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 Yesterday, 10:36 PM
 
5,910 posts, read 13,493,633 times
Reputation: 3191

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
Look, I never said development wasn't necessary for progress. My town has recently built some nice buildings right downtown which I like, are thriving, and which I would absolutely live in. But there reaches a point where it is TOO MUCH, and we are reaching that point. Overdevelopment exists, that's my only freaking point here. It's not that hard to understand, I explained it and its direct effects well.
You just admitted they're thriving. If they're thriving, that means the demand is there. Developers don't just go willy nilly building all over. They put effort into research of where they can make a profit. They clearly see Cranford as a place for profit. Which means the demand is there and they're capitalizing on it. If the demand was not there, they would not be building. If buildings were sitting empty, they would not be building. By your own statement, they're not empty.

Overdevelopment is turning Cranford into Jersey City. Suburbs all over the country just have A TON of catching up to do to match demand, and they have seen the writing on the wall--if they don't urbanize and modernize, they're going to become less attractive. Cranford's leaders clearly see the benefit of developing the downtown. It's happening fast now because the housing market has been so hot recently. But Cranford, like all other suburbs, has so much catching up to do that it's like that analogy of the frog in boiling water. If all suburbs, including Cranford, had been slowly urbanizing for decades and meeting demand growth, you wouldn't be freaking out. However, suburbs have finally realized they got it wrong and are building quickly right now. So you see it more abruptly. It needs to happen, though, and status quo is not the answer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:54 PM
 
442 posts, read 1,036,947 times
Reputation: 275
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerseyGirl415 View Post
lol No. Why are you assuming so many younger people never want a home? The trend I see in my area is against what you are saying, even if it takes them marrying and having kids before they buy one. A ton of people move out of Hoboken and similar places into my town once they have kids, because they want a house and a yard for their kids and great public schools and some more space, a more family-friendly environment and less of a young crowd. I know many millennial couples who married and bought a fixer upper or an old house and made it their own, in addition to all the young couples snatching up houses in my town right after they're listed. I also know single millennials living in Hoboken, or apartments in Garwood, or still at home, or even a few who bought houses. People's priorities often change depending on where they are in life. And not everyone who is young and enjoying life wants to live in a place like Hoboken, anyway, it isn't for anyone, though a trend is certainly there.

This discussion has been blown way out of proportion. Again, I am NOT against change. I am against overdevelopment - which is a thing. It's pretty simple, not sure why it's getting so much pushback and I'm made into this NIMBY person with a terrible mindset. I welcome smart development, not overdevelopment or development of high density housing in areas far from town centers where people will certainly need cars to get around and are far from the apparent draw of the train (which jessemh431 actually agreed with me on). God forbid not every town is like Hoboken with high density housing, apparently plus many new tall apartment complexes replacing existing and thriving old downtown buildings through zoning law changes and eminent domain.

I can tell you for a fact that at some point, we're reaching it soon, my town cannot handle the new people all the building is supposed to bring. We have already seen increased traffic issues (and accidents). We have already seen the truly bad effects on the schools that overpopulation brings (like speech therapy in hallways because there are no available rooms), with plans to redistrict and rearrange how the grades are distributed in each school to better use the space to accommodate all the people, especially with the coming addition of state mandated all day kindergarten which we don't have (this will cost money, raise taxes, no matter how we do it, and it needs to be done to accommodate the increase in population). If you and that other poster want to keep arguing with me, whatever. I'm not changing my mind that at some point, it becomes too much.

I think you are missing an important point. Hoboken is the most urban example, but the point i was bringing is that there is a reason why towns like Maplewood and Montclair continue to be so popular. So why not create more of that vibrant downtowns with increased development in towns with train stations to increase the options people have. People often times have to settle instead of getting what they really desire. And what might seem as over development to you, is simply progress for someone else. Look at the debate that happened at Emerson, NJ. Some of the residents wanted to keep the decaying downtown as is and fought against the development arguing about the traffic. Others saw it as an opportunity to give access to the train station to more people, revitalize a downtown to help the current businesses and give opportunities to the new ones, and to simply make the town more attactivie. The plan got approved, here are the pictures- Emerson Redevelopment - Minno & Wasko and if you search on google for emerson's downtown right now, you will see how bad of a shape it is in.



And you simply want the status quo, meaning NO CHANGE. At a certain time, the town you are in now was more rural than it is now....and people back then argued against the change....and the cycle is continuing with you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:27 PM
 
12,023 posts, read 9,874,701 times
Reputation: 16542
Jesse - I'm done responding to you. I'm entirely over this relentless conversation. We disagree on the cause of millennials living at home or leaving, we disagree on the issues overdevelopment cause (or the relevance of its existence). We apparently disagree that developers' greed/carelessness and AH obligations play a role. And we disagree that all nice train towns should and NEED TO become Jersey City-like places (one of the most alarming things someone who is so pro-overdevelopment can say, imo - we don't all want to be Jersey City and shouldn't have to be forced to become them, like 46H basically said, if homeowners wanted to live in a JC-like place, they'd live in JC and not suburban towns, if people wanted to stay in a JC-like place once they have kids, then they wouldn't leave for suburban towns). Enough already, I'm over the multiple posts back and forth getting nowhere, especially after you called me dense for simply disagreeing with you. You basically just admitted you don't care about overdevelopment, this was really my big point of discussion all along, you feel completely differently than me, so move on. Your last post to me was very telling and all I needed to know about your POV, so thanks for it.

Seduflow - When I say status quo, I mean current position - which includes recent developments. I think for now we have enough, at least where I am. I have seen no actual evidence from either of you that there are not enough apartments out there, and I stand by my opinion that COL/rent and their financial situations (often little to no savings, college debt, going to school for longer/advanced degrees, needing to get on their feet in this high COL state before being able to move out) are the biggest issues causing millennials to not move out of their parents' homes or to leave the state for cheaper areas. I don't see evidence of the former irl, either, the only stories I see are of those who basically are in no financial shape to move out anywhere, whether it be an apartment in Hoboken, Cranford, Sussex County, wherever would make sense for their job and lifestyle. Cranford's situation is nothing at all like Emerson's, and I am not arguing for keeping dying towns the same, not sure why you're bringing that up. Cranford was never and certainly now is not in that type of position. Again, the issue I am complaining of is pretty narrow and simple to follow - there is a point where it is too much for one place and it becomes a burden, partially formed through by courts under AH obligations. I've said this on the forum multiple times, nothing new from me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:41 AM
46H
 
887 posts, read 506,019 times
Reputation: 1648
Quote:
Originally Posted by jessemh431 View Post
Status quo is the answer, yet status quo isn't working? I'm really failing to see how anything you're proposing is a viable option. Status quo means the population of the entire state increases, while the housing supply remains the same? That's honestly the most laughable growth plan I've ever heard. How is that sustainable? Where will all those people besides out of state?

Aww I feel sooooo bad for the people who chose to live in a downtown near a train station and now don't want other people to enjoy those amenities. You know what? With all the development going on in their downtown, I'm sure they can make a killer profit on the home and go move to Sussex County or South Jersey where they don't have to worry as much. That's the problem with NIMBY-ism and statements like yours. You got, f the rest of the people who want it. You want to hold on to your idea of your town from 20 years ago. Meanwhile, the state has added a lot of people and people need a place to live. I really couldn't give less f's about people who don't want apartment buildings going up by them. Move if you don't like it. All you're doing is causing a mess for the entire state by not letting developers build enough housing to meet the population increase of the state.

Not every article was on people leaving NJ after high school. Some mentioned it, but the main focus is that across the board, millennials leave NJ. And how do we know those millennials are not leaving to NYC, Philly, DC, Boston, etc. to be in a big urban environment. New Brunswick is pretty urban, but it's still far from NYC and Philly. Maybe the state could capitalize on NJIT and Stevens and NJCU and other campuses in more urban cities close to NYC. Idk what the state can do about that, but it doesn't change the fact that ALL millennials are leaving NJ and urban cities is a factor.

Seriously there is no counter argument that is logical here. Every counter argument is "I'm offended by big buildings. I was here first. Go away from me even if that means moving out of state and destroying the future of the state I live in." That feeling is also combined with "I'm going to pretend like population increase is not a thing and I really couldn't care less where people live because I have a house and I don't care about other people." That's what the counter arguments come down to. As NJ's population grows, we need a place for all people to live. Not building any more housing while the population grows is literally the most illogical answer you could've come up with.

So the millenials have been moving out of NJ for a decade, yet NJ needs more high density housing.
Interesting contradiction.

Your breathless panic is amusing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Today, 09:45 AM
46H
 
887 posts, read 506,019 times
Reputation: 1648
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seduflow View Post
The reason many are continuing to live at home or rent is because of the lack of options. THEY DONT WANT to live the same, dull suburban life that involves maintaining the lawns, commuting long distance, and trying to maintain an old crumbling house from the 1950s/60s with a layout they dont even like . Nor do the want to live in some garden apartment built in the 1950s at some random suburb thats far away from everything. And the options that are available cost too much like Hoboken. Building more may not drop prices a lot, but it would provide more affordable options. When my wife and I got married, we were limited on our options on where to rent. We did NOT want to rent some old house or an old garden apartment. All because YOU refuse to acknowledge that development is necessary for progress. And higher density by downtowns only helps the local businesses there. They NEED people. There are plenty that can afford a house in Morris County instead of living with their parents or rent, but they DONT WANT TO live in an area like that. That is what you dont seem to understand, that the lifestyle of living far away from everything and isolated is not the lifestyle that this generation wants to be in for the most part.

So you do not like the STYLE of housing available. Try and remember that real estate is privately owned. How do you propose to change the current style to something that appeals to you?
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