Read this if you think the Post Office Redevelopment is being rushed

The simple solution is that King's require smaller trucks deliver to their locations, in much the same way as any urban grocer is required to do. We are in fact only 12 miles from Manhattan and even less from dense locations such as Jersey City and Hoboken. In fact, Kings has two locations in Hoboken. And look at the small trucks they have there in both of the attached images, right in Google Maps street view. I have never been to either of these specific locations, so I can't say with certainty that they don't have other methods of delivering to these specific buildings, but I do notice in streetview that the streets are very narrow and do not appear to have the ability to accept a big rig. It is clear that Kings can use smaller trucks to serve an urban location in New Jersey. Maplewood Village is unique in that the downtown is not directly adjacent to a larger arterial street that can easily accommodate tractor trailers. So along with many others, I do not buy the argument that Kings is unable to adjust their delivery methods in Maplewood.

author said:

Joan.............I have made it clear for more than 2 years now that I am opposed to this building as it's imagined rising in our Village.

I was one of the original 5 members of Engage...............this "opposition" is nothing new

Frankly I do have an idea which would solve the delivery problem for Kings.   However it is pretty radical and would probably entail added expense and a certain amount of re design for the builder.   Plus in my simple calculations probably a dozen parking spaces would be lost.

This breaks down to a cost/benefits analysis which he would probably accept only if all else fails.

As far as simple solutions............if there is one out there it eludes me.

Honestly, one of the best things that could be done to "Keep the Village a Village" would be to ban those huge delivery trucks and make them use the same small trucks that are used in the city, Hoboken, etc.

So hijacked thread aside, back to the issue of whether the process has been rushed...

We would need to know how much product is delivered to Kings on a daily basis and how many smaller trucks would be required if the large truck(s) currently used were unable to make deliveries to that location going forward.  We don't even know how many large trucks (beyond the one truck Author refers to in his above post) make deliveries to Kings on a daily basis now (Author, can you tell us?) or how many independent vendors make deliveries now, the number and size of the truck(s) any independent vendors might currently use for this purpose or if the independent vendors, if any, even use the present driveway.   This information would be needed to determine how workable from Kings point of view such as change in delivery mechanism would be. Size of the store is one consideration, turnover of product is another.  What works in Hoboken, assuming all their deliveries are made by small vehicles, may not work here.

ETA:  Cross posted, sorry.  I think most of us agree that duration may be perceived differently depending on who is doing the perceiving and that awareness and communication play a role in what that perception may be for each of us.

ArchBroad said:

So hijacked thread aside, back to the issue of whether the process has been rushed...

 I think most of the Engage/OhNo/VK/Greg4Mplwd group have given up on the "rushed process" argument, with respect to whether to replace the Post Office.  They've moved on to building design, and are arguing for a "restart".  And for "something else", although it is doubtful that the group agrees on what that "something else" should be.

Maybe a several-year public process, with proposed plans, discussion of those plans, public hearings, multiple reviews, all leading to a final decision.  As opposed to what's been done until now (according to them).

Design is subjective, so I'm not at all worried about that argument resulting in a restart. There's a committee of reputable people who have already made the decision that it is appropriate. We can agree to disagree on that decision ad nauseum, but it doesn't change the decision. We'll see if the design has to change slightly with these open issues though.

While "why are we in such a hurry?" has come up a few times during this process, I suspect the bigger issue for some people is their perception that their voices and ideas haven't been heard. Or put another way, that the people running the process aren't listening. I think that's what the opposition is selling, not the length of the process.

ArchBroad said:

Design is subjective, so I'm not at all worried about that argument resulting in a restart. There's a committee of reputable people who have already made the decision that it is appropriate. We can agree to disagree on that decision ad nauseum, but it doesn't change the decision. We'll see if the design has to change slightly with these open issues though.

 Exactly, and that was my point.  The whole design process has been iterative, with proposals and responses.  The latest Kings kerfuffle ("Kingsfuffle"?) is just another example of that.  Problems are usually solved by taking what you have, and making adjustments - not by throwing up your hands, saying "It fails", and throwing out everything you had done up to that point.

The opposition seems to be unwilling to work constructively with the township because (in my observation) there is a conspiracy theory mentality amongst many of them (whether warranted or not based on their own personal interactions with the current administration), hence the appearance of their voices not being heard. 

building design is what we all should have been discussing from the start.  the notion that the site was going to be turned to parking or green space was a non-starter.  and the idea of repurposing probably never had the support that some of the VK folks thought it did.  which is what I told one of the ohno60 organizers months ago.  I felt like it was a waste of time trying to obstruct the process, when that energy could have been channeled into a better building design.

In fairness, I think the protests did have a positive effect in reducing the size of the building and in getting parking included.  I wish the opponents would focus on continuing to work with the planning board to improve the design instead of continuing to push for repurposing.  and I hope that they aren't going to sue the township if the planning board gives a thumbs up to the design.  I think a lawsuit would be disastrous -- we'd have a vacant decaying building on the site, and if the developer walks, who's to say that anyone else will step up and buy the site.  if opponents think we're not getting full value now, what happens if it becomes know that developers will need to pander to a small group of opponents or risk a long drawn-out litigious process?

ArchBroad said:

The opposition seems to be unwilling to work constructively with the township because (in my observation) there is a conspiracy theory mentality amongst many of them (whether warranted or not based on their own personal interactions with the current administration), hence the appearance of their voices not being heard. 

 Oh, like the suggestions of graft or corruption in the comments supporting Mr. Lembrich's piece in Village Green?

Since not everyone agrees with me, the system must be corrupted, especially the people I call (or used to call) my friends.*

*sarcasm.

I thought the shots at posters on MOL in the comments were interesting.  I think people here have been pretty civil.  Pointing out disagreements, or pointing out where one thinks the other side is exaggerating or incorrect isn't rude or uncivil.  As for anonymity -- sometimes it's a good thing.  It means arguments have to stand on their own.   I think most of us are smart enough to conclude whether someone is making a strong argument or not, even if the argument is unsigned.

with regard to the number of people posting, I'd say it's a small number on both sides of this issue.  and the ratio of people using aliases to those using real names seems about the same too.

I think a message board like MOL is a pretty good forum for issues like this.   most of the people posting here are pretty well-informed.  and in a written medium, arguments have to be better-supported.  in a spoken forum or an on the street conversation, stuff gets said and often goes without rebuttal.  if a person makes an argument here, you can go back up thread and read it again and easily determine what parts are true, which parts are exaggerated, which parts are facts and which parts are opinions. 

@ArchBroad, the evidence you have provided shows the process has been going on for a long time.

It does not indicate the pace of the project, and does not refute any claim the project is being rushed RIGHT NOW.

Most projects start out slow and then the pace accelerates as the deadline approaches.

It would be very rare for a project of this size to move along at a leisurely pace throughout the project's lifetime. 

Kurt

apple44 said:

While "why are we in such a hurry?" has come up a few times during this process, I suspect the bigger issue for some people is their perception that their voices and ideas haven't been heard. Or put another way, that the people running the process aren't listening. I think that's what the opposition is selling, not the length of the process.

 Not listening = not doing what we want.  

Kurt- You make a good and reasonably respectable point. But lets focus the discussion more. As you can see from my argument and other discussions on this topic, the point I was trying to make is that the current debatable topics should exclude the things that have long been decided. Aesthetics can be discussed forever and still never be agreed upon (even among the two adults in my own household). However the discussion points that I think are often used and are not useful, since they've been discussed and decided long ago are:

1. Whether a mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above is appropriate for the site. This has already been decided. Debate how many floors of residential, certainly.

2. Whether the post office needs to be demolished to accomplish the typology noted above. In addition to this being noted as a possibility in the master plan documents, The resulting concept plan for the site has been in this configuration since L+M initially won the RFP process in December 2013. 18 months of back and forth to get to a design that is much more refined through two separate developers, but still conceptually the same, is a significant amount of time and is not "rushed". There are certainly still a few details to work out, which everyone has committed to do, but the general concept of the design will not change drastically.

It's my opinion that it does no good service to the town to continue rehashing past decisions. There has been 18 months, four years or eleven years to do all that. The best method of moving forward is to contribute to the items that can still be altered for a better project.

khkiley said:

@ArchBroad, the evidence you have provided shows the process has been going on for a long time.

It does not indicate the pace of the project, and does not refute any claim the project is being rushed RIGHT NOW.

Most projects start out slow and then the pace accelerates as the deadline approaches.

It would be very rare for a project of this size to move along at a leisurely pace throughout the project's lifetime. 

Kurt

ArchBroad said:

It's my opinion that it does no good service to the town to continue rehashing past decisions. There has been 18 months, four years or eleven years to do all that. The best method of moving forward is to contribute to the items that can still be altered for a better project. 

 Exactly, and well put.

But why not at least take a look at something similar to this?  What's the harm in discussing? 

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VVuct_lViko

snoopy said:

But why not at least take a look at something similar to this?  What's the harm in discussing? 

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VVuct_lViko

 Because there was no developer willing to do this.

Too many people seem to confuse the township with the developers.  Only projects that a developer was willing to propose and sponsor could be considered for this site, it was not and should not be developed by the town itself.

Oh, look!    That building even has some interesting architectural features that might be complementary to our Maplewood village, although the  first photo of its rear resembles the front facade of our PO.  ( sarcasm emoticon.)

snoopy said:

But why not at least take a look at something similar to this?  What's the harm in discussing? 

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VVuct_lViko

@max_weisenfeld

When you state that no developer would do this, you are being short sighted.  First of all, you wouldn't need a developer at all, you would need a very good GC.  Second, there has been no movement from the TC to allow adaptive re-use proposals.  The redevelopment plan which requires demolition, precludes adaptive re-use.  You know that very well so why make your statement?

When the TC decides to step back and open the process to alternative concepts including re-use, then any serious investor/architect/GC team will take the time to make a proposal. Otherwise it is merely frivolous.

(and the town could do this as well - it is being done on other sites)

In 2015, older substantial buildings are being adaptively re-used, right here in New Jersey and around the world.  When this idea was first proposed , in the last century, demo and new construction was more typical.  Why are we reverting to another era when we know that adaptive re-use is a sustainable methodology, more preferable at this point in time?  Just because something was proposed 15 years ago, doesn't mean it is still (or ever was) a good idea now.

The cited building is a very good example.  It was highlighted in architectural magazines

So to the point of this thread....yes it is moving too fast at this point, when only recently have many many just woken up as see this happening - and many are alarmed.  But whose fault is that? - that's for another discussion.

max_weisenfeld said:

snoopy said:

But why not at least take a look at something similar to this?  What's the harm in discussing? 

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VVuct_lViko

 Because there was no developer willing to do this.

Too many people seem to confuse the township with the developers.  Only projects that a developer was willing to propose and sponsor could be considered for this site, it was not and should not be developed by the town itself.

I hear what you're saying.  but the fact that many people haven't been paying attention for the past decade doesn't mean the project is being rushed.  and whose fault is it that they haven't been paying attention?  I assume from everything you've been posting over the past year or so, that you'll say it's the TC's fault.  But when there have been many public TC meetings, coverage in the News Record, Patch, Village Green, Star-Ledger, and of course MOL, I think it's the fault of the people who haven't been paying attention.  I get that people have busy lives and their jobs and families take precedence over following the business discussed at TC meetings.  But I can't blame Vic DeLuca or Jerry Ryan because those people don't read the local news.

IndaSechzer said:

So to the point of this thread....yes it is moving too fast at this point, when only recently have many many just woken up as see this happening - and many are alarmed.  But whose fault is that? - that's for another discussion. 

exactly.

ml1 said:

I hear what you're saying.  but the fact that many people haven't been paying attention for the past decade doesn't mean the project is being rushed.  and whose fault is it that they haven't been paying attention?  I assume from everything you've been posting over the past year or so, that you'll say it's the TC's fault.  But when there have been many public TC meetings, coverage in the News Record, Patch, Village Green, Star-Ledger, and of course MOL, I think it's the fault of the people who haven't been paying attention.  I get that people have busy lives and their jobs and families take precedence over following the business discussed at TC meetings.  But I can't blame Vic DeLuca or Jerry Ryan because those people don't read the local news.

IndaSechzer said:

So to the point of this thread....yes it is moving too fast at this point, when only recently have many many just woken up as see this happening - and many are alarmed.  But whose fault is that? - that's for another discussion. 

You are naive if you think a developer who repurposes a building of the exact same footprint with only one or two floors is likely to win a re-issued RFP that allows for twice that development potential. 

And I'm not sure if you are fully aware of how much your movements hate-filled, obstructionist, conspiracy-theory ladden and derogatory commentary on MOL, Village Green and in the public sphere severely hurt your position with the overall community.

It's unfortunate, because I know and admire, on a personal level, alot of the opposition, as I'm sure many others do. But when I see those same people I admire continue to follow in the steps of divisive "leaders" who can't find a single nice thing to say about anyone who disagrees with them on this issue, or who can't find constructive and positive ways of dealing with their setbacks, well, it makes me question those things I find admirable about them. And that's not good for anybody.

IndaSechzer said:

@max_weisenfeld

When you state that no developer would do this, you are being short sighted.  First of all, you wouldn't need a developer at all, you would need a very good GC.  Second, there has been no movement from the TC to allow adaptive re-use proposals.  The redevelopment plan which requires demolition, precludes adaptive re-use.  You know that very well so why make your statement?

When the TC decides to step back and open the process to alternative concepts including re-use, then any serious investor/architect/GC team will take the time to make a proposal. Otherwise it is merely frivolous.

(and the town could do this as well - it is being done on other sites)

In 2015, older substantial buildings are being adaptively re-used, right here in New Jersey and around the world.  When this idea was first proposed , in the last century, demo and new construction was more typical.  Why are we reverting to another era when we know that adaptive re-use is a sustainable methodology, more preferable at this point in time?  Just because something was proposed 15 years ago, doesn't mean it is still (or ever was) a good idea now.

The cited building is a very good example.  It was highlighted in architectural magazines

So to the point of this thread....yes it is moving too fast at this point, when only recently have many many just woken up as see this happening - and many are alarmed.  But whose fault is that? - that's for another discussion.

max_weisenfeld said:

snoopy said:

But why not at least take a look at something similar to this?  What's the harm in discussing? 

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VVuct_lViko

 Because there was no developer willing to do this.

Too many people seem to confuse the township with the developers.  Only projects that a developer was willing to propose and sponsor could be considered for this site, it was not and should not be developed by the town itself.

 

IndaSechzer are you proposing that the town develop it itself? That seems to be the case with your GC comment.  I would think there would be a lot of oppositionto the town taking on the spending and the risk . 

snoopy said:

But why not at least take a look at something similar to this?  What's the harm in discussing? 

http://blog.preservationnation.org/2013/03/18/first-class-green-a-1934-post-office-redelivered-as-a-leed-certified-office/#.VVuct_lViko

 There is no harm discussing this approach when the scope and intent of the project is being developed.  In this case that happened years ago with public meetings seeking input from the public. 

Where were you and your ideas when it was appropriate to bring your ideas forward?

I have published at least three times the fact ,  and I was there,  that the only input asked of the public was............"How would you change this building"?  We were asked would we change the windows or the exterior surface of the building.?  Would we change the set backs from the side walk.?   The Mayor was there with the first contractor,  who later had the sense to walk away from the project.

They proudly showed their drawings which cost the town $25,000.00.  

The question was never raised whether there were any alternative ideas.   If someone had said............"not interested,  would rather see a park replace the old building"..............how far do you think he would have gotten?

No,  there was never any real chance to provide alternate ideas.................just as the TC never asked for  any alternate

ideas except those for the Pest House.   It has been an all or nothing proposition all along.............and this is one of those

rare times when nothing is the best choice.