nafco wrote:
Is there a site plan of the development anywhere? I like the idea of opening valuable land to the public again and removing parking lots, but this looks kind of like a haphazard Newport-esque spattering of towers without any real street grid integration to whats around it. I may be wrong though.

All we have to do next is bull doze the massive eye sore that is the Mall which completely disects the neighborhoods and allows no walkability around it. Suburban malls do not belong in the middle of valuable water front city lots.

nafco wrote:
All we have to do next is bull doze the massive eye sore that is the Mall which completely disects the neighborhoods and allows no walkability around it. Suburban malls do not belong in the middle of valuable water front city lots.

jcguy05 wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The PATH will be a little more packed
The buses will be a little more full
Less available on-street parking
Less spots available for child care
Overcrowded classroom numbers
A little more crowded parks
A little more dog poop
A few more cyclists using the sidewalk
A few more motorist speeding, and running stop signs
A few more members on JClist

and then we argue the pro's and con's of gentrification and the issues associated with high density, high rise inner city developments !

why are you always so negative about progress and development? If you want jersey city to remain a dump like it was 20 years ago, just move to irvington or newark, otherwise deal with it, the steamroller is not stopping for you.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
The PATH will be a little more packed
The buses will be a little more full
Less available on-street parking
Less spots available for child care
Overcrowded classroom numbers
A little more crowded parks
A little more dog poop
A few more cyclists using the sidewalk
A few more motorist speeding, and running stop signs
A few more members on JClist

and then we argue the pro's and con's of gentrification and the issues associated with high density, high rise inner city developments !

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

It seems that all of the new high rise construction both downtown and in JSQ is "luxury rental". As discussed elsewhere on this board, developers are choosing (or are restricted through financing terms) to construct rentals rather than condos. We see this from the Maddox and York at Warren to URL and the Majestic II across from City Hall.

If that is and continues to be the case, we might expect the glut of supply to stabilize rental prices downtown, but I would expect the impact on condo prices to be negligible since the supply of units to purchase is remaining static.

In fact, if more renters move here and decide they want to buy, the influx of newcomers might even drive condo prices up as demand increases but available inventory remains unchanged. I might be wrong on that point, but in any event, I can't see the flood of new rental inventory being a depreciative factor on real estate prices in DTJC.

I think that's a great analysis. Another point is that more development projects, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. bring attention to the city and could make it a more desirable place to live. The resulting increases in demand may compensate for or even rise faster than the increase in supply.

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

It seems that all of the new high rise construction both downtown and in JSQ is "luxury rental". As discussed elsewhere on this board, developers are choosing (or are restricted through financing terms) to construct rentals rather than condos. We see this from the Maddox and York at Warren to URL and the Majestic II across from City Hall.

If that is and continues to be the case, we might expect the glut of supply to stabilize rental prices downtown, but I would expect the impact on condo prices to be negligible since the supply of units to purchase is remaining static.

In fact, if more renters move here and decide they want to buy, the influx of newcomers might even drive condo prices up as demand increases but available inventory remains unchanged. I might be wrong on that point, but in any event, I can't see the flood of new rental inventory being a depreciative factor on real estate prices in DTJC.

jmiz wrote:

How do you suppose they add capacity into NYC without also increasing the amount of empty trains out of NYC? Where do you expect those extra capacity trains to go once they reach NYC?

If you increase the frequency of trains inbound, the outbound trains must increase in proportion.

Use your head.

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

Bingo!

user1111 wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

Bingo!

Voyeur wrote:
Also, the PA's 50,000 number does not reflect the uneven distribution of ridership. Adding more frequency of service to virtually empty trains heading from WTC to HOB in the morning may "add capacity" but it is capacity where it is not needed and does nothing to reduce the congestion on the NYC-bound trains heading in from JC. How much of this 50,000 number will have a tangible benefit on the most crowded trains at the busiest times of the day?

Voyeur wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

It seems that all of the new high rise construction both downtown and in JSQ is "luxury rental". As discussed elsewhere on this board, developers are choosing (or are restricted through financing terms) to construct rentals rather than condos. We see this from the Maddox and York at Warren to URL and the Majestic II across from City Hall.

If that is and continues to be the case, we might expect the glut of supply to stabilize rental prices downtown, but I would expect the impact on condo prices to be negligible since the supply of units to purchase is remaining static.

In fact, if more renters move here and decide they want to buy, the influx of newcomers might even drive condo prices up as demand increases but available inventory remains unchanged. I might be wrong on that point, but in any event, I can't see the flood of new rental inventory being a depreciative factor on real estate prices in DTJC.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Quote:

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

In fact, I think developments like this would increase rather than decrease property values despite the increase in supply. Although, they may decrease rental a bit.

Would you prefer a used car or a new car for the same price ?

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

Bubble_Tea wrote:
Quote:

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

In fact, I think developments like this would increase rather than decrease property values despite the increase in supply. Although, they may decrease rental a bit.

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Just another building that puts a strangle hold on property prices / values - Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

fat-ass-bike wrote:
Those that have bought in the past 10 years will never gain any rise in property prices as new apartments are being sold for the same amount; but maintaining a profitable margin to build them!

craigslistdiva wrote:
This is good idea as long as it's done with good urban planning in mind. It will somewhat connect three standalone residential areas that will be connected via foot traffic (Hamilton Park, DT and Newport). Hopefully the retail that the developers are targeting are small time businesses; we already have enough chain stores at the mall. But then again, any retail will be a boost to the area.

As for the PATH perhaps there would be consideration of having 2 JSQ 33rd street trains to 1 HOB 33rd street train. It's a quick and easy fix. Well "easy" as long as someone at the PA can see that a larger population in JC warrants that.

JCMan8 wrote:
I think that complex is in desperate need of an update. I'm sure the retail will be better after this project is complete.

HOWEVER, the PATH is already ridiculously overcrowded at most hours of the day. As it stands, an extra 30,000 or people will be using it after the existing new construction is completed. It's doubtful there is enough capacity to handle those developments.

Now they want to add countless additional people into the area? I don't think this should be allowed unless the developers have a concrete plan as to how they will preserve the city's already strained infrastructure and some kind of arrangement is worked out to ease the PATH crowding.

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Just throw on two more cars now and make sure the Grove Street people don't get on the front and back car? Why is that so difficult? The LIRR has been doing this for years.

I think it's illegal under federal law. The LIRR isn't federally regulated because it doesn't cross state lines.

devilsadvocate wrote:
And if the EBT crowd finds that they have nowhere to shop anymore and end up moving out of DTJC? Then I consider that another plus of the proposal.

Conformist wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Just throw on two more cars now and make sure the Grove Street people don't get on the front and back car? Why is that so difficult? The LIRR has been doing this for years.

I think it's illegal under federal law. The LIRR isn't federally regulated because it doesn't cross state lines.

K-Lo wrote:
Just throw on two more cars now and make sure the Grove Street people don't get on the front and back car? Why is that so difficult? The LIRR has been doing this for years.