Noting That Princeton is a Jewel That Should Be Preserved, Not Tarnished
To the Editor:
Several days ago, a friend sent me an article from The Times of London in which the writer, John Darlington, bemoans the fact that we appear to be living in what he characterizes as the “Garb Age.” Instead of preserving the character of so many buildings that make towns and cities interesting and unique, we use the excuse that adaptively reusing them is too difficult and expensive.
Darlington cites the fact that the demolishing of old buildings in many cases throws away “an enormous amount of embedded carbon and spent energy,” only “to be replaced by a structure that requires still more.” In the U.K. “the building and construction sector is responsible for 40 to 50,000,000 tons of carbon emissions annually” — more than aviation and shipping combined.
Clearly Princeton is not the U.K., and the amount of waste, environmental damage, and eradication of Princeton’s uniqueness cannot be compared by volume, but the philosophy should be the same: the attempt to mitigate the Garb Age.
The most recent, but not only, example of Princeton’s induction into the Garb Age was when PTS razed historic buildings at 108 Stockton in order to “monetize” property designed by noted architect Rolf Bauhan, initially used as the early home of the Hun School.
Unfortunately, that destruction has already been accomplished, but the buildings’ successors do not have to be constructed to the scale that soon will come before the Planning Board for approval. Smaller and fewer units, built to fit in with the historic neighborhoods that surround it, would leave much more green space, more old growth trees, a lesser chance of exacerbating an existing water runoff problem, and would minimize greatly the likelihood of intensifying an already dangerous traffic problem in the area.
Princeton is a jewel. We should exercise good stewardship and preserve it, not tarnish it.