20-Unit Building Could Replace Jersey City C-Town

11
506 Central Avenue The Heights Jersey City
Proposed development at 506 Central Avenue, The Heights, Jersey City. Rendering via Lee Levine Architects.

Plans to build a new mixed-use development in the main business district of the Jersey City Heights neighborhood have been revived.

A developer is planning to construct a five-story building at 506-508 Central Avenue, between Graham and North Streets near Washington Park. The site, which is located in Ward D close to the Union City border, currently contains a two-story building that is occupied by one of Jersey City’s two C-Town Supermarket locations.

Under the latest proposal, the existing structure would be demolished and replaced with 20 residential units. A green roof and 10 parking spaces would also be provided, according to the Central Avenue Special Improvement District (CASID) website. Hoboken-based Lee Levine Architects (LLA) is listed as the designer for the proposal. The post by CASID states that “with an aging building stock that is nearly 130 years old, Central Avenue desperately needs all the upgrades and investment it can receive,” adding that “this project has gathered input and support from various community groups in recent weeks, including the CASID.”

Meredith Simpson of LLA confirmed the project plans to Jersey Digs and stated that the proposal could go before the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment at some point within two to four weeks. Should the necessary approvals be granted, the unnamed developer is seeking to begin construction by the end of this year, according to Simpson. She explained that the development would also include just under 3,000 square feet of commercial space that could be occupied by a market or restaurant, but stated that C-Town would not return to the new building.

Plans to redevelop this property were first revealed back in 2015 when a four-story building with 21 residential units was proposed. However, the project faced opposition by the Washington Park Association and made little progress.

--

Have something to add to this story? Email [email protected].

Click here to sign up for Jersey Digs' free emails and news alerts. Stay up-to-date by following Jersey Digs on Twitter and Instagram, and liking us on Facebook.

No posts to display

11 COMMENTS

    • Huh? Why do you want to induce car ownership? You have to be realistic. If you want cars and sprawl, move to the suburbs.

    • I’m sorry to say, Claude, but yours is an outdated notion of who is moving to the Heights. I’ve lived around the corner from this proposed development for nearly a year and have no need for a car of my own. Public transportation, bike share, Zipcar, etc. are all perfectly affordable, convenient alternatives to owning a car *and* a parking spot. As more and more of the generation(s) who have embraced the sharing economy discover and move to the Heights, the number of cars–and the demand for excessive amounts of parking spots–will diminish.

      Also, this development looks great! Certainly better than the current C-Town, which is in desperate need of a renovation. I would hope that the developers would offer a new lease to a market before seeking another use, though–there aren’t many options at that end of the neighborhood. (I actually walk all the way to the Shop Rite in Hoboken…)

      Oh yes, that’s right–walking is also a great transportation option in the wonderfully walkable Heights! 🙂

      • Agreed.
        The Heights isn’t Manhattan, but it also isn’t Woodbridge NJ. 1 spot per unit is absurd to demand. & if that’s the case, we will be in a standstill watching rodents come in and out C Town for the next 10 years and more.

      • Urbane,
        Majority of Heights residents work futher than an Uber, bus ride or bike share away from their employment. Hence the auto or what the Osmonds referred to as “crazy horses”

        If this was in fact your ideal world. I concur

        • Claude,

          Look up modal share or how folks get to work in the Heights published by the U.S. Census. It’s less than 50 percent by car. In fact, It’s one of the lowest percentages in the entire country.

          Aside from that, if I drove I would be supportive of far less parking being provided. Why? More parking spaces means more cars on the road and more time for me stuck in traffic. It’s against your own interest as a motorist to see more cars added to the road network. By not proving parking there is a strong likelihood that the people who choose to lease there will not own a car and will use public transit or other method.

      • I agree with you but going to be hard convincing the old timers. It’s just a transitional period in JC where you are seeing class shifts across the city. So you just have to deal with the moaning and groaning from the old timers about anything and everything until everyone gets used to it and we move on.

  1. Looking at the facade, it shows no garage entry, is that on Cambridge behind the building? As for parking I fall between the two camps… no need for one per unit, but 50% is a little low, I would aim for 60%… still realistic and can satisfy both ideals.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here