| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 2:34 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
 |
|
| Quote: | | Think its time to expand the historic village district then so that this area is included or we will loose another historic building |
Oh please God no. We just shrunk the historic district down. 10 years ago every ranch house in town had to go before HPAC because the historic district basically covered everything in the village including entire neighborhoods built in the 1960's and 70's. Before calling for encasing Cranbury in Amber, find out exactly how old that house is. It may be younger than you think. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 2:50 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
It is across from Cranbury Green. There is no retail on Main Street it it will be residential on Main street and not be out of place for what is across the street. I know you hate losing the historic character of shattered green houses and a large concrete block building without windows. |
I think you missed the first message, no one is proposing to keep the Green Houses, just what to do once they are demoed.
| Quote: | | If the TC took more care to protect the future growth of the village area they would want to balance the look of the houses on the both sides and extend the village character out to south main, while making a bigger village. Houses should be build like the ones across the street, and the village would be extended with consistent architecture. Then restaurants could move into those houses as business and demand increases over time in our village naturally, just like restaurants can today in North Main. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 7:48 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
It is across from Cranbury Green. There is no retail on Main Street it it will be residential on Main street and not be out of place for what is across the street. I know you hate losing the historic character of shattered green houses and a large concrete block building without windows. |
I think you missed the first message, no one is proposing to keep the Green Houses, just what to do once they are demoed.
| Quote: | | If the TC took more care to protect the future growth of the village area they would want to balance the look of the houses on the both sides and extend the village character out to south main, while making a bigger village. Houses should be build like the ones across the street, and the village would be extended with consistent architecture. Then restaurants could move into those houses as business and demand increases over time in our village naturally, just like restaurants can today in North Main. |
|
Not true. Someone in this topic specifically proposed historically preserving the site, which does mean keeping the Green Houses and has nothing to do with what to do after they are removed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 9:27 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Here is a concept. Show up at a meeting and see what they are doing. These plans are in their very early stages. They really do not resemble what is being described here. There is so much misinformation that I do not know where to begin. Get the story straight, then begin posting. |
ok here is your chance to straighten us out if you know so much |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 11:03 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Here is a concept. Show up at a meeting and see what they are doing. These plans are in their very early stages. They really do not resemble what is being described here. There is so much misinformation that I do not know where to begin. Get the story straight, then begin posting. |
ok here is your chance to straighten us out if you know so much |
Why? I like it when you make things up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 11:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
| The greenhouses are long gone |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 19 2011, 12:32 am EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
that person was me and i was talking about saving the historic yellow house, not the greenhouses. look at the link i attached to original post for the picture.
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
It is across from Cranbury Green. There is no retail on Main Street it it will be residential on Main street and not be out of place for what is across the street. I know you hate losing the historic character of shattered green houses and a large concrete block building without windows. |
I think you missed the first message, no one is proposing to keep the Green Houses, just what to do once they are demoed.
| Quote: | | If the TC took more care to protect the future growth of the village area they would want to balance the look of the houses on the both sides and extend the village character out to south main, while making a bigger village. Houses should be build like the ones across the street, and the village would be extended with consistent architecture. Then restaurants could move into those houses as business and demand increases over time in our village naturally, just like restaurants can today in North Main. |
|
Not true. Someone in this topic specifically proposed historically preserving the site, which does mean keeping the Green Houses and has nothing to do with what to do after they are removed. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat, Feb 19 2011, 8:58 am EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | that person was me and i was talking about saving the historic yellow house, not the greenhouses. look at the link i attached to original post for the picture.
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
It is across from Cranbury Green. There is no retail on Main Street it it will be residential on Main street and not be out of place for what is across the street. I know you hate losing the historic character of shattered green houses and a large concrete block building without windows. |
I think you missed the first message, no one is proposing to keep the Green Houses, just what to do once they are demoed.
| Quote: | | If the TC took more care to protect the future growth of the village area they would want to balance the look of the houses on the both sides and extend the village character out to south main, while making a bigger village. Houses should be build like the ones across the street, and the village would be extended with consistent architecture. Then restaurants could move into those houses as business and demand increases over time in our village naturally, just like restaurants can today in North Main. |
|
Not true. Someone in this topic specifically proposed historically preserving the site, which does mean keeping the Green Houses and has nothing to do with what to do after they are removed. |
|
"Think its time to expand the historic village district then so that this area is included..."
The above quote suggests "expanding" the "historic district" as opposed to presevering a single house to "this area" as opposed to a single house. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
