When the Pleasant Street Theater closed in 2012, a new use had to be found for the space. As the owner of the building, I made a deal with the owner of McLadden’s, a Connecticut restaurant chain, to take over the space. At the end of a considerable planning process, the city presented the owner with the requirement that a sprinkler system be installed in the building because of a change of use. If I remember correctly, this demand almost doubled the investment required in the new business and threatened to force abandonment of the plan. Fortunately, I was in a position to arrange financing for the installation for my new tenant, the deal was done, and I have had an excellent tenant (now the Wurst Haus) for many years.

Please note a very important aspect of this situation: the requirement for installation of the sprinkler system was made during the planning for buildout of the restaurant, before it opened. In the case of the Bombyx Center, the demand for installation of a sprinkler system was made a year and a half after the venue opened, forcing the sudden closing of the venue and cancelation of shows resulting in loss of revenue that is probably in the tens of thousands of dollars. The closing was forced in spite of the fact that there was ample communication between the owners of the venue and city officials during its planning and operation.

I have no inside knowledge of this situation, but from what has been published in the Gazette it seems that this forced closing is a highly unjust action taken for a very questionable benefit to public safety and for which there were reasonable alternatives. If alcohol being consumed on the premises is what made the venue a “nightclub” in the eyes of the fire chief, he could have insisted that no alcohol be served at Bombyx events. If he was worried that a full house would present a danger without sprinklers, he could have ordered a temporary reduction in capacity for the venue. It must be conceded that from a public safety perspective, there is no difference between a church service with choir and organ for several hundred worshippers and a concert of secular music. Yet the concert is prohibited and the church services go on.

Northampton is a very special place, and one of the things that make it so is that a large percentage of its historic buildings have been lovingly preserved. Over the past 50 years state and local legislators have greatly increased the standards for safety and accessibility in building codes. This is well and good for new construction, though it has contributed more than most people realize to our lack of affordable housing. But in a city like ours, it means that there are at least dozens (probably hundreds) of places where illegal situations exist. One of the challenges of historic preservation is that it is often difficult or even impossible to bring those properties up to current building codes. Aggressive enforcement could cause abandonment and destruction of such places. Fortunately, though, local officials “grandfather” these buildings so that owners are not required to rehab them every time the law changes. Requiring upgrades when there is a “change of use,” as happened in the case of McLadden’s, is a sensible way of gradually bringing properties up to code, though sometimes it prevents a change that would be positive. (For instance, in another property I own I was prevented from changing an office to an apartment because of the sprinkler requirement.)

The case of Bombyx is an unreasonable way of bringing properties up to current standards. In effect the city changed the rules long after the business opened; such change is the very definition of injustice. Who is going to invest in property in Northampton if they can have no confidence that the city will honor its process of granting building and occupancy permits? Rather than expressing support, the mayor should have told the fire chief to reconsider his order or start looking for another job.

Joseph Blumenthal lives in Northampton. ]]>