|
Post by MMM on Sept 3, 2006 18:30:21 GMT -5
The news article you are referring to never changed. The word renovation was in the original article. As for the property that was unfortunately destroyed. It was an old three story home that was in the process of being converted to three condos. Again, sorry to disappoint you. As for the shoddy condo construction that you speak of. Could you please give me a few examples. A friend and I are going to take advantage of the slow market and will be purchasing one or two more condos. Since you have knowledge of shoddy construction, that information could be helpful in our search. I've seen many drooping soffits on the new condo construction. Also, many of the new condos have shoddy trim and columns on the outside. It looks like poor workmanship to me. The condos next to the Reges had their vinyl siding bubbling last year after only being there a few years. They fixed it this year. I understand they also had to replace the railings there once since this place was constructed, but I can't confirm whether or not that's true. The homes built closer to the ocean (I guess they're Townhouses?) at Belldon's were constructed of wood and particleboard, and they were not selling for a low price. The main building there is nice (though the railings obscure the look of the building too much, IMO), but IMO constructing homes on the ocean using such material isn't such a great idea.
|
|
|
Post by Robert on Sept 3, 2006 19:06:11 GMT -5
Yes, it is senseless tearing down buildings that stood for 50 years and putting up ones that don't even last two years. I wouldn't pay $2 million for something that will fall apart at the next storm.
|
|
|
Post by JerseyDigger29 on Sept 3, 2006 20:38:15 GMT -5
Hey, guys - Updates to some of your questions: 1 - The new NW seawall did a great job again. I can only imagine what NW would look like if the city hadn't fought for this project. (Coming sometime in the near future, I believe: railings, benches, and lights. It seems a whole lot of people who didn't even know there was a seawall until rather recently have jumped wholeheartedly onto the bandwagon and fell in love with it. That wall makes a great promenade. And what a he*l of a view)! 2 - I saw at least 5 new condos under construction - loose framework with no walls or very little completed walls, etc. Not one of them showed any damage except for loose or blown-away tarps, or bent or toppled scaffolding, etc. I didn't post any of those pics because they showed no real damage. The apt. house on Park Boulevard that blew over did so because it was high up on risers with no foundation to support it. In defense of the contractors and owners, they were trying to save a small part of Wildwood's earliest history rather than demolish it. How could they have anticipated Ernesto. 3 - The building that toppled over wasn't a house or a home, it was - to the best of my memory while growing up - three floors of rooms and apartments like hundreds of other buildings from the period between WWI and II. I think they were trying to turn those individual apartments into bigger and more modern condos. This kind of building would have been about one step lower in rental price than some of the fancier hotels of the time, I believe. (A "no frills" vacation in the Wildwoods). ;D 4 - When it comes to breaking news, whether on TV or in the papers, realize that breaking news, by definition, isn't always full of confirmed details, no matter who provides it. Because it is just happening, a lot of information doesn't become available until later when things start to calm down. Notice when I said something to the effect of "Something fell off the roof of the Montego Bay, I don't know what," I did so because I really didn't know at the time what had fallen: was it a sign, or part of the roof, or was it a giant rooftop air conditioner? I just didn't know. And as for the out of town media not getting their facts straight, we've been through this discussion before with that guy who likes to write all those innacurate stories about the Wildwoods and can't even tell the difference between the Crest and North Wildwood. If you want something closer to the truth, I guess maybe it's better to get it from a source closer to the events themselves, meaning from any newspaper or TV station where the reporters actually live and work in or close to this area (and not necessarilly my paper - but that would be nice). Hope I cleared up as many questions as I could - Thom
|
|
|
Post by crazyaboutwildwood on Sept 3, 2006 23:31:39 GMT -5
Thanks for the pics Thom.
|
|
|
Post by nance on Sept 4, 2006 2:18:19 GMT -5
Great pictures. Hopefully, no one was injured during this storm? You know, for the life of me, I never could understand why some people build homes on stilts and sit them a hop, skip, and a jump away from the ocean. So many homes near the ocean are like that. Some in South Carolina are built right in the center of marshes! Yuk! Not only would I be scared of storms but can you imagine all the mosquitoes and bugs?
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 4, 2006 15:13:05 GMT -5
As an Engineer and into building constuction for many years let me say this.. Just because its old does not mean it was built well and just because it is new does not mean that it is not built well. There is more to it then when it was built.. Look at cars.... in the 60's(when most thought that they were the best built autos).. They use tio last about 100k miles before they rusted out or fell apart. That was the 'magic' mileage that a 'good' car should last to.. Now a days if you don't get almost 200k miles out of a car you are unlucky.. as most definetly do..
|
|
dreamer2u
Full Member
I Love Wildwood
Posts: 151
|
Post by dreamer2u on Sept 4, 2006 16:13:16 GMT -5
thanks for the info Thom, i was wondering if the ocean would distroy that wall.can't wait till they finish it.
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyscorpio on Sept 4, 2006 19:50:04 GMT -5
As an Engineer and into building constuction for many years let me say this.. Just because its old does not mean it was built well and just because it is new does not mean that it is not built well. There is more to it then when it was built.. Look at cars.... in the 60's(when most thought that they were the best built autos).. They use tio last about 100k miles before they rusted out or fell apart. That was the 'magic' mileage that a 'good' car should last to.. Now a days if you don't get almost 200k miles out of a car you are unlucky.. as most definetly do.. Well thanks, Frank, I always like to hear that from people who know cars, so I don't feel like I'm skating too perilously close to the edge with my little Ford ZX2 at 165,000 miles ;D Believe me, I know there was crap built in the '20s and there's quality being built today. But as a general rule, I think pre-WWII standards were significantly higher, and as a matter of fact, pricing in the metro NYC housing market reflects a fairly widespread bias in favor of "prewar" construction. Since becoming aware that the doo-wop motels were an endangered species, I've been wondering where they fall on this declining curve of 20th-century build quality since they all came along in the early postwar years. My vague, general impression is that most of them were built pretty well but I don't have the benefit of the sort of professional experience that you have. What do you think? Would you guess that the average doo-wop motel is still in pretty good shape structurally and functionally?
|
|
|
Post by nance on Sept 5, 2006 2:04:44 GMT -5
Well, the way I see builders slap together houses today; there's nothing to them. It's kind of scarey! Give me an older built home anyday! And that goes with cars, too.
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 5, 2006 7:21:38 GMT -5
That would be hard to accurately answer. It gonna depend on who built it and HOW they built it and how it was maintained over the years. The salt has a funny way of attacking structures in odd ways. The rebar may rust from within and pop out concrete, etc. I would venture a guess that if they were built correctly and maintained correctly they they would have many of years left by now.. As an Engineer and into building constuction for many years let me say this.. Just because its old does not mean it was built well and just because it is new does not mean that it is not built well. There is more to it then when it was built.. Look at cars.... in the 60's(when most thought that they were the best built autos).. They use tio last about 100k miles before they rusted out or fell apart. That was the 'magic' mileage that a 'good' car should last to.. Now a days if you don't get almost 200k miles out of a car you are unlucky.. as most definetly do.. Well thanks, Frank, I always like to hear that from people who know cars, so I don't feel like I'm skating too perilously close to the edge with my little Ford ZX2 at 165,000 miles ;D Believe me, I know there was crap built in the '20s and there's quality being built today. But as a general rule, I think pre-WWII standards were significantly higher, and as a matter of fact, pricing in the metro NYC housing market reflects a fairly widespread bias in favor of "prewar" construction. Since becoming aware that the doo-wop motels were an endangered species, I've been wondering where they fall on this declining curve of 20th-century build quality since they all came along in the early postwar years. My vague, general impression is that most of them were built pretty well but I don't have the benefit of the sort of professional experience that you have. What do you think? Would you guess that the average doo-wop motel is still in pretty good shape structurally and functionally?
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 5, 2006 7:23:27 GMT -5
lol.. Get up to speed Nance.. Looks like you need to look closer at things.. Well, the way I see builders slap together houses today; there's nothing to them. It's kind of scarey! Give me an older built home anyday! And that goes with cars, too.
|
|
|
Post by nance on Sept 6, 2006 1:48:06 GMT -5
I'm just talking about what I see. One day it's the frame, the next it's the fiber board. I wouldn't exactly call that quality. And do you really think cars are built better today? Come on, half their bumpers are plastic!
|
|
|
Post by nance on Sept 6, 2006 1:50:11 GMT -5
My daughter went down to Delaware last weekend and she said most of the Marina where they keep their boat was pretty much under water. Their boat had damage, too, ramming into another.
|
|
|
Post by FlyinGN on Sept 6, 2006 7:46:47 GMT -5
and do you know why?? Nance please stop cause your showing your ignorance.. What basis are you basing this perception of quality on?? Are you an engineer or and architect? What background do you have to base this on? Or do you just *think* that fiberboard and plastic is lesser 'quality?" so.. whether you want to believe it or not.. Todays automobiles last about twice as long as one from 40 years ago.. Thats a fact.. I'm just talking about what I see. One day it's the frame, the next it's the fiber board. I wouldn't exactly call that quality. And do you really think cars are built better today? Come on, half their bumpers are plastic!
|
|
|
Post by thelastresort on Sept 6, 2006 10:23:45 GMT -5
I'm not a car guy, but I'm with ya Flyin, my dad's '68 buick was falling apart by '72 with only 50K miles on it. My 8 year old "drive to work" GM car has over 100K miles and it looks and runs as well as the day I bought it.
And I'm not pointing the finger at anyone in particular here, but man, reading some of the Ernesto posts, I don't see how anyone could be "happy" or celebrate someone's building getting blown away, even if it is a cheaply built condo. Someone spent alot of time, money and effort, to have it gone in 5 minutes. Granted, maybe they will "make out" on the insurance money, but it's not something to be happy about, in my opinion.
|
|