Richard Meier offers to design for PO site

flugermongers said:

I would rather my dog design the PO than JMF.

I'm wondering why.

flugermongers said:

I would rather my dog design the PO than JMF.

I'd rather your dog dry-humps my leg than JMF.

sarahzm said:

flugermongers said:

I would rather my dog design the PO than JMF.

I'm wondering why.

Because Station House:

alias said:

flugermongers said:

I would rather my dog design the PO than JMF.

I'd rather your dog dry-humps my leg than JMF.

I don't blame you, she's really very cute.

@flugermongers I have to admit, that's a really good reason.

Too bad the township committee does not agree.

The stark white facade reminds me of a famous indigenous Architect.

I shouldn't have insulted my dog like that. I'm sure she would do a fine job.

ice said:

"What exactly is Mr. Meier offering?:
_________________________________________

He is offering hope to the minority opposition that Maplewood can be saved from a bunch of cavemen and cavewomen who don't care about having a building that isn't branded to the name of a 'famous' architect, even if his Newark building appears to offer no significant design improvement over the current proposal.

He is offering hope to the minority opposition that maybe SOMEBODY will come up with a viable alternative to maintain the old structure, no matter how economically impractical that might be.

He is offering hope to the minority opposition that perhaps his involvement will significantly delay the project or possibly even drive off the approved developer.

But, you ask, what is he really offering beyond hope?

Well, nobody really knows, since all we seem to have so far is an assertion by someone who is against the current proposal that they received an email which to my knowledge hasn't been shared with the TC or the developer yet.

Well said.

ffof said:

Only people who think that 'jersey' modern is a good alternative.

The current plans are much more attractive than the station house and wildly better than the post office.

ml1 said:

I believe people when they say they see a beauty in the PO. I also believe there are people who think Coors Light tastes good.

That's impossible

davidfrazer said:

DaveSchmidt said:

Maybe I'm being unfair, @mjh. It seemed clear to me, though, that the preponderance of posters who deem the current post office a hideous sore thumb have been no more disposed to reassess their opinion of its architectural merits, or grant the reasons behind a different view of them, than those who feel the same way about the Post House.

ETA: See No. 2 above.

Arguments like this always perplex me. I have an opinion that I reached after what I consider to be a serious and thoughtful process. Other folks have a different opinion which, for some, I assume was reached after a similarly serious and thoughtful process. Based on a quick search of the archives, repurposing first came up in January 2014. I have followed every PO thread and read the local digital news stories. And, still, after over a year I am not swayed by the arguments in favor of repurposing. Why should I hide my continuing disagreement?

Also, the opponents arguments have changed over time. They started out as apposition to closing the post office. Many arguing that the post office, as is, was vital to Maplewood.

the Station House looks like they got a deal on returns from Home Depot and tried to figure a way to use all of them at once to complete the project. It really does not inspire an ounce of confidence.

Totally agree @hankzona

I'm sure the neighbors who live at the Station House appreciate your thoughtful comments.

mjh said:

I'm sure the neighbors who live at the Station House appreciate your thoughtful comments.

they aren't the owners...and they are on the inside looking out most of the time. And thank you for considering my comments to be thoughtful. Much appreciated.

Could someone explain this

Those who want to save the Post office claim it is an iconic and valuable example of mid century modern architecture worth preserving. They answer those who claim it is ugly by saying a repurposed post office will be changed on the outside , so much so that the exterior will be transformed.

If that is the case , what are they saving?

If they repurpose it to the point that it wont be ugly anymore, add a floor or two, would it even be recognizable. Wouldn't it no longer be an example of a midcentury aesthetic.

To my mind, if a building's design and aesthetic warrant it's preservation as an example of a particular period or style of architecture, wouldn't transforming the exterior to the point that it won't look at all the same completely defeat the purpose.

What exactly would they be preserving? The steel framework ?? The attractive yellow bricks ??? The iconic loading docks ??

Which is it ? You argue preservation and answer critics by offering transformation. But they are competing values. You can't legitimately argue both ways.

sarahzm said:

You can't legitimately argue both ways.

they have been trying to argue many ways.

sarahzm said:

Could someone explain this

Those who want to save the Post office claim it is an iconic and valuable example of mid century modern architecture worth preserving. They answer those who claim it is ugly by saying a repurposed post office will be changed on the outside , so much so that the exterior will be transformed.

If that is the case , what are they saving?

If they repurpose it to the point that it wont be ugly anymore, add a floor or two, would it even be recognizable. Wouldn't it no longer be an example of a midcentury aesthetic.

To my mind, if a building's design and aesthetic warrant it's preservation as an example of a particular period or style of architecture, wouldn't transforming the exterior to the point that it won't look at all the same completely defeat the purpose.

What exactly would they be preserving? The steel framework ?? The attractive yellow bricks ??? The iconic loading docks ??

Which is it ? You argue preservation and answer critics by offering transformation. But they are competing values. You can't legitimately argue both ways.

Why do we recycle anything? Why not just say , "unprintable", and throw everything in the garbage rather than recognize that this is 1950's thinking.

Do you recycle anything at all? Do you recognize the value of recycling or would you rather return
to a time when the concept and the value of the act was unknown?

It may be financially difficult to reuse the current PO. Sometimes building new is more feasible. There should be several schemes proposed, one of which includes a study to find out if it makes sense to try to use it.

But if it turns out that it is not viable, that doesn't mean a new building has to be a building that looks like Disney's Main Street America.

author said:

sarahzm said:

Could someone explain this

Those who want to save the Post office claim it is an iconic and valuable example of mid century modern architecture worth preserving. They answer those who claim it is ugly by saying a repurposed post office will be changed on the outside , so much so that the exterior will be transformed.

If that is the case , what are they saving?

If they repurpose it to the point that it wont be ugly anymore, add a floor or two, would it even be recognizable. Wouldn't it no longer be an example of a midcentury aesthetic.

To my mind, if a building's design and aesthetic warrant it's preservation as an example of a particular period or style of architecture, wouldn't transforming the exterior to the point that it won't look at all the same completely defeat the purpose.

What exactly would they be preserving? The steel framework ?? The attractive yellow bricks ??? The iconic loading docks ??

Which is it ? You argue preservation and answer critics by offering transformation. But they are competing values. You can't legitimately argue both ways.

Why do we recycle anything? Why not just say , "unprintable", and throw everything in the garbage rather than recognize that this is 1950's thinking.

Do you recycle anything at all? Do you recognize the value of recycling or would you rather return
to a time when the concept and the value of the act was unknown?

Yes, I do recycle, but that is a separate issue and does not in any way address the question posed.

Could someone answer the question.

Recycling has everything to do with it!

Now, if it's just not feasible, then show the work. But the TC hasn't even allowed a pitch for a 're-use' option, so how do we really know?

sarahzm said:

Yes, I do recycle, but that is a separate issue and does not in any way address the question posed.

Could someone answer the question.

I've asked myself this, too. I'm no expert, but from a design standpoint (putting issues of practicality and use aside for the moment to answer your specific question) I imagine that an expansion that preserved and complemented the original structure, without overwhelming it, would be a manageable challenge for a skilled architect. That versatility is one of the advantages, to my eyes, of the clean lines and functional geometry of midcentury modern.

So the design and use of the most valuable and important parcel of land to be developed in our village in generations should be hamstrung by the limitations of the existing building because of RECYCLING.

Are you sure that repurposing the building is the most environmentally sound option.

Why not demolish the building and recycle the steel, bricks and even the glass.

Then build a green, leed certified building, on a different footprint that would allow for a much better traffic flow in the village, with less use of fossil fuel and less emissions.

An wouldn't the building of high density housing so close to mass transit be much more environmentally sound.

Long term, wouldn't the environmental benefits of better traffic flow, increased use of mass transit, and environmentally friendly residences over the usefull life of the new building , along with the recycled building materials from the old building, far far outweigh the environmental impact of saving the existing building.

Do you have any studies or information to argue otherwise.

But "RECYCLE" was only a small part of the argument to save the building. My question referred to a very separate argument that was made to save the building. It would be nice if someone could address it.

And again , another example of what can be done..................if we give it a chance.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/11/09/Berkeley-downtown-historic-post-office-Hudson-McDonald

author said:

And again , another example of what can be done..................if we give it a chance.

http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/11/09/Berkeley-downtown-historic-post-office-Hudson-McDonald

If that PO building was in Maplewood I'd be fighting to save it too.

only my opinion, but part of me thinks that some folks are championing repurposing because it would limit, if not completely eliminate the possibility of building new residences. even with a second story built on top, what could it accommodate? five apartments, maybe less. maybe none. I think that's very appealing to some people.

The situation with the Berkeley post office--which, unlike ours, actually is a recognized historic building--is a nightmarish mess. This seems like exactly the sort of debacle we should avoid at all costs. It also seems like exactly where Oh No Engage has been trying to push things. I really, really, truly believe it is in the town's best interest to do everything humanely possible to avoid something like this happening here.

http://www.montereyherald.com/general-news/20150327/berkeley-post-office-judge-asks-usps-to-rescind-documents/1

flugermongers said:

sarahzm said:

flugermongers said:

I would rather my dog design the PO than JMF.

I'm wondering why.

Because Station House:

Because irrelevant comparison.

ml1 said:

only my opinion, but part of me thinks that some folks are championing repurposing because it would limit, if not completely eliminate the possibility of building new residences. even with a second story built on top, what could it accommodate? five apartments, maybe less. maybe none. I think that's very appealing to some people.

You're absolutely right with this comment. I'm sure that if a viable repurposing option arose where there would be a second or third story on top, you'd hear from the opposition that the post office wasn't designed to have multiple floors. It's just an anti-development, anti-progress stalling tactic. And it's nice to see that most people can see through that.

As a matter of fact a number of engineers and architects who have been given access to the building
by the Maplewood Postmaster have stated that the structural steel within could easily support another floor on top of the original.

Your glasses are foggy.