The Morning Call – Letter to the Editor

The Morning Call – Letter to the Editor
I would like to express the opinion of many concerned local citizens regarding the demolition of Broughal Middle School. There was a time when civic buildings were designed and built to inspire and beautify our public spaces while providing solid anchors in our neighborhoods. Broughal, a 1917 Italian Renaissance building designed by a prominent local architect, A. W. Leh, is an excellent example of this, not to mention it is the last 20^th century school in South Bethlehem built to the same high standards as Liberty and William Allen High. A recent article in The Morning Call [see attached] reports that the Bethlehem Planning Commission gave final approval for a plan to replace Broughal Middle School with a $43 million environmentally friendly school building, including athletic fields and an underground parking garage.
Simply stated, this proposal is the wrong choice for many reasons. Strong economic, environmental and historical evidence supporting preservation vs. demolition have already been clearly demonstrated and presented to this Board by experts in their respective fields.
Demolishing this fine structure to clear the plot for recreation areas would not only be a mistake of historic proportion, it would be a colossal waste of money and quality building space. The costs of demolition alone would be enormous, and a deadweight loss to the district and local taxpayers. In addition, there will be an enormous environmental impact as the demolished historic materials clog up our already overburdened landfills. Such a destruction of assets, especially irreplaceable, historic assets, is, at best, poor management, and, at worst, a kind of vandalism. The economic loss to the taxpayers from the destruction of the building includes not only the monies spent on demolition, but also the lost value of the building that could be realized from its sale or reuse.
For example, the opportunity to partner with Lehigh University to use the building can hardly be overestimated. The location is ideal & the renovation costs Lehigh would face in converting the building to university use would be a fraction of the costs of a new structure, all the while preserving the irreplaceable qualities of the 90-year-old building. Other space for university expansion on the city edge of the campus is limited and expensive. In return, Lehigh owns a large underdeveloped parking lot suitable for open space directly across the Street from Broughal.
What possible reason can there be to destroy the hard work and memories of those who built this community when such a simple trade of property could preserve all that and save everyone money in the process? What stands in the way of the two parties achieving the same result on their own?
The city attorney, James Broughal, working on behalf of the school district, has argued against a proposal that would preserve and reuse the historic building. Mr. Broughal stated in The Morning Call article that, “The Bethlehem Area School Board has already weighed and rejected the idea of historic preservation and the state Department of Education would not look kindly on the idea of two schools at the same site.” This is an interesting statement considering the Department of Education’s own guidelines concerning historic buildings eligible for National Register status:
“National Register of Historic Buildings – If any buildings, structures, site conditions or site features on this site are more than 50 years old, the district should contact the Bureau for Historic Preservation in the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission at [phone] to determine their historical significance. School districts should take all reasonable efforts to preserve and protect school buildings that are on or eligible for local or national historic registers. If for safety, educational, economic, or other reasons, it is not feasible to renovate an existing school building, school districts are encouraged to develop an adaptive reuse plan for the building that incorporates a historic easement or covenant to avoid the building’s abandonment or demolition.”
We already know from an April 4, 2005 letter to Christine Ussler from the PHMC, that Broughal is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
When there is overwhelming evidence that the school can be preserved, why then would the state Dept. of Education grant permission to Bethlehem to tear it down, and even worse, to provide a state subsidy to the district to do so? Furthermore, when the city attorney states that, ''If you restrict the demolition of the Broughal Middle School, the project cannot possibly go forward.” I question how the project can go forward if you plan on demolition when it is clearly stated that school districts are supposed to preserve historic schools.
Last fall, Spillman Farmer (local architectural firm) submitted a plan that reused the historic building while providing a new school for no more than the current $43 million plan. Those plans were not made public and the district chose another plan, one requiring demolition of Broughal.
Considering the Department of Education’s guidelines, the onus is on the School Board to prove why Spillman Farmer’s plans or similar proposals are not viable. The guidelines clearly state that school districts, “should take all reasonable efforts . . . to avoid the building’s abandonment or demolition.” The community and taxpayers of Bethlehem must be shown that that this due diligence has been performed.
Furthermore, the 12/28/06 article in The Morning Call regarding Broughal Middle School is extremely disturbing (see http://www.mcall.com/news/local/bethlehem/all-4broughaldec28,0,5857200.story). Fortunately, an alarmed local citizen, Stephen Antalics, alerted the Department of Education and local newspaper to the School Board’s questionable activity of removing elements of Broughal’s façade. Why are they doing this during the Department of Education’s 30-day construction moratorium period? Their lame explanation of “exploratory not construction work” is illogical as the building was approved for demolition which negates exploration and is clearly the start of demolition. More importantly, why the rush when several members of the School Board have expressed an interest in reevaluation after the public’s outcry to reconsider alternatives. At the 14 December Broughal public input meeting, many concerned citizens spoke out in support of rehabilitating Broughal and the many benefits of such a plan. The general message from the citizens in attendance at this meeting was that a win-win situation could be attained if the School Board were willing to discuss the options. After the meeting, several School Board members spoke to the attendees indicating their willingness to continue working to reach a plan that would satisfy all parties. However, this latest action by some members of the School Board blatantly displays their total lack of respect and disregard of public input insofar as they cannot be seriously considering public input as they simultaneously allow the removal of façade features.
The South Side community deserves to have their heritage preserved through an economically responsible and environmentally friendly rehabilitation of Broughal School. The Friends of Broughal School are mobilized and we will not be deterred by attempts to deface (and disgrace) this important building before the public’s concerns are properly addressed. Delay is Preferable to Error!
Anyone interested in learning more is invited to attend the following public meeting hosted by the Mayor’s South Side Task Force:
DATE: January 23, 2007 – Tuesday

TIME: 7:00 pm

WHERE: Forte Building, 1337 Fifth St., South Side of Bethlehem

Amey Senape, LU Graduate Student, Co-Founder Save Our Steel

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it is the only thing that ever does.”  - Margaret Mead