JERSEY CITY | Projects and Construction thread

[C.]

Originally Posted by CIA

BREAKING NEWS

Journal Squared Phase 2 is scheduled to begin construction within 90 days! It looks like the height remains at 70 storeys and will rise ~750ft (I was hoping it would have gone for taller, but still excellent news and a vote of confidence in Journal Square). Now, when it's Kushner gonna step up and start constructing One Journal Square!?!


From DominiRican at SSC.

SSC has some updated renderings. http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1857819&page=6

[C.]

From http://www.lwdmr.com

Unknown downtown development in very early stages



975 Garfield





144 First





LOFTS on the Square - 2851 Kennedy





165 Academy



351 Marinp




28 Vroom





362 Summit



75 Jordan







232 Sip

[Hamilton]

Thanks CIA, that's exciting news! Do you mind if I ask how you learned of this? Were some construction permits filed? Heard through the grapevine? A sign or activity on site?

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Thanks CIA, that's exciting news! Do you mind if I ask how you learned of this? Were some construction permits filed? Heard through the grapevine? A sign or activity on site?

Let's just say the following paperwork was filed.

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/FAA_Form_7460-1_2017.pdf

You must submit this form at least 45 days
before the start date of the proposed construction
or alteration or the date an application for a
construction permit is filed, whichever is earliest.

It's been my experience that when this is filed, construction nearly always follows within 45 to 90 days.

[C.]

I love these buildings lwdmr is designing. I was these could be built as-of-right on any main street or street corner. I'm so sick of NIMBYs fighting these responsible developments.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by CIA

I love these buildings lwdmr is designing. I was these could be built as-of-right on any main street or street corner. I'm so sick of NIMBYs fighting these responsible developments.

A lot of them look really nice. Boggiano is ridiculous... how are the vast majority of these out of scale? 6-8 stories on those side blocks wouldn't be bad. I just hope the Fulop administration and the new city planner don't roll over for the NIMBYs... that cry to "get the hell out of our neighborhood" just is asinine and counterproductive. Anyway, if most of the mid sized development has to be away from the side streets farther off the Square, so be it. But to complain about SIX stories? What a short sighted idiot.

Great news about the construction of the tallest of the Journal Squared towers starting very likely by May... 70 stories and 750 ft will still make an incredible impact there. Hopefully the Kushner cousins on the front of the Square get hopping soon with One Journal Square very soon as you say.... on another site someone with a good track record says he has spoken to people involved and it will be happening in March. I definitely hope so... with Journal Squared soon to be on their second(and the biggest) tower, there's no excuse to procrastinate.

[C.]

I wish I had time to ghostwrite a YIMBY article on the scaling back of Journal Square's excellent 2060 plan. It's one of the few places in America with a very generous zoning along with no height limit. Jersey City's best chance for a supertall. I still maintain that the Harwood lands could see a twin tower development like the original World Trade Center if a developer with appropriate capital and balls decided to get into the action.

[citybooster]

Originally Posted by CIA

I wish I had time to ghostwrite a YIMBY article on the scaling back of Journal Square's excellent 2060 plan. It's one of the few places in America with a very generous zoning along with no height limit. Jersey City's best chance for a supertall. I still maintain that the Harwood lands could see a twin tower development like the original World Trade Center if a developer with appropriate capital and balls decided to get into the action.

I'm hoping after hearing just how childish and counterproductive Boggiano and his NIMBY brigade has been lately, Fulop realizes that there should NOT be substantial changes to the plan and that the potential for those two large towers if the arts district stipulations of providing galleries, studios and theaters are realized still exists. I'm surprised that Boggiano agreed to the building of the 50 story tower potentially at 101 Newkirk(I know, believe it when we see it lol) which he supposedly agreed to because there will be some major recognition of Jane Tuers included. Heck, I'm shocked he okayed the 30 Journal Square development(the other major project on the front of the Square across from the two tower One Journal Square project)... but in the residential side streets otherwise he seems to be dead set against even five to eight story low rises, which just makes no sense in the long run.

[Hamilton]

Thanks again, CIA! You're amazing. I found it. 759 feet to the roof, 779 feet to the top of the lightning rod:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=321999932&row=4

A previous proposal for Journal Squared Phase II was already studied and accepted by the FAA in 2012 (but it expired). In cases like that, the FAA is usually pretty quick with a new approval, so I think you're right that this means imminent construction.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=167137332&row=1

FYI, NYGuy found similar filings for One Journal Square back in December (942 ft and 730 ft):

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=311668002&row=5

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=311668182&row=9

For some reason the FAA hasn't made a determination on them yet even though it's been 3 months. I wonder what the holdup is. Hopefully it'll be quicker than 99 Hudson's study, which took almost 7 months to be approved:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=253201679&row=2

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Thanks again, CIA! You're amazing. I found it. 759 feet to the roof, 779 feet to the top of the lightning rod:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=321999932&row=4

NYGuy found similar filings for One Journal Square back in December (942 ft and 730 ft):

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=311668002&row=5

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=311668182&row=9

For some reason the FAA hasn't made a determination on them yet even though it's been 3 months. I wonder what the holdup is. 99 Hudson's study took almost 7 months to be approved:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=253201679&row=2

It's only supposed to take 45-90 days!

I wouldn't worry too much with One Journal Square's approval at the FAA as the guy that submitted it is now a Senior Advisor to the President of the United States and son-in-law to the President's favorite daughter.

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by citybooster

in the residential side streets otherwise he seems to be dead set against even five to eight story low rises, which just makes no sense in the long run.

Yup. And it's not like such buildings were unheard of on the side streets before the current building boom. I live on a side street in Journal Square, in a 6-story building next to 2-story houses. My building was built in 1927. It also has zero parking spots, of course. It's not generally considered an eyesore. In fact, it's within one of the redevelopment plan's historic preservation zones, so it's effectively landmarked because it enhances the streetscape.

I wonder if Boggiano and his NIMBY nuts would be out there protesting if my building was going to be knocked down and redeveloped into a couple of detached houses with parking. Or would the be celebrating? On the one hand, more parking spots and less density, but on the other hand, something would be changing in the neighborhood...

[C.]

Sad news to report....

The FAA website is showing that One Journal Square, Tower 2 has been reduced to 777ft

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=311668002&row=5



That's a drop of 122ft from the original 899ft that was presented to the city. Was this the FAA or was it in response to the market? We may never know. We were all excited when the initial FAA filing reported 942ft. Why the drop today?

Originally Posted by Hamilton

For some reason the FAA hasn't made a determination on them yet even though it's been 3 months. I wonder what the holdup is. Hopefully it'll be quicker than 99 Hudson's study, which took almost 7 months to be approved:

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=253201679&row=2

We should've known something was up.

[Hamilton]

Wow, that stinks. It reminds me of what happened to 99 Hudson. The height chop for that tower (from 950 ft to 899 ft) also coincided with the FAA review. During the review, the FAA issued a "Notice of Presumed Hazard," in which they might've alerted the developers that they were going to force them to cut down the height:

The proposed building was issued a Notice of Presumed Hazard on September 14, 2015, and a request for
further study was received on November 02, 2015.

Another clue that the FAA was behind 99 Hudson's height-chop is that they also forced 99 Hudson to cut the height of their construction crane by 90 feet.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=290786343&row=7

Sadly, Jersey City may be too close to Newark Airport for the FAA to ever allow a supertall here

When the FAA finishes reviewing 1JS's application, we'll find out whether they issued a Notice of Presumed Hazard during the process. If they did, that would be a strong sign that the FAA forced the height chop.

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Wow, that stinks. It's reminiscent of what happened to 99 Hudson. Its height chop (from 950 ft to 899 ft) also coincided with the FAA review. During the review, the FAA issued a "Notice of Presumed Hazard," in which they might've alerted the developers that they were going to force them to cut down the height:



Another clue that the FAA was behind 99 Hudson's height-chop is that they also forced 99 Hudson to cut the height of their construction crane by 90 feet.

https://oeaaa.faa.gov/oeaaa/external/searchAction.jsp?action=displayOECase&oeCaseID=290786343&row=7

Sadly, Newark Airport may be too close for the FAA to ever allow Jersey City to have a supertall

We'll know when the FAA issues 1JS's application whether they issued a Notice of Presumed Hazard or not. If so, that would be a strong sign that they forced the height chop.

Good points. I swear this site is — cursed. I had hoped Jared Kushner would have told the FAA to — off.

[C.]

City says 10,100 residential units are under construction as of now.

http://data.jerseycitynj.gov/dataset/df7...nload/residentialdevelopmentoverview.pdf

Is that all you got? This time come 2018 better be a higher number. I'm curious what the starts are vs the numbers reported by the city since construction is a multi-year long process.

[citybooster]

Thanks, Hamilton for your perspective actually residing in the area regarding the utter hypocrisy and ridiculousness of the NIMBY "mindset". And wouldn't a lot more cars be the LAST thing we need on our congested roads? Seriously need for the PATH to work on the transportation infrastructure improvements that are going to be required with the influx of several thousand new residents. But more parking... at least the logical conclusion of parking ratios the NIMBYS are crying that they want... is headscratchingly nonsensical for living right by a transportation hub.

VERY disappointing decision it appears the FAA has made in making that cut to 777 ft for the tallest of the buildings. It is what it is, however... and still will be a significant presence when people are looking at our skyline because it's in among the highest points of Jersey City.

A few questions, though. I did read before and it was confirmed by JCMAN320 in Wired (Jersey City Rising thread) that the two towers in the One Journal Square project will be simultaneously built. If that is the case, any news on the final allowance for height of the smaller tower(which had been set at 730ft). Also, I'm assuming that the other tower project across the Street, 30 Journal Square, that the Trump-affiliated branch of the Kushners own will be developed after the One Journal Square project is complete. Planned for 72 stories and 799 ft, do we need to fear the FAA might take a chop at that too?

Assuming the arts district proposal comes to fruition, no doubt the proposed two large towers will be set at no more than the 700-750 ft range, either... though this probably is at least something that wouldn't be fully realized(if that) for 5-10 years?

HAP tower on Summit it has been out won't be developed for a few more years at least as well(42 stories next to the old Summit House building).. and is 101 Newkirk a real possibility or Jersey City's very own architectural "unicorn", lol?!

[Hamilton]

Originally Posted by citybooster

I did read before and it was confirmed by JCMAN320 in Wired (Jersey City Rising thread) that the two towers in the One Journal Square project will be simultaneously built. If that is the case, any news on the final allowance for height of the smaller tower(which had been set at 730ft).

As of today, the height of the other tower is still listed at 730ft on the FAA application.

Also, I'm assuming that the other tower project across the Street, 30 Journal Square, that the Trump-affiliated branch of the Kushners own will be developed after the One Journal Square project is complete. Planned for 72 stories and 799 ft, do we need to fear the FAA might take a chop at that too?

We'd need to ask an aviation consultant who is familiar with the FAA application process. But it seems like the same factors would apply to any new building built in the area. These determinations are based on distance from the airports and air traffic control towers and beacons, as well as the routing of flight paths. But FAA determinations also hinge on whether there are already existing obstructions (such as tall buildings) nearby. So I don't know whether that might allow a developer to argue for a little extra height.

But also keep in mind that we're not entirely sure that it was the FAA that caused this height chop; we just have a few clues suggesting that's what happened.


Here's a link with some info on why the FAA might issue a Notice of Presumed Hazard and what the consequences are:

http://www.wacaz.com/services/obstruction-evaluation/notice-of-presumed-hazard/

Here's what it says:

Some of the reasons cited by the FAA for the issuance of a Notice of Presumed Hazard are that the structure height exceeds an FAR Part 77 obstruction standard and will penetrate an airport’s imaginary surfaces, that the structure interferes with a terminal flight procedure or that the structure interferes with a navigational aid, surveillance system, communications facility or has RF energy interference issues.

If the offered resolution for the Notice of Presumed Hazard is not tenable for the sponsor, options available might include, terminating the Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration and to re-file with different structure data such as height and location or attempt to mitigate the offered resolution with the FAA.

The difficulty for the FAA specialist issuing the Notice of Presumed Hazard is that often the existing database is incomplete and they have not considered mitigating factors such as the effects of existing structures, terrain or other pertinent issues.

Once a sponsor has received a Notice of Presumed Hazard, it would be prudent to engage an aviation consultant who has extensive expertise in developing innovative and workable solutions that will either allow them to construct their structure as planned or will mitigate the FAA’s issues resulting in a favorable determination.

[Crawford]

Well that —. Hopefully the tower's height was cut for reasons other than the FAA.

But if the FAA is really limiting journal square to 800 ft. and downtown to 900 ft., that would still produce a pretty amazing skyline. I would be very happy to see dozens of 700-800 ft. towers in Journal Square and 800-900 ft. towers downtown.

[citybooster]

Thanks, Hamilton for the info and I totally agree with Crawford. As tough a break as it might be if the FAA is going to be strict about heights, at least we will still have an amazing, continuously growing skyline and we'll definitely be noticed!

[C.]

Originally Posted by Hamilton

As of today, the height of the other tower is still listed at 730ft on the FAA application.

Update!

Both towers are now at 777ft per the FAA website.

Booo! I hate it. There needs to be some variety in the skyline. Lazy architecture just to xerox the same plans for identical buildings. The old version would have had Tower 2 being a landmark, rising from all the rest. Now it's just lost in the crowd.

Me speculating again, but I wonder if this is the result of value engineering on behalf of Kushner Companies than a hard height limit from the FAA. There are ways to mitigate navigation hazard. Kusner companies may be just playing it safe. Pathetic. If Jared Kushner was still at the helm, I bet there would be no reduction in height. That guy had balls when it came to real estate development that made a statement. Whoever he left in charge is a wimp.

My guess is both towers will be 70-2 floors or whatever. The base is going to have very high ceilings.