JERSEY CITY | Projects and Construction thread - Page 24

citybooster · #1 Posted **Aug 9, 2017, 11:51 PM**

Excited about 560-580 Marin... haven't had a change to jump around giddily going omg, omg, omg in awhile!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hope the Kushners can just be pushed out. Someone will develop their Journal Square sites and go almost as big if not similar. They are just toxic right now

, and we can't afford years of limbo in what rightly should be a rapidly modernizing, transformative centerpiece of the Square. We can wait a bit longer if the end game results in something really good.

55 Hudson is really dead? The two lots Goldman Sachs still has undeveloped are potential gold mines with their size and location so close to the waterfront with killer views of Lower Manhattan. Hear of ANYTHING that might take place as revised plans?

Anything about the San Remo lot? And two other interesting undeveloped areas I don't hear anything about but are being wasted right now... the Evertrust Plaza huge lot behind Harborside 5 and the 101 First lot now full of grass and weeds again where the centerpiece of the then ballyhooed PAD was supposed to go up with the ill-designed staggered blocks that Rem Koolhaas was behind(and disposed of in the economic downturn a few years back)...anything?

LOL, even Harborside 4, ANYTHING? And anything regarding a reworking of the heights of the other two URBY towers as you gleefully speculated?(I know that 8&9 are likely powerhouse residential high rises but won't be worked on until after URBY's done, so I won't even ask about them, lol!)

I know I ask much, but few sources can be trusted to give better info!

C. · #2 Posted **Feb 26, 2020, 5:04 PM**

Oron Zchut · #3 Posted **Feb 28, 2020, 3:47 PM**

C. · #4 Posted **Mar 6, 2020, 1:16 AM**

chris08876 · #5 Posted **Mar 6, 2020, 1:30 AM**

I'm surprised San Remo hasn't seen any action given everything else similar in magnitude rising.

towerpower123 · #6 Posted **Mar 7, 2020, 9:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris08876

I'm surprised San Remo hasn't seen any action given everything else similar in magnitude rising.

San Remo basically moved across the street

C. · #7 Posted **May 17, 2020, 9:45 PM**

C. · #8 Posted **Aug 2, 2020, 2:34 PM**

C. · #9 Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 4:38 PM**

55 Hudson -- Is no news is good news? Not in this case. Whatever 95 floor version of the tower that's been showing up in planning documents for the past 3+ years has yet to materialize.

San Remo -- It's a Mack Cali property and they've been focused on Urby. Plans called for a 61 floor tower, but I remember reading somewhere that the planned unit count was dropped. Maybe it'll increase when they're ready to bring this one to market.

Harborside IV -- Is very much active. I think this will be built next year. It's not tall enough to be included on my list above.

Urby II & III -- These ones fascinate me. Journal Squared II wasted no time breaking ground because of the success of tower I. Same deal with 90 and 50 Columbus. As soon as the saw the leasing rate, they quickly started on the next phases of their project. Urby I has got to be one of the most successful in the entire NYC metro area. They're leasing over 125 units a month, at rents well above what their initial proforma estimated. It's Mack Cali's crown jewel and is contributing millions of profit to the company. Why they haven't jumped on starting phase II when Phase I has been such a success intrigues me, especially when they have full planning permission. Journal Squared is going to capture a lot of market share due to the delay. The only thing that comes to mind is they're considering changes or there is so some other hidden problem that's not known at this time.

Crawford · #10 Posted **Aug 10, 2017, 4:43 PM**

Urby II is breaking ground early next year, per the developers.

Hamilton · #11 Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:39 PM**

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I don't think 560 Marin is happening anytime soon.

First of all, it's literally in the middle of a 12-lane highway--between 6 lanes of inbound and 6 lanes of outbound Holland Tunnel traffic. Gotta cross a highway just to walk to the Newport stop or any shops or restaurants. If One Journal Square has had trouble getting funding right on top of a PATH stop in a walkable and centrally located neighborhood, I just don't see this happening any time soon.

Second of all, the rate of construction permits right now is at the lowest since the recession. It seems people are having trouble getting financing, due to a perception of oversupply, whether that's valid or not. Jersey City has had about 850 apartments get construction permits in the past 12 months. For comparison, 1930 apartments got construction permits in the 12 months before that. To look at it another way, Newark has also permitted about 850 apartments in the past 12 months. How are they gonna get funding for 750 apartments next to the Holland Tunnel, when builders have only gotten financing for 850 apartments throughout the city in the past year?

Third, the only thing harder to get financing for than high-rise apartments in JC right now is retail/office. Retail is dying nationwide, and office rents are being squeezed both by the suburbs (many vacant office parks out there) and NYC (millions of square feet flooding the market at WTC and Hudson Yards and One Vanderbilt). 240,000 sq feet of retail/office in the middle of a highway with no retail/office nearby is going to be a tough sell.

C. · #12 Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Sorry to be a party pooper, but I don't think 560 Marin is happening anytime soon.

First of all, it's literally in the middle of a 12-lane highway--between 6 lanes of inbound and 6 lanes of outbound Holland Tunnel traffic. Gotta cross a highway just to walk to the Newport stop or any shops or restaurants. If One Journal Square has had trouble getting funding right on top of a PATH stop in a walkable and centrally located neighborhood, I just don't see this happening any time soon.

It application does say right-of-way improvements, but I agree fully. It's an unbelievable location for towers of such height. Once approved, I can see this being sold to a highly competent developer with a track record on tricky projects.

Quote:

Second of all, the rate of construction permits right now is at the lowest since the recession. It seems people are having trouble getting financing, due to a perception of oversupply, whether that's valid or not. Jersey City has had about 850 apartments get construction permits in the past 12 months. For comparison, 1930 apartments got construction permits in the 12 months before that. To look at it another way, Newark has also permitted about 850 apartments in the past 12 months. How are they gonna get funding for 750 apartments next to the Holland Tunnel, when builders have only gotten financing for 850 apartments throughout the city in the past year?

The market will take care of itself. There may have to be larger equity buy-ins to the point that banks feel comfortable to lend. So be it. As long as the demand is there and rents continue to rise, the buildings will get built. We've had Ellipse, Vantage, Urby, Journal Squared and 70 Columbus all finish around the same time. Once those buildings start to lease up, the bank money will flow for more.

Hamilton · #13 Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:49 PM**

As far as whether there's oversupply, I agree that there is no oversupply in JC. But most of the demand that isn't being met is for workforce housing. And this demand can't be met by high-rises because they are too expensive to build and only the biggest developers can get them done. The city needs to make it easier to build smaller 5-story infill buildings throughout the city, like the ones that were built in the 20s. These are much cheaper to build, and they pencil out at cheaper rents, so it should be possible to get financing for them even when there's no financing available for high-rises.

The city already made it easier to build these sorts of buildings along MLK Blvd and Ocean Ave and Monticello, as well as in Lafayette near the LSC light rail stop. Construction of mid-rises is already booming near the LSC light rail stop, as well as on the side streets south/east of the JSQ stop. They should try to find other places where these sorts of buildings can be built, for instance along the Boulevard.

C. · #14 Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

As far as whether there's oversupply, I agree that there is no oversupply in JC. But most of the demand that isn't being met is for workforce housing. And this demand can't be met by high-rises because they are too expensive to build. The city needs to make it easier to build smaller 5-story infill buildings throughout the city, like the ones that were built in the 20s. These are much cheaper to build, and they pencil out at cheaper rents, so it should be possible to get financing for them even when there's no financing available for high-rises.

The city already made it easier to build these sorts of buildings along MLK Blvd and Ocean Ave and Monticello, as well as in Lafayette near the LSC light rail stop. They should try to find other places where these sorts of buildings can be built, for instance along the Boulevard.

I remember there was a proposal for a R-5 zoning district downtown, that would have made it easier to build. The city really needs to push that to other parts of the city. One of the main hurdles is parking. It's not feasible to provide 1:1 parking in some of these smaller infill buildings, but they're a vocal contingent in the city where that's all they care about. I really wish the members of skyscraperpage and other likeminded persons on other forums could form our own organization to push for better zoning in areas of the city that should be intensified.

I'm pretty sure city planning and the Mayor's office is on board. It's just the various vocal residents that show up bitchin at every council meeting.

Hamilton · #15 Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 7:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CIA

I remember there was a proposal for a R-5 zoning district downtown, that would have made it easier to build. The city really needs to push that to other parts of the city. One of the main hurdles is parking. It's not feasible to provide 1:1 parking in some of these smaller infill buildings, but they're a vocal contingent in the city where that's all they care about. I really wish the members of skyscraperpage and other likeminded persons on other forums could form our own organization to push for better zoning in areas of the city that should be intensified.

I'm pretty sure city planning and the Mayor's office is on board. It's just the various vocal residents that show up bitchin at every council meeting.

Yes! I completely agree.. R-5 was finally adopted in the Village last February. R-5 has parking requirements more in line with the actual car ownership rate in the city, and it allows 4 stories as-of-right. Hopefully people will see the NIMBYs were wrong--the sky isn't falling and the world isn't ending just because R-1 areas were changed to R-5 there, and it'll serve as an example for a similar rezoning in the Heights. Also, no tax abatements for these buildings, because they're not in a redevelopment plan, so NIMBYs can't complain about that.

The truth is that R-1 zoning (2-family Bayonne boxes) isn't even contextual in the Heights or in the Village, where there have been plenty of 4+-story buildings for almost a century.

Also for some weird reason the Boulevard is zoned R-1 in the Heights, no retail allowed. That makes absolutely no sense since there are already many 5-story mixed-use multifamily buildings with retail along the Blvd up there. I know City Planning studied changing it to Neighborhood Commercial zoning (the same zoning as along Newark Ave, West Side Ave, Central Ave, etc), but they never acted on that...

Hamilton · #16 Posted **Aug 11, 2017, 6:59 PM**

Oh, and in case anyone is curious for more details about 560 Marin Blvd, the city's latest development map says the 59-story tower will have 383 apartments, and the 56-story tower will have 367 apartments. The plan is for 190,000 sq ft of retail and 50,000 sq ft of office.

C. · #17 Posted **Aug 12, 2017, 9:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hamilton

Second of all, the rate of construction permits right now is at the lowest since the recession. It seems people are having trouble getting financing, due to a perception of oversupply, whether that's valid or not. Jersey City has had about 850 apartments get construction permits in the past 12 months. For comparison, 1930 apartments got construction permits in the 12 months before that.

This made me curious. Looking at data from: http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa...un/bpann16.htm

Looks like there is a slowdown.

Building Permits for Jersey City in 2014
2,180 Total
1,884 was for multi-family development 5 units or more

Building Permits for Jersey City in 2015
2,658 Total
2,306 for 5+ units

Building Permits for Jersey City in 2016
1,494 Total
1,226 for 5+ units

Building Permits for Jersey City in Jan-April 2017
343 Total
276 for 5+ units

I'm not too worried with lenders being cautious. Say there is a total pool of $1 billion in construction financing for the developers of Jersey City. Developers will need a loan at the start of construction, and banks may be weary of having too much lent out at any one time, but developers refinance their buildings into permanent financing once construction is complete. The construction loan is repaid to the bank and the bank can once again lend it out.

2015 was a peak and where definitely in a trough now. I predict in 2018 we're going to see a strong rebound in construction stats.

citybooster · #18 Posted **Aug 12, 2017, 3:51 PM**

I really hope so. I can understand caution but I think there still is healthy desire for rentals and condos, though I agree with both Hamilton and CIA doesn't necessarily need to be higher end luxury high rises...need small and moderate sized filer too for workforce and middle class.

Hamilton · #19 Posted **Aug 14, 2017, 2:15 AM**

Thanks for the source, CIA.

In case anyone is interested in month-to-month permitting data (which I used to calculate the rolling 12-month permit numbers), you can use the Census's BPS data set:

https://www2.census.gov/econ/bps/Pla...east%20Region/

It's a bit more annoying to interpret than the data set you provided. Each month is in a different file. "ne1703c.txt" for instance, has March 2017 permit totals, while "ne 1705c.txt" has May 2017 permit totals. "ne1703y.txt" has cumulative (year-to-date) totals from January to March 2017. The files can be opened by changing the extension to ".csv" and opening the file using Excel or Google Sheets

C. · #20 Posted **Aug 23, 2017, 3:24 AM**

Building permit data through June: http://lwd.dol.state.nj.us/labor/lpa...pmun/bpytd.htm. Freakin' Harrison is building twice as much as Jersey City. Newark is also building more.

Bankers concerned about oversupply JC? Once the new developments start to reach stabilized occupancy, construction financing should be free flowing again.

Journal Squared II doesn't look like it's included in the data yet (they must still be operating under the demo permit). That should be a nice boost to catch up when it's officially under construction.