JMF Properties Is Showing Proposed Plan For Post Office Site Tonight

Jamie-

I like your idea, but it's not really feasible to put a publicly accessible roof above apartments. Not many people would want to rent those top floor apartments. It would have been neat if they had covered the driveway between the building and the tracks though and put an elevated park/plaza there. It would also make that facade look a little less tall, since that back corner is the four storey portion.

Ridski- While I do think the perspectives are slightly off, the thing everyone forgets is that the facade of Post House and the facade of Village Coffee are not in the same plane. I don't recall what they said the distance was (10 feet or so), so even if they were exactly the same height, from the Village Coffee angle, Post House would appear smaller, because it is further in the distance. I think this perspective exaggerates that a bit too much, but that's why we have elevations to get the more precise numbers.

cmarym said:

Here is the link to the plans via Village Green:

http://villagegreennj.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Maplewood-Post-Office-Redevelopment-Power-Point-5-6-15_reduced.pdf

 OMG!  Has anyone noticed what appear to be the fake balconies on the tracks side of the building shown in slides 20 and 21?  Once the VK folks find out about this it'll be coytains!  COYTAINS!!

Ah, I misunderstood your comment.

why can't the developers just be honest about the perspecitve?

also, really, there is no way for a Kings delivery truck to get in the alley without running over all the outdoor tables/brick pedestrian area.  Any ideas on how JMF could/will re-design?

ridski said:

Unless they're increasing the parking lot between the new building and VC, in slide 18, the top of the first floor (with the second level of stores) should be just underneath the Italian sign sticking out from VC, rather than the top of the second floor, as it does for the PO building on slide 17. The perspective is way off and they've made the apartment floors look short. Fine if you're a hobbit, but I would imagine they would prefer round windows.Otherwise, I have little to complain about the new plan and design. I would have preferred set-backs on the apartment floors, but it's not a dealbreaker for me.

Yeah, that's what I was alluding to. The scale is off and makes the VC building look huge. 

Rooftop access for the tenants would be nice for them. I don't think the top-floor dwellers would want the town's children scampering about up there, though.

need a "like" button

ridski said:

I imagine JMF would make the trucks smaller.

I think the plans are wonderful.   The facades on the VC and Ricalton sides are an incredible improvement.  I've lived in Maplewood and South Orange for 30 years ( much of it within a block of the village).  I am in the Village almost every day.  I look at those plans and   ( while I still think the Maplewood Ave side looks too big)  I feel a lot of gratitude for those who have worked so hard to make this development a good thing for Maplewood.     I am also grateful to those in opposition.  I think they are directly or  indirectly responsible for a lot of the improvements that have been made to the design and are one of the reasons this building isn't even bigger.   I think this is a very exciting thing for the community I love.    

I would still love to see the 2nd or at least the 3rd story set back a bit on the Maplewood Ave and Ricalton sides.

What if to offset the loss of space that would result with the above setbacks, they cantilevered or extended the top two floors ( with the apartments)  over the rear roadway.   The roadway connecting the VC and Ricalton lots would still exist, but would be covered, there would be more space for apartments ,  the façade along Maplewood Ave would look better with setbacks, the building would be less imposing, and the Maplewood Ave facing apartments, and perhaps the Ricalton Ave facing apartments would have wonderful terraces that would certainly add to their value.  

Agree with sarazm.

sarahzm,

The MVA board actually did discuss the setback issue on Wednesday night, but it didn't make into my very long article. There was just so much discussion and so much happening!

David Minno noted that the building did have setbacks when it was taller but that when it became 3 stories, they found that setbacks were no longer appropriate. He said he couldn't find any 3-story buildings in Maplewood Village that had setbacks/stepbacks. He said "once the height came back, the need for stepbacks went away."

John James added that the PODRS committee had discussed this and it was decided that a one-story setback on a 3-story building would look "awkward."

Those are my notes. I think they're pretty accurate. 

sarahzm -- I suggested exactly that cantilever or extension, as well as setbacks (possible terraces) to the town many months ago, and those ideas have been ignored through many changes.

I'm not thrilled with the facades (not as good as the original Beyer, Blinder, Belle treatment) but I can live with them.  They are way too busy, due to the architectural comb-over used by mediocre architects who think that cutting up a facade this way reduces the perception of the building's bulk. 

One easy way to improve the facade without going back to the drawing board would be to use a much lighter (and much warmer) shade of brick, lighter even than shown in the lightest of the renderings (the shade of brick varying disturbingly from one rendering to the next).  How about a shade between the off-white ( or cream or beige ) of the bank and the theater, and perhaps a light salmon color?  This would provide just enough contrast with the concrete or (faux?) stone of the ground or first floors, while alleviating the bulk of the building.  When I have the time, I will suggest this to the town, the appropriate committees and the architects.

If anyone agrees with me, can they second the motion to those in charge?   Thanks.

I'm pretty sure the renderings are not an accurate reflection of the real materials. Renderings never are. It's a shame they did not bring the real materials to the meeting for everyone to see. It was noted that the PODRS had reviewed and suggested changes to the materials presented in their meetings. 

IMHO, a cantilever would look horrible on the tracks side (or any side). Some 3 to 4 foot bay windows might look ok.

I think a more beige shade of brick might be ok. But I think the important thing is that they use a brick that has alot of variety and shade to it, so the building does not look monolithic.

And I also agree that two stories, then a setback on Maplewood Ave would also look strange. It's out of proportion.

I'm obviously not an architect.  I know John James, have been privileged to see a lot of his work  .  I really respect his talent and opinion.  I also respect archbroad's posts.  So I defer to their judgment

Just my opinion.  I couldn't care less if there were to be an extension (on pillars) toward the back, if it would allow a lower building and setbacks on other sides, as I suggested to the town.  I don't think the view from the train station, or from the park, is nearly as important as the view from other sides.  I don't think I have once in 60+ years even noticed the P.O. (or the view in that direction) from the park.  Setbacks on three sides would have reduced the perception of bulk, and I don't personally think they would have looked odd on the third floor of a three-storey building.

Not that we should care all that much about this, but there are obvious structural complications (and costs) with doing what you suggest regarding the cantilever or extension. I did like the way the previous design by BBB made a portion of the building look like it was an addition to the rest of the mass, so M&W could always try to resolve it in that manner. And setbacks mean terraces, which mean we have to look at peoples dirty laundry and bicycles.

But with the style they've currently chosen, I think the proportions feel right on Maplewood Ave and I wouldn't want the setback. If they changed the style, my opinion might change.

Anyone is certainly, understandibly, welcome to defer to anyone else's judgement.  I have a lot of architectural knowledge, although I never finished an architectural degree.  I am not deferring to anyone's judgement but my own and certain architects I highly respect.

The Mayor wrote back to me, in reply to an e-mail I sent him, that Beyer, Blinder, Belle had been approached by the town to work with the second developer after the first one pulled out.  He said that B,B,&B specifically refused to work ever again with the town's committee.  Although I could be wrong, that tells me that the nation's (possibly the world's) premier architectural firm dealing with historic restoration and designing new (even modern) buildings to fit into older areas, maybe couldn't deal with any more nitpicking from one or more people who had poor knowledge or taste in architecture, who should have deferred to them.

chopin said:

The Mayor wrote back to me, in reply to an e-mail I sent him, that Beyer, Blinder, Belle had been approached by the town to work with the second developer after the first one pulled out.  He said that B,B,&B specifically refused to work ever again with the town's committee.  Although I could be wrong, that tells me that the nation's (possibly the world's) premier architectural firm dealing with historic restoration and designing new (even modern) buildings to fit into older areas, maybe couldn't deal with any more nitpicking from one or more people who had poor knowledge or taste in arcitecture, who should have deferred to them.

Deferred to them and built that much larger first proposed building?

I think that is funny that a well respected firm such as BBB, has never had to deal with a nitpicky committee before.

The much larger building met all the town's requirements.  I disagreed with the requirements, but that was what the architects were tasked to meet.  They have the taste to design a good building to meet any requirements (including a smaller building if the town had changed their mind earlier)   that's taste that the present architects, and maybe some of those on the committee set up by the town, don't possess.

At the MVA meeting, I'm pretty sure I heard John Branigan say that the committee was very satisfied with where the BBB design ended up. Are you saying that BBB didn't like their final design? I'm not exactly sure who you are trying to insult, the committee or BBB?

nitpicky?   I would imagine that they were not happy when the entire design premise was based on the fact that Kings would be the basement tenant.  But then they found out that Kings wasn't a player even though the TC said it was.  I wouldn't want to work with the town again either after that.

ArchBroad said:

I think that is funny that a well respected firm such as BBB, has never had to deal with a nitpicky committee before.

If BBB was put off by the governmental and public pushback in MW, they would be eaten alive by a Manhattan or Brooklyn Comunity Board. 

Word.

Or even Millburn.

I thought Chopin's comment was relaying that BBB had a problem with the MVA committee, not the township council. The committee had nothing to do with King's. As a matter of fact, the township didn't negotiate anything with King's either. It was in the developers court to negotiate with King's. The township merely indicated that they were interested in relocating, and they would help facilitate it. 

And I fail to see what significant part of the BBB proposal, which was quite nice, would have been adversely affected by King's withdrawal. As we saw when JMF took over, the removal of King's made the planning of the site, started by BBB, even better by being able to locate so much parking below grade and have all smaller retailers rather than larger.

BBB, and the particular Principal who was leading this effort (who happens to live in a very close nearby town, so he must have known the politics surrounding this project) has been involved in many high profile projects in NJ and NYC (probably elsewhere as well), and many of them have had intense scrutiny by public agencies. I'm not saying I don't believe the comment that was relayed from the mayor, but I still find it very hard to believe that he felt the MVA committee would be worse to deal with than the other huge government agencies he's had to deal with. I also find it hard to believe that a well-respected professional would make such a statement, and that the mayor would repeat it. Perhaps I give people too much "benefit of the doubt. Maybe all of this really did transpire. And maybe Meier really said he was ok with the project.

I'm sure the members of the committee would appreciate you telling them they have no taste. To think, honestly, that a panel full of professionals with varying degrees of architectural background, who all, unanimously,  decided to approve a project design, have somehow, every single one of them, been insufficiently educated to a degree to all lack the exact same amount of taste? 

Where's the respect and gratitude for the people who volunteer in this town?

I like everything about the Architect's renderings of the proposed new addition to Maplewood Village!

Rev up the bulldozers! Arrivederci old Eisenhower era PO!

ArchBroad said:

I'm sure the members of the committee would appreciate you telling them they have no taste. To think, honestly, that a panel full of professionals with varying degrees of architectural background, who all, unanimously,  decided to approve a project design, have somehow, every single one of them, been insufficiently educated to a degree to all lack the exact same amount of taste? 

Where's the respect and gratitude for the people who volunteer in this town?

Certainly not with someone who has never volunteered and seeks election to the TC by attacking the work of those who have. 

When and where did anyone attack the work of any of our town volunteers?

Aren't the members of the Board of the MVA volunteers?