Demolition permits for the Arc Tower DENIED BY Landmark Commission. What a ridiculous joke.rontonsoup__ t1_ix0tq5j wrote
Reply to comment by Jimmy_kong253 in Demolition permits for the Arc Tower DENIED BY Landmark Commission. What a ridiculous joke. by itsjustabreezehoney
Agree. This building can be built anywhere. The building being contemplated for demolition is truly architecturally beautiful, and should be preserved and repurposed. That would be much more impressive than continuing to destroy anything historic.
twinkcommunist t1_ix25sq1 wrote
I must be looking at the wrong building? It looks like they're tearing down a two story shop with ugly stucco walls. The only thing architecturally interesting about it is the little battlements, but even they're not that good. Not every building should stand forever.
Kalebxtentacion t1_ix2x5wy wrote
Yep a two story old building that is next to a busy school and can collapse at any moment and hurt a lot of innocent kids. But let’s keep it because it’ll be impressive and bc it’s historic, easy for people to say that when they’re not the ones to do it bc no developer wants to reuse this building
ryanov t1_ix2ji60 wrote
There's an 1899 townhouse that would have to be demolished. I'm not totally clear where it can be in that group -- I assume on Broad Street.
twinkcommunist t1_ix2k3v1 wrote
The only building on that block of broad street I'd remotely care about would be the one on the north end, which I think won't be demolished. The other one on street view that's kinda nice has the big bite on the ground floor. I'm sure the block looks shitty on street view because theyve stopped maintenance ahead of demolition, but I just don't think any are nice enough to block hundreds of homes over
ryanov t1_ix4z55t wrote
That building absolutely does not give me “hundreds of homes” vibes, and there’s a big parking lot right across the street.
twinkcommunist t1_ix50og4 wrote
Vibes are not a good way to evaluate projects. It'll have 344 residential units with 417 beds. Hundreds of potential Newark taxpayers will be kept out to preserve three townhouses.
Both this site and the adjacent parking lot should be turned into towers, but the developers only own this site. If you demand they go elsewhere and buy land from a compant that someone else in this thread said charges way over market rate, itll just not get built.
ryanov t1_ix51iaw wrote
17 years of experience living downtown within a couple of minutes’ walk from this spot would seem to be a fine way, however.
Many new buildings have gone in recently. You might think that housing supply would bring down rents, but I was recently threatened with my largest rent increase ever living in this building, and rents in the immediate area was the excuse given.
It’s also alarming how few older townhomes are left in this city.
twinkcommunist t1_ix51yrp wrote
The reason rents increase despite relatively impressive construction is that Newark isn't its own housing market. Newark and JC are building a lot, which indirectly causes gentrification (by improving public services mostly), but the NYC metro area's supply has not kept up with demand even a little.
ryanov t1_ix53qxv wrote
If this were a project with significant affordable housing, I would agree that it’s important to build. I don’t believe that it is, from memory, and I’m having difficulty finding anything that says anything one way or the other right now. I’m still not sure I would agree that it’s important to build where existing buildings are, given the number of giant parking lots downtown.
twinkcommunist t1_ix54mzw wrote
It doesn't have any zoning variances so whatever the broad street redevelopment plan requires by default is what it would have for affordable units.
I care about housing affordability, but there are a million other good reasons to allow construction of market rate housing. The people who will live in this project will pay taxes in Newark, and probably not drive. If you don't allow construction in cities (which necessarily have lots of buildings already), people are going to live elsewhere. Opposing redevelopment of cities is supporting greenfield development in suburbs.
As for parking lots, those should be built on too, but it's harder for cities to force people to give up the land they own if they aren't willing to sell. They're currently against New Jersey law, but land value taxes (as opposed to property taxes) could penalize people for sitting on land they're not actively making money from and just waiting for the price to go up.
ryanov t1_ix55f5k wrote
“The people who will live in this project will pay taxes in Newark, and probably will not drive.”
The first one is not a given, and the second one does not come even close to the historical reality. I live in a building with no parking provided. My neighbors drive, except to New York City, or take ridesharing, which is no different. I even drive now, because of the pandemic, but that wasn’t true before, and won’t be after.
twinkcommunist t1_ix56syh wrote
The landlord will definitely pay Newark property tax.
Some of the people who live there will drive of course but it'll be a percentage. If you block this project, homes will get built in suburbs instead and nearly every adult will drive.
In the economy we have, where capital is privately owned, cities can basically only say yes or no to developments, and saying no is almost always the wrong answer.
ryanov t1_ix5756q wrote
What makes you say that the landlord will pay property tax? That has not been the case historically.
I’d be curious to know the breakdowns of who gets around how down here in these luxury buildings. Willing to bet it’s almost entirely car, with the exception of places you can get you on the PATH.
twinkcommunist t1_ix57max wrote
The tower is almost guaranteed to stand longer than the 30 year maximum for tax abatements. Im not familiar with how often Newark gives them out and if they're full the full term, but all developments pay tax eventually.
ryanov t1_ix589xf wrote
I personally think saying “the property owner is definitely going to pay taxes 30 years from now,” is a different statement. Also, less likely to be true, because it’s pretty likely to be sold meantime.
I don’t know that I oppose stuff like this being built at all if it’s going to have a long term abatement like that, but it certainly has a negative impact on the city to have to provide services to thousands (over the last 10 years at least) more people with no income to pay for it.
I guess there’s a good chance they would pay sales tax to somebody, but you would be surprised at the number of people that I’ve known around here who basically live their lives in New York City or Jersey City, and just live here (usually pretty temporarily). I remember one guy overheard in the barbershop saying he lived there for two years and this was the first time he was getting his haircut in Newark, because he just went back to Jersey City for everything. Had never even been far enough down Ferry Street to know what church the barber was talking about by Wilson.
Newarkguy1836 t1_ix5e0f9 wrote
You can blame Rutgers & NJIT for that. They leveled hundreds of townhomes, brownstones, replaced the Newark institution Muellers flowers & garden center with a private "park". Another "temporary" use. As I said previously, as a lifelong Newarker, "Temporary" in Newark means 20 years at least.
ryanov t1_ix5o5v0 wrote
As I understand it, that NJIT park is rather temporary. Colleges love putting up buildings; they will get to it.
I’ve got no particular love for Rutgers, or NJIT, but these buildings were all over the place, not just on the Rutgers or NJIT campuses, and they aren’t now.
twinkcommunist t1_ix23amc wrote
Am I looking at the wrong site? The building at the north corner of broad and central looks generic and ugly.
Edit: it seems like the building they want to preserve is the first of these three townhouses. The one in the middle is cute but it's the plain-but-not-ugly one getting the axe.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments