The Fraggles, colorful little cave dwelling creatures, lived in a symbiotic relationship with small little green creatures called Doozers. The Doozers built structures from radish extract that the Fraggles ate. One afternoon, Mokey Fraggle saw the beauty of the Doozer structures; elaborate, crystal palaces. Mokey convinced the other Fraggles to stop eating the Doozer structures in order to preserve them. Eventually the Doozers all decided to leave because there was no place left in the cave for them to build. The Fraggles were also quite hungry as the Doozer buildings were their main source of food. Eventually, the Doozers agreed to return on the promise that the Fraggles would once again eat their buildings.

(Hint: This is a metaphor)

It would best to remediate the existing structure for integrity and keep it as a low volume entry point into Jersey City. If the bridge is expanded it means more freight and more vehicle traffic, while destroying an arguably beautiful piece of industrialist era architecture.

The Pulaski is a beautiful piece of urban architecture and I would hate to see it torn down. Pulaski is something I actually believe has some historical significance and is worth preserving. At the time it was built, I believe it was the longest elevated roadway in the world. Not to mention it has some notoriety thanks to the Soprano's opening sequence. Also, if the DOT removes the Pulaski, that's only going to mean more traffic flooding the downtown. Anyway, I think the Pulaski should be refurbished, but not replaced.

It seems a little silly to start declaring every other building historically significant. The Woolworth Building is historically significant. A common warehouse is not.

Also, it seems a little bit like second grade to start name calling people with different views. Anytime someone says anything positive about the redevelopment of the old industrial waterfront they are immediately labeled a "Developer Apologist." That's a bit silly now, sort of like calling all the "but the artists lived there" folks Communists. It seems a lot of people are under the impression that private property belongs to everyone.

In fairness, when they first started tearing down the front half of the building, you could smell the rotten wood hours after they had finished for the day. I mean, wood that is rotting has a very distinct odor, and you could smell it two blocks in either direction the day they were ripping down the washington street facade.

Or the Hearst building in New York.

There are mixed results with these combo projects, but in general I think its better to preserve most of an old building and cap it with an ugly tower than to remove the old building entirely.

Example: Penn Station. If the old penn station had mostly been preserved with an ugly 1960's style tower coming out of the top, I think that would have been better than the existing station / MSG combo, since now there is none of the old penn station left.

Are people seriously upset that someone wants to clean up Newark avenue? This isn't a historic neighborhood. This isn't a neighborhood of three story brownstones. The developer isn't giving the boot to local artists. It is vacant land in a part of the downtown starved for development. The density of a twelve story building at the west end of Newark will anchor that end of the block. It will provide a customer base to support businesses on the far western end of Newark Avenue. It will in essence, bring much needed redevelopment to to Newark Avenue.