No offers made for free houses on Alexander Street

Two months ago, the University offered seven houses that it owns on Alexander Street free of charge to any buyer willing to incur the cost of transporting them to an alternate location by April 30. Since no one has yet taken them, the houses will be slated for demolition to make room for the construction of the new Arts and Transit Neighborhood.

In March, University spokesperson Martin Mbugua said that the University received inquiries about the houses from “as far [away] as California and Haiti.” However, no offers have been made.

Since no buyers have been willing to move the houses, the University plans to bulldoze them in the upcoming weeks, Mbugua said.

He said that the homes needed “significant work before anyone could live in them.” The feasibility and cost of relocation were largely unknown and very few contractors in the area have the required insurance to move the buildings, The Daily Princetonian reported in February.

The Princeton Historic Preservation Commission expressed interest in preserving the houses, but could not acquire the necessary funds to relocate them since the houses are not located in the designated historic district, historic preservation officer Christine Lewandoski said.

Out of what she described as concern for the architectural value of the homes and the “historic fabric” of her community, Princeton resident Kip Cherry said in March that the University should undertake the relocation itself and move the homes en masse to a basin at the end of Alexander Street. The University could then make the homes available to faculty or staff at reduced mortgage rates, Cherry said at the time.

However, the University did not consider this alternative, Mbugua said.

The houses, which were built in the 19th century, “represent a period of growth in the Princeton area that came with the construction of the canal,” Cherry said in an interview this week.

“These houses were not grand houses of great wealth,” Cherry added. “They belonged to people who economically benefitted from the infrastructure of the time and probably were employed by the canal.”

According to Cherry and Lewandoski, the homes are part and parcel of a bygone era invaluable to Princeton’s municipal development and growth. Both said they were disappointed that offers to move them did not emerge and that the University was not considering options other than demolition.

Cherry noted the University’s long legacy of moving buildings in the past to make room for new construction projects and said she felt it was feasible for the University to consider alternatives to the full destruction of the homes.