Why is planning allowing this building? Eli5

Submitted by Jctexan t3_114tw8h in jerseycity

It doesn't fit in with the neighborhood, blocks sunlight to Berry Lane Park, and fills the area with disconnected residents who have no idea what's going on below them. It's vertical sprawl at its worst, creates a ridiculous divide between Bergen and Lafayette, and when and where we need residents connected to the neighbhorhood, it's bringing in NYC view seekers? I'm really dumfounded why they don't create multiple midrises which are better for the neighborhood, more environmentally friendly, and keep the neighborhood human scale and enjoyable to be in. High rises don't create more density (despite what it would seem), studies show midrises do help with density and keeping neighborhoods more affordable. I just don't get it. https://www.nj.com/hudson/2023/02/controversial-steel-tech-project-returns-to-planning-board-bigger-and-with-communitys-approval.html

0

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

uieLouAy t1_j8y95ih wrote

Pretty sure the massive vacant lot is more of a divide between the two neighborhoods than this development will be. New residents, new storefronts, new public and community spaces — all adjacent to a park and light rail station. If you let perfect be the enemy of the good we’d never develop anything new anywhere.

40

Jctexan OP t1_j8y9qcd wrote

We don’t have to take the first proposal - we can demand better. We can do better. We should be better or we’re going to end up in a soulless, lightless neighborhood.

−19

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8ydfcp wrote

I thought this went to court and was already settled? I'm confused about what stage this is in and what the avenues to make those demands are?

12

fastAFguy t1_j9ipccm wrote

Demand better as in two 2 30 floor buildings instead of just one at 17.

1

FloatingWeight t1_j8xv6bn wrote

Tall buildings scary 👻

It’s replacing an empty lot, and 17 stories isn’t even that tall. That neighborhood is getting taller. it includes retail, affordable housing and a rec center and looks good. But beyond all that more housing is good

23

Jctexan OP t1_j8xwop7 wrote

Mid-rises are good for neighborhoods; density is good for neighborhoods, 17-story buildings are not - look at the data. High rises are not environmentally or neighborhood friendly. This developer can put just as many units ($$$$) over multiple mid-rise buildings on that same lot. This will look ridiculous, bring in disconnected residents in that area which desperately needs engaged residents. The area is not getting taller, they allowed some taller buildings next to the freeway and abutting Liberty Science Center. But 17 stories in this quaint historic area is absurd.

−6

fastAFguy t1_j9ipmhv wrote

You’re right. Should be 30 stories and more of em.

1

DavidPuddy666 t1_j8xydvs wrote

If anything that passageway is going to better connect Bergen and Lafayette. More density around here will make the retail on Communipaw and at the Junction more viable - and the residents of this building won’t be displacing people from existing apartments,

22

Jctexan OP t1_j8xywgx wrote

Love the density a mid-rise would bring, and the developer could make almost as much money (or more, not sure how much the deeper dig costs). High rises don’t bring the benefits of density that mid rise does. Happy to link to a bunch of studies, but easy enough to just google benefits of mid-rises over high-rises. This makes no sense. Even hardcore YIMBYs don’t want a 17 story building because they don’t benefit the neighborhood.

−7

0730x t1_j8y1l72 wrote

Please link the studies because a taller building literally means more apartment units and people housed per square foot of land.

15

Jctexan OP t1_j8y4kod wrote

Here are a few articles and some studies. It makes sense when you consider all aspects. Buildings aren't built in a vaccuum - theyre' built in neighborhoods and affect the residents. But even if they were, high-rises aren't better. Even if you solve the heat issue environmentally, there are mental health implications, business implications, school implications, etc. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-25/to-cut-carbon-think-low-rise-buildings-not-skyscrapers
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42949-021-00034-w
https://theconversation.com/cities-and-climate-change-why-low-rise-buildings-are-the-future-not-skyscrapers-170673
https://crosscut.com/2016/11/high-rises-run-counter-to-the-citys-environmental-goals
https://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2354-the-environmental-impact-of-tall-vs-small-a-comparative-study.pdf

−2

FloatingWeight t1_j8y87l7 wrote

> The takeaway here shouldn’t be that skyscrapers are bad,” he says. But reconsider them as the solution to our current climate crisis.

> the study focuses solely on building emissions, and doesn’t account for other factors like transportation, design or the type of land cities build on, which affect their carbon output. More study is also needed to confirm if their conclusions still hold true for increasingly larger populations.

Don’t take such a simplistic high rise bad low rise viewpoint. If these were mid rises then it would be harder to create the accompany low rise plazas and green space.

And finally if you’re still not convicted, remember not to let perfect get in the way of the good

7

Jctexan OP t1_j8y9i88 wrote

Did you seriously pull out two lines instead of looking at all of that data? Sigh.

−5

FloatingWeight t1_j8yg74y wrote

I did read the whole article, idk why you’re acting like it’s a definitive statement. They’re also not comparing change in density,

> For a city supporting 20,000 people, moving from low rises to high rises without changing the density results in 140% more carbon emissions.

Finally

> Ultimately, how tall a city should build depends on multiple environmental and socioeconomic factors, including affordable housing needs and greening efforts.

Nowhere in the article Did it say mid rise builds are superior to high rises in all cases. Also show me how you could fit more units on this land while also keeping the low rise plaza and green space

4

Economy-Cupcake808 t1_j8yfvwm wrote

No point in arguing with the deranged yimbys in this sub. These people think driving a car makes you worse than hitler.

−5

nasty_brutish_longer t1_j8yg0jz wrote

The tower is north of Berry Lane. It won't cast a shadow on the park.

The notion that a single high rise will bring in "disconnected" people is hard to credit. This particular project has much more public engagement at its base than the entirely enclosed Foundry or the tucked-away Lafayette lofts. It's also occupying space that's been civically and commercially dead for decades. If the complex fills with the most insular people imaginable, the community loses nothing.

I get the trepidation. Lafayette's low-key low-rise character feels more like an old mill town than an urban neighborhood, and that charm is hard to let go of. But mill towns have mills. Lafayette doesn't anymore, and when it did it wasn't pleasant. It's a residential neighborhood with easy access to a major world hub. 420 units with public space over a dead steel steel mill doesn't seem like a threat to the neighborhood to me.

22

Jctexan OP t1_j8ygcbh wrote

But the density can be achieved through mid-rises. Why do we need more open space next to the largest park in JC? Just put more buildings on the lot! Even the developer was open to it.

1

truocchio t1_j916130 wrote

You need more land to increase mid rise density to match high rise. The developer doesn’t own more land to conform to your wishes. They OWN the property and as long as they get approval through the appropriate channels they should be free to build the building of their choice on their land.

Mid rise doesn’t always work for the lot size and the economics of building large multi family. I get you hate developers but they have their rights as well. You are free to object and get your local nimbys to join you.

But so far you made claims that aren’t based in the reality of the situation such as shadows and your feelings for mid rise vs high rise

3

Jctexan OP t1_j9196tw wrote

Did you research anything at all about the history of this before you made these guess-ments?

It doesn’t sound like it. I am looking to understand why a high rise is being allowed here where it should not have been permitted by zoning - it’s ok if you can’t figure it out either, but you don’t have to try to make stuff up. It’s unhelpful.

I am pro-density. I am not pro high-rise that blocks light to a park.

1

NeverLickToads t1_j9258xp wrote

"You don't have to try to make stuff up." LOL. Says the person claiming mysterious data exists that proves all of their points but refuses to link to it anywhere. You know if you wanted to actually attempt to change this building from being approved it would be more impactful to have data to back up your points. People that make decisions like numbers, not vague generalities.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j9299ax wrote

Why is everyone so afraid to read or research topics they claim to be interested in on this thread? I’m not asking for permission from the planning board here on Reddit, lol. I am asking if anyone knows why this building got approved. There’s years of history on it, and I’m curious if anyone has more knowledge. I am not here to bash anyone’s way of life, or where they have chosen to live, so I am not going to link to studies on high rises because I’m not interested in bashing high rises as the main point - it’s a distraction, it’s not the focus and I’m not looking to change anyone’s mind. If anyone wants to read about high rises and environmental impact, psychological impact on residents, the communities they’re in, they certainly can and don’t need to rely on strangers to help them research. It’s not “mysterious,” it’s Google!

From what I understand this building appears to already be a done deal and I’m looking to understand why. I have Googled and gotten as far as I can, and hoped someone might know. It’s ok if you don’t know. No one seems to know. Relax.

1

fastAFguy t1_j9iph14 wrote

Agreed, but more buildings should be more 17+ storey buildings.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ygm63 wrote

It isn’t trepidation. I’m not going by “seems to me!” Or “my gut says!” “I would think…” I’m looking at data and best practices and this is NOT best practice. Not for density and not for the neighborhood.

0

Jctexan OP t1_j8yg5ay wrote

The tower is northeast of the park. If you have the shadow study, could you share it?

−4

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8yhlgf wrote

In the original post you claimed it would cast a shadow "block sunlight to Berry Lane Park"? Do you have the shadow study?

11

Jctexan OP t1_j8yjasj wrote

I don’t have the shadow study, though one will be presented I’m assuming again on Tuesday? There’s a reason this is considered controversial - it’s not hysteria. This was snuck through planning, during the pandemic, and did not have community support. A non-profit sued but didn’t win, but that still doesn’t mean it has community support. It doesn’t. I wouldn’t support this in someone else’s neighborhood either. It doesn’t make any sense. I looked at the map, and having spent a lot of time at Berry Lane can see with my eyes that it will block the sun (partially) in the morning (unless the location has moved, again - there have been multiple revisions). But the fact that it’s a 17-story building in a neighborhood of 2 and 3 story buildings connected to a park is enough of a reason, especially when we can get the benefits of density through multiple mid-rises on that same lot. We don’t have to give up having light here on the ground.

−9

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8yjp06 wrote

>But the fact that it’s a 17-story building in a neighborhood of 2 and 3 story buildings connected to a park is enough of a reason

I mean I don't doubt there are people who don't support this, but I think this claim itself needs more support and evidence than what you are providing. For example, there are already neighborhoods in JC that exist with exactly what this sentence describes, so why imply these characteristics are bad in and of themselves without the data to support that claim?

If someone rolls up with a bunch of claims, don't be surprised when the Reddit masses ask: "sauce?"

8

Jctexan OP t1_j8ymjss wrote

I'm not sure what's confusing. Are you saying the community supports it? https://hudsoncountyview.com/jersey-city-council-approves-zoning-measure-to-move-morris-canal-manor-project-forward/

​

The community doesn't support it. They fought it (was supposed to be a park, apparently) and lost. Multiple times, in tricky ways. That doesn't make it right. It still needs planning approval, but it got through zoning in what appears to be a very unfair way. I also just flat out disagree that this is the best use of that land, which our planners are supposed to ensure.

​

I like planning so I read about it a lot, and high rises are not particularly environmentally friendly (the higher up you go the more heat escapes, glass isn't a great insulator, etc) and more and more, mid-rises are touted as the happy medium, better for neighborhoods, and keep the scale human sized and more enjoyable...and why cities like Paris, Barcelona, etc are great cities to live in. They are human scale. Moreover, this design doesn't fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It's possible to get density with multiple mid-rises on that lot without having to resort to high-rises.

−3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8yr2nj wrote

>The community doesn't support it.

Tough. Letting communities control density has contributed greatly to the current housing crisis in many cities. Nimbies are gonna NIMBY.

13

Jctexan OP t1_j8yryow wrote

If you had read this, you would see the density is supported as mid-rises. Nobody is NIMBYing. It’s a lot to read though, so I get skipping reading and just going for easy quotes.

−3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8z3tzv wrote

I read it. You are literally NIMBYing, it's exactly what you're doing. You don't want a building that is too big for a neighborhood, IN YOUR OPINION! The process of empowering everyone to weigh in and veto any and every development plan has gotten us to this point of housing shortage.

I prefer to let the market rather than the incumbent residents decide whether to build 2, 6 or 16 stories. Across the country, people that speak passionately about desiring to preserve their neighborhood's 'special character' are often merely presenting code for keeping it wealthy and white.

Great article about how a town on a SF commuter line fought passionately to keep out condos that might impact their views of the hills and the 'unique character' of their town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/business/economy/housing-crisis-conor-dougherty-golden-gates.html

8

Ainsel72l t1_j8zzcme wrote

That's interesting because a lot of the "incumbents" living here are not wealthy or white. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j9010tc wrote

I have, which is why I qualified the remark with 'often' instead of saying something like 'always', which would indeed be idiotic.

The NIMBY movement, particularly in California, has done a good job of convincing that segment that dense development poses more of a risk of gentrification than them being displaced from their low density rental homes by rising rents or sale of the property. In my observation this is not the case. Displacement gentrification precedes development not follows it, an area like the Heights is a prime example.

3

Ainsel72l t1_j94kqmi wrote

Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing. Displacment gentrification or development, it doesn't really matter which comes first. The end result is pretty much the same. Call me NIMBY if you want, but huge buildings towering over a neighborhood of houses just look ridiculous. I won't enjoy living close to them.

−1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j94somc wrote

>Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Middle income high rises are possibly even more sought after than luxury in the NY Metro.

Besides, in most cases of opposition to density, the horrifying zoning proposal is usually up from single family to 2-4 units, not high rises. In JC people were ready to riot against allowing 4 floors along commercial corridors in R-1 zones, like Palisade Avenue.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8z5lql wrote

I don’t think one developer’s profit, and a handful of view seekers, should be able to destroy a charming, human scaled neighborhood. We can have density (YIMBY!!!) without non-sustainable, environmentally unfriendly high-rises. This is a wonderfully diverse neighborhood and we can achieve density with mid-rises vs the super dark high-rise areas of downtown. It’s ok to achieve density another way.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8zo60q wrote

It's amazing how unreflective you are about using the exact same arguments frequently used against small multifamily and midrise. As always, NIMBYs want what they want and contort to justify it.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ztc5k wrote

You know calling someone a name doesn’t make it true, right?

2

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8ymxt3 wrote

>I'm not sure what's confusing. Are you saying the community supports it?

That is not what I wrote.

5

Ainsel72l t1_j8zyfcp wrote

Just because neighborhoods exist with this type of thing doesn't mean they like it. City Hall and developers don't care if they like it or not. These will get built anyway. Resistance is futile.

−3

nasty_brutish_longer t1_j8yoizv wrote

Replying to everything here to avoid multiple threads.

Shadow maps abound. From what I'm seeing you'll get early morning shade in the northwest corner of the park, so you're correct. But it only affects a sliver of the park and won't affect flora or recreational use in any meaningful way.

I would prefer midrise there as well, but you won't get 420 units out of it on that plot. I don't like the surface parking, but otherwise this is a good plan at ground level.

Trepidation is a reaction to any undesirable outcome, whether reasonable or not. And I don't think it's unreasonable to prefer midrise. That said, the urbanist pubs you cite, much as I tend to agree them, are neither data nor best practices in any practical sense.

9

Jctexan OP t1_j8yplmn wrote

trepidation noun trep·​i·​da·​tion ˌtre-pə-ˈdā-shən Synonyms of trepidation 1 : a nervous or fearful feeling of uncertain agitation : APPREHENSION

I’m not uncertain as to why I don’t want it. Please can we stop explaining words to each other? Everyone has google, right?

I do not think this is the best we can do as a community. I think we can do better. I’m still waiting to hear why this should be a high-rise, rather than a mid-rise. I cannot understand why the playground should be without light in the morning so a few people can stare at NYC or DTJC skyline from their window? It doesn’t make any sense.

−2

nasty_brutish_longer t1_j8ysypt wrote

The outcomes you're claiming are not certain. I think you're flailing here.

4

Jctexan OP t1_j8yt71z wrote

So you can’t think of a reason why this is passing the planning board. Got it. No worries. I don’t think anyone can. Hence my post.

−1

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j8yix8z wrote

Do you know how shadows work?

On Earth, north of the Tropic of Cancer, you will never have a solar shadow cast on the south side of a building.

5

Jctexan OP t1_j8ynob1 wrote

…can’t even

−2

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j8ytpg7 wrote

Alright, moron. Explain how a shadow can be cast on the south side of a building in Jersey City, when the sun will never be north of the building. I'll go get the popcorn.

In reality, the shadow from that building will be cast west, north, and east. But never south.

But none of that matters, because we all know you probably live next to this lot and are just a NIMBY who wants everyone else's rent to go up even higher, just so you can continue to look at an old decrepit steel mill.

9

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8y0cjz wrote

Looks like a nice design to me, better than an eyesore vacant lot and archeological ruin. Seems like an improvement to me.

21

Jctexan OP t1_j8y0qi9 wrote

It’s a lovely building that absolutely doesn’t fit in with the neighborhood, keeps its residents disconnected from the goings on in the neighborhood, and blocks light to a park. I’m all for multiple mid-rises on that same plot creating the same number of units. High-rises don’t make for good neighbors. Mixed-use mid-rises do!

−12

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j8y71ba wrote

A) It's inaccurate to claim every high rise resident is disconnected. High rise buildings foster their own sense of community. Plenty of NYCHA buildings are high rise. Vienna has high rise social housing buildings (Wohnpark Alt-Erlaa). All high rise residents also need to shop and walk around in the neighborhood.

B) Mid rise is no longer enough to create high density in this big an urban area. This is because of parking regulations and demand among developers to cram in more parking. Once upon a time, mid rise was enough to create density because car-free lifestyles were encouraged, but they are no longer encouraged, and as such you need as much height as possible to make up for the land wasted on parking. I too would support multiple mid-rises adding up to the same number of units, but bank lenders would throw a fit over the lack of parking. Your ire should be targeted at banks who refuse to fund anything but traditional projects

C) This will generate quite a bit of property tax revenue to fund improvements to the area while lowering rents vs. the status quo by ensuring the residents who would live there don't bid up older more affordable housing instead.

10

Jctexan OP t1_j8y98fd wrote

A)no one claimed every high-rise resident, but data shows most are disconnected and the area needs actively engaged residents. B)data shows otherwise C)don’t agree with your argument re more units = lower taxes (take a look at the taxes from 2010 to now) but pretending that’s true, I’m not suggesting fewer units, I’m suggesting same number of units in more buildings on the same lot (and less concrete). Parking minimums are a different argument (and most healthy cities are doing away with them).

−2

objectimpermanence t1_j8ya1lf wrote

> A)no one claimed every high-rise resident, but data shows most are disconnected and the area needs actively

What data are you referring to?

4

JeromePowellAdmirer t1_j8y9pqp wrote

Like I said, I support the idea of what you're proposing, but given current lending standards there's really no one willing to finance it and that's why such projects are impossible to find anywhere in the country

3

Jctexan OP t1_j8ya2gu wrote

Even the developer was open to mid rise. High rise is not the future.

−1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ycawi wrote

I'm in real estate and I'm not sure I understand your arguement. Are you saying that a bank will lend on a 17-story project with 420 units but not 3 six-story buildings totalling 420 units on that same lot? I'm not sure I understand that.

−1

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8yxi7s wrote

"Data shows most are disconnected".

Can you link to this data? I'm very curious how one measures how connected or disconnected a resident is.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8z0eej wrote

Happy to, but you should really rely on your own research. You likely won’t accept any data sources I provide so I urge you to do your own research and look at peer reviewed data or at least data summarized by reputable publications. I know we have a tendency to dig our heels in and just want to be right, but I would guess that intuitively you know and understand that neighborhoods full of high-rises don’t promote neighborly interaction and engagement the way a more human scale building does. If you want to pretend it does, I won’t stand in your way. It’s ok to prefer high rises, but it’s not fair to stick one in the middle of a neighborhood, blocking sunlight to a park, so that a developer can make $$$, and a few people have a good view. This is not what’s best for the city or the neighborhood. The benefits of housing density can be obtained with mid-rises and without the negative effects of high-rises.

0

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8z9daj wrote

Multiple people here have asked you to link to this alleged data and you seem to be extremely hesitant to do so.

You say you have data that shows a high rise apartment building makes the residents less "connected". Okay, cool. Sounds interesting. Let's see it.

Thanks.

5

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8zdryk wrote

Arguably, the post itself is disingenuous because the title includes the Reddit phrase "ELI5" which is "Explain like I'm 5". Folks have pointed out that some of the concerns OP is raising don't hold water (ex. casting a shadow, preventing connection between two areas, etc.). By doing so, these responses are somewhat providing the explanation: setting aside qualitative reasons, there wasn't a clear-cut quantifiable reason to not approve it.

Using "ELI5" in the title seems like a way to get people commenting with the assumption it would be an informational thread exploring the reasons for and against the building, but...well, you've seen how this thread has played out.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8zbumw wrote

Because you’re not being genuine. You’re playing the “give me the proof so I can refute it” game and it’s silly. If you really want to know the answer you will look it up.

I posted asking why this building is getting approved when it doesn’t meet zoning or fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It doesn’t make any sense to me. If you have no reasons why, that’s cool, no worries, you don’t have to come up with one - but man, you have to learn how to google if you want to know something - don’t rely on other people EVEN IF THEY GIVE YOU A LINK. One link shouldn’t convince you, lol.

If you want to remain uneducated, you can do that. If you want to educate yourself you can do that too. Google is free.

−1

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8zcxrp wrote

So there is no data, got it. You could have saved us some time by just not claiming to have data in the first place.

Since there is no data, this basically comes down to something that is purely a matter of personal preference and opinion. I am a fan of buildings like this, I live in one myself and it's the best place I've lived in this city. I think the design for this new one looks pretty great and will make a good addition to the neighborhood.

If you had some sort of study with data that literally showed people who live in a particular type of building are "less connected", I would find that pretty interesting. It probably wouldn't change my overall opinion on the building, but it might sway other people and would be worth considering. As you've indicated though, the data doesn't seem to actually exist, so it's not really relevant.

For future reference, when one person claims to have data, other people asking to see it is not a weird or hostile request.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8zdnv5 wrote

I didn’t indicate the data doesn’t exist, lol

1

4th-Ale-Or-Lingas t1_j8zevhs wrote

It is certainly implied by your refusal to share it. At this point I'd just find it weird if it did exist, I mean who claims to have data, actually does have it but just refuses to share it across multiple replies? That's weirder than just making it up to begin with. Still, if by some odd chance this data that literally measures how connected people are to their neighborhood and shows, in your exact words, "most people are disconnected", I think myself and others would find that very interesting. That's a very specific claim on a metric pretty hard to quantify, so if such data exists I think it would be fascinating to read.

A few replies ago when I first asked if you'd share, you said "Happy to to", and then didn't. And then didn't again. And didn't again after that.

It either doesn't exist at all, or it does but doesn't show what you claim it does and you've realized that and don't want to look silly, or you're just maybe not that polite. I can't tell which. I'll say again though, asking for data when one person claims to have it is not hostile and not an abnormal request. If you claim to have data that shows a specific point you should be prepared to share it on request, and probably just include it in your initial remarks to begin with. Citing sources, and all.

I'll reply again if you have any actual data to share, otherwise I think this conversation is pretty much purposeless.

4

ffejie t1_j8yvrhm wrote

"Vertical sprawl" is a new one for me. That's some serious NIMBYism.

13

Jctexan OP t1_j8ywftv wrote

You could google it and educate yourself, ya know. No one is forcing you to comment if you don’t understand.

−6

ffejie t1_j8yxbot wrote

I did Google it, and it's ridiculous.

It's usually called infill, and it's unequivocally supported by most and opposed by NIMBYs. From an article in NYT about the infill happening in downtown Brooklyn in 2006

>“Regions and cities, in trying to combat sprawl, are encouraging infill development,” said Ted Droettboom, an official with the Association of Bay Area Governments. “But you’re doing that with existing neighborhoods with existing neighbors, who fear traffic, who fear density and height.”

>The trend toward infill development is in part a product of the “smart growth” movement that has gained currency among land-use planners and environmentalists. Higher-density, mixed-use development built around mass transit hubs, they argue, is more environmentally sound than suburban sprawl and produces better quality of life.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/06/weekinreview/06confessore.html

5

Lebesgue_Couloir t1_j8ys5xi wrote

“OMG rents are so high! There’s not enough housing available!”

::Development plan on a vacant lot::

“OMG NOOOOOO The community needs that vacant lot!!”

12

Jctexan OP t1_j8ysb7t wrote

…try reading instead of guessing what’s being discussed.

−7

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8yc9go wrote

I saw somewhere in this thread that this development will "block light to a park". Can someone help me understand that claim better? I thought this would be north of Berry Lane Park and the sun moves east to west. When would it block light? Or are there many other things being built currently around that park too?

10

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j8ytxw0 wrote

In Jersey City, there will never be a building that casts a shadow southward. OP doesn't know what they're talking about, what the Tropic of Cancer is, or how shadows work.

21

Basilone1917 t1_j8zq01o wrote

Also, shade in a park is awesome, unless you enjoy burning up during the summer months.

5

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j91p21v wrote

You make a good point for some 75 floor highrises south of the park.

1

Basilone1917 t1_j92b9j4 wrote

Just like Central Park, now fallen under the shadow realm of Billionaire's Row.

2

JcpaNYC t1_j91gbje wrote

FYI- All projects submit shadow studies which can be found on the jersey city planning board website. If anyone cares enough to look.

That said- OP just seems to be a NIMBY

2

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j91p7py wrote

OP is the biggest NIMBY of them all. Just resist, OP is trying to raise our rents.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j929rjy wrote

Yep, I looked and couldn’t find it. I’m pro-density, this isn’t my backyard, but…kk

1

Zorping t1_j92e970 wrote

This isn't your backyard...wait...this isn't even your neighborhood!?

LOL! I actually do live in this neighborhood and while I can't speak for everyone I'd personally appreciate it if outsiders such as yourself didn't try to ruin improvements to the area like this building. This neighborhood has been on the rise, when these apartments come so do new businesses. If you want to delay progress in your own neighborhood please feel free but don't come into our neighborhood to try to push your agenda on us.

2

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j92nh9f wrote

Additionally, after OP's admission I find it pretty interesting that the people who actually have neighborhood tags in this thread (Greenville, Communipaw) are in areas that would be impacted and seem to see the project favorably.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j92sfjf wrote

I live in Bergen Lafayette. I work and shop here, too. It is my community, if not my backyard. We can disagree on the way to get the pros of density without taking things personally.

1

Es-py t1_j8xyowe wrote

$$$$

3

Brudesandwich t1_j8yawwy wrote

I prefer this than what's currently there now

3

Jctexan OP t1_j8ybc8d wrote

No one is advocating for keeping it empty. We all want to see more housing. The discussion is that a mid-rise on multiple buildings is better for many reasons and a similar number of units could be built on that same lot in a mid-rise fashion. High-rise doesn’t help the neighborhood even if it’s a pretty design.

−1

Dependent_Map_3940 t1_j8yn4bp wrote

so if you think multiple mid rises buildings would be better than one building, put your money where your mouth is. Gather info like the size of the land, find out about all the building/apartment codes, get with a architect & propose a design for what you think should be there with 420 units.

4

Jctexan OP t1_j8ynh80 wrote

Yeah…that’s not how it works but…kk

−2

jerseycityfrankie t1_j8y07ux wrote

Have projects been denied anywhere?

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8y4psd wrote

Yes, that crazy monstrosity over at Mallory/Communipaw was stopped dead for the moment due to community opposition.

4

CoffeenZabars t1_j91udtl wrote

OP cast "stir public outcry", it's super effective! /s

2

mookybelltolls t1_j9507fd wrote

You are correct. The corporation opposed it until they got the project. The main question is this: who is remediation the land? It contains chromium 6, just about the worst chemical you could have in your neighborhood. To remediate it for residential use is the most thorough and expensive type of cleaning. As far as I know, no one is required to do it. If it isn't completed, they can not build.

2

Anonymous1985388 t1_j8zu0tb wrote

Agree with you that high rises aren’t that great to live right next to and ruin a bit the charm of a neighborhood. Makes it feel more like industrial or commercial, and less residential. Suburban towns probably have stronger building height restrictions. There’s a building in Communipaw that’s being built now and is already looking taller than the other buildings in Communipaw. It really sticks out and it didn’t need to be that tall.

There are some people who prefer more high rises and more skyscrapers, but I am with you- I like the strong building codes that limit how high the apartments can be. Makes the neighborhood feel more home-y and nice.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j91a9fq wrote

High-rises can make great options in areas where they fit with the scale. I am not anti high-rise (in general). I am definitely pro mid-rise and that’s the type of neighborhood I would choose to live in and did choose to live in (my neighborhood is actually single and two families). I also wouldn’t stick a bunch of single, or multi-family homes next to high-rises, because it just doesn’t make sense.

My point is we don’t have to jam high-rises everywhere. We can pick and choose which buildings get built and where so we can appropriately plan the city growth. That’s the whole point of city planning…or so I thought. Maybe that’s not why we have city planning. Maybe everyone should just build whatever they want wherever they want with no regard for city planning and the millions spent on the overall planning so far and then we can just get rid of the city planning department entirely - and let the market decide, whatever that means. I guess in that case I don’t understand why we have a planning department.

1

Anonymous1985388 t1_j91am4m wrote

Yup. I agree with you. I’d get more involved in the city planning process myself. With my 50-60 hour a week job, it makes it difficult to find extra time.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j91h1ui wrote

Yup, I do and yes, very hard to parent, work full time, volunteer, and sit in planning meetings, but I will keep on doing just that. It’s really curious why this was approved. The whole thing is so odd. Was really hoping someone had some knowledge I didn’t and it would all make sense.

1

Zorping t1_j92ay0y wrote

Maybe the people opposed to it don't represent a significant majority of the population.

3

Jctexan OP t1_j92t46w wrote

Yeah, you might be right…it’s entirely possible, but it’s not the case from what I understood. The councilman (elected by the constituents who live in the area) voted against it based on community input and had been attempting to negotiate with the developer but got outvoted by other wards’ councilpersons.

1

JCYimby t1_j9068x5 wrote

This looks pretty cool actually.

1

fastAFguy t1_j9ipb0s wrote

OP, you suck. Only thing wrong with this development is that it isn’t double the density with two 17 story buildings instead of just one. To call this one “vertical sprawl” is just ignorance and NIMBYism.

This development is a massive improvement over what’s currently there… I bet it will be a great community asset when built.

The fools that have been fighting this development should be barred from using any of the community benefits when built. Of course that legally can’t happen, but they’re so fucking hypocritical because they’ll be singing it’s praises in a few years. There small business incubator sounds especially interesting to me.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j8yxj1q wrote

Oooh, the latest and greatest data from 2006!!! Tell me more!!! Sorry, dude, but no, lol. It’s not sustainable and better information is out there.

0

Supablue24 t1_j906ntr wrote

Looks cool. I hope they build it faster so OP can seethe.

0