Two redevelopment teams propose differing adaptive‑reuse plans for William Penn campus

Two developer teams presented competing plans for adaptive reuse of the vacant William Penn High School campus at a special meeting of the Harrisburg City School District and receiver on May 21.

The presentations — one from Capital Rebirth in partnership with the Shades of Greatness Foundation and another from The Bridge (led by Gary Gilliam) — proposed mixed‑use projects intended to combine vocational and career training, health services, housing and sports/rec center space. Both teams described multi‑phase builds and said they expect to rely on a mix of private investment, grants and tax‑credit financing. No formal board action was taken; the district’s receiver said the board will resume discussion at its May 27 meeting when the district’s architect of record presents options.

Why it matters: the 100‑year‑old William Penn building sits in a high‑visibility, low‑income part of Harrisburg and has been under study by a task force. Both teams said redevelopment could create new training opportunities for students and jobs for area residents, and both teams framed their work as a way to stabilize and stimulate nearby commercial corridors. Board members repeatedly asked how student safety, traffic, phasing and long‑term district interests would be protected.

Capital Rebirth presentation

Michael Simpson of Capital Rebirth and a partner who identified himself as Wendt described a plan that would demolish the rear portion of the building, restore the façade and redevelop roughly 12.9 acres while preserving green space. Simpson said the project would encompass vocational and technical education space, an indoor sports complex, a childcare center, a community resource center, a medical facility, restaurants/retail, playgrounds and housing.

Simpson said the proposal envisions roughly 260,000 square feet of developed space on about 6 acres for the sports complex and associated facilities, with around 80 one‑ and two‑bedroom housing units on about 2.2 acres. He listed square‑foot figures during the presentation: a roughly 100,000‑square‑foot training facility, a 10,000‑square‑foot medical clinic, a 25,000‑square‑foot resource center, a 1,000‑square‑foot child care center and a 3,000‑square‑foot restaurant; Simpson said their current aggregated development estimate was about $77,000,000.

Simpson said Capital Rebirth has held multiple public town halls and “over 8,500 petitions signed in support” of their plan. He said the group would seek a long‑term lease of the property if the district does not sell it — “long as the lease is at least probably a little 70, 80 years or more,” he said — because investors are unlikely to put tens of millions of dollars into a site without long‑term control. Simpson identified the project’s first development phase as the vocational/career center (a three‑to‑five‑year build) together with the medical facility.

Board members pressed the presenters on several points: whether the developer sought to buy or lease the land (Simpson said either, depending on lease length), phasing and contingency planning if funding stopped mid‑phase, how background clearances and child‑safety protections would be handled for organizations running programs with children, and whether traffic studies had been completed (Simpson said those would be part of predevelopment studies, which are costly and done once site control advances). Simpson also said Capital Rebirth would restore the front colonnade and honor William Penn alumni in hallway displays.

The Bridge presentation

Gary Gilliam of The Bridge introduced an alternative focused strongly on restoring and reusing the existing William Penn structure while adding multipurpose outdoor sports fields, maker and lab spaces, and a small residential component. Benedict, Tom (Thomas Jones) and other team members described a plan that emphasizes restoration of the auditorium and public interior spaces and placing housing in wings and new buildings adjacent to the site.

Tom Jones (project execution/finance lead) said the Bridge team had spent cash on prior related efforts and outlined a multi‑step development and financing pathway that included public‑private partnership (P3) structures, bridge loans, tax‑exempt bond and tax‑credit strategies, new markets and low‑income housing tax credits, and other subsidy and grant sources. Jones summarized an initial feasibility variant that showed an estimated total development cost in the mid‑tens of millions to the mid‑sixties of millions of dollars depending on final scope; he said one feasibility scenario was about $64,000,000. He also said the team had spent “$3,100,000 in cash” on related site efforts elsewhere and that construction financing would be staged with a senior lender and subordinated sources.

The Bridge’s design renderings kept the main school structure and proposed 44 residential units in new buildings adjacent to the campus, restored courtyards, multipurpose sport fields to the north and retained classroom/maker spaces inside the existing building. Benedict and Gilliam emphasized restoring the auditorium for events, using maker spaces and labs for vocational education, and locating management offices on the upper floors to maintain an on‑site presence.

Board questions and public comment

Board members sought detail on parking, security, how students would be protected during operation and construction, where school district benefit and revenue would flow, and the district’s legal and financial exposure. Several board members repeatedly requested written pro formas, evidence of committed funding, and clarification of what the district would or would not be asked to contribute. Receiver Dr. Suskey told the presenters the board would continue discussion at its May 27 meeting when Crabtree & Associates (the district’s architect of record) will present district perspectives.

During public comment, several residents and task‑force members urged the board to move carefully but said they supported adaptive reuse that preserves the building’s heritage and delivers community benefits. One commenter asked the board to consider selling the property “for a dollar” and taking a lien to protect future use; other commenters said a public‑private partnership that preserves and reuses the site is preferable and urged the board to read the task force’s November 2023 report. A local planning commissioner warned against removing the building and turning the site into open sports fields without broader planning, saying demolition could destabilize adjacent blocks.

What was not decided

No lease, sale or development agreement was approved. No votes were taken. The receiver recommended continuing the discussion at the board’s May 27 meeting after the district’s architect presents options; the board accepted that approach.

Details and figures mentioned during the meeting

- Capital Rebirth/Simpson: plan estimate about $77,000,000; 12.9 acres developed, roughly 260,000 sq ft for major components; roughly 80 housing units proposed; 3–5 year timeline for Phase 1 (vocational center and medical clinic); 8,500 petition signatures claimed by the presenters. - Capital Rebirth said it would consider long leases of 70–80 years if the district did not transfer title. - The Bridge/Gilliam: emphasized restoration of the existing building, proposed roughly 44 residential units in adjacent new buildings in the feasibility variant, and presented an initial feasibility scenario of roughly $64,000,000 (variant‑dependent). Tom Jones said the Bridge team has pro formas that project revenue share to the district and described a staged capital stack using equity, bridge loans, tax credits and tax‑exempt bonding where possible. - Both teams said they plan multi‑phase development, to pursue grants and private capital, and to stage construction to reduce risk.

What comes next

The receiver announced the board will defer substantive deliberation until the May 27 meeting, when the district’s architect will present options from the district perspective. Board members asked for written pro formas, clearer evidence of committed financing and more detailed plans for traffic, security and child‑safety procedures before making a decision.

(Quotes in this article are drawn from the public meeting transcript. Attribution follows the meeting record.)

Ending: The meeting produced two detailed pitches and significant board and public questioning but no commitment to a specific developer or plan. The board scheduled further review with the district architect on May 27 and asked both teams for additional written materials and confirmed financing details ahead of further consideration.