Recent comments in /f/Newark

felsonj t1_irn7gk9 wrote

If this decision happened in an affluent suburb, I would strongly disagree with it and think it was noxious but understand the underlying motivation. But here in Newark? Absurd to the nth degree. Newark’s population hit its peak in the 1930s and fell to its nadir in the 1990s. What possibly could be the interest in putting restrictions on someone interested in investing in that neighborhood? It would be a little like preventing someone from making food donations from Walmart, arguing it had to be from Whole Foods.

4

Batrun-Tionma t1_irmw9v2 wrote

I would say Science Park, Technology High School, Bard High School Early College, Arts, and East Side.

Science Park is inarguably the best school in Newark. Like all schools in Newark they are not without their problems but access to different programs and stuff. Though not for everyone.

Screw technology.

East Side doesn't have a good rep, and the test scores and environment is not great, but it does have a lot of programs. I would advise against it, but it's also not the worst worst option as much as everyone makes it out to be.

Arts have a weird thing with admissions since they are focused in well the arts. Never applied there so I don't know much about auditions.

Bard is different since it is an early college institution where you can earn an associate degree from Bard College. The environment is pretty good and there was brilliant professors. But if you're a current junior, it would make sense that you would not go here, since while you can transfer, the early college program starts in junior year. Also, there are no AP classes offered.

8

dengeist t1_iriv0b5 wrote

I’m all for progress, but at the same time Newark does a pretty crappy job of preserving its history. For a city that was founded in 1666, there are very few historical sites.

That hotel does have a history, both good and bad. A lot of famous black musicians stayed there when black broadway was in that area. It was also a crackhead and hooker spot.

I’m on the fence about converting it into apts, but I don’t think it can continue as a hotel, the history should be preserved somehow.

3

nick_nuz t1_irfn8jl wrote

Repurposing this area is a good thing, it needed an overhaul. That doesnt necessarily mean ALL of Newark needs to be demo’ed and turned into ‘luxury housing’. I think thats a big fundamental issue I notice in this sub, facebook discussions, etc. Turning vacant lots that no one in decades wanted to touch and adding luxury units doesnt mean the area is kicking people out and fully gentrifying…its just adding newer housing stock at this point.

I understand people’s concerns and there will always be critics, however, this area desperately needed this in attempts to start change and to refresh housing stock.

Look at Passiac Ave in Kearny/East Newark (specifically Vermella East and West properties since were talking about Vermella/Russo in this thread). Residents there, still complain (which honestly, for the most part, a lot of the complaints there are unfounded and lack support from facts/data as it pertains to traffic, school congestion, etc. but I digress). That redevelopment zone took abandoned and contaminated areas; revitalized it and build these apartments and then built a river walk, new sidewalks, plants, etc. which are also accessible by the community.

East Newark is now building a park (adjacent to clay street bridge), renovated Tops and repurposing the Clarke Thread warehouses. The entire community benefits from it, not just those living in those buildings. Now, in this area, did it lead to buyers completely revamping their housing stock in attempts to collect more rent? Somewhat. You saw a buyer overpay for the General Kearny Apartments and slightly increase rent (slightly!). In return, they worked on roofing and exterior improvements, are continuously working on the cockroach infestation they have there and slowly upgrading the inside’s of units as there is attrition and turnover. Once again, this is a good thing. People are retrofixing old housing stock to be modernized and safe for decades to come….but that investment USUALLY starts when more developer interest occurs.

This is happening in Newark, theres a development Boom in very isolated and specific areas (some controversial, others not so much). And as a result, as long as the city can keep making good deals (living wage for local workers at these residential buildings, Low income housing stock in exchange for PILOT, etc. etc.) it can be a good thing. What Harrison did in the lower portion of the town is frustrating; but thats NOT the approach Newark and other towns (referencing Kearny and East Newark) are doing.

Understandably, people are afraid of the change and what that will do to the community. Change is scary, I get that. But on the other side of the coin, we also need to keep modernizing housing to meet todays standards to boast quality of life (and unfortunately, that does come at a cost)

1

Lanky_Act6769 t1_iresczm wrote

The zoning board needs to embrace smaller to no parking minimums! Especially with my generation, given that car ownership/use is trending towards a decline. American cities need to be more progressive and rethink what they’d rather prioritize moving forward, post pandemic… Privately owned cars? …Or people? C’mon!

18

66nexus t1_ireqxpu wrote

I don't understand how it's considered 'cramming residents'. Quality of life was unbearable b/c of overcrowding? Yeah, no. I remember 80's and 90's Newark, overcrowding was way down on the list versus just rampant crime in general.

Unfortunately the area, while better than the 90's, won't improve if things aren't built. The city can embrace its density and it doesn't have to be a bad thing. The 90's are over. One parking space for every unit means the zoning needs a lot more work.

14