IAS | Town Topics

March 20, 2013

George Dyson Recalls Institute Woods, His Boyhood, Oswald Veblen’s Legacy

As a boy growing up in Princeton, George Dyson spent as much time as he could out-of-doors in the Institute Woods. Now resident on the West Coast, Mr. Dyson, son of renowned Institute for Advanced Study theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson and mathematician Verena Huber-Dyson, returns to Princeton to pay tribute to the “woodchopping professor” who brought Institute and woods together.

Tomorrow evening Mr. Dyson will present “Princeton’s Christopher Robin: Oswald Veblen and the Six-hundred-acre Woods” at the D&R Greenway. The reference is of course to A.A. Milne’s Winnie the Pooh. But in this case the woods are the Institute Woods. “As a child growing up at the Institute, I spent half my time there,” recalls Mr. Dyson. “I just assumed the woods had always been there, and always would be. Much later, when I became a historian, I started to wonder, how, and why, did the Institute acquire all that land?”

As Mr. Dyson discovered, the answer was Oswald Veblen, one time Henry B. Fine Mathematics Professor at Princeton University. In fact, says Mr. Dyson “Oswald Veblen is really the answer to why the Institute for Advanced Study ended up in Princeton in the first place.”

Oswald Veblen (1880-1960) was born in Iowa, the son of a professor of mathematics and physics. He studied math at Harvard and Chicago before joining the faculty of Princeton University in 1905. His uncle, the economist Thorstein Veblen authored the influential book, The Higher Learning in America. Mr. Veblen’s own efforts to advance high-level research in mathematics earned him title “statesman of mathematics.” It was Mr. Veblen who suggested Princeton as the place to establish the Institute for Advanced Study and he was among its first faculty members, resigning his professorship at the University in order to do so.

“He was a woodsman as well as a mathematician, and believed that people needed room to think,” said Mr. Dyson. In 1957, Mr. Veblen and his wife Elizabeth Veblen donated their Herrontown Wood property to Mercer County as a wildlife and plant sanctuary.

A historian of science and technology whose works include Darwin Among the Machines; Project Orion: The Atomic Spaceship; Baidarka the Kayak; and, most recently, Turing’s Cathedral; Mr. Dyson is uniquely placed to recount the story of the Institute Woods preservation. He was a Director’s Visitor at the Institute in 2002-03 and his impressions span significant decades in the areas of science and preservation.

“The Institute Woods preservation put D&R Greenway on the map,” says Linda Mead, recalling the Land Trust’s first multi-million-dollar transaction in the 1990s. Preservation successes since then have led to national recognition for the organization.

Mr. Dyson’s talk promises to reveal the unlikely and dramatic events from the history of the Institute: of boundaries and bargains; lifelong relationships among scientists who altered global reality with their discoveries; of quirks and foibles and seminal and ultimately triumphal land negotiations.

Having moved as a young man to a tree house in British Columbia, “because Princeton wasn’t wild enough,” much of George Dyson’s early work involved designing and restoring traditional kayaks and re-experiencing historic voyages in them. In an article published in The Atlantic in 2010, Kenneth Brower described Mr. Dyson as “bearing an uncanny resemblance to Thoreau.”

Mr. Dyson’s talk will be the first of an annual series of presentations titled “Forum on Strategic Techniques and Innovations in Land Preservation and Stewardship,” in honor of D&R Greenway trustee John Rassweiler, through the Rassweiler Family:

The event takes place at the D&R Greenway Land Trust, One Preservation Place, off Rosedale Road, on Thursday March 21, from 7 to 8:30 p.m. Light refreshments will precede the program, which is co-sponsored by the Institute for Advanced Study. The event is free but registration is required; call (609) 924-4646 or email rsvp@drgreenway.org. For more information, visit: www.drgreenway.org.

February 29, 2012

Battlefield Society Does Itself More Harm Than Good By Obstructing IAS Project

Dear Editor:

I am a resident of Yardley, Pa., but work at a research center in Princeton. For many years I have attended talks at the Institute for Advanced Study, walked in its woods, and enjoyed simply sitting and reading by the pond. I would like to think that I am an objective and neutral observer, with no vested interest in the fight between the Institute for Advanced Study and the Princeton Battlefield Society beyond a desire to preserve the ability of this intellectual hub of history, social science, mathematics, and physics to continue and to improve. But I cannot get past the thought that the Battlefield Society does itself more harm than good by continuing to obstruct what is an historically sensitive, well-reasoned, and ultimately well-within-its-rights proposal, put forth by the Institute.

Let’s look at the facts. The IAS project is on its own land. It seeks only one minor variance, to do away with street lights, which will also benefit its neighbors. The Institute was assured years ago by the State of New Jersey that it could build faculty housing in the location it now proposes. Do we not honor commitments any longer? It is undisputed that the Institute’s contribution of land to the existing Battlefield Park has made the park the large tract it is today. Moreover, the Institute has agreed to a compromise brokered by Congressman Holt and offered by noted historians James McPherson and David Hackett-Fisher that enhances battlefield commemoration. What more can one ask from an applicant?

And still, the Battlefield Society persists in its obstruction, causing endless public hearings and cost. Does it care so little for its reputation that it now turns to challenging the Institute over feigned wetlands issues? Having failed to persuade even preservationist scholars, what’s next, the proverbial kitchen sink? Enough. We are all suffering from battle fatigue. May the Battlefield Society finally come to its senses and embrace the compromise, lest it snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. I encourage the Princeton Regional Planning Commission to approve the Institute’s Faculty Housing Plan. It’s time to put this to rest.

Howard Rees

Yardley, Pa.

Township Mayor States His Position On Institute Housing and Battlefield

To the Editor:

As mayor, I have received numerous letters for and against the proposed housing development for the Institute for Advanced Study. As many may know, the Battle of Princeton was not just a battle at what is today’s Princeton Battlefield park. It was a battle that moved through a number of sites all the way to Nassau Hall. It is clear to me that the most value in interpreting many revolutionary era battles, as they typically spanned large areas of ground and consisted of various skirmishes, is to do so through interpretive signage, archaeology, historical tours, and of course, preserved land.

To that end, I agree with the two esteemed historians, Jim McPherson and David Hackett Fischer, in their proposed compromise regarding this development. They have put forth a compromise that would allow for the housing project to move forward with the ability to preserve a large area of the overall site from development through a permanent conservation easement. The size of the land preserved would be about double the footprint of the Institute’s housing project.

In addition, the Institute will provide for archeological work on site before and during construction, access to a path through the preserved land and public interpretive signage upon completion of the project, and potential coordination with historical agencies for historical tours, thereby enabling the public to learn more about the Battle of Princeton.

Compromises inevitably leave both sides with perceived gains and losses. However, in this case I believe the right balance presents itself. We will enable many generations to more fully understand the Battle of Princeton and its importance through interpretive signage, historical tours, archaeology, and preserved land. We will also see to the housing needs met for the talented and creative faculty at the Institute for Advanced Study.

Chad Goerner

Mayor, Princeton Township

“Compromise” Offered to Battlefield Society Essentially What IAS Was Proposing All Along

To the Editor:

Recently several people claiming to be “independent observers” have said that the Princeton Battlefield Society has been unfair in challenging the Institute for Advanced Study’s proposed faculty housing project. Please note that the Battlefield Society was founded as the Princeton Battlefield AREA PRESERVATION Society, with the express mission of preserving and protecting the battlefield, much of which lies outside the park.

A number of people are under the impression that the Institute had a major role in founding the park. Untrue. Governor Edge approached the Institute about contributing to the park in 1944, and he provided a map showing his plan. The IAS indicated to the governor that they were “interested,” but they did nothing to contribute to the park until 1973, almost 30 years later. At that time they finally sold two pieces of property to the State, many years after the park was founded. Further, it could easily be argued that the IAS undermined formation of the park by purchasing property that Governor Edge was expressly seeking for the park, much of which, to this day, is still not a part of the park. This includes the site of the winning counterattack, the very property where the IAS wants to build its housing project.

A recent letter to the press claimed that the State assured the Institute that it could build on the location it now proposes. This statement only represented the perspective of a single individual at the time. Further the State of New Jersey does not have authority over determinations of local land use.

Hopefully the IAS isn’t saying that it doesn’t have to meet the requirements of local land-use laws and environmental regulations. To qualify for Cluster Zoning, the developer must show that its project meets the standard 1-acre zoning required for this property. The Institute has not done this. In addition, there are wetlands that were identified on the property in 1990 and again in 2011 that were somehow not included on maps submitted by the IAS to DEP.

The “compromise” that was offered to the Battlefield Society was essentially what the IAS was proposing all along as a cluster development. Furthermore, Professor McPherson clearly confirmed at the Planning Board meeting that the counterattack that won the battle occurred on the site the Institute wants to develop. This is something the Institute has always denied.

The Planning Board should decide that this project with its multiple violations of land use and environmental regulations does not meet the requirements of the town’s ordinances and master plan.

Daniel Thompson

Dempsey Avenue

Member, Princeton Battlefield Society

February 15, 2012

History Becoming an Endangered Species? IAS Plan Suggests a Biodegradable Society

This Thursday February 16 at 7:30 p.m. at 400 Witherspoon Street will likely be the last meeting of the Planning Commission on deciding the fateful go ahead for the 15-unit housing facility that the IAS wishes to build. The central argument seems to be whether or not there was a battle on this IAS land. In the past several months I have attended all of the planning meetings and have been following articles in the newspapers and one point sticks out. The ABPP Study along with testimonials of published historians clearly states that about 60 percent of the battle or what many like to call Washington’s counter attack did take place on this IAS land.

An IAS supporter came forward to say that he is tired of hearing about this so-called sacred land. What else can we call ground where over 500 American and British soldiers died or were wounded on January 3 1777?

The IAS is pushing to develop this land and to date they don’t even have all of their approvals, including wet lands, zoning, variances, engineering issues and a 1992 resolution on cluster housing that one would surmise would be put forth before going to the Planning Board. I join many others who are passionate for history and its preservation in a biodegradable society that cares more about tearing down and building up.

History is becoming an endangered species!

R. Iain Haight-Ashton
Site Director, Wyckoff- Garretson House,
Somerset, N.J.

Toward A Clearer Understanding: Information on the Historic Context of the Battlefield Issue

To the Editor:

It might be useful to take a step back in understanding that the site of the Battle of Princeton counterattack was envisioned from the beginning to be a vital part of Princeton Battlefield State Park. In 1944, C.S. Sincerbeaux, a local well-respected civil engineer, prepared a map for the American Scenic and Historical Preservation Society showing Washington’s counterattack at the Battle of Princeton. He showed the counterattack to be on what is now the proposed faculty housing site. This map then became the basis for Governor Walter Edge’s Park boundary lines, and his parcel-by-parcel determination of what needed to be acquired to establish the Park — I have a copy of that map.

The governor had originally wanted the Federal government to create the Park, but with tight economic times at the end of World War II, and encroachment threatening the Battlefield, he rolled up his sleeves and committed to getting the job done and persuading the New Jersey legislature to pass the necessary appropriation. His representative, George Brakeley, who was also vice president and treasurer of Princeton University, then approached the Institute for Advanced Study and asked the Institute to contribute 36 acres to the project; that was in 1944. Governor Edge also sent a copy of the Sincerbeaux map to the Institute. The Institute, at that time indicated that it was favorably disposed to working with the governor in putting the Park together. Then, in 1945, the Institute purchased 129.99 acres from Robert Maxwell including the site of the counterattack — a site that Governor Edge passionately wanted to be in the Park. Later Mr. Maxwell gave his remaining property to the state, including a small parcel where General Mercer had fallen, which he sold to the state for $1. Mrs. Agnes Pyne Hudson gifted property to the Park in 1947. Other parcels were purchased, some acquired under the threat of eminent domain.

Negotiations with the Institute dragged on for 25 long years. Finally, in 1973, the IAS agreed to deed two parcels to the Park. One, a parcel of 12.264 acres was sold to the state, not gifted, for $335,000. This site bordered the Friend’s Meeting property and was the site of a previously proposed housing development. The other, in the amount of 19.38 acres, was on the east side of the Park between the Clarke House and the Institute. So far I have not been able to find a copy of the deed for this property.

Since that time there has continued to be interest by the state in adding additional pieces of the Battlefield to the Park. The public record includes a letter addressed to the Institute in 2002 from Alvin Payne, Acting Director of Parks and Forestry, who stated: “ I would like to request that the planning board and the institute re-evaluate this proposal to develop this land. I would like to recommend the Institute work with the state’s Green Acres program and allow the state to purchase these parcels.”

When an issue is as charged as the proposed Institute’s faculty housing project is, it is important to get as clear an historical understanding as possible.

Kip Cherry
Dempsey Avenue.
1st Vice President
Princeton Battlefield Society

Yes to IAS After Putting Both Arguments in Perspective, Defining “Sacred Ground”

To the Editors:

I am not an historian nor can I quote prior discussions between the Institute and the State on the Institute’s Planning Application. However, it may be more valuable now to separate the logical arguments from the increasingly inflammatory rhetoric.

Most contributors agree that:

1. The battle of Princeton was a very important part of the Revolutionary War.

2. We want to be sure future generations remember and commemorate the soldiers that found the courage to charge the British lines.

3. The Institute is a valued part of the Princeton community, enriching our lives and raising the town’s profile by attracting world-class scholars.

4. The Institute has been a major contributor to the creation of the existing battlefield park and memorial.

The disagreement focuses on the best use of the undeveloped strip of Institute property bordering the existing park:

• Some believe it would add to the commemorative impact of the existing park, preserving what may be the precise spot of Washington’s critical counter-attack.

• Others believe it is important to restoring the residential nature of the Institute, a part of its successful formula for recruitment and collaboration that has been eroding for some time.

Sadly, this is the point at which the rhetoric has become inflamed. Those who find the latter use more compelling have been branded un-patriotic, complicit in the desecration of sacred ground.

By one definition of sacred, “entitled to veneration or religious respect,” I believe that every spot where a soldier gave his life to preserve my freedom is sacred. When I run through the Institute woods I think about what a teenage soldier must have felt treading the same ground, wondering whether the next rise would reveal a phalanx of the most powerful army in the world. However, by another definition of sacred,”devoted or dedicated to a deity or to some religious purpose; consecrated” the designation is not appropriate. Were we to consecrate every spot in Princeton where a soldier fell, we would not have a town, we would have a museum.

Some have claimed this specific plot is so historically important that it should have higher preservation priority than any other. Were its historic status that compelling, it should be possible to raise funds to buy it from the Institute for an amount that would purchase private homes in similar proximity to current faculty housing (e.g., Battle Rd, Haslet Ave). That no such alternative has emerged suggests that views on the historical significance remain equivocal — even the most informed experts disagree on the interpretation of the famous spy map and other historical references.

If the only cost of giving the benefit of the doubt to preservation were to steer a commercial developer across town, the decision would be easy. However, to deny a valued member of our community the right to continue their mission of maintaining a community of scholars, after all they have done to create a commemorative park and to revise extensively their plans to minimize any collateral impact, based on a belief that any chance that one particular war tactic occurred on one specific spot should overrule all other considerations would be a travesty.

Brad Corrodi
Mercer Street

January 25, 2012

Institute Housing-Battlefield Debate Not Local Issue, Which Is Contrary to Impression Given by IAS

To the Editor:

The IAS plan to build faculty housing on land that includes the Princeton Battlefield may seem like a local issue to Princeton, but it is not. Historians, both local and international, recognize that the Battle of Princeton was pivotal to the American Revolution. The actions of Washington at this battle added to his reputation and aided in his ability to lead the war effort. The sacrifice of the men who gave their lives was deemed heroic by their contemporaries. Those contemporaries went on to form the Republic we now enjoy.

A local issue it is not! The Institute would make it seem so, as if it were a question of neighbors disagreeing. The IAS has a local attorney and local architect representing them, but the Trustees of the Institute want that local impression because they are from Manhattan, Washington D.C., Chicago, California, Florida, London, Frankfurt, Geneva, Stockholm, Cambridge, and Budapest. This is a national issue of respect, pride, and heritage.

I hope the Planning Board will deny approval.

J. Carney

Trustee, Princeton Battlefield Society