HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #581  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 1:25 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 343
5 years ago Boggiano opposed any projects in Journal Square. He's since had a change of heart and now only opposes any projects east of Summit Ave and north of Newkirk St. For all he cares you could fill the rest of the ward with 150-story buildings, but any 4+-story building in Hilltop makes him apoplectic. He lives on Magnolia in a detached house...he takes "not in my backyard" very literally! However, it's not fair to force all development on the area west of Summit. And small-scale projects like the ones proposed in Hilltop are usually more affordable and more likely to actually get done because they're cheaper to construct and easier to get loans for. So they're an essential for keeping the area affordable to the middle class.

If you want to see his thoughts on development in more detail, search for "Boggiano" in the Hilltop Neighborhood Association group on Yahoo. He opposed the building going up on Newark and Waldo, as well as a proposal for a 5-story building on High St that was withdrawn from the Planning Board, plus many others. In one post he said that someone came to him with a proposal to build over the PATH rail cut in October 2016 and he implies he basically threw them out of his office. LOL.

But yeah, never though the savior of this trainwreck would be BOGGIANO of all people.

Anyway, it seems obvious that they'd have to go before the planning board for this change in use they're requesting. They're legally entitled to build this modified version with more apartments under the redevelopment plan, but that doesn't mean the Planning Board will approve it, as we've all seen from 19 Perrine Ave, 85 Bright St, etc. Depending on how far the city wants to take it, it could be bogged down in lawsuits for several years before the courts force the city to follow the law.

By the way - CIA did you notice that in the approval for Journal Squared II they asked for 779 feet from the FAA for the lightning rod, but the FAA determination was only 759 feet? ... it seems like the FAA has drawn a line in the sand (line in the air?) on Journal Square tower heights?

Last edited by Hamilton; May 11, 2017 at 7:56 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #582  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 5:30 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 343
Chinese media is urging investors in 1JSQ to proceed with caution:

http://www.ecns.cn/business/2017/05-11/256918.shtml
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #583  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 6:16 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
Chinese media is urging investors in 1JSQ to proceed with caution:

http://www.ecns.cn/business/2017/05-11/256918.shtml

Literally made me LOL
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #584  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 6:17 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamilton View Post
By the way - CIA did you notice that in the approval for Journal Squared II they asked for 779 feet from the FAA for the lightning rod, but the FAA determination was only 759 feet? ... it seems like the FAA has drawn a line in the sand (line in the air?) on Journal Square tower heights?
I saw that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #585  
Old Posted May 11, 2017, 6:18 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
LoL - why is the other thread closed. It's silly.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #586  
Old Posted May 12, 2017, 7:14 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
Some nice infill announced:

620 Palisade Avenue
Construction of a 5-story building with 22 units and 21 onsite parking spaces

20 Bostwick Avenue
Construction of a 4-story building with 12 units and 11 onsite parking spaces

34-40 Division Street/387-389 8th Street
Construct an 8-story, 63 unit building with 82 onsite parking spaces with ground floor commercial space - previously approved for for a 7-story, 59 unit building with 60 onsite ground floor parking spaces (provided with stackers)

One hundred sixteen new homes could be approved next week. Not bad
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #587  
Old Posted May 13, 2017, 2:31 AM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 146
While we've been bummed by the current downturn in the 1 Journal Square project, and I'm sure we all hope some thing can be done soon to save this or sell it to another developer who can get something done without another five or ten years of vacancy going by... infill projects like this show that putting stock in Jersey City isn't just dependent on the huge stuff but things like this that can really help move things forward.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #588  
Old Posted May 13, 2017, 2:43 AM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 343
True.

Parking-wise, that third project on Division Street is quite out of line with most projects recently approved in the Village. I'd say in the past few years the average infill project in the Village assumes 40% of units will need parking. Having 1.3 parking spaces per unit is unusual nowadays, and it sounds straight out of the 90's, reminiscent of Newport/Exchange Place's gargantuan parking decks. But I'll just assume the developer knows the market he's targeting and the parking demand for that market segment

Last edited by Hamilton; May 13, 2017 at 3:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #589  
Old Posted May 13, 2017, 1:35 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
Fascinating article

City backs out of deals with Kushner
Journal Square project won’t get abatement; Westside project will be re bid


http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_...e=latest_story

Quote:
In what appears to be a response to an attempt by the city to find a new developer for a 90-acre site along the Hackensack River near Route 440, Kushner Companies has announced it will longer seek to become the developer. In another part of the city, Mayor Steven Fulop said he would not support a tax abatement for another Kushner project in Journal Square.

The Bayfront project, a joint effort between Jersey City and Honeywell Corporation, is expected to create a new Gold Coast along a former contaminated site just north of Society Hill.

The site, which was contaminated with chromium, has become a model for environmental cleanup. But city officials and others involved with the project said they were not comfortable with the vision Kushner had for the site.

Kushner was proposing to develop the site as a closed community that would allow an Orthodox Jewish community to relocate to Jersey City from Brooklyn. But local officials along with Honeywell had envisioned the site as a potential new Gold Coast similar to Newport that would generate the next level of redevelopment for former industrial sites along Route 440.

With the proposed extension of the Hudson Bergen Light Rail from its terminus on West Side Avenue to Route 440, the project will double in size from 4,000 residential units and significant commercial space to more than 8,000. Combined with Society Hill and other development that has already taken place in the area, the project has the potential to make the Hackensack River an attractive site for additional development, competing with some of the development ongoing at former industrial sites in Harrison and Kearny.

Although the company, owned by relatives of Jared Kushner, announced it would be pulling out of the project, local officials said the city was already seeking a new developer more in line with the city’s vision for an open community.

Kushner is one of a number of bidders on the site, so the project will likely move ahead once the city finds a developer more in-tune with its vision for the site. Although Kushner officials announced the withdrawal, city officials were already leaning towards other development proposals, officials said.

The Kushner proposal which offered the city about $125 million for the property is similar to one that was recently rejected in Bayonne for a portion of the former Military Ocean Terminal.

Journal Square project won’t get abatement

This withdrawal comes at a time of escalating political pressure on the city to cease doing business with Jared Kushner’s family company, as he is the son-in-law of Donald Trump.

The company became the focus of local and national attention when Jared’s sister attempted to use a well-established but controversial visa program to help fund the $820 million cost for developing One Journal Square.

This is a long anticipated centerpiece of Journal Square redevelopment and one of the key issues of the 2013 municipal election in which Fulop promised to restart stalled development in Journal Square.

Although Kushner has been involved in other projects in Jersey City, One Journal Square also sought a tax abatement from the city to construct two towers that included about 1,500 residential units.

Seeking to solicit Chinese investment in the project, Kushner’s sister apparently used Jared’s name in offering to allow the investors to take advantage of federal program that gave a visa to investors that created jobs as a result of projects in the United States.

Jared, however, stepped down at the chief executive officer for Kushner Companies when he took up a post in the Trump administration in January.

Nevertheless, he has become the focus of local anti-Trump protestors seeking to get the city to cease doing business with the company.

In a statement issued on his Facebook page, Fulop said he would not support the 30-year tax abatement Kushner Companies has requested.

“I want to be clear with residents on where the city stands here. Last week, the developer of this project submitted an application to Jersey City for a tax subsidy and abatement on this property. The administration made clear to the applicant that the city is not supportive of their request and while the law requires a first reading ordinance vote if they submit an application, I don’t foresee the council voting in favor. I know for certain I have made my feelings clear here on this project and what I feel works best for Jersey City. This tax abatement application doesn’t work for us,” Fulop said.

Why the city objects to the Journal Square One abatement

Those close to the Fulop Administration tried to clarify some of the thinking behind the decision, saying that the administration has tried to make its policies less political and more transparent.

First, there is an abatement map that was published along with a policy which means that everyone has an equal opportunity to get an abatement regardless of who you are or what mayoral candidate you supported.

City officials are skeptical of Kushner’s claim to have divested from the company and said if he had, the abatement would have been considered.

“Kushner basically divested in name only. It wasn’t moved to a blind trust. The name of the company wasn’t changed. It’s still being run by someone in his family, a sibling. It’s too close,” an official said.

In published reports, however, Jared Kushner said he has put his interests in a blind trust and does not have a working relationship with the company and its various projects.

In another argument against awarding the abatement, city officials claim, the project doesn’t align with Jersey City’s goal of being less political and more transparent when a Jared’s sister was reported to have said in a presentation, “the family will be very happy if you do this.”

Those close to the issue in the city believe this all becomes problematic since Jared is the person who is responsible in the administration for China policy.

This is the logic behind the rejection, according to those close to Fulop, saying that people inside the Trump administration should not be allowed to capitalize so directly on government service.

It is one thing to make contact in government and later used them for business, a common practice, and quite another for a person to be steering business to private firm while in government service.
_____________
“I’m sick of seeing this vacant lot for almost 15 or more years, four different owners.” – Richard Boggiano
____________
The EB5 program – which is what Jared’s sister hoped to use to entice investors to the Journal Square project – is largely seen as a way for wealthy foreign nationals to buy green cards, while Jersey City has instituted policies that would protect poorer immigrants. Local officials say they would rather help poor immigrants and refugees get green cards than become a conduit for wealthy people to do so.

But “this is an old policy that has nothing to do with Trump or Kushner and it’s how tons of stuff has been financed in the U.S.,” one official said.

Councilman Richard Boggiano, who represents the Journal Square area, said he disagreed with Fulop on this.

“I could care less about the politics or where the money came from – Mars, Venus or whatever,” he said. “This is a $1 billion project with quality stores, restaurants and a park and a World War II monument, hundreds of jobs and a few thousand construction jobs. I’m sick of seeing this vacant lot for almost 15 or more years, four different owners. I want to see Journal Square done, and the Loews also. Let’s cut out the election year politics.”

Some key players involved with the project said Kushner Companies will likely push ahead with more EB5 funding to complete the project anyway. But without the abatement, Kushner’s costs will actually be reduced because the project will not require the use of union labor and will not require give back to the city that would be required under an abatement.

Al Sullivan may be reached at asullivan@hudsonreporter.com.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #590  
Old Posted May 13, 2017, 2:34 PM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 146
I'm really conflicted about One Journal Square. Like others here never thought that we could look to Councilman Richard Boggiano to be the voice of key support for the project but there is a big risk if things don't get moving soon we could look at more of the same when it comes to promises unkept and dreams deferred with the result being the same old vacant grassy, weedy eyesore for years to come. I get the reasons for denying the abatement, and can sympathize with them... I don't see a slew of people who want to donate to the Kushners and help them out and they don't do themselves any favors here. But I hope the lines of communication between them and the Fulop administration can stay open. I guess if the Kushners really want to build even without abatements, they can get it done. But I do hope for some resolution fairly quickly over the fate of the site... if they want to rework it without abatements with a greater residential/ retail component go to the Planning Board and get it done. Or decide to sell to a developer who can move relatively quickly here. But start as soon as possible to resolve this situation. It does no good at all for the site to bemain a vacant, constant reminder of lost promise and potential when it can and should be the key to Journal Square's transformation.

Hopefully the real estate expert Hamilton knows is wrong and with some luck and thought this can be a viable project much sooner than later.

I do agree though 100% with the Fulop Administration's souring on KABR and the Kushners for their plans regarding Bayfront. A CLOSED Orthodox Jewish community? Absolutely not.. I'm glad they've pulled their offer from the table as it defeats the entire purpose of developing the area around the Bay and 440. Remember Sam Le Frak originally wanted to make Newport a gated, closed community and Mayor Anthony Cucci to his credit told him if that was the plan he can go to hell... this would be about as bad if not worse. A vibrant, forward thinking new neighborhood should be the goal connecting with such developments as the NJCU community being built from West Side to 440 and the light rail connection to West Side will be a crucial element of that. The Kushner plan if had been developed would have been completely wrong for what was intended.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #591  
Old Posted May 14, 2017, 2:32 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
I saw something the other day that Journal Squared 1 is now at 150 units leased. Getting significant competition from Urby Harborside. Slow and steay.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #592  
Old Posted May 15, 2017, 4:47 AM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
I saw something the other day that Journal Squared 1 is now at 150 units leased. Getting significant competition from Urby Harborside. Slow and steay.
It would definitely make more sense to do the project one at a time and not push the market too hard and fast whether KABR and Kushner somehow keep this development or whoever develops this. I just would like to see definitive leadership from the Administration to either get it done with Kushner privately(without committing to long term abatements) or to have them sell to a developer with a lot less baggage. Main thing is make absolutely sure that this doesn't remain a vacant eyesore symbolizing failed promises and a continued blow to efforts to revitalize and transform Journal Square.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #593  
Old Posted May 15, 2017, 6:59 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 343
The number of 150 apartments leased out of 538 comes from Curbed, on April 21 (almost 4 weeks ago). Sounds about right, but Curbed doesn't have the best fact-checking.

https://ny.curbed.com/2017/4/21/1538...squared-photos

An NJBiz article from March 27 said they'd leased 122 units. So that means that they leased a little more than one apartment a day between then and April 21, if Curbed's numbers are correct. Not the best leasing pace. But then again, most people's leases expire in May, June, and July, so the pace might pick up somewhat.

Citybooster, I agree with your assessment. It's ironic that the city administration is citing an initiative to make abatements less political, but is derailing this abatement for completely political reasons (according to the article). But given the media circus around this, and the fact that it's an election year, it's hard to blame them too much.

Last edited by Hamilton; May 15, 2017 at 7:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #594  
Old Posted May 15, 2017, 8:51 PM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 146
It's also ironic that the most vocal NIMBY member of the Council Richard Boggiano is totally fine on this project, even with the abatement part(he also supports the 30 Journal Square project(goodness knows what will happen to that project now) and the 50 story set for 101 Newkirk. But put a six story building on a nearby sidestreet and he comes out guns blazing against anything like that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #595  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 1:18 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
Correction...

As of April, 2017

Journal Squared
>200 units have been leased out of a total of 538 (~36% of all units leased). Leasing commenced March, 2017

Urby
275 units, 36%, out of 762 total units have been leased. Leasing started March, 2017.

Very impressive numbers for both Urby and Journal Squared.

Last edited by CIA; May 20, 2017 at 1:38 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #596  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 1:29 AM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
I can also report a mega development is being planned after Urby Harborside is complete.

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

104 and 105 on the development map is being planned for a thousand units each. The site is larger than Urby, but for ballpark comparisons, the Urby towers are ~750 units and rising 69 floors. What will a thousand unit building bring?

Harborside Plaza 4 is now planned to be mixed use. The number of units, not including the sizeable office component is 1,500. I'm assuming it will be another twin tower development as the site is farily large and it would be impossible to have a million sqft office building plus 1500 units on top. Although, it would explain this rendering.


Harborside Plaza 4 is the really tall tower on the left.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #597  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 11:39 AM
chris08876's Avatar
chris08876 chris08876 is offline
D1, D2, D3, D4, D5, TAAR1
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: New Jersey - Somerset County
Posts: 18,033
"1000 units each"

Great news. Seems like 500-1000 units is becoming the norm. JC is really stepping it up.

And it'll all guarantee even more street activity in terms of pedestrians; being so close to transit station and light rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #598  
Old Posted May 20, 2017, 4:58 PM
Hamilton Hamilton is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Journal Square
Posts: 343
Yeah this press release I saw a couple of days ago mentions that the Harborside Plaza 8 & 9 (sites 104 & 105) would have 2,000 units, and it also has similar leasing numbers for Urby (286 leased, or 38%, as of May 18):

http://rew-online.com/2017/05/18/mac...-unusual-urby/

Where did you get the news about Harborside 4? Very cool and hope it happens.

Harborside could be a vibrant and bustling area of the city one day, as long as they do good pedestrian-oriented planning.

Last edited by Hamilton; May 21, 2017 at 6:29 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #599  
Old Posted May 21, 2017, 9:28 PM
CIA CIA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 1,086
Haborside Plaza 4? Source documents from Mack Cali somewhere from their recent earnings report. (The places we have to troll to get the good info) lol

https://www.mack-cali.com/media/1037...s-form-8-k.pdf

It's somewhere in this document. Mack Cali's residential subsidiary is Roseland. The Roseland report speaks to a mix-use development with 1,500 units and the main commercial statement of Mack Cali speaks to 1 million sqft of office development.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #600  
Old Posted May 21, 2017, 10:24 PM
citybooster citybooster is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 146
Quote:
Originally Posted by CIA View Post
Haborside Plaza 4? Source documents from Mack Cali somewhere from their recent earnings report. (The places we have to troll to get the good info) lol

https://www.mack-cali.com/media/1037...s-form-8-k.pdf

It's somewhere in this document. Mack Cali's residential subsidiary is Roseland. The Roseland report speaks to a mix-use development with 1,500 units and the main commercial statement of Mack Cali speaks to 1 million sqft of office development.
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.
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 5:45 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.