Browsing this Thread:
4 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Quote:
I'm curious, where in JC it is so bad, that you would need to go to that extreme? I agree, with the morning to 3pm, resident parking only rule, because you don't want out of town commuters taking up street parking. But please educate me where it's so bad that you would need to enforce this 24/7. I have had friends from out of town drive to Paulus Hook to meet me for dinner, and they've always been able to find street parking without much of an issue.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 16:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
 |
Quote:
Yvonne, you exemplify the Old Jersey City way of thinking. From my experiences, many if not most people who are moving to downtown Jersey City do not own cars and are not planning to own one.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 16:11
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12 Last Login : 2020/9/30 18:46 From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
2391
|
MaybeMoving, I couldn't agree with you more on the parking. It's very small-time to be thinking about putting significant parking spaces in all of these new buildings. 3 blocks from a subway, in one of the most walkable cities in America. There honestly isn't a need for ANY parking spaces. The people that move into places like this, if the place doesn't come with a parking spot, they simply will not have a car.
All of these new developments have a suburban look with these big parking garages. It looks really, really awful and it destroys urban fabric. I know I sound like a broken record but it's true. Jersey City has a once in a lifetime opportunity to rebuild a city from scratch and we are throwing up some really bad architecture coupled with some pretty poor urban planning.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 16:08
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Zone Permit Parking should be 24/7. And those without permits will have to park in the garages.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 15:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I know Trump, 50 Columbus, Liberty Towers, and others do. There is still plenty of empty parking spots available, if you need one.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 15:45
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Any development that has a garage with empty spaces should consider renting to the public. Residents have left downtown for that reason, returning home at night with no place to park, is a serious problem.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 15:36
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Why pay to park in a parking garage when you can park on the streets downtown starting at 3pm until the next morning - and park for free all weekend and on holidays?! That's what all these people (disqualified to get zone permits) who live in the high rises and from out of town do.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 15:34
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Most of the decks downtown are 1/2 empty. Not as many people living in the buildings have cars as was expected. It makes sense to lower the ratio. This might be too low, but I'm not sure. I'm not 100% certain but I think you aren't supposed to be able to get a parking pass if your building has a deck, even if it is full.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 14:51
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I agree with you on the abatement but I disagree with you about parking. People do have cars and if there is not enough parking in the garage, guess what? They will park on the streets depriving regular folks of those spots. There are people parking 10 or more blocks from their homes. New residents might take the PATH, but they use their cars for shopping, travel, and entertainment.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 14:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
This has to be one of the most desireable building sites in all of downtown JC. I'm pretty pro-development and would really like to see something other than a surface lot in this space but even I can see how ridiculous it is that these guys have been sitting on this property while having a grandfathered 25 year abatement.
As others have said, it seems like total abuse of the system that they can receive an abatement of this nature and wait for favorable economic conditions to start construction. It's against the whole spirit of the abatement program. In my opinion, you should be required to break ground within a year of receiving the approvals and abatements. I think Silverman does nice work and would like to see them on this project but if they can't figure out how to make this work I'm sure another developer can. This is a PRIME spot for development. PS: I'm all for less parking in the building. Do developers in NY with a spot 3 blocks from a subway worry about how many parking spots are in their buildings?
Posted on: 2013/12/3 14:27
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
"...scheduled for adoption on Dec. 18, but it has to be changed before Mayor Steve Fulop will support it, city spokeswoman Jennifer Morrill said today.
Without extra revenue, Morrill said, ?there is no incentive for the city to amend the agreement.? If you want to be heard on this, mark your calendar for December 18...
Posted on: 2013/12/3 12:14
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Architect's Rendering for Empty Lot Next to City Hall, aka Majestic II / Grove South
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Posted on: 2013/12/3 3:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Architect's Rendering for Empty Lot Next to City Hall, aka Majestic II / Grove South
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
This section actually falls within "Tier II" of the map and would, under the policy, be eligible for a 10 year abatement. It could also be worked up to 20 years if the agreement contained the necessary goodies.
(See pages 5-6 below) http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/uploa ... icy%20Press%20Release.pdf Whether that is necessary or desirable is another question.
Posted on: 2013/12/3 2:37
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Architect's Rendering for Empty Lot Next to City Hall, aka Majestic II / Grove South
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Quote:
Posted on: 2013/12/2 19:38
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Architect's Rendering for Empty Lot Next to City Hall, aka Majestic II / Grove South
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
As I understand this, the developers received a 25 year abatement in 2007-2008. The purpose of an abatement is to stimulate redevelopment, I guess. The builders chose not to build at that time because of the poor economy -- which seems to be the whole point of granting the abatement in 2007.
Fulop pledged in August to hold downtown abatements to 5 years because downtown space is at a premium and construction needs no greater stimulus. So building has now commenced at this psace because the economy has improved, but six years later, the 25 year abatement is still in place? Wasn't the abatement given in 2007 to stimulate what is not now needed in 2013? Is this how it works? If I have misstated the facts, please jump in. I'm just trying to understand what happened here.
Posted on: 2013/12/2 18:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: New Architect's Rendering for Empty Lot Next to City Hall, aka Majestic II / Grove South
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
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
|
http://hudsonreporter.com/view/full_s ... nce=jersey_city_top_story
The city, in lieu of taxes would see an increasing percentage of the property?s annual rental revenue in five phases over 17 years, starting with 10 percent and ending with 16 percent. This would equate to about 20 percent of the taxes the property would normally generate, but eventually the project would generate about 80 percent, and pay full taxes at the conclusion of the abatement. Development will now be rentals Pair of Grove Street buildings will have 99 units by Al Sullivan A MODEST PROPOSAL ? Developer Paul Silverman appeared before the Jersey City Council to ask for a change in his original 2007 development proposal. view slideshow (2 images) A development first proposed as a for-sale condominium project for 272 Grove St. in 2007 is back on the Jersey City Council agenda as a rental development with other changes. The council introduced an ordinance at its Nov. 26 meeting that would grant 272 Grove St. Urban Renewal LLC approval to switch from a first proposed condominium project to a market rate rental, increasing the number of total units from 88 to 99 but reducing the number of parking spaces to 46. The project would also receive a 25-year tax abatement. This is a project proposed by Eric and Paul Silverman that has previously turned the nearby historic Majestic Theater into condominiums. Their company also has a project at former St. Francis Hospital into Hamilton Square. They have completed about 15 projects throughout the city, most of which are rehabs of old buildings. Called the Majestic II Redevelopment Project, the two-building development located at Montgomery, Grove, and York streets has also expanded its retail space from originally proposed 8,500 to 20,000 square feet. Currently on the block are an empty storefront (formerly a deli and a carpet store), a church that closed recently, and several apartment buildings with empty lots beside them. _____________ ?The Planning Board wanted less parking in that area of the city.? ? Paul Silverman ____________ Councilman Richard Boggiano questioned the reduction in parking spaces and the cost of $100 that will be charged for each, saying the spaces will likely rent for more money. Paul Silverman said the development reduced the number of spaces to discourage car traffic in a congested area and noted that his company has parking garages in the area. ?The Planning Board wanted less parking in that area of the city,? Silverman said. ?We own six parking garages and they can be redirected there.? If the price of the parking space goes up, then the city will get more revenue, something that will be determined by an annual audit. With street level stores and parking, the project already has received approval from the Jersey City Planning Board in 2012, although at least two of the council people elected last June raised questions about details of the project ? especially projected revenues the developer expects to get. The city, in lieu of taxes would see an increasing percentage of the property?s annual rental revenue in five phases over 17 years, starting with 10 percent and ending with 16 percent. This would equate to about 20 percent of the taxes the property would normally generate, but eventually the project would generate about 80 percent, and pay full taxes at the conclusion of the abatement. The Majestic II Redevelopment Plan was originally approved for a 25-year abatement in March 2007 as a for sale condominium development, but the project never broke ground. Representatives from the company argued successfully to the Planning Board that a change in market conditions made it no longer feasible for the project to be constructed as first proposed. In April, 2013, the developer filed to amend the original application and basically restate the project that had been stalled because of the collapse in the real estate economy in 2008. City will get more The current site generates about $74,659 in annual taxes. Under the new agreement, which some council members think underestimates the rental revenues, the city would receive about $367,689 annually. The developer will also pay about $189,000 in three installments of about $63,000 each to meet its affordable housing obligation. Boggiano questioned this contribution asked city administrators whether the developer owes the city interest, since the contract stipulated that the developer pay these fees within 24 months of approval. But the first payment wasn?t made until earlier this month. Jeremy Farrell, corporation counsel for the city, said a bill was never sent to Silverman for the affordable housing amount, so it was not paid. While the contract called for payment within two years, state law said the these fees are paid in installments tied to the progress of the project, first at ground breaking, second at construction of the first unit, and final when first certificate of occupancy is issued. The project is expected to generate between 200-250 jobs during the construction phase and 50 to 100 permanent jobs once completed.
Posted on: 2013/12/2 16:48
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
My understanding is that the abatement does not expire. However, it does not apply if they build rentals.
The other aspect to this is that the developer made an up front payment which, if the project doesn't start, they claim they can receive a refund on. But the city spent that money long ago, when these types of payments were used to plug budget gaps. If the city wants, it can play chicken with the Silvermans. It can say. "Yes, you have your abatement. You can build condos on the project. In the meantime, while you are waiting for the market to become condos, you can pay us $75,000 a year in taxes on the property while you earn nothing. Or you can build a rental project and pay regular taxes, building to a scale that is economically feasible for you to make a profit while paying regular taxes. If we need to refund the upfront payment, fine, because we'd rather have a property on the ratable base over the next 25 years." Or they can negotiate, like they are doing now. 25 years really seems long for an abatement. Without knowing all the numbers and figures at issue, I can't say what the best result would be. I will say, however, that I do not see a compelling need for this development to be built. It's good land, something of an eyesore now, and the Silvermans do very good work. I'd like to see something nice rather than the lot that is there now. But unlike Journal Square, this area is not so desperate for another luxury development that the city absolutely needs to reach a deal.
Posted on: 2013/12/2 15:58
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
I believe the abatement was granted in 2007. Is there really no time limit to start construction? Can you get an abatement as a stimulus for redevelopment but then NOT redevelop until the economy improves? Then why is the abatement still valid?
Posted on: 2013/12/2 12:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
were they grandffathered for the abatement? if not, no abatemeent.. and since they are changing the use, the period should be shortened?
Posted on: 2013/12/2 3:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Development will now be rentals, Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2012/1/11 18:21 Last Login : 2019/12/26 15:30 From GV Bayside Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
5356
|
A development first proposed as a for-sale condominium project for 272 Grove St. in 2007 is back on the Jersey City Council agenda as a rental development with other changes.
The council introduced an ordinance at its Nov. 26 meeting that would grant 272 Grove St. Urban Renewal LLC approval to switch from a first proposed condominium project to a market rate rental, increasing the number of total units from 88 to 99 but reducing the number of parking spaces to 46. The project would also receive a 25-year tax abatement. This is a project proposed by Eric and Paul Silverman that has previously turned the nearby historic Majestic Theater into condominiums. Their company also has a project at former St. Francis Hospital into Hamilton Square. They have completed about 15 projects throughout the city, most of which are rehabs of old buildings. Called the Majestic II Redevelopment Project, the two-building development located at Montgomery, Grove, and York streets has also expanded its retail space from originally proposed 8,500 to 20,000 square feet. Currently on the block are an empty storefront (formerly a deli and a carpet store), a church that closed recently, and several apartment buildings with empty lots beside them. Read more: Hudson Reporter - Development will now be rentals Pair of Grove Street buildings will have 99 units
Posted on: 2013/12/2 1:32
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Quote:
The map is indeed incredible! The whole map, can be found on Boston Public Library's web, here: http://maps.bpl.org/id/10752 The link above shows the whole map in very high resolution, as well as detailed panels around the map with drawings of certain buildings and blocks. I find the two panels below particularly interesting as they show what the north part of Grove Street looked like (long time) before the Bayonne style detached houses with parking in front were constructed. a) Bonneville French Flats (# 52), shown in panel lower left, located on Grove Between 9th and 10th St. b) 187 to 205 Second Street, shown in panel top right, Second Street between Grove and what is now Marin (Henderson). The following is also interesting: c) Hudson Tunnel Works (shown in panel lower right) - Hudson Tunnel works that attempted to construct at tunnel between Jersey City and Manhattan. This particular project was never finished and is not what became the Path tunnels (aka Hudson and Manhattan Tunnels).
Posted on: 2013/10/14 14:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Did you see the Silverman tents out the other day for the Mayor's forced love fest for city employees. Another waste of tax payers money. They all hate him (understandable) given his disregard for civil service. So they had to come out and pretend they love him.
So are the Silverman's back to being everyone's favorite developer? Fulop's?
Posted on: 2013/10/12 1:56
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
That map is incredible. Thanks.
Posted on: 2013/10/11 19:17
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It did indeed, as did now-entirely-gone Gregory St. Here's a cool map from 1883 if you're curious what was there a very long time ago. Everything I've seen planned for the site has included ground-level retail, not sure how much of it is still likely to be built though. Great to know the cleanup will be done soon at least.
Posted on: 2013/10/11 18:41
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I am pretty sure that Newark Avenue ran thru that property before the Gregory Apartments were built. Restoring that as a pedestrian connection would be great - especially if whatever is built had shops opening on to the new street.
Posted on: 2013/10/11 11:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
The cleanup is already in the second phase should be completed in the spring. The lot this article is referring to has to be south of city hall not east.
Posted on: 2013/10/11 4:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
It's (luckily) the only Superfund site downtown -- they brought in the contaminated dirt as backfill during construction. The company that did the damage is paying for the cleanup, but as it's one of many contaminated sites it may be a couple years. If you want more info about the cleanup effort, here's the official site: http://www.chromiumcleanup.com/
Posted on: 2013/10/10 21:57
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
You're right, Alex, I had my directions mixed up. Thanks! I've fixed it.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 21:10
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Ah, I see. I knew that area was in the heart of some of Jersey City's worst chromium contamination, but didn't realize someone had actually started the process of clearing that space. I wonder when and if the clean-up will ever be completed or if it would be possible to get federal (Superfund?) money to do it. I would also hope the plans included a new street or at least a pedestrian walkway connecting Montgomery and Columbus between Warren and Marin.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 21:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Today, a Downtown Jersey City parking lot; soon, 99 luxury apartments
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Plans to do just that have been in the works for a decade at this point (there are renderings in the rental office if you're curious). But when they ripped out the connecting buildings to begin construction they discovered the soil underneath was toxic, and cleanup has to happen before they can build anything new.
Posted on: 2013/10/10 21:01
|
|||
|
||||