Richard Meier offers to design for PO site

So structurally, the existing building is limited to 2 stories?

I there an actual report confirming this?

sarahzm said:

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.

Nice try, Sarah, but I have been trying to get the repurposing/green advocates to respond to these questions for weeks. Their conspicuous failure to engage the "macro" environmental issues speaks volumes. As ml1 and ltc suggest, repurposing is a stalking horse. The real goal is to prevent additional floors and apartments.

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.

I think you're correct. In addition to reducing the period of deconstruction and construction, the "repurposing" would limit or eliminate additional residential units in Maplewood village, and result in less new retail storefronts (if it even became retail).

I'm well aware that the re-purposing advocates have said another floor could be built atop the PO. But how many residences would that add? I doubt it would be 20-25, but I could be wrong.

I guess that's because I'm assuming an additional floor would only go above the one-story section in front. Because if you put another floor on top of the two-story section, with decent ceiling heights, and related mechanical equipment on top -- you'd have a three-story behemoth that would tower over the village, with heights that might surpass (gasp!) 50 feet, possibly even approaching (oh no!) 60.

And that loss of a single extra floor translates into much less tax revenue, a smaller contribution to affordable housing, possibly more exclusivity to justify higher rents, possible increase to the PILOT (because if you didn't think one was needed now, wait until then), and on and on. Not saying it's all bad, but let's not pretend this is without significant tradeoffs.

ml1 said:

I'm well aware that the re-purposing advocates have said another floor could be built atop the PO. But how many residences would that add? I doubt it would be 20-25, but I could be wrong.

I guess that's because I'm assuming an additional floor would only go above the one-story section in front. Because if you put another floor on top of the two-story section, with decent ceiling heights, and related mechanical equipment on top -- you'd have a three-story behemoth that would tower over the village, with heights that might surpass (gasp!) 50 feet, possibly even approaching (oh no!) 60.

For one thing you have to understand that not everyone involved with Engage/Oh no is of the same mind. We all have the same general thoughts but there is no one exacting goal. As a matter of fact one of the five founding members of Engage had no problem with a new building being erected.......scaled down from that which is proposed..........and his wife was, and still is adamantly opposed and prefers retrofitting the old Post Office.

That being said, and I am not an official spokesman but a fellow traveler, no one, no one that I can think of active with the group or off shoots favors putting apartments on top of the old Post Office.

The potential uses are many but in our minds additional housing is not one of them.

author said:

For one thing you have to understand that not everyone involved with Engage/Oh no is of the same mind. We all have the same general thoughts but there is no one exacting goal. As a matter of fact one of the five founding members of Engage had no problem with a new building being erected.......scaled down from that which is proposed..........and his wife was, and still is adamantly opposed and prefers retrofitting the old Post Office.

That being said, and I am not an official spokesman but a fellow traveler, no one, no one that I can think of active with the group or off shoots favors putting apartments on top of the old Post Office.

The potential uses are many but in our minds additional housing is not one of them.

Two thoughts -

1. So, in fact, there is not one counter-proposal or alternative - there are just some objections to what's on the table. If something else was on the table, it still wouldn't satisfy the (apparently) contradictory views of the objectors. So, it's not enough to say, "X many people are against it", because those same "X many" people aren't in favor of the same thing.

2. I don't understand the objection to apartments, regardless of the size or shape of the building. I don't think a good explanation has been presented, either here or when the same objection was raised at Tuesday's hearing (which I got around to watching).

Here's my favorite nonsensical argument against apartments (from more than a year ago). Grown-up frat boys with, you know, their TVs! God forbid we allow those nefarious television viewers to destroy the very fabric of our community.

Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:

here's the historical argument against rental apartments.

Our town was designed deliberately to NOT be a rental town; it was designed to be a town where most people owned houses. That's one reason Maplewood is unique, why it survived the twentieth century mostly intact, why we have many single-familyhouses of different sizes and styles, why so many people are against apartments on the site, and why Maplewood is so historically significant.

Read this for historical context. http://durandhedden.org/archives/articles/kenneth_dalzell_a_maplewood_architect_rediscovered

Personally, I'd much rather have a low-rise midcentury building that doesn't rise above the treeline than to look at grown-up frat boys partying on balconies -- or their TVs glowing from inside their fancy apartments -- towering over the middle of our historic downtown. Face it, that's who's going to rent these apartments -- not families, not elders. A $2-3k luxo apartment 30 minutes from Manhattan is not going to attract the kind of down-to-earth middle class people who historically have lived in Maplewood. It will change the Village completely.

author said:

ml1 said:

I'm well aware that the re-purposing advocates have said another floor could be built atop the PO. But how many residences would that add? I doubt it would be 20-25, but I could be wrong.

I guess that's because I'm assuming an additional floor would only go above the one-story section in front. Because if you put another floor on top of the two-story section, with decent ceiling heights, and related mechanical equipment on top -- you'd have a three-story behemoth that would tower over the village, with heights that might surpass (gasp!) 50 feet, possibly even approaching (oh no!) 60.

For one thing you have to understand that not everyone involved with Engage/Oh no is of the same mind. We all have the same general thoughts but there is no one exacting goal. As a matter of fact one of the five founding members of Engage had no problem with a new building being erected.......scaled down from that which is proposed..........and his wife was, and still is adamantly opposed and prefers retrofitting the old Post Office.

That being said, and I am not an official spokesman but a fellow traveler, no one, no one that I can think of active with the group or off shoots favors putting apartments on top of the old Post Office.

The potential uses are many but in our minds additional housing is not one of them.

I'm not sure you meant the "you have to understand" part to be condescending, but if you didn't, I thought you might want to know that it comes off that way.

I do understand that not all of the various Engage and ohno and whoever elses aren't necessarily on the same page for what they want on the PO site. There have been ideas tossed around about office space for work at home people, law offices, farmers' markets, bowling alleys, fencing academies, out of the box brainstorms (as long as they stay within the box of the existing building), etc. etc.

I do know that many of them have posted here about adding a second floor to the existing building. But if none of them want residences there, why would a second story be added? I'm guessing stables for the unicorns perhaps.

I can see it now
Image from http://www.architecturaldigest.com/AD100/2012/richard-meier-partners-architects-ad100-profile/_jcr_content/par/cn_contentwell/par-main/cn_pagination_container/cn_image.size.ad100-richard-meier-building-h670.jpg.

Probably been suggested but why not a design competition from various architecture firms throughout the area. Perhaps to include architecture schools as well i.e. NJIT School of Architecture.

No intention to be condescending in my last post. I do think there is some misconceptions about what Engage and Oh No advocates. Merely tried to point out that there is no monolithic organization involved here.

Also second story stables for the unicorns would not work as they are afraid of heights.

rhw said:

Probably been suggested but why not a design competition from various architecture firms throughout the area. Perhaps to include architecture schools as well i.e. NJIT School of Architecture.

WHy would an architecture firm spent the time money and resources to compete in this project. It would not be a status project or even likely a money maker.

So they have the competition and pick a winner, then what. Who pays to build it.

That didn't even work for the World Trade Center site. They had a competition that was touted around the world. Have you seen the design that won. The winning design has absolutely no relation to what was eventually built

Lol irrelevant comparison? Have you seen their renderings? Maybe I should have said because morristown. Since they built an identical building there.

Who is saying the facade of the existing PO should be covered up? It's a neat-looking building. And everything inside is pristine

It is def a money-maker, they are getting a huge deal and profit will come quickly (to the developer, not the town)

You're aware the TC has recognized the need for differentiation from the Station House, yes? And that one of the things they changed from that process to this one was to involve the MVA? And that the MVA has not yet weighed in with their changes? And that the PB has not done so with theirs? Should I keep going?

Frank said:

Here's my favorite nonsensical argument against apartments (from more than a year ago). Grown-up frat boys with, you know, their TVs! God forbid we allow those nefarious television viewers to destroy the very fabric of our community.

Jeremiah_Birnbaum said:

Face it, that's who's going to rent these apartments -- not families, not elders. A $2-3k luxo apartment 30 minutes from Manhattan is not going to attract the kind of down-to-earth middle class people who historically have lived in Maplewood. It will change the Village completely.

The population of the Station House gives lie to that.

author said:

And again , another example of what can be done..................if we give it a chance.
What's
http://ww2.kqed.org/news/2014/11/09/Berkeley-downtown-historic-post-office-Hudson-McDonald

Let's year down our ugly building and put that one up.

ctrzaska said:

You're aware the TC has recognized the need for differentiation from the Station House, yes? And that one of the things they changed from that process to this one was to involve the MVA? And that the MVA has not yet weighed in with their changes? And that the PB has not done so with theirs? Should I keep going?

No need to keep going. All of what you said and other things that are in the wind explains why the fat lady is considering a long, long, vacation in the Pacific North West.

author said:

ctrzaska said:

You're aware the TC has recognized the need for differentiation from the Station House, yes? And that one of the things they changed from that process to this one was to involve the MVA? And that the MVA has not yet weighed in with their changes? And that the PB has not done so with theirs? Should I keep going?

No need to keep going. All of what you said and other things that are in the wind explains why the fat lady is considering a long, long, vacation in the Pacific North West.

do you know if ohno and Engage have any intention of working with the MVA and PB to get the best design possible? or is the only goal to derail any possibility of a new building?

Sounds ominous. One hopes the folks on the MVA and the PB are intelligent enough not to be swayed by grandstanding and specious arguments, but time will tell I suppose.

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green" today -

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

I keep hearing about the "PODRS", but who is on the committee ? Anyone know ?

Kurt

khkiley said:

I keep hearing about the "PODRS", but who is on the committee ? Anyone know ?

Kurt

Well, I assume Mr. Sotrop, who spoke on Tuesday is a member. As for anyone else, one could always just ask Ms. Doran.

nohero said:

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green"

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

nohero said:

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green" today -

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

nohero said:

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green" today -

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

While you are in the real world ask any member of the Village Alliance how much they were
consulted in matters pertaining to the building of the Station House Apartments.

Yes the Village Alliance is fully tuned in to the current situation. They were practically ignored
in matters concerning the other building.

author said:

nohero said:

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green"

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

nohero said:

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green" today -

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

nohero said:

author said:

I think since the Village Alliance was practically ignored when it came time to pass ordinances and eventually build the Station House..............their motto or their song if you will is

We Won't Be Fooled Again

The TC has created these feelings of whatever you want to call it, on the part of The Village Alliance.

No one else needed to say a word.

Out here in the real world, the Village Alliance has been very much involved, as Mr. Sotrop pointed out at Tuesday's hearing.

Of course, that doesn't mean that there won't be people claiming otherwise, in conversations in the Village.

[Edited to add] And in "The Village Green" today -

According to Julie Doran, director of the Maplewood Village Alliance, the “PODRS” or Post Office Design Review Subcommittee is the committee that will review the design for the “Post House.”

Doran explained that PODRS was a special subcommittee formed because of the size and importance of the project. Beyond the regular design review committee which meets monthly, this is a special ad hoc subcommittee that has brought in a broader sampling of local architects and design professionals to aid in the review.

Link.

While you are in the real world ask any member of the Village Alliance how much they were
consulted in matters pertaining to the building of the Station House Apartments.

Yes the Village Alliance is fully tuned in to the current situation. They were practically ignored
in matters concerning the other building.

Please let the new MOL forums launch include an emoticon of someone beating a dead horse.

What part of MVA's charter gives it input on residential real estate? Its funding base is commercial properties. I don't know if the MVA has this authority that author describes.

The proposed development has commercial (retail) uses.

To clarify, I was responding to author's comment as to why MVA wasn't asked to comment on the Station House, not the PO property.

sarahzm said:

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.

Exactly