Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - just watching

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 62
46
Hackensack History / Re: Where is this?
« on: February 26, 2015, 07:41:04 PM »
There's more problems with this photo, that rule out the corner of Prospect and Passaic.  The trolley line went from Passaic Street to Franklin, which angles to the NW, and then west on Hamilton Place from the intersection of Franklin, Hamilton, and Prospect.

The photo couldn't be looking west on Passaic Street, because the burning building would be on the wrong side of Passaic Street. And it couldn't be looking east down Hamilton from Summit Ave.  There might be a very slight incline in the photo, but not enough to be that block of Hamilton Place, and then the building is a block over on Passiac Street.

47
Hackensack History / Re: Where is this?
« on: February 25, 2015, 08:59:34 PM »
The photo shows no incline, no hill.  Therefore it can't be the corner of Prospect Avenue and Passaic Streets, which is where #406 Prospect stands.  I still say this is another city, most likely Paterson.

48
Hackensack History / Re: Where is this?
« on: February 23, 2015, 09:52:05 PM »
Maybe that is a trolley car which is en route to Hackensack, but the photo was taken in Paterson, and the fire is in Paterson ?

49
Hackensack History / Re: Where is this?
« on: February 23, 2015, 09:47:14 PM »
I agree with Homer's analysis, with one additional point.  I looked at the photo with a magnifying glass, and I believe that the water is being directed to the 6th story of the structure, which I believe is an industrial building in the 7-9 story range. I would date the photo at 1920 -  1939. 

No such building has ever existed in Hackensack, to my knowledge.  I do not believe this photo was taken in Hackensack.

50
What about the most recently construction mid-rise on Passaic Street, north side, just west of Summit Ave.  Was that wood-frame or concrete ?

51
Thanks for the correction.  And I misses two others that are stick construction.  So here's my revised list:

HIGHEST RISK
1.  310 Prospect Ave, both buildings (along Third St, and behind 300 Prospect Ave)
2.  The new building on Linden Ave near Anderson Street
3.  Avalon Hackensack on Hackensack Ave, both buildings
4.  The new building under construction on State Street next to the Cultural Arts Center, over 200 units

SECONDARY RISK
5.  Essex Street, south side, near the bend
6.  Essex Street, north side, near Rowland Ave
7.  Townhouses at Prospect & Anderson
8.  Townhouses on Main Street a few blocks south of Route 4 (Zabriskie ?)

52
The answer is YES, the construction on Hackensack Ave is the same 'lightweight' construction as the Avalon project in Edgewater that burned.  Basically in recent decades wood has become cheaper than concrete and steel, so as long as building codes allow it, developers are making massive concrete parking garages and building 5 stories of wood frame above that.  6 stories is not allowed.

 Here's a complete list of the buildings in Hackensack with this dangerous type of construction:

1.  310 Prospect Ave, both buildings (along Third St, and behind 300 Prospect Ave)
2.  The new building on Linden Ave near Anderson Street
3.  Avalon Hackensack on Hackensack Ave
4.  The new building under construction on State Street next to the Cultural Arts Center
5.  SW corner of State and Atlantic streets

Only slightly less dangerous are the 4-story townhouses at Anderson & Prospect.  And the same builder constructed on Main street a few blocks south of Route 4.

All the older 5 story buildings in Hackensack are masonry construction.

I am hopefully that the State will change the building codes.  And in the meantime, the City of Hackensack should put the stop to all of this construction.  These are firetraps. They endanger both residents and our firefighters.

53
Hackensack Discussion / Re: HUMC Expansion
« on: January 17, 2015, 08:29:33 AM »
I bet that HUMC and Seton Hall will slowly gobble up the Hoffman-LaRoche property, 100 acres or so.  This is becoming a hospital empire of national and global significance, not just one of the very biggest in New Jersey.

I think the days of HUMC building more and more around their Prospect Ave headquarters are coming to an end.  They've got enough to chew on in Nutley and Clifton, they acquired Mountainside Hospital in Glen Ridge/Montclair and Pascack Valley in Westwood, and I'm sure we'll be reading about more mergers, partnerships, and property acquisitions.  They are going horizontal, not vertical.

54
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Meeting Decorum
« on: December 14, 2014, 09:04:09 AM »
The op-ed piece by Kelly includes information that Steve Lonegan, the former Latino-bashing Mayor of Bogota and losing candidate for many higher offices, has now moved to Hackensack.  I can't imagine him running for office here, but you never know. Anyone know where in Hackensack he lives?   http://www.northjersey.com/news/kelly-hackensack-council-civility-rule-walks-a-fine-line-on-free-speech-1.1153066

55
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Meeting Decorum
« on: December 05, 2014, 01:48:16 AM »
Good editorial.  Once in a while, "the rag" comes through with some common sense.

56
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Bergen Dispatch: First Dutch Reformed Church
« on: December 03, 2014, 07:41:46 PM »
I think they are getting by with rent money from a Korean congregation.

57
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: November 17, 2014, 07:49:27 AM »
Word has reached me that NJ Transit has already been advised of the problems coming with the proposed change in traffic flow on Main and State Streets, and the impact on their bus routes.  They are not happy and their bus planning department is supposedly looking into it.

58
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: November 17, 2014, 07:30:34 AM »
Great article.  I agree with Homer on his cost estimate, and if not it is on the low side. Could easily be $2M.  And yes, it would involve the County's cooperation.

Regarding the traffic flow, I was in downtown Ramsey that other day working, and had to travel their Main Street, with has one lane in each direction and parking on both side, just like the genius plan for Hackensack.  It was pure gridlock, and I wasted 10 minutes to go 3 blocks. And it was not because of a UPS truck parking to make a delivery, or a bus stopping to discharge and pick up passengers. 

Random cars ahead of me were interested in making left turns, and they had to wait for the opportunity because traffic was heavy in the other direction, which meant all the cars behind them were also waiting.  I am starting to think this will be the biggest problem in downtown Hackensack, of all the factors weighing against the traffic flow change.

59
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Area in need of Rehabilitation
« on: November 11, 2014, 06:20:51 PM »
And once Main & State streets become two-way, there will immediately be a conflict between traffic flow and redevelopment.  And future city planners will change the zoning to limit redevelopment, because the street network won't be able to handle so many more units and their cars.  That's one of the main reasons the traffic flow should remain one-way.

60
Hackensack Discussion / Re: Hackensack approves red-light cameras
« on: November 11, 2014, 06:16:53 PM »
The cameras actually cause worse driving behavior, but not at the filmed intersections.  People are increasingly disregarding traffic laws at non-filmed intersections. It's an Orwellian program, and people don't like the surveillance and invasion of privacy.

Therefore,  the cameras have caused a feeling of general contempt for laws among a significant percent of the population who cares about those Orwellian things.  And that is not good for society as a whole.

It is good to know that the program is over.  Now I can go back to respecting the laws.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 62