Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ScrollHectic t1_j6sdugm wrote

Is the developer changing the design at all or making any compromises?

3

Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6se7fm wrote

So far the developer has agreed to 20 percent affordable housing, and I believe the current stores will have a new location inside the tower first floors

7

Ironboundian t1_j6temlm wrote

20 percent is the law. It’s not a concession. Certainly people Who love the project as it is currently designed, should write letters and show up and voice of support. But given that the developers bought a building they knew was in a historic district, they should at least give some consideration to the historic context in terms of materials. Not that the building has to be smaller. But there was another post on here that showed all kinds or BIG buildings that looked a little bit more Art Deco with brick and symmetrical windows etc. Not a giant piece of spiral glass that looks like it’s from Miami or Dubai

7

Newarkguy1836 t1_j6w07z5 wrote

You say you want more art deco and then you say you don't want it to be like Miami. You contradicted yourself because Miami has Art Deco and glass. In fact, Miami was the king of art deco. Now it is the southern king of both glass and art deco. So why can't Newark do the same?

4

Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6umd4t wrote

I hear you but the tower would be iconic with it’s current design. The building falls into military park district, the same area that house the new prudential tower. One theater square and Shaq tower 1 are art deco type towers do they look iconic in their district. If this is going to be Newark next tallest it has to look the part

3

felsonj t1_j6vzqa0 wrote

Regarding the design, I think we should compare what is proposed with the likely counterfactual rather than with some ideal.

Consider the likely options with rental buildings. Typically, rental apartment towers are thrown up with the least consideration for exterior aesthetics. Painted concrete, ungainly proportions dictated entirely by interior design, PTACs galore. Or some design that is touted as contextual but value-engineered to the hilt.

Here we have a developer willing to spend some more money on the design. Note for example the way the tower cantilevers over its base floor in the renderings.

But the building is not contextual, the critics say.

​

Who here among us would wish the iconic (Broad and Academy) Prudential Plaza had never been built? And yet, does it look like any building around it? Did it look like anything around it when it was built in 1960?

I'm reminded of a Douglas Adams quote about technology, which can readily be paraphrased to apply to the built environment:

​

A set of rules that describe standard (NIMBY) reactions to buildings:

​

  1. Anything that is already built in your town when you are born is normal and ordinary and just a natural part of your world.
  2. Anything that is built when you are young is new and exciting.
  3. Anything built after you're 30-35 or so is against the natural order of things.
2