To the Editor:
There is an ongoing discussion about the appropriate density for the former hospital site. Current zoning for the MRRO zone, created specifically for the site of the hospital buildings, is for 280 units or 50 units per acre, a number arrived at by estimating the number of apartments that could fit into the hospital towers. Many remember the community discussions over rezoning the site for residential use in 2004-2006 --- it was said that the density would be lower if the hospital buildings came down.
What is a reasonable density if the hospital buildings do come down? I would argue that we should look at the gross density currently permitted in zoning. In the former Township, density ranges from 1.8 to 12 units/acre. In Mixed Use zones in the former Borough, like the MRRO zone, the maximum density is 14 units/acre. Density in the hospital neighborhood is lower than this. Our zoning allows densities higher than 14 units/acre only if there is 100% income restricted or age-restricted housing. In the highly-acclaimed design for the Merwick and Stanworth sites, the numerous two to three-story buildings will be built at 14 and 12 units/acre. The university designed open space and playground areas for everyone’s use and pedestrian and bike path connections between the sites and the surrounding neighborhoods.
Much of the discussion has centered on the supposed benefits of smart growth --- concentrating development in the center of towns. This does not mean, however, that the higher the density the better. Architects and planners advocate designing buildings in context with their neighborhoods. The minimum smart-growth density in Massachusetts is 8 units/acre for single-family units, 12 units/acre for two- and three-family units and 20 units/acre for multi-family apartments. The 20 unit/acre density -or 112 units on the former hospital site- is already more than double the density in the surrounding neighborhood.
The Task Force is moving in the right direction by considering 39 units/acre or 220 units for the site. Unfortunately, with densities over 35 units/acre you lose a sense of having individual buildings -you get massive bulk and long-runs of frontage like the plans that AvalonBay presented.
Personally, I believe that the density of the Merwick/Stanworth sites is appropriate for the former hospital site. The John-Witherspoon neighborhood, with Merwick/Stanworth on one side and the MRRO zone on the other, averages 14 units/acre. Let’s do the same for the MRRO zone: 14 units/acre or 78 units for the former hospital site. This density will allow for a development in keeping with the scale and character of the neighborhood, as required by Borough Code and the town’s Master Plan. It will allow for green open space and throughways for people to walk and bike through the block (like at Merwick/Stanworth). Green space, walkers and bikers make town living highly sustainable. Higher densities will bring more traffic, the possible busing of elementary schoolchildren, lower property values and higher taxes for Princeton residents.
Ken Gumpert
Princeton
Thanks Ken for doing all this research and making the comparisons. It is very hard to justify a density at the hospital site of 50 units/acre if the hospital buildings are demolished. Part of the land that was to be a park (shown to the Planning Board and Borough Council in 2006 in a concept plan drawn by the hospital's consultant architect, during the rezoning of the site ) --- has been sold by the hospital and will remain an office building. The promised park was part of the deal the town made with the hospital when they were given a density much higher than the surrounding neighborhoods. I agree Ken -- Merwick and Stanworth are great site plans. We have the university to thank for that.
Witherspoon Street is an ideal area for increased density owing to its close proximity to the town center and Princeton shopping center, transit links, and existing tall structures. 280 units, which could be accommodated in low-medium rise structures, is entirely appropriate. If anyone is interested in reading about the benefits of density in neighborhoods (don't just take it from me), please take a look at the following report from the Environmental Protection Agency 'Density in Your Community': http://www.epa.gov/dced/pdf/density.pdf
This article also states as its basis these principles: 1. Increase densities in APPROPRIATE LOCATIONS, 2. Connect people and places through a COMPLETE STREET NETWORK that invites walking and bicycling and provides convenient access to bus or rail, 3. MIX USES to create a quality of life where people may choose to live near their work, walk to the local store, or bike to the library with their kids, 4. Place parking in alternative locations to support density and CREATE INVITING PLACES TO WALK, and 5. Create great places for people. (quoted verbatim, emphasis (CAPS) mine) As Ken says, 78 units is entirely appropriate and in keeping with the neighborhood. If people are concerned about not enough affordable housing, increase the percentage! Is the resistance to this that the hospital needs to get maximum value out of the site b/c they overextended themselves in building their current complex, with all its over the top amenities? Is it the town's responsibility to bail them out by accepting their demand for this totally out of scale density?
You can't simply say, as SFB does, "the density in the neighborhood is on average too low"---as if 2.5 story homes should be razed and the idiot planners should start all over again. Neighborhoods evolve over time. Radical neighborhood disruption, as Ken Gumpert illustrates so well, would be a tragic error on the part of planners. The WILL AND DESIRE of live people inhabiting the neighborhood has been to RETURN the hospital site to appropriate density as measured by the neighborhoods themselves.
SFB, if you are not ashamed of your positions, why not come out of hiding? So full of False Bravado?
Massachusetts smart-growth legislation defines smart-growth in a single-family neighborhood at anything over 8 units/acre. Moore-Jefferson is over 10 units/acre. For 2 and 3-family home neighborhoods, anything over 12 units/acre is considered smart growth. The Jackson Witherspon neighborhood is at around 14 units/acre. SFB --- I've looked through all three white papers that have been posted during this discussion on density. I've found alot of references to high density but not actual numbers. Can you point me to anything quantifiable in these papers? Also I've seen alot of low-rise buildings in the photos in the white papers. BTW: I'm not really sure who wrote these papers; National Association of Realtors was on the left hand corner of the title page of one.
Do you really believe this? JW is 6 blocks away. The high school is 3 blocks away. Isn't it far more likely that a mid-density development in this location would increase walking and cycling?
Short answer: no. Real life evidence: I have seen people who live right in the John/Witherspoon neighborhood DRIVE to the restaurant on my street (Leigh), a distance of 3 or 4 short blocks. Neighbors from my street often DRIVE, not walk, to the municipal complex on Witherspoon, an even shorter distance. In addition, on my block of Leigh there are seven who work at the University and only 2 or 3 walk w/any regularity. Three commute to NY and of those only one walks to the Dinky. Everyone has their reasons (e.g., errands or picking up kids after work, appointments or other time constraints etc.) The point is, this is what really happens. This is a suburban environment w/a suburban mentality, i.e., car-oriented. Increasing population density WILL increase density in auto traffic.
Second, there is a huge market demand for higher density housing within walkable range of Princeton downtown. If we are going to stand in the way of the market using zoning restrictions, it ought to be for a very good reason. Remember that when Palmer Square was built, with buildings of up to 5 levels, that was also extremely controversial. It changed the character of a neighborhood from what had previously been single family homes. But Palmer Square is now widely regarded as the nicest part of the town. It is the denser, downtown parts of Princeton like Palmer Square that add vibrancy to the town. Buildings of the equivalent height of Palmer Square would complement the neighborhood and support affordability and retail in Princeton. Low-density housing may seem like a safer choice for the immediate neighborhood, but the net effect is to engender home construction in the surrounding countryside and car commuting, with the resulting pollution, environmental degradation and road safety issues.
Another question has surfaced: what kind of retail will thrive in this location. A friend who has owned a store says that it is not a likely location for a thriving retail operation...What do we know about this? I'd think that a small specialty grocery store (a branch of Whole Earth?) would be great (not a standard convenience store), a restaurant (not a chain), -- what else comes to mind? There are 2 dry cleaners on 206 a few blocks away, and a small grocer /convenience store there. It should not be all expensive establishments -- Nick Hilton is close enough. There may be a need to temporarily subsidize something like a craft shop??? And it would be wonderful to add a Tuesday farmers' market outdoors, maybe a community room could be included in the apartment planning, for indoor inclement weather accommodations -- maybe a branch of the Library operation??? If these seem pie-in-the-sky, it's worth checking them out to see what is, in fact, possible.
50 units/acre density means that 280 households can be build on 5.6 acres. The difference is 14.4 acres, equivalent to two Grover Parks. This is simple math. 14 units/acre means less land for parks and green space, not more.
We can have higher density (dwelling units per acre), higher than permitted anywhere else in the Borough Code, higher than anywhere else in Princeton. Or we can have lower density, similar to the surrounding area. Do we want more traffic congestion? Higher density = More units More units = More cars More cars = Higher traffic intensity or More traffic congestion Do we want more air pollution? Do we want more respiratory problems, such as asthma? These three causal relationships have been proven in countless studies. Higher density causes increased traffic congestion. Increased traffic congestion causes increased air pollution. Increased air pollution causes respiratory problems. Given these proven causal relationships, can we conclude higher density may indirectly cause respiratory problems? Then how can we allow higher density? Lower density appears to be the healthy, responsible choice.
I believe density has the opposite effect from what you expect. At a spot like the old hospital site walking is more convenient than driving for many or all trips. Car use decreases significantly as population density increases as you can see from this post by the Natural Resources Defense Council: http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/kbenfield/considering_the_role_of_densit.html I myself lived for years on Vandeventer without owning a car, something impossible almost everywhere else in the region. The old hospital site is actually closer on foot to where I work on campus than the parking garage I'm allowed to park in. I drive every day down Witherspoon, Moore, or Jefferson because I can't find affordable housing in walking distance. The cars are already in Princeton; allowing more people to live in walking distance can only ease traffic congestion. Did the new apartments at the library and on Spring Street increase congestion? My home town of State College, PA has an order of magnitude more people living in the core of town and traffic there is much easier than Princeton because everyone who wishes to walk can choose to do so.
Have you ever wondered why the EPA and the Sierra Club favor denser neighborhoods? 280 units in central Princeton = 280 households who can walk to work / shops 78 units in central Princeton + 202 units in new-build homes in the countryside = 78 households who can walk to work / shops + 202 households who must drive everywhere. Therefore by favoring low-density, you create 202 car-dependent households, with all the ensuing traffic, pollution and respiratory problems, while requiring more green space to be paved, and contributing to social exclusion in central Princeton.
*** If you were to set the density at that of the surrounding neighborhood it would be 10 units/acre or 56 units.. ***Architect Areta Pawlynsky mentioned at last Thursday's Task Force meeting the view of smart-growth advocate Urban Land Institute: more than 2x the density of the surrounding neighborhoods is too much --- 2x the neighborhood density in this case would be 20 units/acre or 102 units.. ** Massachusetts legislation sets anything above 8 units/acre as smart-growth density for single-family neighborhoods. In the case of the hospital site at 45 units would be considered smart growth. ***If we want to make the hospital a site for apartments, then 20 units/acre or 102 units is considered smart growth by Mass law. *** Ken's suggestion is that it be set it at 14 units/acre or 78 units (that of the university's planned Merwick development). *** Really, you can't pick the number out of a hat. A good architect needs to do a site and massing plan specific to the site --- and this will help determine a density.
SFB, myself, and others who favor greater density in town are in no way connected to the developer. We are adding a differing vision for a Princeton with a walkable core densely populated enough to handle demand for the most sustainable, and in my view enjoyable, lifestyle in the region. The current and future Stanworths are planned with tremendous amounts of unused open space and lack the density or zoning for mixed use commercial. That is a suburban style of development in the core of a historic town. We would be much better served with the model of Palmer Square and the Library Plaza; sufficient density to provide vibrant open space. David Keddie
https://www.facebook.com/WalkablePrinceton We intend to organize and articulate a vision that welcomes increased density of people to the core of town rather than merely cars clogging our roads. At a recent task force meeting on rezoning the hospital site, increased density had strong support from those residents who commented. There are many who share these views. We need to be a voice in the discussion!
Merwick Standworth are being developed at 14 and 12 units/acre. This is town-like density, not surburban, and it is considered smart growth density under Massachusetts law. Suburban densities are in the 1 unit/acre range and less. Take at look at SFB's handy density pdf.