New forty-eight story (48) mixed use development containing 952 residential dwelling units, 26 hotel rooms, ground floor retail, amenities and other improvements. Project to obtain the proposed height and bulk through the Homestead Walkway Bonus.
No car parking, 3271 sq ft of retail, 475 bike parking spaces.
Here’s a map I made roughly outlining the development parcel:
The fact there is no car parking is incredible and definitely allows more room for apartments and retail. More cities should ditch parking minimums where possible, especially around transit hubs. There’s bus and PATH access walking distance from this development which makes it well-connected to other destinations.
I know I asked this multiple times, but why is it that JC with a far worse transit system can put out multiple project without parking, but NYC with a far more comprehensive transit system can’t? Why are there new builds in Harlem with almost 1:1 parking ratios?
It’s all political will. NYC lacks the political will to abolish parking mandates in most of the City. City of Yes reduced and abolished parking requirements in some areas though.
Actually I just realized these buildings being demolished are part of the 547-551 Summit Ave site, not part of the 555 Summit Ave site. 547 Summit Ave is owned by the same company (Namdar) and will also be a 48-story building, but that site plan hasn’t been filed yet. Sorry for the confusion.
This is so amazing. Namdar is very bold and clearly making bet on JSQ. Once the two towers are built/lease out, I guess that’s the time for the new project to start.
Just the beginning, for Namdar and also for Journal Square. Sources say he’s acquired sites for at least three other 47-to-55-story towers beyond the three that are public knowledge.
Altogether that’s 3 ~50-story building sites that are public (8 Lott St, 555 Summit, 547 Summit), and three more ~50 stories to be announced soon by Namdar. Stay tuned.
Can’t believe the three KRE towers are now the noble ones without PTACs. Even for their next project, KRE decided to go with PTACs for 808 Pavonia. What a shame…
It’s moreso a failure of Jersey City to make it undesirable for PTACs to be built with towers. They are cheaper but less energy effecient. Across the Hudson they are extremely rare in new builds. All you need is some energy efficiency standards and developers will stop going for the cheapest option. At the moment they only go for central air if they really want to commit to a high-end feel.
They’re not that rare in lower-rent parts of the city. I still see them in the Bronx and in Queens, especially subsidized housing projects. If it was truly a superior option for lower-rent projects, they’d switch on their own.
The best solution imo is facade designs that make them look less obvious. They don’t look so bad on Journal Square Urby.
I just scrolled down the yimbyforums front page and found the first topic on a building under construction in LIC. It has PTACs too…
If PTACs make sense in LIC even with a more expensive energy code and higher rents, I don’t see what can be done in Journal Sq that wouldn’t require substantially higher rents.
