It's a beautiful house, I hope it can be replicated somewhere in a lower density part of the city. But we need more housing close to the train station.

Oh damn, figured this one would be on the chopping block. Feel bad for the current residents. Hopefully it doesn’t go through

“The Ironbound is being destroyed,” said Lisa Scorsolini, a neighborhood resident since 2004.

The residents have been fighting to maintain the ironbound and prevent the ironbound from turning into the next SodaSopa in the name of progress.

The city has been trying to bulldoze the old row houses for years. They aren't even dilapidated like some buildings other recent development projects would demolish. Developers see a pending hipster paradise and want to capitalize on the proximity to Penn station. So people can live "in the Ironbound" and work in Manhattan while never crossing McCarter.

Ugh it’s such a beautiful house too. Newark has some lovely architecture but it’s sparse enough without being torn down to be replaced by ugly modern buildings.

What does the ironbound being the jewelry capital of the world 120 years ago have to do with a decision on whether or not to allow development today?

Will halting development in the neighborhood bring back the jewelers? Yet another article written by the uncritical for the uncritical. The argument that change will “ destroy the neighborhood” is exactly the type of arguments racist segregationist used to justify restrictive covenants to stop blacks from moving into the suburbs. Now the reverse is true; what a clown world we live in.

Baraka has “admitted” that development will raise taxes for homeowners; exactly how , no one apparently knows. The article is predictably thin on facts and thick with innuendo and fear mongering.

Building is 2 blocks from Penn station, how is increasing density so close to transit a bad thing. This building is not unique. There are millions of such units spreed across cities in the eastern seaboard. This design was essentially the Bayonne box of the 1900’s. The city needs more housing, revenues , businesses and jobs. How do we do this without creating more housing stock?

The lady who is upset is a planning lawyer who makes her living working for the township of Wayne. Probably owns property nearby and is upset that she won’t be able to find parking as easily. Talk about fair and balanced perspectives in reporting.

I don't get why it can't be built on top of the huge parking lot up the street.

Because this isn’t SimCity and the owners of this property don’t own the other one.

Sad to see a nice building go but we need more housing especially near Penn. If we try to preserve every old building, we won’t be able to accommodate the people who want to move here and rent pressure will continue to get worse and worse. Maybe we should look to preserve some areas of the neighborhood that have special significance or have a density of historic features like Bruen between Green and Elm but we can’t say demolition of every old building is bad.

With Penn station near by they are just going to put up these kind of generic things to market to NYC commuters. https://www.115bruen.com Whoever moves in will save money but then it will probably be a premium for the city driving prices in general up.

Looks ugly to me

[deleted]

Bingo

The city needs more housing. Most cities need more housing. If it's not a historical society fighting it, it is the local residents fighting it. The Ironbound had regulations designed to preserve it's unique (to the city) asthetic. There needs to be a balance between the investors frothing for profits and the residents who will see their community leveled and then be asked to compensate for the additional financial strain via their property taxes increasing due to incentives handed to those frothing investors.

I've wondered (not really) why developers don't look to the north ward where several old giant homes are increasingly deteriorating. The park is right there, multiple light rail stops, a full grocery store is right on Mt Prospect so in a drug store. But we wouldn't want to upset those neighbors, so let's go after where the actual culture of the city is.

>Baraka has “admitted” that development will raise taxes for homeowners; exactly how , no one apparently knows. The article is predictably thin on facts and thick with innuendo and fear mongering.

Likely the same reason I've mentioned in this sub before. It's common for high density construction to be handed a multi decade property tax abatements on the "improvement"(actual building). This would be a smaller example, but as more towers are constructed, more tax revenue will be needed. Since they don't get the funds from the new construction, they have to increase it from those properties that do pay. That's not fear mongering without substance.

>The argument that change will “ destroy the neighborhood” is exactly the type of arguments racist segregationist used to justify restrictive covenants to stop blacks from moving into the suburbs. Now the reverse is true; what a clown world we live in.

The term you're searching for in this instance is gentrification.

>Building is 2 blocks from Penn station, how is increasing density so close to transit a bad thing. This building is not unique. There are millions of such units spreed across cities in the eastern seaboard. This design was essentially the Bayonne box of the 1900’s. The city needs more housing, revenues , businesses and jobs. How do we do this without creating more housing stock?

Presently, there is still a large portion of the Ironbound that recent immigrated here. They work and live their lives in the area. Developers have eyed Newark for some time now as the next stop for people who have been priced out of JC and Hoboken and Newark politicians have been happy to issue tax abatements and affordable units waivers to accommodate them.

If they want to knock down existing occupied housing, they should have to double the number of affordable housing units included. This would encourage locals to be residents instead of New Yorkers looking for cheaper housing near a train station.

This. People who have been priced out of Brooklyn, JC, and Hoboken will love it. And they'll never cross McCarter hwy. If they knock down existing housing occupied in the last x years, they should have to make 50% of the units "affordable" and not market rate

This building is more architecturally pleasing than the one on the corner of Central Avenue and Broad Street. Which means it will be approved for demolition.

Some of us will admit the real reason to oppose ARC tower is racism against whites & asians upsetting the ethnic apple cart in James Street Commons area. Its a 45 story complex. Most JSC residents are uppity or "wanna-be uppity " city hall & Newark Schools employees w a elite entitlement complex.

The Ironbound by contrast , is predominantly white ethnic Spanish & Portuguese. Residents adamant in finding excuses to oppose development like "Arc" often don't care what happens east of McCarter or North of Park Avenue.

If it’s 11 stories it will certainly have enough units to trigger the city’s Inclusionary Zoning ordinance. Adding income-restricted units along with market rate is a good thing.

Honestly the later half of that article was pretty dumb and felt mad nimby

However the developer is unnecessarily creating issues for themselves there isn't a shortage of empty lots in or around adjacent transit hubs if my memory serves me well

The lot across the street is literally empty Not to mention the benefits we would achieve by building this closer to the broad St station instead. Growing and building more houses are good and there are plenty of places where this can and will work but destroying homes isn't how you convince the community at large to see it nothing more than rich ppl tearing down their community

Would love to see this development happen further up in north Newark maybe along Park Place or Grove Street the light rail would be a huge benefit and Springfield ave (with major bus routes like the 25 and the 1running more frequently) I'm not a fan of ppl coming in last minute and buying properties while forcing up rents/living cost but there are plenty of empty lots along major corridors in Newark why are making your construction difficult by having to demolishing stuff

Don’t disagree with any of what you say other than I can’t blame people for not crossing McCarter highway given that it’s a highway and wildly unsafe for pedestrians to cross

LMAO the city skyline on that site is for Philly. Christ they’re not even trying

Wym

Click the link they shared and then look at the images of the skyline on the home page. It’s Philly not Newark

Oh wow, that’s messed up

It’s a good reminder of how little these developers actually care or even have any basic knowledge about Newark honestly

They would likely use the Gateway walkway, that would be appropriate for the population being considered here ha.

Perfect example.

> The lady who is upset is a planning lawyer who makes her living working for the township of Wayne. Probably owns property nearby and is upset that she won’t be able to find parking as easily. Talk about fair and balanced perspectives in reporting.

She does but she doesn't care about parking. I don't think she offers many good solutions, but there are very legitimate arguments that the city gives in too much to developers. For example 55 Union is not contributing anything to improve infrastructure in the direct neighborhood (which floods easily). They were granted variances on setbacks and their building goes practically right up to the street. They have a tax abatement so will not be contributing to the schools their kids will be going to.

And say what you will but she attends city meetings and makes her voice heard. Do you?

I attended the public hearing for 55 union. They were required to put in run off mitigation measures that include a green / sedum roof that acts to absorb rain water. By my calculation, the biggest contributor to access runoff in this neighborhood are errant home owners who pave over their back yards in violation of code. Not to mention all the illegal extension that increase the built up area on a standard lot. What are you going to do about that?

As for schools, any shortfall in school taxes at the local level will get partially offset by state subsidies as required by law under the Abbot ruling. Look up any article on spend per head by school district in NJ and you will see Newarks spend match or exceed the wealthiest suburbs that surround us. We have an annual budget in access of a billion dollars yet the performance of our schools is nothing short of abysmal. How much more money must we spend before we finally admit that money is not the problem? Even if the developer were to pay taxes the school board is so corrupt that they would just turn around and give the money away to a different developer(for a cut of the profits of course) Just look at how this deal is structured 🤣🤣. What a clown world we live in where people are though to blindly hate developers because they make profits while worshiping criminally corrupt politicians who literally get bribed with those profits.

Tax abatements granted to residential properties that are forced by law to offer subsidized housing is in effect an housing subsidy. The developer is acting as a pass through. I personally don’t approve of this approach. I would rather public housing be public ally owned and operated. I just don’t understand how this simple and basic concept is so difficult for people to comprehend. I guess that’s what happens when have an education system that brainwashes children into being unthinking and uncritical drones; who never question the state sponsored narrative.

This is funny…

You argument is essentially “we were here first and we don’t want people who are not like us to move in next door…”

Based on this bigotry, the family who arrived here 6 months ago and is over staying their visa is an “integral” part of the community but a hipster who takes out student loans to go to collage and lands an 80k/ yr job in the city is not. 🤣😂 we are truly living in a clown world.

As for subsidies, the tax abatements are essentially housing subsidies. They are given to developers who in return are compelled by law to offer “affordable” housing. Show me a residential development that received the tax abatement that is not also forced to set aside 20% of their units to the affordable housing mandate?

If the Northside is the paradise you claim it to be, why don’t you move there?🤣🤣🤣 You don’t want to be told where to live but you want to tell other people where they should and should not live 🤔.

Is this a r/confidentlyincorrect submission on purpose?

>This is funny…

>You argument is essentially “we were here first and we don’t want people who are not like us to move in next door…”

>Based on this bigotry, the family who arrived here 6 months ago and is over staying their visa is an “integral” part of the community but a hipster who takes out student loans to go to collage and lands an 80k/ yr job in the city is not. 🤣😂 we are truly living in a clown world.

I said the exact opposite.

>As for subsidies, the tax abatements are essentially housing subsidies. They are given to developers who in return are compelled by law to offer “affordable” housing. Show me a residential development that received the tax abatement that is not also forced to set aside 20% of their units to the affordable housing mandate?

You're apparently unaware of the rubber-stamping of waivers for this requirement. As for the example, here's one a 4 second Google provided. This one was approved in 2021 with fewer than 10%. https://www.marejournal.com/post/newark-municipal-council-grants-tax-exemption-to-vibe-slated-to-rise-in-redevelopment-area

>If the Northside is the paradise you claim it to be, why don’t you move there?🤣🤣🤣 You don’t want to be told where to live but you want to tell other people where they should and should not live 🤔.

Again, I was implying that a NIMBY mentality was being used in the least dense area in the city. And I did live there for 8 years.

You use se awfully strong language for being so unaware of waivers being granted for this requirement. You might want to take time and go to some city council meetings. It's not blind hated of developers. You're laughing emojis aren't a valid argument. This is not Facebook.

That’s a bad faith attack. I used the emojis twice in a comment of over a hundred words.

If the abatements given to a developer forced by law to rent a portion of his units at a rate that is substantially below market is not in effect a housing subsidy to those who would benefit from those lower rents; then what is it?

What other waivers are being offered to these developers that is not being offered ( either by law or omission ) to any other property owner?

Here’s one that I know about. Increase in density above what the land is zoned for. Literally every “multi family” unit in this city has a “bonus” unit in the basement of attic. Is that not an increase in density above and beyond what is legally permitted? Does the city enforce the law against these property owners?

In effect they are getting exactly what the city is allowing the developers to do but we are supposed to hate the big bad developer and root for “little guy”.

I deal in good faith. Your post implies that you know more than I do on the subject, I take that at face value. Educate me.

Another bad faith attack. If I am wrong tell me how I am wrong. You don’t!

The article you linked says that the building getting the abatement has mandated affordable units in them. You hide behind jargon; no idea what rubber stamping has to do with the crux of the original question.

How is an abatement given to a building that is mandated to take a loss of revenue by renting units below market not a subsidy?

How is a developers decision not to build in the north side NIMBY?

The only NIMBY I see here is you not wanting developers to build in the ironbound because you don’t want “hipsters” and “people who won’t cross McCarter highway” to live here.

Explain to me how the argument that to preserve its “uniqueness” the Ironbound, certain people should not be allowed or encouraged to live here differs from the argument made in the 60’s by segregationist who wanted to keep black peoples form moving into their suburban neighborhoods ?

I'm not hiding behind jargon lol. They stated there was a 20% requirement and I showed waivers are issued so not even half that number are always required. You're lack of understanding when Google is at your fingertips is not cause for me to break everything down to a Crayola level of understanding. I do that for the younger Newarkers, but I won't spend the energy for keyboard warriors without the motivation to gain the knowledge that's freely available.

There has been a lot of developing in the Ironbound and almost none in the North Ward, even though several houses continue to add blight and at least one has been vacant for nearly a decade. Plenty of space on their larger lots with access to public amenities. And the idea that I'm playing some NIMBY role is preposterous. I don't see a benefit to catering to upper middle class transplants who only want to use our comparably cheaper housing while they expect the sanitizing of their surroundings. New shiny buildings ≠ progress.

You're attempting you bring race into a conversation when my main motivating factor is to provide housing for those who are already here. I believe it is more important than trying to accommodate new residents in address-only.

I've actually gone to city meetings over the years with tenants united to fight for protections for current residents of Newark. If you had, you'd have known all I've said is accurate. Let alone my time in 2017-2019 with the Census Bureau walking nearly every street and talking to people all over this amazing city about how they live their lives. The obsession with wanting to be the next Jersey City, current residents be damned is tiring.

Hahaha… this is hilarious. Just because you found something on google does not make it proof of anything. In the same way working as a census taker does not make you statistician.

You keep skirting around the fundamental question. Did the developments granted abatements give up units to the affordable housing mandate. Does not matter if it is 1% or 20%. If the mandate applies then the abatement is a subsidy. Pure and simple.

This is a free country, no one can force a developer to build where they don’t want to. In the same way no one can force you to live where you don’t want to. How are you not able to understand this? Why don’t you google it and try and find out how many development are ongoing in the North Ward. If you did you will know that there are plenty of developments in flight. Not high rise because zoning won’t allow it but plenty none the less. This argument is so inane that it boggles the mind that an adult would make it.

While you are on google look up what NIMBY means.🤣. You are the poster child for it. Demanding that developers build somewhere else is the definition of NIMBY according to google.

By your own admission you oppose the building of housing in your neighborhood solely on the basis of who might move in. That is pure bigotry. Which google defines as a hatred of people based on their membership of a particular group; in this case people who are upper middle class. It’s disturbing that you say it so plainly in your responses.

You clearly don’t understand the point I am making about race. I will break it down for you. In he 60’s racist in the suburbs used your precise arguments to justify making laws that made it impossible for blacks to buy property in the suburbs. The argument goes like this; allowing blacks to move into our neighborhoods will change the “character” of out communities therefore we need laws to keep them from moving in. Your argument essentially replaces the word black with the words white/ middle class.

I have never lived in the Ironbound. I've only lived in the North Ward, exactly where I've said I wanted more development. If you bothered to read what I typed, you'd know that. Everything you typed is therefore moot.

I also never claimed to be a statistician. I have an mpa and have worked at a NPO downtown for years. Keep beating the shit out of those straw men though 🤣🤣🤣. I hope you win.

The opposite is happening in terms of rent. New developments are driving up rent, not decreasing them.

I'm not an Ironbound resident but I do try to spend time in some of the "off the beaten path" sections. I've visited restaurants and bars where literally no one spoke English and have hung out in cafes where everyone knows each other. It's a tight knit community and is beautiful to see. I think those who live and love the Ironbound are trying to preserve that and I don't blame them.

Along with easy transit and NYC accessibility, part of what these new developments are selling is the feel and culture of the neighborhood itself. Every article you read about the Ironbound touches on it. You displace those people, you lose that culture.

There's room for more people in our city but not at the cost of displacing others. There has to be balance.

Yes and no. Making an area nicer and more attractive is going to drive up rents in that area because more people will want to live there. If the area is already attractive, then rents of existing units will go up regardless. But if the region as a whole doesn’t add enough units, rental pressure for existing units will be worse. So we need to add more market rate, more income-restricted units, and enforce the city’s rent control ordinance for the older existing stock.

I think the Ironbound in particular is a good example. If we don’t add enough supply close to Penn Station and downtown, people moving to the area will push deeper into the neighborhood looking for housing. It happened to me when we first moved here. We ended up much farther away from Penn than we had planned because there weren’t enough housing units available.

Are you the same scrollhectic from wired New York/ Newark thread?

Whatever happened to that website? Seems to be permanently stuck on maintenance. LOL

Yup I am! I think a good number of people from that website migrated here while it was undergoing "maintenance". Lol

You might remember me with the silver Pontiac avatar & my long posts when I felt Newark wasn't moving fast enough.😅😅

Very cool! We should do a group event... That way people can place a face with the avatar they're disagreeing with. Lol

😊

Agreed but this is capitalism and sadly demand is here. Lets build housing so they dont have to come deeper into Ferry. If they can stay 2-3 blocks away from NEwark Penn, great but dont come further. Most of these projects are exactly this. There is no culture by this site. While theyre are some homes, this empty lots can be used to house these new citizens. Money talks and your landlord will sadly chose money over “culture”. Ironsbound is quite special as it had a big homeownership, other areas are not that great shape. So lets have them keep Downtown and make sure these big developments pay taxes to help contribute. Newark has 30% poverty, we need mode income to generate taxes and better services.