To the Editor:

1. It is clear that the Princeton Master Plan and Reexamination Report leans heavily in favor of development and to its credit uses every opportunity to recommend against sprawl. What many Princeton residents may not know however, is the emphasis on creation of new housing is the direct result of needing to meet affordable housing creation.

2. Despite allowing the affordable housing shortage to become a critical situation, there is a common sentiment around town that adding affordable units is the correct thing because there is real appreciation for the social and cultural benefits of mixing in more residents that qualify for affordable housing.

3. Private development is being counted on to fill the vast number of affordable housing units needed. Every multi-unit development must use a formula where a minimum of 20 percent of the new units will be designated as affordable. It is a very slow process to reach the obligation imposed by the court case of over 800 units. A different approach could be for the municipality to be the creator of the affordable units. Control on the pace of “land clearing” would be gained and alleviate the current scattershot development by private forces.

4. Coming back to not encouraging sprawl, significant pressure is placed on the downtown and Princeton Shopping Center neighborhoods to accommodate much more dense concentration of new units in place of existing units. This will dramatically change the character of these areas which have a pleasant balance of “voids and solids’’ or houses and open yard space. These spaces with trees and gardens are appreciated by all, even if just passing through.

5. In terms of historic preservation, added development pressure will make purchase prices higher and the economic balance of investing in preserving character too hard for the typical property owner. Princeton will see a shift in ownership patterns to small developers and real estate investment trusts instead of individuals. The pressure to keep and preserve older structures — a Princeton tradition — could become tragic. This unintended consequence will be widespread. It will erase one of the very basic qualities about Princeton, the existence of our shared past evidenced by the unique and varied houses and other interesting structures such as stables, small shops, open side yards with ancient roses, statues, arbors, bits of fence or steps set into slope, as examples. Already several developers have presented the very same building for several locations in older neighborhoods where tearing down an existing house with character and erecting a building that does not relate to its setting.

6. All of us are just stewards of this magnificent place. Let’s make sure that the changes that do come before us are guided and as thoughtful as possible. To use a term that was in the report, “gentle infill” needs to be that and not just a label.

Anne Weber
FAIA, Columbia University masters of architecture and graduate program in historic preservation

David Schure
Columbia University graduate program in historic preservation

Stockton Street