Save, don’t raze, Norwich’s historic downtown Reid & Hughes building

I have been involved in or observed the efforts to develop the Reid & Hughes building ever since the City of Norwich obtained clear title to the property after a needlessly protracted legal battle. The decision by the mayor and four members of the City Council to more forward with demolition of this building is simply confounding. Is there another municipality in Connecticut that would turn away an investor willing to sink money into a long-neglected downtown building and partner with a developer with a proven track record of successfully renovating and repurposing similar buildings?

I have to wonder what alternate reality do Mayor Hinchey, Alderwoman Gould and the others occupy where spending $800,000, or more, to demolish a building on the National Historic Register is considered an accomplishment.

In The Day article of Dec. 1, Gould is quoted as saying that the structural engineering report states that the building “.... is not salvageable.” I have read and reread that report. That term is not in the report.

Aside from reading nonexistent phrases into this report, this same segment of the council has chosen to ignore the opinion of an experienced architect who stated at a council meeting that the building is salvageable and he has, in fact, successfully renovated buildings in worse shape.

I was at the council meeting when the vote was taken to demolish the Reid & Hughes. One of the rationalizations offered was that a developer could then appear (without historic tax credits?) to build a new structure. History would suggest otherwise. Since the early 1980s, approximately 10 structures in the downtown area have been demolished. Four new structures have been built; the courthouse by the State of Connecticut, the Market Street and Main Street parking garages by the city, and the Exchange at Chelsea by the Mashantucket Tribal Nation. In other words, no private developer has built a single structure to replace a demolished one in 31 years in the downtown area.

Another rationalization is potential liability. Fair point, but easily addressable in an agreement that would transfer ownership and all accompanying exposure to the new owner. Furthermore, given the city’s previous efforts to retain a developer through the “Request for Proposal” process and Norwich Community Development Corporation’s extended efforts as well, conveying this building to an interested potential investor, Bill Morse, should at this point not be problematic.

It should be kept in mind that a bond issue was passed some years ago for around $3 million to be available to provide various incentives to assist property owners in the downtown area in renovating and upgrading their properties. This has been an underutilized pot of money. Surely, it makes more sense to tap some of these existing funds to put a building back on the tax rolls than to borrow an additional $800,000 to create a hole in the ground.

Only in Norwich could a plan to demolish a building on the National Historic Register be considered an accomplishment.