40-Unit Project Planned Near The Junction, Jersey City

503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue Jersey City 1
Proposed development: 503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City. Rendering via J Goldman Design.

A major Jersey City intersection could soon have dozens of additional residents living nearby.

Another new mixed-use development is being planned just a few yards away from Communipaw Junction, also known as just The Junction, in Ward F. A developer is looking to construct the neighborhood’s latest building at 503 and 509 Communipaw Avenue, near Grand and Arlington Streets. City records show that the project is expected to be five stories tall and include 40 residential units. In addition, the plans by the simply-named 503-509 Communipaw Avenue, LLC call for retail space to be included on the proposed building’s ground floor.


503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue Jersey City 2
503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City. Rendering via J Goldman Design.

Updated renderings posted by Brooklyn-based J Goldman Design show plans for a Citi Bike station alongside the development.

503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue Jersey City 3
503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City. Rendering via J Goldman Design.

Filings with the New Jersey Division of Revenue and Enterprise Services show that the development firm was incorporated in June 2018 out of Jersey City. City tax records associate the company with an apartment building in Brooklyn’s Williamsburg neighborhood but not much else is known about the LLC.

The company is seeking Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan approval from the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA) in order to move forward with the project. Variances for use and parking are also being sought. Initially, the application was scheduled to go before the ZBA on December 20, 2018, but that meeting’s action agenda shows that the matter was moved to the board’s next meeting on January 10.

503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue Jersey City 4
503 & 509 Communipaw Avenue, Jersey City. Rendering via J Goldman Design.

The site in question consists of two properties containing a house and a vacant undeveloped lot. The premises are located not far from Arlington Park, Lincoln High School, Berry Lane Park, and the Garfield Avenue Hudson-Bergen Light Rail station.

Note to readers: The dates that applications are scheduled to be heard by the Jersey City Zoning Board of Adjustment and other commissions are subject to change.


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


  1. Some takeaways that were not reported…

    the project is proposing ZERO parking spots with 40 units.
    The developer is offering a whopping $10k for improvements to Arlington Park
    The first floor should be all retail but they are putting some more units on the ground floor making the retail much smaller…should be the entire first floor.

    There was major push back from residents who attended the meeting with the developer about a month ago.

    • These developers are the perfect partners the area needs. First of all to address the parking issue, they clearly stated that due to the way the lot is shaped, the cannot put parking. The only way they can put parking is if vehicles would come out on communipaw, which it can’t because it has to be commercial.
      To address your other point, the entire communipaw front is commercial, which is should be according to zoning, the only part of it that is not commercial is in Arlington side, which is residential… I was at the meeting. The developers explained what they can do, and what they physically can’t. They are giving 10k to Arlington Park to add lighting and other infrastructure needs, plus they are also paying 75, 000 to citibike in order to subsidize the cost to the residents and neighbors… They are building this on weeds and abandoned house in the middle of a commercial center…

      • Clearly you invested in the neighborhood and just want rapid development to get your price up and cash out. I’m speaking more for the people that are invested in the neighborhood and who care about the historic feel and community feel and keeping some of the neighborhood character.

        Yes having retail on the Arlington Park side would be devastating!! who would ever want their commercial space to face a park??? Sounds like you were eating up everything the developer was selling. That was just an excuse to squeeze more units in the first floor.

        No parking? make it 4 stories as it is zoned…more money grab by the developer.

        10K is peanuts for doing any infrastructure and lighting in the park. Lighting alone would cost over 25k.

        Citi bike is window dressing, the area is not bike friendly. Yes maybe a few daredevils ride bikes in the neighborhood but majority of the residents don’t use bikes. Families with small children will not use citibike. Elderly will not use citibike. It’s just for show and to attract the NYC crowd.

        It’s not going to get approved.

        • Not bike friendly? They are doing a bike study along Grand which this property is near by.

          Buy and Cash out? Yes I own my home. I bought in this area because how much I love this area. Present and future it has. Isn’t that what people consider when buying thier home for the present and future? Historically this was a commercial center which thrived. Unfortunately since crack and other drugs, this area was hit hard… This development brings the area back… I don’t have any plans to leave the neighborhood, not now, not in 5 years, not ever… That’s why I fight for it, because I care about it… It’s easier just to sit back and not care, I take time off from work and other activities to invest my time and efforts into my neighborhood… What’s wrong with that?

          • Glad to see their others others who feel the same. I think this project is a great start to improving the Neighborhood. I too own a home here for over 10 years. The biggest opponents are renters who have no interest in improving the neighborhood. Who could have purchased over the past 10 years with many affordable property’s available. They rather have a new car. That’s why they do not believe anyone uses bikes. Sorry I do. As many others who would rather own their home then a brand new car. All this opposition is being fueled by people trying to gain political power. Happy to see this project and many others , to replace dirty lots and used tire shops.

        • What’s wrong with having some commercial near a park? Maybe you should have asked “the grand” on Arlington and grand directly facing the park.
          Guess how much commercial they have? You guessed it, none…

          • I think the Grand was a terrible project and unfortunately it got approved but not going to use that as a baseline. If you truly are invested in the neighborhood then you should be concerned with rapid development in the area. I am all for development when done responsibly.

            You are talking about the Grand St redevelopment which is a pipe dream at this point. Yes maybe in 15 yrs Grand St will be a beautiful tree lined street with protected bike lanes…but that’s not a reality at this point and won’t impact this development.

        • Sal – do you have any better ideas? All I hear is complaint after complaint after complaint. Perhaps just keep the neighborhood as-is?

    • Not against the building. VERY against the variances. Cant build the parking? FALSE – They cant build the parking without losing some units (money) to the parking space. GASP! Can you imagine sacrificing Rental/Lease/Sales income to accommodate the REQUIRED parking??

  2. This neighborhood has been neglected for years. I live in this neighborhood for the past 7 years. This developer will absolutely turn this neighborhood around which is so desperately needed. All of Jersey city had seen activity the past several years except Greenville and this neighborhood which is attached to Greenville. People against this project are just against it because why not. The developer clearly stated that doing Parking on Arlington will give him only several spots if I remember correctly it is 6 spots. So basically the whole fight is for 6 spots…
    It is 6 spots vs a beautiful building with retail and a city bike which will definitely change this neighborhood for the better.
    Come on you smarter and more realistic then this stupid argument.

    • This is the exact mentality that has turned downtown into an infrastructure nightmare…desperate residents approving every development until it’s too late. Why does the developer need 3-4 units on the first floor rather than all retail as it’s zoned? Why not have a 4 story building if no parking? Because the developer wants more and more money without giving back much.

      • Bravo, Sal!!!!!! Thank you!!!! Totally agree . They sold out downtown and turned it to an ugly bee hives for NYC crowd to sleep over. Now they are going to ruin the historical and the most beautiful part of JC!

    • @mark. They said 4 spots. But than they said Arlington is not large enough to support it. So even that is not possible. And yes. I have also lived in this neighborhood for years, and this is desperately needed here. I’ve had enough of drug deals in junction and shootings in results… This development is a HUGE step in the right direction.

    • The people making the argument against, all own cars. They would rather own an expensive car then a home. These same people have no clue how many people use the light rail to go to work and shop. Or use a bike , which I do and many others. The younger buyers would rather by a home then waste money on a car to pay for gas , repairs and the highest insurance rates in the country. Also on an deprecating asset. They do not own and do not plan on owning. They want to keep it the same. With all the problems.

  3. This building will add much-needed additional housing supply to help meet demand. It is an investment in the community and adding customers for local businesses. It promotes the use of bikes and buses by not adding parking spaces; more cars would just further clog these busy intersections. This will be a great addition to the neighborhood.

  4. Two community meetings were hosted for the proposed building at 503-509 Communipaw Avenue at Arlington Avenue in the Junction.

    The majority of residents, about 90% were not in support of the 5 Story building with 40 apartments that will have 0 parking spaces when the zoning requires 40 parking spaces.

    The developer also wants to squeeze rental units on part of the ground floor which the zoning requires to be exclusively commercial space for local businesses that will help build our main streets!

    This proposed project is in the Neighborhood Commercial zone which requires the ground floor to be commercial space. In this zone new construction requires one parking space for each unit of residential housing. No parking is required in some circumstances where new construction is 100% commercial use. This zone allows a max of 4 stories if parking is not required and a maximum of 5 stories if parking is required.

    Smart development results from a compromise between residents and the developer! Compromise is the key word here. Developers and the community both need to compromise!

    If the parking requirement cannot be satisfied by the developer, a compromise was suggested at the meetings of reducing the number of units in the building by reducing its proposed height and removing the residential units on the ground floor. The developer was not receptive to this suggested compromise. That’s a problem.

    After two community meetings, this developer is still not listening to our community’s voice on this parking concern and is not willing to compromise. That’s a problem.

    We can’t be desperate for the first proposal that is thrown at us. This area is growing to be desirable and that can be leveraged to achieve a compromise between developers and the community.

    Developer community meetings are supposed to facilitate collaboration and compromise. The community is willing to compromise and the developer is not.

  5. This article doesn’t not accurately reflect the community push back that was present at the two community meetings held.

    A vote was taken and it was very clear that the majority was against this project.

    If the developer cannot find a resolution to make the current space fit the zoning requirements, then they need to scale back the project or should have not committed to developing the property.

    Yes, this area needs to be developed but zoning and planning exist for a reason. There’s several projects that are also going up in the area, so the argument that this area “desperately needs development” is false.

    Development is happening and we need to hold the city and private investors accountable for responsible growth. We don’t need reckless development like downtown and their abatements and private profit wild Wild West. “There goes the neighborhood” when we continually approve approve approve and don’t think of the repercussions long term.

  6. Development is welcomed and needed, however this particular project is irresponsible. 40 units with no parking on a truck route doesn’t make since. Where to residents park? How do you load and unload? The law calls for .35 parking spaces her unit so there should be at least 14 spaces. There is no reason why the community should exempt “anything” over “nothing”. This is also a community in need of redevelopment so where’s the affordable housing component? This developer has no interest in working with the community or ensuring that quality development is built here. Also, the project set to take the place of Bishop Brower’s old home. He fought for equally and justice throughout Ward F. I’m sure he wouldn’t mind development as long as it is appropriate. This isn’t appropriate.

  7. I live in Journal Square and have no dog in this fight, but this reaction from a community meeting is so typical. Why not figure out what’s most important for the community and then meet with the developer to and see what can be done towards that vision in exchange for neighborhood support?

    Is the concern really over the lack of retail on the ground floor facing the “park,” or are people just hating any kind of change in the neighborhood. If it’s truly the lack of retail, that’s not a huge ask for the developer to make the change. Unfortunately, I suspect few give a **** about the retail requirement and are just using it as a technicality to attack the whole building. Since this is one of the areas where the developer is seeking a variance from the city, it has become a rallying cry for the BANNAs, whom would be content with no investment with the community.

    In Journal Square, what’s important to us is the need for a super market and more park space. Councilperson Boggiano heard out concerns and is supporting the construction of some big developments in exchange for delivering the services we wanted. There has been several new businesses opening up in the past few years and abandoned buildings are being redeveloped. I love what the new developments have brought to Journal Square. I remember there were a few old, bitter loud mouths that were rallying against any changes to the area, and I’m glad wiser heads prevailed.

  8. We don’t have the transit infrastructure the Square does. The concerns the community expressed regarding this project were prioritized by votes in order of importance and delivered to the developer and City Planning. Parking being concern #1 and retail concern #2. It’s not a matter of anti-development, but a matter of smart development, which requires collaboration and compromise. The developer needs to be a part of more meetings to achieve that, but they didn’t want to.

    To address concern #1 an idea was put out there to mitigate the parking impact this building may have, which was to bring the building down from 5 to 4 floors. 4 floors is the maximum height the zoning allows for a building that doesn’t require parking. The zoning allows a max of 5 floors if parking is required. The bonus floor in theory helps the developer recoup the square footage lost from parking. Since the developer is not losing square footage to parking it’s not a far-fetched ask to compromise and have the building reduced to 4 floors and be relived of the parking requirement.

    As far as concern #2 goes, this is a Neighborhood Commercial zone. The purpose of the zone is to promote local business and economy. Retail is a major concern to the community. The community had the Junction approved and included in the Restaurant Overlay Zone after a handful of community meetings to educate our residents on the matter and gain community support. Ironically Hooked JC opened up afterwards.

    The local retail leakage study indicates that this community is losing up to hundreds of thousands of dollars in local commerce in a handful of business categories that are not well-represented here. The studies indicate that we have the dollars here, but we don’t have the businesses. Returning the Junction to a thriving retail destination is more about creating retail space and less about adding more units of housing.

    • Chris, with more density, comes more demand for commercial since there would be more demand for it. Hence why mix use works so well. “Live, work, play” comes to mind. The need for density in Junction is clear. Foot traffic and homes will give more insentives for businesses to come to this side versus downtown. Yes we have been improving and developing however this would add so much! Businesses in the area are very much pro this development including Cafe Sole across the street…

      • Exactly. To keep new businesses that have opened in the neighborhood, like Hooked JC. They need customers, who will appreciate them. I find it funny he does not know how close the Garfield Light Rail is from there. I walk or bike in the neighborhood. People who use public transportation or bike or walk spend more time and money in the area. They do not get in there car and spend money downtown. Helps keep it local

      • The renderings of this building is absolutely beautiful. Without a doubt it will give a new face for the neighborhood. This property has been vacant for years, and the adjacent properties on Arlington and on communipaw have both been vacant for years. It’s clear that the neighborhood needs this project.
        The majority of our community does support this project all business owners and most neighbors support this. But the nah sayers make the bigger noise.

      • Val do you take public transit daily? Or do you have a car? I commute via the bus to Grove St. or Exchange. The bus is so packed in the mornings sometimes it has to pass up the stop IN THE JUNCTION and not take riders. In the evening there’s very limited and unreliable options coming from Grove Street usually the 7:30pm bus doesn’t show so you have to wait approx an hour to get home.

        I am all for development in our area and welcome it. But like acs198610 mentioned below we need to think about some major things that are at the crux of every development issue.

        More discussions need to be had on this project and I think the community, local businesses and the developer can find some middle ground to get there. Not sure why the rush?

        I appreciate everyone coming out to speak at the zoning meeting, but am glad that the developer got the message (albeit at the 11th hour and after previous offers to reconsider) that we need to discuss this project further to see if there’s a compromise such as lowering the density in return for waiving the zoning for 1:1 parking.

        • @Allison. I used to walk to path at Journal square everyday since I used to work in financial district. (I’m a fast walker, takes me about 15-18 minutes). I never attempted the bus to be honest since it’s walkable. I have also use the lite rail normally. I own a car as well.

        • We should be protesting the unreliable bus systems. They are not sufficient for demand. I have never seen a system that people need to hail down a bus and jump in the street to make it stop. They do not stop at every stop. On Bergen Avenue the buses do not come every 15-20 minutes as scheduled the come in 40 minuets and 3 buses in a row. 2 mostly empty. It’s been going on for years. New people into our community will not stand for this as has the status quo.

    • Chris, residential units is what attracts and creates retail. Cafes and restaurants go where the people live. The reason the small business owners of our community are supporting this project is because they know that this project will help them out. As of now most of the business owners are struggling, with a lot of them having almost no traffic in their stores. I hope our community will work together to make this work.

      • The business owners are actually divided on this matter and parking is a large concern to almost all of them.

        Mark – That’s a gross misrepresentation that “all business owners and most residents” are for this. The bar, insurance company, flower shop, consignment shop and new realtor are EXTREMELY concerned about parking and not in favor of this project without parking as it stands. Get your facts straight.

  9. Not everyone owns a car, especially in the ride sharing age. Last statistics I’ve seen is that ~40% of Jersey City’s population uses transit to commute to work. I’m one of them. People who choose to live in this new building are less likely to own a car because there will be no place to park it. Let’s also not forget that there is no such thing as free parking. Having a minimum number of parking spaces will mean a higher rent and total development costs. This is because the rent will now have to cover the construction cost of the parking spot whether it’s used or not. The sooner we update zoning to eliminate parking minima, the better. It’s a relic of the past that’s better set by market demand. If it was impossible to lease these units without parking, the developer wouldn’t be proposing it. Obviously, there is a segment of the population that does not own a car and would find these units attractive.

    As for retail, I agree with you that the developer’s proposal runs counter to the Neighborhood Commercial Zone and that there is much potential in the junction. However, simply having a vacant commercial space available doesn’t mean it will be occupied. The numbers need to show sufficient demand before retailers will open up.

    If I were in your shoes, I would be welcoming 5 or 6 floors of residential for this development in exchange for the bottom floor being reserved for the intended purpose of retail. As I seen with Journal Square, the new residents will bring additional dollars which will mean a boost to existing businesses and new ones open up. The developer would jump at this opportunity to covert the ground floor to retail because it will mean more profit for them if they can build higher than anticipated. Existing retail would love it too because there are 40+ households moving into the area that will patronage existing businesses and there is greater potential for new businesses to open up. If the end goal is having the Junction be a thriving retail destination, more density is the way to go.

    Of course my ideas are too radical by the old guard and will be immediately dismissed. It will be the same mumbo jumbo that I’ve seen play out too many times. One of two things will happen: 1) Some form of the building will get built. The developer might make a modest compromise that still doesn’t include the retail or parking. What gets built is really just a crappier building that doesn’t satisfy either side, or 2) the city denies the request, the developer flips the land, and it stays vacant being a blight on the neighborhood for years to come.

    The sad part is some members of the community will hail option 2 as a victory as that was really their intent all along…

    Again, I have no dog in this fight or voice other than this anonymous internet board so I wish you the best. I couldn’t be happier with how things are turning out in Journal Square, and I can say without a shadow of a doubt that it was the openness to development that is the catalyst for all the positive change here. I remember how things were when there was zero investment here.

    • You keep comparing this area to JSQ, this isn’t JSQ. JSQ has been zoned for high rises and you are building 50…70 story buildings so a 5-6 story building isn’t has big of a deal. You also are stones throw away from the PATH so yes cars might not be as needed. Our area you can’t just walk to the PATH…unless you want a 20-30 min walk or more depending on where you live. Most people have cars to get around, you can argue if that’s good or not but that’s the reality. We don’t have the same infrastructure as JSQ…Grove St…Exchange.

      JSQ also destroyed all their historic properties long time ago and they continue to do so as they just knocked down the victorian on Jones St. Our area still has a ton of old properties (including the one on this piece of land) that we fight to preserve. Clearly that’s not a priority in JSQ. So we want to keep the community feel and not start building 8…10 story buildings in an area where most of the buildings are 3 or 4 stories high. The comparison of this area to JSQ would probably make most locals cringe as the last thing we want is for this area to turn into anything like JSQ.

      At the end of the day it’s not what you want or I want, it’s the community. And at the meeting with the developer majority of the residents were against this project as is, a vote was taken. And the developer should be listening the residents needs. I didn’t see any local business owners there fighting for the development other than Taproots who wasn’t vocally fighting for the development.

      There are a ton of buildings already going up in Lafayette…McGinley Square….so those businesses will be fine once those buildings have leased. Anyone that opened a business in this area should have known it’s going to be struggle as there is not much foot traffic and it’s pretty much a dead zone during the week. But hopefully that risk was reflected in their lease as I’m sure the prices are much lower than JSQ or downtown. But it’s no excuse to now suddenly blindly approve every development against the needs of the local residents.

      • If 20 residents were a majority of anything then obviously the organizers did not do a good job of getting Junction people to attend. Taproot (and Junction small businesses) were not, to our knowledge, included in the initial discussions. When I attended the meeting, it was to learn and report back, not voice opinions about a developer we knew little about.

        It appears there was no significant effort to include the Junction small biz community until now. As an afterthought, we as individuals learned more from when the developer walked in our stores weeks ago and met with as many of us as possible, in person. That same tactic wasn’t employed by the homeowners side until yesterday afternoon after we posted on Nextdoor.

        • It wasn’t to voice opinion about the developer but the development…what else would the meeting be for? There was clearly voting going on, people were voicing their opinions…

          I got the communication through email through the neighborhood associations, there were MANY more than 20 people on the email. If only 20 people choose to show up then it is what it is.

          The purpose of the meeting was also to learn and report back but the developer wasn’t interested and decided to go directly to approval board rather than follow up with feedback discussed at the meeting.

        • Hey Daniel. I emailed you on September 10th in regards to the first meeting and you responded “Thanks for the heads up. As you mentioned, it is a market night so I won’t be able to make it.

          I don’t see how they will be able to shut down lanes on Communipaw for this which means that they will be taking street space on Arlington to build it. The upsides are tremendous in five years but in the short term, a 5 story construction site across the street from us that will take over road space (and at the same time take out parking spaces if not close off Arlington) will have a far more detrimental impact on our business.

          Would you mind asking about their street closure plan and schedule for us? Their tear-down and overall timeline will directly impact Taproot.”

          I asked those questions at the first meeting and reported back to you the developers responses.

          Then you were clearly informed of the second meeting because you intended in which was promted via email, a next door posting, on Facebook, and 400 flyers passed out. Only 20 people chose to attend.

          The developer chose to proceed to push to the zoning meeting against the suggestion from the neighbors that we have more meetings to try and see if we can come to a compromise.

      • “Our area you can’t just walk to the PATH…unless you want a 20-30 min walk or more depending on where you live. Most people have cars to get around, you can argue if that’s good or not but that’s the reality.”

        Here we go again. People who choose to live in a building without parking are less likely to own a car. It’s not a good or bad thing per se. It just comes down to economics and personal choice. If someone really wants parking and has to drive for work, this is probably not the building for them. There are plenty of other rentals throughout the city to choose from. There is a large percentage of Jersey City residents that do not own a car, and this may be an attractive building for them without the need to also pay for a parking spot that would sit empty. It costs anywhere from $10,000 to $50,000 per space for parking. And it will probably be on the high range for a tight spot like this. “Mandatory parking minimums raise construction costs, restrict the supply of housing, and help put rents out of reach.”

        The HBLR is a 7 minute walk away, which is supplemented by NJ Transit bus service. Census data shows about 1/2 the population of 07304 drives to work alone or as part of a car pool. The rest take transit, walk or bike. Those are very high numbers. You make it sound like this site is inaccessible by any means other than the car.

        What I don’t understand from the pro-parking advocates is the resulting car traffic it will bring. If I drove a car in Jersey City, I would be advocating, for strictly selfish reasons, as minimal parking as possible to be included in new residential developments. Why? Because more parking just means more cars on the road and resulting traffic. This is one of the reasons why NYC and other areas are looking to do away with parking minimums. The conventional planning wisdom from the 1960s thought everyone would be driving. Times have changed and the zoning should change with it.


    • You have laid it out correctly. People do not see the need for a car. It is just a big wasteful expense. We got rid of our car to purchase a home. We chose the area because of its proximity to the Light Rail. We have been her for 11 years. Sadly, all I have seen at every community meeting for development in this neighborhood is to be opposed. I would rather have a nice new building with new community members, then have a run down building and an overgrown lot.

  10. In my opinion, this project Absolutely has some positive light to it, First of all the corner Arlington and Comuniompaw, used to be the entrance to hell for the last severel years. So a nice middle class development, could be a strategic Corner Stone to bring back that circule to A healthy Safe Growing Neighborhood, which could benefit the entire surrounding.

    The Idea Of a Citi bike in The comunipaw area, is also something that I view as a real opportunity to start building bike friendly community, which is btw much more environmental friendly as well.

    I don’t think that the argument between a 5th Floor, or only a 4th floor, or how much residential units on first floor etc. should steel the idea of a healthy safe Development coming in our direction.

    As a matter of fact I pass the triangle property every morning on my way to work. I don’t see any way you can squeeze In those parking spaces.
    So I think the idea of bikes is actually phenomenal!

    • Thank you, Jasin. My wife and I have done our best to keep this corner of Arlington and Communipaw clean, safe, a graffiti free over the last 3+ years but it’s been an uphill challenge. We look forward to working with neighbors who live and work in our immediate vicinity helping to brighten up this area so our clients, employees, and locals feel safer.

      • @Daniel Grunes, I think it’s important that you along with owners of Cafe Sole come to planning boards to tell them your thoughts about this project. I think this project will boost so much for you and other businesses which are the backbone of our community. I applaud you and others who came in here when no one else wanted to. Let’s not forget how bad it was. You are one of many reasons there is development happening because of your hard work to make it a desirable place. I, as a home owner and neighbor stand with you and other businesses. I try to support as much as possible by buying local and suggesting the same to my neighbors. Let’s continue this change and positive neighborhood flow…

  11. Zero problem with development.

    Big problem with developer that absolutely refuses to compromise.

    Big problem with developer that refuses to obey current zoning laws.

    Big problem with developer that refuses to listen to community concerns.

  12. The junction needs to be developed, I don’t see why the developer should get 5 stories if they can’t put in parking. Easy fix – make it 4 stories. The retail space is needed and selfishly I use Citi bike so having another station near by is great and will generate more voices to push for actual bike infrastructure.

    The things people are not addressing which is not only related to this development, but at the crux of every development issue, are ways to reduce reliance on car use daily and protect the neighborhood astetics. We need:
    1. Better bus service for the area
    2. Protected bike lanes
    3. Parking garage
    4. Zoned parking
    5. Historical designation

  13. I really applaud all those that bring forth positive suggestions to encourage development. The junction needs it and you cannot stop change. The only thing you can do is encourage the right kind of change. Complaining as nauseum about greedy developers does not accomplish anything. We live in a capitalist society and everyone wants to make money. Let’s just try to work with developers so that EVERYONE can get the best possible deal and where we all win as much as possible. Having empty lots and areas where the homeless congregate is not the answer just because you want things not to change

  14. What is needed is not more parking but more frequent bus service to Downtown via Grand St. and to the Liberty Science Center light rail via Communipaw. Also protected bike lanes on Grand St. Have people actually tried driving on Communipaw? It can be a standstill. Why would we want to add more cars to that congestion problem? That’s what adding parking to this building would do. Fulop supports creating a high speed bus system. Why aren’t people more vocal about needing this? https://twitter.com/stevenfulop/status/981952421407744000?lang=en

  15. Let me clarify my recently adopted position after seeing and hearing what has been going on the last two weeks. When my wife and I chose to base our family business out of The Junction, we were laughed at by people downtown, the heights and our former JSQ Neighborhood. To this day I am still asked 1-2 times a month “How often have you been robbed?” This is what people from other neighborhoods think of this area… and you are squabbling about parking and bigger retail spaces?!?

    This is a poorly maintained intersection. The basics tenets of society like trash removal, enforced alternate side for street sweeping, and consistently working street lights have not been a priority for the city. We have empty buildings rotting in front of us daily (including the structure slated to be demolished by the new development) and the after-parties from Cafe Sole continue on our sidewalk on Arlington as evidenced by the multiple times I have witnessed the party goers pissing on our store wall. Not to mention liquor bottles, used condoms and fast food litter we must clean up each morning.

    All this to say, having more people around and a reason for infrastructure to be paid attention to especially by our elected officials is not a bad thing, it is a good thing! So get off the message boards and get into your local businesses if you are so concerned about them thriving and keeping a watch on your neighborhood while you are at work in Manhattan or hanging our downtown for 10-12 hrs a day.

    I would love for the small business owners to be represented at this table, but texting one person is not gauging the temperature of the group as a whole. It has come to my attn. this week that a Junction Business Owner group has been formed. After finding out that it was not a Junction Business Owner leading this charge but rather a Resident/Landlord from a nearby neighborhood, I am hoping that if it is not taken over by the small group of people it claims to represent, it’s guidance it taken with a grain of salt.

  16. Regarding bicycling in this neighborhood, the plans for redesigning Grand St. are much further along than is suggested in this thread. Final plans will go before council most likely in 1st quarter of this year and construction is being slated for 2020. Protected bike lanes are a key ingredient in the redesign. This has been in the works for many years. Adding another Citibike docking station at this site is a concrete and real initiative to help lessen the need for car ownership in this neighborhood. The dock will be a brand new one (not taken away from another neighborhood) with all costs being paid for by the developer including yearly maintenance. This is progressive and forward thinking on so many levels not to mention air quality and a more healthy, active life style.
    The development has no side that faces Arlington Park and commercial would only face Communipaw. The building that should have had commercial/retail facing the park is 747 Grand but they made their entire first floor into parking which does absolutely nothing to improve the street life of this neighborhood. I have walked there at night and it’s horrible to walk beside what feels like a prison wall. More parking, which will bring more cars, is not a solution to whatever parking problems exist in this neighborhood.
    Support for alternative transportation and not more cars in Jersey City is key to making this and all neighborhoods more livable places. Walking, biking and mass transit are the future for the health of our cities.

    • Glad to hear all the good news. As a biker totally agree we need more neighbors, who do not use cars. I Have been biking down Grand for years and live near Arlington Park. It is the best for our future. I appreciate your efforts

  17. Since everyone seems to have an opinion on this project – we will be holding our THIRD community feedback meeting Monday February 4th, 6:30pm at Mt. Olive Baptist Church (400 Arlington.) This will be co-hosted by Randolph Harmon Block Association who hosted the previous two meetings and Ward F Councilman Jermaine Robinson.

    The developer will not be present so the community can provide open and honest feedback. I encourage everyone to come with an open mind and to think about the word *compromise.* I encourage everyone to attend so we can come to a resolution that works for all.


  18. So you think a liquor store, a bar abandoned buildings, abandoned pool and drunks hanging around the junction adds character to the neighborhood


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here