When did we vote in Princeton to become a city?
Dear Editor:
Did we vote to become a city? By increasing the allowable density over a very broad area of town, and by reducing and eliminating restrictions to development, the proposed Master Plan would allow many of the existing buildings that create the particular feel of this place to be demolished and replaced by new structures containing more units. More often than not, these are grossly out of keeping in scale and design with the neighborhood in which they’re situated. Could this Home Replacement Therapy, despite the good intentions of its advocates, be the cure that kills the patient?
Crucially, the plan relies on developers to fulfill its progressive ideals. But in this overheated housing market, the profit incentive only creates a drive for more units in greater densities – at ever higher prices. For whom are we providing all this projected new housing? “Affordable” seems a misnomer. For example, Accessory Dwelling Units are very appealing in concept, but even a tiny recent Accessory Dwelling Units on Guyot is now valued at over a million dollars. Whenever an affordable home enters the market – beat up, perhaps, but a dandy starter home – a developer makes a cash offer, tears it down, and replaces it with a far more expensive house. More people will move here, yes, but it seems increasingly doubtful that they’ll be people of low, modest, or middle incomes.
Might it be better and fairer to provide living places for the people of limited means who contribute to and are part of our community? Landscapers, food servers, Princeton University janitors, and others who serve the more prosperous ought to be able to live here, too. One wonders if it might be more strategic, after all, for the municipality itself to construct such rentals.
The particular character of Princeton’s neighborhoods and districts developed incrementally, over the course of three and a half centuries, radiating outwards as the town grew. The proposed Master Plan takes the enlightened position that our outer regions should remain as unbuilt and natural as possible. This places great pressure on the center. Change is inevitable, and improvement desirable, but there are few provisions in the Master Plan that even acknowledge the modest and mellow pleasures of Princeton’s established neighborhoods, let alone create a means of moderating the design and compatibility of the buildings that would replace these houses. Most of our housing stock is not “historic” in the grander sense, but these homes embody the vernacular texture of the community.
I guess what this all boils down to is attachment: Love of place. And, perhaps above all, continuity – a sense that our attachments to this extraordinary town connect us to the people who came before us here, and make us want to bequeath at least some of those particular pleasures – these characterful old houses, these tree-lined streets – to the people who will follow us. A lot of us look for more balance between change and continuity, and we’re not finding it yet in this Master Plan.
Ronald Berlin, AIA
Jefferson Road
A brilliant letter! Perfect summary of the fine points. Affordable does not mean low income and therefor no gain to the community only to the developers, and builders who most assuredly are pushing this plan! For the first time since it happened I am wondering about what would have been had we not consolidated!
Ron Berlin’s letter strikes the right balance by foreseeing the eventuality of the destruction of what makes Princeton special and by citing the predicted failure of a Council’s response to developer intimidation in approving a misguided ADU ordinance.
Exactly, Mr. Schreiber!
This is the codification of the township retaining its character on the backs of the Borough after years of it distributing their COAH requirements off to other municipalities.
Much more work is needed on every section of the master plan that respects the physical history of our neighborhoods, supports the varied economies of the community, and ensures affordability for a diverse population throughout the Town of Princeton.
Thank you for your lovely letter. You hit it right in the center of the bullseye.
There has to be a compromise between growth and allowing new development. A blanket position against any new density or development helps limit the number of units in town and keeps prices high. Many of these new developments have 15% or 20% of units set aside for low to moderate incomes so the number of affordable units is actually increasing.
Older buildings are oftentimes built to lower standards, much less energy efficient and not ADA accessible to our older residents who want to age in the community but cannot in their current home. New developments can absolutely be required to plant new trees, construct wider sidewalks, and provide landscaping. Princeton can also moderate the design of new buildings so they fit the style the community wants.