Paulus Hook Goldman Sachs parking lot, waiting for new residential tower constructionSubmitted by mwc665324 t3_yxg1m6 in jerseycity
ABrusca1105 t1_iwq5gyy wrote
Reply to comment by orb_king in Paulus Hook Goldman Sachs parking lot, waiting for new residential tower construction by mwc665324
Well, yes. Prices would be rising EVEN FASTER as the data has shown time and time again. The problem is the proximity to New York and the fact they are failing to do the same. New York isn't building housing, so JC had to pick up the slack for both NYC AND NJ.
thebruns t1_iwtnv9s wrote
Why has JC, which has built so much, seen prices increase so much faster than the Bronx, which last I checked, is not just proximate to NYC, but fucking part of it?
FloatingWeight t1_iwvo5ru wrote
Jersey City is a lot closer to the desirable parts of NYC aka lower manhattan, also safer and cleaner.
[deleted] t1_iwv95so wrote
[deleted]
Ilanaspax t1_iwqa41z wrote
Okay grandpa time to get you to bed
moobycow t1_iwqau11 wrote
I would love someone to explain to me the mechanism by which having less houses makes them more affordable, other than, maybe, if you make a place shitty enough no one wants to live there.
orb_king t1_iwsfrkg wrote
Lack of housing is not the problem. Lack of affordable housing is the problem. All these towers use the same one or two companies to determine what rents should be…and guess which direction those algorithms all point to, over and over? They are literally colluding on prices, adding more units won’t lower the price. That market can stay irrational longer than any of us can stay solvent, as the saying goes. (For the curious, this is a good place to begin understanding how bad this problem is: https://www.propublica.org/article/why-rent-is-so-high )
Ilanaspax t1_iwqcb6e wrote
I know it’s hard to imagine - but plenty of people lived here before Fulop sold out the town to developers and were totally fine with not having a sweet green and a bunch of shitty restaurants on Newark Ave in exchange for affordable rent.
They made a MAKE IT YOURS JC campaign and then it’s shocked pikachu face when the entire city gets steamrolled by development. The goal was always high rents and pricing long time residents out. That’s why it’s so funny to see the rubes on here pretending more luxury housing is the solution instead of the cause. You have to be incredibly naive or a real estate shill to think more luxury housing is going to make anything more affordable when they all work together to artificially inflate rents.
moobycow t1_iwqhe6t wrote
If JC didn't build these places, where do you expect the people who now live here would live instead? Development showed up because they were filling up brownstones in Paulus Hook and VVP. I mean look at the prices in The Heights, they haven't built any fancy highrises there.
If the country built enough houses in places people wanted to live we wouldn't have to worry about this crap. In the past, believe it or not, cities had room for both rich people and poor people. Then we passed a bunch of zoning reforms, stopped building and now the cities fill up with rich people and people blame the development. As if the people with $1m homes that used to house factory workers wouldn't be in something else if it existed.
Ilanaspax t1_iwr1co6 wrote
Again...if people wanted to live here so badly why would they need to offer abatements and make an entire campaign to encourage development 10 - 15 years ago? This was all planned.
down_up__left_right t1_iwqld58 wrote
The problem here is that you think new construction is the reason people have and are still moving to Jersey City.
The real reason most people have and are still moving to Jersey City is because it’s right next to one of the biggest job centers in the entire country.
People would have come and will still come even if the housing stock is not increased.
Turning a parking lot into hundreds of homes means hundreds of people not trying to rent or buy existing homes.
Ilanaspax t1_iwr1qt4 wrote
Wow so I guess we didn't need those tax abatements handed out like candy back in the day to encourage development then if Jersey City was so enticing on its own?
moobycow t1_iwr4kvj wrote
Probably not, but then the prices of the existing stock would have had to gone up more before the projects penciled out.
Ilanaspax t1_iwr5ekq wrote
sure buddy
down_up__left_right t1_iwr65ev wrote
Generally no. Those are usually unneeded giveaways that exist because of corruption.
Those kinds of giveaway also exist in Manhattan and you can't accuse Manhattan of not being an in demand area.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments