Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.
Assisted living facility (45,000 SF)
Wedding/event facility (17,000 SF)
Bed & breakfast Inn (25,000 SF)
Professional office (12,000 SF)
- Contingency (10%) $7,175,000
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.
- Contingency (10%) $7,550,000
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.

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.

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).

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

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

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%
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

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

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.

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
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%
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.

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

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.

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%
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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Tendances (20)

Similaire à Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)

Similaire à Greystone feasibility assessment report (final) (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

Greystone feasibility assessment report (final)