Back in 2013, Mayor Jackson shared his vision for a new, expanded municipal complex for the Township of Montclair in the Lackawanna Plaza area. Jackson believed that both the Police Department and municipal offices could move into a new complex.
Now he’s thinking of a third occupant. According to the Montclair Times, Jackson said that a new Central Office could be part of the future development at Lackawanna Plaza, along with a new municipal facility and police headquarters.
The Township has designated the plaza as an area in need of redevelopment. The site is located in a C-1 central business zone, and consists of 8 acres in total, with 4.83 acres in the western parcel of land where the train station is located and 3.44 acres in the eastern portion, which includes a surface parking lot and a TD Bank building.
Jackson’s idea, however, hasn’t been discussed by the school district. The Times article quotes BoE president David Deutsch and District Chief Operating Officer Brian Fleischer, who both stated that the idea of moving the district office from 22 Valley Road hasn’t come up, nor have they spoken with Mayor Jackson.
Unless I’m not remembering it correctly, I recall at the 3/30 meeting it was mentioned the location would be used as HQ for Police, Board of Ed, and the Town Hall.
Great idea! That parking lot is a gaping hole in what could be a valuable part of downtown. There’s a gap between the bloomfield avenue strip between Lackawanna plaza and Bay St station that could use more development.
But remember, the town is aggressively trying to sieze a parking lot next to the current police station by eminent domain, for about 500K. If the police station is a potential redevelopment site, is the township just acquiring the lot to make the development site bigger? Our government shouldn’t be in the business of speculative property flipping
When the developer is chosen (Pinnacle) to build up the Lackawanna Plaza into another ten-floor behemoth where profit takes priority over sensibility. Remember to factor in “need” when Pinnacle throws in the construction costs of these new municipal buildings in lieu of a standard PILOT agreement. Remember, the concept of this slate was to develop Montclair out of debt. I don’t recall seeing any independent studies on the impact the Sievva, Centro Merde, or the MT Hotel will have on the cost of fire services, water and sewer maintenance and school population, etc. Let alone the number of parking spaces that will be removed from an already tight supply which could negatively affect existing downtown commercial/retail ratables. How will property taxes be reduced with the lack of collection from the current Lackawanna tenant, plus the fact that the abandoned properties formerly inhabited by the police, school staff and municipal staff sit abandoned? On the surface, the concept of obtaining shiny new offices for Montclair’s public servants for free sounds like a no-brainer. Unfortunately, nothing is for free. I full well expect to hear the that repetitive Montclair mantra of “that ship has sailed” yet again, shortly after the realization that another major blunder was made.
Lackawanna Plaza is a privately owned property. In January Pinnacle bought it from it’s previous owner. At the workshop on 3/30 I believe the maximum floor height, at an extreme, would be eight floors – not ten. Even then, I believe they were looking at 4 – 6 stories if my memory serves me right.
As mentioned in the article, a parking garage would be a part of this complex, which could potentially hold more parking spots than the current surface wasteland parking lot.
The police station is, as far as I recall, not a redevelopment site – but rather they hope to sell the property (who hopefully won’t tear down the beautiful facade.)
Just remember if the police move out……Pinnacle already own the 2 or 3 buildings next to it. Hmmmmm I wonder if they have ideas of tearing down the old police station and building big again on that corner??? I hope not!!!!!!!
They aren’t exactly known as a loving and careful developer.
My understanding from the previous Montclair Times article on the matter is that the valley road police station would be a development site. The interior would be too old and obsolete to preserve or retrofit, but the (very nice) facade would stay.
That’s my understanding, too, Spork. At the workshop event it was brought up that the interior of the current police station/courthouse is so old and dilapidated that it can’t even be renovated/fixed up and therefore they do require a new location.
The issue with the current municipal building is that it is an energy inefficient hog – it was mentioned that despite renovations to make it more energy efficient it remained just as bad as it was before the renovations were done.
There are a lot of moving parts baked into this project. As others mentioned the township would presumably sell off the Board of Ed, Police Dept and Town Hall buildings.
What is happening with the old Renaissance school building?
Could the Montclair Municipal Complex, Police HQ, and School District Office Be Roommates?…that could possible be ….but not so fast!
Not until Montclair has a reasonable and correctly functioning Planning Dept, Planning Board, HPC and Environmental Commission. There is going to continue to be so much more public understanding and push back from the community to correct and guard against the ten years of incapability, arrogance, destruction and failure of the re development mechanism. Its only too bad that they cant take those bad decisions and failed projects with them when they go.
Hang on to your wallets.
I am concerned that the Lackawanna will be a Gateway 1 redux in that one element will limit the redevelopment schemes…and the benefit of the charrette in May that Councilor Baskerville mentioned. In the case of Gateway 1, it was the hotel. Lackawanna is the municipal complex.
I just wish the developer’s wishes were secondary from a design perspective. I think the “decision” to place the municipal complex in the Western section is, at the least, premature & bad planning.
While it may seem counterintuitive to consider its placement on the Eastern section, I think it has a lot of merit. My position is based on many factors, but a primary one is what is the redevelopment goal? Is it to connect Lackawanna to the upper business district or is it to connect to the Eastern Gateway/Transit Village focal point. The former was one of the biggest flaws in the 1980’s urban renewal design.
Regardless, imagining the innovative and exciting redevelopment schemes for the Western section if, for the moment, we set aside the municipal complex concept.
Or, if we are leasing space, do all the municipal functions have to be in the same building as the entire zone will share a common parking deck? Instead of thinking in terms of a complex, maybe we should be thinking in terms of modules. The Police Department will have specific, unique needs. A likely one is that the Police Departments will need to be located at street level.
Stu is right that we have had our “that ship has already sailed” redevelopment moments. I’m not against putting the municipal facilities in this redevelopment area. I’m just concerned that form will follow function….and when it come to government, they are not known for having a high “form” quotient.
“what is the redevelopment goal? Is it to connect Lackawanna to the upper business district or is it to connect to the Eastern Gateway/Transit Village focal point. The former was one of the biggest flaws in the 1980’s urban renewal design.”
All this “gateway” “transit village focal point” language is useless outdated hogwash from a STILL failing re development scheme SINCE the 1980s.
Montclair is Montclair. It doesn’t need those catchy re development methodologies from planning 101, that are devised for very simple undeveloped suburban places. The planners are trying to superimpose concepts that are not appropriate for nor applicable to Montclair, ….practically America’s first planned transit villages.
Part of this new structure is also the redevelopment of Lackawanna Plaza itself. It was suggested during the meeting and I’ve read in suggestions elsewhere of turning Lackawanna Plaza into a Chelsea Market/Open Space venue.
Of the other suggestions made was the inclusion of housing for the elderly and I’d also like to see housing for veterans and the disabled/handicapped including in whatever gets constructed there.
frankgg – “Montclair is Montclair. It doesn’t need those catchy re development methodologies from planning 101, that are devised for very simple undeveloped suburban places.”
While the application of “catchy redevelopment terms” may not be appropriate for the parts of Montclair that ARE actually built well and planned well and implemented well (and there are many) I disagree that they should not be used in the case of Lackawanna Plaza as you say. Lackawanna Plaza represent everything that went wrong with planning engaging, attractive and efficient spaces over the past 50 years. In effect it is EXACTLY as you say such terms are reserved for… “a very simple underdeveloped place.” It is an unmitigated disaster what was done to that beautiful old train station and to fill the rest of the acreage of the parcel with 500 hundred parking spaces is criminal. It’s “development was given very little thought and is a direct reflection of what happens when we prioritize the experience of the automobile/driver experience over the pedestrian/community gathering experience. I can only hope we capitalize on this great and valuable piece of land, by whatever vocabulary necessary, and that this space turns into the amazing parcel it could be if we work together to create a space for gathering, and experiencing rather than parking or driving right past shaking our head at the vast wasteland that is has been for decades now.
I truly think that you have been one of those destructive descision makers for Montclair, Parktour, and at this point I do not take anything you say seriously.
“Montclair, ….practically America’s first planned transit villages.”
Wow. This is a new level of revisionist history. I like it, but I am working on my selective memory of the facts. Remind me, when did Montclair actually start putting in parking lots?
Frank,
I hear you criticizing every redevelopment plan and most people’s opinions on this board on a daily basis, yet you never seem to offer any ideas of your own on how to make things better.
I will ask you point blank then and drop all the personal attacks and dismissiveness.
1.) What is your current opinion of Lackawanna Plaza?
2.) How would you, if you were head of the planning board handle it’s redevelopment?
Frankgg: “what is the redevelopment goal?”
I believe the goal is to redevelop Lackawanna Plaza from a cheap, tacky strip mall and a wasted surface parking into what could be a jewel on Bloomfield Avenue, and to convert the parking lot into something other than wasted real estate.
I don’t think I necessarily understand your opposition to changing, well, any of that.
Stop the madness.
Just when the town has actually started to take seriously our out of control debt burden, along comes this crazy idea. Please concentrate on ways to further pay down our almost $200 million current debt, not come up with wildly expensive schemes that would add to it.
ITS PROCEEDURAL FAILURE that we’re reacting against. There is nothing personal, these are not attacks so don’t try to hide behind that. Most people on the boards have NO idea what they are doing, are arrogant, intransigent, dont listen and only operate on their own interests. Plus, they are insulting to the public. Even they Mayor.
Just look around you and see the failures and mistakes. Unacceptable! The Washington Street School, South Park Street, the oversizing of buildings of Valley & Bloom… all unacceptable. The community is quickly comming to this realization of the failures of the boards. There are multitudes of Montclair taxpayers who share this opinion and are coming out to voice it… Its not only me. Why should I answer your questions?…I don’t trust you or most of the other incaplable people on the boards.
The Planning Board, The HPC, The Environmental Commission….all ridiculous. Most of these boardmembers have got to go before any correct redevelopment can be accomplished. I’m possibly the only one in this discussion who used the train at Lackawanna Plaza on a daily basis and has data, memory and understanding of the existing station and location (especially of the underground waterways) and I would be glad to provide time and materal gratis but until the boards and planning department are reorganized with capable and non self serving descision makers, I feel its a complete waste of time.
So how would I handle redevelopment if I were the head of planning board? FIRSTLY, I would make sure that all of the self serving and incapable individuals on the boards were dismissed.
parkour,
Was your post directed at me or to frankgg?
Thats a point, Frankr! Please excuse me but it could have been directed at either. I’m quite interested to see what your response would be.
It was directed at Frankgg of course. it is he who insists that I have “nothing to add of any value” and it is he who is who firmly believes that I am one of the “destructive forces in Montclair.” So I was asking for his opinion on the actual parcel of land known as Lackawanna Plaza. Of course, he has, as usual provided no tangibe insight on the property itself but rather just continue to badmouth and trash people’s credentials, credibility and intentions over and over again.
Frankgg open his las post with “There is nothing personal, these are not attacks so don’t try to hide behind that.” but then goes on to trash my credentials and my intentions. He then goes on to say…
“Most people on the boards have NO idea what they are doing, are arrogant, intransigent, dont listen and only operate on their own interests. Plus, they are insulting to the public. Even they Mayor.”
and
“The boards and planning department are reorganized with capable and non self serving descision makers” Gee Frank…I wonder why no one really cares about your “gratis” or asks for your “help” you seem so positive and collaborative. What a joke. Thanks goodness development seems to be plugging along just find despite you supposes massive uprising against it.
In closing, until the next article about redevelopment of course, I defy anyone who has lived here more than 15 years to honestly admit to this board that the town of Montclair is a less aesthetically pleasant, less vibrant, less attractive public space than it was 15 years ago. If they say that is so then they are lying to themselves.
Every piece of development that has come along since the year 2000 has vastly improved that which was there before. To hear certain people talk you would think that they are the only ones who know anything about planning, and that their opinions are representative of the entire town, which of course they are not.
The fact of the matter is is that the real estate market in Montclair is through the roof, people are very interested in living here, the downtown is winning awards left and right. But of course all of these people and awards could be wrong I guess. South Park St is way worse than it was 5 years ago when it was abandoned and lifeless and Bloomfield Avenue was a much scarier walk at night.
The people who come to dine and shop and gather in these spaces when a decade ago they did not is due to how the planning board has chosen to redevelop our downtown. If we had listened to Frankgg…we would still be stuck with the Montclair of the 70’s and 80’s with prime real estate laying dormant for decades until a developer came along who met the high high high bar set by urban planner almighty…Frankgg..I mean he even knows about the water under Lackawanna Plaza…wow.
This is an interesting conversation. Picks up where we left off last time.
Fact: Montclair has some areas that are just not well developed, or not well used (I’m not talking about areas for more green space). These can and should be enhanced. It’s both to improve ratables, uptick the immediate surrounding blocks, or improve an overall area. So I disagree with the no-growth POV from some here.
Here’s my two cents and general thinking on all this:
Growth and redevelopment are not necessarily bad. Montclair needs to support its downtown and commercial areas while balancing preservation of its neighborhood character.
Towards this end there is good redevelopment..there is bad redevelopment. There is good new construction…there is bad new construction.
Good: organically feels connected to the surrounding buildings in scale, in height and bulk, or is a more modernist departure that still works and resonates it belongs.
Bad: is something out of character, with a cheapish feel that has no reference to the design or detailing of anything nearby. It does not create something different well if trying — that’s an improvement to the surrounding area if that area is say blighted and the new build is the new reference focal point.
Sure…some of this is really when you see it…you know especially in design form if you are in the business. Regardless, the underlying thinking should not just be about no growth or about aesthetics. It’s also function.
Example: we now have non-conforming planning “uses” like eliminating gas stations from our shopping and downtown centers. Is this the right approach? Towns need gas stations. It is not necessarily right in my mind to make the planning focus on necessarily banning types of businesses. For me it’s types of looks.
In the Hamptons…where they have a master plan all along the main highway in say Southampton, when the Hess gas station wanted to create a convenience store, they were required to make it feel like a barn. The pump areas now had to be shingled over so they didn’t seem like 60’s aberrations but instead, now mini-cottage roofs. It worked. The station now fits in more with the sense of place. So the “use” was not really the issue – the feel was.
They recognized, as many do here now…that part of their town’s appeal is the way they looked and felt. That this was an inherent part of their economics – both for home sales and for visitors and shoppers. The same for Montclair. Except, we’re only now starting to fully see this impact.
Consequently,.for those looking for say no Big Macs, or less Nails stores in the downtown as some believe is important..this may not be the right focus. Instead we should just make more stringent form and design-build requirements for what the entities have to look and feel like to blend in…so that the store function becomes less important.
This just needs to be done creatively using zoning and form based codes – with more HP districts.
So clearly we need more ratables..(no Willobrook Mall here) and we need to support existing businesses with a panorama of local and regional shoppers. Will this Lackawanna Plaza “municipal” relocation build provide some added value and smart economics towards this end as some ask above?
That economic modeling and analysis should definitely be undertaken. It should be presented in support of, or against in advance of any firm relocation decision-making.
However, my understanding is that some of that initial work was undertaken to date already and some may be in progress. So there is nothing wrong with the Mayor presenting his POV for a plan or project like this now which he thinks can benefit the township.
We’re in the very early stages, with a savvier public now seeing clearly some of past planning pitfalls and errors (economics-cost-benefits of the new school?) Lots of smart people on this page now.
We should all let the process proceed some more. Then make judgments and comments accordingly as details and information specifics start to get worked through.
LOL Parktour…. I was born here 56 years ago….and Montclair could have been much better today if it were not for all of the bad re development descisions. Since 2000 Montclair redevelopment has been a dissapointment and a disaster. BAD WORK. Award Winning? BS! We’ve lost so much and to bad replacements… The Marboro Inn… The Hahnes Building …. the Washington Street YMCA….little historic farm houses like the one on Harrison…. the artist studio off Valley….what you are saying is TOTAL self complimentary RUBBISH.
… Parktour (you are not disclosing your real identity in this blog so “personal” can not apply.) instead, you are attacking me personally (but I couldn’t care less)
My critism and comments are with regards to Montclair’s PROCEDURAL FAILURES and lack of transparency.
Anybody know what the plans are for Portland Place, between Midland and Valley?
Martin,
I’m so very happy you are using Southampton as a reference point. It has had a light pollution ordinance in place for many years. I know the Council is the body to get one of our own, but your Planning Board could take a leadership role in two simple ways. First, put language in the Master Plan draft supporting the importance of the issue and the need for an ordinance. Second, ensure specific requirements and standards are part of the Lackawaana Redevlopment Plan. Thanks.
I agree with you in that Lackawanna is an important commercial zone and our priority should be to drive commercial vitality. There is no reason why we can’t have both high form and high function.
Frankgg,
I’ll reply to you later today.
parkour,
You are right on point. Thanks for your common sense.
Frank GG: I have lived in Montclair for nearly 30 years. While I respect your sense of history and knowledge of our town, your hyperbole, exaggeration and dramatic tone greatly diminishes your points.
Montclair is far better today than it was in 2000. By leaps and bounds.
Frankgg,
I thought parkour’s post yesterday @ 11:42 was a very fair & accurate assessment of the Lackawanna’s past development and current state. Montclair has already preserved the remaining historical fabric worth saving, sans the benches, and the new development will be on surface parking lots. I don’t see any particular risk of further pollution to the underground waterways. Actually, most of our water pollution comes from upstream – from parts built-out, long ago, in Montclair and further North & West (e.g. Bosal situation).
I think we all have our doubts about whether this development will achieve a higher standard than the Gateway 1 benchmark – which is a very low bar. Martin seems to think it can. I have my doubts:
The likely redeveloper doesn’t have the track record or the expertise. So, I expect that we will see a late partner change like Gateway 1.
We don’t have a vision…which, from my experience, vision comes before writing any plan. Nothing so far – except for a negative – ties into the surrounding neighborhood. All the charettes and subcommittees, along with part-time Councils & Planning Boards (even with their experience and some advanced degrees) can’t design it for them. We have key stakeholders viewpoints that get overweighted and appeased resulting in the same conflicting interests manifested in the Gateway 1 Plan.
We don’t have a good process. Each time is a one-off, custom process. Further, we make it up as we go. You do not see an upfront outline of the steps/milestones/who/what from the redevelopment designation to certificate of occupancy. Yes, we are getting better with each ANR, but Lackawanna’s 8 acre size & complexity is far bigger than anything we have ever attempted.
My point is I agree with you about The Process. We can do it much better. But, we have to stop justifying bad planning with the oft cited mantra of “it’s better than what was there”.
Oh, and I do make a big distinction between the organic, private development that has benefited Montclair and that of the public policy development of Areas In Need of Redevelopment. I think most people who follow redevelopment would not say our ANRs are better than leaps and bounds. Far from it.
I would say anyone who lives, works, eats, gets a haircut, buys clothes, goes to the gym, or drinks coffee would agree that South Park Street is leaps and bounds better than what existed in 2000. Leaps and bounds. Frank, perhaps you weren’t around as the Hahnes Building sat crumbling for a decade, with its boarded up, broken windows, like a sad, concrete beached whale. Many of us were here and remember it well. It was pathetic.
Since the makeover of the actual street is not in the ANR, you are limiting your argument to The Sienna itself. That is your standard? Well, go ask Councilor Baskerville, go ask the Planning Board, the Council, the BID, the HPC or the Environmental Commision if they want another Sienna-type development in Lackawanna.
PS: My wife got pegged by one of Sal’s snowballs in front of Hahnes. She was new to town.
Oh, and exactly what is the difference between the South Park streetscape of Hahnes and the new MC Hotel’s Orange Road streetscape? It’s just a new version of the same. We wanted something so bad in both cases that we just dropped our standards. Actually, that is not totally true. When Hahnes was built, we didn’t know any better. Now we do, but in both cases, we thought/think it was great to have the business. That is bad planning and bad process. At least Hahnes was only 2 stories and fit the “street wall”. 🙂
And if you want to know the exact “that ship has sailed” moment for Gateway 1, just read the first 9 pages of the Redevelopment Plan and think of “Call me Ishmael,”.
The redevelopment planning should begin with an understanding of the important naturalistic features of the train station area. These features are the convergence of Toney’s Brook with Second River and a lake that is underground near Pine Street. Then there is the view shed uphill to consider. Baristanet posted an article in 2011 about the waterways under Montclair Center with some maps that show this location circa 1857 and the developing train depot. https://montclairlocal.net/2011/08/more-hidden-waterways-under-proposed-montclair-development-sites/#more-60246 Redevelopment of this area should somehow disclose the location of these waterways with green areas that extend up from Glenfielfd Park. The social history of the Mill buildings (Glenfield School), the Worker’s Cottages (Mission St) and the very sophisticated train station of its day should be features that are enhance by the re development because they are valuable American History,.
This location was very strategic because it was where the important Crane family and mill properties were located. There was the house of Israel Crane, who built Bloomfield Avenue as a territorial toll road and next door, Mary Crane, his daughter, who was unwed and one of the biggest benefactors of Montclair. (her house was once a community home and its now the Caggiano funeral home and her father’s house became the Black YWCA, and was moved to Orange Road) ) These two properties became a destination for people migrating from the south to escape slavery and to work in the north. Montclair was a freedom destination while Newark and Patterson were not because militia groups keep African Americans from getting jobs in factories. Montclair already had black property and business owners since the early 1800s, like the Howe family (the 1831 James Howe/Freed Slave House) It is documented that the Howes and the Cranes were in the farm real estate development business together, I believe that they could have been running a freedom sponsoring business for African Americans escaping from the South. Possibly the Cranes would foster the new comers’ arrivals at their property and the adjacent St. Mark’s Church and then set them up in the Mission Street and New Street neighborhood, adjacent to the Mills that were located at the present site of the Glenfield School. Perhaps one of the most important figures of American Train line development was Julius Pratt who came up with the name Montclair. His house was considered quite a showplace is now the Martin Funeral Home. Elm Street was the main street of mansions and the estate section was around there and South Fullerton.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_and_Greenwood_Lake_Railway_(1878–1943) Rather than re development offering a concentration of taller buildings that would dwarf the existing, re development of this area should spread out to conjoin all of these historic features and especially the naturalist features of ponds, waterways and green spaces that would tie the new built spaces together with new green spaces and Glenfield Park.
Thank you Frankr, for your valuable information.
Frankgg,
Incorporating your historical perspective, what currently exists, and what other stakeholders have suggested, I favor the following scenario for the two parcel groups – the Western (Pathmark) and the Eastern (TD Bank):
The Western parcel would be anchored by Pathmark (as is) & a visible Police Department in a straight forward mixed use building featuring a redesign of the existing retail mall (x-Pathmark). A more elaborate, long-term vision could speak to a future phase addressing Pathmark and the Glenridge Ave side.
The Eastern parcel (the TD Bank/parking lot) would be where the new Lackawanna and the anchor to both the old one and the neighborhoods to the East. The activity would be focused Easterly, away from Grove St, around a La Rambla-like promenade (sorry, best example for the moment) on SW-NE axis from Elm through to Glenridge Ave. The promenade would be the anchor, not our government office that would be above ground level. The massing would have dramatic, uneven setbacks, to break down the forms and increase visual stimulation.
Bloomfield Ave – from Pine St to Lackawanna would be redesigned as a boulevard with a green median the full length. The development focus on Bloomfield, a little East of Elm, would be a mixture of 100% residential and mixed retaining existing density zoning to ensure the neighborhood scale and a a buffer to the heavy commercial sections to the West.
This all argues for the elevation of the role of Glenridge Ave as the primary pedestrian/retail connector to Bay St. station, and or a loop for visitors exploring Montclair Center from Church down to Lackawanna and back up Glenridge.
Lastly, I have relegated Grove St, the section dividing the site, to continue to serve in its present role, with key modifications, rather than attempt to make it something it can not be. I think this might create some raised eyebrows and stiffen backs, but if you walk this section, you will see it is a worthy of discussion.
As I said, this is not original concept– more a derivative one combining other peoples ideas now and over the years. Yes, even a few from the past Planning Boards. I’m not advocating this is the best solution, but I believe a good jumping off point of the conversation – and to challenge some possibly outdated precepts.
Frankr,
I like what you are envisioning and I will respond more in detail, but first here is my idea.
My general scheme for the planning of the re development of the Lackawanna Plaza downtown area would be based of a way more revolutionary concept that privleledges the community and not just benefits the developers.
Montclair has a name and an image. We are suffering from development that is dismantling the existing and throwing it away, resulting in Montclair being re developed as an “Anywhere USA”. Why not develop the “name and image” into a strong economic benefit and opportunity for the existing community?
An idea would be that Montclair should house a large scale vintage/antiques market activity like Lambertsville. We have the name, the image even all of the “stuff” to market. This could draw crowds from NYC on weekends. Operating like a large-scale pop up vintage market could involve anybody from the community, high school students, older adults who are downsizing… all the restaurants… the stores, and even create “pop up” sales in the vacant storefronts. It could be such a boon to the local economy and possibly allow residents to profit like a huge town wide garage sale that happens every weekend. (I would call it MONTCLAIR MANSION DEPOT, as a marketable name) Here is a glimpse at Lambersville on weekends. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aF7xZgwzFs
Open spaces and mall corridors would be very important for this scheme. Some exist and some must be created. There must be a walkable corridor from Glenfield Park up to the Lackawanna Station and Crane Park. What is most important is that Montclair maintains its existing old world image as a destination because this is a marketable draw and what the crowds coming from NYC and elsewhere expect. To be successful at this endeavor (as well as others), we cannot not lose our identity as Montclair through bad “Anywhere USA” re development.
Frankr
Thank you for explaining your re development ideas, I like them…
I like the scenario that you suggest for the two parcels. It works very well in plan and it’s a good starting point. Its important not to allow this location lose its sense of “Montclair” by incorporating the historical perspective and natural features that currently exist. Its also important not to create huge view shed blocking building blocks that are completely out of character with Montclair and its neighborhoods. In downtown Montclair, maintaining the existing streetscapes’ built form and adding taller building behind may be a good method.
“The Western parcel would be anchored by Pathmark (as is) & a visible Police Department in a straight forward mixed use building featuring a redesign of the existing retail mall (x-Pathmark). A more elaborate, long-term vision could speak to a future phase addressing Pathmark and the Glenridge Ave side.” – great. I love the Pathmark and would not like to see them leave. I this is also a very good location for the Police station as long as the building blends in to the existing. The existing retail mall, instead of being re designed with a modern “strip mall” feel, should be restored back to the original as much as possible to be consistent with the existing, and like the Pig & Prince restaurant …it’s gorgeous. We wouldn’t want anything to look like a suburban “drive to” strip mall.
The Eastern parcel (the TD Bank/parking lot) and all of the green spaces and connecting malls would be very important to a “Lambertsville Market” type idea that is very pedestrian oriented. Restoring the green spaces and uncovering the water features for the green “Ramble- like” malls could be very interesting. I like the idea of walkable promenades that would connect Glenfield Park to Lackawanna Plaza and to Crane Park. Parking garages could be strategically located so that on weekends they could be used for the “Lambertsville Market” idea, for exhibiting and for parking.
I REALLY like the idea “The promenade would be the anchor, not our government office that would be above ground level.” …and I hope that this promenade could connect both sides of Bloomfield Avenue above the ground level because it would create a safer pedestrian flow.
“Bloomfield Ave – from Pine St to Lackawanna would be redesigned as a boulevard with a green median the full length.” – this would be great for the vintage market idea, even leaving the open lots at Mission Street.
“The development focus on Bloomfield, a little East of Elm, would be a mixture of 100% residential and mixed retaining existing density zoning to ensure the neighborhood scale and a buffer to the heavy commercial sections to the West.” – yes, I wouldn’t change the streetscape on the South Side of Bloomfield Avenue but I would enhance the north side of Bloomfield Avenue with a greener mall where the “newer” existing housing developments pulls back from the streetscape.
“Glenridge Ave makes for a great and characteristic primary pedestrian/retail connector to Bay St. station, and or a loop for visitors exploring Montclair Center from Church down to Lackawanna and back up Glenridge.” – Good idea.
“Lastly, I have relegated Grove St, the section dividing the site, to continue to serve in its present role, with key modifications, rather than attempt to make it something it cannot be. I think this might create some raised eyebrows and stiffen backs, but if you walk this section, you will see it is a worthy of discussion.” – I agree. The Grove Street “bridge” is architecturally interesting. The vintage reinforced concrete was possibly thanks to Thomas Edision who was experimenting in this material locally. The large luminous glass globes were also a local “status symbol” Several Montclair estate owners had them installed on their gateposts.
OK, now that we have knocked out the design of Lackawanna redevelopment area (and, I must say, in a mere fraction of the time it would taken the Planning Board), would you care to join me Monday morning in fixing the circulation issues in Watchung Plaza?
Thanks and yes of course. Just let me know. Were they planning to have a six lane round-about, with exits with toll booths and led video megascreens?
We actually kind of need a new entrance to the Pathmark at Lackawanna Plaza. Are these Pinnacle people going to do something about that?