Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
127 user(s) are online (99 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 127

more...


Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (tommyc_37)




Re: 15th St Deli
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Wait, Monmouth St Deli exists? I had heard about it, but have never seen it; thought it was something of the past and had closed years ago. I've lived here for 10 years and have never seen it!

And yes, Little Sandwich Shop is pretty much a deli, that's right. I often forget about them.

Posted on: 2016/3/1 5:42
 Top 


Re: 15th St Deli
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Are there actually any real delis other than 2nd Street Bakery in DTJC?

The lack of a real deli, or pizza by the slice places is so bizarre.

Posted on: 2016/2/29 21:37
 Top 


Re: BURGER EATERY on 1st & Erie
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


I'm glad somebody agrees with me on the design choices, LOL. The glass is fine and probably should be there but why frosted? Seemed like they are trying to limit visibility, and in the process it REALLY isolates the space. In general, an awkward setup but it seems like they are not trying to draw much of a dine-in crowd. And yes, the name seems ridiculously generic, I'm not sure if it was intended that way or what, but as a details-oriented person this kills me, LOL.

That said, I finally tried the burger on Friday. It was tasty. A notch below Shake Shack and a bit pricier, but it was pretty tasty.

Posted on: 2016/2/28 18:03
 Top 


Re: Santiago Calatrava on his soon-to-be-opened WTC Transit Hub
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


It's only February but I nominate Santiago Calatrava as douchebag of the year. I can't even believe somebody would make comments like that publicly. He sounds like a very bad person.

Man I hate everything this building stands for -- the person who designed it, it's complete lack of purpose, and the $4B that it cost, which could have actually changed the face of regional transit if spent in meaningful ways.

Barf.


Posted on: 2016/2/27 19:38
 Top 


Re: The Draper
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Well bodhipooh you named a restaurant that happens to have a couple of beer taps (Skinners), so I guess I'm counting restaurants that happen to serve cocktails :) Although there are plenty of places I'd consider cocktail bars to varying degrees:

- Dullboy
- The Archer
- The Draper
- Third and Vine (wine bar/cocktail bar)
- South House (def more bar than restaurant, and the only thing they specialize in is cocktails - certainly not beer, by any means - terrible tap list)
- LITM - more cocktail bar than any other type of bar
- Union Republic (yes this one is restaurant first, cocktail bar second)

For beer bars, I'll revise my statement a bit ... I'm referring to American craft beer/microbrews. There are very few that offer anything unique. Barcade is one, and really the only "good" one.

Hopscotch ... I was there last Friday ... it IS actually a decent taplist, but oh my goodness the vibe in there has to be the worst out of any bar in JC. It felt like a Longhorn Steakhouse meets TGI Fridays, meets weird sports lounge. Good concept with all the taps, but really depressing vibe which to me, vibe is a huge part of the experience, so it really kills it for me.

Iron Monkey -- they do have a LOT of beer. But it's not curated that well; rather, they have a lot of really weird stuff that is generally bad. Secondly, and most importantly, they never clean their tap lines, which leads to beer that tastes awful very often. Thirdly, they burn through bartenders, and NONE of the bartenders I've ever had there know anything whatsoever about beer. I mean nothing. That in and of itself makes it not a proper beer bar. Like Hopscotch ... good concept, very poorly executed. Wish somebody would buy that place, keep a similar concept, but execute it with better beers, cleaner tap lines, and just hire a few people who know a thing or two about beer. It really can't be that hard.

Skinners - very few taps, and I've never seen anything that's recognized as above average beer, on tap there.

I'll add that aside from Barcade, White Star in Hamilton Park usually has a pretty good taplist, although not huge. I wouldn't consider it a "beer bar", but it's acceptable as a beer drinking bar, and the vibe in there is pretty great.

Posted on: 2016/2/26 19:52
 Top 


Re: The Draper
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


The pics of The Draper look nice. Weird name (reminds me of Don Draper, how could it not). I know it is supposed to mean something else though.

You know, I feel that there is a bit of a saturation of "cocktail lounges" in downtown JC. Meanwhile only one real proper craft beer bar (Barcade). Somebody stands to make a lot of money if they open a nice looking chill space with 15-20 very solid tap lines. It kind of doesn't exist here (Barcade is great but not really "chill" unless off-peak hours).

Posted on: 2016/2/26 15:25
 Top 


Re: The gentrification of ward A & F... The newbies vs the old timers.
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


As diverse as Jersey City is, I feel that the Jewish community is barely represented at all here, which always surprised me.

Posted on: 2016/2/26 5:54
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Regarding Jersey City pubic transit:

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best-c ... for-public-transportation

Has problems but still better than most.

Posted on: 2016/2/26 5:20
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
El Squid gets it.

I think to be honest a big part of the problem is that Jersey City is in NJ, and NJ has never really had a "major" city, and certainly never had a major city in modern times. NJ is an overwhelmingly suburban state with only a few tiny, mostly crumbling "cities" that nobody in NJ generally cares about. So nobody in NJ really has any idea about true urban planning.

That's why I made the snarky comment earlier about Jersey City being unable to shed it's "Jersey-ness". It's the whole mentality of "Well everyone must have a car, right? So for these new developments, let's demand that developers make a parking spot for every unit!". Completely insane in the context of Downtown Jersey City. It's this mentality that has to change, or Jersey City is seriously fucked.


You clearly still don't get it. Mass transit needs to improve, big time. Period.

El Squid focuses much of his efforts on biking. While that serves his purposes, and is a small step in the right direction, biking is and always will be a niche activity. The vast majority of residents in any city will never have biking as their primary mode of transportation.

You can attack cars and parking all you want, but that won't make JC any better. Actual mass transit that works (like Manhattan) will. And as some have said, under Fulop, mass transit has actually gotten worse, at least in the Heights.

This is probably more of a state issue than a city issue but the point is your efforts are seriously misguided.


To make sure we're on the same page. My points in this thread; I'm mostly referring to Downtown JC. I've never lived more than a 10-minute walk from a Path station, so my experience is skewed towards that experience.

I COMPLETELY agree that the rest of Jersey City is underserved by transit, although it is probably FAR above the national average in terms of available transit. Many non-downtown JC neighborhoods have light rail access, and many (most?) have bus access. But I agree, underserved.

Bringing it back to Downtown, which is where most development is, and therefore most relevant to this discussion. People like to pick on the Path. I've complained about the Path. The Path needs to get it's shit together, BUT it's generally pretty good, and the major issue - overcrowding - can probably be addressed by increasing train frequency. The period of time when the trains run every 5-6 minutes just needs to be extended. It's the "fringe" hours of the commute times that see the most overcrowding (like 7:00 pm for example).

I may be in the minority, but I believe Path will ultimately be fine. As the system becomes strained, there will be enough pressure to push for increased frequency, longer platforms, etc.

My pipe dream scenario is having the Path be acquired by the MTA, which is a transportation organization with accountability, as opposed to the Port Authority which is a crooked organization that cares more about real estate.


Posted on: 2016/2/25 22:30
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


El Squid, I'm also a big transit fan, trains mostly. Aside from situations that are overcrowded, I generally enjoy riding subways and trains.

The Amtrak ride from Penn Station to Boston is like heaven to me - cool scenery.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 22:17
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


El Squid gets it.

I think to be honest a big part of the problem is that Jersey City is in NJ, and NJ has never really had a "major" city, and certainly never had a major city in modern times. NJ is an overwhelmingly suburban state with only a few tiny, mostly crumbling "cities" that nobody in NJ generally cares about. So nobody in NJ really has any idea about true urban planning.

That's why I made the snarky comment earlier about Jersey City being unable to shed it's "Jersey-ness". It's the whole mentality of "Well everyone must have a car, right? So for these new developments, let's demand that developers make a parking spot for every unit!". Completely insane in the context of Downtown Jersey City. It's this mentality that has to change, or Jersey City is seriously fucked.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:17
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


You're not breaking anything to me.

Jersey City will never be Manhattan in character, and neither will the outer boroughs. However, as vehicle ownership in urban cities continue to decline, shouldn't Jersey City be following that trend instead of bucking it? You bring up Queens, and I agree that JC has similarities to Queens in terms of car ownership, and I would argue that Downtown JC has numbers similar to northern Brooklyn in terms of car ownership (DTJC's might be slightly higher). Look at the developments in Brooklyn and Queens, how many parking spots are included in those developments, and you'll see my point succinctly illustrated.

The parking requirements/trends in developments in JC are:

1. Completely out of line with current car ownership figures
2. Absurdly out of line with future car ownership figures
3. Completely bucking all trends of new urbanism which in 2016 in a dense, northeastern city is entirely unacceptable


You are living in a fantasy world where making the city inhospitable to car owners will magically make our terrible public transportation system better.

Assuming you've been to Manhattan, you'd see the difference in public transport between there and here is night and day. All you would do is simply make the lives of new residents more difficult, with no improvement for existing residents.

Stamp your feet and gnash your teeth about how "unacceptable" this is all you want. Won't change the fact that you need a car to get around our area.

Advocate for a workable public transport system here first, and then try to take away parking.


I don't take a car anywhere. Where are you going that requires driving to "get around our area"? If the answer is a list of places that are not near transit, then honestly maybe Jersey City/NYC area/or city living in general is not a good fit for you. There is a reason why city dwellers generally don't work in the suburbs. It kind of goes against the point of living in the city core, where most things are there for you - employment, entertainment, culture.

Jersey City is a shitty place to live if you have, on a regular basis, life obligations (work, relationships, whatever) that are outside of the urban core. I give the same advice to friends who, over the years, have considered moving to JC when they work somewhere in a suburb. I did it for a year (my first year living here, 2006). It totally sucked.

Path is not without flaws but it, combined with rail transit, and occasional Ubering, gets me where I need to go. I understand others may not have similar experiences, but then I think you honestly have to consider where you live.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 19:09
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be..


Not a very convincing argument, with tall towers popping up like mushrooms. Waterfront DT already looks like Manhattan, and JSQ is planning to.


That may be your perception, but it doesn't match reality.

This link shows the population density for the NY boroughs is broken up as follows:

Queens = 21,333 people per square mile
Brooklyn = 36,732
Manhattan = 71,672

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens

In contrast, like I said, Jersey City is most comparable to Queens.

Jersey City = 16,736 people per square mile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_City,_New_Jersey

This is also ignoring the fact that public transport here is abysmal compared to across the river.


Downtown Jersey City (where most development is occurring and therefore the most valid area to discuss in this context) is about 30,000 per square mile. And that number will be almost doubling in the next 20 years with already-approved development. Still feel the same way?

I'm not trying to be an ass but this is for reals.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:46
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Well said, and I just have one item in which I strongly disagree with you on. The people in power get it, from the planning department to the the Fulop administration to all his detractors on council. The new developments with the lease amount of parking in the city are located in Journal Square. It's nearly a 1:10 ratio for some developments there. It's silly when contrasted to the downtown and the 1:1 mandate, especially since the garages are not being filled up.

But the city must follow the will of the people and 200 residents showed up a couple nights ago to demand that a variance not be granted and to force the developer to keep the 1:1 ratio. The city must follow the will of the people.

There is a large segment of the population that will like to see a more urban and pedestrian-friendly environment, but we're terribly unorganized. The are no less than a dozens neighborhood associations that are extremely well organized. They are the ones advocating for the 1:1 parking requirement and they have the ear of council as a result. They write letters to the editor and get their position in the papers for all to read. We need someone who believes in the urban and pedestrian-friendly environment that will organize like minded individuals, have us show up on council meetings, and toot the benefits in the papers for all to read.

Right now all we do is debate on these forums which is not good enough.


Good point. This is stereotyping a bit but it seems that most of the very active/vocal members of the neighborhood associations have been here a long time and are very, very averse to change, to development, and what they perceive as "crowding". I also imagine that a large percentage of these folks own cars and park in the street, which is clearly an immense headache that they fear getting worse.

While these are respected members of the community and many of them are my neighbors, they are not forward thinkers.

Question - how can those of us who are for a more urban environment, pedestrian friendliness, less parking in developments, etc - how can we organize our voices?

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:37
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#75
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


You're not breaking anything to me.

Jersey City will never be Manhattan in character, and neither will the outer boroughs. However, as vehicle ownership in urban cities continue to decline, shouldn't Jersey City be following that trend instead of bucking it? You bring up Queens, and I agree that JC has similarities to Queens in terms of car ownership, and I would argue that Downtown JC has numbers similar to northern Brooklyn in terms of car ownership (DTJC's might be slightly higher). Look at the developments in Brooklyn and Queens, how many parking spots are included in those developments, and you'll see my point succinctly illustrated.

The parking requirements/trends in developments in JC are:

1. Completely out of line with current car ownership figures
2. Absurdly out of line with future car ownership figures
3. Completely bucking all trends of new urbanism which in 2016 in a dense, northeastern city is entirely unacceptable

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:28
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#76
Home away from home
Home away from home


It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 16:20
 Top 


Re: Chic Pea
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Wow, some of the comments here are low. Why would anybody make fun of somebody so blatantly, especially knowing that there's a good chance she may read this site from time to time? It's just a person doing something she enjoys, and not hurting anybody.

I have no connection to Chicpea but I occasionally read the blog because it's about Jersey City.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 3:25
 Top 


Re: Howling Noise VVP
#78
Home away from home
Home away from home


It sounds like some sort of machine making the noise, maybe there is some kind of emergency crew working or something nearby.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 3:10
 Top 


Re: Romantic restaurant, 1st date?
#79
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

papadage wrote:
I took my wife to Razza for our first date, and she loved it. You can get a decent meal there for under $100 for two. Add about $10 to $15 per head, and you would be good at Satis, which is one of my favorites as well. At that price, Porto Leggero and Batello are also options.


Razza has been open for only about 2 years, right? Wow, you move fast if she is your wife already and that was your first date!

Posted on: 2016/2/24 21:09
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

user1111 wrote:
IMO car owner ship is very high or you people have a lot of visitors with cars. I go dtjc about 2 x a month and there is never anywhere to park on the street.


Ok, so the rowhouses that line the streets that you try to park on. Each one of them on average holds between 3 and 6 residents. Each house is wide enough for one parked car. Very few downtowners own cars.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 4:50
 Top 


Re: Parking garages/lots?
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:

I recently heard that it is now estimated that only 38% of newcomers to DTJC are bringing cars. That 61% stat may be dropping faster than some may think, or want.


Where did that 38% figure come from?

It makes perfect sense, and it's exactly what's supposed to happen.

Less parking per capita leads to larger percentages of new arrivals choosing not to bring one, which furthers that trend. It can also lead to established residents giving up cars, as I did years ago when my last one croaked.

Yvonne isn't nuts to drive here. She needs a car for all the reasons she mentions.

And it seems intuitive to her and others that life behind the wheel will get easier (or get harder more slowly) if we add more parking.

But the truth is just the opposite. The more off-street PARKING space we add (an expandable capacity), the more people like me will own cars without really needing them. And when they drive, it will further diminish our DRIVING space?a finite capacity in a mature urban street grid.

Meanwhile, businesses and other institutions will remain tempted to sprawl out along highways and barren stretches of "arterial" roads reachable most easily by car, instead of nestling into each neighborhood in search of walking and biking customers. It's the latter pattern?actually the pattern on which this city was built, before the car?that we need to encourage, for everyone's sake, including drivers.

This is one of the ironies of the pro-parking lobby: They're cutting off their noses to spite their faces. They can make it marginally easier to park their cars, but only by making it harder to drive.


100% spot on.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 6:36
 Top 


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#82
Home away from home
Home away from home


Car ownership is very low in 07302. The fact that there is this obsession with having parking, and then expressing outrage when there is not a parking spot for every single fucking unit, is laugh worthy in new urbanism and is the exact opposite of how every other urban city is planning residences.

Vast majority of people who are moving to downtown JC are from: Kings, Queens, and New York county. Many, probably most, do NOT own cars. But a lot of these JC developments are including parking, so new residents, once already decided on JC, think "Hmm. There's a parking garage in our building! Maybe we SHOULD buy a car".

This is very bad for many reasons.

Posted on: 2016/2/23 5:05
 Top 


Re: What's going there?
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Work seems to have stopped on Lackawanna, and I wasn't aware of a hair salon. I feel like downtown is a bit saturated with spots to get decent to good coffee.


I take it you don't enjoy the cafe culture that many European cities enjoy. Usually it's considered a plus for a city.


Yeah I think it's a more of a positive than a negative, I was more commenting on their feasibility of success given the other spots nearby.

Posted on: 2016/2/18 4:21
 Top 


Re: Chase branch closing in Old Colony Mall
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Is there anyone that can be contacted to put pressure on the owners of that lot to come to a redevelopment plan or sell to someone who will? I know there was this proposal from a few years ago, which ended up never coming to light for whatever reason: http://jerseydigs.com/one-bates-street/

The plaza is mostly abandoned stores at this point and a hangout for homeless. The only stuff left is a bodega, a Rent-A-Center and a Popeye's. A serious look should be taken at having some of the old street grid restored and having the whole area razed and redeveloped, like they're doing for the BJ's/StopRite plaza.


Even if each of the stores in this strip mall were rented out and thriving, the fact that it's 80% surface parking is a colossal waste of space in a dense urban neighborhood. There is no chance it lasts as is for another decade. We'll see something proposed for this, my guess would be in the next couple of years.

Posted on: 2016/2/17 23:11
 Top 


Re: What's going there?
#85
Home away from home
Home away from home


Work seems to have stopped on Lackawanna, and I wasn't aware of a hair salon. I feel like downtown is a bit saturated with spots to get decent to good coffee.

Posted on: 2016/2/17 23:04
 Top 


Re: Chase branch closing in Old Colony Mall
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Quote:

hero69 wrote:
yeah..they need to a a major re-think for that property...its not too far from light rail.


It's not too far from anything - it's still on the outer edge of the Van Vorst Park neighborhood. It's only a 10 minute walk to Grove Path. It's prime real estate. I'm shocked and amazed that a development proposal has never surfaced here. ESPECIALLY now that Pathmark's gone.

I wouldn't expect this property to look like it does today in 10 years. The land is way too valuable.

Posted on: 2016/2/17 15:01
 Top 


Re: Fuel Barge Sinks in Moriss Canal, fuel spilled into the water.
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


This post is confusing, you mention to hide the illegal dumping, you mean the illegal dumping of fuel? Why would somebody dump fuel? Also, what is the Facebook page you're referring to?

Posted on: 2016/2/15 17:20
 Top 


Re: Moving to Jersey City? Join the Club.
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Yes completely different impression of JC 10 years ago.

People looking to go cheaper than Manhattan, looked into Brooklyn (only a couple of neighborhoods), or maybe Hoboken. If Hoboken was too expensive, Downtown JC was considered, maybe along with Queens.

Things were super different 10 years ago. Brooklyn was still new at being cool, Queens was completely not cool at all yet.

Now, everybody knows about JC, and the reaction to it is fairly positive, typically. Every now and then I get somebody who considers it simply "Jersey", but whatever.

Posted on: 2016/2/12 20:11
 Top 


Re: PJ Ryan's has a new Chef/Menu (hello vegan options)
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


PJ Ryans is such a great location, but has such a shitty atmosphere. I have always wondered why the heck they covered all those big beautiful windows with the frosted glazing, and then pull the shades down on top of that (even at night). What a waste - can't see in or out. Super weird and ugly looking.

Oh well. Actually, their pub food is solid. I almost never go there, but it's OK if you want to watch a game.

Posted on: 2016/2/12 18:18
 Top 


Re: Hoboken is rejecting bike lanes
#90
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hoboken is one of the densest zip codes in the country, with tremendous public transit, which makes it completely absurd that people continue to make parking in Hoboken such an issue. Get rid of your damn car if you live in Hoboken. Unless you work in the far away suburbs (which I don't know why you'd choose to live in Hoboken in that case), or are disabled, why have a car in a place like Hoboken? Where the heck are all these people driving to on a regular basis that it's worth the actual daily headache and cost? Paramus to go shopping, or something? Get a Zipcar once a month or take an Uber even. Or do what most urban dwellers do and take a train to 5th Avenue or Soho, or Century 21, or anywhere, to go shopping. Newport Mall even.

I understand that there will always be some people who reverse commute, or work in industries that are typically located in suburbia (like Pharma, for example) and may still want to live a city life, but isn't the point of living in the urban core, working in the urban core and not having to worry about driving?



Posted on: 2016/2/10 1:49
 Top 



TopTop
« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 71 »






Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017