JCCheerleader wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

210 Pavonia Ave, which is one of the raided homes, is a one family home Downtown. The Milburn couple that owns it paid $240,000 for it in 1990.
354 Wayne St. is a large two family home. The couple that owns it paid $89,900 for it in 1981.
Are you trying to say that what these two couples did was because they couldn't make any money renting or selling their homes legitimately? Really?

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

heights wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong again. The building on Pavonia is actually quite nice and is a modern rowhouse. I didn't buy it myself because it lacked outdoor space and was too close to Cordero School for my tastes. The fact that it's a nice building and a nice area is precisely why the shenanigans going on there were so obvious to the neighbors who called the authorities. "Tenement" that is funny.

They are tenements whats so funny about it ? Downtown J.C. is getting more like Hoboken everyday at least with all the apartment buildings. Why don't they build some one and two family homes where the owner would live there ? Most of these apartments are not even condos but rentals and if they are condos they are being rented out. Co-ops would be a better way to go.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong again. The building on Pavonia is actually quite nice and is a modern rowhouse. I didn't buy it myself because it lacked outdoor space and was too close to Cordero School for my tastes. The fact that it's a nice building and a nice area is precisely why the shenanigans going on there were so obvious to the neighbors who called the authorities. "Tenement" that is funny.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:

Please. Ask the folks in Newport and just read the attached article. In my old condo complex there were 5 Israelis living in a one bedroom apartment.

First of all, neither of the buildings in the article are new construction. They are tenements, and they exist because of the lack of affordable housing caused by too few new units to meet demand. Second, neither of these buildings is in Newport, so I'm not sure why you want to ask the "folks in Newport" unless you think high paid, white collar workers who happen to be ethnically from Asia are the same as poor immigrants living in tenements. If the latter is the case, its probably a product of racism rather than rational thought.

Asif wrote:



To vigilante...I kinda of would have to agree with Ianmac47 about your earlier post....not really cool.

I mean u did single out Asians and then were a bit more specific saying "indians".


I think the real issue is the lack of decent and affordable housing.

I can assure you that every immigrant group and even long established residents have lived all bunched up at one time or another.......many even now.

Example: College students, hispanics, Africans, African-Americans, Caucasians, etc.....

Vigilante wrote:

Please. Ask the folks in Newport and just read the attached article. In my old condo complex there were 5 Israelis living in a one bedroom apartment.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

Oh, I get it now. Just old fashion racism. Not really any need to say anything more to you.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Many buildings that were built to sell failed and ended up renting to the endless supply of Indians and other Asians who are willing to split a 1 or 2 bedroom apartment amongst four, five or more people. The expected influx of said number of people ends up doubling and tripling. Sometimes it's even worse.

http://www.nj.com/news/jjournal/jerse ... 29740914961260.xml&coll=3

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

That's a mass transit issue, not a housing issue. If more people want to live here, we need to add more mass transit options. Not sure why PATH has the monopoly on trains to NYC - other organizations should be able to develop routes as well.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

ianmac47 wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

There wouldn't be a development if there wasn't the expectation that it could be sold or rented. If it will be built, then it can be sold.

If a development of this size can be built with the expectation of being sold, it is only because there is already demand for that product.

The same people complaining that this is too big and out of scale will be complaining that rents are becoming unaffordable. Well yes, that's what happens when demand outstrips supply and you don't build more supply.

Vigilante wrote:
Wrong. This is development for development's sake. I don't think anyone here is anti-change. This is more about having some aforethought in regards to mass transit and infrastructure. Some folks are getting bags of cash so that others can take the money and run without any regard to the citizens of Jersey City. OOOH another bagel shop! Enjoy that as we pry you out of the PATH train.

SixthBoro wrote:
Quote:

Dahood wrote:
For allowing the developer to build extra floors, the city could at least get him to build a park in JSQ.

a park? there is plenty of space for the homeless to sleep already..

Dahood wrote:
For allowing the developer to build extra floors, the city could atleast get him to build a park in JSQ.

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

ripple wrote:
The Heights and Greenville never would have been developed the way they are now had it not been for the streetcars, which used to be ubiquitous around Jersey City if you look at some old maps. This is prime real estate that will be under-utilized until it becomes politically possible again to engage in the type of major infrastructure projects that originally made this area.

Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

ianmac47 wrote:
All of this complaining is policy through emotional response. That helps no one.

You think these towers are causing some kind of change, like they will be a catalyst to ruining quality of life in Journal Square. That's not it. The change has already happened. These towers are the result, not the cause, the product, not the catalyst.

They are to built practically on top of the Journal Square transit center. Buses, PATH, and what could have been a light rail station if the don't-change-anything crowd hadn't been so oppositional to running a line down Sixth Street.

The traffic problems with fix themselves. If there is too much traffic, more people will take transit.

Let the grownups talk now.

JCCheerleader wrote:
It's not a good investment when the local streets can't handle traffic as it is. I'm for development-IF it makes sense. This doesn't make sense. It's disproportionate to the existing surrounding buildings, it's too dense, and the streets can't handle any more congestion. This building is as tall as that ugly Goldman Sashs monstronsity Downtown and it doesn't belong where it's going in.