Editor’s Note: The Phoenix will be covering Swarthmore College’s Cunningham Fields Development Plan and its community opposition more in-depth in the weeks to come.
A three-hour Swarthmore Planning Commission meeting on Jan. 21 highlighted a heated ongoing debate about whether the Borough’s zoning code should be amended to allow for a more developed athletic facility on Cunningham Fields. Swarthmore College’s proposed plan for the field asks for zoning changes — including reduced regulations on scoreboards, athletic fencing, and lighting — to build two turf fields and six more courts. The decision will be up to the Planning Commission, which determines land use regulations and oversees development plans in the borough.
The college, represented at the meeting by Associate Vice President for Sustainable Facilities Operations and Capital Planning Andy Feick and several project designers, argues that the Athletics Department’s recent expansions necessitate a new facility. The area is currently entirely natural grass with six tennis courts. The development would include a field hockey field, twelve tennis courts, a natural grass field, and a second general-use turf field.
Feick said at the meeting that the limited field space forces coaches to schedule practices late into the night to avoid overlapping with other teams, putting the college’s athletes at a competitive disadvantage. Additionally, the development would alleviate the need for women’s field hockey players to travel to other schools in order to practice on specialized fields. According to Director of Athletics Brad Koch, the current turf is not suitable for the sport, and Title IX regulations require Swarthmore to mirror operations for athletic activities across genders.
Some Swarthmore residents argue that the development could negatively impact the local environment and public health. In the hour of public commentary during the January meeting, residents raised concerns that microplastics from artificial turf would end up in stormwater runoff and affect wildlife, and games could cause sound and light pollution. Fight for the Fields, a community group, argues the field project must be changed to include “soundproof and lightproof buildings” over the fields, more visitor parking, and the removal of all perimeter fencing.
Swarthmore has already adjusted the plan since first presenting it last year, including reduced lighting and enhanced safety netting.
Another point of contention is whether the Swarthmore Recreation Association (SRA) — which offers youth and adult recreational programs — would be allowed to use the new spaces. In public comment, SRA leaders offered support for the development due to their anticipated field access and said it would benefit the community overall.
A few resident speakers not belonging to SRA leadership doubted that this partnership would be realized. In Swarthmore College’s presentation of the plan, Koch confirmed that the field development would allow for partnerships with SRA and other community members and anticipated formal agreements.
Koch also said night games will not be routine, and instead occur roughly ten times a year. During the presentation, Landscape Architect Chris Myers of the firm Sasaki showed renderings demonstrating how light would be focused on the field due to the height of the poles, with no spillover into the surrounding area. Sasaki is the lead design firm for the project, while Bowman Consulting Group is heading the traffic planning, and Gilmore & Associates, Inc, are the engineers.
According to Planning Commissioner James Levine, the decision will be a “robust process,” with more meetings to come. He also clarified that the recommendations will be based on commission members’ independent judgment, with adjustments made as new information and proposals emerge. The commission will meet next on Wednesday, Feb. 18, at 7 p.m. at the Swarthmore Borough Hall.
