|
Post by MMM on Sept 10, 2006 0:28:29 GMT -5
I saw the beginnings of the Surf-Side earlier tonight. Nice to see it coming back to life there...
|
|
|
Post by hulk007 on Sept 11, 2006 22:08:57 GMT -5
I cannot wait until next year when the restuarant is brought back to its former glory.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Ascough on Sept 13, 2006 14:43:50 GMT -5
Definitely a small prize for having to witness such change on the island, but at least it's happening as a result of some passionate people. Let's hope the opening of the museum will coincide with the end of endless condo development in Wildwood!
|
|
|
Post by wildre on Sept 13, 2006 20:07:26 GMT -5
Martin it's coming along. Drove by Fox Park today. Looks like the roof beams are up, it's getting to look like the Surfside once again.
re
|
|
|
Post by hulk007 on Sept 13, 2006 20:19:35 GMT -5
This place is going to look great when its finished.
|
|
|
Post by wildwood4life on Sept 13, 2006 22:21:40 GMT -5
This may be a stupid question.....but what is now at the former home of the SurfSide Resturant? I've been there so may times over the last few days even, and I can't for the life od me remember.... ?
|
|
|
Post by fuzzyscorpio on Sept 14, 2006 0:28:20 GMT -5
what is now at the former home of the SurfSide Resturant? A big, dorky annex to the Water's Edge motel <sigh...> I've always wondered how all that went down and never gotten around to researching it. Did the owners of the Water's Edge own that whole lot from the beginning, including the SurfSide? Or did they lease the land to the restaurant, or did the SurfSide's owners sell out to them, or... ? Thanks in advance to any Wildwood trivia master who can clarify.
|
|
|
Post by thelastresort on Sept 14, 2006 7:28:57 GMT -5
what is now at the former home of the SurfSide Resturant? A big, dorky annex to the Water's Edge motel <sigh...> hmm, I suppose another one we can disagree on. I think the new annex looks great, and the rooms are fully functional and very nice. Alot better than some of the dumps constantly being defended on this site. And I understand that the Surf Side restaurant itself is not being rebuilt, it is basically just a copy of the design that is being put up by the convention center and is going to act as a museum. New construction, not the original, and not even a restaurant, so what's the excitement all about? Sure, it's cool, but in my mind, no different that the Wawa or nice new lampposts they put up on Rio ave.
|
|
|
Post by JerseyDigger29 on Sept 14, 2006 10:16:36 GMT -5
A big, dorky annex to the Water's Edge motel <sigh...> hmm, I suppose another one we can disagree on. I think the new annex looks great, and the rooms are fully functional and very nice. Alot better than some of the dumps constantly being defending on this site. And I understand that the Surf Side restaurant itself is not being rebuilt, it is basically just a copy of the design that is being put up by the convention center and is going to act as a museum. New construction, not the original, and not even a restaurant, so what's the excitement all about? Sure, it's cool, but in my mind, no different that the Wawa or nice new lampposts they put up on Rio ave. So far, we don't know how much of it, if any, is not the original. All I said in my original question was that it "appeared" to be smaller but I couldn't tell. The roofing beams had to be rebuilt because the originals were no longer good. I don't know about the rest of the restaurant. I'm guessing they kept the booths and at least some of them will find a place in the new museum, as well as the glass windows and panneling. I'm not an engineer or a builder so I have no clue on the subject. But my guess is that along with the roof beams, it has a brand new foundation, new plumbing and utilities -- because I watched these being constructed - and I'm also guessing that glass is glass, whether original or not. So if you think of it, if we accept the things I just mentioned as being new, what else is there that could be original? Foundation, utilities, glass windows, side panneling or walls, and roof. Come to think of it; what else IS there, except for the original kitchen and equipment? Thom
|
|
|
Post by thelastresort on Sept 14, 2006 10:43:03 GMT -5
sounds hokey to me. sorry, I'm a tough customer with these kind of things. In my mind, original is original, if they put it on a truck and moved it, that would be one thing, but this is not the case. It will be neat to have a building with that look, and a few of the old chachkies, but it is basically a new building, in my opinion. The Wawa II.
like with old cars or airplanes. There comes a point where there is so much new stuff in the entity that is becomes a replica as opposed to a restoration.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Ascough on Sept 14, 2006 14:22:23 GMT -5
Good point. I'll bring to the conversation a roller coaster example, since that is what I know Numerous wood coasters have been rebuilt throughout the years. In the mid-80s, a coaster called the Wildcat at Lake Compounce in Bristol CT was completely rebuilt. Originally built in 1927, the ride was showing its age and as reconstruction started, it was discovered that a lot more of the wood had to be replaced than originally thought. In the end, something like 98% of the wood had to be replaced- just enough for the project to be considered a restoration under some weird set of guidelines. But the coaster was rebuilt just as it was back in 1927, giving a very similar ride in the exact same location. Is the Wildcat a 1927 coaster or a 1986 replica of a 1927 coaster? It's a gray area, and hopefully I can explain why. On one hand, if you look at materials, it's a new ride. But suppose something like 2% of the coaster was replaced on a yearly basis over a long period of time. I don't think anyone would say that the coaster was anything but a 1927 coaster, since that is when it was originally built. So what's the difference between rebuilding the ride all at once and rebuilding it piece by piece, year after year? Is there a difference? Maybe it begs the question, "What makes something historic?" Is it the materials, or the experience? Most of the coaster's wood was replaced but it was designed to give a 1927 ride with 1927 blueprints being used and a few pieces of the original ride tossed in for good measure. Thoughts, anyone?
|
|
|
Post by thelastresort on Sept 14, 2006 14:32:37 GMT -5
great example on the roller coaster. In terms of a large project, I know the White House was completely gutted and its insides reconstructed over the course of about 2 years during the Truman administration, but they still refer to places like "the Lincoln Bedroom", etc.
I suppose with this Sea Side project, it just rubs me odd because it seems to be more of a facsimile of itself. Also, it is not even operating as a restaurant, and is in a different location. The roller coaster you mention is still operating as a roller coaster. It is a very interesting perspective. Like if you take a P51 body, and put a new engine in it, I think everyone would say it is a "resored P-51". But if you took a Rolls Royce Merlin engine out of a rusted P-51 and put it in a new body, would it be considered a replica with some original parts?
I dunno, but when I see all the new I-beams, etc. for this surf side project, something inside me screams "phony baloney".
|
|
|
Post by Doowopper on Sept 14, 2006 15:11:29 GMT -5
Wether it is the original or not, we finally are getting the long awaited museum, the band shell will be great for tourists and residents, and the place will look cool. The WAWA looks cool, but I don't think you can compare the two. The new Surfside will be much more functional and a bigger asset to the community (not saying WAWA isn't) Unfortunately I don't think we can preserve every doo-wop building. However, as long as the new buildings are modern, clean, and scream Wildwood I see no problem.
Considering the framework was protected from the elements, could it be it just looks new but is really old. I see no reason for it to tarnish if it was protected.
|
|
|
Post by Rob Ascough on Sept 14, 2006 15:32:03 GMT -5
I guess when it comes to situations such as these, the only thing to go by is the intent of what is supposed to be accomplished. I see it this way:
There is a need for a building to use a Doo Wop museum. The museum had a number of options and those included building a brand-new Doo Wop building and taking an existing building, relocating it and turning it into one. The Surfside restaurant was an existing building that became available and the museum jumped at the opportunity, as I expect they would. Maybe the Surfside restaurant will no longer be a restaurant and maybe the roof beams that contributed much to the original design won't be the same, but if the building is to be rebuilt as closely as it was to how it was originally built, I see no compelling reason to call it anything aside from "original", even if the term must be used rather loosely.
Good point with the P-51. It reminds me of the current muscle car craze. A 1970 Chevelle 454 SS is considered most valuable when the serial numbers on the car, engine and tranny all match, but examples without matching serial numbers are still considered rather valuable, leading me to believe that a Chevelle with an engine that isn't original is still considered to be an original Chevelle, just with a new/different engine.
I guess someone needs to find out if those beams really are new or if they were just reconditioned. If the beams were sent somewhere to be sandplasted and repainted, they could very well look factory fresh even though they're not. Morey's Flitzer was recently refurbished to the point where it looks like a brand-new ride, even though that really isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by wildwood4life on Sept 14, 2006 17:55:06 GMT -5
The idea is to bring something back....maybe they TRIED to save everything but hey, its old....its been in storage. Its not like when the building was built they had the intent of disassembling it and storing it before bringing it back again. Come one everyone..... Just be happy that we got something back! Be it original or a mix of old and new
|
|