Constructive ideas for the Post Office site

Imagine if when planning Rockefeller Center or Bryant Park or Union Square or Central Park or the Morristown Green or even our own Memorial Field someone had said creating these spaces wasnt worth it because they would not be used for 4 months out of the year.

I don't know if a plaza in Maplewood would be financially viable or doable, but I think it's worth thinking about.

kthnry said:

It's hard to retrofit a successful outdoor public space. Lots of them get built and go unused. For example, the little park in downtown South Orange is great for events, but usually it's pretty empty. In my opinion, the best public space in SO is on Sloan Street -- the strip of wide sidewalk in front of the diner and the ice cream shop. There are always people hanging out there, running into friends, etc.

You are so right. I don't know what makes one work and not the other, but it would be interesting to explore.

My 2 Cents. After reading all the threads for all these months, I propose:

Knock it all down and clear the lot. Put up small boarder plantings. Turn the rest into a public parking lot and let us all wait, cool thinking and re-address the needs in, say, 5 years.

That space could also be used to gather for community protests, collect signatures and sell GS Cookies, and, Perhaps then all the better plans will have surfaced to be considered.

Oh, yes, as of today I still own a house in Maplewood, near Vic.

Later,
The UPS Store
George

tjohn said:

TimFryatt said:

Nice concept, but proposing the developer cut the building in half is a non-starter. The town needs a fiscal return on the deal. It's already too small to make it anything of real substance.

That's not really true. The town needs to avoid an open-ended money pit which is not the same as getting one million versus 500,000 from a developer for the project. The focus should be on doing what is right for the Village.

I don't know the finances of the deal but if the building is cut in half I'd bet anything it won't be tenable for the developer, and therefore won't happen. Maplewood needs it to happen.

sarahzm said:

kthnry said:

It's hard to retrofit a successful outdoor public space. Lots of them get built and go unused. For example, the little park in downtown South Orange is great for events, but usually it's pretty empty. In my opinion, the best public space in SO is on Sloan Street -- the strip of wide sidewalk in front of the diner and the ice cream shop. There are always people hanging out there, running into friends, etc.

You are so right. I don't know what makes one work and not the other, but it would be interesting to explore.

That's because that area is part of the commercial area. That little park just stand there by itself. It's lonely, disconnected.

Another crazy idea, for idealism sake: what about a small museum/exhibition space with plenty of activities for family with a store (art bookstore), cafe/restaurant with terrace (my obsession.) I thought it had to be a "niche" museum, but a subject that easily leads itself to play/educational activities for families. I thought about a few things, mostly stuff I am into, and then it hit me: what about an architecture related museum? After all, two of the brightest architects from this era are from Maplewood, right? It would have to be designed by a great architectural firm, using demolition or re-use. How do you develop something like that, honestly, no idea: but I do know that the town has a connection with Maier and Eisenman: that would be a start.
I know, not gonna happen.

One of the great things about a properly done public "place" is it generates economic activity in a downtown.

People don't currently linger in the village because there is no place to linger. A few benches scattered throughout the village don't make an effective public place.

But that could change, creating vibrant public places is an art and science, and there are experts like Jeff Speck who specialize in such things. Just because one cannot visualize it doesn't mean it can't be done.

People do travel to these spaces, we will drive to Montclair in the summer to have a glass a wine by Amanti Vino, dinner at Raymond's while listening to live music on Church street, it's bustling there and in Morristown.

I disagree with @davidfrazier that the best use of that space is high density housing, the jitneys diminish the benefit because almost everyone in town is within a few minutes walk of public transportation. And living in the village doesn't eliminate the need for a car, a person is landlocked and needs to drive to for goods and services not tended to by the village. If anything I would like to see creative ways to improve the services that the jitneys offer.

We are best served by finding ways to minimize trips the other 8000 families take OUT of Maplewood. Placemaking does this, and is it part of the transit village concept. Although when done successful we will increase the number of people traveling TO Maplewood, which would help our local economy.

And a final mention that we have so many creative people in town that I believe could find many uses for a space like this, and we would all benefit from their creative expression.

All of this combines to improve the quality of life for everyone in Maplewood.

Read more about Placemaking here:http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_placemaking/

@sarahzm ideas are worthy of further discussion and research.

Kurt

I agree the Church Street in Montclair is a successful public space but there are significant differences, one of which is density, particularly commercial. The street is lined on both sides with a variety of commercial establishments. It is smack dab in the middle of the commercially dense and traffic-heavy Bloomfield Ave corridor. There are multiple parking lots or garages within a couple of blocks. There are probably a score of multi-family buildings within walking distance.

By contrast, the proposed public space at the PO site is located at the dead end of a small commercial strip without any where near the commercial density or traffic of Church/Bloomfield in Montclair, abutting the train tracks and with limited parking. I'd say a healthy dose of skeptisism is in order given that something like 90% of pedestrian malls in the US have failed. I understanding that, strickly speaking, this might not be a "mall," but it's pretty akin. If we swing and miss on this it comes at a pretty steep price.

Another question: doesn't this "placemaking" require destruction of the PO building? So are the opponents of the current plan now split or are they just throwing spaghetti at the wall?

There is no comparison between Montclair and Maplewood Village or even South Orange Village and Maplewood Village. Wishing won't make Maplewood Village something it isn't.

this looks nice.

^^I agree that looks very nice. But Maplewood is hardly the West Village.

That's not the point. It's about making a space that works in context of what the people want, need, and will use.

tjohn said:

There is no comparison between Montclair and Maplewood Village or even South Orange Village and Maplewood Village. Wishing won't make Maplewood Village something it isn't.

But working to make things happen is how anything becomes a reality.

khkiley said:

All of this combines to improve the quality of life for everyone in Maplewood.

Read more about Placemaking here:http://www.pps.org/reference/what_is_placemaking/

@sarahzm ideas are worthy of further discussion and research.

Kurt

Great website! It'd be nice if our TC would slow down, smell the roses, and consider the opportunity we have in front of us.

ffof said:

this looks nice.

How do we replicate that without razing the PO building? Alternatively, why can't "re-purpose" Ricalton and a few parking spaces?

ffof said:

this looks nice.

I love when people idealize quaint pictures of the best places in urban America but then reject the notion that makes them so vibrant and viable - intense residential density. The West Village has a population density of 80,000 people per square mile and Maplewood is 6,000. Yes, when things are this dense, open spaces will be well used and well maintained - when the loose bistro tables and chairs go missing, they are easily replaced. And it doesn't hurt that the homeowners of the West Village are generally gazillionaires.

davidfrazer said:

ffof said:

this looks nice.

How do we replicate that without razing the PO building? Alternatively, why can't "re-purpose" Ricalton and a few parking spaces?

Who said replicate? ANyway, I'm all for re-purposing Ricalton while we're at it. It's full of unkempt shrubbery (shrubbery!) and every xmas that low cost housing development goes in.

Are all you all are just being obtuse on purpose? The purpose of the photo was to show how an area with stores...where people want to go...gets incorporated into a meeting/open space. We have a chance to look at the big picture, but all we have right now is the TC wanting to erect a 4 story cheap plastic neo-jersey apartment building. blech.

Another little-used existing public space in downtown Maplewood is the corner of Maplewood and Baker, next to the parking lot. Arturo's is right across the street, but even when the crowds waiting for a table are so big they're almost spilling off the sidewalk, hardly anyone crosses over. I personally enjoy sitting in this spot with my dog because it's close to the action and people-watching, but few people walk by so I don't have to worry about keeping my dog out of traffic. It's nice and shady with comfortable benches.

For those who want a new outdoor public space in Maplewood, do you currently ever use this space or Ricalton square? How could these spaces be modified to attract more users? (In other words, what's wrong with them?) How would a new space be different that would make it successful?

tjohn said:

There is no comparison between Montclair and Maplewood Village or even South Orange Village and Maplewood Village. Wishing won't make Maplewood Village something it isn't.

+1

ffof said:

Are all you all are just being obtuse on purpose? The purpose of the photo was to show how an area with stores...where people want to go...gets incorporated into a meeting/open space. We have a chance to look at the big picture, but all we have right now is the TC wanting to erect a 4 story cheap plastic neo-jersey apartment building. blech.

I don't think being obtuse. I'm saying that we have neither the commercial nor residential density to realize the idealized version of vibrant outdoor public space represented by your image of the West Village or Kurt's vision of Church Street in Montclair. I am also saying that, as a matter of policy priorities, it does not make sense to utilize scarce real estate adjoining mass transit for such a purpose, especially when there is already an existing -- and under-utilized -- public outdoor space right next door already.

As for the "neo-jersey" look, it is what it is. The more the town dictates the aesthetics, the more expensive the project becomes and the less likely it will get built.

The Township will live with the aesthetics for at least 50 years. That alone gives it the the right many times over to dictate the aesthetics.

This is a situation where the Township calls the shots............not the builder.

No doubt. We got stuck with that ugly post office for 50 years.

This building is too important not to have tight design standards that make the building more expensive. If it becomes too expensive to build, then Maplewood should give something back to make it viable (e.g. parking relief, more density, a PILOT, etc.)

casey said:

No doubt. We got stuck with that ugly post office for 50 years.

The Township of Maplewood will now be stuck for the next 50 years with the Station House Apartments..........unless of course it falls down first.

Would you like to go for two major mistakes in the course of just a few years?

Actually don't bother. The answer is obvious.

Personally, I'm more worried about locusts.

author said:

casey said:

No doubt. We got stuck with that ugly post office for 50 years.

The Township of Maplewood will now be stuck for the next 50 years with the Station House Apartments..........unless of course it falls down first.

Would you like to go for two major mistakes in the course of just a few years?

Actually don't bother. The answer is obvious.

You know you're beginning to convince me. I drove by the park the other day and took a good look at The Station House. I've decided that there's a little more white paint than I care for.

Red_Barchetta said:

You know you're beginning to convince me. I drove by the park the other day and took a good look at The Station House. I've decided that there's a little more white paint than I care for.

I have to admit, if they took the white bits of the Station House and painted them a nice green or something, the place wouldn't bother me at all. That shade of white looks like Tyvek, as if it's unfinished. The building itself is sort of bland otherwise, but not offensive to me.

kind of a straw man. is there even one person arguing in favor of a replica of the Station House in the village?

here's just a few examples from a 30 second search on the google

re-newing an old PO
http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VSGqYvnF98E

bringing old places a re-newed life (many examples here)
http://blog.preservationnation.org/adaptive-reuse/#.VSGqr_nF98F

https://www.pinterest.com/andrusmorgan/real-estate-reuse/

ctrzaska said:

Personally, I'm more worried about locusts.

Don't be concerned. With 25 years in Pest Control and a zillion friends in the business we will make sure your crops are safe.