I mean we do need to preserve our city's architectural history as much of those styles arent seeing a revival anytime soon. However, there is a point where these buildings just cannot be saved. I am not for just burning everything to the ground and then building, but when you have the old Essex County Jailhouse just sitting in prime real estate, and being a haven for crime, while also depressing property values and every person that goes in there says no amount of cash can save it, but historical reasons keep it there because some still think they can turn it into a museum... you just gotta be realistic.

There are many buildings being razed that can literally be saved, and those should be... but anything else should be looked at objectively and move from there. Newark has a ton of resources and a wide range of wealthy anchor institutions here that many cities our size dont, and we should use them to help preserve the city's history... but at some point its not doable for some places.

However, the article makes note of an interesting theory that Mayor Baraka is razing the city's history because it represents a time when the city excluded black and brown people from its prosperity. I dont know if its entirely true, because gentrification will just do the same... but it puts a whole new spin on why he has been a very pro-development mayor compared to when he was a councilman. It basically seems to suggest that Newark's current prosperity and redevelopment happened because it was a minority city and not because its trying to shed its minority and poor people. Again, I do not know if I buy it, but if it is true what a weird logical hoop the mayor is jumping through to gentrify the city while claiming we are re-writing the city's history.

Because people with money aren’t there to preserve history, just maximize investment. Lol

Watch some HPC members use this article as a reason to not approve developments that will be knocking down old broken down buildings in historic districts

I can only imagine due to severe amounts of mold or other condemnable conditions. They just weren’t preserved properly. As much as we should construct on empty lots, tearing down condemned and derelict buildings is also important in preserving a positive image.

The most fascinating building I know that exists in Newark is the old "Roosevelt Theater" tucked behind some apartment buildings on clinton ave and Leslie st.

It's a HUMONGOUS "paramount movie-palace type theater room from the 1920's.

You wouldn't know it was there, unless you looked on google maps satellite. You'll find it smack in the middle of the block where there should be yards.

currently owned by "pc pilgrim cathedral". Completely in disrepair and failing roof.

Pilgrim cathedral actually runs their whole service from the -entrance- hallway space of the old movie palace (entrance on clinton ave).

They don't have the money to rehab the actual movie palace building... probably would run in the millions. So they keep it sealed off. The previous pastor I spoke to had plans for it, but it never came to fruition.

A pretty balanced article. It is a difficult subject. And the author does a pretty fair analysis.I just wish that Ms del tufo would not burnish her amazing legacy by continuing to fight about Harriet Tubman Square.

There are a few reasons to avoid knocking down historic buildings. I'd say even more important than character and history are things like land use. Many historic buildings were erected before shitty zoning policies and before ridiculous corporate-handouts like mandatory minimum parking requirements. Knocking down buildings in many cities means you'll never recover the density of the old buildings due to new set backs, etc. In those cases, it is unwise. Replacing an old row of pedestrian-friendly store fronts with one drive-through restaurant and tons of asphalt around it ruins a neighborhood.

But if the city of allows high density building, it's often a better choice to knock down and rebuild. If the city allows mixed use buildings, even better. Take the new dorm at NJIT "the View", as an example. It replaced a gorgeous, historic castle-like old school... sad, but the old school had been abandoned for the last 12 years because the maintenance costs were prohibitively expensive and the rooms were too small anyway. It was full of fire hazards. The new dorm uses the entire lot, has parking under. It's an example of great land use. My only complaint is that I thought they'd include a few store fronts that were accessible to the public at the street level. That would have been killer. But, overall the new building is a big improvement over an impractical yet charming old castle.

It costs more to renovate than to tear down and start over. Gotta get rid of the blight.

They are a burden to the tax payers, they produce no revenue, housing, taxable income.. nothing. We have too many of that here already, that’s why we can’t get out of the hole!

In the words of the great Lil Wayne, “…the money is the motive.”

Most “historic” building need to go, they have just become a burden to the city.

Historical preservation is a scam. A way to make well to do liberal feel good about themselves. The rejection of the Arc tower on the grounds that a run of the bank building that happened to be built in the 1920’s should be preserved at the expense of 1000units of desperately needed new housing exposes the “historical preservation” racket for what it is.

Any building worth preserving has already been preserved! Will preserving a school on the basis of it having been build 100 years ago change the fact that 1 out of 3 kid in NPS can’t read at grade level?

Perhaps it’s time to stop solving imaginary problems and start paying attention to real one .