Rutgers Status of Significant Projects - 24 Mar 15
- Thread starter RUseaweed
- Start date
I walk by the Lot 8 housing construction each day and I have to say, I think they made it way too big. It's going to stick out like a sore thumb considering the area it's in and virtually eliminates sunlight on half of Union street. I think I counted 13 stories on one side of it.
They were certainly insistent about building high there. Was there a compelling reason to do so?
It doesn't look so bad on the live construction camera.
Wait until the large parking deck is built next to the Delta Phi / Squamish house (or whatever that house is now).
Wait until the large parking deck is built next to the Delta Phi / Squamish house (or whatever that house is now).
I haven't seen plans for the parking deck but I'm willing to bet that it will look better than any of the 'saltine boxes' recently built on union st.
Union Street is already apartment complexes. There isn't much to see anymore with the select few greek life houses.
By definition as cities grow buildings of this size will be placed next to older, smaller ones. Just the way it is.
Yes, but that doesn't answer the central question: to what extent do we want New Brunswick to look like and be a big town? That is, how much do we want it to grow, or to look like it's growing?
What's a big town? Hoboken is like 50,000 people. Or are we talking building size? NB already has a lot of towers.
NB should be a college town, a big business town, and the hub for the northern part of Central NJ. It needs to be tall, big, and commanding.
NB should be a college town, a big business town, and the hub for the northern part of Central NJ. It needs to be tall, big, and commanding.
City growth doesn't excuse anything and everything. "Just the way it is" should never be an answer to anything.
Cities can and should grow with proper and orderly planning which should take into account the existing neighborhood and character of the area. I don't think this development does and by approving it now you have opened the gates to more high rise development at the footstep of Old Queens and Voorhees Mall. It's not like Rutgers needed to build a high rise. They chose to.
I look at Harvard Yard as the model for Vorhees Mall, and directly adjacent to Harvard Yard is Harvard Square. That neighborhood in Cambridge is chokablock with tall buildings of this size. I see this neighborhood, and really the area from the Gateway building to this building becoming a Rutgers version of Harvard Square.
What Rutgers needs is to rid the neighborhood (specifically all of College Ave.) of the old houses being used as offices, counseling centers, etc.
What Rutgers needs is to rid the neighborhood (specifically all of College Ave.) of the old houses being used as offices, counseling centers, etc.
I wonder whether *any* town can be all three. For one thing, a college town needs to be reasonably inexpensive, and that's not going to be true of the other kinds of towns you mention. And the fact that NB has a lot of towers could just as easily be evidence that it should stop building towers as that it should keep on building them.
Some people think that building towers and displacing smaller buildings is exactly what is *threatening* Harvard Square.
That's interesting. I can't think of any comparable buildings within similar distances to Harvard yard. The Holyoke Center is probably ten stories and that is a perfect example of what not to do. Those are lessons learned and I would bet Harvard wishes they had done things differently.
The majority of that area is actually reasonable. Yes it's dense and urban but it works. I think something similar might be the right model for Voorhees/Old Queens. Harvard Yard is much larger than Voorhees Mall but some similarities exist. You can fill in with 6 story buildings rather than put up 13 story towers. You can make the area more dense without towers.
I'm not crazy about the architecture of the Lot 8 building but if it were 6-8 stories tall rather than 13, I might have a different opinion on the entire project.
The majority of that area is actually reasonable. Yes it's dense and urban but it works. I think something similar might be the right model for Voorhees/Old Queens. Harvard Yard is much larger than Voorhees Mall but some similarities exist. You can fill in with 6 story buildings rather than put up 13 story towers. You can make the area more dense without towers.
I'm not crazy about the architecture of the Lot 8 building but if it were 6-8 stories tall rather than 13, I might have a different opinion on the entire project.
I was going to say, Austin is a pretty great example, cheaper than NJ but not by national standards. I zillowed a lot there, condos are maybe a little cheaper than Jersey City but newer, very high property taxes. Columbus is dirt cheap, and the most prosperous part of Ohio. The Short North is basically a cleaned up George Street. I've never been to Ann Arbor, but I'm sure someone here has!
Ann Arbor maybe more akin because its within a metro area rather than being THE metro area...Austin is one of the most populous US cities these days.
Ann Arbor maybe more akin because its within a metro area rather than being THE metro area...Austin is one of the most populous US cities these days.
When the building where the bookstore was being built, there were a lot of complaints about the height. People were concerned that the tall building across the street from Queens Campus would ruin the campus. Now that the building is complete, it pretty much has no impact on Queens Campus.
I expect the concerns about the height of this building will be similarly unfounded.
My bad. I guess I'm thinking of the Holyoke Center, as I have typically parked under that building. But the dense nature of the neighborhood gives me the impression that there are many more buildings of that size there.
Yes, Austin and Madison are good examples of places that are college towns and state capitols. But are they truly major towns in terms of the amount of business there? In addition, I agree with Scarlet Pride that the Harvard area is not like the proposed nature of New Brunswick.
Yes - the thing is - thats not going to happen here, unless Rutgers itself builds them, which you can almost count on them not. And usually there isnt much choice. If a developer wants to build, there isnt much you can do. But Rutgers can build whatever it wants. Choosing to build a mid-rise in that area, where it will tower above everything else was bad enough. But at the end of the day, it doesnt even look like it will be an interesting building.
Think about how out of place the River Dorms look. And they are only seven stories high. This could be close to double, and nothing next to it I think is going to be more than 3 or 4 stories.
My guess is that 50 years from now, people will look at that and think the same thing that they think about most of the rest of CA - why in the world did they build this like that.
A better plan would have been to go with a lower profile (4-6 stories), scrap the lawn (just put retail streetside - which is better anyway than an enclosed plaza), and build over not just Lot 8, but also the houses masquerading as offices (plus buy at that one random frat house on CA between the office houses.). Basically something like the Livingston Apts. Gets the necessary dorms, and also takes care of the uncollegiate looking office houses.
The Gateway as private property is a bad example. Its also next to some taller buildings (the bank building across the train tracks, Easton Ave apts - that whole area around EAston and 27 is pretty built up.
NB should build up. Rutgers doesnt have to actually be part of that trend though, and shouldnt have been in this case. Just remember - at one time someone thought Hickman and Scott Hall were good designs too.
Top Austin employers (excluding government/education/healthcare).
Dell 14,000
IBM 6,000
Freescale Semiconductor 5,000
AT&T 3,450
Apple 3,000
AMD 3.000
Total population is 800,000-roughly the same as Middlesex County
For comparison, here are the comparables for Middlesex County
Novo Nordisk 4,500
Wakefern 3,500
Bristol Myers 3,000
Johnson & Johnson 2,200
Home Depot 1,700
UPS 1,700
I get your point, and you might be right.
However, the Gateway site is adjacent to downtown, as well as the big RU apartment building on Easton, as well as the train station. So despite being across the street from Old Queen's campus, it was also a site where there were good arguments to do a sizable building.
This project is not directly adjacent to downtown, and it is surrounded by low rise structures on all sides.
Do those factors make a compelling difference? I think that's something reasonable people can disagree on.
The lot 8 building is 600 ft from the Gateway building. That is less than the distance from the north concourse to the south concourse at Rutgers Stadium.
It is a bit abdurd to claim the Gateway building is not out of place because it is near other tall buildings but that the Lot 8 building is out of place because it is not near tall buildings.
It is a bit abdurd to claim the Gateway building is not out of place because it is near other tall buildings but that the Lot 8 building is out of place because it is not near tall buildings.
I tend to look at the CA campus as 'traditional' inside the hamilton-george-huntington-college ave rectangle and 'anything goes' outside of that. however, any continuity and flow to the block across college ave was destroyed by the construction of Scott Hall and I need not mention the dining hall complex and the continued use of records hall and the annex. The river dorms are ugly but not because they are tall. they act as border to the university and I think that the Lot 8 building will do the same. The Old core surround we by a newer shell
I said at the time that Gateway was too large and out of character and that it would open the door to more high rises. Still feel the same way. While the bookstore us nice the entire project scale is too much and Lot 8 is another mistake. The argument that gateway has no impact is wrong. It had opened the door to surrounding Old Queens with high rises.
Bottom line, they needed the square feet of residential and retail space in the lot 8 building to make the Seminary Hill project viable. These projects are all tied together as a mixed-use development which qualified for some economic development grant funding near transit centers.
I think the project to build the high rises near the train station is a great idea. NB needs an influx of taxpaying businesses to further gentrify the area. Downtown NB could be a jewel if there was just more white collar businesses in the area.
As far as the lot 8 building, its going to look out of place for a few years but I think the trend is that college ave is heading to a more "downtown" feel with downtown NB expanding towards college ave and that isn't going to be a bad thing per say. What exactly is wrong with high rises near Old Queens and how is it not better than old run down houses and urban blight?
The argument of it's better than run down houses is so weak. So the only options are run down houses or high rises? And I sure don't recall any urban blight in the College Ave area.
I think "going up" in downtown New Brunswick can be a good thing. The new development at the old Ferren Mall is a good example. I'm not against growth or mid/high rise buildings. That could be a great asset to New Brunswick.
I just think that the Lot 8 project is counter to good city planning. Cities, big and small, have different style neighborhoods. College Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood is not the logical choice to extend mid/high rise construction. The entire neighborhood is 2-4 story buildings. The leap to 13 stories is out of character. I can see the case being made that 6 or even 8 stories is a logical progression but not 13. And I think to do it for student housing is an even weaker case.
This thread seems to go in circles. It's clear where I stand on it and the reasons why. Regardless, I hope this turns out to be a great addition to Rutgers. I hope it becomes a favorite landmark and my concerns are proven wrong. But just accepting progress for the sake of progress isn't always the best thing.
I think "going up" in downtown New Brunswick can be a good thing. The new development at the old Ferren Mall is a good example. I'm not against growth or mid/high rise buildings. That could be a great asset to New Brunswick.
I just think that the Lot 8 project is counter to good city planning. Cities, big and small, have different style neighborhoods. College Avenue and the surrounding neighborhood is not the logical choice to extend mid/high rise construction. The entire neighborhood is 2-4 story buildings. The leap to 13 stories is out of character. I can see the case being made that 6 or even 8 stories is a logical progression but not 13. And I think to do it for student housing is an even weaker case.
This thread seems to go in circles. It's clear where I stand on it and the reasons why. Regardless, I hope this turns out to be a great addition to Rutgers. I hope it becomes a favorite landmark and my concerns are proven wrong. But just accepting progress for the sake of progress isn't always the best thing.
Upstream, 600 feet is not necessarily insignificant in an urban context. There are countless examples, in cities, where that would make a big difference, contextually. Whether it does in this case can be debated, but it's hardly "absurd" for someone to believe that the Lot 8 site should have a less intense use than the Gateway site, even if they are OK with the Gateway.
Also, I did not say the Gateway building, as implemented, is not out of place. (Though I think it turned out OK). I simply said there were good arguments to do a sizable building, of some sort, on that site.
If project viability required this kind of density, then I am more sympathetic to it. I asked if the height was required to make the numbers work a while back, but didn't get much of an answer for that.
I just visited campus yesterday and I thought the new buildings on seminary hill and lot 8 certainly bring to life that end of campus (and they aren't even finished). I see a much better connection to old queens, the bookstore and the apartments on Hamilton(?). The disconnect that seminary caused will be gone and the combination of all of the projects makes old queens and voorhees mall something that will be more a part of students everyday experience (rather than something you visited on your high school tour and occasionally during your tenure at RU). The impact of the height of the lot 8 buildings will be interesting to see. I can't picture the affect yet. But I will say the facade (looks like Formica) does resemble poor choices on Livingston that have led to new nice buildings but a campus hodge podge that doesn't have the full effect it could and likely won't age well. This is particularly concerning when situated right within the school's historic core.
There is no evidence of that being true. The next big project - the Dining Hall Quad wont be high rises. RU hasnt announced any plans to do any other buildings in that area, and I doubt they will. If they had those plans (i.e. tear down the house offices and build a new building), they should have incorporated that into the plans for a lower rise broader based structure. If the PROJECT needed the residences/retail, then this would have been a better solution. Like I said - something like the Livingston Apartments.
The buildings immediately around the building are either going to be low rises, houses or are owned by RU. The Gateway is as close as high rises are going to get. Its out of place, and plain. Its Hickman in a more prominent location and 50 years from now with more boring, but less offensive architecture.
Many on this thread trashed the Welcome Center, the new Business School Building, and the Gateway Project while in the planning stages or during construction. When I was back on campus with my family last winter those additions looked great. I'll wait until completion to pass judgement.
Latest posts
-
***WAR ROOM: Latest Recruit Scoop and Team News on Rutgers Athletics***- Latest: RU-Choppin-Ohio
-
Football Things Rutgers submitted to EA Sports for the NCAA Video Game?
- Latest: Scarlet Shack
-
-
-
