Gordon Woods housing? Let's talk about it.

To the Editor,

Last week the developers of a proposed housing project called "Gordon Woods" presented to the Affordable Housing Trust after having previously discussed it with other town committees.  Their proposal: three large buildings containing 285 rental units, over 70 being affordable.  

Our town is still compelled to potentially allow such a project because we do not have enough affordable housing units here.  The size is a direct result of the high price tag Gordon College expects for the land.  The developer appears to be reasonable, and has already considered some requests made by town officials.

It seems clear the town is faced with a very big question: Do we want to simply oppose this project and possibly experience the same expense, legal and emotional anguish we are currently still witnessing with Shingle Hill, or do we want to try to negotiate changes in order to find a way to mold it to help us meet our housing production goals?  

This could mean some amount of truly affordable units (60% AMI) as well as some intentionally smaller units that would cost less and address the need for "missing middle housing".  There are other housing types and forms of ownership which might also be brought to the table.  It might make good sense to work with the developer with an open mind.  How else will we ever see the kinds of housing produced here that we desire?

The biggest piece of leverage the town has is that we are not compelled to allow more than about 140 units, the number that would bring the town into compliance with Manchester’s mandate for affordable housing with the state.  In contrast, the developer has admitted they need at least 250 units to pay the price for the property.  Perhaps Gordon College could reduce their price and thus the developer could reduce the size of their proposal?

As it is, they state they have reduced the massiveness of the design by wrapping two buildings around a courtyard creating a public commons area with a pool.  The third building is separate from this complex.  However, the ruthlessly long roof ridges which appear about two hundred feet in length work against this.  Their attempt at reducing the building massing involves paper thin gable ends stuck on the building, rather than actually breaking the building up into smaller chunks.  In short, there are lots of design options possible to reduce the scale of the project, but this would likely increase the amount of land being developed, and thus increase the costs.  There is always a tradeoff.

There are other issues that come to play beyond unit counts and massive scale.  The town owns landlocked land that only Gordon College can allow access to and which could become a sports field.  The college could also place a conservation restriction while also allowing public access on some of their land.  There is clearly room for discussion and the college should join in directly.

Do we want to just say no and butt heads with this new development team and cause more cost and trauma to our town, or do we want to try to work with them to get the kinds of varied housing types that our town truly needs?  

After all, we have no effective way of attaining our housing goals unless we work with a developer in a cooperative way.  We should at least give it a serious try.

Gary Gilbert, Architect

Manchester