Fomite wrote:
I would like to point out the water front area with all the tall buildings is the ugliest area. No sun, pedestrians, trees, or store fronts. Just garage decks and empty streets. There is a reason why the grove st. area is so desired.

By putting a tower (and garage deck) on Barrow you take away the pedestrian environment, the stoops and neighbors that make it a neighborhood.

Imagine Barrow St. with cars honking going in and out of a garage, more traffic, smog, garbage dumpsters and compactors for the tower. How does that fit in?

hero69 wrote:
BARF, this tower as proposed is just not appropriate for the neighborhood. i am all for sensible development. i would love to see an even taller building but not on that site, in a historical neighborhood.

tommyc_37 wrote:
DanL, in some ways the opposite is happening ... all those yellow towers you see to the left are on the terrible Metro Plaza site...

The new proposals would have through streets and open space in between all the buildings, making the waterfront more accessible than a SUPER huge, dirty, chaotic parking lot with alienating big box retail stores.

jklm wrote:
A Google Earth sketch of the basic bulk of building proposed.

jc_dweller wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
jklm: it never occurred to me that you were talking about street width as determined by measuring distance between property lines. By that metric, you are (of course) correct. When I look at a street, and consider its size, I tend to concentrate on the amount of road surface, leaving out the sidewalks, which is why it seemed so obvious to me to state that LMM Blvd. is a wider road than Manila/Grove.

Regardless, I still feel that LMM Blvd (because of its wider road surface) can absorb mid to high rises without them looking out of place. I think Grove street should remain low rise (say, four stories, or less) as the area is much more residential in style/feel.

street width = curb to curb
right of way = property line to property line (includes sidewalks etc)

bodhipooh wrote:
jklm: it never occurred to me that you were talking about street width as determined by measuring distance between property lines. By that metric, you are (of course) correct. When I look at a street, and consider its size, I tend to concentrate on the amount of road surface, leaving out the sidewalks, which is why it seemed so obvious to me to state that LMM Blvd. is a wider road than Manila/Grove.

Regardless, I still feel that LMM Blvd (because of its wider road surface) can absorb mid to high rises without them looking out of place. I think Grove street should remain low rise (say, four stories, or less) as the area is much more residential in style/feel.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Are you an engineer and know these things because it's your job?

No, and no. But, I am a keen observer, and can tell you with certainty that North of Columbus Dr., LMM Blvd is wider than Grove/Manila.

LMM Blvd. is a full four-lane road (in some parts parking is allowed on both sides, like the block between 1st and 2nd Streets, and you still have a wide lane in each direction!) while Grove is about 3 lanes.

But, if you still insist on believing what you want to believe, why don't you measure it and disabuse yourself of your misconceptions? You can do so with free online tools. Go ahead and use Google Maps.

You can change the view to Google Earth and have it measure the roads for you. The intersection of 1st and Grove/Manila measures out to just shy of 37 feet, from curb to curb. The same corner on LMM Blvd. measures out to 49 feet. Those measurements are curb to curb, excluding sidewalks, so they represent the actual road surface.

jklm wrote:
Are you an engineer and know these things because it's your job?

bill wrote:
Is marin that top street above 171, 172, 173?

Marin just seems wide because there are a few cutouts and areas with no street parking. If you removed the
cars on Grove it should look the same.

Columbus is the only wide street because of the old railroad.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

jklm wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
[quote]
jklm wrote:
At least Columbus is a wide street. This is where the high rises should go, not Marin. Marin is the same width as most residential streets downtown.

I think you're mixing up Manila (Grove) with Marin (Henderson (?))

Nope, not confused. Sixty feet wide.

Just because it's busy doesn't mean Marin is wider than Grove. Pretty sure Grove Street and Marin Blvd. (aka Henderson Street) are the same width.

It might look wider because starting at CC Drive traveling north to Holland Tunnel the west side of Marin has no buildings built up to the sidewalk and also on east side starting at Second Street (for now) - so it gives the impression of being wider.

Wrong. LMM Blvd. is definitely wider than Manila (Grove St.) North of Columbus.

jklm wrote:
Quote:

Sommerman wrote:
[quote]
jklm wrote:
At least Columbus is a wide street. This is where the high rises should go, not Marin. Marin is the same width as most residential streets downtown.

I think you're mixing up Manila (Grove) with Marin (Henderson (?))

Nope, not confused. Sixty feet wide.

Just because it's busy doesn't mean Marin is wider than Grove. Pretty sure Grove Street and Marin Blvd. (aka Henderson Street) are the same width.

It might look wider because starting at CC Drive traveling north to Holland Tunnel the west side of Marin has no buildings built up to the sidewalk and also on east side starting at Second Street (for now) - so it gives the impression of being wider.

Sommerman wrote:
[quote]
jklm wrote:
At least Columbus is a wide street. This is where the high rises should go, not Marin. Marin is the same width as most residential streets downtown.

I think you're mixing up Manila (Grove) with Marin (Henderson (?))

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

More chicken little BS. The 38-story tower would be an improvement over what's there already (an auto body shop, and a mess of parked cars) and it will improve the look of the area. As for your wind tunnel complaint, what do you expect?? We live in a windy area. And LMM Blvd is very close to the waterfront, so wind is obviously going to be an issue around there.

I completely agree. Marin is a hideous thoroughfare. When I have friends come to visit my place, I always direct them to walk up Erie or Jersey Ave so they can see how beautiful Harsimus Cove and HP are. But more often than not they walk up Marin and mention how industrial and derelict it looks.

The new high rises already going up are a vast improvement on the empty lots that were there before. Once the empty lot at Marin and Bay and the Budget car rental are developed, and the Shoprite, BBB, Pepboys mega development are finished, Marin will look so much better.

But agree with opposition to a high rise at Barrow and Columbus. VVP, HC & HP's height restrictions should be respected, IMO. The Marin corridor is a different case altogether.

skyl4rk wrote:
Quote:

JcDevil wrote:
Van Vorst Park area has a strong low-rise character, while Columbus Blvd is ugly and wouldn't be hurt by a high-rise.

While I agree with most of your post - this part irked me. It's already ugly so do whatever the F&*% you want to it? I walk down CCB every day and I was ecstatic when Porta put windows in - it made the block feel so much less rapey. I'll be happy if that surface parking lot disappears, too - but it completely depends on what goes in on the ground floor. Case in point - the newer building on the northwest corner of Barrow and Wayne. Only 4 stories, but the entire ground floor is parking. Don't care how many shrubs you put in front of it - it's deadspace.

Right now, I have a 7-story building going up behind my 3-story row house in Harsimus Cove that will basically cast a shadow over my entire house and I can forget having any plants growing in my back yard ever again. I'm semi-devastated but there's nothing do be done about it now. 18 stories going up in a neighborhood like VVP makes my heart sink.