FakeGreenDress wrote:
If you're curious about the redevelopment plans for Metropolis Towers, looks like they're presenting the plans at the HPHA meeting tonight: http://www.icontact-archive.com/T5pNC ... 6cHiOyRAkqjqCrL-Mva0D?w=1

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
Land values being what they are, the (largely middle income) owners presumably know that they're sitting on a gold mine and that open parking lots are no longer a good use of the land.

Someone earlier had alluded to the recent remediation efforts. Presumably, we will soon see large scale building at the street level all around Montgomery, Marin and Columbus. Hopefully some mix of apartments and retail, with stacked parking for all the cars currently spread around the property.

bjay wrote:
Finally, here's a pic from 1973 that I believe is Columbus (then Railroad Avenue) looking east from about Jersey Avenue. You can see 30 Montgomery (the Ukrainian National Association building) in the distance on the right, and then the World Trade Center in the background.

Bubble_Tea wrote:

That's super interesting. Would be cool to see a picture of Columbus pre-Gregory Complex.

PremiumContent wrote:
I'm curious as to why some of the most affordable units downtown should be eliminated in favor of what most assuredly would be luxury rate apartments. Developments on the surface parking have already been planned.

Maise wrote:
All I know is that it looks to me like all of the balconies are several years (or less) away from becoming extremely unsafe. I am not an structural engineer and could definitely be misreading the situation, but I lived across the street at 50 columbus and when you look at the balconies dead on, they look like they are hanging by a thread (some more than others).

Yvonne wrote:
Another tidbit of information, when they the knocked down the buildings and dug the foundation for the Gregory Complex, remnants of a sailing vessel was found. The shore line changed over the years.

PotStirJC wrote:
Although only built about 15 years ago, the Metropolis Towers cooperative buildings are the eye-sore of DTJC. What could be prime walkable retail space and beautiful redevelopment directly adjacent to the Grove Street PATH station is instead an abhorrent waste of horrific architecture, nonexistent maintenance, and driveway gravel. Given these properties? low values, I decided to take a look at the feasibility of eminent domain on this massive property.

I used 99 Hudson as a comp. It is a 1.74 acre property that sold for $71,000,000 last year, or about $934.21 per SF. The Metropolis Tower property (both towers) combines to form 8.34 acres. Yes, 99 Hudson is Waterfront, but the Metropolis Towers are closer to the Grove Street PATH, and this means more access to Midtown Manhattan. So even if we lower the sales price to $900/sf, the site is worth $325M before improvements.

The Metropolis Towers have 390 units. That means if the city applies a fair market value of $500k each to the coop owners (and they are worth much less than that), the city is looking at a profit of $130M. This really seems like a financial no-brainer of a redevelopment project for the city if it really wants to take advantage of Jersey City?s ?renaissance.? These funds could be applied anywhere, and city doesn?t just come up with $130M everyday.

Just some thoughts.

PotStirJC wrote:
Although only built about 15 years ago, the Metropolis Towers cooperative buildings are the eye-sore of DTJC. What could be prime walkable retail space and beautiful redevelopment directly adjacent to the Grove Street PATH station is instead an abhorrent waste of horrific architecture, nonexistent maintenance, and driveway gravel. Given these properties? low values, I decided to take a look at the feasibility of eminent domain on this massive property.

I used 99 Hudson as a comp. It is a 1.74 acre property that sold for $71,000,000 last year, or about $934.21 per SF. The Metropolis Tower property (both towers) combines to form 8.34 acres. Yes, 99 Hudson is Waterfront, but the Metropolis Towers are closer to the Grove Street PATH, and this means more access to Midtown Manhattan. So even if we lower the sales price to $900/sf, the site is worth $325M before improvements.

The Metropolis Towers have 390 units. That means if the city applies a fair market value of $500k each to the coop owners (and they are worth much less than that), the city is looking at a profit of $130M. This really seems like a financial no-brainer of a redevelopment project for the city if it really wants to take advantage of Jersey City?s ?renaissance.? These funds could be applied anywhere, and city doesn?t just come up with $130M everyday.

Just some thoughts.

ianmac47 wrote:
Did everyone miss the part where the owner is planning on redeveloping the project and simply was side tracked by chromium cleanup (finished!) and economic depression (fixed for rich people!).

Pretty good chance this whole thing will resolve itself in another year or two anyway.

PotStirJC wrote:
1. The current use of the space impedes upon the master plan of the city.

PotStirJC wrote:
You have it completely wrong. What I don't like is the caged off wasteland of 8 acres at the heart of the downtown that I have to walk by every day and night....

that has so much more potential than you are even remotely capable of envisioning.

And furthermore, these giant fenced walls protect what appear to be two gargantuan alien cockroaches that seem on the verge of collapse without any help from a wrecking ball.

With taxpayer dollars? No, this would be a financial grand slam for the city...

This is just fun speculation.

LittleJimSheehy wrote:
Let's say the Mayor hated brownstones. After all, they are relics of a bygone era, and do not fit into Jersey City's modern, increasingly vertical aesthetic. ....

Further, removing every brownstone in favor of higher-density development fits your economic development standard: While brownstones (and the 1/4-acre or so of land on which they sit) are generally assessed between $500K and $1M, buildings like 50 Columbus and Grove Pointe are assessed at between $20M and $30M - just for the building(s).

LittleJimSheehy wrote:

Though it should be relatively obvious from my posts, I'm a lawyer who, as a large part of my practice, does exactly this (urban redevelopment) for a living. Heck, I even do it from a redeveloper's point of view -- meaning, I'd normally be on the side trying to make these arguments (i.e., I represent redevelopers who purchase and develop property like this -- and know that the Montgomery Towers property is literally almost the most valuable parcel of land in New Jersey). Given all this, I can tell you as a matter of law (and, frankly, as a matter of fact), the City could never do what's being proposed here, given that it would contravene NJ statutory and case law.

JCMan8 wrote:
I love how there are some laymen who claim to know exactly how to interpret a series of laws and what is Constitutional and what isn't.

It's probably asking too much, but I'd love to hear from an actual lawyer who knows what they're talking about. For what it's worth, I've never heard of anything like this in NJ and suspect anyone who acts like condemning these buildings is a given has no clue about what they're talking about.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
...it would be legally possible, which is the only point of my posts.

?Possible? wasn?t your only point. You wrote, ?It would probably be a good idea.?

Would that be your advice to a client?that an ostensibly unethical abuse of eminent domain?s intent, which would also be expensive, likely to fail, and most certainly harmful to your client?s public image, is a ?good idea??

devilsadvocate wrote:
Let me see if I have this right: you don't like the way the towers look so you want to use eminent domain on them (likely resulting in an expensive lawsuit, that even if successful will result in a huge payout) because you don't fancy the way they look? All with taxpayer dollars? Just no. If you want to use eminent domain to redevelop properties in JC, this isn't even the prime candidate. Hell, you can start by getting rid of a lot of the public housing and homeless shelters in and around DTJC for far less (especially since public housing is presumably owned by the city).

Anyway, stop wasting everyone's time.