JCishome wrote:
Agreed, and DTJC has moved beyond needing status symbols. We've skipped past gentrification and we're on our way to full-bore pretentious d-baggery.

JCishome wrote:
Agreed, and DTJC has moved beyond needing status symbols. We've skipped past gentrification and we're on our way to full-bore pretentious d-baggery.

JCishome wrote:
I'm with the non-naysayers on this. It won't win any awards, but the building itself is pretty inoffensive. I'm more concerned with what occupies the street level - and somehow I won't be surprised if it includes a bank, a real estate office or a Starbucks.

Sommerman wrote:

What I find disappointing is that The Charles is named after the carpet store that was on the site, but no recognition, as far as I know, is made to Manischevitz at their former site on Marin.

bodhipooh wrote:
I am glad/relieved to see I am not the only one a bit puzzled by all the "chicken littles" proclaiming the end of the world because of the aesthetics of this building. The last time I looked at it, I thought it was OK. Not particularly breathtaking, nor horrifying. It is, perhaps, a bit plain/flat looking. My only qualm with the building is what was reported in the news article. That is, that the builder chose to deviate from the pre-approved plans without having to go through the Planning Board and/or Historic Commission, only getting approval from City planners. Given the sordid history of nepotism, cronyism and corruption in JC, you would think that the administration would be wise enough to avoid being seen as that.

Fomite wrote:
This new building is kind of an insult if you think about it.

All the old buildings were the sweat and ambition of new Americans. They brought their wood working skills, Italian, polish, and German aesthetic to create lasting brownstones that are so coveted today. Some of these were built over 100 years ago, and the craftmanship shows. Even Van Vosrt park was a masterpiece.
And the Silverman building? They just ordered pre made fake brick facade from China. Couldn't even bother laying real brick. Imagine what it will look like in 20 years.

If you DTer?s have a problem with it we up in Journal Square will gladly take it off of your hands. Gray color and all. It looks like it would fit perfectly in the 10 year empty Hotel on the Square lot across from the Loews.

Nice 7 story height too. I like that some towers are being built up JSquare but I hope they are not all 50, 60, 70 stories tall. It makes an area look to empty and cold. Just drive around the Newport area and you will see what I mean.

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
I pass this site twice daily on my way to and from work.

I think the building is ok. Not great, but not awful either. It pays homage to its neighbors through the choice of brick color, the use of arched window and concrete pillar cladding at the street level.

It's not complete yet, but once done, I think it will be pleasing to look at.

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
I pass this site twice daily on my way to and from work.

I think the building is ok. Not great, but not awful either. It pays homage to its neighbors through the choice of brick color, the use of arched window and concrete pillar cladding at the street level.

It's not complete yet, but once done, I think it will be pleasing to look at.

are you being sarcastic? many of us would disagree. the developer needs to go back to historic preservation 101

JGJDNYCJC wrote:
I pass this site twice daily on my way to and from work.

I think the building is ok. Not great, but not awful either. It pays homage to its neighbors through the choice of brick color, the use of arched window and concrete pillar cladding at the street level.

It's not complete yet, but once done, I think it will be pleasing to look at.

tommyc_37 wrote:
So true, ESPECIALLY next to City Hall, which has so much architectural detail. It almost looks like the new building is made of cardboard, from a distance - there is no texture, no trim, nothing. So disappointing, but even more so that it is on such a prime, visible corner, and literally anchors that entire end of Grove Street.

I wonder if in their heart of hearts, the Silvermans are satisfied when they look at this building.

I honestly think a fix would be to add trim (of a different color) to all windows. That would be a big game changer, but aside from adhering a veneer on, it's too late for structural sills/lintels.


Quote:

Fomite wrote:
I am one of those "build baby build" people, but these buildings are such a disappointment! Pre fab cheap brick color. Nothing that even references the historic beauty of this city. A major disappointment.
City hall makes this new Silverman building look like an elementary school kid's di-o-rama project.

Fomite wrote:
I am one of those "build baby build" people, but these buildings are such a disappointment! Pre fab cheap brick color. Nothing that even references the historic beauty of this city. A major disappointment.
City hall makes this new Silverman building look like an elementary school kid's di-o-rama project.

hero69 wrote:
i think these developers really did a disservice to theor image/brand name.

tommyc_37 wrote:
This in today's news. Glad I'm not the only one who feels that Silverman missed the mark on the architecture of the facade. Without window details, cornices, etc, the building looks bland and looks very out of place.

These developers bear a huge responsibility, as they basically permanently reshape our streetscapes. I think there needs to be a LOT more commitment to integrating buildings responsibly, for generations to come. Link: http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... s_off_b.html#incart_river

Sommerman wrote:
http://www.cityofjerseycity.org/docs/vanbig.shtml

If this map is correct the area is within the VV historic district and the design was subject to some sort of guidelines.