From USA Today:
Model of urban future: Jersey City?
Once, this was a city of browns and grays. Railroads owned a third of the land, and trains rumbled night and day to the cacophonous riverfront. Factories belched fumes and leaked chemicals. “Nobody cared,” says Bob Leach, born here in 1937. “Smoke meant jobs.”
And those were the good years. Then, in the 1960s, the railroads went broke. Rail yards were abandoned, piers rotted, factories closed. In the 1970s alone, the city lost 14% of its population and about 9% of its jobs.Now Jersey City has come back as its own antithesis: clean, green and growing — an example, urban planners say, of how the nation can accommodate some of the additional 100 million Americans expected by 2040 without paving over every farm, forest and meadow.
Jersey City, a model of smart growth? Even Robert Cotter, the city’s planning director, says he was surprised by the notion. But because so many people here live in apartments or attached houses located near shops, offices and mass transit, they require less land, gasoline, heating oil, water, sewer pipe and other finite resources.
…
It’s part of a remarkable demographic and economic U-turn. In a region where many cities are shrinking, Jersey City in the last quarter-century has gained about 30,000 residents, 27,000 jobs and 18 million square feet of prime office space — more than all such space in downtown Atlanta, Phoenix or Miami.Another 8,000 housing units are being built, and permits have been issued for 10,000 more. With tens of thousands more homes planned over the next 25 years, Jersey City — given up for dead 30 years ago — could pass its 1930 population peak of 316,700.
Once written off by the rest of the nation as another Rust Belt failure, Jersey City is now seen as instructional.
Simply amazing… Another newspaper, writing another poor, mis-guided fluff piece… when will they learn to invest in their editorial content… in bankruptcy?
I thought this pargraph was pretty funny tho:
“Jersey City, a model of smart growth? Even Robert Cotter, the city’s planning director, says he was surprised by the notion. But because so many people here live in apartments or attached houses located near shops, offices and mass transit, they require less land, gasoline, heating oil, water, sewer pipe and other finite resources.”
You couldn’t pay me to live in Jersey City.
thatbigwindow,
Many people like me and my co-worker may not share those feelings. We love this place and one is lucky if one can get a one bed room apartment for less than 2100, of course there bad areas like the Journal Square but even there one bedroom goes for 1600+.
__ Jai
It’s a GREAT place–especially if you happen NOT to live there.
Jay,
I take offense regarding your comment on Journal Square being a bad area. As a homeowner of four years in the area, I’ve seen great change. You must live downtown, where this attitude flourishes. I find your comment ironic for a number of reasons:
1) in the past 3 years, I keep meeting people who are buying in the area that once lived downtown. They were throwing away their rent on overpriced apartments
2) Just like the rest of the city, we have a number of new developments going up including the 52 and 40 story tower that will transform the square.
3)The look of the city is changing in leaps and bounds. I look forward to benefitting from the changes in Journal Square.
I too love this place.
Don’t hate on JC, it is comming along nicely. It is an area with a lot of promise in NJ. The big issue is keeping the developers in control and ludicrous unjustified prices. At 2100 for a one bedroom or $450k it is not going to happen. It is a city on the rise not quite established yet. To a large extent it is a beneficiary of being old and being zoned before cars, thus making it somewhat pedestrian friendly most outside of the newer areas strangely enough.
Please note the article was clearly a move by toll and metrovest etc. to try to convince people to buy in their projects.
It is kind of a big scam, sure people want to live in JC but… I think there are more investors then residents downtown, it feels very vacant at times no problem getting a seat in any of the bars or restraunts along Grove st.
JC has tremendous potential and I personally see it as do others but it also has serious problems and drawbacks which SHOULD keep the prices down.
The issues Political Corruption, Poverty, CRIME, high taxes, poor services, lack of services and necessities for the wealthy that are moving in(no highend mall, lack of good grocery stores, lack of retail, bars, restraunts, or movie theaters), and constant disruptive never ending construction. Lets not forget most of it is a flood zone. Five years ago it was attractive because you could get in a reasonable price, now at these prices hell I can find a good place without these problems.
If you are an investment buyer at these prices you need to be examined because you’re insane.
Yes JSQ is not bad at all, the area where the metrovest property the old med center is like a third world country. South of JSQ can be very ugly and is often spoke of as Journal Square.
The rise of the heights and these other areas is the artificial inflation of dwontown. JSQ has transit links and lower costs and realistically Jersey City is the same in most places except Paulus Hook which is really much nicer than other hoods.
Jay seems like a realtor/developer plant. JSQ 1 bedrooms in a new building are like $1300.
Sorry guys, I didn’t mean to dis JSQ, my email was in reply to one that implied that Jersey City is not a good place. I agree I should not have used “bad” for JSQ. My sincere apologies.
joer – Yeah the old JCMC area is pretty rough. And for 2100 rent I can either live in manhattan or buy a big one bedroom up here in Fort Lee.
I don’t see JC being sustainable, when the market crashes many of the money people will run back into Manhattan so they are not part of the “bridge and tunnel crowd”