A Vacant Lot Grows in SO

so_newstead said:
Looks like some people don't want to keep the small town charm of South Orange. There is no way this should even be seriously considered. It's way too tall and would bring way too many people. As it is I think we're already too densely populated at more than 5,000 people per square mile, most suburbs in New Jersey are around 3-4K per square mile.
Why not turn this into a commercial building with a parking lot, or add it to the NJT parking lot adjacent to this space.
Why must every developing add more population, why not something else?

I dunno, I've never considered the core of the village to be very charming at all -- particularly the empty lots. The residential neighborhoods outside the core -- packed full of charm, IMHO.

In general, I'm in favor of adding more residents to the village core. I think it will bring more life to the streets and support the local businesses. Plus, clustering denser housing around transit hubs is just smart growth.

I didn't move to SO because I wanted an acre of land. I specifically wanted the density. I like having my neighbors in close proximity. I like overhearing their conversations, smelling what they are grilling and seeing them come and go. The density is part of the charm that drew me to SO

I don't mind dense downtown development near a transit core. It's smart development. The building in the rendering just doesn't look great. It's also probably too tall, but I'd bet that is just so that it can shrink as discussion goes on and it'll seem like progress.

Several years ago, Sayid wanted to build a similar structure in that area, however, it was not even close to the mammoth building shown in the rendering. One of the reasons he was turned down was lack of parking for the inhabitants of the new building. How has that issue changed?

As I posted elsewhere, those brown diamond pattern thingies on the side of the Gateway building are fugly.

That's an understatement. So is this a Rehab or Redev zone (assume one or the other but I honestly can't recall)?

ctrzaska said:
That's an understatement. So is this a Rehab or Redev zone (assume one or the other but I honestly can't recall)?

It's not in the redevelopment area, hence it's in the rehabilitation area.

Somethingz_Fishy said:
I don't believe this has been approved by the BOT or the Planning Board. Heck, I don't know that it's even been brought to them yet. The whole thing seems pretty premature.

This is my understanding.

cramer said:

ctrzaska said:
That's an understatement. So is this a Rehab or Redev zone (assume one or the other but I honestly can't recall)?

It's not in the redevelopment area, hence it's in the rehabilitation area.

I suppose that's good then

If I recall correctly, the house on the corner is/was the one that sometime in the 80's was struck by a runaway truck coming down the Ave. and there was an injury/death as a result. Does anyone else recall this?

It seems like their current plan is to put in a parking lot, which would imply there's no plan to build anything in the immediate term. Should give us plenty of time to blow things out of proportion.

Yes...............lt was a little girl who was standing on the small steps there.

according to the NY Times archive, two women in a car were killed, and a row of parked cars was struck. no mention of a building being hit, or of a girl being killed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/12/nyregion/no-headline-078840.html

I'm pretty sure this parcel is designated as Redevelopment. The rendition looks like a sell for a fool from New York seeking suburbia. Density, stick it in there.

ml1 said:
according to the NY Times archive, two women in a car were killed, and a row of parked cars was struck. no mention of a building being hit, or of a girl being killed.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/12/nyregion/no-headline-078840.html

That was a different accident. I remember the little girl being killed but not when. JerseyJack and I passed by right after it happened.

I think of it EVERY time I pass that corner...

ctrzaska said:

cramer said:

ctrzaska said:
That's an understatement. So is this a Rehab or Redev zone (assume one or the other but I honestly can't recall)?

It's not in the redevelopment area, hence it's in the rehabilitation area.

I suppose that's good then

I was mistaken. The property is in the redevelopment zone.

http://www.southorange.org/development.asp?project=13

eta - I was basing my answer on a post that I wrote many years ago saying that I was surprised that Saiyd hadn't asked for a PILOT. Someone responded that the property was not in the redevelopment zone. I looked at the maps of the redevelopment zone on the Village website as well as the above link and they show the property being in the redevelopment zone.

Scully said:

ml1 said:
according to the NY Times archive, two women in a car were killed, and a row of parked cars was struck. no mention of a building being hit, or of a girl being killed.
http://www.nytimes.com/1982/08/12/nyregion/no-headline-078840.html

That was a different accident. I remember the little girl being killed but not when. JerseyJack and I passed by right after it happened.
I think of it EVERY time I pass that corner...

There were 2 runaway truck accidents? wow.

2 women were stopped at a red light near Bunnie's. A truck came down SO Ave and lost its brakes. The women were killed.

mbaldwin said:

so_newstead said:
Looks like some people don't want to keep the small town charm of South Orange. There is no way this should even be seriously considered. It's way too tall and would bring way too many people. As it is I think we're already too densely populated at more than 5,000 people per square mile, most suburbs in New Jersey are around 3-4K per square mile.
Why not turn this into a commercial building with a parking lot, or add it to the NJT parking lot adjacent to this space.
Why must every developing add more population, why not something else?

I dunno, I've never considered the core of the village to be very charming at all -- particularly the empty lots. The residential neighborhoods outside the core -- packed full of charm, IMHO.
In general, I'm in favor of adding more residents to the village core. I think it will bring more life to the streets and support the local businesses. Plus, clustering denser housing around transit hubs is just smart growth.
I didn't move to SO because I wanted an acre of land. I specifically wanted the density. I like having my neighbors in close proximity. I like overhearing their conversations, smelling what they are grilling and seeing them come and go. The density is part of the charm that drew me to SO

I disagree about the charm but even if you don't think our downtown is charming how would adding a building like this make it more charming?

How would adding a Sotheby's or Kidville with a parking lot(or any other business that people would use, those are just two examples) make our downtown less charming than adding a huge building like that?

cramer said:

ctrzaska said:

cramer said:

ctrzaska said:
That's an understatement. So is this a Rehab or Redev zone (assume one or the other but I honestly can't recall)?

It's not in the redevelopment area, hence it's in the rehabilitation area.

I suppose that's good then

I was mistaken. The property is in the redevelopment zone.
http://www.southorange.org/development.asp?project=13

eta - I was basing my answer on a post that I wrote many years ago saying that I was surprised that Saiyd hadn't asked for a PILOT. Someone responded that the property was not in the redevelopment zone. I looked at the maps of the redevelopment zone on the Village website as well as the above link and they show the property being in the redevelopment zone.

That makes more sense. Which, of course, makes it less good for the BOE crowd but a small (and extended)windfall for SO.

If you want to see the photo of the 'run away truck' mahaim go to the South Orange Frame shop. They have the photo that was taken at the time. Boy what a mess that was!

so_newstead said:

mbaldwin said:

so_newstead said:
Looks like some people don't want to keep the small town charm of South Orange. There is no way this should even be seriously considered. It's way too tall and would bring way too many people. As it is I think we're already too densely populated at more than 5,000 people per square mile, most suburbs in New Jersey are around 3-4K per square mile.
Why not turn this into a commercial building with a parking lot, or add it to the NJT parking lot adjacent to this space.
Why must every developing add more population, why not something else?

I dunno, I've never considered the core of the village to be very charming at all -- particularly the empty lots. The residential neighborhoods outside the core -- packed full of charm, IMHO.
In general, I'm in favor of adding more residents to the village core. I think it will bring more life to the streets and support the local businesses. Plus, clustering denser housing around transit hubs is just smart growth.
I didn't move to SO because I wanted an acre of land. I specifically wanted the density. I like having my neighbors in close proximity. I like overhearing their conversations, smelling what they are grilling and seeing them come and go. The density is part of the charm that drew me to SO

I disagree about the charm but even if you don't think our downtown is charming how would adding a building like this make it more charming?
How would adding a Sotheby's or Kidville with a parking lot(or any other business that people would use, those are just two examples) make our downtown less charming than adding a huge building like that?

I never said adding a building would make it more charming. Adding more density to the core will make for a stronger business district with more street life, which I think is appealing. Our downtown core is at the intersection of two very busy county roads, so I don't think true charm is ever in the cards for us. I do think we can build a base of strong and attractive businesses and residents that will give us a more vibrant, bustling and polished core.

I like it for that corner. Extending downtown west, increasing density near transit and adding modern retail is totally cool with me!

apple44 said:
I appreciate that Ayuso is investing in S.O. However I'm concerned that he doesn't have an eye for design. The Avenue building is interesting, looks like 3rd/Valley will be (both from other developers). The Gateway building and his new proposal seem more vanilla.

I used to get a good feeling looking up at the Gateway while it was under construction; now that it's complete with that faux stone and rectangular driveway opening? Not so much.

The best I can say about the Gateway is that it isn't as bad as what would have been built at that site from the 1950s-1990s and that the retail spaces have high ceilings. Overall, I agree that the Avenue and 3rd+Valley are much nicer looking buildings than the Gateway. Even the Gateway's logo is unappealing.

The newer building has arched openings for the driveways and tries to be more colorful than the Gateway, but I hope that the planning board and BOT insist on better materials.

I think it would be better for the residents to have the main entrance on South Orange Avenue, since residents who leave on foot will want to go to the rest of downtown, especially the train station. Let the corner space be retail.

The only thing that I don't like about 3rd+Valley is that the main entrance is on Valley Street and not 3rd Street. The 3rd street entrance is just a side door.

I was IN the village at the time the truck took out all the cars, damaged buildings, killed the two women. They had pulled out of Beifus in front of the truck. His horn and brakes didn't work because he had lost his air pressure. It was quite unbelievable. Like a movie set.

I echo JBennet's and apple44's comments about Ayuso, the Gateway and the need for the Planning Board and BOT to do a much better job on ensuring high quality materials and design. The Gateway has lots of cheap, poorly designed detailing.

I also think the proposed new building's height may be a problem. If you're coming down SOA from the west, the roof line of the Gateway (which some complain is too tall), actually lines up well with the roof lines of the apartment building on corner of N. Ridgewood & SOA, the telephone building and the taller structures on the east side of the train tressel.

The proposed building - Gateway II - appears to be significantly taller. I think you can get away with going one floor higher - with a setback - to allow for some economies of scale to the developer, but Gateway II appears to go up 2-3 more stories.

michaelgoldberg said:
Looks like a proposed rendering for SO Ave/Church St is online:
http://eeaindustries.com/projects/the-gateway-ii/

The proposed rendering for Gateway II is no longer on the EEA industries website.

Interesting. Good thing someone snapped a screenshot.

Somethingz_Fishy said:
I don't believe this has been approved by the BOT or the Planning Board. Heck, I don't know that it's even been brought to them yet. The whole thing seems pretty premature.

So someone found an outdated rendering that the developer isn't even using, and posts it here to try to get people riled up. Unfortunately, we are tired of it and are willing to wait to see what is proposed before getting bent out of shape. I think that about sums it up.