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?

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.

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.

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.