murican wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The mayor changed the policy on parking which was one to one ratio, he promoted this policy as councilman for downtown. Why? The developer can make more money on retail space. But let?s get realistic; JC has an aging population with arthritis, heart disease, or other problems that makes walking difficult. You also have parents who must bring children to doctors, dentists, etc but the city has an unreliable transportation system. Buses/lite rail do not go many parts of the city. Why should the rest of the city inherit the problems of downtown? Also groceries stores are not close by as they are in downtown so residents use cars.

Because not one of the buildings with one to one parking used all of the spaces? We have a bunch of half empty decks downtown because the people living here simply don't own as many cars as expected.

I have plenty of problems with Fulop, but not mandating parking that will never be used is not one of them. This is planning 101, find out how much of a resource is actually being used and then design the buildings around that.

I have to agree with Yvonne, I know of people who were lucky to get the last parking space in high rise buildings with .8 (ratio) parking. Let us agree that parking is at a premium for most of us in JC, especially in mid and high rises) that were not built with 1:1 parking. I will not even mention low-rise brownstones with multiple units and no parking.

If more families (priced out of NYC) are moving into JC or if new and old residents who work hours and places in JC where there is unsafe or no public transportation, then this is a quality of life issue which must be taken into consideration.

I envy your situation moobycow in which there is excess parking in your building and wish it were mine, but as I trudge through snow and ice to reach my partially covered space- I count myself lucky to at least have off-street parking.

I think our government has to take into consideration the reality of all our residents and provision of 1:1 off-street parking in new developments is necessary not only for residents but for commercial interests that are usually situated on the ground floors of these development. Witness the furor over parking for a restaurant in Hamilton Park http://jclist.com/modules/newbb/viewt ... eywords=Silverman+parking

murican wrote:
I have to agree with Yvonne, I know of people who were lucky to get the last parking space in high rise buildings with .8 (ratio) parking. Let us agree that parking is at a premium for most of us in JC, especially in mid and high rises) that were not built with 1:1 parking. I will not even mention low-rise brownstones with multiple units and no parking.

user1111 wrote:
There are plans to build one of these transit villages behind the Richard Street Liightrail, my question is to the developers why do they all look like this?




Not a fan.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
The mayor changed the policy on parking which was one to one ratio, he promoted this policy as councilman for downtown. Why? The developer can make more money on retail space. But let?s get realistic; JC has an aging population with arthritis, heart disease, or other problems that makes walking difficult. You also have parents who must bring children to doctors, dentists, etc but the city has an unreliable transportation system. Buses/lite rail do not go many parts of the city. Why should the rest of the city inherit the problems of downtown? Also groceries stores are not close by as they are in downtown so residents use cars.

Because not one of the buildings with one to one parking used all of the spaces? We have a bunch of half empty decks downtown because the people living here simply don't own as many cars as expected.

I have plenty of problems with Fulop, but not mandating parking that will never be used is not one of them. This is planning 101, find out how much of a resource is actually being used and then design the buildings around that.

Yvonne wrote:
I am talking about houses next to each other like JC. Bayonne, 2 family homes are actually 3 or more. People are making smaller units similar to JC. Let me repeat, Bayonne is not dealing with the skyway or traffic from the turnpike traveling on local streets to reach the Holland Tunnel. When the skyway closes, item 4g on the agenda, the city will allow York and Bright Streets to filter that traffic to the waterfront. The skyway now closes April 12. That influx has nothing to do with JC residents.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:

No one ever guaranteed that cities will stay the same. You either adapt or you move.

K-Lo wrote:
If our mayor wants us walking (and I'm in favor of that!), then he has to figure out how to get drivers to stop at red lights and stop signs and how to NOT pile ice and snow at each corner when it snows.

Yvonne wrote:
You can ban local cars but you will still have major traffic downtown, motorist leave the congested turnpike and use the local streets to go to the Holland tunnel. Bayonne has homes just as compact as JC but their streets are not congested as JC because motorist do not use their streets to connect to other places. During the Schundler administration, Council President Smith made a comment that over 100,000 cars come into JC, that number is probably higher. So reducing cars is just a way to punish residents who need them for their elderly family members, children, grocery shopping, and getting to work.

Yvonne wrote:
Wishful Thinking, there are people who were born here and did not move to JC. Yes, I do remember when you could drive to lower Manhattan from Van Vorst Park in less than 15 minutes. So basically, everyone must bend over backwards to reward new development, which receives abatements and crowds the street. Because guess what? Those people do bring cars but they don't pay for parking. I have said this before, JC is overdeveloped, the streets are not wide compared to NYC which can handle traffic, bikes, and pedestrians. Besides, it is not just the residents who live here, it is people traveling to the waterfront, or the skyway, turnpike, etc. So if you ban every local car you would still have traffic. In case you did not notice, many motorist, travel through downtown JC to reach the Holland Tunnel. That has nothing to do with residents.

murican wrote:
As a former resident of Toronto which has a walkable downtown, with lots of green space , but also an amazingly efficient and comprehensive mass transit system of subways, trolleys and buses, as well as ample parking garages and spaces for residents, I would applaud a system like that.

But Jersey City lacks affordable housing (downtown as Toronto did when I lived there) and definitely lacks a comprehensive, efficient and safe mass transit system. If Fulop's plans include these last mentioned elements, then go for it.

Yvonne wrote:
The mayor changed the policy on parking which was one to one ratio, he promoted this policy as councilman for downtown. Why? The developer can make more money on retail space. But let?s get realistic; JC has an aging population with arthritis, heart disease, or other problems that makes walking difficult. You also have parents who must bring children to doctors, dentists, etc but the city has an unreliable transportation system. Buses/lite rail do not go many parts of the city. Why should the rest of the city inherit the problems of downtown? Also groceries stores are not close by as they are in downtown so residents use cars.

Yvonne wrote:
Wishful Thinking, there are people who were born here and did not move to JC. Yes, I do remember when you could drive to lower Manhattan from Van Vorst Park in less than 15 minutes. So basically, everyone must bend over backwards to reward new development, which receives abatements and crowds the street. Because guess what? Those people do bring cars but they don't pay for parking. I have said this before, JC is overdeveloped, the streets are not wide compared to NYC which can handle traffic, bikes, and pedestrians. Besides, it is not just the residents who live here, it is people traveling to the waterfront, or the skyway, turnpike, etc. So if you ban every local car you would still have traffic. In case you did not notice, many motorist, travel through downtown JC to reach the Holland Tunnel. That has nothing to do with residents.

Yvonne wrote:...but the city has an unreliable transportation system.

Yvonne wrote:
I just saw the lastest abatement agreement in the Journal Square area. 266 units with 128 parking spaces and 5,000 square ft of retail space. The older condos in the area has one to one parking space. This development will impact the one and two family homes plus rent control buildings. The 5,000 commercial space will bring traffic, the 266 units with limited parking will create a crisis in an established neighborhood. It is wishful thinking that everyone uses the PATH. This particular neighborhood will have residents circling the blocks for hours looking for parking spaces. I call this poor urban planning.