High-rises can make great options in areas where they fit with the scale. I am not anti high-rise (in general). I am definitely pro mid-rise and that’s the type of neighborhood I would choose to live in and did choose to live in (my neighborhood is actually single and two families). I also wouldn’t stick a bunch of single, or multi-family homes next to high-rises, because it just doesn’t make sense.

My point is we don’t have to jam high-rises everywhere. We can pick and choose which buildings get built and where so we can appropriately plan the city growth. That’s the whole point of city planning…or so I thought. Maybe that’s not why we have city planning. Maybe everyone should just build whatever they want wherever they want with no regard for city planning and the millions spent on the overall planning so far and then we can just get rid of the city planning department entirely - and let the market decide, whatever that means. I guess in that case I don’t understand why we have a planning department.

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.

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

I didn’t indicate the data doesn’t exist, lol

Because you’re not being genuine. You’re playing the “give me the proof so I can refute it” game and it’s silly. If you really want to know the answer you will look it up.

I posted asking why this building is getting approved when it doesn’t meet zoning or fit in with the character of the neighborhood. It doesn’t make any sense to me. If you have no reasons why, that’s cool, no worries, you don’t have to come up with one - but man, you have to learn how to google if you want to know something - don’t rely on other people EVEN IF THEY GIVE YOU A LINK. One link shouldn’t convince you, lol.

If you want to remain uneducated, you can do that. If you want to educate yourself you can do that too. Google is free.

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.

Happy to, but you should really rely on your own research. You likely won’t accept any data sources I provide so I urge you to do your own research and look at peer reviewed data or at least data summarized by reputable publications. I know we have a tendency to dig our heels in and just want to be right, but I would guess that intuitively you know and understand that neighborhoods full of high-rises don’t promote neighborly interaction and engagement the way a more human scale building does. If you want to pretend it does, I won’t stand in your way. It’s ok to prefer high rises, but it’s not fair to stick one in the middle of a neighborhood, blocking sunlight to a park, so that a developer can make $$$, and a few people have a good view. This is not what’s best for the city or the neighborhood. The benefits of housing density can be obtained with mid-rises and without the negative effects of high-rises.

Oooh, the latest and greatest data from 2006!!! Tell me more!!! Sorry, dude, but no, lol. It’s not sustainable and better information is out there.

You could google it and educate yourself, ya know. No one is forcing you to comment if you don’t understand.

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.

…try reading instead of guessing what’s being discussed.

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.

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.

…can’t even

Yeah…that’s not how it works but…kk

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

I'm in real estate and I'm not sure I understand your arguement. Are you saying that a bank will lend on a 17-story project with 420 units but not 3 six-story buildings totalling 420 units on that same lot? I'm not sure I understand that.

No one is advocating for keeping it empty. We all want to see more housing. The discussion is that a mid-rise on multiple buildings is better for many reasons and a similar number of units could be built on that same lot in a mid-rise fashion. High-rise doesn’t help the neighborhood even if it’s a pretty design.

Even the developer was open to mid rise. High rise is not the future.

We don’t have to take the first proposal - we can demand better. We can do better. We should be better or we’re going to end up in a soulless, lightless neighborhood.

Did you seriously pull out two lines instead of looking at all of that data? Sigh.