Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
42 user(s) are online (39 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 42

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 »


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#77
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 16:06
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 969
Offline
Wishful_Thinking, I'm so happy you're asking these questions. This is what we should be asking as a city instead of the usual the building exceeds zoning, too tall, what about my free parking, blah blah blah. The design of the building is so much more important.

Here is a couple more examples I can find.

In Denver, a standard parking deck is build, but it's surrounded by townhomes to make it invisible from the street. Here.

Another example, this time with retail surrounding the parking garage. Here.

There is no reason to give away valuable roof deck space to cars as shown here, here, here, and here. And there is no reason why design elements of all three can't be integrated into one project.

This is what we should be demanding from developers in Jersey City. Let's get more sophisticated instead of just saying, hey this building proposal exceeds zoning by 12 feet. I'm so mad.



Posted on: 2015/7/2 2:00
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#76
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:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Absolutely its a matter of costs. That is why it is not happening (on site parking).
I love the idea of ?renting? a parking spot , as Brewster does to ensure/ secure a parking spot. Should we then say that we should require that of all homeowners in a residential neighborhood, just as he has? That way we can stop the ?demanding? of the public to provide it, and always have a spot available 24/7. Does privatizing parking (renting) make things better than people who live in a residential neighborhood and use available street parking? At least when I move my car, that public spot becomes available to anyone that needs it- unlike all those spots that are privately rented (taking up precious urban space). Really- I don't know...
I definitely need to find out where his off street paying parking is (really)- because there's nothing I know of in the Village-which really is a part of this equation (which I have specifically noted several times) and should have been considered. When I said we have nowhere to go-we really don?t -including any new residents-that will have cars. Should we build a whole bunch of new public lots to accommodate 50 unit buildings? (No!) But I want what Brewster has! I?m willing to rent- but where? I guess his neighborhood/area has that option already. We don't.
This ambitious project is not great for this piece of irregular land that is flanked on three sides by a small residential neighborhood. Even Torrei has acknowledged the unique challenges of building here. I think we all want what is best for JC in the long run-and what determines "best" has many perspectives. Many question the ?free? parking entitlement- but not the amount of units. Interesting?.
Regardless, great comments from both sides- real food for thought. Yes, it is a privilege to be able to have residential street parking. Absolutely. And no- I am not entitled to that. No one is.
If the city was more mindful and had expectations from the developers to provide at least some parking, we wouldn't be put in the position to now make a parking spot "yours".
As residents and homeowners, we need to be vigilant over new construction that greatly impacts an area. The retail is great- and sorely needed. I think the number of units could have been lessened (when he wanted a variance to not add parking) and we still would have the beginnings of a new vibrant community that honors what is there while also bringing it forward.
in some cases, underground parking might be problematic but i think the real problem is that developers/the government tend to pursue the CHEAPEST option. i am not convinced that underground parking is prohibitively expensive especially since they can do it across the hudson river. people in jersey seem to make excuses to pursue the cheapest option.


This will never happen, but I'd like to see requirements for minimum parking spaces be removed if located near the PATH station. (The developer could still put them in if it's feasible, it just won't be mandated by the city). And Secondly, mandating that any parking must be underground or at least shielded from view from the street should it be included. Let's face it, above ground parking is ugly and reminds me of Newport, the most soulless ugly area of the city.

It's possible to wrap a parking garage with offices that completely hides the garage when viewed from the street and there is at least one development in Jersey City deploying this strategy.

Something like this: http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townne ... a/52163d59b969b.image.jpg

Although it takes away from a potential roof deck, that is a great idea for keeping car garages from diminishing the pedestrian experience and character of the streetscape.

Do you have a link to the design/details? I'm curious how the cars are moved to the top - do you drive it? Valet service? What are the cost ramifications of creating the reinforced internal structure to accommodate the parking garage?

Posted on: 2015/7/2 1:19
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#75
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/8/22 0:00
Last Login :
2018/10/19 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
JC Guys- Oh yeah- Newport is a travesty-it's like a displaced "OZ". I had to go there once for a baseball uniform for my son- and I was like WOW- where am I? It has a surreal experience that I guess appeals to some.
And yes- I don't want parking garages or lots either (renting spots)- so what do we do? I say if building under ground is super expensive- re-think your plan in an area that can't absorb it. But- what area can? You could fairly counter.
Around the PATH- hmmm... people with $$ will expect that- and they will get it. You can't ask for progress and not expect a parking area too- there are a million in NYC-not here. I worked in SoHo for 8 years. When I went to someone's loft on Mercer St- they got their car out of another tony building and when they opened the large door-it had stacked cars- I was like -oh-wow-them be cars in this building! So- for those that cite and want NYC- get ready. Cuz that's what they're doing.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 23:20

Edited by schmearwurst on 2015/7/1 23:42:34
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#74
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 16:06
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 969
Offline
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Absolutely its a matter of costs. That is why it is not happening (on site parking).
I love the idea of ?renting? a parking spot , as Brewster does to ensure/ secure a parking spot. Should we then say that we should require that of all homeowners in a residential neighborhood, just as he has? That way we can stop the ?demanding? of the public to provide it, and always have a spot available 24/7. Does privatizing parking (renting) make things better than people who live in a residential neighborhood and use available street parking? At least when I move my car, that public spot becomes available to anyone that needs it- unlike all those spots that are privately rented (taking up precious urban space). Really- I don't know...
I definitely need to find out where his off street paying parking is (really)- because there's nothing I know of in the Village-which really is a part of this equation (which I have specifically noted several times) and should have been considered. When I said we have nowhere to go-we really don?t -including any new residents-that will have cars. Should we build a whole bunch of new public lots to accommodate 50 unit buildings? (No!) But I want what Brewster has! I?m willing to rent- but where? I guess his neighborhood/area has that option already. We don't.
This ambitious project is not great for this piece of irregular land that is flanked on three sides by a small residential neighborhood. Even Torrei has acknowledged the unique challenges of building here. I think we all want what is best for JC in the long run-and what determines "best" has many perspectives. Many question the ?free? parking entitlement- but not the amount of units. Interesting?.
Regardless, great comments from both sides- real food for thought. Yes, it is a privilege to be able to have residential street parking. Absolutely. And no- I am not entitled to that. No one is.
If the city was more mindful and had expectations from the developers to provide at least some parking, we wouldn't be put in the position to now make a parking spot "yours".
As residents and homeowners, we need to be vigilant over new construction that greatly impacts an area. The retail is great- and sorely needed. I think the number of units could have been lessened (when he wanted a variance to not add parking) and we still would have the beginnings of a new vibrant community that honors what is there while also bringing it forward.
in some cases, underground parking might be problematic but i think the real problem is that developers/the government tend to pursue the CHEAPEST option. i am not convinced that underground parking is prohibitively expensive especially since they can do it across the hudson river. people in jersey seem to make excuses to pursue the cheapest option.


This will never happen, but I'd like to see requirements for minimum parking spaces be removed if located near the PATH station. (The developer could still put them in if it's feasible, it just won't be mandated by the city). And Secondly, mandating that any parking must be underground or at least shielded from view from the street should it be included. Let's face it, above ground parking is ugly and reminds me of Newport, the most soulless ugly area of the city.

It's possible to wrap a parking garage with offices that completely hides the garage when viewed from the street and there is at least one development in Jersey City deploying this strategy.

Something like this: http://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townne ... a/52163d59b969b.image.jpg

Posted on: 2015/7/1 22:14
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#73
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/12 16:13
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3648
Offline
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Absolutely its a matter of costs. That is why it is not happening (on site parking).
I love the idea of ?renting? a parking spot , as Brewster does to ensure/ secure a parking spot. Should we then say that we should require that of all homeowners in a residential neighborhood, just as he has? That way we can stop the ?demanding? of the public to provide it, and always have a spot available 24/7. Does privatizing parking (renting) make things better than people who live in a residential neighborhood and use available street parking? At least when I move my car, that public spot becomes available to anyone that needs it- unlike all those spots that are privately rented (taking up precious urban space). Really- I don't know...
I definitely need to find out where his off street paying parking is (really)- because there's nothing I know of in the Village-which really is a part of this equation (which I have specifically noted several times) and should have been considered. When I said we have nowhere to go-we really don?t -including any new residents-that will have cars. Should we build a whole bunch of new public lots to accommodate 50 unit buildings? (No!) But I want what Brewster has! I?m willing to rent- but where? I guess his neighborhood/area has that option already. We don't.
This ambitious project is not great for this piece of irregular land that is flanked on three sides by a small residential neighborhood. Even Torrei has acknowledged the unique challenges of building here. I think we all want what is best for JC in the long run-and what determines "best" has many perspectives. Many question the ?free? parking entitlement- but not the amount of units. Interesting?.
Regardless, great comments from both sides- real food for thought. Yes, it is a privilege to be able to have residential street parking. Absolutely. And no- I am not entitled to that. No one is.
If the city was more mindful and had expectations from the developers to provide at least some parking, we wouldn't be put in the position to now make a parking spot "yours".
As residents and homeowners, we need to be vigilant over new construction that greatly impacts an area. The retail is great- and sorely needed. I think the number of units could have been lessened (when he wanted a variance to not add parking) and we still would have the beginnings of a new vibrant community that honors what is there while also bringing it forward.
in some cases, underground parking might be prohibitively problematic but i think the real problem is that developers/the government tend to pursue the CHEAPEST option. i am not convinced that underground parking is prohibitively expensive especially since they can do it across the hudson river. people in jersey seem to make excuses to pursue the cheapest option.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 22:05
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#72
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/8/22 0:00
Last Login :
2018/10/19 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
Absolutely its a matter of costs. That is why it is not happening (on site parking).
I love the idea of ?renting? a parking spot , as Brewster does to ensure/ secure a parking spot. Should we then say that we should require that of all homeowners in a residential neighborhood, just as he has? That way we can stop the ?demanding? of the public to provide it, and always have a spot available 24/7. Does privatizing parking (renting) make things better than people who live in a residential neighborhood and use available street parking? At least when I move my car, that public spot becomes available to anyone that needs it- unlike all those spots that are privately rented (taking up precious urban space). Really- I don't know...
I definitely need to find out where his off street paying parking is (really)- because there's nothing I know of in the Village-which really is a part of this equation (which I have specifically noted several times) and should have been considered. When I said we have nowhere to go-we really don?t -including any new residents-that will have cars. Should we build a whole bunch of new public lots to accommodate 50 unit buildings? (No!) But I want what Brewster has! I?m willing to rent- but where? I guess his neighborhood/area has that option already. We don't.
This ambitious project is not great for this piece of irregular land that is flanked on three sides by a small residential neighborhood. Even Torrei has acknowledged the unique challenges of building here. I think we all want what is best for JC in the long run-and what determines "best" has many perspectives. Many question the ?free? parking entitlement- but not the amount of units. Interesting?.
Regardless, great comments from both sides- real food for thought. Yes, it is a privilege to be able to have residential street parking. Absolutely. And no- I am not entitled to that. No one is.
If the city was more mindful and had expectations from the developers to provide at least some parking, we wouldn't be put in the position to now make a parking spot "yours".
As residents and homeowners, we need to be vigilant over new construction that greatly impacts an area. The retail is great- and sorely needed. I think the number of units could have been lessened (when he wanted a variance to not add parking) and we still would have the beginnings of a new vibrant community that honors what is there while also bringing it forward.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 20:44
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#71
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 16:06
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 969
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
...and yet the new building on Jersey (old Borinquen hardware) is putting parking below ground.


Is that building in an area that has flooded in the past? I don't know the answer. It's an honest question.


I think it's a matter of costs. It's much cheaper to put above ground or surface parking than underground. The costs probably escalate exponentially depending on how prone the property is to flooding but can be done.

I'm not sure if the city would be doing anyone any favors by mandating on-site parking if the average cost of a space is 50k. Let it be market based.

bustJC, if we move beyond parking I see where we would have disagreements on how to improve the community while still keeping the character of the Village. The building that received approval from the zoning board does exactly that - it adds retail and fills a void with an attractive new building - but you would be against this do to the number of new housing units.

Jersey City has improved a great bit since the mid-70s, but I imagine there were folks back then who were happy and didn't want to see change. Even though 40 years later those same folks would say the improvements made have been for the better.

We also have philosophically difference on density. I view it as a great thing IF the infrastructure is in place. We need the transit infrastructure upgraded.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 18:04
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3742
Offline
Quote:

K-Lo wrote:
...and yet the new building on Jersey (old Borinquen hardware) is putting parking below ground.


Is that building in an area that has flooded in the past? I don't know the answer. It's an honest question.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 12:51
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#69
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: 1202
Offline
...and yet the new building on Jersey (old Borinquen hardware) is putting parking below ground.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 12:38
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3742
Offline
Quote:

hero69 wrote:
Quote:

bustjc wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

You can't blame us for wanting to preserve that but I don't blame you for wanting to build up because it really is all about money to many of you.


Please explain. How is it about money? Many of us who support new development realize the positives it brings to the community where it seems like those opposed are worried about the loss of their free parking or a threat of newcomers to the neighborhood bringing change.

If a site is an ugly lot with an abandoned building and a developer comes along wanting to build a handsome building with street level retail, I'm all for it. While the old timers will look to any reason to rally against the building solely for free loss of parking and the change, even if it's positive change.

You hide behind zoning, but don't give a damn about it as long as it does not infringe on your parking interests. No different from a faux environmentalist fighting a new subdivision in the suburbs, not because they have any interest in protecting nature, but because they don't want anyone else moving into the community.



Sure it is about money - improving the neighborhood improves your investment. That is just being smart. I am also not against developing open lots or the beautifying and updating existing lots. Hell the more you guys come the more my property value goes up. This is more than a problem of just parking. I don't want to live in a packed can. My argument is you can have more retail space and new buildings while mostly preserving the area as it is. So no I don't support new buildings with 50+ apartments that potentially diminish the essence of the area I love. I am preserving a way of life and I don't care if that is selfish because your desires are no more selfish than mine. You think you are improving the area with packing people in it, I don't. We will never agree there but I will argue until we end up at least somewhere in the middle. And yes this about money, why the hell else would they build there? Developers only intention is profit - but yeah this is a heart-filled action to beautify the area, get out of here.
putting the parking below ground, even if more expensive, would help alleviate this problem


Because of flooding concerns in some areas, putting parking below ground is neither smart nor financially feasible. The insurance rates could end up being sky high.

Posted on: 2015/7/1 12:27
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/12 16:13
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3648
Offline
Quote:

bustjc wrote:
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

You can't blame us for wanting to preserve that but I don't blame you for wanting to build up because it really is all about money to many of you.


Please explain. How is it about money? Many of us who support new development realize the positives it brings to the community where it seems like those opposed are worried about the loss of their free parking or a threat of newcomers to the neighborhood bringing change.

If a site is an ugly lot with an abandoned building and a developer comes along wanting to build a handsome building with street level retail, I'm all for it. While the old timers will look to any reason to rally against the building solely for free loss of parking and the change, even if it's positive change.

You hide behind zoning, but don't give a damn about it as long as it does not infringe on your parking interests. No different from a faux environmentalist fighting a new subdivision in the suburbs, not because they have any interest in protecting nature, but because they don't want anyone else moving into the community.



Sure it is about money - improving the neighborhood improves your investment. That is just being smart. I am also not against developing open lots or the beautifying and updating existing lots. Hell the more you guys come the more my property value goes up. This is more than a problem of just parking. I don't want to live in a packed can. My argument is you can have more retail space and new buildings while mostly preserving the area as it is. So no I don't support new buildings with 50+ apartments that potentially diminish the essence of the area I love. I am preserving a way of life and I don't care if that is selfish because your desires are no more selfish than mine. You think you are improving the area with packing people in it, I don't. We will never agree there but I will argue until we end up at least somewhere in the middle. And yes this about money, why the hell else would they build there? Developers only intention is profit - but yeah this is a heart-filled action to beautify the area, get out of here.
putting the parking below ground, even if more expensive, would help alleviate this problem

Posted on: 2015/6/30 23:22
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#66
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/6/10 2:30
Last Login :
2018/3/23 0:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 76
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

You can't blame us for wanting to preserve that but I don't blame you for wanting to build up because it really is all about money to many of you.


Please explain. How is it about money? Many of us who support new development realize the positives it brings to the community where it seems like those opposed are worried about the loss of their free parking or a threat of newcomers to the neighborhood bringing change.

If a site is an ugly lot with an abandoned building and a developer comes along wanting to build a handsome building with street level retail, I'm all for it. While the old timers will look to any reason to rally against the building solely for free loss of parking and the change, even if it's positive change.

You hide behind zoning, but don't give a damn about it as long as it does not infringe on your parking interests. No different from a faux environmentalist fighting a new subdivision in the suburbs, not because they have any interest in protecting nature, but because they don't want anyone else moving into the community.



Sure it is about money - improving the neighborhood improves your investment. That is just being smart. I am also not against developing open lots or the beautifying and updating existing lots. Hell the more you guys come the more my property value goes up. This is more than a problem of just parking. I don't want to live in a packed can. My argument is you can have more retail space and new buildings while mostly preserving the area as it is. So no I don't support new buildings with 50+ apartments that potentially diminish the essence of the area I love. I am preserving a way of life and I don't care if that is selfish because your desires are no more selfish than mine. You think you are improving the area with packing people in it, I don't. We will never agree there but I will argue until we end up at least somewhere in the middle. And yes this about money, why the hell else would they build there? Developers only intention is profit - but yeah this is a heart-filled action to beautify the area, get out of here.

Posted on: 2015/6/30 20:50
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#65
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 16:06
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 969
Offline
Like folks who have literally won the lottery and received a deeply subsubsidized unit in a prime Manhattan neighborhood. In order to help pay for that subsidy and to also create more affordable housing, the NYC housing authority proposes to redevelop surface parking spaces, and the existing residents go nuts about their entitlement to said parking space. Insane.

Posted on: 2015/6/30 18:47
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 16:06
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 969
Offline
I hate entitlement culture. The millennial generation is especially bad all around, but I see the old timers can be just as bad, if not worse, about their parking.

You live in a growing city. If parking is that much of a concern, consider paying for it or moving if you can't get it for free. The fact is, the parking situation in Jersey City is only going to get worse with time.

Here is an article from least year speaking about 28,000 more residential units for Jersey City in the pipeline. The number is probably even higher now. This number ticks up with each new development proposal. Don't be delusional about a perceived entitlement to free parking. It's a lost battle, and you old timers will be spending a lot of time fighting the inevitable when you should be instead enjoying the golden years of life.

http://www.njbiz.com/article/20140818 ... jersey-city-building-boom

Quote:
Data from city officials show a pipeline of more than 28,000 residential units over the next 15 years, though some are projects that have been in the works for some time. Some 5,700 of those units come from sites already under construction, while the others are in various stages of planning.

Posted on: 2015/6/30 18:42
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/5/28 0:34
Last Login :
Yesterday 16:06
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 969
Offline
Quote:

You can't blame us for wanting to preserve that but I don't blame you for wanting to build up because it really is all about money to many of you.


Please explain. How is it about money? Many of us who support new development realize the positives it brings to the community where it seems like those opposed are worried about the loss of their free parking or a threat of newcomers to the neighborhood bringing change.

If a site is an ugly lot with an abandoned building and a developer comes along wanting to build a handsome building with street level retail, I'm all for it. While the old timers will look to any reason to rally against the building solely for free loss of parking and the change, even if it's positive change.

You hide behind zoning, but don't give a damn about it as long as it does not infringe on your parking interests. No different from a faux environmentalist fighting a new subdivision in the suburbs, not because they have any interest in protecting nature, but because they don't want anyone else moving into the community.


Posted on: 2015/6/30 18:37
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#62
Just can't stay away
Just can't stay away


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/6/10 2:30
Last Login :
2018/3/23 0:39
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 76
Offline
I am sure a lot of those old timers with cars like change too. But sorry if we don't want to have the same environment and experience as some of you newcomers. Ironically, the sense of entitlement goes both ways on this one. You think you are "entitled" to the neighborhood you envision and many feel they are entitled to their "free" parking. I think both sides should lose a little and we settle on something sensible. Personally, I have stayed in Jersey City for 30+ years because I have liked it for that long. Seeing how the rest of the neighborhood has changed I don't need the tall buildings and the higher density of people. That change has reduced my quality of life and I really like the quiet little section I live in - but am close enough to everything that I can jump in and out as I please. You can't blame us for wanting to preserve that but I don't blame you for wanting to build up because it really is all about money to many of you.

Posted on: 2015/6/30 14:35
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#61
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: 1202
Offline
Darn those old people for liking mobility.

Posted on: 2015/6/30 13:15
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#60
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:
Does this parking entitlement discussion happen in NYC anywhere? I find it hard to imagine, they would be laughed at.

One of my best friends was on his local Community Board (Union Square/Stuyvesant Square) in Manhattan, and yes - the parking entitlement discussion happened! Those opposed to loosing parking were - wait for it! - older, long time residents.

So it seems there is no escaping the entrenched mentality of entitlement among some people, no matter where you go.

Posted on: 2015/6/29 20:39
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#59
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:

JCGuys wrote:
In New York City exists a program to transfer the development rights from a historic building in order to preserve it. Does/Can should a program exist in JC?

The NYC Zoning Resolution allows the "transfer of development rights (TDR) allows for the transfer of unused development rights from one zoning lot to another... usually to promote the preservation of historic build?ings'... In the case of a landmark building... a transfer may be made by CPC special permit from the zoning lot containing the designated landmark to an adjacent zoning lot or one that is directly across a street or, for a corner lot, another corner lot on the same intersection."

The TDR is also approved by the Landmarks Commission, which not only requires the historic building in question to be restored to a first class condition, but also that the new building have a harmonious relationship to the landmark historic building. In NYC, this has been an excellent tool for restoring neglected historic buildings. Generally, though, the receiving site ends up with a building considerably larger than the landmark and the older buildings around it.

Would it be good for JC? Yes, in that historic buildings like the ones illustrated in an earlier post could be saved. But a larger issue for people on this board seems to be scale, so it may not be useful if people continue to object to larger structures being built in a low-scale environment.

Posted on: 2015/6/29 20:35
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#58
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5556
Offline
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
We don't have to agree here- just understand that there are a lot of cars already here- where is everyone going to go? I guess the Village has to sell their cars- or- whoops- look for spaces on your block.


Do you possess the imagination to see what the neighborhood you love, or Manhattan, would actually look like had a "1 street or off-street space per unit" rule been enforced when it was all built? It would look like a suburb since you can only fit 1 car in front of a 25' lot. A city IS density! What if all the grand pre-war medium rise buildings on the UWS had been required to have off street parking? What a crappy streetscape of parking structures.

PS: I have paid for off street parking. I don't demand the public provide it.

Posted on: 2015/6/28 2:32
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#57
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/8/22 0:00
Last Login :
2018/10/19 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
Brewster: if you have a car- then I guess you are an "entitled free parker" too! (Urbanism term for "street parking"). And, living very near this will impact people differently than those who don't. I think if something such as this was happening immediately near you- I doubt anyone in Paulus Hook, Harsimus Cove or VVP would feel the same. Let's just call a spade a spade and enough with the patronizing "bubble" remarks. I have fought for buildings outside my neighborhood. We don't have to agree here- just understand that there are a lot of cars already here- where is everyone going to go? I guess the Village has to sell their cars- or- whoops- look for spaces on your block. Looks like we'll be in your "bubble"? This could have been alleviated by him offering on site parking- but he doesn't want to give up precious space for that- he loses money. I am really trying to be open minded here- but its hard when some of us feel like the residents are secondary to retail- which is the harsh reality, I suppose.
I have not been in this neighborhood for 20 years and love all the cool changes- I just haven't been given any solid reasons on why Ben Torrei was granted a variance to not supply parking for his large building in an area that has zoned street parking (no public garages either!)- that's all. Nothing else! I think a neighborhood deserves that? I am not one to get into the quaint thingy either- that is surely a losing battle and well- progress happens. Should we just get rid of zoned street parking for all of Downtown? Perhaps- and I do hope that supplying no parking does indeed deter people with cars to want to live there.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 20:37
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#56
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/14 2:38
Last Login :
11/12 16:13
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3648
Offline
Quote:

JCCoffee wrote:
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Bohdipooh- I have no interest in persuading you about anything. There is no argument to be made: 50 units, 7 stories, no on site parking provided.
And I'm pretty sure parking takes place in neighborhoods...


I'm pretty certain many here will see those stats and raise a glass and cheer. Welcome to new urbanism.


I am one of those raising my glass to this. Retail is much more important for this neighborhood, and consequently JC, than parking spaces. It's not surprising to me that those living in the village for a long time will be opposed to this kind of change, but unfortunately, nothing is perfect and I think this kind of change will ultimately result in a safer, more urban environment that the market is clearly looking for.

I'm not a JC old timer, so I am not holding onto any sentimental value of the neighborhood and I also do not think the ease of free parking should be considered a long term priority for such an urban area. So from my perspective, it's a pretty easy choice. But that being said, (although I don't agree with it), I can certainly understand that someone living in the area for 20 years wouldn't want to change their daily routine.
well, i know people who live in manhattan who park over here

Posted on: 2015/6/27 20:13
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#55
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2015/6/15 15:12
Last Login :
2018/3/3 3:12
From Jersey City
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 24
Offline
Quote:

bodhipooh wrote:
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Bohdipooh- I have no interest in persuading you about anything. There is no argument to be made: 50 units, 7 stories, no on site parking provided.
And I'm pretty sure parking takes place in neighborhoods...


I'm pretty certain many here will see those stats and raise a glass and cheer. Welcome to new urbanism.


I am one of those raising my glass to this. Retail is much more important for this neighborhood, and consequently JC, than parking spaces. It's not surprising to me that those living in the village for a long time will be opposed to this kind of change, but unfortunately, nothing is perfect and I think this kind of change will ultimately result in a safer, more urban environment that the market is clearly looking for.

I'm not a JC old timer, so I am not holding onto any sentimental value of the neighborhood and I also do not think the ease of free parking should be considered a long term priority for such an urban area. So from my perspective, it's a pretty easy choice. But that being said, (although I don't agree with it), I can certainly understand that someone living in the area for 20 years wouldn't want to change their daily routine.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 20:02
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#54
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5556
Offline
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
I don't live in NYC.... Nor do I think having 6 residential floors on top of retail space is necessary for this plot of land in this particular area. I welcome the retail- not just all that is coming with it! I suspect you don't live in this exact neighborhood or you would at least understand any possible concerns.
.

Ah, yes. The "nothing relevant exists outside my bubble" POV. I believe I have heard this parking argument raised against every single development project for the last 18 years. And yes, I do believe I live within the area claimed by the Village.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 19:53
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#53
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3742
Offline
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
Bohdipooh- I have no interest in persuading you about anything. There is no argument to be made: 50 units, 7 stories, no on site parking provided.
And I'm pretty sure parking takes place in neighborhoods...


I'm pretty certain many here will see those stats and raise a glass and cheer. Welcome to new urbanism.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 17:44
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#52
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/8/22 0:00
Last Login :
2018/10/19 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
Bohdipooh- I have no interest in persuading you about anything. There is no argument to be made: 50 units, 7 stories, no on site parking provided.
And I'm pretty sure parking takes place in neighborhoods...

Posted on: 2015/6/27 17:42
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#51
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2008/8/12 18:31
Last Login :
2020/4/26 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 3742
Offline
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
I don't live in NYC.... Nor do I think having 6 residential floors on top of retail space is necessary for this plot of land in this particular area. I welcome the retail- not just all that is coming with it! I suspect you don't live in this exact neighborhood or you would at least understand any possible concerns.


Oh, please... One need not live in the "exact neighborhood" to "understand any possible concerns". That's just a weak argument made by those who don't have ways to persuasively argue their case.

Your entire first post was bemoaning parking. Now you are trying to make it about the neighborhood. But, from what was reported here by others, it seems like you are out of touch with the rest of the neighborhood, since many neighbors turned out to voice their support for this project.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 17:23
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#50
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/8/22 0:00
Last Login :
2018/10/19 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
I don't live in NYC.... Nor do I think having 6 residential floors on top of retail space is necessary for this plot of land in this particular area. I welcome the retail- not just all that is coming with it! I suspect you don't live in this exact neighborhood or you would at least understand any possible concerns.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 17:06
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#49
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined:
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
2021/4/5 17:57
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5556
Offline
Quote:

schmearwurst wrote:
So why are we being burdened even more? For what? A bunch of shops on the bottom floor of his building? More residents that sadly will be in the same galleon? (couldn't resist...) What are the benefits here really- for something of this scale- and exactly WHO is benefiting? I think we all know the answer to that.....


Yes, the answer is the neighborhood. Retail shops create vibrant neighborhoods. It's sad that many retail & restaurant spaces in the area have been turned into residential because it's more lucrative in the short term to sell a condo. Imagine living at the Cast Iron Lofts in a decade, when there'll be a whole neighborhood there, with no ground floor retail, and no park.

Does this parking entitlement discussion happen in NYC anywhere? I find it hard to imagine, they would be laughed at.

Posted on: 2015/6/27 16:52
 Top 


Re: the game of escalating variances in The Village
#48
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined:
2011/8/22 0:00
Last Login :
2018/10/19 22:05
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 26
Offline
To even remotely suggest that I expect a parking space right outside my urban front door is ridiculous. I also mentioned that there isn't even a paying lot anywhere in the Village (as far as I know). Any lots that did exist- he has bought spaces and is renting out the Holy Rosary lot. So, we can't have cars now because developers want to make money? This building did NOT have to happen in this way. He has gotten variances because the neighborhood isn't about the Galleon-type of buildings. I have lived in JC since '93 and in every location have dealt with major construction and development. I get it and welcome progress- esp in the Village. But, this is a small neighborhood that is being severely compromised. Hunting for parking is a reality here. So why are we being burdened even more? For what? A bunch of shops on the bottom floor of his building? More residents that sadly will be in the same galleon? (couldn't resist...) What are the benefits here really- for something of this scale- and exactly WHO is benefiting? I think we all know the answer to that.....

Posted on: 2015/6/27 16:36
 Top 




(1) 2 3 »




[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