JERSEY CITY | Projects and Construction thread - Page 34

Crawford · #**661** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 3:01 PM**

I hope future phases have the 60-floor option. This site needs some real height; not just a bunch of similar towers.

Hamilton · #**662** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 6:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA

Hamilton, agreed. I really hate to admit this, but the NIMBYs made one good point: there should be more time for review and comment on the change. It's a bit of a moot point because it would be more manipulative BS to stir up the community. For example, they're presenting the potential massing as the building envelope. This is not a 60-story tower, it will be 35 floors. The propose change has no impact to density of the site.

I personally like high rise towers to setback as they rise from a 5 or 6-story base. Like the buildings that arose after the introduction of the 1916 zoning code for NYC. The current design or new one really doesn't do it for me either way.

I agree, these buildings are not stellar designs (i.e., ugly). JC has been seeing better design in recent years. This is a bit of a step backwards design-wise. Hopefully the latter towers will be better.

As far as review/comment, I'd agree if it was a major change, but I doubt any of the people complaining even noticed that the setback they're eliminating was written into the plan to begin with. If they have legit concerns about it, fine, but all too often these sorts of complaints are just a way to muck up the wheels and slow down a project long enough that it'll be canceled.

The PAD Neighborhood Association has a history of doing that. They spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawsuits without any merit, against projects in the PAD.

C. · #**663** Posted **Aug 3, 2017, 11:57 PM**

Urby is 78% lease-up in five months at average rents of $57.50 per square foot.

As of July 31, 2017.

C. · #**664** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 3:08 PM**

YIMBY did another sit down with the mayor.

http://newyorkyimby.com/2017/08/inte...ment-boom.html

At this current pace, Urby is going to lease all 762 units in less than 6 months. It's odd that Urby is one of the most successful RE developments in the state and they have yet to break ground on phase 2 despite having full planning permission. This tells me a change may be in the works...

Stay tuned

What if Phase II & III were raised to 95 stories twin towers in exchange for community benefits in the base of the building? Mack Cali has already bumped up the planned Harborside 8 and 9 from 700 to 1000 units, based on the strength of the market. Why not Urby?

Hamilton · #**665** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 6:11 PM**

^^^ This article claims that they plan to get started on Urby II within the next year.

Still says it'll be 760 units, so I don't know if they've changed anything

http://www.njbiz.com/article/2017073...ith-high-hopes

C. · #**666** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 6:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

^^^ This article claims that they plan to get started on Urby II within the next year.

Still says it'll be 760 units, so I don't know if they've changed anything

http://www.njbiz.com/article/2017073...ith-high-hopes

https://www.mack-cali.com/media/1047...uartersp17.pdf

Possibly. From two days ago. Urby II isn't scheduled to begin in 2017. In 2018, they're scheduled to start 1,741 units.

Crawford · #**667** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 8:12 PM**

That article mentioned that Port Liberte will (finally) be completed. I know there's lots of undeveloped land there.

I wonder if they go the highrise route, or if they continue the current look/feel of Port Liberte?

Hamilton · #**668** Posted **Aug 4, 2017, 8:23 PM**

^^ Doesn't fully answer your question, but the redevelopment plan under which Port Liberte is governed (the Caven Point RDP) allows buildings of up to 15 stories. However, allowable densities are very low--only 20 units per acre (that's about half the density of a block full of typical 2-family homes). So if they do build tall, they'd have to build fewer overall buildings.

They could get an amendment to the RDP, but there's been no talk of that as far as I can tell.

CIA, thanks for the link. Super-informative, as always!

C. · #**669** Posted **Aug 9, 2017, 6:07 PM**

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=229372

57 and 59-storey buildings next to Home Depot!

750 units and a sizable non-residential component. This one is going to generate significant media attention. Developers are some guys named Fourteen Florence Street Corp.

C. · #**670** Posted **Aug 9, 2017, 8:55 PM**

citybooster · #**671** Posted **Aug 9, 2017, 11:51 PM**

Excited about 560-580 Marin... haven't had a change to jump around giddily going omg, omg, omg in awhile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope the Kushners can just be pushed out. Someone will develop their Journal Square sites and go almost as big if not similar. They are just toxic right now

, and we can't afford years of limbo in what rightly should be a rapidly modernizing, transformative centerpiece of the Square. We can wait a bit longer if the end game results in something really good.

55 Hudson is really dead? The two lots Goldman Sachs still has undeveloped are potential gold mines with their size and location so close to the waterfront with killer views of Lower Manhattan. Hear of ANYTHING that might take place as revised plans?

Anything about the San Remo lot? And two other interesting undeveloped areas I don't hear anything about but are being wasted right now... the Evertrust Plaza huge lot behind Harborside 5 and the 101 First lot now full of grass and weeds again where the centerpiece of the then ballyhooed PAD was supposed to go up with the ill-designed staggered blocks that Rem Koolhaas was behind(and disposed of in the economic downturn a few years back)...anything?

LOL, even Harborside 4, ANYTHING? And anything regarding a reworking of the heights of the other two URBY towers as you gleefully speculated?(I know that 8&9 are likely powerhouse residential high rises but won't be worked on until after URBY's done, so I won't even ask about them, lol!)

I know I ask much, but few sources can be trusted to give better info!

C. · #**672** Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 4:38 PM**

55 Hudson -- Is no news is good news? Not in this case. Whatever 95 floor version of the tower that's been showing up in planning documents for the past 3+ years has yet to materialize.

San Remo -- It's a Mack Cali property and they've been focused on Urby. Plans called for a 61 floor tower, but I remember reading somewhere that the planned unit count was dropped. Maybe it'll increase when they're ready to bring this one to market.

Harborside IV -- Is very much active. I think this will be built next year. It's not tall enough to be included on my list above.

Urby II & III -- These ones fascinate me. Journal Squared II wasted no time breaking ground because of the success of tower I. Same deal with 90 and 50 Columbus. As soon as the saw the leasing rate, they quickly started on the next phases of their project. Urby I has got to be one of the most successful in the entire NYC metro area. They're leasing over 125 units a month, at rents well above what their initial proforma estimated. It's Mack Cali's crown jewel and is contributing millions of profit to the company. Why they haven't jumped on starting phase II when Phase I has been such a success intrigues me, especially when they have full planning permission. Journal Squared is going to capture a lot of market share due to the delay. The only thing that comes to mind is they're considering changes or there is so some other hidden problem that's not known at this time.

Crawford · #**673** Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 4:43 PM**

Urby II is breaking ground early next year, per the developers.

Hamilton · #**674** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:39 PM**

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I don't think 560 Marin is happening anytime soon.

First of all, it's literally in the middle of a 12-lane highway--between 6 lanes of inbound and 6 lanes of outbound Holland Tunnel traffic. Gotta cross a highway just to walk to the Newport stop or any shops or restaurants. If One Journal Square has had trouble getting funding right on top of a PATH stop in a walkable and centrally located neighborhood, I just don't see this happening any time soon.

Second of all, the rate of construction permits right now is at the lowest since the recession. It seems people are having trouble getting financing, due to a perception of oversupply, whether that's valid or not. Jersey City has had about 850 apartments get construction permits in the past 12 months. For comparison, 1930 apartments got construction permits in the 12 months before that. To look at it another way, Newark has also permitted about 850 apartments in the past 12 months. How are they gonna get funding for 750 apartments next to the Holland Tunnel, when builders have only gotten financing for 850 apartments throughout the city in the past year?

Third, the only thing harder to get financing for than high-rise apartments in JC right now is retail/office. Retail is dying nationwide, and office rents are being squeezed both by the suburbs (many vacant office parks out there) and NYC (millions of square feet flooding the market at WTC and Hudson Yards and One Vanderbilt). 240,000 sq feet of retail/office in the middle of a highway with no retail/office nearby is going to be a tough sell.

C. · #**675** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I don't think 560 Marin is happening anytime soon.

First of all, it's literally in the middle of a 12-lane highway--between 6 lanes of inbound and 6 lanes of outbound Holland Tunnel traffic. Gotta cross a highway just to walk to the Newport stop or any shops or restaurants. If One Journal Square has had trouble getting funding right on top of a PATH stop in a walkable and centrally located neighborhood, I just don't see this happening any time soon.

It application does say right-of-way improvements, but I agree fully. It's an unbelievable location for towers of such height. Once approved, I can see this being sold to a highly competent developer with a track record on tricky projects.

Quote:

Second of all, the rate of construction permits right now is at the lowest since the recession. It seems people are having trouble getting financing, due to a perception of oversupply, whether that's valid or not. Jersey City has had about 850 apartments get construction permits in the past 12 months. For comparison, 1930 apartments got construction permits in the 12 months before that. To look at it another way, Newark has also permitted about 850 apartments in the past 12 months. How are they gonna get funding for 750 apartments next to the Holland Tunnel, when builders have only gotten financing for 850 apartments throughout the city in the past year?

The market will take care of itself. There may have to be larger equity buy-ins to the point that banks feel comfortable to lend. So be it. As long as the demand is there and rents continue to rise, the buildings will get built. We've had Ellipse, Vantage, Urby, Journal Squared and 70 Columbus all finish around the same time. Once those buildings start to lease up, the bank money will flow for more.

Hamilton · #**676** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:49 PM**

As far as whether there's oversupply, I agree that there is no oversupply in JC. But most of the demand that isn't being met is for workforce housing. And this demand can't be met by high-rises because they are too expensive to build and only the biggest developers can get them done. The city needs to make it easier to build smaller 5-story infill buildings throughout the city, like the ones that were built in the 20s. These are much cheaper to build, and they pencil out at cheaper rents, so it should be possible to get financing for them even when there's no financing available for high-rises.

The city already made it easier to build these sorts of buildings along MLK Blvd and Ocean Ave and Monticello, as well as in Lafayette near the LSC light rail stop. Construction of mid-rises is already booming near the LSC light rail stop, as well as on the side streets south/east of the JSQ stop. They should try to find other places where these sorts of buildings can be built, for instance along the Boulevard.

C. · #**677** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

As far as whether there's oversupply, I agree that there is no oversupply in JC. But most of the demand that isn't being met is for workforce housing. And this demand can't be met by high-rises because they are too expensive to build. The city needs to make it easier to build smaller 5-story infill buildings throughout the city, like the ones that were built in the 20s. These are much cheaper to build, and they pencil out at cheaper rents, so it should be possible to get financing for them even when there's no financing available for high-rises.

The city already made it easier to build these sorts of buildings along MLK Blvd and Ocean Ave and Monticello, as well as in Lafayette near the LSC light rail stop. They should try to find other places where these sorts of buildings can be built, for instance along the Boulevard.

I remember there was a proposal for a R-5 zoning district downtown, that would have made it easier to build. The city really needs to push that to other parts of the city. One of the main hurdles is parking. It's not feasible to provide 1:1 parking in some of these smaller infill buildings, but they're a vocal contingent in the city where that's all they care about. I really wish the members of skyscraperpage and other likeminded persons on other forums could form our own organization to push for better zoning in areas of the city that should be intensified.

I'm pretty sure city planning and the Mayor's office is on board. It's just the various vocal residents that show up bitchin at every council meeting.

Hamilton · #**678** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:59 PM**

Oh, and in case anyone is curious for more details about 560 Marin Blvd, the city's latest development map says the 59-story tower will have 383 apartments, and the 56-story tower will have 367 apartments. The plan is for 190,000 sq ft of retail and 50,000 sq ft of office.

Hamilton · #**679** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA

I remember there was a proposal for a R-5 zoning district downtown, that would have made it easier to build. The city really needs to push that to other parts of the city. One of the main hurdles is parking. It's not feasible to provide 1:1 parking in some of these smaller infill buildings, but they're a vocal contingent in the city where that's all they care about. I really wish the members of skyscraperpage and other likeminded persons on other forums could form our own organization to push for better zoning in areas of the city that should be intensified.

I'm pretty sure city planning and the Mayor's office is on board. It's just the various vocal residents that show up bitchin at every council meeting.

Yes! I completely agree.. R-5 was finally adopted in the Village last February. R-5 has parking requirements more in line with the actual car ownership rate in the city, and it allows 4 stories as-of-right. Hopefully people will see the NIMBYs were wrong--the sky isn't falling and the world isn't ending just because R-1 areas were changed to R-5 there, and it'll serve as an example for a similar rezoning in the Heights. Also, no tax abatements for these buildings, because they're not in a redevelopment plan, so NIMBYs can't complain about that.

The truth is that R-1 zoning (2-family Bayonne boxes) isn't even contextual in the Heights or in the Village, where there have been plenty of 4+-story buildings for almost a century.

Also for some weird reason the Boulevard is zoned R-1 in the Heights, no retail allowed. That makes absolutely no sense since there are already many 5-story mixed-use multifamily buildings with retail along the Blvd up there. I know City Planning studied changing it to Neighborhood Commercial zoning (the same zoning as along Newark Ave, West Side Ave, Central Ave, etc), but they never acted on that...

Hamilton · #**680** Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 7:20 PM**

R-1 created messed-up streetscapes like the one below. Even though the street was lined with handsome 4-story brick buildings, all you could build in between them was a crappy Bayonne box. Under R-5, you can once again build a building like the 4-story brick buildings as-of-right: