No, not the Reservior!

the Pols love to do this, play neighborhoods, projects, issues off of each other.

it is not either the Embankment park or Reservior natual preserve, both should be done! and more!

we want parks, open space, improved transport, historic preservation, night life and yes, development, all of it! and would could have it too......

not only should it / could it all be done, but a sound, balanced plan for our city's future supports the individual issues...




Quote:

It seems highly unlikely that Councilman Gaughan understood the Power Point presentation that was provided. In the past he has exclaimed that HIS constituency did't use email. So maybe technology is an issue.

Why is he so interested in this development? He can take it to the Heights and let it be a catalyst for devlopment up there. He can pave the Resevoir while he's at it.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I refuse to live anywhere near something called Hyman Park.

But that's just me.

Quote:

Fixed.

StEviE ("I want to do something great for Jersey City") Hyman's plan would be a disaster for Jersey City's long term development.

My PointE is that this should be patently obvious to all, including our dear mayor and city council.

Jersey City now has a unique, contiguous historistic district that is overwhelmingly 19th century in character, stretching from Hamilton Park through Harsimus Cove and Van Voorst Park to Paulus Hook. These types of neighborhoods, with brick houses and brownstones, will never be built again, except for something like Liberty North, whose developers have respected the existing architecture in Van Voorst and Paulus Hook by building new town homse. (My hats off to them for that.)

These neighborhoods are historic, indeed national treasures that should not be altered with 5 or 6 thirty story Grove Pointe-esque StEviE Hyman McCondos.

Imagine if five or six thirty-story StEviE PointE McCondo towers had been built in the center of Park Slope, the West Village, Beacon Hill in Boston, Society Hill in Philly. Would those neighborhoods have been as desirable today? What about the left bank in Paris? There are modern towers on the edge of Beacon Hill, Society Hill and parts of Paris, for example, and they completely destroy the cityscape.

StEviE ("I want to do something great for Jersey City") Hyman's towers would bisect the heart of the contiguous Harsimus Cove and Hamilton Park Historic districts for a distance of approxmiately three quarters of a mile. In other words, from almost any point in those neighborhoods, we will be able to see SteviE ("I want to do something great for Jersey City) Hyman's towers.

Hyman's plan would:

DESTROY JERSEY CITY'S HISTORIC NEIGHBORHOODS;

DESTROY WHAT MAKES JERSEY CITY UNIQUE; and

DESTROY WHAT MAKES JERSEY CITY A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE.

Do any posters on JCList honestly believe that the McStevie Condos at Grove PointE have made Jersey City a more desirable place to live?

Did the developers at Grove PointE "do something great for Jersey City"? (At least Grove PointE wasn't in a historic district.)

It's obvious that StEviE Hyman is not concerned about Jersey City, Harsimus Cove, Hamilton Park, the residents of those neighborhoods or the Embankment.

SteviE ("I want to do something great for Jersey City") McHyman just wants to line his pockets, and to hell with the neighborhood and the rest of us.

As the rarely prescient IanMac once posted"

"Hyman's proposal is not a compromise . . . this is another proposal that has been tweaked to attempt appeasing just enough people to achieve his goal: profit."

Well McSteviE, I am not appeased.

Pick another neighborhood to ruin, not mine.

And while your at it, try to find one with little to no historic significance.

That way your legacy will be less destructive.

Well stated!

Perhaps it bears repeating as the message might get lost...

SAY NO TO FIVE, HIGH DENSITY, THIRTY STORY TOWERS ON 6th STREET!

SAY YES TO AN EMBANKMENT PARK


A further message to the current City Council members and future Ward E and other council and mayoral candidates. We're listening carefully to what you say or don't say. Where you choose to stand on this issue will impact how at least Ward E downtown residents will choose to vote in upcoming elections.

Geoff

I am not sure what meeting Bill Gaughan was at. The EPC's volunteer landscape architect discussed and showed a clear plan. The EPC presentation was thoughtful and well put together. However, the politicians do not want to hear it.

Hyman is a rich developer and has millions to spend on creating wonderful presentations which mask the reality of FIVE 30 STORY buildings on or around the Embankment.

All the politicians care about is themselves and the political contributions that they receive. They are the ones that are holier than thou.

Embankment fights continues with new plan

Jersey Journal
by Ken Thorbourne
Tuesday December 18, 2007, 7:49 PM

Monday was a night of legal punting and video presentations as the saga of the Sixth Street Embankment in Jersey City rolled on
.
Members of Jersey City's Historic Preservation Commission told Manhattan businessman Steve Hyman they don't have the jurisdiction to allow him to demolish the Embankment's historic walls to build townhouses.

That power lies, they said, with the federal Surface Transportation Board, which ruled in August that Conrail hadn't properly abandoned the unused railroad turnaround when it sold it to Hyman in July 2005 for $3 million.

At the same time that meeting was taking place, across the hallway at City Hall, members of the Embankment Preservation Coalition, the volunteer group dedicated to preserving the Embankment as open space, were making a video presentation to the City Council.

The 20-minute video included neighborhood association leaders supporting preservation of the Embankment as open space, and showed some landscape designs and a model that showed the scale of Hyman's planned development compared to the Embankment.

When the video ended, Council President Marino Vegas asked council members for questions or reactions. There weren't any.

"Everybody expected more. We all sat there and thought this was going to get better," said Ward D Councilman Bill Gaughan. "There was no plan. It was kind of like 'What the hell was that?'"

Maureen Crowley, the Preservation Coalition's coordinator shot back: "Our landscape architect ... illustrated a three-part design: a reserved strip for light rail, an East Coast Greenway (bike trail) segment, and a nature-oriented park."

According to the Coalition, the property could be developed for $3 million to $5 million.
The city's Seattle-based attorney, Charles Montange, has assured city officials that in the wake of the STB ruling, the city will be in a position to buy it for $3 million -- a point Hyman's attorney strongly disagrees with.

The coalition has already helped the city raise $3.7 million toward the purchase price, Crowley said.

Since the STB ruling -- which Hyman and Conrail are challenging in court -- Hyman has floated another concept for property: Preserving the wall and 75 percent of the elevated footprint for open space, but developing 1,100 to 1,500 residential units to pay for it all.

"Yes, they will be big buildings," Hyman conceded yesterday. "But someone has to pay for a park, leaving 75 percent of the land open ... and an East Coast Greenway. ... Across the street they are building 40, 50 stories high. Is this a holier than thou site?"

Hyman said he planned to file a motion on Friday challenging the Historic Preservation Commission's ruling.