ADVERTISEMENT

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

lol. Well I think the walkable towns in NJ will prosper most- because I think there is a little of both. I think there will be more childless and non-traditional (kids outside of wedlock, deliberately or not) in the millenial generation. Some will want that suburban life, but we are a lazy and frugal generation, and thus they will want the mass transit links and walkability.

IMO this means boons for the "bar" towns like Hoboken and NB, but also the more family friendly ones like Montclair.

The towns that will suffer- and you can already see it- are the exurbs- if you don't have at least one of mass transit or good schools, you will have no value- these are the places in NJ that continue to be loaded with short sales.
 
I more or less agree. Your generation isn't nearly as into cars as the older generation was for a variety of reasons. Its certainly good for America if the next 30 years end up with the building up not just of the downtowns of major cities, but of the reconstructing of the suburbs along more urban forms (i.e. walkable mixed-use town centers surrounded by relatively dense housing) - like the old streetcar suburbs around Baltimore and Washington.
 
Originally posted by derleider:
I more or less agree. Your generation isn't nearly as into cars as the older generation was for a variety of reasons. Its certainly good for America if the next 30 years end up with the building up not just of the downtowns of major cities, but of the reconstructing of the suburbs along more urban forms (i.e. walkable mixed-use town centers surrounded by relatively dense housing) - like the old streetcar suburbs around Baltimore and Washington.
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be great if we could revive the old suburbs. But I am pessimistic. We'll know better in ten years.
 
From your perspective down in South Jersey, I think you will see places along the PATCO like Cherry Hill and Haddonfield continue to be very sought after- good schools and great transportation. You may see some positive movement in less affluent towns on the PATCO line too. And then places like Moorestown will retain cache because of the schools.

The problem will be places like Gloucester and Salem counties- really not great public transportation or well known schools. I'm not sure how to revive places like that besides improving public transportation and schools- two things the current adminstration isn't a fan of.
 
Great comments, NIRH. The PATCO stations in Cherry Hill are already packed up to parking-lot capacity. It's hard to see where more stations can go. As for Gloucester, it doesn't have a "revival" problem as much a "never was" problem. Gloucester tends not to contain the tony suburbs. Better mass transit would help; building a line through Gloucester County certainly should have been a higher priority than the River Line, whose usage is not high. The suburbs with the best schools will, as you say, continue to flourish.
 
I suspect that your use of revive is probably not right here - I suspect (without knowing their history) that these places didn't exist as suburbs pre-car age. Salem is of course still quite rural. Its gonna be hard to make more exurban places into non-car oriented places - its just not cost effective to run transit in those places.

Incidentally the flip side of all of this is that the housing stock of the suburbs is aging, while cities are getting rebuilt (because they got so run down that its cheaper to gut them). Some areas with really nice schools can maintain, as people will keep up the investment needed to keep their house in shape, but once that starts to go, it can go really quickly - just as the cities did two generations ago. So inner suburbs in places like DC and Baltimore are getting worse, while the inner cities are getting better.
 
I live in a tiny little town in Gloucester County. I like living here because I can walk to the Post Office, the park, and a little diner at the main road crossing. There isn't much public transit to speak of (a bus stop at the main crossing) and there isn't a grocer here any more, but otherwise I love being able to walk to different places in town. There are no public schools in the town (there are two private schools, one Catholic and the other Christian) but kids bus to the schools in the next town over.

I'd like to live in a town like Haddonfield, but I work too far south and wouldn't want to drive all that way.
 
In Philadelphia, the inner suburbs are in pretty bad shape. Consider that northeast Philadelphia was once in essence a residential suburb of the city. In South Jersey, the suburbs (defined as areas developed largely as housing) are in pretty good shape. Cherry Hill, for instance, does fine. The River Line towns are not in good shape, but many of these towns have more been small towns on their own than bedroom suburbs of Philly.
 
Well, they could have more express bus service on the main corridors. Route 9 in Monmouth County is a good example...while the train is preferable, some neighborhoods near Route 9 would have decent walkability with the combination of stores and the bus.
 
I am for this but the bigger problem is that they are putting band aids on the issues.

Many student organizations (incl fraternities can easily use the small houses that many of the departments use). Why not move the departments out of these little houses and build a proper 4-5 story facility wih proper offices, meeting rooms, parking deck, faculty dining room, and facilities where many departments can share a buidling. For those of us that have worked in corporate complexes you know how it can work. Let Rutgers take use those little houses to rent out to student groups that want to live together. There are small greek organizations, club sports teams, cultural organizations, religious organizations, and other groups that are all officially recognized by Rutgers that desire to be together in a living environment.
 
Re: TT is a romantic

Mine Street is a rundown block full of crappy houses that have not done a lick of rehap in 50 years. Why should the owners even bother when renters are always available and code violations go unenforced. And we wonder why NB has such a crappy rep!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Re: TT is a romantic

Montclair is not a walkable town. Montclair is a town where you DRIVE to two or three city centers, PARK YOUR VOLVO and then walk around to shop and eat.

The same is true of Westfield.

NIRH's comparisons are ridiculous....
 
Re: TT is a romantic

Maybe the term should be :suburban walkable. Sure, there aren't bodegas on the corner of every other block and when you walk a few blocks in from the main thoroughfare, the housing looks like any other suburban development but for many people Montclair IS walkable.
 
Montclair is more walkable than your average NJ suburb.

Take Hudson County out of the picture...in NJ your walkable towns are...in the top several would Montclair make it, I say yes. Morristown and New Brunswick would be ahead but I think Montclair would be on the list.

You can walk to the train and a decent restaurant and cultural scene...in that regard in the burbs probably only Red Bank would be comparable.

I think there is a reason why prices in many of the towns with train access have rebounded tremendously, versus the exurbs that haven't. Like I said, there is always going to be value for the good school towns that aren't by the train (Holmdel is an example...you only have a few neighborhoods near the Hazlet stop)...a tremendous market in a place like Westfield (good schools and good transport). Montclair has good schools, not amazing, but I think that it has a cultural scene that people like. Places like Hoboken and JC, same thing, and ridiculously close to NYC.

The places that are going to face problems in NJ (and are already) are the exurban places with mediocre to bad schools and no good public transportation.
 
Public transportation helps boost value for certain towns but the vast majority of NJ residents don't use it. Most people still drive to work and will continue to do so. It's not like the towns without train stops are going to wither and die.
 
It's not going to be overnight, but millenials value walkability and increasingly so do the older generations. As more and more buisnesses move to JC and Hoboken and don't bail on Newark and NYC as they did decades ago in tougher times, commuters will want those links. NJ still has either the first or second highest number of commuters using public transportation to get to work.
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

I think there is a reason why prices in many of the towns with train access have rebounded tremendously, versus the exurbs that haven't.
Click to expand...
Is that why places like Rahway, Plainfield, Perth Amboy, or smaller towns like Dunellen or Bound Brook are becoming desirable? Oh, wait, they're not. Even in places like Bridgewater or Edison, the desirable parts are not the areas within walking distance to the train stations, while the areas near the train stations have some of the lowest housing prices in town.
 
Originally posted by Upstream:
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

I think there is a reason why prices in many of the towns with train access have rebounded tremendously, versus the exurbs that haven't.
Click to expand...
Is that why places like Rahway, Plainfield, Perth Amboy, or smaller towns like Dunellen or Bound Brook are becoming desirable? Oh, wait, they're not. Even in places like Bridgewater or Edison, the desirable parts are not the areas within walking distance to the train stations, while the areas near the train stations have some of the lowest housing prices in town.
Click to expand...
Why would they move to those places when they could move to places closer to the city that have better transit access.

Lets put it this way - what would those towns be without the trains.

But in NJ its a trade off - its hard to find good schools and good transit access in the same place. So people with kids will continue to move to the exurbs, while those without have no real reason to live in a place like Edison (at least if they have a need for transit access to NYC).

Its the constant issue of urbanism in America - basically no major city has good schools, so its almost impossible to lure families. You can only rely on 20s somethings looking for a constant party for so long.
 
Originally posted by Upstream:
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

I think there is a reason why prices in many of the towns with train access have rebounded tremendously, versus the exurbs that haven't.
Click to expand...
Is that why places like Rahway, Plainfield, Perth Amboy, or smaller towns like Dunellen or Bound Brook are becoming desirable? Oh, wait, they're not. Even in places like Bridgewater or Edison, the desirable parts are not the areas within walking distance to the train stations, while the areas near the train stations have some of the lowest housing prices in town.
Click to expand...
Actually Rahway is getting better. Plainfield and Perth Amboy have a crime problem, the other two I'm not as familiar with. When you look at many of other towns on those train lines, you see increased or stable values. You don't see that in places in Ocean County far from the beach, or Warren or Sussex for example, when you did at the height of the bubble and other times previously.

Edison actually has two stations, plus being partially walkable from the Metuchen station for some. And not only that, but JP Stevens and Bridgewater both have top high schools- probably top 25 in NJ at least, and like I said, that's part of it. Not to mention that both do have stations and both are at the confluence of multiple major highways on top of that, and Edison in particular is loaded with corporations...and both are down the street from corps and RU...not the greatest examples or what I was alluding to.
 
Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Upstream:
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:

I think there is a reason why prices in many of the towns with train access have rebounded tremendously, versus the exurbs that haven't.
Click to expand...
Is that why places like Rahway, Plainfield, Perth Amboy, or smaller towns like Dunellen or Bound Brook are becoming desirable? Oh, wait, they're not. Even in places like Bridgewater or Edison, the desirable parts are not the areas within walking distance to the train stations, while the areas near the train stations have some of the lowest housing prices in town.
Click to expand...
Why would they move to those places when they could move to places closer to the city that have better transit access.

Lets put it this way - what would those towns be without the trains.

But in NJ its a trade off - its hard to find good schools and good transit access in the same place. So people with kids will continue to move to the exurbs, while those without have no real reason to live in a place like Edison (at least if they have a need for transit access to NYC).

Its the constant issue of urbanism in America - basically no major city has good schools, so its almost impossible to lure families. You can only rely on 20s somethings looking for a constant party for so long.
Click to expand...
That's my point. Contrary to NIRH's claim, being able to walk to a rail station to commute to NYC is not the critical factor in determining if a town is desirable or improving.

Hoboken and Jersey City are not typical towns in NJ. They are essentially outer boroughs of Manhattan, across a different river. They are appealing to the 20-somethings and some families looking for an NYC experience, who can't afford Manhattan and don't want Brooklyn.

NIRH looks at his experience, and assumes that it applies everywhere, and ignores the evidence to the contrary. So he incorrectly thinks rail access to NYC is important in making a town desirable. Go down the Northeast Corridor line, the primary rail line into NYC, and which are the desirable towns? Newark, North Elizabeth, Elizabeth, Linden, Rahway? There are essentially no homes within walking distance of MetroPark (and Iselin isn't the desirable section of Woodbridge anyway). So you have to get to Metuchen before you get a desirable town. Portions of Edison are nice, but the areas nearest the Edison station (as well as the areas near Metro Park) are some of the least expensive homes in town.

Bridgewater/Raritan is another example. There is a great school system serving the two towns. And large parts of Bridgewater and some parts of Raritan extremely desirable. But the cheapest homes in Bridgewater and Raritan are the homes in which you can walk to the rail stations.

The real reason that rail service to NYC is not a major factor in determining the desirability of most NJ towns is that not enough people commute to NYC to make a difference. Of the 3 million people in North & Central Jersey who work outside their homes, only 345 thousand commute to NYC (and 48% of those are from Hudson and Bergen counties).

So outside Hudson and Bergen counties, it is factors other then easy access to NYC that drives desirability of towns. There are just not enough NYC-bound commuters to make a difference.
 
I do enjoy these urban planning discussions.

Walkability is a concept that works on a continuum. Montclair is clearly more walkable than, say, Hillsborough.

For example, WalkScore measures walkability and assigns a score from 1-100. My building got a 91, but I still can't walk to everything I might want to walk to.

Also: transit access to NYC is certainly not a magic bullet. Some studies have suggested that rail transit access can modestly improve property values. The question, to me, is: all else equal, did the rail the presence/addition of rail transit make a difference? It certainly has in some places. It's made a very substantial difference in New Brunswick. I'm pretty sure all here would agree on that. In some places, not so much.
 
Have you tried renting by the train station in Rahway? It's crazy expensive. The others are not the fairest comparison as they are not on the NEC, and to the extent possible I DO think they've benefitted from rail access.

Look at the RVR, Montclair-Boonton, or Morris-Essex, and you will see that in comparable towns, rail really does help value. You also aren't addressing the direct point. Older millenials now want to do live in a Montclair as opposed a subdivision with nothing in walking distance.
 
I mentioned the school districts more than once.

You can come up with crappy semi-urban towns throughout NJ to make the opposite comparison; Lakewood has no train, for example. And places like Elizabeth and Linden rely on the port- those are poor examples. And I specifically segregated JC and Hoboken...you clearly are not reading what I'm saying.

And before Dunellen, the train stops at Cranford and Westfield. Westfield is probably considered one of the top 10 most desirable towns in the whole state for a family. And that line requires a transfer, which makes the places closer in even more desirable.

New Providence was recently ranked #1 HS in NJ. In the past year, prices went up 11.9% and projected to increase 4.9%.

Yet in Montclair (99th ranked HS), prices went up 15% and prices are projected to increase 6.6%.And prices in Montclair are higher (552k vs 543k average). My info is from Zillow, btw. This is with 98 high schools ranked in between.

But New Providence has a train.

The argument that I was making was about exurbs. Vernon (#107 HS) has a medium home value of 176k and prices only went up 2 and are expected to rise another 2%. Ocean Township (#95) has a median value of 431k and prices are expected to rise 3.3%. No train in either.

In comparing the top school districts you notice the same. Kinnelon is ranked #5, but has a median value of 519k and a projected rise of 4.6%. Zillow terms its market "cold" while New Providence is hot.

West Amwell is ranked #21 (South Hunterdon Regional)...median price 359k. The average price in Maplewood is 433k and South Orange is 501k, and Columbia HS is ranked #47...and it's right around the corner from Newark...


One has to wonder...what is that missing factor...hmm...
 
Originally posted by Jonny S:
Have you tried renting by the train station in Rahway? It's crazy expensive. The others are not the fairest comparison as they are not on the NEC, and to the extent possible I DO think they've benefitted from rail access.

Look at the RVR, Montclair-Boonton, or Morris-Essex, and you will see that in comparable towns, rail really does help value. You also aren't addressing the direct point. Older millenials now want to do live in a Montclair as opposed a subdivision with nothing in walking distance.
Click to expand...
The towns I listed (with the exception of BW/R) are all on the NEC.

I can look in other counties. In Morris County, Dover and Lincoln Park (on rail lines) are not as desirable as Mendham and Chester (not on rail lines). Mount Olive Twp (on a rail line) is not as desirable as Harding Twp (not on a rail line).

I agree that having a town that you can walk is more desirable than a subdivision with nothing in walking distance. But that isn't something new. Other than living on multiacre estates, access to a town center has almost always been more desirable, all things being equal. But all things being equal means quality schools and the ability to get buy comparable houses, no industrial/environmental waste, etc.

My point was only that NIHR is mistaken in believing that easy access to NYC is a major factor in determining the desirability of towns (other than the towns directly across the Hudson in Bergen and Hudson counties). Other factors, like school systems, crime rates, types of houses, ability to walk to shopping areas, etc, are far more important.
 
Originally posted by Upstream:
Originally posted by Jonny S:
Have you tried renting by the train station in Rahway? It's crazy expensive. The others are not the fairest comparison as they are not on the NEC, and to the extent possible I DO think they've benefitted from rail access.

Look at the RVR, Montclair-Boonton, or Morris-Essex, and you will see that in comparable towns, rail really does help value. You also aren't addressing the direct point. Older millenials now want to do live in a Montclair as opposed a subdivision with nothing in walking distance.
Click to expand...
The towns I listed (with the exception of BW/R) are all on the NEC.

I can look in other counties. In Morris County, Dover and Lincoln Park (on rail lines) are not as desirable as Mendham and Chester (not on rail lines). Mount Olive Twp (on a rail line) is not as desirable as Harding Twp (not on a rail line).

I agree that having a town that you can walk is more desirable than a subdivision with nothing in walking distance. But that isn't something new. Other than living on multiacre estates, access to a town center has almost always been more desirable, all things being equal. But all things being equal means quality schools and the ability to get buy comparable houses, no industrial/environmental waste, etc.

My point was only that NIHR is mistaken in believing that easy access to NYC is a major factor in determining the desirability of towns (other than the towns directly across the Hudson in Bergen and Hudson counties). Other factors, like school systems, crime rates, types of houses, ability to walk to shopping areas, etc, are far more important.
Click to expand...
What do you mean its not something new. This country built most (by area at least) of its existing housing stock on the notion that people really didn't want to live near the town center. We went so far as to basically abolish the concept of the town center at all.

But I do think that you are missing something - you can live in Edison and take the train without living right next to the station (which often times, especially in suburb dominated NJ, is not really in the town center anyway).

Rail access is important. I would argue that its most important in places that are really already towns (or cities), not just suburbs that blend together into a "town". Edison is in fact the prime example. If Edison ever did have a town center, its been wiped out by residential only housing and commercial only office parks, shopping centers, and light industry, all surrounded by a sea of parking.
 
Actually overall proximity to NYC is the major factor...that is what begets the good schools in the first place...

Why is Monmouth County more expensive than Ocean, or Morris more than Sussex? Or why is Point Pleasant Beach the most highly regarded Ocean County school district and town, and Sparta the same in Sussex...is it just a coincidence that they are closest to NYC...and of course...Pt Pleasant has a train...

Like I said, the towns without train OR good schools are going to rot on the vine and yes you can see that in the numbers I cited.

You can pick out all the blue collar or lower class train towns in NJ...there are plenty but saying oh Plainfield has a train and Mendham doesn't says nothing as there are clearly other factors at play.
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I mentioned the school districts more than once.

You can come up with crappy semi-urban towns throughout NJ to make the opposite comparison; Lakewood has no train, for example. And places like Elizabeth and Linden rely on the port- those are poor examples. And I specifically segregated JC and Hoboken...you clearly are not reading what I'm saying.

And before Dunellen, the train stops at Cranford and Westfield. Westfield is probably considered one of the top 10 most desirable towns in the whole state for a family. And that line requires a transfer, which makes the places closer in even more desirable.

New Providence was recently ranked #1 HS in NJ. In the past year, prices went up 11.9% and projected to increase 4.9%.

Yet in Montclair (99th ranked HS), prices went up 15% and prices are projected to increase 6.6%.And prices in Montclair are higher (552k vs 543k average). My info is from Zillow, btw. This is with 98 high schools ranked in between.

But New Providence has a train.

The argument that I was making was about exurbs. Vernon (#107 HS) has a medium home value of 176k and prices only went up 2 and are expected to rise another 2%. Ocean Township (#95) has a median value of 431k and prices are expected to rise 3.3%. No train in either.

In comparing the top school districts you notice the same. Kinnelon is ranked #5, but has a median value of 519k and a projected rise of 4.6%. Zillow terms its market "cold" while New Providence is hot.

West Amwell is ranked #21 (South Hunterdon Regional)...median price 359k. The average price in Maplewood is 433k and South Orange is 501k, and Columbia HS is ranked #47...and it's right around the corner from Newark...


One has to wonder...what is that missing factor...hmm...
Click to expand...
So your primary measurement of the success of a town is the value of the homes?
 
Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I mentioned the school districts more than once.

You can come up with crappy semi-urban towns throughout NJ to make the opposite comparison; Lakewood has no train, for example. And places like Elizabeth and Linden rely on the port- those are poor examples. And I specifically segregated JC and Hoboken...you clearly are not reading what I'm saying.

And before Dunellen, the train stops at Cranford and Westfield. Westfield is probably considered one of the top 10 most desirable towns in the whole state for a family. And that line requires a transfer, which makes the places closer in even more desirable.

New Providence was recently ranked #1 HS in NJ. In the past year, prices went up 11.9% and projected to increase 4.9%.

Yet in Montclair (99th ranked HS), prices went up 15% and prices are projected to increase 6.6%.And prices in Montclair are higher (552k vs 543k average). My info is from Zillow, btw. This is with 98 high schools ranked in between.

But New Providence has a train.

The argument that I was making was about exurbs. Vernon (#107 HS) has a medium home value of 176k and prices only went up 2 and are expected to rise another 2%. Ocean Township (#95) has a median value of 431k and prices are expected to rise 3.3%. No train in either.

In comparing the top school districts you notice the same. Kinnelon is ranked #5, but has a median value of 519k and a projected rise of 4.6%. Zillow terms its market "cold" while New Providence is hot.

West Amwell is ranked #21 (South Hunterdon Regional)...median price 359k. The average price in Maplewood is 433k and South Orange is 501k, and Columbia HS is ranked #47...and it's right around the corner from Newark...


One has to wonder...what is that missing factor...hmm...
Click to expand...
So your primary measurement of the success of a town is the value of the homes?
Click to expand...
That would seem to be a pretty good indicator wouldn't it? How much people want to live there.

As far as it goes- the anecdotal evidence in this thread is useless - I'm sure someone has done the study though - look at similarly situated towns in NJ (as far as distance by car from Midtown for example).
 
Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Upstream:
Originally posted by Jonny S:
Have you tried renting by the train station in Rahway? It's crazy expensive. The others are not the fairest comparison as they are not on the NEC, and to the extent possible I DO think they've benefitted from rail access.

Look at the RVR, Montclair-Boonton, or Morris-Essex, and you will see that in comparable towns, rail really does help value. You also aren't addressing the direct point. Older millenials now want to do live in a Montclair as opposed a subdivision with nothing in walking distance.
Click to expand...
The towns I listed (with the exception of BW/R) are all on the NEC.

I can look in other counties. In Morris County, Dover and Lincoln Park (on rail lines) are not as desirable as Mendham and Chester (not on rail lines). Mount Olive Twp (on a rail line) is not as desirable as Harding Twp (not on a rail line).

I agree that having a town that you can walk is more desirable than a subdivision with nothing in walking distance. But that isn't something new. Other than living on multiacre estates, access to a town center has almost always been more desirable, all things being equal. But all things being equal means quality schools and the ability to get buy comparable houses, no industrial/environmental waste, etc.

My point was only that NIHR is mistaken in believing that easy access to NYC is a major factor in determining the desirability of towns (other than the towns directly across the Hudson in Bergen and Hudson counties). Other factors, like school systems, crime rates, types of houses, ability to walk to shopping areas, etc, are far more important.
Click to expand...
What do you mean its not something new. This country built most (by area at least) of its existing housing stock on the notion that people really didn't want to live near the town center. We went so far as to basically abolish the concept of the town center at all.

But I do think that you are missing something - you can live in Edison and take the train without living right next to the station (which often times, especially in suburb dominated NJ, is not really in the town center anyway).

Rail access is important. I would argue that its most important in places that are really already towns (or cities), not just suburbs that blend together into a "town". Edison is in fact the prime example. If Edison ever did have a town center, its been wiped out by residential only housing and commercial only office parks, shopping centers, and light industry, all surrounded by a sea of parking.
Click to expand...
I realized after I posted "that isn't something new" that it didn't really communicate the point I was trying to make.

What people don't want, is to live in industrial cities. Industrial areas are noisy, dirty, and smelly. Before WWII, people didn't really have a choice but to live in industrial cities, because that is where the jobs were, and they couldn't afford to travel to their jobs. After WWII, improvements in the standard of living, plus government housing and highway programs, allowed people to move out of industrial cities.

Other than a 20 year period after WWII, when America was embracing the car culture (with drive-in restaurants and drive-in theaters), people have preferred towns with town centers. And after moving into those centerless communities built in the 50s and 60s, people realized they sucked. That is why developers started building towns like Columbia, MD, in 1967, with new town centers.

But centerless housing developments have a big advantage over towns with town centers: they are cheap.

Certain factors increase the desirability of a community: a town center, houses in good condition, quiet streets away from highways, parks and yards for kids to play.

Certain factors decrease the desirability of a community: manufacturing (especially factories that pollute or are noisy), noise, dilapidated infrastructure.

I did not include school quality or lack of crime, because although those factors drive the desirability of a community, they initially result from the other factors creating the socio-economics to drive school quality and lower crime rates.

I also don't include rail access to NYC, because 95% of New Jerseyans in the NY metro area (other than Hudson and Bergen counties), do not commute to NYC. There just are not enough people who take the train to NYC to make it a factor important enough to compete with other important factors.


Newark, Linden, and Rahway are undesirable because they are historically industrial towns that people did not want to live in, if they could afford it. The rail stations do not make a difference.

The Finderne section of Bridgewater (near the train station) is less desirable than the Martinsville section of Bridgewater (away from the train station) because the Finderne section is industrial.



There are so many important factors that impact town desirability, it makes no sense for NIRH to credit any significant importance to a factor that affects less than 5% of residents.
 
Bwahaha - Columbias towncenter is a mall surrounded by parking. It only in the past two decades that they have really built town centers that are really town centers - mixed used residential/commercial developments. Not just malls by another name.

God I hate Columbia.

And at least down here near DC most of those are near Metro stations.

Yes of course there are lots of factors. Access to trains is a major factor. Its not the only factor. The further you get from the city the less of a factor it is (because fewer people use the train).

And as I said - you don't need to live no top o the train station to use the train. In act in a place like Bridgewater I would guess that MORE of the people in the nice area use the train than in the crap area (since the crap jobs are everywhere, its the good jobs that require a train ride.)
 
Originally posted by derleider:

Yes of course there are lots of factors. Access to trains is a major factor. Its not the only factor. The further you get from the city the less of a factor it is (because fewer people use the train).

And as I said - you don't need to live no top o the train station to use the train. In act in a place like Bridgewater I would guess that MORE of the people in the nice area use the train than in the crap area (since the crap jobs are everywhere, its the good jobs that require a train ride.)
Click to expand...

Access to trains to NYC is not a major factor in NJ, since less than 5% of North/Central New Jersey residents (outside Bergen and Hudson counties) commute to NYC.

And if you say that you don't need to live in walking distance to a rail station, only a short drive from a rail station, then the argument becomes completely meaningless in North/Central New Jersey. Just about every town is within 15-20 minutes of one or more rail stations. In that case, every place is desirable, because they all have access. From the Martinsville section of Bridgewater, for example, you can drive 10 minutes to the Bridgewater train station on the Raritan Valley line, 10 minutes to the Peapack train station on the Gladstone line, 20 minutes to the New Brunswick train station on the Northeast Corridor line, or 20 minutes to the Convent Station train station on the Morristown line.

Every who lives in NJ within 60 miles of NYC is a short drive from some train station. But less than 5% (outside Hudson and Bergen counties) commute to NYC. Access to a rail station is neither a differentiating factor nor an important factor in deciding where 95% of the people live.
 
I am not sure where your statistic comes from about the 5%, but that's hardly the whole story. NJ is #1 or #2 in America in people taking public transportation to work.

That includes people going to Newark, Philly, Trenton, Princeton, Morristown, and people coming from outside Hudson County into JC and Hoboken too. Not to mention a bunch of other places randomly on train and bus lines- though I would say typically train is preferred to bus.

It's not just your usual NJT- but also PATH, HBLR, Patco, the River Line, etc. Then you have your ferry communities too.

When you remove those places- and the places with the strongest bus routes (like the 139 on Route 9 that is more or less 24-7 and there are no trains because of the genius brigade opposing the MOM line)- you get a lot of exurbs like the ones I pointed out.

There is nothing "industrial" about Montclair or Red Bank for example. There is barely anything industrial about downtown JC or Hoboken these days aside from industrial lofts. Surely, the argument can't be coincidence that Montclair has prices and trends that indicate it's doing far better than towns with comparable schools but no train?

NJ (for the US, not for Europe) actually has excellent public transportation...this is not Houston or LA where everyone gets in their car for every little task because they have no choice. That's an advantage, and certain places have it more than others.
 
This is a discussion of an empirical question -- is there a correlation between the availability of mass transit and home price? Unfortunately, answering that question would require a full study in which the researchers accounted for differences in housing type (so that we're not comparing a not very nice house in one town with a nice house in another.) and quality of schools. I doubt that anecdotes or intuition can resolve the question on either side. My own hunch -- and it's just a hunch -- is that houses near a railroad station do not benefit because a railroad station is not a particularly desirable neighbor, but that houses that are further away but within reasonable driving distance do benefit. But it's not possible to say how much they gain. So I'm not sure the discussion is leading anywhere.
 
Thats sensible. NJ doesn't seem to have done much in the way of transit oriented development outside of existing cities. Down here in DC its all the rage to build condos on top of Metro stations, although I guess thats not quite apples to apples with NJTransit commuter rail. The commuter rail down here sucks - so no one really bothers with building around it.

But yes - you are right - studies should be done.
 
Originally posted by camdenlawprof:
This is a discussion of an empirical question -- is there a correlation between the availability of mass transit and home price?
Click to expand...
NIRH is not saying there is a correlation. He is saying there is a causation.
 
Originally posted by derleider:
Thats sensible. NJ doesn't seem to have done much in the way of transit oriented development outside of existing cities. Down here in DC its all the rage to build condos on top of Metro stations, although I guess thats not quite apples to apples with NJTransit commuter rail. The commuter rail down here sucks - so no one really bothers with building around it.

But yes - you are right - studies should be done.
Click to expand...
Metro was supposed to be *the* big thing in the D.C. area that would rationalize development. Heavens knows a lot of money was spent building it. When I visit D.C., I notice that service is a lot less frequent than in the 1970s and 1980s. Is that because of lack of customer demand, or money/maintenance issues?
 
Originally posted by NotInRHouse:
I am not sure where your statistic comes from about the 5%, but that's hardly the whole story. NJ is #1 or #2 in America in people taking public transportation to work.

That includes people going to Newark, Philly, Trenton, Princeton, Morristown, and people coming from outside Hudson County into JC and Hoboken too. Not to mention a bunch of other places randomly on train and bus lines- though I would say typically train is preferred to bus.

It's not just your usual NJT- but also PATH, HBLR, Patco, the River Line, etc. Then you have your ferry communities too.
Click to expand...

My 5% statistic comes from the US Census ACS database. You can peruse the data on the Census' American Factfinder website: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml


If you look at the data, you will see that less than 5% of North/Central New Jersey residents (excluding Hudson and Bergen counties) work in New York City.


But if you want to look at all public transportation, not just people who are taking trains to NYC, you are essentially correct, at 10.8%, New Jersey is #3 in commuters who use public transportation. DC (38.7%) is first, and New York State (27.0%) is second. Massachusetts (9.2%), Maryland (8.9%), and Illinois (8.7%) are fourth, fifth, and sixth.

If you exclude Hudson and Bergen counties, the NJ number drops to 7.6% And 1% of that 7.6% are people who live in Newark and Elizabeth, meaning that it is 6.6% from the remainder of the state that use public transportation to commute.

I'm not sure how this supports NIRH's thesis that proximity to public transportation boosts the desirability of towns in NJ (outside of Hudson and Bergen counties, which based on being directly across the river from NYC are not typical of the rest of the state). At 6-7% of commuters, the number of people taking public transportation is not high enough to really impact the demographics or desirability of a town. And since this number includes people who take buses and people who drive to parking lots and then take rail or bus transportation, the meaning of "proximity" is incredibly diluted. Everyone in NJ is near a train or bus, if you drive there.

So now matter how you slice the data (real data, from real sources, not made up data from NIRH and a couple of friends he talked to), there are just not enough people using public transportation in NJ to make a real difference in the desirability of towns (with the exception of Hudson and Bergen counties, and maybe Newark and Elizabeth cities).
 
Originally posted by derleider:

Originally posted by Scarlet Pride:

So your primary measurement of the success of a town is the value of the homes?
Click to expand...
That would seem to be a pretty good indicator wouldn't it? How much people want to live there.

As far as it goes- the anecdotal evidence in this thread is useless - I'm sure someone has done the study though - look at similarly situated towns in NJ (as far as distance by car from Midtown for example).
Click to expand...
It can be an indicator but shouldn't be a stand alone. If you have one portion of the town that is extremely wealthy with large expensive homes that may drives up the average home price. That part of the community may also send most of their kids to private schools and the local schools may not be particularly good. Property value alone only gives you one side of the story.

The reality is that quality of life has many components that may or may not be reflected in property value. A "great community" 60 miles from NYC will probably have lower property values than what some might consider one that is merely "good" because of proximity to NYC.

Not to mention that the quality of community is also a very subjective thing. If you don't value open space or recreational options than a city might rank higher. If you work in NYC you might rank public transportation higher than if you didn't.

My point is that I would not look at property value alone when choosing a new town.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back