vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

If a Whole Foods opened in your area without a dedicated parking lot, would you be against it?

To me personally, this IS a parking issue. I don't know about other people, but I care less about neighborhood character issue or density issue...although I understand why people don't like it to change.

If it's up to me, I would not put this micro apartment building without dedicated parking garage because if it doesn't have parking for the residents (and if most of them have cars), it would make my parking more difficult (I don't think there is anyone who disagrees on that).

If a Whole Foods open at this location, I would probably be against that too for the same reason.

But at the same time, I'm not arguing that I am entitled a spot to park. I also understand some people argue that we should not have a car if it is difficult to park. Practically speaking, getting rid of a car is not possible for my current work situation, so if parking does because much harder than it is now, I will have to pay for it or will have to consider moving. I don't like either option, but I may have to do that eventually with or without this particular building.

The point is nobody wants their lives to get more difficult, and I think that it is okay to argue from a selfish point of view.

Question - do you care more about making your life more convenient or having the value of your condo go up?

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

If a Whole Foods opened in your area without a dedicated parking lot, would you be against it?

To me personally, this IS a parking issue. I don't know about other people, but I care less about neighborhood character issue or density issue...although I understand why people don't like it to change.

If it's up to me, I would not put this micro apartment building without dedicated parking garage because if it doesn't have parking for the residents (and if most of them have cars), it would make my parking more difficult (I don't think there is anyone who disagrees on that).

If a Whole Foods open at this location, I would probably be against that too for the same reason.

But at the same time, I'm not arguing that I am entitled a spot to park. I also understand some people argue that we should not have a car if it is difficult to park. Practically speaking, getting rid of a car is not possible for my current work situation, so if parking does because much harder than it is now, I will have to pay for it or will have to consider moving. I don't like either option, but I may have to do that eventually with or without this particular building.

The point is nobody wants their lives to get more difficult, and I think that it is okay to argue from a selfish point of view.

Question - do you care more about making your life more convenient or having the value of your condo go up?

I feel like you're asking this as if you think there's a right or wrong answer. Let me know if I misinterpreted you.

I could understand a renter valuing parking space over property values but for a homeowner, it seems odd.....that's all

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

If a Whole Foods opened in your area without a dedicated parking lot, would you be against it?

To me personally, this IS a parking issue. I don't know about other people, but I care less about neighborhood character issue or density issue...although I understand why people don't like it to change.

If it's up to me, I would not put this micro apartment building without dedicated parking garage because if it doesn't have parking for the residents (and if most of them have cars), it would make my parking more difficult (I don't think there is anyone who disagrees on that).

If a Whole Foods open at this location, I would probably be against that too for the same reason.

But at the same time, I'm not arguing that I am entitled a spot to park. I also understand some people argue that we should not have a car if it is difficult to park. Practically speaking, getting rid of a car is not possible for my current work situation, so if parking does because much harder than it is now, I will have to pay for it or will have to consider moving. I don't like either option, but I may have to do that eventually with or without this particular building.

The point is nobody wants their lives to get more difficult, and I think that it is okay to argue from a selfish point of view.

Question - do you care more about making your life more convenient or having the value of your condo go up?

I feel like you're asking this as if you think there's a right or wrong answer. Let me know if I misinterpreted you.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

If a Whole Foods opened in your area without a dedicated parking lot, would you be against it?

To me personally, this IS a parking issue. I don't know about other people, but I care less about neighborhood character issue or density issue...although I understand why people don't like it to change.

If it's up to me, I would not put this micro apartment building without dedicated parking garage because if it doesn't have parking for the residents (and if most of them have cars), it would make my parking more difficult (I don't think there is anyone who disagrees on that).

If a Whole Foods open at this location, I would probably be against that too for the same reason.

But at the same time, I'm not arguing that I am entitled a spot to park. I also understand some people argue that we should not have a car if it is difficult to park. Practically speaking, getting rid of a car is not possible for my current work situation, so if parking does because much harder than it is now, I will have to pay for it or will have to consider moving. I don't like either option, but I may have to do that eventually with or without this particular building.

The point is nobody wants their lives to get more difficult, and I think that it is okay to argue from a selfish point of view.

Question - do you care more about making your life more convenient or having the value of your condo go up?

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

If a Whole Foods opened in your area without a dedicated parking lot, would you be against it?

To me personally, this IS a parking issue. I don't know about other people, but I care less about neighborhood character issue or density issue...although I understand why people don't like it to change.

If it's up to me, I would not put this micro apartment building without dedicated parking garage because if it doesn't have parking for the residents (and if most of them have cars), it would make my parking more difficult (I don't think there is anyone who disagrees on that).

If a Whole Foods open at this location, I would probably be against that too for the same reason.

But at the same time, I'm not arguing that I am entitled a spot to park. I also understand some people argue that we should not have a car if it is difficult to park. Practically speaking, getting rid of a car is not possible for my current work situation, so if parking does because much harder than it is now, I will have to pay for it or will have to consider moving. I don't like either option, but I may have to do that eventually with or without this particular building.

The point is nobody wants their lives to get more difficult, and I think that it is okay to argue from a selfish point of view.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

If a Whole Foods opened in your area without a dedicated parking lot, would you be against it?

luvHomeMyJC wrote:
Please Steve, start growing the rest of the city beyond downtown and think about lowering our property taxes.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Jersey Avenue from Newark Avenue to Grand St has a back up of cars during school dismissal. I have been on Jersey Avenue numerous times and it has taken me nearly 20 to 30 minutes to reach my destination of five blocks. Varick Street is one block west, you don't need more congestion in that area. Even if there is no parking, you will have 87 more people crossing Jersey Avenue in an already tight space.

Imagine if an argument to development in Manhattan was that "it will be too crowded" lol

People here have no clue what makes a great city

And here we are, at our yearly agreement! Damn I wish the thread about constructing the Home Depot wasn't erased, it would be a hoot to see all the similar histrionics arguments projecting the cars going in & out of there bringing the traffic in Hamilton Park to it's knees. Umm, didn't happen.

Yvonne wrote:
New York City has wide streets, it can handle more than one lane of traffic. Jersey Avenue is narrow. This is not Manhattan, it is a small narrow street with 4 schools (PS #3, PS #4, Parochial School, and the old PS. #3 adult school) that borders it. It also has an emergency room hospital and an medical building. Then you have people who drive to the lite rail and park their car. Additionally have the Brownstone Diner, and an active African-American Church and an Hispanic Church. The place is choked with foot and car traffic, it doesn't need more.

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Jersey Avenue from Newark Avenue to Grand St has a back up of cars during school dismissal. I have been on Jersey Avenue numerous times and it has taken me nearly 20 to 30 minutes to reach my destination of five blocks. Varick Street is one block west, you don't need more congestion in that area. Even if there is no parking, you will have 87 more people crossing Jersey Avenue in an already tight space.

Imagine if an argument to development in Manhattan was that "it will be too crowded" lol

People here have no clue what makes a great city

Yvonne wrote:
Jersey Avenue from Newark Avenue to Grand St has a back up of cars during school dismissal. I have been on Jersey Avenue numerous times and it has taken me nearly 20 to 30 minutes to reach my destination of five blocks. Varick Street is one block west, you don't need more congestion in that area. Even if there is no parking, you will have 87 more people crossing Jersey Avenue in an already tight space.

RickSp wrote:
Dropping a high density, 87 unit S.R.O., on a quarter acre of land in a residential neighborhood across the street from three schools and down the street from a fourth, on an already highly congested intersection, is idiotic and irresponsible.

That corner should be developed but a micro-unit S.R.O. is not an appropriate development.

RickSp wrote:
Quote:

Oh screw it, it's about parking!

More pointless snark. Parking is one of the issues, but only one.

Dropping a high density, 87 unit S.R.O., on a quarter acre of land in a residential neighborhood across the street from three schools and down the street from a fourth, on an already highly congested intersection, is idiotic and irresponsible.

That corner should be developed but a micro-unit S.R.O. is not an appropriate development.

Oh screw it, it's about parking!

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

Atsushi wrote:
My wife and I own a condo unit across York Street from VVP. So I don't think we will be directly affected by this development. But if most of the new tenants own cars, parking will become much more difficult, and that would suck big time.

Can the city keep the tenants of this apartment from obtaining parking permit? If so, that would be great for us, but that doesn't sound fair to people who will live in that building.... I hope they will be informed of the situation before signing the lease.

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

vindication15 wrote:
Quote:

FKSJC wrote:
Quote:

Can you name one development that has been built in DTJC that has failed?

Can you name one that is so different in so many ways from its surroundings? There is no precedent for this- that I'm aware of

And for develpments that have failed- how about the Beacon that was supposed to be condo and went rental? Or how about 77 Hudson with an owner tower and rental tower?

Yes failure is in the eye of the beholder, but having rents significantly below Developer's estimate would I think be considered failure, but impossible to know. Then not enough money for all the other stuff.

77 Hudson just sold a condo for the highest amount ever in JC. 77 Hudson is the opposite to failure. 77 Hudson is to failure as Christie is to Olympic Athlete.

I said, name a DTJC development that has failed. The Beacon is a failure but is not in DTJC.

The measure of failure is not whether it fits in the neighborhood. The measure of failure is whether these establishments increase property values.

What fits into Newark Ave near the Grove PATH is more 99 cent stores but that does not mean more should be built..

Beacon not downtown. Okay will give you that. Sorry for messing that up.
Regarding 77 Hudson- whatever you say. Successful is not what I have heard.
Regardless, we can agree to disagree about that. However, I offered examples- one was incorrect and another you disagree with. Fair enough. Can you please answer my question now? Name another development that is so different from surroundings? Hamilton Square comes to mind, but it is not a good example as the Silverman?s extensively sought input from HPNA about its creation frorm St. Francis. The polar opposite of this situation.

FKSJC wrote:
Name another development that is so different from surroundings? Hamilton Square comes to mind, but it is not a good example as the Silverman?s extensively sought input from HPNA about its creation frorm St. Francis. The polar opposite of this situation.