General Category > Hackensack Discussion

Area in need of Rehabilitation

<< < (2/65) > >>

Editor:
Designing Elements for a Hackensack Rehabilitation Project
Downtown Hackensack could get an upgrade in the future
By Joseph Dunsay
September 16, 2011

In its summer issue, the Hackensack Community Link reported that the Hackensack Planning Board considers downtown Hackensack an Area in Need of Rehabilitation. The Hackensack Mayor approved their recommendation. This designation could lead to the transformation of the blocks around Main Street from University Plaza Drive to Essex Street.

A large portion of this area is currently parking lots. Most of the buildings range from 1 to 5 stories with a few structures rising above the rest. Landowners in downtown Hackensack may want to borrow ideas from the construction in downtown Jersey City over the past decade.

Jersey City reinvented the Newport and Exchange Place neighborhoods to accommodate more commercial and residential space. New high-rises punctuate the sky, freeing up land for plazas and parks. These slender buildings echo the proportions of the skyscrapers across the Hudson. Their staggered arrangement allows a viewer to admire each one individually from a close range, but they combine to form a pleasing skyline from a distance.

Generous setbacks ensure that ample sunlight reaches the ground in downtown Jersey City. Pocket parks and private landscaping fill the area with plants. A walkway along the Hudson River provides an alternative to automobile traffic. Curved streets discourage through traffic to make the area a destination rather than a corridor. The Path and light rail provide local mass transit while the Hoboken train and bus terminals link the area to the rest of the state. Low-rise parking garages keep parked cars off the street.

Downtown Hackensack benefits from having two train stations, a bus terminal, and several bus lines. It has the potential to grow like downtown Jersey City. Of course, the property owners in the neighborhood should have the final say on any changes to their land, but here are a few humble suggestions for the area.

First, the town could remake the roads. River Road would remain the same and serve as a beltway. Main Street would turn to feed directly into State Street at the intersection with Ward Street. State Street would be enlarged to handle three lanes of traffic in each direction and it would undulate so that only people headed downtown would want to use it. Between Ward Street and Essex Street the old Main Street would become a pedestrian and cyclist pathway that connects to the Johnson Park pathway.

Making the jump to high-rise construction would free up space in downtown Hackensack. The taller buildings currently there could be preserved. Replacing shorter buildings with lean high-rises and parking lots with parking garages would make new pocket parks possible. Hackensack need not dictate the details of these new buildings. If the town raises the high limit, mandates setbacks, and establishes a floor to area ratio like in Fort Lee, developers are sure to build structures that are appropriate to the area. The rebuilt business district would be a boon to Bergen County.

just watching:
I had suggested something similar back in early 2007, to make most of Main Street in the middle of the downtown a pedestrian/bicycle corridor.  I'm shocked to see it in print today.

At the time I suggested that Main Street would be auto-free and bus-free from Court Street to Camden Street, and to make this happen by diverting traffic entering Main Street at the Court House onto Moore Street.  Moore Street would be one-way northbound, and then bending into Camden Street one-way westbound, and finally returning to Main Street one-way northbound at the library.

If I were to dust off that proposal today, I would suggest instead that the return of traffic to Main Street could instead happen at Berry Street, since the Oratam Field Club is now known to be closing down. Moore Street could be punched through one more block north.  The old Main Street could be completely retrofitted, with a huge area along the left and right sides of the street for outdoor cafes. There would be places for shade trees and lamps, benches, and other points of interest.  And straight down the middle would be a wide sidewalk that can handle a fire truck or ambulance (in a local emergency, not to reach emergencies on other streets).

The entire block bounded by Main Street, Berry Street, Passaic Street, and River Street can be redeveloped along with the 7-acre Ford-Mazda property. Imagine the pedestrian extension of Main Street extending from the current corner of Main Street and Berry Street straight to the Hackensack River somewhere near the northern side of the Ford-Mazda property. That would be a direct connection to the Waterfront Walkway. It would have to arch over River Street, but it could be done. Look at map to envision it. And there would be shops and stores, offices, and residential towers, lining the entire length. Lets throw in a name-brand Hotel, like a Marriott, why not.  If you want to make downtown Hackensack into something incredible, almost a tourist destination, that's how it can be done.

This proposal would mean that Main Street north of Berry Street would still be for automobiles, but I just cannot envision a viable street network any other way.

I would also require that the redevelopment of the 30-acre Record Campus include the block bounded by Moore Street, Mercer Street, River Street, and the Bus Terminal, along with Tucci's dead bank building at Main and Mercer.  Tucci's been sitting on it for long enough. At some point he loses the right of ownership. Again with a direct pedestrian connection arching over River Street to link up the 30 acres of new development and the riverfront with the center of the downtown.

As for State Street become 3 lanes each way, and undulating, I don't get that part at all.  I don't see the reason to lose all the parking along State Street, and losing the parking would turn it into a high-speed road dangerous to pedestrians.

I also think that the biggest obstacle would be getting the merchants and the Upper Main Street Alliance to endorse any version of Main Street becoming a pedestrian street.  Many are still fixated on having it become a 2-way street. Having it become zero-way and losing all the parking spots along the Street is the furthest thing from their minds.

Editor:
Walkable urbanism, the new trend
Sunday, March 11, 2012
BY CHRIS LEINBERGER
The Record

Singles and childless couples are the emerging household types of the future.


Walkable urbanism, suburban-style: architect's rendering of Westmont, under construction on the Curtiss-Wright site in Wood-Ridge.



Chris Leinberger is president of LOCUS, a coalition of real estate developers and investors advocating for sustainable environments in metropolitan areas. He is also a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institute. It was first published by New Jersey Future, a statewide smart-growth land use policy organization.

A 2008 SURVEY found that 77 percent of millennials – the generation of 20-somethings – want to live where they are "close to each other, to services, to places to meet and to work, and they would rather walk than drive."

New Jersey, with its extensive rail transit network and "streetcar suburbs" with pedestrian-friendly downtowns that surround many of their stations, is well-poised to take advantage of the rise in demand for this walkable urbanism.

New Jersey is an anomaly among the 50 states in that it is highly urbanized yet lacks a major center city to claim as its own. The state's homegrown urban centers all live in the shadows of their much larger neighbors, New York and Philadelphia. In fact, New Jersey is widely perceived as consisting mainly of suburbs serving these two cities, even if many of its small towns do not fit the low-density, single-use stereotype of a "suburb."

The distinction, however, between city and suburb as the defining paradigm for describing the built environment is giving way to a new dichotomy: walkable urbanism versus drivable sub-urbanism. New Jersey is well positioned to take advantage of this change.

Today, too many walkable urban projects are derailed by lack of zoning, lengthy approval processes and local resident opposition. The majority of those who oppose such projects are often the very residents who would benefit the most from increased walkable urbanism, and at no cost to themselves.

The pent-up demand for walkable urbanism today is the result of a number of factors, but is broadly a story of demographics. Millennials, and their parents in the baby boom generation, make up more than half of the country's population and both are in transition. Baby boomers are now empty-nesters and will soon become retirees, and are likely to downsize their housing as they age. Studies show that millennials — those just graduating from college and starting out in life — greatly prefer the characteristics of urban living, including proximity to friends and events, nightlife and not needing a car, to those of the drivable suburbs where many of them grew up. Millennials are delaying marriage and family, something that, when paired with the empty-nester baby boomers, is creating a boom of childless households. Singles and childless couples are the emerging household type of the future, a trend that is already having a profound effect on the built environment and will continue to do so for decades to come.

To see the rise of walkable urbanism in action, one need look no further than down the Northeast Corridor to the Washington, D.C., metro region. Thirty years ago, when the region's Metro system was in its infancy, Washington's suburbs looked like the suburbs of any other car-oriented metro area. But since then, places like Silver Spring and Bethesda, Md., and the Carlyle and Reston town centers in Virginia, have transformed from auto-oriented suburbs into walkable communities, mixing shops, restaurants, services and a variety of housing types within walking distance of each other. In addition to functioning as local centers, nearly all of these places are anchored by rail transit, offering access to jobs, culture and entertainment in the larger hub of Washington.

Perhaps the most remarkable transition has been in the Ballston-Rosslyn corridor in Arlington County, an inner suburban county with a population of 208,000. There, thanks to a conscious policy of concentrated growth around Metrorail stations, what was once a fading, auto-oriented suburb has boomed to a point where the walkable urban parts of the county, representing 10 percent of the county's land, now account for more than 50 percent of the county's tax revenue. Moreover, the influx of singles and childless couples, who pay school taxes but have few children, have contributed to making Arlington's public schools among the best in the country. And surprisingly, while residential densities have doubled along the corridor since 1985, absolute traffic counts have actually gone down, as more people are able to get around by transit, biking and, most important, walking.

Those living in existing single-family housing within walking distance of these new urbanized places in Arlington have also seen their quality of life improve, as evidenced by the premiums, often 80 percent to 100 percent, in the values of their homes over single-family housing in Arlington that is not within walking distance of urban amenities. These residents have access to both the suburban environment they desire and walking convenience to great urbanism – the best of both worlds.

Like Arlington, New Jersey has the right mix of assets to benefit from the pent-up demand for walkable urbanism, including an extensive transit system and proximity to a major city – in fact, two major cities. But unlike Arlington, most New Jersey municipalities have not capitalized on the potential benefits of these trends by providing a supportive development climate around rail transit stations.

There are people all across New Jersey who want to live in or close to walkable urban places, and plenty of developers who want to create them. Now it's up to the planners, neighbors, regulators, policy makers and others to let them do it.

just watching:
There are two issues with this. (1) The first is to make the new zoning standards ONLY for those areas.  Not apply them to other parts of Hackensack, either by zoning or by variance.

(2) The second is to write the new zoning criteria in such a way as to prevent construction of tiny low-end units. Those who follow zoning and planning in Hackensack will note that every multi-unit building completed from 1989 onwards have been large units, with large room sizes, and selling or renting for higher amounts.  That was because of the change from 1.5 to 2.1 parking spaces per unit, and the new 15-foot unpaved side yards.  The impact of those changes meant that the number of units that could be built was determined by the number of parking spaces that could be built onsite, NOT by building height, building setback, or other such criteria.  So if a developer could only provide 42 parking spots, that meant 20 units.  It became economical to build larger and much nicer units. The first building built under that criteria was 60 Moonachie Road. Other projects with larger units include State and Clay, State & Central, Polifly & Kaplan, First St just north of Arena Diner, the new building on Linden Street, and a few others.

In contrast, most of the mid-rise buildings built up until the mid-80's building boom are tiny units.  Tiny kitchens, tiny bedrooms with tiny closets. "New construction" at the time, but not holding their real estate value in the long run, and really not helping Hackensack.  For instance, the cluster of four buildings on the north side of Union Street at Sussex.  Also the two "Aztec" buildings, one on the lowest block of Euclid, one on Oak St a few blocks from Route 4.  In fact, the whole cluster around Jefferson Street. These units were built small because developers could pack as many units as possible onto a property.  PARKING wasn't the limiting factor. 50 small units selling at $100,000 each was more profitable than 30 spacious units selling for $135,000 each. Do the math. That's exactly what the builders were looking at.  So why build higher-end condominiums ? When the 2.1 parking space per unit criteria was adopted, there was no way to build 50 units on that same property because there was only room for parking to supply 30 units.  So if a developer has the choice to build 30 tiny units or 30 spacious units, they are going to build 30 spacious units.  Those who were pushing for the zoning changes in December 1987 had no clue whatsoever that this would be the impact, all people were thinking about was preventing street parking crisis and adding some green space (not to have parking lots abutting more parking lots, the sea-of-asphalt effect around Jefferson Street).  What actually happened was a big surprise to everyone. Those who toured new buildings saw the larger units and were happy. 

The same was true for rentals, and that's how Park Street was trashed with 333 Park Street (built 1985) and 370 Park Street (built 1975). Those were all tiny apartments with high turnover rates, and low rents. Those buildings are little better than housing projects. Had 370 Park Street been higher-end housing, that would have strengthened that neighborhood at a key time in its' history.

Do we want to return to building tiny units with tiny kitchens that look like walk-in closets (aka: Quail Heights and other Swensen Construction buildings), with 90 square foot bedrooms and without walk-in bedroom closets ?  That's not progress, that's not going to help Hackensack. Fortunately Swensen is a really good landlord or their buildings would be hell-holes.

So with this lesson in mind, if there are any new zoning criteria coming, somehow Hackensack has to make sure that tiny little units aren't constructed.  I was told once, many years ago, that the city could theoretically set minimum sizes for units, or for rooms inside units such as bedrooms, kitchens, etc.  Unsure if this can be done through zoning or health codes.  Any new criteria needs to be analyzed with an eye towards QUALITY construction, not tiny little units.

Editor:
Hackensack officials unveil Main Street redevelopment plan
Wednesday April 18, 2012, 10:01 PM
BY REBECCA D. O'BRIEN
STAFF WRITER
The Record

HACKENSACK — City officials on Wednesday night embarked on the latest attempt to rehabilitate Main Street, which has languished in recent years.

The rehabilitation would “promote the creation of a livable and real downtown district,” said Francis Reiner, a planner who presented the plan at a City Council meeting Wednesday.

Comprising 163 acres, 39 city blocks and 389 properties centered on the city’s Main Street corridor, the proposal envisions improved infrastructure, roads and sidewalks, new businesses, residences and open space.

Mayor Jorge Meneses said the city is on the cusp of greater things.

“What gives me the confidence, and even cockiness, to say this is the fact that we have this plan, and the tools to move our city into the future,” Meneses said. “We don’t really have an alternative. We either make this work or our beloved city will go down the drain.”

The council unanimously approved the resolution in support of the plan.

In a recent interview, Reiner said Hackensack — the Bergen County seat, home to Hackensack University Medical Center and ample public transportation — is ideally positioned for a revival, but restrictive zoning had inhibited growth.

“This document really opens that up and takes away the component that was holding back development,” Reiner said.

Staff Writer Stephanie Akin contributed to this article. Email: obrien@northjersey.com

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page