[ad_1]
LOWELL — Wall clocks were stopped at random times in the rooms throughout the vacant Lowell District Court at 41 Hurd St. The two public phone booths — from which visitors made calls before the age of cellphones — were missing the actual phone sets. And the water to the drinking fountain was shut off.
But the ancient heating system was pumping out warm air on a chilly October morning, and the lights were working, giving a small group a toasty and safe way to navigate the sprawling courthouse buildings Thursday.
The public tour was arranged by the Department of Planning and Development under the terms of the request for proposal issued by the city in August.
“The RFP presents a unique opportunity for mixed-use development with the focus on residential development located in the downtown of the city of Lowell,” Asset Manager George Coulouras said at the onset of the self-guided tour. “We welcome you all here. If you have any questions, please direct them to the Purchasing Department.”
The two-story courthouse is actually two buildings. The original courthouse, closest to George Street, is a Federal Revival brick structure built in 1925 and expanded west toward Central Street in 1969. The almost 32,000-square-foot property included seven courtrooms and chambers as well as the Clerk of Court, Probation and other court support functions.
The District Court parcel has been vacant since 2020 when the new Lowell Justice Center, later renamed the Cornelius F. Kiernan Judicial Center, opened on Jackson Street. The work of the District Court and the Superior Court on Gorham Street were moved to the gleaming seven-story, 265,000-square-foot modern building that March.
The City Council tasked City Manager Tom Golden with exploring ways to take control of and utilize state and local buildings for housing or other uses.
Last year, the city took possession of the District Court property when Lowell’s legislative delegation secured passage of a home rule petition allowing the city to acquire the vacant Hurd and Gorham street courthouses. So far, the city has only exercised its option on the District Court site.
Once the city received the title to the property, the DPD put out a request for proposal in August, the first step in soliciting companies to develop the property.
The hulking property is not without its challenges or expense. With last year’s agreement, the city assumed the operating costs of the building, and the fiscal 2025 budget allocated $200,000 to cover utility costs alone. The city also assumed all staffing and maintenance of the building, including plowing, cutting the grass, and trash removal and security, such as regular patrols and security fencing.
Although the structure isn’t as waterlogged as the long-neglected Smith Baker Center on Merrimack Street, across from City Hall, and lacks the pervasive moldy, mildewy smell of that building, the courthouse shows many signs of decay due mostly to water infiltration.
In 2020, a facility evaluation study commissioned by the Middlesex Trial Court identified existing infrastructure issues with the building.
“The roof appears to require replacement, and there is evidence of water intrusion in several parts of the building,” the report said. “The buildings have many level changes with small flights of stairs between the various portions of the facility.”
This reporter experienced those infrastructure challenges firsthand, climbing up stairs in order to go down a level, squeezing through narrow passageways and observing significant water damage in the walls and ceilings. There were numerous grade changes that were potential hazards.
Although the newer side of the complex features more open spaces, the entire structure is a rabbit-warren of halls, stairwells, cubbyholes and doors — lots and lots of doors. The structure lacks modern conveniences like wiring for high-speed internet; energy-efficient heating systems; no air conditioning in the original wing; outdated bathrooms; and the structure is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The interior space did not look vandalized — no graffiti was seen, there were no broken windows and the wiring, plumbing and mechanical systems appeared to be intact. But some interior doors were heavily fortified and a mini encampment was seen, ironically, in the old prisoner intake room in the basement that overlooked the six jail cells. Remnants included a pile of blankets, clothes, spoiled food, a dead phone and a broken crack pipe.
Grafitti marked the exterior building and lots of trash littered the fenced-in grounds. The outdoor stairwell entrance off the back parking lot appeared to be a shooting gallery as the area was filled with needle caps and other drug paraphernalia. Syringe Collection Program Coordinator Andres Gonzalez picked up needles from that area following the tour.
Despite its frozen-in-time charm, it’s hard to imagine how the space can be repurposed for anything, much less housing. Even the 2020 report acknowledged that “The layout of the building limits the adaptability and flexibility of the courthouse for other uses.”
Elsewhere the report, which was available to the city before its acquisition, noted that the building would be “extremely difficult” to renovate “due to the condition and layout of the building,” and the “comprehensive nature of the renovations required.”
The property is not listed on the National Register of Historic Places.
The appraised value of the property is listed as almost $6.5 million. In 2020, demolition of the building was expected to cost $800,000, which no doubt is much higher in today’s market. Unless a potential developer assumes those costs, as owner, the city now bears full fiscal and physical responsibility.
Local historian and former Middlesex North Register of Deeds Richard Howe worked in the courthouse during his early career as a lawyer.
“I spent nearly every working day from 1986 to 1995 inside the building,” Howe said by email. “That was the court-appointed public defender phase of my legal career (pre-register of deeds) so I know the building well. It is maze-like and probably best torn down since it’s not significant architecturally.”
[ad_2]
Melanie Gilbert
Source link