Browsing this Thread:
2 Anonymous Users
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
 
|
Yes, the Van Winkle Avenue row of sugared brick townhouses is among the worst I've seen in Jersey City.
Construction crews hammered away with giant drills at a volcanic rock formation famous for its odd placement in the middle of Journal Square. The formation was millions of years old. And in 2004/2005 it was chiseled, crushed and pulverized on site to make way for the new urban blight. -historyrules
Posted on: 2005/12/30 2:53
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
 
|
Have you seen the boxes they built on Van Winkle? The block on the north side of White Castle between Tonnele Ave. and Blvd. PINK!, bright Pepto Bismal Pink brick. They chopped away at a huge outcropping of solid granite for 6 months, maybe longer. It must have cost a fortune to break out that rock and what for. Pepto Bismal pink crappy formula box houses. I could not believe my eyes when I finally saw what was going up there.
The box epidemic is escalating at an alarming rate. Saw 2 houses in the heights knocked down in 2 days. Now there are several ways to look at this. Building identical houses is not a new idea, been done for 100 years. You will see blocks all over the county with identical houses. But why do these new boxes have to be so crappy looking? Because the builder doesn't care. He's a small time builder in it for the money. He has a formula that works for him. He doesn't have to think and neither do his crew. Do it the same way you did the last one and do it fast. For a few hundred dollars more, these houses could have some unique archetectural detail. Cornices, brackets, trim, gingerbread. All this stuff is available in molded foam and just has to be screwed on and it's very inexpensive. Just takes a little thought as to design. And don't get me started on the gaudy ironwork on the balconies of these craphouses. Basic problem; no pride in what they (contractors) do for a living.
Posted on: 2005/12/30 2:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Take a walk down mainstreet in Southampton. The (allowed) vinyl windows in this old historic town are not crushing property values one bit! For the most part, you can't even tell. They're painted and more efficient. Education! Jersey City needs to get with the program!
Posted on: 2005/12/28 19:09
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
 |
Quote:
A historic district would not require you to actually restore all aspects of your house. What it would do is, if you DO choose to renovate, would require either a) actual restoration or b) modern renovation that distinguishes itself from the original. The issue, which I'm guessing you have read on the other thread, is that some people want to install features which were not part of the original house but which they considered to be "period" features that were on other houses, which creates confusion between the historic and the modern.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 17:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
 
Joined:
2004/11/16 19:52 Last Login : 2008/9/28 23:53 From Moved to Dallas TX
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
52
|
Quote:
No one...not even Minnie has advocated the removal of any historic district status. If anyone thinks that having a protective covenant such as a conservation district will diminish the desire of some to work in favour of historic districts, they haven't thought the process out thorougly. It's my opinion that while many neighbourhoods that are eligible for HD status but haven't made the required moves for whatever reason, there are people in those neighbourhoods that do want HD status...however, they're countered by others in the neigbourhood that oppose HD status (this was the case in LP). However, these people who do not want HD status still want to see their neigbourhood improve...no one wanted to see the awful white brick infills that went in on Lower Harrison Avenue a few years ago...and I shudder to think what will be put on the spot where the magnificent house on Lower Gifford burnt a few months ago...not 1, not 2 but 3 of these ultra lovely (not) white brick 2-families on that lot. I think that those that oppose HD status will go for something less restrictive but still allows for protection...such as a conservation district. Also note...a neighbourhood does NOT need to be historic to be a conservation district...it can be a 5 year old development where a fire has gutted a home and the neighbours want appropriate type of infill housing in the spot where the old place stood. Further...a conservation district (can we please get away from that term...it makes me think of water, soil and forest conservation---how bout a preservation district) can serve as a catalyst to springboard into a full blown historic district in the future if there isn't the required support amongst homeowners and residents of said area. It makes sense to me...it helps protect non-HD status areas like Sherman Avenue, Gifford Avenue and Harrison Avenue. If anyone cares to see more appropriate type of infill housing, please take a stroll down Emery Street...there are 3 of these 2-family houses on the block however, their architecture and facade do complement the row houses on the block...they're a little taller but they do blend into the rest of the houses on Emery Street with their use of more appropriate fenstration and bricking. Admittedly, they're not perfect however they're far better than these white brick crackerboxes.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 5:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Before we go and burn down every two family cookie cutter in JC heights lets look at this from another perspective.
I will admit that I am the owner of one of these "eyesores". I own several older properties in the heights and live in a new construction two family. the block i am on has several older historic type homes and some older homes that need more than just a face lift. My two family is probably built by one of the better builders in the area. It doesnt look as tacky as some of the others. natural brick etc. Also it is the only one on the block so it doesnt look like a block of cookie cutters. Another problem witht these cookie cutters is that they do all look the same and most streets they are built on have no trees. trees make a huge difference!!!!! i plat them in front of all my properties. i also tell my neighbors i will pay for their tree to be planted. Two took me up on the offer. The city should absolutley have laws to make these houses look different from each other. Some brick, some stucco, some to resemble brownstowns etc. Historic facades couldnt be to costly. there is no way an old victorian should be able to be knocked down and replaced with a couple of cookie cutters, but many times old delapitated 3 or 4 family homes with less than desireable tenants are knocked down and a two family is resurrected. My house was built where the previous house was known on the block for trouble. everyone on the block was happy to see it torn down. yes a parking spot on the street is gone but My two cars are in the garage so it is plus one as far as spots available in the neighborhood. as far as illegal apts as long as it is a family member it is legal. If a friend in there it must not have a kitchen. they have to use the kitchen in one of the other units. These houses are extremely efficient for living in. the units are large and really nice inside. Cathedral ceilings, it has 2 units with 3 br/ 2 baths and wash drier. and bonus apt 2 br with a bath. 2 car garage and backyard. I appreciate historical buildings as much as anyone. I grew up in a fully restored victorian house with all original detail including a well in the backyard and a carage house. Before I bought this house, I put an offer in an older well kept property but lost in a bidding war. If these new construction houses were to have stricter laws on facades and tree planting, I think almost everyone would be satisfied. Dont forget many parts of hoboken allow large complexes to be built that do not fit into the historic codes. the heights has zoning laws that restrict what can be built in on a lot. please if you happen to pass by my house please do not burn it down or atleast let me get out first.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 4:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Not too shy to talk
|
Historic preservation is fantastic and all, but despite the slight charm I may think my house has, it definitely is NOT worthy of historical preservation. In fact the "Staten Island House" in-fill has already besmirched my street.
I'm not certain any house on my block is of a historic quality, and truth be told most should be knocked down. My beef and original rant was that what they ARE building is just tacky. Tacky and ugly and they are the same exact building plan as about 60+ others throughout JC. As I said before, within one square block of my house there are 11 of these things! Of the 11, at least one chose to use a red brick rather than the grey yellow crap every other one has.
In all honesty if all 60+ buildings looked exactly alike, but like brownstones, I'd be perfectly fine with it. It boils down to taste I guess, and my desire for all of JC to clean itself up in a classy way, and not a real estate boom build & flip.
The one thing JC seems to be really good at is converting buildings to luxury condos, oh and tearing down buildings to build luxury condos.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 4:31
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Well, from where I sit, a historic district in my neck of the Heights (I've got an 1880s Victorian) will likely force me to move as the kinds of repair/upkeep required will be out of my reach. But, I suppose a well-preserved Victorian is the going rate for a long-time city resident. I'm not going to argue about who is responsible for JC's revitalization (changes depending on whom you're speaking with - guppies, Hobokenites, yuppies, historic zoners, artists, Mayor McCann) - although I will submit that some credit is due to folks who decided to stick it out in JC. I've seen this crazy place through some pretty rough times...the issues today seem no less daunting, if not as immediately physically threatening.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 4:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
Well put HR. Apparently if your block isn't worthy of Historic Districting, the HD advocates would just as soon throw you to the wolves as allow a Conservation District overlay to address the needs of these blocks. Yes, they might lose some neighborhoods to it that might have become Historic otherwise, but that can still be done later while the area gets some level of preservation. Since these better preserved areas have already chosen no, by not choosing to apply for Historic status, why not give them another alternative? For the record, I have yet to hear ANYONE seriously advocate the removal of a historic district. The interpretation of the proposals as "gutting" are subject to debate, but lets not do it here. The authors of the proposals certainly don't have that intention. I will say that perhaps if a Conservation overlay had been available over the last 25 years a much higher percentage of JC might have been cared for, with more tasteful infill, rather than a few little zones downtown. So touting the real estate values downtown is a little bitter if you live in an area that wouldn't or didn't qualify for Historic yet could have benefited from a Conservation overlay.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 4:26
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Dan L has been a staunch advocate for the historic districts. I think he was saying that while zoning provides some protection, it is not nearly the type of protection that historic districting can and does provide.
I think HR hits the nail on the head with his powerful portrayal of what we are lucky to have, and nearly lost. Also, it bears worth repeating, the historic districts use standards relied upon by the federal, state and local governments. And although they definitely restrict what you can do to property, they are not as inflexible or rigid as they are made out to be. Residents of a neighborhood considering historic designation should meet with local officials and preservationists. I have always told people that it entails work to get designation and to abide by it. But it is a clear positive for the neighborhood if you are willing to stick it out. Joshua Parkhurst President Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy
Posted on: 2005/12/28 4:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
DanL, are you saying we are better off relying on zoning laws and, even more shocking, zoning officials enforcing those laws? You cannot be serious when you say zoning "can address...lot coverage, density, height, curb cuts, percentage of glass, masonry, metal..."? Does this include fenestration materials, railing, cornices, painting, doors, additions--the elements that matter the most, that keep the historic fabric intact, preserved, resplendant, that the Historic Commission enforces?
Imagine if, in some nightmarish situation, that the Downtown historic districts were instead watched over by zoning officials; that no Historic Preservation Commission existed. What would we see? Well, take a look at the Heights, Journal Square, Greenville--you get the idea. Cookie cutters, horrible addtions to houses, eyesore sidings, concrete covered car ports. I also quote: "...note that there are beautiful brownstone blocks that have survived and been restored both in Jersey City and Hoboken that are not located in historic districts." Have you been to the Bergen Hill area lately? One of Jersey City's finest collection of non-districted brownstones, kept intact ironically over the decades by persistant inner-city recessions, depressions, whatever one may call it...and now during the building boom we see the ugly cookie cutters going up around them. Now how is zoning protecting Bergen Hill? Are the non-districted areas in Hoboken so invulnerable, so protected by zoning law? This thread has not "veered away from the initial questions" because the initial questions--cookie cutter infill and the loss of historic fabric as a result--relates to all of this, and more.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 3:49
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2004/2/6 23:13 Last Login : 2021/7/30 1:08 From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1225
|
The Historic District requirements/guidlines are codified into zoning. Zoning can address some of the concerns mentioned, lot coverage, density, height, curb cuts for driveways and even materials used along with percentages of glass, masonary, metal etc. However, only the Historic District ordinances can prevent (or try to prevent) tear downs. Historic District status can also provide tax credits for commerical and residential rental properties, but not owner occupried housing.
This thread has veered away from the initial questions. Regarding Historic District problems, as posted on other threads, I believe the problem to be education and communication. With regard to tear downs and "ugly" infill housing, zoning can help, but will not be complete protection. It is not just these two family plus bonus (I call them Staten Island houses) that may be a problem but pretty much all infill architecture, subjectively, fake, cheap and crappy. Also, note that there are beautiful brownstone blocks that have survived and been restored both in Jersey City and Hoboken that are not located in historic districts.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 3:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Newbie
|
Hear, hear, historyrules - you put it perfectly. It angers me to hear folks downplaying the importance of historic preservation, even going so far as to say that, in comparison, leveling and new construction is a better option.
My take on this? I can understand the hassles of life within a historic district - my family's home some years ago was located in one. It was sometimes a pain in the behind - we had to have a LOT of work approved before it was done - window maintenance, paint jobs, gate and fencing installation - you name it. However, I did, and still do, appreciate the fact that those houses were so diligently looked after - they were beautiful, graceful works of art, well worthy of preservation and disciplined care. They cost money to maintain appropriately, but that was part of the territory - and we gladly paid the price to live in a beautiful community - and to care for a wonderful house. It's not an easy matter to balance out - historic homes worthy of enforced preservation standards, and a homeowner's right to maintain their property as he/she wishes... I tend to lean toward the former, but that's just my personal opinion.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 3:24
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
|
Historic District Dissenters:
Let me share something: None of you were here in the 1970s when Downtown was literally burning (like Hoboken, like the South Bronx). Elected officials did nothing--and maybe, to some degree, they were helpless since Nixon nixed urban revitalization--while entire rows of brownstones were shelled out by flames. It sounds apocalyptic, but it is true: Owners could barely give their properties away (properties now worth a million +). So they collected big insurance bucks after torching buildings right near those who still believed, who still wanted to stay in Jersey City. Inner-city advocates like Morris Pesin, Audrey Zapp, Ted Conrad, Thomas Stanton, Allan Bardack, J. Owen Grundy and a few others gathered and came up with one last resort to keep the browstones standing: National Register Historic Districts. They saw it doing wonders for similarly stricken 19th century neighborhoods in Brooklyn, Queens, the Village, the Upper East Side, SOHO, etc. And that's the story: districting saved Downtown JC, revitalized it, pulled it out of its own embers, preserved irreplaceable fabric for a few more centuries. And now we have people saying that the districts need to go (because they are butting heads with Wrieden)? That no more should be created? While flames are far from a threat to potential historic districts in this day and age, other equally devastating elements have arrived in the form of the bullyish, monsoon-like building boom: cranes are in full swing, ripping down Victorian mansions one by one in largely overlooked neighborhoods. (Alas, every neighborhood outside of Downtown has been largely overlooked, for many years, though now that not a single empty lot exists anymore developers are aiming greedy eyes elsewhere.) Historic-districting an amazing (and fragile) area like Sherman Place in the JC Heights will save it from losing what makes it so spectacularly special: wrap-around porch Victorian ladies with carriage houses the size of small tenements. And that's not even mentioning the Colonials, the Federals, the Queen Annes, the Greek Revivals, the Mansard roofs. I don't mean to sound like a romantic preservationist, a "purist" as posters have called us--but if you were around in the 1970s and witnessed the turn-around that districting brought Downtown...well, I doubt we'd hear so much whining about Wrieden and cat calls for district reversals. Keep this in mind; let it sit there for a while: Historic Districts in the Downtown area made it what it is today: valuable, sought-after, desirable, valuable. The pots of gold we are all sitting on did not magically appear: they were handed to us decades ago because a group of wise people could look into the future and see prosperous districts of preserved, greatly-appreciated homes. When you complain about expensive windows, doors, railings--when you complain about the Historic Preservation Officer and the Commission he oversees--you hammer away at our distinct, intact and precious quality of life, our livelihoods, our history. When you say that historic districts are bad because they demand strict compliance, you announce, innocently or not, that Downtown was better off when fires regularly roared in the morning hours, wiping away once-in-a-lifetime-architecture. When you say that the Heights and other sections should not be landmarked according to time-tested standards set forth by the Secretary of the Interior, the State Historic Preservation Office and the Jersey City Historic Preservation Commission, you wave in the wrecking balls with smiling faces. Know what the struggle was before you hurl lopsided suggestions ("Conservation" districts? Are you kidding?). Walk through the Downtown historic districts and take a good look at what we came close to losing forever before you criticize. Talk to your real estate agent about the ballooning value of your historic property before you beg to differ. -historyrules
Posted on: 2005/12/28 3:06
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
There, JP, a genuine dissenter. Do you really believe he's unique? As for myself, I've made clear I am in the same boat as the Heights residents with ugly infill rampant. I have it worse in fact, without even their Historic application possibilities, since my block was obviously already deliberately left out of a historic district (the line runs through the back of my yard). I said about the revisions that I really didn't have a dog in the fight. Here I'm up to my eyeballs. This thread started with Byrd saying " Is there ANYONE who can stop the construction of these two story box houses going up all over the heights?" Nuada inquired about Historic designation because in this town that's currently the only option. Informing us as RT did that there's ways other cities do this isn't changing the subject, just adding an answer.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 1:05
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2004/11/16 19:52 Last Login : 2008/9/28 23:53 From Moved to Dallas TX
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
52
|
Quote:
Josh, I must respectfully disagree with you here...the problem isn't that there isn't enough staff...the problem is that neighbourhoods that want protection aren't able to get it unless they agree with the historic district tenets. I fail to see how adding more employees to the city's payroll will alleviate this situation. IMHO...the main problem is that there is no protection for the rest of Jersey City...the historic districts downtown are protected however blocks like Brewster's aren't protected. There must be a way to help these folks too...whether or not they choose to become a historic district. Quote:
Sadly this is what I was referring to in an earlier post on this topic...the dirty laundry from downtown's historic districts have been aired for the entire city...those of us who support historic district status for our neighbourhoods are in a constant uphill battle to win support from those that are on the fence...and when a minor victory has been gained...someone (not necessarily from JCLC) that heavily supports historic districts comes along and starts telling people what they can do and can't do...and frankly, there's a longer list of can't do's than there are can do's. I think that the JCLC needs a serious outreach programme to everyone...those that do want HD status as well as those who do not want it because there's a lot of confusion out there on both sides. As far as Dan Wreiden...I think he does as good a job as one man can do given what he's got to work with...he's definitely overworked and underappreciated however adding more staff doesn't get to the root of the problem that originally started this thread.
Posted on: 2005/12/28 1:02
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Quote:
Not to undercut my wife's volunteerism and use of the future perfect tense (?), but if it's an either/or situation between the 2-family monstrosities, and the oft-cited disorder 'historic district dementia' (DSM-IV 290.23) that friends have suffered downtown, I'll take the lesser of two evils - and choose the 2 family monstrosities...Good luck with this, but so far, as I would be, I am unconvinced, based on jclist threads and stories by homeowner friends downtown that historic districting would be able to do anything for me other than drive me to bankruptcy, violence, or suicide (not necessarily in that order)... 
Posted on: 2005/12/28 0:30
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
This thread may or may not be indicative of the residents of potential historic districts in the Heights. But even here there was no opposition to mediate. The Heights residents are asking for advice on historic districts, and the same people who are trying to water down such protection in the historic districts bring up some completely unrelated concept that doesn't even exist in Jersey City into this discussion. So please forgive the undersigned for any confusion.
If there are concerns from Heights residents about historic districts, and they ask us, we'd be glad to discuss it with them. As I've said before, I recognize that there are legitimate grievances people have, largely with respect the time it takes to turn permits around.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 23:39
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I'm ordinarily no ally of Minnie's, but Good Lord!! Why don't you actually listen to what people say instead of putting words in their mouths! What she said was in relation to CONSERVATION DISTRICTS not the HD proposals! "Extreme" is subjective! It's like arguing about what "expensive" means. The "happy medium" is for areas that have chosen not to apply for Historic status like RT's Lincoln Park, but would still like some protection for their neighborhood. why is this such a difficult concept for you? I'm sure you can be a wonderful ally, but you seem committed to making sure your way is the only way.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 23:03
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Quote:
Again, not much is extreme about the historic districts. The main problem here is that the office is understaffed. You keep talking of a "happy medium" which implies that there is some equal amounts support and opposition that needs to be mediated. The proposed reforms were overwhelmingly opposed. We live in a democracy, so people are free to keep speaking even if they lose a vote. I don't begrudge that. But at the same time, we can recognize when a debate has been had and a decision has been made. You actually contacted John Gomez, not me, but that's ok. I did in fact respond. Ultimately we did not take your side, although we did not oppose your efforts either.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 22:19
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
More people would be in favor of adding new historic districts and would go all out and fight for them if it wasn't so extreme!
Conservation districts is a good place to start. It just takes a few open minds to sit down and research it and find out what these other communites think about it, perhaps as a happy medium, instead of deciding for them that it's out of the question. I'm not too polite, Josh... that person was me. I contacted you directly to ask if the Landmarks Conservancy is concerned with historic parks or just structures and NOBODY from the Landmarks Conservancy was professional enough to get back to me to express their concerns. The bottom line is the Landmarks Conservancy chose to not be involved with a historic (landmarked) park... but blame it on internal politics, if it pleases you.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 21:23
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
Joined:
2004/11/16 19:52 Last Login : 2008/9/28 23:53 From Moved to Dallas TX
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
52
|
Quote:
This is the whole point of a conservation district...while not nearly as encompassing as historic district status would be, it does regulate the type of building design that can be added to a neighbourhood. As for my personal opinion...I prefer the Historic District status however not everyone wants to live in a historic district...this does not mean that they care less about the type of development happening in their neighbourhoods. A conservation district would help to regulate these ugly 2 family white brick houses...they neither fit into the neighbourhoods nor do they accentuate any of the pre-existing architecture. All they do is hammer another nail in the coffin of neighbourhoods that are trying to maintain their charm and character. I only offered up what Dallas does because there may be some way balance the needs of the neighbourhoods with the desire to protect our history. It is not and should not be seen as a replacement for Historic District status...perhaps though it could be used as the first step in the process of becoming a historic district. Certainly, there must be a happy medium in all this mess. I have no beef with JCLC...I support them and what they're trying to accomplish however many parts of Jersey City (including my former Lincoln Park neighbourhood) are totally shut out from any sort of protection from these rabid developers because we are not a designated historic district...even though we are eligible to become one...problem is...and JCLC should acknowledge this...people are terrified by what living in a HD means...seeing as how some of the downtown districts' dirty laundry (such as just trying to get a simple repair done to a door, replacing leaky windows or God forbid...paint their home) has been so publicly aired here on this forum and elsewhere. There's a time and place for rules and guidelines however when they're shoved down people's throats, there's bound to be a backlash. As for the city providing aesthetic guidelines through zoning and planning boards...that's a laugh...we are still talking about Jersey City, right???
Posted on: 2005/12/27 21:00
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Brewster, I don't disagree with you. My point was just that if the Heights communities are looking for such designation, they should go for it! It is not an overnight process, but it is certainly do-able. Certainly easier than lobbying to pass an entirely new ordinance, then seek designation under such an ordinance.
As I pointed out, a "Conservation District" ordinance may have some use when there is a desire to keep a certain asethetic, but not the mass of historic buildings needed for district status. There are plenty of neighborhoods in the Heights however, that would qualify for historic district status if the residents actually wanted it. Another note. Historic protection aside, cities can incorporate aesthetic guidelines into local zoning and planning board rules.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 20:07
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Quote:
I will agree that Minnie's post was certainly thread hijacking, but the topic from the top of this thread was how to affect the crappy redevelopment of non historic district areas. Your defending the validity of the historic ordinance here is a non-sequiter. These areas aren't covered and for the most part aren't likely to be. So why attack the idea of a lesser zoning overlay more appropriate, yet protective of their fabric? No one in this thread has suggested replacing current Historic Districts with a "Conservation District". The proposed revisions are another topic in a another thread, in my opinion.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 19:55
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/8/12 19:40 Last Login : 2023/9/29 21:11 From Jersey City Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
71
|
Rules aren't exclusive to "historic districts." When I lived in Oro Valley, AZ (outside Tucson), my house was in a new subdivision (built circa 1990-95)...but I could only paint the exterior in one of 6 shades (all tan), wood trim could be in one of three shades (of brown), the concrete driveway had to be "natural" (it could not be stained in any way), etc., etc. This was all spelled out, in minute detail, in the CCRs (Codes, Covenants, Restrictions) which, by law, every home buyer had to receive before closing. Most never read the document. I know because I sat on the HOA board and was amazed that people hadn't even taken the time to learn the basics. Anyway...rules per se aren't bad. They can be enforced badly. But the idea of regulating a community's look isn't bad.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 19:44
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
Joined:
2005/6/8 3:24 Last Login : 2022/11/28 0:04 From New Urbanist Area
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
1429
|
Apparently we cannot have a discussion on historic preservation on jclist without the same three or four people hijacking each and every thread to repeatedly vent the same grievances they have against the current HP Commission and Staff.
As noted in other threads, the current HP guidelines are not "purist." They allow, for example, and individual to use modern design for features, so long as they distinguish themselves from the original and do not try to create a fake historic look. There are other exceptions as well. For example, builders can add on stories so long as they are appropriately set back (and in compliance with other existing zoning). For all the talk of "purists" the ordinance is not that rigid. With respect to "Conservation Districts." These are a relatively rare and recent creation. They may have their purpose in some instances. For example, a neighborhood may want to have houses designed in accordance with a particular aesthetic, but may not have the actual housing stock to create the critical mass for a historic district. I will say that, given the prior complaints from those opposed to the current ordinance, the overnight support for "Conservation Districts" is somewhat puzzling. Previously, we were told that the guidelines for historic distrcits were too vague. The Conservation district is even vaguer, and is for the most part infinitely malleable from district to district. The historic guidelines provide standards which while subject to interpretation, are relatively clear. In addition, it is worth noting that conservation districts are not eligible for tax credits, while historic districts are. The opponents of the current ordinance were asking for a change that would have prohibited any restriction on renovation UNLESS tax credits or other financial incentives were offered (which would have been impossible, given that their revised guidelines were in some cases not in accordance with federal and state standards). Ultimately, the Conservation District is a red herring, as what was proposed as "reform" here in Jersey City was nothing at all like it. Finally, although far, far, far off topic, I must respond to the allegation that JCLC is being hypocritical for not taking a more active role in Hamilton Park and questions about preservation. We support the current ordinance, and will draw attention to particular landmark campaigns, but we do not want to get involved in micromanagement of individual restorations, nor do we want to interfere with community input into matters such as the Hamilton Park renovation. Several posters have accused us and other preservationists of trying to impose our beliefs on members of the community. What's funny about this is that one of these posters had personally contacted us in an attempt to intervene in the Hamilton Park renovation because it was being done the wrong way. Although we expressed our concern, we did not take any action because it became clear that this person was trying to involve us in an internal political dispute within the HPNA. I could embarass this person by calling them out, but instead I'll be polite...... .....at least for now. Joshua Parkhurst President Jersey City Landmarks Conservancy
Posted on: 2005/12/27 19:29
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Just can't stay away
Joined:
2005/8/12 19:40 Last Login : 2023/9/29 21:11 From Jersey City Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts:
71
|
Obviously, yes, some folks take these things to an extreme...but their's is a good counterweight against the folks who seem bent on covering JC with a sea of those damnable white-brick two stories!
I'm wondering...if enough people shout about the "bonus" apartments, does that destroy the economics of these monstrosities?
Posted on: 2005/12/27 18:15
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Home away from home
|
Last summer, somebody on this site complained that we used non-period plantings, such as annual impatience when we created the new community gardens. This same 'purist' didn't seem to notice that on their visit to the park to examine the new gardens that many other things, such as the (3) ball courts, playground, finials on the fence (there are 3 different finials) and even the gazebo were not here originally. Give me a break!
It seems that a park located in the historic district receives a waiver from historic preservation while the rest of us that own homes around the park get the third degree! Doesn't make sense to me. Where is the incentive for me to keep my home looking historically appropriate when the one-time Victorian park in front of my home is continually bastardized? I have heard about plans to move the asphalt basketball court from it's current location up further on Ninth Street and put it in front of the Hamilton Park Condominiums to appease the developer (Exeter) who doesn't want it in front of his new condo project on McWilliams. What do the purist' have to say about this? And what is the neighborhood association going to do about it? I support the 'conservation district' ideas and would like to see our politicians research this and learn what is happening in other towns around the country.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 16:01
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Josh, I'm back in town in May. Please PM me if you'd like a volunteer to help out for the May tour of the Heights.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 13:50
|
|||
|
||||
|
Re: Those New construction 2 Families
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Quite a regular
|
Why don't we work as a group on this?? I suggest the Heights people get together, split the work, and report these illegal apartments. And those cut aways are going on many of the new constructions, too--also probably illegal.
I'm out of town for a few days, but PM me if you'd like. I'm plenty happy, as would my husband be, to put some legwork into this, either now, or in the Spring. The house on Sherman being demolished makes me want to cry.
Posted on: 2005/12/27 13:47
|
|||
|
||||