Princeton U. Prospect Ave Plan Not Endorsed At Special Meeting

PRINCETON, NJ — The Township's Historic Preservation Committee said they cannot approve Princeton University’s development plan for Prospect Avenue.

Princeton University plans to raze three Victorian homes and move the Court Clubhouse, a former eating club currently on 91 Prospect Avenue, to the site.

The Court Clubhouse land will then be used as part of the Environmental Science (ES) and School of Engineering and Applied Science (SEAS). The proposal has faced stiff resistance from residents.

“I think the entrance to the ES+SEAS building the way it's conceived seems very problematic. I don’t think we can recommend the university moving forward without considering available land nearby and leaving the club where it is,” said Julie Capozzoli, Chair of Historic Preservation Committee.

At Monday’s special meeting, the University presented its project, which is part of its East Campus development plan.

Ronald McCoy, University architect reiterated the University’s stance that 91 Prospect, the location of Court Clubhouse, is not subject to state and federal review, and the three houses are not in any historic district “so there is no regulatory control over them.”

"Historic preservation has never been about freezing the past in time. It has been about managing change,” McCoy said.

"Successful cities evolve through a combination of both preservation and historic development... This project needs to be seen in the overall context of our stewardship,” he said.

McCoy said the University preferred to rehabilitate historic buildings whenever they have a chance. “This generally means when there is a reasonably good fit between the building and the function. It is not possible to rehabilitate a building when there is unviable fit.”

The University argued that in its current state, 91 Prospect’s floor-to-floor height would not allow for direct connection to the Chemical and Biological Engineering building. The structure, said the University, poses accessibility problems and does not have ample daylight.

The building is currently the Office of the Dean for Research. But it does not meet requirements for operating teaching, office, and conference spaces.

Attorney Christopher DeGrezi representing the University said the locations come under the areas that are suggested to be “evaluated” as historic.

“There is no requirement for a preservation plan. So, you don’t see an application for a preservation plan before the committee this evening.”

DeGrezi argued that the University’s application for 91 Prospect was essentially an application to “save” the building because it was currently not in the location where it can be saved. “In order to save the building, to prohibit demolition... is to move it across the street,” he said.

Last week, residents in Princeton started a petition urging the university to reconsider its proposal. The petition on change.org has garnered more than 645 signatures.

Read More Here: Petition Urges Princeton U. To Not Demolish Three Historic Homes

At Monday's special hearing, members of the Princeton Prospect Foundation (PPF) presented their argument against the University’s project.

“Princeton Prospect Foundation is profoundly concerned about the proposed moving of the former clubhouse across Prospect Avenue and out of Princeton historic district and demolition of three historic houses,” said Sandy Harrison, Chairman, PPF.

“Such a move would substantially dimmish the aesthetic and historic continuity of prospect avenue and it would set a disturbing precedence for the future moving and demolition of other historic eating clubhouses.”

Prof. Ava Martin, an alumna of Princeton pointed out that “many luminaries” lived in the three 19th century homes the University plans to raze.

“These unassuming dwellings have been spaces where some of the most celebrated minds lived, gathered, exchanged ideas and wrote. Erwin Panofski lived in 114 (Prospect Ave.) and wrote prominent books,” she said.

Martin said the University has not presented “a convincing case for tearing down” the structures.

Christine Lewandowski, who served for 33 years in various municipalities including Princeton said she did not support the University’s project.

“These proposed actions upon a residential street are without precedent,” she said. “Princeton may have a history of moving buildings, but this is a radical departure of demolition and introduction of changes in streetscape. Moving of buildings was done at a time where there were no ordinances and guidelines.”

Lewandowski said the proposal creates a “negative, visceral response,” and that it was “not beneficial” for the community.

Melanie Stien, a resident of prospect avenue said she supported the project. “We have many bigger issues in the community we need to be focusing on,” Stien said. “Prospect Avenue houses was a place of exclusion. I look forward to the fact there will be world-class research coming out of the building on Prospect Avenue."

After all the public comments, attorney Edwin W. Schmierer said there was a “strong consensus not to endorse the application currently proposed."

Based on Monday’s special meeting, the Historic Preservation Committee will send a memo to the Planning Board who decide site plan and variance application.

The next step in this redevelopment issue is the Planning Board meeting scheduled for June 17, at 7:30 p.m.

This will be a public hearing and people will have the chance to comment.

Thank you for reading. Have a correction or news tip? Email sarah.salvadore@patch.com

Get breaking news alerts on your phone with our app. Download here. Sign up to get Patch emails so you don't miss out on local and statewide news.