HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive


 

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #81  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:26 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkoumori View Post
Wha?- are you being ironic? I don't get it.
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.
     
     
  #82  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:29 AM
Inkoumori Inkoumori is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.
Well then she must be an expert.

And Atlantic Yards is well underway
http://www.usa.skanska.com/news--pre...s-b2-modular-/
     
     
  #83  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:35 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Yes... I am aware, but those developments started with smaller scale highrises. You don't start with a 70 story tower...
It isn't starting with a 70 floor tower.

They already built a few 15-20 floor buildings in the last few years, a 42-floor building is about to break ground, and there are some 300-400 foot former hospital towers that are now luxury lofts. There's also a couple of midrise office buildings from the 70's-80's.

And Journal Square isn't some raw, built-from-scratch community. It looks like a dense neighborhood in Brooklyn, the Bronx or Queens. The Jersey waterfront often has that raw, mini Asian insta-city feel (especially Newport), but Journal Square is a real neighborhood.

The demand is obviously based on the fact that it's a transit hub a few minutes from Manhattan. As long as it's on a short train ride to Manhattan, there's almost unlimited demand for high-end rental housing.
     
     
  #84  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:35 AM
aquablue aquablue is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 1,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.
Oh, ok, cool story.. How does she know this and what credentials do you have to make such a judgement? Is this your gut feeling or do you have sound data to back up your argument?
     
     
  #85  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:36 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.

This site is literally in the middle of nowhere and I'm surprised it's getting built. I like the ambition and scope but I can't help feeling this will ultimately look awkward & alone. I don't see the neighborhood becoming a viable hub or center of business and there isn't enough existing for even a major project like this to change that. 1,800 residences are a lot for one development but in terms of creating a neighborhood, nothing. If they can put 10,000 units adjacent to the station, the prospects begin to become much better... unfortunately I don't think you could find enough people to fill those units (especially if they're luxury buildings demanding relatively high rents). We will see but I definitely hope it works out for the best...
Journal SQ is the hub of the Urban bus network and the PATH , along with numerous small companies , colleges and a growing Arab / Indian community. Its not the middle of nowhere , maybe for a New Yorker who has never left Manhattan...how can you not know how to use the PATH its only 4 lines and 12 stations?
     
     
  #86  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:38 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkoumori View Post
Well then she must be an expert.

And Atlantic Yards is well underway
http://www.usa.skanska.com/news--pre...s-b2-modular-/
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.
     
     
  #87  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:39 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
This is just as farfetched as the Atlantic Yards in Brooklyn by Forest City Ratner.
And this is even sillier.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know the first thing about the local real estate market. Core brownstone Brooklyn is one of the most expensive markets in the nation.

Excepting the very few most prime Manhattan neighborhods, there's almost nothing more expensive in the U.S. Brownstone Brooklyn is very, very expensive, and towers on top of the main transit hub will rent or sell for a bundle.
     
     
  #88  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:39 AM
Nexis4Jersey's Avatar
Nexis4Jersey Nexis4Jersey is offline
Greetings from New Jersey
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: North Jersey
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
No. I'm being a NIMBY on this one. I just think its a downright farfetched proposal. I hope the developer proves me wrong but I think this development would be better suited for the waterfront.

My girlfriends mom is was born and raised in Jersey City and even she said that is ridiculous for the area.
Your right , this area really doesn't have the Infrastructure road or transit wise to support these monsters these buildings would be better for Downtown Newark or Downtown Jersey City. The Original plan was 2 towers now its 3? This isn't the first project in that area , all have failed or gotten kickbacks then failed... The Neighborhood wanted something smaller like a mid rise , not a supertall which I can agree with.
     
     
  #89  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:39 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Journal Square and environs...


Eating in Translation





Dan Beards





Projectionist

__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #90  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:41 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.
No, it wasn't seriously downscaled. The buildable square footage in the approved Atlantic Yards is almost the same as in the original proposal.

And the years of NIMBY opposition are kinda the whole point. You don't get it. There are constraints to the local real estate market, which is why new buildings are so desirable, and do so well.
     
     
  #91  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:41 AM
NYguy's Avatar
NYguy NYguy is offline
New Yorker for life
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 51,747
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.
Not true at all. Not even a little bit.

This discussion is getting all over the place. Let's just stick to this development and where it will be built.
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!

“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
     
     
  #92  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:44 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Oh, ok, cool story.. How does she know this and what credentials do you have to make such a judgement? Is this your gut feeling or do you have sound data to back up your argument?
No need to be rude. Do you know anything about urban development? Because it is clear you don't. When in an area with low highrise density, it is important not to over saturate the area with a development too large. I understand that it is close to a transit hub linking it to Manhattan, but even so, there is a limited market of people willing to live in Jersey City... most people who can't afford Manhattan just opt for Brooklyn. Even Jersey City is becoming extremely expensive these days and it has an uncertain future. Like I said, something in the 300-400 foot range would be a better bet and a much more financially stable project. There is to live in Journal Square, but there is a bigger desire to live on the Jersey City waterfront... there is already an established highrise community there instead of one just trying to get off the ground. This development could singlehandedly destroy that momentum. This should be proposed on the waterfront and a smaller development should be proposed here.

IDK if you just don't understand this or if you are just being short sighted because the height of the building is making you drool.
     
     
  #93  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:45 AM
Inkoumori Inkoumori is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 360
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Yes, but it was SERIOUSLY downscaled from the original proposal and it took years upon years of NIMBY opposition to get through to this stage.
Showalter- is this you?

http://dddb.net/php/board.php
     
     
  #94  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:48 AM
Thundertubs's Avatar
Thundertubs Thundertubs is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Jersey City, NJ
Posts: 2,921
This NEEDS to be accompanied by more PATH service. It's way too crowded as is. Unfortunately, the stupid Port Authority is borrowing money to build office towers...

Quote:
Originally Posted by babybackribs2314 View Post
I have never taken the PATH and I will never understand what it is or how to use it. Mind-boggling. But NJ transit is fantastic.
It's a subway. You swipe your card and ride it places.
__________________
Be magically whisked away to
Chicago | Atlanta | Newark | Tampa | Detroit | Hartford | Chattanooga | Indianapolis | Philadelphia | Dubuque | Lowell | New England
     
     
  #95  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:54 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thundertubs View Post
This NEEDS to be accompanied by more PATH service. It's way too crowded as is.
They're expanding all the PATH stations to allow 10-car service, so that's something. But I agree that JC needs more rail service.
     
     
  #96  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:54 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
And this is even sillier.

Not to be rude, but I don't think you know the first thing about the local real estate market. Core brownstone Brooklyn is one of the most expensive markets in the nation.

Excepting the very few most prime Manhattan neighborhods, there's almost nothing more expensive in the U.S. Brownstone Brooklyn is very, very expensive, and towers on top of the main transit hub will rent or sell for a bundle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crawford View Post
No, it wasn't seriously downscaled. The buildable square footage in the approved Atlantic Yards is almost the same as in the original proposal.

And the years of NIMBY opposition are kinda the whole point. You don't get it. There are constraints to the local real estate market, which is why new buildings are so desirable, and do so well.

Haha.. you're trying to tell me Atlantic Yards weren't downscaled... okay? haha

and I mean the height of the buildings were cut... some by over 100 feet.
     
     
  #97  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:56 AM
Inkoumori Inkoumori is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 360
^and that makes you happy?

BTW- I live in Park Slope.

OK this has become a stupid argument. I won't comment until it's about JS in JC again.
     
     
  #98  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:56 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkoumori View Post
Showalter- is this you?

http://dddb.net/php/board.php
Sorry for trying to be realistic. I never said I was against Atlantic Yards.. just said the original proposal was pretty farfetched. Even after all these years, the only thing built is the Barclay Center. If the buildings were less ambitious, more probably would've been built already...
     
     
  #99  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:58 AM
summersm343's Avatar
summersm343 summersm343 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 18,362
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inkoumori View Post
^and that makes you happy?
Yes, because now it means they have a better chance of getting built. Do you not understand this? Building tall for the sake of building tall is unnecessary.

I see you guys don't get it. Sorry for voicing my concerns.
     
     
  #100  
Old Posted Dec 11, 2012, 2:58 AM
Crawford Crawford is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NYC/Polanco, DF
Posts: 30,551
Quote:
Originally Posted by summersm343 View Post
Haha.. you're trying to tell me Atlantic Yards weren't downscaled... okay? haha

and I mean the height of the buildings were cut... some by over 100 feet.
Yes, I mean to tell you exactly that. Atlantic Yards wasn't downscaled.

And no, saying that the height of a few buildings were cut obviously isn't the same thing. Height is a totally different consideration than scale.

I think two or three buildings were slightly cut in height, but the buildable area was distributed to the planned commercial tower across Flatbush, and to one or two of the apartment buildings. There was no significant change in buildable space, or in overall scale.
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
 

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > Buildings & Architecture > Completed Project Threads Archive
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:07 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.