Reply With QuoteJCMan....you have forsaken me! My contacts in city hall tell me they have every intention of moving formward on this. My underlying understanding of the economics puzzle me as to why they think it can work...
Wow I just walked through Jersey City for 2 hours and I was so impressed. I've never ventured back by Grove Street but I did this time and I was blown away.
Essentially the area around Grove street looks like Hoboken, but Hoboken like 10 years ago. Great infrastructure, beautiful buildings, lots of retail. I walked down Barrow street towards Liberty harbor north and rode the light rail back to Hoboken.
Construction is sick and it is everywhere. JC will be something in 5 years.
With that being said the waterfront area is such crap urban planning that it is kind of unfair to the city. Grove street and all those great neighborhoods deserve better. I definitely prefer the Hoboken waterfront to JC's but all thos neighbhorhoods in JC rock. (not saying Hoboken's waterfront is the best thing in the world just better than JC's)
I will say that JC is utilizing its light rail stations better than Hoboken. Hoboken has 3, and 1 you can't build near b/c it's at the train terminal but the other two are so underutilized. One sits next to a Housing Project and a power plant and the other they've built one condo next to it. In Jersey City they have Harborside Financial Center and Goldman Sachs near one. They have Liberty Harbor North and Gulls Cove near others. They have newport mall and the newport area near another.
Why is Hoboken dropping the ball with its light rail stations?
Again JC = impressive!!
American Can...
JCMan....you have forsaken me! My contacts in city hall tell me they have every intention of moving formward on this. My underlying understanding of the economics puzzle me as to why they think it can work...
Another high-rise coming to the JSQ area?
Looks like we might be seeing a 23-story tower a few blocks from Journal Square according to tomorrow night's Zoning Board meeting agenda:
"Amendment to Final Site Plan to construct an additional story for a total of 23 stories to a plan originally approved 11/3/05 for a 22 story residential building with 118 dwelling units above an approx. 47,500 sq. ft., 4 story parking garage"
Here's the link:http://www.cityofjerseycity.com/cale...ber_9_2006.pdf
It looks like we will also see an 11-story building replace the parking lot and old buildings across the street from The Gotham on Warren St.
Last edited by tbal; November 8th, 2006 at 11:22 PM.
what's wrong with the economics
Hi badger2, what's special about the American Can economics that doesn't impact other residential buildings? I can see how you could in general wonder if there will be too much residential supply in JC, but what's specific to American Can?
See the following link.Originally Posted by Dan2290
http://www.kannekt.com/15/3chines.htm
My reference is deal specific, based upon the cost to acquire the building, what I believe to be their construction costs and what they will most likely sell at.
merrill trading floors to Jersey City?
Crain's is reporting they are looking to build elsewhere. I can't really think where they could easily go besides Jersey City without unreasonably burdening their employees.
My guess is they are just bluffing because Goldman got a subsidy and they didn't, but I suppose its possible they could move. Quite honestly, it seems like a bad business decision to leave Manhattan and force so many of their existing employees a longer commute which they may not like, but I could see them adding employees in Jersey City instead of Manhattan, which seems like a plus for the region as a whole.
Gotta be bluffing, Merrill, Citibank and Metlife all had plans to move certain front office operations out of the city and into the surrounding urban communities only to find themselves burned when they found key employees refusing to make the moves, and then found it difficult to recruit key employees to work from these locations.
Anyone have occupancy %'s for the JC Goldman tower???
I can't see any possibility that Merrill will have HQ outside Manhattan. They can use 99 Hudson for bluffing in NY/NJ war. If Merrill play smart they may be able to get away with what they want from both sides. Like Citigroup did when they bluff to get out to NJ while trying to get money for expanding Long Island City location. At the end what they got was money from NJ to move staff to Warren and incentive from NYC for expanding Long Island City building which were announced on the same day.
inclined to agree
But I also think they are smart to bluff. Given the power of New York's Congressional delegation, I think they are in a good position to get some favors for staying.
Abatement deals for 3 projects get council OK
Saturday, November 11, 2006 By KEN THORBOURNE
JOURNAL STAFF WRITER
Jersey City continues to shower waterfront developments with tax abatements.
On Wednesday, the City Council introduced 20-year abatements for three projects that are either right on the waterfront or a stone's throw from the Hudson River.
As he voted against the abatements, Ward E Councilman Steve Fulop, who represents the waterfront area, pointed out that Mayor Jerramiah Healy campaigned on a platform that abatements were no longer needed to attract investment to the waterfront.
"This can't get any closer to the water without being in the water," Fulop said of a 269-unit condominium project slated for the foot of Second Street.
Healy's spokeswoman, Maria Pignataro, disputed Fulop's characterization of the mayor's campaign stance. "The mayor has always said he would take them (abatements) on a case-by-case basis, and is always looking to bring more ratables and investment into the city," Pignataro said.
During an editorial board meeting with The Jersey Journal prior to the November 2004 special election, Healy indicated that he did not believe abatements were necessary on the waterfront.
Besides the Second Street project, the council voted to introduce abatements for Monaco North and Monaco South, a development consisting of two 47-story towers with 541 market rate rental units at Washington Boulevard and Sixth Street.
The council voted 6-2 for those abatements, as well as for the Second Street development, with Ward F Councilwoman Viola Richardson joining Fulop in voting against them and Ward C Councilman Steve Lipski absent. The abatements will be up for adoption Nov. 21.
The council also introduced, by an 8-0 vote, a 20-year abatement for 100 Water St., a 112-unit market rate condo project slated for Claremont Avenue on the city's West Side.
The benefit of tax abatements as far as city officials are concerned is they don't have to share the payment-in-lieu-of-taxes negotiated with the developers with the school district or county government.
Opponents argue that abatements unfairly shift the tax burden to those without abatements and shortchange the county and school district.
Merril & Monaco's
As far as Merril goes, office space in downtown JC is becoming scarce and at the last Planning Board meeting, their attorney asked for a 3-year extension of permit to maintain a parking lot at 99 Hudson Street, but they were granted only a two-year extension. A lot of strange things seem to be going on right now in terms of office construction - Mack-Cali seems to be running low on available space at Harborside but hasn't made any announcements for construction of Plazas 4a, 6, or 7; Golman Sachs received approval for a second tower at 50 Hudson a few months ago but we haven't heard anything since; and as I just mentioned, Merril Lynch seems to have further put off construction on their plot of land at 99 Hudson by a few years. Globe Street keeps reporting on how low the vacancy rate is in Midtown Manhattan, and how high rents are going, but perhaps a lot of companies see the demand for office space peaking soon and on the verge of dropping?
Anyway, it's great to hear about Monaco I & II - we will have 5 or 6 beautiful (and huge!) new towers going under construction just in the area around Avalon Cove next year if Roseland decides to start construction in Spring 2007 as the other developers have.
What's the reason behind approving only 2-year extension rather than 3 years as requested? Does it mean anything after the two year period is expired? I don't feel that Merrill will do anything with 99 Hudson within the next few years anyway.
Is there any logical reason for more abatements on the waterfront? Or is this the only way to keep the waterfront part of JC?
Merril Lynch's lease at the World Financial Center expires in 2013, and it would take 2 to 3 years to construct a new office tower at 99 Hudson. According to curbed.com, Merril is looking for something state-of-the-art to move into since upgrading its floors at the WFC would be quite costly. They have pretty much ruled out moving into the Freedom Tower.
As for tax abatements, you must realize that the greater the number of young professionals living in JC, the greater the chances of a company moving jobs across the river is. The three towers mentioned will be able to house several thousand professionals, so they are a valuable investment for a city trying to woo corporate jobs to its waterfront. Since a housing oversupply may be developing, and would be a reason not to build residential towers on the waterfront, a tax abatement serves to counter this and provides an incentive to go ahead with construction.
Do I think the abatements are fair? Absolutely not (I certainly didn't get one with my apartment). But, in this case they make economic sense when you look at the big picture.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks