U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-08-2019, 10:20 AM
 
5,903 posts, read 13,493,633 times
Reputation: 3191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius View Post
I nearly moved to the suburbs a couple of years ago, not because I want to live in the suburbs, but because affordable housing in decent urban neighborhoods is scarce, especially with one income.

My list included Nutley, parts of Bloomfield, and Cranford. Nice areas, if you're into that life, but I just wasn't excited about the thought of living in any of them. I would have needed to buy a car. And a lawnmower.

Fortunately after a few years of looking at nearly every listing in JC, I found something that worked for me and that I could afford! Some of my friends gave up searching and moved out. But most of them didn't go to the suburbs. They went to Philadelphia or Baltimore, other old, urban cities.
Yep. There are so many people in Philly now that wanted a brownstone or even just a small condo in the urban city, but couldn't afford it here, so they moved to Philly. That's honestly my plan too. If I can't find anything in the city or JC, I'll move to Philly. I'll NEVER move to a Nutley/Bloomfield/Cranford/Montclair/Morristown. If I ever do have kids, the most yard they're getting is the small lot behind a brownstone/rowhome. I'll walk them to a park so I don't have to mow a lawn and buy a car for everyone in the family to survive. Kids all around the world grow up in cities and they're here to tell the story. Only in the US is having kids in the city looked down upon.

All the articles that millennials are moving to the suburbs don't take into account that it's out of necessity because we can't purchase anything in the urban cities...because of supply and demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-08-2019, 12:35 PM
 
12,023 posts, read 9,871,170 times
Reputation: 16542
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
No. Not Cranford. They are not like Hudson county cities, Harrison, or Newark. They're still suburban.

Also, what's your alternative? Just building nothing? One major reason housing is unaffordable is supply. Supply and demand is a very simple topic. Overbuilding is a great way to decrease housing costs. As the population grows, would you prefer that no housing gets built? I'm sorry you want your nice suburbs, but that era is over. There is simply not enough housing. You might not be happy with it. But it's a fact. There is not enough supply of housing, as nearly every major American city is not building enough to keep up with population demand. Look at cities like SF, LA and right here in NYC. SF and LA refuse to build. Meanwhile, NYC is building. And prices are leveling off there.

Clearly millennials are drawn to JC and Hoboken. We like them for being urban. You say "Millennials are leaving NJ, yet developers are saying they want to live in apartments in urban-like towns." Do you see the disconnect in logic there? There isn't enough of the housing stock or city layout that millennials like. So we leave. If there was enough supply of apartments in cities with walkable downtown, there would be environments that millennials like. And with enough supply, costs would be lower. And we need to stop subsidizing car travel so much. Taxes pay for roads and subsidize driving for suburbanites. We should change that and fund public transit options far more. Also, it can't all be blamed on NJ though. The federal government is not helping with the Gateway project and the tunnels and bridges across the Hudson. If the federal government and the state of NJ worked harder together to make sure NJT was more reliable by funding public transit more than car infrastructure, and there were enough apartments to bring the supply up to match demand and lower housing costs, there's a chance for change.

I mean, you're making good points, but you're not putting any critical thinking into it...tbh. Supply and demand is very important. You gotta get over your suburban love and wanting your nice quiet suburb to stay that way. Also the state has to get over its car-reliance and stop subsidizing car traffic so much, and put that funding into NJT. And you're missing the connection between NJ being suburban and millennials leaving, except for Hudson County, which is the only urban part.
I don't think we're on the same page.

The thread is about millennials leaving NJ, yet developers are using millennials wanting to rent as excuses to overdevelop already developed parts of NJ (like Cranford). So it's interesting they are leaving the state yet apparently want to live in apartments in the state, it's claimed even in places like Cranford which is NOT Hoboken (where they DO want to live as you've shown, yet places like Cranford will become more and more like Hoboken the more they're built up and become even more dense). We are running out of room in Cranford, the Board of Ed is putting together plans to restructure the school system to better use the space because schools are overcrowded. Unless we maintain the status quo in the long run (not smart for many reasons, as the problem isn't going away), taxes are going to increase with every plan, whether we add onto schools or restructure them or build a new one. All day kindergarten will be state mandated soon, Cranford doesn't have it yet, and we do not have the room for all these kids in current schools. Also, traffic is worse than I've ever seen it, it's difficult to find parking downtown. NJT is an obvious mess. Yet building after building are still popping up, with a 1000 unit place proposed that the town is trying to negotiate down. Towns are forced to meet affordable housing obligations under NJ's system and developers are using that to build, build, build, while also claiming they'll attract millennials who apparently either want Hoboken or JC or to leave the state altogether. So someone is either lying or wrong somewhere.

It's not that I want to maintain suburbia, it's that I do not want overdevelopment because I am already seeing local effects on traffic, transit, and schools. They are building on any available lot all around me and in other areas of the state. Apartments built all the time, everywhere. It's insane. And I don't know where they think they're putting all these people, on the already stressed and old train lines, crowded highways and schools. Densest state in the country, already quite built up in the NE part of the state, but let's keep building - bad idea. It's not our fault that people are being priced out of NYC. Soon they'll be priced out of here, too, as demand here grows. It's probably already happening.

I also don't think suburbia is dead. Once people start having kids, they move to towns like mine. They escape Hoboken, JC, NYC for towns like mine. The housing market here is booming, and it isn't for the shiny new apartments, it's for the homes. Houses are selling before they even hit the market, often for more than the asking price.

I don't know why you think millennials are leaving because NJ is suburban outside Hudson County. They're probably leaving because it's expensive to live here, they're likely saddled with college debt, and they can actually buy homes in other parts of the country which are growing and where they can find jobs and make enough money to buy a house instead of rent for a lot of their lives. There is a reason so many people from 20-30 are living at home - it's expensive to live here, or in general when you have college debt and other bills and housing is expensive. I think young millennials/people in general, before they settle down, tend to want to live in a Hoboken-like place because it's fun and convenient, but once it's time for kids, they head for the suburbs. Millennials are a whole generation, ranging from what, 20s to 40s at this point? Younger ones will likely eventually choose smaller towns - but if they can't afford a house at that point, it may not be in NJ.

Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 01-08-2019 at 12:51 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 12:48 PM
 
Location: NJ
3,837 posts, read 8,717,991 times
Reputation: 2824
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post

I also don't think suburbia is dead. Once people start having kids, they move to towns like mine. They escape Hoboken, JC, NYC for towns like mine. The housing market here is booming, and it isn't for the shiny new apartments, it's for the homes. Houses are selling before they even hit the market, often for more than the asking price.
I agree. I think the suburbs close to NYC will always be popular. Where I live in West Orange, this town has become very popular with people moving out of NYC, JC and Hoboken as you mentioned. Nobody wants to raise their kids in a 500 sqft apartment in an urban area that has terrible schools.

However, I think it is becoming clear that places like Sussex County are drastically losing popularity, as people realize they don't need a large house on a large plot of land, only to deal with an agonizingly long commute into the job centers of NJ or NYC.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 01:27 PM
 
5,903 posts, read 13,493,633 times
Reputation: 3191
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
I don't think we're on the same page.

The thread is about millennials leaving NJ, yet developers are using millennials wanting to rent as excuses to overdevelop already developed parts of NJ (like Cranford). So it's interesting they are leaving the state yet apparently want to live in apartments in the state, it's claimed even in places like Cranford which is NOT Hoboken (where they DO want to live as you've shown, yet places like Cranford will become more and more like Hoboken the more they're built up and become even more dense). We are running out of room in Cranford, the Board of Ed is putting together plans to restructure the school system to better use the space because schools are overcrowded. Unless we maintain the status quo in the long run (not smart for many reasons, as the problem isn't going away), taxes are going to increase with every plan, whether we add onto schools or restructure them or build a new one. All day kindergarten will be state mandated soon, Cranford doesn't have it yet, and we do not have the room for all these kids in current schools. Also, traffic is worse than I've ever seen it, it's difficult to find parking downtown. NJT is an obvious mess. Yet building after building are still popping up, with a 1000 unit place proposed that the town is trying to negotiate down. Towns are forced to meet affordable housing obligations under NJ's system and developers are using that to build, build, build, while also claiming they'll attract millennials who apparently either want Hoboken or JC or to leave the state altogether. So someone is either lying or wrong somewhere.
A state seeing a flood of millennials leaving is not sustainable. The state has to do more to keep millennials here. What do millennials like? Urban cities/towns with good public transit and local culture. How do you make something more urban and walkable? You add more mixed-use residential buildings and expand the offerings of the local downtown. You'll never replicate JC or Hoboken in Cranford. But you can get more people living in apartments and condos in downtown Cranford who will walk to the local bars and restaurants and take the train into Manhattan.

We're leaving the state because the options for us are limited. If you build it, they will come. We're not moving to places like Cranford in droves yet because the supply simply is not there enough...YET. Once the walkability and urban nature of a place like Cranford improves, we'll move there.

Traffic being worse is because people are driving. Let more people live in the downtown, and less people will drive to the downtown; they'll walk around their own neighborhood instead.

Also, I'm not going to say I'm an expert on these apartments in Cranford. But are they empty? If they're not empty, clearly demand is there and supply is simple not high enough. If they're empty, then it still goes back to that nexus of when a town turns into a walkable urban destination for millennials to move to. Young people like Montclair because there is fun stuff and it's walkable. Same with Morristown. Make it like one of those two, and people will go. Clearly it's just not there yet if the apartments are empty.

Quote:
It's not that I want to maintain suburbia, it's that I do not want overdevelopment because I am already seeing local effects on traffic, transit, and schools. They are building on any available lot all around me and in other areas of the state. Apartments built all the time, everywhere. It's insane. And I don't know where they think they're putting all these people, on the already stressed and old train lines, crowded highways and schools. Densest state in the country, already quite built up in the NE part of the state, but let's keep building - bad idea. It's not our fault that people are being priced out of NYC. Soon they'll be priced out of here, too, as demand here grows. It's probably already happening.
Seriously, correct me if I'm wrong, but even with NJ being the state with the most people leaving, the population is still growing...right? So if the population is still growing, we need more housing. Where are you going to build housing, if not on the empty lots? Yes, NJT is currently failing its riders, but let's HOPE it's not forever lost. We have to fund it better and fix it properly, with help from the federal government for the Hudson tunnels. That's what causes a lot of delays, but the federal government doesn't want to help NJT and Amtrak in the northeast. As a population increases, the place has to build more housing. It's a simple fact that many people refuse to accept. You can't keep shoving more people into the same amount of housing units. Again...supply and demand. A lot of America's housing problems have to do with supply and demand, and NJ is far from an exception.

Quote:
I also don't think suburbia is dead. Once people start having kids, they move to towns like mine. They escape Hoboken, JC, NYC for towns like mine. The housing market here is booming, and it isn't for the shiny new apartments, it's for the homes. Houses are selling before they even hit the market, often for more than the asking price.
You're showing the value of Cranford having a downtown and a train station here exactly. Again, not an expert, but is that same housing market found in NJ towns WITHOUT downtowns and commuter rail stations? I really don't know so I'm not saying you're wrong or anything here.

Quote:
I don't know why you think millennials are leaving because NJ is suburban outside Hudson County. They're probably leaving because it's expensive to live here, they're likely saddled with college debt, and they can actually buy homes in other parts of the country which are growing and where they can find jobs and make enough money to buy a house instead of rent for a lot of their lives. There is a reason so many people from 20-30 are living at home - it's expensive to live here, or in general when you have college debt and other bills and housing is expensive. I think young millennials/people in general, before they settle down, tend to want to live in a Hoboken-like place because it's fun and convenient, but once it's time for kids, they head for the suburbs. Millennials are a whole generation, ranging from what, 20s to 40s at this point? Younger ones will likely eventually choose smaller towns - but if they can't afford a house at that point, it may not be in NJ.
Articles have stated that's most likely one of the reasons we leave NJ. Also, I'm a millennial and all my friends around my age love living in JC, Hoboken, and NYC. None of us WANT to leave, some just can't afford it anymore. This again goes to supply and demand. If supply is low and demand is high, it's expensive.

Young millennials are often leaving NJ because we don't have the urban cities that younger millennials are looking for, except the select few that have been mentioned. Older millennials looking to settle down in the suburbs have potentially already moved out since they were a young millennial. The older millennials living in JC and Hoboken looking for suburban living with their future families are probably not choosing places like Clifton, Wayne, Livingston, Warren, and similarly suburban places with no downtown and/or no public transit. Some are, yes. But population trends show otherwise. If millennials were only moving because of housing costs, then why are the cities of the South we're moving to also pushing for urbanization? I don't have the demographics, but I'm sure places like Brickell Miami, Midtown Atlanta, Uptown Dallas, Downtown Austin, and similar places where massive condos are going up tend to attract millennials. Your money goes way further in those cities, but they're still condos. NJ has so many SFH neighborhoods it makes it hard to afford anything reasonable. Condos are more affordable, but NJ does not have enough.

Basically every millennial I know wants to stay in NYC, Hoboken or JC, but we know we'll never afford a condo here. So instead of moving to the suburbs, I know some are opting for condos in places like Midtown Atlanta. We still want urban living, but supply is too low and demand is too high in NJ.

Your point about NJ being the densest state is a testament to the fact that we should also have a ton of condos all over. Forcing the densest state to live in SFH spread throughout the state forces people to drive more which increases traffic.

I'm seriously wondering what your alternative is to urbanizing and creating more supply to curb the demand. If you don't build, demand will only continue and supply will only dwindle and prices will only climb further. Is your alternative that everyone just leave NJ if they want to buy a house/condo?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 03:35 PM
 
12,023 posts, read 9,871,170 times
Reputation: 16542
My point simply is that we are overdeveloping the state and especially given how dire our current transportation issues are, that's not a good move and in the end only may force more people out as taxes increase to meet the demand on growing schools and other necessities, and schools and roads get more overcrowded.

The fact that there may be a demand doesn't mean the solution is to build on any and every available plot of land just because millennials tend to be unable to afford to buy, with no plans to fix issues that arise when you add more people to an already very dense area. Overdevelopment isn't good for anyone, including the environment.

I say it all the time and I've said it on this thread multiple times - where are they putting all these people? Do YOU know? Cars aren't going anywhere any time soon because they can't, realistically not every place in the US is Manhattan with its walkability, and realistically aren't going to all become little walkable utopias either. So we build high-density units, people move in - then what? Then we're faced with worse traffic, more crowds everywhere, even more crowded trains that seem to break down more often over time. What are we doing to alleviate the strain all the building will lead to? It seems like nothing. Can we even fix all the problems it will cause, or are we stuck with worse traffic for life, worsening with time as demand keeps increasing?

My town has seen well over thousand new residents since the development started in this decade. Last census, 2010, our population growth was 47 since 2000. That's it. Look at that difference... a couple thousand vs. 47. It's because of building high-density housing in a predominantly single-family house suburb. And more buildings are coming, our biggest proposal is still being fought and that's a fight we'll lose (partly thanks to affordable housing obligations forced by the judiciary, it helps force developments through that towns don't want or need, a huge part of the problem at least in my area). Building in nearby towns is also as active. My downtown now sees gridlock multiple times a day, too many cars for the light cycles. In an area as dense as Union County, I don't know how anyone can see this trajectory as a good thing. If the state can find a way to alleviate problems overpopulation and development brings, that's great. Fine. But I don't have much faith in these added issues improving, which lowers our QOL and in the end may cause more to flee.

On how many apartments in Cranford are filled, by the way, I'm not sure. On local FB pages I've seen people say some buildings are struggling to fill but can't really find stats for sure. One complex was recently added NOT downtown, so not right next to the train (that is the one they may be struggling to fill from what I have heard), one proposed one is on the very edge of town so also not close to downtown/train, and the other they recently broke ground on is also not downtown and not very walkable to the train. All three of these are kind of on the fringes of town, not centralized. Don't know what they're thinking - probably because there's really no space anymore near or in town.

NJ could benefit by being a less costly place to live. The new gas tax? Notoriously high taxes? They don't help. As we work slowly, though, to plan to fix our NJT issues, I'm sure we'll all see increased costs because how else will the state pay?

I am also a millennial btw. People I know are living in apartments or multifamily houses - anywhere, not just urban areas - while they are in school, or single and working, or dating someone. Or they live at home with their parents (most I know still live at home because COL). Then when they marry, they tend to start looking for houses. I have a few high school friends who have already married and bought homes. Some people our age are into buying a house, even if it's a small, old one. I think it depends on where they are in life, priorities change.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 03:49 PM
 
Location: NYC
12,012 posts, read 7,987,370 times
Reputation: 13019
If people are moving out of NJ, the traffic on the highways and around the towns proves this theory is wrong. There are more traffic in around towns today than I could remember 10 years ago. If you take NJTransit, you know damn well that ridership is up and it's possible to get a seat on many NJ Coast line trains.

JC has spiked up and the PATH train is proof, it's gotten way overcrowded and the PA is spending billions to build stations instead of tackling the real problem which is not enough tracks and tracks.

Around Bergen, Hudson, Essex the traffic around town is horrendous during rush hour.

The problem with NJ is there are too many municipalities and they all run redundant services and some towns must overpay to get the same services.

The other problem with NJ is there are too many poor people living getting assistance because the jobs don't pay enough and the cost of living is too high.

You need to have atleast a $70k job or 2 incomes that add to that much to live in NJ.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 04:07 PM
 
5,903 posts, read 13,493,633 times
Reputation: 3191
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
My point simply is that we are overdeveloping the state and especially given how dire our current transportation issues are, that's not a good move and in the end only may force more people out as taxes increase to meet the demand on growing schools and other necessities, and schools and roads get more overcrowded.
I'm sorry if I'm missing your point here, but you keep saying the state is too overbuilt. Where do you suggest all the people move to then? Just because people are moving out doesn't mean people are not moving in and others are not having children that will grow up to need housing. It's supply and demand. i get NJT is a disaster and the traffic is bad. But what's the alternative? More people continue to leave until we turn net negative population growth because there is literally not a residential unit left to live in?

Quote:
The fact that there may be a demand doesn't mean the solution is to build on any and every available plot of land just because millennials tend to be unable to afford to buy, with no plans to fix issues that arise when you add more people to an already very dense area. Overdevelopment isn't good for anyone, including the environment.
Where would you suggest we build new housing, if not on available lots?

Quote:
I say it all the time and I've said it on this thread multiple times - where are they putting all these people? Do YOU know? Cars aren't going anywhere any time soon because they can't, realistically not every place in the US is Manhattan with its walkability, and realistically aren't going to all become little walkable utopias either. So we build high-density units, people move in - then what? Then we're faced with worse traffic, more crowds everywhere, even more crowded trains that seem to break down more often over time. What are we doing to alleviate the strain all the building will lead to? It seems like nothing. Can we even fix all the problems it will cause, or are we stuck with worse traffic for life, worsening with time as demand keeps increasing?
We're putting them in apartments lol like I've said. Not every place is Manhattan, but we can urbanize as much as possible in the suburbs so people can take less car trips and live in a downtown. Again, yes, NJT can't handle the ever-increasing load. But then what's the alternative? We don't build anything in the urban parts and force people into Sussex County? Or out of the state entirely? That's not sustainable. Fund NJT better and I think that's a better option that forcing more people out of the state.

My town has seen well over thousand new residents since the development started in this decade. Last census, 2010, our population growth was 47 since 2000. That's it. Look at that difference... a couple thousand vs. 47. It's because of building high-density housing in a predominantly single-family house suburb. And more buildings are coming, our biggest proposal is still being fought and that's a fight we'll lose (partly thanks to affordable housing obligations forced by the judiciary, it helps force developments through that towns don't want or need, a huge part of the problem at least in my area). Building in nearby towns is also as active. My downtown now sees gridlock multiple times a day, too many cars for the light cycles. In an area as dense as Union County, I don't know how anyone can see this trajectory as a good thing. If the state can find a way to alleviate problems overpopulation and development brings, that's great. Fine. But I don't have much faith in these added issues improving, which lowers our QOL and in the end may cause more to flee.

Quote:
On how many apartments in Cranford are filled, by the way, I'm not sure. On local FB pages I've seen people say some buildings are struggling to fill but can't really find stats for sure. One complex was recently added NOT downtown, so not right next to the train (that is the one they may be struggling to fill from what I have heard), one proposed one is on the very edge of town so also not close to downtown/train, and the other they recently broke ground on is also not downtown and not very walkable to the train. All three of these are kind of on the fringes of town, not centralized. Don't know what they're thinking - probably because there's really no space anymore near or in town.
I can't argue with you there. That's stupid to build them that far away. Cities and towns in NJ need to change their zoning and allow higher density units closer to all train stations.

Quote:
NJ could benefit by being a less costly place to live. The new gas tax? Notoriously high taxes? They don't help. As we work slowly, though, to plan to fix our NJT issues, I'm sure we'll all see increased costs because how else will the state pay?
I agree there, but NJ also has a higher standard of living and QOL than many other states like those in the South and Midwest with smaller populations and less services to provide. Our gas is already cheaper than many other states. I won't argue on property taxes though. They're too high. They should be lowered by forcing small municipalities to consolidate services.

Quote:
I am also a millennial btw. People I know are living in apartments or multifamily houses - anywhere, not just urban areas - while they are in school, or single and working, or dating someone. Or they live at home with their parents (most I know still live at home because COL). Then when they marry, they tend to start looking for houses. I have a few high school friends who have already married and bought homes. Some people our age are into buying a house, even if it's a small, old one. I think it depends on where they are in life, priorities change.
We need more of those apartments and multi-family units, or we'll force future generations into living with their parents even more. The fact that so many people live at home in NJ proves there isn't enough inventory of apartments in those areas. Look at a place like Wayne. Those kids grow up, love Wayne, want to stay in Wayne...but where do they go? There aren't enough apartments in Wayne so they live at home.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-08-2019, 11:27 PM
 
12,023 posts, read 9,871,170 times
Reputation: 16542
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
Where would you suggest we build new housing, if not on available lots?
This is disingenuous. My point is clearly about OVERdevelopment, that it is too much to build on every available lot that opens up and can be snatched by greedy developers. Obviously we just have different opinions, which is fine. You think it's cool to risk more problems by overdeveloping to meet an apparently high demand, I don't think it's cool to build densely at such a high rate with no plans to fix any issues that overpopulation and overdevelopment bring. It's short-sighted imo to just build high density complexes nonstop because COL is too high that millennials apparently can't or won't live anywhere but urban apartments. Look at 22 west out of Newark at rush hour, way outdated for the population 2 lane highway, how are we fixing that? There isn't even room to expand the highway; parts of NJ will be a traffic nightmare forever, getting increasingly worse, unless we do massive demolition to restructure highways, and let's hope the Hudson River tunnels hold out long enough for NY and NJ and the feds to get it together and figure out how to fix those aging structures with growing problems.

Quote:
Cities and towns in NJ need to change their zoning and allow higher density units closer to all train stations.
Where? Where are we putting them? There is no space in my town for high density units closer to the train station. It is all built up already. That's what I'm saying. Towns like mine have been developed for decades, now it's just overkill. I'm not okay with that. If you are, that's fine, but I'm not and frankly, my mind won't be changed - I'm seeing what this overdevelopment is doing to my area and I don't like it - not because it's turning more into a mini-city with each complex, but because I see the growing issues with overpopulation that I don't see how we can alleviate.

Quote:
We need more of those apartments and multi-family units, or we'll force future generations into living with their parents even more. The fact that so many people live at home in NJ proves there isn't enough inventory of apartments in those areas. Look at a place like Wayne. Those kids grow up, love Wayne, want to stay in Wayne...but where do they go? There aren't enough apartments in Wayne so they live at home.
No one I know lives at home because there aren't enough apartments. They live at home because they can't afford to move out.

I'm not entirely convinced there's this huge demand for all these apartments as you claim. Again, towns need to meet AH obligations so developers are able to force apartments through under that guise - at least that's what's happening around me. But they only need to make something like 15% of the building AH, so what happens is 85% are regular housing units, which will add to our population, meaning now we need MORE AH units to meet the quota, and the cycle continues. Apartments are money makers for developers, and in my town they apparently get tax breaks for a few years which is a huge draw/plus for them. I don't think it's all as innocent and necessary as you argue. Sure, if you build it, they will probably come, especially in a place like northern NJ, but you act like millennials are struggling because there isn't enough housing in general - no, there isn't cheap enough housing for people living in an increasingly expensive society and state, who often have college debt and come out of school with little to no money and need time to get on their feet and establish themselves. Many, many people I know are in this position. NJ's COL is extremely high. And new complexes are often NOT even that cheap because they're so new, even AH units are kind of expensive in NJ.

I maintain that part of the problem is the ridiculous affordable housing scheme we have in this state that allows developers to railroad over towns' objections to building many large complexes which put a strain on local infrastructure. Big developments are money makers, it's not ALL about apparent demand which I am still not convinced exists as much as you claim. The biggest problem imo is cost, not availability. I think we fundamentally disagree on the biggest driving factor here. Nothing I see with people I know, literally everyone I know my age, suggests that availability is the problem. Cost is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 09:37 AM
 
5,903 posts, read 13,493,633 times
Reputation: 3191
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
This is disingenuous. My point is clearly about OVERdevelopment, that it is too much to build on every available lot that opens up and can be snatched by greedy developers. Obviously we just have different opinions, which is fine. You think it's cool to risk more problems by overdeveloping to meet an apparently high demand, I don't think it's cool to build densely at such a high rate with no plans to fix any issues that overpopulation and overdevelopment bring. It's short-sighted imo to just build high density complexes nonstop because COL is too high that millennials apparently can't or won't live anywhere but urban apartments. Look at 22 west out of Newark at rush hour, way outdated for the population 2 lane highway, how are we fixing that? There isn't even room to expand the highway; parts of NJ will be a traffic nightmare forever, getting increasingly worse, unless we do massive demolition to restructure highways, and let's hope the Hudson River tunnels hold out long enough for NY and NJ and the feds to get it together and figure out how to fix those aging structures with growing problems.
Ok. Again. I'll ask you this. What is your alternative? NJ's population is growing. Where will these people move if we don't build housing for them? Would you prefer all millennials be relegated to living at home with their parents or moving out of state? More people=more housing needed.


Quote:
Where? Where are we putting them? There is no space in my town for high density units closer to the train station. It is all built up already. That's what I'm saying. Towns like mine have been developed for decades, now it's just overkill. I'm not okay with that. If you are, that's fine, but I'm not and frankly, my mind won't be changed - I'm seeing what this overdevelopment is doing to my area and I don't like it - not because it's turning more into a mini-city with each complex, but because I see the growing issues with overpopulation that I don't see how we can alleviate.
Again. What's the alternative to building more housing? Not building enough to meet demand? The US has not been building enough to meet demand for a very long time now. Finally we're building more, and people don't like it.

Also, as for Cranford in downtown. Here:
https://goo.gl/maps/jYwDDs2DVx62
https://goo.gl/maps/fM7bmpnSugm
https://goo.gl/maps/STXyp39tYoE2
https://goo.gl/maps/oNXX6oYq2Hr
https://goo.gl/maps/r2AkL2FkB3U2
https://goo.gl/maps/QD5rrFpeUBk
https://goo.gl/maps/fsRhQDGjgVB2
https://goo.gl/maps/GPjPmJ4giLn
https://goo.gl/maps/Km9VD5Vq9392
https://goo.gl/maps/rdRVzEo5Mq42

Speaking of this link, these buildings take up more space than needed. Rezone, demolish, and build up.
https://goo.gl/maps/stUoVNwUZ3u
https://goo.gl/maps/8Lxpn5g2n422

It's not a lack of space, it's a misuse of space. All the properties I showed are either in downtown or within walking distance to the Cranford station and downtown. While many of these are parking lots, and I get people will drive into downtown or to work, there are other solutions. Build parking GARAGES with several floors instead of lots. Require the apartment/condo buildings reserve a certain number of spaces for the general public to pay whether it be in underground or podium garages. There are solutions.

Nearly every train station/downtown combo has this type of misuse of space that was geared toward suburban and car-centric living. Times are changing. Rezone and rebuild.

Quote:
No one I know lives at home because there aren't enough apartments. They live at home because they can't afford to move out.
Quote:
I'm not entirely convinced there's this huge demand for all these apartments as you claim. Again, towns need to meet AH obligations so developers are able to force apartments through under that guise - at least that's what's happening around me. But they only need to make something like 15% of the building AH, so what happens is 85% are regular housing units, which will add to our population, meaning now we need MORE AH units to meet the quota, and the cycle continues. Apartments are money makers for developers, and in my town they apparently get tax breaks for a few years which is a huge draw/plus for them. I don't think it's all as innocent and necessary as you argue. Sure, if you build it, they will probably come, especially in a place like northern NJ, but you act like millennials are struggling because there isn't enough housing in general - no, there isn't cheap enough housing for people living in an increasingly expensive society and state, who often have college debt and come out of school with little to no money and need time to get on their feet and establish themselves. Many, many people I know are in this position. NJ's COL is extremely high. And new complexes are often NOT even that cheap because they're so new, even AH units are kind of expensive in NJ.

I maintain that part of the problem is the ridiculous affordable housing scheme we have in this state that allows developers to railroad over towns' objections to building many large complexes which put a strain on local infrastructure. Big developments are money makers, it's not ALL about apparent demand which I am still not convinced exists as much as you claim. The biggest problem imo is cost, not availability. I think we fundamentally disagree on the biggest driving factor here. Nothing I see with people I know, literally everyone I know my age, suggests that availability is the problem. Cost is.
You say you're not sure about the huge demand for apartments. Supply and demand creates higher prices, so the market begs to differ. Also, developers wouldn't continue to develop in the same areas if vacancy was an issue. Supply and demand is the major issue here. If there are more properties for people to live in, people have more choice. If someone can afford a luxury complex, they might move into one. If there are enough luxury places going up, that alleviates the pressure on the lower quality apartments that can then be more affordable. It's a problem LA is having. I'm from there. The cheaply built dingbat apartments were never meant to be as nice as they are now. However, they became expensive because there literally just was nowhere else to put people.

Millennials with student debt don't need to move into luxury buildings. But someone with a large income and less debt who can afford a luxury building may move into it. If enough do that, the supply of non-luxury buildings grows and demand falls. Also, I know a lot of suburban millennials who are not comfortable living in a studio. Often you just gotta do it. Land is at a premium in NJ now. The parents bought here before demand was so high and land was at such a premium. And it doesn't always have to be something fancy. If your friends suggest cost is the problem, it's literally supply and demand.

I do understand you don't want your city to change. However, times do change. The suburbs are no longer the answer. A classic suburban town cannot survive without adapting. But you're really really really really missing the point of supply and demand in the densest state in the country.

"When there is a high demand for properties in a particular city or state and a lack of supply of quality properties, the prices of houses tend to rise. When there is no demand for housing due to a weak economy and an oversupply of properties is available, the prices of houses tend to fall."
https://www.investopedia.com/ask/ans...ing-market.asp

"Availability is a huge factor affecting prices within a set region, such as in a specific suburb of a metropolitan area. Likewise, demand for homes in that market also plays into that price, which is why two nearly identical homes in different cities may sell for vastly different prices...

In a hot market, such as a neighborhood with large waterfront lots or a city with great schools and high-paying jobs, houses sell quickly due to high demand. There aren't enough homes for sale to meet the demand of interested buyers. Housing prices rise since buyers are willing to pay more to live in the neighborhood they desire. The houses in such a neighborhood may be virtually identical to those in the low-demand market, but with significantly higher selling prices."
https://homeguides.sfgate.com/supply...ces-46754.html

Until we build enough units to meet the population increase, supply will be low while demand is high. It's honestly a really simple concept. It's a fact, tbh. Whether you want your town to urbanize or not is a personal preference, but your feelings don't impact facts. The facts say when supply is low and demand is high, prices will increase. The facts say when supply is high, demand will lessen, and prices will lower. You can't deny a fact. I know those articles address purchasing, but same concept. High demand + low supply = high prices. High supply + lower demand = lower prices. NJ will never be CHEAP. But we can build enough to lower demand.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 10:12 AM
 
Location: Jersey City
6,328 posts, read 15,705,182 times
Reputation: 5288
A lot of tl;dr posts in this thread lately, but I did look at the streetviews of Cranford and agree those spots are wasted space today. Would be great to make better use of land that's in a downtown and walkable to transit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:



Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New Jersey
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top