Quote:

I shared a dump of an apartment in Hoboken as a student. Adding in the savings of cooking my own food (vs the crappy meal plan), having more peace and quiet, and more privacy (had my own room) it was a lot better than being in the dorms. It cost me less than $500 a month in rent and utilities, which I could afford while only making $10 per hour from a co-op job.

Back when the economy was decent, I rented the larger apartments easier than the smaller ones. A couple guys or girls, all getting their first jobs out of college, would share a place. The cost split 3 ways in the end didn't cost them that much.

I support more expensive apartments coming to JC. It will make my places (which are much cheaper) more desirable.

Quote:

You need to attract out of state and international students to command that much for a dorm room. I went to a school in Boston where the dorms cost more than an apartment share (currently room and board is 15K a year there). Most of the students were commuters, probably another 20-30% rented apartments, and the ones who lived in dorms were usually clueless about local real estate and the better deals they could get off campus. I think I paid something like 850/month to share an apartment, and spent maybe $150 a month on groceries, as opposed to $1250 a month to live in a dorm where I was essentially going to be babysat by my college and be kicked out over winter and summer break.

Dorms are usually a ripoff unless you're an RA living there for free. Communal living is also a great way to get viral meningitis.

Quote:

Looks like the block of Montgomery Street between Tuers and Jordan aves. There's a parking lot there now.

Where exactly in McGinley Square is this development supposed to be?

I don't get how this is for college aged people but demand those prices. Do they not know how much they earn?

Quote:

Depends what's inside.

Quote:

This project isn't pushing anyone out since no one currently lives in the space.

If the price is outrageous, then people won't rent there.

Yes, I get that as areas are developed the rent often increases (but I bet nothing in DTJC is this price/sq. ft.in rent). But are you guys really saying that you think $3200 a month for a 1,000 sq. ft. apt. in JC, anywhere other than the waterfront, is acceptable? Its not, nor should it be. That's outrageous.

Heard back from the reporter. She said she confirmed those figures with the developer.

Again, to me, it's the stated average unit size, rather than the expected rent/square foot, that seems beyond (optimistic) reason, given 3 years lead time.

I am confused to what you people think is a fair rent? If Journal Square, McGinely Square is on its way up it would make sense that the rents would go up. When I first moved dtjc the rents were $300 a month but as more buildings went up so did the rents.

I don't think $3 a square foot is excluding everybody that is not in the 1%.

As land becomes more valuable, developments like this are going to be built. It's not necessarily the government encouraging it (although in this case it has vocal government support), but rather the fact that the cost of things is directly related to the demand of things. It's a free market. If the government had more control of the pricing of things we would live in a true Communist society.

Remember, these apartments won't be occupied for 3 years, at the earliest. I'm sure the developer is being optimistic with the $3.25/square foot rent number.

The figure that seems out of whack is the average unit size of 1,000 square feet - and the implication that an "average" unit would rent for $3,250/month.

I sent a note to the reporter asking to clarify this; got an "out of office" auto-reply that she would be out until 1/6. If and when I hear back, I'll post here.
- Brian

As someone who lives in this area, I'm not sure how I feel about this. The rent this developer expects per unit is outrageous. And what is the parking plan, exactly? If a large garage is already a part of this, that would be helpful. While I think this area of the city could use some development, why does every dang project have to be luxury with options only open to the rich 1%?? Why does our government continually encourage the pushing out of the middle and working class?

Found this on the Wired NY JC thread and thought I'd share it here.

NY Schools
Unlikely Tower Mates
Developer Plans to Build Residential Tower in Jersey City Catering to Students, Working Adults

By Dawn Wotapka
Dec. 29, 2013 8:31 p.m. ET



A rendering of a 20-story residential building in Jersey City would cater to students and working adults. KPN Architects

A Maryland developer plans to build a residential tower in Jersey City catering to college students who want to live off campus in more modern quarters and working adults stung by a short supply of rental apartments.

The proposed 20-story building would have more than 300 beds for students attending nearby Saint Peter's University and 375 market-rate apartments with views facing Manhattan, said Timothy Elliott, a partner with Sora Development, based in Towson, Md.

Sora would build the $165 million tower as a joint venture with the university, a Jesuit institution founded in 1872 that has about 3,000 students. Sora would own most of the building, while Saint Peter's would provide the site and a parking lot. The university would pay an annual rent to Sora and maintain some equity in the building.

Mr. Elliott said state tax credits, private equity and debt would help pay for construction, which is expected to start in 2015. Sora would pay property taxes.

The project is in the McGinley Square area, which hasn't seen the same developer interest and gentrification that has happened closer to the waterfront. The Sora project, which would include a movie theater, bank and other retailers, hasn't received final approval, but Jersey City officials have been supportive. This would be in the "heart of the city," Mayor Steven Fulop said. "We have made a commitment to redeveloping areas off the waterfront and projects such as this in McGinley Square will be a focus of the administration."

Mixing college students and working adults could be disastrous if students host loud parties or try to sneak into the high-end residential amenities, such as a planned rooftop swimming pool. But Mr. Elliott said the building would have separate entrances, elevators and amenities. "The two populations won't even mix," he said.

Jersey City, which is increasingly becoming a rental alternative to Manhattan or Brooklyn, is seeing an apartment-construction boom as developers race to meet demand. Nearly 5,000 units are under construction, with more than 12,000 more units approved, according to a city spokeswoman.

But like most cities nationwide, Jersey City risks overdevelopment that could force landlords to cut rents. Mr. Elliott doesn't expect to finish construction until late 2016. It is impossible to know if the rental market will still be hot.

Right now, Jersey City doesn't have much excess supply. In the third quarter, its vacancy rate was 3.5%, below the national 4.2% rate, according to Reis Inc., a real-estate research firm. Its average rent was $1,558, well above the national $1,073 average.

Mr. Elliott expects to charge monthly rental rates of $3.25 a foot. The average unit will be about 1,000 square feet.

Cash-strapped schools nationwide are increasingly working with the private sector to replace outdated dormitories

"We are in one of the most hypercompetitive marketplaces in the nation in terms of attracting students, so we need to make sure that the place we provide for students for their four-plus years here is the best it can be," said Michael A. Fazio, Saint Peter's vice president for advancement and external affairs.

Write to Dawn Wotapka at dawn.wotapka@wsj.com

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/...NewsCollection