The building takes up its entire lot next to the main train station. Demolishing a one-story structure at the rear will allow for one handicapped parking space and some private open space for the tenants of the proposed eight apartments. Architect Jose Carballo explained that the board's desire for mixed use, with commercial space on the ground floor, was not feasible due to safety concerns, because there is only one entrance at the front.
The board wanted the developer to purchase parking slots in nearby municipal lots, but Carballo said there may be tenants without cars and suggested having tenants purchase parking slots rather than have costs passed on to some who did not need parking.
The parking accommodation has been requested for other downtown projects, even though parking is not required in the downtown.
There will not be any affordable housing in the building, Carballo said in answer to a board member's question.
Landmark, headed by developer Frank Cretella, has nearly a dozen projects in Plainfield in various stages. Each is under a separate limited liability corporation.
--Bernice
"...explained that the board's desire for mixed use, with commercial space on the ground floor, was not feasible due to safety concerns, because there is only one entrance at the front."
ReplyDelete"Landmark, headed by developer Frank Cretella, has nearly a dozen projects in Plainfield in various stages.."
**************
considering how difficult it is to fill other existing and new apartments in the area (like Monarch), i am just wondering why the board would ok landmark's bid for this project?
secondly, if there are other projects in various stages, shouldn't these be completed before giving the Landmark the greenlight for this one..
Everyone now is a urban planner and developer. Great suggestion as a critic with no real solution in getting anything downtown changed. Let's just keep everything the same since Plainfield does not want progress.
ReplyDeleteanonymous... with all due respect..The Monarch is NOT apartment rentals regardless of how the city rolled over and allowed it to become that .. it's FOR SALE UNITS.
ReplyDeletePer rentals...keep building them.. maybe we can finally get enough people into this city who won't tolerate the BS that is quite simply status quo and get rid of most of the powers that be that are only concerned with their piece of the pie and not the city. And questioning the status and completion status of a developer by this city is kind of a joke.. the only thing the city of Plainfield consistently does is amount half finished or unanswered problems to it's portfolio. The only thing that gets bigger than taxes in Plainfield is that rug that everything gets swept under.
Why should the fact that there are empty rentals at the Monarch lead the board to deny approval of the restoration of one of the beautiful old buildings downtown that has been empty and left to decay? We should be delighted that a developer is willing to come in and save this building, which is right next to the train station. Landmark is taking the risk here, not the city. Currently, there are a very small number of "luxury" apartments downtown, and most of them are in other Landmark properties. It would be great to have a critical mass of nice apartments, along with the cafes, coffee shops and other small businesses that could thrive with a stable middle class community downtown. Go Landmark!
ReplyDeleteto rob and the other anonymous..I am not joking..excuse me for asking questions..I am not for non progress but regardless of HOw and What status apartments are introduced into the city, bottom line is empty is empty. I am not knocking Landmark or anyone else but I am questioning that in an era of joblessness that plagues this and other American cities, maybe a BUSINESS of some sort that will employ folk that can afford housing would be worth consideration..
ReplyDeleteI think comparing Plainfield to other American Cities is at best "BOLD" and slightly audacious ... compare it to Camden, Newark or Paterson perhaps.. you have to remember .. Plainfield is the City of "Can't Do". If Landmark owns the property and wants to create a critical mass of high end dwellers in an attempt to eventually support a business or businesses it plans for the area... More power to them.. The Powers That Be of Plainfield have a long way to go before being able to suggest to a developer what should and shouldn't be the proper course of action with their funds.. They've proven repeatedly unable to be good stewards of YOUR FUNDS ( Taxes )taking care of the current infrastructure or business climate. This is the city that watched a building slowly collapse to the point it had to be destroyed by the train station with all of them saying the same thing.. "What were we supposed to do??? "
DeleteNot exactly the A-Team in the pilot seat.
To Rob:
ReplyDelete"the only thing the city of Plainfield consistently does is amount half finished or unanswered problems to it's portfolio."
~~
and these are your words...Plainfield needs to FINISH some things before it begins NEW AND SHINER projects..period..
The City of Plainfield has nothing to do with the progress of what a developer is proposing nor their timeline for completion.. Where the city attempting to not do it's usual "do as we say not as we do" they'd saddle on up to the Park Madison Building and worry about that semi-government project being completed ( which Bernice and Doc have mentioned many times..but alas..they are not ).. Like the Tepper's Basement..when the city is involved it's simply a matter of half assed and if there's room under the rug in city hall to sweep it under when it's a fail..
DeleteRob
ReplyDeletemaybe that's the problem. In a quote,"Can't
do City", unquote, maybe they can take a vested interest in who comes in here and does what. I don't care if Landmark has $$ going to bed and rising up in the morning, if they have a docket of works in various stages and progress, it's time for them to COMPLETE THOSE FIRST before moving on . Period..you can't make that right.
it is neither bold or audacious, overblown or an exaggeration to compare Plainfield's struggles against local or any other American city. The Queen City is a microcosm of that fact. The recession was not a mirage in the middle of the country or at far end of the earth. It touched us here, right here, around the corner, in our own living rooms, from East Front to West Front Street, from South to North Avenue and all in between.
As far as your 1/2 a**sed reference, could you pleae name any other town or city that would be cookie crunch with a developer who begins project after project without wrapping up the previous ones? In your recent post you said that " The City of Plainfield has nothing to do with the progress of what a developer is proposing nor their timeline for completion" but then , by your own words (again), you said, "the only thing the city of Plainfield consistently does is amount half finished or unanswered problems to it's portfolio"...
so what's a city to do? Continue to "OK" a developer who is accumulating projects after project w/o even a suggested time line of completion for anything? Or, should Plainfield get involved and curb Landmark's enthusiasm? Landmark is not constructing out of the goodness of their hearts. They are a business looking to make a profit. Maybe plainfield should that aforementioned "RUG" from under its own feet and hold Landmark accountable.
Developers often tackle more than one project at a time. Often in areas, such as Plainfield, which are ripe for development, there are multiple developers who tackle a variety of projects simultaneously OR may focus on one large project. They take advantage of low real estate values and possible tax incentives. Good developers also have the foresight for the potential an area has. We should be thankful that Landmark has taken an interest in investing their time, effort and money in Plainfield.
ReplyDeleteA late comment on this. It is GREAT that Landmark is saving this once beautiful building from the fireman that owned it and did nothing but strip the metal out of it. Landmark is certainly making a good mark in Plainfield with what it has completed to date. I just hope the City of Plainfield, the Mayor and the City Council will get together and vote to approve a special liquor license that they need to proceed with the restaurant aspect of their projects. We have license holders that are shut down for violations, but they continue to hold them. The best is yet to come.
ReplyDelete