brewster wrote:


Let me guess, it was shot entirely in parking garages?

MDM wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
I have been in many European town squares that also happen to sit atop a massive lot and the only thing that gives it away is seeing cars emerging from the ground in the periphery of said squares.

This thread is reminding me of a low budget scifi movie from the '90s called 'Circuitry Man'. One of the plot devices was that the underground of the US became one gigantic parking garage. You could travel from LA to NYC via the parking garages.

bodhipooh wrote:
I have been in many European town squares that also happen to sit atop a massive lot and the only thing that gives it away is seeing cars emerging from the ground in the periphery of said squares.

bodhipooh wrote:
I fully understand that wanting the city to support/encourage/subsidize underground parking lots is a pipe dream, but it certainly is NOT because it is an impossible engineering challenge. Other cities and countries around the world have figured out how to make it happen, even places with elevations even lower than ours.

brewster wrote:
I advocate taking a few street parking spots away from local residents and making them metered. I don't think that's so radical compared to demanding massive underground parking lots! Seems obvious to me that anyone suggesting the latter has never dealt with DTJC's water issues. If you've ever had to drive your car up to high ground ahead of a storm you wouldn't even consider it!

As for Europe, I assume the construction and operation of those underground is subsidized like most European infrastructure. We don't roll like that in "what's in it for ME" America.

brewster wrote:
As for Europe, I assume the construction and operation of those underground is subsidized like most European infrastructure. We don't roll like that in "what's in it for ME" America.

hero69 wrote:
i love the way many european cities handle parking by building massive underground lots. oftentimes, i'm not even aware that i'm standing on a massive underground lot until i see cars exiting or a parking sign. i doubt that would go far in the states where people are mostly concerned with free or cheap....the walmart approach to living.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is obvious some folks on JClist do not go to public meetings in various neighborhoods, it is not Yvonne, it is hundreds of people complaining about loss parking, especially bikes lanes at the expense of cars. There were hundreds of people at Hudson Catholic School including St. Peter's University, making the same complaint. Not to mention, the businesses that are hurt because shoppers go else. Really, how selfish are some comments. In fact the city should do a survey on the people of people that shop in Bayonne or other towns due to the loss of parking.

Thanks for proving my point. Parking, parking, parking but no concern on how parking impacts housing affordability.

Or transit. You could put BRT on a set of N-S JC roads and have a virtual subway, except for...parking. And I actually agree with part of Yvonne's position, more short term parking for local commerce. But what we should have is more and better metered parking in commercial districts the way Hoboken has. But that's a non-starter, since it would take away resident street parking. Even Key foods should have a row of 15 minute meters out front, If I want to drop in for eggs or zucchini on my way driving home from somewhere, I can't, since the daylighting of the corners there's not even illegal spots to use.

But, why advocate for metered, surface parking? Why not *underground* parking? It?s truly astounding that we have not embraced underground parking more widely in the US. Most cities seem to have embraced surface lots, or the incredibly inefficient/wasteful practice of dedicating the first few floors of buildings to be parking decks. If Jersey City pushed for subterranean lots, we could free up a ton of street space for other purposes (wider sidewalks, bike lanes, more retail and commercial space in buildings, more housing units per building, etc) while ensuring that the need for parking is satisfied.

All over Europe, cities of all sizes (including tiny ones) have embraced underground lots and it really is a game changer for improving walkability as well as aesthetics. Why not borrow from that idea and push for our city to do the same?

Imagine an underground lot under city hall; that would satisfy the parking needs for all of the Grove street businesses and restaurants, and the city could then reclaim all the space taken by metered spots to make room for more lanes, or to widen sidewalks. Or, if you want to think more boldly, you could make all of the Grove area into a car-free, pedestrian zone. The underground lot would allow for people to be close to where they need to go, which is the usual complaint, while allowing for efficient use of city surfaces.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is obvious some folks on JClist do not go to public meetings in various neighborhoods, it is not Yvonne, it is hundreds of people complaining about loss parking, especially bikes lanes at the expense of cars. There were hundreds of people at Hudson Catholic School including St. Peter's University, making the same complaint. Not to mention, the businesses that are hurt because shoppers go else. Really, how selfish are some comments. In fact the city should do a survey on the people of people that shop in Bayonne or other towns due to the loss of parking.

Thanks for proving my point. Parking, parking, parking but no concern on how parking impacts housing affordability.

Or transit. You could put BRT on a set of N-S JC roads and have a virtual subway, except for...parking. And I actually agree with part of Yvonne's position, more short term parking for local commerce. But what we should have is more and better metered parking in commercial districts the way Hoboken has. But that's a non-starter, since it would take away resident street parking. Even Key foods should have a row of 15 minute meters out front, If I want to drop in for eggs or zucchini on my way driving home from somewhere, I can't, since the daylighting of the corners there's not even illegal spots to use.

But, why advocate for metered, surface parking? Why not *underground* parking? It?s truly astounding that we have not embraced underground parking more widely in the US. Most cities seem to have embraced surface lots, or the incredibly inefficient/wasteful practice of dedicating the first few floors of buildings to be parking decks. If Jersey City pushed for subterranean lots, we could free up a ton of street space for other purposes (wider sidewalks, bike lanes, more retail and commercial space in buildings, more housing units per building, etc) while ensuring that the need for parking is satisfied.

All over Europe, cities of all sizes (including tiny ones) have embraced underground lots and it really is a game changer for improving walkability as well as aesthetics. Why not borrow from that idea and push for our city to do the same?

Imagine an underground lot under city hall; that would satisfy the parking needs for all of the Grove street businesses and restaurants, and the city could then reclaim all the space taken by metered spots to make room for more lanes, or to widen sidewalks. Or, if you want to think more boldly, you could make all of the Grove area into a car-free, pedestrian zone. The underground lot would allow for people to be close to where they need to go, which is the usual complaint, while allowing for efficient use of city surfaces.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is obvious some folks on JClist do not go to public meetings in various neighborhoods, it is not Yvonne, it is hundreds of people complaining about loss parking, especially bikes lanes at the expense of cars. There were hundreds of people at Hudson Catholic School including St. Peter's University, making the same complaint. Not to mention, the businesses that are hurt because shoppers go else. Really, how selfish are some comments. In fact the city should do a survey on the people of people that shop in Bayonne or other towns due to the loss of parking.

Thanks for proving my point. Parking, parking, parking but no concern on how parking impacts housing affordability.

Or transit. You could put BRT on a set of N-S JC roads and have a virtual subway, except for...parking. And I actually agree with part of Yvonne's position, more short term parking for local commerce. But what we should have is more and better metered parking in commercial districts the way Hoboken has. But that's a non-starter, since it would take away resident street parking. Even Key foods should have a row of 15 minute meters out front, If I want to drop in for eggs or zucchini on my way driving home from somewhere, I can't, since the daylighting of the corners there's not even illegal spots to use.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
It is obvious some folks on JClist do not go to public meetings in various neighborhoods, it is not Yvonne, it is hundreds of people complaining about loss parking, especially bikes lanes at the expense of cars. There were hundreds of people at Hudson Catholic School including St. Peter's University, making the same complaint. Not to mention, the businesses that are hurt because shoppers go else. Really, how selfish are some comments. In fact the city should do a survey on the people of people that shop in Bayonne or other towns due to the loss of parking.

Thanks for proving my point. Parking, parking, parking but no concern on how parking impacts housing affordability.

Yvonne wrote:
It is obvious some folks on JClist do not go to public meetings in various neighborhoods, it is not Yvonne, it is hundreds of people complaining about loss parking, especially bikes lanes at the expense of cars. There were hundreds of people at Hudson Catholic School including St. Peter's University, making the same complaint. Not to mention, the businesses that are hurt because shoppers go else. Really, how selfish are some comments. In fact the city should do a survey on the people of people that shop in Bayonne or other towns due to the loss of parking.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
How could such a goal be accomplished? Eliminate the scourge of R1 Housing Zoning in the Heights.

A Bayonne Box can easily rent for around $2,500. If that same plot of land housed four or six units, the property owner could rent for a lot less while still making a very handsome profit.

But what about the PARKING!!!!!!!!!!!

Interesting article in the Times yesterday. It's possible density may finally be getting talked about as a solution to high costs instead of rent control.

Everything You Think You Know About Housing Is Probably Wrong
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/28/art ... ng-skyscraper-museum.html

JCGuys wrote:
How could such a goal be accomplished? Eliminate the scourge of R1 Housing Zoning in the Heights.

A Bayonne Box can easily rent for around $2,500. If that same plot of land housed four or six units, the property owner could rent for a lot less while still making a very handsome profit.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

MikeyTBC wrote:
No chance they're letting all the old residents come back. I'm guessing a lottery to access something like 5% of the new units. Just enough for it to qualify as "mixed-income"

Honestly, I would be surprised if even THAT happens. The cynic in me just thinks or assumes that the developer will agree to some terms, then turn around and petition the council for a variance to have the low-income units replaced with housing built elsewhere, as has been done by so many other developers. I know Fulop is on the record as saying he will not allow for this, but we have seen him go back on his word on other things, and if you have the right connections, I can see a developer pushing for that again, and again.

I agree with JCGuys that we should move away from the concept of "concentration of poverty" but mixed income housing seldom works out as it is billed: some (most) people don't want to live next to others they deem poorer, mixed income housing will often treat their low-income residents differently (sometimes openly, others overtly) and developers and pols have made a mockery of the concept itself by allowing developers to satisfy their commitments by building the approved low-income units in completely different areas of town.

If we are going to institute policies that strive to integrate people more closely, then adhere to those ideals and commitments. Don't just say something and do something else.

MikeyTBC wrote:
No chance they're letting all the old residents come back. I'm guessing a lottery to access something like 5% of the new units. Just enough for it to qualify as "mixed-income"

JC_Man wrote:
Who is paying for this?