PDA

View Full Version : JERSEY CITY | Journal Squared Phase 2 | 759 FT | 72 FLOORS


Pages : [1] 2 3

RobertWalpole
Mar 19, 2012, 6:19 AM
I don't know if this is the final design. If so, it's ok, but it will be nice to see an 82 story tower in JC.

http://handelarch.com/projects/type/residential/journal-sqaure-residential.html

Journal Square
Jersey City
Journal Square is a new mixed-use high-rise development awarded through a design competition to Handel Architects and HWKN. The three tower project – the tallest at 82 stories - includes over 2,000 apartments, as well as office space and retail. A sweeping, tree-filled plaza will host farmer’s markets, evening film projections and public events along its low stairs that slope down to the PATH station. Wide, public walkways under each tower’s entrance encourage people to move easily from the plaza into the surrounding neighborhood


http://handelarch.com/images/projects/location/jersey-city/journal-square/1.jpg

Dylan Leblanc
Mar 19, 2012, 6:40 AM
Wow OMG is this serious? I always thought it was a shame that the Journal Square project never went anywhere.

NYC2ATX
Mar 19, 2012, 8:09 AM
If this is a serious proposal, which I hope it is, this is mind-numbingly fucking awesome. The whole New York area is an unstoppable force. It feels like we're close to rivaling the Tokyo megalopolis...with a better set of skylines ;)

Roadcruiser1
Mar 19, 2012, 12:05 PM
If built this building can easily pass the 1,000 foot mark. It would be anywere between 1,100 to 1,200 feet high.

babybackribs2314
Mar 19, 2012, 12:27 PM
This project is absolutely fantastic, and hopefully comes to fruition... would make a very iconic addition to the JC skyline, and hopefully encourage similar developments in DoBro and LIC.

OhioGuy
Mar 19, 2012, 1:09 PM
So if this happened, where would it be located in relation to the PATH station? Would they build above the tracks to the Northwest of the station (across JFK Blvd?) Or would they build to the East-Southeast of the PATH station?

Nexis4Jersey
Mar 19, 2012, 1:19 PM
So if this happened, where would it be located in relation to the PATH station? Would they build above the tracks to the Northwest of the station (across JFK Blvd?) Or would they build to the East-Southeast of the PATH station?

It would be right next to the JSQ station?

OhioGuy
Mar 19, 2012, 1:29 PM
It would be right next to the JSQ station?

The description says, "A sweeping, tree-filled plaza will host farmer’s markets, evening film projections and public events along its low stairs that slope down to the PATH station."

I wasn't sure whether that meant construction on the east side of JFK Blvd or the west side. If I had to guess, I'd assume the east side so that people don't actually have to cross JFK Blvd to get to the station entrance.

scalziand
Mar 19, 2012, 2:59 PM
Going by this rendering, it's on the east side.

http://handelarch.com/images/projects/location/jersey-city/journal-square/2.jpg

Towers on the blue parcel, plaza on the green parcel.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9422/journalsquarejerseycity.png

Dac150
Mar 19, 2012, 4:55 PM
That would really be something if this project comes to fruition!

Zapatan
Mar 19, 2012, 5:52 PM
Pleeease let this be real.

Supertalls for JC, Brooklyn, Queens, wow that would be so sweet, someday... someday...

patriotizzy
Mar 19, 2012, 6:04 PM
Holy cheeses and crackers.

Roadcruiser1
Mar 19, 2012, 6:49 PM
It would be instantly noticeable from the World Trade Center, and the World Financial Center from Manhattan if it is ever built. It is taller than anything else in Hoboken or Jersey City.

NYC4Life
Mar 19, 2012, 6:59 PM
This would be further away from the main cluster of towers in the Exchange Place and Newport areas, but still an excellent addition.

jd3189
Mar 19, 2012, 7:27 PM
If this is really going to be built, it will be another step into expanding high rises and skylines away from Manhattan. Greater New York is going to expand in these next few years.

arkitekte
Mar 19, 2012, 7:44 PM
This proposal is on a very high level of badass.

summersm343
Mar 19, 2012, 8:29 PM
Ya see, there is one MAJOR problem to this. How in the hell are they going to fill 2,000 apartments in Jersey City? It's likely going to be lowered significantly if it is even approved. If I am wrong someone please correct me... then I will be excited for this.

Crawford
Mar 19, 2012, 8:35 PM
Ya see, there is one MAJOR problem to this. How in the hell are they going to fill 2,000 apartments in Jersey City?

The rental vacancy rate in the core counties of the metropolitan area are around 1%. There's a desperate shortage of rental apartments.

Dac150
Mar 19, 2012, 8:36 PM
The area continues to be a desirable place to live and work. Whether that constitutes this kind of demand I cannot say, however I don't think the area has been built up by accident.

Roadcruiser1
Mar 19, 2012, 8:52 PM
There has also been a proposal around this area as well for 2 buildings that would be around 600 feet tall. It would also be residential, but nothing happened as of yet. I am certain that Journal Square would someday be a high rise residential area. These 5 towers are just the beginning of what would someday be a massive skyline in Jersey City and Hoboken.

Busy Bee
Mar 19, 2012, 10:00 PM
Is this related at all to that tall proposal from a few years back from that developer who was, well, quite elderly?

Thundertubs
Mar 19, 2012, 10:29 PM
Yowzers. This is the first I've heard of it. There was a proposal for twin towers back around '06, the tallest being around 60 stories. There is a big hole in the middle of JSQ where they cleared some old buildings for it. Last I heard, the city was pressuring the developers to either build something or sell the site.

It would be pretty badass if this went through, although I remain skeptical for the time being. It's a very radical change for a neighborhood that, though brimming with potential, still has yet to see much development action.

Ya see, there is one MAJOR problem to this. How in the hell are they going to fill 2,000 apartments in Jersey City?

2,000 apartments is nothing. There's way more than that coming. Downtown Jersey City was blowing up before the recession, and has a huge pipeline of residential hi-rises approved and ready to start. Journal Square is not currently a hot neighborhood, but it's only one stop further from the hot part of Jersey City, and is a serious transit hub. It's also a relatively inexpensive area. I could see these apartments moving pretty quickly.

Jersey City put up about a dozen+ very tall residential buildings in the last 8 years or so, and they're all pretty much filled up.

These 5 towers are just the beginning of what would someday be a massive skyline in Jersey City and Hoboken.

I wouldn't count on much more of a skyline from Hoboken. It's approaching build-out (it has only think of one big vacant lot downtown) and is NIMBY-central. Also, the one big hi-rise Hoboken does have, the W Hotel, is so hideous that it may have ruined Hoboken's taste for high-rises.

scalziand
Mar 20, 2012, 2:30 AM
Is this related at all to that tall proposal from a few years back from that developer who was, well, quite elderly?

Do you mean this one?
http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates_impact/2008/10/large_render.jpg
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/jersey_city_mayor_unveils_jour.html

I don't think so. They appear to be on different parcels.
http://img638.imageshack.us/img638/9422/journalsquarejerseycity.png
^ ....................................................................................... ^
Old project site ............................................................... This project

Roadcruiser1
Mar 20, 2012, 2:32 AM
Well you won't attract much residents if your house is near a funeral home. I think that would scare most people away.

scalziand
Mar 20, 2012, 3:26 AM
Made a quick model-its BIG.

http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/5643/jsquare.jpg

From WTC:
http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/8800/jswtc.jpg

Busy Bee
Mar 20, 2012, 3:26 AM
Ahhh, so is that old unrelated proposal long dead or on the back back burner somewhere?

Zapatan
Mar 20, 2012, 3:31 AM
It's kinda far from the main skyline, still cool though :D

NYguy
Mar 20, 2012, 2:07 PM
I go through that area pretty frequently, but I'll have to refresh my memory on the turn of events there. There was a specific reason why the older proposal never got built, and a lot would have to happen before this one could. Journal Square could and should support more office development though.

sbarn
Mar 20, 2012, 11:41 PM
At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, this proposal seems pretty far fetched. :sly:

summersm343
Mar 20, 2012, 11:53 PM
At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, this proposal seems pretty far fetched. :sly:

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. If anything arises out of this, it will not be a supertall, in fact I doubt it will even reach 800 feet. :yuck:

Crawford
Mar 21, 2012, 1:54 AM
I go through that area pretty frequently, but I'll have to refresh my memory on the turn of events there. There was a specific reason why the older proposal never got built, and a lot would have to happen before this one could. Journal Square could and should support more office development though.

I've never heard of anything on this exact site, and I think it's a new proposal.

There's another major Journal Square site that's received tons of press (a two-towered development, the taller being 62 floors), but that's on an adjacent site.

Dac150
Mar 21, 2012, 2:04 AM
At the risk of sounding like a pessimist, this proposal seems pretty far fetched. :sly:

Personally, I would like to read about which developer is involved with the project. I looked at the webpage on the architect's site and it's more or less marketing material.

R@ptor
Mar 21, 2012, 2:23 AM
Somehow this would look much better on the waterfront rather than so far away from Jersey City's main cluster.

Zapatan
Mar 21, 2012, 2:45 AM
Somehow this would look much better on the waterfront rather than so far away from Jersey City's main cluster.

I think we can all agree on that, it is a bit far away :shrug:

Crawford
Mar 21, 2012, 2:50 AM
Somehow this would look much better on the waterfront rather than so far away from Jersey City's main cluster.

This is located in Journal Square, which is Jersey City's main transit hub.

They're trying to shift highrise development more towards Journal Square, and just rezoned the neighborhood to allow towers.

scalziand
Mar 21, 2012, 3:26 AM
I don't see developers moving to Journal Square though until the waterfront is mostly filled up. There's still PLENTY of surface lots near the waterfront open for development.

Roadcruiser1
Mar 21, 2012, 3:46 AM
There is lots of room for skyscrapers in Hoboken especially around Hoboken Terminal and the Lincoln Tunnel areas. I would like to see World Financial Center and World Trade Center like development around here.

SkyscrapersOfNewYork
Mar 21, 2012, 7:07 AM
Honestly i cant see office pace being built out in JC anytime in the near future. With the flood of new space going up in Manhattan particularly at the Hudson yards which is offering great rates i cant see why corporations would want to be anywhere else.

Nexis4Jersey
Mar 21, 2012, 8:13 AM
There is lots of room for skyscrapers in Hoboken especially around Hoboken Terminal and the Lincoln Tunnel areas. I would like to see World Financial Center and World Trade Center like development around here.

Hoboken has a height limit and so does Neighboring Weehawken which is where the Lincoln Tunnel is located....

Towersteve
Mar 21, 2012, 1:35 PM
Hoboken has a height limit and so does Neighboring Weehawken which is where the Lincoln Tunnel is located....

True Hoboken residents want to keep the city small. The Lincoln Tunnel area is not very accessible. There's usually a massive traffic backup in the mornings and evenings. The path train only goes into Hoboken about 20 blocks to the south. They have a light rail you can connect to but it's not big and doesn't run enough yet.

Nexis4Jersey
Mar 21, 2012, 2:20 PM
True Hoboken residents want to keep the city small. The Lincoln Tunnel area is not very accessible. There's usually a massive traffic backup in the mornings and evenings. The path train only goes into Hoboken about 20 blocks to the south. They have a light rail you can connect to but it's not big and doesn't run enough yet.

The LRT runs every 5-15 mins and its decently sized system , and its being expanded.... There already building up the rest of the Weehawken Waterfront will low rise structures....should be finished in 2015....

NYguy
Mar 21, 2012, 2:40 PM
Journal Square is a rail and bus hub for commuters, and can handle more office development than it has. However, the JC waterfront was developed as an alternative to lower Manhattan. Before that, there was not much in that area, and Journal Square was the more traditional urban center.

Back to the old failed proposal, looks as though the city wants to get something going...

http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index.ssf/2012/03/jersey_city_signals_it_wants_d.html
Jersey City signals it wants developer of massive Journal Square project to act, or face default

http://media.nj.com/jjournal-news/photo/10668408-large.jpg


March 10, 2012
By Terrence T. McDonald


In April 2009, Jersey City Mayor Jerramiah Healy stood on a 1.5-acre site adjacent to the Journal Square PATH station and hailed an imminent twin tower project as a “great step forward” for the city. The project two towers, one 58 stories and the other 38, sitting atop a seven-story retail and parking base with a rooftop terrace would begin later that year, and be completed in three years. It’s now three years later and the site remains vacant, save for weeds and the occasional soda can or beer bottle surrounded by metal fencing.

The twin tower project appears to be nothing more than a dim fantasy, but that may all change soon. City officials say they want the heart of the city to see the same kind of development that’s occurred Downtown. “Journal Square is really the next area, and Journal Square is primed and ready for a project,” said Jersey City Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Bob Antonicello.

For years, the Journal Square project was stalled, with main investor Multi-Employer Property Trust (MEPT), of Washington, D.C., blaming the poor economy for its inability to find a partner to help it with financing, according to Antonicello. After missing an August 2011 deadline to put a shovel in the ground, and then missing a second deadline of Dec. 31, 2011, MEPT has until April Fool’s Day to get the project started in earnest, Antonicello said.

“The issue that we had really with MEPT was this process was kind of ready, aim, aim, aim, aim ... and they never fired the gun to actually go vertical,” he said. If the April 1 deadline passes without movement on the project, MEPT will be in default of its agreement with the JCRA, and the city agency can find someone else to help realize the long-awaited proposal, Antonicello added.


http://thejcra.org/jcra_files/Image/redevelopment_projects/JSQ_MEPT_Rendering.jpg
http://www.thejcra.org/index.php?p=project-details&pid=17


This will probably come back to life under a new developer.

____________________________________________________


http://www.globest.com/news/12_310/newjersey/development/-319741.html
MEPT Faces April 1 Deadline for Journal Square Project

By Antoinette Martin
March 20, 2012

The city’s partners in a long-stalled project to revitalize Journal Square with up to 1,500 new housing units and extensive retail on a site adjacent to the PATH station will not meet an April 1 deadline for getting shovels in the ground, and have asked for another year to make good, Jersey City officials tell GlobeSt.com. The Jersey City Redevelopment Agency chief says the answer is probably no.

Antonicello says he expects to advise board members against accepting MEPT’s request for an extension after it defaults on the April 1 deadline, which has already been extended twice since last August. Once MEPT defaults, JCRA is legally entitled to consider new development partners.

“Our issues are significant,” Antonicello says. “The city and the Redevelopment Agency have done everything they can to create as much value at the Journal Square transit hub as possible. This project should have moved forward.”


______________________________________________



While that project struggles I don't think the prospects are great for seeing something happen soon with this new 82-story development. But when the redevelopment plan kicks in, Journal Square will be transformed...

http://www.thejcra.org/jcra_files/File/development_projects/journal_square/Journal_Square_Redevelopment_Plan.pdf

http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/142206386/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/142206387/original.jpg



http://www.pbase.com/nyguy/image/142206388/original.jpg






True Hoboken residents want to keep the city small. The path train only goes into Hoboken about 20 blocks to the south. They have a light rail you can connect to but it's not big and doesn't run enough yet.

Hoboken was the main terminus for NJ Transit trains (until the Midtown direct provided "direct" service into Penn Station). It's still a major hub, and there was a proposal a few years ago for a "Hudson Yards-like" development there as well. It could have been a major rival to development in Jersey City, though visibly there's no difference between the two cities from a waterfront point of view.


http://blog.nj.com/hobokennow_impact/2008/09/large_Renderings_Hoboken1_Page_4.jpg
http://www.nj.com/hobokennow/index.ssf/2008/09/crowd_outraged_at_nj_transit_r.html


Can Hoboken withstand a 75-story building?
NJ Transit proposes skyscrapers for $500M development at train tracks

By Tricia Tirella and Timothy J. Carroll
09/29/2008


A 36-acre swath of land at the southern tip of Hoboken is an ideal location for a 75-story building, several other tall towers, and 9.2 million square feet of new development, according to NJ Transit officials and Mayor David Roberts.

Broad plans for the proposed $500 million, 20-year development were unveiled on Thursday, at the third of three public meetings held by NJ Transit to talk about their development plans for the tracks at the city's southern border. The new development would revitalize an industrial area and bring as many as 6,000 new residents to the city.

But many people believe it is out of scale for mile-square Hoboken.

At the meeting, members of a private planning firm, FXFOWLE - appointed by the city and paid for by NJ Transit - tried to convince some outraged residents that condos, office buildings, and retail and park space could "beautify the blighted area" bordering Observer Highway.

NJ Transit owns the property, but has allowed Hoboken to choose its own planning and architecture firm. The development would be completed by NJ Transit's designated company, LCOR. Mayor David Roberts said on Friday that the rail yard is a "quintessential place to put office buildings." He said that even though the proposed 75- to 80-story "signature building" for the site is about three times the height of the tallest building in Hoboken, it would be better to have it on the Hoboken side of the project than on the Jersey City side.




Needless to say, this didn't go anywhere, for now.


http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Ashx4nbGYNM/TJtvOM1KfOI/AAAAAAAAFFI/UDTQpbPXnkE/s1600/NJ+Transit+Plan+1.PNG
http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com/2010/09/hoboken-rail-yards-task-force-press.html


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Ashx4nbGYNM/TJtvPZ00xPI/AAAAAAAAFFQ/X0ChivRmuV4/s1600/NJ+Transit+Plan+2.PNG
http://thehobokenjournal.blogspot.com/2010/09/hoboken-rail-yards-task-force-press.html

Nexis4Jersey
Mar 21, 2012, 4:07 PM
Hobokeners and NJT employees were flat out against that proposal...so it was dropped. A new Proposal was drafted a few months ago and has the approval of most residents and employees.... The Jersey City side would be better served with Monsters that tall... That plan was also supported by a corrupt Mayor who is now out of office , he didn't care for Hoboken and would let just about anything get built. The New Mayor has come out with the Plan below...it has yet to get to NJT....but seeing how Hoboken has forced NJT hand in the past several times it shouldn't be hard. The Secaucus plan that NJT had proposal died aswell , there not really that good when it comes to real estate.... There plans are often out of place and met with a firestorm of opposition.

Hoboken Terminal Yard Redevelopment Plan Second plan (http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Hoboken-Terminal-2nd-Community-Meeting-Presentation-11-10-11.pdf)

summersm343
Mar 21, 2012, 7:43 PM
Hobokeners and NJT employees were flat out against that proposal...so it was dropped. A new Proposal was drafted a few months ago and has the approval of most residents and employees.... The Jersey City side would be better served with Monsters that tall... That plan was also supported by a corrupt Mayor who is now out of office , he didn't care for Hoboken and would let just about anything get built. The New Mayor has come out with the Plan below...it has yet to get to NJT....but seeing how Hoboken has forced NJT hand in the past several times it shouldn't be hard. The Secaucus plan that NJT had proposal died aswell , there not really that good when it comes to real estate.... There plans are often out of place and met with a firestorm of opposition.

Hoboken Terminal Yard Redevelopment Plan Second plan (http://www.hobokennj.org/docs/communitydev/Hoboken-Terminal-2nd-Community-Meeting-Presentation-11-10-11.pdf)

This plan seems much more realistic than the old proposal and both of the Jersey City supertall plans. I could actually see this moving forward and this is something I can get excited about.

NYguy
Mar 22, 2012, 2:49 AM
Any development is good there, and I'm all about development around transit, especially rail terminals. Hoboken would have gotten the benefits if the original plans could have been built (how many towns that small could have boasted a corporate headquarters that large tower likely would have provided), but they want to linger in the shadow of Jersey City. I'm doubtful the 82-sotry proposal can get built, particularly with the original 2 tower proposal in limbo. The economy of the past few years hasn't helped many of these developments. But things are beginning to thaw all over New Jersey as projects come to life.

urbanlife
Mar 26, 2012, 2:07 AM
Wow, something like this would absolutely dominate the Journal Square skyline, though it would definitely be nice to see that area be much more of a hub, sort of a midtown to the waterfront downtown of Jersey City.

I am definitely gonna have to do some wandering on the Jersey side some when I get there in just over a month.

ifeeldope9779
Mar 30, 2012, 3:32 PM
With the new and proposed development downtown, an increasing population in Hoboken and JC, not to mention some of the development going on in Newark, can the PATH handle the increase in ridership? Its already beyond packed during rush hour.

Roadcruiser1
Mar 30, 2012, 4:22 PM
With the new and proposed development downtown, an increasing population in Hoboken and JC, not to mention some of the development going on in Newark, can the PATH handle the increase in ridership? Its already beyond packed during rush hour.

I am certain that things will work out. Especially since there are proposals to expand the PATH system, and the HBLR system it will work out. There has also been two other proposals that would help. The 7 line extension to New Jersey and the Gateway Project but it has to be seen which proposal would be picked.

Zerton
Apr 1, 2012, 1:43 AM
I love the Handel Architects proposal. The connectivity between the towers at the base looks beautiful. I Think those terraces will be very popular.

http://handelarch.com/images/projects/location/jersey-city/journal-square/2.jpg

NYguy
Apr 1, 2012, 1:13 PM
can the PATH handle the increase in ridership? Its already beyond packed during rush hour.

That's an understatement. But slightly increased service will help some. What will help more is if that 7 extension to Secaucus gets built. It's currently just a study, but is being looked at as a cheaper and more practical way of getting more transit into the City from Jersey (over the canceled rail tunnel project).

Dylan Leblanc
Apr 13, 2012, 12:39 PM
A few more renderings from the HKWN website - http://www.hwkn.com/JOURNAL-SQUARED-J2


http://payload44.cargocollective.com/1/2/77701/3191424/13.jpg

http://payload44.cargocollective.com/1/2/77701/3191424/15.jpg

http://payload44.cargocollective.com/1/2/77701/3191424/19.jpg

Nowhereman1280
Apr 13, 2012, 2:13 PM
Now that's what I call TOD!

This seems to be a pretty handsome design and much more rememberable than a lot of the non-descript glass boxes going up across the river. Hope to see it get built! It would also be hilarious to see Jersey City have a taller building than every other city in the country except Chicago and NYC...

NYguy
Dec 10, 2012, 4:38 AM
http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_story/21067113/article-70-story-residential-tower-to-break-ground-at-JSQ-%E2%80%98Game-changing%E2%80%99-residential-development-coming-to-transit-hub-?instance=lead_story_left_column

70-story residential tower to break ground at JSQ
‘Game-changing’ residential development coming to transit hub

http://matchbin-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/public/sites/383/assets/5QOY_12JCjournalquared9_1.jpg


by E. Assata Wright
Dec 09, 2012


The city’s weathered Journal Square neighborhood appears to be on track to get a makeover. A week after the City Council gave approval for a new 42-story residential building near Summit Avenue, the Planning Board has similarly blessed the “Journal Squared” development, also known as J2. According to revised plans presented to the community last week, the KRE Group will build a 1,840-unit residential development behind the Journal Square transit hub on what is currently used as parking for NJ Transit and security personnel. A portion of the development will also occupy what was once a Verizon office building on Summit Avenue.

The project, which will be built in three phases, will ultimately include about 36,000 square feet of retail space and 920 parking spaces. “We’re planning to break ground in 2013 for Phase I,” said KRE Principal Jonathan Kushner, who also built the Grove Pointe development downtown. “I can’t project how long it will take to build Phase II and Phase III. But our plan is to complete Phase I within the next 36 months. That means we expect to be built and leased within 36 months.”

The first phase of the project, which does not currently include any condominiums, will have 540 residential units and a pedestrian/community space similar to Grove Plaza at the Grove Street PATH Station. “A large part of our plan here is to rebuild all of Magnolia Way to make it a new public plaza,” Kushner said.

“This is a game-changer,” city engineer Jeff Wenger told residents and members of the Planning Board last week, who had gathered to hear about several changes Kushner and Handel Architects wanted to make to their original design. The tiered development will be 70 stories at its highest point and will be a visible and prominent New Jersey landmark when viewed from Manhattan’s West Side. Originally designed as three separate towers, the revised Journal Squared plan is one cohesive building.

While specific residential amenities were not discussed during the public presentation last week, the finished complex will feature ambient lighting, new landscaping, and a completely redesigned back entrance to the PATH/NJ Transit station at Journal Square.

“This is the most dramatic project that we’ve seen, I think, in the last 30 or 40 years,” said Robert Cotter, director of the Jersey City Division of Planning. “This is an important project that is going to transform Journal Square, for real.”

Journal Squared is the second large-scale residential development to be approved for this area in the past three weeks. Two weeks ago, the City Council approved a settlement with the owner of Robinhood Plaza. The settlement has paved the way for the construction of a 42-story residential development near Summit Avenue. Many residents, particularly those who remember the Square’s heyday as a vibrant business hub, welcome this development and say it is time that communities away from the city’s waterfront begin to benefit from Jersey City’s renaissance.




Older rendering...

http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=301915

http://media.nj.com/hudsoncountynow_impact/photo/11439615-standard.jpg



http://photos.nj.com/jersey-journal/2012/08/kre_groups_proposed_journal_sq_2.html

http://media.nj.com/jersey-journal/photo/2012/08/11439720-standard.jpg



http://media.nj.com/jersey-journal/photo/2012/08/11439676-standard.jpg



http://media.nj.com/jersey-journal/photo/2012/08/11439681-standard.jpg

NYC2ATX
Dec 10, 2012, 10:35 AM
shut. up. already?!

:cheers:

Good morning, New Jersey. :D

scalziand
Dec 10, 2012, 6:35 PM
If its one building how is it still three separate phases?

NYguy
Dec 10, 2012, 7:12 PM
If its one building how is it still three separate phases?

I think the misunderstanding is that the plans are to build one tower for now, followed by the other towers in phases. It looks like the plan is basically 10 units per floor.


http://www.globest.com/news/12_496/newjersey/residential/KRE-Wins-Jersey-City-Bid-327517.html

By Antoinette Martin
December 7, 2012


KRE’s Jeffrey Persky said construction of the first tower, 54 stories tall with 540 units, would begin by the end of next year. That is to be followed by a 70-story building with 700 units, and then a 60-story tower with 600 units, according to the approved plan.

There are other projects that also may be in the works for Journal Square, including two towers proposed for one block south of the PATH station.

Some years ago, the city zoned the Journal Square neighborhood for high-rise development around the heavily traveled PATH station and bus terminal at the Transportation Center. The Journal Square PATH station has the fourth-highest ridership of any PATH station on weekdays, and second-highest on weekends (behind the World Trade Center.)


I love high density around major transit centers. It's the way it should be.

StoOgE
Dec 10, 2012, 10:14 PM
I'm hopeful something gets off the ground here.

The area could use a shot in the arm, and the transit connections should be able to support a lot of growth here.

njcco
Dec 11, 2012, 12:29 AM
I work in Jersey City - the nice part, and I wouldn't want to live even there. Too few real amenities. Not even a Whole Foods, even with all of the upscale rental and condo buildings. Who would want to live in that decrepit part of town? It is not like Brooklyn. It is more like Newark.

babybackribs2314
Dec 11, 2012, 12:36 AM
I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.

This site is literally in the middle of nowhere and I'm surprised it's getting built. I like the ambition and scope but I can't help feeling this will ultimately look awkward & alone. I don't see the neighborhood becoming a viable hub or center of business and there isn't enough existing for even a major project like this to change that. 1,800 residences are a lot for one development but in terms of creating a neighborhood, nothing. If they can put 10,000 units adjacent to the station, the prospects begin to become much better... unfortunately I don't think you could find enough people to fill those units (especially if they're luxury buildings demanding relatively high rents). We will see but I definitely hope it works out for the best...

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 12:36 AM
Journal Square is long due for highrises- there's been so much low rise construction including street front retail in recent years the area is primed.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 12:37 AM
I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.

This site is literally in the middle of nowhere and I'm surprised it's getting built. I like the ambition and scope but I can't help feeling this will ultimately look awkward & alone. I don't see the neighborhood becoming a viable hub or center of business and there isn't enough existing for even a major project like this to change that. 1,800 residences are a lot for one development but in terms of creating a neighborhood, nothing. If they can put 10,000 units adjacent to the station, the prospects begin to become much better... unfortunately I don't think you could find enough people to fill those units (especially if they're luxury buildings demanding relatively high rents). We will see but I definitely hope it works out for the best...

I'm guessing you've never been out there?:rolleyes:

wikipedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ec/Journal_Sq_dusk_jeh.JPG/800px-Journal_Sq_dusk_jeh.JPG

babybackribs2314
Dec 11, 2012, 12:43 AM
I'm guessing you've never been out there?:rolleyes:

Why would anyone ever go there?

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 12:50 AM
^Because people work, shop, eat and live there.

No need to be insular, it's a big metro area.;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journal_Square

vandelay
Dec 11, 2012, 12:54 AM
The PATH takes the metrocard. If you're ever downtown and want to see what Manhattan looks like across the river, it's a nice little diversion. The view of 1WTC down Grand st. is fantastic. The few times I've been to Jersey City, I've been very impressed. I get the impression that there's a lot of room for development and development is inevitable.

There's a WPA art deco hospital and administrative complex that's more in the middle of nowhere than Journal Square. It was converted into million dollar lofts and condos. The success or failure of that project might be indicative of the demand in Jersey City.

babybackribs2314
Dec 11, 2012, 12:54 AM
^Because people work, shop, eat and live there.

No need to be insular.

I thought it was just strip malls. I don't think many people work, shop, eat and live there. I doubt any of my friends in NYC have been there.

Not being insular, it's just a totally random place and I don't see this development jump-starting growth. It's just not an accessible neighborhood nor an in-demand location.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 1:01 AM
I thought it was just strip malls. I don't think many people work, shop, eat and live there. I doubt any of my friends in NYC have been there.

Not being insular, it's just a totally random place and I don't see this development jump-starting growth. It's just not an accessible neighborhood nor an in-demand location.

Just because you haven't been and don't know anybody there doesn't mean it isn't a thriving, accessible community- which it is.:cool:

vandelay
Dec 11, 2012, 1:07 AM
I thought it was just strip malls. I don't think many people work, shop, eat and live there. I doubt any of my friends in NYC have been there.

Not being insular, it's just a totally random place and I don't see this development jump-starting growth. It's just not an accessible neighborhood nor an in-demand location.

You should take a trip out there to see it before it changes. I should revise my previous statement though and say that unlimited passes won't work.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 1:21 AM
There's a WPA art deco hospital and administrative complex that's more in the middle of nowhere than Journal Square. It was converted into million dollar lofts and condos. The success or failure of that project might be indicative of the demand in Jersey City.

Good point. Here's a $1.6m listing there;

http://www.neighborcity.com/property/4-Beacon-Way-Jc,-Journal-Square-NJ-7304-120001748-26109049/

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 1:23 AM
I'm sorry but I agree... I hope I'm wrong but I think this developer is completely shooting for the stars and will ultimately come up empty... I smell fail all over this project, but I could be wrong. Something this large of scale should be on the Jersey City Waterfront... Something this big there is COMPLETELY out of scale and will look ridiculous. Maybe something around 300-400 feet would be much more appropriate for the area.

aquablue
Dec 11, 2012, 1:31 AM
Why would anyone ever go there?

Pretty strange comment to make. Sounds rather snobby.

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 1:36 AM
I work in Jersey City - the nice part, and I wouldn't want to live even there. Too few real amenities. Not even a Whole Foods, even with all of the upscale rental and condo buildings.

Add 10,000 high-income residents to Journal Square, and you'll get your Whole Foods and upscale amenities.

There are roughly a dozen major towers planned for Journal Square. As the affluent residents arrive, amenities will follow.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 1:36 AM
Poor Jersey City, so misunderstood!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/aa/Census_Bureau_map_of_Jersey_City,_New_Jersey.gif

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 1:39 AM
I
Not being insular, it's just a totally random place and I don't see this development jump-starting growth. It's just not an accessible neighborhood nor an in-demand location.

You should take a visit to Journal Square. You really couldn't be more wrong. Excepting NYC (obviously) there are few neighborhoods in the U.S. as urban and dense as Journal Square.

Journal Square is the transit hub of Jersey City. It's the densest neighborhood in Jersey City and already has tons of apartment buildings and working class retail corridors.

It also has one of the largest and busiest Little Indias in the U.S.

And there is already new development. Two new (much smaller) apartment highrises were built in recent years.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 1:48 AM
It also seems many people don't understand the difference between Journal Square and Exchange Place? I'm not from NJ but they are two distinct neighborhoods on the PATH.;)

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 1:58 AM
It also seems many people don't understand the difference between Journal Square and Exchange Place? I'm not from NJ but they are two distinct neighborhoods on the PATH.;)

I don't think anyone confused Journal Square with Exchange Place. I think it's more like they don't know what or where it is.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 2:04 AM
perhaps this will help ;)

http://www.panynj.gov/photo/path/PATH_system_map.jpg
http://www.panynj.gov/path/journal-square-station.html

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:17 AM
Sooooooo residents of Jersey City are actually telling me that they think this development is appropriate for the area? I think it is EXTREMELY out of scale and out of touch with the neighborhood. It's just the developer shooting for an extreme return on investment. 70 stories?! Most of the buildings in this area are 2 or 3 floors. There are very few highrises let alone midrises in the area.

This development should be along the waterfront and on this site should be maybe a 300 or 400 foot tower. MUCH more appropriate for the area. This is just completely ridiculous looking

Good city planning is building to critical mass, than building up... not building a 70 story tower when the area is not built to critical mass... IMO I think this will saturate the market for a few years and Phase 2 and 3 will never get built.

This is just as farfetched as the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn by Forest City Ratner.

If this development was on the waterfront I'd be all for it... but here?! Crazy I tell ya :yes:

NYguy
Dec 11, 2012, 2:20 AM
I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.

This site is literally in the middle of nowhere

The PATH isn't hard to understand at all. Quite contrary, it's just like the subway, but a lot simpler because there are so few lines and stops. I use the PATH often, and its an alternative to many NJ Transit customers heading Downtown or from Hoboken. The extreme crowding is a testament to how many people understand it as a viable connection. Journal Square has direct connections to both the WTC and 33rd street terminals. As far as the area surround it, it is very dense.


It also seems many people don't understand the difference between Journal Square and Exchange Place? I'm not from NJ but they are two distinct neighborhoods on the PATH.;)

The difference is that Journal Square is a true urban area while Exchange Place is the artificially created "Battery Park City" of JC. The average person in JC will see more of Journal Square than Exchange Place. That's really all you need to know about it.




I think it is EXTREMELY out of scale and out of touch with the neighborhood. It's just the developer shooting for an extreme return on investment. 70 stories?! Most of the buildings in this area are 2 or 3 floors. There are very few highrises let alone midrises in the area.

This development should be along the waterfront

You are aware that 20 years ago there was no waterfront community or highrises in JC right? This neighborhood is exactly where this type of development belongs.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 2:20 AM
Sooooooo residents of Jersey City are actually telling me that they think this development is appropriate for the area? I think it is EXTREMELY out of scale and out of touch with the neighborhood. It's just the developer shooting for an extreme return on investment. 70 stories?! Most of the buildings in this area are 2 or 3 floors. There are very few highrises let alone midrises in the area.

This development should be along the waterfront and on this site should be maybe a 300 or 400 foot tower. MUCH more appropriate for the area. This is just completely ridiculous looking

Good city planning is building to critical mass, than building up... not building a 70 story tower when the area is not built to critical mass... IMO I think this will saturate the market for a few years and Phase 2 and 3 will never get built.

This is just as farfetched as the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn by Forest City Ratner.

If this development was on the waterfront I'd be all for it... but here?! Crazy I tell ya :yes:

Wha?- are you being ironic? I don't get it.:shrug:

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:25 AM
You are aware that 20 years ago there was no waterfront community or highrises in JC right? This neighborhood is exactly where this type of development belongs.

Yes... I am aware, but those developments started with smaller scale highrises. You don't start with a 70 story tower...

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:26 AM
Wha?- are you being ironic? I don't get it.:shrug:

No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 2:29 AM
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.

Well then she must be an expert.

And Atlantic Yards is well underway;)
http://www.usa.skanska.com/news--press/featured-news/atlantic-yards-b2-modular-/

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 2:35 AM
Yes... I am aware, but those developments started with smaller scale highrises. You don't start with a 70 story tower...

It isn't starting with a 70 floor tower.

They already built a few 15-20 floor buildings in the last few years, a 42-floor building is about to break ground, and there are some 300-400 foot former hospital towers that are now luxury lofts. There's also a couple of midrise office buildings from the 70's-80's.

And Journal Square isn't some raw, built-from-scratch community. It looks like a dense neighborhood in Brooklyn, the Bronx or Queens. The Jersey waterfront often has that raw, mini Asian insta-city feel (especially Newport), but Journal Square is a real neighborhood.

The demand is obviously based on the fact that it's a transit hub a few minutes from Manhattan. As long as it's on a short train ride to Manhattan, there's almost unlimited demand for high-end rental housing.

aquablue
Dec 11, 2012, 2:35 AM
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.

Oh, ok, cool story.. How does she know this and what credentials do you have to make such a judgement? Is this your gut feeling or do you have sound data to back up your argument?

Nexis4Jersey
Dec 11, 2012, 2:36 AM
I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.

This site is literally in the middle of nowhere and I'm surprised it's getting built. I like the ambition and scope but I can't help feeling this will ultimately look awkward & alone. I don't see the neighborhood becoming a viable hub or center of business and there isn't enough existing for even a major project like this to change that. 1,800 residences are a lot for one development but in terms of creating a neighborhood, nothing. If they can put 10,000 units adjacent to the station, the prospects begin to become much better... unfortunately I don't think you could find enough people to fill those units (especially if they're luxury buildings demanding relatively high rents). We will see but I definitely hope it works out for the best...

Journal SQ is the hub of the Urban bus network and the PATH , along with numerous small companies , colleges and a growing Arab / Indian community. Its not the middle of nowhere , maybe for a New Yorker who has never left Manhattan...how can you not know how to use the PATH its only 4 lines and 12 stations? :sly:

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:38 AM
Well then she must be an expert.

And Atlantic Yards is well underway;)
http://www.usa.skanska.com/news--press/featured-news/atlantic-yards-b2-modular-/

Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 2:39 AM
This is just as farfetched as the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn by Forest City Ratner.


And this is even sillier.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know the first thing about the local real estate market. Core brownstone Brooklyn is one of the most expensive markets in the nation.

Excepting the very few most prime Manhattan neighborhods, there's almost nothing more expensive in the U.S. Brownstone Brooklyn is very, very expensive, and towers on top of the main transit hub will rent or sell for a bundle.

Nexis4Jersey
Dec 11, 2012, 2:39 AM
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.

Your right , this area really doesn't have the Infrastructure road or transit wise to support these monsters these buildings would be better for Downtown Newark or Downtown Jersey City. The Original plan was 2 towers now its 3? This isn't the first project in that area , all have failed or gotten kickbacks then failed... The Neighborhood wanted something smaller like a mid rise , not a supertall which I can agree with.

NYguy
Dec 11, 2012, 2:39 AM
Journal Square and environs...


Eating in Translation (http://www.flickr.com/photos/eatingintranslation/216253214/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm1.staticflickr.com/59/216253214_d24c5423d0_b.jpg



Dan Beards (http://www.flickr.com/photos/7355435@N04/2509436386/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2316/2509436386_9ecb82e6d7_b.jpg



Projectionist (http://www.flickr.com/photos/73927115@N00/7051937631/sizes/l/in/photostream/)

http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5336/7051937631_0a2ed7d285_b.jpg

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 2:41 AM
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.

No, it wasn't seriously downscaled. The buildable square footage in the approved Atlantic Yards is almost the same as in the original proposal.

And the years of NIMBY opposition are kinda the whole point. You don't get it. There are constraints to the local real estate market, which is why new buildings are so desirable, and do so well.

NYguy
Dec 11, 2012, 2:41 AM
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.

Not true at all. Not even a little bit.

This discussion is getting all over the place. Let's just stick to this development and where it will be built.

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:44 AM
Oh, ok, cool story.. How does she know this and what credentials do you have to make such a judgement? Is this your gut feeling or do you have sound data to back up your argument?

No need to be rude. Do you know anything about urban development? Because it is clear you don't. When in an area with low highrise density, it is important not to over saturate the area with a development too large. I understand that it is close to a transit hub linking it to Manhattan, but even so, there is a limited market of people willing to live in Jersey City... most people who can't afford Manhattan just opt for Brooklyn. Even Jersey City is becoming extremely expensive these days and it has an uncertain future. Like I said, something in the 300-400 foot range would be a better bet and a much more financially stable project. There is to live in Journal Square, but there is a bigger desire to live on the Jersey City waterfront... there is already an established highrise community there instead of one just trying to get off the ground. This development could singlehandedly destroy that momentum. This should be proposed on the waterfront and a smaller development should be proposed here.

IDK if you just don't understand this or if you are just being short sighted because the height of the building is making you drool.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 2:45 AM
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.

Showalter- is this you? :haha:

http://dddb.net/php/board.php

Thundertubs
Dec 11, 2012, 2:48 AM
This NEEDS to be accompanied by more PATH service. It's way too crowded as is. Unfortunately, the stupid Port Authority is borrowing money to build office towers...

I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.

It's a subway. You swipe your card and ride it places.

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 2:54 AM
This NEEDS to be accompanied by more PATH service. It's way too crowded as is.

They're expanding all the PATH stations to allow 10-car service, so that's something. But I agree that JC needs more rail service.

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:54 AM
And this is even sillier.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know the first thing about the local real estate market. Core brownstone Brooklyn is one of the most expensive markets in the nation.

Excepting the very few most prime Manhattan neighborhods, there's almost nothing more expensive in the U.S. Brownstone Brooklyn is very, very expensive, and towers on top of the main transit hub will rent or sell for a bundle.

No, it wasn't seriously downscaled. The buildable square footage in the approved Atlantic Yards is almost the same as in the original proposal.

And the years of NIMBY opposition are kinda the whole point. You don't get it. There are constraints to the local real estate market, which is why new buildings are so desirable, and do so well.


Haha.. you're trying to tell me Atlantic Yards weren't downscaled... okay? haha

and I mean the height of the buildings were cut... some by over 100 feet.

Inkoumori
Dec 11, 2012, 2:56 AM
^and that makes you happy?

BTW- I live in Park Slope.;)

OK this has become a stupid argument. I won't comment until it's about JS in JC again. :)

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:56 AM
Showalter- is this you? :haha:

http://dddb.net/php/board.php

Sorry for trying to be realistic. I never said I was against Atlantic Yards.. just said the original proposal was pretty farfetched. Even after all these years, the only thing built is the Barclay Center. If the buildings were less ambitious, more probably would've been built already...

summersm343
Dec 11, 2012, 2:58 AM
^and that makes you happy?

Yes, because now it means they have a better chance of getting built. Do you not understand this? Building tall for the sake of building tall is unnecessary.

I see you guys don't get it. Sorry for voicing my concerns.

Crawford
Dec 11, 2012, 2:58 AM
Haha.. you're trying to tell me Atlantic Yards weren't downscaled... okay? haha

and I mean the height of the buildings were cut... some by over 100 feet.

Yes, I mean to tell you exactly that. Atlantic Yards wasn't downscaled.

And no, saying that the height of a few buildings were cut obviously isn't the same thing. Height is a totally different consideration than scale.

I think two or three buildings were slightly cut in height, but the buildable area was distributed to the planned commercial tower across Flatbush, and to one or two of the apartment buildings. There was no significant change in buildable space, or in overall scale.