Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Sorry, Pebble, you make statements without facts, I remember when those stores close after the parking lot was taken away. One business was the clothing store that Morris Pesin had.

Your ability to understand cause and effect is already null. Claiming that stores closed because parking was gone is absurd. Either provide factual evidence or recognize that you really just don't know a damn thing about urban development despite your repeated attempts at sticking your nose in it.

There are books you can read and studies that have been done on this. I don't expect you to follow up and learn because evidence and facts are of no interest to you.

Pebble, were you alive in the 1960s? That is when JC sold that parking lot. I remember the area. It was before malls and internet shopping. People got into their cars and shopped in certain locations. Then there was parking lots all over the shopping district.

Sigh... you really have no clue. Look up the expression "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". It's latin, and it is used to describe the logical fallacy to which you seem to succumb often times.

I will give you a hint: just because something happened after a given event, it does not mean it happened because of that event.

In other words, just because the stores went out of business after the parking lots were gone, it does not mean that the parking lots going away caused the demise of those stores. It is a well documented fact that shopping areas in urban cores disappeared over time as people moved away to the suburbs, the rise and dominance of suburban malls, and many more factors conspired to essentially put an end to so many of the shopping areas in urban cities.

So you were also not alive in the 1960s but you are giving out advice how things happened. I know because I saw the commerce and I saw what happened afterwards. I also spoke to owners who closed their businesses including Morris Pesin.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Sorry, Pebble, you make statements without facts, I remember when those stores close after the parking lot was taken away. One business was the clothing store that Morris Pesin had.

Your ability to understand cause and effect is already null. Claiming that stores closed because parking was gone is absurd. Either provide factual evidence or recognize that you really just don't know a damn thing about urban development despite your repeated attempts at sticking your nose in it.

There are books you can read and studies that have been done on this. I don't expect you to follow up and learn because evidence and facts are of no interest to you.

Pebble, were you alive in the 1960s? That is when JC sold that parking lot. I remember the area. It was before malls and internet shopping. People got into their cars and shopped in certain locations. Then there was parking lots all over the shopping district.

Sigh... you really have no clue. Look up the expression "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". It's latin, and it is used to describe the logical fallacy to which you seem to succumb often times.

I will give you a hint: just because something happened after a given event, it does not mean it happened because of that event.

In other words, just because the stores went out of business after the parking lots were gone, it does not mean that the parking lots going away caused the demise of those stores. It is a well documented fact that shopping areas in urban cores disappeared over time as people moved away to the suburbs, the rise and dominance of suburban malls, and many more factors conspired to essentially put an end to so many of the shopping areas in urban cities.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Sorry, Pebble, you make statements without facts, I remember when those stores close after the parking lot was taken away. One business was the clothing store that Morris Pesin had.

Your ability to understand cause and effect is already null. Claiming that stores closed because parking was gone is absurd. Either provide factual evidence or recognize that you really just don't know a damn thing about urban development despite your repeated attempts at sticking your nose in it.

There are books you can read and studies that have been done on this. I don't expect you to follow up and learn because evidence and facts are of no interest to you.

Pebble, were you alive in the 1960s? That is when JC sold that parking lot. I remember the area. It was before malls and internet shopping. People got into their cars and shopped in certain locations. Then there was parking lots all over the shopping district.

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Sorry, Pebble, you make statements without facts, I remember when those stores close after the parking lot was taken away. One business was the clothing store that Morris Pesin had.

Your ability to understand cause and effect is already null. Claiming that stores closed because parking was gone is absurd. Either provide factual evidence or recognize that you really just don't know a damn thing about urban development despite your repeated attempts at sticking your nose in it.

There are books you can read and studies that have been done on this. I don't expect you to follow up and learn because evidence and facts are of no interest to you.

Yvonne wrote:
Sorry, Pebble, you make statements without facts, I remember when those stores close after the parking lot was taken away. One business was the clothing store that Morris Pesin had.

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Another give away by this administration. Developers are coming into JC and buying up properties all over this city. There is no need for this.

Is this the Kushner project that will replace the Bergen Ave Parking Lot across from Wonder Bagels?

Yes, and I am against the city taking away another parking lot. Years ago, that area was vibrant with shoppers. Another vacant lot was brought by the Archdiocese of Newark to create Hudson Catholic High School, I am a great supporter of Catholic Schools, but the lost of that lot cause shoppers to go elsewhere and that area went downhill. If you want commerce to return, you need parking lots. The Coach House and Brownstone Diners are successful restaurants because they offer parking. I don't buy the hype everyone uses bikes.

light12v wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Another give away by this administration. Developers are coming into JC and buying up properties all over this city. There is no need for this.

Is this the Kushner project that will replace the Bergen Ave Parking Lot across from Wonder Bagels?

Yvonne wrote:
Another give away by this administration. Developers are coming into JC and buying up properties all over this city. There is no need for this.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
It's common knowledge that most of the silicon valley corporations don't pay any salary tax ... Are there any JC developers or corporations getting a similar deal (salary tax abatements) to operate out of JC ?

MDM wrote:
Don't forget the 8 ft setbacks (5 one side, 3 on the other).

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I still wonder that buildings with potential Manhattan views have been abandoned for the entire 7 years I've lived there!

You speak the truth... it is (almost) baffling that the Heights has floundered for so long. The only sensical explanation is its relative lack of transportation options. Proponents of the area are quick to point out the existence of jitneys, but lots of people are afraid or leery of those vans. In that regard, I feel that the rise of Uber and Lyft could help spur development in areas such as the Heights as people find it easier to get around, and to other areas, without owning a car.

brewster wrote:
As we've said in other threads, a lot of the problem is the universal R-1 zoning restricting development to 2 units less than 35 ft. It's sad that 50 x 100 double lots that could hold something far denser get 2 cookie cutter pink brick monsters.

Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I'm curious why this development needed a 30 year abatement, and the new development in the Heights on Laidlaw and Oakland Avenues only received a 12 year abatement. The Heights is in dire need of larger scale development, hopefully the new residents providing the critical mass to support new businesses and transit improvements.

I think Jersey City needs more development overall, and absolutely the administration should encourage this with tax abatements if necessary. DTJC may be experiencing a lot of development, but neighborhoods like the Heights are largely fallow, with so many good sites wasted. I still wonder that buildings with potential Manhattan views have been abandoned for the entire 7 years I've lived there!

brewster wrote:
As we've said in other threads, a lot of the problem is the universal R-1 zoning restricting development to 2 units less than 35 ft. It's sad that 50 x 100 double lots that could hold something far denser get 2 cookie cutter pink brick monsters.

Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I'm curious why this development needed a 30 year abatement, and the new development in the Heights on Laidlaw and Oakland Avenues only received a 12 year abatement. The Heights is in dire need of larger scale development, hopefully the new residents providing the critical mass to support new businesses and transit improvements.

I think Jersey City needs more development overall, and absolutely the administration should encourage this with tax abatements if necessary. DTJC may be experiencing a lot of development, but neighborhoods like the Heights are largely fallow, with so many good sites wasted. I still wonder that buildings with potential Manhattan views have been abandoned for the entire 7 years I've lived there!

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I'm curious why this development needed a 30 year abatement, and the new development in the Heights on Laidlaw and Oakland Avenues only received a 12 year abatement. The Heights is in dire need of larger scale development, hopefully the new residents providing the critical mass to support new businesses and transit improvements.

I think Jersey City needs more development overall, and absolutely the administration should encourage this with tax abatements if necessary. DTJC may be experiencing a lot of development, but neighborhoods like the Heights are largely fallow, with so many good sites wasted. I still wonder that buildings with potential Manhattan views have been abandoned for the entire 7 years I've lived there!

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I still wonder that buildings with potential Manhattan views have been abandoned for the entire 7 years I've lived there!

Yvonne wrote:
Another give away by this administration. Developers are coming into JC and buying up properties all over this city. There is no need for this.