Loading ...
Willow Terrace Eyesore!
13
November
11/13/2009:
What is that thing?
Now that elections are finally over – I can finally cover this situation in Hoboken (you know, while we often say “the mile square” city – it’s still over 35 million square feet – and a bit tough for one guy to handle…)
Anyway, over the past few weeks, Hoboken411 has received countless emails about this “modern” Real Estate development on Willow Terrace across from the A&P Supermarket. Almost all readers were a bit taken back at the “out of character” look of the building, and how in the world it was even allowed – citing “historic preservation” and all that nonsense.
However, one particular reader was more concerned with the complete apathy nearby residents had – essentially allowing this eyesore of a project to be built in front of their eyes.
Resident dropped ball – didn’t care enough
“Most people tend to think that someone else will solve their problems, in this case that ugly home on Willow Terrace. Neighbors know fully well that WT is outside of the city’s historic districts, and not under the jurisdiction of the Preservation Committee. The ZBA made the call on this project, and aren’t held under the law to maintain consistency with more traditional design.
The owners who live within 200 feet had the sole responsibility to speak out regarding this project. They all received certified legal notices about the Zoning application, and could have protested the application during the hearing. Even if just half the neighbors showed up, it wouldn’t have been approved in it’s current form.
Even if they were late to the game, they still had a chance to appeal the board’s decision – but they chose instead to complain and bitch about it after the fact. After all, it is easier, right?
So if your readers try blaming the city for this mess, tell them to re-direct their anger towards those that could have easily prevented it!”
November 16th 2009 - 09:19:47 |
i’d have to say that is about the nicest addition i’ve seen to hoboken in years. i can’t believe anyone would call it an eyesore, can’t wait to see the interior. it certainly points out that the other houses on that street are eyesores though.
Login or Register to reply
November 16th 2009 - 09:51:19 |
It may not be to my personal taste however this building looks much better than over half the buildings in Hoboken. It looks like it is a quality project and they used quality materials such as nice cedar siding, nice brick, nice Black Pella windows and the workmanship looks good. Its not my home however if whoever is living there likes it good for them. I certainly wouldn’t call it an eyesore. Those buildings around it are an eyesore.
In response to bettyboop who said:
Login or Register to reply
November 16th 2009 - 12:14:46 |
Kudos to the design team! This is an eyesore based on what aesthetic criteria? That it doesn’t match straightback faux Victorian or that it flies in the face of the unimaginative boilerplate design of the cinder block boxes being thrown up on the west side? No typical triptych bay windows as the long and short of style? The true wonder of this building is that this amount of thought and money went into a structure on such a busy street with such little interior and exterior square footage and a view of only a parking lot. Well done! Why only be beholden to existing forms?
Login or Register to reply
November 16th 2009 - 13:48:11 |
i’d have to agree in saying that this all boils down to personal taste. for those with a modern eye, it really is a beautiful home. [i personally love it!] someone could have built a brand new Victorian-esque home that would have been just as nice. i understand residents’ desires to keep Hoboken traditional and not turn it into an over-developed city of cookie-cutter luxury high rises, but personally what I love most about Hoboken is the variety of architectural styles. there is a home for every taste, and as long as everything is built well, in moderation, and within proper zoning parameters, live and let live.
Login or Register to reply
November 17th 2009 - 11:53:44 |
It’s a nice addition for a ski lodge in Aspen! I live a couple of blocks away from this eyesore and must have been outside the “200 ft” notice of zoning permit approval range, otherwise I most certainly would have complained. By the way, that 200 ft range does not even reach 7th and Clinton. I’m sure the negative impact on property value will range slightly further than that. Also, considering the age of these houses, where was the Hoboken Historical Society when these plans were proposed? There were more tasteful ways to restore this property and this just shows the lack of consideration the ‘new owners’ have for their neighbors and the community.
In response to Hosea220 who said:
Login or Register to reply
November 17th 2009 - 20:49:48 |
The only folks who should be allowed to comment are the immediate neighbors. Everyone else, go screw.
This sounds familiar…
http://hoboken411.com/archives/17494
A new section for 411, substandard Hoboken homes? Nice.
Login or Register to reply
November 18th 2009 - 10:33:44 |
Well, being a WT Resident I guess I ought to comment on this.
Let me start by saying that although it is an interesting project,I think it would look AMAZING in the woods or on one of the walk streets in Venice,CA or as others have said, at a ski resort. That being said I think it looks completely out of place on WT. Most of you also seem to miss the point that only people who have the corner lots are able to really do something different with their places. The rest of us not on the corner don’t have much room to expand or do much. Yes there are old vinal sided crappy looking homes on WT…. that is becasue the people in them are B & R’s who are still living there or have rented them out to 3 guys or gals & do nothing but collect rent checks. They will never fix them up.
As they sell, they are updated to be quaint, nice little places. A BIG point that I don’t see people questioning is just how was this place able to go up so fast???? How did a certain individual (most of you know who I mean)approve & allow all of this??? Most people have to wait ages to do simple things like re-do a bathroom. I’ve seen places of business put thru the ringer for a year to open. This house seems to have gotten carte blanche to do whatever they wanted….and have!
PLUS – as some have said, I sure the builder did NOT included any of the neighbors because why should he??? That’s the way people are these days. They don’t give a damm & do whatever the hell they want. Progress is great but developers need to be a bit more sensitive to a towns cuture & history
Login or Register to reply
November 18th 2009 - 11:03:57 |
Aw, c’mon, in Hoboken they shoot people just to watch’em die.
Login or Register to reply
November 18th 2009 - 13:46:05 |
Be fair that hasnt happened since 2008..
In response to plywood who said:
Login or Register to reply
November 18th 2009 - 14:27:02 |
Oh that’s right that last guy pulled through, but he’ll never play the violin again
In response to yourbrainondrugs who said:
Login or Register to reply
November 18th 2009 - 14:36:05 |
The issue is this is a historical section – they must get approval from the Historic Preservation Commission – this is the second modern building that was allowed and I am sure neither of them went through proper procedure because they do not fit in with the character of Willow Terrace. But Hoboken does not follow the law
I like the building -just not there
Login or Register to reply
November 18th 2009 - 17:36:05 |
Unfortunately this area is located in the Central Hoboken
Historic District, an area only deemed an “Eligible Historic District,” therefore not under the jurisdiction of the Historic Preservation Commission.
The Historic Preservation Commission is only for the Southern Hoboken Historic District and specific buildings outside of that District.
In response to DavidsSling who said:
I like the building -just not there
Login or Register to reply
November 19th 2009 - 14:34:09 |
Historic District-NOT, most of those places look terrible, sometimes history should not be repeated! It’s there and it’s much better than the original derelict that stood there.
Login or Register to reply
November 20th 2009 - 00:26:56 |
To call it an eyesore is extreme. It would be much more of a travesty if it were finished like the hundreds of other developments in Hoboken. I understand that some close minded people fear the unknown, but open your mind. Modern art/architecture is often criticised, but it is the bold artists and designers that push the envelope who change perception and advance culture.
Login or Register to reply
November 20th 2009 - 09:02:00 |
It would seem that the ZBA was asleep at the till on this one – it’s their purview, not the historic commission’s.
Local zoning requires structures to be built of a HUGE percentage of masonry – not wood. Another example of more variances for the well-connected bestowed by the ill-informed and uneducated.
Good urban architecture is all about context and this can be used as a textbook example in architectural school of what not to do in a tiny village. These townhouses don’t exist in a vacuum. This is a royal FU design statement to the neighborhood and the city from an architect (& his client)with huge egos and apparent connections to the code officials as referenced in post # 67. Expect to see more of it.
Login or Register to reply
November 20th 2009 - 11:32:18 |
I am a WT resident, and I too thought this was another example of a FU design statement to the neighborhood. Ah well. And no, not all neighbors within 200 feet got notice. I did not.
My understanding is the architect and the client here are one and the same. I haven’t met him yet though.
There are some beautiful houses on WT, and there are some that need work. Every street in Hoboken has places that need work. All in all WT has been a wonderful place to live. The neighbors are typically friendly, keep an eye out for each other, and the ambience is charming. Also, the location couldn’t be more convenient to the A&P and to the 126 bus on Willow/Clinton.
In response to dunotar who said:
Local zoning requires structures to be built of a HUGE percentage of masonry – not wood. Another example of more variances for the well-connected bestowed by the ill-informed and uneducated.
Good urban architecture is all about context and this can be used as a textbook example in architectural school of what not to do in a tiny village. These townhouses don’t exist in a vacuum. This is a royal FU design statement to the neighborhood and the city from an architect (& his client)with huge egos and apparent connections to the code officials as referenced in post # 67. Expect to see more of it.
Login or Register to reply