Recreating the past is a tricky business, since a reproduction, by its very nature, can never be the equivalent of what came before it. The question that the Zoning Board of Adjustments grappled with Tuesday night was: How close is close enough when it comes to the now-demolished Martha Institute, a stately four-story building that once stood at 214 Sixth St.? Board members were under the impression that they were going to get something very similar to the original building, which served as Hoboken’s first high school, when they agreed to let the private Hudson School tear down the 19th-century edifice last year so that the school could erect a new building in its place. In fact, it was only school officials’ assurances that they would use their “best efforts” to rebuild the Martha Institute, coupled with testimony that showed that the old building could not be rehabilitated, that convinced board members to grant the variance necessary to let the wrecking ball swing. Tuesday night, the board ruled that so far, the school’s best efforts to rebuild the building that once served as Hoboken’s first high school were not good enough. In a unanimous vote, the board ruled that the drawings which had been sketched by Dennis Kuhn – a Manhattan-based architect – did not meet the standard set when the variance was granted last year. The decision was particularly difficult for board members who recognize that the school is in the unusual position of needing to construct a facility rapidly to ensure that it has a place to educate its students for the 2001-2002 school year. Since its inception more than 20 years ago, the non-profit private school has been housed in a variety of rented spaces around town. Currently it is partly housed in the public library, but it will not be possible to hold classes there after this upcoming school year, since city officials have to begin renovating it or risk losing federal grant money. Although a number of board members expressed their sympathy for the school’s plight, they felt uncomfortable okaying a proposal that looked so unlike the original building to them. In particular, they pointed to the new building’s mansard roof – a roof with slopes on all sides – and broad stairway leading to the front door. But you promised “I want to see the school done because it is for the children,” explained board member Dominic Lisa Tuesday night, “but to me this building is different. The people of Hoboken wanted the building to stay the same because of its historical value. But the look of the roof is different. The stairway is changed. It’s just not the same.” Holding up drawings of the way the building would have looked if it had been rehabilitated and the school’s new proposal, Suzanne Manzi, the board’s chairperson, skeptically asked if the architects who drew up the project thought the two building were substantially the same. Although Kuhn conceded that there were changes in the roof and the stairs, he hastened to explain that the changes were made for a reason. The mansard roof, for example, which once had a number of windows embedded in it, would be windowless in the new structure because school officials hoped to have a multi-purpose room on the fourth floor. Since the floor of the multi-purpose room would have to be set at a lower level than the original fourth floor to provide enough space for athletic and dramatic activities, the height of the windows had to be adjusted, he explained. “If we left the windows at the same height than they would be up too high and not provide enough sun and light into the room,” said Kuhn. “The buildings are substantially the same.” As for the staircase, the straightening of what had been a sweeping curved stairway was done to meet current building standards, he added. But Zoning Board members were unmoved. They pointed out that the school had come before the board Tuesday and asked them a very narrow question. This was not a typical hearing, complete with public input, where the board was being asked to consider a new project. Instead, the Hudson School had asked the board for an “interpretation” on a previously-granted variance, and it was up to board members to simply answer the question: Do the new drawings represent a building that is substantially the same architecturally as the structure that was once there? “I don’t feel comfortable saying, ‘Yes, this is exactly the same,'” said Manzi. “We are appointed to sit on this board, not elected, and I don’t feel comfortable at this point without the public having a chance to comment on this.” The board’s action left the school with two options. They can present their proposal to the board and ask for a variance allowing them to build it, or they can go back to the drawing board. Two residents showed up to the meeting Tuesday night to protest the school’s most recent plans, but they were not allowed to comment since board rules prohibit a public comment period when the board considers an interpretation of a variance that has already been granted. Although they were silent Tuesday, they promised to raise loud protests if the school returned to the board for a full hearing with the same drawings. “They are destroying the whole memory of the school,” said Connie Coppola, who grew up near the building and sat on the edge of her seat throughout the proceeding. “The town cried when they tore that building down, and now we want to see it put back right.” John DePalma, the deputy city clerk and a charter member of the city’s Historic Preservation Committee, also grew up near the building. He sat next to Coppola during the proceedings, equally aghast at the school’s proposal. “The biggest thing is the mansard roof,” he explained. “That was one of its most charming features. It went all the way around the building. And theirs, it just stops. There is no symmetry to their building overall. They have stucco on the sides. No rounded windows like the old one. It just looks like a poorly designed office building.”
Our Digital Archive from 2000 – 2016
