To the Editor:
Recent letters about the proposed development of the former Tennent Roberts Whiteley sites of the Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) cause me to wonder about the variety of meanings that individuals impart to various phrases, and language in general. One example of this phenomenon that makes that point to me are the locally displayed “Defend Historic Princeton” yard signs. Some people see this as a negative phrase that implies exclusion of individuals based on economic resources and/or racial background. There are certainly other interpretations. For my part, as a resident that proudly displays a Defend Historic Princeton sign on my property, this phrase calls attention to the remarkable historic architectural heritage of our special town, including residential, institutional, and religious buildings. Some are in designated Historic Districts; some are unfortunately not. All are important and contribute to the extraordinary and distinctive fabric that is as part of our town, county, state, and country. That heritage is what I see as very worth defending.
I have long felt that the Tennent Roberts Whiteley buildings on the PTS campus were absolutely worthy of being adaptively reused and deplore their unnecessary and environmentally indefensible destruction, but that moment has sadly passed. I truly believe (and feel certain that many neighbors to the development sites agree) that residential use, with as many affordable units as can be included — and why not more than a measly 20 percent? — is both appropriate and welcome, if only it would conform to the existing zoning in terms of density, building height, and setbacks. Analysis has shown that the combined TRW site plus 92 Stockton Street (now apparently referred to as 108 Stockton) has a building development potential of 95,221 square feet under the existing R-3 zoning. If those standards were applied, by skilled and sensitive architects, to a residential development of this property (that is adjacent to one of the oldest intact residential precincts of Princeton), I feel certain that it could both “fit in” and find support and favor with the immediate neighbors. Such an approach deserves a public presentation and discussion.
Once historic buildings are removed, and if inappropriately-large-scaled development is callously imposed on an historic neighborhood that has evolved gracefully over hundreds of years, the damage is both shameful and irreparable. The 108 Stockton site is not an “Area in Need of Redevelopment” (to be developed with arbitrary zoning increases, yielding obscene profits for the developers and questionable tax revenue for schools), but is part of an historic neighborhood that can be thoughtfully developed within current zoning standards, that are both “as of right” and have democratically dictated Princeton density for many years.
That is, to my mind, an appropriate (and not exclusionary) way forward. Let us defend that.