Friday, March 30, 2007
New Condos
Tris McCall has begun what promises to be a multi-stage rant against the new condos being built in JC. Good shit-- I suggest you read it.
I've pondered, however, how one can actually develop community-based scructures, as he prescribes. Anyone this stooped in development politics has surely read the Death and Life, wherein Jacobs provides what I see as an explanation to our plight.
She says there needs to be varying ages to the buildings. But in Jersey City, as in the rest of the country, all post-war construction basically amounted to shit. If a building was shit when you first built it, it'll never be anything more than shit. Jersey City is stuck with deteriorating radiant towers, brownstones which are beautiful but in many ways too old, and brand new, inward-facing condos.
These three do not mix. To argue for "low-income" building stock is flawed, since it will once again get demolished the next go-round. Outward-oriented mixed-use condos would certainly be an improvement over what's currently being built, but won't achieve true city nature because only one income level could ever inhabit the stores and condos above. And since these projects are over vast swaths of land, they basically create dead zones.
I'm having a hard time discovering how houses were built 100 years ago. I imagine that plots were sold and houses built individually, varying the age, style and use accordingly. What we see today is a very expensive Metro New York, in which any developer with any land will automatically maximize height, privacy, and luxury at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood.
I've pondered, however, how one can actually develop community-based scructures, as he prescribes. Anyone this stooped in development politics has surely read the Death and Life, wherein Jacobs provides what I see as an explanation to our plight.
She says there needs to be varying ages to the buildings. But in Jersey City, as in the rest of the country, all post-war construction basically amounted to shit. If a building was shit when you first built it, it'll never be anything more than shit. Jersey City is stuck with deteriorating radiant towers, brownstones which are beautiful but in many ways too old, and brand new, inward-facing condos.
These three do not mix. To argue for "low-income" building stock is flawed, since it will once again get demolished the next go-round. Outward-oriented mixed-use condos would certainly be an improvement over what's currently being built, but won't achieve true city nature because only one income level could ever inhabit the stores and condos above. And since these projects are over vast swaths of land, they basically create dead zones.
I'm having a hard time discovering how houses were built 100 years ago. I imagine that plots were sold and houses built individually, varying the age, style and use accordingly. What we see today is a very expensive Metro New York, in which any developer with any land will automatically maximize height, privacy, and luxury at the expense of the surrounding neighborhood.
Owen Martin 9:33 AM
1 Comments:
the silvermans have their many critics, but i think their projects look pretty cool. at least their vision of the city doesn't stop at their property line.
jury's still out on jeff zak and peter mocco. so far they've talked the talk.
jury's still out on jeff zak and peter mocco. so far they've talked the talk.
