The Fund for a Better Waterfront

October 2002

Stevens Institute's house of cards for Maxwell House collapses


 Rendering of Stevens Institute's proposal for Maxwell House created by Demetri Sarantitis of the Team for Environmental Architecture.

Was it just a pipe dream? For the past year, Stevens Institute has touted its elaborate plans for the former Maxwell House Coffee plant, 14 acres at Hoboken’s north waterfront. Stevens promised to establish a technology/science magnet school for grades six through twelve of the Hoboken public school system. Stevens much acclaimed Technogenesis business-incubator program was also to be located there. Stevens Institute promised to restore two of the old Maxwell House industrial buildings. They also proposed a new baseball field commemorating Elysian Fields, the home of the first baseball game. An early version of the plan called for only 250 residential units, far less than what the present developers of the site propose.

Demetri Sarantitis of the Team for Environmental Architecture drew appealing renderings and detailed plans for Stevens Institute. Stevens mailed out color brochures to Hoboken voters and took out full-page ads in the Hoboken Reporter. Mayor Roberts endorsed the plan as did many in his administration as well as community leaders.

But a year after Stevens President Harold Raveche first unveiled these plans for the Maxwell House property, the project has collapsed. The major obstacle for Stevens Institute has been that they do not own or control the site. Nor does Stevens have the capital required to buy into and develop the land, perhaps the most valuable piece of undeveloped real estate along New Jersey’s gold coast. The Stevens scheme relied heavily on using tens of millions of dollars in state funds for land acquisition as well as school and parkland construction, yet there has been no commitment to date to designate any government funds for this project.

The idea for creating a technology/science magnet school was one of the first pieces of the proposal that came apart for Stevens. There was considerable resistance within the Hoboken public school system for this idea that many believed would establish a two-tier school system, one for the more advance students and the other for the students who ranked behind academically, many of them being from minority and low-income families. Several months ago at a meeting with local officials and the developers in the office of U.S. Congressman Robert Menendez, the congressman voiced his strong opposition to the idea of a magnet school. Although the Hoboken public schools have already obtained from the state over $50 million to rehabilitate its aging schools and build new ones, it now appears unlikely that any of these funds will be spent at the Maxwell House site.

The investors who own the Maxwell House property may have found the Stevens’ proposal far too risky to consider. The Stevens’ project required a number of substantial variances which could provide the basis for the Planning or Zoning Board to reject the application. Stevens’ proposal for 17 and 15-story towers exceeded zoning limits of 125 feet (12 stories). The 250 parking spaces provided only a fraction of what the local ordinance requires. The school is not a permitted use in this zoning district. Currently, both Boards are not granting variances. Developers Daniel Gans and George Vallone’s Maxwell House project requires no zoning variances and thus, they feel, should be acceptable under the law. Ultimately, locating 700 middle and high school students in the exclusive Hudson Street neighborhood could also prove to be controversial.

For the past 14 months, the Gans and Vallone development application has followed a tortured path through the Hoboken Planning Board process. The Board is expected to make a decision on this project within the next several months. Their proposal is for a 1.4 million square foot development, including 982 residential units and 210,000 square feet of retail/commercial space. As part of this application, the developers have offered to donate to the City of Hoboken one-third of the land and piers for a five-acre public park which they would build at their own expense. But many have complained that Hoboken has suffered from too much development and that this project is too big. Mayor Roberts has appointed four new members to the Hoboken Planning Board, most of whom appear likely to vote in opposition to this project.

Since the Stevens project for Maxwell House is now considered defunct, opponents of the current application have recently sought to alter the zoning requirements for the site. After an attempt to change the zoning ordinance stalled, City Councilwoman Carol Marsh introduced a resolution to study the possibility of declaring the site a redevelopment area. The Hoboken City Council passed that resolution at their October 2 meeting. To resolve the impasse, the City is now considering an offer of a tax abatement to the developers in exchange for reducing the project's density.

 

Related Items:
   Stevens Offers Resolution to Parking Garage Saga November 2007
   Appellate Court negates bulk of Stevens' suit against FBW. FBW appealing to NJ Supreme Court asking for sanctions against Stevens. July 2007
   Appellate Court judges who ruled on a landmark zoning case hear oral arguments in FBW vs. Hoboken Zoning Board March 2006
   Court throws out final count of Stevens' case against FBW. 1st Amendment right to engage in public debate preserved. February 15 2005
   FBW files suit in Court claiming de facto rezoning by Hoboken Zoning Board for Stevens garage October 2004
   Judge Camille Kenny considers the evidence in Stevens Institute v. FBW July 2004
   Geologist testifies that drilling and blasting of serpentine rock at Stevens created public health peril February 2004
   Garage hearings tainted due to Stevens hiring brother of Zoning Board Chair February 2004
   Roof garden withers at first hearing for 725-car waterfront garage January 2004
   Stevens pushes forward with plans for mega-garage on Hoboken's waterfront October 2003
   Stevens Institute attempts to silence FBW through frivolous defamation lawsuit February 20 2003
   Waterfront group supports stop-work order February 15, 2003
   Stevens' campus master plan has new firm advocating same old projects January 2003
   Stevens seeking Planning Board approval for parking garage under construction for past six months September 2002
   Was illegal permit granted to Stevens Institute for parking garage? City of Hoboken to decide July 2002
   Stevens' proposals negate Hoboken's opportunity for continuous waterfront park March 2002

Community Response:
   Zoning Board didn't 'ask the right questions' by Hank Forrest
   Relentless overdevelopment continues by Greg Ribot
   Stevens skips chance to make case for garage by Helen Manogue, Doris China, Alice Crozier, Ken Geraghty, Paul Neshamkin, and Bill Tobias
   Don't let Stevens reverse progress on our waterfront by Ron Hine, Fund for a Better Waterfront
   Stevens and Hoboken by Elizabeth Glatt
   Re: Stevens and the garage by Hank Forrest
   Stevens' 'arrogance' caused quite a stir at Planning Board meeting by Ron Hine
   New parking garage or destruction to view of waterfront by Aaron Lewit
   I recognize a good project when I see it by Ricky Mason
   The Fall from Grace by Peter Rozano
   Consider Stevens waterfront plan carefully by Ann Wallace
   It simply feels right by Tom Schwartz
   Something stinks, and it's not the Hudson at low tide by Steve Trevisan
   This responsible development is just what Hoboken needs by Diane Daley
   Stevens plan may block waterfront community by Jason Burch
   A clearer picture by Randy Brummette

©1998-2000 Fund for a Better Waterfront