„BLDG Management has unveiled a proposal for a new two-tower, 1.6-million-square-foot multifamily property that would add some 1,300 apartments to downtown Jersey City.
The firm said the project, located at 100 Bay St., would rise in the acclaimed Powerhouse Arts District with what it described as a sculptural design that incorporates the neighborhood’s artistic legacy. That would include a single residential building with a podium base and towers of 90 and 40 stories, which will be connected by a 40th-floor sky bridge, offering unit types ranging from smaller floorplans for single individuals to larger homes for families.
The property would also fill a key need, New York-based BLDG said, noting that its plan calls for a 20 percent affordable housing component. It would do so with what the firm hailed as world-class architecture by Pelli Clarke & Partners, implementing previously approved elements required by Jersey City under a development agreement with the property owner, which was approved in a federal court consent order.
“The 100 Bay Street plan underscores our long-term commitment to Jersey City’s continued growth and economic vitality,” said Justin Kleinman, executive vice president and chief operating officer of BLDG Management Co. Inc. “We’re proud to advance a project that brings world-class, iconic design, meaningful affordable housing, and lasting community benefit to one of the region’s most dynamic urban centers.”
The developer, meantime, said the high-rises would have slender profiles to allow more natural light to reach the streetscape and enhance views for both residents and neighbors. The larger of the two structures, at 1055 feet, will be the fourth-tallest residential tower in the greater New York City metro area and the U.S., while it will contain abundant recreational space for tenants and the community and some 29,000 square feet of indoor and outdoor retail space at the ground level.“
What an incredible project. Best of luck to the developers getting it off the ground.
I think this is in the old 111 1st street plot. I’m assuming this:
implementing previously approved elements required by Jersey City under a development agreement with the property owner, which was approved in a federal court consent order.
refers at least in part to the obligation to use bricks from the original building in the design of any new one. Curious to see how they will be incorporated. I don’t think I see any brick in the render.
1300 units is massive. Man… we needed this good news. This week… good news overall.
Feels good. Jersey City continues to show what happens when pro-development and common sense is applied to growing a city. Good things are happening!
I hope all of NJ continues on this path now that finally, folks are realizing we need to build more. We all here at YIMBY knew this when we are still in the womb but baby steps. May this be the 1st of many for JC and NJ!
This plan deviates from the settlement agreement in several ways—in the existing zoning and settlement agreement the height is limited to ~600 feet and 830 units (710 in the tower plus 120 in the base).
As a result, this project will need a rezoning from the city council. Due to the sizable income-restricted affordable component it will also need a tax abatement from the council and Aspire tax credit subsidies from NJ state in order to happen. Tax abatements are discretionary and Aspire tax credits are competitive with limited funds.
I’d say the project is as likely as any other to happen (so… 50/50), but height will likely be chopped and this first concept redone.
Jersey City has a height limit that needs FAA approval and while I don’t know the flight paths or restriction area, this likely would need approval from the FAA and will probably not get it. 99 Hudson is 899ft because it could not get the full approval to be taller.
All that said. I really hope Jersey City gets a supertall. And I hope it can be this one since all waterfront lots are now occupied or have plans for smaller buildings.
@apophenic can you explain for us non-urban-planner-but-interested people how the affordable housing works? I noticed it says the building will contain 20% affordable housing, which you refer to as “sizable”.
I would get why the developer would want tax abatements / credits as an incentive to build more affordable housing but is that a requirement or just something the developer would demand that’s “negotable” with the city / state?
My pleasure! In order to get a project built, it has to attract a loan allowing the developer to pay the construction costs. The project needs to have a rate of return that is attractive to private investors, or else they’ll just invest in some other project or some other asset instead that has a higher return (e.g., stocks).
The affordable units cost more than the market rate units to build, since they are required to be interspersed throughout the building, to have the same finishes as the market rate units, and to be larger than the market rate units (the market rate units are often primarily studios and 1BR while the affordable units must be 80% 2 and 3 BRs). As a result, they reduce the return on investment that the project makes. In fact, some of the affordable units must be rented at such low rents that they actually recoup less rent money than it even costs to maintain them.
This is all clear if you look at the independent financial analysis for a different recent project, 177 Grand Street. According to the financial analysis, due to having a 15% affordable component, the project was $20 million short of being able to attract a loan to get built. That means that the project required a subsidy that cost the city over $300,000 per affordable unit to be built. This subsidy was in the form of a PILOT. This is actually standard. In NYC affordable units are built via a tax abatement program known as 485x, and the government subsidy required is of a similar scale (though lower in some markets with much higher rents like Manhattan).
In sum, the subsidy isn’t “required” in the sense that the city must legally give the project the subsidy. But it’s '“required” for the project to make enough of a return to get built. Otherwise the developer could just build the currently allowed 830-unit version without affordable housing. Or nothing will get built, no affordable housing and no market rate housing. This has been the experience in Boston since affordable requirements were raised to 20% there:
While this project is not legally required to get an abatement, JC mayoral candidates have talked about forcing all new developments to have 20% affordable housing. Legally, this cannot be accomplished without either upzoning the entire city (which they’re not proposing) or providing every project with a PILOT. So in that case the city would actually be legally required to give most projects in JC tax abatements.
This is extremely helpful thank you for taking time to explain.
While we are doing a housing AMA I have another question . Why are all the new buildings in downtown JC (and I think JSQ also) being built as rental units and not for purchase? The simple answer I assume is that the developer makes more $ off of rental buildings, but I live in a building that was sold and there are other buildings that are a bit older near me that were build to be sold and not rented. Did something change in the past 15ish years in JC to make rentals more profitable?
difficult, but not impossible. There were a lot of nay sayers that said One Journal Square would never happen. There was a lot of political pushback because of Kushner, but it ended up being built.
Yes, but 1JSQ 100% market rate and already allowed by zoning and still took decades. This is going to need quite a few state and city approvals to get off the ground, that’s all I was pointing out.
The Mayor is smart. Big building bring people, people create jobs, jobs create a vibrant economy. Jersey City is becoming a destination city, which also contributes to a vibrant economy.
Condo market in the general NYC area has not been strong for quite a few years, but especially after the pandemic. Basically the demand for condo stock is at about supply, and so condos don’t move quickly. If demands for condos increase, more will be built.
Why condos are less in demand? My theory: combination of price and American culture still heavily prefers your first home be a “real”, detached home on its own land. Condos are popular and even the default in many if not most countries because their isnt a built-in societal expectation that your final house be a “real” house. A condo is seen as just as valid as a real house. Here in the US they arent so there are less people willing to pay “real” house prices for a condo.
Thanks for answering my question @nuplex - the supply / demand answer makes sense. One other factor that I personally believe is at play is the lack of 3 BR condos. I live in a condo building that has many young families and many of them rent from the condo owners. As soon as they have more than 1 child they basically are forced to move to the suburbs otherwise they are jamming 4 people into 2 bedrooms. I believe many of these families would choose to raise their kids in JC if there were more (obviously affordable at their income level) 3BR options.
. Why are all the new buildings in downtown JC (and I think JSQ also) being built as rental units and not for purchase? The simple answer I assume is that the developer makes more $ off of rental buildings, but I live in a building that was sold and there are other buildings that are a bit older near me that were build to be sold and not rented. Did something change in the past 15ish years in JC to make rentals more profitable?