AvalonBay: Re-Design Still Needed

To the Editor:

AvalonBay confronts significant challenges in responding adequately to strictures and proposed Conditions for Approval which the Planning Office and the Site Plan Review Advisory Board have issued.

Some initial focus has been on Building 2, to the L in the site plan below.

For Building 2, the Planning Office asks why AvalonBay cannot "incorporate a longer two story facade facing Witherspoon Street" (Borough Code 17A-193B.a.3 [see also c.1: "Building facades along public streets should relate well in . . . scale" to the neighborhood, "characteristically two and three stories in height"]). SPRAB’s Report (citing 17A-193B.c.3) states that the many "large span sloped roofs . . . and related plan shapes . . . are entirely out of scale" with Princeton’s sloped roof forms; it recommends cutting dimensions in half (see also Planning Report, p. 7; Engineer’s Report, sec. 7.4).

Furthermore, SPRAB requests a welcoming, public opening in Building 2, with pedestrian access to a proposed plaza on the new street. SPRAB notes that AvalonBay, while initially resistant, has made encouraging moves towards this goal (section 25). Holly Nelson rightly emphasized that "The public benefit of an open archway would be big" (SPRAB meeting, 6/19/13): it would create a new linkage halfway "crossing the site"—a primare goal of the 2006 Master Plan. Remember April 2012, when AvalonBay’s architect said the smaller courtyard of the monolith could not be made public?—and then opened it, with a public archway to "a meditative space." The benefit here is far greater.

AvalonBay’s response should be to redesign major parts of Building 2: shear off the front of the top story of Building 2 (currently 4-1/2 stories) and introduce a public-access archway—both, moves to achieve neighborhood connectivity.

Many believe that AvalonBay, coached by elected officials and municipal staff, has genuinely sought to comply with Site Plan Standards in Borough Code for the MRRO zone. Yes, but still the PEC brands Building 1 a "monolithic, gated community" (section R.1). AvalonBay must accomplish more.

For Building 2, AvalonBay can either eliminate some apartment units (20?) or develop smaller apartment modules. The first gives AvalonBay justifiable corporate pride in a better design for an inclusionary development, with a marginally higher percentage of affordable units than Princeton Code requires. The second option echoes AvalonBay’s original desire to build 324 units in the same space, with smaller units. When the Planning Board denied that variance, Anne Studholme (AvalonBay’s attorney) said, "Too bad for Princeton—smaller units mean more affordable units."

Reduced scale for Building 2 won’t affect the design of roofing where solar power can be installed. Both SPRAB (sec. 11) and the PEC (sec. F.1-4) seek to require photovoltaic power---which will reduce utility costs for tenants with limited financial means, among others.

AvalonBay will need to redesign in any case.

The PEC has proposed Conditions of Approval which include site-wide composting as well as standard recycling (sec. N), for which new space may be required. It also stipulates a minimum of 200 secure storage spaces for bicycles (sec. O); AvalonBay currently plans 56 interior spaces for approximately 560 people, serving only 10% of its tenants (the Engineer’s Report, sec. 12.4, expresses the same concern).

The location of trash collection and compaction for Building 1 has not yet been set, and will in any case require reconfiguration along either end of the service drive (Engineer’s Report, sec. 15.4).

The equitable redistribution of affordable housing units remains to be shown. The Planner’s Report is clear: "it has been [Planning] Board policy to require that all affordable developments distribute the affordable housing units throughout the site and insure that the exterior of the affordable units are [sic] indistinguishable from the market units," without redlining the townhouses (sec. 3.6; see also 9.6, and the Engineer’s Report, sec. 22: "throughout the project"). Alyce Bush at SPRAB, 6/12/13, was equally explicit: the redistribution should be "universal."

In addition, the Engineer’s Report notes that, for the affordable units, "The applicant’s one bedroom distribution exceeds the 20% limitation and the three bedroom count is one unit short" (sec. 22; see the Planner’s Report, sec. 3.6).

Finally, but hardly least, AvalonBay’s opponents remain committed to the opening of the "gated community" of Building 1, which is "not allowed" by the Master Plan or Princeton Code.

Everyone looks forward to subsequent AvalonBay revisions that will make its total design fully palatable to the Princeton community.

Hopefully, such revisions can be accomplished in the spirit of co-operation. AvalonBay, by burnishing a reputation scarred by corporate litigiousness, can participate in a better compromise than it has yet proposed---one in which each side feels that it has lost less. AvalonBay will have done more to gain "Princeton" for its "portfolio." Princeton itself, despite the monolith of Building 1, will gain a more fully integrated neighborhood streetscape and scale, and improved public access, as well as 56 units of affordable housing.

Daniel A. Harris