Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Smith Baker Center topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Lowell council seeks timeline, costs and artifact-salvage plan for Smith Baker Center

2169032 · January 29, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Councilors voted to require a timeline and cost estimate for remediation and demolition of the city-owned Smith Baker Center and also requested a plan to identify and try to preserve historical artifacts or façade elements; public speakers and preservation advocates urged delay and reuse options.

The Lowell City Council on Jan. 28 asked the city manager to outline a timeline and cost estimates for containment, remediation and demolition of the city‑owned Smith Baker Center, and separately requested any plans to salvage historical artifacts or sections of the building27s façade.

The motions followed public comment from preservation advocates and a review of an engineering study that councilors said raised structural and cost uncertainties. Councilor Yang (mover) and Councilor Noon (second) carried the measures, and the council instructed the administration to return with details, including possible salvage measures.

The requests come after the council voted previously to move toward demolition. Supporters of preservation urged a pause and an RFP that would allow developers or nonprofits to propose reuse. Resident Bruce McCauley said he has launched online petitions and called for time to let “investors, nonprofit[s]…make an offer,” adding, “I feel a tremendous amount of guilt and responsibility” about the building27s condition. Dennis McCarthy, an architect who addressed the council, said the Gale engineering report shows the building may be repairable but that unknown costs remain, and asked the council to use available tools to find alternatives before demolition.

Assistant City Manager Joanne Baez told the council that abatement and demolition cost estimates are being solicited through the planned RFP: “We are soliciting information from vendors who do abatement work to try to understand what a potential abatement cost would be,” she said. Baez said abatement, demolition and cleanup would likely be combined in a single solicitation and that real numbers would emerge once the RFP process produced bids.

Council debate reflected a split between preservation impulses and concern about potentially large, uncertain costs. Councilor Blanchard said the Gale report indicates large structural degradation and that he could not “vote with my heart” if costs are prohibitive; he said the city must make a practical fiscal decision. Other councilors urged salvaging stained glass, fixtures and any façade elements that would not unduly hamper future redevelopment. Several councilors noted a separate MassDevelopment technical assistance grant vote on the same agenda (item 7.2) that would fund a $45,000 study of development scenarios for the site, including potential façade retention.

Councilors and staff also discussed the state and federal processes that affect timing: Baez said the city must coordinate with MassHistorical and with HUD, and that whether those reviews can proceed concurrently or sequentially will affect schedule. Councilors asked whether a short RFP window (for example, 30 days) might quickly reveal interest and available funding; staff said legal and historic‑review timing would influence whether such an approach is practical.

The council asked the administration to include in its report: a demolition/abatement timeline; expected cost ranges or the method by which cost estimates will be obtained; whether and how salvageable artifacts and stained glass could be identified and preserved; and how any façade retention could be studied or supported as part of a future development solicitation. Staff also pointed the council to the Gale engineering report, which is available on the council agenda page.

The council27s motions do not require the city to delay demolition; they ask the manager to return with specific information so the council can decide next steps.

What happens next: staff will continue RFP drafting and coordination with MassDevelopment, MassHistorical and HUD as needed. The council also voted earlier on item 7.2 (a $45,000 MassDevelopment technical assistance grant) that the administration said could fund a feasibility analysis that includes consideration of retaining the façade. The timing for any demolition, RFP or preservation work will depend on those concurrent steps and on the bids produced by the procurement process.