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

The University’s current hardline markedly contrasts with prior examples of University-Town-Community Cooperation on controversial University development E-Quad Expansion – 2005

University-Town-Community Cooperation E-Quad Expansion – 2005 University-Town-Community Cooperation on controversial University development William Street – 1977 University-Town-Community Cooperation on controversial University development

William Street – 1977 Princeton Municipal Landmark Ordinance – 1977 Enacted to protect historic buildings and sites The University has not shown a compelling need To damage Prospect Avenue contrary to Historic National Park Service Guidelines for Historic Districts Ferris Thompson And has vacant land to accommodate its needs Wall & Gates University Vacant Land

Three Historic Houses

University Vacant Land

ES+SEAS Development Court Area Clubhouse

Princeton Historic District Boundary The University’s Harmful Prospect Avenue Development Plan – Only about 3% of ES+SEAS – That It Has Not Justified

Three Historic Houses Incompatible Landscaping To be Demolished And Building Prospect Avenue

Current Court Clubhouse Site To Be Deleted from National Register

Princeton Eating Clubs

Section of Princeton Historic District Boundary Princeton Historic Ivy Lane District That will be Orphaned

This development plan does not follow the University’s project objective to “blend seamlessly into the current campus fabric.” Instead it will unjustifiably move and demolish historic buildings, and split and damage the Historic District with an incompatible building and landscape, all contrary to National Park Service Guideline for Historic Districts. The University’s design of its proposed building and landscaping violates National Park Service Guidelines for New Construction in Historic Districts By inserting an incompatible building and incompatible landscaping What message does this send? Respect of historic sites doesn’t matter? What message does this send to young architects? Ignore context? 91 Prospect Ignore historic streetscapes? The University’s Prospect Development Plan Disregards PRINCETON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Prospect Avenue Historic District Report 1995

1. The development of Prospect represents the fully realized integration of that 19th and early 20th Century urban phenomena , self perpetuating clubs, with the undergraduate life of a university community.

2. Today’s clubhouses are characterized by front lawns and mature landscaping which emphasize the deep setbacks…These buildings are domestic in appearance but on a large scale.

3. “The smaller frame structures (at 110, 114, & 116 Prospect Avenue) to the east of the Ferris Thompson wall and gate are included because they were moved to these sites after club use elsewhere and are part of the District’s visual and institutional history. PRINCETON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION Prospect Avenue Historic District Report 1995

University-owned properties on Prospect highlighted in yellow The University’s Prospect Development Plan Violates the intent of THE PRINCETON COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN 2012 “Protect and enhance historic properties”

Historic Preservation Element – Suggested Historic Sites & Districts “1. Club Row Historic District – Buildings and structures on both sides of Prospect Avenue.” Fielder Beekman Queen Anne Houses “Part of the District’s visual and institutional history” – Princeton HPC’s 1995 Prospect Avenue Historic District Report

Carroll House Now at Now at These houses predate Now part of 114 116 the clubhouses extant today 110 Prospect Prospect Prospect (with the possible exception of Tiger Inn)

110 Prospect Avenue - Former Home of Key & Seal and Arbor Clubs

Prospect Avenue and University Field 1911 “Part of the District’s visual and institutional history” – Princeton HPC’s 1995 Prospect Avenue Historic District Report

Former Carroll House at rear

110 Prospect Avenue - Former Home of Key & Seal and Arbor Club 1940s-1950s Residence of Oliver Strunk, “one of the most influential musicologists,” and author of the landmark musical anthology in 1950, Source Readings in Music History From Classical Antiquity Through the Romantic Era “Part of the District’s visual and institutional history” – Princeton HPC’s 1995 Prospect Avenue Historic District Report

Fielder Beekman Queen Anne House now at 114 Prospect Avenue 1930s Residence of Erwin Panofsky – ”The most influential art historian of the 20th Century.”* Wrote his landmark book here, Studies in Iconology, 1939

* Jeffrey Chipps Smith, Introduction in Erwin Panofsky, “The Life and Art of Albrecht Durer,” Press, Princeton, 2005, p.XXVII.

“Part of the District’s visual and institutional history” – Princeton HPC’s 1995 Prospect Avenue Historic District Report

Fielder Beekman Queen Anne House now at 116 Prospect Avenue 1970s-1980s Residence of Marquand Professor of Art History Thomas Kauffman Anthony Vidler, Head of History and Theory of Architecture, School of Architecture 110, 114 & 116 Prospect Avenue housed noted educators Are clearly eligible for the National Register Are suggested in the Master Plan for local HPC designation And should not be unjustifiably demolished Preserve the Integrity of the Princeton Historic District And the Historic Prospect Avenue Streetscape

• Prospect Avenue is a public street highly meaningful to residents and visitors.

• The siting of Court Club on the south side of Prospect Avenue is a key component of its historic significance that would be lost in a move with a

180-degree rotation.

• Moving Court Club and destroying three historic houses violates NPS policy and the Master Plan, and will set a damaging precedent for more

encroachment on Prospect Avenue and in other historic districts. • The best sustainable action is preserving existing buildings in situ with their

embodied carbon. • Inserting an incompatible building and landscape at 91 Prospect Avenue will bifurcate the Princeton Historic District, isolating its east end, and irreparably

harming its significance. • The University has presented no compelling reason to justify the harm to the Princeton Historic District and the Prospect Avenue Streetscape. PRINCETON OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION MEMORANDUM 6/14/21 To the Planning Board:

“It was the unanimous consensus of the HPC to strongly recommend to the Planning Board that…the Minor Site Plan and variance application…be denied by the Planning Board.”

“The University should be encouraged to reevaluate the availability of land nearby, revisit integrating adaptive reuse of the Court Clubhouse as part of the ES+SEAS complex; or select a better siting to meet their program needs to prevent detriment to the historic buildings and streetscape along Prospect Avenue.” Planning Board Members Please deny the University’s E-3 Zone Variance Application

And ask the University to design a Prospect entrance That is in line with its history of historic stewardship That is not detrimental to the public But instead benefits the public By following National Park Service Policy: Keeping Court Club in the Princeton Historic District And preserving the three historic houses To maintain the Unique Character and Historical Significance of Prospect Avenue

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