JERSEY CITY | Projects and Construction thread - Page 21

Hamilton · #**401** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 3:00 AM**

I went to the New JSQ Community Association meeting about 232 Sip Ave tonight. There were several people concerned about parking (of course), but a couple of us also commended the developer for not including parking. In general the attendees supported the development. A vote was taken in the end, and 15 people in attendance supported the development, 6 opposed, and 2 abstained. They'll likely go before the Planning Board in a couple of weeks.

The rendering looked pretty similar to what CIA posted above, with the addition of the 6 floors. The developer also passed around drawings of 165 Academy St, which is now 18 stories as CIA mentioned.

It was also interesting to hear the developer talk about the current financial climate for development in Jersey City. He said that financing is drying up and banks are becoming more strict about financing projects around JSQ and Jersey City, fearing oversupply. He guesses that half of the approved projects won't be built in the next five years. He doesn't have financing yet for the Academy St and Sip Ave buildings and doesn't have a timeline, but hopes to get it after the Planning Board approvals.

C. · #**402** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 3:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

I went to the New JSQ Community Association meeting about 232 Sip Ave tonight. There were several people concerned about parking (of course), but a couple of us also commended the developer for not including parking. In general the attendees supported the development. A vote was taken in the end, and 15 people in attendance supported the development, 6 opposed, and 2 abstained. They'll likely go before the Planning Board in a couple of weeks.

The rendering looked pretty similar to what CIA posted above, with the addition of the 6 floors. The developer also passed around drawings of 165 Academy St, which is now 18 stories as CIA mentioned.

It was also interesting to hear the developer talk about the current financial climate for development in Jersey City. He said that financing is drying up and banks are becoming more strict about financing projects around JSQ and Jersey City, fearing oversupply. He guesses that half of the approved projects won't be built in the next five years. He doesn't have financing yet for the Academy St and Sip Ave buildings and doesn't have a timeline, but hopes to get it after the Planning Board approvals.

Thanks for the update. It's good to see the strong support. This is what we need more of -- and I hope we can fight against any changes to downzone the Journal Square 2060 plan.

citybooster · #**403** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 4:53 PM**

I hope the pessimism about supply proves wrong with Journal Squared's first tower, URL, and Trump Bay Street about to go to market... and as CIA pointed out, Marbella II already has approached selling out all its apartments, so if the banks are feeling cautious those towers coming to market selling out briskly hopefully will ease those concerns.

C. · #**404** Posted **Mar 2, 2017, 11:34 PM**

I mistook that tall tower for 99 Hudson at first. LoL. I hope these cityrealty people knows something I don't.

From: https://www.cityrealty.com/nyc/marke...000-month/9021

chris08876 · #**405** Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 1:41 AM**

^^^

Yeah really. If they have knowledge of super talls, but aren't sharing, well, that is a crime against humanity. We might need a UN Tribunal to punish those who keep precious secrets from us development crackheads. If the NY/JC area is not meeting its super tall quota, thats not good. We need at least 3-4 super talls per year being revealed to make the quota.

Gantz · #**406** Posted **Mar 3, 2017, 7:54 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

^^^

Yeah really. If they have knowledge of super talls, but aren't sharing, well, that is a crime against humanity. We might need a UN Tribunal to punish those who keep precious secrets from us development crackheads. If the NY/JC area is not meeting its super tall quota, thats not good. We need at least 3-4 super talls per year being revealed to make the quota.

Aren't there some issues with FAA in building supertalls in JC? I would love for JC to get some supertalls across the river.

chris08876 · #**407** Posted **Mar 4, 2017, 12:33 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gantz

Aren't there some issues with FAA in building supertalls in JC? I would love for JC to get some supertalls across the river.

Yeah I've heard of a blanket ban on certain heights. In JC and in LIC. But I question the prospects of it always being the case due to appeals. Miami for example always sees petitions to the FAA for an increase in height. Usually, they recommend a height (the FAA) at a height that is lower than expected, but through appeals, and further studies as a result of that appeal, it usually winds up faring well for the developer. So for LIC, while the height allowed is set by the FAA, there are always exceptions depending on how much the developer wants to fight for it.

citybooster · #**408** Posted **Mar 4, 2017, 8:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

Yeah I've heard of a blanket ban on certain heights. In JC and in LIC. But I question the prospects of it always being the case due to appeals. Miami for example always sees petitions to the FAA for an increase in height. Usually, they recommend a height (the FAA) at a height that is lower than expected, but through appeals, and further studies as a result of that appeal, it usually winds up faring well for the developer. So for LIC, while the height allowed is set by the FAA, there are always exceptions depending on how much the developer wants to fight for it.

It was such a cool rendering, but if we get 55 Hudson(which was talked about by Mayor Fulop last year as being in the early stages of talks with Goldman Sachs which owns that lot) and even 50 Hudson next to the Goldman Sachs tower at 30 Hudson(which is 781 ft or so), I'm gathering we won't be able to see anything higher than about the 900 ft range the FAA deemed acceptable for 99 Hudson.

chris08876 · #**409** Posted **Mar 4, 2017, 12:23 PM**

The market would have to be there for something over 900 ft. Granted, office is a bit harder I think to make a profit whereas residential, especially in the 600k-3 million range, it hot... hot ... hot right now. So its easier to make buildings become a reality.

900 ft is nothing to be shy about. But they can go higher. They just have to do studies. If you go on the FAA, and click on a profile for "X" tower that they studied, there is usually a link to a pdf, which states how this determination is effective for "y" amount of days and how it could be appealed.

citybooster · #**410** Posted **Mar 4, 2017, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

The market would have to be there for something over 900 ft. Granted, office is a bit harder I think to make a profit whereas residential, especially in the 600k-3 million range, it hot... hot ... hot right now. So its easier to make buildings become a reality.

900 ft is nothing to be shy about. But they can go higher. They just have to do studies. If you go on the FAA, and click on a profile for "X" tower that they studied, there is usually a link to a pdf, which states how this determination is effective for "y" amount of days and how it could be appealed.

Thanks Chris for the info. Hopefully it will be possible... I really would like to know if there is any more nuggets out there about just how advanced are plans to develop either lot since the Mayor seemed to be talking about the city and Goldman-Sachs getting serious for the 55 Hudson lot.

C. · #**411** Posted **Mar 8, 2017, 10:12 PM**

UPDATED Development Maps Posted.

Any goodies?

Hamilton · #**412** Posted **Mar 9, 2017, 5:04 PM**

Project 78 on the Journal Square map (3 Perrine) has started construction.

I wonder why the map says project 60 (180 Baldwin/Mueller's pasta factory) is under construction. It's been a pile of rubble with no workers on site for at least 2 or 3 months

C. · #**413** Posted **Mar 9, 2017, 9:18 PM**

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...-map3.8.17.pdf

There is something interesting planned for the whole foods site on Columbus. It's an infill development that will completely transform the street frontage. It's also an awfully lot of units (420) for such a narrow footprint. Number 185 in the same complex comes with a new public park and looks like it could be a big one!

C. · #**414** Posted **Mar 9, 2017, 9:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Project 78 on the Journal Square map (3 Perrine) has started construction.

I wonder why the map says project 60 (180 Baldwin/Mueller's pasta factory) is under construction. It's been a pile of rubble with no workers on site for at least 2 or 3 months

There's a few errors. For example, there are two project 87s in Journal Square but are completely different developments far away from each other. One is the recently approved 2973 Kennedy (my favorite approval of 2017

) and some unknown new one by St. Pauls Avenue.

Hamilton · #**415** Posted **Mar 9, 2017, 10:18 PM**

Agreed. BTW, 101 Newkirk is listed as "Proposed New Development" on lot 82 on the JSQ map, but no details are provided.

chris08876 · #**416** Posted **Mar 10, 2017, 12:29 AM**

Construction Update: 424 Whiton Street

Credit: JC Digs

C. · #**417** Posted **Mar 10, 2017, 4:02 AM**

City Planning should hire us to help update the map. LoL

Oh Goldman Sachs, hopefully, one day, this long-term mystery surrounding your 95 stories at 55 Hudson will be solved.

Where 99 Hudson and the defunct hotel from Paul Fireman have failed, you're out last hope for a true 95 floor building in Jersey City. I'm gonna personally write Trump and ask that he cut the FAA Office of Obstruction Evaluation / Airport Airspace Analysis if they peep up one more time about heights in Jersey City, so don't even think about it! LoL

C. · #**418** Posted **Mar 10, 2017, 4:17 AM**

JERSEY CITY | Liberty Harbor | 2,015 Units | 60 + 51 + 40 + 37 + 30 + 18 FLOORS

This one continues to move.

citybooster · #**419** Posted **Mar 10, 2017, 5:24 PM**

Wow... looks like some blockbusters on hand over the next few years as well as some nice infill with smaller yet still essential developments.

Also, regarding the Goldman Sachs lots there is besides 55 Hudson there is right next to 30 Hudson(Goldman Sachs Tower) a lot for 50 Hudson where I read has potentially 780,000 sq. ft of developable area. You can get a nice 700-800 ft tower there as well if you emphasize a hotel/condo/retail mixed component and , truthfully right along the waterfront where can you get a better view of Lower Manhattan? There isn't really much available land right along that sector of the waterfront to command such an incredible view. Hopefully they can arrange it that it doesn't much block views from 55 Hudson... I also hope that they can press the FAA harder than the developers of 99 Hudson to allow for as close to 1,000 ft as possible.

Now where will that mega development at Liberty Harbor be? I remember a proposal some years back with three high rise sail shaped towers which really were nice, but it just didn't get off the ground. Where was that, same location as this(right near the Liberty Park Golf course if I remember correctly)?

Hamilton · #**420** Posted **Mar 11, 2017, 12:05 AM**

Yeah, I think it's that same development. The planning docs say that it was approved in 2010. The address is around 72 Caven Point Rd:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Je...!4d-74.0776417

You can see the plans on page 37 of the Liberty Harbor Redevelopment Plan: http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...d17-030917.pdf