NJSDA just released its latest report on the state of the schools construction program. The first 10 pages are a nice fluffy read on what new NJ schools should be (green, well designed, serving communities, and with community input etc). The end of the document includes a status update on school facility projects. Based on this document, the NJSDA anticipates that Roebling and TCHS will be ready to start construction in the Summer of 2010, roughly 18 months from now. A conservative construction timeline would indicate that these schools could not be occupied before the Fall of 2012. That is a best case scenario (no funding, design, environmental or construction problems). Obama will be in the midst of his re-election campaign, if that puts it in perspective.
The same document indicates that an additional $18 million in preconstruction costs will be added to both projects, and when added to the previously spent preconstruction monies, total out at over $56 million before construction shovels hit the ground.
There are only 3 out of 50 SDA schools in the state undergoing significant redesign. 2 are in Trenton (Roebling and TCHS). The district (administration and the Board of Education) has charted a new path on both schools, and it now finds itself at the tail end of the projects (just as many Trenton residents warned over a year ago in public meetings at the TBOE). This is the result of a choice the district made. Moreover, the district is now engaged in a process that has significantly increased the cost of the predevelopment activities (redesign and new approvals) and has not engaged in a process whereby resident/parent/student/teacher involvement has been facilitated. The FAB meetings have served as a forum to present the progress of the projects, but it has not been a place where conceptual design input has been gathered or integrated into the projects in a meaningful way. I offer up the following as a suggestion to the district:
1: Develop a strategy with the SDA professionals to streamline the project’s design and development process.
2: Engage residents, students, teachers, and administrators in a process where their needs, wants, and desires are identified throughout the development of these publicly funded projects.
3: Work with the SDA professionals on an approach to ensure that these facilities will be designed and constructed with the latest cost effective green design strategies and technologies.
I have a bias towards preserving the shells of both the existing TCHS and Roebling buildings. Its my professional belief that both sites provide great opportunities for preserving our sense of place, our collective history, and for demonstrating progressive approaches towards the re-use of massive and valuable architectural infrastructure. The prime concern should be for the delivery of up to date facilities for the students who have long endured leaking roofs, environmental concerns, and overcrowded classrooms. And to that end, our district has been failing the future students of Roebling and the current students of TCHS by effectively delaying the construction process by wholly re-thinking the scope and designs of these facilities. It is time to make some hard decisions and move forward with these incredibly important projects.
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Thursday, September 18, 2008
A monument to lost love
Trenton's Kelsey Building, at the corner of Barracks Street and West State Street, has a remarkable story to tell. The building was commissioned by Henry Cooper Kelsey to be a living memorial to his wife, Prudence Townsend Kelsey, after she succumbed to illness. He was so devastated by her death that he decided to create a new home for the School for the Industrial Arts in Trenton to honor her memory. Future generations and the city would benefit from this expanded institution, and Kelsey could live to see more good done in his wife's name.
While most online and print resources note that Kelsey hired Cass Gilbert as the architect of this building, the Kelsey Building is noticeably absent from the listings of Gilbert's completed works. So it is not clear to me how much Gilbert was involved in the project. He was working on the Woolworth Building in New York around the same time, and Kelsey certainly had the awareness of Gilbert's significance as one of the greatest architects of the time. Regardless, Kelsey wanted the memorial building to echo one of his wife's favorite buildings: Palazzo Strozzi in Florence.
The result is one of Trenton's best buildings. The entry is oriented towards State Street and is expressed with a heavily articulated brick and tile arch.
Over this arch, a clock extends out from the mass of the building (the clock originally did not function- it always showed the exact time when Mrs. Kelsey passed away).
Above the clock are three grand brick arches infilled with copper windows and decorative panels which turn the corner and continue to march down Barracks Street. The building is crowned with the most recognizable quote from Strozzi: a copper and terra-cotta roof cornice.
As the city moves forward with new educational facilities, its important to remember the significant cultural meaning possible through architecture. I doubt that we will or should see an authentic Italian Renaissance Revival building such as this arise again, but architectural quality goes far beyond style. I hope that we as a city recognize our long history of great architecture, and that with new projects, new opportunities present themselves. We can not go back to an era of cheap labor and incredible craftsmanship, but we should be able to inject a narrative, a sense of place, and an aesthetic of permanence into our most modern buildings. All it takes is a little love.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Stewardship
The State acquired the Roebling School Site earlier this decade with the full intention of renovating the complex into a state of the art school for over 1,200 students. In 2004, things fell apart. The SCC (now SDA) ran out of money, and Roebling was one of the unlucky projects to have begun some pre-construction sitework when the money stopped flowing.
Now, I would submit that the proposed Roebling School was far from a "normal" SCC/SDA project. It represented the culmination of over 10 years of planning on the part of the School District and City Officials. As a project, it was born out of a relatively simple problem: how can you build a brand new school in an existing, densely populated neighborhood? Rather than taking a residential block of housing (probably through eminent domain), the City proposed that architecturally significant buildings be adapted into a new school. The State bought into the idea, plans were drawn, and the project won an impressive array of awards and the project even got the attention of the national media (see below for a partial list of publications and awards).
A project description with renderings from the SDA website:
2001: The project wins its first award: “Outstanding Building: Work in Progress” and is published in “American School and University Magazine”:
2001: The renovation design wins a NJ AIA Silver award
2003: The project is highlighted in a national publication on inventive school facilities:
2003: Gov. McGreevey designates the area around the School as a “Renaissance Zone”
2004: The Roebling School wins a NJ Future Smart Growth Award
As detailed on this blog and elsewhere, the State has effectively abandoned its plans to re-use the Roebling Buildings, and they now propose to level the site in order to build a cheaper, more typical, SDA school facility. Facts still have not been provided to New Jersey taxpayers proving the assertion that the adaptive re-use proposal is more expensive. But that argument is for another day...
This is where stewardship comes in. The State took this property off the Trenton tax rolls. The State effectively took a business out of our City to make way for this project. And over the past 6 years, the State has watched over this site as it deteriorates. The Mott Street Gates are loose enough for squatters to easily walk into the site (and into the buildings). The condition of the temporary fences are awful. Portions of building 62 across from De Lorenzo's (Hudson) appear as though they are in danger of collapse- specifically, the highest portions of the exposed steel structure at the Southernmost end- the portions that are leaning. 20 foot high piles of debris are visible from almost every adjacent street and home, and have been for almost 4 years. The interiors of the buildings are open to the elements and have endured freeze-thaw cycles, water penetration, rodent infestations (I saw at least 8 fat cats prowling the site), pigeon guano etc.
Beyond the neglect of the site, these buildings represent a huge part of Trenton's industrial history. The recent opening of the Roebling Machine Shop (for the fantastic Art All Night) and the grand opening of Food Bazaar at the Roebling Market demonstrate the flexibility that these industrial shells provide. Huge windows. High ceilings. Incredible light. If the State has decided, regardless of fact, that they will demolish the Roebling School site buildings, they will make the same mistakes that wiped out portions of Trenton in the 1950's and 1960's. They will ignore cultural meaning in favor of the "easiest solution" or the cheapest way to build. They will destroy part of the complex that was responsible for Trenton's great rise, and they will also destroy the potential for our children to learn, first hand, about a period in Trenton's history that was very positive. This new plan is, put simply, a horrible idea.
See below for recent images on and around the site as proof of the quality of the State's stewardship at this site. I'll end on an easy question: would the State maintain a site this poorly in Princeton?
Now, I would submit that the proposed Roebling School was far from a "normal" SCC/SDA project. It represented the culmination of over 10 years of planning on the part of the School District and City Officials. As a project, it was born out of a relatively simple problem: how can you build a brand new school in an existing, densely populated neighborhood? Rather than taking a residential block of housing (probably through eminent domain), the City proposed that architecturally significant buildings be adapted into a new school. The State bought into the idea, plans were drawn, and the project won an impressive array of awards and the project even got the attention of the national media (see below for a partial list of publications and awards).
A project description with renderings from the SDA website:
2001: The project wins its first award: “Outstanding Building: Work in Progress” and is published in “American School and University Magazine”:
2001: The renovation design wins a NJ AIA Silver award
2003: The project is highlighted in a national publication on inventive school facilities:
2003: Gov. McGreevey designates the area around the School as a “Renaissance Zone”
2004: The Roebling School wins a NJ Future Smart Growth Award
As detailed on this blog and elsewhere, the State has effectively abandoned its plans to re-use the Roebling Buildings, and they now propose to level the site in order to build a cheaper, more typical, SDA school facility. Facts still have not been provided to New Jersey taxpayers proving the assertion that the adaptive re-use proposal is more expensive. But that argument is for another day...
This is where stewardship comes in. The State took this property off the Trenton tax rolls. The State effectively took a business out of our City to make way for this project. And over the past 6 years, the State has watched over this site as it deteriorates. The Mott Street Gates are loose enough for squatters to easily walk into the site (and into the buildings). The condition of the temporary fences are awful. Portions of building 62 across from De Lorenzo's (Hudson) appear as though they are in danger of collapse- specifically, the highest portions of the exposed steel structure at the Southernmost end- the portions that are leaning. 20 foot high piles of debris are visible from almost every adjacent street and home, and have been for almost 4 years. The interiors of the buildings are open to the elements and have endured freeze-thaw cycles, water penetration, rodent infestations (I saw at least 8 fat cats prowling the site), pigeon guano etc.
Beyond the neglect of the site, these buildings represent a huge part of Trenton's industrial history. The recent opening of the Roebling Machine Shop (for the fantastic Art All Night) and the grand opening of Food Bazaar at the Roebling Market demonstrate the flexibility that these industrial shells provide. Huge windows. High ceilings. Incredible light. If the State has decided, regardless of fact, that they will demolish the Roebling School site buildings, they will make the same mistakes that wiped out portions of Trenton in the 1950's and 1960's. They will ignore cultural meaning in favor of the "easiest solution" or the cheapest way to build. They will destroy part of the complex that was responsible for Trenton's great rise, and they will also destroy the potential for our children to learn, first hand, about a period in Trenton's history that was very positive. This new plan is, put simply, a horrible idea.
See below for recent images on and around the site as proof of the quality of the State's stewardship at this site. I'll end on an easy question: would the State maintain a site this poorly in Princeton?
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Fab Four
The Facilities Advisory Board (FAB) meeting was held tonight to discuss the four active Trenton projects being undertaken by the NJSDA. There was a crowd of 15 residents (+/-) plus district representatives.
The big news continues to be that the district has apparently won a $250,000,000.00 prize courtesy of NJ taxpayers. The other big news is that the SDA has put a gun to the head of our collective city.
As reported in our papers, the NJSDA has told the district that the allocated funds will not be enough for the previously developed plans for both The Roebling School and the TCHS project. They have thrown out big numbers in the past that Roebling would now cost $130,000,000 and the high school could be anywhere between $200 and $300 million. Therefore, the SDA advised the district that it needs to develop a new baseline- a new set of parameters for these schools so that it can now look at developing new-construction designs for both projects, and that apparently the High School will serve less than half of the High School student population. Added to this mix is the fact that while the State only approved the money last week, the SDA needs Trenton to submit a new program model to DOE ASAP or else we may either loose our place in the priority line or loose the funding altogether.
That puts our district in the unenviable role of rushing a decision that will ultimately affect our students for at least the next 30 years. To their credit, I think the district is trying to do the right thing, and that the SDA has put them in a politically impossible position whereby they will face criticism no matter what decision is made. After all, if they go through a lengthy public-input process, or engage in additional analysis, then the district runs the risk of losing the funding and the projects. That’s a possibility the district cannot face, and it was clear in the meeting that the district has decided to push for all-new buildings at both Roebling and TCHS, and that, conversely, the existing Roebling and TCHS buildings will eventually be demolished. The Board of Education will vote on the 28th to begin this process- and I doubt that any public outcry will sway the board.
My main concern is the following: we are about to throw away the $30 million invested in Roebling and TCHS because the SDA has said that the old plans are too expensive to build. The pressure is on to make a decision, but the State has also not publicly provided the back-up information that proves their assertion that a comparable new facility is cheaper than an adaptive re-use of the existing facility. When we start over with a clean slate, we also start the approvals process all over again (new consultant contracts and negotiations, DOE approvals, SDA review and approvals, Construction Managers’ input and approvals, local municipal oversight and approvals, code review, DEP review etc.). The SDA schedule has a BEST CASE scenario whereby the High School and Roebling both have documents ready to bid on in 2 years- and that is an aggressive schedule since we will effectively start over from scratch. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Construction prices continue to rise at RECORD levels, inflation continues, and our two big projects are still on paper for at least two years. We all run the risk that by the time Roebling and TCHS go out to bid, both reincarnated schools are just as off-budget as they are today! It’s a realistic projection, and is consistent with what I’ve seen in private practice.
Furthermore, we are being led down a path without any facts, without any numbers or detailed explanation from the SDA on how these two huge projects have exceeded industry-standard escalation and have effectively more than doubled in price within a four year period. I find it curious that detailed facts and figures on these schools are absent from discussions that have gone on for over 8 months now- that no bona-fide construction cost estimates have been presented to the public detailing how much more or less expensive each option is in 2009-10 dollars (or midpoint of construction). Consultant Architects and Construction Managers have NEVER said in public what their recommendations are for the best or cheapest facility. Likewise, the scope of both Roebling and the TCHS projects are so vast that its surprising that value-engineering was not considered or was not made public. Did the State try to cut some “fat” off these projects, or are they so unwieldy that the analysis would take too long now? With all of these facts noticeably absent from the decision-making process, how can we possibly look Mr. and Mrs. New Jersey in the eye and tell them that we are spending money wisely and making the best decisions? Is it really ok to throw away $30 million in preconstruction expenses because there is, maybe, a cost benefit analysis somewhere, out there, maybe? Can you possibly expect the public to buy in to that and continue to support SDA projects into the future? And the most important consideration of all is that by starting over, we are delaying the delivery of these facilities to the people who need them the most: our students.
Without the estimates, without cold hard facts, its impossible to judge whether one alternative is better than the other. We are all just talking about opinions, gut reactions, and guesstimates- and when $250,000,000 is at stake, that level of discussion seems utterly irresponsible.
The big news continues to be that the district has apparently won a $250,000,000.00 prize courtesy of NJ taxpayers. The other big news is that the SDA has put a gun to the head of our collective city.
As reported in our papers, the NJSDA has told the district that the allocated funds will not be enough for the previously developed plans for both The Roebling School and the TCHS project. They have thrown out big numbers in the past that Roebling would now cost $130,000,000 and the high school could be anywhere between $200 and $300 million. Therefore, the SDA advised the district that it needs to develop a new baseline- a new set of parameters for these schools so that it can now look at developing new-construction designs for both projects, and that apparently the High School will serve less than half of the High School student population. Added to this mix is the fact that while the State only approved the money last week, the SDA needs Trenton to submit a new program model to DOE ASAP or else we may either loose our place in the priority line or loose the funding altogether.
That puts our district in the unenviable role of rushing a decision that will ultimately affect our students for at least the next 30 years. To their credit, I think the district is trying to do the right thing, and that the SDA has put them in a politically impossible position whereby they will face criticism no matter what decision is made. After all, if they go through a lengthy public-input process, or engage in additional analysis, then the district runs the risk of losing the funding and the projects. That’s a possibility the district cannot face, and it was clear in the meeting that the district has decided to push for all-new buildings at both Roebling and TCHS, and that, conversely, the existing Roebling and TCHS buildings will eventually be demolished. The Board of Education will vote on the 28th to begin this process- and I doubt that any public outcry will sway the board.
My main concern is the following: we are about to throw away the $30 million invested in Roebling and TCHS because the SDA has said that the old plans are too expensive to build. The pressure is on to make a decision, but the State has also not publicly provided the back-up information that proves their assertion that a comparable new facility is cheaper than an adaptive re-use of the existing facility. When we start over with a clean slate, we also start the approvals process all over again (new consultant contracts and negotiations, DOE approvals, SDA review and approvals, Construction Managers’ input and approvals, local municipal oversight and approvals, code review, DEP review etc.). The SDA schedule has a BEST CASE scenario whereby the High School and Roebling both have documents ready to bid on in 2 years- and that is an aggressive schedule since we will effectively start over from scratch. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking. Construction prices continue to rise at RECORD levels, inflation continues, and our two big projects are still on paper for at least two years. We all run the risk that by the time Roebling and TCHS go out to bid, both reincarnated schools are just as off-budget as they are today! It’s a realistic projection, and is consistent with what I’ve seen in private practice.
Furthermore, we are being led down a path without any facts, without any numbers or detailed explanation from the SDA on how these two huge projects have exceeded industry-standard escalation and have effectively more than doubled in price within a four year period. I find it curious that detailed facts and figures on these schools are absent from discussions that have gone on for over 8 months now- that no bona-fide construction cost estimates have been presented to the public detailing how much more or less expensive each option is in 2009-10 dollars (or midpoint of construction). Consultant Architects and Construction Managers have NEVER said in public what their recommendations are for the best or cheapest facility. Likewise, the scope of both Roebling and the TCHS projects are so vast that its surprising that value-engineering was not considered or was not made public. Did the State try to cut some “fat” off these projects, or are they so unwieldy that the analysis would take too long now? With all of these facts noticeably absent from the decision-making process, how can we possibly look Mr. and Mrs. New Jersey in the eye and tell them that we are spending money wisely and making the best decisions? Is it really ok to throw away $30 million in preconstruction expenses because there is, maybe, a cost benefit analysis somewhere, out there, maybe? Can you possibly expect the public to buy in to that and continue to support SDA projects into the future? And the most important consideration of all is that by starting over, we are delaying the delivery of these facilities to the people who need them the most: our students.
Without the estimates, without cold hard facts, its impossible to judge whether one alternative is better than the other. We are all just talking about opinions, gut reactions, and guesstimates- and when $250,000,000 is at stake, that level of discussion seems utterly irresponsible.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Trenton SDA projects to get funding.
Quasi good news today. The School Development Authority has made public its implementation schedule for the next round of funding. Trenton gets three schools out of it: Trenton Central High School, the Roebling School, and an Early Childhood Center. In total estimated cost, the city is looking at around $250,000,000 in facilities improvements. That should be great news for the city.
Unfortunately, the same document also indicates that both Roebling and the High School will need additional DOE approvals (only three school on the 53 project list need these additional approvals) and will have an estimated construction start date of Summer 2010, roughly two years from now. My guesstimate is that the schools could be occupied by the Fall of 2012 at the earliest, given the scale of the projects. On top of that, these schools are 36th and 39th in line on a list of 53 total Projects.
To its credit, the SDA has made clear that additional stashes of money will be reserved for unforseen issues, price escalation etc. to the tune of $300,000,000 or 10% of the allocated budget. It is, of course, impossible to predict what is going to happen to construction prices in the next 5-6 years. The free market is the only sure fire way of determining the actual price of a project- especially in today's rapidly escalating construction market. Last week, a builder informed me that steel prices rose 15% in a single day. Likewise, oil based materials such as asphalt and some types of roofing and insulation are skyrocketing, just like our gas prices. Hopefully things calm down, but if they don't, there is a chance that the reserve amount will not be enough to cover the costs of this escalation. If that happens, there is another chance that history will repeat itself and Trentonians will again be asking "who took our money?"
What does this mean? Please attend our city's Facility Advisory Board meetings, learn more about these incredibly large, important projects. And I would advise everyone involved to try to push hard to make sure these projects happen sooner rather than later- if only to make sure the State has committed funds for Trenton's 3,000 High School students. We should also try to make sure that regardless of the project, the facilities will be assets to the city as a whole, that the schools will be not just be adequate, but that they will be great places to learn and spend the better part of one's youth in. As tax-paying residents, it is our right to reasonably push the envelope and try to make sure that these enormous expenditures go to a great cause that will benefit the city for generations to come...
Unfortunately, the same document also indicates that both Roebling and the High School will need additional DOE approvals (only three school on the 53 project list need these additional approvals) and will have an estimated construction start date of Summer 2010, roughly two years from now. My guesstimate is that the schools could be occupied by the Fall of 2012 at the earliest, given the scale of the projects. On top of that, these schools are 36th and 39th in line on a list of 53 total Projects.
To its credit, the SDA has made clear that additional stashes of money will be reserved for unforseen issues, price escalation etc. to the tune of $300,000,000 or 10% of the allocated budget. It is, of course, impossible to predict what is going to happen to construction prices in the next 5-6 years. The free market is the only sure fire way of determining the actual price of a project- especially in today's rapidly escalating construction market. Last week, a builder informed me that steel prices rose 15% in a single day. Likewise, oil based materials such as asphalt and some types of roofing and insulation are skyrocketing, just like our gas prices. Hopefully things calm down, but if they don't, there is a chance that the reserve amount will not be enough to cover the costs of this escalation. If that happens, there is another chance that history will repeat itself and Trentonians will again be asking "who took our money?"
What does this mean? Please attend our city's Facility Advisory Board meetings, learn more about these incredibly large, important projects. And I would advise everyone involved to try to push hard to make sure these projects happen sooner rather than later- if only to make sure the State has committed funds for Trenton's 3,000 High School students. We should also try to make sure that regardless of the project, the facilities will be assets to the city as a whole, that the schools will be not just be adequate, but that they will be great places to learn and spend the better part of one's youth in. As tax-paying residents, it is our right to reasonably push the envelope and try to make sure that these enormous expenditures go to a great cause that will benefit the city for generations to come...
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
A little optimism
I remember seeing in the Times (of Trenton) that one of our neighboring suburbs had to cancel three consecutive planning board meetings recently; they did not have any projects coming down the pike. With that in mind, it has been especially impressive to see so many projects presented to the Planning Board in the past six months. And given the state of the housing market and the general state of our national economy, its that much more encouraging. It will take years for some of these projects to be completed, and there will certainly be some that may never be completed, but the numbers are still looking good.
It is worth listing the projects to date, if only because these projects have not garnered much traditional press attention. These are generally smaller projects, but when taken together as a whole, its an impressive and significant list. My VERY rough and conservative (and unofficial!) estimate is that these projects would add up to over $40 million in construction costs. Kudos to the developers, non profits, and the municipal officials who have ushered these projects through. It is a tremendous body of work.
Highlights include:
95 new units of single family housing
32 units of renovated single family housing (not required for planning board approval- just included as part of other projects)
38 Renovated buildings for 78 units of rental housing.
The new Trenton YMCA on Broad Street
A 3,000 sf Bank on Olden Avenue
NJBIA's new headquarters
A mixed use office/ retail building at Warren and Front Streets
A more detailed list follows:
November 20th, 2007
1: (Capital) Phase V of the arena district streetscape improvements. MCIA: Center Street, 2nd Street between Bridge and Cass Streets.
2: (Final) Single family row home: 82 West Street: Applicant Mark Weiss of Lakewood, NJ.
3: (Preliminary) Nine row homes: Hobart Avenue (between Cleveland and South Logan Avenues) SSJ Land Development of Franklin Lakes, NJ
4: (Final) 27 new single family homes and the renovation of 25 single family homes in the canal banks redevelopment area. Passaic and Spring Streets. Passaic Street LLC, Lawrenceville, NJ.
December 13th, 2007
5: (Prelim) 10 new single family homes, 7 renovated single family homes. Canal Banks redevelopment area. Commerce Street, North Montgomery Street, Academy and Stockton Streets. Isles, Inc. Trenton, NJ.
6: Center City South Redevelopment Area- expansion of the area.
7: Amendments to the New York Avenue Redevelopment Area Plan
January 10th, 2008
Organizational meeting
February 14th, 2008
8: (Prelim) Conversion and expansion of a building to be used as an ice cream parlor and deli. 320 North Montgomery. Richard Jones of Trenton, NJ.
9: (Prelim) 3-story mixed-use building 108 South Warren Street (and the corner of Front Street). Woodrose Properties CWA, LLC, of Lambertville, NJ.
10: Sanihican Redevelopment/ Rehabilitation Area Plan
11: Amendments to the Lamberton Street Redevelopment Area Plan
February 28th, 2008
12: (Final) Conversion of an existing building for use by Central Jersey Waste and Recycling (storage, limited maintenance and cleaning of the trucks). 500 Breunig Avenue.
March 13th, 2008
13: (Capital Project) Renovations to the Douglass House
5b: (Final) 10 new single family homes, 7 renovated single family homes. Canal Banks redevelopment area. Commerce Street, North Montgomery Street, Academy and Stockton Streets. Isles, Inc. Trenton, NJ.
March 27th, 2008
14: (Final) 42 semi-detached single family homes- Magic Marker Site: Calhoun and Dunham Streets. Monmouth Management, LLC of Lawrenceville, NJ.
15: (Prelim) Renovations to 38 Sites for a total of 78 rental units. North Montgomery, Sanford Street, and Brunswick Avenue. NMR Trenton, LLC.of Lawrenceville, NJ
16: Amendments to the Trenton Train Station Redevelopment Area Plan.
April 10th, 2008:
17: (Prelim) 3,000 sf Bank for Slavic Federal Credit Union of Fairfield, NJ- to be located at 1110-1114 North Olden Avenue.
18: (Prelim) 16 Single family homes at Humboldt Street, Sweets Avenue and Fountain Avenue. Leewood In-Town LLC of Trenton, NJ.
19: (Prelim) The Trenton YMCA at Board Street, Route 129
April 24th, 2008:
20: (Prelim) Expansion of the Escher Street SRO. Escher Street SRO Project c/o Gary Backinoff of Lawrenceville, NJ.
May 8th, 2008:
21: (Capital) MCIA’s Arena District Streetscape improvements: Cass Street: from Route 129 to Lamberton Street.
22: (Prelim) NJBIA’s new headquarters at Lafayette Street. NJBIA.
18b: (Final) 16 Single family homes at Humboldt Street, Sweets Avenue and Fountain Avenue. Leewood In-Town LLC or Trenton, NJ.
It is worth listing the projects to date, if only because these projects have not garnered much traditional press attention. These are generally smaller projects, but when taken together as a whole, its an impressive and significant list. My VERY rough and conservative (and unofficial!) estimate is that these projects would add up to over $40 million in construction costs. Kudos to the developers, non profits, and the municipal officials who have ushered these projects through. It is a tremendous body of work.
Highlights include:
95 new units of single family housing
32 units of renovated single family housing (not required for planning board approval- just included as part of other projects)
38 Renovated buildings for 78 units of rental housing.
The new Trenton YMCA on Broad Street
A 3,000 sf Bank on Olden Avenue
NJBIA's new headquarters
A mixed use office/ retail building at Warren and Front Streets
A more detailed list follows:
November 20th, 2007
1: (Capital) Phase V of the arena district streetscape improvements. MCIA: Center Street, 2nd Street between Bridge and Cass Streets.
2: (Final) Single family row home: 82 West Street: Applicant Mark Weiss of Lakewood, NJ.
3: (Preliminary) Nine row homes: Hobart Avenue (between Cleveland and South Logan Avenues) SSJ Land Development of Franklin Lakes, NJ
4: (Final) 27 new single family homes and the renovation of 25 single family homes in the canal banks redevelopment area. Passaic and Spring Streets. Passaic Street LLC, Lawrenceville, NJ.
December 13th, 2007
5: (Prelim) 10 new single family homes, 7 renovated single family homes. Canal Banks redevelopment area. Commerce Street, North Montgomery Street, Academy and Stockton Streets. Isles, Inc. Trenton, NJ.
6: Center City South Redevelopment Area- expansion of the area.
7: Amendments to the New York Avenue Redevelopment Area Plan
January 10th, 2008
Organizational meeting
February 14th, 2008
8: (Prelim) Conversion and expansion of a building to be used as an ice cream parlor and deli. 320 North Montgomery. Richard Jones of Trenton, NJ.
9: (Prelim) 3-story mixed-use building 108 South Warren Street (and the corner of Front Street). Woodrose Properties CWA, LLC, of Lambertville, NJ.
10: Sanihican Redevelopment/ Rehabilitation Area Plan
11: Amendments to the Lamberton Street Redevelopment Area Plan
February 28th, 2008
12: (Final) Conversion of an existing building for use by Central Jersey Waste and Recycling (storage, limited maintenance and cleaning of the trucks). 500 Breunig Avenue.
March 13th, 2008
13: (Capital Project) Renovations to the Douglass House
5b: (Final) 10 new single family homes, 7 renovated single family homes. Canal Banks redevelopment area. Commerce Street, North Montgomery Street, Academy and Stockton Streets. Isles, Inc. Trenton, NJ.
March 27th, 2008
14: (Final) 42 semi-detached single family homes- Magic Marker Site: Calhoun and Dunham Streets. Monmouth Management, LLC of Lawrenceville, NJ.
15: (Prelim) Renovations to 38 Sites for a total of 78 rental units. North Montgomery, Sanford Street, and Brunswick Avenue. NMR Trenton, LLC.of Lawrenceville, NJ
16: Amendments to the Trenton Train Station Redevelopment Area Plan.
April 10th, 2008:
17: (Prelim) 3,000 sf Bank for Slavic Federal Credit Union of Fairfield, NJ- to be located at 1110-1114 North Olden Avenue.
18: (Prelim) 16 Single family homes at Humboldt Street, Sweets Avenue and Fountain Avenue. Leewood In-Town LLC of Trenton, NJ.
19: (Prelim) The Trenton YMCA at Board Street, Route 129
April 24th, 2008:
20: (Prelim) Expansion of the Escher Street SRO. Escher Street SRO Project c/o Gary Backinoff of Lawrenceville, NJ.
May 8th, 2008:
21: (Capital) MCIA’s Arena District Streetscape improvements: Cass Street: from Route 129 to Lamberton Street.
22: (Prelim) NJBIA’s new headquarters at Lafayette Street. NJBIA.
18b: (Final) 16 Single family homes at Humboldt Street, Sweets Avenue and Fountain Avenue. Leewood In-Town LLC or Trenton, NJ.
Friday, May 16, 2008
May 8th Planning Board Packet
Follow the link above for the full docket for the May 8th 2008 Trenton Planning Board Meeting.
Highlights include MCIA's Streetscape improvements on Cass Street, and NJBIA's new headquarters on Lafayette Street.
Highlights include MCIA's Streetscape improvements on Cass Street, and NJBIA's new headquarters on Lafayette Street.
Friday, April 11, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
