Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
19 user(s) are online (19 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 19

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




« 1 2 (3) 4 5 »


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#75
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/4/20 21:48
Last Login :
2017/6/16 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 96
Offline
At the meeting last night the renderings included four levels of parking, so that all four floors on Barrow would be parking.
The garage entrance would be on Barrow between Columbus and Wayne. No doors, no windows, just a wall cars and machinery.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 17:08
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2020/9/30 18:46
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2291
Offline
Quote:

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?


I don't disagree with your points about the waterfront/towers being generally aesthetically unpleasing, but I hope that going forward all towers incorporate better, more streetscape-friendly designs than we've seen in the past.

For this Barrow/Columbus development, I hope that there is NO parking deck (seriously, it's one block from the goddamn Path) - the obsession with including parking is becoming really annoying.

I think my stance on this ultimately comes down to the design - I think the Barrow Street facade should be no more than say, 6 stories, while I wouldn't mind a little more height on the Columbus side - maybe 10 stories. Which really is not a "tower", but a mid-rise. It all depends on design. It is critical that the street level design is engaging and not alienating.

Question for anybody that knows - is the building that's currently on the corner slated to stay??

Posted on: 2015/5/20 16:59
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#73
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/12/28 15:45
Last Login :
2018/6/11 1:27
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 78
Offline
JKim. Thanks so much for creating the visuals.

For those of you who couldn't make last night's meeting, the developer claimed that the project will not be economically feasible if they can't build it as proposed. However, when pressed, they wouldn't deny that the eventual price of the underlying Del Forno property is pegged to the approvals they get. It would seem to many of us that if the Silvermans can consistently build profitably while respecting the character of the neighborhoods they're in, so too should BNE be able to.


Posted on: 2015/5/20 16:52
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#72
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1202
Offline
Seven stories is the current approved height within the redevelopment plan. Seven is the height of Charles & Co on the corner of Grove and Montgomery -- rather imposing building. Any developer who tell you it's not economically viable to build anything within the current plan is getting held up by the seller of the land. The neighborhood does not need to be sacrificed to top up the Del Forno retirement fund.

The developers previewed the plans last night at the VVPA meeting. The gasp was audible when they put up the street level design. It's huge.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 16:49
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#71
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2012/4/20 21:48
Last Login :
2017/6/16 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 96
Offline
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?

Posted on: 2015/5/20 16:34
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/4/23 15:27
Last Login :
2016/7/18 3:56
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 260
Offline
That screenshot is awesome. Really puts things in perspective.

I think it's red = under construction, orange = approved and yellow = proposed? And shouldn't there be proposed towers on the Metropolis Towers site too?

Posted on: 2015/5/20 16:00
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 729
Offline
Quote:

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.


Yup. I like almost all of the new towers going up, but this is ridiculous. Not ever vacant lot needs to be a tower. Somehow the poor slob will have to make money on 5 stories of $800k condos instead of 18.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 15:20
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
8/28 20:53
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3645
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 15:07
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
Quote:

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.


What tommyc_37 said is 100% on point, and that's one reason I asked if jklm would share the Google Earth sketch. From the angle pictured in the screenshot, it looks like a wall rising to the east of DTJC, but with the sketch on hand, we could fly over and through and see what it would actually look from different angles. I agree with tommyc_37 that once the street grids are restored, it will improve sight lines in DTJC. As it is, large swaths of DTJC are already blocked from eastern views because of the office buildings in Harborside Financial and the existing developments over there.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 13:02
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#66
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2020/9/30 18:46
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2291
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 12:52
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13
Last Login :
2021/7/30 1:08
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1204
Offline
wow. a great example of a picture worth a thousand words!

Grove Pointe is dwarfed by the "towers." PAD disappears, the historic districts are surrounded by walls reaching to the sky, and Jersey City is being walled off from the river and waterfront.

Quote:

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

Resized Image

Posted on: 2015/5/20 12:45
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2020/9/30 18:46
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2291
Offline
The sketch is awesome. The building on Barrow/Columbus looks a LITTLE tall, but I think only by 3-5 stories. I like how it looks like the height is "stepped" so that the Barrow side has a lower height.

I don't think it's inappropriate considering the Columbus Avenue front. There are plenty of quaint rowhouse streets off 7th Avenue in the West Village that are very close to buildings of this size that front 7th Ave. That's just one example but there are plenty of examples all over Manhattan and Brooklyn and now Queens.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 12:38
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
Did you create the Google Earth sketch? If so, do you mind sharing it? It's actually really cool looking. Is there a legend to the color of buildings? Meaning, are orange buildings approved buildings? Red under construction? Yellow planned buildings?

For whatever it's worth, the sketch (as seen in that screenshot) is a bit jarring. I am definitely PRO development, but seeing that sketch really has me thinking about what DTJC will look like in 5 years, or less.

Posted on: 2015/5/20 12:33
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
A Google Earth sketch of the basic bulk of building proposed.

Resized Image

Posted on: 2015/5/20 12:03
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#61
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
Quote:

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)


I guess I was right, after all!

I looked into it as well, and those are the proper terms and metrics, jc_dweller. While reading more on the topic, came across a very interesting study of practices and standards used by many different cities to deal with the issue of traffic and speeding. For those interested, here is a link to the survey in the National Association of City Transportation Officials website.

Posted on: 2015/5/18 20:35
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#60
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2006/12/28 17:08
Last Login :
2/8 3:24
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 901
Offline
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)

Posted on: 2015/5/18 19:51
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#59
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
That's a really interesting insight into the future of LMM Blvd. I had not heard about a reconfiguration to eliminate a lane. I have to say that such a change could spell disaster for the area in terms of traffic congestion during certain times. Already, during heavy traffic hours (morning/evening rush mainly, but also on weekends at times) the traffic for the approach to the Holland tunnel can get backed up quite a bit. Also, traffic heading South gets a little crazy, and was made worse after they added the No Turn on Red sign at the corner of LMM Blvd and CC Dr. What happens now is that as soon as the lights turn green, the walk signal is also illuminated, so people start to cross, and the cars can not make a right onto CC Dr, and if someone in the left lane is trying to make a turn, the traffic heading South comes to a complete standstill, as no one is able to move forward.

Posted on: 2015/5/18 15:07
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
I started this thought in regards to building towers on C Columbus Drive vs Marin Blvd. There are no towers planned
for Grove/Manila Street at this time. The MGM RDP is only pushing towers to be built on Marin Blvd. The problem is they
don't have any ground floor setbacks. So with the already approved, new construction and existing buildings on the east
side of Marin - the street width (property lines) will still be 60 feet wide.
If they want to keep the two traffic lanes and two parking lanes, the sidewalks will be kind of narrow, but there will be more
pedestrian traffic walking along Marin on both sides of the street.

I've heard that planning dept. will eventually make Marin three lanes, the center lane for turning - with one more lane
(on the east side of street) for on-street parking. When this goes in effect - who knows? Traffic and Engineering has
taken over three years to finally install the traffic light at Second/Marin. So not holding my breath of this one.


Posted on: 2015/5/18 14:57
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#57
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/5/18 11:41
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
Quote:

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.


The "street" width is determined by property lines, but a "physical" street can appear wider by setting the
buildings back,
opening up the corridor. Or narrowing the sidewalks so that there can be more lanes.

Showing the 1928 Platt map indicating the widths of Washington, Morgan, First, etc. - one can glean that they are
measuring the distance between the property lot lines, not taking into account sidewalks or traffic lanes.


Posted on: 2015/5/18 3:56
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#55
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/5/17 20:16
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
Quote:

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.


Marin is the street across the top. Washington Street is along the bottom. Most street downtown are 60 feet wide.
Washington "Street" up to Second Street is 80 feet wide - then Washington "Blvd" becomes wider as it travels north -
it was created when Newport was planned out - it used to be a rail yard.

If the city plans on letting the developers build on their property lines the streets will stay the same width.
By Grove Pointe being set back off the property line it indeed makes the street wider.
The question is will all the new construction on the west side of Marin where the original small buildings were
demolished at some point in the past 60 years, be set back off the property line to make the street wider?
Having towers built on property line like Toll Brothers building and the 40-story Silverman building planned for corner
of Bay and Marin will make the road seem even narrower and it will still be 60 feet wide.

Ultimately the street width is determined by property lines, but the streets can appear wider by setting the
buildings back, opening up the corridor.


Posted on: 2015/5/17 15:17

Edited by jklm on 2015/5/17 15:34:35
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2005/12/18 2:57
Last Login :
2017/9/14 20:15
From Crystal Point
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 704
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/5/17 12:18
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#52
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
Quote:

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.


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


Resized Image

Posted on: 2015/5/17 3:00

Edited by jklm on 2015/5/17 3:16:03
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3743
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2015/5/17 1:58
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#50
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
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.


Posted on: 2015/5/16 22:44
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2014/12/21 14:43
Last Login :
2015/11/15 0:07
From Harsimus Cove
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 368
Offline
[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 (?))

Posted on: 2015/5/16 22:29
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#48
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/4/7 16:51
Last Login :
2017/5/5 16:03
From PAD
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 179
Offline
I do think people tend to overestimate how much extra driving one of these new towers creates. A large percentage of people moving to DTJC don't really own a car, and those that do tend to commute and run daily errands via public transit. Now, if a tower was going up with no garage parking, one could reasonably say that the car owners would further stress the permit street parking system, but the traffic created is probably a lot less than the size of the towers would suggest.

Posted on: 2015/5/16 20:43
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#47
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/1/29 2:54
Last Login :
2019/7/1 19:35
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 276
Offline
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. Traffic is heavy enough; adding more units on Marin is only going to further the congestion of a 60 ft wide street.

The MGM RDP along Marin already states that a 9-10 story buildings can be built - why the need to have 38-40 stories across the street from 2-4 story residential and also on the same block to the west? Powerhouse Arts District RDP is supposed to be the transition zone from the high rises to the east. Now the heights are taller on the west side of Marin. How soon until they will level all those 2-3 story residential clusters along Marin from First to Sixth Streets and build these high rises you so enjoy? Or will these blocks have reasonable heights to transition to lower-rise neighborhoods?

No matter what, there should still be a step down in heights as the buildings enter a 2-4 story neighborhood. Why create a RDP if it will only be amended lot by lot - changing the plan - and further distancing itself from a Master Plan that doesn't seem to followed or overhauled.





Quote:

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.

Posted on: 2015/5/16 15:04

Edited by jklm on 2015/5/16 15:21:31
 Top 


Re: Gargantuan Tower Proposed for Barrow and Christopher Columbus
#46
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
8/28 20:53
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3645
Offline
Quote:

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.
if the developer wants to go above the zoning, then he should not get an abatement

Posted on: 2015/5/16 9:40
 Top 




« 1 2 (3) 4 5 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017