I just realized its 2 sets of gates WITHIN,so if you want to see your friend across the development, its 4 checkpoints for you. Ridiculous. The gates devide the development into 2. Plus the sketches depict some of the homes as tiny factory era workers cookie cutter houses.
With all the great development news coming out these days,this one is a complete disappointment.Gates are horrible..look at the far smaller Avalon Cove houses cut off from Washington Boulevard,bad enough.This is a whole new neighborhood cut off by now it seems several gates.A terrible idea that should be stamped out asap.Originally Posted by Newarkguy
I just noticed that none of the TOD's around the LRT stops actually encourage use of the system. They all seem to be car oriented and badly planned by Urban standards. Some are gated , some just are not dense enough like Liberty Harbor. The Only Development that encourages use of the LRT is in Paulus Hook surrounding Essex street. Its a shame they did not route the LRT along Grove Street or Newark ave or JFK boulevard. Ridership levels if they went that route would be closer to San Diego's or Phillys Trolley system with 95,000 instead of 45,000.
Reading This Disgusts Me!
Christie's problems worsen in New JerseyAssociated Press
April is proving to be an unusually unkind month for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R).
First, Newark's Star-Ledger ran a lengthy, detailed report documenting the extent to which the governor's legislative proposals, executive orders, and agency rules were written, at times word for word, by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a shadowy far-right group that seeks to impose a conservative agenda in state legislatures.
Then, the New York Times helped shine a light on Christie's corporate welfare practices, in which the governor is handing out lucrative tax credits to preferred in-state corporations.
Today's revelations, meanwhile, may be the most controversial to date.
Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey exaggerated when he declared that unforeseen costs to the state were forcing him to cancel the new train tunnel planned to relieve congested routes across the Hudson River, according to a long-awaited report by independent Congressional investigators.Even at the time, Christie's decision on this project in 2010 was hard to understand. Conservatives, who've become increasingly hostile towards American infrastructure improvements, cheered the move, but from a substantive perspective, the governor's decision was fairly characterized as "destructive and incredibly foolish."
The report by the Government Accountability Office, to be released this week, found that while Mr. Christie said that state transportation officials had revised cost estimates for the tunnel to at least $11 billion and potentially more than $14 billion, the range of estimates had in fact remained unchanged in the two years before he announced in 2010 that he was shutting down the project. And state transportation officials, the report says, had said the cost would be no more than $10 billion.
Mr. Christie also misstated New Jersey's share of the costs: he said the state would pay 70 percent of the project; the report found that New Jersey was paying 14.4 percent. And while the governor said that an agreement with the federal government would require the state to pay all cost overruns, the report found that there was no final agreement, and that the federal government had made several offers to share those costs.
But this new report casts that decision in an even more damaging light. The Government Accountability Office is a non-partisan research/audit arm of Congress, and it's reporting this week that Christie's rationale for his strange decision wasn't even true. It was a mistake to scrap a major public works project during a weak economy; it was a bigger mistake to explain the move with dishonest claims.
Also note, this didn't just hurt New Jersey -- the project was intended to alleviate congestion between Boston and Washington, D.C.
Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), who requested the GAO investigation, said in a statement this morning, "This was the most important transportation project of our time. [The ARC Tunnel project] was critical to the future of New Jersey's economy and it took years to plan, but Gov. Christie wiped it out with a campaign of public deception."
Yet another slimy politician, just bigger than most.
What a bunch of BS and I sure the city will give them another year hell it was only proposed 5 years ago they need more time.
Journal Square developer requests 1-year extension to begin construction on twin-towers project
Published: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 12:45 PM Updated: Thursday, April 12, 2012, 12:52 PM
he redeveloper of the long-awaited Journal Square twin-towers project is lashing out at the Jersey City Redevelopment Agency for issuing an April 1 deadline for construction on the development to begin.And rather than comply with the April’s Fools deadline, issued by JCRA Executive Director Robert Antonicello last month, redeveloper Multi-Employer Property Trust is asking for yet another extension that would allow construction to start no later than March 31, 2013.
In the six-page missive, obtained by The Jersey Journal through a public-records request, an attorney for MEPT, which obtained the Journal Square property in 2007, says Antonicello’s April 1 deadline and recent comments about the project are false and counterproductive.
“JCRA’s inaccurate remarks regarding the redeveloper and the project … are likely to further impede the redeveloper’s ability to obtain debt or equity capital for the project by creating uncertainty as to the current and future ownership of the project and confusion in the marketplace,” reads the March 16 letter by MEPT attorney Marc O. Winters.
Winters also takes issue with the sign recently placed on the property, which sits just south of the Journal Square PATH station, giving a description of the project and a construction timeline. The info on the sign is “inaccurate,” Winters writes.
Editorial: Empty Journal Square lot -- excuses are getting old
Last month, Antonicello said the JCRA wanted a shovel in the ground on the project, known as the Journal Square City Center Towers, by April 1 or else the city agency would seek to find another developer for the project, which would see two residential towers sitting atop a seven-story base of retail and parking space, because MEPT was having trouble finding financing.
Mayor Jerramiah Healy stood on the 1.5-acre site in April 2009 and hailed the imminent project as a “great step forward” for the city. Three years later, and the site is still a vacant lot. Last month, Healy said his administration supports any efforts by the JCRA to move the project forward “as soon as possible.”
In the March 16 letter, Winters says MEPT is within its rights to wait until it obtains financing to begin construction on the project, adding that JCRA is not permitted to seek another redeveloper just because it wants to jumpstart construction.
Winters also lists more than a dozen items that he says proves MEPT has made reasonable efforts to attract investors, such as obtaining a 30-year tax abatement from the city and funding $14 million in pre-development costs since 2007.
I knew they would ask for another extension!!! Maybe if they hadn't purchased the Newport Tower for a record amount, they'd have money to build this....what a bunch of lying, conniving scumbags.
They are wealthy enough to self-finance most projects,and bought Newport Tower...I say they get six momths,or get out.If they cannot develop a project they insisted become even larger than originally planned,well hey,that's the market especially if as it apppears a few other developers are interested in getting stuff done there.A nice central core of towers and modernizing of the neighboring area for the one time heart of the city would be wonderful,but something has to happen soon.You get a thrirty year abatement,for God's sakes..you miss two other reasonably granted deadlines....now either put up or shut up.They were granted the rights to build on the property,not rights in perpetuity whether or not they ever intend to build something.Breach of contract,bad faith,bad economy,tough ****ing luck.Get going or get OUT!!!
They need to renovate the entire JS path station but it would be a nice to see some more retail.
April 16. 2012 1:28PM
Port Authority eyes new uses for Jersey City real estate
By Katie Eder
Share This Page: Share on google Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email More Sharing Services
High-density residential developments adjacent to the Journal Square PATH station, in Jersey City, has prompted the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to re-examine the transit hub's retail and office space, and attract companies that cater to the community, according to a real estate official at the bistate agency.
The authority recently launched a retail strategic study to develop a long-term plan for the transit center's retail and office space, to follow up on a short-term study released in October 2009.
"The 2009 report indicated that food and convenience for commuters is something we are looking to put (in Journal Square) in the short term, and in the two years since, we've focused on small grab-and-go food establishments," said Jerry Del Tufo, assistant director of real estate for the Port Authority. "But we've seen significant changes since then, and from a real estate perspective, 2009 may be obsolete."
According to Del Tufo, more developers and businesses have taken an interest in leasing space in Journal Square as loans have become more available.
"Access to money is the driver here. Developers that we spoke to five years ago went dormant, but now they're coming back, because banks are freeing up money a little bit," Del Tufo said.
According to Del Tufo, drug store chain Duane Reade recently signed a 15-year lease to renovate its existing space in Journal Square's transit center — which also accommodates bus traffic — to accommodate nearby residential developments, kicking off the center's shift to community-focused retail companies. While Del Tufo noted that the renovation will allow the drug store to offer a wider array of products, the agency still plans to bring in a mix of tenants with different types of services, like sit-down restaurants and mom-and-pop delicatessens.
The agency expects employees from the new World Trade Center site to live in the new residential developments, so it will need to bring in businesses to Journal Square that can serve both commuters and residents, Del Tufo said. And one of the newest tenants in the retail plaza section of the transit hub is Hudson County Community College, so the agency will consider attracting businesses that provide services to students.
"Because we're a public agency, we're not going to develop a business model and hope that people come," Del Tufo said. "We want to reflect what's needed in the market. To do that, we have to understand our customer base, what our commuters are interested in and the needs of local residential developments."
Del Tufo said the Port Authority will work with Jersey City officials to maximize the center's potential as an anchor for business and, for the first time since the transit hub opened in the 1970s, it will look at the building's 10-story, 120,000-square-foot office tower and 50,000-square-foot retail plaza as one component, to attract companies looking for both.
"In the past, no one wanted to put retail upstairs and out of the way," Del Tufo said. "But now, we may have the opportunity to develop destination retail upstairs that would better suit the community."
They recently renovated the platforms.
Better yet,knock down that monstrosity of an eyesore and build a much more befitting transit center building....could be high or medium rise but the thing was a horror when it opened in the 70's and would look like an embarassment as towers build up around it.Itkilled the life out of Journal Square and the PA should be lloking forward,not building on crap.Of course,the money probably isn't there but people can be creative...oh yeah,this isn't the downtown waterfront.
Marbella II to Have 311 Units, Just Under 6000 sf of Retail
At tonight's Planning Board meeting, Roseland is seeking Final Approval to build a new residential tower with 311 units and 5,745 sf of retail on the Marbella II site, across Second Street from the Athena. Although no building height is mentioned, for comparison's sake, the Marbella has been noted to have 412 units and is 42 stories. I think we're looking at a building of approximately the same height as the Athena, at 32 stories:
13. Case: P012-008 Minor SubdivisionApplicant: Marbella Towers Associates, LLCAttorney: Charles J. Harrington, III, Esq.Review Planner: Maryann Bucci-Carter, PP, AICPAddress: 425 Washington Blvd.( 110 Second Street)Old Block: 15 Lot: 28, 28-x, 46New Block: 11603 Lot: 45, 44Zone: Hudson Exchange Redevelopment PlanDescription: Re-configuring three lots into twoDeviations: Monument signage, temporary leasing signage, yard requirements,
14. Case: P12-009 Preliminary & Final Site Plan w/DeviationsApplicant: Marbella Tower Associates, LLCAttorney: Charles J. Harrington, III, Esq.Review Planner: Maryann Bucci-Carter, PP, AICPAddress: 425 Washington Blvd. ( 110 Second Street)Old Block: 15 Lot: 28, 28-x, 46New Block: 11603 Lot: 45, 44Zone: Hudson Exchange Redevelopment PlanDescription: New Construction of 311 Residential Units with 5,745 sf. of retail
Marbella II wasn't ready to present this evening - pushed to May 15, 2012.
Marbella II is going to have to be much thinner than the first one,so it might be taller than 32 stories,maybe match the height of the original?Hopefully it will look less clunky.Marbella has the feel of a giant 60's or 70's style residential building to me....something about it looks awkward,graceless though it's supposed to be a modern style luxury tower.Heard all sorts of things about how second rate it is...am I wrong about it being so much less than it was advertised to be?
Also,there was a plan presented for the Metro Plaza lot a week or two back I think....what is the intention behind that in terms of development of that humongous,badly underutilized lot?It will be awhile of course before development,but any ideas presented other than to create several streets?
How are they going to fit a building on such a small piece of property , my small house has a bigger footprint then that building...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks