HPC Guidelines Should Be Followed for Proposed Renovations of Historic Buildings
To the Editor:
My wife and I have a 40-plus year appreciation of the special place that is Princeton and feel privileged to own a circa-1830 house in the Mercer Hill Historic District for the past 11 years. We have a deep respect for history and the firm belief that the historic buildings that comprise the rich fabric of this special town need to be honored and carefully preserved. Indeed, the longer a building survives in its appreciably original state, the greater the need for it to be protected against alteration. We are merely the stewards of a house and barn that are temporarily in our care. I would argue that institutional owners have an even greater mandate to be thoughtful stewards of their historic buildings, as they will surely have much longer periods of ownership.
The exterior envelope materials of buildings in the various historic districts in Princeton are within the purview of the Princeton Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) with regard to proposed renovations and alterations. The Commission is meant to be guided by the Princeton HPC Plan Ordinance, Sustainability Principles, and Standards for Rehabilitation. Those criteria are extremely specific and not written to invite subjective interpretation.
Current renovation plans for six important houses owned by the Princeton Theological Seminary (PTS) propose the removal of the vast majority of their historic exterior materials (clapboard siding, windows, window trim, shutters), to be replaced with some materials in kind, some synthetic materials and replacement windows of entirely modern glass, exterior metal framing material, and a mimicry of the original divided sash design. Conversely, the Review Criteria guidelines in the HPC Ordinance mandate that 1) original materials should be maintained and repaired rather than replaced, and 2) do not allow substitute materials to be used in the renovation of an historic building unless it can be proved by an independent condition report that specific areas of materials are not serviceable and not able to be restored or repaired. The renovation development plans proposed by the architects for PTS for their Alexander Street houses do not constitute independent condition reports; rather, they are biased toward an advocacy supporting a preconceived planning approach to renovating these houses — an approach that would remove still-serviceable historic materials, only to be deposited in landfills. Those actions would be environmentally irresponsible, unsustainable, and morally indefensible.
Interestingly, PTS has recently demonstrated that they can carry out successful renovations of houses in their care at 11 Alexander Street and at 48 and 52 Mercer Street without removal of any historic exterior fabric. They should now be encouraged and required to do the same with their Alexander Street houses at numbers 15-17, 19, 25-27, 29, and 31. The Princeton HPC has the guidelines and the authority to make that happen.