JERSEY CITY | Projects and Construction thread

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by citybooster

I'd just dismiss this if I were the HAP developer and get ready for groundbreaking asap. Boggiano can cackle all he wants for his NIMBY peeps but they lost, now get the hey out of the way and build!

Boggiano said the Jersey Journal article was fake news and attacked the judges' integrity and competence. Took the pages right out of Trump's playbook.

Personally, I think this project isn't really a huge deal, because there are a lot of sites zoned for high-rises in the area, and more sites will be upzoned for high-rises soon--stay tuned. But whether you love this tower or hate it, giving your constituents false hope and pandering by attacking the press and judges doesn't seem appropriate for a public official.

[C.]

I was doing more reading up on Mack Cali. There's some skepticism on the transition from the suburban areas to the Jersey City waterfront. I would categorize this as concerns regarding overbuilding. I also get the impression that the wall street guys are not impressed with the plan to acquire 25 Columbus and 107 Morgan. At least, there were seeking more info (as we are) on what the plan is. As some guy said, it's like they spent several million dollars on dirt, but didn't provide any details on the development rights or planned number of units for 107 Morgan.

There was also a question about why some of the construction start dates have been pushed back, which I believe was a reference to Urby II. Mack Cali responded generally saying it takes time for zoning, permitting, design, etc... but they are generally on track.

Harborside 8 did come up, but it was nothing specific. Just in a general comment that all the developments along the waterfront can have a positive influence on the existing buildings, making them more valuable.

The Mack Cali guys seem extremely confident on the Jersey City waterfront. The wall street guys want much more information. I bet future reporting from Mack Cali will be more detailed, on a site by site basis, to explain why they're so confident to alleviate concerns from wall street.

https://seekingalpha.com/article/412...all-transcript

[citybooster]

I would tend to bet on Mack Cali rather than the skeptics... they do have a good track record and it makes senses for them to emphasize Jersey City over their more spread out suburban projects. It's very ambitious grabbing that extra property and yes, a more detailed explanation of what they are planning would be helpful in judging if they are on the right track... I hope maybe URBY is getting a bit of a time out so it can go through revisions architecturally... the first one rented out spectacularly and I really think they want to do something transformative for the area. Wall Street may go from skeptical to downright jealous if my hopes for Mack Cali hold up.

[Hamilton]

Remember that 5-story building proposed for 17-23 Perrine Avenue that was rejected by the Planning Board due to NIMBY opposition, even though it was completely compliant with the zoning for the site?

Well, it looks like all of the NIMBYs' hard work was for nothing: the three families that own the three homes at 17-23 Perrine Avenue sued the city, and they won on July 26, 2017. A motion for reconsideration was recently denied by the judge. In the summary judgment, the judge said the city's denial of Planning Board approval for the building was "arbitrary and capricious." I don't know if the city will appeal, but the city's lawyers have a horrible track record, losing every single appeal and judgment on the Bright & Varick building and the HAP tower.

The Law Division docket number is L 000291-17 in case anyone is interested. Nicholas Babalis, Christian Bastidas, and Kevin & Julianne O'Connell vs Planning Board of the City of Jersey City.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Remember that 5-story building proposed for 17-19 Perrine Avenue that was rejected by the Planning Board due to NIMBY opposition, even though it was as-of-right?

Well, it looks like all of the NIMBYs' hard work was for nothing: the three families that own the three homes at 17-21 Perrine Avenue sued the city, and they won on July 26, 2017. A motion for reconsideration was recently denied by the judge. In the summary judgment, the judge said the city's denial of permits for the building was "arbitrary and capricious." Unknown if the city will appeal, but the city's lawyers have a horrible track record, losing every single appeal and judgment on the Bright & Varick building and the HAP tower.

The Law Division docket number is L 000291-17 in case anyone is interested. Nicholas Babalis, Christian Bastidas, and Kevin & Julianne O'Connell vs Planning Board of the City of Jersey City.

Bring out the champaign!

[C.]

This may be a slightly more refined rendering than we've seen in the past.




From jcra

[citybooster]

My problem with the 3 Perrine building was the design... just not that good. But having five-8 story buildings on side streets aren't a threat to the neighborhood and I'm glad the NIMBYs are getting pushback. I think the Fulop administration should stop trying to ameliorate the concerns of these people and support efforts against legally binding(according to these court decisions so far) such as Perrine which , being of right, shouldn't have been kibboshed in the first place(though please by all means redesign it!!!) and the HAP building on Summit Avenue right across the street from three even taller towers.

Of course I understand the desire not to overwhelm the neighborhood willy nilly with massive towers but that wouldn't happen and having medium and high rise residential development in a major section of the city for transit, retail, and amenities like Journal Square has the capability of being is smart modern growth... helps expand the tax base and fund needed infrastructure modernization. And having some 5-8 story developments on side streets is part of that smart growth... though of course we do need to make sure that there isn't the kind of gentrification displacement that does happen. So we do need to work with the community...but they need to work, too...and not just put out their hands to motion "stop!". Let's work together for once... city, developers, communities. Let's make it work for everyone this time.

[C.]

55 Jordan

7. Case: P16-102 Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan
Applicant: Mercer Jordan, LLC
Review Planner: Matt Ward
Attorney: Steven J. Tripp
Address: 55 Jordan Avenue, 26 Tuers Avenue, 535-545 Mercer Street
Block: 13504 Lots: 7, 10-14
Zone: McGinley Square East Redevelopment Plan
Description: Proposed 16-story mixed-use building with 267 dwelling units (of which 53 units are dedicated affordable), 4,340 square feet of ground floor retail, and 112 parking spaces. CARRIED FROM FEBRUARY 14, 2017 MEETING. TESTIMONY TAKEN.

711 Montgomery

16 floors and 299 units per the development map

St. Peter's Tower

21 floors and 595 units per the development map. An excessive 717 parking spaces is planned. This is a good example how that much parking can contribute to the crapiness of a building. They did a crap job trying to hide it. The bottom few floors look like garbage. Top floors aren't anything nice either.

EDIT I have to retract my statement as I recently learned the parking will be underground and there will be a movie theater in the podium, contributing to the block shape. Still not the best design, but parking is not to blame.

[Busy Bee]

Originally Posted by CIA

This may be a slightly more refined rendering than we've seen in the past.

Great looking building. My only critique would be that the low-rise wings should be scaled to better frame the park and hold the streetwall. An additional 3-5 floors would have done the trick.

[C.]

New development maps posted today (well, for downtown anyway)

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset...ps-10.5.17.pdf

Some small updates but nothing big from what I can see.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

Great looking building. My only critique would be that the low-rise wings should be scaled to better frame the park and hold the streetwall. An additional 3-5 floors would have done the trick.

Agreed!

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by CIA

Agreed!

I agree as well, very nice building but small qualms that the base could be better, but who knows, it might change a bit and even if built to that scale will look great. Not a cookie cutter design so definitely stands out very nicely in contrast. Ellipse looks so good too, but then there's the less visible but unsightly concession to the we must have parking brigade.

The St. Peter's tower is horrible...hope it keeps taking time to build if at all because as designed it's just a mess. I agree, let's cut down on the garages...we need a trolley for the Montgomery area to the Square and as we build in that area and let's emphasize public transit... more cars just is nuts, it just boggles the mind some people are concerned with allowing for more vehicles when traffic moves too darn slowly already at times. Personally, I would love to see minimal parking citywide in midsize and large scale projects rather than one or more spots per resident.

The other midrises for that area look really nice and hopefully will be starting up asap.

[C.]

Speaking of St. Peters...



From Jersey Digs - https://jerseydigs.com/construction-...ginley-square/

Construction Yet to Begin on Saint Peter’s University Tower in McGinley Square
By Jared Kofsky - November 15, 2017


More than three years after it was approved, little progress has been made on a massive mixed-use development that was expected to be the largest, by far, in the McGinley Square neighborhood of Jersey City.

It was revealed in early 2014 that Saint Peter’s University was planning to construct a 21-story tower at the site of a parking lot it owns at 688 Montgomery Street, at the corner of Tuers Avenue. The project, according to Together North Jersey, was slated to include a grocery store, a 13-screen movie theater, a landscaped promenade, an underground parking garage, the Jesuit Institute for Lifelong Learning and Living, a residence hall with 300 beds, and 450 residential rental units. According to the university, Saint Peter’s Tower at McGinley Square was set to be co-developed with Sora Development and KPN Architects.

A student at SPU, who asked to remain anonymous contacted, Jersey Digs, explaining that he was informed during his freshman year that the project was expected to be completed by 2016.

“Students here are still living in what we consider to be sub-par conditions on the university’s West Campus,” said the source, who added “failing infrastructure in these old buildings result[s] in no hot water being provided and electricity failures that can last for a whole day.”

According to the student, “when we saw its [the project’s] delay, we started asking questions, but the administration here danced around the questions, refusing to give us satisfactory answers.”

Jersey Digs reached out to SPU for an update on the development, but was unable to get any real information.

Sarah Malinowski Ferrary, the Executive Director of University Communications, initially responded to our questions by stating that “Saint Peter’s University remains committed to meeting the housing needs of its students and we are in the process of exploring viable options in the area,” but when we asked for more details about this project, she explained that “she can’t discuss any specifics about plans right now due to confidentiality reasons.”

We also contacted the project developers and the architect, and will keep you updated should additional information be released.

LoL at quoting an anonymous student.

[C.]

Interesting comment from Jersey Digs on St. Peters

Sal G November 15, 2017 at 12:09 pm
Asked a similar question out a community meeting where Mayor Fulop attended regarding the multiple empty lots that are fenced off and have been in approved status for years, and he looked at me like I insulted his mother. Not sure why it’s such a touchy subject but clearly something going on behind the scenes.

My completely uneducated guess is it's a financing issue leading to the delay. The developer is probably seeking more subsidy from the university to get this built, but the university believes it's already contributed enough, leading to the impasse. The developer looks somewhat on the smaller side based on the website. Not sure what kind of New Jersey work they've done. So I wonder what kind of experience they have to pull something tricky off like this.

The hint that tells me something is up is the underground parking. 717 units worth is a lot on such a small site like this! It's the right planning thing to do since it doesn't have as bad as a negative impact like an above grade garage, but underground parking is extremely expensive! No one does it due to the costs, which is close to $55,000 a space in a normal environment. North Jersey is anything but normal, so the costs are much higher. It's hard for a project to be financially feasible for low-income student housing, higher-end retail in an economically-distressed area, and to provide 717 parking spaces in multiple stories underground at $75k a pop.

My conclusion based on my completely uninformed opinion is this gets redesigned as it's currently unfeasible.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by CIA

Interesting comment from Jersey Digs on St. Peters



My completely uneducated guess is it's a financing issue leading to the delay. The developer is probably seeking more subsidy from the university to get this built, but the university believes it's already contributed enough, leading to the impasse. The developer looks somewhat on the smaller side based on the website. Not sure what kind of New Jersey work they've done. So I wonder what kind of experience they have to pull something tricky off like this.

The hint that tells me something is up is the underground parking. 717 units worth is a lot on such a small site like this! It's the right planning thing to do since it doesn't have as bad as a negative impact like an above grade garage, but underground parking is extremely expensive! No one does it due to the costs, which is close to $55,000 a space in a normal environment. North Jersey is anything but normal, so the costs are much higher. It's hard for a project to be financially feasible for low-income student housing, higher-end retail in an economically-distressed area, and to provide 717 parking spaces in multiple stories underground at $75k a pop.

My conclusion based on my completely uninformed opinion is this gets redesigned as it's currently unfeasible.

It HAS to be redesigned... put in far fewer parking spaces and concentrate on amenities like the cinema and /or a small market that would be useful for the area. Students can take the bus and it's such a short walk to the main campus anyway. How many student apartments vs market rate housing were they talking about anyway? I hardly remember anything close to 700 overall..no need for all those cars in an area with a lot of potential congestion as a main thoroughfare.

[C.]

Plus there is no way you're going to get high market rate rents above a 300 bed dorm. The market rate units will attract mainly grad students on limited income. It'll probably be much more modest market rate rents.

The retailers are the ones probably lobbying for the additional parking, but I agree - less parking and whoever wants to walk away can walk away. It's the only thing gets built.

[citybooster]

Rather than Nimbyism, I'd aim to limit parking in all major developments especially because we're congested enough already at peak hours in the morning and late afternoon...emphasize transit already. Not going for a total parking ban but it's not the frakking suburbs here... let's not have a congested city traffic wise worse than we have now. Improve bus, light rail, train options...even trolleys and those commuter buses over the next decade or so, let's improve our transit infrastructure capacity and make it easier to get around and enjoy the neighborhoods and communities developing city wide. In other words, let's move into 21st century thinking when developing and growing our city. Hopefully Fulop will start the ball rolling that way in his second administration instead of working with those goofy NIMBYS regarding downsizing the Journal Square plan and other idiotic stuff like those selective chain bans when more should be done to make it easier for smaller businesses to get established and prosper first.

[Hamilton]

^^^That point about parking is an important one to make, and one that lots of drivers don't realize...the city and planners are HELPING you by limiting congestion by not requiring parking in these developments! The fewer cars on the streets, the better life will be for the motorheads as well as everyone else.

[Hamilton]

As far as St Peter's, I know two people very close to the board of St Peter's. That project is dead and buried, according to them. Stick a fork in it! It couldn't get financing. Between the parking, the movie theater, the workforce housing, the distance from the PATH, etc it was way too ambitious. They would need huge rents to make it worthwhile.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

As far as St Peter's, I know two people very close to the board of St Peter's. That project is dead and buried, according to them. Stick a fork in it! It couldn't get financing. Between the parking, the movie theater, the workforce housing, the distance from the PATH, etc it was way too ambitious. They would need huge rents to make it worthwhile.

Sorry to hear that, but wish officials could just admit it instead of hushing up or getting agitated when it gets publicly brought up. We DO need more housing options for college students, and maybe a trolley or something like that to serve areas of the Montgomery Street corridor going up to Journal Square would be a viable option as more development goes up. Hopefully those two other nice midsize projects CIA was posting about have better outcomes.