Westminster Choir College property redevelopment process raises questions over historic preservation
Princeton should complete a preservation review before approving an “area in need of redevelopment” status.
Dear Editor:
At last week’s Planning Board meeting on the proposed Area in Need of Redevelopment designation for Westminster Choir College, residents raised thoughtful concerns about the future of the site’s historic buildings. They were led to believe that the Master Plan’s call to study the original quad for potential historic designation would be acted upon.
The following day, however, I confirmed with the chair of the Historic Preservation Commission that the commission has not been asked to undertake any such study. At present, none of the Westminster buildings has any formal historic designation or protection.
In a break with longstanding practice, there is no longer a member of the Historic Preservation Commission serving on the Planning Board, removing a key point of coordination at precisely the moment it is needed.
That disconnect is not a matter of timing. It is a matter of sequence.
The town has owned the Westminster property for nearly a year and a half. If evaluating historic significance is truly a priority, why hasn’t that work begun? Instead, the public is being asked to support a redevelopment designation that could ultimately permit demolition or substantial alteration, before the historic value of the buildings has even been formally assessed.
At the meeting, officials repeatedly emphasized that this is the “correct process.” Under New Jersey’s Local Redevelopment and Housing Law, an AINR designation may precede adoption of a redevelopment plan. But permitted is not the same as appropriate. Sequencing matters, particularly for a publicly owned site with no pending application and no defined plan. Moving forward now places the legal framework ahead of both public engagement and basic fact-finding.
For residents new to this process, it is also important to understand what is being proposed. The consultant stated that the property meets Criteria A, D and H under the redevelopment statute. While H cannot stand alone, Criteria A has long been understood, both in practice and in plain terms, as a finding of blight. The word may be avoided, but the substance remains. When conditions such as deferred maintenance, accessibility limitations or functional obsolescence are cited, they are being used to support that determination. That is a serious designation, and it should be explained clearly and supported with equally clear, property-specific evidence.
Equally concerning were assurances that portions of the property could continue to be used for nonprofit or community purposes. That raises a basic question of consistency. If buildings are suitable for ongoing use, in what sense are they causing the kind of harm or stagnation that justifies redevelopment designation? Recent court decisions have emphasized the need for specific, demonstrable impacts, not simply conditions that fall short of ideal. Continued, viable use points in the opposite direction.
None of this is an argument against thoughtful planning for Westminster. It is an argument for doing that planning first: complete the historic evaluation, present real alternatives, engage the public meaningfully, and then determine whether redevelopment tools are warranted.
Westminster is one of the most significant public assets the town has acquired in decades. Decisions about its future should reflect that importance through transparency, careful analysis and a process that builds confidence, rather than one that asks residents to accept conclusions before the underlying questions have been answered.
Jo Butler
Hibben Road
Ms. Butler is a former Princeton Council member.
