April 6, 2002 at Borough Hall
Zone 3 Workshop on “GREEN HILL”: The Ys, Merwick and Stanworth minutes

Present:

Gary Kuhn, Rosemary Blair (T), Fannie Floyd (T), Anne Elliott, Len Newton (T), Niels Nielson, Jan Flaugher (T),
Jim Floyd (T), Janet Martin (T), Cindy Shapiro (T), Betty Reed (T), Bo Honoré, Margaret Harper (T), Russ McFarlan,
Kurt Stenn, Judit Stenn, Robert Geddes, Henry Dale, Linda Lamb, Sandy Solomon, George Lamb, Michael Mostoller, Conrad LaPlaca, Claire Jacobus, Yina Moore, Richard Fenn, Michael Di Geronimo, Anthony LaPlaca, Pat Paynter, Caroline Fenn, Nat Paynter, Jon Hlafter, Barry Rabner, Marvin Reed, Helmut Schwab, Gail Ullman, Celia Tazelaar, Immanual Lichtenstein, Robert von Zumbusch (T), Jim Constantine, Bob Durkee (T), Jeff Hamren, Ronald Berlin, Christine St. John, Denise Varga, Pam Hersh, Jennifer Potash, Sheldon Sturges, Demos Bakoulis (T), Amy Brummer (T).

T = Township Resident

RG*: Many of you have not been to Princeton Future meetings before. I see new faces here. Last year we had a series of meetings on the Downtown as a whole. This year we have an urban planner who is working with us on producing a plan for the Downtown which is going to be part of the process which the community as whole is going through in creating a Community Master Plan. Every 6 years the Township and Borough together produce a comprehensive plan for the overall community. We thought that the way to really look at some of the problems is to look at it somewhat more geographically, somewhat in a more people-oriented way. Who lives here? What are the problems? What are the futures? So, we have set up 5 zones to think about: slices through reality. Not the whole way to think about Princeton, but they are ways of starting. They are all areas where there will be predictable change. The first was the area of the East End of Nassau St, the Village High Street, Zone 5. A remarkable new achievement that our community has brought forward. The second one, Zone 4, last month, we looked at Witherspoon Street. You could think of Princeton as a T shaped town. Nassau St and Witherspoon St. Historically, that is, in fact, the way it grew. We know that Witherspoon St [and its sidewalks] is literally going to be re-built in the next few years. We wanted to look with the neighbors at the stores, the churches, and the neighborhoods. It goes all the way from the Arts Council to the new Township Hall, the two churches, the Medical Center, the homes. This is the third meeting. It is different from the others. The zone we are talking about, Zone Three, is an opportunity because it consists of 3 major, wonderful, beloved institutions of the town: The Princeton Ys, the Princeton Medical Center at Merwick and the University housing at Stanworth. But it also an area of the largest open space near the Downtown, except for the special housing we have at the Cemetery [laughter] which is open space. It is a huge opportunity and responsibility for us to think about what the future of this zone might/should be. That’s why we are here today. The last 2 meetings, in Zone Two, next month, we will be looking at Paul Robeson Place, with Palmer Square, the John-Witherspoon Neighborhood, First Baptist Church, the Arts Council, Greenholm and Chambers Street. Robeson Place, that whole street that has been the subject of so much unhappiness about what has happened historically and thoughts about what might happen in the future. And then, the last meeting, 5-4-3-2-1-and we blast-off!, the Downtown itself, Zone One: the Park & Shop Lot and the future of Madison Square, the walkways, the parking garage, notice that I put the parking garage last on the list, not first, because, I think, from the point of view of the human experience, what we are really concerned and worried about is the open space, the pedestrian walkways and how we actually experience the Downtown. That’s in June. Having set the frame, I introduce Michael Mostoller, Co-Chair of our Planning & Design Task Force. We have two task forces: the Neighborhood Task Force that is concerned with social and cultural preservation of our neighborhoods and the other is Planning & Design Task Force cares about the physical planning and architectural side of things. Architects and Planners coming together, historically, I hope, to collaborate and cooperate.

MM*: Thank you Robert. What we’ve been doing in the meetings is drawing people out is about everyone’s expectations, concerns, knowledge you now have, and ideas about the area we are discussing. We are a Neighborhood Task Force and we are a Planning & Design Task Force. I have been setting the stage by “getting physical”. That is reviewing the dimensions and aspects of the subject area. We try to make it easier by displaying some redundant and complementary information for you to review. One of the best is the Little Professor Map with building uses and location, and then this aerial photograph. Let’s step back from this a minute. It is a T-shaped town. We have Nassau Street, the English High Street. Always from the beginning. The downtown grew up right here. Witherspoon St goes off to the hinterlands. The main axis from the south splits into Mercer and Stockton. The Seminary. Borough Hall. The Morven Farm and estate. Gradually over time, the core area has remained, but as it expanded the gaps and interstices have filled in. One is here. Relatively recent construction. The Y is very recent. Robeson Place is also very recent. Palmer Square is very recent. The Y with its parking lot is half a residential block in the western section and a full block in the JW section. Behind it is Merwick, Merwick was a private residence.

NN: Bishop Mathews lived there.

AL: Actually it was the graduate school student hall of Princeton University, eventually acquired by the Bishop of New Jersey. It became the head of the Episcopal Church in New Jersey’s residence and then it was donated to Princeton Hospital on his death. Currently, I am the architect for the renovations at Merwick.

MM*: Part of the interest of being a professional in the town, you are connected to things in interesting professional and personal ways. My mother-in-law broke her hip and had an extended stay there. Whatever we say today, some aspect of it ought to remain. It is amazing resource for the community. If nothing were to happen, it is an amazing resource. It has an odd shape, gently sloping down, this area is underused and almost unknown. Sheldon, I did get the outline of the sycamore trees. Hidden back in there is a more recent growth forest. There is what was once a planted garden, I believe. Then there is Stanworth, which is University housing at the moment. 50 to 60 years old. Large open spaces with houses that front the street. Clarence Stein residential garden style of the 1920s and 30s apartments, a backyard onto a large green on the inside. The design idea at the time… Essentially, it is a large green and then run the building in a running fret pattern, where the smaller areas are backyards. It seems to work at a local level and at the large-scale level. There is very low density. Here you can see that central courtyard. Lots of one-story buildings. Some two-story buildings. A great deal of open space. This is as a large a piece of land just here as is the whole existing downtown. If you take the whole site, it is almost 25 acres. Interestingly enough, there is an enormous amount of open space immediately adjacent to the Downtown. It is an enormous resource in every way. Housing. Because of the specific kind of treatment that takes place at this site. The Y, an institution that reaches out well beyond the site. At a PF meeting with the Y earlier this week, it came up that 50% of the YM’s activities take place off-site. So this is the locus for a network of operations around the town.

Is there any other comment from our other designers here today? Oh, yes, the neighbors… it is surrounded by neighborhoods of residences. A slim strip of land along Birch and Leigh Avenues and then the playing fields of Community Park…On this side, the backs of an inward-turning residential close, Greenholm, with the Lewis School at the corner. Of course this is 206, the main north-south road in New Jersey. In that sense, this is one of the historic approaches to Princeton. As Win Manning, when we were discussing the truck issue once, said, ‘the approaches to the town are very significant to our perception of the town’. The bridges, the allée of trees coming in from Route One, are all part of the mythology of Princeton. In that sense, this is one of the historic approaches of Princeton. Coming up the hill on 206 is significant, as planners, we would want to consider this. The people on this side, people are doing everything they can to shield themselves from the traffic. On this side, these are the sides of these buildings. . By the time you get here, you now feel you are in Princeton. This is the Western section that grew up in the 20’s. The only things you see on the Professor map are the homes of Woodrow Wilson and Grover Cleveland. It is part of Princeton and available to the public. Each of these has it own character. The John St area is much more lively and, I would suggest, a more interesting neighborhood. A small scale, local, interactive multi-use community with a school, small independent shops, a playground, a restaurant here, about to be a tattoo parlor here! A very important avenue for the churches and other community functions. First Baptist Church, extremely important sources of affection and devotion in the community. Dorothea House. There are lots of things around this. The Medical Center. It’s active. We would like to open up the conversation to all…to make suggestions to see where we might be able to make suggestions for change, development, and preservation on this site. One of the things we might do is to introduce ourselves.

(Each person introduced her/himself).

MM: Good representation!

SandyS: I just want to make this point. I know we are supposed primarily to be discussing open space and environmental concerns today, but I’d like to address another issue that affects this part of Princeton. I would just love to see people in town talking about “Bayard Lane” and “Stockton Road” not “Route 206,” not “the state highway”. I’d like them to see the traffic on this road as being the whole town’s problem not just the problem of adjacent residents. The road presents our town with a structural problem. It neatly divides it in two at a ratio of roughly one-third/two-thirds.  It presents residents—pedestrians and bicyclists--with a barrier that is difficult to cross, difficult and potentially life-threatening to negotiate. The job of the Borough and the Township is to reclaim the road itself as a space. It is part of our urban center, not just an obstacle we have to get across and negotiate it each day. I chair the Traffic and Transportation Committee of the Borough. We have prepared a memo that we hope the Borough Council will be taking to the State to request more crosswalks across Bayard, Stockton, and Nassau. And we are preparing a list of other changes that the State might make to these state-run roads in order to preserve the fabric of our town as a whole. As we talk about the future, we have to think about making Princeton integral again. There are significant pressures to the north and south of us that conspire to make Bayard and Stockton a throughway. And, since the Master Plan of the DOT for this area has no provision for a peripheral road, there is no relief in sight. This is an enormously important issue for Princeton. When people visit me from out of town, they see the traffic and say “Wow, what a barrier”.

CT: I second your concerns. I am chair of the Boro Historic Preservation Committee. There are features, landscape and architectural, of Merwick that should be recognized and could be preserved. Whatever development might go on, there are specimen trees that ought to be protected. There was a carriage house that was burned down that you could see from a distance. Historically it is fragile. A series of estates that was gradually carved up. Avalon which was torn down when the Y was built. A comment from a resident’s view. I have 3 small children. I would love to walk with them to school. Crossing 206 is an extremely daunting prospect. Especially, if you have a stroller. There is a crossing guard at the gas station. But to get down there from Westcott, there is a barely serviceable asphalt sidewalk, I can barely make it across by myself. If there were a way to cross safely, children wouldn’t have to be bussed. I’m up and down that road all the time but I do it in my car. It is not a safe environment for walking children.

JH*: I want to second that. When I moved here 30 years ago, we lived in Stanworth. Even then, walking parallel to the traffic is not a pleasant thing to do. One of the things I tried to do was to make my way to work on campus by sneaking through the estates, holes in fences and parking lots to my office. One of the things that clearly ought to happen is the open space component ought to be pedestrian friendly so that people have an option to walking on 206.

BH: We don’t even have a sidewalk. We live on the corner of 206 and Cleveland Lane. In the morning we dive across the street! My son goes to Middle School. And then I duck back and take my daughter to Community Park School. When my son comes home from school, he has to go the back way, all the way along to Library Place and backtrack. We are so close to the Downtown, it is too bad that we can’t take advantage of it. There is no reason my son shouldn’t be able to walk to the Y, a block away, right across the street, to take his swimming class in the evening. But he can’t do this by himself.

MM*: One of the prerogatives I get for doing this is to interrupt with running summaries. As I hear what is being said, at this moment, and I want to put it in a framework, that eventually what we do in these sessions, is that we increasingly develop them, refine and summarize and the ultimate goal is to influence the Master Plan. In that regard, we are hearing something very significant. That should lead to something that the Master Plan should concern itself with in some way. It involves a division of the town by traffic, I call it “18 wheelers going from Montreal to Mobile”. It is daunting. I have wanted to do things like putting fake rubber spikes on the street. The issue of dividing the town is very important. And then there is safety. Because it borders residential properties, it affects the way young children go to elementary school. I have almost been run over repeatedly right here. I went over to the policeman, “Did you see that?” The officer said “You’re jay walking”[laughter]. He has an impossible job. Both of us were in the wrong. It’s a location where you can’t be right. The other issue is, at the Master Plan level, the organization of the town, so that there is not a division, the organization of safety and the abundant resource we have in this particular location of open space must be put to better use. We have a lot of it, but it is not directed at the issues that the site includes. This way and this way. Shielding whatever development we have on either side. Safety arrangements. The open space is not directed to safety. Immediately trying to translate comment into an item that could be used, pursued in planning.

YM*: 50% of the boundary of the site is made up of the rear yards of the residences on John St and Leigh Ave. So that any re-development must consider those scales and uses…

MM*: I tried to document that. It’s not the coolest transition from different parts of town now. Here you have the ring road which allows the perimeter block system of residential idea to work. But they put the garages up against the fences. That’s another edge issue. There is no seam at all between adjacent residences.

YM*: The density of the JW neighborhood is such that the relief that the open space plays near by is important. It has important characteristics...wind, birds etc. There are two access points: one is less formal, The Princeton Nursery School where there is an opening in the fence. They take the kids out. And at John St, there is an open gate at Stanworth and also a chain link fence.

AL: The Merwick site has a small extension of its land to John St., which is not currently an access point, but could be.

JC*: As you talk about 206, historically a country lane approach to town, has become an overrun high traffic road. Traffic is not likely to disappear. I think the Master Plan has to take this linear divide and turn it into a connected seam. There are funds at the DOT for designated centers to study corridors. It does segregate areas of the town. Certainly anyone that has tried to cross on foot or at any intersection…anyone making left hand turns onto Bayard has a hazardous maneuver. It has to be done on more than a couple of block stretch. Coming from the North, there is vertical geometry and there is horizontal geometry. From a macro scale this is the most important issue. We need to look at the whole length, visual cues, traffic calming, changes in road geometry, interventions that might shift and create driver awareness. A whole series of things, a system. No easy fix at one corner.

NN: I am from Moore St. Things move very slowly in this town. 15 years ago, I wrote a master plan for that area. I brought a copy of the article that was published in The Packet for you. The concept for the use of the land itself: it now comprises recreation, housing, and healthcare delivery. Those are very important needs of the town. We need housing for the elderly. We currently put our elderly on ice-flows and send them to Jamesburg, Pennswood and elsewhere. We have an over utilized Y. Stanworth as a residential area could be most assuredly more effectively used. So I would like you to contemplate the possibility how better to use the existing properties for the same uses and services it now provides. The location is ideal. The beauty is that you can walk to town. You might not need a car. The thing that is missing is simple shopping for groceries. Where do they get things done? You have to walk to the Shopping Center for Laundry. I am less concerned about the surrounding neighborhoods than I am about the contents of this site itself.

LN: I first want to commend the people that are putting in the time doing this work. I agree with Niels that we have moved too slowly to make the best of what we have in Princeton and at least now we are talking about it. I am hoping we are going to get to a point where we can do something. The first 2 decades I lived here, I was right here in Stanworth. I lived there and worked at 44 Nassau St. My church was Witherspoon Presbyterian for 35 years. I know that neighborhood. When my company, Opinion Research, moved to the shopping center and I moved. I left one town and went into a new world. I lost a lot of friends. The dividing lines that have been structured over the centuries in that area and between the towns are really real. It’s not what we would all want. Eventually, you make new associations. That’s not right for Princeton. If we are going to be the real place we want to be, we have to think about our culture, our people, and our values. That’s where the discussion has to start. What are we going to do with people? We need to have places for people to age in the communities where they spent their lives. We need the structure to accommodate that. The same goes for racial and cultural barriers. We build in. It strikes me that some of this has been structurally unattended to. I was part of a naïve group that thought we could have a Y for everybody. We didn’t take care of everybody. Racially, we weren’t ready. The YM has yet to really incorporate its neighborhood. Blacks, Italians, Latinos and some whites. The real problem is these are people who for 5 generations have lived here. 1865 was the year of the house that just burned. We are talking about history and values, if we don’t study these things carefully, we will be condemned to have a second rate community.

MM*: Let’s continue with that... How would we like to see the historic neighborhood relate? How would we like to see Green Hill and JW develop? If this were to change, what would we like to see?

JM: I live on Birch. In the discussions with my neighbors, I have picked up an underlying sense of being excluded, particularly from Stanworth, of being shut out. The beauty, the birds and the open space have been mentioned. I hope it can all be kept with the important functions you have mentioned. It is important to try to connect it so that it to the JW neighborhood so that it isn’t felt to be exclusionary.

YM*: There are different patterns of residences and lots. One side is urban scale on a grid, the other pastoral and less defined in terms of its street patterning. I guess what this land has an opportunity to do, even though it might be a challenge to the DOT, is to become more of a connecting force, between the whole community. Each of the existing uses, including the Y is very internalized. Reaching out where there would actually be more crossings on 206, more stops, sidewalks and elevations of roadway sections that would be much more pedestrian friendly. More of a connecting weave of the neighborhood into the town. Right now it very isolated, all of the uses, from the town.

CT: Before coming to the meeting, I thought about what I would like to see done here. The title, Green Hill, is very evocative of the open space and the beauty here. I would love to have more of a community garden project here. There are a lot of people that are interested in organic gardening. There are probably others, who, because of their ethnic heritage or cultural traditions, might want to grow small kitchen gardens where they could grow special vegetables they can’t get in the stores. That would be a low impact thing that could be done for children and the elderly and others immediately. I haven’t used it but there is one by the rusty Quonset hut along the CP parking lot. It would be nice for the residents who are somewhat ambulatory. By the way, if there are any people from the Township, here, that building is a real eyesore here. Poorly maintained. As a parent with a child enrolled in that school it is a real affront. Something ought to be done about that building.

JF: You are absolutely right. What is it that we want to preserve? We all want traffic avoidance and open space. Which then says to me, in our thinking about the Master Plan, that has to be up there as something we want in the way of preservation. We must plan for people. If there are things that are beneficial to Green Hill, there ought to be the same amenities for others. We can build this into the ordinances. I am delighted that you brought up the building. It’s still there from the time I was Mayor. Those things that are desirable to most would be desirable to all.

MM*: What I am hearing is that this site is not just merely internal. The site is a community resource for the entire municipality. That’s an interesting way to put this. At this edge, it’s almost international in the sense that 206 connects to 287 and Montreal and Mobile! For example, visually speaking, this was once a garden, issues of preservation. What if this was always a place that could always remain and be a community resource for everybody? Theses things are helpful to us to make suggestions to start things going and they are coming out of your suggestions.

SandyS: Yina made an important point that this could be connecting space.

PH: Connective space. I am hearing something very encouraging. Pedestrian connectiveness, getting cars off the road. The problem is, over the years, we have heard the opposite. We have heard about fears of incursions, fears of strangers coming in, which tends to close off neighborhoods, not to have people walk through there on their sidewalks, onto their streets. A fear of strangers coming into their neighborhoods. We have heard two different things. I am very encouraged to hear today about a desire for pedestrian connectivity. We are having conversations about shuttles and jitneys. We would change our shuttle route thinking if we had better pedestrian access throughout the town, it would certainly eliminate the need for some cars. I’ve always wanted to know about Greenholm, the gate…Can you walk through there?

CJ: The gate is always open.

LL: We live on Hodge, we’ve never had a problem. Very gracious.

MM*: Let me suggest one thing: It turns out to be design as well. The attitude when this was built was that you built residential enclaves that the goal was to create open space that no one else would use. The goal was to create open space where no one else could walk. If you walk here, you are a stranger. It came out of as a reaction to the 19th century idea that the street is where anyone could walk, an interesting way to view it: however, when anyone can walk on any street, there is no privacy and safety. As our web of streets evolved, certain pressures from traffic, because of connectivity, so that Bayard Lane, houses on right on its edge, with some of the most beautiful stone houses in the state are closest to the road, inevitable conflict emerges. If we were to replan this, we might be able to find a way, keeping a hierarchy, grading the streets, so some of them would go through, we could re-grade and have some go through. Maybe, as Yina suggested we could connect what has been disconnected, which is now an island that you have to walk around...which you have to avoid…that has uses that one would intrude upon…a zone of inaccessible activity of 25 acres.

JF: I did use the word incursion. My earlier comments meant to say: to have the same amenities...the same open space for all. A holistic approach. We would all have the opportunity to enjoy that which we say we love. The whole matter of history: at one time Witherspoon St was all known as African Lane. They didn’t have cars and it was a very safe place. I read that in the history. I think that the Steering Committee and all others who have called these sessions to bring us together the thing that I have heard is the commonality of the folks who come. We all agree.

JC*: I’d like to build on something Jim said “Open space for all”. As you indicated Michael, there is ample open space but there is accessibility and visibility issues related to that. There is the opportunity to take these old gardens and reclaim them. You need to think of the street system. Create accessibility not just for the neighborhoods, for the whole community. Many of the projects that I’ve been involved in are dealing with inner city neighborhoods that have been overlooked and downtrodden for decades, a huge issue is creating a special feature that become desirable for every member of the community to come to. There may be a way is to latch some community pride around it. You almost need to think of the open space as a centerpiece on a table, visible accessible shared by all. Right now it’s hidden, behind homes.

SS: I’d like to follow up on that. Michael and Jon have brought forward an idea that I have always liked. If you can imagine going on a walk from Frist, by the new Humanities Center, across down Tulane, through the new Madison Square, across Robeson Place [with trees and nicely planted] and you could walk down through the Green Hill section to the Peteranello Gardens, to Community Park North, or to Mountain Lakes, or on to Coventry Farm. The community has just made a huge purchase of Coventry Farm. How can we get there, on a bike? How can we get there, walking? It would make a wonderful way to walk. If think of it as a connecting link all the way through, you go right through this Green Hill and through where Celia is describing a place for a garden. Jon has volunteered early on at a Planning and Design Task Force meeting that the University could contemplate building a gate across from Tulane. I thought of it as being a wonderfully progressive thought of the university to engage with the community. To allow us to think about this as a long, green connection.

AE: I like the idea of opening it all up. But I want to discourage cars. We should encourage people to walk and use bikes. Communities will be in dialogue with each other finally. I can see new grocery stores. But not like McCaffery’s, so that it doesn’t attract numbers of people in cars.

MM: We have to follow up on that always. The scale of the interactions of the residential and the other uses is not really possible anymore with the zoning rules that require parking.

RB*: When you look at this green line it is almost literal. It really is composed of three institutions. A lot of the amenities are there but you can’t get to them. I have also gone through holes in fences and found my way through. I think that Mr. Nielson’s idea of understanding and capitalizing on the three institutions that have a foothold in there. Basically leaving the functions there, but reconfiguring this so that there is permeable neighborhood. Like the other neighborhoods in town. In a way there is a dumb natural, big, straightforward solution that suggests itself: which is to make this big quadrant into a neighborhood connected to the other neighborhoods. To recognize that it would be a more urban thing with all the amenities. As some else suggested, to make it kind of a gem in the center. In that way, you can allow for an accommodation to older people. Treat it in a fairly traditional way: as another one of the neighborhoods of Princeton.

HS*: I support what was said before about traffic and open space. We should not lose sight of Merwick and the possibility of having senior housing there. A hill sloping down. The possibility of an etage sort housing. Some senior housing on that hill.

AL: I agree with that thought that this is a sight for the elderly. I grew up in this community and have seen my parents age and have become sensitive to it. As the architect for the site, I can say that it is ideal. It can fit in as a focus for the community. There can be connections made. It is a great opportunity to bring the elderly into the community.

MM*: Do you think the Merwick institution can support housing where you have a complete range of housing types which interact with each other…of…independent, continuing care…

AL: I don’t think the site is large enough for that. Certainly there are other aspects of elder care that can be developed on the site. I think that the hospital might bring forward those ideas. It is a crossroads for the town.

RF: I am very relieved to hear the discussion picking up again on Mr. Nielson’s points. I’ve had the same dream you’ve had. A place there where you can learn to walk again at Merwick. Become more mobile at the Y… where you can provide babysitting for the young families with babies in Stanworth. …where walk into town and do volunteer work…tutoring at the Library…it is very crucial to be able to walk to all these places to be able give what you are able to continue to give. Just to go back to grocery stores. It would be wonderful to be able walk a few feet to get a few vegetables. That would be a common interest of a wide range of people. A vital center.

JH*: A lot of people, including you, Michael, have mentioned that the density at Stanworth is not very great. Let’s clearly say that if the density were increased, that if there were three story buildings instead of one story buildings, you could keep the same amount of open space and have more people have a greater opportunity for the kinds of activities we’ve been talking about...Everyone knows that the University has been asked to provide more affordable housing for its own staff in the community. This is one of the places at greater density where this could be achieved.

RG*: It’s a very thrilling meeting. I just want to be sure. Unlike other sessions we’ve had, there have not been any complaints about the uses. Is there anyone here who doesn’t share this view? The 3 uses here are beloved uses. That is a very important point. Unlike anything we’ve done. If I may say, there are some other areas in town where there are uses, which are in conflict. This is terrific.

JF: The other uses are incursions [laughter].

BH: One problem with meetings like this is that families with small children tend to be under-represented. Especially when the meeting takes place on a Saturday morning. We moved here from the Evanston-Wilmette area in Illinois, and when we came here, it struck us that are no playgrounds. It is amazing. There are no playgrounds that you can walk to.

MM*: Excellent.

PH: I just want to point out that many of the facilities that young people will use will also be used by the aging population will use. Connectivity…playgrounds…open space.

CT: I want to know if Princeton Future has scheduled sessions for young people. It could be good if you add 2 forums for kids.

JH: Does the Y have a plan to expand?

CS: We have a facilities committee. We are looking for options. We don’t have the teamwork going on in the building group right now. We are limited by our parking limitation. The pool is filled constantly.

MR: Let me add some comments before the meeting breaks up. I got here late because I was at the opening of the Little League season at Grover Park. You should have seen the crowds there. We live with a tremendous shortage of playing fields since the passage of Title 9. The comments about 206 are very real. We deal with them every day. We are in the middle of a regional traffic hassle. It’s not just trucks to Mobile. It is trucks going from Somerville to Hightstown. This area you are looking at is space but it is not open space. This wooded area was put on the list of potential open space for purchase. But I don’t think we are going to go out and buy the woods with open space tax dollars unless they will open it up for other uses. And we’re not simply going to give millions of dollars unless it induces the Medical Center to do something else with its property. They came before the RPB recently and said that they don’t see a need for more facilities for the elderly in this area…and that they had no intention of expanding Merwick. We ought to be holistic. If the Medical Center asks for 100,000 sq ft on Witherspoon St, we should be using this as an opportunity to negotiate and to ask what are they doing with their property on Bayard Lane. What is the relationship with all of their facilities? How do they see themselves fitting into the whole community? It is the name that makes it attractive. Greenholm. I’m glad that you mentioned the locked gate. Every time the residents come and ask me if they can lock the gate, I say “no”. I’m glad to hear that I am representing a constituency in that regard. You talked about street connections. You’ve a couple of streets that connect into Bayard Lane. I don’t think you can do much about adding more without creating real traffic problems. But you might be able to do more about the ones you’ve got that could probably be used better. We may have to look for some traffic lights on Bayard Lane to do that. [applause]. Crosswalks on 206. The State is projecting more islands and midpoints and safe havens. The whole issue here is greater density. I happen to think Stanworth would be a much better neighborhood if it were denser. I don’t see where there is really the same NIMBY reaction if the buildings were more like the buildings around them. I’m not sure it would be problem if it were part of a larger plan. Higher density balanced off by open space. I think it will be tolerable. My experience on the Planning Board is that Boro residents are not nearly as uptight about neighbors. They are not as defensive about it. Playgrounds. We have a number of playgrounds on the East side of town. The West side of town has thought of itself differently…not as dependent on public facilities. With the ‘incursion’ of young families into the Western section, there is now more interest. They are the first who talk about being able to walk to the Y. The Y. They want a strong center. The YM has built a satellite in New Brunswick. It won’t be like the Medical Center where people come from all over. I’d just like to invite Len to come work out with me one day. The Y is not segregated anymore. You have a challenge. With these comments, I wish you well. I think the Boro Council and the Planning Board will be amenable to special kinds of zoning changes, whether you call them overlay districts, or whatever, that will accommodate the vision you set up here. I think we could work that way.

LN: 120 units on 10 acres on Stanworth. You get a lot for your money.

AE: I just wanted to say something on behalf of teenagers. A skate park would be much appreciated.

YM*: To answer the questions about teens. We already have a bank of knowledge on what they want. We had a booth at Communiversity last year.

MM*: Many thanks for coming. See you on the 17th!

· Member of the Planning & Design Task Force of Princeton Future