Submitted by Kalebxtentacion t3_10qwcru in Newark
Comments
Funkflexity45 t1_j6sbx69 wrote
Should we email Calvin? What do we say? Should I email LaMonica and say I am in support?
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6sdyn9 wrote
If you email Calvin he’ll make sure they get the letters and read them.
NeoLephty t1_j6vgdu5 wrote
When are the board meetings and do you have emails for the board members and the city?
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6wvtjz wrote
Unfortunately I don’t have board members emails but Calvin did agree to send the letters to them
NeoLephty t1_j6wxkzx wrote
Unfortunately I’m not in favor of this project and I doubt Calvin will convey my disapproval as it is counter to his objective. I’ll try to find the meetings and show up in person.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6xbiu8 wrote
And why don’t u like the project?
NeoLephty t1_j6xhxch wrote
So many reasons…
But the most basic reason I will give is that this doesn’t help the residents of Newark. There’s ALREADY more empty housing available in Newark than there are homeless people and this won’t solve our homeless problem. There’s already too many glass buildings and not enough canopy cover for walking around, and this will contribute to the problem. There’s already issues with parking and this provides no additional parking while, as just mentioned, making the city more uncomfortable to walk in.
I oppose trying to change the population of the city over reinvesting in what the people of this city actually need. Especially since, as you very well know, there are ALREADY a bunch of developments going up.
This development includes 20% affordable housing - the absolute minimum they can include - and I guarantee that the 20% won’t be affordable to the majority of people in Newark that need housing help.
So I oppose it.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6zbiis wrote
Most of your reasons are just speculation, the job of the skyscraper or any big development is to bring new people in and allowing current people to move in. Newark isn’t a city of poor people. There are many people in Newark with money who can afford this.
- And your wrong it does help residents of Newark. When one theater square was built it allowed many of high school students to work there. Giving the younger generation jobs. The gateway center isn’t a residential tower but the new restaurants allow teens and adults to work there. With this tower and many more attracts many jobs and businesses for us to work in. Without One theater square I wouldn’t be 18 years old in college and already an assistant manager. Just because this tower doesn’t fit all your needs and expectations doesn’t mean it’s not needed. Also having no parking makes it better aren’t u tired of cities and this country giving it to the automobile. If you live downtown walk downtown, if u need to travel take a train, take a plan, ride a bike. This isn’t some country town where you need a car to get around. But I understand where you’re coming from but I just don’t agree with you, but Atleast your reasons are more valid than James street
NeoLephty t1_j70mbnt wrote
Yeah, I see you keep saying “Newark isn’t a city or poor people.”
I’ve lived here 30+ years. Newark is a working class city and most working class people can’t afford these buildings.
Nothing I said is speculation. The glass WILL make the city hotter. The housing ISNT needed. And comparing a building designated for business to a residential one as evidence of it producing jobs is ignorant. You’re not goi g to get a job in someone’s apartment because this building is going up, you’re just going to welcome more competition from outside for the jobs that are here.
And again, there is already more empty housing in Newark than there are homeless people with many new residential buildings already going up.
This. Isn’t. Needed.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j70n8yk wrote
Housing isn’t needed or skyscrapers aren’t needed?
NeoLephty t1_j70pg19 wrote
Do me a favor. Head over to Penn Station tonight and ask some of the homeless people there how this new skyscraper is going to help them. Ask them about how much the current Newark residents like themselves are going to benefit from this construction.
Let me know what the consensus is.
DrixxYBoat t1_j7c3a75 wrote
This is a hilarious take. Building additional housing is a long game just like everything else. You give up a little and pray that 10 years down the line, your investment will hold true.
It's the same reason why we throw tax abatements at lionsgate and why whole foods in the hahnes pays no rent.
It's the expectation that if we build now, people will come later, and an economic boom will come later.
Newark does not have housing for billionaires. We barely barely barely have housing for millionaires.
The economic positives of having an upper class fostered in Newark severely outweigh the positives of what...trying to fix a complex homeless issue while our downtown withers away and dies? You've got a whole lot of downtown businesses barely hanging on.
Moreover, I firmly believe that this is not a mutually exclusive situation. We can focus on two things at the same time.
I abhor the homeless problem we have, but you cannot expect substantial + positive change in Newark if you're not willing to get fucked in the ass a little bit by gentrification. You just can't.
With the covid monies finally hitting our budgets, now more than ever is the time to build.
NeoLephty t1_j7c8zjh wrote
No, you’re incorrect.
Newer and more expensive housing raises housing prices in the area and locks the existing residents out of the market.
In addition, tax credits for developers and companies to move to the area trading our education fund - since that is paid for with property taxes - for the development. Companies like Panasonic took advantage of the tax credit but brought their work force with them providing a negligible amount of new jobs to actual Newark residents. Some people moved to Newark for the job further helping displace and price out the current residents (this is essentially part of how gentrification works).
Lastly, your “pray” for returns with this type of investment is not needed when investments into a community - whether that’s education, housing, transportation, social services, etc - all have a GUARANTEED return on investment based on historical data from multiple parts of the country throughout multiple times in history (plus congressional investigations into the subject showing the same).
Moreover - thinking that the commodification of the housing market can be mutually exclusive from housing the homeless is the funniest take in this thread. There’s a reason why policies like Housing First were attempted, showed success, and discontinued.
You seem to abhors the fact that homeless people are in the city and not the fact that there are homeless people as a direct result of policy decisions. Homelessness is a solvable problem but building more expensive housing doesn’t solve it, it exacerbates it.
DrixxYBoat t1_j7ch2mt wrote
>You seem to abhors the fact that homeless people are in the city and not the fact that there are homeless people as a direct result of policy decisions. Homelessness is a solvable problem but building more expensive housing doesn’t solve it, it exacerbates it.
I feel very strongly that a strong middle class is the prerequisite to a strong economy for the city.
My summers in Denver as a child are proof of that.
Building more housing should not increase the cost of living for current residents, and I would love to see a form of rent control implemented to enforce that.
I would also support having mixed-income communities in addition to other affordable housing initiatives like rent-to-own, inclusionary zoning, and home ownership programs.
The city has already dipped our foot in the water for many of these, but future projects ought to prioritize them.
Homelessness as an issue sucks really bad, but it's hard to feel like nothing is being done when the city has recently unveiled it's plans to end homelessness https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/12/op-ed-mayor-ras-baraka-says-newark-must-put-end-to-homelessness/amp/
We can do both of these things at the same time. I think one of the biggest issues we face is the very slow bureaucratic process, but you cannot in good faith read that article and tell me that the city is doing absolutely nothing.
I think your issue is that homeless isn't being prioritized enough and you would rather see all funds go to that // the community as opposed to opening up the door to new markets and new developments.
My biggest issue with that is that a heavy chunk of our residents simply do not have the skillset to be working lots of the high paying jobs downtown offers.
As an aside, is there a barrier for entry, racism, and negative bias against those of us that are able to handle such jobs? Hell yes.
But our citizens right now are closer to security guard worker than to programmer or attorney.
The best way to fix this is to pour money into our youth, Newark Public Schools, so that the next generation of kids are prepared and equipped with these skills.
Our school budget is already over 1 billion dollars, so the resources are already there.
The management of those resources is a different conversation.
All in all, I feel like we can address most, if not all of your concerns without having to gut this project or forego other development.
Now a better question is, what's the likelihood that we'll do such a thing?
What's the likelihood that we'll implement rent control of this project goes forward?
What's the likelihood that we invest our money into tried and true tactics of community development if this project doesn't go through?
Will we take these monies and spend them right, or will we throw our bread at a different development proposal 6 months from now?
AmputatorBot t1_j7ch41r wrote
It looks like you shared an AMP link. These should load faster, but AMP is controversial because of concerns over privacy and the Open Web.
Maybe check out the canonical page instead: https://www.njspotlightnews.org/2022/12/op-ed-mayor-ras-baraka-says-newark-must-put-end-to-homelessness/
^(I'm a bot | )^(Why & About)^( | )^(Summon: u/AmputatorBot)
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j71xeul wrote
Yeah I guess affordable housing units also doesn’t help them since they can’t afford that to. Just because it’s not helping homeless people doesn’t mean it’s not helping someone in Newark. Besides complaining about skyscrapers etc etc isn’t helping the homeless too, and what contribution do u make to help the homeless besides from talking about it on Reddit, because it’s easy to talk about it than actually do something.
NeoLephty t1_j721gh3 wrote
For one, opposing the construction of this building that isn’t going to help.
But just so we’re clear here, I’m not the person with a bunch of money looking for a way to make more… I’m a resident of Newark standing up for those you won’t even bother speaking to.
I don’t hit the streets daily to try and stop police brutality but I’m opposed to that too.
I don’t go to North Korea to try and free the people, but I oppose that too.
I’m not in Ukraine fighting off Russia but I oppose that invasion also.
Plus, you asked us to voice our opinions about this. I did. Your “well you aren’t doing enough so shut up and sit down” is very telling.
Go away.
Jimmy_kong253 t1_j6snbfg wrote
Every time you hear about a developer, giving a percentage of affordable housing and then you see what they want for that supposed affordable housing it's not really affordable. Over the years looking up at rents here and in New York City, I'm more convinced the term affordable housing is a buzzword than an actual thing
Fun_Ad4571 t1_j6sp26p wrote
I fully agree with this. Most people don’t make what “affordable housing” costs usually are, especially in Newark.
Jimmy_kong253 t1_j6spnef wrote
That's why I'm a little suspicious with all the posting and enthusiasm about all these new real estate developments happening in this subreddit. The people I know that live in Newark can't afford anything in these new developments. I'm not saying we should leave vacant lots and abandoned buildings but don't act like the residents who were here in the bad times are going to be able to still be here in good times. These developments aren't geared towards born and raised
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6st6nc wrote
See that’s the problem, idk why everyone think that Newark is a city of poor people. Have any of you ever been inside these new developments or know who live in them. Some of y’all think that only white people and Asians live inside these developments. I work at swahili, I’ve been in the parking lot, the majority of people of color that lives inside this building is crazy, and many of them are from Newark. There is a percentage of people in Newark that can actually afford these developments. Yes we have some poor people but let’s be grateful that our people can live inside this. You’ll be amazed with how many people of color live inside Shaq tower 1
Large_Cellist t1_j6xlfn3 wrote
This is the best post I have read so far! This post truly brings up how we are all wrapped up in preconceived ideas of race and class. Thank you Kaleb!
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6zbjxq wrote
Thank you
Fun_Ad4571 t1_j6sqbmz wrote
Exactly. I was born in Newark, experienced much of my life here, and live here now. Most people look at Newark and just see “building opportunity”, with no regard to the actual condition of Newark, in terms of its residents, income and quality of life. And it’s upsetting, because Newark can be GREAT, but only if it gets the help it actually needs and not the “help” people want to give it.
aTribeCalledLemur t1_j76fh7x wrote
Taking an abandoned lot and changing it into housing to get more people with money to move to Newark is a good thing. These projects are displacing no one, and Newark needs a stronger tax base to support the city and spend money on businesses. Downtown is still pretty dead after work hours.
KneeDeepInTheDead t1_j6tmgqe wrote
affordable for the types of people they want
tcbphil t1_j6u7jax wrote
I think Newark needs more high earning residents who pay taxes and spend money in the city. That will create more jobs for native Newarkers, and provide the city with its much needed funds for projects further out in the wards.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6ulyqi wrote
Can’t get more high earning residents without these types of developments big or small
tcbphil t1_j6wvuxg wrote
Yup that’s what I was trying to point out. Fingers crossed.
thebruns t1_j6t2qu4 wrote
If they want support from me I need to see them plant 47 trees
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6t3b5m wrote
Thanks for helping
thebruns t1_j6tbmd8 wrote
They want to make money, I want a better city.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6ummls wrote
Without development how will we get a better city
thebruns t1_j6v3fb0 wrote
Midtown Manhattan is very developed. Its a shit place to live.
Look at how the new Shaq building is destroying the streetscape with a parking podium and tiny tiny tiny sidewalks. Thats going to be garbage for 100 years.
They need to get it right from the start.
felsonj t1_j6vwz6l wrote
I generally do sympathize with regard to sidewalks, but it's McCarter Highway -- who really wants to be walking on the sidewalk there next to multiple lanes of fast-moving traffic? The pedestrian traffic would be mostly at the corner and on Market St. Instead of a parking lot, we have a building that will add 400+ residents downtown. How is this not good? The cladding on the parking podium isn't bad either. Boraie looks to be doing a pretty good job of it, though of course one can't be sure until it's finished. But note too what appears to be a grand entrance on Market St.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6vce6c wrote
Don’t see how that effects the city in whole. North Newark isn’t getting effected by tiny sidewalks. The tower bring more residents, more residents more small businesses, more small businesses more jobs, more jobs more economic opportunities
surrealchemist t1_j6xm4s0 wrote
No we just need more big buildings and then all the problems will go away you see
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6zcgeq wrote
The buildings are considered as development, development in the city will help the part where it’s needed, Newark can’t thrive without development. Towers and buildings aren’t going to solve the homelessness issues directly, but if all these developments get built there are construction jobs needed that many people can take an opportunity of.
ScrollHectic t1_j6sdugm wrote
Is the developer changing the design at all or making any compromises?
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
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
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?
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
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:
​
- Anything that is already built in your town when you are born is normal and ordinary and just a natural part of your world.
- Anything that is built when you are young is new and exciting.
- Anything built after you're 30-35 or so is against the natural order of things.
ScrollHectic t1_j73br03 wrote
Ha! Good quote... and not inaccurate.
tuggyforme t1_j6y7qtg wrote
The city's getting hella boojie.
ScrollHectic t1_j73at7v wrote
Wow, great discussion. And so many valid points. Thanks Kalebxtentacion for the post. One thing you mentioned that I think is understated is that there is a lot of internal migration of Newarkers into these buildings so it's not all "outsiders" as many people believe. And there are a lot of people of color living in them as well (People have different definitions of POC; Indians and other Asians are not white; are we counting them or do we just mean black and brown people?) But there are also a lot of new people moving in, many not of color, and that's fine. It's a city and cities tend to be transient and should be a melting pot of cultures and ideas.
I've grown to like the design although I agree it should be more contextual. But design is subjective and not everyone is going to be happy. From an esthetic and symbolic standpoint, skyscrapers are great for the city. They show modernity and growth. Personally, I care more about streetscape so I feel infill developments have a greater impact (which I've expressed before on this thread.) Change you can see from the ground and not the sky is what impacts those who live and interact in the city day to day. In terms of jobs, residential bldgs don't employ that many people, so the true job gains are from construction which are temporary. I'm not sure how many of those are going to Newarkers. Some data would help here.
The reason I'm not going out of my way to support this project is because, the developer has to show some good faith of working with the community, and I don't get that sense from them at this point. It's an annoying process but current residents are stakeholders and should have their concerns acknowledged; especially if they own in the area.
Personally, as I stated before, these residential projects cause displacement even if they're being built on a vacant lot. It effects the overall rental price for the neighborhood and those have escalated sharply downtown in the past few years without any measure of mitigating it. As someone who's lived downtown for years and see myself being priced out, its hard for me to advocate for the mechanism driving my own displacement. Selfish, I know. If it were being mitigated, I'd be on board as I'm generally, pro development. At the end of the day, these developers will still get it built and make tons of money that none of us will see...
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j74ecqf wrote
That’s true they will make money that nun of us will see so those every other rich person or big business. Honestly I rather see this project come true. Vibe was a scam, the Westinghouse was also, 900 broad street definitely was, and the developers family is paying for the construction cost, might be one of the first projects that won’t need an tax abatement
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6ww54n wrote
Oh yeah I almost forgot, the developer family will be paying for the tower construction.
Kalebxtentacion OP t1_j6s4cu4 wrote
Here is what I learned from the community meeting yesterday with the people behind The Arc Tower. This tower needs our support more than ever, and here's how you can help...........
csouder@sswlawgroup.com