What Other Towns Have Done With Their Closed Post Offices

So, first I confess to having not paid any attention to this issue for the first two years it was discussed because I was happy with the idea of new big Kings and assumed that meant we had to tear down the old building since it was not big enough for what I thought would be a "big new Kings." But since the current proposal was announced in January sans a big new Kings, I've thought more about it. A week ago I was in the Netherlands and noticed how often they re-purposed old buildings with wonderful results. In Maastrict that was a wonderful old church that is now a book store (see pics); in Amsterdam we had dinner in what used to be fish warehouse, but is now a top rated restaurant, the Stork. It still looks like a warehouse, but it works wonderfully as a restaurant (see pics). Then there was the story in the Times today about a developer just tearing down an old church. So, I was thinking how nice it would be if we put a farm to table restaurant in the Post Office, and maybe coupled it with a year around farmer's market and space for local artists to sell their wares.

I was also curious what other communities have done with their old post offices and found these stories:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/apr/08/matthew-segal-architect-developer-golden-hill/

Santa Monica's New Deal Post Office on the Road to Repurposing

http://savethepostoffice.com/santa-monicas-new-deal-post-office-road-repurposing

Signed, Sealed, Reimagined:Historic post offices adapted for new use

http://www.preservationnation.org/magazine/2013/spring/signed-sealed-reimagined.html

Postal Infrastructure Could Be Repurposed, IG Says

http://www.fedweek.com/federal-managers-daily-report/postal-infrastructure-repurposed-ig-says/

A rare mid-century building in heart of downtown Lancaster

http://lancasteronline.com/features/home_garden/a-rare-mid-century-building-in-heart-of-downtown-lancaster/article_b54388ba-e92b-11e4-bdb9-37c5f5709a39.html?mode=jqm

Iconic Midcentury Bank Repurposed in Palm Springs

http://www.dwell.com/renovation/article/iconic-midcentury-bank-repurposed-palm-springs

Great pics. I think people understand the purpose and the potential interesting results of adaptive re-use.

The question seems to be why this particular building must be saved, and why proposed uses require the building to be repurposed. Couldn't a farm-to-table restaurant operate in the building being proposed, or in another new building? Does a farmers market and artist gallery need to be in that specific location - for instance, what if these things were set up at The Woodland or on Springfield Avenue?

Perhaps Bank of America could move a smaller branch into the new building, and the existing bank building could be repurposed into a spectacular restaurant or other space.

I don't see why the demolition of the P.O. building prevents us from having any of these types of ventures.

Oh yay. Another post office thread. You can never have too many of those. /sarcasm

Also not removing the current building removes the possibility of having a continuous lane from Baker to the train station behind Maplewood Ave which in my opinion would improve traffic flow over time tremendously.

Yeah, we need a couple dozen more from people purporting not to have paid attention to this matter..

meandtheboys said:
Oh yay. Another post office thread. You can never have too many of those. /sarcasm

The more the merrier...becomes a wider and deeper discussion - welcome to the party! /not sarcasm

and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so last century.

marylago said:
Yeah, we need a couple dozen more from people purporting not to have paid attention to this matter..

meandtheboys said:
Oh yay. Another post office thread. You can never have too many of those. /sarcasm

Yup

IndaSechzer said:
The more the merrier...becomes a wider and deeper discussion - welcome to the party! /not sarcasm

Nope. Folks can post their comments in existing threads so we do not have to jump all over the place.

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so alst century.

Your comment and attempt to create a criticism, is at odds with your own, repeated statements that more parking is needed. Is your demand for more parking "a bit backward"?

Completely agree about encouraging decreased auto usage, which is why I can't understand why so many opponents complain that we are losing parking spaces, nor do I understand why they also complain about putting apartments near a train and shopping.

The cut through lane connecting the two lots will alsoreduce traffic congestion on the streets for those who first search for a spot near Baker and VC who then want to go to the Ricalton lot. I do that several times a week and this would without a doubt help.

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so alst century.

I think that when the new PO building is complete(whatever it becomes) that we should repurpose the train station and build a world-class sports and entertainment venue on top of it. Weshould at least commission a study.

nohero said:

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so alst century.

Your comment and attempt to create a criticism, is at odds with your own, repeated statements that more parking is needed. Is your demand for more parking "a bit backward"?

I did not say that more parking is needed, though I have stated that there should not be a reduction in parking. Parkign shoudl be provided as per current code for residential and retail. The calculations as is by JMF allow for credits and permits off site, and reduce the actual parking on site compared to existing conditions.

However, maintaining existing parking levels is not the same as a new traffic lane. different discussion. And demolishing a completely fine and solid buidlign to create a traffic lane is a definite imbalance of priorities.

IndaSechzer said:

nohero said:

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so alst century.

Your comment and attempt to create a criticism, is at odds with your own, repeated statements that more parking is needed. Is your demand for more parking "a bit backward"?

I did not say that more parking is needed, though I have stated that there should not be a reduction in parking. Parkign shoudl be provided as per current code for residential and retail. The calculations as is by JMF allow for credits and permits off site, and reduce the actual parking on site compared to existing conditions.
However, maintaining existing parking levels is not he same as a new traffic lane. differetn discussion.

So, your argument is that "we want to ... reduce auto use and traffic", but that maintaining existing levels of parking isn't related to that at all. Others might not see it that way.

[Edited to add] And your statement IS your argument that more parking is needed: "Parkign shoudl be provided as per current code for residential and retail. The calculations as is by JMF allow for credits and permits off site, and reduce the actual parking on site compared to existing conditions."

Red_Barchetta said:
I think that when the new PO building is complete(whatever it becomes) that we should repurpose the train station and build a world-class sports and entertainment venue on top of it. Weshould at least commission a study.

Maplewood Township does not own the Train Station

Congratulations on writing one factual thing.

ArchBroad said:
Completely agree about encouraging decreased auto usage, which is why I can't understand why so many opponents complain that we are losing parking spaces, nor do I understand why they also complain about putting apartments near a train and shopping.
The cut through lane connecting the two lots will alsoreduce traffic congestion on the streets for those who first search for a spot near Baker and VC who then want to go to the Ricalton lot. I do that several times a week and this would without a doubt help.

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so alst century.

If you were putting apartments near a train and retail and had very limited parking dedicated to residential, thus encouraging them not to have a car at all, then I woudl say you are decreasing auto usage. But to have 20 spaces for 20 apartments on prime town property to have cars parked idle all day long while those tenants commute to the city is absurd.

I can't wait to see you weave thru that cut thru which will be only 18 feet wide, while the delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. for that building are standing parked in that narrow lane. (Would be different if it were 30 feet wide like the current Ricalton ingress is now) - yeah that will cut down on congestion for sure / sarcasm. good luck with that.

dave said:
Congratulations on writing one factual thing.

You did count my statement months in advance of the announcement that Kings would

not be making the move to the Kings Folly building.

The TC Apologists and minions jumped all over that one. "You have no information that everyone else

does not have"

Or maybe predictions do not count.

Every other small retailer gets deliveries in the VC lot in little more distance than 18 feet of width for a two way drive aisle and everyone manages just fine. There have been occasions even with the existing configuration of the lot where I've had to wait for a delivery truck to move and I expect that would continue. I'd rather have that than have a dedicated delivery lane or spot sit vacant 90% of the time.

IndaSechzer said:

ArchBroad said:
Completely agree about encouraging decreased auto usage, which is why I can't understand why so many opponents complain that we are losing parking spaces, nor do I understand why they also complain about putting apartments near a train and shopping.
The cut through lane connecting the two lots will alsoreduce traffic congestion on the streets for those who first search for a spot near Baker and VC who then want to go to the Ricalton lot. I do that several times a week and this would without a doubt help.

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so alst century.

If you were putting apartments near a train and retail and had very limited parking dedicated to residential, thus encouraging them not to have a car at all, then I woudl say you are decreasing auto usage. But to have 20 spaces for 20 apartments on prime town property to have cars parked idle all day long while those tenants commute to the city is absurd.
I can't wait to see you weave thru that cut thru which will be only 18 feet wide, while the delivery trucks, garbage trucks, etc. for that building are standing parked in that narrow lane. (Would be different if it were 30 feet wide like the current Ricalton ingress is now) - yeah that will cut down on congestion for sure / sarcasm. good luck with that.

My bad I didn't realize that delivery vehicles might occasionally block an 18 foot wide passage. That will totally gum up the works. I mean imagine if a tractor trailer ever blocked Maplewood Ave for 10-15 minutes trying to maneuver around to drop off goods. The village would be brought to a standstill for months.

And of course buildings that are in places should just remain in place regardless of form and function and should never be removed to allow for additional uses other than being buildings because you know concrete and rebar and embedded energy and what not.

I'm so glad that there are so many folks who know better than people who are willing to actually risk/spend money (abadetted or not) to keep the village safe from becoming I don't know a hamlet or town or something.

There are historic post offices (mainly those built pre-WWII) that are faded beauties and then there are post offices like the one in Maplewood.

IndaSechzer said:
The more the merrier...becomes a wider and deeper discussion - welcome to the party! /not sarcasm

As evidenced, the discussion does not actually become wide or deeper. For example, your next post:

IndaSechzer said:
and btw, the idea of removing an entire building to create a traffic lane when we want to (in the 21st century) reduce auto use and traffic, is a bit backward, as in so last century.

Does this further the discussion of what other towns have done with their post offices? No. You've immediately turned it into a discussion about driving patterns and parking spaces with no regard whatsoever for the discussion RobinM2 wanted to start. You're just continuing something from a different thread and derailing this one with it.

CapnMarko said:
My bad I didn't realize that delivery vehicles might occasionally block an 18 foot wide passage. That will totally gum up the works. I mean imagine if a tractor trailer ever blocked Maplewood Ave for 10-15 minutes trying to maneuver around to drop off goods. The village would be brought to a standstill for months.


And of course buildings that are in places should just remain in place regardless of form and function and should never be removed to allow for additional uses other than being buildings because you know concrete and rebar and embedded energy and what not.


I'm so glad that there are so many folks who know better than people who are willing to actually risk/spend money (abadetted or not) to keep the village safe from becoming I don't know a hamlet or town or something.

Some satire is really over done. But too each his own.

A Kings delivery truck in reality will frequently take maybe 3 minutes jockeying back and forth in order to finally back into the Kings delivery area. Maplewood Avenue experiences frequently brief back ups and this is pretty much accepted as one of them.

What I simply cannot believe is that no one was aware of the needs of these trucks to pull forward into the area of the proposed new building . I have studied the aerial photos and it is there in black and white for all to see and yet there was no consideration made for their vital deliveries.

I have sold my services to two different Supermarket chains over many years and probably have more knowledge of the industry than most. This is just so basic it is an inc readable oversight.

The problem can and will be corrected.........but it should never have existed. Just a bad sign.

Right now I am in Amsterdam. The central post office has been repurposed into a five story shopping mall. The interior has Moorish arches and skylights. If the Maplewood PO could ever be that attractive, I would be eager to support repurposing. But, then the height and mass would not pass muster with Author or O no60.

author said:

A Kings delivery truck in reality will frequently take maybe 3 minutes jockeying back and forth in order to finally back into the Kings delivery area. Maplewood Avenue experiences frequently brief back ups and this is pretty much accepted as one of them.
What I simply cannot believe is that no one was aware of the needs of these trucks to pull forward into the area of the proposed new building . I have studied the aerial photos and it is there in black and white for all to see and yet there was no consideration made for their vital deliveries.
I have sold my services to two different Supermarket chains over many years and probably have more knowledge of the industry than most. This is just so basic it is an inc readable oversight.
The problem can and will be corrected.........but it should never have existed. Just a bad sign.

Nice. Where were all of the experts who could have identified this issue over the last two years. We are a town of many capable people and I don't think any rational person could seriously argue that the T.C. should be able to consider every aspect of a situation. The sad thing is that nobody bothered to bring this issue to the attention of the T.C. much earlier in the process.

I think to keep our Village a village we need to pass an ordinance banning tractor trailers from Maplewood Ave. They should be on highways not in villages.

tjohn............I can speak to exactly what happend but someone in authority was notified. I think it was Inda that published it but I can not swear to it. Anyway this authoritative person or body was notified. The reply was "it will be taken care of" and of course it has not been to date.

http://sbpublicmarket.com/purveyors/

It would be amazing if the post office could be re-purposed into like the above, a large space filled with independent, local purveyors of a variety of culinary products. Most of the vendors had seating for casual dining as well. A small scale Chelsea market if you will. Every time I see the loading dock of the post office that overlooks the parking lot, I think what wonderful al fresco dining its platform could make. I will dream on....................

It would be amazing, but Santa Barbara is about 20 times the size of Maplewood. I would seriously wonder about the ability to sustain that kind of market in town, both from a vendor and customer standpoint.

Here's how Denver repurposed their post office:

A nearby city had a post office that was on the National Register of Historic places. Soon to be condos...

http://ny.curbed.com/tags/peter-stuyvesant-post-office