New Condos Coming To Montclair

Great. More condos. Hopefully they will be full of people with schools to further tax our already over taxed town.

So the bike racks can hold 6 cars?

North Willow...HMMMM...I wonder if the demolition of the PAWS will eventually be part of this revitalization.

Could they perhaps engage the services of Studio Montclair to come up with a better color scheme? It's as if all they had to work with was a half-pack of crayons normally given to children for doodling on chain-restaurant placemats.

"North Willow...HMMMM...I wonder if the demolition of the PAWS will eventually be part of this revitalization."

Not unless the building spans claremont avenue.

You're thick sometimes.

Annette, do you have any more info that you are permitted to release? Who is the contractor? Any idea when they plan to break ground?

Here's hoping they actually are affordable - which does not mean the 500K price tag that both the Siena and Walnut St Lofts started at.

Unbelieveable that a group of people will bitch and moan and complain about a brand new building that will replace a vacant and overgrown lot. You can certainly question the prospect of building condos on the site, but that is the risk that the builder is willing to take. Regardless, its a huge improvement over the eye sore that is there now.

Can't wait to meet the Fresh Prince of Rose Aire.

Geez, ROC, not sure why you think I'm thick...Couldn't the PAWS building be torn down and a restaurant built in the space as part of an overall revitalization of the area? The town's real motives for wanting the PAWS building have always been questioned. I didn't mean the PAWS building would be part of the condo complex.

This design appears to be rather proud of its excessive use of foam plastic trim.

Home prices are continue to drop. I can't see how this is economically sustainable. People need apartments to rent not condos to buy.

"The town's real motives for wanting the PAWS building have always been questioned."

So a conspiracist then?

comme ci, comme ca

Nellie, this proposed building is part of the Bloomfield Ave business district. PAWS is part of the Walnut Street business district.

Laser, although I agree that the prospect of building condos above these retail units is questionable, the burden of selling them lies with the builder. Regardless of what happens, there will be a significant improvement over what is at the site currently. Who knows, maybe the guy is getting the property and building it at a price where he can hold onto the condo units for an extended period of time and still make money. All of these things are on the builder, for the rest of us we get a major improvement to the immediate area.

fru fru, I haven't been able to pin anyone down on a date for either groundbreaking or completion. I'll update as more info becomes available.

Thanks for clarifying, Nobama

Thanks Annette!

Laser, I've been waiting for an affordable condo in this town for about 5-6 years now. There really aren't that many. (Like I said, the ridiculous prices of the other new construction notwithstanding) And I think there are more people like me out there - single people who love the town and easy commute and who want to own, but for whom a house is just too much.

Hey, maybe by the time they're complete, the market will have bounced back somewhat. Again, here's hoping.

Hmmm, plenty o' condo towers going up in that area: Pine Street, Bloomfield Avenue near Hartley and now on Glenridge Avenue. Wondering what the asking prices will be on them.

Aside: I saw 2 BR "luxury condos" on Orange Street in Bloomfield near The Home Depot starting at $250K. Eek!

I'm with you too, fru. The Montclair area is just too pricey, and as much as I hear about drops in housing prices, I still don't see it around here. Unless you are talking about a drop from an 750k home to a 700k home, which is still way beyond me. Unfortunately "affordable" homes tend to be found in less than desirable areas. Where are all the moderately priced houses in moderately good locations?

So, where are the other six cars going to park?

(That's my only complaint about this one. The area is borderline blighted and if this really helps turn it around then "Hooray" is all I've got to say.)

this is exciting...

GnM, they'll end up fighting for spots with the Wellmont patrons after paying for a permit.

Nice looking rendering but those colors are more Santa Fe than Montclair.

I'm a member of the Planning Commission and have sat through the two presentations on this project. I wholeheartedly support it.

In addition to the TWO affordable housing units, of THREE BEDROOMS EACH (a first in Montclair) the space for Studio Montclair, a non-profit arts group, is being made available at no cost, other than utilities I believe.

The vacant lot was a blight. The owners reclaimed it, addressing EPA concerns, and are proposing a very nice alternative.

There is, in my judgement, ample parking. Part of the parking requirement was for Studio Montclair which will not impose the parking demand, i.e. parking should not be an issue.

Overall, a bold statement by the owners in these very trying economic ties. They get my thanks!

Cary Africk
2nd Ward Councilor

Parking is an issue all over Montclair - so why would this area be different? Also with 3 bedroom condos the one car per condo assumption will prove to be bad math - as it always does.

Nonsense ! Even in Manhattan, residential building is in a slump. The Siena hasn't sold out yet. Why aren't stores in downtown Montclair opening. Some planners you people are. Unreal.

Go down to the area at night and see the parking situation for yourself.

And remember, this is a private development of only 15 units, 2 of which are affordable. I believe the owners plan to live in one. The units look very attractive to me -- very spacious. I suspect they will be priced well.

I don't think it's one car per condo .... I think it's two.

fru fru,
Maybe the increased supply will drop the prices even further. How do these developers plan to make money?

"this is a private development of only 15 units, 2 of which are affordable."

So does "affordable" = section 8? In other words, am I to interpret this as meaning the developer/owner got some sort of tax break or other incentive for including "affordable" housing in this project, and the rest of the units will be as stupidly priced as the Siena?

Maybe part of the reason the Siena hasn't sold all it's units is they were asking 6-700k on average. Even in Montclair, you can get a kick-ass house with a backyard for that money.

Only 15 units in that humongous rendering? The apartment building that I live in now has 15 units and it's much smaller than this would appear. So, they will be charging loft prices for each unit.

I realize that not everyone wants a backyard but 700k for the Siena is ridiculous. Is there a pool, tennis court, gym? What exactly are the amenities besides the privilege of living above a Starbucks in Montclair?

MM-

I don't know if it sold for this, but I do know the Siena originally wanted a cool mill for the penthouse condo. To live across from South Park. Unreal.

Really. Just saying, for that kinda dough, you can buy into a condo community down the shore and get all of the amenities I list above.

Heck, even the Claridge House in Verona has a weight room and a beautiful outdoor pool and their units cost much less.

Relax guys, seriously!

There is an "affordable" requirement on every development. It can be "paid" in units, or in dollars.

It's very complicated. There are income guidelines, but it is not section 8.

Who defined "affordable" when planning this? I'm curious as to how it is considered.

Maybe Mr. Africk can help explain.

A quick glance on realtor.com showed two units in the Sienna, both 2-bedrooms. One is listed at 639k (yikes) and the other 484k. There were also multiple new entries for an unnamed condo at 649k each. I'm hoping it's not the one discussed on this page. Condos for that much equal vacant units in this market.

realistic, is that a misnomer?

You want a primer on a blog on such a hotbed of opinions and new laws?

In Upper Montclair, on a corner on Valley, there is currently a small charming house on the market for $499,000. I believe it was on the market just a few months back for around or just under $550,000 and I noticed it because that price range is hard to find in that area.

You can waste approximately 3 minutes of your life at the Siena website watching their virtual tour of the Siena lifestyle. They show people working out in a gym, walking on Church Street, and then there are various stills around the area such as the Walnut St. train station, Edgemont Park and, yes, South Park. A Prudential broker had a price range between lower 400s up to 1.3 million. Heck, the Reserve in Glen Ridge seems to be in a nicer area while still central. Both are expensive though.

Affordable residences in Essex County? One would need 2-3 full time jobs to afford them.

The board must have come up with an income number to label someone deserving of the "affordable" tag.

"Affordable residences in Essex County? One would need 2-3 full time jobs to afford them."

Are you kidding? There is plenty of affordable housing throughout Essex County. Like this fixer upper, for instance.

Try this real.

I'm curious--is this another Plofker project? There must be a person(s) behind the name of the "owner-builder" mentioned in the article.

The term "affordable" comes from state mandated regulations. In our Town "affordable" is interpreted through a local non profit, HomeCorp.

It involves the applicant's salary, in comparison to the average salary for the area. What qualifies a person depends on his or her income.

Taking this income into consideration, the price of the house or condo is adjusted.

You don't have to go to Irvington. There IS affordable housing in Bloomfield, West Orange, South Orange, Maplewood, and Millburn. Especially now. It may take you longer to find, but they're out there.

What qualifies as "affordable" housing is set by the state. Africk is right in that it is included in every development and can be paid in units or dollars. These units are sold via lottery which has a long waiting list of people. In order to qualify, you need to have a household income below a certain threshold (I think it's somewhere around $20K). Affordable housing units were even included in the Siena, but you didn't hear about them because they are sold via lottery.

I agree that this developer should be commended for taking this project on in these tough economic times. No matter where the units are priced, the development will surely serve to improve that neighborhood of Montclair. A neighborhood which can be a little dicey during certain times of night.

From my link above:

"What is affordable housing?

It's housing that can be bought or rented using 30 percent, or less, of your income.

New Jersey, like most states, operates an affordable housing program intended to ensure there's enough housing that's affordable for low-income individuals and families (those who earn 50 percent or less of their region's median household income), as well as moderate-income individuals and families (those who earn more than 50 percent but less than 80 percent of their region's median household income). New Jersey's median household income was $54,226 in 2000, the highest in the nation - meaning on average, a New Jersey family making $43,000 or less qualifies for moderate-income housing; those making $27,000 or less qualify for low-income housing. In reality, income requirements for state-provided affordable housing vary by region"

(I think it's somewhere around $20K)

I think that's the single-income cap. The cap for married couples is probably closer to $35k - $40k (assuming they use the same grade as "affordable" apartments).

If the $20k figure is the true cap for families; that is not just affordable, but only $1k above the poverty line.

Seems kind of discriminatory in itself that a member of the "working poor" would get a shot at owning a home before someone who is solidly in the "middle class" range, but would still need to double his salary before affording even a modest home in Montclair.

Thank you for the info. The income numbers appear very low for Montclair.
Can anyone, making so little, afford the maintenance costs and the upkeep of their units on top of their purchase price? That could pose a problem.

Great, more layoffs just announced at my company. Forget a condo/house, I'll be lucky to be able to afford my apartment if they keep this up.

I'm not sure what constitutes region, but the median income of the area here is higher then the state average. I believe that's what allows it to work as far as affording things after the initial housing cost. The bar is higher in Mtc.

This project, as a site improvement, meets or perhaps exceeds criteria set forth in Law, which the Planning Board is chartered to deliberate upon and enforce. They did their job admirably.

Hats off to the developer for displaying the courage to proceed with a mostly speculative venture in times that are uncertain.

But really, as far as buildings go, this pile of foam and latex is a real two-bagger, (see Dangerfield, Rodney). I doubt the public is aware how cheesy this thing really will be once built. And yes, I will apologize if proven wrong.

Listen, condos by the Home Depot in Blmfd have to demand some high prices - you can walk home from Titalations! Location, location, location!

Seems like these condos will have that cache as well, being so close to the Lackawanna area

We should be increasing the number of mandatory parking spaces. Does the board really think if they simply stick to their guns and go with the rules that already exist, that the developer will pull out?

I trust they are paying us another $35 million for the school we'll need to build to seat all the kids living in this building. Or we can just run the average class size up to 32. Or 40. Or whatever.

"New York City Hoping To Require Bike Storage Space In Residences"

"City planners will be peddling an ambitious proposal today to create the nation's most rigorous bicycle-parking rules. ...mandating that all new residential buildings and commercial towers include storage space for bicycles "

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/09/new-york-city-hoping-to-r_n_156603.html

WHERE ARE THE TREES in that design?

Jesus, people. Would a *LITTLE* bit of a setback be too much to ask for? Just enough for some freakin' trees along the street? Maybe leave a little bit of dirt on the ground to soak up some rainwater? No?

The people who build these places clearly do not give half a crap about the people who are going to be living there, and what the environment around the place is going to be like.

One real question is how they are going to deal with traffic. That intersection is horrible right now. I don't see how it can handle more traffic without being expanded. Is that part of the plan or are they going to build right to the curb as it looks in the picture?

Oh NO!
Forgot to draw the trees!
Gee..that was my first thought TOO
(eye roll)

Congrats to Studio Montclair though.
They have worked tirelessly (for years) to find a nice place for local artists to show their artwork.

Cary, the owners of what are living in the affordable housing? The owners of the building? As in the developers? This would make socialism for the rich take an even uglier turn.

Speaking of ugly. Am I the only one who thinks this thing is a dog? Montclair is infected by horrific postmodernism that is utterly out-of-character with the community. Since we can't build the way we did 100 years ago, can we build in a way that fits our community better? How about some decent modernism? Take a look at Manhattan, which has plenty of it and looks fabulous. We're turning into a bad caricature of Brooklyn.

"The people who build these places clearly do not give half a crap about the people who are going to be living there, and what the environment around the place is going to be like."

Agreed.

Goodness gracious MM and Amandala, what could you possibly know about what the people who build these things give a crap about?

MM and Amandala, it has already been stated that the people building it will also be living in it, so your point is pointless. People, there is a vacant and overgrown lot there now. Would you rather have a brand new building there or what is there now? And whomever said that intersection is already a traffic nightmare has got their panties on a little too tight, simply not true. And can you please tell me why these 15 apartment units and a couple of stores will all of a sudden turn this area into Time Square?? Typical Baristanet yahoos complaining for the sake of complaining.

Seriously, ROC, did any of these developers ever do a formal (or informal for that matter) poll of what people really want? What kind of lighting? Size of rooms, closets? Kitchen layout? Amenities, such as gyms, pools, etc? The landscape?

Granted, we're not millionaires but before we bought our current home, my husband and I looked at more than 20 houses. We figured if we got 8 out of 10 must-haves, we'd be in business.

People with more affordable income who can afford more expensive domiciles are probably looking for 10 out of 10. But all I've seen out there, for the most part, is crap. Crappy lighting, smallish rooms, poor kitchen design, landscaping that would look better in an office park rather than a residential dwelling. It's like most of them don't have a clue.

A poll? To build a building? More of your "libertarianism", no doubt.

Not libertarianism just good business sense. If I was designing a new widget, I'd want to know what people liked or didn't like about the old widget. Same thing with building houses.

The people who build these places are interested in their "bottom line". What they think will sell quickly.
Workmanship and caring are really things of the past.

"If you build it, they will come...."

But you have it build it right...

FYI - there is no setback because zoning does not allow for it. In order to maintain the integrity of the bloomfield avenue corridor and its surrounding areas, zoning requires that buildings be put directly on the sidewalk. Not that this would have affected the plans of the developer if this ordinance had not been there. As a developer, why not use as much of the buildable square footage as possible? This way you get the most bang for your buck. And any sort of greenspace would require maintenance of some kind. This is a cost that would ultimately be born by the buyers of this property and additional costs are not very popular right now.

And poling ot determine what people in the area want? That sounds a little far fetched. Developers build based on what is legally permissable, physically possible and economically viable. They tend outfit the space with designs and finishes which are universally popular so as to appeal to every possible buyer. If you start poling, out of 100 people you are likely to get 100 different answers, only a few of which will even make sense, let alone be possible.

Let's be rational. This is a project based on capitalism, not socialism.

jimmyp
Workmanship and caring are NOT just things of the past, as you put it. They are very much alive and visible in the good projects being built now. The good projects turn out that way if the owner wants to out of simple self-respect, of if the market demands it, or if the host town demands such quality in order to preserve it's own reputation, attractiveness and appeal. Then there are the other projects, which will last 20 years and then become landfill.

That rendering does not look like a "good project." It resembles some other stuff built here over the last several years which looks spiffy enough for the first year or two, then begins to fall apart from poor workmanship and/or materials--by which time the developer has moved on to the next project. If that's foam on the facade, you can look around town to see how well that material has adhered to some recent buildings in Montclair.

your neighbor, that is my point exactly.

the aren't buildin this over the brrok, are they? that can't be safe, and why would they cover up something so good looking?

I've been in the building trades J Perlstein for 38 years. I have a fair understanding of how things work, and why workmanship has become a thing of the past. Pride in a job well done has become an exorbitant reality that no one, least of all a condo buyer has the means to pay for. In Manhattan, for example, most condos are thrown together, slapdash, with the goal of getting a tco, at which time the buyer gutsit and starts from scratch. Aside from that, compare contemporary economics with that of even five years ago, and you'll get the picture. To think though that developers take pride in their work is naive, at best. Sorry, but I doabsolutely stand by my statement.

Foam on the facade? Is that really done? Crickey, why not just use shaving cream.

That passage, jimmyp, sounds like it could be read by Jon Stewart in his best Joisey accent. It does have a ring of truth, however.

Any doubt as to the veracity of my statement, consider where the younger workers are coming from, whether a watered down educational system, or foreign lands. Craftsmanship, a work ethic ? Not anymore. Not by a long shot. In fact, many buidings are now going up and lower floors sold so quickly in order to generate funding, that people are moving into virtual construction sites. Not necessary to take my word for it. Speak to people who have had that experience. The construction industry in 2009 is to the construction industry of 1971, as high schools and colleges are now and were then. To imagine however, that our social fabric is fraying dramatically, our once great nation has deteriorated, but somehow our builders are men of honor is nonsense, or denial.

JimmyP:

I often see workers doing shoddy work, off of plans that are poorly conceived, for incompetent and greedy owners like the ones you describe.

I also see fine and even exceptional work on a regular basis, by craftsmen working off inspired plans by gifted architects, for dedicated and motivated owners.

Your blanket generalizations don't help the case you are trying to make.

I think this project is good for Montclair. I know many people (including myself) who would like to stay in Montclair after their kids are grown, but don't want or need a house. Having an apartment within walking distance to shops and public transportation is a great option . It will permit some people (depending on cost) to "grow older" in Montclair without the responsibility of home ownership.
Does anyone know what the asking prices will be?

Gail

J Perlstein I'm not trying to make a case. Perhaps you are right. We probably live in parallel universes.