The Mailbag: Journal Square Redevelopment Plan ‘Remains Deficient’

By • Aug 6th, 2010 • Category: Blog, News, Politics

In spite of a sorely needed vision and plan for the future of Journal Square, the latest version of the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan remains deficient.

The plan is for our true downtown and the heart of the city, but it fails to reconcile its goal of pedestrian-friendly street life with its requirement for minimum building heights of 60 stories combined with over 800 parking spaces on the Hotel on the Square site.

There are no infrastructure plans to serve the increased population: no water, sewage, or traffic plans. Not one school is in the plan, and the only new open/park space is the site of the current Hudson County Administration building.

The plan does not address how bicycles can safely access Journal Square. Instead, it creates a “bike island” without sufficient support for the surrounding area.

The plan does not mandate energy-efficient central heat, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC), instead allowing inefficient, individual, through-the-wall HVAC units. For a city attempting to go “green,” this lack is inexcusable. In addition, requiring screening of these units further reduces energy efficiency and is a feeble solution for the ugliness of facades pockmarked with these units; even with screening, these units compromise building design aesthetics.

The redevelopment plan continues the city’s practice of relying on residential development for tax ratables, when decades of doing so have simply raised taxes for all but tax-abated property owners. Meanwhile, we fall short on creating the living-wage jobs our city desperately needs.

Everyone agrees Journal Square needs a plan. This one should be improved, however, to allow lower heights, include schools and more open space, improve infrastructure, promote higher quality design, and make safe pedestrian and bicycle access a priority.

We must require development to be energy-efficient, if we don’t want gas pipelines like the one Spectra wants to build threaded through the city. And we must rethink our over-reliance on development for ratables and jobs.

Daniel Levin
One Jersey City

Related Posts with Thumbnails

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.

is the place for letters sent in to the Jersey City Independent. Got something to say? Email us at info (at) jerseycityindependent.com.
Email this author | All posts by

  • Riaz Wahid

    Good points… who is listening ?

  • Althea Bernheim

    I’m speechless. Dan Levin was at none of the planning board meetings where the neighborhoods brought their concerns and then at none of the subsequent meetings with the planning division where all of these issues were addressed and even many of them incorporated into the plan.

    I just think shooting off your mouth, but failing to come to the meetings nor contact the planning division over these concerns is sad.

    I think the plan is very good and only sad that items like this are brought to the table only after everyone has met and worked so hard to make the plan work for the greatest good. While everyone is focused on the little bits they don’t like they don’t see the protections this plan affords the community while revitalizing the area.

    This was an excellent process and an excellent plan. Many would have listened if you had actually added your comments between 1-6 months ago. For one who is quick to point fingers at grandstanding, Mr. Levin feels the same rules should not apply to him.

  • http://selfpropelledcity..com Miles Poindexter

    Althea,
    Why the (false?) sense of outrage in your response? You can’t seriously be suggesting that because some random resident of JC did not bring any of these ideas to your attention at any of the public planning meetings that the city has no responsibility to implement them? Jersey City has a Planning Division on its payroll, with licensed, professional planners — planning experts — to do this work. Instead, as usual, it appears they just let the developers design the Square with their profit margins as top priority, and then rubber stamp it. Why should any of us have to tell the planning division how to do their job according to pedestrian friendly and energy efficient guidelines that have been taught planning professionals for decades now? Next time maybe you should refrain from attacking the messenger and just stick to the validity of the points raised. I really hope the citizens of Jersey City are not still paying your salary. You are as over-dramatic as you are uninformed.

  • Synonymous

    Althea: I don’t think your guy ($250,000+) has anything to fear from Dan ($600), so why go for the jugular like that? Just because you didn’t see him at Planning Board meetings doesn’t mean he’s no longer entitled to his opinion.

  • Be Practical

    Your comments are totally cynical and ignorant of how government works. First off, the minimum number of stories seems to vary throughout the plan, but averages 3 to 6 stories, not 60. I don’t know what plan you were reading. Mad about the parking? The plan surprisingly doesn’t require any parking and actually sets a maximum amount of parking that may be built. Thats almost radical. No new infrastructure in the plan? This is true, but this is because infrastructure costs lots and lots of money, and therefore is properly a function of federal, state, and local government budgeting for infrastructure improvements through a somewhat complex procurement process where budget priorities are set. This is not done in a zoning code, which is there to guide the form of new buildings, not to lay out the budget priorities for the next 50 years. I would expect someone who has run for mayor to know this. No new schools? True again, but this is because there is no way for a plan to predict how many new buildings will be built, when they will be built, or how many of the new residents will have children. The school system is in charge of predicting growth in the school age population and plan school capacity for them. It is not the job of the planning department, nor the planning board, nor even the city council to tell the school system where and when to build a new school, so therefore such things are not in zoning plans. Don’t you know this? Besides, population growth in Jersey City is slow at best. Sewage? Sewers are designed for rain events, which is a much greater volume of water than people flushing their toilets. The number of new toilets is irrelevant to a combined storm/sewer system. Bikes accessing the square? I assume you mean to point out that there is no plan for bike lanes on the City’s streets. Well, again, not everything needs to be written up in one singular document for the city. Creating bike lanes, while a good idea, and i’m glad to see you support this effort, requires the TRAFFIC department to redesign how traffic flows throughout the city and repainting the lanes on the street. This is a separate issue which needs its own public process, will require tax payer money, and should be implemented everywhere in the city with or without redevelopment plans. As for the HVAC comment, its true, the plan does not require one particular design like central air which can become obsolete by future technology. Instead, the plan has a green building section in which is simply requires buildings to achieve a certain energy efficiency standard, but leaves it up to the developer to figure out the best way to do it, rather than dictate a single solution which may not even be the best one in the coming years. So yes, the plan does require energy efficient buildings and even green roofs! And as for bikes, this, I think, is the first plan in the state of NJ to even require bike parking in buildings! Your last comment is really strange: “over-reliance on development for ratables and jobs ” Dan, where else do ratables and jobs come from if not new development? You point out that Jersey City does indeed have lots of problems and issues that need to be dealt with. This is all true. But we simply can’t solve all of Jersey City’s problems in one planning document. Many different agencies with different expertise and many different issues that need separate public forums are required to solve our various problems and make the city a better place. It can’t all happen at once in one ordinance. This is frustrating for Mr. Levin and others who want all these issues solved in one document, but thats not really how the world works. I suspect you know this, but enjoy ranting about government anyways, since ranting is easier than the real hard work of bring the tax payers and government together to decide how much of our money should go to solve which problems first.

  • http://onejerseycity.org Dan Levin

    I erred – the sky is the limit. There is no maximum building height. To correct myself, the minimum building height is 65′ (6 stories not 60). Based on FAR (floor area ratios), Zone 1 could see skyscrapers of 60 stories and higher.

    For what its worth, I have attended close to a dozen hearings, meetings and presentations on Journal Square redevelopment proposals from the Marchetto/Nelesson visioning process (summer and fall 2008), the “Hotel on the Square” plan, right up to and including the recent Planning Board meeting of July 13, 2010.

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/34274347/Draft-Journal-Square-2060-Redevelopment-Plan

  • Althea Bernheim

    Didn’t see you Dan, sorry… I was at all the ones concerning this most revised revision.

    You were no where and I saw the plans changed numerous times with input from the community.

    Sorry to burst some bubbles, but not on the pay role for the City and yes, very much a leader in the Hilltop area where i live.

    Dan is absolutely entitled to his opinion. However, as a politician, would like to have seen him at a few of these meetings where the changes were made including issues such as correcting for the 100 steps mistake or bringing down the heights in so many neighborhoods.

    Say I am as ignorant as you want, but I’m not running for office and I don’t speak on issues I have not researched. Where exactly should we put more open space? Eminent domain? Should Jersey City given the type of financial situation we are in buy some expensive properties in JSQ?

    Infrastructure is addressed in site plans, not on a vision plan.

    Yes, we could have 125 story buildings in the CORE!!!! Just like along the waterfront. However, once you hit 50 stories the cost of buildings starts to outweigh profits making it really not worth building beyond that. We are looking at 48-52 story buildings in reality.

    So please, give it a rest in try to peg me as anything but a citizen in my Journal Square neighborhood who finds it ridiculous to have a person acting as a mayoral candidate and community activist speak with such authority on a plan I never saw him at a meeting for.

    The Nelesson pie in the sky, well cover over the PATH tracks and connect to the Embankment to make a huge green space don’t count.

    And BTW, Dan, the plan you link to is not the final version. The final version was issued 7/12/10

  • JC_mayday

    Daniel Levin’s comments seemed to have ruffled enough feathers to garner such a venomous tone from some of the responses. But the insinuation that Dan Levin waited only until AFTER the Redevelopment Plan was passed to get his comments out seems outright petty. For one, anybody who knows Levin ought to know that grandstanding is not part of his game.

    The process of allowing common folk in the deliberations of how our cities are planned is a commendable and idealistic practice, but it is far from realistic. Not everyone can afford the time and energy to participate. But even of those who can and do volunteer, how many have the capability to be involved ALL the time and be at EVERY single meeting?

    And how many of us have also attended Council Meetings, Planning/Zoning Board Meetings and witnessed many times how such are nothing but a show — decisions are usually made even before the Council or boards hear the public’s comment. In this city, one can even infer that the process is usually a farce. I am not suggesting this is what happened during the drafting of the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan but the reality is, the intent of the process is not always achieved (or practical). Regardless, I have sincere kudos to those regular citizens who put in the effort and sincere dedication to make this city better, day in and day out, issue after issue. It’s frightening to imagine how this city could be without an ad hoc army of activists watching what the administration is doing.

    All the above points aside, the Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan and the process that produced it is an accomplishment that took a lot of time, effort and hard work by many individuals. It has a great vision for Journal Square and the document may be “excellent” as some think (and may even garner the city more planning awards) but that alone should not discount the valid points raised by Levin who simply stated that it is “deficient”. I think his thought-provoking criticism is all well-intended and raises relevant questions. And chiming in with Riaz Wahid’s post, are the people in charge listening?

    Our democratic process affords all the opportunity to contribute in the planning process — the public can offer unique insights that our planning professionals may miss but let’s not forget that the latter ultimately have the technical expertise as well as the position to coordinate the public’s perspectives into the Plan. It’s not an easy job but how come it takes an ‘amateur’ like Levin to catch the oversights he noted? Our city’s Planning Department has highly educated/licensed professionals in its staff & leadership. We may not be voting for these specialists but our taxes do pay for their salaries — we depend on their professional expertise and training to pull it together well. Their role as our city’s planners is key to how this city is ultimately shaped. In the redevelopment of Journal Square, their stamp will be in effect for the next half-century.

    What IS sad is that those who are really in charge did not address Levin’s points in the first place. But it is not a missed opportunity – Jersey City’s redevelopment plans reportedly ALWAYS get amended after all.

  • JC_mayday

    I also thought to respond to some of the points raised by “Be Practical”.

    A “redevelopment plan” is not a “zoning code” per se. It’s a document that provides a planning framework for a designated area with specific goals unique to that area. It’s more akin to a “master plan” of an area — one may consider it an enhancement to the city’s master plan for such targeted area. In other words, the Plan is not limited to simply dictating building forms. It is a comprehensive planning tool.

    The Journal Square Redevelopment 2060 Plan sets a remarkable 50-year vision for the area as the city sees it — it anticipates development of things it wants to come. It doesn’t have to go into specific details about facilities such as schools but the city needs to recognize that such facilities should also be expected if it foresees an increase in the population density in a given target area. The Plan is the ideal document to address it, it is a ‘planning document’ after all. To ignore it was a grave disservice to the planning process and the long-range vision foreseen for Journal Square.

    Similarly, infrastructure is a necessity to make the Plan work — it cannot be discounted simply as a budgeting issue and thus has no place in the document. If not addressed in this document, how else can it be coordinated with the redevelopment of an area? I speak about sewage specifically because it is a big problem in many parts of the city so the issue should not be foreign to our city planners.

    (As a side note, the Plan takes into consideration a streetcar line along JFK, which I happen to think is a great idea. That is an infrastructure project that “will cost lots and lots of money” as well and will likely involve “federal, state, and local government budgeting”. It made it into the plan.)

    And sewers are not ONLY designed for rain events. The volume of sewage produced by new development — especially in a concentrated area — is indeed relevant. In fact, calculations of this variable are taken into consideration when implementing certain green building strategies. If the existing system of the city cannot accommodate an area’s anticipated redevelopment, how can it happen? They go hand in hand and if the city anticipates such a high density envisioned for Journal Square, it needs — at the very least — to assess its existing system. It makes sense to consider the issue in this Redevelopment Plan. Again, the city needs to consider how its existing infrastructure can accommodate its 50-year plan and make it succeed.

    Re: Bike Lanes. The city has an award-winning transportation study which addresses bike lanes. I don’t recall if the Plan for Journal Square referred to it, especially that the area is an essential “transportation hub” for the city.

    The “Journal Square 2060 Redevelopment Plan” is the planning document that’s supposed to GUIDE the Square’s redevelopment. It’s comprehensive in many respects, but as Levin pointed out, it seemed to have ignored certain relevant issues necessary to make the Plan really work. But to think the document will solve all problems is absurd — a panacea it isn’t. It is, however, THE plan for the next half-century – it’s a serious document. The document not only serves private developers, it’s supposed to also serve the municipality in its efforts; city departments such as public works, traffic, engineering, even the school system, are supposed to abide by the Plan when it comes to work in the Plan Area. It goes without saying that the planners while drafting the Plan would have consulted these departments. The new vision for Journal Square has far-reaching goals — it actually sounds great and promising, but it will take a lot of coordination and the opportunity to lay out such framework should have been addressed in the Plan if the city intends for its goals to come together well.

    But all is not lost. There’s always room for improvement, isn’t there?