Development in South Orange

Looks like the first step of two significant development projects are being given the green light at Monday's BOT Meeting:

One is a portion of Orange Lawn and one appears to be a large portion of 4th St

http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=138969&dbid=0

http://southorange.no-ip.org/WebLink8/DocView.aspx?id=138970&dbid=0

Interesting. Are there proposals anywhere?

And the overdevelopment of SO continues, along with the destruction of its character.

bettyd said:
And the overdevelopment of SO continues, along with the destruction of its character.

+1

Are the fourth street parcels on the west side of Valley?

mbaldwin said:
Are the fourth street parcels on the west side of Valley?

According to the tax map, it APPEARS to be both sides of 4th street from Valley St to the train tracks.

bettyd said:
And the overdevelopment of SO continues, along with the destruction of its character.

Couldn't agree more. It wont be long before they change the name to The City of South Orange. Unbelievable.

The character of Fourth Street presented without comment.

badscooter said:

bettyd said:
And the overdevelopment of SO continues, along with the destruction of its character.

Couldn't agree more. It wont be long before they change the name to The City of South Orange. Unbelievable.

^This. I no longer see our town as a "village."

dave said:
The character of Fourth Street presented without comment.

Exactly. Also looks like this area is designated as "Planned Retail Development" on the master plan, so no surprises that it would be developed for residential use.

As I've said before, I don't think our village downtown is particularly charming. The residential neighborhood have LOADS of charm. My hope is that by bringing more residents to the village core that we attract more vibrant businesses / street life and end up with a more lively village.

mbaldwin said:

dave said:
The character of Fourth Street presented without comment.

Exactly. Also looks like this area is designated as "Planned Retail Development" on the master plan, so no surprises that it would be developed for residential use.
As I've said before, I don't think our village downtown is particularly charming. The residential neighborhood have LOADS of charm. My hope is that by bringing more residents to the village core that we attract more vibrant businesses / street life and end up with a more lively village.

+1.5

mbaldwin said:

dave said:
The character of Fourth Street presented without comment.

Exactly. Also looks like this area is designated as "Planned Retail Development" on the master plan, so no surprises that it would be developed for residential use.
As I've said before, I don't think our village downtown is particularly charming. The residential neighborhood have LOADS of charm. My hope is that by bringing more residents to the village core that we attract more vibrant businesses / street life and end up with a more lively village.

Our city is pretty lively now. Living here over 20 years, I've seen the changes, especially around SO train station which was developed from a dilapidated eye-sore to a bustling and attractive development of businesses. How many residential properties needs to be built in a less than square mile? How much taxes (property) will you collect from renters from luxury rental properties? Oh wait; none! How about the resident home owners who live in close proximity of all these residential rentals? Let's say, it could become a mini Hoboken. Lord knows the congestion when commuting to the city 5 days a week.

The picture Dave showed above could be developed into Town homes or condos, where the city can collect taxes. Years ago, they tried to develop affordable housing up in Newstead which ended in a revolt of petitions, protests and meetings that killed that proposal. To me the more residential renting properties, the more we look like a mini White Plains.

Folks leasing their apartments do pay property taxes through the rent payments. It's not a direct payment to the village, but the landlord pays property taxes.

phenixrising said:

mbaldwin said:

dave said:
The character of Fourth Street presented without comment.

Exactly. Also looks like this area is designated as "Planned Retail Development" on the master plan, so no surprises that it would be developed for residential use.
As I've said before, I don't think our village downtown is particularly charming. The residential neighborhood have LOADS of charm. My hope is that by bringing more residents to the village core that we attract more vibrant businesses / street life and end up with a more lively village.

Our city is pretty lively now. Living here over 20 years, I've seen the changes, especially around SO train station which was developed from a dilapidated eye-sore to a bustling and attractive development of businesses. How many residential properties needs to be built in a less than square mile? How much taxes (property) will you collect from renters from luxury rental properties? Oh wait; none! How about the resident home owners who live in close proximity of all these residential rentals? Let's say, it could become a mini Hoboken. Lord knows the congestion when commuting to the city 5 days a week.
The picture Dave showed above could be developed into Town homes or condos, where the city can collect taxes. Years ago, they tried to develop affordable housing up in Newstead which ended in a revolt of petitions, protests and meetings that killed that proposal. To me the more residential renting properties, the more we look like a mini White Plains.

"Affordable housing" in South Orange has become a thing of the past.

Were I to lose the month-to-month lease on the apartment I live in, I could no longer afford to live here -- even though I've lived in these towns for 25 years and owned a house here for 20.

I feel the change here so acutely because this is not the first time I've witnessed the kind of transition that is being put in motion. The town I grew up in was an upper-middle class, eclectic, artsy, historic and truly beautiful NYC-commuter town.

Now, after adding a parking deck downtown, and slowly tearing down dozens and dozens of lovely homes (colonials, ranches, converted barns and pre-revolutionary gems -- in some cases just to to give newly-rich newcomers a view of the water) to make room for McMansions with 3 or 4 car garages, the charm of that town is gone. The locally-owned businesses on the 3-block strip of Main St have been replaced by luxury chains, and "downtown" is more like an open-air Short Hills Mall.

It still attracts many people to move there, but not the mix of people who made the town the treasure that it was.

As I walk around the streets of these two towns, and enjoy the variety of shopping and dining opportunities, I look around at the people I pass on the street (many of whom I know well) and think, "Are these the kind of people who can afford to pay $4,000 a month for an apartment?", and I begin to say goodbye to another "home town".

I'm not opposed to development. I think more downtown residents will help us get more diverse stores in town, and decrease the number of cars on the road. I have, however, seen the plan proposed for the corner of fourth and valley, in the small parking lot, and I don't like it. The developer wants way too many variances and is trying to shoehorn too much onto the parcel.

Is this a reference to South Orange Avenue? Luxury chains?

Juniemoon said:
The locally-owned businesses on the 3-block strip of Main St have been replaced by luxury chains, and "downtown" is more like an open-air Short Hills Mall.

FilmCarp - The plan that you are referring to is the plan that was presented to the Planning Board at the most recent PB meeting. That's on the eastern side of Valley St. The location of the site of the conditional redeveloper's agreement being discussed here is for the west side of Valley.

eta - 184 Valley St. is the address of the proposed development recently presented to the Planning Board.

Seems to be that narrow parking lot full of semi-abandoned cars.

cramer said:
FilmCarp - The plan that you are referring to is the plan that was presented to the Planning Board at the most recent PB meeting. That's on the eastern side of Valley St. The location of the site of the conditional redeveloper's agreement being discussed here is for the west side of Valley.
eta - 184 Valley St. is the address of the proposed development recently presented to the Planning Board.

According to the tax map, the new resolution seems to be for the following addresses:

209 VALLEY STREET

16 FOURTH ST

1-7 FOURTH STREET

13 FOURTH ST

15 FOURTH STREET

apple44 said:
Is this a reference to South Orange Avenue? Luxury chains?

Juniemoon said:
The locally-owned businesses on the 3-block strip of Main St have been replaced by luxury chains, and "downtown" is more like an open-air Short Hills Mall.

No, it's actually what I saw the downtown in my CT home town turn into. In a town once known as an "artist's and writer's colony", where there was once an independent book shop, record store, ice cream parlor, pizza place, lighting store, Chinese restaurant, a deli, doctor's offices, an independent pharmacy and independent gift shops ... is now a strip that includes Banana Republic, Pottery Barn, Sunglass Hut, Patagonia, Williams Sonoma, day spas, a high-end 'spinning studio", a "blow-out" salon, and a lot of other places where I could never afford to shop.

The artists and writers have been replaced by Wall St. bankers and corporate financiers ... and the "development" continues.....

We will also be discussing the Orange Lawn fiasco which snuggles right into one of the prettiest areas of South Orange. Quite a few of the nearby residents are very unhappy about that development. Wonder if those new residents will be driving to work or are planning on taking the jitney to Midtown Direct which is extremely crowded according to a recent TH meeting.

The midtown direct is crowded and will get more so. But living within walking distance of a train is far better for the whole area, region, and planet than building more houses where everyone has to drive to work. Infill development is a good thing. As long as local zoning is enforced equally with only modest variances we are going to have to accept that development comes to desirable areas.

We could have hoped that train service would increase to meet demand, but half or more of the state voted for Christie, so that idea is shot.

At the back of the photo I posted above is what was always the cornerstone of our beautiful downtown where I grew up in CT: the YMCA. (That's right ... it was the "Y"!!!! Pic below)

Right now it's being incorporated into a new development and will become the new home of a 40,000 sq foot "Anthropologie". (The "other" Anthropologie in town is only 7,000 sq ft.)

Also attaching the developer's rendering of what the new building is supposed to look like. If we take 3rd and Valley as an example of the difference between a developer's rendering and reality, it probably won't look like this.

The building to the right -- what used to be the local Westport Bank & Trust -- is the new Patagonia.

South Orange has a lot to learn from how development changed Westport, CT.

I'm having trouble crying for the Westport YMCA, since it just moved into an impressive new facility on 32 acres, with a $40 million dollar endowment gift.

Sounds like a win for the community even if it messes with your nostalgia.

(Note that I'm a big believer in affordable housing so that we can maintain economic diversity, and that I'm against any PILOTs for residences

The Westport YMCA had been wanting to move for years.

http://www.westportnow.com/index.php?/v2/comments/westport_ymca_announces_architect_details_of_mahackeno_move/

Regardless of where it is and where it wanted to be ... now there will be a 40,000 sq ft Anthropologie (along with a lot of other golden-crusted retail and living space) in its place.

Some people love it -- I don't argue that.

It's the increasing difficulty of finding places like the "artist & writers' colony" that Westport once was that make it sad to watch it happen here.

By the time Anthropologie comes to downtown S.O., I will have had to move to some place I can afford to live.

susan1014 said:

(Note that I'm a big believer in affordable housing so that we can maintain economic diversity, and that I'm against any PILOTs for residences

PILOTS are what we're getting, you can be sure of that.

eta: Please direct me to any affordable housing in this town -- for someone on a fixed income and that allows pets -- when you find it.

Juniemoon said:
.
By the time Anthropologie comes to downtown S.O., I will have had to move to some place I can afford to live.

I didn't realize this was the definition of over-gentrification, but apparently there is a Facebook group to make this happen:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1440494009582052/

If an Anthropologie opened in South Orange, a lot of people would be happy, particularly if it opened in the Blockbuster space. One of the main complaints that I heard expressed at an election meet and great was the lack of new businesses in town. An Anthropologie has been on the "wish list" several times when the question has been asked on MOL about what businesses people would like to see open in South Orange.

Juniemoon - I don't think that this will help you, but 10%, or 25 of the units at Third/Valley are "affordable." Under the new rules, a town can't let a developer satisfy its affordable housing requirement by making an affordable housing contribution to another town. I don't know what "affordable" means in terms of actual dollars.

They CAN make one to SO, however.