GREENFIELD — As the city holds public engagement sessions for the community to weigh in on the development of the vacant lot at 53 Hope St., Planning Board members shared their thoughts on the development’s guidelines and features on Thursday.
The city aims to publish a completed request for proposals (RFP) for the Hope Street project by late spring. Planning Director Ella Wise, commenting on the RFP drafting process, explained that while design guidelines for the proposed development should be kept general in the early stages, the board’s input early on could set a general direction for the project that can later be amended.
“This RFP could potentially provide an early, in fact, immediate, opportunity to start implementing the design guidelines,” Wise said. “Certainly, we should think about not being overly restrictive so that the RFP is successful, but if we’re going to have design guidelines adopted by the time there’s a project that’s pursuing a permit, we want to try to at least signal the direction we’re heading.”
In response to board member Victor Moschella’s request that the development prioritize market-rate, rather than subsidized, housing at the site, Community and Economic Development Director Amy Cahillane clarified that it’s the city’s intention to “prioritize,” but not “mandate,” market-rate housing.
Moschella suggested that further language, such as a ratio of market-rate-to-affordable housing, be added into the RFP to emphasize this priority. He added that moderate affordability, such as housing for renters or homeowners making 100% of the area median income or less, or rent set at 25% of the resident’s income, would be preferable, in his opinion, to advertising the housing as “affordable.”
“Even it comes down to some sort of a percentage or something in there, I just think we need to get more market-rate housing here for the young, working couples that we’re trying to attract into the town,” Moschella said. “My concern is that when you talk about affordable housing, that’s usually implying ‘impoverished.’ I don’t want to be attracting impoverished people — the only people we attract are impoverished people.”
In response to Planning Board Vice Chair George Touloumtzis asking how great a portion of the city’s housing stock and housing development projects are affordable versus market rate, Cahillane responded that most of the active housing development projects are affordable. She noted that the city’s existing housing stock has a bit more variety.
Moschella said the prominence of affordable housing projects in the area arises from the low risk that subsidized housing offers developers, as opposed to market-rate housing. Board Chair Jeff Sauser, discussing the challenges associated with developing market-rate housing, added that the RFP will most likely attract mixed-affordability proposals.
“Market rate is a very relative term, and when you’re not getting subsidy, it’s basically just what is necessary. It costs so much to build. A firm is working in Minneapolis right now and, across the entire region, there’s two or three communities that can support market-rate housing — the rest of them cannot,” Sauser said. “It’s never been harder to make market-rate work. That said, maybe a local person could figure it out; it’s not impossible. I’m optimistic about the purchasing power of people in this region, the creativity of the developers, but it’s more likely that there’s more people that would be looking to integrate some subsidy.”
Sauser also commented on a portion of the draft RFP that included a request for underground parking, arguing that “no one’s going to build underground parking” given its high construction costs.
Still, board members generally agreed that some form of parking accommodation at the site should be included to offset the number of vehicles parked on the street. Planning Board members also briefly discussed the inclusion of green spaces as a recommendation in the RFP, as well as guidelines suggesting that the structure’s architectural style reflect that of the surrounding neighborhood.
On July 16, 2025, City Council voted 10-1 to declare the Hope Street parking lot as surplus and draft a request for proposals seeking a developer for the roughly 1-acre lot. The council’s decision sparked pushback from some residents who believed the area was not a good fit for housing.
Franklin County Register of Probate John Merrigan challenged the council vote in August, when he petitioned to place a question to reverse the decision on the ballot; however, the measure was defeated 2,254 to 1,711 in the biennial election last November.