HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #601  
Old Posted May 21, 2017, 11:50 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
Thanks CIA! You're always so informative.

Last edited by Hamilton; May 22, 2017 at 2:46 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #602  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 2:43 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by citybooster View Post
That lot seems too small for two significant sized buildings... could they be deciding to phase out the idea of office development altogether in that location? The shift in emphasis seems intriguing, especially remembering when you put up that hourglass curved building on the other side of what is Harborside 5. It just seems like too big a project for that piece of land.
I think they might be double-counting the development potential, but I also don't think they'll build both. In the Mack-Cali report they're counting its office potential, and in the Roseland report they're counting its residential potential.

Note that Plaza 8/9 also comes up in both reports--as 1.225m sqft of office in the Mack-Cali report, and as 2000 apartments in the Roseland report.

Based on a conversation I had with some people in the planning division, I think Mack-Cali/Roseland are gunning for residential approval for these sites, though the city would prefer to encourage commercial. Well, I don't know if the planning people I spoke with were talking about these Mack-Cali/Roseland sites in particular, but they fit the description of the sites that they were talking about.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #603  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 4:19 AM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 420
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
I think they might be double-counting the development potential, but I also don't think they'll build both. In the Mack-Cali report they're counting its office potential, and in the Roseland report they're counting its residential potential.

Note that Plaza 8/9 also comes up in both reports--as 1.225m sqft of office in the Mack-Cali report, and as 2000 apartments in the Roseland report.

Based on a conversation I had with some people in the planning division, I think Mack-Cali/Roseland are gunning for residential approval for these sites, though the city would prefer to encourage commercial. Well, I don't know if the planning people I spoke with were talking about these Mack-Cali/Roseland sites in particular, but they fit the description of the sites that they were talking about.
I would prefer one more commercial tower there(the Harborside 4 site)... I would doubt they would want to build both the 4 and 8/9 sites as residential with the other two URBY towers also coming on line hopefully soon if sales continue to be brisk. What about the lot where the proposed San Remo would be? Any idea if after Marbella 2 that Roseland will fill out that part of Washington Blvd with the last of the developable lots in that area?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #604  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 3:38 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by citybooster View Post
I would prefer one more commercial tower there(the Harborside 4 site)... I would doubt they would want to build both the 4 and 8/9 sites as residential with the other two URBY towers also coming on line hopefully soon if sales continue to be brisk. What about the lot where the proposed San Remo would be? Any idea if after Marbella 2 that Roseland will fill out that part of Washington Blvd with the last of the developable lots in that area?
In the 8K report that CIA posted, San Remo is mentioned as a potential 250-unit development.

Previously, SLCE had designed a 30-story 119-unit for this site. Later YIMBY found a design for the site that showed a 518-unit, 61-story tower: http://www.yimbynews.com/2014/03/rev...-san-remo.html, but it'll probably

It seems like neither of these proposals will get built, but they're still planning residential.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #605  
Old Posted May 22, 2017, 6:26 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
I have a feeling the Jerseydigs guy reads this thread, and I don't quite like it...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #606  
Old Posted May 30, 2017, 1:22 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
I think they might be double-counting the development potential, but I also don't think they'll build both. In the Mack-Cali report they're counting its office potential, and in the Roseland report they're counting its residential potential.

Note that Plaza 8/9 also comes up in both reports--as 1.225m sqft of office in the Mack-Cali report, and as 2000 apartments in the Roseland report.

Based on a conversation I had with some people in the planning division, I think Mack-Cali/Roseland are gunning for residential approval for these sites, though the city would prefer to encourage commercial. Well, I don't know if the planning people I spoke with were talking about these Mack-Cali/Roseland sites in particular, but they fit the description of the sites that they were talking about.
That makes more sense. Honestly, the city should strongly encourage mixed-use. Want to convert 1.225 million sqft of office into 2000 apartments, fine but you have to still include a sizeable office component.

It's been 8 days and no new development announcements. We need something to talk about at least every week.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #607  
Old Posted May 30, 2017, 1:43 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Outta here View Post
Not sure I read that right . IF Fulop said Jersey City would be larger than Newark , sometime in 2016 ......
I want some of what he's smoking . Latest estimates put Newarks population at 278,427 ( 2013 stats ) , and
Jersey City population at 257,342 . I don't know when he made that statement , or what the increase in
population for both cities has been over the almost two years since the 2013 stats but as much as I like Jersey City , I don't see it gaining the number one spot in the state by anytime in 2016 .
However , I am excited to read about the possibility of a 950'er going up in downtown JC . Hope it happens .
Fulop was spectacularly wrong. Newark grew faster than Jersey City from 2015 to 2016 and remains the State's largest city.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #608  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:25 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
NIMBY opposition for 700 Washington?

It was not approved at the May 16, 2017 meeting. From what I can tell, there will be four towers. The 338-unit development is for 24 and 12 floors while the 794-unit development is for twin 40 story buildings.

Quote:
construction of a mixed-use residential building to contain 338 residential units, 16490 sq. ft. of commercial space and associated amenities,

Maintain the existing Site Plan approval for this site knows as Site 8 of the North east Quadrant, approved 11/2010 for 790 DU, 794 parking spaces, 15,000 sq.ft. commercial space, waterfront walkway and surrounding roads. Extend the Final approval as permitted by the NJMLUL and add temporary parking and bicycle storage for the new 338 DU building proposed at Block 7302, lot 3.09
181-191 Culver Avenue
Mid-rise with tax abatement coming to this site?

Quote:
Review and discussion of the proposed amended Route 440-Culver Avenue RDP to incorporate 181-191 Culver Avenue to be zoned as Mid Rise-A District. Formal action may be taken.
854 Jersey Avenue
Construct 10-story new mixed-use residential building with 119 dwelling units and 14.000 sq. ft. of commercial space

659 Grove Street
Construct 10-story new mixed-use residential building with 139 dwelling units, 12,500 sq. ft. of commercial space.

333 Newark Avenue
Proposed 4-story mixed-use building with 18 dwelling units and ground floor commercial with mezzanine

So that's at least another 276 new units proposed that we haven't heard about. What's coming next?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #609  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:28 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
The Planning Board met today, the agenda is here: http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...d/10.may30.pdf

LeFrak proposed two more new buildings, on the north side of 18th St along Grove/Jersey Aves in the Lackawanna section today, just south of the Hoboken railyards. 139 units and 119 units, both 10 stories. Unknown how much parking, but the area requires 0.5 spots per unit, with a cap of 1 spot per unit max.

Also a nice infill project was proposed in the Village, retail on the ground floor/mezzanine, 18 units, 4 stories, on a 25-ft lot (so no parking required) next to White Eagle Hall.


Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
Fulop was spectacularly wrong. Newark grew faster than Jersey City from 2015 to 2016 and remains the State's largest city.
Yeah, I think it was obvious at the time that JC would have to pull off historically explosive growth to overtake Newark. If you looked at the permit numbers, it was obvious not enough new units were being built to close a 34,000-person gap by 2016. But I remember getting shouted down on another forum for saying this was unlikely before 2020. I love JC, but some boosters are just too blinded by their boosterism.

I think a lot of it has to do with the discretionary approval process for redevelopment areas. A lot of proposals that are really far from being realized are presented at the planning board. Developers just want to get their projects approved, because it reduces uncertainty and makes the site more marketable and allows them to get loans and mortgages. But once they're approved, they're on everyone's radar. That's why Jersey Digs's article about 37,000 units coming to JC was so silly. It was not only a bunch of hype and a misrepresentation, but it stirred up a hornet's nest of "concerned" NIMBYs warning about "overbuilding" (which really means rents going down in response to lots of supply). They freak out about buildings that might not get built before they're dead. If you look at the actual number of new building permits this year in JC, it has slowed to a trickle. Only 18 units filed for building permits last month! There's a slowdown in new construction coming soon.

In NYC projects that are as-of-right under zoning don't need Planning Board approval. Thus hundreds of thousands of units around the NYC have the same status as "approved" projects in JC. But that doesn't mean those hundreds of thousands of units are getting built anytime soon.

Last edited by Hamilton; May 31, 2017 at 4:54 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #610  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:30 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
Yeah, I think it was obvious at the time that JC would have to pull off historically explosive growth to overtake Newark. But I remember getting shouted down on another forum for saying this was unlikely before 2020. I love JC, but some boosters are just too blinded by their boosterism.
Was that other booster me?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #611  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:35 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
LeFrak proposed two more new buildings, on the north side of 18th St along Grove/Jersey Aves in the Lackawanna section today, just south of the Hoboken railyards. 139 units and 119 units, both 10 stories. Unknown how much parking, but the area requires 0.5 spots per unit.
Ah, I didn't realize these were LeFrak proposals. That organization has really been aggressive as of late. A good vote of confidence in the JC market.

Also, R.I.P. One Journal Square. Maybe it will revive itself like a phoenix in 2018, but right now it lacks financing, has a well funded organization trying to kill it due to a dispute with the owner, lost mayoralty support, and many other issues that risks getting a thread closed if disclosed. Pity because this would have been amazing for the neighborhood that lacks decent supermarkets and retail opportunities.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #612  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:37 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
Sorry CIA, I edited my last post!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #613  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:45 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
Was that other booster me?
Hahaha, you weren't alone!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #614  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 4:49 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 446
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
Ah, I didn't realize these were LeFrak proposals. That organization has really been aggressive as of late. A good vote of confidence in the JC market.
People don't realize it, but LeFrak owns the lots north of 18th St, as well as almost the entire 10th Street Embankment, in addition to the former Erie yards where Newport now stands. They bought it all from Conrail in a package deal.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #615  
Old Posted May 31, 2017, 7:48 PM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post

Also, R.I.P. One Journal Square.
Nothing has changed with One Journal Square.

No offense, because you bring TONS of info to SSP, but that previous thread was closed because of comments just like yours.

Stop conflating politics with real estate and stop posting tabloid nonsense; I can't stand Trump either, but he has nothing to do with One Journal Square.

OJS will be built (or won't) because of the local market for rentals. It will almost certainly break ground within the next year or so, barring recession. But its prospects have nothing to do with tabloid ridiculousness.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #616  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2017, 2:55 AM
Oron Zchut Oron Zchut is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
The Planning Board met today, the agenda is here: http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...d/10.may30.pdf

LeFrak proposed two more new buildings, on the north side of 18th St along Grove/Jersey Aves in the Lackawanna section today, just south of the Hoboken railyards. 139 units and 119 units, both 10 stories. Unknown how much parking, but the area requires 0.5 spots per unit, with a cap of 1 spot per unit max.
The LeFrak proposal is this one that was put up on the site:


Wonder what the status is of the light rail station - nothing in LeFrak's proposal makes it seem like they are interested in contributing to it (would be right behind the buildings).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #617  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2017, 9:21 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
Nothing has changed with One Journal Square.

No offense, because you bring TONS of info to SSP, but that previous thread was closed because of comments just like yours.

Stop conflating politics with real estate and stop posting tabloid nonsense; I can't stand Trump either, but he has nothing to do with One Journal Square.

OJS will be built (or won't) because of the local market for rentals. It will almost certainly break ground within the next year or so, barring recession. But its prospects have nothing to do with tabloid ridiculousness.
I respectfully disagree. At the local level, politics plays a huge role whether a proposed development gets built or not and we have no trouble discussing on this forum. One Journal Square is unique and has been mentioned in many national and international papers. For example. the Chinese media are advising cautioning against investment One Journal Square. Are discussions on financing of buildings verboten?

I'm going to repost each of my sentences and I would sincerely appreciate where my comments crossed the line that would be a departure from what we typically discuss on this forum and would warrant a thread closure.

Quote:
R.I.P. One Journal Square. Maybe it will revive itself like a phoenix in 2018
The site was sectioned off, there was noticed posted, and we were all anticipating a March, 2017 start for 1 Journal Square. Recent media reports are now citing a 2018 start.

Quote:
but right now it lacks financing
With WeWork pulling out, it has lost a major source of investment and state tax credits that would have funded the construction. The developers are now seeking other sources of financing. Are discussions on financing of buildings verboten?

Quote:
has a well funded organization trying to kill it due to a dispute with the owner
A couple months back there was a group outside the Journal Square station soliciting signatures for a petition for Jersey City council to deny the tax abatement calculation. Isn't this fair reporting on this forum? We talk about NIMBYs organizing similar activities all the time.

Quote:
lost mayoralty support
The petition may have worked. On Mayor Fulop's facebook account, he expressed his nonsupport for the tax abatement application. This is news as it's contrary to his tax abatement executive order policy, which allowed 30-year tax abatements in Journal Square and other distressed areas. This would also be the first building in a long time to not receive a tax abatement. Oddly, the most vocal city councilors critical to tax abatements have flipped their position and shown support for this tax abatement so we're not stuck with another vacant lot.

Quote:
and many other issues that risks getting a thread closed if disclosed.
Because everything I posted above is so controversial, even though it's factual.

Quote:
Pity because this would have been amazing for the neighborhood that lacks decent supermarkets and retail opportunities.
My opinion as an area resident. I want a damn supermarket!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #618  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2017, 9:25 AM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oron Zchut View Post
The LeFrak proposal is this one that was put up on the site:


Wonder what the status is of the light rail station - nothing in LeFrak's proposal makes it seem like they are interested in contributing to it (would be right behind the buildings).
What a bore, and shame on the city for not doing more to solicit development interest in partially funding a light rail station. This is a perfect opportunity for Transit-Joint Development.

They can built their shitty 10 floor building and literally turn your back on light rail or get a zoning change to build 1000 units an acre for a contribution towards a light rail stop.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #619  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2017, 3:07 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
I have a feeling the Jerseydigs guy reads this thread, and I don't quite like it...
You may be right.

https://jerseydigs.com/jersey-city-r...4-tower-plans/

Quote:
Plans For New Harborside Waterfront Tower In The Home Stretch
By Chris Fry - June 1, 2017

Mack-Cali’s footprint along the Hudson River waterfront already clocks in at over four million square feet and that number will soon get even larger, as the company is currently putting the finishing touches on their latest office project that will see them team up with another experienced developer.

The property in question is referred to as Harborside 4, currently a surface parking lot in Jersey City, clustered around several other Mack-Cali office buildings. But the land shouldn’t stay that way for long as the company announced in October they were teaming up on a new building with SJP Properties, who recently constructed Prudential’s new headquarters in Newark and Hoboken’s Waterfront Corporate Center III.

Known as Harborside Tower, the latest venture will feature 1.2 million square feet of what the companies call “trophy” office space. New details have emerged on the LEED building, which will rise 36 stories and hopes to be New Jersey’s most technologically advanced and smartest building. SJP’s website describes the property as “offering large, essentially column-free floors, one block from the Exchange Place PATH station and Hudson-Bergen Light Rail stop.”
favorite part

Quote:
Considering how little tax revenue surface parking produces and the pedestrian dead zones they tend to create, the shift away from superblocks filled with limited cars looks like a win-win.
It can be a well organized NIMBY group or an environmental justice organization seeking more resources to improve quality of life.

They should all be supporting development like this as the tax revenue generated can be used to lower the tax rate and/or provide additional city services to residents in need. Even when a building is tax abated, the city still receives payments in lieu of taxes that exceeds what they would have gotten under normal taxation rate (by screwing over the County and School Board, which gets the majority of its revenue from the State anyway)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #620  
Old Posted Jun 1, 2017, 5:37 PM
C. C. is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 3,014
So basically everything was approved during the March 30 meeting.

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset....may30.act.pdf
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 2:43 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.