JCGuys wrote:
[quote]
This is why we need to have a clear message and strong support before we approach Councilman Yun.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

This presumes there is some mechanism in the JC Zoning Resolution to apply an overlay, vs. change the zoning.

There is -- an Restaurant Overlay District was recently passed. JC Planning would probably love our recommendations and be all to happy to make them happen. The problem is there is a vocal regiment of senior citizens that will be against any kind of change in the zoning, similar to the opposition to the R5 district downtown.

This is why we need to have a clear message and strong support before we approach Councilman Yun.

This presumes there is some mechanism in the JC Zoning Resolution to apply an overlay, vs. change the zoning.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
While a full design review process may not fly in JC, pushing for a zoning overlay could result in a more cohesive streetscape.

I recall you saying you're a professional in this field, can you explain exactly what IS a zoning overlay and how does it work? It would sure help to understand the tools at our disposal.

BergenWood wrote:
Doesn't seem to be much mention of green space (except as shown in the 3 non-BB examples from the original poster). I'm partial to planting, and am one of only about 3 houses on the block that has a planted rather than paved front yard,

brewster wrote:

dtjcview wrote:
Using words like aesthetic tells me you're a form over function kinda guy. Me - I'm the opposite. Personally I think you are cock-blocking progress to protect your personal investments. Why not let the free market decide?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

MDM wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:


You fell for it. "Bayonne box" is a Brewster invention.

Fact is - the "true" JC brownstones are money pits. And the "true" Bayonne boxes are pretty functional.

Bayonne box is a common term. Newark took steps to reduce the amount of BBs being built.

I am not sure where you are going with this "money pit" claim. This thread is covering the R-1 zoning that pretty much mandates a Bayonne Box for new construction. Are you saying that if setbacks are reduced and height allowances increased, and someone builds a townhouse, it will be a money pit?

dtjcview is playing the classic JCList game of being critical without being constructive or prescriptive. Neither the neighbors siding nor the maintenance costs of a property have any relevance to their aesthetic contribution to the streetscape.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
While a full design review process may not fly in JC, pushing for a zoning overlay could result in a more cohesive streetscape.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
[quote]

- built full to side property lines
- no setback from adjacent buildings
- no outdoor parking
- garage is limited to less than 1/2 of footprint

While a full design review process may not fly in JC, pushing for a zoning overlay could result in a more cohesive streetscape.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
At the minimum we can ask for flexibility. The current zoning allows these two unit boxes. It can be tweaked to allow 4 units with a more interesting design, like the R5 zoning did downtown. 4 units with a more interesting design is more profitable than a two unit Bayonne Box.

This is a the right direction, how to lever people without taking away their rights. If you allow more units if it conforms to some sort of aesthetic review, it's win win. We don't necessarily want to create what the conservators call "fake historic", but to create some guidelines to work within, like conform to the facade setback of the neighbors and have similar roofline. There's plenty of DT & Hoboken infill that has modern elements yet fits in to the streetscape.

Here's a question: Is the 4th st house below better or worse than a brickfaced BB for our streetscape? It wasn't cheap.

That's just a "Bayonne Box" with a wooden facade. No accounting for taste. And look at the aluminum siding next door. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig...

MDM wrote:
Turns out I still have some draft plans for my long since cancelled project in the Heights (corner lot).

This is the 2 family version. It just didn't work out financially. It would have worked as a three family (one more floor) and even better as a 4 family (2 more floors). There used to be a 6 family on the site, which had burned down.

The framing was going to be steel. The facade' (was going for a stone like surface) wasn't settled on before the project was abandoned.

hero69 wrote:
I don't mind good quality vinyl siding, I detest pink brick. Btw, not everyone has facebook

JCGuys wrote:
Moving this forward - we can have a facebook page to discuss these loop poolissues in greater detail (we need to be crystal clear on the problem and possible solution), then setup a meeting with Yun's office so that he is aware of our concerns.

Personally, I would like to see the new R5 zoning be tweaked for the Heights.

No pitched roofs
Side setbacks for windows (the R5 zoning has this one perfect)
Encouragement of Cornices
Strong encouragement of Bay Windows
Recessed Balconies
Banning of Cheap Vinyl Siding (ok, one of my personal per peeves)

In exchange for the allowability of 3 or 4 family homes. We're not restricting any private property rights. We are proposing another option for development - one that would simply be more economically feasible to build than it would be a Bayonne Box. The market will take care of the rest.

MDM wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:


You fell for it. "Bayonne box" is a Brewster invention.

Fact is - the "true" JC brownstones are money pits. And the "true" Bayonne boxes are pretty functional.

Bayonne box is a common term. Newark took steps to reduce the amount of BBs being built.

I am not sure where you are going with this "money pit" claim. This thread is covering the R-1 zoning that pretty much mandates a Bayonne Box for new construction. Are you saying that if setbacks are reduced and height allowances increased, and someone builds a townhouse, it will be a money pit?

dtjcview wrote:


You fell for it. "Bayonne box" is a Brewster invention.

Fact is - the "true" JC brownstones are money pits. And the "true" Bayonne boxes are pretty functional.

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
At the minimum we can ask for flexibility. The current zoning allows these two unit boxes. It can be tweaked to allow 4 units with a more interesting design, like the R5 zoning did downtown. 4 units with a more interesting design is more profitable than a two unit Bayonne Box.

This is a the right direction, how to lever people without taking away their rights. If you allow more units if it conforms to some sort of aesthetic review, it's win win. We don't necessarily want to create what the conservators call "fake historic", but to create some guidelines to work within, like conform to the facade setback of the neighbors and have similar roofline. There's plenty of DT & Hoboken infill that has modern elements yet fits in to the streetscape.

Here's a question: Is the 4th st house below better or worse than a brickfaced BB for our streetscape? It wasn't cheap.

Passed this house when being built and it's no way framed out or built on the same template the Bayonne Boxes are.

It is actually very modern looking and interesting. Sure as shit cost hella more than the 250k you can slap a Bayonne Box up for.

#coolstorybro

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
At the minimum we can ask for flexibility. The current zoning allows these two unit boxes. It can be tweaked to allow 4 units with a more interesting design, like the R5 zoning did downtown. 4 units with a more interesting design is more profitable than a two unit Bayonne Box.

This is a the right direction, how to lever people without taking away their rights. If you allow more units if it conforms to some sort of aesthetic review, it's win win. We don't necessarily want to create what the conservators call "fake historic", but to create some guidelines to work within, like conform to the facade setback of the neighbors and have similar roofline. There's plenty of DT & Hoboken infill that has modern elements yet fits in to the streetscape.

Here's a question: Is the 4th st house below better or worse than a brickfaced BB for our streetscape? It wasn't cheap.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
That's just a "Bayonne Box" with a wooden facade. No accounting for taste. And look at the aluminum siding next door. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig...

And I personally think most DT brownstones are piles of shit with a dark brick facade. Perhaps I'm missing the point.

Not that I really want to defend it, but no, it has none of typical BB attributes except the garage. And what does the neighbor house have to do with it? Perhaps you should post an example of your ideal multifamily rowhouse since you say very little is up to your standards.

dtjcview wrote:
That's just a "Bayonne Box" with a wooden facade. No accounting for taste. And look at the aluminum siding next door. Lipstick on a pig is still a pig...

And I personally think most DT brownstones are piles of shit with a dark brick facade. Perhaps I'm missing the point.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
At the minimum we can ask for flexibility. The current zoning allows these two unit boxes. It can be tweaked to allow 4 units with a more interesting design, like the R5 zoning did downtown. 4 units with a more interesting design is more profitable than a two unit Bayonne Box.

This is a the right direction, how to lever people without taking away their rights. If you allow more units if it conforms to some sort of aesthetic review, it's win win. We don't necessarily want to create what the conservators call "fake historic", but to create some guidelines to work within, like conform to the facade setback of the neighbors and have similar roofline. There's plenty of DT & Hoboken infill that has modern elements yet fits in to the streetscape.

Here's a question: Is the 4th st house below better or worse than a brickfaced BB for our streetscape? It wasn't cheap.

Bamb00zle wrote:
Aside current zoning rules, don't overlook the impact of fire code requirements on new construction design. Installation costs for fire code requirements add up VERY quickly, with on-going expenses as well.

Anything more than 2-family, and even certain 2-family buildings, need sprinkler systems. If mains pressure is insufficient a pump may be required, adding to costs.... The on going costs are for central monitoring, back-flow preventer inspections / certification, maintenance, yearly registration fees to JC Bureau of Fire Prevention, Fire Department inspections, and so on.

The impact of these requirements is very substantial in money, time and headaches. For a small building, 3 or 4-family, the economics are marginal ? too few apartments to share the additional costs.... So even if zoning rules are changed I can't see 3- or 4-family buildings becoming the design of choice for those lots, replacing 2-family structures, anytime soon.

Fire code requirements need to be simplified for new construction 3 and 4-family buildings to be economically viable. That is done at the State level, beyond direct control of the City. And it's the opposite of what the Fire Prevention industry thinks we need. They want sprinklers mandated for everything, including single family homes. There's a good deal of money at stake so expect a big fight before any changes.

MDM wrote:
There is a lot of demand for say a 2 bedroom at $1,200, but it is impossible to offer something in that price range when you can only build 2 units on a 25' x 100' lot.