Proposal to Replace Jersey City’s VIP Diner with Walgreens Enters the Planning Pipeline
By Shane Smith • Jun 4th, 2010 • Category: Featured, Food, News
Photo: Melanie McLean
A controversial proposal that seeks to purchase and raze the VIP Diner has been submitted to the Jersey City Planning Division. The plan, which would erect a one-story 10,000-square-foot Walgreens pharmacy in place of the diner, has met with initial resistance from some Journal Square residents, and the Division of Planning has indicated that the site plan it has received does not align with the kind of development the city would like to see in that area.
A manager at the VIP would not confirm or deny details of the purchase when reached by phone last week.
Walgreens already has the VIP property under contract, according to Stephen Reid, the senior vice president at the lobbying and community relations firm Capital Public Affairs; Reid says he was hired by the drugstore company to “get out to the community” and advocate for the proposed plan. But, he notes, the sale is contingent on at least two variances that Walgreens has applied for from the Planning Board.
Zoning regulations at the site prohibit the proposal outlined in the project’s current site plan, which calls for a one-story structure with a 22-space parking lot that fronts Kennedy Boulevard and Sip Avenue. The minimum height required for new construction in that area is four stories, and front-yard parking is not permitted.
While some residents have claimed that the proposed Walgreens would include a drive-through window, the site plan submitted for review by the Planning Board does not include such plans.
Reid says Walgreens is hopeful that its application for the variances will appear on the agenda of the Planning Board’s June 15 meeting, but board secretary Planning Division secretary Barbara Payne tells JCI that the board is awaiting additional paperwork from Walgreens and has not yet scheduled a hearing for the proposal.
Although he does not expect unanimous support from the community, Reid says Walgreens has no intention of trying to “fly under the radar” with this project.
“That’s not being a good neighbor,” he says.
According to Reid, as part of the company’s efforts to notify and seek support from the project site’s neighbors, he will be meeting with members of the Journal Square Special Improvement District (SID) this month to present the plan. Don Smartt, who is the district administrator of the Journal Square Restoration Corporation — which operates the SID — confirms that he has been in touch with Reid and will “share the [Walgreen's] plans with the board” of the SID. However, Smartt says that the SID, which typically takes a hands-off approach to development proposals, will not go out of its way to support or oppose the project.
Reid has also reached out to a number of Journal Square community groups and met with Ward C councilwoman Nidia Rivera Lopez.
For her part, the councilwoman says she “did not commit to any support” in her May 13 meeting with Reid, according to an email Lopez sent to a group of Journal Square residents.
Some neighborhood residents, including Bill Armbruster, have taken exception to the proposal. Armbruster, who has lived near the VIP on Van Wagenen Avenue for 22 years, thinks the loss of the diner “would be a severe blow to the community.”
Armbruster opposes the new Walgreens location not only because it doesn’t comply with zoning regulations, but also because of a concern that the neighborhood can’t support another large retail pharmacy. There is already a Duane Reade location at the nearby Journal Square PATH station, a Rite Aid on Kennedy Boulevard between Journal Square and Tonnele Avenue and a free-standing Rite Aid with front-yard parking on the corner of Sip and West Side Avenues. (In February, Walgreens announced a plan to purchase Duane Reade for $1.08 billion.)
“The last thing we need in this neighborhood is another drugstore,” Armbruster says. He worries that the Walgreens might drive one or more of the other chain pharmacies out of business, leaving behind “a big empty storefront in the heart of Journal Square” and possibly resulting in “a net loss of jobs.”
Responding to these concerns, Reid relies on simple market economics. He maintains that Walgreens wouldn’t invest “millions of dollars” in a new location if the demand weren’t present.
“Competition is a good thing,” he says. “It’s healthy.”
Apart from wrangling over technical details of zoning and demand analysis, the potential loss of a distinctive Journal Square landmark might be expected to perk up the ears of local residents and preservationists. However, up to this point, the diner’s sentimental value has kept a low profile in the conversations surrounding the proposed Walgreens. Although Armbruster says he “will be very sad if the VIP closes,” and Lopez has referred to “many fond memories of occasions [spent] with family and friends” at the diner, the opposition of the community — and the city — has not concentrated on wistful remembrances.
In fact, city planners have indicated that the administration would support a Walgreens at that location if it were part of a mid-rise development with no front-yard parking — which would still spell the loss of the VIP building. But Reid insists that in a real estate market that continues to be soft, no developer will be taking on that kind of project in Journal Square in the near future.
The nonprofit Preservation New Jersey (PNJ), which publishes an annual list of the ten most endangered historic sites in the state, included the general category of “historic diners” in its 2010 list. Opened in 1974, the VIP Diner is not protected from destruction by official landmark or historical status, but PNJ’s Michael Hirsch is unhappy to hear the news of the VIP’s possible demise.
“We think [diners are] an important part of New Jersey history and culture, and we’re always sad when one of them gets demolished,” Hirsch says.
However, in her email to constituents, Lopez notes that the responsibility to protect the building, if any, rests mostly with the property owners.
“If it was necessary for the owner of the VIP … to sell, we know [we] have to look towards the future,” Lopez writes.
Like what you've read here? Please consider making a donation or becoming a sustaining member. As a grassroots news organization, we rely on community support -- as well as paid advertising -- to survive.
Shane Smith is the co-publisher and associate editor of Jersey City Independent and NEW magazine.
Email this author | All posts by Shane Smith
Great. Just what we need; another corporate chain and one less locally owned business. Great.
“If it was necessary for the owner of the VIP … to sell, we know [we] have to look towards the future,” Lopez writes.
Translation: If there’s a dollar to be made, who gives a shit about the local economy?
Thats cool. I don’t really like the one on Communipaw & Kennedy as far as customer service and the second one is kinda far. It would be nice to have another location nearby.
Apart from the pharmacy, I think the 24hr Walgreens are a great asset to any community.
You’re from Newport aren’t you? Yes, the 24 hr Walgreens will be a wonderful addition to go along with the 24 hr Rite Aid, the 24 hr Duane Reade, and the other 24 hr Walgreens in the same neighborhood. What an asset.
Reid says, “But Reid insists that in a real estate market that continues to be soft, no developer will be taking on that kind of project in Journal Square in the near future.”
How is that a problem for capital-rich Walgreens? They are not a developer wanting to put up a spec building with borrowed money. They want to build a property for a going business, which as he says, “Walgreens wouldn’t invest ‘millions of dollars’ in a new location if the demand weren’t present. ”
There’s a disconnect there. It’s worth millions to build, but not with a few stories of office or residential above it? True, the office market is a little weak right now, but not anywhere near as it is elsewhere. Ask the local commercial agents and they will tell you how little Class A office space in the neighborhood is unrented.
As for residential space, there is, to my knowledge, almost zero Class A residential space anywhere in JSQ that is not already rented.
It’s instructive that no local developer has been mentioned as having rejected interest in working with Walgreens. To say that none are interested is, let us be kind, an exaggeration.
Also, the issue of signage and driveways also needs to be addressed. Walgreens properties typically have large illuminated signs standing at the entrance. The lovely trees on the boulevard side of the property that now flower every spring, carpet the sidewalk with delicate white and pink petals.
The plan drawing proposes to replace them – and the bus stop – with a driveway and a nakedly visible loading dock where there will be 4o-foot 18-wheelers coming and going across the sidewalk. That would be a sad uglification of that currently pleasant little urban space, not to mention a hazard for people using the bus stop and pedestrians crossing the boulevard.
Finally, why does Walgreens needs a government lobbyist to speak for it? Yes, they have the right to hire someone, anyone, to do that. But what does it says about Walgreens that they choose that option, instead of having their own community relations office (which they do have) ‘handle” this matter. What neighbor sends a proxy to introduce themselves to the other neighbors, while hiding behind, “talk to our lobbyist?”
Walgreens, you should be speaking for yourself, openly and directly, not letting some lobbyist do it who first says the property has been sold but then, after JCI questions that, retracts to admit it is only under a contingency contract, which is not a sale at all. And you need to respect the zoning and land use rules that the community and city planning agencies have said is what we want.
No, the problem is, Walgreens has looked at plans that the community has approved and that the city has promulgated – and decided to go against their collective wishes. Those are not the actions of a good neighbor. Those are the actions of a large, wealthy corporation that wants something and intends to have it regardless what its neighbors wants.
What a pity this would be for Journal Square to lose the great VIP. I remember the day the VIP opened! Rock & Roll burgers for everyone!! I am a huge fan, and stop in frequently. GREAT food, GREAT service, REASONABLE prices, and really NICE PEOPLE. Their delicious deserts are ‘homemade’ in their own bakery. Where do you get that these days??
I hope the owners can figure something else out, and stick it out through this rough economy.
Maybe EVERYONE can go there for lunch this week, and show the VIP how much they are appreciated!!!
Another drugstore…my gosh, what vision!!! How pathetic & sad.
Competition is a good thing, It’s healthy.
Great scoop, Shane.
The Duane Reade outlet that is only about 300/500 yards away fr5om the VIP site is a two story that sells everything from office supplies to dry groceries.
Am I the only one who doesn’t believe they want to open another drugstore that close to the first one? Even Starbucks has backed down from the neighborhood saturation plan that put a unit in every block, often directly across the street from each other.
When he was asked to justify a 3rd large drug store in the neighborhood, the failure of their flack to mention that they actually own the DR at JSQ,is telling about his willingness to deceive the community now and predictive of that approach in the future. That omission is so large and significant that it is clearly a deliberate deception.
That “omission” suggests to the skeptical, or the cynical, or the realists who are hopelessly both, that Walgreens wants that property, and the one-story zoning variance so they can build a drive-through. It may also explain why Walgreens is speaking to the community through a mouthpiece rather than directly as would befit a honest good neighbor.
He gives them the opportunity, somewhere down the road, when they start asking for the drive-through, to say, “Oh, but he misspoke and did not really say what we intended. So we severed the relationship. We sincerely regret any misunderstanding. Now, about that zoning variance, let’s get real.”
It would be interesting to ask their flack if his client would be willing to make a binding commitment that they would never try to put a drive-through on that property.
The JSQ neighborhood needs another chain pharmacy like it needs another 99 cent store. I have no problem with the VIP closing down–the food is not good–but I welcome a replacement business that our area lacks or needs: a new diner or (non-fast food) restaurant, independent coffee house/bakery, yoga studio, DIY/arts center like MAKE are all things that come to mind.
The VIP is one of my favorite places in the neighborhood. I think this is awful news. This article gives me the vague sense that the owners of the VIP don’t have much of a say in what happens here.
Setting aside whether we should be sad if the VIP closes, replacing it with a Walgreens would be a disaster. As others have mentioned, there isn’t a need for another chain pharmacy in the area. My first fear is that the small, locally owned pharmacy on Kennedy will go out of business (he’s a great guy, and often his prices are competitive with the big chains).
Worse still, I believe that once Walgreens purchases and builds their own store, they will close the Duane Reade at the Path station (where they pay rent!). If that were to happen, traveling through Journal Square will be both less convenient/pleasant, and substantially more dangerous.
Finally, Good Neighbor’s comments describe well just how ugly the site will become, with a loading dock on Kennedy Blvd! Those few blocks are already congested. Can you see traffic backing up for miles as trailers stop traffic during the morning rush?! (Ask people waiting for the 87 bus in the morning about the 10 minutes it takes for trucks to manuever in/out of the Shelley’s lot.)
This is simply vile and hopefully JC residents will care enough to put a stop to it.