borisp wrote:

If you make life harder for an existing supermarket, how exactly do you plan to lure in a new one?

borisp wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Again this comes down to the fact that this city has only one good supermarket and a terrible public transportation system.

Wouldn't it make more sense to create an environment or provide incentives that lures additional quality supermarkets into the area rather than continue down a misguided (for the current times) approach to redevelopment out of fear that we lose a grocery store? And if it did go away, don't you think another would pop up nearby in its place?

If you make life harder for an existing supermarket, how exactly do you plan to lure in a new one?

One more questions. Imagine that supermarkets with a large parking space are no more. I understand that you personally prefer to shop daily. But let's consider a family with kids, who need more than you can just carry on your way home. So, here is the question: how do you think it will affect the attractiveness of this area to the prospective tenants and home buyers?

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

trambone wrote:
Again this comes down to the fact that this city has only one good supermarket and a terrible public transportation system.

Wouldn't it make more sense to create an environment or provide incentives that lures additional quality supermarkets into the area rather than continue down a misguided (for the current times) approach to redevelopment out of fear that we lose a grocery store? And if it did go away, don't you think another would pop up nearby in its place?

trambone wrote:
Again this comes down to the fact that this city has only one good supermarket and a terrible public transportation system.

tommyc_37 wrote:
The bottom line is that building developments in the center of a very dense urban city WITH loads and loads of parking is the opposite of forward thinking. It's actually holding onto the past.

The mystery to me is who exactly is driving to these supermarkets? People from other neighborhoods? It seems to me that at least in downtown, most people have a market within close distance, probably walking distance. Are people driving just because they are enabled to, because there is a massive parking lot? And so therefore they choose to take a car, and do several weeks worth of shopping in one trip? Because if that's the case, it becomes less of a "need to drive" issue than a "oh well there's a parking lot the size of 10 football fields, so I might as well take the Civic".

Sommerman wrote:
Is it the intention that the ground floors of all the new buildings be used as retail and professional space? Isn't that a lot? Will there be any schools on the site?

My understanding is that Shoprite will be offered first dibs on the supermarket space. Have they actually signed on?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
the Newport Mall could have been positioned so as to not cut Hamilton and Harsimus off from Newport.

It was quite deliberate, the old timers say they had to fight to get the doors on Marin! HP was NOT a good neighborhood in the early 80's when this was planned, and they were building a barrier to keep out the "undesirables".

Voyeur wrote:
the Newport Mall could have been positioned so as to not cut Hamilton and Harsimus off from Newport.

diamat wrote:
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

jcguy05 wrote:
not too clear looking the map, does this development include the giant dirt mountain area directly west of the power house? It's been a dirt mountain for years, surprised noone is putting another glass building on there considering the prime location.

I think the address is 111 first street per google map.

Nope - 111 First is a separate lot, with the old warehouse on the site demolished pre-crisis in 2007 in order to put up this behemoth.

But as you rightly point out, one great recession and eight years later, all that the developers have to show for their investment is a dirt mound.

As you say 111 First Street is not part of the plan.

Not meaning to be picky, but I actually think that the behemoth in the link is on 110 First St (which was also the site of a historic warehouse).

I believe 111 First St. is the site of the Lorillard Tobacco Warehouse that was knocked down 8 or so years ago, to make place for - drum roll - the dirt mound.

http://www.njcu.edu/programs/jchistor ... ges/Lorillard_Tobacco.htm

tommyc_37 wrote:
Are people driving just because they are enabled to, because there is a massive parking lot? And so therefore they choose to take a car, and do several weeks worth of shopping in one trip? Because if that's the case, it becomes less of a "need to drive" issue than a "oh well there's a parking lot the size of 10 football fields, so I might as well take the Civic".

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

jcguy05 wrote:
not too clear looking the map, does this development include the giant dirt mountain area directly west of the power house? It's been a dirt mountain for years, surprised noone is putting another glass building on there considering the prime location.

I think the address is 111 first street per google map.

Nope - 111 First is a separate lot, with the old warehouse on the site demolished pre-crisis in 2007 in order to put up this behemoth.

But as you rightly point out, one great recession and eight years later, all that the developers have to show for their investment is a dirt mound.

brewster wrote:

Apparently you don't know what a "poor public transportation system" is. There are major cities in this country where you simply can't get anywhere without a car, Atlanta is the poster child. We have pretty good transit by national standards. Sure, the best parts of Brooklyn are better, but vast parts suck. Even red hot Red Hook has shitty transit, it'll take you 1/2 hr to walk to the train.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:

Point being, I prefer for Jersey City to be the organic, urban fabric type of city that it is, instead of masquerading as a quasi-suburb, which is what Columbus is (have to drive everywhere, no walkability, not many people live in the urban core).

You miss the point. As I said - there are certainly aspects of Jersey City I prefer, but a fair bit of the "organic, urban fabric" of Jersey City sucks ass. I don't think that's a controversial statement. And you are definitely cherry-picking when you tout the walkable urban paradise that is Jersey City. If you live in Port Liberte, big chunks of Greenville or the non-up-and-coming areas of the Heights (which is the majority of it), you aren't walking to much. Because there isn't much that would meet your standards for the goods and services you gladly walk to downtown.

Point being - yes, I live here. Obviously there are things I enjoy and benefit from living here. But there is a loooooooong way to go before this place has the consistent desirability of - Seattle. Austin. Portland. The Twin Cities. Boulder. Big chunks of Brooklyn that are of themselves equal in size to Jersey City. Places with an interesting organic urban fabric that isn't concentrated into one small corner of the city.

I think the point is, does JC become more desirable by mimicking suburban development or my embracing density and walk-ability at the expense of easy parking and driving?

For some portions of the city I think the answer is obviously by embracing density. For other portions that is less feasible. JC is a big enough place that there can be more than one type of of development, but you can't mix them in the same location because that doesn't work.

Except that isn't the point. The point is that as long as people NEED cars due to a poor public transportation system, JC will continue to be a driving city. And for most who don't work near a PATH or subway line, they need a car.

The answer is certainly not "embrace density." By that nebulous statement I take it you simply mean eliminating parking. That's an absolutely horrible idea as long as many people continue to need cars.

Taking away parking spaces doesn't magically eliminate the need for a car. But a great public transport system very well may.

T-Bird wrote:
Agree completely - and FWIW, I agree with Tommy in that I want to see increased density and planning that encourages that, with as little compromise as possible. Fewer cars the better, as far as I'm concerned. If Shoprite can't adapt its business model for the new demographics and density it will sit among, should I care if it fails and someone more attuned to that market replaces it? Hell no. And really? Costco vs. BJ's? Just put one (or both) in Secaucus and those who want to shop there (in their cars) will.

Where Tommy and I disagree is he seems to have keen radar for anything with a whiff of suburbia and dismisses it immediately. Yes, Columbus is less dense than Jersey City. But there are things that they do much better and features of that city that are much more desirable than what we have. I say don't dismiss things wholesale just because they come from Columbus. Embrace what works. Take the cream off the top before you toss the rest.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
The point is that as long as people NEED cars due to a poor public transportation system, JC will continue to be a driving city.

Apparently you don't know what a "poor public transportation system" is. There are major cities in this country where you simply can't get anywhere without a car, Atlanta is the poster child. We have pretty good transit by national standards. Sure, the best parts of Brooklyn are better, but vast parts suck. Even red hot Red Hook has shitty transit, it'll take you 1/2 hr to walk to the train.

JCMan8 wrote:

Except that isn't the point. The point is that as long as people NEED cars due to a poor public transportation system, JC will continue to be a driving city. And for most who don't work near a PATH or subway line, they need a car.

The answer is certainly not "embrace density." By that nebulous statement I take it you simply mean eliminating parking. That's an absolutely horrible idea as long as many people continue to need cars.

Taking away parking spaces doesn't magically eliminate the need for a car. But a great public transport system very well may.

JCMan8 wrote:
The point is that as long as people NEED cars due to a poor public transportation system, JC will continue to be a driving city.

jcguy05 wrote:
not too clear looking the map, does this development include the giant dirt mountain area directly west of the power house? It's been a dirt mountain for years, surprised noone is putting another glass building on there considering the prime location.

I think the address is 111 first street per google map.

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:

Point being, I prefer for Jersey City to be the organic, urban fabric type of city that it is, instead of masquerading as a quasi-suburb, which is what Columbus is (have to drive everywhere, no walkability, not many people live in the urban core).

You miss the point. As I said - there are certainly aspects of Jersey City I prefer, but a fair bit of the "organic, urban fabric" of Jersey City sucks ass. I don't think that's a controversial statement. And you are definitely cherry-picking when you tout the walkable urban paradise that is Jersey City. If you live in Port Liberte, big chunks of Greenville or the non-up-and-coming areas of the Heights (which is the majority of it), you aren't walking to much. Because there isn't much that would meet your standards for the goods and services you gladly walk to downtown.

Point being - yes, I live here. Obviously there are things I enjoy and benefit from living here. But there is a loooooooong way to go before this place has the consistent desirability of - Seattle. Austin. Portland. The Twin Cities. Boulder. Big chunks of Brooklyn that are of themselves equal in size to Jersey City. Places with an interesting organic urban fabric that isn't concentrated into one small corner of the city.

I think the point is, does JC become more desirable by mimicking suburban development or my embracing density and walk-ability at the expense of easy parking and driving?

For some portions of the city I think the answer is obviously by embracing density. For other portions that is less feasible. JC is a big enough place that there can be more than one type of of development, but you can't mix them in the same location because that doesn't work.

T-Bird wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:

Point being, I prefer for Jersey City to be the organic, urban fabric type of city that it is, instead of masquerading as a quasi-suburb, which is what Columbus is (have to drive everywhere, no walkability, not many people live in the urban core).

You miss the point. As I said - there are certainly aspects of Jersey City I prefer, but a fair bit of the "organic, urban fabric" of Jersey City sucks ass. I don't think that's a controversial statement. And you are definitely cherry-picking when you tout the walkable urban paradise that is Jersey City. If you live in Port Liberte, big chunks of Greenville or the non-up-and-coming areas of the Heights (which is the majority of it), you aren't walking to much. Because there isn't much that would meet your standards for the goods and services you gladly walk to downtown.

Point being - yes, I live here. Obviously there are things I enjoy and benefit from living here. But there is a loooooooong way to go before this place has the consistent desirability of - Seattle. Austin. Portland. The Twin Cities. Boulder. Big chunks of Brooklyn that are of themselves equal in size to Jersey City. Places with an interesting organic urban fabric that isn't concentrated into one small corner of the city.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
And not just Downtown. Some of the hottest parts of the Heights are close to the Supremo or Hoboken Shoprite where you can pop in on foot to pick up that night's groceries.

Both of which have parking lots. The Hoboken one in particular is incredibly large. And the Hoboken Shoprite is not a quick, close "pop in" to most of the heights.

What part of PARTS did you not understand? If you live in the neighborhood within a few blocks of the elevator, it's a "pop in". It is for my carless tenants who live there. And for my carless tenants who live near Supremo, it's the same. There's no monolithic "Kar Kultur" in JC.

tommyc_37 wrote:

Point being, I prefer for Jersey City to be the organic, urban fabric type of city that it is, instead of masquerading as a quasi-suburb, which is what Columbus is (have to drive everywhere, no walkability, not many people live in the urban core).

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
And not just Downtown. Some of the hottest parts of the Heights are close to the Supremo or Hoboken Shoprite where you can pop in on foot to pick up that night's groceries.

Both of which have parking lots. The Hoboken one in particular is incredibly large. And the Hoboken Shoprite is not a quick, close "pop in" to most of the heights.

T-Bird wrote:
Oh my God. Yes! I wish Jersey City could be a LOT more like Columbus. Huge, highly regarded university and the culture and entertainment that provides. Much lower crime. Much cleaner. Safer pedestrian/biking environment. Higher consistent level of education among the adult population. Much better public schools.

There are elements of Jersey City I prefer, certainly, but (and we always come back to this) just saying "but we are right next to NYC" isn't good enough. I want the amenities of something that begins to resemble "the best mid-sized city in the country" to be actually in my city and not require a half hour trip to get to them. At this point, attaining "Best mediocre city" would be a big improvement.