In the September issue of the Princeton Echo, we heard from a group called the Princeton Progressive Action Group (PPAG), which addressed the problem of the high cost of housing in town. The issue is real. Because of the town’s historic popularity as a university town centrally located in the megalopolis between New York and Philadelphia, housing has become unaffordable to all but the wealthy. Police, firemen, lower wage office workers, and the children of current residents must move elsewhere. In my 53 years practicing architecture, most of the draftsmen and secretaries in my employ have had to live in the surrounding communities.
The PPAG representatives — Marina Rubina, an architect, and Yael Niv, a Princeton professor of psychology and neuroscience — argued that a sensible solution to the crisis would be to allow flats or extra dwelling units in existing housing to be permitted.
Princeton Township has permitted flats in single family dwellings, but there were so many restrictions that it didn’t help. The goal of that “flat law” was to increase housing without changing the character of the residential neighborhoods. It was rarely implemented because of the restrictions. The solutions offered by PPAG are sensible and should be incorporated now into the ordinance. We should not think, however, that this temporary fix addresses Princeton’s inability to plan for the future.
Why is it so difficult to plan for the future? New Jersey is composed of too many towns, boroughs, and cities. This is a problem that goes back to Colonial times. Every crossroad, farm grange, and river crossing became a town in New Jersey. The duplication of services has been very inefficient and costly. The counties have not been effective in coordinating the planning of the towns within their borders. It would be more sensible to be organized in regions so we could integrate housing needs, transportation concerns, and connections to jobs and shopping across county or town borders.
Who’s to blame for the problems? Rapacious developers with a McMansion complex, rich buyers who cause prices to rise by their desire to be in Princeton at any price, the nonprofits that reduce the amount of taxable land, residents infected by the NIMBY virus, the Historic Preservation people who want to save everything old, planners who only know how to avoid change, and the elected officials who fear rejection by the voters.
All of these are guilty but the real villains were the original planners who wrote the master plans for Princeton Borough and Princeton Township. There was no consideration for future population growth. As if those original master plans were “cast in stone,” subsequent master plans dealt with refining details and never faced the demographic realities. Hundreds of pages of detail were added making it even harder to consider dramatic changes (like changing the course of a battleship).
I am pessimistic about the ability of our communities governed by the principles of democracy to change course. Communities are very reluctant to accept change even though there are compelling needs or reasons. Elected officials fear the voters and the “NIMBY” factor guide the reactions of the voters to change. Nature often fails to persuade. Consider the lessons learned from Hurricane Sandy and Irma. We have been reluctant to take actions which would reduce future losses. How often were they warned in Houston that the paving of the marshes could lead to greater property losses and loss of life? This is why I am pessimistic.
—Jeremiah Ford III, A.I.A.
Jerry Ford is a Princeton University alumnus, Class of 1954, and longtime Princeton architect. He is now principal of Ford3 Architects in Pennington.
A typical Princeton split level, such as this one on Robert Road, has potential to be converted into a duplex.,
