papadage wrote:
I am glad you informed me my non-driving mom did not raise up properly by taking us to the doctor on a bus. What a relief! Now I can rest easy.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

You are correct, and luckily the practical people have won the debate.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

nafco wrote:

1. Fine, build garages to absorb the extra parking from the new developments, but PLEASE hide the eyesore garages underground or in the middle of the block on large scale projects so we dont have to see the streetscape ruined with these structures.

2. On the other hand, more parking offered will encourage more drivers. Even if parking is not an issue bc its self contained in the building, you are going to have a big increase in traffic on these narrow streets through the city. Encouraging people with a NYC mentality to move in and ditch their cars will make for a better standard of living for existing drivers and peds who dont want to navigate a city over capacity with cars.

I dont think proposing a building this small near mass transit without parking is such a bad thing. But apparently we're years away from that being a popular idea.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
I see a bunch of "in an ideal world" arguments in favor of not making developers include parking in their planned large multi unit buildings. But its not an ideal world, and many of the people willing to spend the money to live in a new modern building ARE going to bring their cars along with them and try to shoe horn these cars into the existing infrastructure. It would CERTAINLY negatively impact the quality of life for the rest of us. People who already have cars in the area are likely to tell you that its becoming increasingly difficult to find parking as it is, and those of us without cars, the majority, have enough trouble crossing the street without the percentage of vehicles increasing. There is NO good aspect of new construction that does not include parking. In my view the exclusion of parking spaces in new construction is ONLY a reflection of the developers wish to maximize profitability and all development from this point on should include parking within the developments proposed, it should be a mandatory requirement and be non-negotiable.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
I cant understand how some people can halt the development on a project like this that is actually in relative scale with the neighborhood as opposed to every other project in JSQ that is a 60 story tower next to a 2 story house. This would benefit the streetscape in my opinion, but its not my call I guess.

What's so hard to understand? The proposed building did not include ANY parking. That's unacceptable in Jersey City, where people need cars.

exart wrote:
I lived in the bubble of downtown for over 15 years before moving out of the downtown area. I too believed cars were unnecessary in JC. I carried groceries home on foot, had places like Lee's and Tender Shoot for smaller needs, and restaurants all around (well, at least for the last 5 years). I had zipcar for the times I needed to get more than I could carry, or for the occasional trips to Ikea/Target etc.
Earlier this year, I moved out of Downtown. I'm still under a 15 min walk to the JSQ PATH for my work commute, but you know what? There is no zipcar within walking distance to my place now. There is no grocery store, no place to get kitty litter. Yes, I can order online, but that gets old and complicated with waiting for deliveries around my work schedule/how my building is set up (delivery drivers don't use the intercom!). I cannot get to the farmer's market at the PATH station before it's packed up due to my work hours. There's a whole number of reasons I recently caved and got a car. Thankfully, my building has parking. My plan was to rent my space, but after a few months, I realized that I could really use a car.
If you think you don't need a car in ALL areas of JC, you must live in the bubble of the downtown, where yeah, you totally don't need a car.

But Perrine Ave is not like downtown, and until there are grocery stores, produce markets and/or other amenities in the neighborhood, some people will have cars there.

exart wrote:
I lived in the bubble of downtown for over 15 years before moving out of the downtown area. I too believed cars were unnecessary in JC. I carried groceries home on foot, had places like Lee's and Tender Shoot for smaller needs, and restaurants all around (well, at least for the last 5 years). I had zipcar for the times I needed to get more than I could carry, or for the occasional trips to Ikea/Target etc.
Earlier this year, I moved out of Downtown. I'm still under a 15 min walk to the JSQ PATH for my work commute, but you know what? There is no zipcar within walking distance to my place now. There is no grocery store, no place to get kitty litter. Yes, I can order online, but that gets old and complicated with waiting for deliveries around my work schedule/how my building is set up (delivery drivers don't use the intercom!). I cannot get to the farmer's market at the PATH station before it's packed up due to my work hours. There's a whole number of reasons I recently caved and got a car. Thankfully, my building has parking. My plan was to rent my space, but after a few months, I realized that I could really use a car.
If you think you don't need a car in ALL areas of JC, you must live in the bubble of the downtown, where yeah, you totally don't need a car.

But Perrine Ave is not like downtown, and until there are grocery stores, produce markets and/or other amenities in the neighborhood, some people will have cars there.

nafco wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
I cant understand how some people can halt the development on a project like this that is actually in relative scale with the neighborhood as opposed to every other project in JSQ that is a 60 story tower next to a 2 story house. This would benefit the streetscape in my opinion, but its not my call I guess.

What's so hard to understand? The proposed building did not include ANY parking. That's unacceptable in Jersey City, where people need cars.

Not sure if youre being sarcastic or not, but in an area thats walkable to 24 hour mass transit which connects to Manhattan and all other forms of mass transit, i wouldnt exactly say people NEED cars. its a luxury but not every single person in JC should have a vehicle. its not sustainable.

if you were being sarcastic, my apologies.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

nafco wrote:
I cant understand how some people can halt the development on a project like this that is actually in relative scale with the neighborhood as opposed to every other project in JSQ that is a 60 story tower next to a 2 story house. This would benefit the streetscape in my opinion, but its not my call I guess.

What's so hard to understand? The proposed building did not include ANY parking. That's unacceptable in Jersey City, where people need cars.

nafco wrote:
I cant understand how some people can halt the development on a project like this that is actually in relative scale with the neighborhood as opposed to every other project in JSQ that is a 60 story tower next to a 2 story house. This would benefit the streetscape in my opinion, but its not my call I guess.

JerseyCityFrankie wrote:
The use of language is flawed isn't it? Its claiming to include ....."spaces for theaters, art galleries and studios, museums, libraries and more".... When you put the letter "S" at the end it makes it plural, right? SO are they claiming there will actually be two or more libraries in this small complex? More than two museums? Two or more theaters? Its a bullshit list of imaginary substance that was clearly thrown together in haste. It is NOT being specific about what it claims to be offering in exchange for a zoning variance and I believe the bar should be higher for proposals like this. If the developer has substantive things it can bring to the table they should have no trouble at all listing them and DEFINING them. Pointing to other unrelated developments in other parts of the world and claiming you can do the same is NOT in itself a plan for success.

neverleft wrote:
.
Jersey City envisions arts district near historic Loew's

By Terrence T. McDonald | The Jersey Journal
on October 25, 2016 at 12:19 PM

JERSEY CITY — The neighborhood behind the Landmark Loew's Jersey Theatre in Journal Square would be set for a radical transformation under zoning changes up for final adoption by the City Council tomorrow.

The changes would allow the Harwood family to construct residential high-rises and arts facilities on a roughly 2-acre area the family owns that runs along the PATH tracks. The area is now home now to parking lots and a garage.

The city hopes the changes will lead to the creation of a cultural arts district connecting the neighborhood west of the Loew's to Journal Square. The Harwoods would be allowed to build taller high-rises than zoning allows in exchange for creating spaces for theaters, art galleries and studios, museums, libraries and more.


http://www.nj.com/hudson/index.ssf/20 ... e.html#incart_2box_hudson