AMo wrote:
We have more competition than any restaurant in JC. Are you familiar with Porta?

bill wrote:
Quote:

ianmac47 wrote:
This sentiment is the main reason why Jersey City is never really going to be a true alternative to Brooklyn.

LOL

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/ ... b-for-big-chain-retailers

hero69 wrote:
what i wouldn't do to be able to go to a cheesecake factory, california pizza kitcehn or chart house

caj11 wrote:
I can see the logic behind this law but how will the city enforce this? Are they going to peruse the Airbnb listings all day, try and guess how many nights actually got rented out and send a bill for a randomly determined amount of tax to the homeowners?

Monroe wrote:
Boycott WalMart all you want-I don't shop there often, but low and middle income consumers love the place. Yes, they'll put some bodegas out of business who charge $2 for a roll of toiler paper. And maybe something will put WalMart out of business-drone deliveries may doom big box stores in ten years. Retailing changes, then sometimes changes back. Blue Nile came about without having brick and mortar stores. Guess what? They're now opening exactly that!

brewster wrote:

How the hell does saying that rent control is a piss poor solution to the housing problem equal eugenics? If "society" want affordable housing "society" should pay for it. Rent control in much of Manhattan allows middle class people who won that lottery to transfer wealth from their landlord to themselves and allow them to buy weekend homes and private schools they would not be otherwise able to afford. Forcing landlords to solve the affordable housing problem makes as much as sense as the longtime hospital policy of forcing the solvent patients to subsidize the insolvent sick, rather than society at large footing the bill.

Yvonne wrote:

Newport is filled with foreign nationals, who has jobs that Americans cannot get, especially in the banking industry.

Voyeur wrote:

Glad to see someone is still interested in discussing the original topic. I generally agree with all the points in The Guardian video, but in reference to the five story height limit, it's easy to see that the creators are talking about the ugly impact of skyscrapers in the City of London.

A well developed and carefully planned cluster of skyscrapers has sprung up at Canary Wharf in the past 25 years, a smartly planned and ordered high rise neighborhood has been extremely well executed. I'd say the same for La Defense in Paris.

The problem is that in the past ten years a series of skyscrapers have been built in the historic City of London with little regard to how they complement each other or how they cluster together on the skyline to create a visually pleasing spectacle. Instead, they seem randomly splattered across the Roman street plan and look plainly awful with no kind of continuity or sense of cohesion.

For JC, since the Waterfront has already developed into a high-rise environment, then let it continue to have that quality - albeit with the ground level retail and hidden parking decks that we've talked about on other threads. But keep Van Vorst, Harsimus and Hamilton Park distinctly as they are.

Any London-style dropping of high rises in the midst of what are supposed to be historic districts detracts rather than enhances them. And before someone screams "historic district", the City of London prevented high rise development after one ugly mistake in the early 80s until Tony Blair repealed the height restrictions.

City Hall would just as easily make an exception for a high rise in a protected neighborhood if LeFrak or Silverman threw enough money at them.

Yvonne wrote:
What makes a city attractive is its affordability.

tommyc_37 wrote:
Does anybody know if a lot of the high-rise developments in Brooklyn and Queens have as much parking as Jersey City's buildings have typically been including?

MDM wrote:


I think you misread my post. Your post actually affirmed what I claimed.

MDM wrote:

High speed rail (120+ mph) is only viable between urban areas that are less than 500 miles apart. One example would be the Boston to Washington DC corridor. Amtrak claims their Acela service, unlike the rest of Amtrak, is actually cash flow positive.

Anything farther or less dense, you are better off taking a regional puddle jumper jet or turbo prop.

brewster wrote:
Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Rents go up because of demand, not because of how rich the people moving in are.

Quote:

Conformist wrote:
Except there is always an artist who can pay $23k. And an artist who can pay $24k. And an artist who can pay $45k. And an artist who can pay $80k. And an artist who can pay $200k.

Do you seriously not see you are contradicting yourself?