Toomey Site plans - Meeting June 18th at 7:30pm
ml1 said:
the photos above are not the designs under review. And whether people like the design or not, there are a few facts that people might want to consider. The developer and the architects are local, so unlike other projects in the area, they are not "carpetbaggers" with no vested interest in our town. And the architects are not a bunch of hacks doing cookie cutter generic designs. They have actually been involved in a number of fairly high profile developments in NYC.
Now that doesn't mean all people should like the designs, but it does mean this is the type of project many people have been saying all along that Maplewood "deserves." Local developer and architect, doing a unique design for the property.
A unique design that was enabled by the TC which changed the ordinance.
A very developer-friendly TC.
yahooyahoo said:
A unique design that was enabled by the TC which changed the ordinance.
A very developer-friendly TC.
is this a bad thing? Personally, I feel like the development of a disused service station location in the village is a good thing.
yahooyahoo said:
ml1 said:A unique design that was enabled by the TC which changed the ordinance.
the photos above are not the designs under review. And whether people like the design or not, there are a few facts that people might want to consider. The developer and the architects are local, so unlike other projects in the area, they are not "carpetbaggers" with no vested interest in our town. And the architects are not a bunch of hacks doing cookie cutter generic designs. They have actually been involved in a number of fairly high profile developments in NYC.
Now that doesn't mean all people should like the designs, but it does mean this is the type of project many people have been saying all along that Maplewood "deserves." Local developer and architect, doing a unique design for the property.
A very developer-friendly TC.
"Developer friendly"?
How about "housing friendly"? How about "inclusive"?
NIMBYs like to talk about larger & taller apartments as being motivated by "developer greed" as a way of obscuring to themselves and perhaps others what apartment buildings actually are, which is housing.
Runner_Guy said:
yahooyahoo said:"Developer friendly"?
ml1 said:A unique design that was enabled by the TC which changed the ordinance.
the photos above are not the designs under review. And whether people like the design or not, there are a few facts that people might want to consider. The developer and the architects are local, so unlike other projects in the area, they are not "carpetbaggers" with no vested interest in our town. And the architects are not a bunch of hacks doing cookie cutter generic designs. They have actually been involved in a number of fairly high profile developments in NYC.
Now that doesn't mean all people should like the designs, but it does mean this is the type of project many people have been saying all along that Maplewood "deserves." Local developer and architect, doing a unique design for the property.
A very developer-friendly TC.
How about "housing friendly"? How about "inclusive"?
NIMBYs like to talk about larger & taller apartments as being motivated by "developer greed" as a way of obscuring to themselves and perhaps others what apartment buildings actually are, which is housing.
Inclusive? Let's wait to see how much the rent will be, then let's discuss inclusive.
The old post office site is super inclusive for wealthy people.
What would be an economically viable alternative for the site? I don't have a vested interest in what goes there. I'd be happy with anything other than a old, decaying obsolete building.
I don't think there are many alternatives that private investors would be willing to try, but we shouldn't delude ourselves and call this an inclusive option.
Anyone know why this meeting was scheduled for the same day and time as the township committee meeting?
yahooyahoo said:
I don't think there are many alternatives that private investors would be willing to try, but we shouldn't delude ourselves and call this an inclusive option.
that wasn't me who called it inclusive. And I'm realistic enough to know that affordable housing isn't likely to be built on the most premium plots of land in town. But these apartments have tended to more inclusive of single adults and seniors than Maplewood's typical single family homes. Some of us see that as a good thing. Ymmv
yahooyahoo said:
Runner_Guy said:Inclusive? Let's wait to see how much the rent will be, then let's discuss inclusive.
yahooyahoo said:"Developer friendly"?
ml1 said:A unique design that was enabled by the TC which changed the ordinance.
the photos above are not the designs under review. And whether people like the design or not, there are a few facts that people might want to consider. The developer and the architects are local, so unlike other projects in the area, they are not "carpetbaggers" with no vested interest in our town. And the architects are not a bunch of hacks doing cookie cutter generic designs. They have actually been involved in a number of fairly high profile developments in NYC.
Now that doesn't mean all people should like the designs, but it does mean this is the type of project many people have been saying all along that Maplewood "deserves." Local developer and architect, doing a unique design for the property.
A very developer-friendly TC.
How about "housing friendly"? How about "inclusive"?
NIMBYs like to talk about larger & taller apartments as being motivated by "developer greed" as a way of obscuring to themselves and perhaps others what apartment buildings actually are, which is housing.
The old post office site is super inclusive for wealthy people.
I think housing that is suitable for people without children counts as a form of inclusion, but if your definition of inclusion only pertains to low-income persons, then even market-rate housing is critically important because it reduces displacement pressure and building market-rate apartments sets off a chain of moves that does open up apartments for low-income citizens.
Check out this research:
[Evan] Mast looked at 802 new multifamily developments across 12 central cities, from the “Texas doughnuts” of Dallas to luxury high-rises in New York City. Using commercial address data, he found out the moving history of the residents of these new units. The first round of moves are roughly what you might expect: Approximately 70 percent came from nearby neighborhoods with above-average incomes, with the remaining 30 percent moving from below-average neighborhoods. These aren’t exactly inspiring results for activists focused on helping households at the bottom of the market.
But when a household moves into a new unit, they initiate a kind of housing musical chairs by vacating their existing unit. A second household then moves into that unit, in turn vacating a third unit. For each new market-rate building, Mast follows this trail of movers back through six moves, tracking where residents are moving from, a process he calls the migration chain. By the sixth link of this chain, Mast finds that approximately half of the movers are moving out of census tracts with below-median incomes. As many as 20 percent of movers are coming from the poorest tracts in the city.
That's a bit of a stretch to imply $4000 one-bedroom apartments are helping lower income tenants via six degrees of separation.
With that logic, you can say that almost any economic event is good for low income people eventually.
yahooyahoo said:
That's a bit of a stretch to imply $4000 one-bedroom apartments are helping lower income tenants via six degrees of separation.
With that logic, you can say that almost any economic event is good for low income people eventually.
Try to think about the counterfactual.
What if an area with economic growth didn't build enough luxury apartments to keep up with the growth of the high-income population?
The demand for housing would still exist, but the high-income people who would have rented or bought those new apartments would be forced to rent or buy older apartments. Displacement would then be more intense.
Both of these scenarios assume demand is completely inelastic, which is simply untrue anywhere outside an undergraduate classroom or a neoconservative's head.
and one of the scenarios is pretty dubious regarding pricing. One bedroom rents at Clarus started at $2600. If there are one bedrooms going for $4K a month in this proposed building that would be pretty surprising.
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Maplewood Village Alliance Board will meet on Wednesday, September 4, 2019, beginning at 7:30 p.m. at The Woodland, 60 Woodland Road, Maplewood, New Jersey, in the Parlor (upstairs, street level) for the purpose of voting on the proposed building design for 104 Baker Street (Toomey’s), Maplewood, New Jersey.
PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that the architects and developers will present, questions and answer period will follow, then the Board will vote.
This meeting is an Open Public Meeting. Action will be taken.
Rentals
For Sale
Garage Sales
-
HUGE Rummage sale to benefit the Bloomfield High School Robotics Team Sale Date: Apr 27, 2024
More info
Advertisement
the photos above are not the designs under review. And whether people like the design or not, there are a few facts that people might want to consider. The developer and the architects are local, so unlike other projects in the area, they are not "carpetbaggers" with no vested interest in our town. And the architects are not a bunch of hacks doing cookie cutter generic designs. They have actually been involved in a number of fairly high profile developments in NYC and other locations around the country.
Now that doesn't mean all people should like the designs, but it does mean this is the type of project many people have been saying all along that Maplewood "deserves." Local developer and architect, doing a unique design for the property.