That sounds like a good thing, it will build more of a campus feel
When I was in school a lot of athletes and science majors wanted to be on Busch for convenience, is that no longer the case?
Nine Story Apartment Building Slated for Easton and Hamilton
- Thread starter Tango Two
- Start date
That sounds like a good thing, it will build more of a campus feel
When I was in school a lot of athletes and science majors wanted to be on Busch for convenience, is that no longer the case?
Not sure why that would change drastically as the proximity/convenience angle is not likely to diminish much, just maybe gets weighted more by some and less by others, relative to other factors affecting living choice/location.
I can't see that happening...they don't even require all freshmen to live on campus, do they? My guess is that they never will because they can't realistically make that a stipulation of enrollment and still appeal to certain segment of students, namely it would remove a potential affordability angle for many commuters.
(Former office building@ Easton Ave.& Somerset st)
This is one of those things where if the right group of people got together, came up with a communication strategy facing off with the city and the University, it could get done ... and the impact of getting this done is HUGE.
That was Sunday. Passed by Wednesday and the I-beams are pulled down for recycling. Much of the rubble is gone.whelp, that was fast
(Former office building@ Easton Ave.& Somerset st)
I would love to be involved with something like that.
In fact, I'm starting my ascent into the RU hierarchy this month - being inducted into the RUAA board for a 3 year term. From there hoping to continue and deepen the impact of involvement. I don't think the RUAA gets involved with physical projects or partnerships with the operating side of the University, so I may not have a direct channel to suggest something like we're talking about. But I'll certainly continue to talk about it and try until I find the right set of people .... or one day we'll just have to form a group.
9 story, 150+ unit, 500+ bed student housing complex by a developer out of the mid-west. It will be interesting to see the occupancy of that building and how it affects the other luxury student housing units in the area and how it affects Rutgers acceptance rate (they accepted a record amount of freshman this year in New Brunswick, IMO to serve the new supply of on/off-campus housing being built).
We're finally being rid of that poorly thought out 3 story medical building on that primo corner. Only took 20 years.
The more interesting story here is that as admissions stop growing, the student housing market is going to start cannibalizing itself. I would be interested to see the numbers. The school has built a lot of housing recently.
Only if its affiliated with the Hillsborough deli and there is cross over traffic, if you know what I mean
Some of the PILOT (payment in lieu of taxes) programs I have been involved are based on the properties net income each year. Many towns do them now and although they started out as a way to get developers to build in poor areas they have expanded beyond that.
In these cases you pay based on a formula applied to your net income each year on a property. Now the townships also make you pay for auditors on a regular basis so they can double check that you are paying the correct amounts.
In these cases you pay based on a formula applied to your net income each year on a property. Now the townships also make you pay for auditors on a regular basis so they can double check that you are paying the correct amounts.
Actually PILOT’s are usually based off of Gross Revenue and not final net income.
Typically the PILOT is somewhere between 10-12% of gross revenue on the property. Some townships and developers come to an agreement of 2% of construction costs instead but that is rare. 10-12% of gross revenue is a safe assumption to make.
Last edited:
It only looks out of place in comparison to Old New Brunswick, which is dilapidated wood frame multifamily homes. It looks fine in comparison to the current crop of new midrises built since 2000, which is as it should be imho.
I'm not too worried, as I could easily see them (i) requiring students to live on campus the first 2 years, like some other schools (if we don't already, as we've been trying for almost a decade; see link below), (ii) admitting more students, and (iii) finally tearing down some older dorms. Don't forget, according to the 2030 master plan, Hardenbergh and Stonier are slated to be torn down for the new quad and transit hub at some point and they have 330 and 200 beds, respectively. Also, Davidson Hall on Busch closed in 2016 and that had 340 beds (it's now Res Life Central Administration). And don't forget Ford Hall closed in 2013 (only had 67 beds).
Anyone have any idea when we'll see meaningful construction begin (tearing down Records Hall, Brower and Stonier) on this new quad, as that's a huge gamechanger for the CA campus? I suspect that the Student Center, Hardenbergh and the SAC won't be torn down until after the new buildings are up in the quad.
Was this rule requiring students to live on campus for 2 years ever enacted?
https://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2012/06/rutgers_freshmen_must_live_on.html
Last edited:
@Leonard23 No. Students only need to live on-campus for one year. I have heard the 2 year argument from landlords and developers and my counter argument is always that you cannot force someone to do something they don't want to do. Enact a 2 year rule and you'll see a lot of "commuters".
IMO the city and the school are at an important crossroads. They're overbuilding student housing and this building isn't even complete yet. There is another 500+ bed "student housing" building on New St going up, another one on Hamilton St is going to be approved in a few days and there are several others in the works.
I was glad to see RU have a freshman class of 7,000 but even with that record breaking class, the off-campus market is very soft this year. IMO they need 7,000+ from now on just to balance out all of the new housing being built both on and off-campus CURRENTLY.
IMO the city and the school are at an important crossroads. They're overbuilding student housing and this building isn't even complete yet. There is another 500+ bed "student housing" building on New St going up, another one on Hamilton St is going to be approved in a few days and there are several others in the works.
I was glad to see RU have a freshman class of 7,000 but even with that record breaking class, the off-campus market is very soft this year. IMO they need 7,000+ from now on just to balance out all of the new housing being built both on and off-campus CURRENTLY.
No, they should repurpose the wood from destroyed houses, so the highrise looks like a circa 1920 multifamily. But they need to make sure there's peeling paint and wood rot plainly visible. Heck, we wouldn't want to stick out like a sore thumb now do we?
Demand for seats for incoming freshman and demand for university (on-campus) housing aren't necessarily the same thing. That said, some of the supply is also partly absorbed by transfer students as well as graduate students (including RWJ medical and other RBHS units).
Maybe all of these new housing units will force the landlords of all the crappy homes to do some renovating to compete .
The condition of most of the homes is embarrassing.
The condition of most of the homes is embarrassing.
Hamilton St makes sense. When Stonier and Hardenbergh go, that's 530 beds on top of the 340 that closed in 2016. As for 90 New Street, is that an area where many students want to live or is it mostly Mason Gross students and grad students? Who lives in SoCam 290 (f/k/a Rockoff Hall)?
Stonier and Hardenberg haven't gone though, so you're counting on 870 beds going that still exist. That's the equivalent of a full 2 blocks of homes off-campus going from students to hispanic/section 8 if the demand is not met due to oversupply. SoCam is a mix of students and regulars.
Highway robbery if you ask me. Some of those places I rented (for good money too!) were such rat holes.
