JERSEY CITY LIST - Message Forum

Forum Index

Board index » All Posts (jcman420)

Bottom

« 1 (2) 3 4 5 6 »

jcman420

Re: The Merchant - closing?

#31

Home away from home

They confirmed it on their Facebook page. Closed down either this past Saturday or closing next Saturday (not sure which).

Bummer. It was a pretty good spot. Hope another bar takes over that space.

Posted on: 2014/10/27 0:27

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Considering a move from DT to JSQ or Heights - any tips here?

#32

Home away from home

In all seriousness, can someone point me to a decent bar (or any bar, actually) within a few blocks of JSQ other than the Journal Square Pub? I realize Sinai restaurant probably also has a bar in it.

Kind of insane that for a place that people keep saying is on the rise, there's barely a spot to even grab a drink.

Posted on: 2014/10/24 16:04

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Taphaus Biergarten

#33

Home away from home

This is a welcome addition to the waterfront. Haven't stopped in yet, but it looks like they did a nice job with it. By my rough estimation, the place is about a 6.5 minute (scenic) walk from the Exchange Place PATH and about an 11 minute walk from the Newport PATH. Convenient to the many who live in Newport and a reasonable walk for those in Paulus Hook and the eastern part of Hamilton Park.

Location will not be an issue. I think the place will get plenty of support.

Posted on: 2014/10/16 17:36

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Tidewater basin Redevelopment amendment vote on Oct 8th

#34

Home away from home

Anyway, the supporters of the ordinance did make a good case for the development plan, and were clearly looking out for the best interests of the neighborhood. Seems like a pretty divisive issue and there was no way everyone was going to be happy.

I'm not doom and gloom about it-- I'll support it and hope for the best. My biggest concern, as noted by Council Person Osborne, was whether the area was getting enough compensation. Either way, it will be an improvement to the street. I'll trust the supporters who seem confident that this was a good deal for the area and hope that they're correct.

Posted on: 2014/10/11 14:44

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Tidewater basin Redevelopment amendment vote on Oct 8th

#35

Home away from home

The people who spoke during public comments were overwhelmingly against the ordinance. By my inexact count it was roughly 2 to 1 against the ordinance with literally 100% of the people in favor of the ordinance being active members of the HPHA or the lawyer for the developer. Many of the "pro" speakers mischaracterized the argument as "15 stories vs. Empty Lot" as opposed to "15 stories vs 6-stories." Some dismissed the opponents of the ordinance as "Gulls Cove" residents (a false generalization). It was also obvious to everyone in the room that the non-speaking attendees in the crowd were overwhelmingly against the ordinance.

To be fair, people who are against an ordinance are far more likely to speak up at a city council meeting than those in favor. But if I had to put money on it, I'd hazard a conservative guess that 55-60% of Paulus Hook is against this ordinance. However, the HPHA is officially in favor of it, so that's all that matters. The neighborhood association's support gives the council persons the political cover to say the "neighborhood" supports it, reality be-damned.

Municipal democracy at work.

Posted on: 2014/10/11 2:09

Edited by jcman420 on 2014/10/11 2:37:14

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Parking Permit - New Car

#36

Home away from home

Does anyone know how far in advance of the expiration date on a parking permit one can go to the JCPA to have it renewed?

Posted on: 2014/10/8 2:12

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Jersey City marketing campaign: ‘Make It Yours’

#37

Home away from home

Is the New York Times capable of writing anything about Jersey City without stating in the first sentence what a dump the rest of the world considers it?

True or not-- it's hackneyed, cliched writing at this point.

Posted on: 2014/10/7 1:36

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Dangerous traffic situation at Center/Columbus and Montgomery… and other complaints

#38

Home away from home

There is a proposed Council ordinance to make all three lights at that intersection green at once and to release alligators along the Ferris High School faculty parking lot between the hours of 7 and 9 am.

Posted on: 2014/10/6 18:51

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Dangerous traffic situation at Center/Columbus and Montgomery… and other complaints

#39

Home away from home

This truly is a chaotic traffic situation which continues to this day. It's clear the city knows about it, but they have made the calculation that alleviating the traffic back-up both on Center St. and the Rt. 78 exit ramp takes priority. Traffic at that time is insanely busy, so they'd rather keep the heavy traffic flowing and let the merging cars battle it out in the Thunder Dome.

Posted on: 2014/10/6 15:59

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Historic Downtown Jersey City and Hoboken are locked in battle for most outstanding downtown

#40

Home away from home

DTJC's downtown is clearly on the rise.

However, the two biggest things holding it back and which will continue to hold it back:

1. Bland, corporate waterfront with few parks and little to do;
2. 3-4 sprawling, fenced in parking lots around the Gregory Towers and Paulus Hook Apartment Tower which break off the Grove Plaza area from the waterfront neighborhoods and break up the continuity of downtown.

Things like "too many Dollar Stores" are temporary issues that, if they are indeed problems, will sort themselves out. But the above two problems are foundational and will require action/ pressure from City Hall.

Posted on: 2014/10/1 13:06

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#41

Home away from home

Quote:

Conformist wrote:

More people = more customers = better retail options and more vibrant street life. Also, development is (most of the time, anyway) visually much more appealing than vacant lots and parking lots.

Understand that, but the discussion isn't "15 stories vs. Vacant Lot," it's "15 stories vs. 6 stories." No one wants a vacant lot.

Adding stories on top of the previously planned 6-story building doesn't increase the ground-floor retail by a square foot.

I suppose there's something to the position that "more people= more demand for services= more services provided." But I just don't think that increasing a neighborhoods population at any cost is a sustainable principle.

It's quite simple: The developer had plans to build a residential building within the architectural restrictions of the historic district. The developer saw the wild success of places like Warren at York and realized they could easily double the units in the building and still fill it. Now, the developer (understandably) seeks to be given an exception to the historic district's architectural restrictions so they can make significantly more money.

So, we know what the developer is getting ($$$).

Now, the question is, what is Paulus Hook getting?

And a second question, why does the height limitation in Historic Paulus Hook exist to begin with?

Not trying to get all Socratic here, but I think this is an important discussion.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 23:01

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#42

Home away from home

Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:
Sunshine is not in your deed.

You seem to think that people are taking the stance that they have some "legal right" to control what type of buildings go up in their neighborhood. Yet I haven't seen anyone take this position. This is a question of personal preference and exerting the pressure of public opinion. You have every right to disagree.

Quote:

These arguments are so ridiculous. More cars? No one in that location needs a car.

Yet they're building a garage underneath the building. It's nice (albeit wholly irrelevant) that you don't believe that anyone in that location "needs a car." I probably agree with you on that, to a certain degree (though who am I to decide the "needs" of others, really?) What matters is whether or not people who live there will have cars. I think they will. Apparently the people who are spending large sums money to build the place also believe that. Since they're building a garage and all.

Quote:

This is a city. You know who else will need more sewers? Whole Foods. Trader Joe's. But the day the real thread comes announcing them, the NIMBY crowd won't be crying "But what of the sewers? Won't someone please think of the sewers?!?!!"

The idea that is part of some shadow conspiracy to bring in development is a joke. The city repeatedly hands over the keys to the neighborhood associations that are filled with NIMBY types that do everything to make everyone else not a granola type miserable.

It is my observation that you enjoy labeling people who hold contrary views from you with silly, insulting (and inaccurate) monikers. You also seem to enjoy inventing imaginary arguments out of whole cloth that no one is making, then arguing against them.

The former habit, unfortunately, appears to be a product of personality, with which you'll probably have to live. The latter, however, can now likely be addressed with medication.

Quote:

Every great city has big buildings. It's a city. It's not a suburb. Please. That is the fundamental that NIMBYs don't get. Cities have tall buildings. Suburbs have 4 story buildings.

I don't have any interest in living in the suburbs, though you certainly seem to be obsessed with them. I am interested, though, in public discourse about the pluses and minuses the neighborhood will experience due to the sudden doubling in size of the proposed project.

Though, come to think of it, I actually haven't seen you or anyone else mention any of the "pluses." Other than helping the bottom line of the development company, which is certainly quite nice for them. I'd love to hear them.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 20:19

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#43

Home away from home

As a point of clarification, I understand that this change *was* made with some opportunity for feedback at neighborhood meetings, etc. However, it is unclear to me when, exactly, the developer was approved for a variance from the height restrictions and what public dialogue occurred before that decision was made.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 0:40

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#44

Home away from home

Quote:

RUinHamiltonPark wrote:

The "anti-development" crowd wants all the amenities of Jersey City and the character of Mendham.

No one walking down the street is even going to notice. This is not terribly far from the towers around Exchange and Grove.

I'm sure though Whole Foods, Trader Joes, and lord know who else is just chomping at the bit to develop in a place where most current residents have an attitude against any kind of addition of residents.

Oh, and in before someone mentions a stressed park or an overcrowded PATH train.

Thanks for taking the sweeping generalizations, strawmen arguments and brain-dead ad hominems to a whole 'nother level...

Quote:

Don't like it, we have this magical place here in New Jersey called the suburbs. Towns of 3 people with town councils where someone tries to build a shed and 50 neighbors show up and cry crocodile tears. So many of our JC residents would feel at home. What are you waiting for?

... and adding in a healthy dose of "Love it or leave it," for good measure!

On behalf of my fellow Small Town Fetishists and members of the Anti-Development Crowd, I'd like to clarify that I am very much in favor of development on that stretch of Van Vorst St.

This site was scheduled for a 6-7 story complex for some time. I don't remember hearing anyone complain about this. Then, seemingly overnight, we learn that the height of the proposed building, which is surrounded by 3-to-4 story buildings has more than doubled. That means: more than double the PM sunlight blocked on Morris and Sussex Streets; more than double the number of people occupying the same footprint of real estate relying on the same sewer and drainage systems; more than double the cars in the neighborhood. Not to mention a material change to the aesthetics of the neighborhood that some find objectionable.

Maybe this tower will be a rousing success, look beautiful, double property value and make Jersey City the Best Mid-sized City in America. But this significant change was done with little or no feedback from the neighborhood or city, as far as I can tell.

So... we're discussing here, if that's okay with you.

Posted on: 2014/9/25 0:16

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Racist and Homophobic Contractor Alert

#45

Home away from home

Quote:

GrovePath wrote:
Is there some type of JCman cult? How many "JCman" are there out here?

We (the JCMen) actually find the phrase "cult" to be objectionable.

Regards,

JCMan420 (Operating Thetan III)

Posted on: 2014/9/22 22:18

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#46

Home away from home

Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

07310 wrote:

I always find it amusing the way people panic at the thought of change.

And I am equally amused when people make grand, sweeping statements with a small percentage of the details.

Well-said. It's as if anyone who doesn't have an "anything goes" attitude toward development in their neighborhood is somehow anti-development.

Hey, there's a nice plot of land situated right next to Paulus Hook Park that is currently being wasted as a parking lot. I bet we could squeeze a 9 or 10 story apartment building there, too. They could even put a Jersey Shore-style nightclub on the ground level.

No? What are you, anti-development?

Posted on: 2014/9/22 21:37

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Racist and Homophobic Contractor Alert

#47

Home away from home

It is absurd to me that in response to the OP recounting an incident during which he or she witnessed an employee of a local business screaming the "n-word" and the "f-word" in public, others are choosing to concentrate on the fact that the incident stemmed from a parking dispute.

Who cares what the argument was over?

Do some people here think that Jersey City's parking situation somehow mitigates the egregiousness of this guy's alleged behavior?

Posted on: 2014/9/22 21:28

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#48

Home away from home

Quote:

PEC0905 wrote:

Atrocious?? Strong comments for someone who probably has not seen renderings and likely does not even live in the neighborhood.
I'm assuming you prefer the vacant lot? Or better yet, you preferred the burnt out factory and desolate side street that used to be there. The one you couldn't park on because every night the cars would be broken into?
This lot backs up to the football field and will not affect the neighborhood any different than a 7 story tower would. It will add retail and parking and change the street scape for the better.
As for Gulls Cove, there is new construction everywhere. The views that didn't get lost from 18 park will now have to worry about the new hotel on Marin that will be 16 stories, and the vacant pest control lot that will be developed. There will also be high rises going up between sussex and morris on the water that will be much higher than 15 stories so any west facing views in Gulls Cove are on borrowed time anyway.

Don't presume to know where other people live.

I am very well aware of the time when that stretch of Van Vorst St. was desolate and a haven for car break-ins. I've also seen the renderings of the new proposal. They'd be perfectly fine for Exchange Place or Newport-- areas that are already home to many highrise towers. But a 15-story tower does not belong on that stretch, regardless of the design. This proposed tower is essentially the same height as the Warren St. Portside tower (which is 17 stories). Go look at that building and tell me that it would look appropriate between Morris and Sussex on Van Vorst St.

I'm not arguing that there should be no development on Van Vorst St. What I have a problem with is a *fifteen-story* tower as opposed to a six-story building. Such a giant tower is totally out-of-character for the neighborhood. There is a reason that there's a 6-story max to begin with-- it's an historic district. Exceptions to the height restriction should be exceedingly rare. I don't think "making the developer a ton more money" qualifies as an appropriate exception.

This is not at all a similar situation to when Portside was built in the late 80's. First of all, those towers are at the end of the peninsula and don't stick out in the middle of a bunch of low-rises like a sore thumb. Second of all, back then the neighborhood was desperate for development. Today? Paulus Hook is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the the city. We don't need to be compromising the neighborhood's historic character like we did in 1989. It is the city and the neighborhood that should be dictating the terms of developing that prime real estate, not the developers.

What is a height that you would have a problem with? 20 stories? 30? To me 15 stories for that area is too high for that part of the neighborhood.

Posted on: 2014/9/22 20:56

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Proposed development on Van Vorst between Sussex & Morris

#49

Home away from home

Atrocious. *15* stories? This is practically as tall as one of the Portside Towers at the end of Warren St. That is *huge*. This has the potential to change the character of the entire neighborhood. That neighborhood is already becoming overcrowded. Now they're trying to turn it into Newport.

Amazing what writing a big enough check for the proposed park will do for a developer. A lousy $150k contribution to the park? Who knew Paulus Hook could be bought off so cheaply?

Posted on: 2014/9/22 17:14

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Food trucks on closed Newark Avenue

#50

Home away from home

Quote:

mrasg1 wrote:
Why are there no food trucks on Newark
Avenue when it's closed? I think it's a perfect
opportunity to showcase them. Did the restaurants
complain and keep them out? I say bring
the food trucks in! Still plenty of room to walk. And you
can eat at the picnic tables.

Because the restaurants on "restaurant row" would justifiably go apeshit that they were paying obscene property taxes and the massive costs of renovating brick and mortar storefronts just to have a huge percentage of their business siphoned from trucks who make no such investments.

The purpose, among others, of the pedestrian plaza experiment is to *benefit* the restaurants who have invested in DTJC's future by allowing them expanded outdoor seating and drawing more people to the area, not to cut those businesses out at the knees.

I love the food trucks of DTJC. They are a huge part of the city's food culture. But there's a place for them. The Newark Ave. pedestrian plaza is not that place.

Posted on: 2014/9/20 20:44

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: sharp grooves carved up on barrow street

#51

Home away from home

There are two of these on Van Vorst St., as well. They are deep and almost completely invisible. Only a matter of time before they damage a car with low clearance or, worse, break a bicyclist's neck. It has liability for the city written all over it.

Posted on: 2014/9/14 2:35

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: City Employee Caught on Vulgar Rant

#52

Home away from home

Quote:

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
I guarantee you -- if Brooke gets fired (and she should), it will be because of consistent issues with integrity. She is, after all, the same lowlife who (allegedly), during the mayoral campaign, posed as a college intern to gain access to a local nonprofit - to basically pilfer ideas and documents for Team Fulop.

And, to anyone who is foolish enough to think you can separate the person from her position in government, ask yourself: If the Mayor went out just as "Steve Fulop" and did the same thing, do you think it would not reflect negatively on his job as Mayor? Come on.

You describe some unsubstantiated (and frankly innocuous sounding) conduct to explain why someone else is a "lowlife."

Yet here you are, with a newly registered anonymous account on a community message board, using your first post to smear and insult someone by name.

I have no idea who this city hall official is and I have no idea who you are, but I have a pretty good idea which of the two of you is a "lowlife."

Posted on: 2014/9/14 2:23

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: City Employee Caught on Vulgar Rant

#53

Home away from home

Whatever. 9 out of 10 people who see this video will empathize with this woman's rage against dirtbags who litter and make noise until 3am. It'll probably help Fulop's approval numbers.

Posted on: 2014/9/13 16:04

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Jersey City: Newark Avenue - Pedestrian Plaza

#54

Home away from home

The whining here is just unreal. It's a trial run in its embryonic stages. People here expect every single project to be birthed in full glorious form like Botticelli's Venus. This city has a vocal minority of whiny babies who see any progress and desperately grasp to pull it back or kill any promising projects on the vine.

This is a massive improvement to the area which will only get better with time. Of course the city and businesses aren't going to invest in permanent infrastructure while this is still a "trial run."

Posted on: 2014/9/4 22:55

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Brownstone Diner and Pancake Factory Undergoing Major Expansion Beginning in Fall 2008

#55

Home away from home

Agree with the poster from 2008. Should be open 24 hours.

Posted on: 2014/9/4 22:46

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: What's going there?

#56

Home away from home

Quote:

sp2xs wrote:
[quote]

All of that being said, and despite what many on this board say, there are many things that Hoboken does right. Washington St. is a pleasing, safe, and active main avenue. Newark Ave., which can still be desolate and off-putting at times, would be well-served to model itself on its northern counterpart.

Completely agree. Clearly, there are douchey elements to Washington St. (particularly on a Friday or Saturday night), but it is a large, active drag of diverse businesses, most of which are pretty nice.

I'd also add that Hoboken's waterfront, with its ample trees, greenspace, performance space and parks, puts Jersey City's bland Exchange Place/ Newport disaster to shame.

Posted on: 2014/9/2 23:50

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Azucar - Closed?

#57

Home away from home

Too bad. Always heard good things about this place and they were supposed to have one of the best happy hour deals around. Never got a chance to try it.

Posted on: 2014/8/28 21:24

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: PRESERVATION OF POWERHOUSE TO BEGIN

#58

Home away from home

The comical thing is that in the letter from the mayor that accompanied this year's property tax bill, Fulop touted the powerhouse as one of the city's exciting upcoming projects.

I imagine this throw-away line will still be included in such letters two or three administrations from now.

Posted on: 2014/8/27 12:38

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Monty's Public House

#59

Home away from home

Quote:

FranciscoGalt wrote:
Wondering if the owners yet realize that the pane glass windows emblazoned with their monogrammed logo are installed quite perfectly backwards... Or perhaps done for ironic effect?

I don't think it's backwards, but rather a stylistic choice. The "P" on the left is backwards to give the monogram a more balanced look. I think it looks better that way.

Posted on: 2014/8/23 14:30

Topic | Forum

jcman420

Re: Monty's Public House

#60

Home away from home

This place is on pace to be open for business sometime between the completion of the Embankment Highline Park and the renovation of the downtown Powerhouse.

Posted on: 2014/8/21 22:47

Topic | Forum

Top

« 1 (2) 3 4 5 6 »