Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
GrovePath, not trying to start anything, but the frequency and vigor of your posts speaking against the paseo, traffic direction, parking options, area included in the plan, etc. could very well cause someone to question what YOUR vested interests in this issue are....
Posted on: 2008/9/22 23:28
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
+1
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/22 22:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Are you trying to be ironic by stating a truism? Are you really supporting the idea 1 way streets are bad for retail? That would be news for Manhattan, "island of 1 way streets". Not only that, but do you frequent those blocks? As I've said, there already is very little westbound traffic from people turning from Grove. I also do believe that merchants can rigidly adhere to outdated beliefs, or fail to balance potential upsides.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 22:22
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
While I think this was said in jest, based on what some people are saying here, this couldn't be more true!
Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/22 22:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Merchants, like most people, don't know whats best for them.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 20:13
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Nonsense. All that would be required is for the westbound buses that now turn N onto Barrow and W onto Newark to do it on Jersey instead. The argument that it would create too far a walk to catch a bus is ridiculous. Even if you were right between Grove and Jersey you just walk down Barrow to catch it at Columbus. There's currently very little westbound traffic from Grove. You would also have to reverse the little bit of Bay between Newark and Erie. The other arguments I've heard are thin also, that merchants prefer 2 way streets. Like I said, there's very little W traffic as is, and wouldn't they like more parking and wider sidewalks even more? How can anyone endorse the ridiculous situation of winking at the trucks and cars illegally parking on the south sidewalk? I get the feeling there's more to vested interests in this issue than meets the eye.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 19:54
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/9 19:48 Last Login : 2013/2/18 15:54 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
369
 |
Couldn't have said it any better myself rob3.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 19:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Let see, make Newark Avenue one way and let the traffic that used to use it use Columbus. Where will Newark Ave become one way, The best two way road between it and Columbus is Jersey Avenue. Does that actually make sense? And while we are at it one way which way; East or West? Widen the sidewalks on Newark Avenue. To do this the parking on the avenue would have to be eliminated. And parking is onething that we no longer have enough of in downtown. (BTW I do not own a car)
Columbus cannot replace Newark Avenue, it stops at Brunswick. Newark goes all the way to the west side of the city. Newark is a major access road to the city from Route 280 while Columbus is a major access to the Turnpike Extension. Both are needed by the city but do not replace each other. The study that created the Downtown Redevelopment Plan went on for a long time and actually considered the one way and no traffic options for Newark Avenue but could not find a workable solution. Obviously the Paseo is a new addition to the plan and may or may not be a good idea. Personally I like the idea of the Paseo and it does help with the push to develop retail trade on Columbus. Should the redevelopment plan extend father west on Newark Avenue? Hell yes! Is there money committed right now that can support going ahead to Brunswick? No. Is there a good chance that when the redevelopment from Grove to Jersey Avenue is completed that the City will be able to get additional funds to go farther? I think so. It may not be all that we want but its what we can pay for and will improve the look of Downtown Jersey City. I would like to see up take this first step. If the Paseo does not go through I think that Del Forno should be put on a time limit to complete the building of his plan. I have been watching one of his projects on Grove Street not be completed for more than 10 years. I do not want to see a fenced off hole in the ground for years to come. Rob
Posted on: 2008/9/22 19:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
Joined:
2007/8/27 19:49 Last Login : 2009/6/10 14:44 From Under the Turnpike
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
69
|
Quote:
+1 +1 +1 +1 (oh, that's +4) 
Posted on: 2008/9/22 18:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Quote:
The problem with your train of thought is that you assume the Paseo costs must be "unrelated" to streescaping costs. They need not be! For far less money the city could decide to spend more wisely and impact all of Newark Avenue downtown rather than just the first two blocks by the new towers and new "restaurant row."
Posted on: 2008/9/22 18:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The problem with this train of thought is that you're assuming if the money isn't spent on the Newark Plan with Paseo that it will be on the streetscape improvements. The two are unrelated and funding for one does not defer to the other in the event of the paseo not happening. Funding comes from different sources and often times from grants, if I understand correctly, which are not transferrable from one to the other or not applicable to both
Posted on: 2008/9/22 18:35
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
For far less cost, our money/the City's money would be much better spent on streetscaping all of Newark Avenue and not just the first two blocks by Grove Street -- it would also be better to look at things like DanL is suggesting. ie: widening sidewalks, removing traffic, making Newark Ave one way, closing Newark Ave to motor vehicles at certain times, closing Barrow St. between Columbus and Newark, addressing and narrowing the very wide (and dangerous) cross street intersections.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 18:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
For the millionth time, there is not at this point in time Eminent Domain! The city wants to BUY the property from DelForno. This is what they said at the meeting and you can see it on JC1!!!!! And not forcibly buy it, but agreeably buy it.Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/22 18:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
+1
Quote:
I agree -- the plan should be to extend streetscaping all the way to at least Brunswick -- otherwise it will really make most of Newark Avenue downtown just look worse by comparison. Quote:
Posted on: 2008/9/22 18:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/9 19:48 Last Login : 2013/2/18 15:54 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
369
|
NO I do not work for the city. Why do you ask? Because I have a different opinion than you?
Posted on: 2008/9/22 17:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
The idea of closing Barrow street is ludacris. Why would we want to cut down on the circulation of the city?
And who out there actually thinks DelForno would build something? that's laughable.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 16:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm not a huge fan of Del Forno, but the idea of seizing their property, even though they're still paying their property taxes, to build outdoor restaurant seating is really outrageous. If the city were taking away a building because it was about to fall into the ocean or it was hurting the environment, OK, I could support that. But I think it's horribly, horribly unfair to use eminent domain and seize someone's private property just to create outdoor restaurant seating. And, OK, maybe it also helps people get from Newark to Columbus, but it's not as if Barrow is five miles away from Grove. The Grove-Barrow block is a very short block as it is. I'm a lot more liberal than a lot of people here, and I think the government should intervene more to help homeless people and improve welfare benefits and all that, but I've never in my life thought that the government ought to seize private property from business people so that I can sit outside eating spaghetti. I think the logical explanation for this plan is that Del Forno either failed to pay the right bribes or have done something else that ticked off the powers that be, and the result is that the powers that be came up with a bizarre plan just to mess with the Del Forno people's head. Pretty soon, the Paseo plan will go away, but after the poor Del Forno people have spent a lot of sleepless nights and wasted a lot of time fighting this proposal.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 16:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
yes, but why wouldn't they just continue down barrow or jersey avenue until they hit newark unless that block of Columbus Avenue is going to be redone so that it gives people a reason to walk though Passeo. I think if really wanted a Vibrant Paseo then that narrow Barrow Street between Newark and Columbus could be used and traffic diverted.
Also, downtown still needs a movie house.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 15:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
LOL -- half of downtown is on the other side of Christopher Columbus Avenue, so I think there will be enough pedestrian traffic to make it worth the while. And "unslightly" for now doesn't have to mean forever.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 14:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think a Paseo would be nice, but I doubt that Jersey City has the scale to make it work. The passage way is very narrow and I doubt that there are that many people wanting to get to unsightly Columbus Avenue.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 14:42
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
the film of Melbourne makes a good case that the proposed Newark Ave redevelopment plan is incomplete and should not go forward without addressing the people elements.
the film makes a case for widening sidewalks and removing traffic, something that this redevelopment plan fails to do. a few speakers at the Planning board hearing spoke to this issue including ideas of making Newark Ave one way, closing Newark Ave to motor vehicles, closing Barrow St. btwn Columbus and Newark to motor vehicles and addressing and narrowing the very wide (and dangerous) cross street intersections. the "city" does not seem to grasp the full scope of what redevelopment plans could and should be, instead using (abusing) this powerful land use tool to for the most part "up zoning" land without doing a needs analyses of the area and fulfilling the objectives of redevelopment plans. while we need to "improve" Newark Ave to realize its potential, we should not "ram" through an incomplete plan for political expedience.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 14:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Quote:
funny, i live a few blocks away from newark ave and i pass by the dumpy block every morning on my walk to the path to midtown. so before you start making accusations, would you like to meet?
Posted on: 2008/9/22 14:33
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Quote:
Don't you mean "this is the film we showed"
Posted on: 2008/9/22 14:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
http://www.cooltownstudios.com/2008/0 ... of-melbourne-streetfilms/
this is the film they showed. personally i would much rather have this than an a hole in the ground with a building proposal that will never be built.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 13:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2007/8/27 19:49 Last Login : 2009/6/10 14:44 From Under the Turnpike
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
69
|
Quote:
+1 Please extend the plan beyond Jersey Ave!
Posted on: 2008/9/22 13:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Newark Avenue Redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I think an 8 story building would do far more for Newark Avenue than an alleyway. I think its tragic that the particular building was burned down, because I think it was one of the few (including the one next door to the now empty lot) worth saving on Newark Avenue. But I still don't see a paseo as a step in the right direction. A newly constructed, occupied building on the other hand would bring more people to Newark Avenue.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 13:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Do you work for the city chief?
Of course the anti paseo movement was started by Del Forno, its their property. If you attended any of the meetings last week then you know that the plan to rehab the building began 2 yrs before the fire, and the plan to rebuild the lot began immediately after the fire. All with planning and historic working with DelForno, while the "paseo plan" was formulated behind their backs. The spin is that the plan for the paseo was formulated as Delforno was submitting plans for rebuilding. Seems to me that "spin" came from the city, and your approach is part of that spin! All plans presented by DelForno conformed with the zoning in place, and later with the redevelopment plan, maintaining the historic element, even when not required. Why shouldn't they have control of property that they own and pay taxes for? They are paying more taxes on the property now, without a building, than they paid when the old building was in place. Is this fair? They are not asking for abatements, they pay their fair share of taxes, and deserve to make money on their investment.
Posted on: 2008/9/22 11:43
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2007/10/9 19:48 Last Login : 2013/2/18 15:54 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
369
|
This anti-paseo movement I suspect was started by Delforno. The building mysteriously burned down and they had plans for a new 8 story building within weeks. I smell something afoul here. Delforno owns multiple buildings throughout the area that are just sitting not being developed. They don't want to rehab their buildings, they want to tear them down and build larger. They get the residents all bent out of shape claiming eminent domain and putting fear into them that the big bad city will one day come and take your home away, that the paseo will be a dangerous alleyway that muggers will attack you on. I don't buy that bag of goods.
The building next door is ready to be developed with plans for 3 new restaurant spaces which would open up on to the new paseo. It would be good for the area. Don't let Delforno and their spin machine sway your opinion. The paseo is a great idea that will open up the downtown center that will be here soon.
Posted on: 2008/9/21 23:40
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Opposition to this is so silly. This is a nice looking plan! those who oppose this should quit complaining about how trashy newark ave. is. we all agree that the street needs an upgrade, but then when people try to do something about it, everyone has one complaint or another. There is no reason to oppose a "nook" of cafes. No, vagrants will not hang out there because it would/could be gated (nicely) at off-hours. +1,000,000. Only changes to the plan I would propose is to extend it to Brunswick St. (at the least) and make the provision that the concrete for the sidewalks be dark gray and finished like the walkways in VVP. I personally like the paseo, but would not delay the entire plan while pc quibbling about it goes on and on.
Posted on: 2008/9/21 15:21
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: No more passageway? Developer's protest may alter Newark Ave. redevelopment
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As they say in popular culture, bring it on. Want to see Newark Avenue finally revitalized and not a relic of the past.
Posted on: 2008/9/21 15:19
|
|||
|
||||