JERSEY CITY | Projects and Construction thread

[C.]

I

Originally Posted by Hamilton

I looked at the JSQ 2060 plan again closely, and I don't think that either the Homestead Assemblage or the Central Ave Extension project are allowed as-of-right under the plan. I'd be curious to see the particulars, but all of the Central Ave Extension site and most of the Homstead Aseemblage are zoned for 65' max...

I can't imagine either of them happening under the current political climate. Especially the Homestead Assemblage, which is next to some 3-story brick row houses and Victorians on Van Reipen Ave; that's an easy target for NIMBYs especially when a variance or rezoning would be needed in order to build these. But maybe the developers already worked something out with the councilman and mayor... after all, the county has been trying to get this Central Ave Extension built for a long time.

We'll find out more on Wednesday, hopefully.

Yes, I noticed that too about the Journal Square plan. This is why I was so excited about the 20 story tower approved for 2795 Kennedy Blvd. It set the precendent for the rest of the area. It would now be a lawsuit if the city denies further development when they approved the one for Kennedy Blvd, as it would be "arbitrary and conprceious."

Plus, the city is ultra pro development, so I'm sure there had been some preliminary discussions held before anyone would start spending money and time on the assembling land.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Renderings of 2973 Kennedy Blvd, a 20-story building with ground-floor retail, 2 floors of offices, 79 apartments, and 0 parking which was approved by the JC Planning Board on October 13 2016:





Courtesy of the architects, HLW International:

http://hlw.com/ourproject/sasvic-tower/

Not currently under construction, despite what the JC Development Map says, but I hope it starts soon! It will really activate that corner.

Thank you again for this wonderful building. I put it right up there with Journal Squared for its importance for the area.

[JCResident_Now&4Ever]

Antiquated and Racists huh.... April 8th is the next meeting huh.... As a member of the Association - it's good to know how you think of us who voice our opinion.

[C.]

Originally Posted by JCResident_Now&4Ever

Antiquated and Racists huh.... April 8th is the next meeting huh.... As a member of the Association - it's good to know how you think of us who voice our opinion.

I'm also a Jersey City voter and resident. Am I not allowed to voice my opinion at the meeting? Did someone touch a nerve?

All the more reason why we need to show up at the meetings to ensure the voice of the entire community is being heard.

[JCResident_Now&4Ever]

I don't get rattled being called racist or antiquated..... takes way more to rattle me. I'll make sure these opinions are brought up at the next meeting.

[C.]

Uhh

Originally Posted by JCResident_Now&4Ever

I don't get rattled being called racist or antiquated..... takes way more to rattle me. I'll make sure these opinions are brought up at the next meeting.

Bring up at the next meeting? I can see it now... "A guy on the internet said there may be antiquated and racist people attending a neighborhood association meeting." Lol.

I'm personally unable to attend this meeting due to scheduling conflicts, but I can't wait to attend the next one. From what I hear, you're not representaive of the whole membership, thankfully, as they seem to be reasonable folks. I encourage anyone reading that lives in the Journal Square neighborhood to show up.

Otherwise JCRisident may pretend to speak on your behalf. Lol

[Hamilton]

Right, this guy is really taking things out of context. I never said most people at neighborhood meetings are racist, but that some of the people who oppose any change espouse antiquated and racist views. Not all, not most. In fact, I explicitly commented on how heartening it is to see most people being reasonable at recent meetings. But all it takes is a look at the Jersey Journal comment sections to see what certain people say about non-homeowners in the Square - you'll see comments calling renters in the area "lowlifes" and opaque references to "the demographics" and other coded words. Same thing on JCList...

And you can't deny that neighborhood associations in general tend to be disproportionately composed of older, whiter, English-speaking residents who are more likely to own homes, compared to the average population of the area. This isn't a phenomenon restricted to JC by any stretch. You see it all over the country:

https://nextcity.org/features/view/s...ning-decisions

https://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/201...4-trump-corona

In any event, everyone is entitled to voice their opinions. But too often the bias is in favor of people who resist any and all change, whether or not they represent a true cross-section of the community. It's hard to get renters and younger people to come out.

[Crawford]

I don't doubt many of the NIMBYs are racists, and am almost certain they hold antiquated viewpoints.

Let me guess, here are their concerns:

1. Not enough free parking spaces for me and my buddies, who like to pretend this is rural Pennsylvania instead of a transit-rich, walkable neighborhood.
2. Buildings are too tall; who would actually build a tall building in the middle of the biggest metropolitan center in the Western world?
3. I hate all change because I'm old and the neighborhood looked different in 1958. I also miss stickball and typewriter repair stores.
4. I don't like "outsiders", especially different races, religions, cultures and viewpoints.
5. I have nothing better to do with my time than try and stop progress; plus I'm jealous of people who are upwardly mobile.

I have no doubt that each of these viewpoints will be expressed. And it has nothing to do with Jersey City; NIMBYs will have the exact same comments in Brooklyn, California, wherever. I've been to such meetings and have heard utterly vile, bigoted statements, and absurd misunderstanding of neighborhood changes.

The problem is that only like 1% of a neighborhood gets involved in these meetings and it's almost always old folks who are angry and have nothing better to do with their time. I've been to meetings in Brooklyn where the neighborhood activists are almost all Italian even though the neighborhood hasn't been Italian in 50 years. They had the meetings in the neighborhood Senior Center, and the senior residents basically were the only ones who showed up. These are actually the people voting on such things at the neighborhood level.

I remember some 90 year old lady screaming about "stop the Spanish people from coming!". I was confused until it was explained to me she wasn't talking about Spaniards, but Latinos, except Latinos started entering her neighborhood in the 1950's. Welcome to 2017, lady.

[Hamilton]

Its completely true that neighborhood groups and community boards often end up with these sort of problems. But like I said twice already here, what I've seen from our new association is a much more inclusionary tone and much more reasonable and respectful discourse than i expected from seeing how other groups operate. In general people understand the need for new housing, for reinvigorating the empty storefronts in the area, and for making the streets safer and more pleasant. They understand its a give and take.

And people with the group are trying to reach out to the parts of the community that tend to be underrepresented at these sort of things. It's a lot less alienating and more welcoming than the vast majority of neighborhood groups, such as Hilltop. Its actually really exciting. I encourage everyone to join.

[Oron Zchut]

Hi guys - trying to figure out where the Homestead Assemblage is. Is it essentially an extension of Homestead Place all the way up to Newark Ave?

[Hamilton]

[double post]

[Hamilton]

^^^ Yes. The proposed pedestrian plaza is the purple line leading north from Pavonia Ave on this map:


If you look in Satellite View on Google maps, you'll see parking lots on either end of Homestead Place. And on the north side of Van Reipen Ave where Homestead Pl ends, you'll see an empty lot and a Victorian house. The Victorian house has since been demolished (the empty lot also had a Victorian house until about 4 years ago). North of that, on the south side of Cottage St, is a medical office building with a driveway to its west, and a synagogue to the west of that.

Then from the north side of Cottage St, a driveway leads to a municipal parking lot on the south side of Newark.

Presumably the assemblage includes the parking lots on Homestead, the vacant lots on Van Reipen, the medical offices on Cottage, and the municipal lot on Newark.

[JCResident_Now&4Ever]

I'm not going to argue with Hamilton and CIA, I agree with some of the things you've brought up but it's pretty funny how opinionated you both are about about the area. Given the fact that I am a minority under the age of 40 who has lived in the area over 35 years.... .Now i am not the poster boy for the area ... but I'm pretty sure I am not who you describe us to be.

Contrary to your belief... many of the proposed ideas have been brought up in the past and I can tell you - the residents and home owners didn't object then and could care less about a large building being made in the area - I will say it again - Homeowners and residents do not care about what is being built. As a tax payer we care about other things.

Here are the list of things people really care about:

1. Safety - more people more police and emergency services needed (just in case) - do we have enough police and fire fighters to support these large buildings which will not pay taxes?

2. Parking - Let's get real - the only reason we care about parking is because it's a problem already for an area that is not at full capacity with the proposed buildings. Yes we could think of ideas to combat it but until those ideas are proposed with the construction plans - then it's an issue. I'm ok with building Muni Parking centers .... because we know if you can afford $2700 for 2 br apt - you can afford $200 a month in parking.

3. Tax Abatement - I really care about the fact that the reason many projects have been pushed the last 5 years are the tax abatement that is received from developers - Granted that is a good way to increase development within the area but not when the current residents and homeowners are having their properties tax assessed over the summer.

4. Local Schools - I'm assuming that some of the population will be attending schools in the area? Or are the develops assuming no one living in this area will need to go to public schools. Since there are tax abatement for every building being built ... what about residents who send their kids to schools in the area?

Everything else ... we care less about - go ahead and build a 90 story building.... we don't care.

You see - I noticed your comments are insensitive to the people who live in the area - its easy to accuse us of being racists and non cooperative to everything. But given the area is very multi cultural - I can attest - we are not racists or antiquated - we welcome a future for the area. We've seen our neighborhood go through ups and downs... and trust i'm not shy to speak up for my neighborhood people but I will not allow others to falsify our image.

Maybe the people pushing their agendas and not wanting to listen to the people of the area .... maybe they are the racist and maybe they are the ones who don't care about the people in the area and will enjoy the gentrification of them? Who knows?

[Hamilton]

You keep acting like I made a negative sweeping comment about the people who live in the area. But I didn't. Don't accuse me of saying things I didn't say.

Originally Posted by JCResident_Now&4Ever

it's pretty funny how opinionated you both are about about the area.

Why is it funny that I'm opinionated about my neighborhood? I'm a resident of the neighborhood too; it's my neighborhood too. We all have a right to live here and have our opinions.

but I'm pretty sure I am not who you describe us to be.

Then I'm not talking about you. And like I said, I'm not talking about most people in the area. Don't take it personally, especially if it doesn't apply to you. I was talking in general about the kind of people who resist any and ALL change in general. I NEVER described the residents of the area negatively. How many times do I have to say that I think it's great that people at our community meetings are actually reasonable and not reflexively against every change? How many times do I have to say that people in our area are MORE REASONABLE than at other neighborhood associations? Why do you keep ignoring this and acting like I'm making blanket statements about the people of our community? I'm not.

Contrary to your belief... many of the proposed ideas have been brought up in the past and I can tell you - the residents and home owners didn't object then and could care less about a large building being made in the area - I will say it again - Homeowners and residents do not care about what is being built.

Like I said, I'm glad that not many people in our neighborhood association aren't reflexively against change. But go take a look at the Hilltop meetings...they tried to build a 6-story building over on Perrine and Boggiano said it would "bust up the neighborhood" and said that anyone who wants to build "tall buildings" (6 stories) on side streets 5 minutes away from the PATH station need to "get the hell out of our neighborhood." He even said that the construction of apartment buildings is "busting up the neighborhood"...as if people who live in apartments can't contribute to the neighborhood. So you might not care if they put up a 90 story building, but some people in the neighborhood flip out if they even put up even a SIX story building, two blocks from the PATH, close to other apartment buildings that have been up for years. THAT's the sort of attitude that I was calling antiquated and exclusionary. They showed up at city meetings until the city voted it down. But that's not even going to stop the building, just cost the taxpayer thousands of dollars in lawsuits because the building was as-of right so the developer will sue the city. He'll win, and then he'll put up his building and get the judge will order the city to pay his legal fees. The same thing happened with another building Boggiano and the Hilltop people opposed. The city lost five times in court...and those lawyers weren't cheap. If you disagree with that, then we're on the same side.

You see - I noticed your comments are insensitive to the people who live in the area - its easy to accuse us of being racists and non cooperative to everything. But given the area is very multi cultural - I can attest - we are not racists or antiquated - we welcome a future for the area. We've seen our neighborhood go through ups and downs... and trust i'm not shy to speak up for my neighborhood people but I will not allow others to falsify our image.

I NEVER said "the people who live in the area are antiquated and racist" or anything derogatory about the people in the area in general. That would be pretty funny, because I LIVE IN THE AREA, so I'd have to be saying it about myself. I love my neighborhood and the people here. I said that some NIMBYs (a word for people who reflexively resist any and all change in a neighborhood) tend to be antiquated and have racist views. My comments are only addressed to the people who ARE automatically opposed to everything. One more time: I don't think that applies to our community association; and it probably doesn't apply to you. I don't know why you keep taking things the wrong way or assuming that they're about YOU in particular or about all of us residents of the neighborhood.

We're probably neighbors, and we probably both want our neighborhood to be the best that it can be. We seem to agree on a lot--particularly the need to invest in our infrastructure so it keeps up with growth, and making sure developers contribute their fair share to that. I'm glad that our neighborhood is pushing for more parks, schools, sewers, and transit capacity. We disagree on some points, but many of your concerns sound reasonable, just like the vast majority of people at our community meetings...so don't take offense. I'm glad most people at our meetings talk about what we can do to make sure our neighborhood can absorb the growth, and not just using that as an excuse to oppose everything.

The reason I care about people who want to keep everything exactly the way it is, is because we need to build more housing to keep people from being pushed out of the neighborhood as new, wealthier residents move in (which they will do, whether we build new buildings or not). I want there to be enough housing for everyone.

[Hamilton]

Updates:

Homestead Pl and Central Ave Extension

• This project does require a rezoning in order to happen.
• They probably won't have trouble getting the rezoning. They've shown it to several councilmen, as well as the City Planner, and all were very enthusiastic. And at the neighborhood meeting, everyone who spoke was supportive of the plan and very excited about it. It seems like a slam dunk.
• The plan Homestead assemblage is actually 4 towers with heights ranging from 18 to 25 stories. In addition, there would be two more towers at the Central Ave Extension site on the northwest intersection with Newark Ave.
• The sites under consideration for the Homestead project are: The vacant lots on the north side of Van Reipen Ave across from Homestead Pl where two houses once stood; the synagogue on the south side of Cottage Pl; and the municipal parking lot on Newark Ave. But the rezoning will also cover the two horrible McLaughlin Funeral parking lots on Pavonia Ave. Apparently they can't get them to sell, but hopefully the rezoning will encourage them to redevelop these eyesores.
• This project would result in a pedestrian extension of Homestead Pl to Newark Ave, inspired by Stone St in Manhattan
• The developer, Namdar Group, does not control the municipal parking lot on Newark Ave. The JCRA will issue a Request for Proposals to sell this lot, and they will submit a proposal involving a hotel on that site, to include a parking garage to replace the existing lot.
• Here's a conceptual rendering, looking south toward the Journal Squared tower in the background:
• 

500 Summit Ave

• The developer, HAP, says that they're fully financed and ready to start digging, as soon as they get approvals.
• In fact, they've already closed the parking lot on the site.
• But approvals are the hard part...the city settled litigation with them several years ago to allow them to erect a 42-story tower as-of-right, but the current councilman is vehemently opposed to the tower, and has persuaded the city to renege on its agreement. That has resulted in renewed litigation...the city lost the first round, but they've appealed to NJ Superior Court, so who knows how long it will all take to play out in court. It's kind of frustrating that, of all the projects in the Square, the project that has seen the most pushback and opposition is the one most ready and eager to get shovels in the ground.
• As has been mentioned previously, they would construct a 42-story, 458-ft tower with a .75 acre park/playground, ~700 apartments, and ~260 parking spaces.
• The architect, CetraRuddy, is the same one that created the previously released renderings, so I don't think the design has chagned much. Here are the renderings of the base:
• 
• 

[Hamilton]

We chatted with the City Planner for a while the other day. She said the owners of the CH Martin site met with the Planning Division to discuss what would be possible to build on that site. She said that any project on that site would include reopening an entrance to the PATH that goes from under the CH Martin site and continues underground under Kennedy Blvd to PATH plaza. That entrance was open between the 20's to the 70's, I think, and was lined with shops (it would once again be lined with shops if it were reopened and renovated).

She also said that downzoning Journal Square is off the table because the city doesn't want to deal with the expensive lawsuits that would result. However, they may put density limits into place in the plan. Density limits wouldn't limit height or floor area, but rather the number of apartment units per acre. This would encourage larger units (more 2- and 3- bedrooms). This would hope to address complaints from some community members that there are too many studios and 1-bedrooms (too many single residents) in the new apartment buildings. The City Planner pointed out, however, that this would result in more strain on the school system. So it would address one set of complaints at the expense of another set of complaints (e.g., JCResident4Ever complained about the burden on schools). As such, I don't see the benefit of this plan. I also anticipate that it wouldn't work; young people today are used to splitting 3-bedrooms among 3 roommates through Craigslist. In related news, last week the Jersey Journal reported that the possible Boggiano-Fulop alliance has fallen apart.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

We chatted with the City Planner for a while the other day. She said the owners of the CH Martin site met with the Planning Division to discuss what would be possible to build on that site. She said that any project on that site would include reopening an entrance to the PATH that goes from under the CH Martin site and continues underground under Kennedy Blvd to PATH plaza. That entrance was open between the 20's to the 70's, I think, and was lined with shops (it would once again be lined with shops if it were reopened and renovated).

Good news - I've heard 25 floors for this site, but I would not be surprised to see it grow.

She also said that downzoning Journal Square is off the table because the city doesn't want to deal with the expensive lawsuits that would result.

Great news!!

However, they may put density limits into place in the plan. Density limits wouldn't limit height or floor area, but rather the number of apartment units per acre. This would encourage larger units (more 2- and 3- bedrooms). This would hope to address complaints from some community members that there are too many studios and 1-bedrooms (too many single residents) in the new apartment buildings. The City Planner pointed out, however, that this would result in more strain on the school system.

I'm sorry, but this is one city planners get wrong time and time again. More 2 and 3 bedroom units are not going to result in an increase in families with school-aged kids attending public schools. What will happen is these will turn into share apartments with each room being rented out to a twenty and thirty-somethings. Not a bad thing, if it keeps things affordable, and maybe that's what they're saying so they call sell it to Abe Simpson.

So it would address one set of complaints at the expense of another set of complaints (e.g., JCResident4Ever complained about the burden on schools).

Ah, I almost forgot about misinformed JCResident4Ever. One of the common misconceptions about tax abated property is that the city forgoes all revenue from the development. However, in many cases, the city receives MORE revenue than it would under standard taxation (at the expense of Hudson County and the School Board). The whole taxation system in New Jersey is screwed up beyond belief, but Jersey City actually has a financial incentive to abate as many properties as possible as it cuts out the County and School Board for taking a share of the taxes, which are then funded by the remainder of Hudson County and the State, respectively. That has recently changed due to a recent policy from the city to dedicate ten percent of all new tax abated revenue the city collects to the jersey city school board.

As such, I don't see the benefit of this plan. I also anticipate that it wouldn't work; young people today are used to splitting 3-bedrooms among 3 roommates through Craigslist. In related news, last week the Jersey Journal reported that the possible Boggiano-Fulop alliance has fallen apart.

Right on! The only way I support the Journal Square plan is if the floor area ratio of 25 in zone 1 is converted into something that would result in a higher density per acre. For example, Journal Squared is about 2.1 acres and 1,840 units. So, I would be perfectly fine if city planning recommended a new density of 1,000 units per acre. lol. Maybe that's their real plan...

[JCResident_Now&4Ever]

More Revenue for Schools?... apparently you don't have a child in JCPS system so you can't comment. When your child's school has no wifi ... and Poison Oak growing all over it... aka PS23... .. Calling us misinformed it's just another label you give the residents who've lived in the community for years... it's ok ... looks like Gentrification of the poor to infuse the rich... Guess the minorities in the area will be kicked out and thrown to the curb like Hoboken and Newport was 30 years ago.

[Hamilton]

Newport 30 years ago was railyards with nobody living there...so I don't know how you say minorities were pushed out there. Hoboken has been gentrifying for at least 40 years. And it became so gentrified largely because it restricts development a lot more than Jersey City does. In most of Hoboken you can't barely even build a 5 story building. As a result, fewer new apartments went on the market there, and people had to compete for the smaller pool of old apartments. So landlords raised prices and it pushed out the poor and minorities. You see the same situation in the Hamilton and Van Vorst historic districts.

Anyway, I don't really have an opinion one way or another on the density debate, but many of our neighbors in general seem to want to encourage *more* families and children in these new apartments even if that means more students for the local schools, so it seems likely to become part of city policy through a density cap. It probably won't work, but that's the idea.

[C.]

Originally Posted by JCResident_Now&4Ever

More Revenue for Schools?... apparently you don't have a child in JCPS system so you can't comment. When your child's school has no wifi ... and Poison Oak growing all over it... aka PS23... .. Calling us misinformed it's just another label you give the residents who've lived in the community for years... it's ok ... looks like Gentrification of the poor to infuse the rich... Guess the minorities in the area will be kicked out and thrown to the curb like Hoboken and Newport was 30 years ago.

You are beyond ignorant. Many of the long-term residents participated in the creation of the Journal Square plan and are happy with the revitalization we are now seeing because we remember what the area use to be like. Newark Avenue use to be called Ghost avenue (as there was no one there). Tonnelle Blvd was Hooker Blvd. I was reminded yesterday that Jersey City once led the nation in car theft. The area has so greatly improved in the last decade, and has become much safer. I really hate the label minority, but here is a news flash for you: I'm one too. Jersey City is one of the most diverse cities in the country. This is one of the reasons why I love it here, so get lost if your going to race-bait.

The school system throughout the state is a complete mess. I would not want to raise my kids in Jersey City because of the long-term and systemic mismanagement. The State, the school district, and home rule shoulder a lot of the blame in my opinion. But guess what? In order to afford quality city services and good schools, we need the tax base to support it.

If you truly cared about the schools, you should be the biggest booster of all these luxury condos going up. The American Community Survey (ACS) data will show that there are not a lot of school aged kids living in these luxury buildings. And the few that are are likely being sent off to private schools.

Jersey City is now directing 10 percent of all revenue received from new tax abatements to the school district, so this is all moot now anyway.

http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/2...enue_with.html