| Author |
Message |
| 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. |
|
 |
| 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. |
|
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 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 |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 2:21 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. |
I did make it to one meeting, they were all scheduled in middle of winter around the holiday season, but I also reviewed the master plan in detail, so I'm not sure what your point is. In the Cranbury master plan it even has example designs of what storefronts are acceptable as well as the specs for the zoning... and its not in character for what should be on main street in a historic village, IMHO. |
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. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 1:57 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
.. Anything remotely like this picture or a strip mall somewhere along Main St. would completely wreck it and intrude on the National Historic District. |
I agree, I am surprised that the Historic society and HPAC have not been fighting this. Protecting the village from a developer who wants to plop down a strip mall in the middle of a historic district is just the sort of thing they should be chartered to act upon. And as they build this commercial eye sore, the developer will even have to demolish an 18th century home on the site. What is the purpose of the historic society in Cranbury if its not to preserve 18th century homes and enhance the quaint village character for future generations?
http://goo.gl/maps/m6h8 |
Its outside of the historic district. |
Think its time to expand the historic village district then so that this area is included or we will loose another historic building |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 1:34 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. |
I did make it to one meeting, they were all scheduled in middle of winter around the holiday season, but I also reviewed the master plan in detail, so I'm not sure what your point is. In the Cranbury master plan it even has example designs of what storefronts are acceptable as well as the specs for the zoning... and its not in character for what should be on main street in a historic village, IMHO. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 1:19 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
| 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. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 1:15 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
18th century??? When was that house built? |
from the looks of it, sometime in 1840s to 1910s? |
So 19th or early 20th century. |
Point is that the historic society has been preserving and registering homes in this age range throughout the historic district for preservation,and even moving some homes that are threatened (like the Home next to park), what happened to this one? Why is this an exception? Is HPAC and HS asleep? |
They were all too busy dancing in their new red barn to even care about what south main street will turn into once the builders get their way. Both the white warehouse and florist buildings have been offensive to the Cranbury character ever since I've lived here. But I agree with you a long row of storefronts would also be offensive as I drive by that part of Cranbury. Plenty of places to live in NJ if you want that kind of thing near you, Cranbury village has a different feel that would be forever altered. Planning board should take example from places like Pennington, Allentown NJ, and even NewHope, New Town PA are better examples, rather then Robbinsville. Those places have been growing its downtown commerce without having developers build a stripmall in the middle of those historic districts. Robbinsville never had a historic area to care about what a huge mall would do to its character. What does the leadership at the historic preservation society have to say about these changes?? and what will they do? |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 12:48 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
18th century??? When was that house built? |
from the looks of it, sometime in 1840s to 1910s? |
So 19th or early 20th century. |
Point is that the historic society has been preserving and registering homes in this age range throughout the historic district for preservation,and even moving some homes that are threatened (like the Home next to park), what happened to this one? Why is this an exception? Is HPAC and HS asleep? |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 12:25 pm EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
18th century??? When was that house built? |
from the looks of it, sometime in 1840s to 1910s? |
So 19th or early 20th century. |
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Fri, Feb 18 2011, 11:52 am EST Post subject: Re: Why Strip Mall on South Main was approved |
|
| Guest wrote: |
18th century??? When was that house built? |
from the looks of it, sometime in 1840s to 1910s? |
|
|