Wildwood vs. Cape May

[soulsurv]

Yes, I know: apples and oranges. But although Cape May is very touristy during high season (to the dismay of the full-time residents), why has it not been overcome with condo developments as Wildwood has? Is it because many of the old Victorian homes are laready on the historic registers? Or is it because the residents, tough old birds that they are, absolutely put their collective foot down regarding too many developers? Now they have, in fact, built up the West CM area, but apparently they must follow some type of architectural theme. I guess I'm just confused regarding Wildwood's free hand and its propencity for "sprawl." I suppose it all comes down to money.

[Captain Phil]

I believe cape may is all historic. I dont think they are allowed to tear down old houses and build condos. If you notice, around the fishing area, how there is lots of new construction, and condos, but I think its because thats middle township and not cape may.

[ContessaAnisha]

Think you have it right there Capt.Phil...I read somewhere that new home owners in Cape May (in the Historic District) must agree not to do any modern type changes to their properties. I don't mean they can't upgrade, but they may only do changes that reflect the 'Victorian' style of the surrounding homes.

[Doowopper]

^I read somthing like that also.

See, the Wildwoods would really never have to implicate any rules like those for residential units, because that's not where Wildwoods charcter is, it's in the motels and commercial buildings. If the Wildwoods could implement archetechtural guidlines like Cape may for commercial buildings (while not as strict as cape may) things would be much better, along with zoning off the strip for hospitality/resturaunt purpose only, except where homes are already built.

[thelastresort]

Well, there is that TERRIBLE early 70's architecture eyesore high rise on Washington street caddy-corner to the Star of the Sea church. Thank God they got stopped at that, else the whole town would have looked like that tenement lodge.

Hope they tear that sucker down some day and put up another Victorian style hotel, like the Grand Floridian in Disney World.

[ContessaAnisha]

Wonder if that's why they made the law to stop the building of condos and apt. buildings?

I do love some of the old homes in Cape May. They just scream 'Charm'.

[thelastresort]

contessaanisha said:

Wonder if that's why they made the law to stop the building of condos and apt. buildings?

I do love some of the old homes in Cape May. They just scream 'Charm'.

Being the good Catholic that I am, I just pay a visit to the Star of the Sea every year and give thanks that it stopped, for whatever reason.

But seriously, that is probably correct, since I understand they started the Victorian preservation movement in the late 70's, which would have been shortly after putting up that ugly Watergate building. yuckkkkk.

Regarding WW, at least now thankfully we are living "in modern times" and the most recent condos do have some "style", as do modern baseball fields, office buildings, etc. Heck, even the highway overpasses now have old-fashioned lights and nice brick work.

Can you imagine if the condo movement took place in the early 80's instead? There would be 100's of places that look like mini-Grands. Ahhgggg.


PS -- now I know I'm going to get a rash of sh-t from some kook out there who is a fan of the Grand, so I apologize in advance, ok?

[Rob Ascough]

What the #%$! are you talking about? The Grand is a fine example of architectural beauty. If only all buildings in Cape May County had it's class and elegance.

Seriously, it's a shame how some classic structures are viewed as historically significant while others are disposable. Victorian houses in Cape May are untouchable but Doo Wop motels in Wildwood are more or less eyesores. I wonder if they stick around for another 50 or 60 years, they'll be viewed as people currently view the Victorian architecture to the south?

Perspectives have been skewed and will always be skewed. People will jump up and down to save old bridges, houses and movie theaters but sit back and allow amusement parks to be closed and demolished. By the time the masses realize how valuabe amusement parks really are, all the classic ones will be gone. Just like a lot of people probably wished they made more of an effort to save old ballparks a few decades ago when they were removing them to make room for those bland multi-use concrete donuts.

[thelastresort]

Well put. And like I was getting at, we finally "wised up" as a society and are wrecking the multi-use concrete donuts (e.g., the Vet) and putting up nice parks (Citizens, Camden Yards, PNC park, etc.) which, I'm sure 40 years from now, will look as good as they did on their first opening day.

PS, I mentioned something similar in one of my very first posts, like in 20 years, when there is money to be made putting up "doo wop" style motels, the new world order will start tearing down the condos and putting up modernized doo wop style motels. It's all about the $$$$$$$$$$$$, sad to say.

But this also leads me to another topic I've discussed before, which is I just think it takes longer for things to become "historically significant" these days. Like in the 70's, things from the 50's seemed really cool and old, but now, things from the 80's might be a bit "cool", but it doesn't really seem the same. I submit, for the forums approval, some examples:

"American Graffiti" -- released in 1973, set in 1962, seemed very nostalgic, even though only 11 years had passed. The tagline was "where were you in '62" that would be like doing a movie now about 1995 and saying "where were you in '95", the response would be "huh?"

"Happy Days" -- started in 1974, one of the first episodes was about the Ike v. Stevenson election in 1956, only 18 years difference, but seemed like an eternity. Like having a show now about 1988. zzzzzz.

"Back to the Future" -- released in 1985, went back to 1955. funny, 1985 looks almost like today (he has a VCR camera, and the JC Penny's looks like the one I shop at).


Lennon -- shot in December 1980. Watching 25 year anniversary footage this past December seemed "dated" but not ancient. Watching footage of the Beatles in 1964 back in December 1980 (for those of us old enough to remember) was like watching a Charlie Chaplin movie or WWII footage.



Sooo -- it just takes longer now for things to get "old". I'm sure even in 1930, the Victorian architecture seemed "old", even though it was only 30 years old.

[Rob Ascough]

Don't forget Animal House. Wasn't that movie set a few years back from when it was originally filmed?

I was watching Back to the Future a few months ago and I couldn't believe that the original is 21 years old. To think, in another 9 years, there will be three decades separating us from 1985, which was the same as the amount of time separating 1985 and 1955. For some reason that just baffles my mind. And yeah, it is pretty ironic how 2006 looks a lot like 1985. Except a lot of small towns have since discovered the benefits of having a nice town center, unlike the run-down one featured in the movie.

I guess it is difficult for people to get enthused over things that are 40 years old when there are things that are twice as old to worry about. Still, society seems very slow to react and nothing changes. People will be crazy for the last Doo Wop motels still standing in 2046 and will curse 2006 when many were torn down, not realizing that something could have been done had society reacted differently at the time.

[thelastresort]

Animal House was released in 1978, set in 1962. Might as well have been set in 1942, it seemed that long ago.

Also, one more example, if you can recall the Bob Segar song "night moves", released in 1978 (I had just started high school). when we heard the line "hummin' a song from 1962" we thought, "wow, that is some old ass song he must be hummin". Now, by equivalence, if there was a song that said "hummin' a song from 1990". huh? what are you "hummin'", some Wilson Phillips number?

And the list goes on...

Frankie Vallie "oh what a night, late December back in '63", released in the fall of 1975. Can you imagine this December they release a song "Late December back in '94". I'd puke

[Rob Ascough]

When did Bryan Adams record Summer of '69? And why did you have to mention Wilson Phillips? I try to forget about them!

[thelastresort]

robascough said:

When did Bryan Adams record Summer of '69? And why did you have to mention Wilson Phillips? I try to forget about them!

Bryan Adams released that in Summer of '85. To me, in my early 20's then, he could have been talking about December 7, 1941, 1969 seemed that long ago. In fact, I remember (sorry, I have an incredible memory for useless information) in August 1984, on the 15th anniversary of Woodstock (August 1969), Peter Jennings on ABC news did a brief segment and led into it by saying something like "do you want to feel really old..."

Call me crazy, but I can't imagine anyone would say something like that today addressing an adult audience and talking about August 1991.

[Rob Ascough]

For some reason I think a lot of people were very nostalgic for the 1950's and 1960's, which led to Animal House, Back to the Future and Summer of '69. Maybe it's because the country and society went through so many changes as the time? I guess subsequent decades haven't led to anything that people go nuts over, or at least not to that degree.

[thelastresort]

I think so, all the changes that occurred in the 60's (frig the 60's ) and 70's which was basically a rejection of the past, now that we've passed through the looking glass to some degree, things are kind of percolating along in a steady-state fashion.

I think if you have a chance, look at the Beatles 1962-1966 (Red) album or the 1967-1970 (Blue) album, that kind of sums it up. The early pic was taken in 1962, the latter in 1969, radical changes in only 7 years. Now, for the past 25 years, McCartney has been trying to look like he did in 1962 -- saw him in concert in the fall, by the way.