32-story building on the south side of the block which has the two Vantage towers in Liberty Harbor North. 300 apartments, office space, and parking on 32 floors. No rendering yet, but it would be the building in white below:
7 Likes
Nice! I assume the amendment to the zoning was approved to remove the hotel requirement. This block will finally be complete.
4 Likes
Yes, rezoning passed at the March 23 meeting.
2 Likes
it’s crazy this much undeveloped land around the harbor exists a stones throw from Manhattan.
6 Likes
Expensive to build on because there are no sewers, roads, or other utilities. When Newport was developed in the 80s, the federal government gave the city a multimillion-dollar grant to build the infrastructure. That program no longer exists.
5 Likes
At this point, I’m starting to think the PTAC are mandatory in NJ
2 Likes
They use them in Queens and Greenpoint too, and in the Bronx. Basically everywhere where you can’t charge Manhattan level rents in the region.
It’s just cheaper. Make the alternative cheaper and they’ll switch.
True, Queens is guilty too, but I’ve seen them in every latest development in NJ
1 Like
It can also be mandated by the city government. PTACs are not effecient and have a significant environmental impact. It should be restricted just on those grounds, at least for developments over X units (which would prevent 700ft PTAC towers)
Sadly you’re right without any code restrictions cost is what dictates this.
The city isn’t authorized by state legislation to pass its own building codes.
Beyond that, I’m still not convinced that it’s a good idea.
PTACs have a negative environmental impact, but dense multi-family housing near transit has a positive environmental impact…even with the inefficiency of PTACs, people living in these units have a vastly smaller carbon footprint than people living in single-family houses in the suburbs. Adding even more costs to multi-family urban housing while allowing single-family housing to have a much larger carbon footprint seems penny-wise, pound foolish. Will just divert more development to sprawl.
I’d be more supportive of objective performance-based standards that apply to all new construction statewide or nationwide, single fam or multifam. Make the standards take into account all the ways these buildings generate a carbon footprint and waste energy. Maybe we’d see fewer PTACs then, or they’d switch to more efficient ones, or maybe we’d see that PTACs are a drop in the bucket compared to the efficiency of sharing party walls inside an apartment building, not owning cars, having smaller living spaces, etc.
Just my two cents.
I think its not an either-or. I feel its one of those things that if mandated, would not significantly hinder developers. It’s just they have no reason to spend more unless there’s a market need/expectation like how condos rarely are built with PTACs. But otherwise we can have PTACless, dense, multifamily developments. At least for large developments. The environments impact for say buildings with less than 30 units probably isn’t significant.
Increasing costs for multifamily, without reining in costs for sprawl, discourages construction of the multifamily and encourages construction of sprawl. Construction lenders and equity investors cast a wide net when looking where to put their money. They will invest in the housing projects that have the highest risk-adjusted return, and construction costs are part of that equation. Some added costs and requirements are worthwhile, but they each need to be scrutinized to see if they’re really worth it. If the effect here is to tip the scales and discourage construction of inherently efficient multifamily, then it could actually increase energy usage. I just think it needs to be looked at to see what the costs and actual effects are.
Anyway I’ll let you respond but we’re getting off-topic so I’ll try not to reply! Let you have the last word.