Phase I is a 30-story tower. Phase II is a 55-story tower and a 38-story tower. Phase II is another 55-story tower. They do not need zoning amendments, this is allowed by the current zoning.
"The proposed project consists of a multi-phase development consisting of three mixed-use, high-rise commercial and residential buildings, as well as a subdivision that will divide the subject property into five lots. Phase I includes the development of a 30-story, mixed-use building, along with the creation of a portion of the new Grant Avenue right-of-way, and the creation of a plaza connecting Claremont Avenue to the new Grant Avenue right-of-way. Phase. II consists of the development of “New Lot 2” and the development of a two-tower, mixed-use building, inclding a 38-story residential tower (“Tower 1”) and 55-story residential tower (“Tower 2”), along with the creation of a portion of the new Grant Avenue and Greenwich Drive rights-of-way, dedication of a portion of the HBLR extension right-of-way and Route 440 right-of-way widening, and the creation of an open space that connects Route 440 to the new Greenwich Drive right-of-way. Phase III includes the development. of a 55-story mixed-use building, along with the creation of a portion of the new Greenwich Drive right-of-way, dedication of a portion of the HBLR extension right-of-way, and the creation of an open space connecting Mallory Avenue to the new Greenwich Drive right-of-way.
It will be surrounded by other mid rise and a few other high rise buildings being built probably at the same time. So won’t stick out for too long. I’m just worried they are oversaturating the area with units. The light rail can only do so much. Even Rivet isn’t fully occupied and it’s been open for years now.
But this is a great start, and quite ambitious! Looking forward to hearing more about it. These developers are betting big on the light rail expansion and Bayfront. Let’s see what happens lol. Thanks @apophenic!
As far as oversaturation–that’s the developer’s problem. They’ll lose money if they can’t rent out the units, but I don’t think anyone will cry over developers losing money!
That said, I don’t think this will be built anytime soon due to the construction costs of high-rises and the relatively low rents in this area (which will be pushed down further by the saturation you mentioned).
Structurally, the light rail can handle more people. The only issue is frequency. Hopefully NJT will be forced to run more trains as this line becomes busier. They could run about 300% more service on their line before maxing out on frequency. PATH is a bigger bottleneck because it’s closer to being maxed out on frequency. Even with PATH, though, there are modifications that can be made: longer platforms, articulated trains. They’re going to start running 18% more frequency on the WTC and 33rd St line next year, and have started work to extend the Grove St platform to allow 10-car trains on the WTC line.
yes, though worth noting that there will be a light-rail stop right across 440 from this site.
that said, the economics probably just don’t work at a site like this. high-rise construction requires much higher rents to be economically viable, compared to mid-rise construction. and the demand isn’t really there so far out.
this is more than likely a plan that won’t materialize for several decades.
That’s a great point. And yes, it’ll take a long time before anything this big takes off, if ever. I don’t think this specific block is zoned for this dense a development either.
NJT also needs to revamp the bus lines on West Side. NJT runs just 1 or 2 of the 5 lines that run through West Side. Rapid bus transit on West Side or Kennedy Blvd would do wonders for these areas and help alleviate things. As for the PATH - all these improvements are welcome but at this point, they’re just catching up and not really getting ahead of the problem. But yes, it’s hard to make improvements when there’s not much space to make it happen. A dream would be the light rail extended to meet the Newark light rail with new stops in the Ironbound.
Regarding the east-west HBLR corridor, I think it’s only a matter of time before NJT is able to justify westward expansion from Jersey City’s Bayfront community to connect with Newark Penn Station. Doing so would mean that there would be even less reason for Jersey City to require but so many parking spaces per residential unit, as residents living in the city’s westside would have more employment and entertainment options that could be reached by the HBLR. As an added benefit, a parallel rapid transit corridor to PATH would serve as a measure of resiliency against any technical issues that would hinder either PATH or HBLR.
That said, I don’t know the extent to which barges use the Hackensack and Passaic waterways and whether any light rail bridge would impede the flow of cargo in the Kearny Point vicinity. Also, I don’t know how much length would be needed to bring the HBLR from an elevated position to the surface that is Newark’s Market Street. I imagine that these issues would prove difficult to address. This may be one of those ideas that sounds great in theory but doesn’t translate well in reality.
If you look at the space between Newark Penn and the West Side Ave stop on the HBLR, it actually looks like there used to be train tracks and a bridge running between them (screen shot below). I don’t have any proof, but I know there are a lot of abandoned rail lines throughout north Jersey that didn’t get adopted by NJTransit when they formed in the 70s.
Growing up in the area, it’s not hard to find abandoned stretches of tracks in the woods or on the side of the road. And from Google maps, these stretches of “ghost tracks” often look like an unusually straight line, cutting through neighborhoods, like the one in my pic below.
The block actually is zoned for this dense a development. It’s in the “high rise district” of the Water Street redevelopment plan, so this is a by-right plan.
@the726 As for the PATH - all these improvements are welcome but at this point, they’re just catching up and not really getting ahead of the problem.
Unfortunately PANYNJ doesn’t make improvements to PATH unless it’s absolutely forced to. They refuse to do anything other than play catch-up when it comes to PATH. People were complaining about crush-loads on PATH in the 1970s! I once saw an interview with Bob Cotter, former planning director for Jersey City, where he said the only way to get the Port Authority and NJTransit to improve service was to generate higher ridership.
@a_giraldi I don’t know the extent to which barges use the Hackensack and Passaic waterways and whether any light rail bridge would impede the flow of cargo in the Kearny Point vicinity.
Barges and cargo ships use the waterways pretty extensively. This would definitely need to have two drawbridges, just as the original Newark and New York Railroad once had.
The only problem is that it looks like some of the ROW has been built on further west, but it would definitely be beneficial to have another connection between JC and Newark.
someone just sent me this rendering below. in other news, the site recently sold for the extremely low price of $8 per buildable square foot, which indicates that it’s probably a long-term investment and not likely to break ground anytime soon.
Who knows? My own opinion is that it is not very realistic. For perspective, a nearby site (7 Bennett St), which is also zoned for high-rise residential, was recently redeveloped as a drive-through Starbucks. The owners of that site did not thing it has much near-term potential for high-rises, at least in the near term of 5-10 years.
