To the Editor:
I appreciate the recent letter regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Princeton Theological Seminary properties [“Thoughts on Proposed Development at Princeton Theological Seminary Site,” Mailbox, June 17]. Reasonable people can disagree about whether the project is attractive, appropriate, or beneficial for Princeton.
However, several points deserve clarification.
First, statements that the proposed buildings blend in with the neighborhood are matters of opinion, not fact. Many residents — including architects, planners, historians, preservation advocates, nearby neighbors, and people from all over town — have concluded otherwise. The proposed density, scale, and massing are far greater than those found in the surrounding historic neighborhood. Whether the project is compatible with its setting is one of the issues under debate.
Second, the author’s conclusions appear to be based largely on architectural renderings presented by the developer in October 2023. Those renderings may be visually appealing to some, but they are neither binding nor fully representative of the project and its context. For example, some illustrations present proposed buildings and neighboring homes in a manner that obscures significant differences in setbacks, height, and scale. The governing document is the Redevelopment Ordinance, which permits a substantially larger development envelope than many residents understood from the public presentations. To accurately understand the project’s mass and scale relative to the surrounding historic neighborhood would require a comprehensive aerial view of the entire area, not simply selected street-level renderings.
More importantly, the renderings themselves do not resolve the central questions surrounding the project. The issue is not whether the drawings are attractive. The issue is whether a 238-unit development at a density unlike any other residential development in this neighborhood is appropriate for a site surrounded by single-family homes and historic resources; whether it advances the goals of Princeton’s Master Plan, which calls for gentle infill and Missing Middle housing; and whether the impacts on traffic, neighborhood character, and adjacent properties have been adequately addressed.
Third, the suggestion that opponents have simply delayed affordable housing overlooks an important reality. Princeton had numerous options available to satisfy its affordable housing obligations. Residents did not select this site, this density, or this redevelopment plan. Those were choices made by the municipality and the developer. Moreover, the Seminary site itself underwent a fundamental change in direction — from a concept tied to Seminary-related housing to a large for-profit redevelopment project requiring new planning decisions, zoning changes, generous financial incentives, and public review. The resulting timeline reflects far more than the filing of legal challenges.
Finally, citizens have a legal right to challenge governmental decisions in court. Judicial review is not an obstruction of democracy; it is part of democracy. Throughout New Jersey, municipalities, developers, neighborhood groups, environmental organizations, historic preservation advocates, and ordinary citizens routinely seek judicial review when they believe public bodies have acted improperly or failed to follow the law.
People may disagree about the merits of the Seminary project. But disagreement should be grounded in facts and should respect the right of residents to participate fully in the legal, civic, and democratic processes available to them.