Stockton Street development doesn’t meet criteria of new ‘Green Development Checklist’

Dear Editor:

Climate change is upon us, and New Jersey is the third most impacted state in the U.S., with Princeton among New Jersey’s most affected areas. The Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect raises our town’s temperatures by 6.3°F to 8°F and, until Princeton takes action, temperatures will only climb. What reduces the UHI effect?  Trees. According to American Forests, because cool air settles near the ground, air temperatures directly under trees can be as much as 25°F cooler than air temperatures above a nearby blacktop.  When you walk on Nassau Street, the difference in temperatures between the university side and the business side is palpable.

Last Monday, the Princeton Council approved a green development checklist. This detailed checklist is admirable and begins by focusing on the big picture: “Does the development limit disturbed areas by limiting clearing and grading to a carefully described and compact development envelope?”

The resounding answer to this as applied to the proposed redevelopment of Princeton Seminary’s TRW campus on Stockton is NO. The criteria of “limiting disturbed areas” reveals that this plan does the opposite in every conceivable way. Rather than limiting clearing, it instead clear-cuts the properties entirely. It regrades the property to raise it up higher than neighboring properties and proposes 60’ buildings, including atop a garage that adds additional height. 

The idea of it being a compact development envelope is laughable. This “compact envelope” envelopes the entirety of the properties, encroaching in every way on the residential neighborhood, stripping it of privacy and exposing it to a gigantic concrete Urban Heat Island. By definition, a compact development envelope should not detract from the visual or residential appeal of the area. The beauty of Princeton, and this historic neighborhood, is in its viewshed, one defined by old-growth trees. The redevelopment plan slaughters all the trees and decimates a beautiful park-like landscape, one that Princeton Theologial Seminary itself deemed environmentally sensitive.

It’s also in direct opposition to other important items on the Green Checklist, including fitting well into the existing neighborhood and streetscape. This type of hatchet-job development in an age of global warming, with its overwhelming mass and impermeable surfaces, already feels dated. It will not age well as it dominates and towers over a historic residential area and invades Princeton’s viewscape.

TRW should be redeveloped gracefully and appropriately (including affordable housing) without contributing to the rising Urban Heat Island effect that is plaguing us. It is not smart growth to take a beautiful open space and clear-cut the trees, creating 70% new impervious surface (a calculation that excludes the road that will run the entire length of the property).

It is shocking that an ordinance prescribing this massive redevelopment would be introduced on the same day the Green Development Checklist was unanimously passed.

The Princeton Council has 100% control over the approval of this plan. We will learn at the July 22 meeting whether the enthusiastically adopted Green Checklist has meaning or whether residents are being gaslit as temperatures continue to rise.

Karen O’Connell

Avatar of Community Contributor

Submit your photos, news, blog post, news tip, document, request for coverage or letter to the editor to editor @ planetprinceton.com. Please include your contact information. Letters should be between 200 and 750 words. Add events to our community calendar by following the "add event" link on our navigation menu. Thank you for reading and contributing to Planet Princeton.

4 Comments

  1. The proposed development is a horrendous idea on so many levels. What on earth is happening with the Princeton Council that would even consider it? If we don’t, at MINIMUM, enforce the green development checklist, we are contributing not only to our incineration but to the incineration and misery of future generations. And for what? Money? Greed? It’s enough to break your heart.

    1. The town is now run by officials who only care about what developers want, disguising unbridled development as good for affordable housing and the environment. These developers are getting sweetheart pilot deals to develop in a wealthy town, while providing the bare minimum of affordable housing. Check out who the council members’ supporters and donors are and you will see the developer of this property was the top donor to Lambros. I think he even gave her space for her campaign headquarters. Planet Princeton should look into this developer relationship.

  2. By the looks of indifference and boredom on the faces of the council members convened to vote on the proposed development at the TRW this week, it was readily apparent that they had long ago decided in favor of granting the developer rights to build. It would have been a courtesy to have at least feigned interest in what the residents of the neighborhood had to say. This vote was nothing more than a high-minded and sloppy response to very real concerns about traffic, affordability, and climate change that every one of us shares. This development was never about the “missing middle” or working families being able to afford living in Princeton. The market rate of the units will require a household income of close to $200K for a two bedroom apartment. The “affordable” units sunset after 30 years and may revert back to market price. Congratulations Council – you’ve just kicked the affordability can down the road for the next generation to deal with. Now, at least, the Hermes store will enjoy additional foot traffic as the new residents stroll “walkable Princeton” in search of bubble tea and an over-priced hand bag. Shame on you.

    1. A good point about the bubble tea and the Hermes handbags. There used to be an authentic “walkable Princeton” with real stores for real people – Urkens, Claytons, Hulits, Davisons etc. But most of them are gone.
      The TRW buildings used to offer affordable housing to a diverse group of people. But all that’s gone too.

Comments are closed.