To the editor:
With respect to the Feedback which appeared under the title “Union Hotel Redevelopment Will Restore Confidence” in the Hunterdon County Democrat’s Jan. 26 print edition, I’d like to counter that the ever-growing number of citizens protesting the demolition of a full square block in Flemington’s Historic Downtown are not clueless about “the economics and other factors upon which reasoned decisions are made.”
They are not being fueled by “well-intentioned pure emotion.”
Actually, it’s quite the opposite.
Flemington has a Master Plan for its future. It was developed by Clarke Caton Hintz, a top regional planning and architecture firm under retainer by the borough.
Extensive input was sought from residents, businesses, commercial property owners, borough officials, developers and the wider community. It was adopted in August 2015 by the Planning Board and Borough Council.
South Street Seaport, Ellis Island a blueprint for Union Hotel
So Flemington has already paid good money for a “reasoned decision” on how best to move forward. The problem is that the designated redeveloper would prefer to write his own rules and dictate them to an ill-informed and seemingly desperate Redevelopment Committee.
Flemington’s approved Master Plan for the 4-acre Union Hotel block proposes 51 stacked flats, 90 luxury apartments, an operational Union Hotel, structured parking, 13,500-square-feet of retail, and 6,000-square-feet of restaurant and tavern space for the site.
Working from the Borough’s Master Plan, TerraNoble Design, P.A., developed a design study in 2014. This was funded by the Flemington Business Improvement District, the precursor to the current Flemington Community Partnership.
The TerraNoble vision for the Union Hotel block includes: A row of townhouses along Spring Street, at the back of the site across from Flemington Furs, and coming halfway up Chorister Place and a parking structure in the middle of the site.
The historic buildings would be restored and each one expanded back and over the top of the garage.
The first floors on Main Street would incorporate retail and restaurants, while the upper floors of the historic buildings would be residential — potentially a mix of hotel rooms, apartments, or condos.
A new building would be constructed on the now empty corner of Chorister Place, again, with retail on the first floor and residential above.
The Union Hotel would be expanded to include banquet and meeting rooms.
And all the new buildings would respect the height, scale and character of Main Street as it is now and has been for well over 100 years.
No one can say this vision isn’t comprehensive — the argument given for the failure of previous redevelopment efforts — and it is far more sensible for Flemington than the vastly over-scaled Cust plan, which includes a 100-room hotel for Diamond Nation visitors, 250 apartments, a HealthQuest satellite facility and a 900-car parking garage along with restaurants, retail space anchored by Flemington Furs, and a still-unnamed college within a complex of 7- and 8-story buildings.
Obsolete uses in town such as Liberty Village or Turntable Junction are the perfect place for this type of development.
As a borough property owner who successfully redeveloped a 19th century mixed use commercial building on Main Street, I firmly believe that redevelopment in keeping with the Master Plan, that builds on the unique historic character we have, and offers the greatest possibility for success.
This type of thoughtful redevelopment has been successfully implemented nationwide as well as locally. Lambertville, New Hope and Doylestown didn’t become successful by tearing down the center of their main streets, replacing them with characterless, oversized buildings.
They worked with and improved what they had, relied on their professionals to develop appropriate master plans, were forward thinking, understood that people value authenticity, and they’re thriving as a result.
There’s no reason that can’t happen here with proper leadership.
The last time a Request for Proposals was sent out to solicit developers was 2012, and it was for the hotel site only.
That exercise drew four proposals, including one for a hotel, which is what the town said it wanted.
Unfortunately, the developer selected had no experience developing anything and apparently was under-capitalized. Hotel development is a specialty in the development world and that was not a project to cut one’s teeth on. Council is at least partially at fault for not properly vetting the developer.
Since the “area in need of redevelopment” was dramatically expanded in 2014 to include the block to Chorister Place, no RFP has been sent and no other effort has been made to solicit other developers.
Prior to the unveiling of the Cust proposal in February 2016, four years passed without council sending an RFP, even when it was readily apparent as early as 2014 the last designated developer was not going to be able to move forward.
Council clearly fumbled the ball, had no back up plan, and continues to offer numerous feeble excuses for why they have not done what they were elected to do.
I request that council immediately develop an RFP and put it out for bid. Get input from multiple developers.
Further, consider that smaller, properly vetted developers working simultaneously on portions of the block is a far less risky proposition than signing with one developer to do a large, multi-phase project that may never come to fruition.
Trying to work backward from the “vision” a no-bid developer with no track record doing a project of the proposed scale or type wants to cram down this town’s throat is the wrong way to move forward.
Gary Schotland
Flemington
Our editors found this article on this site using Google and regenerated it for our readers.
