Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
18 user(s) are online (14 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 18

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 ... 8 »


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
9/14 9:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3638
Offline
i believe the micro units in manhattan have been a big success. if one is living in one of these apartments, one will not need to own a car fulltime.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 16:03
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2015/11/21 22:12
Last Login :
Yesterday 23:00
From DTJC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 372
Offline
Almost a year later...are there any updates? Anything is more useful than a fenced off parking lot at this point.

Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
Legal proceedings are ongoing.

Posted on: 2016/2/24 15:41
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1207
Offline
Legal proceedings are ongoing.

Posted on: 2015/4/15 17:24
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
2018/9/5 5:49
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
So what's the latest with this development? When does construction start? Is there retail on ground floor, or no?

Posted on: 2015/4/15 3:06
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 0:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4823
Offline
Quote:

rescuelife wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.


When I read this, I had a great laugh, it reminds me of my early teaching career while speaking on President Washington, an innocent young child asked me if I knew President Washington, I was barely out of my 20s then. She had no sense of history. Returning to the subject, we old timers did not dismantle trolley lines, or even the bath houses or the train lines that went to the Jersey Shore, that happened before we were born. So what did we do, we increase the value of properties. A typical brownstone was $10,000 in the 1970s, before the 1988 reval, homes were selling between $150,000 to $300,000. We stopped Colgate for destroying historic buildings, created the historic districts, sought grants for Van Vorst and Hamilton Parks. We pushed for handicapped curbs. We fought against polluters who used our vacant land as dumping grounds for toxics and fought for floods control issues. We were successful on some issues but not others. By the mid 1980, Colgate said their land was too valuable because home prices were raising and decided to develop, they never asked for an abatement, just letting you know. We started the development, not the mayor. He moved into a luxury condo in his early 20s instead of a toxic waste land. Give credit where credit is due.


funny because you are usually the one providing entertainment here, Yvonne, and now we made you laugh! It's like the king cracking a joke to the court jester/village idiot.

You had quite the comedic performance at this week's council meeting. I swear the greatest comedic minds in history could not come up with what you/Jayson Burg/Kabili Tayari come up with. Keep up the great comedy, thank you.


Rescue, I do feel sorry for you. You are one of those people who attack when there is nothing positive to say. Sad. But returning to the facts, nothing I said is a lie. The Van Vorst Park Association in the 1970s and 1980s had house tours that was received notice in the New York Times. We, not government, was responsible for the turnaround of city. Even, former Schundler mentioned he went on one of the house tours which lead him to purchase a house in the neighborhood. The facts are there, just do the work.

Posted on: 2015/2/27 17:10
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/6/10 16:06
Last Login :
2018/9/22 10:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 267
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.


When I read this, I had a great laugh, it reminds me of my early teaching career while speaking on President Washington, an innocent young child asked me if I knew President Washington, I was barely out of my 20s then. She had no sense of history. Returning to the subject, we old timers did not dismantle trolley lines, or even the bath houses or the train lines that went to the Jersey Shore, that happened before we were born. So what did we do, we increase the value of properties. A typical brownstone was $10,000 in the 1970s, before the 1988 reval, homes were selling between $150,000 to $300,000. We stopped Colgate for destroying historic buildings, created the historic districts, sought grants for Van Vorst and Hamilton Parks. We pushed for handicapped curbs. We fought against polluters who used our vacant land as dumping grounds for toxics and fought for floods control issues. We were successful on some issues but not others. By the mid 1980, Colgate said their land was too valuable because home prices were raising and decided to develop, they never asked for an abatement, just letting you know. We started the development, not the mayor. He moved into a luxury condo in his early 20s instead of a toxic waste land. Give credit where credit is due.


funny because you are usually the one providing entertainment here, Yvonne, and now we made you laugh! It's like the king cracking a joke to the court jester/village idiot.

You had quite the comedic performance at this week's council meeting. I swear the greatest comedic minds in history could not come up with what you/Jayson Burg/Kabili Tayari come up with. Keep up the great comedy, thank you.

Posted on: 2015/2/27 15:20
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 0:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4823
Offline
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.


When I read this, I had a great laugh, it reminds me of my early teaching career while speaking on President Washington, an innocent young child asked me if I knew President Washington, I was barely out of my 20s then. She had no sense of history. Returning to the subject, we old timers did not dismantle trolley lines, or even the bath houses or the train lines that went to the Jersey Shore, that happened before we were born. So what did we do, we increase the value of properties. A typical brownstone was $10,000 in the 1970s, before the 1988 reval, homes were selling between $150,000 to $300,000. We stopped Colgate for destroying historic buildings, created the historic districts, sought grants for Van Vorst and Hamilton Parks. We pushed for handicapped curbs. We fought against polluters who used our vacant land as dumping grounds for toxics and fought for floods control issues. We were successful on some issues but not others. By the mid 1980, Colgate said their land was too valuable because home prices were raising and decided to develop, they never asked for an abatement, just letting you know. We started the development, not the mayor. He moved into a luxury condo in his early 20s instead of a toxic waste land. Give credit where credit is due.

Posted on: 2015/2/27 14:03
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
Exactly!

And BRING BACK THE STREET CAR.. All the way down Columbus Ave to the water.
a streetcar would be awesome...i believe nj transit had wanted to put a lightrail on columbus but ran into stiff opposition from obstructionists


I can't think of a single change that hasn't run into stiff opposition from obstructionists.

Posted on: 2015/2/26 20:11
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
9/14 9:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3638
Offline
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
Exactly!

And BRING BACK THE STREET CAR.. All the way down Columbus Ave to the water.
a streetcar would be awesome...i believe nj transit had wanted to put a lightrail on columbus but ran into stiff opposition from obstructionists

Posted on: 2015/2/26 19:00
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/4/20 21:48
Last Login :
2017/6/16 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 97
Offline
Exactly!

And BRING BACK THE STREET CAR.. All the way down Columbus Ave to the water.

Posted on: 2015/2/26 17:01
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
I just don't understand the emphasis on catering to "long time residents" who don't like change. Aren't "long time residents" largely responsible for the depressed state Jersey City was in until relatively recently? The dismantling of the trolley lines happened on your watch, as did opening doors to suburban big box shopping centers in prime locations, along with the near constant electing crooked, short-sighted politicians until Mayor Fulop shook things up.

Posted on: 2015/2/26 16:38
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/4/20 21:48
Last Login :
2017/6/16 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 97
Offline
I just want to point out that I fully support these micro units. The idea that we need to change things around for people with cars makes no sense. There are more pedestrians than drivers, so shouldn't we change the city be more people friendly.
If you are looking for a suburban experience, you can always move to the burbs.

Posted on: 2015/2/26 16:05
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
9/14 9:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3638
Offline
i think some people would find these micro apartments massive. here's a story about a manhattan woman loving her 90 sq. foot apt.

http://ny.curbed.com/archives/2015/02 ... bly_in_90_square_feet.php

Posted on: 2015/2/26 12:46
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Quite a regular
Quite a regular


Hide User information
Joined :
2010/4/22 14:26
Last Login :
2016/7/19 10:01
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 53
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:

Parking became a problem when Fulop proposed as councilman the change in policy for new construction. It was always one residence, one parking space. Now ration is less than 50%, so what is happening? New residents are parking on the streets. The developers are making more money because parking spaces do not pay like a rental but the overflow of cars on the street impacts people who live in older homes without parking.


Same conversation on every thread. New residents and old are more than welcome to actually pay for a spot and park in one of the many 1/2 empty decks downtown. We don't lack parking. We lack free parking. Free parking in a city is a ridiculous waste of space and money.

According to the US Census over 40% of the residences in JC don't actually own cars. Yet we're supposed to build a space for each and every new unit? That's insanity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ ... #cite_ref-bikesatwork_1-9


Why should long time residents pay for parking when it was always free? It is also free in other cities. I pay enough in taxes and water, so why should parking be another liability? If developers want to make a profit on their buildings it should not be at the expense of long term residents. They should not have to fight to maintain what they have. Again, did you ask Fulop and the council to give up their free parking behind city hall?



why do you insist on treating resident A different than resident B ?

Posted on: 2014/12/23 15:46
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

jcdd wrote:
There is a legitimate concern for parking for families that live in Jersey City. Anybody that has children knows that it is pretty much essential to have a car. You have school issues, doctor appointments and a whole host of other requirements that come along with children that often involve a car, particularly if both parents work and have to utilize daycare. Try walking a mile or two to a doctor appointment with a 3 month old sick baby. I'm not saying that parking should be free, but it needs to be conveniently located nearby for such families, and Jersey City is lacking that, to a big degree.
NYC has a much superior public transportation system that allows families and children to get to school, doc appts, and virtually anywhere in the city fairly easily. There are cabs everywhere. It is much easier to get around NYC without a car than it is in JC and amenities in general are more accessable. Notwithstanding, most people I know with kids in NYC still have a car. NYC also has plenty of parking garages around the City, so long as you are wiling to pay.

If we want JC to be a city of single or childless people, then certainly go car free. But families will continue to move out because it is family unfriendly. Families make good neighbors - they raise property values, keep their properties looking nice, provide long term stability, take pride in their neighborhood and volunteer, support local business to a greater degree, and work to make the City a better place to live because they have such a vested interest in doing so. We do need to balance the needs of all people that live in JC.


There's plenty of parking lots in downtown JC within walking distance for rent. And there's always Uber as well.

Posted on: 2014/12/22 22:27
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
4/5 18:29
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1906
Offline
Quote:

jcdd wrote:
There is a legitimate concern for parking for families that live in Jersey City. Anybody that has children knows that it is pretty much essential to have a car. You have school issues, doctor appointments and a whole host of other requirements that come along with children that often involve a car, particularly if both parents work and have to utilize daycare. Try walking a mile or two to a doctor appointment with a 3 month old sick baby. I'm not saying that parking should be free, but it needs to be conveniently located nearby for such families, and Jersey City is lacking that, to a big degree.
NYC has a much superior public transportation system that allows families and children to get to school, doc appts, and virtually anywhere in the city fairly easily. There are cabs everywhere. It is much easier to get around NYC without a car than it is in JC and amenities in general are more accessable. Notwithstanding, most people I know with kids in NYC still have a car. NYC also has plenty of parking garages around the City, so long as you are wiling to pay.

If we want JC to be a city of single or childless people, then certainly go car free. But families will continue to move out because it is family unfriendly. Families make good neighbors - they raise property values, keep their properties looking nice, provide long term stability, take pride in their neighborhood and volunteer, support local business to a greater degree, and work to make the City a better place to live because they have such a vested interest in doing so. We do need to balance the needs of all people that live in JC.

FYI: Families don't rent micro units, which is what this thread is about. The people that rent micro units are single, young people that, according to every single study performed, are abandoning their car in increasing fashion.

The reality is that there should be a lower dependence on the automobile. This isn't to say that families can't have a car, but if they do, they can pay for it just like other people that live in urban environments.

Building more ugly parking garages that will go half empty is not the way to move this city forward. Pretending that the automobile is how everyone will transport themselves in the future is also backwards thinking.

Posted on: 2014/12/22 21:37
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/2/5 22:36
Last Login :
2015/8/3 1:43
Group:
Banned
Posts: 231
Offline
There is a legitimate concern for parking for families that live in Jersey City. Anybody that has children knows that it is pretty much essential to have a car. You have school issues, doctor appointments and a whole host of other requirements that come along with children that often involve a car, particularly if both parents work and have to utilize daycare. Try walking a mile or two to a doctor appointment with a 3 month old sick baby. I'm not saying that parking should be free, but it needs to be conveniently located nearby for such families, and Jersey City is lacking that, to a big degree.
NYC has a much superior public transportation system that allows families and children to get to school, doc appts, and virtually anywhere in the city fairly easily. There are cabs everywhere. It is much easier to get around NYC without a car than it is in JC and amenities in general are more accessable. Notwithstanding, most people I know with kids in NYC still have a car. NYC also has plenty of parking garages around the City, so long as you are wiling to pay.

If we want JC to be a city of single or childless people, then certainly go car free. But families will continue to move out because it is family unfriendly. Families make good neighbors - they raise property values, keep their properties looking nice, provide long term stability, take pride in their neighborhood and volunteer, support local business to a greater degree, and work to make the City a better place to live because they have such a vested interest in doing so. We do need to balance the needs of all people that live in JC.

Posted on: 2014/12/22 21:31
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2011/11/30 12:46
Last Login :
2017/8/3 1:06
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1776
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.




I was here first.


Were you?

The Native Americans say hi.

Posted on: 2014/12/22 19:45
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/3/29 21:43
Last Login :
4/5 18:29
From Bergen Hill
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1906
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.




Parking has always been available in JC until developers who also receive abatements build mega buildings without adequate parking. The burden should not be placed on long term residents, it belongs on developers to provide for parking. St. Johns in Journal Square did not impose on their neighbors, they provided parking and even the Gregory now called Metro also provided for parking. It is just greed by developers who realize less parking means more revenue. Don't give me that garbage to go to the suburbs. Let the developers follow the same path as St. Johns and the Gregory. If you want a city without parking move to Manhattan, I was here first.

That is funny. The idea that you should be entitled to anything at all simply because you were born before me is about as absurd a thought as humanly possible.

Cities change. Cities evolve. Residents change. Just because you were in a location for a period of time does not mean you are entitled to remain there with all the same luxuries that you had before. You need to take a seriously hard look in the mirror that the only thing you are entitled to is somewhere between jack and squat and squat left town.

Posted on: 2014/12/22 19:40
Dos A Cero
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/4/20 21:48
Last Login :
2017/6/16 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 97
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.




Parking has always been available in JC until developers who also receive abatements build mega buildings without adequate parking. The burden should not be placed on long term residents, it belongs on developers to provide for parking. St. Johns in Journal Square did not impose on their neighbors, they provided parking and even the Gregory now called Metro also provided for parking. It is just greed by developers who realize less parking means more revenue. Don't give me that garbage to go to the suburbs. Let the developers follow the same path as St. Johns and the Gregory. If you want a city without parking move to Manhattan, I was here first.


You were here first? That's your argument? Shouldn't gentrification be pushing you out right about now?

Posted on: 2014/12/22 19:19
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Because that's BROOKLYN! NEW YORK CITY. Ask Yvonne - if it works in NYC we do not want it here, nosiree!

Posted on: 2014/12/20 5:00
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
9/14 9:17
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3638
Offline
how do they do it in brooklyn? plenty of the new buildings have no parking garages.

Posted on: 2014/12/20 2:48
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/9/10 17:55
Last Login :
2016/10/21 19:48
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 1207
Offline
272 Grove has 46 parking spots...half the original plan. I believe they increased the retail footprint.

Posted on: 2014/12/20 0:42
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2013/10/15 17:32
Last Login :
2017/5/17 13:40
From Heights
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 766
Offline
Quote:
...I was here first.


LOL. And you and your fellow old-timers did such a great job with the city...

Posted on: 2014/12/19 21:58
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
Quote:

Yvonne wrote:
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
The 'mega buildings' all have decks, 1/2 empty decks. I know more than a few people who live in those buildings and I don't know a single one of them who parks on the street.

VVP is the area we're talking about in this thread. No 'mega buildings' there, just a lot of brownstones. Turns out that the existing buildings in DTJC that have been here the longest have no parking despite often being 2 - 4 units.



272 Grove, a new building, with inadequate parking, will have horrible effects on the Van Vorst community. New residents there will take away parking. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring the mayor and city council to have parking. Did you ask the mayor and city council to give up their parking spaces? It is downtown also. Don't ask residents to do something that is not required from the mayor and city council. It is part of the Van Vorst area.


So now we're switching to the future tense and what will happen as opposed to your previous contention that mega buildings caused the current problems?

I thought 272 Grove had a lot of parking? According to the JCRA map it has 99 units and 96 spaces, so I would expect another 1/2 full deck.

http://www.thejcra.org/index.php?p=resources

No one here has asked anyone to give up a parking space they have that is currently off street, so your constant question about Fulop's space is irrelevant.

The nice thing about debating with you is the game of whack-a-mole as you switch gears as each of your arguments is proved half-backed and inaccurate. Not that it will stop you from switching back to them later in the thread.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 20:45
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 0:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4823
Offline
Quote:

moobycow wrote:
The 'mega buildings' all have decks, 1/2 empty decks. I know more than a few people who live in those buildings and I don't know a single one of them who parks on the street.

VVP is the area we're talking about in this thread. No 'mega buildings' there, just a lot of brownstones. Turns out that the existing buildings in DTJC that have been here the longest have no parking despite often being 2 - 4 units.



272 Grove, a new building, with inadequate parking, will have horrible effects on the Van Vorst community. New residents there will take away parking. There is nothing in the ordinance requiring the mayor and city council to have parking. Did you ask the mayor and city council to give up their parking spaces? It is downtown also. Don't ask residents to do something that is not required from the mayor and city council. It is part of the Van Vorst area.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 20:26
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2009/12/22 20:28
Last Login :
2017/11/7 17:48
From 8th st
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 730
Offline
The 'mega buildings' all have decks, 1/2 empty decks. I know more than a few people who live in those buildings and I don't know a single one of them who parks on the street.

VVP is the area we're talking about in this thread. No 'mega buildings' there, just a lot of brownstones. Turns out that the existing buildings in DTJC that have been here the longest have no parking despite often being 2 - 4 units.


Posted on: 2014/12/19 19:49
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 0:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4823
Offline
Quote:

Fomite wrote:
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.




Parking has always been available in JC until developers who also receive abatements build mega buildings without adequate parking. The burden should not be placed on long term residents, it belongs on developers to provide for parking. St. Johns in Journal Square did not impose on their neighbors, they provided parking and even the Gregory now called Metro also provided for parking. It is just greed by developers who realize less parking means more revenue. Don't give me that garbage to go to the suburbs. Let the developers follow the same path as St. Johns and the Gregory. If you want a city without parking move to Manhattan, I was here first.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 19:17
Top


Re: BRIGHT STREET REDEVELOPMENT needs action
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/4/20 21:48
Last Login :
2017/6/16 18:29
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 97
Offline
What is this obsession with parking? This is a CITY not a suburb. If you chose to have a car that's your own decision, no one MUST provide a place for you to park. This city should encourage walking and public transportation instead of forcing everyone to accomedate a place for for their car. Ground level should be shops and cafes, not empty parking lots.


Posted on: 2014/12/19 18:48
Top


Re: An update from the developer of the project proposed for 104 Bright Street
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/6/17 2:16
Last Login :
Today 0:26
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 4823
Offline
Quote:

Wishful_Thinking wrote:
Quote:

Why should long time residents pay for parking when it was always free? It is also free in other cities. I pay enough in taxes and water, so why should parking be another liability? If developers want to make a profit on their buildings it should not be at the expense of long term residents. They should not have to fight to maintain what they have. Again, did you ask Fulop and the council to give up their free parking behind city hall?

Yvonne, forgive me but I feel like this discussion is had over and over again, to no avail. There is very little free parking in Manhattan - the only viable comparison, since Jersey City is very much dependent on NYC for it's growth. And, it's viewed in most planning circles, by advocates for sustainable growth and cities that engage a new demographic, that eliminating cars from urban streets is a good thing http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/p ... ing-is-screwing-up-cities, http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/27/sci ... .html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I think the Mayor, and his planning professionals, understand what some residents are actively fighting to ignore - that remaining a car dependent "hybrid" city does not bode well for future development, or for attracting the types of businesses and residents that make urban areas thrive.

And the "old timers" need to remember - their parking was never free, we all paid for it - and those of us who live in multiple dwellings - and pay disproportionate taxes because of the city's pandering to that particular voting block in the past are willing to put up a fight.


This is not Manhattan, the problem with new residents they are constantly comparing JC to Manhattan. JC does not have the same infrastructure as Manhattan in terms mass transit. In fact, many of the bus lines that ran in the 1960s, '70s, '80s, and '90s have disappeared. I remembered those bus lines because as a child I took them. They do not exist and the lite rail is limited. It is encumbered that the developers do not burden their developments on long term residents. It is also wrong for new residents to tell me, I should pay for parking because Manhattan does this. How dare you! My suggestion, return to Manhattan.

Posted on: 2014/12/19 18:45
Top




(1) 2 3 4 ... 8 »




[Advanced Search]





Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!



LicenseInformation | AboutUs | PrivacyPolicy | Faq | Contact


JERSEY CITY LIST - News & Reviews - Jersey City, NJ - Copyright 2004 - 2017