Battle Brewing Over Institute's Plan for Faculty Housing

It seems like simple enough proposal.

The Institute for Advanced Study on Einstein Drive wants to build 15 houses and townhouses on a parcel of land it owns adjacent to the Institute.

A lack of available land and skyrocketing home prices means fewer faculty and visiting scholars live within walking distance of the campus, an integral part of the Institute experience, said Director Peter Goddard. 

Founded in 1930, the Institute fosters research into fundamental problems in the sciences and humanities. Albert Einstein was one of the Institute's first faculty members and J. Robert Oppenheimer, who led a team in the creation of the atomic bomb, was a former director.

Thirty years ago, more than 60 percent of faculty and scholars lived within walking distance; today that number is 28 percent, Goddard said.

The Institute will outline its proposal at a meeting of the Princeton Regional Planning Board on Thursday at 7:30 p.m. at the Princeton Township Municipal Complex, 400 Witherspoon Street.

The Institute will not request any variances or special exceptions, Goddard said.

So what’s the problem?

The site of the proposed development sits between the Institute and the Princeton Battlefield State Park.

Members of the Princeton Battlefield Society point to a study that concludes George Washington’s counterattack against the British happened on the very land upon which the Institute wants to build.

“They’re planning to build on one of the most historic spots in the American Revolution,” said Jerry Hurwitz, president of the Princeton Battlefield Society."It was Washington’s first victory over the British Regulars. He was able to gain these two victories over the British, absolutely outfoxing them and running a really brilliant campaign. It was considered a turning point in the American Revolution.”

Hurwitz says the land upon which the Insititue wants to build contains military artifacts found during an archeological survey.

“These are musket balls that hit somebody or objects implying casualties consistent with accounts left by soldiers,” he said, noting the original battlefield park proposal in the 1940’s was included the proposed housing site, but the Institute opposed it. Now he wants the state to buy the land and incorporate it into Battlefield Park.

But Goddard says only 52 military artifacts, mostly musket balls, were found over a 25-acre tract of land, compared to more than 700 pieces of agricultural artifacts, like nails, screws and pieces of farm equipment.

“There is no evidence which establishes that there was any intense level of activity on this ground,” Goddard said. “Of course, that’s not the issue on which the board is ruling. It’s not ruling on whether the battle took place here or not. Those are issues whose relevance is decided are other ways. Nobody can actually decide if it actually took place there. But what has been decided is what is the status of all this from historic preservation. That has been decided in other forums.”

Over the years, the Institute has acquired about 800 acres of land, including a tract on the other side of Battlefield Park it once planned to use for faculty housing. But when the state asked to purchase that land for Park expansion, the Institute agreed in exchange for the plot upon which it now plans to build, Goddard said. 

Nearly 600 acres of the Institute’s land is now preserved as open space, Goddard said. Besides the land in question, he said there is no other possible location for faculty housing at the Institute.

The plan the Institute will present on Thursday is a revision of a concept plan it first brought forward in 2003. Based upon feedback at the time, the current plan clusters the housing on smaller lots and includes townhouses. It also includes a 200-foot buffer between the Battlefield Park and the proposed development, said John Masten, the Institute's associate director. 

In addition to faculty housing, the Institute also wants to help create detailed signs and audio tours for Battlefield Park, along with a path to connect the Park with the Institute, Masten said. 

Goddard said the Institute has tried to meet with the Princeton Battlefield Society, but the invitation was rebuffed. Hurwitz acknowledged the invitation, but said it was conditioned on the Battlefield Society agreeing that the Institute had a right to build on the site.

“That to me is not a good faith effort to sit down and negotiate,” Hurwitz said. "We believe it’s illegal for them to build, that they’re not in compliance with the law."