Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Hackensack Discussion / Re: The Holman/Waypoint project (435 Main St)
« Last post by irons35 on Yesterday at 10:33:05 PM »
I would hope they completely vacated the store during the entire time that any structural members were being demolished higher than the height of the store.   There was an incident in Philadelphia in 2012 where 7 people were killed because a contractor did not empty the adjoining structure, and the wall went thru the roof... 
2
Hackensack Discussion / Re: The Holman/Waypoint project (435 Main St)
« Last post by BLeafe on Yesterday at 04:41:34 PM »
I wondered about that too, because the Family Dollar cashier is in that nearest corner, but subsequent photos from my roof showed no bricks or other debris on the Familly Dollar roof. There was a cop stationed at Main and Maple, so maybe he cleared them from that corner at that moment................or............maybe not.



3
Hackensack Discussion / Re: The Holman/Waypoint project (435 Main St)
« Last post by irons35 on Yesterday at 04:12:44 PM »
image 6339... who the hell allowed them to take down that wall like that, with an occupied building directly against it. 
4
Hackensack Discussion / Re: The Holman/Waypoint project (435 Main St)
« Last post by Homer Jones on Yesterday at 03:06:08 PM »
Perhaps Mr. Editor can explain why the amenity sentence was included in this promotional piece. Did the planning board incorporate this caveat with their approval?
5
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Signs around the city
« Last post by BLeafe on Yesterday at 01:00:02 PM »
If this was done by a vehicle on Union St, it would be leaning to either the right or left. If the vehicle was on one-way Ward St, it would be leaning backward.

So how..................?



6
Hackensack Discussion / Re: The Holman/Waypoint project (435 Main St)
« Last post by ericmartindale on Yesterday at 04:50:23 AM »
I notice something on the city's promotion of the project that will infuriate the future tenants of this complex. And that is: "Amenity Space that may be converted to retail". I can tell you from being a tenant leader in Newark for 10 years that this is WAY BEYOND extremely objectionable. The builder is going to have some kind of temporary amenity, perhaps a fitness center or an oversized luxurious lobby, in order to lure in all the tenants at high rent, and then as soon as the building is filled and they have great rent roll coming in, they are going to screw the tenants and remove that amenity that they treasure. And then the tenants don't get a rent reduction for the loss. It's really VERY obnoxious and objectionable for a builder to do this. The city Zoning and Planning Boards should never allow or encourage that, and in fact, the reverse should be true. Approvals for construction should REQUIRE that amenities remain. And if a builder provides security guards in the lobby, they should be required to keep them. The most tremendous tenant movement in Newark all started with amenity reduction, and it culminated with the city council being pressured to adopt the strongest rent control ordinance in the United States.
8
Hackensack Discussion / Re: The Holman/Waypoint project (435 Main St)
« Last post by vsasson on December 14, 2018, 05:46:15 PM »
Do you know anything about the building? I tried to reach Holman Moving, but the company has been sold.

https://www.instagram.com/p/BrXo2D3H4_f/
9
Photography...........the way I see it (Moderated by BLeafe) / Warning from NJ Transit
« Last post by BLeafe on December 14, 2018, 03:07:39 PM »
Especially if you're in the Hackensack Market area:

(click to enlarge)


10
If I had to guess, I'd say it's because all of these projects are in the rehabilitation zone declared by the city in 2011 (see http://www.hackensacknow.org/index.php/topic,2008.0.html).

Perhaps the Editor can flesh that out.



Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10