HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #761  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2017, 12:38 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
711 Montgomery suffered the same fate as the other St Peter's project. The site for 55 Jordan was demo'd a few months ago, but no activity since then.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #762  
Old Posted Nov 16, 2017, 3:28 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
711 Montgomery suffered the same fate as the other St Peter's project. The site for 55 Jordan was demo'd a few months ago, but no activity since then.
Thanks for the info Hamilton. This is why I get frustrated when I hear NIMBYs and others here saying the city is giving away the farm to developers. The truth is real estate development is a very risky business. A developer can purchase land and spend millions on architectural and engineering fees yet still has to worry about not being granted approval to construct an as-of-right building. We've seen recent successes by developers when the city pulls arbitrary and capricious acts, but there's still legal fees and added interest to the delay in the development timetable that the developer will usually have to eat.

On top of that, we're now learning just how cautious the construction lenders are. They're taking a hard eye on development budgets and pro formas. Because they're not going to lend money unless they have a near guarantee they'll be repaid.

There's maybe 20 or so developments alone in the Journal Square/McGinley Square area that have received site plan approval, but have not yet broken ground probably due to financing. Site plan approval is only good for two years if I recall correctly, and many are starting to approach that deadline. There's some serious issues.

Either we find a way to make it less risky/expensive to build or pro-forma rents need to go higher in order to justify the higher risks from the lenders perspective. I now understand better when I hear that being able to lease apartments at $50/sqft being thrown around as the magic number.

On a side note, this is also why affordable housing needs such an incredible subsidy. The unit cost is still the same as a market rent unit, but the loss of potential income must be made up elsewhere in order to attract construction financing from the lenders.

Without the financing, nothing gets built.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #763  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 8:09 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
If anyone can make it there will be two presentations before the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency tomorrow at 6pm during their monthly board meeting, located at 30 Montgomery St in the planning department's conference room.

Bates Redevelopment, LLC propose the construction of a mixed use
project to containresidential andretail componentsin the Bates Street
Redevelopment Area.

Ash Street Property, LLC will present a mixed use residential building
at 17-19 Ash Street. 15% of the units are targeted to be affordable.
The developer is the owner of the property in question

I believe these are both mid-rise buildings.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #764  
Old Posted Nov 20, 2017, 8:13 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
From apophenic at YIMBY
http://www.yimbyforums.com/t/jersey-...32-floors/4052


88 Regent, 32 floors, approved by the planning board at their last meeting... (which I'm pretty sure was held in violation of public notice meeting requirements The guys at PADNA are complaining about the lack of notice, too.)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #765  
Old Posted Nov 21, 2017, 4:04 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
From the Tuesday, November 14, 2017 planning board meeting. The one with questionable noticing.

Quote:
3. Review and discussion of amendments to the Journal Square 2060 RDP for the Central Avenue Connector.
Formal action may be taken.
Decision: Approved
Anyone know what these changes are?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #766  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 5:17 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
CIA, yes, that's part of the same proposal as the Homestead Assemblage (the agenda from last months ago that mentioned the Central Avenue Extension as approved was incorrect; only the Homestead Assemblage was actually on the agenda and approved back then.)


Also, look what appeared on the Nov 28 agenda...19 Perrine Avenue! The court has remanded the case back to the Planning Board, and ordered them to approve it on the 28th or face contempt of court.

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...1-2b3b6defa851

I agree with citybooster that the design for 19 Perrine is kinda ugly. But instead of working constructively with the developer to change the design, Boggiano and the Hilltop crew ignored the law, attacked the completely as-of-right aspects of the project, and now have lost any leverage to get the developer to improve the design.

Last edited by Hamilton; Nov 22, 2017 at 7:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #767  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 5:31 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
Also you'll notice on the Nov 28th agenda also lists a change to allow houses of worship in Zone 3 of the Journal Sq 2060 plan as a permitted. I believe that's the first step to allowing the United Methodist Church on JFK to build the addition to their property that we previously discussed. This change won't allow that yet, however. They'd need another amendment after this.

I don't know what changes are being considered for the Grand Jersey and Chapel Ave Industrial plans.

Not on this agenda, but a developer is also seeking changes to the Jersey Ave Park plan to allow residential construction on a plot north of 14th st and west of Jersey Ave (to the west of the Garden Center). Currently that area is only zoned for gas stations, greenhouses, etc.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #768  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 8:50 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post

Also, look what appeared on the Nov 28 agenda...19 Perrine Avenue! The court has remanded the case back to the Planning Board, and ordered them to approve it on the 28th or face contempt of court.

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...1-2b3b6defa851
haha! Sweet! To Jersey City's legal counsel and the planning board members, what the hell where you guys thinking when you denied this?? Michael Sims did his responsibility this day.

Quote:
Planning Board member Michael Sims voted in favor of approving the plan. Sims said he understands neighbors' complaints about the size of the building compared to their two- and three-story homes, but he noted that the project met the requirements of the area's redevelopment plan.

The developer "did everything to the standard codes," Sims said. "I don't like it. They did all their homework."
http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2...ject_near.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #769  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 9:48 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
CIA, yes, that's part of the same proposal as the Homestead Assemblage (the agenda from last months ago that mentioned the Central Avenue Extension as approved was incorrect; only the Homestead Assemblage was actually on the agenda and approved back then.)
Thanks Hamilton. I haven't seen the text of the amendment published yet. It will be interesting to see the maximum density allowed for homestead. I remember the new buildings were about 25 floors or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #770  
Old Posted Nov 22, 2017, 9:54 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
Also you'll notice on the Nov 28th agenda also lists a change to allow houses of worship in Zone 3 of the Journal Sq 2060 plan as a permitted. I believe that's the first step to allowing the United Methodist Church on JFK to build the addition to their property that we previously discussed. This change won't allow that yet, however. They'd need another amendment after this.
Interesting. I believe the Methodist Church is currently in Zone 6: preservation. I guess the plan is to modify 3 to allow churches and then reclassify the church from Zone 6 to Zone 3.

Quote:
I don't know what changes are being considered for the Grand Jersey and Chapel Ave Industrial plans.

Not on this agenda, but a developer is also seeking changes to the Jersey Ave Park plan to allow residential construction on a plot north of 14th st and west of Jersey Ave (to the west of the Garden Center). Currently that area is only zoned for gas stations, greenhouses, etc.
I found a new one. The Brunswick Triangle Redevelopment Plan
Draft provided courtesy of the Hamilton Park NA
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #771  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2017, 6:49 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
^^^That redevelopment plan is now known as the Enos Jones RDP and was presented at the Hamilton Park Neighborhood Association meeting on the 20th. It basically jsut formalizes variances that the ZBA has been granting to properties in that area anyway. If this RDP passes, they can go up to the heights they've been requesting as-of-right, but they'll have to pay into a fund for improvements to Enos Jones Park.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
haha! Sweet! To Jersey City's legal counsel and the planning board members, what the hell where you guys thinking when you denied this?? Michael Sims did his responsibility this day.

Here's my guess: the Planning Board is appointed by the mayor. The mayor pressured them to vote against it because he was courting Boggiano to be on his ticket at the time.

Bob Antonicello is also quoted in the article, correctly predicting how this case would end.

Last edited by Hamilton; Nov 24, 2017 at 3:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #772  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2017, 1:11 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
Ah, now I know what the changes to the Grand Jersey Redevelopment Plan are about: the city will get a bigger park as well as sewer and stormwater management improvements in exchange for allowing smaller unit sizes (to allow rentals instead of condos) at this site:

https://www.quadrumglobal.com/portfo...jersey-city-nj

Basically they' re already entitled to build buildings of that size as-of-right, but the amendments would allow them to build smaller apartments within the same building envelopes. A total of 2,265 units.

I wouldn't count on this project happening anytime soon, as they would have to build tons of sewer, street, and electrical infrastucture to enable this development. Look how long it's taken for Liberty Harbor North to gain momentum. Maybe when LHN is built out this could happen.

Also, this developer's track record for actually getting things built isn't great. They also own the stalled Muller's Pasta Factory development on Baldwin. That hasn't seen any movement in over a year.

Separately, the amendments to the plan will also allow JCMC to build a parking deck (I think CIA mentioned that project earlier in this thread).

Last edited by Hamilton; Nov 25, 2017 at 2:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #773  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2017, 4:10 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
Ah, now I know what the changes to the Grand Jersey Redevelopment Plan are about: the city will get a bigger park as well as sewer and stormwater management improvements in exchange for allowing smaller unit sizes (to allow rentals instead of condos) at this site:

https://www.quadrumglobal.com/portfo...jersey-city-nj

Basically they' re already entitled to build buildings of that size as-of-right, but the amendments would allow them to build smaller apartments within the same building envelopes. A total of 2,265 units.

I wouldn't count on this project happening anytime soon, as they would have to build tons of sewer, street, and electrical infrastucture to enable this development. Look how long it's taken for Liberty Harbor North to gain momentum. Maybe when LHN is built out this could happen.

Also, this developer's track record for actually getting things built isn't great. They also own the stalled Muller's Pasta Factory development on Baldwin. That hasn't seen any movement in over a year.

Separately, the amendments to the plan will also allow JCMC to build a parking deck (I think CIA mentioned that project earlier in this thread).
Thanks! That explains the Crescent Park/Johnson View mystery. That's a lot of money on public improvements. I'm surprised the developer only sought allowance to build smaller units and didn't asking to increase in density to help fund the public benefits. They probably would receive the higher density if they asked... (are you listening Quantum Global?!).

I have a hunch these guys flip both properties - Crescent Park and the Pasta Factory. I mean, it looks like these guys were born out of a hedge fund, Cube Capital.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #774  
Old Posted Nov 27, 2017, 9:01 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
The Bates Street proposal will be 870 units.

From jcra: "the newly constructed project will design buildings to complement the Van Vorst Park Historic District with the base of the project being three story brownstones that will replicate the brownstones seen in Van Vorst Park."

Sounds good!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #775  
Old Posted Dec 4, 2017, 3:03 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
The 85 Bright St case will be heading to the NJ Supreme Court. There were two other cases of municipalities intentionally delaying votes on Zoning/Planning Board applications indefinitely (in Hoboken and Edgewater), so the Supreme Court decided to combine the cases and provide a definitive answer on the situations when this leads to automatic approval. State law says that when municipalities delay zoning/planning applications in bad faith, the applications are automatically approved. The Supreme Court will decide what "bad faith" means.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #776  
Old Posted Dec 5, 2017, 12:17 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
The 85 Bright St case will be heading to the NJ Supreme Court. There were two other cases of municipalities intentionally delaying votes on Zoning/Planning Board applications indefinitely (in Hoboken and Edgewater), so the Supreme Court decided to combine the cases and provide a definitive answer on the situations when this leads to automatic approval. State law says that when municipalities delay zoning/planning applications in bad faith, the applications are automatically approved. The Supreme Court will decide what "bad faith" means.
I also noticed the Perrine developmemt was tabeled...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #777  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2017, 8:51 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,590
So....

There is a 550ft building planned for 246 Heller Pkwy in Newark, but I don't believe it. Probably a typo to the FAA.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #778  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2017, 9:36 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 399
The micro-unit saga on Bright & Varick is over. The Supreme Court turned down the Van Vorst Park Association's appeal, and the building can now be built without further delay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #779  
Old Posted Dec 28, 2017, 9:46 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,314
A nice shot of the recently completed "Ellipse".


THE ELLIPSE BUILDING. NEWPORT-JERSEY CITY. by ALBERTO CERVANTES, on Flickr
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #780  
Old Posted Dec 29, 2017, 3:11 PM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 23,314
JERSEY CITY | 75-81 Jordan Avenue | FT | 6 FLOORS

Project: 75-81 Jordan Avenue



Quote:
The property at 75-81 Jordan Avenue, between Mercer and Vroom streets, has long been a multipurpose property, with a three-family residential building and parking area in the rear and a decades-old automotive garage in the front. However, those days will soon be over as demolition gets underway in order to make room for an upcoming six-story building with 35 residential units. Fifteen parking spaces will also be included, along with a rooftop deck with views of the region.

Lower Manhattan-based Titanium Realty Group is developing the new structure in collaboration with WDesignè of Manhattan, River Drive Companies of Wyckoff, and Eli Martin from LWDMR Architects of Downtown Jersey City.
====================
JC Digs
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Global Projects & Construction > City Compilations
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:11 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.