Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Jctexan OP t1_j8yjasj wrote

Reply to comment by Affectionate-Buy2539 in Why is planning allowing this building? Eli5 by Jctexan

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