Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

nasty_brutish_longer t1_j8yg0jz wrote

The tower is north of Berry Lane. It won't cast a shadow on the park.

The notion that a single high rise will bring in "disconnected" people is hard to credit. This particular project has much more public engagement at its base than the entirely enclosed Foundry or the tucked-away Lafayette lofts. It's also occupying space that's been civically and commercially dead for decades. If the complex fills with the most insular people imaginable, the community loses nothing.

I get the trepidation. Lafayette's low-key low-rise character feels more like an old mill town than an urban neighborhood, and that charm is hard to let go of. But mill towns have mills. Lafayette doesn't anymore, and when it did it wasn't pleasant. It's a residential neighborhood with easy access to a major world hub. 420 units with public space over a dead steel steel mill doesn't seem like a threat to the neighborhood to me.

22

Jctexan OP t1_j8ygcbh wrote

But the density can be achieved through mid-rises. Why do we need more open space next to the largest park in JC? Just put more buildings on the lot! Even the developer was open to it.

1

truocchio t1_j916130 wrote

You need more land to increase mid rise density to match high rise. The developer doesn’t own more land to conform to your wishes. They OWN the property and as long as they get approval through the appropriate channels they should be free to build the building of their choice on their land.

Mid rise doesn’t always work for the lot size and the economics of building large multi family. I get you hate developers but they have their rights as well. You are free to object and get your local nimbys to join you.

But so far you made claims that aren’t based in the reality of the situation such as shadows and your feelings for mid rise vs high rise

3

Jctexan OP t1_j9196tw wrote

Did you research anything at all about the history of this before you made these guess-ments?

It doesn’t sound like it. I am looking to understand why a high rise is being allowed here where it should not have been permitted by zoning - it’s ok if you can’t figure it out either, but you don’t have to try to make stuff up. It’s unhelpful.

I am pro-density. I am not pro high-rise that blocks light to a park.

1

NeverLickToads t1_j9258xp wrote

"You don't have to try to make stuff up." LOL. Says the person claiming mysterious data exists that proves all of their points but refuses to link to it anywhere. You know if you wanted to actually attempt to change this building from being approved it would be more impactful to have data to back up your points. People that make decisions like numbers, not vague generalities.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j9299ax wrote

Why is everyone so afraid to read or research topics they claim to be interested in on this thread? I’m not asking for permission from the planning board here on Reddit, lol. I am asking if anyone knows why this building got approved. There’s years of history on it, and I’m curious if anyone has more knowledge. I am not here to bash anyone’s way of life, or where they have chosen to live, so I am not going to link to studies on high rises because I’m not interested in bashing high rises as the main point - it’s a distraction, it’s not the focus and I’m not looking to change anyone’s mind. If anyone wants to read about high rises and environmental impact, psychological impact on residents, the communities they’re in, they certainly can and don’t need to rely on strangers to help them research. It’s not “mysterious,” it’s Google!

From what I understand this building appears to already be a done deal and I’m looking to understand why. I have Googled and gotten as far as I can, and hoped someone might know. It’s ok if you don’t know. No one seems to know. Relax.

1

fastAFguy t1_j9iph14 wrote

Agreed, but more buildings should be more 17+ storey buildings.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ygm63 wrote

It isn’t trepidation. I’m not going by “seems to me!” Or “my gut says!” “I would think…” I’m looking at data and best practices and this is NOT best practice. Not for density and not for the neighborhood.

0

Jctexan OP t1_j8yg5ay wrote

The tower is northeast of the park. If you have the shadow study, could you share it?

−4

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8yhlgf wrote

In the original post you claimed it would cast a shadow "block sunlight to Berry Lane Park"? Do you have the shadow study?

11

Jctexan OP t1_j8yjasj wrote

I don’t have the shadow study, though one will be presented I’m assuming again on Tuesday? There’s a reason this is considered controversial - it’s not hysteria. This was snuck through planning, during the pandemic, and did not have community support. A non-profit sued but didn’t win, but that still doesn’t mean it has community support. It doesn’t. I wouldn’t support this in someone else’s neighborhood either. It doesn’t make any sense. I looked at the map, and having spent a lot of time at Berry Lane can see with my eyes that it will block the sun (partially) in the morning (unless the location has moved, again - there have been multiple revisions). But the fact that it’s a 17-story building in a neighborhood of 2 and 3 story buildings connected to a park is enough of a reason, especially when we can get the benefits of density through multiple mid-rises on that same lot. We don’t have to give up having light here on the ground.

−9

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8yjp06 wrote

>But the fact that it’s a 17-story building in a neighborhood of 2 and 3 story buildings connected to a park is enough of a reason

I mean I don't doubt there are people who don't support this, but I think this claim itself needs more support and evidence than what you are providing. For example, there are already neighborhoods in JC that exist with exactly what this sentence describes, so why imply these characteristics are bad in and of themselves without the data to support that claim?

If someone rolls up with a bunch of claims, don't be surprised when the Reddit masses ask: "sauce?"

8

Jctexan OP t1_j8ymjss wrote

I'm not sure what's confusing. Are you saying the community supports it? https://hudsoncountyview.com/jersey-city-council-approves-zoning-measure-to-move-morris-canal-manor-project-forward/

​

The community doesn't support it. They fought it (was supposed to be a park, apparently) and lost. Multiple times, in tricky ways. That doesn't make it right. It still needs planning approval, but it got through zoning in what appears to be a very unfair way. I also just flat out disagree that this is the best use of that land, which our planners are supposed to ensure.

​

I like planning so I read about it a lot, and high rises are not particularly environmentally friendly (the higher up you go the more heat escapes, glass isn't a great insulator, etc) and more and more, mid-rises are touted as the happy medium, better for neighborhoods, and keep the scale human sized and more enjoyable...and why cities like Paris, Barcelona, etc are great cities to live in. They are human scale. Moreover, this design doesn't fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It's possible to get density with multiple mid-rises on that lot without having to resort to high-rises.

−3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8yr2nj wrote

>The community doesn't support it.

Tough. Letting communities control density has contributed greatly to the current housing crisis in many cities. Nimbies are gonna NIMBY.

13

Jctexan OP t1_j8yryow wrote

If you had read this, you would see the density is supported as mid-rises. Nobody is NIMBYing. It’s a lot to read though, so I get skipping reading and just going for easy quotes.

−3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8z3tzv wrote

I read it. You are literally NIMBYing, it's exactly what you're doing. You don't want a building that is too big for a neighborhood, IN YOUR OPINION! The process of empowering everyone to weigh in and veto any and every development plan has gotten us to this point of housing shortage.

I prefer to let the market rather than the incumbent residents decide whether to build 2, 6 or 16 stories. Across the country, people that speak passionately about desiring to preserve their neighborhood's 'special character' are often merely presenting code for keeping it wealthy and white.

Great article about how a town on a SF commuter line fought passionately to keep out condos that might impact their views of the hills and the 'unique character' of their town.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/13/business/economy/housing-crisis-conor-dougherty-golden-gates.html

8

Ainsel72l t1_j8zzcme wrote

That's interesting because a lot of the "incumbents" living here are not wealthy or white. Perhaps you haven't noticed.

3

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j9010tc wrote

I have, which is why I qualified the remark with 'often' instead of saying something like 'always', which would indeed be idiotic.

The NIMBY movement, particularly in California, has done a good job of convincing that segment that dense development poses more of a risk of gentrification than them being displaced from their low density rental homes by rising rents or sale of the property. In my observation this is not the case. Displacement gentrification precedes development not follows it, an area like the Heights is a prime example.

3

Ainsel72l t1_j94kqmi wrote

Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing. Displacment gentrification or development, it doesn't really matter which comes first. The end result is pretty much the same. Call me NIMBY if you want, but huge buildings towering over a neighborhood of houses just look ridiculous. I won't enjoy living close to them.

−1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j94somc wrote

>Dense development is only considered desirable when it is high income or senior housing.

That's one of the silliest things I've ever heard. Middle income high rises are possibly even more sought after than luxury in the NY Metro.

Besides, in most cases of opposition to density, the horrifying zoning proposal is usually up from single family to 2-4 units, not high rises. In JC people were ready to riot against allowing 4 floors along commercial corridors in R-1 zones, like Palisade Avenue.

2

Jctexan OP t1_j8z5lql wrote

I don’t think one developer’s profit, and a handful of view seekers, should be able to destroy a charming, human scaled neighborhood. We can have density (YIMBY!!!) without non-sustainable, environmentally unfriendly high-rises. This is a wonderfully diverse neighborhood and we can achieve density with mid-rises vs the super dark high-rise areas of downtown. It’s ok to achieve density another way.

1

Blecher_onthe_Hudson t1_j8zo60q wrote

It's amazing how unreflective you are about using the exact same arguments frequently used against small multifamily and midrise. As always, NIMBYs want what they want and contort to justify it.

1

Jctexan OP t1_j8ztc5k wrote

You know calling someone a name doesn’t make it true, right?

2

Affectionate-Buy2539 t1_j8ymxt3 wrote

>I'm not sure what's confusing. Are you saying the community supports it?

That is not what I wrote.

5

Ainsel72l t1_j8zyfcp wrote

Just because neighborhoods exist with this type of thing doesn't mean they like it. City Hall and developers don't care if they like it or not. These will get built anyway. Resistance is futile.

−3

nasty_brutish_longer t1_j8yoizv wrote

Replying to everything here to avoid multiple threads.

Shadow maps abound. From what I'm seeing you'll get early morning shade in the northwest corner of the park, so you're correct. But it only affects a sliver of the park and won't affect flora or recreational use in any meaningful way.

I would prefer midrise there as well, but you won't get 420 units out of it on that plot. I don't like the surface parking, but otherwise this is a good plan at ground level.

Trepidation is a reaction to any undesirable outcome, whether reasonable or not. And I don't think it's unreasonable to prefer midrise. That said, the urbanist pubs you cite, much as I tend to agree them, are neither data nor best practices in any practical sense.

9

Jctexan OP t1_j8yplmn wrote

trepidation noun trep·​i·​da·​tion ˌtre-pə-ˈdā-shən Synonyms of trepidation 1 : a nervous or fearful feeling of uncertain agitation : APPREHENSION

I’m not uncertain as to why I don’t want it. Please can we stop explaining words to each other? Everyone has google, right?

I do not think this is the best we can do as a community. I think we can do better. I’m still waiting to hear why this should be a high-rise, rather than a mid-rise. I cannot understand why the playground should be without light in the morning so a few people can stare at NYC or DTJC skyline from their window? It doesn’t make any sense.

−2

nasty_brutish_longer t1_j8ysypt wrote

The outcomes you're claiming are not certain. I think you're flailing here.

4

Jctexan OP t1_j8yt71z wrote

So you can’t think of a reason why this is passing the planning board. Got it. No worries. I don’t think anyone can. Hence my post.

−1

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j8yix8z wrote

Do you know how shadows work?

On Earth, north of the Tropic of Cancer, you will never have a solar shadow cast on the south side of a building.

5

Jctexan OP t1_j8ynob1 wrote

…can’t even

−2

HappyArtichoke7729 t1_j8ytpg7 wrote

Alright, moron. Explain how a shadow can be cast on the south side of a building in Jersey City, when the sun will never be north of the building. I'll go get the popcorn.

In reality, the shadow from that building will be cast west, north, and east. But never south.

But none of that matters, because we all know you probably live next to this lot and are just a NIMBY who wants everyone else's rent to go up even higher, just so you can continue to look at an old decrepit steel mill.

9