The following was submitted by Alexander Briseño AIA LEED AP. The opinions expressed are the author’s alone, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Village Green or its editors. 

Despite an abundance of township alerts, news articles, message board rants, and project specific community input, Township Committee and Planning Board meetings regarding the potential project, several opponents of the post office redevelopment have suddenly become aware of the project’s intent and scope; construction of a new transit-oriented, low-rise mixed-use building. I happen to be a mixed-use residential architect and also an active member of the PODRS [Post Office Design Review Subcommittee of the Maplewood Village Alliance]. I recently reviewed once again the Post Office Rehabilitation Study, the  2004 Master Plan, the 2011 Master Plan update, the 2012 parking study, minutes from both the January 2012 and February 2012 community input meetings, the final Redevelopment Plan and the initial winning RFP proposal.

I will admit there are aspects of the opposition’s arguments I find agreement with; that the process was less than perfect, that a PILOT is included and that sustainability measures do not seem integral to the project. However, there are several crucial points I find very bewildering when considering the information readily available in the historical documents:

1. That the process is being rushed. This project has been on the township’s agenda for at least four years, and on the radar for eleven years. In addition, the original developer’s conceptual site plan has been public knowledge since December 2013. Eighteen months later and the new developer’s proposal still respects the intent of that conceptual site plan.
2. That the existing post office would be demolished. The winning development proposal was announced in December 2013 with a site plan that clearly required removal of the existing building. Many in the opposition rightfully point out that the RFP required demolition. I agree that the plan could have been more flexible with the language in that regard, however I question how the additional complex goals set forth for the site would have been met if the building were to remain. In addition, I could find no contrary input in any of the numerous official meetings to suggest or recommend reuse of the existing structure. I would also suggest that a visionary development team would have found ways to address all the other complicated site issues identified in the RFP and also reuse a majority of the post office. It is often the team who bend the rules who wins the RFP. While I’m sure there may have existed an adaptive reuse dream team for the site, unfortunately they did not submit for this project. While it is also puzzling that an out-of-date and superseded ordinance is being referenced to argue the legality of demolition, I do agree the township needs to prove compliance or exemption with the correct updated ordinance.
3. That a new construction mixed use building is being proposed. It is obvious from the public record this was the intent of the project for quite some time and while there were occasional calls for non-commercial community uses, a hotel and office space, the majority of official public comments were restricted to questions surrounding residential and retail use, which is in fact what was recommended for the site since at least 2011.

Unfortunately, despite this overwhelming evidence, the current project configuration still seems to be a surprise to the opposition. The proposal conforms to a high degree with the winning RFP site concept from late 2013, the Redevelopment Plan from early 2013, the community input meetings from early 2012 and the Master Plan update of 2011.

Yet the opposition would suggest that the configuration has only been known briefly, there has been no community input and that the entire process should be reevaluated and begun anew. I know firsthand how daunting it can be to achieve consensus on any design project, and it is, of course, every individual’s right to disagree with the approval whether you’ve been actively involved since before 2011 or whether you’ve just become aware in the past week. However, it does a great disservice to the process, not to mention the opposition’s validity, to base an entire attack campaign (and some have suggested even an entire political campaign) on arguments that have already been discussed, suggested, implemented or discarded.

Now for my particular story. In April 2013, I was invited to a private meeting of residents concerned that the post office redevelopment would be handled like the Station House. That is when I first learned of the perceived lack of public review for that project. (Sidebar: I moved to Maplewood in 2011 as the Station House was completing construction. And honestly, because it was always here, I never noticed it as being out of place. I understand the opposition’s disagreements concerning materiality and detailing of the project, but I do not agree the scale is inappropriate. My family enjoys the entirety of Memorial Park; the playground, Easter egg hunts, the circus, the duck pond and winter sledding. Not once did I think it would be more enjoyable if the Station House was a story shorter, or if it was constructed with different materials.)

Our group consisted of local architecture, design, environmental and development professionals. We tasked ourselves with brainstorming ways of guiding the post office process to a better outcome. There are several important things that grew directly out of this group of local professionals (that I will call the DAG  – Design Advocates Group). These points are crucial to understand how much community input from design professionals, who were willing to be flexible and work constructively with them, the township has accommodated.

1. The DAG and Engage Maplewood (EM) were formed around the same time. Several DAG and EM members overlapped. Both groups were advocating for a better process and design of the PO site.
2. When the Post Office Redevelopment Plan was in its early formation, The Maplewood Village Alliance made three categorical recommendations to the town planner for planning (require a traffic study, economic planning study, infrastructure impact study and expand boundary of studies to include the entire Village),  design (enhance pedestrian access, incorporate “Complete Streets”, require LEED certification, require a contextual building and provide appropriate levels of parking) and design review (require a review by the MVA). Most, but not all, of these recommendations are clearly evident in the Redevelopment Plan, the RFP and resulting process.
3. In separate attempts, the DAG, some Planning Board members and EM advocated, unsuccessfully, for the Redevelopment Plan to include zoning envelope and massing studies of potential development scenarios so that all residents could understand the potential scale of the development more easily.
4. The DAG advocated for and was able to implement, positive additions to the Redevelopment Plan text, particularly as it relates to architectural style and character. Again the township listened and the resulting Redevelopment Plan reflected our recommendations almost verbatim. The DAG felt an obligation to push for high quality architecture, especially since we were not as successful in limiting the allowable bulk to what many in the group may have desired.
5. The DAG advocated, unsuccessfully, for an RFQ (Request For Qualifications) process prior to the RFP to limit RFP submissions to only pre-selected and pre-qualified development candidates. Even though this recommendation was respectfully rejected, the subsequently created PODRS was consulted informally to review the shortlisted designs.
6. The DAG advocated for a formal public design review of the project that could be used as a “beta test” to establish an ongoing design review process for similar projects. Although the more authoritative Design Review Panel we desired was not created, the advisory PODRS was created as a subcommittee of the Maplewood Village Alliance. A similar advisory committee was created for the PSEG site.
7. Several members of both DAG and EM submitted CV’s to the Maplewood Village Alliance and became members of the PODRS, along with numerous other interested parties. The PODRS includes design architects, technical architects, real estate investors, past and current local business owners and environmental design and psychology professionals.
8. The perception of a unanimous vote is that all members agreed in full on an issue. That couldn’t be further from the truth; there were always individual disagreements and debates, both face to face with the developers and in private exchanges. There can be agreement at the tie of voting, while there is disagreement on individual points during the debate leading to the vote, which is a fair assumption of what happens on almost any unanimous vote, here or elsewhere.

Those of us who were part of the DAG and the PODRS resolved to be a critical, but constructive voice to the process and maintain direct active involvement, remaining in the trenches despite minor setbacks along the way. No-one had any misguided notion that all individual concerns could possibly be addressed in this process. We were, and still are, willing to work together to make the project better.

It is great to live in a town full of creative and passionate residents who care about the character of our town and who can respectfully debate and provide intelligent recommendations for the complex issues that have existed and may still exist on this project. If we are fortunate, some positive resolutions to the remaining concerns may yet find their way into a final resolution for the site. However, I don’t believe it is constructive or useful to rehash issues that have already been debated, addressed and resolved or rejected. As a community of immensely creative individuals, we should continue to push for greater things. But we should also respect the immense progress we have already made and not allow minor setbacks to turn into an obstructionist mindset, or worse, pit neighbor against neighbor.

Alexander Briseño and his family have been Maplewood residents since 2011. Briseño is a member of the Maplewood Village Alliance Post Office Design Review Subcommittee.