jc_dweller wrote:
I agree with all of this EXCEPT the wide streets. Wider streets are proven to be less safe to cross, subconsciously encourage faster driving, etc. Certainly all new streets need to have bike lanes (in fact, protected bike lanes) and in almost all cases parking on both sides. But that should be done in the narrowest way possible.


Quote:

nafco wrote:
Its a good time for a change. I hope she addresses some of the concerns that have been emerging as the city seems to be growing faster than the existing planners have seemed to keep up with. There are things that can help the city grow, but also seem more cohesive and aesthetically pleasing to people on the streets.

1. More of an effort to eliminate the Bayonne Boxes which have been an eyesore on so many outskirt neighborhoods of transit hubs over the years.

2. Smarter transitioning of neighborhoods to reduce the likelihood of a 50 story building to stand next to a 2 story house. Im all for development, but there should be more of an easing in to a high rise section of town from a low-rise house section as well.

3. Wider streets that provide parking and bike lanes on both sides in completely new sections of the city. It boggles my mind why developers are making super narrow streets and sidewalks when they have a blank slate to work with. there is plenty of room to still build tall buildings but allowing more space to move for cars and people will reduce traffic and look more pleasing than tight narrow streets.

Theres a ton of other things, but either way, I wish her the best for the future of the city.

DanL wrote:

some people can want a museum piece that plays host to mostly national (mass commercial) performances. that is fine. my family would likely attend an event/performance once every few years.

But presently, we go to the Loews 10-12 times a year, some years more for movies, theater, music and even the post JC St. Patricks Day Parade Party and every year we help with the JC Landmarks Conservancy Awards Ceremony and have seen numerous Art House and other performances.

The current situation serves my family much more than AEG would. We should matter also, not just development for developments sake. So, we will support the FoL and a more balanced path.

citybooster wrote:
This is the wrong thread for this subject as it pertains to KRE's Journal Squared, NOT KABR's One Journal Square.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
i think JSQ or something close to a PATH station or hub makes more sense. I know they will require parking which will exist as part of the new towers parking garage, but also it needs to be a well trafficked area. I feel like the Sears and Harborside which is dead for most of the week would not benefit WF which needs a lot of constant foot traffic.

The Sears location is as trafficked as you van get: a mall, with parking on site, as well as being serviced by the light rail and the Newport PATH station is across the street.

Have you ever been to Harborside? Because your statement makes no sense... it's packed and crowded during the week from about 8 AM to 6 PM. Come out between 11:30 - 1:30 during the week and you will see that people all along the waterfront and in the Owen Grundy pier enjoying lunch or a midday break. It is also serviced by the light rail, and the Exchange Place PATH station is right next door. On weekends it is not that crowded, but that's mostly because there is hardly anything open down that way. A supermarket like WF could be transformative for the area.

JCSHEP wrote:
Is it just a coincidence that the turnpike elevated highway into JC, the Pulaski skyway into JC, and the Whitpenn bridge into JC are all under construction at the same time? Or is this some coordinated upgrade? Is the 1/9 bridge the only E/W artery into here not under construction?

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
they could use a high quality supermarket up there....any plans?

I heard theyre getting a Whole Foods

downtown is getting a whole foods, not jsq.

hero69 wrote:
they could use a high quality supermarket up there....any plans?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Jersey City, in the final four out of 16 neighborhoods for NYC's neighborhood of the year. LoL. Well, I guess stranger things have happened in 2016.

Http://ny.curbed.com/2016/12/21/14042 ... -elite-eight-results-2016

Curbed's stupidity was was baked into the question, by comparing a city of 250,000 to a neighborhoods of around 50,000. This is a contest of PEOPLE VOTING!!! At least it should have been just DT as the contestant. Downtown Brooklyn is less than 10k people according to Wiki, they better get the rest of Brooklyn behind them if Prospect Heights (83k) goes down.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Of course "Jersey City" means downtown Jersey City. I've visited both, but never lived in either place so can't really vote for one or the other. It's interesting to see how JC continues to pop up as an alt-Borough in these various real-estate publications, and I'm very curious to see how JC places against Greenpoint.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
I cant understand how some people can halt the development on a project like this that is actually in relative scale with the neighborhood as opposed to every other project in JSQ that is a 60 story tower next to a 2 story house. This would benefit the streetscape in my opinion, but its not my call I guess.

What's so hard to understand? The proposed building did not include ANY parking. That's unacceptable in Jersey City, where people need cars.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Count me in! A few questions/suggestions:

Is the best approach to start by reaching out to Councilman Yun, or form a group to prepare a campaign, visuals, etc., to take directly to the MasterPlan committee? In NYC, where I work in historic preservation, well organized and articulate advocacy groups get the elected officials behind them.

Market demographics - I live in the Heights, and have watched these go up over the last 8 years. They overwhelmingly sell to immigrant families, for whom they provide an investment asset as well as a home (I'm currently looking to rent a parking spot, one I've see is one of the two outside spots at one of these Bayonne Boxes) - a successful campaign to replace them would entail an understanding of local market forces.

Parking - the examples shown are good, but the overwhelming contextual design hurdle is the 2-car garage along with 2 outdoor spots. This dictates the siting, lack of landscaping, disruption of the residential streetwall etc. There may need to be a parallel plan to deal with added parking needs.

Visuals - any designers, graphic artists, or even reasonably experienced users of SketchUp out there? Some streetscape renderings of what things would look like under a revised zoning ordinance may get more people on board.

hero69 wrote:
the renderings dont show the elliptical building on the pier