAN (ASSISTED LIVING) HISTORIC TAX CREDITS (ASSISTED LIVING + ARTIST HOUSING) LOW INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDITS (INDEPENDENT LIVING)

SITE REUSE

During community led meetings, most notably at a forum to discuss the future of Germantown HS, Philadelphia Councilwoman Cindy Bass indicated her office had received requests for the school to become senior housing, affordable housing, an art center, or retail educational uses to prepare residents for careers in emerging fields. With these ideas in mind a development proposal began to take shape that could preserve the historic buildings, along with some of their existing uses, while meeting the stated needs of the community and encouraging additional investment along Germantown Avenue.

NEW USES: GERMANTOWN HS- FIRST FLOOR

4

To gauge the viability of the proposals brought up during the Germantown Panel, a demographic analysis was undertaken which indicated a few strategic opportunities for the site. The first was an increasing population of residents 65 years or older, while the general population continued to decline. This statistic verified community comments of long waiting lists for existing senior facilities in the area. In addition, the educational attainment of residents within a five mile radius of the site varied drastically and indicated the need for continuing educational opportunities for nearby residents. And finally, new artist studio space directly across from Germantown HS, along with the success of other artist spaces in the City, served as a model for this site.

3

1

NEW USES: GERMANTOWN 2

1 This space would become a senior assisted living facility and contain about 70 units of private or shared rooms with roughly 23 per floor (seen in blue). Levels of medical care will increase as the building progresses upwards and each floor would contain a nurses station and related medical space (seen in green). A unique amenity for seniors and the community is the large theater (seen in red) on the first floor. This space would remain an active theater for residents of the facility, or could be opened to the public and host community-wide movie nights and events. 2 This building would become independent senior apartments and contain 24 one bedroom units with about 6 per floor and each unit has a kitchen and living room. Seniors in this building would have their own community with access to the amenities and services within the assisted living building. The wide hallways, roughly square classrooms, and large windows in the academic buildings easily lend themselves to a residential conversion of spacious one bedrooms full of natural light.

2a

2a This diagram, part of building two, gives a sense of the possible internal design of the independent senior apartments available in Germantown HS., each complete with a kitchen, bedroom, and bathroom.

SITE REUSE

69

Photo Credit: Penn State School of Visual Arts/FitExpress Inc

CASE CASESTUDY: STUDY GERMANTOWN - FAIRHILL + FULTON 3

ARTIST WORK SPACE + ADULT EDUCATION

4

ON-SITE GYM FOR SENIORS + COMMUNITY

NEW USES: FULTON

5

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

3 The four story Industrial Arts building currently has a blend of classrooms outfitted for vocational training and additional classroom space. The vocational classrooms and those on the first floor would be renovated as artist studios for projects requiring heavy equipment, such as stone carving, metal working or glassblowing. More traditional classroom space would maintain its use and provide continuing adult education classes to help local residents learn job skills in emerging industries, or be available for seniors on site to learn new skills. Remaining classrooms would become artist studios that do not require extensive outfitting. 4 The existing gym would remain an active gym facility for seniors living in the assisted living and independent apartments. This space would allow seniors to work out in a safe and easily accessible space. To serve the greater community, the gym facility could offer limited memberships for residents in the neighborhood with specific hours open to the public while the remainder of time was reserved for residents of the senior buildings.

NEW USES: FULTON 5 Fulton ES, directly across the street from Germantownâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Industrial Arts Building, could become market rate apartments geared towards artists. The building could contain 30 individual apartments, with 10 units per floor. This use would build synergy between the artist studios in the Industrial Arts Building across the street. Like Germantown, Fultonâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s classrooms lend themselves well to a residential conversion, and the high ceilings and natural light will be assets for residents who wish to use their apartments as artspace. The existing auditorium in Fulton (seen in red) would be utilized as a permanent gallery space for the resident artists of Fulton and a base from where they could sell their work. The existing parking around Fulton ES would be used for residents of the building, and for visitors of the gallery space. While this site plan does not propose changes to the existing baseball fields north of Fulton, it is hopeful that the additional investments in the area will encourage the City to update the fields. In addition, the influx of new residents at Germantown and Fulton will help strengthen the economic activity along Germantown Avenue by increasing demand for local serving restaurants and retail, and could catalyze additional redevelopment along the corridor.

Germantown HS and Fulton ES are in good condition, but due to the size of the existing buildings and associated renovation costs to convert classrooms into new uses, renovations would cost a fair amount. Further complicating the issue is the unique programing designed for the schools. For this program to work, it would take multiple developers with various skill sets and required financial returns to be successful. The developers would have to create an ownership structure, such as an agreement of understanding and a master lease, which stated uniform development guidelines for the entire site and how the smaller components would be developed in conjunction with an over arching vision. This agreement would also stipulate the phasing of construction, and shared financial and management contributions for shared space. Lastly, due to the high cost of renovation and a relatively weak market, complex financing including public incentives and grants will be necessary for this redevelopment to occur. Based on ballpark estimates, and a quote from a local developer, the Assisted Living Facility would cost $125 per square foot to renovate. This could be paid for mostly through a HUD Section 232 Loan, which is designed for the construction and renovation of nursing homes and assisted living facilities. Other funding would come from seeking historic tax credits for the main Germantown HS building and a necessary equity contribution. The affordable senior center and the gym could be financed together as one project. The independent senior living section has an estimated renovation cost of $150 per square foot. This cost is higher due to poorer condition of the annex which has been closed for several years. The gym, in better shape and requiring less invasive remodeling could be renovated for $45 per square foot. Both of these components would be financed through 4% LIHTC and the necessary tax-exempt loan or bond. Gap funding could come from the Affordable Housing Program award from a Federal Home Loan Bank as well as through a deferred developers fee. While it is conceivable that one developer would undertake the renovation of the prior senior related components, a separate entity,

such as an arts based or educationally based community group may redevelop the Industrial Arts Building as part of their organizational mission. The Industrial Arts Building would be a space from which they could operate, while the remaining components could be rented and become a revenue stream for the organization. The redevelopment of Fulton ES as market rate apartments would serve a similar function of serving as a revenue stream for the organization. It is estimated to cost about $100 per square foot to renovate the Fulton apartments and $50 per square foot for the Industrial Arts Building. Funding could come from Market rate loans, TRF subsidized commercial loans, equity contribution and various grants for the arts. More details can be found in the appendix.

CONCLUSION The adaptive reuse of Germantown HS and Fulton ES offers a unique opportunity to preserve two historic buildings, meet demonstrated community needs, and catalyze investment along a struggling commercial corridor. This proposal, while complicated, offers a unique combination of uses, and financing to create a new node of economic and residential activity along an historic corridor in Philadelphia. By modifying the interiors of Germantown HS and Fulton ES their historic facades will remain a part of the historic nature of the Germantown neighborhood. Their proposed uses are a context specific opportunity which allow the schools to remain a focal point of the local community and serve those in the neighborhood for another century. Instead of sitting vacant and increasing blight along Germantown Avenue, their transformation into a residential and educational center will bring new residents to the corridor and increase the demand for locally serving services and retail. By providing educational opportunities for local residents and seniors, the buildings will continue their mission of educating residents of Germantown; creating a well educated workforce who can be competitive in the 21st Century. And while lofty, the introduction of local art space will foster the growth of a creative class of residents who can bring new economic benefits to the community.

SITE REUSE

71

SITE REUSE

DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURE + FUNDING

CASE STUDY: SHERIDAN WEST ACADEMY PETER CHOMKO + ELANA TAUBMAN

SHERIDAN WEST SITE STATISTICS ORIGINAL NAME: GEORGE L HORN SCHOOL YEAR BUILT: 1902 BUILDING SIZE: 90,000 SF PARCEL SIZE: 0.82 ACRES DEMOLITION COST: $500,000 FACILITY CONDITION (FCI): 0.6052

3701 FRANKFORD AVENUE

PROPOSED USE: LOCAL FOOD HUB + AQUAPONICS + KOMBUCHA (TEA) “BREWERY” + MICRODISTILLERY COMMUNITY EDUCATION + EVENTS SHARED OFFICE + ADMINISTRATION SPACE

CONTEXT FOR REUSE The redevelopment proposal for the Sheridan West Academy builds on the unique industrial legacy of its surrounding neighborhood, the progressive outlook of new residents moving into the River Wards, and an engaging vision of Philadelphia as a sustainable and innovative twenty-first century city. Market rents for conventional uses in this neighborhood do not justify a conventional redevelopment strategy for Sheridan West, or for many other closed schools. In order to not sit vacant, these sites demands a more creative, contextualized, and out-of-the-box approach. Sheridan West is an important case study to demonstrate how one site can house a new use that builds community cohesion, generates revenue, and helps to advance many of Philadelphia’s citywide goals for the coming decades. Originally constructed in 1902 as the George L Horn Elementary School, Sheridan West is located at the intersection of Castor and Frankford Avenues in Port Richmond. Built to serve the growing working class population that lived along the Delaware River during the industrial era, the school changed with the neighborhood. Though it is over 110 years old today and listed on the National Register of Historic Places, recent renovations have enabled Sheridan West to continue to serve a population far more diverse than originally populated Port Richmond.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Today, Sheridan West sits at key juncture between dense, residential Port Richmond to the south and west and a variety of industrial and big-box retail land uses to the north and east. The school’s current zoning - half of the parcel is zoned residential, half industrial (see Appendix for furhter detail)- is the best illustration of its potential to play a keystone role in linking these disparate land uses. Sheridan West also sits at the nexus of several important transport routes. The site has good access to three major local arterials (Frankford, Castor and Aramingo Avenues), as well as to Interstate 95 and the Betsy Ross Bridge to New Jersey. The site is located within a block of two bus routes, and just half a mile from both the Tioga and Erie-Torresdale El stations. The Tioga Marine Terminal, just 1.5 miles to the southeast, is a major food distribution node for the East Coast. Port Richmond itself is a relatively stable, young, ethnically diverse, and growing neighborhood. Housing and land vacancy rates in the area are very low, distinguishing it from many other neighborhoods in Philadelphia’s Lower Northeast. Between 1990 and 2010, the surrounding area saw 8% population growth, which is projecte to continue.

The adaptable school building also presents opportunities for an innovative reuse. A four-story building with strong load-bearing floors and movable internal walls, the school is highly (physically) adaptable to any number of reuses. The site also presents some challenges, however, sitting in the midst of an asphalt sea, with no

green or permeable surfaces. Any reuse proposed for the site should both take advantage of its adaptable floorplate, and work to minimize the site’s environmental impact while maximizing its positive contribution to local community and economic development. Sheridan West’s reuse should not only satisfy those criteria, but should also strive to successfully merge characteristics of the two distinct land uses that meet at this site: small-scale residential to the south and west, and largescale industrial to the north and east. It should also seek to address the needs of Port Richmond’s current young families, while serving as a forward-looking catalyst for change, anticipating and preemptively responding to future neighborhood needs and ambitions. By embracing and addressing this site’s challenges and opportunities rather than turning away from them, an innovative redevelopment can serve as a demonstration for other sites which may require an unconventional approach or reuse strategy.

SHERIDAN WEST IN CONTEXT

SITE REUSE

73

SITE REUSE

Not only is the nearby population growing - it is also young, particularly in comparison to some of Philadelphia’s other remaining stable working-class neighborhoods. Almost 95% of the nearby population is under the age of 65, and approximately half are families with children. Although the neighborhood’s 2009 median income of roughly $25,500 is well below the Philadelphia median, its population has remained stable in the face of nearby gentrification without suffering the same level of decline seen in Kensington and other nearby neighborhoods. Several active CDCs in the area - including the high-capacity New Kensington CDC - make major contribution to local capacity, and may have helped to maintain some measure of neighborhood stability. These CDCs focus on development, food issues, vacancy remediation and sustainability.

CASE STUDY: SHERIDAN WEST

CURRENT SITE CONDITIONS

PROPOSED SITE PLAN

SHERIDAN WEST REUSE PROPOSAL

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Building on the work of local CDCs and non-profits with focuses on food and sustainability, as well as on Philadelphia’s emerging reputation as a hot-spot for green entrepreneurship, Sheridan West can be repurposed as a local Food Hub, with a focus on production, community, and education. With both productive and educational functions, the reused school could work as both a community center and an economic driver, building on Port Richmond’s industrial legacy but looking very clearly ahead into the twenty-first century. This proposal and demonstrates the possibility of a multi-tenant reuse strategy that includes shared commercial kitchen space, educational functions, food production (including aquaponic cultivation, kombucha production, and a microdistillery), and “green” public spaces that welcome neighbors into the sustainable food system, housed in a reused historic building. Sheridan West Food Hub’s size and diverse set of uses will allow a variety of stakeholders in the food production process, from growers to consumers, to meet and interact in a new and informative way. Moreover, its proximity to many schools in the Northeast and to a large family population will create opportunities for educational engagement, while good transit access will ensure streamlined distribution to local and regional markets.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

COMMERCIAL KITCHENS: 3,100 SF CAFE/EVENT SPACE: 3,600 SF OFFICE/ADMIN: 7,000 SF FOOD PRODUCTION: 13,300 SF Aquaponics 4,800 SF Kombucha production 2,100 SF Microdistillery 4,400 SF

TOTAL COST: $14,800,000 FINANCING PARTNERS/SOURCES (TOP 3): REDEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE CAPITAL PROGRAM

NEW MARKETS TAX CREDITS HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX CREDITS

In addition to stimulating sustainable community development and social entrepreneurship, this reuse can help to demonstrate what is possible in twenty-first century Philadelphia. It will help to foster a unique network of complementary businesses, new methods of production, small-scale processing facilities, gardens and “green” demonstration projects.

SITE REUSE

Repurposing Sheridan West as a sustainable Food Hub will help the school district to meet its revenue and building reuse goals, creating a new and innovative use in a building that might otherwise be overlooked by potential purchasers considering a more traditional reuse strategy. Additionally, this reuse would contribute to the achievement of Nutter- administration goals to make Philadelphia one of America’s “green”est and most sustainable cities. Finally, as an incubator space for unique food-oriented business ideas, the hub will help Philadelphia to attract and retain young and passionate entrepreneurs, whose small but growing businesses can play a major role in the city’s twenty-first century economic success.

FLOOR PLAN: BASEMENT

The components of the proposed sustainable food hub include: BASEMENT: Aquaponics combines aquaculture (cultivating fish) and hydroponics (growing plants in water, without soil) in one synergistic system. The results are healthy fruits and vegetables, and mercury-free fish. LED lights and temperature controls create a regulated and modifiable climate, allowing for higher yields on produce that can be both produced and consumed year-round, in and out of season. Along with the fish, this produce can be sold or used on the premises or distributed to markets, grocery stores and restaurants. The proposed Food Hub at Sheridan West includes 7,600 square feet of aquaponics space in the building’s basement.

FIRST FLOOR:

FLOOR PLAN: FIRST

The Food Hub’s first floor should serve as the building’s most public space, welcoming neighbors and visitors - including schoolchildren, who may attend field trips at the Hub to study food and food systems - as well as producers, entrepreneurs and other core users of the facilities. Visitors entering the building from Frankford Avenue will first pass through an outdoor demonstration rain garden and alongside an outdoor seating area open to the public. These garden areas will help to activate Frankford Avenue and engage the local community with the Food Hub and its operations, engaging them into the site. Indoors, visitors will enter large social and event space, including a café (serving food sourced from the hub’s other operations and other local producers) and a demonstration kitchen for classes, shows and other activities. The rear of this floor will be occupied by 3,100 square feet of rentable commercial kitchen space, where entrepreneurs can work on their food products while meeting all necessary health and safety regulations. Ideally this section of the building will see the most intense use, with the most frequent turnover, as local food entrepreneurs emerge and use the shared kitchens as incubators for their new businesses. All kitchens will have access to a production garden outside the building’s Coral Street exit, where herbs and other seasonal produce can be cultivated for use in the products manufactured at the Hub.

SITE REUSE

75

CASE CASESTUDY: STUDY SHERIDAN - FAIRHILLWEST FLOOR PLAN: SECOND

SECOND FLOOR: While the Food Hub’s first floor will largely serve as an incubator for new and experimental food ventures, its second is proposed as a home for more established businesses. This space can accommodate - depending on scale - two to three small businesses producing artisanal food products. In the floor plan scenario pictured at left, the Hub hosts a 4,500 square feet microdistillery, and a 2,100 square feet kombucha (a fermented, non-alcoholic tea) brewery. While Pennsylvania liquor control regulations would create some regulatory hurdles for a new microdistillery, the success of local artisanal spirit producers such as Philadelphia Distilling and Keystone Distilling demonstrate the large potential payoff from such a use. Locally- and artisanally- produced spirits are seeing tremendous growth in their popularity, and location in this Food Hub would create possibilities for hyper-local distilling, incorporating infusions produced using herbs cultivated on the premises - into these proposed beverages.

THIRD FLOOR:

FLOOR PLAN: THIRD

To maximize the space available for production, distribution and communityengaging activities on the lower stories, the Sheridan West Food Hub’s third floor is proposed for use as 7,000 square feet of shared office and meeting space. These offices will serve both building operations personnel and both the permanent and rotating businesses located on the floors below, allowing them to share the costs of major hardware purchases and invest those resources in other areas of their business. Moreover, this floor will encourage the collaboration and cross-pollination of diverse ideas, an important aspect for innovative businesses in emerging fields. This synergy will allow these entrepreneurs’ creativity to flourish and their businesses to grow and expand.

BUILDING ADDITION & RE-ZONING (see APPENDIX): In order for this project to succeed, the Sheridan West building and site will require some changes. The food businesses proposed for location in the building will require the addition of a modern freight elevator, and space for truck loading. Also proposed is the construction of a one-story building addition, to be topped by a green roof accessible from the building’s second floor. The site - roughly half of which is presently zoned industrial, and the other half residential - will need to be re-zoned for industrial-commercial mixed use (ICMX), a new classification included in Philadelphia’s revised zoning code.

CONCLUSION Port Richmond, with its blend of industrial and residential uses, is in many ways emblematic of Philadelphia’s past as a powerhouse of the early-twentieth century economy. Just to the neighborhood’s south and west, however, other “post-industrial” areas such as Fishtown and Kensington have begun to reinvent themselves as important players in Philadelphia’s emerging twenty-first century economic growth. Reuse of Sheridan West as a local Food Hub can help to bridge the gap between old and new economies, and between Port Richmond’s residential and industrial sections.

Photo Credit: ThePlant Chicago Instagram Account/Bradnon Reynolds, NewsWorks/Middle West Spirits

generation of Philadelphians in Port Richmond and beyond, helping the City to grow its own crop of future food entrepreneurs and to bolster its reputation as a hip and innovative metropolitan center.

The Enerprise Center (Philadelphia commercial kitchen)

This reuse is a demonstration of the untapped possibilities of the closed schools. Philadelphia will be faced by an enormous problem in trying to find buyers with viable reuse ideas for 32 closed and closing schools across the city, and “cookie-cutter” solutions simply will not work in every school or neighborhood. Although the historic Sheridan West Academy is an attractive building in relatively good condition, it will not necessarily be any easy site to move; the economics of traditional residential or commercial developments do not justify an investment, raising the possibility that the building could linger vacant and unused, with a blighting influence on the neighborhood.

The Plant (Chicago aquaponics center)

Sheridan West can become a neighborhood lynch-pin, by becoming a key spot for community engagement, events, education and outreach around food and energy issues. New Kensington CDC and other non-profits active in the River Wards neighborhoods already offer extensive programming around food systems and neighborhood-greening issues, and a Food Hub at this site could serve as a locus for all parties working on these issues, as well as an incubator for promising food entrepreneurs. Educational and community development possibilities at a local food hub would also help to preserve a connection between Sheridan West and local schoolchildren’s personal growth, Educational field trips to working commercial kitchens and an aquaponics installation can help stir an interest in food and food systems among a new

Innovative reuse strategies, such as the creation of a food hub at Sheridan West, can do more than simply get hard-to-sell buildings off of the City or SDP’s hands. Such projects will generate hype and excitement around the school reuse process, possibly attracting or informing other non-traditional users who might not otherwise participate. Exploring alternative options such as aquaponics and microdistilling could signal to developers that many school buildings can be adapted for a wide variety of uses. While many will sell for conventional uses, creative financing packages and innovative reuse strategies such as this one can help Philadelphia to emerge as a national leader in the successful disposition of closed school buildings. Ultimately, repurposing Sheridan West Academy as a local Food Hub and Community Center will represent a contextsensitive approach to school reuse. Additionally,, it will introduce a “cool factor” into the school reuse process, helping to attract non-traditional buyers with ideas that will appeal to and help meet the needs of a new generation of Philadelphians. Philadelphia and Port Richmond need not give up on the industrial past - reuses such as this one can build a bridge between the past, the present and a prosperous future.

SITE REUSE

77

SITE REUSE

PRECEDENTS Middle West Spirits (Columbus microdistillery)

CASE STUDY: VAUX + REYNOLDS JESSE BLITZSTEIN + CHRIS CUMMINGS

REYNOLDS SITE STATISTICS YEAR BUILT: 1927 BUILDING SIZE: 66,500 SF PARCEL SIZE: 0.9 ACRES FACILITY CONDITION (FCI): 0.6473 PROPOSED USES: AFFORDABLE HOUSING RETAIL SPACE COMMUNITY SPACE and an opportunity to incorporate the closed schools into further redevelopment plans.

REYNOLDS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CONTEXT FOR REUSE Vaux High School and Reynolds Elementary School sit mere blocks from one another in the North Philadelphia neighborhood of Sharswood, just north of Girard College and east of Brewerytown. In an area generally characterized by poverty, disinvestment, and widespread vacancy, leaving these school buildings empty would only compound such problems. However, other previously downtrodden areas north of downtown have experienced, or started to experience, rejuvenation in the 21st century as a mix of market forces and government intervention and subsidy have driven both gentrification and affordable housing production. While it would likely take many years for market forces to reach Vaux and Reynolds, the schools do sit near a wave of affordable housing that has come through North Philadelphia, bordering both new affordable housing development to the east and an aging public housing complex to the north. The ease with which both these new and old units are filled, demonstrated by their high occupancy rates, speaks to the demand for affordable housing in Philadelphia

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

In particular, the Philadelphia Housing Authority (PHA) would like to redevelop the Blumberg Apartments, just north of Reynolds. In previous years PHA applied for, but did not receive a Choice Neighborhoods planning grant, and thus are applying again in 2013. Choice Neighborhoods has replaced HOPE VI as HUDâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s public housing redevelopment plan. Whereas HOPE VI almost exclusively emphasized public housing redevelopment, Choice Neighborhoods is a more comprehensive initiative that looks to improve communities by building partnerships and investing in mixed-income housing, as well as social and educational services. An opportunity exists for PHA and the City to preemptively demonstrate their capacity for this type of comprehensive, partnered redevelopment on a smaller scale in Sharswood. Viewing the closed schools and the largely vacant land that sits in between as assets, PHA and the City could bring in private and nonprofit partners to redevelop this area along the lines of the Choice Neighborhoods model. This would serve immediate PHA goals of building partnerships and creating more public housing units, while perhaps making Philadelphia more appealing to HUD for receipt of a lucrative implementation grant to redevelop the Blumberg site itself along with a wider swath of Sharswood in the future. The school buildings would be put back into productive use and serve as catalysts for redevelopment instead of sitting vacant and contributing to further blight in the community. Since funding in the form of an implementation grant would only come years down the road, if at all, a more immediate redevelopment

SITE REUSE

VAUX SITE STATISTICS YEAR BUILT: 1937 BUILDING SIZE: 194,325 SF PARCEL SIZE: 2.2 ACRES FACILITY CONDITION (FCI): 0.0565 PROPOSED USES: EDUCATION REC SPACE HEALTH CENTER & OTHER SOCIAL SERVICES should connect to the surrounding area yet be able to stand on its own. Within the vacant blocks between the two schools, an opportunity exists to curb the suburban-esque design trends that have defined many affordable housing developments, particularly in North Philadelphia, over the last twenty years. Instead, a developer could demonstrate a new model of creative infill development that fits the traditional scale and context of the neighborhood and minimizes demolition and displacement, while bringing modern urban design practices.

INFLUENCE MAP RID

GE

1/2 MILE RADIUS

CECIL B. MOO

AV E

RE AVE

REYNOLDS E

S

PHA BROAD ST

Market forces have pushed development and gentrification from Centery City through Fairmount and into Brewerytown, as well as emanating out in the form of student housing from Temple University. However, Girard College stands as a physical barrier to development reaching Sharswood, and the presence of the antiquated Blumberg Apartments (PHA) has discouraged investment to some extent in the surrounding areas. Affordable housing development has taken place in many parts of North Philadelphia.

VAUX HIGH SCHOOL

VAUX HS

EGE

GIRARD COLL

0

1/2 MILE

GIRARD AVE

FAIRMOUNT AVE

SITE REUSE

79

CASE STUDY: VAUX + REYNOLDS

EXISTING CONDITIONS

1

N 23RD ST

N 24TH ST

W JEFFERSON ST

1

Houses stand alone where rows of home once stood across from Reynolds. Vacant land presents opportunities for redevelopment.

2 W MASTER ST

2 A small community garden across the street from Vaux, with Reynolds and the Blumberg Apartments rising in the background.

PROPOSED SITE PLAN W JEFFERSON ST

2 3

N 23RD ST

N 24TH ST

1

4 W MASTER ST

5

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

The new housing development totals 155 new and rehabilitated units - 40 public housing units, 81 subsidized rental units, 10 subsidized homeownership units, and 24 market rate rental units, in a range of one to four bedroom options.

1

The new basketball court and playground connect to the path in between the old Reynolds building and new construction.

2

A series of parking lots provides 30 offstreet parking spaces. Some vacant land is currently used informally for parking.

3

Raised platforms on the street slow traffic and enhance the continued connectivity of the path.

4 Space for the community garden remains and

connects to both the path and one of the offstreet parking lots.

5 The path continues and creates new

connectivity to the health center and open gym at Vaux.

Under the plan proposed here, repurposing of Reynolds, Vaux, and the three small blocks in between would occur in two phases. Phase 1 would involve the Vaux and Reynolds parcels, since land acquisition â&#x20AC;&#x201C; which would have to occur at nominal value to make redevelopment viable â&#x20AC;&#x201C; would be simpler due to single ownership, and because it is crucial that the schools not sit vacant for long. While Phase 1 occurs, the City could work on land acquisition in the blocks in between, where a third of the parcels are already publicly owned and a majority of the privately owned parcels have no structure and are tax delinquent. Vaux, while the larger building, would undergo a less drastic repurposing. The school has received a sizeable investment in capital improvements in the last decade and thus is in relatively good condition. Vaux currently houses a small health center on the east side of the first floor that serves both the school and community. If the health center were to stay and possibly expand, and additional space in the school were leased for other community serving uses, the remainder of the building could remain viable for educational

use and continued operation of the building as a whole would be more economical. Vaux has two large gyms on either side of the first floor, so one possibility would be for the east side gym (matching the location of the health center) to turn into a community facility, supplementing rather than replicating nearby rec centers with after-hours basketball for youth and young adults. The school could continue to be run by the school district or bought and operated by a charter school or a community-oriented nonprofit that delivers social services. People for People, Inc., a current North Philadelphia nonprofit, uses a similar model with co-location of a charter school, early childhood development center, and other offices and services in one eight-story building on Broad St. just north of the intersection with Fairmount Ave. and Ridge Ave. At Reynolds, Phase 1 of the proposal calls for a mixed-use affordable housing development that makes use of the existing building but involves a more extensive overhaul of

3-D PERSPECTIVE OF PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

This 3-D cutaway gives a sense of the scale and density of the infill development as well as the role of the path in connecting residents to the public spaces and services on and around the site. The path would be a public easement maintained by the property manager.

SITE REUSE

81

SITE REUSE

DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

CASE STUDY: VAUX + REYNOLDS

REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL

POTENTIAL PARTNERS

HOUSING: 234,000 SF (REYNOLDS, REHAB, AND INFILL HOUSING) RETAIL SPACE: 3,150 SF (NEW CONSTRUCTION AT REYNOLDS)

PUBLIC: PHA, PRA, PHFA, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA

TOTAL COST: $32,000,000 PHASE 1 COST: $13,000,000 PHASE 2 COST: $19,000,000

PRIVATE DEVELOPERS: MICHAELS DEVELOPMENT COMPANY ONION FLATS

FUNDING SOURCES: LIHTC, CDBG, HOME, PHA, HOUSING TRUST FUND, DEVELOPER EQUITY, CONVENTIONAL LOAN

NONPROFITS: PROJECT HOME FAIRMOUNT CDC

the site. The existing layout of the school building lends itself to a housing conversion. With a single corridor and classrooms that approximate the size of one-bedroom apartments, the main fourstory structure would be repurposed as 40 units of affordable housing. The current attached one-story auditorium would be divided in half with one side used as the management office for the new development and the other as flex-space for community use or a community-oriented use, such as a technology center or daycare. The current blacktop schoolyard on the east side of the site would be redeveloped, with improvements made to the existing open space and the addition of a mixed-use building at the intersection of North 23rd Street and West Jefferson Street, across from existing retail and the Blumberg Apartments. The basketball court, which currently receives community use outside of school hours, would be resited but retained to maintain this asset for the community, with the addition of a small landscaped playground area. The new building would rise four stories to match Reynolds in density, with ground floor retail below three stories of stacked townhomes, creating nine units. The retail space could accommodate two small businesses or one larger one. This retail would generate foot traffic and would compliment usage of the basketball court and playground. Phase 1 would be conducted by a private affordable housing developer in partnership with PHA, who would provide a subsidy for

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

a portion of the affordable housing units to serve as public housing, and the City, who would facilitate site acquisition through the proposed school disposition task force and would provide financial support in addition to LIHTC. A similar partnership structure would take place to facilitate Phase 2 of development in the blocks in between Reynolds and Vaux. During this phase, an additional nonprofit development partner would construct a series of ten homeownership units along a path connecting both phases of development to one another and to additional development should it occur later. The homeownership units would come with a unique feature â&#x20AC;&#x201C; the accessory dwelling unit (ADU), now allowed and encouraged in the new city zoning code. The ADU can serve multiple beneficial purposes, allowing lower income homeowners to earn additional income if they choose to rent out the unit, or alternatively allowing larger families to use the extra space themselves. Due to specifications in the zoning code, houses with ADUs must be detached or semi-detached and have an entrance with alternative frontage to the main unit, hence their positioning along the path in the site plan. The remaining infill would be a mix of 2- and 3-bedroom rowhomes, meant to respect the scale and typology of the older rowhomes in the area, including 35 that will remain on the site and be rehabilitated as part of the development.

Without special attention from the community, City, and school district, Vaux and Reynolds might receive little interest from the traditional real estate market and sit vacant for years, compounding problems in an area already struggling with low incomes and high vacancy. However, if their reuse is given high priority and a plan, the schools can instead serve as assets, helping to spur further reinvestment that advances goals for multiple stakeholders, including the community, City, and school district. The redevelopment proposal presented here follows the tenets of the Choice Neighborhoods philosophy â&#x20AC;&#x201C; siting affordable housing within a mixed-use, mixed-income development that also incorporates educational and social services. By demonstrating capacity within Philadelphia for the type of partnerships, vision,

and creative financing necessary to undertake such a redevelopment process, the City and PHA could make a compelling case for Choice Neighborhoods funding. The map below shows a vision for a proposed future redevelopment of Sharswood that would occur with a Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant. The connections created by the path in the two phases of the Vaux and Reynolds redevelopment would continue north into a redeveloped Blumberg site and south into Girard College, as well as east and west into additionally developed previously vacant land. Done right, such a redevelopment plan could dramatically yet sensitively reshape this section of North Philadelphia. None of this is possible, however, if Vaux and Reynolds are not sold and redeveloped in a timely and thoughtful manner. This stylized site plan shows a vision of the proposed Vaux and Reynolds redevelopments connected to a larger Sharswood redevelopment facilitated in part by a Choice Neighborhoods implementation grant.

1 3

1

Infill development in the currently largely vacant blocks west of the Blumberg Apartments would allow demolition and redevelopment at the Blumberg site without mass displacement or loss in total number of units.

2

Redevelopment at the Blumberg site would allow the introduction of a grocery store to serve the increased population in Sharswood that continued redevelopment would bring. A model similar to the Aldi chain of grocery stores coud work in this location.

3

North 23rd Street and Bolton Street, which both currently stop at the existing Blumberg Apartments, would be continued through the redeveloped Blumberg site to break up the super block and improve pedestrian flow and connectivity.

2

4 New sidewalks with improved landscaping would signify the

continuation of the pathâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s connectivity to Girard College, where a new gate in the wall would provide controlled pedestrian access from the north to facilities on the campus.

4

5

CHOICE NEIGHBORHOODS VISION

5 Girard College would be incentivized to open its walls by

participation in the LISC/NFL Grassroots Program, in which LISC and local NFL teams partner with communities to refurbish grass fields as easier to maintain but expensive to install turf fields.

SITE REUSE

83

SITE REUSE

CONCLUSION

WEAK MARKET/CIVIC SITE EXAMPLES

These six unsold buildings continue to sit vacant, adding to the blight and vacancy problems that many of the neighborhoods in Philadelphia face. With the new addition of the 25 closed schools in 2013, the issue of unused vacant school buildings will continue, as not all schools will be immediately sold. These vacant schools are problematic; they can quickly become structurally unsound, unsafe, and a location for illegal activity. By sitting vacant, they become public safety hazards, in addition to continuing costing the SDP in general upkeep, maintenance, and security. As they sit vacant, the unused SDP-owned buildings continue to fall into disrepair and the problems are exacerbated; the buildings will deteriorate into worse conditions as they sit vacant longer. Immediate action should be taken, as these would reduce maintenance costs, illicit activities, and the risk of serious incidents. For some of these unused sites, an increase of public incentives may be enough to overcome previously cost-prohibitive reuses in the private market. Demolishing and grading these sites often present large costs, which may prevent developers from being interested in reusing the buildings. For example, the old Thomas Edison High School in the Fairhill neighborhood in North Philadelphia sat vacant for almost 10 years. During this time, it became dilapidated, vandalized, and used as housing for drug users and dealers. Although the school was secured to prevent breaking and entering, it was never demolished. Had the school been demolished and maintained as a neighborhood park while looking for a developer to purchase the site, a communityserving amenity could have been enjoyed rather than the eyesore of the vacant school. In 2011, just months after the school was sold to developers, it erupted in a four-alarm fire while the developers were securing funding.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Demolition costs range from $200,000 to over $1,900,000, depending on the size and age of the building. If financing could be attained to demolish buildings prior to releasing the RFP, these cleared sites may attract interest for new developments. Although it is an undesired truth for communities that have just lost a neighborhood amenity, some other closed schools will not have a viable building reuse that is economically feasible. For these sites, alternative ideas must be examined. Public intervention must occur if any use is to be found for these sites and prevent them from sitting vacant. The buildings that are determined to be in the weakest markets and in the worst conditions should be addressed first; funds should be procured to demolish these sites immediately. As previously mentioned, the demolition of schools with the greatest possibility of being sold to a developer once demolished should also be addressed. Many of the neighborhoods in which the weak market school sites are located also lack adequate open space. Once the school building on the site has been demolished, it can be maintained as a neighborhood park, either in perpetuity, or while the SDP looks for a developer to purchase the site. Either way, a community-serving amenity can be enjoyed, rather than the eyesore of the vacant school.

THOMAS EDISON HIGH SCHOOL, 2011

Photo Credit: Dan Pellegrin & Jacquelyne Rice, 6ABC

The 2012 process to dispose of 12 SDP-owned properties, including both schools and service buildings, did not succeed in moving all properties. Using three local real estate brokers, only half of the properties were sold; the buildings located in the weakest real estate markets failed to attract interest.

SITE REUSE

PEPPER + COMM TECH

PEPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL While Philadelphia’s public school closures have generated a large-scale civic challenge, the closing of Pepper Middle School and Communications Technology High School in Eastwick presents an opportunity to solve a long-standing dispute between the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority (PRA) and a private housing developer, Korman Residential. After the PRA condemned 2,500 acres in Eastwick in 1950, Korman Residential received an option to purchase a 35-acre portion of this condemned land in 1961. This option remains in effect today. Recently, Korman Residential identified a 35-acre parcel adjacent to the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, the largest remaining freshwater tidal wetland in Pennsylvania, as the desired location for fulfilling its purchase option. Residents have been adamant that developing at the location in question would be irresponsible, given the subsidence issues that both previous and existing homeowners have faced in that area. Environmentalists share these concerns regarding inadequate stormwater management capacity, as well as the potential negative impacts on the Refuge’s habitat. The SDP may have an opportunity to help solve this issue. If the City of Philadelphia agreed to work with the SDP and deed a portion of its neighboring property - around 20 acres total - with the SDP’s school parcels - around 29 acres - PRA would have adequate acreage to fulfill Korman Residential’s purchase option. EASTWICK PROPERTIES 1

COMMUNICATIONS TECHNOLOGY HIGH SCHOOL

2

PEPPER MIDDLE SCHOOL

3

CITY-OWNED LAND

4

35-ACRE PARCEL ADJACENT TO JOHN HEINZ NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

2 3

LVD . RIO

LAN

ZA B

4

MA

Photo Credit: Bing! Maps Aerial

LIN

DBE

RGH

BLV

D

1

SITE REUSE

85

WEAK MARKET/CIVIC SITE EXAMPLES BEEBER WYNNEFIELD

Beeber-Wynnefield, like Stanton, is a good candidate for civic reuse – including potential demolition of all or a part of the existing building. Closed during the mid-2000s and failing to attract sufficient buyer interest when marketed 2012, the school is hemmed in by a dense and almost completely-residential neighborhood. Though located just a short distance from Fairmount Park, this site too is surrounded by rail yards, which create a barrier between local residents and the park, despite its proximity. Commercial buyers will likely not be attracted to such a low-traffic site, and industrial reuse would be inappropriate for the neighborhood context at Beeber-Wynnefield. Civic reuse of the site, possibly maintaining the building as a rec center and the remainder of the lot as a park and playground, would ensure that this site did not remain a blighting influence. Moreover, it would provide a new amenity for families considering a life in this pleasant and shady residential area – a win for nearby neighbors and the City’s property tax rolls.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

M. H. STANTON

Located not far from the high-traffic intersection and transit node at Broad Street and Lehigh Avenue in North Philadelphia, Stanton is a fantastic candidate for a demonstration project to prove that even demolished school sites can remain productive, community-serving assets. Stanton is nearly encircled by tangle of railroad lines, cutting the school site and its surroundings off from access to any recreational amenities. Demolition of Stanton would create a large and empty publicly-owned parcel, with good transit access and not very far from the present northern edge of student and affordable housing development around Temple University. A neighborhood serving park planned for this site could help to mitigate stormwater impacts in a neighborhood with very few pervious surfaces, and provide an important open-space resource for an underserved community. The school itself is an unremarkable building in relatively poor condition; the site’s benefit to neighborhood residents would be maximized as a public park.

Photo Credit: Maxwell Peterson, Abandoned Philadelphia

SALVAGING MATERIALS

JULIA DE BURGOS ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

The SDP will likely need to demolish several school buildings that cannot be reused. Demolishing the schools - many of them large, old, and constructed of stone and other heavy materials - will be a financial burden. To offset the costs, the SDP should utilize a sustainable demolition process, which could allow the it to reduce demolition costs, improve Philadelphia’s environmental record, and encourage economic growth and job development. Sustainable demolition allows salvageable materials from buildings to be extracted and reused in other projects. Philadelphia’s schools, many of which are historic, are full of unique architectural details, such as molding, fixtures, doors and quality materials, such as cut stones and bricks. These may have a high resale value if properly removed. The process of deconstruction requires building analysis to identify usable content and establish a deconstruction plan. Then, the structural interior and exterior can be scoured for reusable and recyclable materials.1 This includes removing any available pipes, HVAC systems,

reclaimed wood, brick, and reusable or recyclable fixtures and furniture2 so that only the building envelope remains. Any remaining materials are sorted; reusable materials are taken to salvage centers, recyclable pieces are taken the recycling plants, and the smaller percentage of unrecyclable waste is taken to a landfill. The extra effort undertaken by contractors and developers may lower costs by reducing dumping fees at landfills due to recycling. Some salvaged materials can be directly resold, generating profits. Reducing debris entering landfills directly connects with Greenworks Philadelphia Targets 7 and 14 which state, “Divert 70 percent of Solid Waste from Landfill,”3 and “Double the number of Low and High-Skill Green Jobs”4 in the city. Considering that current construction and demolition debris constitute 20.6 percent of the city’s total trash stream, reducing demolition debris in landfills would be a significant step in greening the city.5 Requiring sustainable demolition would also create demand for skills in demolition and salvage, which is construction in reverse, and can serve as an entry-level position into the construction industry. In addition, these jobs cannot be sourced locally, with wages returning to local communities. Whenever possible, the SDP should sustainably demolish buildings to encourage greater levels of recycling in Philadelphia, support the city’s green initiatives, and foster the development of local green jobs.

SITE REUSE

87 87

SITE REUSE

SUSTAINBLE DEMOLITION PROCESS

Photo Credit: Emma Lee, Hidden City Philadelphia

NEXT STEPS

NEXT STEPS

NEXT STEPS The latest round of closings will not be the last for the City of Philadelphia. The projected budget deficit, rising popularity of charter schools, limited revenue streams, and aging building infrastructure will necessitate the closure of additional schools if the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) is to remain solvent. As this report has emphasized, the factors necessitating the closure of public schools are larger than the role of the SDP, and therefore, the task of finding a solution is also larger than the responsibilities of the SDP. The City of Philadelphia needs to acknowledge a shared responsibility in repurposing these schools so that the buildings do not become a source of blight and a magnet for crime in neighborhoods across the city.

strengths and challenges inherent in each individual school, and incorporate community participation into the process to better facilitate relationships between communities, the city, and new tenants for these buildings. By establishing a replicable, reuse policy framework for these school sites, Philadelphia can efficiently repurpose closed schools, establish a strategy for other cities looking for guidance, and also modify the process for reusing other publicly owned distressed assets in Philadelphia. Without a reuse strategy, the 32 closed schools will add an additional 101 acres of vacant land to the cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s existing inventory. This addition will stretch limited city resources, such as fire, police, and maintenance crews who are already tasked with the immense responsibility of responding to issues of crime, arson, and vandalism at existing vacant sites across the city. These services cost the city roughly $20 million per year, and maintaining a vacant school costs the city around $5,000 per school each month, greatly reducing any savings the SDP may accrue from closing the schools. With the high emotional and social cost felt by the communities where schools are closed, the SDP has a social responsibility to ensure the cost of closing a school is offset by public and private investments in new public serving assets at the school sites. It is with this long term goal in mind that the city needs to formally

The policy framework and recommendations of this report identify strategic partnerships and processes to aid the SDP in delineating responsibility among several city agencies that have the skills and expertise necessary to repurpose school sites. A mayoral led task force, with diverse members knowledgeable about financing, architecture, real estate, sustainability, economic growth, and city initiatives will be critical in finding new uses for school sites, and for garnering widespread agency support for the task force.

The old Thomas Edison School, after a four-alarm fire in 2011 destroyed much of the building.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Photo Credit: Harvey Finkle, Philadelphia Public School Notebook

The proposed policy is designed to be context sensitive to the

Community members protest against the proposed school closings.

The reuse proposals included in this report model the process that the Task Force would undertake in envisioning redevelopment at schools. Sites were categorized by market strengths to identify those which would likely need public incentives in order to become appealing for mainstream redevelopment. Once categorized, detailed demographic and market analysis identified neighborhood trends to guide reuse options. Community-based research, conducted by talking to residents and community groups, further identified community needs which could be met by redeveloping closed schools. And finally, a detailed and practical program approach was designed that connected proposed building uses with possible

Looking from Drew Elementary Schoolâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s blacktop toward Center City, Philadelphia.

financing, strategic partnerships to facilitate the process, and demonstrated community need. The repurposing proposals in the report offer four different alternative futures envisioned for schools in Philadelphia. These ideas, while site specific, offer replicable uses, financing strategies, and long term goals which could be applied to other closed schools in Philadelphia. The sites chosen for study are emblematic of the larger challenges facing all school reuse in the city, and the country as a whole; large sites and older buildings in traditionally distressed neighborhoods face challenges attracting conventional funding, developers, and political support. These challenges should not, however, prevent innovative and creative uses from becoming part of the long-term on which Philadelphia can draw in order to become a leader in school reuse. Embracing alternative development plans will allow the city to support local development, encourage economic revitalization, and ensure that closed schools can once again become community serving assets.

The School District of Philadelphiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s headquarters on Broad Street.

NEXT STEPS

91

NEXT STEPS

adopt a policy which will identify public and private incentives so that these sites are appealing to developers, so that schools can return to their neighborhoods and residents as community assets. In the difficult situations where a school building can no longer be repurposed, due to prohibitive costs for renovation, the SDP must make a decision to quickly deconstruct the building and invest in the site. It would be helpful to have an entity such as the Task Force to quickly identify schools which must be demolished, and to quickly remove the buildings so that they do not sit vacant for years, and become a safety hazard for the community, or a blighting force in the neighborhood.

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Photo Credit: Katrina Ohstrom, Hidden City Philadelphia

A SPECIAL THANKS TO OUR INSTRUCTOR, HARRIS STEINBERG, FOR HIS GUIDANCE, SUPPORT AND KNOWLEDGE OF PHILADELPHIA.

WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND A SINCERE THANKS TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE: PAUL AYLESWORTH, Women’s Community Revitalization Project EMILY DOWDALL, The Pew Charitable Trusts DAVID FECTEAU, Philadelphia City Planning Commission SUSAN FETTERMAN, The School District of Philadelphia DANIELLE FLOYD, The School District of Philadelphia KYLE FLOOD, Philadelphia Housing Authority BILL FOX, The School District of Philadelphia LIZ GABOR, Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation EVAN LITVIN, Bohlin Cywinski Jackson Architects WARREN McMICHAEL, Brewerytown Sharswood Community Civic Association ANDY SNOVER, First United Methodist Church of Germantown SARAH THORP, The Philadelphia Water Department MINDY WATTS, Interface Studio SPECIAL THANKS TO THE FOLLOWING PEOPLE FOR IMAGE CONTRIBUTIONS: MATTHEW CHRISTOPHER EMMA LEE BRADLEY MAULE KATRINA OHSTROM

93 93

Photo Credit: Matthew Christopher, Abandoned America, Hidden City Philadelphia

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

FAIRHILL CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES Senior Housing Building Size (SF)

Senior Medical Clinic 74,725

Building Size (SF)

17,280

Leasable space

59,780

Leasable space

13,824

Senior housing

39,245

Office Space

6,912

Recreation center

20,535

Front desk & waiting area

1,382

Exam rooms

5,530

Development Costs Acquisition Cost (1) Construction Cost Construction cost (per SF) (2) Parking Cost

$150,000

Development Costs

$9,714,250

Acquisition Cost (1)

$130

$50,000

Renovation cost

$2,246,400

$76,500 Parking Cost per space (3) Number of spaces

Total Soft Costs

$1,500 51

Renovation cost (per SF) (2) Parking Cost per space

N/A

Total soft costs

$786,240

$3,452,488 Soft Costs(4)

Total Development Cost

35% $13,393,238

Suggested Development Financing

$130

Soft Costs (3) Start‐up costs

35% $50,000

Total Development Cost

$3,132,640

Suggested Development Financing

Section 232 Loan (5)

$12,053,914

Standard Bank Loan

Developer Equity

$1,000,000

Developer Equity

Project Equity ‐ LIHTC (6)

$9,375,266

Total 

Total 

$22,429,180

Annual Operating Costs

$2,192,848 $939,792 $3,132,640

Annual Operating Costs Staff personnel costs

($709,171)

Annual Maintenance Costs

($60,858)

Staff: Patient Visits (4)

Interest Payments @ 4%

($482,157)

Personnel costs for 1 staff member (5)

Total Operating Costs

($543,015)

Total staff

31

Paid staff

9

Students

22

Annual Revenue Rental Revenue @ 90% Avg. Occupancy Room rent (monthly) (7) Number of units Annual LIHTC Subsidy Recreation rental revenue Rent (annual) (8) Total Revenue Net Operating Income

$173,880 $350 46

($76,000)

Equipment (6)

($88,335)

Supplies (7)

($186,624)

$937,527

Annual maintenance cost

($31,326)

$41,070

Interest Payments @ 4%

($65,785)

$2

Total Operating Costs

$1,152,477

Annual Revenue

$609,462

Patient Revenue

($1,081,242)

$2,021,760 Visit cost per patient (8) Number of patient visits (annually)

Student Tuition Revenue

Number of tuition‐paying students Total Revenue Net Operating Income

$65 31,104 $21,773

Student tuition (1 credit) (9)

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

1:1,000

$1,000 22 $2,043,533 $962,290

APPENDIX

PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES Recreation Facilities

Workforce Training Center Use Type

Commercial

Building Size (SF)

Development Size (SF)

Development Cost Structure Acquisition Cost (1)

$1.00

Construction cost

$4,900,000 Cost per SF (2)

Parking Cost per space

$140

78,229 Retention Basin

52,560

Groundfloor of Senior Housing Development

25,669

35,000

Development Cost Structure Acquisition Cost

$1

Basin Renovation Cost (total)

$72,000 Cost per SF (1)

$4.50

SF of retention wall to be demolished

16,000

N/A

Total Soft Costs

$1,715,000 Soft Costs(3)

Total Development Cost

35%

Sports Field Capital Costs (2)

$425,000 Site grading

$100,000

Stormwater management infrastructure

$300,000

$6,615,001

Suggested Development Financing LISC Construction Loan (4)

$2,646,000

Standard Bank Loan

$2,969,001

Equipment costs Total Soft Costs

$25,000 $173,950

Soft costs (3)

35%

Capital Development Grant (5)

$1,000,000

Total

$6,615,001

Landscape Costs

($500,000)

Total Development Cost

Annual Maintenance Costs (7)

($49,000)

Suggested Development Financing

Interest Payments @ 6% (4)

($158,760)

Stormwater Management Incentive Program Grant

$120,661

Total Operating Costs

($707,760)

US Soccer Foundation ‐ Field Installation (6)

$200,000

DCNR (7)

$300,000

$1,170,000 Cost per SF (4)

Annual Operating Costs Annual Training Costs (6)

Annual Revenue Adult Reintegration of Ex‐Offender Program (RExO)),  annual allotment (8)

$13 $670,951

$430,769

Capital Development Grant (8)

$50,290

Program Grant (private funding) (9)

$276,991

Total Financing Allocation

$670,951

Total Revenue

$707,760

Annual Operating Costs

Net Operating Income

$1,415,520

Rental Costs

($51,338) Rent (Annual) (9)

$2

Field maintenance & operation (annual) (10)

($10,000)

Total Operating Costs

($61,338)

Annual Rental Revenue Amenity Usage Fee

$12,000

US Soccer Foundation ‐ Program Grant (6)

$50,000

Vendor Space Rental Fee

$5,000

Total Revenue

$67,000

Net Operating Income

$5,662

APPENDIX

97

FAIRHILL CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT In addition to defraying redevelopment costs between two owners, parcel subdivision would allow for different uses under separate zoning designations. For this proposal, it is recommended that the southern portion of the site be zoned for multi-family residential (RM-1), while the northern portion of the site be zoned for neighborhood commercial mixed use (CMX-1 or 2).

CURRENT ZONING

...

PROPOSED ZONING

CMX1 or 2

S2

RM-1

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

APPENDIX

SOURCES AND ASSUMPTIONS IN PRO-FORMA MODELS Sources for Pro Forma Inputs Senior Housing (1) Based on sales of previously sold buildings in eastern North Philadelphia, http://planphilly.com/articles/2012/02/15/district‐sets‐65‐million‐sale‐ (2) CostWorks estimate for assisted living building development (3) Litman, Todd. Victoria Transport Policy Institute Parking Calculator. January 2012. (4) Gross estimation (5) Covers up to 90% of construction and/or renovation costs. Department of Housing and Urban Development,  http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=FR5465F02FHA23277FR55120.pdf. (6) Developer has option to pursue 9% Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), which could cover anywhere between 70‐90% of the development  costs. (7) Based on 40% AMI LIHTC target (8) Loopnet, Fairhill neighborhood, Retail and Office asking rents. Senior Housing Clinic (1) Based on sales of previously sold buildings in eastern North Philadelphia, http://planphilly.com/articles/2012/02/15/district‐sets‐65‐million‐sale‐ (2) Gross estimation (3) Gross estimation (4) Based on existing clinics with ratios of 1,500 patient visits per 1.5 staff. Chenoweth, David H. and Judy Garrett. "Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of a  Worksite Clinic." AAOHN Journal. 2006: 54, 2.  (5)  Includes one full‐time occupational health nurse, one administrative assistant, and one part‐time clinician. Chenoweth, David H. and Judy Garrett.  "Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of a Worksite Clinic." AAOHN Journal. 2006: 54, 2.  (6) Includes equipment leasing, office furniture leasing, and depreciation costs. Chenoweth, David H. and Judy Garrett. "Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of a  Worksite Clinic." AAOHN Journal. 2006: 54, 2.  (7) Supplies include those needed for vaccines, allergy, and immunization shots. Chenoweth, David H. and Judy Garrett. "Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of a  Worksite Clinic." AAOHN Journal. 2006: 54, 2.  (8) Based on average patient cost at a community clinic. Chenoweth, David H. and Judy Garrett. "Cost‐Effectiveness Analysis of a Worksite Clinic."  AAOHN Journal. 2006: 54, 2.  (9) Gross estimation Workforce Training Center (1) Due to the publicly‐serving nature of the proposed facility, and the likelihood that a non‐profit will operate the site, it is proposed that the School  District sell the underlying land for nominal value.  (2) Costworks, Vocational School, 2 stories, decorative concrete block/bearing walls (3) Gross estimation (4) Construction loan up to $3M at 6% fixed. Local Initiatives Support Corporation. Construction Loan Financing.  http://www.lisc.org/docs/brochures/financial/2013_lending_term_sheet.pdf. (5) Possible to finance with grant from foundations such as William Penn Foundation  (6) NFTE domestic programs estimate $500,000 as the average annual operating cost for domestic programs. Network for Teaching Entrepeneurship  (NFTE), http://www.nfte.com/get‐involved/start/become‐a‐partner. (7) Maintenance per SF:  http://www.fmlink.com/article.cgi?type=Benchmarking&title=Benchmarking%20Your%20Maintenance%20Costs&pub=Facility%20Issues&id=40555&m (8) Department of Labor funding award 2013, http://www.dol.gov/dol/grants/SGA‐DFA‐PY‐12‐06.pdf (9) Potential sources of funding include venture capitalist funding (following the model of the existing prisoner re‐entry entrepreneurship program, Defy  Recreation Facilities (1) Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Transportation, 2012.  http://www.vdot.virginia.gov/projects/resources/noisewalls/Accounting_for_demolition_cost_to_barrier_reasonable_calculation_.pdf.  (2) University of California, Davis. "Campus Rec puts in first artificial turf." August 17, 2012. http://dateline.ucdavis.edu/dl_detail.lasso?id=14135. (3) Gross estimation (4) Gross estimation (5) Philadelphia Water Department and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation give $100,000 per acre for Stormwater Management  Incentive Program Grants. http://www.phillywatersheds.org/what_were_doing/SMIP_Grant. (6) US Soccer Foundation. "US Soccer Foundation Guide to Grants." http://www.ussoccerfoundation.org/our‐grants/. (7) Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources.http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/brc/grants/index.aspx. (8) Charitable donation from foundation or fundraising campaign (9) Loopnet, Fairhill neighborhood, Retail and Office asking rents. (10) Includes one‐time rentals of auditorium, fields, and indoor recreation space. Montgomery County, Maryland. "A Review of Benefits and Issues  Associated with Natural Grass and Artificial Turf Rectangular Stadium Fields." September 15, 2011.

APPENDIX

99

GERMANTOWN + FULTON CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

APPENDIX

PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES

APPENDIX

101

GERMANTOWN + FULTON CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS MARKET ANALYSIS GERMANTOWN AVE. DEMOGRAPHICS

Source: ESRI, Business Analyst Online,U.S. Census 2012

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

APPENDIX

OCCUPANCY OF SENIOR FACILITIES WITHIN 6 MILES OF GERMANTOWN HIGH SCHOOL

Source: Medicare.gov, The Official U.S. Website for Meidcare < http://www.medicare.gov/>

APPENDIX

103

GERMANTOWN + FULTON CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS MARKET ANALYSIS GERMANTOWN DEMOGRAPHICS - SENIOR POPULATION

Source: ESRI, Business Analyst Online,U.S. Census 2012

SENIOR HOUSING - GAP ANALYSIS

Source: ESRI, Business Analyst Online,U.S. Census 2012 & (Dept. of Health and Human Services, Administration on Aging)

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

APPENDIX

OCCUPANCY OF SENIOR FACILITIES WITHIN 6 MILES OF GERMANTOWN HIGH SCHOOL

Source: Genworth Financial, Cost of Long Term Care Across the Nation < https://www.genworth.com/corporate/about-genworth/industry-expertise/cost-of-care.html>

APPENDIX

105

SHERIDAN WEST CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES

Program of Uses 42000 10500 7600 22700 1200 10000

Total sf Existing Building Food / Kitchen Use Aquaponics Office / Other New Addition‐ Scullery + Elevator Landscaping + Green Roof

Uses Hard Costs $        10,277,500 A/E $              822,200 Org/Prof $              840,000 Financing/settleme $          1,470,000 Carrying $              210,000 Dev Fees 0 Contingency $          1,184,360 $        14,804,060

Sources Federal Historic $          1,455,600 State Historic $          1,819,500 NMTC $          1,644,400 TRF / LISC $          2,500,000 RACP $              200,000 PWD / PIDC $              500,000 Pennsylvania DCED $          1,000,000 Other Grants $          1,000,000 Gap (Equity) $          4,684,560 $        14,804,060

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

per sf $               244.70 $                       20 $                       20 $                       35 $                         5 $                      ‐ $                       28 $               352.48

per sf $                 34.66 $                 43.32 $                 39.15 $                 59.52 $                    4.76 $                 11.90 $                 23.81 $                 23.81 $               111.54

Approximate Costs / Sq Ft $              500,000 Acquisition $                      325 per sf hard costs‐ Food / Kitchen $                      300 per sf hard costs‐ Aquaponics $                      150 per sf hard costs‐ Office/ Other $                      150 per sf hard costs‐ New Addition $                        50 per sf Landscaping + Green Roof

$              500,000 $          3,412,500 $          2,280,000 $          3,405,000 $              180,000 $              500,000 $        10,277,500 30% HC 10% HC 5% SC

Hard Costs acquisition Hard Costs Food/ Kitchen Hard Costs Aquaponics Hard Costs Office / Other Hard Costs New Addition Hard Costs Landscaping Hard Costs Total Soft costs Contingency

Annual Operating Costs Annual Energy and Water Costs Annual Maintenance Costs Interest Payments @ 6%

$          (600,000) $            (97,775) $          (281,074)

Total Operating Costs Annual Revenue Rent: Café + Education Rent: Aquaponics Rent: Kombucha Rent: Distillery Rent: Kitchen Rent: Offices

$          (978,849)

Total Revenue Net Operating Income (NOI) Value (NOI/Cap @ 10%)

$        1,238,000 $           259,151 $        2,591,514

$           150,000 $           228,000 $           105,000 $           135,000 $           500,000 $           120,000

APPENDIX

PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE

AQUAPONICS IN DEPTH

CURRENT ZONING Aquaponics consists of two parts, aquaculture, the practice of cultivating fish, and hydroponics, the process growing plants in water, without the use of soil. In an aquaponics system, the water from the fish ecosystem, which becomes enriched with nitrates, flows through troughs filled with plants that are placed on floating rafts above. The roots of the plants come in contact with the water from the fish tanks and soak up the nitrate enriched water, which lead to faster growth. This water is then circulated back into the fish tanks, where the process begins again.

PROPOSED ZONING Proposed zoning change to ICMX (Industrial Commercial Mixed-Use) As of right uses permitted that pertain to proposed site reuse: Educational Facilities; Office; Consumer Goods; Food, Beverages, and Groceries; Eating and Drinking Establishments; Warehouse; Wholesale Sales and Distribution; Artists Studios and Artisan Industrial; Limited Industrial; Research and Development; Community Garden; Market or Community-Supported Farm; Animal Husbandry; Horticulture Nurseries and Greenhouses.

Combining these two separate techniques into one forms a synergistic, energy efficient, and high-yielding system. This method produces healthy fruits and vegetables and mercury-free fish for consumption. The process eliminates the need for chemical fertilizers and conserves water and eliminates the threat of soil contamination, allowing for cleaner harvests. Additionally, it increases nutrient intake in plants, and speeds up the growth of plants. Because this process is to occur in a light and temperature regulated environment, there is a higher yield of produce, and outof-season produce can be grown year round.

APPENDIX

107

VAUX + REYNOLDS CASE STUDY - EXHIBITS PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES DEVELOPMENT  PHASE  I

DEVELOPMENT  PHASE  II  (Rental)

Building  Size  (SF)

79,100 Retail  Space Residential  Units Outdoor  Recreation  Space

Building  Size  (SF)

133,450

6,750 49 16,000

Retail  Space

0

Residential  Units

86

Outdoor  Recreation  Space

24,250

Development  Costs

Development  Costs Acquisition  Cost  (1)

$1

Construction  Cost

$12,466,000 Rehab  /  Construction  cost  (per  SF)

Parking  /  Site  Improvement  Cost

Number  of  spaces Total  Soft  Costs

Total  Development  Cost

$16,256,250 Rehab  /  Construction  cost  (per  SF)

Parking  /  Site  Improvement  Cost

N/A

Number  of  spaces Total  Soft  Costs

$3,150 30 $2,438,438

15% $15,168,401

$50  /  $130 $1,008,250

Parking  Cost  per  space

0 $1,869,900

Soft  Costs

$1

Construction  Cost

$160  /  $140 $832,500

Parking  Cost  per  space

Acquisition  Cost  (1)

Soft  Costs Total  Development  Cost

15% $19,702,939

Suggested  Development  Financing

Suggested  Development  Financing Conventional  Loan,  City  Funding  (CDBG,  HOME)

$3,819,095

Conventional  Loan

$3,860,362

Developer  Equity  +  Misc  Grants

$1,096,000

Developer  Equity,  Grants,  City  Funding,  PHA

$2,415,095

Project  Equity  -­‐  LIHTC

$10,253,880.81

Total  

$15,168,401

Project  Equity  -­‐  LIHTC

$13,428,057.06

Total  

$19,702,939

Annual  Operating  Costs

Annual  Operating  Costs Annual  Maintenance  Costs

($157,437)

Annual  Maintenance  Costs

($460,782)

Interest  Payments  @  4%

($100,000)

Interest  Payments  @  4%

($100,000)

Total  Operating  Costs

($257,437)

Total  Operating  Costs

($560,782)

Annual  Revenue

Annual  Revenue Rental  Revenue  @  90%  Avg.  Occupancy Residential  Rental  Income  (Monthly/Unit) Number  of  units Annual  LIHTC  Subsidy

$449,820 $850

Rental  Revenue  @  90%  Avg.  Occupancy Residential  Rental  Income  (Monthly/Unit)

49

Number  of  units

$1,025,388

Annual  LIHTC  Subsidy

$1,316,520 $1,150 106 $1,342,806

Retail  Revenue

$16,875

Retail  Revenue

$0

Total  Revenue

$1,492,083

Total  Revenue

$2,659,326

Net  Operating  Income

$1,234,646

Net  Operating  Income

$2,098,544

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

APPENDIX

PRO-FORMAS FOR PROPOSED SITE USES DEVELOPMENT  PHASE  II  (Homeownership) Building  Size  (SF)

24,000 Retail  Space

0

Residential  Units

10

Outdoor  Recreation  Space

0

Development  Costs Acquisition  Cost  (1)

$1

Construction  Cost

$2,720,000 Construction  Cost  /  SF

Parking  /  Site  Improvement  Cost

$0

Parking  Cost  per  space  (3) Number  of  spaces Total  Soft  Costs

N/A 0 $408,000

Soft  Costs(4) Total  Development  Cost

$140

15% $3,128,001

Suggested  Development  Financing City  Loan

$720,000

PHFA,  HOME,  HTF  Grants

$2,408,576

Project  Equity  -­‐  LIHTC  (6)

$0.00

Total  

$3,128,001

Annual  Operating  Costs Annual  Maintenance  Costs

$0

Interest  Payments  @  4%

$0

Total  Operating  Costs

$0

Total  Revenue Sales  Proceeds

$1,650,000

Retail  Revenue

$0

Total  Revenue

$1,650,000

Net  Operating  Income

N/A

APPENDIX

109

Photo Credit: Katrina Ohstrom, Hidden City Philadelphia

END NOTES

END NOTES

END NOTES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Photo credits: Hidden City, Philadelphia Public School Notebook. Other photos and/or graphics by Studio members. BACKGROUND 1: Bloomberg News (22 Oct 2012). “Philadelphia Schools Lure Buyers as Budget Erodes.” 2: McKee, Guian (2008). The Problem of Jobs: Liberalism, Race & Deindustrialization in Philadelphia. Chicago: UChigago Press. 3: Ibid. 4: School District of Philadelphia (1967). Proposed Capital Program: 1967-1972. Philadelphia: Board of Education. 5: Ibid. 6: Philadelphia School District & Boston Consulting Group (2012). “Facilities Master Plan.” 7: Committee of Seventy (1981). “No School Today.” 8: Mezzacappa, Dale (13 Aug 2000). “A Superintendent Who Stood By Principles David Hornbeck’s Tenure At The Helm Of Philadelphia’s School System Was Not Short On Controversy. As He Prepares To Leave, Critics And Fans Agree: He Fought Hard.” Philadelphia Inquirer. 9: Snyder, Susan & Schogal, Mark (2001 Dec 22). “City Agrees to School Takeover Schweiker, Street ready for a full partnership.” Philadelphia Inquirer. 10: Pennsylvania School Boards Association (2009). “Pennsylvania Charter Schools: A Look at School & Student Performance.” 11: Graham, Kristen & Graham, Troy (30 April 2013). “Philadelphia School District to seek $60 million.” Philadelphia Inquirer. 12: Herold, Benjamin (2 Nov 2011). “District Recommends Just 9 Schools Be Closed.” Philadelphia Public School Notebook. 13: Philadelphia School District & Boston Consulting Group (2012). “Facilities Master Plan.” 14. Ibid. 15: Econsult Corporation (Nov 2010). “Vacant Land Management in Philadelphia: The Costs of the Current System & the Benefits of Reform.” 16: Independent research using ESRI ArcGIS software and Shapefiles provided by PCPC, PRA & PASDA. 17: US Census Bureau, 1990-2010. 18: Personal interviews with the SDP Department of Real Property Management; Pew Charitable Trusts (11 Feb 2013). “Shuttered

PHILADELPHIA SCHOOL REUSE STUDIO

Public Schools: The Struggle to Bring Old Buildings New Life.” 19: Pew Charitable Trusts (11 Feb 2013). “Shuttered Public Schools: The Struggle to Bring Old Buildings New Life.” 20: Ibid. Photo credits: Philadelphia Public School Notebook, Philadelphia Inquirer, DeWitt Mall, SWD Architects, Results Gym. Other photos and/or graphics by Studio members. POLICY: 1: School District of Philadelphia (2011). “Adaptive Sale & Reuse Policy.” 2: Ibid. 3: Personal interviews with the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation; Defense Base Closure & Realignment Commission (2013). Available online at www.brac.gov. 4: Kansas City Public Schools (2012). “KCPS Repurposing Initiative.” 5: School Redevelopment Initiative (2012). “Closing Schools, Opening Opportunities.” Philadelphia: Fels Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania. Photo credits: Philadelphia Public School Notebook, PlanPhilly, Robert AM Stern Architects, Pew Charitable Trusts, Fels Institute of Government, PMC Property Group, Hawthorne Lofts. Other photos and/or graphics by Studio members. REUSE: FAIRHILL: 1: 2009 Fall Studio Team. “Leveraging a Community’s Historic Assets to Meet its Contemporary Needs: A Preservation Plan for Fairhill.” University of Pennsylvania. 2009. http://www.design.upenn. edu/historic-preservation/2009-west-fairhill-neighborhoodphiladelphia. 2: Ibid. 3: Ibid. 4: Ibid. 5: Ibid. 6: Ibid. 7: U.S. Census, 2010. 8: Ibid. 9: Ibid.

“Brooklyn Spirits,” New York, NY. “Middle West Spirits,” Columbus, OH. “Culinary Enterprise Center,” Philadelphia, PA. …and others. Thank you to all who spoke with us and responded to our initial inquiries. Photo credits: Middle West Spirits, The Enterprise Center, The Plant. Other photos and/or graphics by studio members. VAUX/REYNOLDS: 1: Sources consulted include… Kromer, John (2009). Fixing Broken Cities: The Implementation of Urban Development Strategies. New York: Routledge. Philadelphia City Planning Commission (Apr 2008). “Sharswood: A Report on the AICP Community Planning Workshop for the Sharswood Neighborhood of Philadlephia.” Ryan, Brent D (2012). Design After Decline: How America Rebuilds Shrinking Cities. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Photo credits: Photos and/or graphics by Studio members. NEXT STEPS: Photo credits: Philadelphia Public School Notebook, Philadelphia Inquirer, Hidden City. Other photos and/or graphics by Studio members.

Photo credits: Photos and/or graphics by Studio members. SHERIDAN WEST: 1: Sources consulted include… Cassidy, Arly & Pattenson, Bowen (2008). “The Planner’s Guide to the Urban Food System.” Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Center for Sustainable Cities. Kromer, John (2009). Fixing Broken Cities: The Implementation of Urban Development Strategies. New York: Routledge. 2: Precedent studies include… “The Plant,” Chicago, IL.

113

END NOTES

10: Ibid. 11: Ibid. 12: Ibid. 13: Ibid. 14:Office for Community Development. “Lehigh Viaduct: New Success.” May 19, 2011. http://www.officeforcommunitydevelopment.org/ news.php?news=Lehigh-Viaduct%3A-New-Success&news_id=4. 15: U.S. Census, 2010. 16: Interface Studio LLC on behalf of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, Philadelphia Department of Commerce, and Community Partners. “The Economic Development Strategic Plan for Germantown and Lehigh.” July 2012. 17: Ibid. 18: Mosaic Development Partners. http://www.mosaicdp.com/ projects.html. 19: Reis, Inc. “Property Report: Submarket, North/Frankford, Apartment.” February 2013. 20: Chenoweth, David H. and Judy Garrett. “Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of a Worksite Clinic.” AAOHN Journal. 2006: 54, 2. At p 86. 21: Cnaan, Ram A and Beverly D. Frazier. “Assessing Philadelphia’s Social Service Capacity for Ex-Prisoner Re-Entry.” University of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy and Practice. November 1, 2007. 22: Charleston, Cortney. “The Seedlings of Second Changes.” University of Pennsylvania, undergraduate thesis paper. 23: Conversation with Sarah Thorp, Philadelphia Water Department on April 4, 2013. 24: PlanPhilly. “Green2015.” http://planphilly.com/green2015. 25: Philadelphia Water Department. http://www.phillywatersheds. org/what_were_doing/documents_and_data/cso_long_term_ control_plan.


New Life for Old Schools