January 30
...serving up your daily dish.
Are folks trying to distance themselves from the Marlboro Inn's unpopular 10 new mega homes? Sure seems that way. We've received tips that now after all the variance issues have been resolved, Plofker is no longer involved in the development. The Star Ledger article seems to suggest it, when it says...
"Before turning things over to American Properties, Steven Plofker, the Montclair developer who demolished the Marlboro Inn, advanced the streetscape as an example of "new urbanism" preferable to a more traditional development of 12 homes requiring no variances.
Meanwhile, if you missed it in the comments, Mayor Ed Remsen is going on record with his disdain for the structures...
Fort the record, I HATE the McMansions being built on the old Marlboro Inn site; I tried to convince Plofker to build something more in the footprint of the Inn, somthing that at least mimicked the Inn and created smaller units; he opted not to; as unahppy as we may all be with his decision, he built what the laws allowed and what the PLANNING BOARD, not the Council approved. Frankly a lot of people would like to have seen the Inn preserved but NO ONE came forward with a proposal that made sense; the closest idea was from someone who wanted to triple the scale of the business with a seven-day a week restaurant/catering business and room for 100+ cars. Even if the Inn was desgnated a local landmarked, Plofker or anyone else who owned it could and likely would have petitioned (succesfully) to demolish it.
"Malboro"
Was this typo intentional? If not, it should be!
Posted by: Miss Martta (8T) | Jan 30, 2006 10:46:50 AM
I have a rare Montclair real estate story.
I had neighbors in the Upper Montclair neighborshood where I grew up, who had to relocate (I think due to the husbands job.)
They put their house up for sale - and for sale it stayed. Months turned into years - no offers, no interest and the husband dealing with a hellish commute.
I don't know what happened with the husbands job, but the family has had renovation done, and still lives there in the house that wouldn't sell.
Posted by: hrhppg | Jan 30, 2006 12:50:13 PM
Must have been something wrong with the house,upon inspection, hrhppg.
Or else it was overpriced and they wouldn't budge.
There was a woman on my block years ago whose house was on the market for years-- went thru various realtors, tried to sell it herself-- nada.
Bottom line was she was ambivalent about selling. When she finally lowered the price to market value, it sold.
Posted by: latebloomer | Jan 30, 2006 1:04:08 PM
I'd love to hear from local realtors...is what we're hearing true? has the market gone a bit soft? Has the wave crested? Is it gradually becoming a buyers' market vs. a sellers' market? (Sure hope so!)
Posted by: Miss Martta (8T) | Jan 30, 2006 1:07:29 PM
It is a nice house, inside and out, I just think it wasn't as big, or have as much yard as other homes on the block - it makes me wonder about developers attitude about selling these houses fast.
Posted by: hrhppg | Jan 30, 2006 1:13:31 PM
Montclair, the bastion of one town mayors, will run Remsen out of town on a rail. And the Marlboro Inn debacle will be his legacy. And he knows it.
Someone has to stop this "fill every available lot with an oversized house (or townhouse)" mentality. And it has gotten much much worse on Remsen's watch. Everywhere you look. Even if it isn't technically his fault (and I expect he will post telling us as much), the situation continues to deteriorate.
More and more condos, houses, and townhouses. Is anyone concerned that we have 26 kids in every kindergarden class?
All the town government apparently give any worry about is increasing the tax rolls.
Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Jan 30, 2006 1:17:11 PM
It's not just Baristaville, MIC, it's practically everywhere in northern and central NJ.
Ugly cookie-cutter developments with mammoth *Disney Outlandish* houses with no foliage, no land being set aside for parks, nature preserves or just plain forests.
The strangest thing of all is that you almost NEVER see people, little kids, anyone, outside! They're like ghost towns, void of any signs that humans even live there.
Hmm...maybe it IS an conspiracy of sorts.
Posted by: Miss Martta (8T) | Jan 30, 2006 1:27:43 PM
Who would want to pay over a million dollars to live in a McMansion so close to the next house you had *better* like your neighbors!
All this and no backyard, too...
Posted by: beag96 | Jan 30, 2006 1:30:19 PM
All the houses in the Marlboro Inn neighborhood are HUGE HUGE houses themselves. And, pretty close together too.
I don't think it's the size of the new houses, but rather the quantity of them. If there were just 5 of them, it woudlnt be so bad. But, there are 10 all squished together.
Posted by: Butch | Jan 30, 2006 1:32:19 PM
i'm not a parent and i'm certainly not indicting any parents here in the community....I too I agree with Miss M, I hardly see kids outside playing anymore. Is it the fear of kidnapping...the fear of getting an infection...the fear of kids getting hurt...or do the kids prefer to be inside? Just seems that in the early 60s I'd rather be outside playing and riding my bike than being inside...maybe if i had a myspace.com site I would have felt differently...hmmm
Posted by: The Iceman (8T) | Jan 30, 2006 1:33:58 PM
what i've always expected. that when ribbon-cutting day arrives for the marlboro monstrosities, town council members, like remsen, who held plofker's hand and made sure the project got a green light will mysteriously be unable to attend the festivities.
Posted by: ralph | Jan 30, 2006 1:34:46 PM
Everyone curious about who would spend $1.7 mm on a house with nearly no yard at all and terribly close to the neighbors: you are forgetting that young Wall St. bankers are looking at $4.5 mm townhouses in Brooklyn or $2 mm apartments in Manhattan, each touching the neighbors' dwellings and having no good public schools, no (or nearly no) yards and no parking.
Posted by: Appletony | Jan 30, 2006 1:36:25 PM
"I hardly see kids outside playing anymore. Is it the fear of kidnapping...the fear of getting an infection...the fear of kids getting hurt...or do the kids prefer to be inside?"
I think it's a little bit of all of the above, Ice. Combination of fear, the lure of the Internet, computer games, TV...a darn shame.
I was like you as a kid. The only time I stayed in the house was when it was raining or when I was sick.
Posted by: Miss Martta (8T) | Jan 30, 2006 1:49:04 PM
nah. They are all at daycare because everyone is working.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jan 30, 2006 1:53:16 PM
"Montclair... will run Remsen out of town on a rail...Even if it isn't technically his fault ..."
A quite clear statement of our current all-conspiracy-all-the-time-if-someone-desen't-see-it-my-way-then-they're-evil political climate if I ever saw it.
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jan 30, 2006 2:20:56 PM
Nice hyperbole (per usual) ROC.
Let me let you in on a truism throughout recorded history. The guy in office frequently gets thrown out when people are not happy about the state of their empire/country/state/city/town/ neightbood association/club. It has not to do with evil and has nothing to do with conspiracy. It's called being pisst off and blaming the guy at the top.
And I hardly thing Remsen is blameless in the state of Montclair these days.
Posted by: montclair_is_crazy | Jan 30, 2006 2:49:39 PM
"Someone has to stop this "fill every available lot with an oversized house (or townhouse)" mentality. And it has gotten much much worse on Remsen's watch. Everywhere you look. Even if it isn't technically his fault (and I expect he will post telling us as much), the situation continues to deteriorate."
"Nice hyperbole (per usual) ROC."
Posted by: Right of Center™ | Jan 30, 2006 3:05:59 PM
I took a look at the artist rendering of the houses - it's interesting to see that each house has quite alot of yard space around it - then you look at the pictures in the Ledger, and see that the houses are so close together. Talk about artistic license...
Posted by: mrso | Jan 30, 2006 3:37:02 PM
roc, you're right about the kids in daycare. Today is gorgeous outside. However, very few kids out with actual parents. Nannies. Everywhere.
Posted by: mountie_4_life | Jan 30, 2006 3:41:49 PM
Some of us have to have 2 incomes to be able to afford to live here, even in more modest homes that cost no where near $1.7 million. Nannies and day care are just part of life. Don't you think we'd LIKE to stay home and raise our children? Playing in the park with my child sounds much better than spending 8-10 hours a day working, plus 2 hours commuting. We didn't all get here 20 years ago when it was actually affordable or with Mommy and Daddy's money paying the way.
Posted by: newhere | Jan 30, 2006 3:49:54 PM
