Postcards From The Marlboro Inn

As a relative newcomer to the area, this is the first time I've ever seen what the Marlboro Inn looked like.

I don't know what condition the Marlboro Inn was in when it was demolished, but it sure seems a lot more aesthetically pleasing than those architectural abortions on Christopher Court.

So they call this progress...

A friend who went to Kimberley has a great story. Both her Grandmother and Great Aunt sold their homes around the same time and went to live in an elderly ladylike fashion at the Marlboro Inn. Being friends of the proprietors of the Inn, they were permitted to take their fine antique furnishings with them. These pieces graced the Halls, the Lobby and the Dining room. (I remember them because I stayed at the Inn during a snowy week in the 70's, in the period that my family was living in Rutherford and I was a student at Montclair Academy. The atmosphere was like a Tennessee Williams novel.) The remarkable twist is that these sisters were seldom on speaking terms so they ate three meals a day at separate tables in the Dining room.

I have heard various stories about it's 'over-all' condition and cost for renovation, etc.
I can tell you this, my wife and I had our wedding reception there in 2002 and, though it could use a little paint and polish it certainly was not in bad shape. It had the look and feel we wanted (and got!) It was still open for business until the sale for the deconstruction that is now Chistopher Crossing went through.
Shame.
I have joked with my wife that we should buy one of the units and bring people into the bathroom to tell them, "that this is where we had our first dance."

The other day I was going thru some boxes in the basement and came across a very old matchbook from the Marlboro Inn. I guess it's a collectible now.

I caught a story on the channel 11 news a couple of weeks ago about a neighborhood in the Bronx experiencing the same tear-down and squeeze in more homes on the same lot phenomenon. In this particular instance, the builder was putting in 3 new homes on a lot where a single home had stood. Apparently this was one home over the legal limit for a lot that size in that neighborhood. The issue made it to court, and the judge ruled against the builder, ordering him to tear one the new units down.

My husband and I were married at the Marlboro Inn in 1998. It was a lovely fall day and the setting was beautiful. It is indeed hard to believe that Montclair let it be torn down because it wasn't historic enough. It was a beautiful building and deserved to be saved just for that reason alone.

My husband and I were married at the Marlboro Inn in 1998. It was a lovely fall day and the setting was beautiful. It is indeed hard to believe that Montclair let it be torn down because it wasn't historic enough. It was a beautiful building and deserved to be saved just for that reason alone.

The Montclair Public Library has a copy of the old Marlboro Inn blueprints that I gave to them. Perhaps someday, somewhere, the Inn could be rebuilt!

The Marlboro Inn always gave me the creeps, even when I was a kid.


What went on there? Why so dark? How come I never saw any people or cars go there? It didn't seem like any inn into which I wanted to venture.


It just always had that Kubrick feel.

My parents stayed at the Marlboro Inn about a year before it was demolished, and said it was threadbare and creepy, bordering on the hotel in The Shining. They are from out of town and had no knowledge of the demolition controversy, so I trust their comments.

The Inn was more than just threadbare and creepy, it was a notorious firetrap. We occasionaly put up overflow guests there with great trepidation.
I enjoyed all the interesting recollections of the old Inn, but I wager not one of you would have contributed one sou to the multi-millions it would have cost to restore and uppkeep it as an historical showplace.

Here's the deal, Byron:

An individual made a legitimate offer to buy the inn. He offered the asking price, which included what many would consider an exorbitant profit, considering the length of time the person had the property. He agreed to the conditions.

He was committed to improving the inn and making a go of it.

The offer was turned down.

You, as well as others who have spoken up saying the inn was a piece of junk? That's irrelevant. If someone wants to sink his money into restoring a piece of junk, that's his business. After it's restored you can then decide to patronize it, or not.

P.S. I liked the inn. I am a neighbor. I patronized the inn for many years. We should have given the guy who wanted to buy it the chance to do so. What would have been the loss?

The Crisco Nightmare that we have now in the Inn’s place certainly cost millions to build, it’s not selling and mostly everyone hates it. Rebuilding it as a hotel would have been a better deal.

Does ANYONE like Crisco (other thsn Plofker & Co?) I've never heard one positive thing said about the development, architecturally or otherwise. I would love to round up a panel of architectural profs and hear their comments. Seriously.

But you really don't need to be an architect to tell that the scale of these monstrosities is way off. It doesn't fit in well with the larger picture.

We can't bring back the Montclair Inn as we knew it but we CAN prevent something like this from happening again by getting more involved in our township political machine. Lord knows, it woke ME up.

By the way,

As many know, the price of the Crisco houses had been reduced to under $1.4MM.

With ten houses, each reduced approximately $.5MM, the developer has just lost $5MM. Not a small sum.

BUT, dear friends, we've just lost $5MM in "ratables," i.e. we will now get less tax money from the project.

A lose-lose proposition IMHO.

The Planning Board approved the Marlboro Inn 10 home subdivision proposal almost unanimously in March 2004 as an alternative to a 12 home proposal. There were only two votes opposing these proposals - Planning Board Vice Chairman John Wynn and myself who Mayor Russo designated in his position that was previously filled by Mrs. Michaelson. What I found remarkable was the negative impact that this project would have on the established urban fabric. I drew a section as much as possible to scale, showing what would be real relationship between the built volumes and the street. (I still have this sketch and it is COMPLETELY different from the artist’s rendering presented to the public.) My testimony was just glided over. I don’t really know the members of the Planning Board or their professional and academic backgrounds, but why didn’t anyone else except for Vice Chairman Wynn see what was about to happen? After this event, I felt extremely concerned and have applied to township Historic Preservation Commission and planning positions but have never been accepted.

I just want to know where all these Crisco opponents were when the whole thing was placed before the town for approval. And by the way, is the planning board blind? Couldn't they see what 10 houses would look like on this piece of property?
The Marlboro Inn was a fixture in this town that never should have been removed.

The renderings don't match the final product- it was pointed out many times.

The renderings didn't even match the elevation- it was pointed out many times.

How can the planning board make a descision when what they are given is an not what it will look like.

I think it's a crime!

Frank Gerard Godlewski for Mayor! Who's with me?

Signed,
Fan of F.G.G.

The hotel from the Shining was lovely!

I'd much rather have Frank on the Planning Board where he'd be a wonderful edition and could contribute his enormous knowledge

I too am a "Fan of F.G.G."

I second that motion, Kay. He makes the most cogent points of anyone.

The Planning / Zoning Ordinance should require true-to-scale sections.
Everyone in the building community knows the following:
1. Perspectives and views are extremely easily manipulated to distort from "reality."
2. Perspectives and views are not required to be to scale.
3. Perspectives and views are the easiest drawings for the "lay" community to immediately comprehend. Plans and sections are inherently more abstract and less accessible.

Hence, these "artists conceptions" are often used to mislead not only governing bodies, but, not suprisingly, clients as well.

So we should be "shocked, shocked" that a real-estate developer driven by profit motive would use a misleading illustration to get a super-dense, controversial complex passed.

So, the Planning / Zoning Ordinance should require true-to-scale sections.

Agreed, Hiding. How can someone make a judgement on a drawing that is not true- to-scale? The law should be changed to make this a requirement.

This one especially bugs me:
"3. Perspectives and views are the easiest drawings for the 'lay' community to immediately comprehend. Plans and sections are inherently more abstract and less accessible."

If you read between the lines it's almost as if they regard the "lay" public as too stupid to comprehend the perspectives and views so they have to present a distorted, sugar-coated version to make the pill easier to swallow.

"So we should be 'shocked, shocked' that a real-estate developer driven by profit motive would use a misleading illustration to get a super-dense, controversial complex passed."

No, not shocked at all. This is all part of the game they play.

We can't do anything about the past but going forward, those who care about the integrity of their community should push to have a law created that states that planning/zoning ordinances MUST (not SHOULD) require true-to-scale renderings.

Thank you very much for your kind words!

Does anyone remember the fuss about the renderings of the Sienna? It appeared that they were deliberately manipulated so that the Sienna looked just as tall as the Haynes building although the Sienna was many stories taller.

At the time, I believe it was an architect who suggested that since the drawings were given in sworn testimony to the council, that it WAS a crime to deliberatley distort "reality."

Oh, and just for fun? Go and take a look at THAT monstrosity and see how well it fits into the surrounding area! What do you think Frank?

"Does ANYONE like Crisco (other thsn Plofker & Co?)"

I doubt that Plofker likes it either-- how could he? He sure doesn't live in a house like that. But he LOOOVES money!! The whole mess is a monument to greed.

"BUT, dear friends, we've just lost $5MM in "ratables," i.e. we will now get less tax money from the project."

We haven't lost anything, because the original prices were exorbitant and should never have been counted upon. The revised prices are exorbitant too, and I'll be shocked if they get them. What a debacle!

In an ideal world, I would have preferred John Nolan’s 1909 project to transform the site into Montclair’s Town Green, but with abundant underground parking like the park and garage near to the PAC in Newark. Or, a new building that would have at least pulled itself back to respect the adjacent church tower and exquisite colored glass window to enhance and preserve the beautiful atmosphere of Church Street. On one of Montclair Center’s prime viewpoint axes, it’s just a great big building but not a great “thing”. Although, when I look at it now, I’m not too upset because I realize that it could have been a lot worse.

It can ALWAYS be worse, I suppose. They could have put a McDonald's there.

My favorite revenge fantasy for Crisco is that the remainder of the homes don't sell and the builder has to have a quick sale to unload them. A buyer then purchases the property, razes the unsold homes, and builds aTudor-style inn in their place.

We are fortunate to live in such a great place but I can't figure out why we have to accept the..."It can ALWAYS be worse, I suppose." alternative.

"An individual made a legitimate offer to buy the inn. He offered the asking price"

I do not believe this is factually correct. I seem to recall that the financial backing of the offer was very uncertain.

I do recall that a few years earlier the nimby neighbors (perhaps including you) blocked an effort to adapt the Inn to an alternative use ( a home for the elderly). So much for preserving historic landmarks.

Frank Godlewski's views are wonderful if we had a rich angel or unlimited public treasury to implement them.

It is painless to make sacrifices to preserve landmarks when you are spending other peoples' money.

“ Frank Godlewski's views are wonderful if we had a rich angel or unlimited public treasury to implement them.”

Thank you for the “wonderful” but my views for the Marlboro Inn situation have more to do with Urbanism than Preservation. The practice of preserving a building sometimes necessitates demolition and rebuilding to match the existing structure, following upgrade requirements and current building codes. Naturally, the footprint remains as well as the established landscaping and whatever “features” can be removed, repaired and reset (like the main stair, woodwork, tiles, fixtures etc.) This building could have been a new hotel or luxury co ops homes or whatever, but at least within the established landmark configuration.

Why do you suppose that you would need more money to implement this type of preservation when it could have probably cost the same or less? Please lets try to figure out the square footage and costs of the “C” Development as opposed to the costs of rebuilding the Marlboro Inn as 8 or 10 luxury residential units before this assumption is made. I think that the later would have cost less, would not have created discord within the community and would probably been more marketable in Montclair. The rich angel would probably agree.

Urbanism is science and not just a design option. Look at what happened here.

Godlewski is right, wonderful things might have been done with the Inn and the cost could have been much less than the Crisco costs. Unfortunately I do not recall him or anyone else coming up with a financially backed plan at the time. The one plan that was proposed earlier was shot down by neighbors who were probably motivated by the desire to keep the large property as an undisturbed rustic park for their benefit.

And look what we got - 10 houses that will not sell.

I blame Byron!

Whatever the public was doing in opposition to the subdivision, it did not matter, it all fell upon deaf ears. If the local government will not protect residents from similar hideous planning mistakes and even grant numerous variances to allow such projects to become a reality, what must the public do then? We are not all developers and the ball should not fall in our court. Must we liquidate our belongings and sell our properties to financially back plans in order to protect our neighborhoods? Why are we not guaranteed the serene enjoyment of our homes and have to defend ourselves like this? The public did what they could, there were petitions and even ideas that could have become a financial possibility if they were allowed to with due diligence. Baristanet wrote about a petition and project that the community as a collective attempted to present. www.baristanet.com/2004/09/condos_in_the_inn_plofker_unli.php - 38k -

I think eventually that block will be less of an eyesore. Here's how it will happen: The houses won't even sell at the new price. Eventually the developer will drop the price below a million, and they STILL won't sell. Then rather than go even lower, they'll decide to cash out. A mysterious fire will happen (not trace-able to them, because they'll be very careful to hire experts who'll make it look like the work of angry neighbors), and they'll collect some insurance money. Then they'll sell the property cheaply to someone else, who will knock down the ten burnt shells and put up the four houses that would actually fit decently in that space and sell at a decent profit.

When it happens you can say I predicted it. Just give it four or five years to play out.

Sleepy...accusing someone of planning arson borders on defamation. Hope you have a good lawyer.

Wrong again Godlewski - no one is preventing you from enjoying your own property. What you really want to do is enjoy someone else's property at his expense. There are rules governing when the public can impose obligations on private property rights. Those rules in Montclair were inadequite to prevent the Crisco debacle. The municipal gov't was, to my recollection, open to implementing any reasonable alternative that someone was willing to pay for - going so far as to impose an illegal block on the demolition to allow time for an alternative to come along and pay the developer's price for the property.

Yes, Byron, I need an anonymous lawyer for my anonymous post. Though I do realize I should have said "here's how it could happen" rather than "here's how it will happen," so my apologies. This was idle speculation for amusement's sake. But i still wouldn't be surprised if it came to pass. What, do you work for the developers or something?

Naw, Sleepy, no connections with developers, politicians, or radicals of any stripe...just a nice quiet civil libertarian.

Byron,

He's allowed to write fiction here on this site. I've seen you do it time and time again!!!

“Wrong again Godlewski - no one is preventing you from enjoying your own property. What you really want to do is enjoy someone else's property at his expense.”
We are living in a rare and extremely beautiful community that happens to be among the most expensive places to live in the United States. I love my home and although no one is preventing me from enjoying my property, I am quite concerned about how high the costs are but accept to pay the price to live here. I am pleased to know that my neighbors are like - minded and that our neighborhood is maintained in the best way possible. We enjoy each other’s properties at each other’s expense as a common courtesy, but isn’t this one of the neighborly principals of living in the American Suburbs? For what we are spending here, I feel that I expect security on my investment and that my property and the other characteristic properties in my neighborhood are protected by laws that would prevent real estate speculation from destroying them only to be replaced by new buildings that depreciate our real estate values because they are of mediocre construction or aesthic eyesores or backfired speculation that no one seems to want.

Great minds think alike, FGG....:-)

Are you at all familiar with Roseland? On Roseland Avenue, heading towards Livingson, right on the Essex Fells-Roseland border (rigth side), there used to be a beautiful large, red, 1880s two-family farmhouse. The property has changed hands over the years and the current owner has knocked the farmhouse down and replaced it with something that words cannot describe. Drive by and look for yourself. Got to be one of the ugliest structures around.