Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 56

Thread: Newark vs. Jersey City: Measuring Contest

  1. #1

    Default Newark vs. Jersey City: Measuring Contest



    http://urbanismvsmodernism.blogspot....vs-newark.html

    Please keep your Jersey City vs Newark arguments here to stop filling the other threads with bashing of both cities. Please try to keep it friendly

    Population
    Newark 277727 in 2012, 277140 in 2010, Peak in 1930 at 442337
    Jersey City 254441 in 2012, 247597 in 2010, Peak in 1930 at 316715

    College Students
    Jersey City 22000
    Newark 50000

    Households Without Cars (Can use mass transit for daily needs instead.)
    Newark 44.17%
    Jersey City 40.64%

    Local Rail Based Transit
    Jersey City Hudson Bergen Light Rail 20.6 Miles, 24 Stations, 13 in JC, also 4 PATH Stations
    Newark Light Rail 6.3 Miles, 16 Stations, 14 in Newark, 1 PATH station in Newark Penn

    Heavy Rail
    Newark 3 NJ Transit Lines and all Amtrak lines to Manhattan serve Newark, Including Acela service, 3 more NJ Transit lines at Broad Street Station
    Jersey City None in City Limits, Excluding PATH, 10 Lines at Hoboken Terminal, no Amtrak access

    Tallest Building
    Jersey City 30 Hudson Street at 781 Feet, tallest in state
    Newark National Newark Building at 465 Feet, talest in state from 1931 to 1989 when overtaken by Bally's in Atlantic City.

    Distance from Manhattan
    Newark 8 Miles (Jersey City becomes part of Manhattan Skyline.)
    Jersey City 1 Mile, directly across the Hudson River. The city is often called the 6th Borough of NYC.

    Again, Keep it Friendly!
    Last edited by towerpower123; April 22nd, 2014 at 10:49 PM.

  2. #2
    Jersey Patriot JCMAN320's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    4,440

    Default

    Let me respond to Nexus first. Newark does have that stigma associated with it weather you like it or not. JC not so much anymore. When I go out of town and tell people I'm from JC, majority of people say how great JC has become and how either they are thinking about moving there or have friends that live here or have lived here. I am not saying that Newark can not succeed in spite of it's issues, however I still think some people want to act like none of the negative severe issues that can and some areas are hamstringing the city are not real or serious. I would post articles in regards to crime rising and the City finances being in trouble, but that's just not the case and articles are not being written about any of that stuff in JC; Newark has those issues and articles are being written about them; I'm not saying JC does not have its issues believe me it does, every city does, but just no where near as severe as Newark.

    I think you are dead wrong about your "ceiling". JC could not be growing like this if infrastructure wasn't upgraded to keep up. JC has been upgrading it's infrastructure along with light rail capacity is going to be increased by 40% with bigger light rail vehicles in the coming years along with additional station. PATH capacity is going to be increased 20% with longer platforms. More taxis, 20 to be exact have been added. Our bike infrastructure is growing with our new bike share program coming online this summer and new bikes line are already being stripped. United Water and PSE&G are upgrading utilities as well. Also once the Skyway is rebuilt and route 7 Bridge is done, we will essentially have two new bridges leading into JC.

    In regards to JC not hitting 350,000 without complete "Manhattanization"; again I think your misinformed. Where the "Waterfront" is, i.e. new highrises , Newport, Exchange Place, and Powerhouse Art District, that use to be all industrial areas and rail yards; just was dead space once the railroads and industry left. JC has held a lot of infrastructure and intensive land use with the former railroad industry. Conversely that was all dead space with no people living on those rail yards. Now we have created a new extension of Jersey City on those once dilapidated areas just like London did at the Dockland and Canary Warf. There for that is an area of JC that sustains residential while the exiting core of the city and Downtown is being repopulated as well. JSQ is going to be more high density than it's ever been with thousands of new residential units, the Bayfront area on the West Side of the city and new luxury residential units popping up around the West Side LRT, NJCU's new campus which will start construction this year for a new media arts building and dorms on the plot of land on Westside Avenue between Stegman Parkway and Audubon Avenue. They have been doing infrastructure work on the site as well for the rest of the campus extension towards Route 440. Jersey City has already been very dense, as it is its one of the most densely populated cities in the country, and is being built up as it expands even denser so it can fit more people in a smaller area. So I still think that while Newark may have more land, most of the housing stock throughout the areas of the city outside of Downtown and Ironbound are suburban in nature; not conducive for a dense urban city and for future growth. JC has dense housing stock and is going to build denser even outside of Downtown JC in transit hubs area of the city. I think JC will surpass Newark in population based on our faster projective growth compared to Newark's which is happening slowly and the dense tightly knit nature of JC compared to the more sprawling nature of Newark outside of Downtown.

    In regards to Monty's comment regarding rail infrastructure, I have said once and I'll say it again; it's great for regional transit with Penn Station but rail transit in the city of Newark is insufficient. Bus lines do not stimulate growth in neighborhoods the way rail does and JC has it all over Newark when it comes to rail connections within it's city and county. And I am not claiming Hoboken Terminal but the commuter hub is vital for JC and the county and acts as the county commuter station so it does help relieve pressure on our PATH and LRT stations as well and the ferry terminals help relieve pressure too.

    In regards to the healthiness of JC compared to Newark, the numbers bare it out: JC's population overall is more ethnically diverse, we are the most diverse city in the state and of the most diverse in the world, wealthier, better educated, and less impoverished than Newark.



    http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf...n_by_2016.html
    Last edited by JCMAN320; April 23rd, 2014 at 12:28 AM.

  3. #3
    Crabby airline hostess - stache's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Nairobi Hilton
    Posts
    8,511

    Default

    No offense tower but thank you for creating a thread I can ignore!

  4. #4

    Default

    ^^Many of your points don't apply to some of what I said so I'll just touch briefly on the ones I'm more familiar with.

    You misunderstood when I said JC has to Manhattanize. JC waterfront is Manhattanizing, and it was open railyards and dirt as you said. However, where else in a city so dense can that be recreated? The city is super dense now and hasn't even reached 300k. Understand, I never said it couldn't, I simply said it would have to Manhattanize to go beyond 350k. And unless they're gonna tear and recreate vast expanses of neighborhoods I don't see it happening.

    I definitely see said articles on JC from time to time. You not seeing them doesn't mean they don't exist. I never care to post them, but it seems you only posted in the Newark thread to paint it in the most negative way possible (which is fine), but then act as if there are zero redeeming qualities (not sure why).

    You place too much faith in the opinions of those around you instead of the larger picture in regards to Newark. If you've seriously never heard a bad word about JC there's certainly some NY folk I'd like you to meet. We can talk stigma all day, but it hasn't stopped folks from moving here (didn't stop folks in 80's JC either).

    PS I'm interested and unsure how this thread is going to work out.
    Last edited by 66nexus; April 23rd, 2014 at 12:03 PM.

  5. #5

    Default

    JC does have a huge number of available development sites, particularly around Journal Square and near the West Side extension of the HBLR line. I do not see Jersey City becoming as dense as Manhattan other than in the Waterfront area, but it will be closer to Downtown Seattle or Vancouver in scale and feel, with many more "Podium style" skyscrapers. Journal Square will likely develop a huge cluster, and there will be a huge boom once the first major project finally gets off of the ground. The several high profile failures there have cooled developers attitudes there, with many developments suffering from "Journal Square Syndrome." In most other places within the critical quarter mile of the rail-based mass transit stations, I predict a concept called "Brusselization," where a series of large towers will randomly take over the many build-able lots there and loom quite nicely over the well renovated low-rise neighborhoods.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brusselization



    Hopefully, the 70/30 rule (3 rent controlled units for every 7 market rate units within a building) that is being popularized across the river in NYC will take place here also, stopping the negative consequences of Gentrification. Also, with the many lessons we have learned around the world in terms of how to correctly place skyscrapers in a city, it could look quite spectacular!

    http://www.archdaily.com/262550/cath...ecture_03-jpg/


    http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpo...&postcount=491


    http://boston.curbed.com/uploads/avatheater-thumb.jpg


    http://i43.tinypic.com/214dy51.jpg

    So long as developers maintain the street wall with the podium and parking requirements are kept under control, a series of new skyscrapers will fill the underutilized suburban-style sites across the city and provide the "critical mass" of pedestrian traffic needed to push nearby renovations.

  6. #6

    Default

    ^Like the building 3rd up from the bottom, white with rounded front, not sure why. Except if it's residential and you're one of the tenants in a unit tucked in that middle gap, and you can read the newspaper of the guy in the unit across from you.


    Maybe you don't have to measure the two cities, although if they're trying to compete with each other it's healthy and forward-moving. People prefer each city for different things, the same way people prefer downtown NYC to midtown, vice versa, or Brooklyn to UES because of the local mom-pop retail, or UES to UWS, etc.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mariab View Post
    ^Like the building 3rd up from the bottom, white with rounded front, not sure why. Except if it's residential and you're one of the tenants in a unit tucked in that middle gap, and you can read the newspaper of the guy in the unit across from you.


    Maybe you don't have to measure the two cities, although if they're trying to compete with each other it's healthy and forward-moving. People prefer each city for different things, the same way people prefer downtown NYC to midtown, vice versa, or Brooklyn to UES because of the local mom-pop retail, or UES to UWS, etc.
    They are in Berlin. The tower on the right was recently completed and is a hotel. The one on the left, called Upper West, is under construction, and is only at foundation level now. It will be an office building with retail along the whole facade. It wraps around several low-rise building. The portion in front is also part of the project.

    Also, I created this thread to house the constant Newark vs. Jersey City "My city is better than yours and always will be" arguments that constantly fill both city's development threads. That's why its called "Measuring Contest."
    Last edited by towerpower123; April 24th, 2014 at 04:51 PM.

  8. #8

    Default

    Funny Tower, but I think this can be a neat thread that can be productive. I think seeing the pro and cons of the cities points out areas for improvement that can be helpful. I am of the belief that the growth of both these cities ultimately helps NJ (I would also merge them with Elizabeth and just have one city but that is me).

  9. #9
    Forum Veteran Newarkguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    University Heights,Newark
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    Port Newark became Port "Newark Elizabeth" years ago as it expanded southward. However, Elizabeth has been adamant in having the 60% portion of Port Newark within Elizabeth solely called "Port Elizabeth Seaport" Its this non cooperation that doomed Newark, Liz,and JC into geographical satellites of NYC strangled by their municipal boundaries. Always competing for crumbs spilling over the Hudson.

  10. #10
    Forum Veteran Newarkguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    University Heights,Newark
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    Its true Newark lacks a supertall skyscraper and probably wont get one anytime soon...( Prudential was the only company to seriously propose a 40 story castle-like tower in 1916).......JC is invisible.

    Driving in from I78,rt22,NJ trpk extension,US 1&9,NJ17,NJ3,even NJ 440 aka I287..JERSEY CITY IS INVISIBLE. ITS OBSCURED BY THE LOWER MANHATTAN SKYLINE.
    Only when I78 trpk extension swings northbound toward the Holland Tunnel do you notice (if you're paying attention) How impressive JC's skyline is. If you're just driving cross country from Virginia to NYC,never seen JC, you wont notice at all. I bet at least 50% of tourists driving to Holland tunnel assume all thise JC towers are NYC.

    From my Newark Home I see all Manhattan' s skyline. Lower Manhattan' s skyline absorbs JC. I know its there. I recognize the skyline in front of NYC, but who else does except New Jerseans and NYC residents facing west?

  11. #11

    Default

    ^JC's skyline has good height for a midsize city (or even bigger IMO) and makes up NJ's Hudson 'riverwall', but as you said it definitely gets lost on lower Manhattan as the untrained eye would struggle to identify the silhouette. Looking west from Manhattan though the view is great. Newark being on I-95/Tpke, and all the regional railways (Amtrak) it gets more exposure and makes it hard to not know you're in Newark.

  12. #12
    Forum Veteran
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    On the Rails in North NJ
    Posts
    2,585

    Default

    It has that Blendini look

    2014_02_06_lhr-ewr_403x by dsearls, on Flickr

    Railyard skyline by afagen, on Flickr

    Newark Skyline from NJ Turnpike by Nexis4Jersey09, on Flickr

  13. #13
    Forum Veteran Newarkguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    University Heights,Newark
    Posts
    1,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Newarkguy View Post
    Its true Newark lacks a supertall skyscraper and probably wont get one anytime soon...( Prudential was the only company to seriously propose a 40 story castle-like tower in 1916).......JC is invisible.

    Driving in from I78,rt22,NJ trpk extension,US 1&9,NJ17,NJ3,even NJ 440 aka I287..JERSEY CITY IS INVISIBLE. ITS OBSCURED BY THE LOWER MANHATTAN SKYLINE.
    Only when I78 trpk extension swings northbound toward the Holland Tunnel do you notice (if you're paying attention) How impressive JC's skyline is. If you're just driving cross country from Virginia to NYC,never seen JC, you wont notice at all. I bet at least 50% of tourists driving to Holland tunnel assume all thise JC towers are NYC.

    From my Newark Home I see all Manhattan' s skyline. Lower Manhattan' s skyline absorbs JC. I know its there. I recognize the skyline in front of NYC, but who else does except New Jerseans and NYC residents facing west?
    Newark's skyline reminds me of LA's before the supertall skyscrapers got built. You come north on 1&9,or 95d you see Newark with the Watchung "mountain" behind it. The homes of the Ironbound in the foreground make the city look good.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	tmp_13755071463221507583266.jpg 
Views:	433 
Size:	77.7 KB 
ID:	17899

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCMAN320 View Post
    JC has been upgrading it's infrastructure along with light rail capacity is going to be increased by 40% with bigger light rail vehicles in the coming years along with additional station.
    That's unfortunate. They should increase capacity by improving the service frequency, which quite frankly sucks, ESPECIALLY at night. It's cheaper to increase capacity by running longer trains, but it really doesn't benefit the riders other than to make the train less crowded and give you a better chance at getting a seat. Last I checked they hadn't even reversed all the 2010 service cuts.

    The only stretch where the service frequency isn't total terrible is from Liberty State Park to Newport, and that's only because there's two services using that same stretch. If your trip starts and/or ends outside that stretch, frequency is terrible. It wasn't great to begin with, but in 2010 they cut service and made it even worse.


    PATH capacity is going to be increased 20% with longer platforms.
    PATH frequency is better than HBLR, but it still sucks overnight. Instead of running it every 30 minutes or 35 minutes or whatever it is now, it should be every 20 minutes.

  15. #15
    Jersey Patriot JCMAN320's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Jersey City
    Posts
    4,440

    Default

    Sid if you look on the Jersey keeps it light rail rolling thread, they have increased frequency actually during peak and off peak.

Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  


Google+ - Facebook - Twitter - Meetup

Edward's photos on Flickr - Wired New York on Flickr - In Queens - In Red Hook - Bryant Park - SQL Backup Software