SkyscraperCity banner

61 - 80 of 100 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I'd like to see if Newark did have a potential supertall if the FAA would get involved. Agreed it wouldn't appear to make sense to limit Jersey City but not Newark. Something about the flight patterns?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
16,156 Posts
I'd like to see if Newark did have a potential supertall if the FAA would get involved. Agreed it wouldn't appear to make sense to limit Jersey City but not Newark. Something about the flight patterns?
I think the Flight patterns are narrow over Newark , only the East Ward is under the approach..
 

·
Let's Revive our Cities
Joined
·
2,556 Posts
I saw that a couple of proposed 900+buildings in the LIC area of Queens were lopped off to close to 750 ft. The FAA is being more forceful these days, but the buildings in Manhattan aren't over the same flight paths surrounding the local airports? I really hope the proposed 30 Journal Square tower, probably which will be developed after the two towers of One Journal Square are built out(they will be done simultaneously as per JCMAN320 at Wired NY's "Jersey City Rising" forum) will remain at the proposed 72 stories, 799 ft and not be shaved any. The good news on One Journal Square is that the smaller tower got a height bump up to 777, same height as the formerly intended 942 ft taller second tower was loped down to. It does look like groundbreaking will begin very soon now.

And as well the second and largest tower at the Journal Squared development also received it's final approval from the FAA and interestingly enough seemed to hold up to a slight height bump and will be 759 ft. So in very short order we'll be seeing a trio of massive residential/mixed towers all over 750 ft. transforming the skyline of the heart of Journal Square. Within five years we'll have at least four towers between 759 and 799 ft anchoring a truly modernizing Journal Square(and several more of height of 500ft and upwards). So while the downsizing of the biggest tower is a bit of a bummer, lots to be excited about over the next few years!

Regarding downtown, other than the two lots owned by Goldman Sachs at 50 and 55 Hudson, are there any more potential areas for 900+footers? I dread too that 900ft will be the limit even for downtown as per what happened with 99 Hudson getting chopped from 950 to 899ft... but other than possibly the lot on 111 First which was supposed to have been built out as the centerpiece of the PAD district, where else can 900ft be justified or practical downtown/waterfront?

Oh, and thanks towerpower for the info on the elevation disparities between the Square area and the waterfront.
Most of Manhattan is under a series of severe flight restrictions. I believe all fixed wing aircraft cannot be within 2000 feet of the ground if flying over Manhattan and there is a large restriction area over the World Trade Center site. I think it is large enough to extend to the JC waterfront... I think it should be extended to include the other large clusters of towers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
... Or waiting closer to election day to have Mayor Fulop do a "groundbreaking" like his predecessor Mayor Healy did for Harwood's One JSQ project and it ending up getting flipped after... lol... I really hope not, but at this point what are we supposed to think. Kushner has owned this lot for over TWO years!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
There was a bit of progress recently - they did shut down the parking lot, they did run some tests, they've even posted these Jan 15th posters. Hopefully it's just postponed for some reason :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
The only valid reason is since the FAA cut the maximum height of the original taller tower from 942 to 777 and allowed for the other shorter tower at 730 ft to match the now 777 ft tower that some design changes to the towers had to get done. The market is currently great as on the opposite side of the Square the first of the Journal Squared towers at 563 ft is attracting a whole lot of interest and selling briskly. Caution for overbuilding is understandable but a few more projects can go up in the near future and the market and current infrastructure will still hold up. Though it is essential infrastructure is improved especially for transportation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,298 Posts
Discussion Starter #70
Don't forget that a project of this size takes 2-3 years to build out - meaning that any developer is projecting the market in the future, rather than what it is today. It is true that Journal Squared is filling up quickly today and there is obviously demand currently, but what will the market be like in 3 years (in Journal Square, Jersey City, on the whole?). Perhaps Kushner is less bullish than some on it.

It could also be a matter of financing - getting funding for a project this size is complicated and with all of the construction going on in Jersey City, banks could be hesitant to lend lest they get overexposed to the market.

Journal Squared's quick leasing will probably benefit smaller projects more, since they can build quicker and take advantage of current conditions and absorb excess demand easier (less units to fill). I'd expect to see the more serious ones start construction assuming they can line up financing. Some that must have anticipated the demand have already started (61 Newkirk, 3 Perrine, 362 Summit). Others will probably follow to capitalize on the momentum.

One Journal Square is its own beast - it might be able to ride the current hot market to a groundbreaking, but will that fill its units 3 years down the road?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
My problem with this is that Kushner has a ton of money and the thought that banks would be skittish to loan a company that size just doesn't make sense. A lack of vision is what Kushner would be showing if they don't start soon. It makes more sense we have to wait on 500 Summit or the Loews Harwood towers, the 30 Journal Square from the Kushners centering on the Jersey Journal landmark and/or 101 Newkirk for a few years... One Journal Square is supposed to be the centerpiece to the Journal Square renaissance, and suddenly getting jittery about can they handle it? Nah, it hopefully is that they are working on some design revisions since the taller tower was chopped down from 942 ft to 777 ft and the other tower supposedly 730 ft was upped to that same 777 ft. Really hoping our apprehension is unwarranted and something gets going soon... the ground is ready to be broken, it's approved and ready to go, we just need action.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
It's getting ridiculous and inexcusable... Journal Squared is already readying its second and tallest tower. Enough with the promises of the Kushners... start building or sell it the Kushners that get results.
 

·
Let's Revive our Cities
Joined
·
2,556 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
947 Posts
I'm really worried now about this project. Being now so affiliated with Kushner/Trump it can be toxic. They say they have solid funding... why the hell do we need Chinese money? They can go with the American division of the Chinese company developing 99 Hudson. I swear, the nepotism and unseemliness of their pitch makes for really uncomfortable feelings here. KRE (the normal side of the Kushner family, lol) can develop Journal Squared without a hitch... the second tower should be starting in the summer. What is it with these guys? Fulop may have to take it away yet again from one dilly dallying developer and give it to someone who'll take the ball and run with it. This is insulting and outrageous and the Fulop Administration better make it clear to Charles Kushner(or whichever one is in charge these days) to get hauling or get out of the way. If the Chinese are so skittish about their being associated with One Journal Square because of the possible impeachment/ failure of Trump, it's a clear sign thast if the Kushners need more money and are not as solidly funded as they drone on about, they should get the hell out. It's been ten years now and there's no excuse for any more inaction.. that the head of the developing company went on an ego trip trying to horn in on playing political insider in his daddy in law's new Administration just won't cut it as acceptable in any way. Grow the hell up Jared or just get out altogether, we don't need this crap!!!!! I'm truly furious and fed up with this now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
CIA on skyscraperpage alerted me to this statement from the mayor on his Facebook page:

I want to be clear with residents on where the city stands here. Last week, the developer of this project submitted an application to Jersey City for a tax subsidy and abatement on this property. The administration made clear to the applicant that the city is not supportive of their request and while the law requires a first reading ordinance vote if they submit an application, I don't foresee the council voting in favor. I know for certain I have made my feelings clear here on this project and what I feel works best for Jersey City. This tax abatement application doesn't work for us.
The curse on this project continues.

Frankly I'm shocked they even applied for an abatement given the political climate and the fact that there's a municipal election coming up in 6 months. What are these people thinking?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
Didn't Fulop move longer term abatement to Journal Square just for this sort of large development to take place? Didn't Journal Squared get it's own abatement from the Fulop administration?

Let's push for Kushner to either start construction or sell for a profit at this point (they've own this land and 30 JSQ for almost 3 years) and let another developer build.
 
61 - 80 of 100 Posts
Top