Been waiting to post this one…it’s the two towers in the foreground right of center in this rendering (two other towers of similar height are visible in the background to the left…those renderings are old and they’ll likely be about 20 stories taller than what’s shown in the rendering due to a recent rezoning).
Tower 1 (29 Van Reipen)
Construction of a new 27-story mixed-use building containing 696 residential units, approx. 3,076 SF of retail/commercial space, approx. 19,380.3 SF of hotel space, amenities and associated site improvements.
It will cantilever over an old frame house at 15 Van Reipen Ave too, but you can’t see that in the rendering.
Tower 2 (608-612 Pavonia)
Construction of a new 27-story mixed-use building containing 432 residential units, approx. 4,536.8 SF of retail/commercial space, approx. 3,295 SF of professional office space, approx. 8,814 SF of office space, amenities and associated site improvements
Yes one developer has been more successful at getting projects done efficiently, and has continued to buy up land and propose new projects at a faster pace than others. That developer is Namdar.
I made a diagram explaining what’s under construction, and what’s in site prep, as well as future phases.
The blue building is where piles were driven. The green building is where the demo happened. Red is a future phase depicted as a 27-story building in the photo but that’s outdated; it’ll actually be 47 floors. A second 47-story building is also planned for this block behind 612 Pavonia.
Not a free pass at all. They got added height in return for having to include dozens of money-losing units restricted between for tenants with low income to moderately low income.
A couple more renderings of 29 Van Reipen. Also piles are now being driven for both 29 Van Reipen and 612 Pavonia. Namdar now has 4 buildings under construction simultaneously.
Not a holdout…the developer owns it and wanted to knock it down as part of this project. The city ruled that the building was historic and couldn’t be demolished. Instead the developer had to incorporate it into the new tower. I think it’s a bit ridiculous because this house was built in the 20th century, well after most of JC, which was built in the 19th century. And it’s a fairly cheesy wooden box that is copied thousands of times all over the region. Could be in New Brunswick or White Plains or Clifton NJ.
In a city with actual nice and fairly unique historic architecture, protecting a building like this raises uncertainty with every project whether the city will ban demolition and possibly derail the project.
Me too! I appreciate the drive to build up Journal Square, but most of the new buildings look bland. The contrast between this old house and the new build adds a bit of interest to the sea of sameness (and PTACs)
The house isn’t that old. And leaving it there nearly killed the project. Shrug. Much better ways to add visual interest than this goofy setup. The developer was even willing to add low-income units if the house could go. Not worth it IMO. But I think we’ve all said our peace on it.
