SAVE PROSPECT AVENUE The University’s past stewardship of historic buildings is in stark contrast to its Prospect Development Plan that will harm the public interest by: 1. Violating National Park Service Guidelines for Historic Districts. 2. Violating the Princeton Community Master Plan’s goal to preserve historic districts and sites. 3. Setting a damaging precedent for removal and demolition on Prospect and in other historic districts in Princeton. Sandy Harrison ‘74 - Princeton Prospect Foundation (PPF) Board Chair Karl Pettit ‘67 - PPF Board Member; Architect, William Paterson University Clifford Zink - Historic Preservation Consultant; Author of The Princeton Eating Clubs National Register of Historic Places “The official list of the Nation’s historic places worthy of preservation.”
Princeton Historic District 1976 Additional Documentation of the Princeton Eating Clubs 2017 NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES PRINCETON HISTORIC DISTRICT 1976 PRINCETON EATING CLUBS ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION 2017
1911 Three Ferris Thompson 19th Century Wall & Gates Houses
Court Clubhouse
Princeton Historic District Boundary THE UNIVERSITY’S PROSPECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VIOLATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES Moving Historic Buildings 1979 Bulletin No. 4 National Register Historic Districts 1984
1) “The significance of properties is embodied in their sites and settings as well as in the structures themselves” – the University’s plan will diminish Court Club’s significance by destroying its
original site and setting
2) “Moving a historic structure unavoidably destroys some of the historic fabric and lessens the historic integrity of the building.”
– which the University’s plan will do
3) “Properties listed in the National Register should be moved only when there is no feasible alternative for preservation.”
– which the University has not demonstrated
4) “Moving of historic structures can create a false sense of historical development.” – which the University’s plan will do
THE UNIVERSITY’S PROSPECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VIOLATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES Moving Historic Buildings 1979 Bulletin No. 4 National Register Historic Districts 1984
5) Moved only when “the proposed (relocation) site does not possess historical significance that would be adversely affected by the intrusion of the structure.” – which the University’s plan will do by demolishing the three historic houses
6) “If a structure holds a prominent position in the middle of an historic district or a street that presents a unified appearance, its removal might leave an awkward gap or destroy the rhythmic harmony of the street or neighborhood.” – which the University’s plan will do.
7) “When a property is moved, every effort should be made to reestablish its historic orientation, immediate setting, and general environment.” – which the University’s plan cannot do with its 180-degree turn
8) “In the event that a structure is moved (without National Park Service approval), deletion from the National Register will be automatic.” – which the University’s plan will cause to happen, without relisting possibility.
THE UNIVERSITY’S PROSPECT DEVELOPMENT PLAN VIOLATES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES New Construction Within the Boundaries of Historic Properties 1. “New construction needs to be built in a manner that protects the integrity of the historic building(s) and the property’s setting.”
– which the University’s plan does not do 2. “New construction should be placed away from or at the side or rear of historic buildings and must avoid obscuring, damaging, or destroying character-defining features of these buildings or the site.” – which the University’s plan does not do
3. “Related new construction – including…landscape improvements and other new features - must not alter the historic character of a property.”
– which the University’s plan will do
4. “In properties with multiple historic buildings, the historic relationship between buildings must also be protected. Contributing historic buildings within an historic district must not be isolated from one another by the insertion of new construction.” – which the University’s plan will do. WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF THE UNIVERSITY VIOLATING NATIONAL PARK SERVICE GUIDELINES?
91 Prospect
Sending a message to Princeton residents and officials that
National Preservation Policy doesn’t matter?
Sending a message to University and high school students? “Don’t worry about these national standards for protecting buildings and sites important to our nation’s history. You can just ignore them.” University and Privately-owned Clubhouses