Register now !    Login  
Main Menu
Who's Online
60 user(s) are online (28 user(s) are browsing Message Forum)

Members: 0
Guests: 60

more...




Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users




(1) 2 3 4 »


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#91
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:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Regarding Jersey City pubic transit:

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best-c ... for-public-transportation

Has problems but still better than most.

I feel very much the same way that you do about urban living, and want to be on your side about the issue of cars, but your downtown centric attitude makes that hard. And as the Council's recent vote on the required parking waiver for the development site on Coles and 10th Street, I fear this attitude will not only not help get more people on board with a very important cause, it will hurt - Coles and 10th Street is a 15 to 20 minute walk to PATH, and really has no bus service http://www.dougandadrienne.info/njbus/indexnnj.html. I live in the Heights, and can tell you how incredibly inconvenient it is to rely on buses (never on schedule, infrequent service, no late night service within JC) and the HBLR (which really doesn't take you anywhere, except to the PATH in Exchange Place, I've ridden it to Liberty State Park, it goes through all these boring new residential complexes). There are many, many neighborhoods that have a limited degree of walkability, but are not connected in a meaningful way via mass transit to the larger city.

A lot of the development is DTJC, but it is not around Van Voorst Park. It's in the Village, the outskirts of Hamilton Park, where mass transit is not really a viable option to owning a car.

Posted on: 2016/2/26 19:23
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#90
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
Jersey city was once a very high density city with great public transportation. In the early 1900s there was a much higher population, and even more people that commuted into the city. My building that now has a total 12 people, once housed 36! Street cars, the Lackawana rail station, multiple ferries, carried masses in and out of the city when there were no cars at all.
The problem is when we shifted to a car-centric society, we stopped investing in infrastructure, paved over rails, and people moved to suburbs and forgot what it means to do things locally.
What I'm trying to say is better public transportation, a commitment to invest in public transportation, serves everyone: Local business, the environment, pedestrians, bicyclists, people who can't afford cars...


Posted on: 2016/2/26 14:53
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#89
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
Regarding Jersey City pubic transit:

https://smartasset.com/mortgage/best-c ... for-public-transportation

Has problems but still better than most.

Posted on: 2016/2/26 5:20
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#88
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
El Squid gets it.

I think to be honest a big part of the problem is that Jersey City is in NJ, and NJ has never really had a "major" city, and certainly never had a major city in modern times. NJ is an overwhelmingly suburban state with only a few tiny, mostly crumbling "cities" that nobody in NJ generally cares about. So nobody in NJ really has any idea about true urban planning.

That's why I made the snarky comment earlier about Jersey City being unable to shed it's "Jersey-ness". It's the whole mentality of "Well everyone must have a car, right? So for these new developments, let's demand that developers make a parking spot for every unit!". Completely insane in the context of Downtown Jersey City. It's this mentality that has to change, or Jersey City is seriously fucked.


You clearly still don't get it. Mass transit needs to improve, big time. Period.

El Squid focuses much of his efforts on biking. While that serves his purposes, and is a small step in the right direction, biking is and always will be a niche activity. The vast majority of residents in any city will never have biking as their primary mode of transportation.

You can attack cars and parking all you want, but that won't make JC any better. Actual mass transit that works (like Manhattan) will. And as some have said, under Fulop, mass transit has actually gotten worse, at least in the Heights.

This is probably more of a state issue than a city issue but the point is your efforts are seriously misguided.


To make sure we're on the same page. My points in this thread; I'm mostly referring to Downtown JC. I've never lived more than a 10-minute walk from a Path station, so my experience is skewed towards that experience.

I COMPLETELY agree that the rest of Jersey City is underserved by transit, although it is probably FAR above the national average in terms of available transit. Many non-downtown JC neighborhoods have light rail access, and many (most?) have bus access. But I agree, underserved.

Bringing it back to Downtown, which is where most development is, and therefore most relevant to this discussion. People like to pick on the Path. I've complained about the Path. The Path needs to get it's shit together, BUT it's generally pretty good, and the major issue - overcrowding - can probably be addressed by increasing train frequency. The period of time when the trains run every 5-6 minutes just needs to be extended. It's the "fringe" hours of the commute times that see the most overcrowding (like 7:00 pm for example).

I may be in the minority, but I believe Path will ultimately be fine. As the system becomes strained, there will be enough pressure to push for increased frequency, longer platforms, etc.

My pipe dream scenario is having the Path be acquired by the MTA, which is a transportation organization with accountability, as opposed to the Port Authority which is a crooked organization that cares more about real estate.


Posted on: 2016/2/25 22:30
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#87
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
El Squid, I'm also a big transit fan, trains mostly. Aside from situations that are overcrowded, I generally enjoy riding subways and trains.

The Amtrak ride from Penn Station to Boston is like heaven to me - cool scenery.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 22:17
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#86
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/4/22 4:43
Last Login :
2019/6/17 1:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 418
Offline
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
El Squid gets it.

I think to be honest a big part of the problem is that Jersey City is in NJ, and NJ has never really had a "major" city, and certainly never had a major city in modern times. NJ is an overwhelmingly suburban state with only a few tiny, mostly crumbling "cities" that nobody in NJ generally cares about. So nobody in NJ really has any idea about true urban planning.

That's why I made the snarky comment earlier about Jersey City being unable to shed it's "Jersey-ness". It's the whole mentality of "Well everyone must have a car, right? So for these new developments, let's demand that developers make a parking spot for every unit!". Completely insane in the context of Downtown Jersey City. It's this mentality that has to change, or Jersey City is seriously fucked.


NJ's suburban-ness also means that its cities have less sway in Trenton than one huge, unified city would have in an otherwise sparsely populated state.

So when people here ask for more mass transit funding, we're less likely to get it.

But this is one more reason why having a bigger, car-lighter JC (and Newark, and Hoboken, etc.) in future years is important: It creates a bigger urban constituency to put pressure on Trenton (and by extension, D.C.) for mass transit and other needs of growing cities to let them grow further ... it primes that virtuous cycle.

There's a tipping point to this that will be reached fairly soon, when the entire northeastern NJ urban cluster—and all its political leaders—will be focused more on urban transit than on cars. The sooner it comes, the better we can get on with being real cities.

I LOVE mass transit, BTW. (Queens native, subway nerd from an early age.) I used to spend more time ranting about it the PATH and NJTransit, but I realized that biking is something more easily controlled by a city, and that's one reason I now focus on it. Biking amenities are relatively cheap, and if they move us away from the car, even a little, they will help us build momentum for other urban needs—mass transit first among them.

#PartOfThePlan


Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:39

Edited by elsquid on 2016/2/25 21:54:59
Edited by elsquid on 2016/2/25 21:58:17
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#85
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
I dont think every apartment needs a parking spot, but we need adequate parking generally. Even nyc has a ton of parking garages. They are not free but they are available on basically every block.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:30
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#84
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
El Squid gets it.

I think to be honest a big part of the problem is that Jersey City is in NJ, and NJ has never really had a "major" city, and certainly never had a major city in modern times. NJ is an overwhelmingly suburban state with only a few tiny, mostly crumbling "cities" that nobody in NJ generally cares about. So nobody in NJ really has any idea about true urban planning.

That's why I made the snarky comment earlier about Jersey City being unable to shed it's "Jersey-ness". It's the whole mentality of "Well everyone must have a car, right? So for these new developments, let's demand that developers make a parking spot for every unit!". Completely insane in the context of Downtown Jersey City. It's this mentality that has to change, or Jersey City is seriously fucked.


You clearly still don't get it. Mass transit needs to improve, big time. Period.

El Squid focuses much of his efforts on biking. While that serves his purposes, and is a small step in the right direction, biking is and always will be a niche activity. The vast majority of residents in any city will never have biking as their primary mode of transportation.

You can attack cars and parking all you want, but that won't make JC any better. Actual mass transit that works (like Manhattan) will. And as some have said, under Fulop, mass transit has actually gotten worse, at least in the Heights.

This is probably more of a state issue than a city issue but the point is your efforts are seriously misguided.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:28
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#83
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
El Squid gets it.

I think to be honest a big part of the problem is that Jersey City is in NJ, and NJ has never really had a "major" city, and certainly never had a major city in modern times. NJ is an overwhelmingly suburban state with only a few tiny, mostly crumbling "cities" that nobody in NJ generally cares about. So nobody in NJ really has any idea about true urban planning.

That's why I made the snarky comment earlier about Jersey City being unable to shed it's "Jersey-ness". It's the whole mentality of "Well everyone must have a car, right? So for these new developments, let's demand that developers make a parking spot for every unit!". Completely insane in the context of Downtown Jersey City. It's this mentality that has to change, or Jersey City is seriously fucked.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:17
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#82
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
Newark traffic is terrible at rush hour, but part of the problem is that all of the traffic is commuter traffic - nobody that works there lives there. Its just all people trying to get in and get out of the city center at the same time on roads that were built in a different era.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:11
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#81
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/4/22 4:43
Last Login :
2019/6/17 1:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 418
Offline
Quote:

Suntime wrote:
Elsquid - but then you won't be attracting families here - what you will attract instead are transient young people who, quite frankly, wont have a long term vested interest in making jc a great place to live. They will live here for a while, contribute little to none in the way of community value, and then move to the burbs when they are ready to have kids because jc is becoming so family unfriendly. Now thats great for the bottom line of developers and maybe business owners ( though i would argue that vested families contribute more towards thriving and sustainable business in this city) , but not great for residents who actually plan on living in this city for the long haul. Adequate parking is absolutely essential for the quality of life in any city, including Manhattan. Im not saying it has to be free, but it has to be available across the sectrum. Yes, manhattan has lots of parking garages!!! Manhattan also has a lot more to offer in terms of city services and amenities that make the inconvenience of less parking more tolerable in the long haul. Jc doesnt have that to offer.


You're right that car-free or car-light living will initially attract more new arrivals who are single, who are childless, who rent, or otherwise have demographic advantages for it. I disagree that this cohort is somehow less beneficial, in part because I am all those things and spend basically all my free time lately pushing for better transportation in JC, most pointedly biking. And some of the most active advocates and volunteers I work with are free to be so active, in part, because they aren't taking care of two toddlers.

Of those car-free arrivals, yes, many will eventually have families, and some will leave JC, but some of them will stay here, and maybe buy one tiny smart car instead of a mini-van and a sedan, as their more motor-minded forebears did. It happened in Brooklyn neighborhoods. And I know some very fine families here who have exactly that story. That's progress!

Posted on: 2016/2/25 21:03
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#80
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/4/22 4:43
Last Login :
2019/6/17 1:32
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 418
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:

Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


It's totally fair to differentiate JC from Manhattan and compare it to Queens—but of course, similar things are brewing in the "downtowny" parts of Queens, with the NYC administration pushing for lower parking minimums in zones with a decent combination of proximity to trains and lower existing car ownership. (That vast multi-boro plan focuses on various kinds of affordable housing, but the aim is the same: allow more housing for people while attracting fewer cars per capita.)

As for "flooding the streets," I had thought you agreed with me on this:

Build more 1:1 off-street parking now to (maybe) mitigate "flooding" of existing street parking space? = ultimately attract greater percentage of newcomers with cars = worsen the "flooding" of existing street DRIVING space.

You end up with a city full of new parking tributaries to the same old little river.

Parking space can be expanded off-street, but driving space is finite.

Have you been to Downtown Newark lately, the land of a thousand barren, looming parking garages? I work there, in a building with a great view of major roads. Have you tried to drive there at rush hour? Talk about flooding! And that's mostly just 9-5 office buildings. I can't imagine having to drive in a more mixed area like DTJC if it had that much parking skulking around in it, feeding in cars at many times of day. The ... horror.

Here's yet another reason why focusing on "saving" street parking space via minimums, instead of saving driving space by lowering them, is misguided:

Street parking is easier for local government to improve and mitigate by other means, besides expansion. It features static spaces and stationary cars and visible city-issued stickers and such—lots of chess pieces to move. As others have mentioned here, you can change the eligibility rules, raise the fees, shift the times—the kinds of sensible mitigation that Candice Osborne is working on. We should do more of that!

But once cars are in motion, eating up driving space, it's all fluid. It's nearly impossible to segregate them, to grant any grandfathered rights, neighborhood-based rights, or whatever. You're all just basically a blob of traffic.

Urban cyclists like me will get more cycling amenities over time; that demand is only growing.

And we're hardy; we'll hold our breath and thread our way through those bigger and bigger traffic jams. But I'll say it again: It's you, the guy who really needs to drive, who will suffer from them the most.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 20:56
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#79
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
Im not trying to be a model citizen, but you are the one that started throwing out the contempt, unfounded assumptions and snide remarks. I was single and childless in this city for a long time and when they are grown, ill live that lifestyle again. It sounds like you are the one expecting other people to adapt to your lifestyle and expectations on life in the city. You were once a kid too.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 20:38
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#78
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
The landlord pay taxes - unless its a highrise with a sweet deal 20 year tax abatement. Then they are paying pilot but not at the rate the rest of us are.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 20:33
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#77
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
Wow, I had no idea having kids made you such a model citizen.
I sweep up plenty of trash, and did long before the city was "safe" for families.
The point of a city is having all sorts of people, but I get annoyed when people with kids think the city needs to cater to their suburban lifestyle.
Seriously, leave that double wide outside.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 20:23
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#76
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:

Suntime wrote:
Actually transients usually pay less taxes because they often rent.


Uh, the landlords of those who rent also pay taxes. This should be completely obvious.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 20:19
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#75
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
And im not saying that people without kids dont do these things too - just pointing out that a city is going to be worse off without the balancing effect of families with kids. A city will not be vital without a mix of populations.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 20:01
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#74
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
Actually transients usually pay less taxes because they often rent. Most if the families know own, and we pay a lot in taxes. I would also gather we spend more. We eat out a lot; we go to many local bagel shops ice cream stores, restaurants, etc. we pay a ton of money to all those local businesses that employ lots of people like daycares and private schools, gymboree, art classes, local bookstores (word - get all my kids books there and a few for myself). we donate to churches, pay dues to liberty science center and volunteer. We clean up the Parks and organize for and acheive new parks. We spend tons of $$ to local restaurants to host birthday parties, baptisms, and family events. We buy local gym memberships and citybike memberships. We hire local electricians and landscapers for our property. We families organize local block parties and spend money at them. We are the people out there sweeping up the trash in the streets for the betterment of the community. When is the last time you bought a pair of shoes at morlees? I just bought a pair for my kid last week.

And yes, we do go out at night without our kids. A lot, actually. And we like good music in those venues too.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 19:54
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#73
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:

Suntime wrote:
Elsquid - but then you won't be attracting families here - what you will attract instead are transient young people who, quite frankly, wont have a long term vested interest in making jc a great place to live. They will live here for a while, contribute little to none in the way of community value, and then move to the burbs when they are ready to have kids because jc is becoming so family unfriendly. Now thats great for the bottom line of developers and maybe business owners ( though i would argue that vested families contribute more towards thriving and sustainable business in this city) , but not great for residents who actually plan on living in this city for the long haul. Adequate parking is absolutely essential for the quality of life in any city, including Manhattan. Im not saying it has to be free, but it has to be available across the sectrum. Yes, manhattan has lots of parking garages!!! Manhattan also has a lot more to offer in terms of city services and amenities that make the inconvenience of less parking more tolerable in the long haul. Jc doesnt have that to offer.



Why the hell do we need to attract more families? Childless "transients" are crucial for cities. Pay more taxes, spend more money in bars, restaurants and retail shops. Not to mention they don't need minivans or try to wheel their strollers into coffee shops. And why would you assume they are not here for the long haul? Sorry but, take that to the suburbs so I can still hear bands play without noise complaints.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 19:26
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#72
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
Tommy - i think you are unwittingly making a bit of false assumptions about the people that are active and vocal. We are not all "old timers" - many are quite young. We generally are people who are vested in this community and we are very proactive about bringing about positive change and progress in our city. We just want it done in a responsible way that is positive for residents - not just selling out this city to developers who, quite frankly, dont give a crap about our city because they dont live here. We need to go about city planning in a thoughtful manner - not just applaud every half arsed building that goes up in the name of "progress". We must assure that with every big tower that goes up, there is a plan in place with respect to how to address that influx of people and need for sevices and space. Already this city is abysmal with green space and lets not get started on the sewers and streets. The city needs to address these issues instead of just letting developers run wild, which only enriches the developer - people that don't even live here but instead live in their wealthy jersey suburb while collecting rents and laughing all the way to the bank. Of course developers want bigger and bigger buildings squeezed into less and less space and less parking - more money! It also bothers me how people on this board are so happy and quick to throw support for any big building seeking a variance in the name of " progress", even when the building is, at best, a mediocre and crappy looking structure with a brick veneer front. Can't we take a little more pride in our city? Cant we expect a little more foresight from our city planners? We are going to be stuck with these buildings for a long time. But those apartment dwellers you are recruiting now dont care because they wont be here in 10 years. The people who show up for community meetings will.

You would never see some of these crappy apartment buildings (that the city is handing variances to) going up in manhattan.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 19:15
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#71
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:

tommyc_37 wrote:

Question - how can those of us who are for a more urban environment, pedestrian friendliness, less parking in developments, etc - how can we organize our voices?

IMO we have to start by advocating for a mass transit, in particular a more interconnected, multi-modal mass transit system - otherwise, we'll never get community buy-in. As people have said over and over, our current system is simply not up to the task of supporting a more urban, pedestrian friendly enviroment. We should use this forum to organize a citizen's group, which can then:
- research and thoroughly understand how are mass transit is funded, controlled, who plans things etc.
- read all of the relevant papers by non-profits (e.g., Regional Plan Association) to understand what's already been proposed and vetted
- appeal to friends and neighbors who are professionals to get involved, so we can come with our own ideas - think outside of the box!
- insist Mayor Fulop create a transit advisory board, and get ourselves on it

I would get involved, if enough others are interested suggesting a time and place to meet would be the next step.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 19:14
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#70
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


You're not breaking anything to me.

Jersey City will never be Manhattan in character, and neither will the outer boroughs. However, as vehicle ownership in urban cities continue to decline, shouldn't Jersey City be following that trend instead of bucking it? You bring up Queens, and I agree that JC has similarities to Queens in terms of car ownership, and I would argue that Downtown JC has numbers similar to northern Brooklyn in terms of car ownership (DTJC's might be slightly higher). Look at the developments in Brooklyn and Queens, how many parking spots are included in those developments, and you'll see my point succinctly illustrated.

The parking requirements/trends in developments in JC are:

1. Completely out of line with current car ownership figures
2. Absurdly out of line with future car ownership figures
3. Completely bucking all trends of new urbanism which in 2016 in a dense, northeastern city is entirely unacceptable


You are living in a fantasy world where making the city inhospitable to car owners will magically make our terrible public transportation system better.

Assuming you've been to Manhattan, you'd see the difference in public transport between there and here is night and day. All you would do is simply make the lives of new residents more difficult, with no improvement for existing residents.

Stamp your feet and gnash your teeth about how "unacceptable" this is all you want. Won't change the fact that you need a car to get around our area.

Advocate for a workable public transport system here first, and then try to take away parking.


I don't take a car anywhere. Where are you going that requires driving to "get around our area"? If the answer is a list of places that are not near transit, then honestly maybe Jersey City/NYC area/or city living in general is not a good fit for you. There is a reason why city dwellers generally don't work in the suburbs. It kind of goes against the point of living in the city core, where most things are there for you - employment, entertainment, culture.

Jersey City is a shitty place to live if you have, on a regular basis, life obligations (work, relationships, whatever) that are outside of the urban core. I give the same advice to friends who, over the years, have considered moving to JC when they work somewhere in a suburb. I did it for a year (my first year living here, 2006). It totally sucked.

Path is not without flaws but it, combined with rail transit, and occasional Ubering, gets me where I need to go. I understand others may not have similar experiences, but then I think you honestly have to consider where you live.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 19:09
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#69
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


You're not breaking anything to me.

Jersey City will never be Manhattan in character, and neither will the outer boroughs. However, as vehicle ownership in urban cities continue to decline, shouldn't Jersey City be following that trend instead of bucking it? You bring up Queens, and I agree that JC has similarities to Queens in terms of car ownership, and I would argue that Downtown JC has numbers similar to northern Brooklyn in terms of car ownership (DTJC's might be slightly higher). Look at the developments in Brooklyn and Queens, how many parking spots are included in those developments, and you'll see my point succinctly illustrated.

The parking requirements/trends in developments in JC are:

1. Completely out of line with current car ownership figures
2. Absurdly out of line with future car ownership figures
3. Completely bucking all trends of new urbanism which in 2016 in a dense, northeastern city is entirely unacceptable


You are living in a fantasy world where making the city inhospitable to car owners will magically make our terrible public transportation system better.

Assuming you've been to Manhattan, you'd see the difference in public transport between there and here is night and day. All you would do is simply make the lives of new residents more difficult, with no improvement for existing residents.

Stamp your feet and gnash your teeth about how "unacceptable" this is all you want. Won't change the fact that you need a car to get around our area.

Advocate for a workable public transport system here first, and then try to take away parking.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:51
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#68
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be..


Not a very convincing argument, with tall towers popping up like mushrooms. Waterfront DT already looks like Manhattan, and JSQ is planning to.


That may be your perception, but it doesn't match reality.

This link shows the population density for the NY boroughs is broken up as follows:

Queens = 21,333 people per square mile
Brooklyn = 36,732
Manhattan = 71,672

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens

In contrast, like I said, Jersey City is most comparable to Queens.

Jersey City = 16,736 people per square mile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_City,_New_Jersey

This is also ignoring the fact that public transport here is abysmal compared to across the river.


Downtown Jersey City (where most development is occurring and therefore the most valid area to discuss in this context) is about 30,000 per square mile. And that number will be almost doubling in the next 20 years with already-approved development. Still feel the same way?

I'm not trying to be an ass but this is for reals.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:46
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#67
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
Quote:

JCGuys wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Well said, and I just have one item in which I strongly disagree with you on. The people in power get it, from the planning department to the the Fulop administration to all his detractors on council. The new developments with the lease amount of parking in the city are located in Journal Square. It's nearly a 1:10 ratio for some developments there. It's silly when contrasted to the downtown and the 1:1 mandate, especially since the garages are not being filled up.

But the city must follow the will of the people and 200 residents showed up a couple nights ago to demand that a variance not be granted and to force the developer to keep the 1:1 ratio. The city must follow the will of the people.

There is a large segment of the population that will like to see a more urban and pedestrian-friendly environment, but we're terribly unorganized. The are no less than a dozens neighborhood associations that are extremely well organized. They are the ones advocating for the 1:1 parking requirement and they have the ear of council as a result. They write letters to the editor and get their position in the papers for all to read. We need someone who believes in the urban and pedestrian-friendly environment that will organize like minded individuals, have us show up on council meetings, and toot the benefits in the papers for all to read.

Right now all we do is debate on these forums which is not good enough.


Good point. This is stereotyping a bit but it seems that most of the very active/vocal members of the neighborhood associations have been here a long time and are very, very averse to change, to development, and what they perceive as "crowding". I also imagine that a large percentage of these folks own cars and park in the street, which is clearly an immense headache that they fear getting worse.

While these are respected members of the community and many of them are my neighbors, they are not forward thinkers.

Question - how can those of us who are for a more urban environment, pedestrian friendliness, less parking in developments, etc - how can we organize our voices?

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:37
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#66
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:

elsquid wrote:
Quote:

Suntime wrote:
While i respect your opinion and i myself lived carless for many years (almost a decade) in jersey city, i can tell you that if you have children, you have to have a car in this city. It is a must. If you want to drive out (no pun intended) all of the families from the city, then go ahead and advocate for a carless/car unfriendly policies. Families make good neighbors and are often the folks who are doing great work to improve the city and its services, keep it clean, supporting local business, volunteering. Quality of life for families is important too.

As a single person, i often didn't enjoy not having a car. I often felt kinda stuck. I like to be able to get out of the city on occasion and take road trips to other places, including visiting family and friends. Let's not fool ourselves - this isn't Europe where there is amazing rail service and other public transport that can easily take you to many different cities and even countries with relative ease. The train is great for nyc area and maybe some parts of jersey, but thats about it. I ofen see many people who grew up in a city and rarely left it - i dont enjoy that lifestyle.


I for one am not arguing that YOU can't have a car, or that many parents and others who find they need cars can't have them.

The policies we're talking about aren't designed to drive you out, they're designed so that the new people we attract are more likely to be those without cars.

That's vital for your sake as much as anyone's, because while off-street parking space can be expanded, on-street driving space can't.

As the city grows, we MUST decrease the per-capita rate of car ownership, or we'll just have more and more people competing to drive more and more cars in the same, finite amount of street space—and ultimately, you, the driver, will suffer as much from that as anyone, maybe more.

I'm a big advocate of reducing cars, for all the reasons you describe. But JC is NEVER going to attract people without cars until it has a good, interconnected transit network.

The city called this one right - the development site is a 15 minute walk from PATH. Anything beyond a 5 to 10 minute walk from a subway is not considered transit rich. Buses that run hourly up to 9:00 PM, 3 separate modes (lite rail, bus, PATH) that are disconnected, ghetto jitneys (that my NYC friends refuse to set foot on) will NEVER be a viable alternative for those who don't want to live with a car.

For a city as densely populated as it is, our mass transit sucks. Until the city and state prioritize mass transit, this will not change.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:36
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#65
Not too shy to talk
Not too shy to talk


Hide User information
Joined :
2016/2/25 17:22
Last Login :
2016/5/20 17:25
From Jersey city nj 07302
Group:
Banned
Posts: 38
Offline
Elsquid - but then you won't be attracting families here - what you will attract instead are transient young people who, quite frankly, wont have a long term vested interest in making jc a great place to live. They will live here for a while, contribute little to none in the way of community value, and then move to the burbs when they are ready to have kids because jc is becoming so family unfriendly. Now thats great for the bottom line of developers and maybe business owners ( though i would argue that vested families contribute more towards thriving and sustainable business in this city) , but not great for residents who actually plan on living in this city for the long haul. Adequate parking is absolutely essential for the quality of life in any city, including Manhattan. Im not saying it has to be free, but it has to be available across the sectrum. Yes, manhattan has lots of parking garages!!! Manhattan also has a lot more to offer in terms of city services and amenities that make the inconvenience of less parking more tolerable in the long haul. Jc doesnt have that to offer.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:34
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#64
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2008/1/3 19:12
Last Login :
9/14 2:19
From Van Vorst Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2296
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

tommyc_37 wrote:
It's not only about including sidewalk facing retail, but it's also just about the pervasive nature of automobiles in cities. It changes everything.

Mooby is spot on. The reason Downtown Jersey City is nice looking, quaint, and desirable is that it was mostly built before cars existed. It's built to human scale, not to automobile scale.

There are so, so many articles written about this, but here is one I came across just this week:

http://www.citylab.com/commute/2015/0 ... y/388433/?utm_source=SFFB

The fact that Jersey City is going against this, and so many of its residents are so up in arms about the parking bullshit, is troubling. And completely ridiculous. Jersey City holistically is the 3rd densest city in the US. Downtown JC is in the same density range as the majority of the 4 outer boroughs (and way denser than Staten Island). Somebody locally in power in JC has to wake up and realize that car ownership in dense cities is simply NOT the future, and change these ordinances for new developments.

1:1 parking in an extremely dense neighborhood, with extensive mass transit available to you 24/7, one mile from Manhattan, is so ridiculously absurd that it almost sounds like a joke. It seems that Jersey City really can't shake the "Jersey" mentality sometimes.


Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be. It's more akin to Queens, with much higher car ownership rates.

If "the parking bullshit" bothers you so much, you can always move right across the river. As long as we keep getting new developments like the one across from City Hall, ensuring that new residents can park their cars without flooding the streets doesn't bother me in the slightest.


You're not breaking anything to me.

Jersey City will never be Manhattan in character, and neither will the outer boroughs. However, as vehicle ownership in urban cities continue to decline, shouldn't Jersey City be following that trend instead of bucking it? You bring up Queens, and I agree that JC has similarities to Queens in terms of car ownership, and I would argue that Downtown JC has numbers similar to northern Brooklyn in terms of car ownership (DTJC's might be slightly higher). Look at the developments in Brooklyn and Queens, how many parking spots are included in those developments, and you'll see my point succinctly illustrated.

The parking requirements/trends in developments in JC are:

1. Completely out of line with current car ownership figures
2. Absurdly out of line with future car ownership figures
3. Completely bucking all trends of new urbanism which in 2016 in a dense, northeastern city is entirely unacceptable

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:28
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#63
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2012/11/10 20:38
Last Login :
2018/2/1 3:02
From JC
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 2909
Offline
Quote:

brewster wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be..


Not a very convincing argument, with tall towers popping up like mushrooms. Waterfront DT already looks like Manhattan, and JSQ is planning to.


That may be your perception, but it doesn't match reality.

This link shows the population density for the NY boroughs is broken up as follows:

Queens = 21,333 people per square mile
Brooklyn = 36,732
Manhattan = 71,672

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queens

In contrast, like I said, Jersey City is most comparable to Queens.

Jersey City = 16,736 people per square mile.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jersey_City,_New_Jersey

This is also ignoring the fact that public transport here is abysmal compared to across the river.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:23
Top


Re: Plan to lower parking minimums in Jersey City spurs anger
#62
Home away from home
Home away from home


Hide User information
Joined :
2004/11/6 21:13
Last Login :
8/27 2:43
From Hamilton Park
Group:
Registered Users
Posts: 5600
Offline
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Hate to break it to you, but Jersey City is not Manhattan and never will be..


Not a very convincing argument, with tall towers popping up like mushrooms. Waterfront DT already looks like Manhattan, and JSQ is planning to.

Posted on: 2016/2/25 18:09
Top




(1) 2 3 4 »




[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