stc4blues wrote:
Quote:

kencares wrote:
The embankment park can be 100% funded by private and corporate donations, as long as we preserve it until the funding comes through. Have your sewers and and your fancy parks too.

Yes. There's a lot of big real estate money coming into the City, not to mention the folks who store their art collections at Mana Contemporary. If the citizens of Jersey City say loud and clear "we want this and we'll support it" the money will come. Not automatically, of course, donors will have to be courted, etc. But the money will be there.

kencares wrote:
The embankment park can be 100% funded by private and corporate donations, as long as we preserve it until the funding comes through. Have your sewers and and your fancy parks too.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

stc4blues wrote:

That's almost 60M tourists right across the river, annually. What would it take to get 1% of them across the Hudson to JC?

a fuckton more than a walking park. now where's that casino thread...

stc4blues wrote:

That's almost 60M tourists right across the river, annually. What would it take to get 1% of them across the Hudson to JC?

jcneighbor wrote:
Quote:

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Wasn't there some chatter about making the space part of a light rail expansion if the park concept doesn't work out?

The administration was accused of making that excuse based on the type of emminent domain invoked I think which is still murky at best.

A ground level park would have to start from scratch in terms of vegetation and foliage which would most likely be lessened to accommodate more people and amenities. The whole selling point of an elevated walking park in this case is that you are seeing the years of natural growth without interference from a view above neighboring buildings and without having to worry about traffic for several long blocks.

The logistics aspect of interrupting traffic shouldn't be an issue unless a truck is 20 feet tall in which case they wouldn't fit under traffic lights either.

I think thor is correct about the eminent domain issue but Conrail was contractually obligated to give the City "first dibs" and they didn't. So it's a messy court fight.

IIRC, the bridges were a hair under 14 feet above the street, so anything replacing them would require that they be elevated above the tops of the stones as they are now.

Agree on the vegetation up top now. It's kinda nice. The logistical issue is public access. Stairs, ramps, how many, where? And for security, do you really think there isn't going to be stuff going down up there at night since it won't be patrolled nor visible from the street?

thor800 wrote:
Quote:

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Wasn't there some chatter about making the space part of a light rail expansion if the park concept doesn't work out?

The administration was accused of making that excuse based on the type of emminent domain invoked I think which is still murky at best.

A ground level park would have to start from scratch in terms of vegetation and foliage which would most likely be lessened to accommodate more people and amenities. The whole selling point of an elevated walking park in this case is that you are seeing the years of natural growth without interference from a view above neighboring buildings and without having to worry about traffic for several long blocks.

The logistics aspect of interrupting traffic shouldn't be an issue unless a truck is 20 feet tall in which case they wouldn't fit under traffic lights either.

dr_nick_riviera wrote:
Wasn't there some chatter about making the space part of a light rail expansion if the park concept doesn't work out?

bodhipooh wrote: Quote:

stc4blues wrote: Quote:

If you're arguing that it wouldn't cost that much though, you're going to lose that argument. Some how, some way, I promise you it would end up costing almost half a billion, if not more.

I don't know what the Embankment project would actually cost, but $500M is an extravagant over-estimate. Chicago's Millennium Park covers 24.5 acres, required considerable construction and landscaping, a starchitect (Frank Gehry), 2 or 3 major artists and it was 'only' $475M (a decade ago). The Embankment isn't on that scale.

Perhaps 500 MM was an exaggeration, but I am fairly confident that EasyGibson is onto something. I would not be at all surprised if such a project would clock in at around 100 MM after all is said and done. The LSP bridge, which is tiny in length, and which didn't require any additional work to the area around it, clocked in at almost 1MM (after more than a year to discuss, plan, and complete) and that was 3 years ago. The embankment will require a TON of time and money to rehabilitate for "safe use" and the collection of bridges, passages, etc will require a lot of approvals and costly designs and construction. I am not saying that the area should be razed or given to a developer, but corybraiterman is not crazy to suggest that a grand level park could at least satisfy the desire for more green spaces without bankrupting a city that is already stretched thin in so many areas. It seems like a lot of the proponents for this Highline-style design are dishonestly portraying this debate as having two choices: elevated park or more development. We could have a ground level park and still enjoy a great many benefits. The Highline idea sounds like a pipe dream to me given the budgetary realities.

bodhipooh wrote: Quote:

stc4blues wrote: Quote:

If you're arguing that it wouldn't cost that much though, you're going to lose that argument. Some how, some way, I promise you it would end up costing almost half a billion, if not more.

I don't know what the Embankment project would actually cost, but $500M is an extravagant over-estimate. Chicago's Millennium Park covers 24.5 acres, required considerable construction and landscaping, a starchitect (Frank Gehry), 2 or 3 major artists and it was 'only' $475M (a decade ago). The Embankment isn't on that scale.

Perhaps 500 MM was an exaggeration, but I am fairly confident that EasyGibson is onto something. I would not be at all surprised if such a project would clock in at around 100 MM after all is said and done. The LSP bridge, which is tiny in length, and which didn't require any additional work to the area around it, clocked in at almost 1MM (after more than a year to discuss, plan, and complete) and that was 3 years ago. The embankment will require a TON of time and money to rehabilitate for "safe use" and the collection of bridges, passages, etc will require a lot of approvals and costly designs and construction. I am not saying that the area should be razed or given to a developer, but corybraiterman is not crazy to suggest that a grand level park could at least satisfy the desire for more green spaces without bankrupting a city that is already stretched thin in so many areas. It seems like a lot of the proponents for this Highline-style design are dishonestly portraying this debate as having two choices: elevated park or more development. We could have a ground level park and still enjoy a great many benefits. The Highline idea sounds like a pipe dream to me given the budgetary realities.

bodhipooh wrote: Perhaps 500 MM was an exaggeration, but I am fairly confident that EasyGibson is onto something. I would not be at all surprised if such a project would clock in at around 100 MM after all is said and done.

stc4blues wrote: Quote:

If you're arguing that it wouldn't cost that much though, you're going to lose that argument. Some how, some way, I promise you it would end up costing almost half a billion, if not more.

I don't know what the Embankment project would actually cost, but $500M is an extravagant over-estimate. Chicago's Millennium Park covers 24.5 acres, required considerable construction and landscaping, a starchitect (Frank Gehry), 2 or 3 major artists and it was 'only' $475M (a decade ago). The Embankment isn't on that scale.

If you're arguing that it wouldn't cost that much though, you're going to lose that argument. Some how, some way, I promise you it would end up costing almost half a billion, if not more.

thor800 wrote:

Walking infrastructure how big ? 30 feet maybe ? Its not like they are building the friggin pulaski skyway.

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

In Berlin on Wednesday, Fred Dixon, the chief executive of New York?s tourism-marketing agency, NYC & Company, plans to announce a forecast of 59.7 million visitors this year. That would exceed last year?s record of 58.3 million visitors by 2.4 percent

What are the commonalities again?

corybraiterman wrote:
Quote:

In Berlin on Wednesday, Fred Dixon, the chief executive of New York?s tourism-marketing agency, NYC & Company, plans to announce a forecast of 59.7 million visitors this year. That would exceed last year?s record of 58.3 million visitors by 2.4 percent

Quote:

As of 2010, Atlanta is the seventh-most visited city in the United States, with over 35 million visitors per year.

Quote:

"Last year [2012] we broke a record. We had 42 million people visit the city of Atlanta. We?ve never had that many visitors before," the mayor said.

What are the commonalities again?

In Berlin on Wednesday, Fred Dixon, the chief executive of New York?s tourism-marketing agency, NYC & Company, plans to announce a forecast of 59.7 million visitors this year. That would exceed last year?s record of 58.3 million visitors by 2.4 percent

As of 2010, Atlanta is the seventh-most visited city in the United States, with over 35 million visitors per year.

"Last year [2012] we broke a record. We had 42 million people visit the city of Atlanta. We?ve never had that many visitors before," the mayor said.

stc4blues wrote: A Glorified Sidewalk, and the Path to Transform Atlanta

Planners now say Atlanta?s population, which stands at about 463,000, could double in the next 15 years. Many of the new residents could end up living along the BeltLine. In a study this year, Mr. Leinberger and a colleague, Michael Rodriguez, showed that areas they identified as ?walkable urban places? in the nation?s 30 largest metro areas were gaining market share over car-dependent suburban areas for ?perhaps the first time in 60 years,? and earning higher rental premiums. The High Line in New York, which turned an elevated stretch of Manhattan rail line into a linear park, is perhaps the best known of the nation?s urban infrastructure makeovers. Chicago?s has also converted an old elevated track into a greenway, christening it the 606. Miami?s Underline is reimagining 10 miles of underused land under its elevated Metrorail system as an art-lined ?urban trail.? Still, many say Atlanta?s plans stand out. Private investment along the entire proposed route has surged to $3 billion. Foundations and private donors have given more than $54 million for paths, parks and other amenities. Home prices have risen in formerly overlooked working-class neighborhoods where the BeltLine is set to expand. Candidates in the 2017 mayoral race, meanwhile, are turning BeltLine promises into central elements of their campaigns.