More traffic at Parker & Valley-proposed 46 units at Gleason site

The Greenway that is under development will at least have a large amount of native plantings, etc.  

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

I hadn't thought about the schools. Thanks for the reminder.

Will the development impact the school aged population? If so, how?

And what da f..k is a transfobe.  Is it a club? Can I join?

It’s guys afraid of stick shifts.  On Trans Ams mostly.

When Ida hit, 3rd and Valley was inundated with water. The apartments were fine, but IIRC, 160 vehicles were totaled due to flood damage. Residents reported that their cars floated away, some ending up under the train viaduct on 3rd Street. This is an issue that will only become worse due to global warming.

mrmaplewood said:

What Greenway?  I don't think that has anything to do with the concept of wetlands, does it?

Elle_Cee commented on the Greenway. I was responding to comments from Elle_Cee and DanDietrich.

https://www.southorange.org/379/River-Corridor-Project

Greenway. Great.  Looks like it has nothing to do with Maplewood, the east side of the river, floating cars crashing into the West Parker Ave bridge, or disasterous flooding.  So why are we talking about that here?

Because I had an idea that perhaps there could be a win/win if the developer helped Maplewood construct a retaining wall for the river in conjunction with extending the Greenway, a project that has been in the works for more than a decade and shows no signs of completion.  

How high a retaining wall are you thinking of.  The present ones were easily overtoped in the hurricanes, and if you don't rebuild them higher as well as constructing the new one you have accomplished nothing meaningful.  But again, Mother Nature is telling us she wants to take this land.  What else will be proposed to fool Mother Nature?

The proposed building should not be built, regardless the planning board approved the existing building as "in need of redevelopment".

mrmaplewood said:

How high a retaining wall are you thinking of.  The present ones were easily overtoped in the hurricanes, and if you don't rebuild them higher as well as constructing the new one you have accomplished nothing meaningful.  But again, Mother Nature is telling us she wants to take this land.  What else will be proposed to fool Mother Nature?

The proposed building should not be built, regardless the planning board approved the existing building as "in need of redevelopment".

Why are you getting pissy at us about it? We don't own it. 

I think most of the people in this discussion agree that it shouldn't be built, or at the least it's a very flawed plan.

yahooyahoo said:

I think most of the people in this discussion agree that it shouldn't be built, or at the least it's a very flawed plan.

Because a garage might get flooded? 

It definitely highlights the difficulty of trying to mitigate flooding problems in an area that’s already highly developed. And with climate change rewriting the rule book.

It would be ideal if we could return the riverbanks to a more natural state and allow wetlands to absorb some flood waters. But it would cost millions to do that just in Maplewood or South Orange. 

Someone bought the Gleasons property to the tune of a couple million (from what I can gather). Do you just leave them on the hook? Compensate them and then pay to demolish the existing structure and parking lot? A retaining wall just pushes the problem further downstream. 

You could dig out a massive cistern underneath for flood water to fill. I know that’s been done in some urban settings. 

The cistern idea is interesting.  Do you know where they've been installed?  I know someone who lives by one of these tributaries in NJ, and their basement regularly floods to the ceiling.  It would be great if I could point them to information about cisterns.  I do realize that any engineered structure designed to alleviate flooding would require an extensive design and approval process.  

Haven't read this in full yet, but it deals with The Wharf, a development in DC by the Potomac River, which was designed to include cisterns that are supposed to mitigate flooding by handling 700,000 gallons of water.  https://developingresilience.uli.org/strategies/green-infrastructure-landscape-features/rainwater-cistern/

Edited to add from the above link:

The site’s stormwater management system is designed to capture 3.2
inches of rainwater on site. This value is more than twice 1.2 inches
required by the city’s Department of Energy and Environment stormwater
retention requirements, which are among the most progressive in the
nation. About one-third of the site is permeable, compared to 10 percent
of previous development. Green infrastructure includes living roofs
that cover half the buildings, permeable cobblestone paving, and rain
gardens in the parks. Mature oaks were preserved, and 300 new trees are
being planted. Three large cisterns housed in underground garages can
manage up to 700,000 gallons of stormwater, diverting untreated runoff
from the river channel. In the past year, around 547,000 gallons of the
stored stormwater was filtered, treated, and used for landscape
irrigation, toilet flushing in public restrooms, and make-up water in
the co-generation cooling tower.

Elle_Cee said:

Haven't read this in full yet, but it deals with The Wharf, a development in DC by the Potomac River, which was designed to include cisterns that are supposed to mitigate flooding by handling 700,000 gallons of water.  https://developingresilience.uli.org/strategies/green-infrastructure-landscape-features/rainwater-cistern/

That's a stormwater management tool, where the cisterns collect the rainwater that falls on the property. The problem with the Gleasons site (and others) is not the rainfall onto the property, but water coming from upstream.

The area from where the stream passes under the tracks to the rec center is the park is a bit constrained.  The river can spread out in the Waterlands and it can spread out in Memorial Park and the golf course, but not so much going past Gleason's and the Y.

yahooyahoo said:

I think most of the people in this discussion agree that it shouldn't be built, or at the least it's a very flawed plan.

Only because those of us who support development walked away from this conversation a week ago.

On one hand, we have the state buying property in flood zones and restricting development on coastal areas that are prone to storm damage. On the other hand, we have developers tearing down forests that would have absorbed water and mitigated floods.

Gleason situation doesn't fall into either category but future residents who own cars? Well, I don't know if car insurance pays for flood damage.

Why this fixation about cars?  Yes, if you carry the right insurance they are covered.  But the whole point is that they don't matter in the long run.  A flood in a parking garage doesn't structurally damage a building.  That's the point.  The Gleason site is full of chemicals that this developer is going to have to remediate.  That gets that done without us paying for it, and hopefully before many more chemicals leach into the river. That's a plus if there are more floods coming.

Cars do matter.  They tend to float for a while when flooded,  just enough for them to pile up against the West Parker Ave bridge and add to the flooding stress.  Likely enough to demolish the bridge.  Auto insurance will neither fix nor pay for this type of damage.  Guess who does.

Not the developer of the site.

So the flood you are planning for will pick these cars up, float them out of the entrance to the parking lot, and then focus them on a bridge.  That's a hell of a flood.  At that point we will have lost a few dozen homes along the river, all of which will be piled up with their own cars along the same bridge.  I think you are reaching for any excuse to head off construction of much needed housing.

DanDietrich said:

So the flood you are planning for will pick these cars up, float them out of the entrance to the parking lot, and then focus them on a bridge.  That's a hell of a flood.  At that point we will have lost a few dozen homes along the river, all of which will be piled up with their own cars along the same bridge.  I think you are reaching for any excuse to head off construction of much needed housing.

Thing is, storms are getting more severe as time goes on. Three years ago, I could imagine someone posting on M.O.L. --- "Someone in Maplewood, dying in a flood? That's one hell of a flood."

"So the flood you are planning for will pick these cars up, float them out of the entrance to the parking lot, and then focus them on a bridge. That's a hell of a flood."

Now you're finally understanding.  It's obvious you did not experience the previous flood destruction.

"At that point we will have lost a few dozen homes along the river, all of which will be piled up with their own cars along the same bridge."

And you haven't looked at the site.  There are no homes upstream of the site for at least a mile.

"I think you are reaching for any excuse to head off construction of much needed housing."

Who says the housing is "much needed", and yes, I am dismayed at the proposed construction and would like to head it off.  Is that clear?

I have no financial gain to be made by my posts.  Why are you playing the troll?

In the town where I grew up, in Bergen County, and where my Mom still lives, people move their cars from the low-lying parts of town when there's a risk of flooding.  That happens a lot of places.

mrmaplewood said:

"So the flood you are planning for will pick these cars up, float them out of the entrance to the parking lot, and then focus them on a bridge. That's a hell of a flood."

Now you're finally understanding.  It's obvious you did not experience the previous flood destruction.

"At that point we will have lost a few dozen homes along the river, all of which will be piled up with their own cars along the same bridge."

And you haven't looked at the site.  There are no homes upstream of the site for at least a mile.

"I think you are reaching for any excuse to head off construction of much needed housing."

Who says the housing is "much needed", and yes, I am dismayed at the proposed construction and would like to head it off.  Is that clear?

I have no financial gain to be made by my posts.  Why are you playing the troll?

i disagree with you, so I'm a troll?  I'm sorry, I'll try to remember that you are always right, and no other views have merit.  There is no housing crisis for wealthy people.  But for everyone else, yes.

So many posts just to say "Not In My Backyard".

A thought before you express opinions, speak whereof you have experience or knowledge.

mrmaplewood said:

A thought before you express opinions, speak whereof you have experience or knowledge.

should we run everything past you to make sure it's up to par?  What if we have knowledge or experience that you don't have?  

Those of us who experienced flood conditions during the storm in which one resident died trying to clear debris to aid drainage of the flood waters, knew others who were nearly swept away but survived harrowing rescues, know first hand what storms can do given our present climate.  We don’t want to see further loss of life.  We want to do what we can to reduce the kind of flood damage to public and private property that resulted from Ida.  Not all of us are opposed to new construction but most of want to see that construction done responsibly.  That means building in such a way as to withstand the storms we are getting now and building with an understanding of what our infrastructure and topography can reasonably be expected to support.  

first, I wish you all would stop assuming that you and only you remember flooding and storms.  Second, it's too bad none of you did anything to combat climate change over the last 50 years when we had the chance.  Third, this building can, and I'm sure will be built to withstand storms in a far superior manner than any single family home in our towns is built.  In case of a serious storm or flood residents will be safe if they remain indoors.  Cars may be ruined in the parking spaces, but unlike lives cars are just material possessions that are expendable.  The only reasonable way to combat flooding is to build densely in built up areas so as to avoid building at all over current farmland further out from the city.  If we don't build here, the population pressure will force building there, with more need for cars, highways, strip malls, etc.  If converting the already built up and polluted Gleason's site to an apartment building can help in any way to prevent more sprawl we need to do that, and at least our towns will benefit from an increased tax base and more customers for local restaurants.

All those apartments on Springfield avenue were supposed to help with property taxes also…south orange taxes are stabilized? 
The developers get some sweetheart deals and we get the notices about the increases… maybe in 59 years this whole area will look like Brooklyn…