Recent content by type001

Well, at least it was hilarious.

I agree with your first statement, but it does not apply here. Bland would be an improvement here if that’s one assumes is going to happen.

Regarding the desire for the height increase, 600 feet != height fetish. It’s a very reasonable height to allow the developers to make some profit and to be consistent with what’s nearby.

Oh, that wasn’t a shot at you, Stick. Just to be clear. I was referring to the article itself.

And just a reminder that there is already an embarrassing POS right down the street where supposedly important people work in. Brutalist history? Let’s celebrate it in pictures.

How about ugly buildings that take up huge swaths of prime land? Why are some of you ignoring that it’s not so much the ugliness that’s the issue but how much of a street killer this thing is for multiple blocks in 3 directions.

Um, it’s not boutique anymore, And probably really wasn’t in the first iteration.

Does one person on this forum agree with this at all? Because if this claim has ANY truth to it, the proof is here.

If this isn’t completely torn down, I will like the city less. That is a fact.

I had no idea that Newark was having this nifty boom. I was last there about a year ago and didn’t even notice

Ironically, there’s just a few, since the Hurley building takes up so much goddam space.

Unless I’m missing something, there’s a big demand for more housing. This a prime location. I think a good handful of developers can pull this off if they tear the whole thing down.

Tear it down, update the zoning to allow 600 feet, and build a couple residential towers.

Sorry, that was a late night strong response to your comment. I personally don’t see any strong sides in this matter. Just the same few people pushing a false narrative and agenda.

Didn’t write it to feel anything. Side of what?