Chris_NJ wrote:
Quote:

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

sophiabull wrote:
Is PJ Ryan’s closing? Someone mentioned this at the Hilltop association meeting.

damn, hope not. i actually liked that place, especially during NFL season.

I heard that the downtown PJ Ryan's is closing but the JSQ one is staying and potentially a new one opening somewhere else on the west side of city.

jc201jc wrote:
Quote:

sophiabull wrote:
Is PJ Ryan’s closing? Someone mentioned this at the Hilltop association meeting.

damn, hope not. i actually liked that place, especially during NFL season.

sophiabull wrote:
Is PJ Ryan’s closing? Someone mentioned this at the Hilltop association meeting.

brewster wrote:
Because the city record with museums and community centers is so great??? The previous expensively renovated museum on Montgomery was absurdly underutilized, there was a sweet little theater in there that was never used. And the school on 9th is supposed to be a community center too. Anybody ever go there? When HPNA wanted to meet there they made it such a PITA we stopped trying. I recall the gym was leased to St Anthonys to help pay the absurd cost of the building, what's doing there now? So here we go again!

nafco wrote:
Quote:

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

Chris_NJ wrote:
Does anyone know what % of the first Journal Square tower is rented out?

I wonder when some interesting retail & restaurants will come to the blocks right around JSQ. The cynical side of me says "never" and the block from the PATH station to Tonnelle will always be exactly as it is now. The glass half full version of me says "be patient, it will happen."

Ethnic ain't interesting ?

You want shit for white ppl ?

Eh, i get it. Have you ever actually tried to eat in JSQ? Besides a few good Indian joints on Newark, there really isnt much thats good OR interesting. It has nothing to do with ethnic. Its honestly just nothing you would want to venture out for with a date, or friends.

But to answer the previous question, yes I do think some good options will start to trickle in soon

iGreg wrote:
Quote:

Chris_NJ wrote:
Does anyone know what % of the first Journal Square tower is rented out?

I wonder when some interesting retail & restaurants will come to the blocks right around JSQ. The cynical side of me says "never" and the block from the PATH station to Tonnelle will always be exactly as it is now. The glass half full version of me says "be patient, it will happen."

Ethnic ain't interesting ?

You want shit for white ppl ?

Chris_NJ wrote:
Does anyone know what % of the first Journal Square tower is rented out?

I wonder when some interesting retail & restaurants will come to the blocks right around JSQ. The cynical side of me says "never" and the block from the PATH station to Tonnelle will always be exactly as it is now. The glass half full version of me says "be patient, it will happen."

nafco wrote:
Cool.

Fast forward 12 more years...

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.