vindication15 wrote:
People are also forgetting one of the main reasons why people move from NYC to JC is to own a car (besides high prices in NYC and more space as the other top reasons).

brewster wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
IMO getting to Battery Park or the Hudson River Park is more convenent and nice than LSP.

Are any of you parents? What moms & nannies want is a close, convenient, child friendly park. Not an expedition. Expeditions are great, but not every day. Walking from LHN to the playground in LSP is FAR!

This is what's so disgusting about JC's lack of planning, thousands of family style units going up with little or no park planning. LeFrak finally built a park! hooray! 1 park the size of HP for 4000 families? With another 5000 to come? What about Jersey Ave North? There's family style units going up on Coles, but where's the city park for this new neighborhood? Will they be coming to already crowded Hamilton Park? Whoops, the city sold it's lot there rather than build a park.

Brewster:

I'm not suggesting that Downtown JC is Manhattan, or even should be remotely similar to Manhattan ... but one thing that Downtown JC and Manhattan have in common is an increasing number of people raising families. I'd guess that most families in Manhattan do not own cars. Some might, yes...but do you really think they are going to drive in a car to Central Park? Do they all pile into a taxi? Maybe some do. But I think the majority of them walk or take a subway.

What about Brooklyn, with which Downtown JC has much more in common with? Out of the sizeable number of people I know that live in Brooklyn, several of which have children, I can only think of one couple that keeps a car (they are childless).

Catering to a car culture, and becoming more appealing to people who use cars frequently, is not the direction that JC needs to go in. It's actually very backwards thinking, and as a local example of that kind of thinking, we can use the case study of why Newport looks and feels like San Jose's demented little brother.

In no way was I advocating driving anywhere, quite the opposite, I was advocating that parks within reasonable walking distance for family neighborhoods are what makes a city great & livable. Battery Park & LSP are too far for everyday "get out with the kids".

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

tern wrote: The Path is not *that* crowded I work in Jersey City, so don't normally take the Path, but last week I did. I got on at Grove Street at 8:15am and travelled to 33rd Street. While crowded, it was not extremely crowded, compared to subway systems I have ridden in other cities. Everyone could get on, there was no need to let trains pass. Robin.

I would say it is extremely crowded from 8:30 to 9:15. If there is ever a delay, it is unbearable.

vindication15 wrote:
Why should downtown jc cater to families? JC - even the downtown area is a horrible place to raise children. Jersey City Public Schools are horrible - a B (not the good kind of B either) ranking - the second lowest DFG ranking.

Some of the worst high schools are in JC - Dickinson, Snyder, Ferris, etc.

Plus, compare the demographics of JC via wiki:

"As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 247,597 people, 96,859 households, and 57,631 families residing in the city. The population density was 16,736.6 inhabitants per square mile (6,462.0 /km2). There were 108,720 housing units at an average density of 7,349.1 per square mile (2,837.5 /km2). The racial makeup of the city was 32.67% (80,885) White, 25.85% (64,002) African American, 0.51% (1,272) Native American, 23.67% (58,595) Asian, 0.07% (161) Pacific Islander, 12.81% (31,726) from other races, and 4.42% (10,956) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 27.57% (68,256) of the population.[9]

There were 96,859 households out of which 27.3% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 35.5% were married couples living together, 18.2% had a female householder with no husband present, and 40.5% were non-families. 30.2% of all households were made up of individuals and 7.0% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.53 and the average family size was 3.20.[9]"

to Westfield:

"As of the 2010 United States Census, there were 30,316 people, 10,566 households, and 8,199 families residing in the town. The population density was 4,512.2 inhabitants per square mile (1,742.2 /km2). There were 10,950 housing units at an average density of 1,629.8 per square mile (629.3 /km2). The racial makeup of the town was 88.17% (26,729) White, 3.25% (984) African American, 0.12% (36) Native American, 5.67% (1,718) Asian, 0.03% (10) Pacific Islander, 0.79% (241) from other races, and 1.97% (598) from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.92% (1,492) of the population.[6]

There were 10,566 households out of which 43.1% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 68.0% were married couples living together, 7.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 22.4% were non-families. 19.2% of all households were made up of individuals and 9.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.85 and the average family size was 3.31.[6]"

JC is still a single oriented place. If you want parks on every corner, move your family to the burbs where they will get a decent education also.

tern wrote: The Path is not *that* crowded I work in Jersey City, so don't normally take the Path, but last week I did. I got on at Grove Street at 8:15am and travelled to 33rd Street. While crowded, it was not extremely crowded, compared to subway systems I have ridden in other cities. Everyone could get on, there was no need to let trains pass. Robin.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
IMO getting to Battery Park or the Hudson River Park is more convenent and nice than LSP.

Are any of you parents? What moms & nannies want is a close, convenient, child friendly park. Not an expedition. Expeditions are great, but not every day. Walking from LHN to the playground in LSP is FAR!

This is what's so disgusting about JC's lack of planning, thousands of family style units going up with little or no park planning. LeFrak finally built a park! hooray! 1 park the size of HP for 4000 families? With another 5000 to come? What about Jersey Ave North? There's family style units going up on Coles, but where's the city park for this new neighborhood? Will they be coming to already crowded Hamilton Park? Whoops, the city sold it's lot there rather than build a park.

Brewster:

I'm not suggesting that Downtown JC is Manhattan, or even should be remotely similar to Manhattan ... but one thing that Downtown JC and Manhattan have in common is an increasing number of people raising families. I'd guess that most families in Manhattan do not own cars. Some might, yes...but do you really think they are going to drive in a car to Central Park? Do they all pile into a taxi? Maybe some do. But I think the majority of them walk or take a subway.

What about Brooklyn, with which Downtown JC has much more in common with? Out of the sizeable number of people I know that live in Brooklyn, several of which have children, I can only think of one couple that keeps a car (they are childless).

Catering to a car culture, and becoming more appealing to people who use cars frequently, is not the direction that JC needs to go in. It's actually very backwards thinking, and as a local example of that kind of thinking, we can use the case study of why Newport looks and feels like San Jose's demented little brother.

nafco wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
People are going to need cars because the PATH trains are becoming completely packed at rush hour. I have been here in JC for almost 25 years and I have never seen crowding this bad. The system does not have any room for expansion of service because it's all on one track. And don't tell me that "crowding works itself out". There is simply not enough room on the trains and the developers continue with their human lab rat experiments.

Can you name one example when ADDING cars was a viable solution to a city that was beginning to overcrowd? More mass transit or more frequently running trains is the solution for a city, not more cars.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
IMO getting to Battery Park or the Hudson River Park is more convenent and nice than LSP.

Are any of you parents? What moms & nannies want is a close, convenient, child friendly park. Not an expedition. Expeditions are great, but not every day. Walking from LHN to the playground in LSP is FAR!

This is what's so disgusting about JC's lack of planning, thousands of family style units going up with little or no park planning. LeFrak finally built a park! hooray! 1 park the size of HP for 4000 families? With another 5000 to come? What about Jersey Ave North? There's family style units going up on Coles, but where's the city park for this new neighborhood? Will they be coming to already crowded Hamilton Park? Whoops, the city sold it's lot there rather than build a park.

paulushooker wrote: Here's the agenda. Look at #13

It's not listed as an regular item but listed as a review.

"Review and discussion of proposed amendments to the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment Plan. Summary Statement: altering the bulk, height and other aspects of Redevelopment Plan Blocks 24 and 1; potential to change Redevelopment Plan Block # 3 to a Park. Formal action may be taken."

So what, right? They do this all the time...except that they're increasing the housing units by more than double from 2,951 to 6,682 units!

This is without any notice to community groups or anyone that has participated in the charrettes in the original Duany plan. There are people like myself that sat in meetings with regards to this development only for it to be totally thrown out and changed without any notice. That's the issue.

Here's the agenda.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
That type of development will require massive pilings which will raise the water table. That area already floods. I was raised in Hoboken before the developments, it rarely flooded then. But the buildings in Hoboken has raised the city's water table and it floods on a regular basis. This massive development will cause more flooding to the Van Vorst Park neighborhood.

DO you have any substantiation to this claim, or is it more 2+2=5? We don't have water table problems downtown, we have sewer problems. 2 inches of rain would raise porous groundwater what? 2". That's no big deal. The rain is actually channeled into the incontinent and undraining sewer system, so it backs up by the feet not inches into the streets and basements, even soaking through the street fill to get under foundations. But that's not groundwater. And it's gone within hours of the rain stopping as the sewers drain.

PS the worst flooding in Hoboken is in the SW section, quite far from the waterfront developments. You have a "1 size fits all: development causes everything bad" from taxes to flooding, kinda like the GOP "tax cuts fix everything".

Dahood wrote:
Quote:

Of course the ARC tunnel would have eased the passenger load on PATH trains by sending more commuters to midtown directly rather than through Hoboken's PATH trains, but that's not happening thanks to Christie, so remember that next November.

What world do you live in man? The most crowded line is JSQ-33 and not HOB-33.

Of course the ARC tunnel would have eased the passenger load on PATH trains by sending more commuters to midtown directly rather than through Hoboken's PATH trains, but that's not happening thanks to Christie, so remember that next November.

Vigilante wrote:
People are going to need cars because the PATH trains are becoming completely packed at rush hour. I have been here in JC for almost 25 years and I have never seen crowding this bad. The system does not have any room for expansion of service because it's all on one track. And don't tell me that "crowding works itself out". There is simply not enough room on the trains and the developers continue with their human lab rat experiments.

brewster wrote:
[quote]
incontinent and undraining sewer system.

Yvonne wrote:
That type of development will require massive pilings which will raise the water table. That area already floods. I was raised in Hoboken before the developments, it rarely flooded then. But the buildings in Hoboken has raised the city's water table and it floods on a regular basis. This massive development will cause more flooding to the Van Vorst Park neighborhood.

Vigilante wrote:
People are going to need cars because the PATH trains are becoming completely packed at rush hour.

hero69 wrote:
IMO getting to Battery Park or the Hudson River Park is more convenent and nice than LSP.