h.e.a.l chicopee; a strategic plan for the uniroyal / facemate properties

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE

LA702 CAPSTONE CLINIC, CORNELL UNIVERSITY C. GRUbER; C. HARdY; C. HORTON; d. KEANE; L. POULIOT;

Health, Ecology, Activity, Legacy

A Strategic Plan for the Uniroyal / Facemate Properties

Spring 2010

H.E.A.L ChicopeeHealth, Ecology, Activity, Legacy...

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



H.E.A.L Team

Christian Gruber, Master of Landscape Architecture Candidate 2010

Christopher Hardy, Master of Landscape Architecture Candidate 2010

Christopher Horton, Master of Landscape Architecture Candidate 2010

Lee M. Pouliot, Master of Landscape Architecture Candidate 2010

Professor deni Ruggeri - Cornell University Department of Landscape Architecture

declan Keane, Master of Landscape Architecture Candidate 2011

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE

I

"I want to at least see something nice built for us. I think that it should be as a memory place. So when something got torn down they could put it in there as a memory of what Chicopee was really like back then. Then when they have the whole place done people can go and remember what it was like back then."

- Student Participant

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



H.E.A.L Team

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Community Survey

Chapter 3: Student Visioning

Chapter 4: Preservation Plan

Chapter 5: The Chicopee River

Chapter 6: Remediation Plan

Chapter 7: Redevelopment Framework

Chapter 8: Future Projections

Table of Contents

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE

II

1

8

28

57

16

48

35

64

My grandfather worked there many moons ago, my parents would tell me stories of when my grandmother and father would sit in their car and wait for my grandfather to get out of work. My father worked at facemate for at least 10 years. I also worked there for a summer when I was 16. I have a lot of memories of company picnics behind the old facemate tower.

- Survey Respondent

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



III

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE

20 years from now, I would like to see Chicopee turn into an eco-friendly city. I believe that when Factory Village is knocked [down] and if Chicopee builds an eco-friendly park that the whole city would take part in it. I assume this because once they see what the park is made out of and how durable it is, they would want to build more stuff out of it like cars, bikes, and maybe houses. Plus once you see that the items are re-used, they would be cheaper so the city of Chicopee would have more money for schools and other important city stuff. This is what I will think would happen to the City of Chicopee in twenty years.

- Student Participant



1.

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEEChapter 1:

Introduction Table of Contents

Figure 1: The Fisk Rubber Company Postcard; circa 1901. Figure 2: The Fisk Rubber Company; Summer 2010 (demolished).

Site Location 2

Site Context

design Challenge

2

3

Project Impetus 4

Extended Site background 5

Current Site Status

Objectives

Redevelopment Planning Process

H.E.A.L Process

Clients

This town did not grow into an industrial community; it suddenly found that it was one. - Vera Shlakman

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



2.

Site Location Site Context

The Uniroyal / Facemate site is located adjacent to Chicopee Center on the edge of the Chicopee Falls Neighborhood. Chicopee is located to the north of Springfield, MA. According to the 2000 census, Chicopee had a population of about 54,000 residents and Springfield had 150,000. Although many percieve Chicopee as a bedroom community to Springfield, with more than a third of the city's population and an alternative city center, Chicopee is legally and functionally a distinct municipality and economic district.

Chicopee is a stop along the Massachusetts Turnpike, I-90, which has an exit on Memorial drive less than a mile from the redevelopment site. Regional connections are further enhanced with nearby access to I-91, a major North - South route through the larger region.

As a stop along the Turnpike, with a distinct city center and historic mill buildings, Chicopee has the opportunity to redefine itself as a gateway to the berkshires, a linkage to Northhampton and a partner to Springfield.

Figure 4: Current site conditions.

Redevelopment Planning Process

The city of Chicopee is no stranger to the ill effects of economic recessions...

- At its height, this industrial center employed some 7,000 area residents who worked in armaments, tools and textiles among other industries.

- by 1980, however, these once bustling mills lining the Chicopee River stood silent, empty and destined to deteriorate beyond any hope of reuse.

- In the spring of 2009, the city successfully gained ownership of all 67.2 acres Factory Villages remaining industrial lands. After a fifteen year battle to obtain what has been termed, an albatross for the city, officials plan to demolish the remaining 26 historic structures and remediate pollution to allow for future redevelopment.

- However, as city historian Stephen Jendrysik points out, the remaining red brick monuments on West Main Street will disappear, signaling the end of an era.

- Excerpts from Research Paper - Lee M. Pouliot

In January of 2009, the City of Chicopee applied to the Massdevelopment brownfields Redevelopment Fund, Priority Project designation Program:

- The redevelopment of the Uniroyal / Facemate property is the top economic development priority for the City of Chicopee...

- For 30 years, these once vibrant industrial complexes, strategically situated at the geographic center of the City on the banks of the Chicopee River, have sat largely dormant...

- ...the Citys focus now is on addressing the extensive and complex legal, environmental and structural issues that have undermined the sites redevelopment potential and hindered redevelopment efforts...

- ...the magnitude, complexity and cost of preparing the site for private investment will require the substantial infusion of public resources...

- The City of Chicopee is not in a position to cover these costs on its own and needs significant assistance from the sate and federal governments...

- MASSDevelopment Brownfield Redevelopment Fund Priority Project Designation Form

Current Site Status

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



3.

- The Uniroyal / Facemate properties are a brownfield with many stakeholders tied to it via liability, legal accountability, or the redevelopment process. These ties complicate and slow the process, except in regard to demolition.

- The City perceives the buildings as a hazard and is actively seeking to remove all structures on the site.

- There is little to no market for the redevelopment of the property. There are similar sites in Chicopee and the surrounding area that are competing for the same subsidies and grants for site remediation and development. There are also available greenfields that do not have the 26 million dollar estimated remediation costs associated with them.

How does a small community approach the redevelopment of a contaminated site with unstable structures during an unfavorable market while also addressing the importance of historic legacy?

- The Community/Economic development Office does not believe any existing buildings can feasibly be redeveloped

- Interest in saving urban relics, envisions city razing most structures, guiding remediation and clean-up to prepare the site for redevelopment (private investment).

- Remediation costs estimated at $26 million.

- desire to develop a vision for the sites redevelopment.

- Interested in developing multiple projections based on differing market possibilities.

- The city has recently acquired most of the properties, nearly all structures will have to come down.

- Had hoped for some structures to be converted to new uses, that hope has faded with recent fires and a partial collapse. - Envisions a mixed-use neighborhood redevelopment strategy.

- Interest in connecting project with conservation opportunities across the river.

- Realizes that most structures are beyond physical preservation.

- Interest in former Facemate office building (building #3) for local history displays and city visitors center.

- Supports the expansion of the Chicopee river walk and bikeway.

- does not believes a mixed-use redevelopment strategy is not appropriate for this project.

Tom Haberlin, AICP - Director of Economic Development

Kate Brown, Director of Planning & Conservation Officer

Stephen Jendrysik, City Historian

Site Context (cont.) design Challenge Clients

Figure 5: Facemate building; west faade.

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



4.

The former Uniroyal / Facemate properties, part of Chicopees former Factory Village industrial development represent one of the largest and most unique brown field redevelopment projects the City can pursue. With master planning and site demolition already in progress, we, a team of students from the department of Landscape Architecture at Cornell University will develop a resilient strategic vision for the properties that utilizes the sites historic past and future potential. This plan will detail possible steps through which the site can evolve, from deserted industrial mills into a re-imagined and re-purposed source of civic identity.

H.E.A.L ChicopeeHealth, Ecology, Activity, Legacy...

H -ealth:Address on-site contamination issues to reveal the opportunities and constraints of Factory Villages landscape.

E -cology:Envision Factory Village within a new environmental context.

A -ctivity:Trigger a new socially active and appropriate program for Factory Village.

L -egacy:Showcase Factory Villages worldwide influences while interpreting Chicopees historic evolution.

Figure 6: H.E.A.L logo.

Project ImpetusH.E.A.Ls Objectives

This strategic plan integrates the elements of Health, Ecology, Activity and Legacy (H.E.A.L.) We believe that these elements are important in defining Chicopees identity as well as successfully re-envisioning the site in its new context.

H.E.A.Ls Process

Research & Analysis - Site context & assessment - Contemporary literature review - Case studies

Community Participation - City-wide community survey - School participation process - Oral history documentation - City official & public meetings - Re-assessment

Professional Shadowing - Professional partners - Weekly updates - Collaboration - Re-assessment

Plan Development & Review - Development - Iterative design process - Three phased visions - Living document - Re-assessment Figure 7: H.E.A.L team mapping local context.

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



5.

The city of Chicopee is no stranger to the ill effects of an economic recession. As, a place of profit where people made things,1 several of Americas largest mill complexes located here in Factory Village during the 19th and 20th centuries. At its height, this industrial center employed some 7,000 area residents who worked in armaments, tools and textiles among other industries.2 The citys success was intimately tied to the boom and bust cycles common to manufacturing during the period. by 1980, however, these once bustling mills lining the Chicopee River stood silent, empty and destined to deteriorate beyond any hope of reuse. In the spring of 2009, the city successfully gained ownership of the former Uniroyal / Facemate properties. After a fifteen year battle to obtain what has been termed, an albatross for the city, officials plan to demolish the remaining 26 historic structures and remediate soils to allow for future redevelopment.3 However, as city historian Stephen Jendrysik points out, the remaining red brick monuments on West Main Street will disappear, signaling the end of an era.4

Vera Shlakman points out in her Economic History of a Factory Town, that Chicopee did not follow the typical evolutionary pattern of other New England towns and cities.5 As Shlakman states, This town did not grow into an industrial community; it suddenly found that it was one.6 The town seal, approved in 1848, solidifies the reality of this statement. As Figure 87 shows, the seal, depicts the profile of Chicopees brick-constructed factories along with three important products of Chicopee manufacturersThere is nothing on the seal to suggest Chicopee had a historic past. It is as if Chicopees beginning was in 1848 rather than 1648.8

To be sure, Chicopees identity is intimately tied to an industrial legacy spanning the majority of the settlements existence. While the demolition and redevelopment of the industrial park is future oriented the removal of these structures signifies a fear of losing civic identity and the end of hopes that Chicopee will return to a status of industrial pre-eminence: to exist once again without a historic past. Industry gave birth to Chicopee and with this final nail in the coffin, the death and destruction of the mills can be argued to signal the death of the city itself. To allow this industrial heritage to fade, however, would be to ignore the opportunity to redefine the city and site in a 21st century vision of the relationship between technology, nature and society. To

realize a new future for the city and for these former industrial properties, one needs only to understand how the city developed through these elements and how a new relationship between them can be generated to guide re-visioning and redevelopment in the context Chicopees industrial heritage.

Early Settlements & Agriculture 1630 - 1822

The early settlements within the boundaries of present-day Chicopee are difficult to place in time with much certainty. However, it is generally agreed that the areas first settlers arrived during the 1630s.9 William Pynchon from Roxbury, MA is credited as one of the areas first settlers. He established a Puritan presence in the Connecticut River Valley when he and his associates purchased lands from the Pequot Indian tribe and established Springfield as a trading post to partake of the fur trade. during this time period, the Connecticut River Valley represented the first frontier of New England. Prospecting parties that explored the area two years earlier were easily able to navigate the Connecticut River which meant that water transport from Long Island Sound to Western Massachusetts was possible. Goods could be shipped down the river while also arriving easily from the East. It was noted that the valley was fertile; farms could be cleared and worked (as observed by Pequot Indian plantings in meadows)

1 John Robert Mullin, Bellamys Chicopee: A Laboratory for Utopia?, Journal of Urban History 29, no. 2 (december 2003): 140.2 John Robert Mullin, 140-141. 3 Jeanette deForge, Uniroyal site takes first step to future, Sunday Republican (Springfield) 16 August 2009: C1. 4 Stephen R. Jendrysik, Chicopee home to areas early factories, Chicopee Plus: The Republican 30 September 2009: CP4. 5 Vera Shlakman, Economic History of a Factory Town: A Study of Chicopee, Massachusetts, Smith College Studies in History 20, no. 1-4 (October 1934 July 1935). 6 Vera Shlakman, 25. 7 Town & City of Chicopee Seals: http://www.usgennet.org/usa/ma/county/hampden/graphics/chic2.gif. 10 december 2009.

8 John Robert Mullin, 140-141.9 John Robert Mullin, 136.

Extended Site background[R]-Evolving Relationships: Technology, Nature & SocietyThe shifting images and realities of a factory village.

and towns could easily be established on the rivers edge.10

Less than four years after Pynchons arrival and the establishment of Springfield, residents moved out into the frontier once again and settled what was then known as the North Springfield district. Two locations, one at Skeepmuch and the other at Chikkuppy rivers mouth, both on the south side of the river, were documented.11 Figure 912, an early map of the area, locates Chicopee Falls and Chicopee Center (also known as Cabotville). Cabotville roughly corresponds to the settlement at the rivers mouth while Skeepmuch was established just above the Chicopee Falls area.13 The Chapin brothers, in 1675, were the first settlers to be documented as having permanent residence in the boundaries of Chicopee. by 1687, the settlers established a saw mill and in 1694 both a corn mill and blacksmith shop were functioning. The settlements grew quickly and by 1713, a farmers daughter was hired to provide schooling for children.14

Early life was not simple, however and it is important at this point, to discuss three forces that had unique impacts on the Chicopee settlements: the wilderness concept, the Puritan ordering of towns and the domineering role of Springfield.

Stilgoe argues that the wilderness motif typical of New Englands first century of settlement went unnoticed by the areas original explorers. As

the, husbandmen felled trees and broke up ground for planting they became aware of the wilderness at the edge of the fields.15 Whereas explorers like Pynchon saw the opportunity of settlement, those that actually settled saw the dark and impenetrable forest. Puritans feared the forest and those of Chicopee where not unlike other New England settlers. Stilgoe continues, Puritans disliked the pathless forest because they entered it from open, ordered towns and the more ordered the town the more its inhabitants disliked the chaos around it.16 Figure 1017 depicts the ordering of Chicopee from Mount Holyoke while Figure 1118 portrays the road through wilderness as dangerous, dark and challenging to traverse. In figure 10, the improved workings of man dominate the valley near the confluence of the two rivers while wild nature dominates the

10 Vera Shlakman, 15-16. 11 Collins G. burnham, The City of Chicopee, The New England Magazine 24 no. 4 (May 1898): 361.12 Vera Shlakman, 10. 13 Collins G. burnham, 361.14 Vera Shlakman, 16-17. 15 John R. Stilgoe, Common Landscape of America, 1580 to 1845, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982. 51.16 John R. Stilgoe, 51. 17 barrows Mussey, Old New England, New York: A.A. Wyn, Inc., 1946. 78.18 William F. Robinson, Abandoned New England: Its Hidden Ruins and Where to Find Them, Canada: Little, brown and Company, 1976. 12.

Figure 8: Town & City seals of Chicopee

Figure 9: Original Chicopee villages.

Figure 10: Chicopee villages from Mount Holyoke.

Figure 11: Corduroy-bridge, Mount Mansfield Road.

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



6.

Extended Site background (cont.)

surrounding hills and mountains. As the caption reads, observing everywhere the improvements of man. There were also the Pequot Indians to fear. Attacks and war were common with the tribe from the early days of Springfield.19 Fear of the natives was a constant concern for Chicopee. As burnham writes, The fear of Indians was upon the settlers. When Hannah Chapin was making a dress for her marriage to John Sheldon, Jrher mother advised her to make it strong enough to wear into captivity20 doors were often thickly studded with nails to resist the damaging blows of the Indian hatchet.21 It would not be until the mid-19th century with new technologies that the fear of Indians would finally subside.22

In 1635, the Ordering of Towns was written for New Englanders as a guide to the proper development of a town. While much less detailed than the Spanish version of the document its themes are identical:

a plantation of six concentric zones set within a territory six miles square; the meeting house, the center of the whole circumference, is the point about which the whole plantation should be ordered. Around is a zone of houses, orderly places to enjoy comfortable communion, and beyond a ring of common fields, where everyone works for the common welfare.23

As Mullin notes, Chicopee, due to its prime soils and proximity to Springfields marketplace, evolved as an agricultural community.24 This may not seem surprising to many, since as John Stilgoe points out,

Most of the settlements ofNew England were agricultural from the beginning because their founders intended them to be permanent. Some of the colonists carefully modeled after the traditional territorial landschaft of the Old World, and for many decades they feared the new roadless wildernessthe first shaping of New World wilderness was distinctly agriculturalno settlement would survive if it could not feed itself.25

What is unique, however, is that Chicopee never developed beyond an agriculturally based community as other New England towns did without outside influence. While this could have been the result of Springfields domineering qualities it was most likely an effect of farms not being prosperous enough to allow the pursuit of other investments. Shlakman confirms the continued agricultural focus of Chicopee in her argument that by the end of the colonial period (early 19th century), Chicopee had not developed enough to allow the emergence of mercantile capital.26

The Ordering of Towns also implies that, ...shaped space controls society.27 Chicopee differed from other settlements in this respect as well. Springfield, being settled earlier, became the commercial, religious and residential hub of the area.28 It would not be until 1750 that a successful petition for Chicopees incorporation passed in Massachusetts General Court and a church finally built in 1751. However, Chicopee would remain under the municipal jurisdiction of Springfield until 1848.29 Further diverging from the typical New England town format, Chicopee men did not invest in the canals, bridges and turnpikes of Springfield, a collective effort among all New Englanders that Stilgoe argues confirms the desire, to establish in New England the revered landshaft order of the past30 Whether or not the settlers of Chicopee desired the landshaft order can be argued, however, what is quite evident is that in 1822, what was an agricultural settlement would evolve nearly overnight into something quite different in form, function and identity. The Transition to Industry: Technologys Domination

david Nye, in Technology, Nature and American Origin Stories, argues that,

19 Vera Shlakman, 16. 20 John Robert Mullin, 137. 21 John Robert Mullin, 138. 22 Vera Shlakman, 17. 23 John R. Stilgoe, 43.24 John Robert Mullin, 136.25 John R. Stilgoe, 34.26 Vera Shlakman, 19. 27 John R. Stilgoe, 44. 28 John Robert Mullin, 136.29 Vera Shlakman, 17. 30 John R. Stilgoe, 49.

When repudiating the colonial past, Americans wove stories of origin that emphasized particular technologies, notably the ax, the mill, the canal, the steamboat, the railroad, the steel plow, and the irrigation dam. The use of these technologies to reshape the land defined an American story of origins in which the nation was conceived as a second creation built in harmony with Gods first creation.31

Arguably, Chicopees first origin story revolved around the ax and the clearing of forest land for agriculture. In 1822, however, that story would nearly disappear to be replaced with a new origin story. Unlinked to that of the communitys agricultural past this new story focused on the power needed to drive industry, specifically textile mills and Skenungonuck Falls (Chicopee Falls) was a prime source.32 The balance between land, market and community changed abruptly when the boston Associates purchased water and property rights along the river in the Chicopee Falls village. builders of the famed mills of Waltham, Lowell and Holyoke, the original plans called for a, simple L-shaped mill village layout with the mill structures, a canal, and road running parallel to the river while boarding houses were perpendicular.33 However, the builders soon realized that much more extensive development was appropriate on the site and in a minimal period of time four Lowell System mills were constructed.

Chicopee converted instantly from a farming community into a town built for profit. As Mullin states, ...it was as if with the coming of the mills, its 170-year dependence on agricultural production, its village character, and its traditional self-governance were simply crushed.34 Now controlled by bankers, insurance companies and investors located in boston, the city no longer fit the bill of Winthrops idealized city upon a hill. Change was so quick, that an author of the time wrote, ...this pleasant village is growing up with astonishing rapidity and bids fair to becomea second Lowell. A few weeks produce changes here that almost destroy the identity of the place and give to the visitor new objects of admiration35

Nye further develops his argument regarding origin stories in stating that, A foundation narrative often was not about an individual hero, but was told in the passive voice and emphasized the technologies themselves. It is the ax, the mill, the canal, the railroad, or the irrigation dam that caused the chain of events. While a particular person or a corporation is acknowledged to have initiated the process or to have profited from it, the story is presented as a typical case of what inevitably; will take place36

If then, inevitably, Chicopee was destined to become a factory village, was it also destined to be viewed as a utopian entity? To understand this new turn in Chicopees character, one must study Americas most famed Utopian, Edward bellamy, and the evolution Chicopee experienced during his lifetime.37

bellamy was born in 1850, just as Chicopee was converting into a factory town. His highly religious family was of Yankee stock. bellamy expressed deep interest in the spirit of the Civil War and applied to West Point but was rejected. After a year of study at Union College, he travelled to Germany where he witnessed, the mammoth inequities of the industrializing city and the beginnings of applied socialism38 In 1888, he wrote Looking backward39 which lead to his instant fame and elevation to the status of prophet. Looking backward led also to bellamy being the spokesperson for the 1890s nationalist movement, which produced a political party that garnered over a million votes in the 1892 elections.40

In both Looking backward and its sequel Equality41 (1897), bellamy depicts a Utopian society set in boston during the year 2000. Here, the elements of prosperity, peace and equality are achieved through adherence to a strict

31 david E. Nye, Technology, Nature, and American Origin Stories, Environmental History 8 no. 1 (January 2003): 8-9. 32 Stephen R. Jendrysik, CP4.33 John Robert Mullin, 137. 34 John Robert Mullin, 138. 35 John Robert Mullin, 137. 36 david E. Nye, 8-9. 37 John Robert Mullin, 133. 38 John Robert Mullin, 135. 39 Edward bellamy, Looking backward (boston: Ticknor, 1888). 40 John Robert Mullin, 135.41 Edward bellamy, Equality (New York: Appleton, 1897).

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE



7.

Extended Site background (cont.)

set of rules. Large cities take on an aura of magnificence in a time when small towns no longer remain culturally isolated from one another. direct democracy does not exist, while the spirit of an industrial army rules. differences between the two books are not numerous, however, one difference stands out in particular importance: The city of Looking backward is a large city with colossal public buildings and glistening fountains whereas Equality portrays small cities defined as regions connected by technology and including all the services and activities one finds in the great city.42 The two publications together showcase bellamys ambivalence towards the citys place in Utopia he saw both the greatness and the evils of the emerging city right at home in Chicopee.43

While bellamy realized both the positive and negative aspects of industrialization on his hometowns evolution, those who have written about him often misinterpret the true influence Chicopee had on the man. As Mullin discusses, Chicopee is typically described as a pastoral, peaceful, small, rural, and a village environmenta quaint community with overtones of a Puritan or Colonial Era village ensemble. To be sure, Chicopee was no such place during bellamys lifetime. Mullin continues,

it [Chicopee] was a constantly changing and growing industrial center that was rapidly evolving from a mill town to a cityit was a place of power industries, of firms chaotically buying and selling in the worlds marketplace, and of newcomers with different values. And it was a place that was attracting people from the nearby New England villages as it was almost daily moving to city status For a man who loved order, symmetry, and harmony, these trends were disconcerting. For a writer who loved to commune with nature and espoused village life, this was an anathema. And for a futurist who, like most nineteenth-century utopians, was endeavoring to create a society marked by equality, Chicopee must have represented that which he hoped would be eliminated in his New Jerusalem.44

bellamy himself was not always true to the realities of the city. Years after writing Looking backward, he described the city as such, I had lived almost continually in a thriving village of New England where there were no very rich and very few poor and everyone who was willing to work was sure of a fair living.45 Those who lived in Chicopee this time, however, would call this statement far more than Mullins significant degree of embellishment.46

For much of bellamys early life, the city grew and diversified as efforts to find faster machinery and a cheaper workforce were required to stay competitive in a growing economy. The city built for profit was now tied to the economic booms and busts that were common to manufacturing. One specific description of Chicopee paints a vivid picture of the economic and social pressures placed on the city and its industries, the residential parts of the manufacturing sections are crowded with the homes of the workers, individual frame or brick dwellings with little tree-shaded yards, or solid blocks of tenements. Springfield

Street, in the better residential quarter, has a look of considerable prosperity and Victorian charm.47 To be sure, many people were poor in Chicopee. Images such as Figure 1248 depict a young boy walking through what appear to be piles of trash.

Immigration to the city happened in a number of waves, beginning with the Irish during 1850s. The Irish, originally attracted to jobs on the railroads and canals, were willing to replace Yankee workers for lower wages. However, as economic competition grew, further wage cuts were attempted by mill owners, causing labor strife and protests. These replacements differed greatly from the original Yankee workers. Yankees were, rooted in the area, were of the same faith as the ownershad some schooling, and, in hard economic times, had a family network as a social and economic safety net. The Irish were rootless, illiterate and of the Catholic faith. They had no commitment to community and had no family

42 John Robert Mullin, 136.43 John Robert Mullin, 136. 44 John Robert Mullin, 134-135. 45 Edward bellamy, How I Wrote Looking Backward, Edward bellamy speaks Again! (Kansas City: Peerage, 1937), 217. 46 John Robert Mullin, 145. 47 Federal Writers Project of the Works Progress Administration for Massachusetts, Massachusetts: A Guide to Its Places and People, boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1937. 208-210.48 Image from, http://explorewmass.blogspot.com/2009/02/tired-faces-of-children-industrial.html. 10 december 2009.

to fall back on during hard times.49 The 1870s brought further waves of immigration including Poles, French-Canadians and Italians. Immigrants typically fulfilled common labor positions while the Yankees filled skilled worked and management positions. No longer was the town meeting, a place of like people deciding the future of their like neighbors. There are now people who speak differently, pray differently, and play differently who are clamoring for democratic rightsIt was a place of divisions where class, ethnicity, skill level, political affiliation, and even gender determined how one fit in the community.50

Such realities would continue in Chicopee throughout much of the early 20th century.

Realities of the Present Day

Today, twenty-six vacant buildings on some seventy acres of land are all that remain of this once booming industrial center. Names like Ames, belcher, Lamb, dwight, Stevens, Spalding, Fisk, duryea and so many others once known around the world for the products produced in Chicopee are now shadows of a once vibrant past. Feelings are mixed in regards to the future of the Uniroyal / Facemate properties. Online responses to an article entitled, Chicopee prepares for planned demolition of former Uniroyal buildings, posted on May 29, 2009 received such comments as,

This cant happen soon enough! Get rid of those eyesores and make good use of that land!

[H]ow is it that the city can come up with millions of dollars to tear the buildings down and they could not come up with one cent to save the jobs of the people that worked there.

Anyone know why the [sic] big rush to tear these buildings down? What are they going to do with the land once its cleared.51

The seal of the City reads, Industry Varies and one could argue that the disappearance of industry altogether may just be part of the dynamic aspect referred to in this tag line. However, if history gives us any glimpse of what the future of Chicopee can hold its residents may see yet another identity story form and play out on the landscape. Change is coming slowing to Chicopee. Some of the Cabotville mills have already been converted to apartment complexes, while the city has gained permission from MASSHistoric demolish the oldest building on the Uniroyal property. The mayor views this as progress and as a, unique opportunity for the City.

While some may view the loss of these structures as the true ending of Chicopees industrial era, Stilgoe would argue that nothing may be lost at all - we just may need to look a little harder to find vestiges that can remind us of what was. Contemporary Americans recall landscape with vague delight and understanding writes Stilgoe, remembering it as space objectifying a traditional sense of order What keeps these memories alive? For Stilgoe it is the, thousands of vestigial remains of former landscapes now transformed into urban or suburban space and dominated by new structures, juxtapositions, and patterns.52 Regardless of whether or not the buildings of Uniroyal and Facemate remain, the impact and influence that industry had on Chicopee will never completely fade away. Industry is embedded in the culture of the citys residents events like the annual Sword Game played by the two high school football teams incorporate a Civil War sword made at the Ames Factory. If we can accept that industry and the city are both dynamic entities then we can also accept that this once dominant identity will continue on in new forms well into the future.

49 John Robert Mullin, 138. 50 John Robert Mullin, 140. 51 Article and posted responses can be found at http://www.masslive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/05/chicopee_prepares_for_planned.html. 8 december 2009. 52 John R. Stilgoe, 3.

Figure 12: Scavenger - Chicopee Falls, June 29, 1916

LA702 CAPSTONE CLINIC, CORNELL UNIVERSITY C. GRUbER; C. HARdY; C. HORTON; d. KEANE; L. POULIOT; 8.

v

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE

Executive Summary

This report is the result of a survey that was distributed in February and March of 2010. The survey solicited information from the citizens of Chicopee, Massachusetts concerning the Uniroyal / Facemate Property, local history education, river usage, desired future public amenities and visioning for the City. This information is intended to inform the Uniroyal / Facemate Redevelopment Plan that is currently underway.

404 participants took part in the survey. This sample size is large enough to extrapolate, with confidence, the views of the Citys population. Younger generations responded proportionally more than older generations and so the data is slightly biased in favor of those 18-35. The impact of this bias is documented and incorporated into all recommendations.

The three most important results from this survey are:

1. The citizens of Chicopee want a waterfront park with a walking and bicycling trail. They would like to see the Facemate tower and if possible, the Uniroyal office building preserved. Other structures were not particularly favored.

2. The citizens of Chicopee want more river access, primarily for walking along and viewing, but also for canoeing, kayaking and fishing.

3. The citizens of Chicopee would like to see Chicopee Center revitalized into a vibrant, mixed use community similar to Northampton, Massachusetts.

The scale of survey response and the length / complexity of the survey, provided a large base of information that can be used for many different purposes during the redevelopment process. If there are any questions in regard to a particular result or analysis, please call Chris Hardy at 607-592-7195 or e-mail at [email protected].

Figure 1: Facemate building tower.

Chapter 2:

Community SurveyMy father and grandfathers worked for Fisk/Uniroyal. As a child, I was able to watch tires being made. - Survey Respondent

Community Survey Table of Contents

9

9

10

11

13

15

15

IntroductionUniroyal Facemate Redevelopment Plan

Purpose of the Survey

Survey Questionnaire

Distribution

Sample Size

Survey Bias

Part 1a: site identity and preservation

Part 1b: written responses

Part 2: relationship with the river

Part 3: future activities

Part 4: imagine chicopee in 20 years...

The Effect of Age: knowledge of site & preservation values

The Effect of Age: preferred future

The Effect of Location: preferred future

Summary of Conclusions for Designers and Policy Makers

Full Questionnaire

Methods

Survey Response

Results

Analysis of Results

design Recommendations

Appendix I

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE


IntroductionUniroyal / Facemate Redevelopment Plan

Purpose of the Survey

Figure 2: Facemate property

Figure 3: Uniroyal property

The Uniroyal / Facemate properties are located in Chicopee, Massachusetts. The properties consist of former industrial complexes that have been abandoned for over 20 years. during that time, the buildings have deteriorated, in some cases to the point of collapsing.

The Uniroyal / Facemate Redevelopment Plan is currently being completed by the City of Chicopee with consultants VHb, RKG and bETA, among others. This plan is intended to create a feasible vision for the future of the properties. The site, however, is faced with many constraints. A very low market for development forces all projections for residential or commercial infill to be extended out 20 years in order to be plausible. The existing flood protection system compromises more than an eighth of the total area of the site. Former industries have left a legacy of contamination that requires a remediation plan. Within these constraints, the Redevelopment Plan will create a goal for the City of Chicopee to move toward, incorporating development, open space and new amenities.

Although the site has many constraints, there are also many opportunities. These factories are adjacent to Chicopee Center and land use is instrumental to downtowns character. The buildings are already registered with MASSHistoric and the legacy of the workers who built Chicopee can be told through historic preservation, either with particular buildings, a museum, or architectural salvage. The site currently cuts off the Chicopee Falls neighborhood from the Chicopee River. Reestablishing a connection with the river, promoting civic pride through history and open space programming are all non-market based strategies that are possibilities for the site. The refurbishment of the long abandoned factories can be a turning point for the City, a step towards redefining downtown and showcasing the citizens of Chicopees values.

This survey is a research tool intended to inform the designers, consultants and decision makers for the Redevelopment Plan of the opinions of the citizens of Chicopee. The survey was organized around four issues that community input would be beneficial to gain during this process. The first issue was the identity of the site and knowledge of its history. Preliminary talks with community members indicated that there is little sense of history in the City of Chicopee, primarily with the younger population and there is a need for increased history education and celebration. Since many of the buildings cannot be saved, the survey was used to garner community feelings as to which structures they would prefer to see preserved. The survey was also used to quantify the use and potential value of use of the Connecticut and Chicopee Rivers while identifying what activities citizens would like to have access to on the Chicopee River. Finally, the survey asked the citizens of Chicopee what they would like to have on the site and in their city. These opinions and relationships between different neighborhoods and age groups will help build a framework for the redesign, grant applications and public expenditures for non-market amenities that the site could support.

Note: We are a group of Landscape Architecture students from Cornell University. We have worked with Tom Haberlin, the City Economic development director, Kate brown, the City Planner & Conservation Officer and Stephen Jendrysik, City Historian, in the development and distribution of this survey. All survey responses were collected in an anonymous fashion. All results, save direct quotes, are based on generalizations across the data set.

MethodsSurvey Questionnaire

Distribution

Figure 4: Paper survey packet, introduction, questions and open response.

Figure 6: Survey station.

Figure 5: Online survey using a professional subscription of SurveyMonkey.com. http://www.surveymonkey.com

The survey was distributed in two forms. The first was online, using SurveyMonkey.com as an accessible web site that citizens could log on to and complete. The second was a hardcopy paper survey. Since participation was self-selective, distribution and advertisement were targeted to each specific age group and neighborhood to aim for a representative sample for the demographics. Since the survey was self-selected, the degree of interest in the

project may be higher than the City average for the survey participants, but this cannot be proven or disproven.

The online survey was advertised on the City of Chicopees web site, in the Chicopee Register (a local newspaper) and to the Chicopee and Chicopee High School Facebook groups.

The paper survey was distributed via the Chicopee Public Library, the Chicopee Senior Center, Profiles Salon, the Edward bellamy Historic Society, and the office of Selser Memorial School.

In order to determine citizen opinions, the survey was developed to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. The quantitative data could be used for value based, option based or frequency based information. The qualitative questions were reserved for future visioning and past memory reflection about the site and City. The full questionnaire can be found in Appendix I. The following are the subject questions asked; the highlighted questions are the qualitative text responses.

Q6: Which neighborhood do you think the former Uniroyal / Facemate Industrial complex shown above is in?Q7: What experiences have you had with this site? Q8: What elements would you like to see in Chicopee 30 years from now?Q9: do you have any stories of, or connections to the Uniroyal/Facemate site? Q10: Which products do you think were made on or near this site?Q11: How far do you think Chicopees industrial influence has extended?Q12: How do you use the Connecticut River? Q13: Please select any of the activities below that you may have done on the Chicopee River.Q14: What activities would you like to participate in on the Chicopee River?Q15: Which of the following open space amenities are in highest demand in Chicopee?Q16: What new buildings do you think are in highest demand? Q17:Where do you go for recreation and entertainment? Q18: Imagine 20 years from now, what would you be excited to see in Chicopee?

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE


Figure 8: Sample bias: comparison of survey sample to census data by percentage per age group. This chart shows how the sample demographics do not reflect the demographics of Chicopee.

404 people responded to the survey. 105 of the responses were paper, the remainder were online. based on Cochrans equation, the sample size needed for a 95% confidence level for the population of Chicopee (54,653 by the 2000 Census) would be 384 responses.1 This means that all conclusions drawn have a confidence interval of 5%. In other words, the sample is representative of the characteristics of the city population, as long as the sample bias is considered.

Survey Response

NOTE: The number of responses for the survey is large enough to be considered representative of the city population, as long as the sampling bias is considered. All mean values from the results would not be expected to change greater than +/- 5% if the entire population of Chicopee had participated.

Sample Size

Survey Bias: Demographics

Figure 7: Cochrans equation to determine sample size for a large population (n). Z2 is the abscissa of the normal curve that cuts off an area at the 95% confidence level.

Figure 9: Sample bias: comparison of survey sample to census data by percentage per gender.

1Cochran, T.d.; Harvey, S. 2008. Homology and derived series of groups II: dwyers Theorem. Geometry & Topology, Vol. 12, pp. 198

2Lapane, K. 2009. A comparison of two distribution methods on response rates to a patient safety questionnaire in nursing homes. Journal of the American medial Directors Association, Vol. 8, no. 7 pp. 4461

n0 = {Z2pq}/e2

An unexpected bias was a disproportionately high representation of women to men in the survey. This could possibly be due to the paper survey stations in the school and Profiles Salon, but could also be an indication of self- selection. The difference is subtle enough that for any mean greater than 5% difference this sampling error can be discounted. Nevertheless, the survey had more female participants proportionally than would be reflected by a perfectly random sample of Chicopee.

Sample Bias: comparision of survey sample to census data by percentage per age group

POP2000

1925 2635 3655 5675 >75

Sample Bias: comparision of survey sample to census data by percentage per age group

POP2000

SurveySample

Sample Bias: comparision of survey sample to census data by percentage per gender

POP2000

MF

Sample Bias: comparision of survey sample to census data by percentage per gender

POP2000

SurveySample

The method of survey distribution can have a significant effect on the sample by creating a sample bias.2 The nature of self-selection also causes a bias. In general, the response numbers were equal between 19 to 55 year old citizens, with tapering numbers for 55-75 and lowest for over 75. This is likely due to the targeting of college age citizens via Facebook, balanced by the paper survey distribution and the City web site. The older population was targeted at the Senior Center. The proportion of responses to the proportion of age groups in the city shows a much higher proportion of participation by ages 19-35. This means all general conclusions favor the younger population of Chicopee. The Analysis of Results section compares the difference in opinion between the younger and older populations of Chicopee. No surveys were counted from participants under 18. One unusual note is that the average survey respondent had lived in Chicopee for 30 years, with a standard deviation of 16 years. This means that the average respondent has lived in Chicopee for greater than 80% of their life - the survey respondents are citizens for whom Chicopee has always been their primary home.

Sample Bias: Neighborhood representation as percent of sample and city population

ChicopeePopulation

SurveySample

Sample Bias: Neighborhood representation as percent of sample and city population

ChicopeePopulation

SurveySample

Figure 11: Neighborhood representation as a percentage of City population per the 2000 Census and the sample group.

Figure 10: Map of neighborhoods. The survey simplified neighborhoods into larger units through limiting options.

Fairview

Aldenville

burnett Road

Willamansett

Chicopee Falls

Chicopee Center

Figure 12: demographic information for the City of Chicopee based on the 2000 Census.

Ethnicity: Orange is the highest non-white population, blue is the most white population.

Population density: Orange is the highest population density, blue the lowest.

Median Age: Orange is the oldest average age, blue is the youngest (or no population).

Renter Occupied: Orange is the highest renter occupied population, blue is the highest owner occupied (or no population).

Chicopee Falls

Ethnicity

Median Age

Population Density

Renter Occupied

Survey Bias: Chicopee Falls NeighborhoodThe site is located in the Chicopee Falls neighborhood. It is likely that the high visibility of the site and awareness of the redevelopment process influenced participation. Community members participated in greater numbers from Chicopee Falls than from any other neighborhood. In the Analysis of Results section, their opinions are compared to the rest of the Citys population.

Chicopee Falls demographics and economics are subtly different from other Chicopee neighborhoods. Chicopee Falls generally has a higher ethnic diversity, higher renter occupied residences and lower population density than the rest of Chicopee, specifically the part of the neighborhood formerly referred to as Chinatown. The average age is not significantly different from the rest of the City.

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE


ResultsPart 1a: Site Identity and Preservation

To understand how visible the site is to the residents of Chicopee, the survey asked participants to locate the neighborhood of the site. The overwhelming response was the correct neighborhood, Chicopee Falls or the adjacent neighborhood, Chicopee Center. This clearly shows that the site is visible to the citizens of Chicopee and is recognized as a landmark in the landscape.

To understand the generally held public knowledge of industrial history, the survey asked which products from a list were made on the site. A large majority of Chicopee citizens recognize that tires were made on the site. This may have to due with the scale of employment, recent nature of the industry, or even the smell associated with the industry. Only about 40% of respondents recognized textiles as being made on site. The rest of the products, all of which were at one time made on site, were ranked below 25% by recognition count. We can conclude that the knowledge of the extents of the industrial history of the site is not generally known in Chicopee.

The majority of survey respondents had little experience with the site. The primary ways participants identified their experience was through driving or walking past the properties. An unexpected result was that 18.76% of the sample, 76 people, noted that they had family members who worked on site while the factories were still active. due to the extents of the sample size, it is not an exaggeration to state with 95% likelihood that almost a fifth of the citizens of Chicopee have a relative who worked in these factories. This identity is not direct, for only 3.45% of respondents have personally worked on the site at some point, and only 9.79% have otherwise explored the site.

52% of respondents indicated that they would like to have the tower on the Facemate building preserved. The next highest vote was for the Uniroyal office building. Other charismatic structures, such as the smokestacks, were not significantly preferred for preservation. This may be because some structures are currently not as visible as the Facemate tower, based on the existing site configuration.

Figure 16: Participant selection for building or architectural remnant preservation.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Q8:WhatelementswouldyouliketoseeinChicopee30yearsfromnow?

Percentagefor

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Q8:WhatelementswouldyouliketoseeinChicopee30yearsfromnow?

Percentageforpreservation

Figure 13: Site neighborhood as identified by survey participants.

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Siteneighborhoodasidentifiedbyparticipant

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

Siteneighborhoodasidentifiedbyparticipant

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

70%

80%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%

70%

80%

Figure 14: Products produced on site as identified by participants.

Figure 15: Participant relationship to / or experience with site.

Experience Respondents had with site hadWorked on the site when it was active 2.07%Worked on the site after it was abandoned 1.38%A family member worked on the site 18.76%Informally explored the site 9.79%driven past the site 43.17%Walked past the site 21.38%Not familiar with the site 3.45%

Super Quotes:Negative Memories:I still remember the smell of rubber in the air as I grew up.

In high school teachers would warn that drop outs would go to Uniroyal University.

My dad worked at Fisk for 3 days - his skin started to turn yellow from the tire resin, and he left his job.

My grandparents worked there, lots of people worked there. It smelled really bad but it paid enough that they could survive and raise their kids. It all ended and Chicopee is left with this big monument... Please do not make things worse... it has so much potential, it just needs a gentle hand.

Positive Memories:My first job was with Chicopee mtgco (Johnson & Johnson) where we made cotton products from the Greigh mill to finished goods.... It would be great if the Greigh mill portion could be preserved.

during my early 20s I played semi-professional softball for a womans team that was sponsored by Uniroyal. Uniroyal built a softball diamond next to the building, where we played ball every Sunday.

My father and grandfathers worked for Fisk/Uniroyal. As a child, I was able to watch tires being made.

-My- family came to Chicopee in 1944 from economically depressed Vermont for a job in defense work during WWII. My father was given a job and housing for his family. At the time it was the Fisk Rubber Co. In time extended family members also arrived.

My family came here from Poland and these factories are how they survived. My grandfather and his father worked for savage arms, my great grandmother worked for Johnson and Johnson and was even involved in the first strike, - my aunts and uncles were foremen at Uniroyal. Please clean this area up and make it a resource for Chicopee again.

My grandfather worked there many moons ago, my parents would tell me stories of when my grandmother and father would sit in their car and wait for my grandfather to get out of work. My father worked at Facemate for at least 10 years. I also worked there for a summer when I was 16. I have a lot of memories of company picnics behind the old facemate tower.

Its part of the fabric of the landscape... many citizens worked there and have ties... its become a landmark.

My mother worked as a tire builder at Fisk/Uniroyal for 34 years. My father owned a family farm in Hadley, MA. Every summer we would fill our car with sweet corn, strawberries and cukes. We would park on Oak st and sell vegetables to the Uniroyal employees when they were leaving work.

Events:My father was a Chicopee Fire Fighter and went to Facemate several times for fires, including the huge fire caused by a lightning strike where they lost the building and had to call in several other fire departments from nearby cities to fight the fire.

I remember going to a haunted house put on by Chicopee High School in the Uniroyal office building when I was about 8 years old! I still remember it to this day... its a great memory!

For several years my fathers friend used the Uniroyal office building as the site for an annual haunted house.

I remember walking out of the department store as a child and seeing the whole sky light up with orange when the building exploded. I was a little guy and the store was Two Guys.

To the open response question about personal experience with the site, 55 of the participants wrote about relatives who had worked on the site, 13 wrote about the former haunted house that used to be held in the Uniroyal office building and 10 wrote about their experiences working on site. These responses are compared in two ways. The first is Figure 17, a Wordle.net diagram. This diagram graphically shows the number of times a particular word was repeated (common English words are filtered out). As one can see, the memories shared were primarily related to work performed on site, the companies themselves, relatives and events (either the haunted house or fires). below the Wordle diagram are particular quotes that stood out from the total survey as representative or well worded. These quotes reveal the good and bad memories of the site, industry and mention programs or activities that could be brought back, such as the haunted house, a picnic area behind the Facemate tower, a softball diamond and a farm stand.

Figure 17: This diagram was generated using Wordle.net. The size of the words reflect the number of times they were used in total from all survey respondents. This reflects key ideas and subjects most often repeated by participants.

Part 1b: Written Responses

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE


Figure 18: This table shows the number of daily experiences per year, and the hypothetical associated value.

Figure 19: This chart shows the activities respondents indicated they would like to participate in, on or along the Chicopee River.

Results (cont.)Part 2: Relationship with the RiverThe site is bordered by the Chicopee River to the north and west. The factory complex serves as a barrier between the neighborhood of Chicopee Falls and the riverfront along this section of the river. The survey hypothesized that the Chicopee River would be significantly less used due to its low level of accessibility.

To test this hypothesis, survey participants were asked to mark how they used the river from five options: viewing, fishing, boating, birding and walking or bicycling along. For each of these options they were further asked to rank frequency of use: daily, weekly, monthly and annually. This data was compiled from all participants. Each score was ranked per frequency (a daily use = 365, weekly use = 52, monthly use = 12, and annual use = 1) and summed to determine an estimate of the number of daily experiences per year per activity.

When this information was compiled, the total experiences were divided to average the number of daily experiences per person per year. Each activity was assigned a monetary value. These values are based on contingent valuation, where individuals are asked how much they are willing to pay for something, or how much they would ask to be paid if the rights were taken away. This theoretical value can then be put on a non-market based product.1 Valuation questions were not included in the survey and would be needed to determine price tags that are appropriate for the Chicopee market. These values were loosely based (more conservative) on recreation values taken from Hitzhusens compilation on the Great Lakes watershed,2 but for any serious valuation conclusions the local market and values would need to be assessed. These numbers provide a generalized estimate of the value of the rivers annual contribution to the viewshed and recreation.

The surprising conclusion from these questions is that there is not a significant difference in the number of daily experiences per year between the two rivers. We cannot conclude that the Chicopee River is under used, but we can conclude that it is visible to the community and is a recreational resource for the city.

When asked what activities participants wanted to participate in, on or along the Chicopee River the vast majority (65%) indicated walking or bicycling. Viewing the river was still a majority (57%), followed by canoeing/kayaking (41%). due to the scale of the sample size, both walking and viewing can be confidently considered to be desired by the citizens of Chicopee.

1 Cameron, T.; James, M. 1987. Efficient Estimation Methods for Closed-Ended Contingent Valuation Surveys. The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 69, no. 2 pp. 269-276

2F.J. Hitzhusen (Ed.), Economic Valuation of River Systems. Edward Elgard, Cheltenham UK, 2007. ISbN 978 1 84542 634 7

Connecticut River Viewing Fishing Boating Birding Walking/bicyclingAnnual experiences (sample) 48769 1187 1040 4296 7233Experiences per citizen per year 120 3 3 11 18Hypothetical value per experience* 0.2 2 5 0.2 1Total experiences per year 6581165.8 160180.5 140343.51 579726.6 976062.0963Total ValueHypothetical value per year* $1,316,233 $320,361 $701,718 $115,945 $976,062 $3,430,319

Chicopee RiverAnnual experiences (sample) 42700 2123 930 5703 7439Experiences per citizen per year 105 5 2 14 18Hypothetical value per experience* 0.2 2 5 0.2 1Total experiences per year 5762180.5 286489.7 125499.48 769595.2 1003860.906Hypothetical value per year* $1,152,436 $572,979 $627,497 $153,919 $1,003,861 $3,510,693

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

60%

40%

50%

60%

30%

40%

50%

60%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0 35

0.4

0 25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0

0.05

0.1

0.15

0.2

0.25

0.3

0.35

0.4

Figure 20: These charts show what percentage of survey participants considered each program to be of high demand in Chicopee.

Figure 21: This table shows where Chicopees citizens currently go for recreation.

Part 3: Future ActivitiesThe goal of this section of the survey was to determine what Chicopees citizens think the City needs. These questions were divided into two sections: outdoor recreational program and built program.

It is clear from the response that recreational trails are in high demand within the city, with over 55% voting for bicycle trails and 59% for walking trails. The next highest outdoor programs were nature reserves and picnic areas. Over a fifth of the sample also wanted to see more canoe/kayak access, public pavilions, bbQ areas and baseball fields.

The citizens voted in significantly lower numbers for built program. Outdoor program received 1,465 total votes, while indoor program received exactly 1,000. This may be due to fewer options or less interest. The most popular programs were restaurants, followed by a new Senior Center - although no programs ranked in a majority opinion. Other programs that ranked above a fifth of the population were a local history museum, more shopping areas and more homes (note: there were many comments against low income housing being built).

In order to gauge the character of Chicopee Center, the survey asked participants where they currently go for entertainment and recreation. The results show that the vast majority of the population (89%) do not use downtown. Instead, the highest ranking places were the Holyoke Mall and Memorial drive. One area of considerable note, in Chicopee Center and near the site, is Szot Park. This park is remarkably popular, with over half of the participants indicating they use the park for recreation.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE


Super Quotes:Future for the City:parks and jobs

Get culture (arts, music, museums) into the city. Stop the memorial drivization of the city.

I would like to see a thriving downtown area with shops, restaurants, not what is currently there. I want to see the community become more of a cultural center.

A Family Friendly Area that showcases the beauty of the river and the natural surroundings by the river. It would also be great to have a museum that speaks to the industrial past of this city. I think we have forgotten our past and now consider ourselves the city of Walmart, home depot, and ocean state job lot. This is sad...

I would like to see Chicopee revive as a college town, similar to North Hampton (Smith College), or the area around Mt. Holyoke College in South Hadley or the Amherst Common (Umass / Amherst College). I believe with a vision and collaboration with businesses and the Elms College community that vision could be realized. I would like to see the abandoned factory buildings near Chicopee Center and the Falls area used for museums, art galleries, diverse restaurants, Senior Centers, Tennis Centers, bookstores, condos / apartments etc. I would love for the community to enjoy a nature walk / bike path along the Chicopee River.

I would like to see re-investment in the city itself. We have been struggling with a who we are scenario. If I were to continue being a resident of Chicopee, I would envision an industrial themed place that functions much like Northampton. Vibrant, alive with shopping, art and performance, restaurants, open air markets - a place to be a local destination special to the citys residents. I also envision a re-investment in Chicopees natural resources. The CT and Chicopee rivers and under utilized often invisible places. I want to see an urban ecology develop. Where the city protects green instead of preparing more areas for development. Chicopee was once a leader in western Massachusetts - why cant we once again be a leader in showing other small cities how to re-invent in an historic context to be successful in the future.

Future for Uniroyal Facemate Property:I would love to see Uniroyal/Facemate property cleaned up and a recreational facility turned into something that could be used be the whole Chicopee Community.

Some of the citys historic buildings still standing. The same amount or fewer parking lots in Chicopee Center. (They seem presently to be half empty or eye sores.) A local history museum to showcase Chicopees products (Ames swords & castings, stevens -duryea automobiles, overman wheel co. which was written up in scientific American) and people.

We need more open space, and more motion to keep people who grew up in the city interested and able to stay in the area. I think we also should celebrate the history of the city and try to bring back Cabotville (Chicopee Center), Skipmuck (Chicopee Falls). I would like to see the Falls cleaned up and re-done (it is an eyesore - a result of the glorious age of urban renewal, which ruined the village). The city has also grown on the backs of French Canadian and Polish immigrants - cafe culture...imagine a beautiful Cabotville with cafes, bookstores, ethnic restaurants (not just French and Polish, but Puerto Rican, Portuguese, etc...some already exist). Also, the mouth of the Chicopee River could be a wonderful nature preserve!

In this area, Id be excited to see brick sidewalks from the demolished buildings, Maybe a park with a water play area for kids in the summer. and maybe some small retail. restaurants...

Cutting-edge tech industry and research facilities related to alternative energy or nano-tech, incorporated with a green buffer between industrial operations and the river, with a bike path and walking trail(s).

Should I live so long... I would be really happy to see some kind of remembrance, some kind of recognition given to all the various cultures and immigrants (Polish and French Canadian mostly). I would also like to see the name Fisk because that is what it was to them. My vision for the Uniroyal/facemate property would be a mixed use: Over 55 housing units or condominiums, a business park with offices, medical facilities and small commercial units, a senior center and local museum, a restaurant, recreation along the riverfront, a river walk/bike path and picnic area.

Figure 22: This diagram was generated using Wordle.net. The size of the words reflect the number of times they were used in total from all survey respondents. This reflects key ideas and what subjects were most often repeated.

Results (cont.)Part 4: Imagine Chicopee in 20 years...This open response question asked participants what they would like to see in Chicopee 20 years from now. besides more jobs (which was mentioned in some form by most participants), the most frequently mentioned vision was for Chicopee Center to undergo a renaissance, developing a character that was often cited to be, like Northampton [MA]. A combination of restaurants, boutique and name brand stores and a walkable shopping district were all elements of this vision. The next most discussed item was a river walk and waterfront park along the Chicopee River. The third most mentioned program was a theater space, either movie or performance. This was tied with more places for teens to recreate.

Figure 23: The relationship between age and knowledge of the site.

Analysis of ResultsThe Effect of Age: knowledge of site & preservation valuesTo better understand both the survey bias and the population of Chicopee, we decided to analyze how age and location affect the results.

To compare the older population with the younger population, we determined average responses per age group. Site knowledge was evaluated by correctly identifying the site neighborhood, the products made on the site, the scale of the sites influence and personal experience with the site. For personal experience, the intensity of the experience was ranked. Working on the site highest (10), a family member working on the site was an order of magnitude reduced (1) and driving by the site as the lowest (1).

The older population is significantly more knowledgeable than the younger population (p value .007). This confirmed our hypothesis. This means the overall results are slightly skewed towards a population with less knowledge of the site than the average Chicopean, self-selection bias not included.

When applying the same technique to question 8, which elements would you like to see in Chicopee in 20 years, we found an unexpected result. The younger population of Chicopee, 18 to 35, is significantly more interested in preservation than the older population (p value .01). The reason for this can only be speculated. It is possible that the site is associated with more as mysterious ruins and relics with the younger population, or perhaps the past as history may be more forgiving to the memory of the site than the past as memory of actual working conditions. Since the younger generation is also removed from the period of closing and joblessness, there may be less bitterness or disappointment associated with the relics.

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

borhoo

d

asactive

ando

ned

nthesite

dthesite

tthe

site

tthe

site

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

Q6:site

neighbo

rhoo

d

Workedon

thesitewhe

nitwasactive

Workedon

thesiteafteritwasaband

oned

Afamilym

embe

rworkedon

thesite

Inform

allyexploredthesite

Drivenpastth

esite

Walkedpastth

esite

Q7:experiences

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

borhoo

d

asactive

ando

ned

nthesite

dthesite

tthe

site

tthe

site

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

Q6:site

neighbo

rhoo

d

Workedon

thesitewhe

nitwasactive

Workedon


oned

Afamilym

embe

rworkedon

thesite

Inform

allyexploredthesite

Drivenpastth

esite

Walkedpastth

esite

Q7:experiences

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.700

0.800

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

3555

2535

18 25

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.700

0.800

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

3555

2535

18 25

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.700

0.800

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

3555

2535

18 25

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

Products Q11:scale

>55

3555

2535

1825

0 6

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

>55

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

>55

3555

2535

18 25

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

borhoo

d

asactive

ando

ned

nthesite

dthesite

tthe

site

tthe

site

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.000

0.100

0.200

0.300

0.400

0.500

0.600

0.700

0.800

0.900

1.000

Q6:site

neighbo

rhoo

d

Workedon

thesitewhe

nitwasactive

Workedon


oned

Afamilym

embe

rworkedon

thesite

Inform

allyexploredthesite

Drivenpastth

esite

Walkedpastth

esite

Q7:experiences

>55

3555

2535

1825

Figure 24: The relationship between age and interest in preservation.

H.E.A.L. CHICOPEE


Analysis of Results (cont.)The Effect of Age: preferred futureThe effect of age was very specific to the program. No generalizations can be drawn in terms of the different age groups interest in the Chicopee River, new built amenities or new outdoor amenities. Individual differences can be identified, however.

The younger population (55

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Viewing

Fishing

Boating

Birding

lking/bicycling

Other(spe

cify)

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Viewing

Fishing

Boating

Birding

Walking

/bicyclin

g

Other(spe

cify)

Q14:ChicopeeRiver

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Viewing

Fishing

Boating

Birding

Walking

/bicyclin

g

Other(spe

cify)

Q14:ChicopeeRiver

>55

3555

2535

1825

0.6

0.7

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

omes

ffices

seum

enter

area

s

park

rants

rking

hools

ilities

ecify

)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Hom

es

Offices

calH

istoryM

useu

m

SeniorCen

ter

Shop

ping

areas

Indu

strialpark

Restau

rants

Parking

Scho

ols

Med

icalFacilities

Other(spe

cify)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Hom

es

Offices

LocalH

istoryM

useu

m

SeniorCen

ter

Shop

ping

areas

Indu

strialpark

Restau

rants

Parking

Scho

ols

Med

icalFacilities

Other(spe

cify)

Q16:BuiltProgram

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Hom

es

Offices

LocalH

istoryM

useu

m

SeniorCen

ter

Shop

ping

areas

Indu

strialpark

Restau

rants

Parking

Scho

ols

Med

icalFacilities

Other(spe

cify)

Q16:BuiltProgram

0.6

0.7

0 4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

lds

lds

lds

urt

urt

eas

eas

ails

ons

ths

ark

ves

ess

ard

fy)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Baseba

llfie

lds

Footba

llFields

SoccerFields

Boccecourt

Volleyb

allcou

rt

BBQareas

Picnicareas

ecreationa

ltrails

Publicpavilion

s

Bicyclepa

ths

Skatepa

rk

Naturereserves

noe/kayakaccess

Shuffle

board

Other(spe

cify)

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Baseba

llfie

lds

Footba

llFields

SoccerFields

Boccecourt

Volleyb

allcou

rt

BBQareas

Picnicareas

Recrea

tion

altrails

Publicpavilion

s

Bicyclepa

ths

Skatepa

rk

Naturereserves

Cano

e/kayakaccess

Shuffle

board

Other(spe

cify)

Q15:OutdoorProgram

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Baseba

llfie

lds

Footba

llFields

SoccerFields

Boccecourt

Volleyb

allcou

rt

BBQareas

Picnicareas

Recrea

tion

altrails

Publicpavilion

s

Bicyclepa

ths

Skatepa

rk

Naturereserves

Cano

e/kayakaccess

Shuffle

board

Other(spe

cify)

Q15:OutdoorProgram

0.7

0.8

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

>55

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Viewing

Fishing

Boating

Birding

lking/bicycling

Other(spe

cify)

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Viewing

Fishing

Boating

Birding

Walking

/bicyclin

g

Other(spe

cify)

Q14:ChicopeeRiver

>55

3555

2535

1825

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Viewing

Fishing

Boating

Birding

Walking

/bicyclin

g

Other(spe

cify)

Q14:ChicopeeRiver

>55

3555

2535

1825

The Effect of Location: preferred futureTo better understand the effect of the proportionally higher representation of the Chicopee Falls neighborhood, we compared their response with other neighborhoods. Under all categories t-tests revealed no significant difference between Chicopee Falls and the average for the other neighborhoods. This means that the overall data is not significantly skewed from the city average by the proportionally higher representation of Chicopee Falls. The one consistent outlier for the neighborhoods was burnett Road and this is most likely due to the very low proportional sample (21 respondents).

Figure 28: These charts show the responses per neighborhood for preservation, new built amenities, river use and outdoor recreational areas.

0.7

0.8

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0 2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

ChicopeeFalls

ChicopeeCenter

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

ChicopeeFalls

ChicopeeCenter

BurnettRoad

Fairview

Aldenville0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

matetower

Smokestack

vatedRa

ils

cebuilding

Building#3

Floo

dwall

ickfacade

s

ChicopeeFalls

ChicopeeCenter

BurnettRoad

Fairview

Aldenville

Willamansett

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

h.e.a.l chicopee; a strategic plan for the uniroyal / facemate properties

Documents

city of chicopee

chicopeela702 capstone

christopher horton

christopher hardy

teamchristian gruber

chicopee riverchapter

important city stuff

site location