Post Office Value archived

techman said:

A lawsuit would probably scare away developers.

Lose-lose then. Great.

techman said:

A lawsuit would probably scare away developers.

If the old Post Office building were to be purposed it would of course require a contractor of skill and scale to produce a finished product. Post the bids and developers will come.

author said:

techman said:

A lawsuit would probably scare away developers.

If the old Post Office building were to be purposed it would of course require a contractor of skill and scale to produce a finished product. Post the bids and developers will come.

If a lawsuit is filed, that property could sit vacant for years. Developers won't touch it and for good reason.

We certainly don't want to end up with a 20-year battle over an empty building like they have in Millburn and Springfield:

http://www.northjersey.com/news/millburn-zoning-board-rejects-stop-1.685672?page=all

author said:

Ask any visitor from out of State which town in our part of New Jersey has the most quaint "Village"

Livingston? West Orange? Orange? Even our cousins in South Orange have busy South Orange Ave running down the center of their Village.

If a building must rise.........then for the love of Mike........at least make it proportionate to those around it. Keep it in scale. Is that too much to ask?

Warts and all............red balloons and all......ask those visitors. And they do not know our restaurants or hair saloons or coffee shops. It's called ambiance and ask how they like it.

Do you realize that you are advocating for the building of a behemoth. If you want to make the replacement for the post office building , as you say, "proportionate to those around it" you would build a building similar to the Village Coffee building and the movie theater building, which are three story buildings with no setbacks. The current PO is not proportionate and it's architecture and placement do not relate in any way to the buildings around it.

Are you purposely comparing our "most quaint" village to others with either unattractive villages or with no downtown at all, or are you really that limited in your travels that you have never heard of Chatham, Madison, Summit, Morristown, Upper Montclair, Montclair, Glen Ridge ( I could go on) all with villages at least as attractive as ours.

Yes Maplewood Village is quaint but it by no means has a monopoly on quaint. And by the way, is there anyone other than 2 or 3 posting here who would call the current PO "quaint" ?? And who says that an appropriately sized replacement could not be "quaint" and add to the ambiance in the village.

We don't even know what that replacement is going to be yet, plans have not been published.

mjh said:

casey said:

I guess with the hints being dropped by author and fredprofeta, a lawsuit is in the works.
Good times!

Dickish.

Maybe my tone was flippant, but it is true that two people alluded in their posts to litigation. Could be coincidence or it could be a (red) trial balloon, or there could really be a plan for a suit.

casey said:

mjh said:

casey said:

I guess with the hints being dropped by author and fredprofeta, a lawsuit is in the works.
Good times!

Dickish.

Maybe my tone was flippant, but it is true that two people alluded in their posts to litigation. Could be coincidence or it could be a (red) trial balloon, or there could really be a plan for a suit.

I apologize for not being clear. I think filing a lawsuit is a dickish thing to do.

sarahzm said:

<
Yes Maplewood Village is quaint but it by no means has a monopoly on quaint. And by the way, is there anyone other than 2 or 3 posting here who would call the current PO "quaint" ?? And who says that an appropriately sized replacement could not be "quaint" and add to the ambiance in the village.

We don't even know what that replacement is going to be yet, plans have not been published.

Yes, we know what the replacement is. That is why the topic is so heavily debated online and at the TC meetings.

I may be behind the times, but I thought the current developer withdrew their request for a 55 ft, 4 story building, in favor of what will be a smaller shorter building and that we are awaiting their revised proposal. If that is not accurate, then what is the current status ?

mjh said:

casey said:

mjh said:

casey said:

I guess with the hints being dropped by author and fredprofeta, a lawsuit is in the works.
Good times!

Dickish.

Maybe my tone was flippant, but it is true that two people alluded in their posts to litigation. Could be coincidence or it could be a (red) trial balloon, or there could really be a plan for a suit.

I apologize for not being clear. I think filing a lawsuit is a dickish thing to do.

maybe I'm wrong, but when an attorney publicly suggests that this case might need to be settled by litigation, it gets my attention.

sarahzm said:

I may be behind the times, but I thought the current developer withdrew their request for a 55 ft, 4 story building, in favor of what will be a smaller shorter building and that we are awaiting their revised proposal. If that is not accurate, then what is the current status ?

The second builder was told to revise his plans. He somehow eliminated the 12 foot high top floor which amounted to a 5 foot saving in height. The current , oral, plans are for a 45 foot tall building.
It is no shorter than it ever was. No drawings or plans have been released to the public.

author said:

sarahzm said:

I may be behind the times, but I thought the current developer withdrew their request for a 55 ft, 4 story building, in favor of what will be a smaller shorter building and that we are awaiting their revised proposal. If that is not accurate, then what is the current status ?

The second builder was told to revise his plans. He somehow eliminated the 12 foot high top floor which amounted to a 5 foot saving in height. The current , oral, plans are for a 45 foot tall building.
It is no shorter than it ever was. No drawings or plans have been released to the public.

In addition it should be noted that at a TC meeting just days before the builder when asked by a town architect if the top floor of the building could be eliminated he said "no for fiscal reasons"

No drawings or plans shown..........but dimensions yes.
This building is proposed to be over 200 feet in length............stretching from the edge of Ricalton Square to just about where the Southern Wall of the current Post Office Stands.
Yes the side of the building facing Village Coffee is now proposed to be 45 feet high. The side facing Maplewood Avenue includes set backs.......I do not know how to describe that.

The side facing the North has mercifully had removed an ornamental facade that would have raised the roof line. It had no function ......not sure what its purpose would have been.

Am I correct in guessing that the side of the building facing Maplewood Avenue and Ricalton Square (which is what most people think of when they picture how tall the building will be and what is most important to most Maplewoodians.) will more likely be around 35 ft high. Additionally,the front façade below the setbacks may be no more than about 24 ft high.

That's a faaaaar cry from (ohmygod) 60 feet. I wonder if someone were to put a balloon on a 35 ft string at the front of the PO at Maplewood Ave, how that would look. Perhaps that would be a more accurate representation.

I am no expert, but that doesn't seem too tall to me.

I do agree that something with a smaller footprint would be better.

I'm not sure how you are getting 25 to 35 feet when the building will be four stories.

The Village Coffee building is about 35 feet tall. A building which has one side only 24 feet in height
when the builder has stated the side facing the Village Coffee would 45 feet in elevation is going to be a great ski slope.

I can't wait for this whole PO fiasco to be over and something NEW built in its place!

Maybe this can be maplewood's saks 5th avenue.

maplewoody said:

I can't wait for this whole PO fiasco to be over and something NEW built in its place!

A new fiasco?

yahooyahoo said:

I'm not sure how you are getting 25 to 35 feet when the building will be four stories.

four stories from the village coffee side, three from Maplewood Avenue - 10 to 12 ft per story. The Maplewood Ave side will have setbacks.

sarahzm said:

yahooyahoo said:

I'm not sure how you are getting 25 to 35 feet when the building will be four stories.

four stories from the village coffee side, three from Maplewood Avenue - 10 to 12 ft per story. The Maplewood Ave side will have setbacks.

Then that would be 36 to 48 feet high. But if you look at the artist's rendering it is a full 4 stories across the entire building. I don't think the developer has any intention of having their retail shops disappear on one end of the building.

I think as illustrated by the artist depiction the fact that there are set backs along Maplewood Ave are almost meaningless. The setback is more ornamental than anything and in no way lessens the impression of height.

Someone mentioned that coming out of Kings or the Movie Theater the casual observer will almost be overwhelmed by the scope of this beast. Maplewood Ave by the way is not nearly as wide as the depiction so that there is no real distance across the street to lessen the size and scope of this thing.

Also the depiction is quite charitable to the. builder as it gives the impression this building will be shorter than the Village Coffee building.

Please don't expect me to get excited by a total of 5 feet, the size of a small man. which has now been proposed to be loped off the height of this proposed building

Except that illustration is of NOTHING. That is not the building that is being built.

I know there is a lot of bullsh*t in the artist rendering. My point was that it won't be 3 stories on one end and four on the other. It will be four stories across the entire building with additional footage on the downhill end.

For representational purposes only: Remove the fourth story from this previous diagram and you may see how the building could be three stories on one end and four on the other.

sarahzm said:

Except that illustration is of NOTHING. That is not the building that is being built.

Beside removing 5 feet from the top of the building what changes have been made?

author said:

sarahzm said:

Except that illustration is of NOTHING. That is not the building that is being built.

Beside removing 5 feet from the top of the building what changes have been made?

We don't know yet. Wait until the plans are presented.

Then how can you say that is not the building being built? The specs have remained the same minus the already mentioned 5 feet removal. There have been no other changes announced except that and the ornamental facade on the North side.

author said:

I think as illustrated by the artist depiction the fact that there are set backs along Maplewood Ave are almost meaningless. The setback is more ornamental than anything and in no way lessens the impression of height.

I don't agree with that. Whether or not that old rendering is anything close to the current plan, the setbacks in that picture make a very big difference. Imagine the Maplwood Avenue frontage rising the full 4 stories right along the street. "Almost meaningless?" Not at all.

I think it is unfortunate that a small number of posters seem to have no issue with making unsupported statements. It clouds what could and should be a far more meaningful discussion.