papadage wrote:
Too bad it's all Tacos, Pizza and Burgers.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Lets not kid ourselves, many of these new high rises are being built by the same developers and investors and will often use the same realtors as other developers to rent out these properties.
It wouldn't surprise me that there is a simple formula used to maintain a certain price - Not for one minute would there be any price war or lowering of prices and realtors would push tenants into developer owned rentals then privately own rentals.

JC_rider wrote:
Quote:

JPhurst wrote:
So that's two apartment buildings, the Pier and Crystal Point. Everything else there is commercial.

I think it is only the Pier Apts as residential. CP is on the North side of 2nd St on that map posted in thread #3 above.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
And that's why our taxes, rentals and housing is so high - everyone is aware of the demographics and wants to 'milk' every cents from those living here.

That is ridiculous. Your comment makes a mockery of the most basic principles of economics.

Please enlighten me with the 'basic principles of economics'

fat-ass-bike wrote:
And that's why our taxes, rentals and housing is so high - everyone is aware of the demographics and wants to 'milk' every cents from those living here.

Yvonne wrote:
I guess, some of you have never seen pictures of people at church gatherings in any Catholic Churches before 1950s, the crowds were large. People stayed in the neighborhood and moved out after World War 2. I know Holy Rosary during their feast displays old pictures of people who attended that church. When the highways system was up and running, there was a great exodus of ethnic Catholics to the suburbs and elsewhere. By the 1970s, the first church, St. Lucy closed its doors.

Yvonne wrote:
No, the population that is Catholic has moved away. Every church I mentioned took care of a particular ethnic group. There were German, Italians, Polish, Irish Catholics in great numbers in downtown JC. The homilies were given in those languages even if the Mass was in Latin. Besides, the Catholic Church, downtown has a large Jewish population that moved away. JC is the gateway to the rest of the US, when the immigrants came off Ellis Island, some stayed.

Yvonne wrote:
These are/were the Catholic Churches in Downtown JC: St. Lucy, St. Brigid, St. Michael, St. Anthony, Holy Rosary, St. Boniface, St. Mary, St. Peter, and Our Lady of Czechostowa. They closed because the population moved away. If you go to North Carolina or other places that Catholics are moving to, it is standing room only and there are five masses during Sunday. In my opinion, some of these churches should relocate to those areas.

JCishome wrote:
Very sad. If you walk around and pay attention, you'll be struck by the huge number of churches downtown - and by their size and the fact that they each housed large, active congregations in their day. And in a post-Veterans Day vein, take note of the plaques listing the members who served and died in WWI and WWII; dozens from each church.

We live in a very different world.

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

It seems that all of the new high rise construction both downtown and in JSQ is "luxury rental". As discussed elsewhere on this board, developers are choosing (or are restricted through financing terms) to construct rentals rather than condos. We see this from the Maddox and York at Warren to URL and the Majestic II across from City Hall.

If that is and continues to be the case, we might expect the glut of supply to stabilize rental prices downtown, but I would expect the impact on condo prices to be negligible since the supply of units to purchase is remaining static.

In fact, if more renters move here and decide they want to buy, the influx of newcomers might even drive condo prices up as demand increases but available inventory remains unchanged. I might be wrong on that point, but in any event, I can't see the flood of new rental inventory being a depreciative factor on real estate prices in DTJC.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

In fact, I think developments like this would increase rather than decrease property values despite the increase in supply. Although, they may decrease rental a bit.

Would you prefer a used car or a new car for the same price ?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

craigslistdiva wrote:
This is good idea as long as it's done with good urban planning in mind. It will somewhat connect three standalone residential areas that will be connected via foot traffic (Hamilton Park, DT and Newport). Hopefully the retail that the developers are targeting are small time businesses; we already have enough chain stores at the mall. But then again, any retail will be a boost to the area.

As for the PATH perhaps there would be consideration of having 2 JSQ 33rd street trains to 1 HOB 33rd street train. It's a quick and easy fix. Well "easy" as long as someone at the PA can see that a larger population in JC warrants that.

JCMan8 wrote:
I think that complex is in desperate need of an update. I'm sure the retail will be better after this project is complete.

HOWEVER, the PATH is already ridiculously overcrowded at most hours of the day. As it stands, an extra 30,000 or people will be using it after the existing new construction is completed. It's doubtful there is enough capacity to handle those developments.

Now they want to add countless additional people into the area? I don't think this should be allowed unless the developers have a concrete plan as to how they will preserve the city's already strained infrastructure and some kind of arrangement is worked out to ease the PATH crowding.

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop is in the mold of another reformer, Schundler, although not an elected official when he became mayor, he often attacked abatements then gave the city away as mayor. Fulop like Schundler used the office to run for governor. Both used education as a theme while mayor.
Schundler privatized water and the rates increased, Fulop is taking the excess profits and transferring it to the budget instead of returning it to rate payers.
Both wanted a garbage transfer station in Greenville, although Schundler's contract was for more money per ton than Fulop's proposed contract.

If you think that's bad, take a look at the Redevelopment Agency. They're giving choice properties away to developers without them having to use public auctions. Schundler gave LeFrak a lot of property in the Newport area that should have been used for a greater use, like a park.

How are they "giving" these properties away? Does the City own them? Or is the city imply giving rights to build on them?

The City owned them and gave them to the JCRA who is NOT putting them out to the highest bidder.

JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop is in the mold of another reformer, Schundler, although not an elected official when he became mayor, he often attacked abatements then gave the city away as mayor. Fulop like Schundler used the office to run for governor. Both used education as a theme while mayor.
Schundler privatized water and the rates increased, Fulop is taking the excess profits and transferring it to the budget instead of returning it to rate payers.
Both wanted a garbage transfer station in Greenville, although Schundler's contract was for more money per ton than Fulop's proposed contract.

If you think that's bad, take a look at the Redevelopment Agency. They're giving choice properties away to developers without them having to use public auctions. Schundler gave LeFrak a lot of property in the Newport area that should have been used for a greater use, like a park.

Yvonne wrote:
Fulop is in the mold of another reformer, Schundler, although not an elected official when he became mayor, he often attacked abatements then gave the city away as mayor. Fulop like Schundler used the office to run for governor. Both used education as a theme while mayor.
Schundler privatized water and the rates increased, Fulop is taking the excess profits and transferring it to the budget instead of returning it to rate payers.
Both wanted a garbage transfer station in Greenville, although Schundler's contract was for more money per ton than Fulop's proposed contract.

Yvonne wrote:
In 2012, some Republicans want Christie to enter the presidential race, he immediately said no. What do we hear from Fulop? Nothing. He is using using this to test the waters without taking the responsibility of the results. It is probably the reason Fulop so much time outside JC, he is building his base and bringing in the same people that McGreevey used when McGreevey ran for office. There is no hoodwinking on my part.

Seagull wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Has anyone tried their Thursday night only dinners?

I checked out their Facebook, and apparently they had a "supper club" this evening. It looks good, and if it's anything like their breakfast it's probably great.

https://www.facebook.com/samamcafe

Just to answer your question...I have yet to eat their Thursday night dinner, but I'm also interested.

jerseymom wrote:
Quote:

The advertising campaign is not designed around making those that live here feel better about where they live. It is designed to bring people with the type of money and lifestyle that is portrayed in the ad.

Yes, I got that - loud and clear. As the mayor said in his interview, "There's a place for the old timers."

But I suspect what you'll hear next is the balking from all of those "beautiful" people when they move to this fine city and realize it is NOTHING like the ad portrayed. Nor, based upon my 16 years in the area, will it ever be. I"m willing to lose that bet, but I don't think I'm going to.

Bottom line, it's great on optics, it makes the movers and shakers in this town look super cool and hip, but they'll be gone in a flash - onto the places that are really cooler and hipper.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:

Wow!!! I would love to see the full 1960s promotional video. Anyone know where to get that?

I posted this cool video before... it was in a JJ Political Insider column by Agustin C. Torres on April 20, 2013.

Yvonne wrote:
Another tidbit of information, when they the knocked down the buildings and dug the foundation for the Gregory Complex, remnants of a sailing vessel was found. The shore line changed over the years.

PotStirJC wrote:
Although only built about 15 years ago, the Metropolis Towers cooperative buildings are the eye-sore of DTJC. What could be prime walkable retail space and beautiful redevelopment directly adjacent to the Grove Street PATH station is instead an abhorrent waste of horrific architecture, nonexistent maintenance, and driveway gravel. Given these properties? low values, I decided to take a look at the feasibility of eminent domain on this massive property.

I used 99 Hudson as a comp. It is a 1.74 acre property that sold for $71,000,000 last year, or about $934.21 per SF. The Metropolis Tower property (both towers) combines to form 8.34 acres. Yes, 99 Hudson is Waterfront, but the Metropolis Towers are closer to the Grove Street PATH, and this means more access to Midtown Manhattan. So even if we lower the sales price to $900/sf, the site is worth $325M before improvements.

The Metropolis Towers have 390 units. That means if the city applies a fair market value of $500k each to the coop owners (and they are worth much less than that), the city is looking at a profit of $130M. This really seems like a financial no-brainer of a redevelopment project for the city if it really wants to take advantage of Jersey City?s ?renaissance.? These funds could be applied anywhere, and city doesn?t just come up with $130M everyday.

Just some thoughts.

PotStirJC wrote:
Although only built about 15 years ago, the Metropolis Towers cooperative buildings are the eye-sore of DTJC. What could be prime walkable retail space and beautiful redevelopment directly adjacent to the Grove Street PATH station is instead an abhorrent waste of horrific architecture, nonexistent maintenance, and driveway gravel. Given these properties? low values, I decided to take a look at the feasibility of eminent domain on this massive property.

I used 99 Hudson as a comp. It is a 1.74 acre property that sold for $71,000,000 last year, or about $934.21 per SF. The Metropolis Tower property (both towers) combines to form 8.34 acres. Yes, 99 Hudson is Waterfront, but the Metropolis Towers are closer to the Grove Street PATH, and this means more access to Midtown Manhattan. So even if we lower the sales price to $900/sf, the site is worth $325M before improvements.

The Metropolis Towers have 390 units. That means if the city applies a fair market value of $500k each to the coop owners (and they are worth much less than that), the city is looking at a profit of $130M. This really seems like a financial no-brainer of a redevelopment project for the city if it really wants to take advantage of Jersey City?s ?renaissance.? These funds could be applied anywhere, and city doesn?t just come up with $130M everyday.

Just some thoughts.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Props to the Marriott team for having the skills and patience to navigate through Jersey City's maze of bureaucracy and corruption to get this deal done. It's businesses like these that are making JC a better place to live and bring growth and wealth to the community.

Do you know whether the developers? commitment to moving forward with the project was contingent on receiving a tax abatement? I didn?t read that anywhere. Sure they applied for one?it would have been foolish not to?but did they absolutely need it?

user1111 wrote: Quote:

paulushooker wrote:

NJTV News: Longtime Locals Not Impressed With New Jersey City Promotional Campaign

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=py9Xa5pugWY&spfreload=10

High Taxes for the Heights, Greenville, Bergen Lafayette, and no Taxes for the downtown newbies.. This will be the death of Jersey City. 2016 cant come soon enough.

Yvonne wrote:
I do not agree with some people that hotels do not use city services. Police department is a large part of the budget, hotels will encounter all types of problems that will tie up the police department. As an example, before Newport Mall was built, it was someone easy to have a cop response to a problem downtown. After the mall, they became tied up with petty crimes from stealing to other matters. Citizens then started complaining about police officers showing up the next day to take a report.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Good for the Marriott for negotiating a deal to get some of the government's burden off their backs. Amazing progress is made when that happens.

And, by the way, the solution is not to drag everyone down equally with the weight of taxes. It's to give everyone a permanent abatement, including residents, and then to cut the budget accordingly.

If you give everyone an abatement how do you fund schools or the courts?

JadedJC wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
I've been living in JC on and off for over 7 years and eat at Ibbys regularly. I have not noticed any major differences in their food.

I used to love their stuffed grape leaves, but they've become this soggy inedible mush. A lot of their meats seem greasier, too. My mom used to always want to stop at Ibby's when she was visiting to get the shawarma, but she stopped going a few years back. She, too, said she thought the meats were greasier. I always chalked up the slide in quality to the owner not being around as much as he used to. On the other hand, the hummus is still good.