Politics and architecture

It's all in how you frame the problem.

In this week's Hoboken Reporter, Mayor Roberts said that the buildings that housed the Clam Broth House "had little historic significance". Not being Mayor, we can be more straightforward: The place was a dump. (Which is why we've taken note of all the windy local demagogues who demanded that the structure be rebuilt, brick by brick. Yeah, let's rebuild shantytown.) The business was historic, the sign was historic, but the building always looked to be on the verge of collapse. (Which, of course...)

Here's the thing. Say you're the mayor. You approach the developer and tell him: 'Look, we want you to create something in keeping with the architectural significance of the old building.' Guy says, 'OK Mr. Mayor'. Sits down later with the architect and says, 'The old place was a dump. But the mayor's under pressure to build it like it was. So design another dump, just make it taller so we make money. Make it look historical, too.'

And so the architect does this, paying homage to a nothing building with another nothing building.

Now we're told it's back to the drawing board. Assuming a drawing board was used to begin with. But what are the architect's instructions this time?

Categories: Local blogging, Hoboken