Quote:

Yeah this is not about making Newark Avenue better - it is about just making the first block by Grove better. If I owned a building there, I am sure I would be happy, but for the rest of Newark Avenue and for the rest of Downtown there is really nothing in this plan.

Quote:

If anything the Paseo 100' away from Grove is being designed to draw foot traffic away from Newark Avenue and circle it back around to Grove. I guess that will be great for those with restaurants in those few buildings right there, but not for the rest of Newark Avenue Downtown.

I really just can't imagine what that Paseo will cost, but I know that the money would be far better spent on upgrading all of Newark Avenue and not just the area around those handful of properties right next to the Grove Street PATH Plaza.

Quote:
WTF is a paseo? I had to look it up. They want to put an "alley" between Newark and Columbus. I got no problem with an alley. I won't walk down it in the dark though but maybe a paseo is different. Can you get mugged in a dark paseo?

Yes it is... and not speaking for the HDSID. I think the paseo is a venti waste of tax money.

"paseo".

A word right up there with "venti", "tall' and "grande".

Yes, "A" DelForno family member is a partner in a company that owns the property that is to be taken for this paseo. 141 Newark Ave is the address. It is my understanding that they had plans that were pending approval to rehab the old building prior to the fire, so no, in my opinion, they did not burn it down. Yes, the plans have since been re-done to build a new building.

No, in my opinion the city will not police the paseo any better than they do the back of Morelees, ACROSS FROM POLICE HQ! or the public lot behind Palace Drugs.

The plan calls for the buildings on each side to have store frontage on the paseo. AND the plan calls for the CC side to also have store fronts.

Yes the street plan calls for new sidewalks (cement), street lights (bright ones), benches (sleep resistant), crosswalks (stamped polymer, brick color) and yes TREES (green ones, some in pots due to sidewalk vaults).

It will all be the same as what has been done in other parts of the city. While we are on the subject.... "The other side of town" as one poster put it. Has gotten more than its fair share of street work. Take a look at MLK, Monticello, Bergen & Montgomery, Journal Square etc.... All while downtown, where the majority of JC tax income comes from, remains a sidewalk horror show. So yes! It?s our turn.

Yes the plan only calls for it to go up to Jersey ave. The money, about 2 mil, is coming from a DOT grant. The city, with the help of the HDSID is fighting for more money to extend the project. The city requested and was granted an extension to seek more cash from another grant, UEZ and yes, perhaps the city may even put some money into it.

The council president, the HDSID among others are in favor of closing Newark from Grove to Barrow after 6pm for outdoor dining. The idea has been floated of closing the area all together; as traffic can only come west from south bound Grove and east bound traffic can only turn south onto Grove. Or... turning barrow into a paseo type street.
But it seems that the 141 Newark paseo has replaced these ideas.

Brick pavers are a nice idea, but not on a sidewalk that covers old sidewalk vaults. Can be done, but not worth the cost.

Parking on the sidewalk will not be an issue with the new plan.

Yes-My name is John Reichart from the board of the HDSID.
Our meetings are the 2nd tuesday of each month at 10am. 125 Newark Ave.
Please feel free to join us, we attempt to have as much info on the projects as we can.
JCDOWNTOWN.COM
Monday - Farmers Market
Wednesday - Groove on Grove

Quote:

Yeah I agree... so much focus is put on the 2 blocks of Newark between Grove and Jersey... the "Historic Downtown" extends to Coles at least, but there is still a lot west of Coles. I'm all for trees, paving, angled parking, ice in the public urinals etc... but I don't know what purpose a paseo 100' from Grove st. will serve, other than to sound nifty on a condo brochure that lists itself as "Paseo-adjacent".

Mark.

GP wrote:

Quote:

The Golden Cicada situation was very different and any comparison to this case misses some of the basic concepts regarding the use of Eminent Domain.

Eminent Domain is the taking of private property by a gov't for a use "that is in the public good" and reimbursing the owner at a "market rate" price usually arrived at after some arbitration. When the city tried, wrongfully, to take the golden cicada, it was to give it to St. Peter's Prep so they could make their football field larger. This was an abuse of Eminent Domain in that the property was to be taken and handed to a private institution for a private use.

The paseo, regardless of whether it's a good idea or not, would be a public use and therefore "in the public good' and a valid use of eminent domain.

There are three different independent projects being discussed-

1) Christopher Columbus Drive redesign project ? approved perhaps as long as 5 to 8 years ago.

2) Newark Ave. Streetscape plan funded by I believe UEZ money

3) Newark Ave Redevelopment Plan ? approved by the Planning Board and tabled for two weeks by City Council

-Christopher Columbus Drive will be redesigned to serve as the gateway to the waterfront. The work to redirect the turnpike exit has been completed. I recall that the design includes a median and areas for buses to pull over.

-The Newark Ave Streetscape either is in the process of funding or has been recently funded. Early renderings may still be on Councilman Fulop?s website.

-The Newark Ave Redevelopment Plan was approved by the Planning Board over the summer and just tabled for two weeks by the City Council to allow for some type of public meeting due to the hardwork of Eric Fleming, president of HCA and the other neighborhood associations.

The plan covers the land from Grove to Jersey and between Newark (southside) and Columbus. Some details of the plan include-

- subdividing the buildings / lots of the thru block buildings on the south side of Newark Ave and opening up retail space / storefronts on Columbus.

- Allowing buildings to all go up 4 stories (some higher) with a bonus 5th floor setback in return for a payment to purchase the "paseo" land.

- A requirement for property owners to rehab their property within 2 years (might be 5, I am writing from memory) if they do not could be subject to taking.

- Creating a ?paseo? btwn Newark and Columbus where the building burned down. Please note that the current property owner of that lot has plans (unapproved) for a 7 story building at present.

Public comments were pretty much in line with the above posts and included a time limit to purchase the extra height that funds the ?paseo? acquisition and an inflation increase in that fee, making Barrow pedestrian only, concerns about the viability of the ?paseo?, making Newark Ave. One Way, bicycle lanes and addressing the wide intersections on the north side of Newark Ave meet with the west bound streets.

City Planning described working on the plan for over a year and the need to move forward. The need to rush the plan through at this time was not provided, perhaps a developer has targeted property(s) within the plan.

The plan addresses and preserves numerous small lots, requires rehabilitation of the historic facades and overall good. However, I and others commented that they had the same year to meet with the public and seek feedback. The redevelopment plan is for a neighborhood commercial district, surely feedback from the neighborhood it is to serve would be important to the plan's success.

The concerns are this thread are very relevant and I wish that more people would have shared their comments with the Planning Board.

My comments are from memory without the documents or my notes in front of me.

Lastly, I believe a member of City Planning staff will be attending either the next HCA on 9/17 or a special DCNA meeting to discuss before Council votes.

Del Forno probably burned that building down for the insurance money, knowing something like this was coming down the road. That way they collect the insurance money and then argue the city needs to pay more for the land because the land is vacant and their plans in place to rebuild a 6 story building there.

Quote:

+1. I've been saying 1 way east for a decade. Who are the parties opposed to this? That's a vote for illegally parked trucks and cars on the S side forcing traffic confrontations, business as usual. If you don't put loading zones there in one way or another, the traffic blocking trucks will continue to be a Newark fixture.

You put truck loading zones alternating with meters on the S side, ending at 5, but no overnight, creating plenty of evening parking for the restaurants and late opening shops.

Does anyone have a copy of the plan..or can you post it here so we can read it and understand exactly what the plan proposes. My hunch is that the plan is not well thought out.......If not I will go get a copy at 30 montgomery.......thank you

Fight the Law and the Law will Win.

I've done an intense study of this black hole of an avenue, and come to this conclusion. One way street going east. Sidewalks completely redone. New Lamps. Tax incentives for businesses. And remove them bums near the PATH and Bank of America. And lets plant some trees aight!

The real kicker is that the owners of the land have plans for a 6-story building with retail on the bottom and new apartments above.

Jimmy B's concern is valid. Thats exactly what I thought. Unless they light it brighter than the sun, all those drunk bums who hang out near the parking lot up the street will migrate to that alley and no one will want to use it.

Whoever owns the land should fight eminent domain. They should talk to Terry at the Golden Cicada on Grand Ave., he fought the city and won. He knows lawyers from Rutgers U. who will help.

On top of eminent domain being a bad thing - this whole idea is dumb. Make Newark Avenue a one-way or do other creative things. What a waste - it seems like this will just let owners of those buildings right next to the Grove PATH double their number of storefronts (front and back) -- it only concentrates the so called "redevelopment" into this one block area next to the new towers.

I don't see what this is doing for Newark Avenue -- maybe it should just be renamed "Grove Street Redevelopment" because really that is all it is!

Quote:

I don't think it's an entirely bad idea but frankly, until the area really cleans up, I'm afraid it'll just be another sleeping area for the homeless. They sleep on the park benches during the day, imagine an alleyway that shields the weather. They are hoping to have it complete in a year's time and I don't know if that's enough time.

This was covered, including the passageway, in the JJ a couple of weeks ago. I think it said the land where the building burned down is controlled by DelForno who of course is against it being used for that purpose.

Close to Grove or not, it is a great idea. I've got some background in this and it would replicate something akin to the alleyways of Europe, where some of the best urban spaces are the small 'leftover' ones between buildings. If the newly exposed facades of the buildings on each side were opened up with shopfronts and a restaurant went in there with some outdoor seating in the passage, it would be a beautiful little spot. If they can get shopfronts on CCD, then another connector between it and Newark would just make the area that much more pedestrian friendly.

Quote:

That is really short sighted, they better at least pave all the way to the turnpike when they do it - Newark is one of the worst paved streets - yet one of the most used.

Quote:

What a missed opportunity to really do something great for Downtown as a whole -- if anything one-way traffic would have made Newark Avenue more pedestrian & bike friendly and would have even added more diagonal parking for the local merchants.

How short sighted this plan is!

The biggest problem with a pedestrian passageway connecting Newark and Columbus is that it doesn't go anywhere, and the lot could be redeveloped into a new, useful set building on Newark Avenue. That stretch of Columbus is the back of all the buildings fronting on Newark, and unless that mural is removed and storefronts installed on the back of these buildings, it makes no sense to bother connecting Newark Avenue with Columbus there.

As far as I can tell, the plan only runs down Newark and Columbus from Grove to Jersey. That's what was on the map I saw at the HDSID meeting this past Tuesday.

It was mentioned that the idea of a one-way Newark was nixed, as well as closing off Newark after 6pm to make it a pedestrian walkway for PATH commuters coming home.

I thought they were pretty good ideas.

they are planning to put a paseo where the building burned down which makes absolutely no sense....that's more like a creepy alleyway that would have to be policed at night.
Bad idea. Plus taking away someone's property to do this is indeed a bad idea which will probably end up in lawsuits and waste of time.
People are worried about pavers on Newark, we in Bergen-Lafayette need paving, repair of sidewalks, more lighting, etc. Before I see my tax dollars spend triple on such luxuries we better get some attention over on this side of town! We pay taxes too.
As usual the city of jersey city administration make no sense.

I hope they are at least going to redevelop all the way to Brunswick and not stop short - anyone know the plan?

I also don't see why a little walkway is needed so close to Grove Street and I don't see how the city can justify "taking" land for such a purpose.

I have to agree with the Planning Board Chairman Ryan who spoke for waiting and adding in more detail before sending it to City Council. He was in favor of making Newark one-way, for brick crosswalks, and on the whole thought the plan was rushed. He voted no in protest.

============================
Excerpt taken from the MCA over at that other site -- it's from the President of the Harsimus Cove Association:
=============================

Tonight the Planning Board met and the Newark Ave. Redevelopment Plan was on the agenda.

I spoke to ask for more time to review the plan, which I received the most current version on Aug. 1.

Others spoke about bike racks, pedestrian safety, closing off Barrow or making Newark Ave. a one way street, among other ideas.

Board member Ruiz was resistant to the paseo concept, a passageway created by the building that burned down recently.

Member Yost inquired about articulated (bricked) crosswalks, and Ms. Bucci-Carter, a member of the Planning Dept. said it was not specifically required.

Yost asked about adding some sort of means to address inflation in the bonus height, which Bucci-Carter would look into the matter.

Yost made a motion to recommend for adoption, member Eccleston seconded.

Yost, Eccleston and another member voted in favor, giving them the majority.

Chairman Ryan spoke for waiting and adding in more detail before sending it to City Council. He was in favor of making Newark one-way, for brick crosswalks, and on the whole thought the plan was rushed. He voted no in protest.

What's Next
I invited the main writer of the plan, Maryann Bucci-Carter at the Planning Dept., to our August meeting.

The plan goes before City Council next, and we can speak up again then.

This is one of the best pieces of news I have heard in a long time. I hope they repave Columbus as well so I don't have to hear the trucks barreling down the road at 6 in the morning anymore.

I'm pretty certain that they are doing brickpavers at the intersections but I could be wrong.

This passgeway to Columbus and Storefronts on Columbus is new to me.

Fulup? You out there? Shed some light on us Pleabs.

Seems like new sidewalks, streetlights, and benches will be put along Newark Ave. I REALLY wish that they would invest slightly more money in this project, and do it right, like Hoboken did with Washington Street. In other words, brick pavers instead of boring concrete. Newark Ave will be getting boring concrete that will look just like it does now in 10 years.

Quote:

The eliminating of parking idea was nixed, or so I heard.

The Plan does indeed call for a paseo walkway, created on the lot of the building that burned down. So it seems the city would, if voted to do so, take that land by eminent domain and use it for the paseo.

I personally would like to see Barrow street closed off and used as a paseo, since it's already a traffic nightmare. That vacant land they are trying to take seems way too close to Grove street and not all that needed.

A detailed plan to revamp the area around Newark Avenue is up for a final vote before the City Council
The Newark Avenue Redevelopment Plan promotes changes including an outdoor passageway connecting Newark Avenue to Christopher Columbus Drive, and storefronts looking out on Christopher Columbus Drive.

Has anyone heard anything about this? I didn't realize that they had plans to open up a passageway and stores on Columbus?

I also heard that they are planning to do away with all parking on Columbus and make it more like a highway/thoroughfare. Have you heard about this? This is not really a good thing, it will make the street like a highway.


Anybody?