moobycow wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
i would be happier with 4 or 5 stories which is consistent with the rest of the block and create a more uniform look/height

What rest of the block!? The whole area between 8h and 9th Streets (between Manila and Marin) is ringed by tall buildings. And, across from this location is the god-awful looking Newport parking deck. I am really, really baffled by people's seeming opposition to what would essentially be the beginning of the end for the bad 80's policies that allowed certain design/building choices to happen.

There is no neighborhood to speak of when you are talking about Marin Blvd North of 2nd Street. Is either fences, or parking lots, or nothing. I am glad to hear a developer is already approved for that block between 8th and 9th. With any luck, the JCFD HQ structure with 70's government building aesthetics will be gone soon, as well.

Um, 8th & 9th in no where near CC and Barrow. Are we talking about different buildings? I must have missed something in the thread.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

blanquiita wrote:
Quote:

Put the four floors of parking underground

Is that even an option considering how prone to flooding that area is?

It's possible of course, but underground structures in general are very expensive to construct, which is why this developer went the cheap way out and proposing it go above ground. I say that's not acceptable and they need to find some other way of providing parking that won't ruin the experience as people walk by the building. I especially like Fomite's idea about the stoops and windows at street level. It would blend better into the neighborhood. What's really important is making sure they got the bottom floors right.

I absolutely hate walking around Newport. Above ground parking garages that are visible from the street should be banned in much of the city, especially in a historic area. Finding a creative way of providing parking should be the cost of doing business for the developer.

I feel like the tone of this thread has shifted, and the right questions are being asking about the design of the structure, rather than the conversation to date, which have been focused solely on height.

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
i would be happier with 4 or 5 stories which is consistent with the rest of the block and create a more uniform look/height

What rest of the block!? The whole area between 8h and 9th Streets (between Manila and Marin) is ringed by tall buildings. And, across from this location is the god-awful looking Newport parking deck. I am really, really baffled by people's seeming opposition to what would essentially be the beginning of the end for the bad 80's policies that allowed certain design/building choices to happen.

There is no neighborhood to speak of when you are talking about Marin Blvd North of 2nd Street. Is either fences, or parking lots, or nothing. I am glad to hear a developer is already approved for that block between 8th and 9th. With any luck, the JCFD HQ structure with 70's government building aesthetics will be gone soon, as well.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Great news K-Lo. The next step is when developers have the guts to not include parking in their developments. To me it seems silly to include tons of parking in a building that is a 60 second walk to a 24/7 subway, but maybe that's just me.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Great news K-Lo. The next step is when developers have the guts to not include parking in their developments. To me it seems silly to include tons of parking in a building that is a 60 second walk to a 24/7 subway, but maybe that's just me.

blanquiita wrote:
Quote:

Put the four floors of parking underground

Is that even an option considering how prone to flooding that area is?

hero69 wrote:
i would be happier with 4 or 5 stories which is consistent with the rest of the block and create a more uniform look/height

blanquiita wrote:
Quote:

Put the four floors of parking underground

Is that even an option considering how prone to flooding that area is?

Put the four floors of parking underground

Bamb00zle wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
People should look closely at the criteria in the Redevelopment Plan - which are very subjective with respect to the design of the new building, how the parking is handled, etc. - and ask how they are enforced, who decides, etc., and push hard to make sure they are iron-clad and result in a well designed, contextual building.

The recent approval of the KRE proposal on Marin between 8th and 9th Streets might be instructive. The City Planning Board and Council amended the 14 story height restriction in the long-standing redevelopment plan for this area in favor of the 19 story proposal from the developer. I suppose they need more taxes for the City Budget, and more donations for future political campaigns. The take home for me: redevelopment plans and zoning restrictions mean little or nothing in Jersey City.

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
People should look closely at the criteria in the Redevelopment Plan - which are very subjective with respect to the design of the new building, how the parking is handled, etc. - and ask how they are enforced, who decides, etc., and push hard to make sure they are iron-clad and result in a well designed, contextual building.

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

ActionDan wrote:
This is probably a stupid question, but why would Two Boots oppose a high-rise in the neighborhood for business reasons? Wouldn't more people (many without cars) be good for their business?

Hi! I had to register to express my frustration at Two Boots. I love their pizza, but if the original post reflects the opinions of their owners, I'll be boycotting that establishment! I love Jersey City, and it's entering an exciting new phase with all these developments. It's only getting better, and I will not support a business actively standing in the way of making a better city for selfish or misguided reasons.

And wouldn't a responsible business owner that relies on street traffic be supportive of new high incomer earners living in the neighborhood? Their position shows an anti city building bias. Where would Two Boots be had there been no Jersey City renaissance or development around Grove.

I say bring on the tower, and it's a shame it's not of higher density. What really matters is the design of the building, so it fits into the neighborhood at street level, especially the bottom six floors. I think I read that this building which subsequently approved, which is great news and means our city council doesn't pander to a minority of illogical loud mouths.

Don't worry Two Boots, this new business will probably increase your bottom line, in-spite of your anti-city building attitude.

diamat wrote:
A 17 story building would really be out of place. There is nothing even close to that tall around it. It would be seen from all, and cast shadows on, the 3-5 story historic buildings and street surrounding it. In all directions.

For a sense of what the street scape could look like when a 17 story building is added next to lower historic buildings, I strolled down Wayne St to between Grove and Marin, next to 95 Columbus.

95 Columbus is particularly poorly integrated with surrounding area with only garages at street level on Wayne, but it gives a sense of what a 17 story building and 4 level garage can do to the street scape.

A 7 story building - that the current plan allows for - would also be taller than all surrounding buildings on Columbus, Wayne and Barrow, but not completely out of place. And should still provide the developer plenty of money. If the developer can't make money out of that lot with a 7 story building they are in the wrong business.

I know you have a vocal group of "followers" on this board, and I miss the food trucks, but thanks Aaron for highlighting this variance application.

belindiam wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I love it! Hypocrites that claim they are for development and building a stronger Jersey City until development is proposed in their own backyard.

I wonder if this is the mindset of those against this development: I spent a lot of money to live in this historic district, and I'll be damned if I let anyone else move in nearby that didn't pay as much as me.

Given that this developer is planning on making lots of money, I doubt that any of the units will go for cheaper than the going rate at the, mostly historic district, units around them.

You know what would be hypocritical if approved: through the front windows of our unit we would see a four story parking lot and a 18 story tower but yet we would still not be able to replace the now aluminum windows by anything but custom made windows - wooden with panes in a specific green color ! - in order to preserve the historic nature of our street/building.

JCGuys wrote:
I love it! Hypocrites that claim they are for development and building a stronger Jersey City until development is proposed in their own backyard.

I wonder if this is the mindset of those against this development: I spent a lot of money to live in this historic district, and I'll be damned if I let anyone else move in nearby that didn't pay as much as me.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I think I read that this building which subsequently approved, which is great news and means our city council doesn't pander to a minority of illogical loud mouths.

The only pandering is by speculative housing developers to young urbanites.

Also known as catering to their customers. You say this like it's a bad thing.

Frank_M wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
I think I read that this building which subsequently approved, which is great news and means our city council doesn't pander to a minority of illogical loud mouths.

The only pandering is by speculative housing developers to young urbanites.

JCGuys wrote:
I think I read that this building which subsequently approved, which is great news and means our city council doesn't pander to a minority of illogical loud mouths.

one can be pro-development and concern about community preservation. who says that site needs to have a gargantuan tower and not a 7-story tower. if the developer can't make money with a 7-story building, then he should sell it to someone who can

JCGuys wrote:
I love it! Hypocrites that claim they are for development and building a stronger Jersey City until development is proposed in their own backyard. It's the same thing with the Hilltop people up in Journal Square. Literally 100 yards from the PATH station and 20 yards from one of the tallest buildings in Jersey City but would rather the site stay a parking lot.

I wonder if this is the mindset of those against this development: I spent a lot of money to live in this historic district, and I'll be damned if I let anyone else move in nearby that didn't pay as much as me. Cry me a river.

K-Lo wrote:
This site is approved under a Redevelopment Plan for 7 stories, like Charles & Co and the building going in at the former Borinquen site.