Kings "looks forward" to Post Office Redevelopment Project
Inda - When it comes to reputation, I'm sure you know that what you intend doesn't matter nearly as much as how you come across. afa made a very relevant statement of advice to you and your response further degrades that reputation, however deserved or undeserved.
ramzzoinksus said:
It seems very likely that if everyone threw up their hands and said "lets do adaptive reuse" she would vehemently oppose what ever adaptive reuse is chosen or even do a 180 and call for the building to be demolished.
You don't know Inda or you would realize that statement is devoid of reality.
ice said:
Great news. So much for the theory that the TC is deaf to the concerns raised to it about this development.
The TC knew about the problem for months and hoped it would go away till the spokesman from Kings brought it up.
No one thought or voiced the opinion that a solution could not be found. But not till it was addressed.
nohero said:
Oh, and Mr. Harvey, on behalf of Engage, invited people to that meeting with a post on MOL, indicating that the post office redevelopment would be a topic.
https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/discussion/id/99874-Reminder-Engage-Maplewood-Crowd-Gathering-Monday-9-16-7-15-PM
That was not our first meeting there. At the first meeting there was no table and we introduced ourselves to the audience and began the work that had to be done
Also, not that it matters but I would say there were 40 people in attendance.
Frankly why does anyone care what Kings thinks either way. If they want to move let them move out. There would be a replacement retailer in there in about twenty seconds, unless the NIMBYs get in the way.
dave23 said:
Author, you seem awfully cranky today. While I disagree with nearly everything you post on this subject, you usually do so with a tinge of humor.
Yes, I guess to see the solution to the Kings delivery problem resolved and proclaimed as some sort of ringing victory is bothersome. I would have fired any contractor who got to this stage of the game and did not realize that his building is blocking deliveries for probably the biggest employer in town as well as one of the three anchors as touted by the town itself.
I just see it as being insensitive and a bad sign of things to come.
Author, you've repeatedly expressed your dislike of the developer. If the project were to start from scratch with RFPs for repurposing the existing building, which specific developers do you believe would bid on the project, or would you like to see bid? How and why do you believe they would behave differently than what we've seen in the current process?
sac said:
Inda - When it comes to reputation, I'm sure you know that what you intend doesn't matter nearly as much as how you come across. afa made a very relevant statement of advice to you and your response further degrades that reputation, however deserved or undeserved.
+1
Perception is reality.
Recommended Reading:
King's letter to Mayor De Luca stands in stark contrast to this hit job by Village Keepers president (and chairman?) Dirk Olin that tried to manufacture a rift between the Mayor and Kings.
The Village Keepers' credibility problem today went from bad to worse.
http://villagegreennj.com/towns/government/op-ed-keep-maplewood-village-civil/
Op-Ed: Keep Maplewood Village Civil
| May 9, 2015
The growing ranks of Maplewood citizens who oppose the cookie-cutter behemoth that is proposed for the old post office site are about to swell still further. As people learn what transpired Wednesday night during the Maplewood Village Alliance board meeting, they are sure to be appalled by both the still-emerging details of the Frankenstructure—and, just as important, the behavior of its would-be creators.
The Village Keepers was created in hopes of elevating the dialogue about both this proposal and future questions affecting the welfare of the village. Sure, we have a point of view: We think the design in question is financially irresponsible, environmentally harmful, and community-blind. But we expected that the other side would at least listen to our concerns and respond with decorum.
Not so much.
On Wednesday night, it became abundantly clear that the current governing body is functionally deaf to its constituents and, in at least one case, nastily antagonistic to someone who would dare to question proposal details. Even if that someone is a representative of what is arguably our single most important commercial establishment in town.
My personal opposition to the incumbents is somewhat painful. I worked on the campaigns of a majority of the current committee members. I know that they work their tails off. I know that they rarely get credit—and certainly not very much money—for the hours that they put in to keep the town we love up and running. But that does not mean we should refrain from expressing ourselves when we disagree with them.
And disagree with them we do. For me, the camel’s back broke Wednesday night.
In town hall, during review of the post office proposal by the Maplewood Village Alliance board, on which the mayor serves, the mayor displayed a level of incivility toward one speaker that was so hostile it made audience members cringe. He launched into a harsh interrogation, berating a representative of Kings Supermarket. And for what? For raising the perfectly reasonable business concern that the market might well not be able to continue operating if the new development proceeds.
That’s Kings, as in the proprietor identified by our own redevelopment plan as the anchor of Maplewood village commerce. Does anyone want Kings to leave Maplewood? So that a handful of new residents can occupy an apartment building with a private gym and a yoga instructor?
At issue was the turning radius of the Kings delivery trucks and their ability to back in to the driveway across the street to unload. But on display was an approach to public policy that reduced conversation to confrontation. The mayor was actually yelling at a representative of Kings in a public meeting. I infer that there is a back story here, but that doesn’t justify such public acrimony.
This was after the project’s architect compared town residents to “walking wallets.”
This was after the developer could not articulate a single concrete commercial tenant, nor really even a retail value proposition, for the first floor of the proposed building.
This was after we were shown that the structure’s elevated walkway would amount to a barrier reaching six feet tall between sidewalkers and the supposed shop entrances.
In the movie, Boris Karloff will play the building.
But leave aside the proposal’s sundry demerits. What is now evident is that the mayor is willing to risk the loss of Kings in pursuit of a pet project that a burgeoning plurality of residents and downtown merchants actually oppose.
Take a walk around your neighborhood for signs of the time.
From Boyden to both Burnetts. From Clinton to Courter. Dehart to Durand. Up Elmwood, down Elberta—and the mayor should not even look at Euclid. On Highland. On Hilton. All over College Hill. They are on Jefferson and Jacoby—on Kendall and Kensington—on Pierson and all over Park Road. Wellesley and Wyoming, too. Village Keeper signs total some 400 to date, and that’s only because we ran out of inventory.
In fact, more than 30 signs grace Maplewood Avenue alone, including some rather interesting addresses:
Village Ice Cream, Linda’s Cleaners, Kim’s Nails, Maplewood Wine, Leo’s Nails, St. James Gate, the Village Barbers, the Mapleleaf Diner, Village Wine, Madeline Moss, Freeman’s Fish Market, Scrivener’s, the Village Coffee shop.
All of those proprietors and more have taken Village Keepers signs to help dispel this looming shadow over Maplewood.
On Wednesday afternoon, at Bank of America, a staffer asked about the issue was blunt: “You know, everyone of our customers is against it.”
“What percentage?” asked her interviewer.
“No, seriously,” came the response, “everyone.”
The proposal here is to sell a crown jewel of town property for 39 cents on the dollar and maybe gain $10-a-year for the average property owner. That’s one big casino—but in this case we are rolling dice with the commerce and character of our town.
Asked about the abomination, one member of the MVA design review committee said, “Look, we improved it. It’s not as bad as it was going to be.”
Really? Is this our standard? Not as bad as it might have been?
This is a slippery slope toward mediocrity. And—who knows?—maybe an even taller village skyline down the road.
Shown the design, another New Jersey architect, said, “Well it’s obviously generic. But it’s hard to judge without context. These are the same designs and materials that we’ve been seeing for the past 30 or 40 years. So this could be just about anywhere.”
In this case, the “where” in anywhere is us. Who are we? Why did we, or our parents, move to this town?
Proponents of the Frankenstructure have every right to voice their views. But they also have a duty to keep the debate civil. The Village Keepers will continue to pursue the goal of civil discourse, whether the mayor yells at us or not.
author said:
dave23 said:Yes, I guess to see the solution to the Kings delivery problem resolved and proclaimed as some sort of ringing victory is bothersome. I would have fired any contractor who got to this stage of the game and did not realize that his building is blocking deliveries for probably the biggest employer in town as well as one of the three anchors as touted by the town itself.
Author, you seem awfully cranky today. While I disagree with nearly everything you post on this subject, you usually do so with a tinge of humor.
I just see it as being insensitive and a bad sign of things to come.
The design the developer proposed increased sidewalk depth both to add public pedestrian space adjacent to Ricalton Sq, and to add parking spots, both of which the town wanted. Although I have not seen the revised plan I can imagine both parking and public space on the park have been reduced to permit Kings tractor trailers. The change is not without some loss to the public.
author said:
ramzzoinksus said:You don't know Inda or you would realize that statement is devoid of reality.
It seems very likely that if everyone threw up their hands and said "lets do adaptive reuse" she would vehemently oppose what ever adaptive reuse is chosen or even do a 180 and call for the building to be demolished.
Thanks Author for your support and kind words - you do know me well.
@afa - interestingly enough and as opposed to what you have stated, I have been awarded a number of commissions based on my reputation for advocacy work. I am also known as a stickler for details...as in getting it right.
@sac, AFA's comments are not relevant to the subject at hand...and your comments are quite judgmental.
I am flattered that so many are concerned about my reputation. How kind!
I've been around the block a few times and usually know what I am talking about. My reputation is that when I say something it is usually sound and rational and based in reality. When I go to court for any reason, I typically win. When I design something it is usually well received. When I am seen to be in error I re-examine my evidence. When there is something to compromise on, I am there to consider.
What would be a good compromise? If the township took some time out to commission a feasibility study for adaptive re-use, done by an independent entity (selected by a citizen's advisory board), with no interaction with or influence at all by the TC, MVA, or JMF, etc. that would be a first step. That should have been done at the outset. Then depending on the outcome of that study, we would take the next steps. So that's a first bit of compromise.
As for me, I will follow Fred's lead and take a little vacation from all of your MOLish vitriol while basking in the light of my reputation. And I'm out....
Something to ponder whilst you're out basking: As has been explained before, the developer has a contract (with an accommodating developer, no less). The chances of the TC risking a breach of that contract and a subsequent lawsuit by ordering an independent body to undertake a feasibility study are thankfully nil.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:Were you one of those who cringed?
Were you present at the meeting?
I'm opening the first combination kosher/halal restaurant in Maplewood in the new building. Thought the two of you should be the first to know.
IndaSechzer said: If the township took some time out to commission a feasibility study for adaptive re-use, done by an independent entity (selected by a citizen's advisory board), with no interaction with or influence at all by the TC, MVA, or JMF, etc. that would be a first step.
Adaptive re-use by who? Is there someone who wants to adapt and re-use this building?
In a compromise, both sides need to give a little. What you wrote is exactly what you want to have happen. I'm not sure how that makes it a compromise.
IndaSechzer said:
If the township took some time out to commission a feasibility study for adaptive re-use, done by an independent entity (selected by a citizen's advisory board), with no interaction with or influence at all by the TC, MVA, or JMF, etc. that would be a first step. That should have been done at the outset. Then depending on the outcome of that study, we would take the next steps. So that's a first bit of compromise.
author said:
dave23 said:Yes, I guess to see the solution to the Kings delivery problem resolved and proclaimed as some sort of ringing victory is bothersome. I would have fired any contractor who got to this stage of the game and did not realize that his building is blocking deliveries for probably the biggest employer in town as well as one of the three anchors as touted by the town itself.
Author, you seem awfully cranky today. While I disagree with nearly everything you post on this subject, you usually do so with a tinge of humor.
I just see it as being insensitive and a bad sign of things to come.
Did Kings reach out to the developer to discuss its delivery requirements? Are you saying that the developer should have taken the initiative and didn't?
Alex
Here you are making assumptions again.
There is a difference between what I want ideally and what could happen
What I want ideally is to save the building period, improve it, and use it for s great purpose.
The compromise part is to have a proper feasibility study to see if it can work for all parties involved.
A feasibility study doesn't always mean a project goes forward. But it can provide the public with proper information to make a choice using many criteri
ArchBroad said:
In a compromise, both sides need to give a little. What you wrote is exactly what you want to have happen. I'm not sure how that makes it a compromise.
IndaSechzer said:
If the township took some time out to commission a feasibility study for adaptive re-use, done by an independent entity (selected by a citizen's advisory board), with no interaction with or influence at all by the TC, MVA, or JMF, etc. that would be a first step. That should have been done at the outset. Then depending on the outcome of that study, we would take the next steps. So that's a first bit of compromise.
ctrzaska said:
paulsurovell said:I'm opening the first combination kosher/halal restaurant in Maplewood in the new building. Thought the two of you should be the first to know.
sbenois said:Were you one of those who cringed?
Were you present at the meeting?
I don't think Sbenois would like that.
But seriously, Sbenois, if you want to start a Post Office feud with me, start a separate thread in the politics section, or I will, because I'm not going to reply to you here.
paulsurovell said:
sbenois said:Were you one of those who cringed?
Were you present at the meeting?
Were you there yes or no? I was not.
You've accused Mr. Olin of manufacturing a rift. What is the basis of your accusation? Do you deny that the interaction took place?
An occasional break from MOL is a good thing. But am I wrong that Inda was previously OK with tearing the building down when she submitted her idea of a transit-themed public space? (My memory could be off.)
The feasibility study is something you've said you wanted before. So that is not compromise, it's the first step leading to your ultimate desired outcome.
Compromise is wanting 20 more parking spaces, but negotiating to 10. Compromise is wanting a 10 foot setback, but negotiating to 5.
IndaSechzer said:
Alex
Here you are making assumptions again.
There is a difference between what I want ideally and what could happen
What I want ideally is to save the building period, improve it, and use it for s great purpose.
The compromise part is to have a proper feasibility study to see if it can work for all parties involved.
A feasibility study doesn't always mean a project goes forward. But it can provide the public with proper information to make a choice using many criteri
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:Were you there yes or no? I was not.
sbenois said:Were you one of those who cringed?
Were you present at the meeting?
You've accused Mr. Olin of manufacturing a rift. What is the basis of your accusation? Do you deny that the interaction took place?
It's all in my post and in his article.
We may have cross-posted, so I'll reply here, but my next reply will take place in a separate thread.
I don't know if Paul was there, but I was there. There was clearly a tense interaction, but Dirks drammatic language overblows the situation. My sense is that the mayor was not happy that Kings showed up with their lawyer to make a statement about something they had been in the middle of trying to work out, but had not yet resolved yet. He clearly said numerous times to them that they were told they would find a way to work it out, and Kings was clearly adamant that they would be supportive of the project if this issue could be worked out. I saw Annette take the Kings crew out into the lobby to have a discussion, and when they came back, the tension seemed to be mostly gone. It seems having Annette on your side is a good thing.
sbenois said:
paulsurovell said:Were you there yes or no? I was not.
sbenois said:Were you one of those who cringed?
Were you present at the meeting?
You've accused Mr. Olin of manufacturing a rift. What is the basis of your accusation? Do you deny that the interaction took place?
She's always been a great doctor/palm reader.
Not very good at recommending movies though.
Depends on the starting parameters For the compromise. Your parameters are within the context of the development. Mine has wider parameters.
I.e., this is not merely about nitpicking on parking and setbacks. There is a holistic issue here. You are too busy with the trees to see the forest. And I, come to think of it, want to expand that forest.
ArchBroad said:
The feasibility study is something you've said you wanted before. So that is not compromise, it's the first step leading to your ultimate desired outcome.
Compromise is wanting 20 more parking spaces, but negotiating to 10. Compromise is wanting a 10 foot setback, but negotiating to 5.
IndaSechzer said:
Alex
Here you are making assumptions again.
There is a difference between what I want ideally and what could happen
What I want ideally is to save the building period, improve it, and use it for s great purpose.
The compromise part is to have a proper feasibility study to see if it can work for all parties involved.
A feasibility study doesn't always mean a project goes forward. But it can provide the public with proper information to make a choice using many criteri
apple44 said:
Author, you've repeatedly expressed your dislike of the developer. If the project were to start from scratch with RFPs for repurposing the existing building, which specific developers do you believe would bid on the project, or would you like to see bid? How and why do you believe they would behave differently than what we've seen in the current process?
From what I understand......the first developer who was hired for the job had an excellent reputation for both the quality of his work and for his ethics.
I would try to lure him back . If this thing must be done let's do it right.
Wow. No, it really was a well-meaning post; it would legitimately be a shame if someone was researching architects to work with and pulled up some of these posts with your full name and professional reputation attached to them and they were turned off. I'm sure you are a very talented and passionate architect, and I'm sure your work speaks for itself. All I mentioned was the impression I got from your posts. Accusing someone of libel is serious and there was absolutely nothing libelous about what I wrote.
Also, "pontificating" is far from what I did, unless you were speaking of yourself? I'm getting confused now. Anyway. No thanks on the coffee!