Found this setup of flowers in the middle of the street. For Jersey City having a bad reputation, they have some really nice displays all overdumbass_0 t1_iu10k3q wrote
The only thing JC should have a bad reputation for is overdevelopment and god awful traffic
Blackest_Beard t1_iu17be4 wrote
Don't forget the parking.
marceljj t1_iu1i6yb wrote
we need less space dedicated to parking lots tbh
dumbass_0 t1_iu1g81z wrote
Not sure how i forgot that one, but so true
BYNX0 t1_iu20a3p wrote
Yes!! Parking. It's more difficult than many areas of Brooklyn, and any other city in NJ (except for Newark)
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu455hf wrote
I have an easier time parking in Newark than I ever do in JC
BYNX0 t1_iu4parl wrote
I guess it depends on which part of both. Both are very large, over 20 sq miles each
aporochito t1_iu29egq wrote
Thank God for JC building as much housing as they are building. Otherwise NYC rents would be more. Given how good public transport options are, people should use less cars to commute in JC.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu456oc wrote
You know JC is more than just downtown right.
aporochito t1_iu4d12w wrote
Light rail covers big parts of JC. Not just downtown. Administration, both city and the state, should be pushed to cover more. In any case, complaining about JC building housing for residents is stupid.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu4drq1 wrote
It sure does but what if you live too far to walk to the light rail and have mobility issues.
What if you don’t work in the city - because I’m telling you know most of the people that live outside downtown aren’t all commuting to NYC.
The fact you think everyone just lives works and plays in JC shows how out of touch you are with the reality of the city. Take that light rail for a little ride and walk around where you get off. And I don’t mean Liberty State Park.
aporochito t1_iu4fpeb wrote
Hence the government should be pushed to provide more public transport, not more parking lots.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu4h66s wrote
Again if someone lives outside the city, and just needs a car to get around, more public transportation and less parking won’t help that situation.
America as a whole is way behind on public transport. That needs to be a nationwide effort to fix it just city to city.
And building high rises and pushing long term residents out of their homes to make way for the richer residents technically does help the numbers the city shows off. But building more homes that people can’t afford only makes those people move. So was the poverty issue ever really addressed or did the mayor just essentially hide it under a proverbial rug?
Really solutions are finding schools properly, creating outdoor spaces that everyone can use, providing support for families and those that need it. Support for job loss, addiction, rehabs, affordable extra curricular activities
effort268 t1_iu5eozw wrote
I use to think just the way you do, and I'm all for keeping people in their neighborhoods. But let's be honest, if demand increases and we purposely block every new residential, then new residents will just buy up the homes where people rent, thus forcing them to leave. I rather have large high towers where all the middle-upper class people live, then to have them come after my neighborhood.
FYI - i'm in Ironbound Newark, and I rather them build in downtown then here. PLenty of empty parking lots to build hundreds of housing units. JC has less space but you guys are building very tall which is good. Ya just need better public transportations so everyone can get around.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu68ne8 wrote
That’s not good and they are buying up residencies all over the city from people. Every area of the city is starting to feel the squeeze and no one benefits except the out of towners taking over. Have a great weekend.
moobycow t1_iu4zzmv wrote
People outside of DT have some of the lowest car ownership rates in the country.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu4dvft wrote
It’s not building housing for all residents. Just the ones who can afford 2k rent for a shoebox apartment. 🤷🏻♀️
aporochito t1_iu4fhr4 wrote
So building less will make the housing cheaper? What happens when they build less of "shoebox apartment"? Where do those go who can afford 2K+ rents, and are now living in those apartments? Aren't they going to occupy currently cheaper, slightly older places? Additionally, most of the new developments have affordable units in them, which in itself increases the number of available affordable units in the city. Without this building boom, JC would be less affordable.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu4g25o wrote
Ummmmm you seriously need to like venture outside or your little bubble. All of JC isn’t a bunch of young folks with city jobs. Most of the city are working class and people in poverty. Long time residents being forced out of their homeS, intimidated to sell, so the developers can knock it down and build something newer (aka a shit ton more expensive) in its place.
I spent the last 8 years paying kids graduation dues, buying lunches, school supplies, uniforms, dresses and clothes for dances, contributing to endless fundraisers, because parents can’t afford it. I’ve been to more funerals for kids who have died to gang violence then any one person should have to.
You think the solution to that is “most of the buildings have affordable units.” Go back to your bubble please.
aporochito t1_iu4goa4 wrote
You think the solution is not building? How will that reduce poverty? You did not answer the question I asked. How is building less makes JC more affordable?
effort268 t1_iu5fyrz wrote
I'm from Newark and I know exactly what you're talking about. But let's not play into our emotions. We need to increase supply because demand is high. If we refuse to build, prices will go up....that's literally what inflation is all about...
I do realize that a good amount of people are working class folks and I want to help them but reducing housing won't help not one. I do think we should focus on increasing wages, providing more social safety nets, etc. I'm also in favor of taxing big corporations to help fund this, I mean Goldman Sachs has received $165Million in tax breaks to bring their headquarters. None of us received tax breaks for our rent.
Please realize that the middle class is not your enemy, it's the people at the very top.
Certain_Minimum_8862 t1_iu5h9i4 wrote
Yeah but then build the right types of housing. The demand is up because rich assholes from across the River want cheap rent and a nice view.
DerSturmbannfuror t1_iu1j0e6 wrote
Still better than S.I 😜
SyndicalistCPA t1_iu4dxne wrote
Yeah, what year did this dude come from? I expect suburban peeps to keep shit talking Newark, but Jersey City? Lmaoo
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iu2teln wrote
I thought people in cities were supposed to take those streetcars and buses and bikes and stuff, because city bloggers told me that's what cities are for. Yet all the time I hear how people living in cities everywhere complain about traffic and parking, European cities too.
oatmealparty t1_iu35v4s wrote
What a bizarre comment.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iu4wqbu wrote
Is this your best response why people even in walkable cities talk about traffic and parking so much?
oatmealparty t1_iu5dk19 wrote
I'm just not sure what your point is. Cars and traffic exist and therefore... cities are bad? Trains are pointless? Liberals are hypocrites? Like, what are you even getting at?
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iu8scvl wrote
Talk about bizarre comments. Cities are fine. Trains are convenient. "Liberals" is a weird term.
What I'm criticizing is modern public-transit-over-all city bloggers and "fuckcars" people who are either blind of hypocrite. They are usually triggered when someone says something good about cars like pointing out people actually need them regardless.
oatmealparty t1_iu8w63d wrote
This makes absolutely zero sense. How does the current proliferation of cars mean they are blind or hypocrites? Because current infrastructure encourages the use of cars, the people that want fewer cars and better public transportation and walkable cities are blind hypocrites because....what?
This is as dumb as saying "if you want fewer ants in your house then why are there so many ants in your house huh smart guy?" It's confusing tautological nonsense that you somehow think is a gotcha against better infrastructure.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iu93czy wrote
OMG I talk to you that there is no place on Earth no matter how public transport friendly that does away with personal cars, I give you personal examples but to you your theoretic theories you built in your mind are more real than reality. I'l see myself out.
oatmealparty t1_iu9715n wrote
Yeah, cars still exist and there's still lots of infrastructure built around them, congratulations I guess?
Poldark_Lite t1_iu4bgr6 wrote
How do you think those people moved there in the beginning? When we lived in Manhattan we still had a permanent parking space we rented for our car, so we could drive to visit family whenever we had a long weekend. ♡ Granny
YawnTractor_1756 t1_iu51a6m wrote
Oh no. What are you saying. That people in walkable cities will still drive, need roads and parking spots? That we can't do away with all commuter paradise?
Stop! Stop saying such things! It's evil!
/s
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments