GREYSTONE PARK HOSPITAL
MAIN BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT
FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT
PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, NJ
Prepared for:
State O...
TABLE OF CONTENTS
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................
0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey.
...
SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING
The RBA report documents a total of 678,725 SF for the Main Building, with a footprint of 15...
Retail Market Potential
Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, ...
windows. This represents the majority of the building stabilization activities that will be performed by
the State during ...
Alternative 2: Historic Rehabilitation for Mixed-Use
This alternative attempts to minimize the housing count (2.0 dwelling...
CONTINGENT FEASIBILITY
Based on current market conditions and on the assumptions detailed above, financing gap ranges from...
1. INTRODUCTION
The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey.
Desig...
Figure 1: Sections of the Main Building
***
This report is organized in these following six sections:
- Introduction
- Dem...
2. DEMOGRAPHICS
The Greystone Hospital is located in the Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. For the purposes of the following...
The number of households and housing units in Parsippany Township grew by 3% between 2000 and 2010.
Most of the housing un...
3. MARKET ANALYSIS
FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET
The for-sale housing market was analyzed for Parsippany Township and nearby mun...
In addition to condominiums, the consultant team utilized information obtained from Win2Data to examine
the sales activity...
RENTAL HOUSING MARKET
According to the 2011 ACS, rental housing represents 31% of the housing market in the five municipal...
Figure 4: Major Apartment Complexes Near Greystone
Highlands at Morris Plains Highlands at Morristown Station
Sterling Par...
utilities except for water/sewer, and parking permits cost $100 per month. At the time this report was
written, vacancy in...
ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MARKET
Though services offered at assisted living facilities vary greatly from one facility to an...
OFFICE MARKET
To identify the Main Building’s potential for new professional office development, as well as rents that cou...
In addition to Mack Cali properties, an additional 424,000 SF of available Class-A and Class-B office space
was identified...
Conclusion: Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, development of new office space in the Main
Building appears u...
EVENTS VENUE
Historic properties are popular venues for wedding and other formal events. Shown below in Figure 7 are six
o...
HOTEL/LODGING MARKET
Using data obtained from Smith Travel Research, the consultant team analyzed the performance of 23 ho...
SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL
The following is a summary of market potential for the various uses examined in this section. ...
Events Space Market Potential
Historic wedding/formal event venues are in high demand in Morris County, commanding rates
f...
4. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT
INTRODUCTION
The Main Building of the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark struc...
claim the tax credit. Given that it has been determined eligible, listing should be relatively
straightforward.1
The proje...
Applicants should know that the NJHPO and NPS staff may not agree on the interpretation of the Standards
for a given proje...
Samuel Sloan worked as a carpenter in Philadelphia from the mid-1830s. He labeled himself an architect in
1851 after recei...
Kirkbride’s theories determined the layout of the buildings and property, resulting in a Main Building with a
linear plan ...
Additional buildings were constructed to supplement the operation of the Main Building. A building
containing an interconn...
Photo 5. Laundry portion of the rear Services Building, 2012, view
south.
Photo 6. Laundry portion of the rear Services Bu...
The following is a brief chronology of events and changes to the Main Building and rear Services Building
since their cons...
1991: Some remediation of biological materials on the upper floors of the south wing.
1996: Environmental analysis and rem...
Figure 11. State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown, NJ, now known as Greystone Park, c. 1877. (Source: Preserve Greyston...
Photo 8. Façade, typical tier, north wing, 2012, view northwest.
Note at floors 1, 2, and 3, single windows often denote p...
Photo 11. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012, view northeast. This photo shows wood chair rails and baseboards, curved
doo...
Photo 13. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012. Examples of wood doors and transoms, open and closed, in the north
wing.
Pho...
Photo 15. Marble fireplace surround, Administration Building, 2012.
Photo 16. Stair from first to second floor, Tier 1, so...
Photo 17. Double stair from second to third floor, Center Rear, 2012, view northwest. Note the wood wainscot and
decorativ...
Photo 19. Typical wood window seat, 2012.
Photo 20. Chapel, 2012, view northwest. Note the decorative paint and stencilwor...
Photo 21. Chapel, 2012, view north. Detail of the decorative paint and stencilwork.
Photo 22. Assembly Room, 2012, view so...
Photo 23. Assembly Room, 2012, view southeast. Note the wood wainscot and trim and the paneled ceiling with modillion
corn...
Exterior Walls
The exterior of the Main Building largely consists of gneiss stone elevations with sandstone trim (quoins,
...
Photo 25. Brick addition, north of the Chapel, 2012, view southeast.
Photo 26. Brick kitchen addition, between the Chapel ...
Photo 27. North wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast, showing typical areas of missing mortar, as well as areas in good
cond...
Photo 29. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view southwest. Detail showing the loss of stone below the missing stucco panel above
...
Photo 31. South wing, terminus of Tier 4, 2012, view southeast. This view clearly shows the relationship between the faile...
Photo 33. Façade, north wing, Tier 2, 2012, view northwest. Ivy has established itself on this elevation, particularly at ...
Roofs
Roofs on the north and south wings consist of asphalt shingled flat-topped hipped roofs with arched vented
dormers (...
Photo 36. Roofs, south wing, 2012, view west. Deterioration is particularly evident at the flat tops of Tiers 1, 3, and 4....
Photo 38. Rear bathroom addition, north wing, Tier 3, 2012,
view south. Note the aluminum siding where the roof remains.
P...
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Greystone   feasibility assessment report (final)
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

1,051 views

Published on

The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in the field of mental health treatment, Greystone’s Main Building has been a stately presence for over 130 years.

The objective of this project was to assess if there are viable options for redeveloping the Main Building in an
economically self sustaining manner.

Published in: Design, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,051
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
6
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
16
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

  1. 1. GREYSTONE PARK HOSPITAL MAIN BUILDING REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS, NJ Prepared for: State Of New Jersey Department Of The Treasury Division Of Property Management And Construction Prepared by: Urban Partners with KSK Architects Planners Historians URS Corporation , 2013 Final Report
  2. 2. TABLE OF CONTENTS 0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................... PAGE 1 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... PAGE 7 CURRENT CONDITION OF THE MAIN BUILDING ..................................................... PAGE 7 SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING ....................................................................... PAGE 7 2. DEMOGRAPHICS....................................................................................................... PAGE 9 3. MARKET ANALYSIS.................................................................................................... PAGE 11 FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET............................................................................... PAGE 11 RENTAL HOUSING MARKET ................................................................................. PAGE 13 ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MARKET....................................................................... PAGE 16 OFFICE MARKET ................................................................................................. PAGE 17 RETAIL MARKET .................................................................................................. PAGE 19 EVENTS VENUE ................................................................................................... PAGE 20 HOTEL/LODGING MARKET................................................................................... PAGE 21 SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL........................................................................ PAGE 22 4. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT ................................................................................... PAGE 24 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. PAGE 24 HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX INCENTIVES PROGRAM ............................................. PAGE 24 THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION...................... PAGE 26 SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF GREYSTONE PARK ...................... PAGE 26 PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................... PAGE 32 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES ......................................................................... PAGE 32 SUMMARY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT ............................. PAGE 41 TREATMENT PHILOSOPHY ................................................................................... PAGE 62 TREATMENT RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................... PAGE 69 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................... PAGE 72 5. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT ...................................................... PAGE 73 6. REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES................................................................................. PAGE 74 INTERIM BUILDING STABILIZATION & DEMOLITION................................................. PAGE 75 SITE IMPROVEMENTS ........................................................................................... PAGE 75 DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES .............................. PAGE 76 ALTERNATIVE 1: HISTORIC REHAB FOR APARTMENTS .............................................. PAGE 81 ALTERNATIVE 2: HISTORIC REHAB FOR MIXED-USE ................................................. PAGE 87 ALTERNATIVE 3: HISTORIC REHAB FOR LARGER APARTMENTS; CONDO CONVERT ...... PAGE 92 7. CONTINGENT FEASIBILITY .......................................................................................... PAGE 98 TECHNIQUES TO REDUCE DEVELOPMENT COSTS .................................................... PAGE 98 ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL INCENTIVES..................................................................... PAGE 100 EXPANDED ON-SITE DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................... PAGE 102 CONCLUSIONS FOR PROJECT FEASIBILITY ............................................................... PAGE 103 APPENDIX A: STAKEHOLDERS INTERVIEWED ....................................................................... PAGE 104 APPENDIX B: CONDO SALES IN THE STUDY AREA, 2010-2012 ............................................ PAGE 105 APPENDIX C: RENTAL MARKET INVENTORY........................................................................ PAGE 107 APPENDIX D: SECRETARY'S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION ............................................. PAGE 108
  3. 3. 0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in the field of mental health treatment, Greystone’s Main Building has been a stately presence for over 130 years. After decades of dwindling use, the New Jersey Division of Mental Health vacated the Main Building in 2008 and relocated the hospital to a new 450-bed facility just north of the Main Building. Since then, the State’s Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) has been charged with the building’s care and planning for its future. The objective of this project is to assess if there are viable options for redeveloping the Main Building in an economically self sustaining manner. While the State of New Jersey is concurrently working with another consultant team (led by the RBA Group) to evaluate its options for the entire 90.04-acre Greystone Hospital site, this study is limited to the redevelopment potential of the Main Building only. For the purpose of facilitating the feasibility analysis, the State of New Jersey retained the consultant team consisting of Urban Partners, KSK Architects Planners Historians, and URS Corporation. CURRENT CONDITION OF THE MAIN BUILDING According to the Demolition and Site Restoration Advisory Study by the RBA Group, the structural condition of the Main Building ranges from good to failed condition. The major contributor to the continuing deterioration of the structure is the failure of the roof system, particularly on the north wing. Other contributors to the deteriorated condition of the building are the “lack of climate control, vandalism, and age.” Furthermore, the report states that asbestos containing materials (such as thermal system insulation, floor tiles, cove molding, window glazing, some of the wall plaster) are prevalent throughout the Main Building. Figure A. Photograph of the Administration section of the Main Building (left), 2012; and a current birds-eye view of the site (right). Independent of future decisions made based the findings of this study (i.e. the potential redevelopment of the Main Building), the State of New Jersey is planning to remove all asbestos containing materials from the Main Building, and demolish the existing underground tunnel system and all ancillary buildings that surround the Main Building. The RBA report estimates the cost of remediating asbestos containing materials in the Main Building, and demolishing the tunnel system, at $6.49 million. The feasibility analysis in this report is intended to assist the State of New Jersey determine the best course of action for the Main Building once the preliminary demolition and environmental remediation activities have been completed.
  4. 4. SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING The RBA report documents a total of 678,725 SF for the Main Building, with a footprint of 155,525 SF. The total square footage tally includes 155,525 SF of basement space. For the purpose of this study, the various sections of the Main Building will be described as the following: Administration, Center Rear, Kitchen, Services Building, North Wing, South Wing, and Brick Additions (see Figure B). Figure B: Sections of the Main Building SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL The consultant team conducted a comprehensive market analysis to identify the range of market opportunities that exist for the redevelopment of the Main Building. For each potential use examined, the consultant team assessed regional socioeconomic characteristics and trends that may influence market demand at this site. The following is a summary of market potential for the various uses examined in this section. To the extent possible, specific sections within the Main Building are matched with appropriate uses. Sales Housing Market Potential We estimate that newly built townhomes with 1,700 to 2,000 SF of living space can command prices of $240 per SF (or $408,000 to $480,000). Newly rehabbed condominium units in the Main Building, furnished with high-end amenities, can command prices of $250 per SF. The estimated absorption rate for townhomes and condominiums is two units per month. Rental Housing Market Potential We estimate that newly built apartments in the Main Building with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units furnished with high-end amenities can command rents from $1,500 to $2,500 per month. Rental housing can work in almost every section of the building, including the basement which can capture the price sensitive segment of the market. Assisted Living Facility Market Potential Sufficient demand exists to support a new assisted living facility in the Main Building. The optimal size for such a property would be approximately 100 beds (~ 45,000 SF of building space). The most appropriate location for this use is on southernmost section of the south wing. Office Market Potential Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, additional development of office space in the Main Building appears unlikely at this time. However, a modest amount of smaller professional offices, as part of a mixed-use development consisting primarily of residential uses, may be included. The most appropriate location for this use is on the first floor or the first two floors of Center Rear section, underneath the chapel.
  5. 5. Retail Market Potential Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, as well as the poor access to major highways, opportunities for new retail development in the Main Building are very limited. Events Space Market Potential There is sufficient demand to anticipate booking 70 to 75 weddings/formal events annually in the chapel and large hall, with at least half of these at near top-of-the-market in-season rates. A greater competitive advantage can be attained if a portion of the building can be reused as a bed and breakfast, in which case an overnight package can include a bridal suite and additional guest rooms. Hotel and Lodging Market Potential Significant opportunities exist for new hotel development in the area (approximately 100 to 120 additional rooms in the next few years). The Main Building would be an attractive site for a smaller historic inn or a boutique hotel (between 40-45 rooms) that relates closely to a banqueting venue on-site. The most appropriate location for this use is the Administration section. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT As part of this feasibility study, KSK undertook preliminary and informal consultation with representatives of the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office and the National Park Service regarding the potential of the rehabilitation project as proposed to qualify for the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives. Those conversations indicate that a substantial rehabilitation of the Main Building, accommodating primarily residential use and following the approach outlined in this report would likely receive the support of those two agencies. As stated in the HSR, the circulation corridors, selective demolition, window retention and restoration versus replacement, and other topics discussed in the “Treatment Recommendations” section will likely be the most difficult issues to contend with under the Tax Incentive program. The successful resolution of these issues will be prerequisite for the rehabilitation qualifying for the credits. While NPS representatives have not seen the alternative layouts developed in this feasibility study, we believe that treatment of the corridors as shown in Alternatives 1 and 2 will meet with approval from these agencies. Alternative 3, with its truncated corridors, may not. We believe that updating the building to meet current life-safety, building, accessibility, and energy codes can be accomplished in compliance with the Standards. Potential redevelopers should recognize that the Main Building will present significant restoration challenges, that in order to qualify for the tax credits certain substantial restrictions will be placed on the scope and direction of the rehabilitation, but that the value of the tax credit will more than offset those challenges. UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT The following are a set of underlying assumptions from which the consultant team designed the redevelopment alternatives for the Main Building. These assumptions were compiled based on guidance from the State of New Jersey, feedback from various stakeholders who were interviewed during the study, and professional analyses performed by the consultant team. Currently, state law requires any surplus properties in the Greystone campus to be transferred to the county for preservation, conservation, and recreation purposes only. In order to pursue other redevelopment scenarios, an amendment to this legislation may need to be adopted by the State Legislature. Prior to disposition of the property to a redeveloper, the state will undertake the cleanup of asbestos containing materials and tunnel demolition at a cost of $6.5 million. The redeveloper will be asked to reimburse the state for those costs. For the purpose of minimizing further building deterioration from rainwater penetration, we assume that the State will immediately install a tarp over the damaged areas of the roof and board open
  6. 6. windows. This represents the majority of the building stabilization activities that will be performed by the State during the holding period before which the Main Building will be fully transferred to the redeveloper. In order to receive funding through the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program, all portions of the Main Building that predates the period of significance (circa 1913) must be preserved. Under all redevelopment alternatives considered, we recommend demolishing the Kitchen building and one-story “wings” of the Brick Additions, both of which were erected after the period of significance concluded. Due to the implications arising from a recent Third Circuit Court decision (Historic Boardwalk Hall, LLC v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue), the historic preservation tax credit equity yield is to be estimated at 16.5% yield on the 20% tax credit. Historically, 18.5% to 19% yield had been typical in the industry prior to the court decision. For all redevelopment alternatives considered in this report, Parsippany-Troy Hills Township will need to establish new zoning for the site. Current zoning in the area is low-density residential (single-family detached homes on 80,000 SF lots). The Parsippany-Troy Hills Township Master Plan Reexamination Report of 2004 acknowledges the potential redevelopment of the site and the need for the Township to stay actively involved in the planning for the possible reuse of the facility. We assume that Parsippany Township will impose a 1.5% fee on equalized assessed value of residential development to meet its affordable housing obligations (as specified in the Township code § 225-86). The redeveloper will be responsible for obtaining new zoning for the site from the Township, as well as all other regulatory approvals from the Township, Morris County, and other jurisdictions. All construction costs are estimated using prevailing wage rates for the local area. The State owns and operates a sewage treatment facility nearby that is currently experiencing a large amount of excess capacity. However, in order for a privately owned property to utilize this treatment facility, a cooperative agreement between the redeveloper, the local jurisdiction, and the State will have to be established. REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES Based on the analyses documented above, we assess here three alternative approaches to reuse of the Greystone Main Building complex. In developing and analyzing these alternatives, we have focused on mixes of uses that arise from the market opportunities discussed above. Only one of these uses—rental housing— offers a large enough demand to utilize the bulk of the Main Building economically. Alternative 1: Historic Rehabilitation for Apartments This presents the highest level of preservation as well as the highest density of residential development (3.5 dwelling units per acre). The corridors are preserved intact at the north wing on all tiers and at all levels including their full width, as well as the large windows at both ends that provide natural light; corridors remain open to the mid-corridor parlors to the east. The Chapel and the Assembly Room are used as an income generating event venue accommodating up to 150 people. 315 units of rental housing (553,000 SF of gross space) Wedding/event facility (17,000 SF) Residual storage/mechanical space in the basement (100,000 SF) Surface parking (600 spaces) Development Cost Sources of Funds - Environmental Remediation $6,500,000 - First Mortgage Debt $68,200,000 - Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Economic Equity $17,000,000 - Sitework/Utilities $6,600,000 - Historic Tax Credit Equity $16,225,000 - Building Rehab $67,975,000 Total $101,425,000 - Contingency (10%) $7,950,000 - Soft Costs $18,550,000 Funding Gap $11,075,000 Total $112,500,000
  7. 7. Alternative 2: Historic Rehabilitation for Mixed-Use This alternative attempts to minimize the housing count (2.0 dwelling units per acre) to bring the residential density level in line with likely local zoning regulations. It also maximizes the utilization of the complex by non-residential activities–including a 100-bed assisted living facility, expanded office space, and a bed and breakfast facility to complement the event space in the Chapel and Assembly Room. 181 units of rental housing (421,000 SF of gross space) Assisted living facility (45,000 SF) Wedding/event facility (17,000 SF) Bed & breakfast Inn (25,000 SF) Professional office (12,000 SF) Residual storage/mechanical space in the basement (150,000 SF) Surface parking (600 spaces) Development Cost Sources of Funds - Environmental Remediation $6,500,000 - First Mortgage Debt $49,000,000 - Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Economic Equity $13,500,000 - Sitework/Utilities $6,600,000 - Historic Tax Credit Equity $14,775,000 - Building Rehab $60,325,000 Total $77,275,000 - Contingency (10%) $7,175,000 - Soft Costs $17,500,000 Funding Gap $25,750,000 Total $103,025,000 Alternative 3: Historic Rehabilitation for Larger Apartments; Convert to Condominiums This alternative describes the development of larger apartment units which can be converted to for-sale condominiums after the 5-year historic tax credit holding period has expired. The orientation to larger units will also reduce the unit count (2.2 dwelling units per acre), a reported consideration of local officials. The event venue is eliminated and the Chapel and Assembly Room are both converted to residential use. 199 units of rental housing (520,000 SF of gross space) Residual storage/mechanical space in the basement (150,000 SF) Surface parking (600 spaces) Development Cost Sources of Funds - Environmental Remediation $6,500,000 - First Mortgage Debt $68,000,000 - Building Stabilization $4,925,000 - Economic Equity $12,000,000 - Sitework/Utilities $6,600,000 - Historic Tax Credit Equity $15,500,000 - Building Rehab $64,050,000 Total $95,500,000 - Contingency (10%) $7,550,000 - Soft Costs $17,750,000 Funding Gap $11,875,000 Total $107,375,000 SUMMARY OF FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY Based on the project constraints described in the Underlying Assumptions for Redevelopment section, the financial analysis of the three alternatives lead to the following conclusions about project feasibility: Alternative 1: Infeasible - Total sources of financing equal $101.425 million, which is insufficient to meet the $112.5 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 1 is $11.075 million. Alternative 2: Infeasible - Total sources of financing equal $77.275 million, which is insufficient to meet the $103.025 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 2 is $25.75 million. Alternative 3: Infeasible - Total sources of financing equal $95.5 million, which is insufficient to meet the $107.375 million in estimated development costs. The financing gap for Alternative 3 is $11.875 million.
  8. 8. CONTINGENT FEASIBILITY Based on current market conditions and on the assumptions detailed above, financing gap ranges from $11.075 million to $25.75 million, depending on the alternative. There are, however, a number of supportive techniques which could be utilized to bridge this financing gap. These techniques have been employed previously to achieve financial feasibility for a variety of important historic properties. These techniques can generally be considered in three broad groupings: 1. Investments aimed at reducing development costs for the private redeveloper; 2. Provision of financial incentives to the redeveloper to encourage a larger private investment; and 3. Creation of additional economic value on the property by permitting new construction on vacant portions of the parcel. The potential net impacts on the financing gap by utilizing these techniques range from $3.35 million to $30 million.
  9. 9. 1. INTRODUCTION The Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Designed by Samuel Sloan based on the concepts of Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride who was a pioneer in the field of mental health treatment, Greystone’s Main Building has been a stately presence for over 130 years. After decades of dwindling use, the New Jersey Division of Mental Health vacated the Main Building in 2008 and relocated the hospital to a new 450-bed facility just north of the Main Building. Since then, the State’s Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) has been charged with the building’s care and planning for its future. The objective of this project is to assess if there are viable options for redeveloping the Main Building in an economically self sustaining manner. While the State of New Jersey is concurrently working with the RBA Group to evaluate its options for the entire 90-acre Greystone Hospital site, this study is limited to the redevelopment potential of the Main Building’s only. For the purpose of facilitating the feasibility analysis, the State of New Jersey retained the consultant team consisting of Urban Partners, KSK Architects Planners Historians, and URS Corporation. To familiarize itself with the building layout and the current physical condition, the consultant team conducted an inspection of the Main Building on November 2, 2012. In addition, previously prepared studies and reports were reviewed, including: the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, Demolition & Site Restoration, Advisability Study (2012) by the RBA Group, the Greystone Psychiatric Hospital Facilities Assessment & Analysis (1999) by Grad Associates; the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital Preservation Master Plan (1998) by Building Conservation Associates, and the Main Building Facility Evaluation (1996) by Burton R. Appel Architects. The consultant team also interviewed and/or solicited input from the following individuals representing various stakeholder groups. The names of individuals interviewed are listed in Appendix A. CURRENT CONDITION OF THE MAIN BUILDING According to the Demolition and Site Restoration Advisory Study by the RBA Group, the structural condition of the Main Building ranges from good to failed condition. The major contributor to the continuing deterioration of the structure is the failure of the roof system, particularly on the north wing. Other contributors to the deteriorated condition of the building are the “lack of climate control, vandalism, and age.” The RBA report also documents the extent of environmental contamination in the Main Building. It states that asbestos containing materials (such as thermal system insulation, floor tiles, cove molding, window glazing, some of the wall plaster) are prevalent throughout the Main Building. The report estimates the cost of remediating asbestos containing materials in the Main Building at $4.56 million. Independent of future decisions made based the findings of this study (i.e. the potential redevelopment of the Main Building), the State of New Jersey is planning to remove all asbestos containing materials from the Main Building, and demolish the existing underground tunnel system and all ancillary buildings that surround the Main Building. The feasibility analysis in this report is intended to assist the State of New Jersey determine the best course of action for the Main Building once the preliminary demolition and environmental remediation activities have been completed. SECTIONS OF THE MAIN BUILDING The RBA report documents a total of 678,725 SF for the Main Building, with a footprint of 155,525 SF. The total square footage tally includes 155,525 SF of basement space. For the purpose of this study, the various sections of the Main Building will be described as the following: Administration, Center Rear, Kitchen, Services Building, North Wing, South Wing, and Brick Additions (see Figure 1).
  10. 10. Figure 1: Sections of the Main Building *** This report is organized in these following six sections: - Introduction - Demographics - Market Analysis - Historic Structure Report - Underlying Assumptions for Redevelopment - Redevelopment Alternatives - Appendices
  11. 11. 2. DEMOGRAPHICS The Greystone Hospital is located in the Parsippany-Troy Hills Township. For the purposes of the following population and housing stock analyses, the Study Area includes the entire Parsippany-Troy Hills Township (Parsippany Township henceforth) and these adjacent municipalities: Morris Plains Borough, Morris Township, Town of Morristown, and Denville Township. According to the 2010 U.S. Census Report, the total population of Parsippany Township is 53,238, which is 5.1% larger than what was reported in the 2000 Census. Parsippany Township is the largest municipality within Morris County, comprising 10.8% of the total population (see Table 1). Table 1: Total Population in the Study Area, 2000 and 2010 Municipality Total Population 2000 Total Population 2010 Change in Population (%) Parsippany Twp. 50,649 53,238 5.1% Denville Twp. 15,824 16,635 5.1% Morris Twp. 21,796 22,306 2.3% Morris Plains Boro. 5,236 5,532 5.7% Town of Morristown 18,544 18,411 -0.7% Morris County 470,212 492,276 4.7% Source: U. S. Census Bureau There was an increase in the total number of households in Parsippany Township between 2000 and 2010, but at a slower rate than the rate of population increase. The number of households grew by 3.3% during this period, increasing the persons-per-household ratio from 2.58 to 2.63 (see Table 2). Table 2: Households Trends, 2000-2010 Municipality Total Households 2000 Total Households 2010 Change in Households (%) Parsippany Twp. 19,624 20,279 3.3% Denville Twp. 5,990 6,432 7.4% Morris Twp. 8,116 8,128 0.1% Morris Plains Boro. 1,955 2,131 9.0% Town of Morristown 7,252 7,417 2.3% Morris County 169,711 180,534 6.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau The North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority forecasts a slight population decrease for Parsippany Township in the next 25 years. NJTPA estimates that Parsippany Township will lose 434 people by the year 2035, which represents a change of -0.8% from 2010 to 2035. Among the municipalities examined, only the Town of Morristown is projected to outpace the population growth of the county (see Table 3). Table 3: Forecasted Population for the Study Area, 2010-2035 Municipality 2010 Census 2015 Forecast 2025 Forecast 2035 Forecast Absolute change 2010-2035 Percentage change 2010-2035 Parsippany Twp. 53,238 51,508 51,246 52,804 -434 -0.8% Denville Twp. 16,635 16,606 16,617 17,042 407 2.4% Morris Twp. 22,306 22,150 22,416 22,416 110 0.5% Morris Plains Boro. 5,532 5,085 4,976 5,875 343 6.2% Town of Morristown 18,411 20,193 20,148 22,218 3,807 20.7% Morris County 492,276 497,361 500,860 523,528 31,252 6.3% Source: North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority
  12. 12. The number of households and housing units in Parsippany Township grew by 3% between 2000 and 2010. Most of the housing units were occupied in 2010 (95%) but the number of vacant units more than doubled since 2000 (see Table 4). Table 4: Parsippany Township Households, Housing Units, and Tenure 2000 2000 (%) 2010 2010 (%) % Change (2000-2010) Households 19,624 – 20,279 – 3% Housing units 20,066 – 21,274 – 6% Occupied units 19,624 98% 20,279 95% 3% Vacant units 442 2% 995 5% 125% Owner occupied 11,867 60% 12,693 63% 7% Renter occupied 7,757 40% 7,586 37% -2% Source: U. S. Census Bureau The most reliable data for the Study Area’s household income come from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2007- 2011 American Community Survey (ACS), which reports that the median household income for Parsippany Township is $87,032. This represents a 28% increase between 2000 and 2011, but after adjusting for inflation, only a one-percent increase can be observed (see Table 5). Table 5: Median Household Income in 2000 and 2011 Municipality Median Household Income 2000 Median Household Income 2011 % Change 2000-2011 % Change 2000-2011 CPI Adjusted Parsippany Twp. $68,133 $87,032 28% 1% Denville Twp. $76,778 $107,866 40% 11% Morris Twp. $101,902 $132,267 30% 3% Morris Plains Boro. $84,806 $102,721 21% -4% Town of Morristown $57,563 $62,600 9% -14% Morris County $77,340 $98,148 27% 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau According to the 2011 ACS, 77% of Parsippany Township’s homes were built prior to 1970 and only 1% was added to the housing stock since 2005. The median year built for the homes located in Parsippany Township is 1967, which is one year older than the county as a whole (see Table 6). Table 6: Age of Housing Stock Municipality Parsippany Twp. Denville Twp. Morris Twp. Morris Plains Boro. Town of Morristown Morris County Built 2005 or later 1% 3% 1% 0% 3% 2% Built 2000 to 2004 5% 5% 1% 6% 4% 6% Built 1990 to 1999 7% 18% 13% 2% 5% 12% Built 1980 to 1989 9% 5% 16% 14% 10% 12% Built 1970 to 1979 19% 11% 11% 9% 12% 15% Built 1960 to 1969 29% 13% 23% 12% 12% 16% Built 1950 to 1959 17% 20% 17% 24% 12% 16% Built 1940 to 1949 7% 7% 5% 12% 9% 7% Built 1939 or earlier 5% 17% 13% 20% 34% 14% Median Year Built 1967 1964 1966 1957 1955 1968 Source: U.S. Census Bureau
  13. 13. 3. MARKET ANALYSIS FOR-SALE HOUSING MARKET The for-sale housing market was analyzed for Parsippany Township and nearby municipalities in order to identify trends in residential real estate and to determine the potential for new for-sale residential development at Greystone and its associated pricing. Using Win2Data, which is a real estate database service that was utilized for this study, sale prices for condominium units were obtained for a two-year period between November 2010 and October 2012 (see Appendix B for a detailed list of all sales). According to Win2Data, there were 135 condominium units sold in a ten-mile radius of Greystone during that period, with an average sales price of $195,169 or $208/SF. The unit sizes for the homes being sold ranged from 823 SF to 1,132 SF, with an average size of 936 SF (see Table 7). Table 7: Total Sales and Average Sale Prices, 2010-2012 Municipality # of Sales Average Sales Price Average $/SF Average Size of Home Being Sold Parsippany Twp. 24 $142,979 $174 823 SF Denville Twp. 3 $275,500 $243 1,132 SF Morris Twp. 16 $177,338 $212 837 SF Morris Plains Boro. 14 $223,268 $218 1,022 SF Town of Morristown 21 $285,019 $296 963 SF Town of Dover 9 $162,167 $151 1,070 SF Hanover Twp. 20 $217,999 $226 964 SF Rockaway Boro. 6 $176,667 $181 978 SF Rockaway Twp. 20 $151,460 $162 934 SF Victory Gardens Boro. 2 $116,250 $126 920 SF Total 135 $195,169 $208 936 Source: Win2Data The majority of the higher priced condominium sales occurred in the Town of Morristown, most notably at the 40 Park development at which a 1,096 SF unit was sold for $582,000 and a 947 SF unit was sold for $499,000. Overlooking the Morristown Green, 40 Park is a 73 unit condominium complex recently completed by the Roseland Property Company. Between March of 2010 and November of 2011, Win2Data reports 28 new condo sales at 40 Park with an average price of $760,000. As of this writing, four penthouse units are on the market with sale prices ranging from $1 million to $2 million (see Figure 2). Figure 2: The 40 Park Development in Morristown 40 Park with commercial space on the ground floor Balcony of a penthouse unit overlooking the Morristown Green
  14. 14. In addition to condominiums, the consultant team utilized information obtained from Win2Data to examine the sales activity of townhomes that are in close proximity to Greystone. Located approximately 1.5 miles north along Old Dover Road, Glenmont Commons is a 264-unit townhome community that was completed in 2005 (see Figure 3). In the last three years, 31 attached townhomes have been sold at Glenmont Commons with an average price of $410,000 (or $216 per SF), while ten attached townhomes have sold for an average price of $637,000 (or $200 per SF). Figure 3: Glenmont Commons in Parsippany Skyview Heights, located along Meadow Bluff Road just north of Old Dover Road, is a 188-unit townhome community that was built in the 1990’s. In the last three years, 22 townhomes have been sold at Skyview Heights with an average price of $376,000 (or $201 per SF). Conclusion: Based on the analysis of recent home sales activity near Greystone, we estimate that newly built townhomes with 1,700 to 2,000 SF of living space can command prices of $240 per SF (or $408,000 to $480,000). Considering that homes at Glenmont Commons, during the peak residential boom period, was being absorbed at about three to four units per month, we estimate that new townhomes this in this area could be absorbed at the rate of two units per month. Brand new condominiums at 40 West in Morristown are averaging $760,000, but this property is unlikely to represent a good market comparison for the Greystone area. 40 West is located in a downtown setting near retail establishments, an urban square, and the train station. We estimate that newly rehabbed condominium units in the Main Building, furnished with high-end amenities, can command prices of $250 per SF. Similar to the projected pace of new townhome sales, we estimate that new condominium units can be absorbed at the rate of two units per month.
  15. 15. RENTAL HOUSING MARKET According to the 2011 ACS, rental housing represents 31% of the housing market in the five municipalities examined in the Demographics section of this report. This housing stock is relatively old, with 80% of the units being built prior to 1979 (see Table 8). Table 8: Year Renter Occupied Structure Built Year Built Number Percentage Built 2005 or later 173 1% Built 2000 to 2004 437 3% Built 1990 to 1999 837 6% Built 1980 to 1989 1,476 11% Built 1970 to 1979 3,280 24% Built 1960 to 1969 2,898 21% Built 1940 to 1959 2,768 20% Built 1939 or earlier 2,021 15% TOTAL 13,890 Source: U.S. Census Bureau Thirty-two percent of the renter occupied units are located in structures that have less than four units, with 36% of the units being in structures larger than 20 units (see Table 9). Table 9: Number of Units in Renter Occupied Structures Number of Units Number Percentage Less than 4 4,432 32% 5 to 9 950 7% 10 to 19 3,424 25% 20 to 49 2,368 17% 50 or more 2,695 19% Mobile Home, Boat, RV, etc. 21 0% Source: U.S. Census Bureau In the study area, there are seven major apartment complexes (see below and Appendix C): Highlands at Morris Plains is a three-story garden style apartment complex located near the intersection of East Hanover Road and Route 202. The complex has 116 units with amenities such as fitness center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, washer/dryers, dishwashers, central HVAC, walk-in closets, and patios/balconies. One-bedroom units range from $1,750 to $1,925 per month ($2.12 to $2.54 per SF); and two-bedroom units rent from $2,088 to $2,270 ($1.83 to $1.96 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents, but additional charges apply for parking and the TV package. At the time this report was written, two units were available. Highlands at Morristown Station is a five-story midrise apartment complex located adjacent to the Morristown Train Station. The complex has 116 units with amenities such as fitness center/yoga studio, outdoor pool, community center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, and washer/dryer in unit. Short walking distance to the Morristown Train Station is prominently featured as a selling feature. One-bedroom units range from $1,871 to $2,686 per month ($2.52 to $2.83 per SF); and two- bedroom units rent from $2,583 to $3,235 ($2.40 to $2.60 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents, but additional charges apply for parking and the TV package. At the time this report was written, nine units were available.
  16. 16. Figure 4: Major Apartment Complexes Near Greystone Highlands at Morris Plains Highlands at Morristown Station Sterling Parc Powder Mill Heights Morris Crossing is a townhome style apartment complex located in Morris Township, about .5 miles south of the Morris Plains border. The complex has 123 units with amenities such as gourmet kitchens, luxury baths, and garages in some of the units. One-bedroom units range from $1,750 to $1,835 per month ($2.16 to $2.83 per SF); two-bedroom units rent from $2,100 to $2,475 ($1.90 to $1.97 per SF); and three-bedroom units rent from $2,380 to $2,595 ($1.71 to $1.78 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents, but additional charges apply for parking and the TV package. At the time this report was written, four units were available. Sterling Parc is a townhome style apartment complex located in Cedar Knolls, between Ridgedale Avenue and I-287. The complex has 258 units with amenities such as fitness center, club house, outdoor pool, spa, wifi, washer/dryer in unit, separate dining room, balcony, and off-street parking. One-bedroom units range from $1,848 to $1,904 per month ($2.57 to $2.66 per SF); and two- bedroom units rent from $2,138 to $2,468 ($2.21 to $2.66 per SF). Utilities are included in these rents. At the time this report was written, 16 units were available. Old Forge Village East is a townhome style apartment complex located in Morris Township, about .5 miles south of the Morris Plains border. The complex has 311 units with amenities such as swimming pool, basketball court, and on-site laundry facility. One-bedroom units range from $1,325 to $1,475 per month ($1.48 to $1.49 per SF); two-bedroom units rent from $1,780 to $1,930 ($1.48 to $1.61 per SF); and three-bedroom units rent from $2,125 to $2,275 ($1.21 to $1.29 per SF). Tenant pays all
  17. 17. utilities except for water/sewer, and parking permits cost $100 per month. At the time this report was written, vacancy information was not available. Jacob Ford Village is a townhome style apartment complex located in Morristown just east of I-287. The complex has 270 units with amenities such as new kitchens, on-site laundry facility, separate dining room, and close proximity to a community park. One-bedroom units range from $1,640 to $1,670 per month ($2.51 to $2.58 per SF); and two-bedroom units rent from $1,780 to $1,995 ($2.03 to $2.33 per SF). All utilities are included, but additional charges apply for parking. At the time this report was written, ten units were available. Powder Mill Heights is a ten-story midrise apartment complex located in Parsippany Township just west of the Morris Plains border. The complex has 356 units with amenities such as a clubhouse with indoor pool, health club, gourmet kitchens, whirlpool baths, and washer/dryer in unit. Powder Mill Heights is located on the side of a mountain and boast spectacular views facing east. One-bedroom units range from $1,750 to $1,800 per month ($1.59 to $1.61 per SF); two-bedroom units rent from $1,950 to $2,100 ($0.95 to $1.20 per SF); and three-bedroom units rent from $2,400 to $3,000 ($1.03 to $1.13 per SF). All utilities are included, but additional charges apply for parking. At the time this report was written, five units were available. Conclusion: There is a very strong market for higher quality apartment complexes that feature amenities such as a swimming pool, air conditioning, a fitness center, a clubhouse, a tennis/basketball court, and parking. One-bedroom units are renting on the average $2,058 per month (or $2.25 per SF); two-bedroom units at $2,544 per month (or $1.94 per SF); and three-bedroom units at $2,462 per month (or $1.36 per SF). The highest rents among the complexes examined were found at the Highlands at Morristown Station, which is a five-story midrise apartment complex located adjacent to the Morristown Train Station. Rents for one- bedroom units range from $1,871 to $2,686 per month ($2.52 to $2.83 per SF), and two-bedroom units rent from $2,583 to $3,235 ($2.40 to $2.60 per SF). With amenities such as fitness center/yoga studio, outdoor pool, community center, security alarm, gourmet kitchens, and washer/dryer in unit, the Highlands at Morristown Station is marketed as luxury rental housing. Short walking distance to the Morristown Train Station is also prominently featured as a selling feature. Although inflated by a factor of 15-20%, current rents at the Highlands at Morristown Station are likely to represent a good market comparison for proposed new rental homes in the Main Building. Given the architectural significance of the building, as well as close proximity to the county recreational facilities, we estimate that newly built apartments in the Main Building with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units can command rents from $1,500 to $2,500 per month. Specifically, we estimate that one-bedroom units (approximately 550 SF to 800 SF) can be rented at $2.30 to $2.75 per SF per month, two-bedroom units (approximately 800 to 1,300 SF) can be rented at $1.70 to $2.30 per SF per month, and three-bedroom units (approximately 1,450 SF) can be rented at $1.75 per SF per month.
  18. 18. ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY MARKET Though services offered at assisted living facilities vary greatly from one facility to another, by definition, the level of care provided to patients fall between home care and skilled nursing homes. Typical residents at these facilities are seniors who require some help in day-to-day chores and routine health monitoring but do not need 24-hour nursing care. Continuing growth in the senior population (65 years of age and older) will fuel growing demands for assisted living facilities. According to the 2010 Census, the median age for Parsippany Township is 40.5 and the percentage of residents over 65 years of age is 13.7%. Just ten years prior in 2000, the median age for the Township was 37.6 and 11.2% of the residents were over 65 years of age. This aging trend is duplicated for all municipalities examined in Table 10, with the exception of Morristown. Table 10: Senior Population, 2000-2010 Municipality Median Age 2000 Population over 65 years 2000 (%) Median Age 2010 Population over 65 years 2010 (%) Parsippany Twp. 37.6 11.2% 40.5 13.7% Denville Twp. 39.7 15.0% 43.4 15.0% Morris Twp. 40.9 15.4% 43.3 15.4% Morris Plains Boro. 40.7 16.2% 42.1 16.2% Town of Morristown 35.0 12.4% 34.8 12.4% Morris County 37.8 11.6% 41.3 13.8% Source: U.S. Census Bureau In a seven mile radius of Greystone, the consultant team was able to obtain occupancy information for seven assisted living residences with an aggregate total of 657 beds. At the time this report was written, 625 beds were occupied which represents an occupancy rate of 95% (see Table 11). Table 11: Assisted Living Residences Nearest to Greystone Facility Beds Occupied Beds Occupancy Rate Municipality Distance from Greystone Sunrise Assisted Living Of Morris Plains 108 103 95% Morris Plains 0.00 miles Franciscan Oaks Continuing Retirement 84 79 94% Denville 2.67 miles Arden Courts of Whippany 60 60 100% Whippany 3.85 miles Spring Hills At Morristown 104 104 100% Morristown 4.34 miles Care One At Morris 89 75 84% Parsippany 4.54 miles Brighton Gardens of Florham Park 132 132 100% Florham Park 6.73 miles Saint Anne Villa 80 72 90% Florham Park 6.73 miles TOTAL 657 625 95% Source: NJ Department of Health, Urban Partners Conclusion: Based on high occupancy rates observed at nearby assisted living facilities, as well as demographic projections that forecast a growing percentage of seniors in Morris County in decades to come, sufficient demand exists to support a new assisted living facility in the Main Building. The optimal size for such a facility would be approximately 100 beds, which will require 45,000 SF of building space.
  19. 19. OFFICE MARKET To identify the Main Building’s potential for new professional office development, as well as rents that could be commanded, the consultant team assessed current office market conditions and listings in the vicinity of Greystone. The most significant cluster of office buildings is located in the Mack-Cali Business Campus, which is a 600- acre office complex that consists of 2.4 million SF of Class-A space in 17 buildings. Operated by a real estate investment trust by the same name, the Mack-Cali Business Campus is located less than four miles away from Greystone. Moreover, Mack Cali owns and operates an additional 1.55 million SF of office space in Morris Plains, Morris Township, and Parsippany. Figure 5 below lists the 227,000 SF of available space in seven Mack Cali office buildings. Figure 5: Available Office Space in Mack Cali Owned Buildings 201 Littleton Rd. (Morris Plains) Available Space: 19,839 SF Total Building: 88,369 SF Maple Plaza I (Parsippany) Available Space: 47,453 SF Total Building: 147,475 SF Maple Plaza II (Parsippany) Available Space: 31,975 SF Total Building: 148,291 SF 4 Century Dr (Parsippany) Available Space: 37,552 SF Total Building: 100,036 SF 5 Sylvan Way (Parsippany) Available Space: 16,954 SF Total Building: 151,383 SF 600 Parsippany Rd. (Parsippany) Available Space: 15,527 SF Total Building: 96,000 SF 5 Wood Hollow Rd (Parsippany) Available Space: 57,570 SF Total Building: 317,040 SF Total building SF for the listed properties: 1,048,594 SF Total available space: 226,924 SF (22%) Source: http://www.mack-cali.com
  20. 20. In addition to Mack Cali properties, an additional 424,000 SF of available Class-A and Class-B office space was identified. Table 12 shown below summarizes the current listings. Table 12: Selected Multi-Tenant Office Supply Near Greystone Name/Location Available SF Price/SF/ Year Lease Type Class Amenities 3 Campus Dr. Parsippany 81,000 Negotiable Negotiable A Fully approved site to be delivered within 12 months. Shuttle service to Morris Plains Train Station. 100 below grade parking spaces. Parsippany Commerce Center Parsippany 4,197 $24.50 Modified gross A Completely renovated in 1994 with a three-story atrium. Gatehall IV Parsippany 46,226 Negotiable Negotiable A On-site hotel and conference facilities, banking, dry cleaning, child care, health club, and restaurants. Four-story atrium with a waterfall and lush interior landscaping. The 9 at Entin Rd. Parsippany 139,298 $22.00 Modified gross A New lobby and new on-site food service. Cedar Knolls Corporate Center Cedar Knolls 62,212 $17.75 Tenant pays electric A 118,000 SF building. On-site food service and parking ratio of 4 per 1,000 SF Parsippany Place Parsippany 36,460 $22.00 Negotiable A Two-story atrium and facade of glass curtain wall with double termopane windows. Raw space. 210 Malapardis Rd. Cedar Knolls 15,200 $18.00 Tenant pays electric B Beautifully redone two-story, 32,000 SF building. Parking: 5 per 1,000 SF. Woodmont Office Park Parsippany 2,860 $20.00 Full Service B A professional building with abundant parking. 24/7 access and each unit is separately metered for all gas heat and electric. Crossroads Corporate Center Parsippany 8,489 $22.00 Tenant pays electric B Completely renovated in 1998. 2 Sylvan Way Parsippany 19,942 $16.00 Modified gross B Located Parsippany Corporate Center. Lobby and common areas recently refurbished. Source: loopnet.com, NAI Global, Cushman & Wakefield As shown in Table 12, asking rents for Class-A space range from $17.75/SF to $24.50/SF. The highest rent of $24.50/SF (modified gross) is at the Parsippany Commerce Center, which is a three-story, 152,261 SF building located just off of Route 10 and I-287. Originally built in 1976 and renovated in 1994, major tenants in the building include Delta Dental Plan of New Jersey and Macro Consulting Group. Asking rents for Class-B space range from $16/SF to $22/SF. The highest rent of $22/SF (plus electric) is at the Crossroads Corporate Center, which is located on Pomeroy Road just off of I-287 in Parsippany. This three- story building, which was renovated in 1998, has a total of 76,232 SF.
  21. 21. Conclusion: Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, development of new office space in the Main Building appears unlikely at this time. One exception, however, is the possibility of a single user that may choose to occupy office space in the Main Building. The likelihood of recruiting such a company or institution is difficult to predict through standard supply and demand analyses. Initial inquiries made by the consultant team into nearby educational institutions, such as Fairleigh Dickinson University, Drew University, and College of St. Elizabeth, have been met with no interest. Independent of the potential single user scenario, a modest amount of smaller professional offices may be included within a residential development. Potential users for these spaces may include non-profit/civic organizations, real estate agents, accountants, architects/engineers, and other small businesses. RETAIL MARKET To identify the potential for new retail development in the Main Building, the consultant team completed an analysis of retail establishments in the area. Figure 6 is a map showing locations of retail clusters near Greystone. Most of the retail stores are situated along state highways (e.g. Route 10, Route 202, etc.) and/or exits off of I-80 or I-287. Figure 6: Locations of Retail Clusters near Greystone Conclusion: Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, as well as the poor access to major highways, opportunities for new retail development in the Main Building are very limited. One narrow market niche that may exist at the site is a limited service restaurant (such as a sandwich shop, juice bar, or a coffee shop) that mainly caters to the county park users and new residents in the Main Building.
  22. 22. EVENTS VENUE Historic properties are popular venues for wedding and other formal events. Shown below in Figure 7 are six of the top historic wedding venues located in Morris County: Bretton Woods in Morris Plains; Ralston Cider Mill in Mendham; White Meadow Lake Country Club in Rockaway; Park Avenue Club and Park Savoy in Florham Park; and Smoke Rise Village Inn in Kinnelon. Figure 7: Historic Wedding Venues in Morris County Bretton Woods, Morris Plains Ralston Cider Mill, Mendham White Meadow Lake Country Club, Rockaway Park Avenue Club, Florham Park Park Savoy, Florham Park Smoke Rise Village Inn, Kinnelon Wedding package prices at these historic venues are in the $100 to $150 per person range. The packages typically include a fixed facility rental fee and the cost for food and beverages, which is provided by an in- house or designated caterer. Conclusion: The Chapel located on the third floor of the Center Rear section, as well as the Assembly Room leading into the Chapel, has tremendous potential to be converted as a wedding/formal events venue. With seating and dining capacity of 250 guests, this space can potentially compete with other historic venues at the $100 to $150 per person level. The inability to hold events outdoors and the somewhat difficult access to the third floor may limit pricing levels in the Main Building, but there is sufficient demand in the area to anticipate booking 70 to 75 events annually, with at least half of these at near top-of-the-market in-season rates. A greater competitive advantage can be attained if a portion of the building can be reused as a bed and breakfast, in which case an overnight package can include a bridal suite and additional guest rooms.
  23. 23. HOTEL/LODGING MARKET Using data obtained from Smith Travel Research, the consultant team analyzed the performance of 23 hotel and inn properties near Greystone, with a total of 4,056 rooms. This mix of properties includes ten hotels in Parsippany, five hotels in Morristown, one hotel in Morris Plains, and seven hotels in other municipalities such as Whippany and Florham Park. The data shows that three new hotels have come on line since 2006. The Hampton Inn Suites Parsippany North opened in December 2009 with 87 rooms; the Hampton Inn Parsippany opened in March 2008 with 152 rooms; and the Sonesta ES Suites Parsippany opened in April 2006 with 150 rooms. Hotel room demand near Greystone grew from 943,679 room-nights in 2006 to 1,047,075 room-nights in 2011, a total growth of 11% in five years (see Table 13). From 2006 to 2009, the demand fell by 11% but has since rebounded by adding 25%. During this growth period, room supply increased by a modest 2% from 1,452,477 room-nights in 2009 to 1,481,229 room-nights in 2011. The occupancy rate, however, increased significantly from 57.6% in 2009 to 70.7% in 2011 and has remained at this level during the first ten months of 2012. Table 13: Hotel Market Analysis Year Supply (Room Nights) Demand (Room Nights) Occupancy Rate Average Room Rate 2006 1,437,375 943,679 65.7% $137.64 2007 1,394,300 940,238 67.4% $148.03 2008 1,440,812 908,240 63.0% $147.78 2009 1,452,477 835,943 57.6% $129.53 2010 1,481,535 974,731 65.8% $121.10 2011 1,481,229 1,047,075 70.7% $124.92 2012 – 10 mos. 1,233,175 872,816 70.8% $134.15 Source: Smith Travel Research Conclusion: In the last six years, the average room rate has mirrored the fluctuations in the occupancy rate, starting from $137.64 in 2006, declining to $121.10 in 2010, and then rebounding to $134.15 in 2012. The dip in the occupancy rate and the average room rate in 2009-2010 correlates with the addition of three new hotels that were highlighted previously, as well as the recession that started in late 2008. From 2007 to 2011, the demand grew by an average of 27,000 room-nights per year (from 940,238 to 1,047,075). With the occupancy rate over 70% and demand holding steady at 87,000 room-nights per month for the past 22 months, the market is ready to absorb an additional 100 to 120 hotel rooms in the next few years. Although sites that are situated closer to a highway interchange would be considered preferred locations for larger, conference center type hotels, the Main Building would be an attractive site for a smaller historic inn or a bed and breakfast (between 40-45 rooms) that relates closely to a wedding/formal events venue on-site.
  24. 24. SUMMARY OF MARKET POTENTIAL The following is a summary of market potential for the various uses examined in this section. To the extent possible, specific sections within the Main Building are matched with appropriate uses. Sales Housing Market Potential Based on the analysis of recent home sales activity near Greystone, we estimate that newly built townhomes with 1,700 to 2,000 SF of living space can command prices of $240 per SF (or $408,000 to $480,000). Newly rehabbed condominium units in the Main Building, furnished with high-end amenities, can command prices of $250 per SF. The estimated absorption rate for townhomes and condominiums is two units per month. Rental Housing Market Potential There is a very strong market for higher quality apartment complexes that feature amenities such as a swimming pool, air conditioning, a fitness center, a clubhouse, a tennis/basketball court, and parking. Given the architectural significance of the building, as well as close proximity to the county recreational facilities, we estimate that newly built apartments in the Main Building with one-, two-, and three-bedroom units can command rents from $1,500 to $2,500 per month. Specifically, we estimate that one-bedroom units (approximately 550 SF to 800 SF) can be rented at $2.30 to $2.75 per SF per month, two-bedroom units (approximately 800 to 1,300 SF) can be rented at $1.70 to $2.30 per SF per month, and three-bedroom units (approximately 1,450 SF) can be rented at $1.75 per SF per month. Rental housing can work in almost every section of the building, including the basement which can capture the price sensitive segment of the market. Assisted Living Facility Market Potential Based on high occupancy rates observed at nearby assisted living facilities, as well as demographic projections that forecast a growing percentage of seniors in Morris County, sufficient demand exists to support a new assisted living facility in the Main Building. The optimal size for such a property would be approximately 100 beds, which will require 45,000 SF of building space. The most appropriate location for this use is on southernmost section of the south wing. Office Market Potential Based on significant vacancies in nearby areas, additional development of office space in the Main Building appears unlikely at this time. However, a modest amount of smaller professional offices, as part of a mixed-use development consisting primarily of residential uses, may be included in the building. The most appropriate location for this use is on the first floor or the first two floors of Center Rear section, underneath the chapel. Retail Market Potential Due to the somewhat isolated nature of Greystone’s location in relation to other retail clusters, as well as the poor access to major highways, opportunities for new retail development in the Main Building are very limited. The most viable retail use may be a sandwich shop, juice bar, or a coffee shop that mainly caters to the county park users. The most appropriate location for this use may be in the ancillary buildings in front of the Main Building, such as the South Cottage, the North Cottage, or the Wayside Building.
  25. 25. Events Space Market Potential Historic wedding/formal event venues are in high demand in Morris County, commanding rates from $100 to $150 per person. With seating and dining capacity of 250 guests, the chapel and large hall on the third floor of the Center Rear section can potentially compete with other historic venues at the $100 to $150 per person level. There is sufficient demand to anticipate booking 70 to 75 events annually, with at least half of these at near top-of-the-market in-season rates. A greater competitive advantage can be attained if a portion of the building can be reused as a bed and breakfast, in which case an overnight package can include a bridal suite and additional guest rooms. Hotel and Lodging Market Potential Based on recent trends, significant opportunities exist for new hotel development in the area (approximately 100 to 120 additional rooms in the next few years). Due to its location and building footprint constraints, larger, conference center type hotel development would be difficult. The Main Building would be an attractive site for a smaller historic inn or a boutique hotel (between 40-45 rooms) that relates closely to a banqueting venue on-site. The most appropriate location for this use is the Administration section.
  26. 26. 4. HISTORIC STRUCTURE REPORT INTRODUCTION The Main Building of the Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital is a landmark structure in the landscape of Morris County, New Jersey. Situated on a hill with a commanding view of the surrounding valleys, it has been a stately presence for over 130 years. Although presently abandoned and deteriorating, its generous scale, considered layout, day-lit public spaces and gracious, if Spartan, private accommodations give physical articulation to 19th -century ideas about the treatment of the mentally ill. The historical and architectural importance of the building and site has been recognized in several ways over the years, from its inclusion in the Morris County Cultural Resources Survey in the 1980s, to the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office’s (NJHPO) determination that the hospital complex was eligible for the National Register of Historic Places in 1997, to the NJHPO’s Certification of Eligibility for the Main Building alone in 2009.The Main Building was certified as eligible for its significant association with the evolution of theories on the treatment of the mentally ill, and as the work of a master architect, Samuel Sloan. Since the New Jersey Division of Mental Health vacated the Main Building in 2008, the State’s Department of Treasury, Division of Property Management and Construction (DPMC) has been charged with maintaining the building and planning for its future. Since its closure, some parties have called for the demolition of the Main Building, preferring open space and removal of the obsolete structure; others have advocated for the preservation of the building. With partial funding from the New Jersey Historic Trust, in the latter part of 2012 the DPMC commissioned a team led by Urban Partners to investigate the feasibility of an economically sustainable reuse for the Main Building. KSK Architects Planners Historians (KSK) is a member of the consultant team for the project, tasked with preparing a Historic Structure Report (HSR) to identify the architectural and historic preservation considerations for reusing the building, particularly with regard to the project’s qualifying for the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives program as a financing tool for redevelopment. This program provides up to a 20% federal tax credit on qualified expenditures for substantial rehabilitation projects for income-producing certified historic properties. Projects using the tax credit must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and related guidance from the National Park Service (NPS). The approach for the HSR was to provide the information essential for future stewards of the site to understand the significance of the Main Building (including the historic Services Building, which was connected to the Main Building in the 1920s), to recognize the character-defining features that should be preserved in any reuse scenario, and to understand the likely major architectural and preservation issues whose satisfactory resolution would be prerequisite to a financing scheme that includes the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Incentives Program. This study relies on recent extensive investigations regarding the existing conditions of the Main Building (RBA Group, 2012), a site visit and building tour in November 2012, and historical information contained in the Morris County Cultural Resources Survey and a previous Preliminary Preservation Master Plan (Building Conservation Associates [BCA], 1998). No new historical research was conducted as part of this project, nor was a conditions assessment a part of this effort. HISTORIC PRESERVATION TAX INCENTIVES PROGRAM To qualify for the Historic Preservation Tax Incentives (“Tax Credit”) Program, the building and project must meet certain conditions. The building must be a “certified historic structure.” To be considered a “certified historic structure,” the building must be listed in the National Register of Historic Places, or be certified as a contributing element of a National Register listed historic district. If the property is not already listed or identified as contributing to a listed historic district, the applicant must begin the nomination process in consultation with the state historic preservation office. The Main Building at Greystone Park has already been certified as eligible for the National Register, but the building would have to be listed to
  27. 27. claim the tax credit. Given that it has been determined eligible, listing should be relatively straightforward.1 The project must be a “certified rehabilitation.” To be classified as a “certified rehabilitation,” the design and construction of the project must be executed in a manner that will lead the NPS to determine that the project complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation (see Appendix D). The building must be used for income producing purposes. These might include office, commercial, industrial, rental apartment, or other uses. A residential use must be an income-producing rental property, not a condominium or homeowner use. If the property is mixed use, only work done on that portion of the property that is income producing will be considered for the tax credit. The project cost must constitute a “substantial rehabilitation.” Qualified expenditures must exceed $5,000 or the adjusted cost basis of the building, whichever is greater. Qualifying expenditures must be made within a 24-month period, or a 60-month period for phased projects. o Qualified expenditures generally include expenses directly related to the improvement of structural and architectural features of the historic building that would normally be considered capital costs. These expenses would include construction costs for structural improvements, repair and installation of interior finishes, plumbing, electrical and mechanical work, windows and doors, partitions, etc., as well as related “soft costs” such as design and other professional fees. Examples of costs that are NOT qualified expenditures include landscaping and other site work, demolition, furnishings, appliances, cabinets, and acquisition and operational costs.2 After rehabilitation, the owner must retain ownership of the building and operate it for income- producing purposes for five years. Changes to the building within those five years are subject to NPS review. There is a three-part application process to certify the project for the Tax Credit program. Each part of the certification application is reviewed by both the state historic preservation office (in New Jersey this is the NJHPO) and the NPS. Certification applications are filed first with the NJHPO, which reviews the project and consults with the applicant (if needed) prior to forwarding the documentation to the NPS for final review. The review of each part may take up to 60 days, from submission to NJHPO to a decision rendered by the NPS. (Each agency is allowed a thirty-day review period.) Part 1 establishes whether the property is a certified historic resource for the purpose of the tax credit (i.e. National Register listed or is eligible for listing). If the building is not yet listed but is certified as eligible, the building can be listed during the rehabilitation project. Part 2 establishes that the proposed rehabilitation work qualifies as a certified rehabilitation – that it complies with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation. This application consists of a description of the proposed rehabilitation work, in narrative and plan, as well as photographs of the building prior to the start of rehabilitation. The Part 1 and 2 applications can be submitted simultaneously. Part 3 is a request for certification of completed work. The Part 3 application attests to the State and NPS, through photographs of the completed project, that the work was completed as proposed (and approved) in the Part 2. Amendments can be made if there are changes to the project after initial approval of the Part 2 application. 1 A completed nomination form must be submitted to the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office for review by the State Review Board for Historic Sites. Once approved, the property is listed in the New Jersey Register of Historic Places and forwarded to the National Park Service for consideration for the National Register. Information about the nomination process can be found on the New Jersey Historic Preservation Office website at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/hpo/1identify/nrsr.htm#njnrhp. Additional guidance and current nomination forms are available from the National Park Service website at http://www.cr.nps.gov/nr/national_register_fundamentals.htm#start. 2 More examples of qualified and excluded expenses can be found at http://www.nps.gov/tps/tax-incentives/before-apply/qualified- expenses.htm.
  28. 28. Applicants should know that the NJHPO and NPS staff may not agree on the interpretation of the Standards for a given project. Direct, timely consultation, especially with NJHPO staff, is required to address potential issues and conflicts as they arise. There is an appeal process for denied applications; however, this is a stringent process and should not be relied upon for overturning NPS staff decisions. We highly recommend that construction work not commence until the Part 2 is at least conditionally approved by the NPS. Beginning work prior to conditional approval may ultimately jeopardize the project’s eligibility for the Tax Credits. Projects can be implemented in phases, completed over a period of up to five years; each phase must comply with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the tax credit to apply to the entire project. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION Often the Standards for Rehabilitation are considered project guidelines; however, for the purposes of the tax credit program, the Standards are regulatory. The NPS makes final determinations as to whether a project meets the Standards. The Standards for Rehabilitation are codified as 36 CFR 67, and are included here in Appendix D. The Standards are somewhat flexible to allow for the variety of historic building types and potential uses, as well as the economic and technical challenges inherent in many rehabilitation projects. The ten Standards are intended to guide users to retain and preserve historic fabric and features to the maximum extent possible while allowing for the reuse or rehabilitation of historic buildings. The Standards guide the treatment of historic properties where historic fabric remains or is missing, and when additions or other alterations are contemplated. From time to time the NPS issues technical notes and briefs to further clarify and elaborate on the treatment of certain building types or features; these documents can be found on the NPS website.3 SUMMARY OF THE HISTORY AND SIGNIFICANCE OF GREYSTONE PARK Originally known as the New Jersey State Asylum for the Insane at Morris Plains, the Main Building, rear service building, and a gas illuminating plant at Greystone Park were completed in 1876.5 Designed by noted architect Samuel Sloan (1815-1884), in collaboration with Dr. Thomas Story Kirkbride, the building is an excellent architectural expression of Kirkbride’s principles for the housing and treatment of mentally ill patients that came to prominence in the mid-19th century. Each man was significant in his own right: Sloan for his architectural practice and Kirkbride for his theories and wide-ranging influence on the treatment of psychiatric patients. Sloan and Kirkbride collaborated on the design of a number of asylums, beginning before the publication of Kirkbride’s influential treatise on the subject. Greystone Park was one of the last of these collaborations. 3 Links to NPS guidance, including the Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings and Guidelines on Sustainability for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings, can be found at http://www.nps.gov/tps/standards/applying-rehabilitation.htm. Guidelines specific to corridors, windows, and other features important for the Greystone Main Building can be found by clicking the link entitled “Planning Successful Rehabilitation Projects.” 4 Information about the history and significance of Greystone Park is largely derived from the following report, unless otherwise noted: Building Conservation Associates, Inc. (BCA), “Historic Criteria, Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital, Morris Plains, New Jersey, Preliminary Preservation Master Plan,” May 1998, which also contains the survey form for Greystone from the Morris County Cultural Resources Survey (1986/1987). The summary in this HSR concentrates on the Main Building, which is the subject of this study. Information about other buildings at the complex can be found in the BCA report. It was brought to our attention that a Master’s thesis has been prepared about the history of Greystone Park. Margaret Schultz’s From Victorian Asylum to Modern Psychiatric Hospital: A History of Greystone Park State Psychiatric Hospital (Wayne, NJ: William Paterson University, 2002) is available at the libraries of William Paterson University and the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. The reuse of 19th -century asylums, with Greystone Park as a case study, is the topic of Andrea Lynn Janusz’ thesis, The Adaptive Reuse of an Architectural Artifact: Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital (Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, 2007). Neither of these theses was consulted during the course of this project. 5 The gas illuminating plant, which generated gas for lighting from coal, is reported to be one of few surviving examples in the country; it was listed in the New Jersey of Historic Places in 1999 and the National Register in 2000. It is located east of Grannis Road, and is outside of the study area for this project.
  29. 29. Samuel Sloan worked as a carpenter in Philadelphia from the mid-1830s. He labeled himself an architect in 1851 after receiving commissions for the Delaware County courthouse and an Italianate villa at Philadelphia’s Bartram’s Gardens.6 A prolific writer, he published several works on architectural design and style through the middle years of the century, and began the first architectural periodical in the United States (although it folded after only three issues). Sloan was renowned for his ornate, high-style designs for institutional buildings, villas, and cottages. His practice grew to focus on the design of schools and asylums for the insane, and he designed asylums in several states, from Maine to Alabama, often in collaboration with Dr. Kirkbride. Dr. Kirkbride’s theories on the treatment and housing of the mentally ill were progressive and far-reaching. Kirkbride developed his theories in the mid-19th century and published his influential treatise, Hospitals for the Insane, in 1854. He saw psychiatric hospitals as places for patients to recover; the quality of care and surroundings were to contribute to the recovery process. His “moral treatment” philosophy held that psychiatric institutions should be run in a disciplined and orderly manner, with a compassionate attitude toward patients. It followed that a clean, spacious environment with generous daylight and ventilation would benefit the comfort and mental state of patients. Patients were to be housed with a view of the natural environment, to have opportunities for contemplative activities outdoors, and to be provided gathering spaces indoors for socializing and therapeutic activities. Patients were to be grouped according to the degree and type of mental illness; male and female patients were to be housed in separate wings. The initial Greystone Park buildings (Main Building, Services Building and gas works), intended to alleviate crowding at the existing state asylum in Trenton, were completed in 1876 (Figure 9). Figure 8. The New Jersey State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown, now known as Greystone Park, date unknown. (Source: http://www.kirkbridebuildings.com/blog/images/2008/03/18/2.jpg, accessed December 31, 2012.) 6 Information about Samuel Sloan’s life is from the American Architects and Buildings database, available on the Philadelphia Architecture and Buildings website at http://www.philadelphiabuildings.org/pab/app/ar_display.cfm?ArchitectId=A1287, accessed November 27, 2012.
  30. 30. Kirkbride’s theories determined the layout of the buildings and property, resulting in a Main Building with a linear plan formed by sprawling symmetrical residential wings stepping back from the pronounced central administrative core (Figure 9). The more ornate, taller administrative section was the “front door” of the complex, and contained offices, staff rooms, storage, chapel/lecture room, the attending physician apartment(s), and other centralized operational uses. The patient wings were characterized by wide double- loaded day-lit corridors (Photo 1) including open parlors, dining areas, reading/museum areas, and infirmaries, with individual rooms for patients, each with a window, and attendant rooms.7 Figure 9. The diagram (left) shows the historic floor plan and room descriptions for the Main Building and rear Services Building at the New Jersey State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown (Greystone Park), c. 1879. The color image (right) is a current birds-eye view of the site. (Sources: Preserve Greystone and Bing.com.) Note the enclosed exterior spaces for each tier on the historic plan. Photo 1. Typical ward, south wing, c. 1900. Note the flat plaster walls, wood chair rail and baseboard, exposed arched ceilings, and decorative stenciling. (Source: Preserve Greystone.) 7 Thomas S. Kirkbride, On The Construction, Organization General Arrangements Hospitals For The Insane (Philadelphia, 1854).
  31. 31. Additional buildings were constructed to supplement the operation of the Main Building. A building containing an interconnected boiler house, workshop, laundry (Photo 2), and bakery was located behind the Main Building, built at the same time with matching exterior materials, fenestration, and architectural details (Photos 3 through 7).8 (This is referred to as the “Services Building” in this report.) It was connected to the Main Building via underground passages (see Figure 9). Photo 2. Patients at work in the Laundry, c. 1914. Note the lack of finishes and partitions and exposed roof elements on this second floor. (Source: Preserve Greystone). Photo 3. Workshop portion of rear Services Building, 2012, view southeast. Original modillion cornices are present here and on other portions of the Services Building. The brick corner tower is a later addition Photo 4. Boiler House portion of the rear Services Building, 2012, view southeast. Only one story is visible from the service drive. 8 Some sources seem to indicate that these were independent buildings, but the current building configuration, a historic rendering, and other sources appear to confirm that the volumes were all built at the same time, with a one-story circulation wing that connected them.
  32. 32. Photo 5. Laundry portion of the rear Services Building, 2012, view south. Photo 6. Laundry portion of the rear Services Building, side elevation, 2012, view north. The north side of the Workshop portion of the building matches this elevation, although some window openings there have been altered. Photo 7. Services Building, 2012, view southwest. This photo shows the intersection of the Bakery section (left), Boiler House (center rear), and Workshop (right), all connected by a one-story corridor. A remnant of the smokestack on the Boiler House is visible on the roof.
  33. 33. The following is a brief chronology of events and changes to the Main Building and rear Services Building since their construction in 1876.9 1895: Bathroom towers were added to the rear of tiers 1, 2, and 3 of the north and south wings. 1901: An elevator was requested for the Main Building. (Installation date unknown. One elevator is currently present in each of the north and south wings at Tier 3.) 1924: construction of 4-story brick annexes on either side of the chapel. It appears that the one-story kitchen behind the chapel was built at the same time; the kitchen connected the Services Building to the Main Building, above ground. c. 1928-1930: Three fires destroyed the original mansard roof of the entire building, as well as the Sloan-designed interior of the Administration Building. c. 1930: Most roofs and cornices replaced. A new 4th floor was added to each wing, with cast stone walls designed to match the ashlar gneiss of the rest of the building. On the Administration Building, the central pediment was removed above the second floor, and modillion cornices replaced to match the new cornices on the rest of the Main Building. (Some original modillion cornices remain on the outermost wings and Services Building.) Figure 10 compares the pre-fire façade of the Administration Building to a similar view today. Figure 10. Comparison of a pre-fire rendering of the central Administration section (left) to a current photograph (right). Note the removal of the tall mansard roof on the main block and construction of a new fifth floor with a flat roof and parapet. On the projecting central section, the mansard dome was completely replaced, third floor pediment removed, and cornices altered. (Source for pre-fire rendering: http://www.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~asylums/morristown_nj/index.htm l.) 1929-1948: Original wood beam floor construction in some locations was replaced with concrete slabs on steel and concrete beams. (Original iron and brick arches that support the floor structure remain exposed in many places.) 1929-1950: Terrazzo floor, tile walls, and plaster installed in some wards, mostly in the south wing, and bathrooms. 1969: Fiberglass shingles and built-up roofing replaced the slate and standing seam roofs throughout, except on Tiers 4A & 4B, on both the north and south wings.10 1978-1996: General repairs, including roofing and floors. 1988: All patients removed from the Main Building. 9 The chronology includes data from the BCA report (1998) and RBA report (2012). Additional research should be conducted to further inform the building chronology prior to redevelopment. 10 The roofs at these locations were replaced at an unknown date; no slate or standing seam roofs remain there.
  34. 34. 1991: Some remediation of biological materials on the upper floors of the south wing. 1996: Environmental analysis and remediation tasks, including disposal of hazardous waste, asbestos abatement, and removal of microbial growth. 2008: Administrative offices vacated. Building 100% abandoned. Although alterations have been made and conditions have deteriorated in many areas, the Main Building, connected Services Building, and related outbuildings, remain an important example of the Sloan-Kirkbride collaboration that established the protocol for housing and treating the mentally ill in the latter half of the 19th century. PERIOD OF SIGNIFICANCE The period of significance corresponds to the “length of time when a property was associated with important events, activities, or persons, or attained the characteristics which qualify it for National Register listing.”11 At Greystone Park, the period of significance begins with the completion of construction of the Main Building, rear Services Building, and gas illuminating plant (1876), and continues through the early years of the hospital’s operation when new buildings and improvements to the buildings and campus reflected the theories and original design of Thomas Kirkbride and Samuel Sloan.12 This period ends circa 1913.13 This approach is consistent with previous recommendations from BCA and NJHPO.14 CHARACTER DEFINING FEATURES Character defining features are those distinctive qualities or characteristics of a historic resource that contribute significantly to its physical character and communicate its historic identity; these features convey why and when the property was significant.15 At Greystone Park’s Main Building, the character defining features relate to its scale, massing, floor plan, materials, fenestration, and decorative features, as they directly reflect the important mental health care theories and related architecture of the Kirkbride/Sloan partnership. The design of the floor plan reflects several aspects of Kirkbride’s theories: the need for natural light, fresh air, and views of nature; the ability to separate patient populations by type and degree of illness; the individual accommodation of patients; gracious public spaces; accommodation for gathering spaces; and dedicated spaces for treatment and staff. Important aspects of the floor plan include its symmetry, the layout of the wings that step back and away from the prominent central core, the wide central corridors with large windows at either end for natural light, the generous parlors in the projecting bays at the midpoint of each corridor, its division into separate though connected wards on each floor, individual rooms each with its own window, the projecting terminal ends of each tier, and each tier’s access to its own outdoor space. See Figures 8, 9 and 11. 11 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Complete the National Register Registration Form (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 42. 12 This period includes construction of the Dormitory Building (1901), Nurses Cottages (South, 1904 and North, 1913 for female and male nurses, respectively), and the Tuberculosis Building, also known as the Chest Building (1911). Of these, only the Nurses Cottages survive. The addition of trees and grading at the site, improvements along Central Avenue, and establishment of the road from the Main Building back to the Dormitory Building also took place during this period. The two residences (#16A&B and #17A&B) to the rear of the service building were present prior to the State purchasing the property in 1871. 13 Buildings constructed after this period, in the late teens and 1920s, were built away from the Main Building, respecting the open landscape and dedicated open space around the building. They are also said to be reminiscent of the Sloan/Kirkbride layout, but do not reflect the visual and material characteristics of the original buildings. Based upon the identification of these buildings in the BCA report, most of these no longer exist. Those that do are the “service building” located northeast of the Main Building, also known as the “Wayside,” and a rear storage building, power building, and fire house. 14 Dorothy Guzzo (NJHPO) to William E. Ward (Department of Treasury), July 16, 1997, 3; BCA, 9. 15 U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1997), 46.
  35. 35. Figure 11. State Asylum for the Insane at Morristown, NJ, now known as Greystone Park, c. 1877. (Source: Preserve Greystone.) Though altered to add a fourth floor, the exterior materials and features also reflect the Main Building’s historical identity. The exterior scale and massing are a reflection of the important aspects of the floor plan, which drove the building’s design. The fenestration pattern reflects the location of individual patient rooms, public spaces, and other facilities in the building: single windows on the wings were used at patient rooms, and triple windows were located in other spaces for use by larger numbers of people, such as enclosed galleries and ward dining rooms (Photo 8).16 Setbacks and projecting bays express important functions such as the parlors and attendants’ rooms. Stained glass windows identify the chapel. Gneiss stone walls with sandstone trim (quoins, lintels, sills, etc.), sandstone and wood modillion cornices (where they survive), and the pedimented central core reflect the Main Building and Service Building’s original construction period (Figure 10 and Photos 8 and 9). While some interior spaces and features have been altered or are in poor condition, certain interior characteristics still convey the building’s historical significance. These important features include: in the north wing, wood chair rails, wood doors with transoms above (now closed up), and curved corners at doorways in the corridors; in the central core, decorative tile floors, historic fireplace mantles, stairways with decorated balusters, wood doors and trim (door/window surrounds, wainscoting, interior shutters, baseboards, etc.),window seats, and the highly decorated chapel and community room; vaulted ceilings; and other decoration such as stenciling at arched alcove openings, cornices, and other features throughout the building. See Photos 1 and 10 through 23. 16 These patterns are not entirely reflected in the fenestration of the 4th floor, which was added in the 1930s.
  36. 36. Photo 8. Façade, typical tier, north wing, 2012, view northwest. Note at floors 1, 2, and 3, single windows often denote patient rooms, and triple windows are located in the projecting alcove. This pattern is not evident at the later 4th floor. Typical materials are evident in this photo, including gneiss walls (floors 1 through 3) and sandstone sills, lintels, and quoins. Photo 9. North wing, Tier 4B, 2012, view southeast. Modillion cornices survive at the ends of Tiers 4A and 4B, and at some locations on the Services Building. Note also the stone at the cornice matches the lighter sandstone of the Administration Building rather than that of the quoins. Photo 10. State Typical corridor, c. 1914. Some patients slept on beds in corridors due to overcrowding. Wood chair rails and baseboards, wood floors, and curved doorways are evident in this photo. (Source: Preserve Greystone.)
  37. 37. Photo 11. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012, view northeast. This photo shows wood chair rails and baseboards, curved doorways, and vaulted ceilings that typically remain in the north wing. Photo 12. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012, view northeast. This photo features wood doors and transoms above (typically closed up) that remain in many areas of the north wing.
  38. 38. Photo 13. Typical corridor, north wing, 2012. Examples of wood doors and transoms, open and closed, in the north wing. Photo 14. Decorative tile floor, Administration Building, 2012.
  39. 39. Photo 15. Marble fireplace surround, Administration Building, 2012. Photo 16. Stair from first to second floor, Tier 1, south wing, typical stair balustrade, 2012, view south.
  40. 40. Photo 17. Double stair from second to third floor, Center Rear, 2012, view northwest. Note the wood wainscot and decorative flooring visible beneath the dust. Photo 18. Wood pocket doors and typical wood baseboards and door surrounds, Administration Building, first floor, 2012, view northwest. The wood floor is visible where the carpet has been pulled away.
  41. 41. Photo 19. Typical wood window seat, 2012. Photo 20. Chapel, 2012, view northwest. Note the decorative paint and stencilwork, original light fixtures, and stained glass windows.
  42. 42. Photo 21. Chapel, 2012, view north. Detail of the decorative paint and stencilwork. Photo 22. Assembly Room, 2012, view southeast. Note the wood wainscot and trim and the paneled ceiling with modillion cornice.
  43. 43. Photo 23. Assembly Room, 2012, view southeast. Note the wood wainscot and trim and the paneled ceiling with modillion cornice. SUMMARY PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS ASSESSMENT Full documentation of the physical characteristics and existing structural conditions of the Main Building, including the attached Services Building, was completed by the RBA Group in 2012. The report is on file at DPMC. A very brief summary follows of the physical characteristics and conditions present when KSK toured the facility in November 2012. The team walked most of the interior including the basement, and the entire exterior, and was able to get a sense of the overall character and general condition of the building. This description does not address structural stability or capacity, which is included in the RBA Group report. The condition of the Main Building and its additions ranges from extremely poor to good. Several factors have contributed to material and system failures throughout the complex, generally stemming from the systematic abandonment of the building, beginning at the outermost tiers and moving toward the central Administrative Building. The “poor” to “good” range of conditions often follows the sequence of abandonment. Roof and drainage failures, burst pipes, open windows, vandalism, and other factors have created the present conditions, with roof and draining problems being the most severe current problem. Recent strong storms, such as Hurricane Sandy in October 2012, have exacerbated poor roof conditions where they exist. The original building was exceptionally well built, which has contributed to its longevity despite its abandonment and subsequent lack of maintenance.
  44. 44. Exterior Walls The exterior of the Main Building largely consists of gneiss stone elevations with sandstone trim (quoins, lintels, sills, etc.) (Photo 24), except for the brick additions and kitchen (Photos 25 and 26). On the Main Building, pointing has “grapevine” tooling. A majority of the masonry, especially on the façade, is in good condition, with only repointing needed to make walls sound (approximately 30%) (Photo 27). However, some areas (approximately 10%) require more extensive intervention, including re-placing individual fallen masonry units, rebuilding substantial areas of masonry wall (Photos 28 and 29), and replacing the stucco band where the original cornice was removed (Photo 30). Staining is evident where gutters have failed, and drainage failures have also caused sections of mortar to deteriorate and dissolve, resulting in the loss of masonry (Photo 31). Many stucco panels above the third floor, which cover the historic location of the mansard roof cornice, have peeled or fallen away, exposing remnants of the wood framing for the original cornice, and brick and rubble stone walls (see Photos 30 and 32). Ivy has grown around portions of the building, and may be causing some deterioration of mortar where it is present (Photo 33). Severely deteriorated masonry conditions are primarily evident on rear elevations. Connections between the wings and the rear brick additions are clad in copper panels that appear to be in fair condition (Photo 34). Photo 24. Façade, north wing, Tier 2, showing typical exterior materials, 2012, view northwest.
  45. 45. Photo 25. Brick addition, north of the Chapel, 2012, view southeast. Photo 26. Brick kitchen addition, between the Chapel and the Services Building (former Bakery), 2012, view south. The modillion cornices are visible at the Bakery (right) and Chapel (rear).
  46. 46. Photo 27. North wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast, showing typical areas of missing mortar, as well as areas in good condition. Photo 28. North wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast. Detail showing typical loss of lintel stones. Often, the stones are on the ground below.
  47. 47. Photo 29. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view southwest. Detail showing the loss of stone below the missing stucco panel above the third story. Many, if not all, of the stones are on the ground below. Photo 30. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view southwest. Missing stucco panels reveal exposed joists and deteriorated brick.
  48. 48. Photo 31. South wing, terminus of Tier 4, 2012, view southeast. This view clearly shows the relationship between the failed gutter, the resulting water flow staining the masonry below and leading to the deterioration of the stucco panel (which has since fallen away) and the brick behind it. Photo 32. South wing, Tier 4, 2012, view northeast. Detail of deteriorated brick exposed where a stucco panel has fallen away.
  49. 49. Photo 33. Façade, north wing, Tier 2, 2012, view northwest. Ivy has established itself on this elevation, particularly at the projecting alcove bay. Photo 34. Connector between the south wing, Tier 1, and the south brick addition, 2012, view east. A similar structure connects the northern Tier 1 to the north brick addition.
  50. 50. Roofs Roofs on the north and south wings consist of asphalt shingled flat-topped hipped roofs with arched vented dormers (Photos 35 and 36). Bracketed cornices remain at the ends of Tiers 4A and 4B (see Photo 9). Rear bathroom addition roofs are clad with aluminum siding and asphalt shingles (Photos 37 and 38). Copper was used for cornices, gutters, and to clad the dormer roofs on the wings. The Administrative Building has a coated bituminous flat roof with a sandstone-capped parapet (mostly wrapped with copper); a simple convex mansard roof with asphalt shingles and copper details tops the projecting central bay (Photo 39). Brick additions have asphalt shingled gable roofs, also with vented gabled dormers (see Photos 25 and 26). Roof and drainage systems are in poor or failing condition in several parts of the building, particularly at the outer tiers. Deterioration has progressed to the point that substantial areas of the roof framing have been compromised. Portions of the roof and structure at Tiers 4A and 4B, both north and south, appear to have failed entirely. (RBA classifications ranged from “poor” to “failed.”) Roofs on rear bathroom additions have almost universally failed (see Photo 39), some catastrophically; the two on Tier 1, north and south, have been substantially repaired. Some copper has been stripped from portions of the Administrative Building parapet coping (Photo 40). Some ventilators and substantial roofing material are now on the ground rather than on the roof. All roofing would need to be replaced in any reuse scheme, including the replacement of approximately 50% of the roof structure, which has experienced extensive water damage. Photo 35. Roofs, north wing, 2012, view north. Deterioration is particularly evident at the flat tops of Tiers 2, 3, and 4.
  51. 51. Photo 36. Roofs, south wing, 2012, view west. Deterioration is particularly evident at the flat tops of Tiers 1, 3, and 4. Photo 37. Rear bathroom addition, south wing, Tier 1, 2012, view east. Note the revised roof with asphalt shingles, and the wall partially rebuilt with concrete block. The cornice of Tier 1 is missing where it was likely removed to accommodate the old roofline of this addition. An attempt was made to match the existing “grapevine” technique on the adjacent stone.
  52. 52. Photo 38. Rear bathroom addition, north wing, Tier 3, 2012, view south. Note the aluminum siding where the roof remains. Photo 39. Roof, Administration Building, 2012, view east. Photo 40. Copper-wrapped sandstone parapet, Administration Building, 2012, view north.

×