To the Editor:

I was dismayed to see the draft site plans that AvalonBay has submitted for its proposed development on the present hospital site. The coldly forbidding four or five story façade in the architect’s plan includes no break or setback. It is one thing for a hospital whose first buildings were erected in 1919 to have grown to its present size, but another for a contemporary builder to introduce such unrelieved massiveness by design.

The Borough’s Zoning Code specifically states in Sec.17A-193B.a.6,8 (“Design Standards”): “Buildings should be designed to avoid a monolithic appearance”; “New construction should be concentrated in the central portion of the site and building setback should increase as building height increases.” Sec.17A-193.c.1,3: “Building façades should relate well in composition and scale to development in the area.” “Careful consideration should be given to the mass and bulk of any buildings to ensure they are harmonious with their surroundings …” The code stipulates that the “visual appearance” must “not be that of a continuous row of tall buildings … architectural design techniques should be incorporated which break up and mitigate the larger scale” of the building, with the aim of “minimizing the length of a single plane of a façade.”

AvalonBay has asked for a density bonus of 44 units beyond the 280 rental units permitted under current zoning (17A-358.a.4). If these 44 units were subtracted from the developer’s plan, which now reflects their inclusion, I can imagine a frontage of three stories, slightly set back, rising to four stories at the central part of the block or zone, in a way that would mitigate, as specified in the Borough’s Zoning Code, the negative effects of mass and height.

Few people question the need for additional rental space in Princeton, at both market-rate and affordable-housing rates; but providing this space should not come at the cost of uninspired architectural design and inconsistency with existing neighborhoods. Borough Council and the Planning Board should reject the bonus density that has led to poorly designed plans for the purpose of amassing many people within a single area. The developer should be advised by Borough Council (next meeting on April 10), the Site Plan Review Advisory Board, and the Planning Board (where a hearing on the enabling ordinance is scheduled for April 19) to revise its plans in accordance with the Borough code.

Suzanne Nash
Governors Lane