ADVERTISEMENT

New Bruns homeowners say RU-backed apartments will destroy ambience on Mine Street

Tango Two

Moderator
Moderator
Aug 21, 2001
47,926
32,680
113
North Brunswick, New Jersey
For decades, Mine Street near Rutgers University has been known for its mix of 20-somethings, affordable rentals and comfortable walking distance to bars, eateries and small offices.


Lined by decades-old homes with front porches, peaked roofs, attics, small gardens and the like, Mine Street ? nestled between Easton and College Avenues ? is home to Rutgers' student-run newspaper, The Daily Targum, as well as the Theta Chi and Delta Gamma fraternities.



The neighborhood, according to those who live here, is a comfortable combination of students, homeowners and renters.



This week, a Rutgers-backed proposal to build a multi-million dollar, four-story apartment building ? which, among other things, would double the population of Mine Street ? is being met with resistance from residents who have lived here for years.

Article
 
I was never in that area much at all (if ever) so I am mostly going by pictures but...those houses look pretty beat. While it seems obvious that building a four story apartment building doesn't "fit the style" of the rest of the street all I can think of that is "so what...the rest of the street looks crappy."

The one legit concern I would have is the lack of parking being added. 43 spots for 50+ apartments seems ridiculously low. The one year I shared an apartment while in school there were three of us and each of us had a car (actually one guy had both a car and a motorcycle). The 106 required by the city actually seems reasonable IMHO, although still a bit on the conservative side as, if I understand correctly, that would mean nearly 1/3 of the occupants would not have a parking space. That may be reasonable for students in general, but since this is technically "off campus" I am not sure how likely that is.
 
When I was a student in Baltimore, I lived off campus in an apartment building that probably had over 100 units. They had zero parking spaces. If you had a car, you rented a space in a parking garage.

Lack of parking in a small city, especially in a building designed for students, is not a "legit concern" in my mind.
 
They raise very reasonable concerns. The planning board should be very receptive to their input as they don't seem to just be trying to stop progress they are expressing concern about specific things like sewers, parking, traffic, construction etc. It's fair to even question the four story height of the project as out of character.

I think they have legit concerns but at the same time they are living on the front step of a major university and can't expect the status quo. It's interesting to see someone that bought their home 10 years ago express concern - that street has been home to fraternities, sororities, college organizations, etc...it's not like there are that many owner occupied residences. And with Rutgers being right now you have to know that the odds of major change are fairly high. You can't buy property without an understanding of how the area may change around you - particularly in an urban environment.

Their best approach will probably be to push for design changes. I don't think they will be able to stop this project but they could get some traction by asking for the style/facade to be more in keeping with the homes on the block and perhaps scale back the number of units.

I don't know much of the details but can certainly see both sides of the argument. That's why I think if they go in with a reasonable but aggressive approach they can get the developer to make some changes.
This post was edited on 3/10 4:40 PM by Scarlet Pride
 
Originally posted by Tango Two:

For decades, Mine Street near Rutgers University has been known for its mix of 20-somethings, affordable rentals and comfortable walking distance to bars, eateries and small offices.


Lined by decades-old homes with front porches, peaked roofs, attics, small gardens and the like, Mine Street ? nestled between Easton and College Avenues ? is home to Rutgers' student-run newspaper, The Daily Targum, as well as the Theta Chi and Delta Gamma fraternities.


The neighborhood, according to those who live here, is a comfortable combination of students, homeowners and renters.



This week, a Rutgers-backed proposal to build a multi-million dollar, four-story apartment building ? which, among other things, would double the population of Mine Street ? is being met with resistance from residents who have lived here for years.
AKA "No one will want to live in my shitty house once these nicer places go up". Having just graduated, I hope they bring the biggest bulldozer known to man and destroy all the houses between easton and college avenue. They are beyond ugly and old, festering holes of bro-dom where you basically try to pack as many people into as crappy of a house as possible. If people want to do that, then go to the houses that extend beyond Easton like delafield/guilden streets. But there shouldn't be so much ugly and dilapidated housing that close to RU campus.
 
Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:
They raise very reasonable concerns. The planning board should be very receptive to their input as they don't seem to just be trying to stop progress they are expressing concern about specific things like sewers, parking, traffic, construction etc. It's fair to even question the four story height of the project as out of character.

I think they have legit concerns but at the same time they are living on the front step of a major university and can't expect the status quo. It's interesting to see someone that bought their home 10 years ago express concern - that street has been home to fraternities, sororities, college organizations, etc...it's not like there are that many owner occupied residences. And with Rutgers being right now you have to know that the odds of major change are fairly high. You can't buy property without an understanding of how the area may change around you - particularly in an urban environment.

Their best approach will probably be to push for design changes. I don't think they will be able to stop this project but they could get some traction by asking for the style/facade to be more in keeping with the homes on the block and perhaps scale back the number of units.

I don't know much of the details but can certainly see both sides of the argument. That's why I think if they go in with a reasonable but aggressive approach they can get the developer to make some changes.
This post was edited on 3/10 4:40 PM by Scarlet Pride
Thats always how they try to stop progress. Its never - I just don't want more people here - its all the stuff you list, plus the environment.

Maybe they should work to make their city safer, so that RU students don't feel the need to live right on top of campus. Maybe they should work to get rid of slum lords, so students can live in the existing houses without living in a shithole, falling down house.
 
"Decades-old homes"

Wouldn't want to destroy the historic nature of the block, right??
roll.r191677.gif
 
Originally posted by Upstream:

http://binged.it/1cRumc7


Looking at an aerial photo of the area, one side of Mine St is almost exclusively parking lots and 3-story apt buildings. The other side is a mixture of commercial property, parking lots, and houses.
What a joke approval of this application would be. Firstly, I believe very few of the lots shown are available to the public but are private lots. Secondly, the precedent it would set by approving approximately 40 % of required parking for this site would allow every other developer to request the same dispensation. Parking is a major problem now and would be horrendous If this plan is allowed, But, then again, the city would make a real score on a new source of parking tickets.
 
I've never been a student in NB, so let me ask: if you are living as a student in this neighborhood, how important is it to have a car? If it isn't, then maybe it's OK to relax parking requirements and figure that tenants can just do without.
 
I am a believer in letting the free market decide parking. Don't force others to subsidize your choices. Oversubsidizing parking is bad policy that prices people out of housing and leads to inefficient land usage.
 
Parking really should be closely looked at as mentioned earlier you could set a precedent. They are providing less than 1/2 of the required parking. Unless they can clearly layout why they shouldn't have adequate parking I'd be telling them to downsize the project. Maybe restricting the seminary students from having cars will reduce the number required but I doubt that is enough to make up the deficit of spaces. And just saying that we want students to not have cars isn't enough. These are market rate apartments not student housing. Unless you pass a specific zoning ordinance for that building that restricts the number of cars per unit to one then you will be contributing significantly to an already terrible parking situation.

I think in general it's a good project but there are a lot of questions and that is what good planning and zoning is supposed to address. Otherwise you end up with bad buildings, poor infrastructure, etc...

Hopefully Construction Management Associates aren't the same guys behind the buildings on Union Street. Those are examples of bad oversight. The members of the planning board that approved those buildings should be ashamed and replaced (if they are still on the board). Those buildings are such eyesores. I'm sure they are cash cows and the fact that they all look like nondescript boxes is an indictment of the quality of the planning board. Don't they have any design standards???
 
A proposal to build a four-story apartment building on Mine Street may hit a snag if the state decides there is historic value at or near the site, a city official said Wednesday.



City Historian George Dawson says several Mine Street properties are cited in a 1980 Middlesex County-commissioned architectural survey as having historical value.





.

Historic register status may snag plan to build
 
Originally posted by Scarlet Craig:


Originally posted by e5fdny:

Originally posted by Scarlet Craig:
While there at it, bulldoze Union St. too.
Somebody have a bad night at one of the Houses?
*Eyesore
Well mine is gone so you don't have to worry about that one. LOL

*And when you put it that way I can see your point.
 
What's historic about Mine Street, the congealed frat house vomit on the pavement?

The audacity of these people, to live on a street right off CAC with frat houses and a 4 story building to replace slumlords and disrepair?

A garden? Seriously?

They should be thankful the city or RU doesn't pursue eminent domain and keep their traps shut. Buyer beware, you live in a dense college town and your neighbors are frat houses, Hansel & Griddle, and Old Queens, give me a break.
 
Yeah how dare citizens speak up and express concern about their neighborhood. RU, NB, and developers should just make all the decisions for lowly tax paying citizens.
 
This article pretty much sums up everything wrong with nj culture as a whole. The block has no historic value. Sorry
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
What's historic about Mine Street, the congealed frat house vomit on the pavement?

The audacity of these people, to live on a street right off CAC with frat houses and a 4 story building to replace slumlords and disrepair?

A garden? Seriously?

They should be thankful the city or RU doesn't pursue eminent domain and keep their traps shut. Buyer beware, you live in a dense college town and your neighbors are frat houses, Hansel & Griddle, and Old Queens, give me a break.
The same can be said for those who live in places like Hoboken.
 
I live in JC right on the border of Hoboken.

Hoboken and Jersey City both have plans that will tremendously re-shape my block. I am all for them.

They're going to add more condos and apartments, street level retail, maybe some offices but those will be further down.

The people in both places who whine have no basis to do so.

You buy in a city- you need to deal with that. The people who come to Hoboken with their strollers down the block from a bar are morons if they complain about noise at closing time.

Just like these people in New Brunswick. Yeah they pay taxes- that doesn't give them the right to reshape the neighborhood.

Pretty sure RU was there first, you think? There's a little doctrine called "coming to the nuisance" and that's what happened here.

And the response was sarcastic- but in a perfect world, RU should have the right to come into the 5th and 6th and do whatever it wants, partnering with developers and kicking out old timers and their gardens (aka shabby properties ripe for eminent domain). There is a greater interest in the state having RU be charming and accessible than these people insisting on bucking a trend.

Sorry, no sympathy for people who don't do a quick glance of the street they buy on.
 
I have no dog in this fight, but the Hoboken case (where the use already existed) and the NB case (where the use is going to be built) are not comparable. If someone is going to build an unattractive building down the street, then of course one can legitimately protest. After all, the new building may well decrease your property's value.

Even the Hoboken case is not as clear-cut as you present it. A law and economics person would ask, "which results in the greater benefit? The bars continuing to operate, or the real estate appreciating because of the neighborhood's ability to attract families with small children?" I don't know the answer, but the bars might not win that comparison.
 
Originally posted by bob-loblaw:
This article pretty much sums up everything wrong with nj culture as a whole. The block has no historic value. Sorry
Its not just NJ. Why do people insist on doing this. Everywhere that there is a chance to use the law to block new building people do - everywhere. Some places have relatively loose zoning, so such cheap land that it rarely comes up (why build a new apartment over an older building in downtown Dallas when you can build on a greenfield in the exurbs) - but NJ is no different than anywhere when it comes to people expecting things to stay exactly as they were when they moved in and doing everything in their power to keep it that way.
 
Well, in Hoboken, the bars don't reduce rent or property value. So from an economics perspective, the bars are a help.

In New Brunswick- it's the same idea- more well-heeled students, better for business.

It will also likely help the recent rash of crime. Broken windows theory- George Street is becoming an example.
 
Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:
Yeah how dare citizens speak up and express concern about their neighborhood. RU, NB, and developers should just make all the decisions for lowly tax paying citizens.
"The government and the developers have decided you need to leave"
 
The article mentions a Jennifer O'Neill. Is that the same person who is on the Rutgers University Alumni Association Board ?
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

Well, in Hoboken, the bars don't reduce rent or property value. So from an economics perspective, the bars are a help.

In New Brunswick- it's the same idea- more well-heeled students, better for business.

It will also likely help the recent rash of crime. Broken windows theory- George Street is becoming an example.
I'll bet those yuppies with strollers think the bars hurt their property values. I wonder, as an empirical matter, who is right. I don't think it's as straightforward as you suggest.
 
If you look at Zillow or Trulia, you will see what I mean- but you're right in the sense that the bars are actually in a desirable location (closer to the water, ferries, and PATH). The area with no bars is the western part of town- which is closer to the projects and far from mass transit.

In general though- IMO- people who are truly looking for an urban environment deal with bars and noise. The problem is the past few years that some people are seeking to impose their suburban mentality on urban areas. They think Park Slope or Hoboken should mimic the NJ or LI cul de sac they were coddled on. And those are the people I take issue with. Those cul de sacs are still there- go move to them! Just like our New Brunswick gardeners who decided to live a block from fraternities and complain about neighborhood ambience.
 
I think you'd find that just about everywhere in the United States, residence would prefer not to have taverns for neighbors. Taverns produce noise, and the occasional drunk or fight. And Americans tend to like single-use areas, unlike Europeans. (I'm not saying this is good, mind you, only that it is true.) So the value for a residence (particularly a residence that can be used by a family, even a young one, is hurt by the presence of bars. Whether this outweighs the benefit to some rentals occupied by people who like bars is an empirical question that neither of us can really answer.
 
Historically but I think that is changing. Millenials are moving towards more urban environments. It's the Generation Xers that are having kids and making demands (and as a millenial, I say how typical of them!) The thing is Hoboken is known for having the highest (if it is still if not it's up there) density of bars in America, so if you don't like bars, you should probably avoid it in general. Just like if you don't like college kids or a University with a need to build, New Brunswick is probably best avoided. That's the great thing about NJ...we have so many different types of towns to choose from. We need to make New Brunswick a better choice...IMO that means new buildings not poorly aging ones with nice gardens.
 
The millenials will move toward urban environments until, like every generation before them, they have children. Their attitudes will change really quickly then.
 
We will see. Millenials are also going to have children much later as most of us are not married or interested in marrying before 30.
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
We will see. Millenials are also going to have children much later as most of us are not married or interested in marrying before 30.
sure. they'll be like Depression-age families who postponed childbearing for a long time. But the kids will eventually happen sooner or later. A lot of the baby boom of 1946-1964 was deferred childbearing by couples who had married in the 1930s.
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Historically but I think that is changing. Millenials are moving towards more urban environments. It's the Generation Xers that are having kids and making demands (and as a millenial, I say how typical of them!) The thing is Hoboken is known for having the highest (if it is still if not it's up there) density of bars in America, so if you don't like bars, you should probably avoid it in general. Just like if you don't like college kids or a University with a need to build, New Brunswick is probably best avoided. That's the great thing about NJ...we have so many different types of towns to choose from. We need to make New Brunswick a better choice...IMO that means new buildings not poorly aging ones with nice gardens.
You are somewhat right - but I think the migration of millennials to urban areas is a little overwrought. Millennials are a huge cohort (equal in number to the boomers, although not in percentage), and obviously still young (the oldest depending on definition are now in their early 30s). They are having kids at a lower rate than the previous generations and later in life - so urban areas (i.e. high chance of fun, who gives a damn about the crappy schools) are seeing a renaissance. When millennial start to have kids you will see one of two things happen

A) they will abandon cities en masse or
B) they will shape cities into more family friendly areas, that presumably means fewer bars and more parks and gardens.

Millenials are going to reshape America on a scale similar to what Boomers did 40 years ago. But what shape that will be is still up in the air.
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
Historically but I think that is changing. Millenials are moving towards more urban environments. It's the Generation Xers that are having kids and making demands (and as a millenial, I say how typical of them!) The thing is Hoboken is known for having the highest (if it is still if not it's up there) density of bars in America, so if you don't like bars, you should probably avoid it in general. Just like if you don't like college kids or a University with a need to build, New Brunswick is probably best avoided. That's the great thing about NJ...we have so many different types of towns to choose from. We need to make New Brunswick a better choice...IMO that means new buildings not poorly aging ones with nice gardens.
Hoboken was also known as the armpit of Hudson County at one time. To say if you don't like bars don't move to Hoboken just ignores the fact that the town has changed dramatically throughout its history. Even the last 10-15 years has seen huge changes. The demise of the Hoboken Parade and closing of Maxwells are just two very recent examples of how the town continues to change as the demographics change. This just reinforces the fact that the people that live in a town have the power to change it in many ways (or minimize change/development as well).

I agree that living next to a university comes with some expectation of change in the neighborhood but it doesn't come with the surrender of your rights as a town resident or the expectation that the university and developers can do whatever they want.
 
If you believe the owners of Maxwells, they left because 1) the parking situation and 2) because of the proliferation of sports bars with TVs.

I think they probably left because of the rent.

The mayor of Hoboken is on a one-woman plus stroller mom backed push to make the town Park Slope. Thankfully, that will never happen. She can stand on her head but the business interests cater to the young and nice walkable towns like Westfield and Montclair beckon with better schools and home prices just as absurd.

More people will stay in cities as they age but they will be childless or returning people after their kids graduate or people with kids under 5.
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

If you believe the owners of Maxwells, they left because 1) the parking situation and 2) because of the proliferation of sports bars with TVs.

I think they probably left because of the rent.

The mayor of Hoboken is on a one-woman plus stroller mom backed push to make the town Park Slope. Thankfully, that will never happen. She can stand on her head but the business interests cater to the young and nice walkable towns like Westfield and Montclair beckon with better schools and home prices just as absurd.

More people will stay in cities as they age but they will be childless or returning people after their kids graduate or people with kids under 5.
It might it might not. The question is - are millenials sincere in there love for dense, mixed use urban living, or are they really just guys and gals who like to drink, and don't have kids to stop them. I'm guessing its the latter, and that you will be right - like the past two generations, when push comes to shove, they will move to the burbs.
 
ADVERTISEMENT