Parsippany demolished 2 million square feet of office space. Here's what will replace it
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Drone video of ParQ, development of over 600 residential units: Video
ParQ residential community in Parsippany consists of over 600 units, including luxury apartments, townhomes and affordable rental units.
PARSIPPANY — While the controversy − and legal battles − heat up over New Jersey's affordable housing mandate, an explosion of construction work is already transforming the landscape of Morris County's largest municipality.
A tour of township sites in early February found demolition and site clearings underway at several vacant office properties, while new buildings rise on land already razed. Around Parsippany, no less than a dozen developments are proceeding, including several at the former Mack-Cali campus off routes 10 and 202.
More than 2 million square feet of office space in the township has fallen to the wrecking ball over the last two years, according to tax assessment records. In its place, almost 2,300 housing units have either been planned or added, with several warehouses and other commercial properties under construction as well.
Parsippany leaders see progress in the building boom: It's replacing dormant facilities with revenue-generating projects, according to Mayor James Barberio and his allies on the township council. Critics − including Councilman Justin Musella, who's challenging Barberio in this year's Republican primary − worry about added density, traffic and student enrollments in a town that has already warned about overcrowding in the schools.
The five largest residential redevelopments already under construction in town total 1,799 new units, with two more approved projects representing 489 units.
The town also has approved warehouses at six other sites. Town officials note that type of redevelopment should generate more tax ratables without adding more students, though some caution about potential impacts on traffic and pollution.
Affordable housing debate continues
A portion of the construction is the result of the town's need to fulfill the Mount Laurel Doctrine, a landmark set of court rulings that require New Jersey towns to provide their "fair share" of low- and moderate-income housing. Last month, a state Superior Court judge in Mercer County denied a request by more than two dozen municipalities, including Parsippany, to pause implementation of legislation passed last year to speed enforcement of the mandate.
The plaintiff towns vowed to continue their appeals. Meanwhile in Parsippany, the knocking down and building up is in full gear.
Here's a look at major projects in town nearly completed, underway or on the drawing boards:
This mixed-use housing and shopping development replacing two buildings along Route 10 South recently erected an electronic sign on the highway announcing leasing is underway and the first occupants will be "arriving early 2025." The sign also advertises retail opportunities. Expect the first residents to move in later this year, while construction on future phases continues.
Monthly rental rates listed on the project website for units available next month range from $2,552 for a one-bedroom studio apartment to $4,143 for a 2-bedroom, 2-bath apartment
500 PARQ
The first phase of this massive project replacing seven office buildings in the Lanidex Plaza off Parsippany Road opened in June. 500 PARQ consists of 276 apartments on six floors. Future phases should bring the total to 600 more units, including townhomes, plus a small retail component. Rents range from $2,700 to $4,200 monthly with extra fees for utilities, parking and pets.
Citizen Parsippany
Both of the two four-story buildings off Upper Pond Road in the Morris Corporate Center were slated to open last year, with a total of 325 residential units. But the property remains under construction. Developer Accurate Builders did not return messages seeking updates.
Mack-Cali Campus
Construction is underway for two residential developments just off Route 202 in the former Mack-Cali corporate campus. Both are replacing demolished office buildings. The project at 2 Campus Drive will have 138 units. A larger building at 3 Campus Drive will have 238.
More: North Jersey's development boom is expected to continue into 2025. What's in store
Parsippany warehouse projects
While a national warehouse boom fueled by the rise of e-commerce appears to have plateaued, construction continues in Parsippany.
A January report from the real estate services firm Cushman & Wakefield put the warehouse vacancy rate in northern and central New Jersey for the end of 2024 at 9%, the highest since the first quarter of 2013. The report cited the surge of new building combined with economic uncertainty over the impact of President Donald Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico and China.
2 Hilton Court: A 113,000-square foot office building last occupied by Daiichi Sankyo in 2016 was demolished last year to make way for a new 103,000-square-foot warehouse. Site clearing continues to progress at the 10.1-acre property ahead of construction. No completion date was available.
Lanidex LLC warehouse: The town council last year approved a project to replace a long-vacant building in the Lanidex West office park off Parsippany Road, despite vocal objections from neighboring residents worried about truck traffic and the warehouse's proximity to an elementary school. Demolition was ongoing as of February 4.
Pomeroy Road: The town approved a developer deal in 2023 to replace vacant office space on this 9.1-acre site abutting Route 287. The planning board in December unanimously approved a preliminary and final major site plan, clearing another hurdle.
299 Jefferson Road: Another redevelopment project was approved in 2023 for the office building corridor along Jefferson Road, which is slated for a 106,00-square-foot warehouse. A website for the project states occupancy will begin in the fall.
Projects still to come
Additional Parsippany redevelopments awaiting or recently approved include 489 more residential units, another warehouse and a fitness center.
6 Sylvan Way-7 Campus Drive: A redevelopment plan for these abutting properties covering 19 acres in the Mack-Cali campus was approved in late 2023. Initial demolition work recently began for the mixed-use project, which will include 239 residential units, a Lifetime Fitness facility, 114,000 square feet of warehouse space and about 6,000 square feet of offices.
1500 Littleton Road: The former headquarters of pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline, across the road from the Mack-Cali campus, was demolished in 2023. Work to build 250 age-restricted units there is in progress.
State housing mandate
The development and redevelopment wave in New Jersey is driven largely by the state housing mandate, which dates back to the original Mount Laurel ruling in 1975 and has been upheld by the state Supreme Court in subsequent legal battles over the years.
The latest calculations by the state Department of Community Affairs estimate that municipalities, many of them in North Jersey, need to allow for the construction of 85,000 more units over the next decade, along with the renovation of 65,000 existing residences.
Parsippany's "present need" commitment calls for refurbishing 138 affordable homes. Its "prospective need" requires the construction of 553 additional units, according to the state. Failure to accommodate developers willing to commit 15% to 20% of their proposed new units to low- and moderate-income tenants can expose a municipality to a "builder's remedy" lawsuit in which the courts could permit the developer to build as they wish.
A new bill in the state Senate, sponsored by Sen. Troy Singleton, would authorize the conversion of certain office parks and retail centers to mixed-use developments, which can include residential units, if the vacancy rate drops below 40%.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
9 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Trump
NEW YORK — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Her office had no immediate comment after Thursday's decision. Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. He's also appealing a subsequent verdict that requires him to pay Carroll $83.3 million for additional defamation claims. Peltz and Sisak write for the Associated Press.
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Appeals court throws out massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump
NEW YORK (AP) — An appeals court has thrown out the massive civil fraud penalty against President Donald Trump, ruling Thursday in New York state's lawsuit accusing him of exaggerating his wealth. The decision came seven months after the Republican returned to the White House. A panel of five judges in New York's mid-level Appellate Division said the verdict, which stood to cost Trump more than $515 million and rock his real estate empire, was 'excessive.' After finding that Trump engaged in fraud by flagrantly padding financial statements that went to lenders and insurers, Judge Arthur Engoron ordered him last year to pay $355 million in penalties. With interest, the sum has topped $515 million. The total — combined with penalties levied on some other Trump Organization executives, including Trump's sons Eric and Donald Jr. — now exceeds $527 million, with interest. 'While the injunctive relief ordered by the court is well crafted to curb defendants' business culture, the court's disgorgement order, which directs that defendants pay nearly half a billion dollars to the State of New York, is an excessive fine that violates the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution,' Judges Dianne T. Renwick and Peter H. Moulton wrote in one of several opinions shaping the appeals court's ruling. Engoron also imposed other punishments, such as banning Trump and his two eldest sons from serving in corporate leadership for a few years. Those provisions have been on pause during Trump's appeal, and he was able to hold off collection of the money by posting a $175 million bond. The court, which was split on the merits of the lawsuit and the lower court's fraud finding, dismissed the penalty Engoron imposed in its entirety while also leaving a pathway for further appeals to the state's highest court, the Court of Appeals. The appeals court, the Appellate Division of the state's trial court, took an unusually long time to rule, weighing Trump's appeal for nearly 11 months after oral arguments last fall. Normally, appeals are decided in a matter of weeks or a few months. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who brought the suit on the state's behalf, has said the businessman-turned-politician engaged in 'lying, cheating, and staggering fraud.' Trump and his co-defendants denied wrongdoing. In a six-minute summation of sorts after a monthslong trial, Trump proclaimed in January 2024 that he was 'an innocent man' and the case was a 'fraud on me.' He has repeatedly maintained that the case and verdict were political moves by James and Engoron, who are both Democrats. Trump's Justice Department has subpoenaed James for records related to the lawsuit, among other documents, as part of an investigation into whether she violated the president's civil rights. James' personal attorney, Abbe D. Lowell, has said that investigating the fraud case is 'the most blatant and desperate example of this administration carrying out the president's political retribution campaign.' Trump and his lawyers said his financial statements weren't deceptive, since they came with disclaimers noting they weren't audited. The defense also noted that bankers and insurers independently evaluated the numbers, and the loans were repaid. Despite such discrepancies as tripling the size of his Trump Tower penthouse, he said the financial statements were, if anything, lowball estimates of his fortune. During an appellate court hearing in September, Trump's lawyers argued that many of the case's allegations were too old, an assertion they made unsuccessfully before trial. The defense also contends that James misused a consumer-protection law to sue Trump and improperly policed private business transactions that were satisfactory to those involved. State attorneys said the law in question applies to fraudulent or illegal business conduct, whether it targets everyday consumers or big corporations. Though Trump insists no one was harmed by the financial statements, the state contends that the numbers led lenders to make riskier loans than they knew, and that honest borrowers lose out when others game their net-worth numbers. The state has argued that the verdict rests on ample evidence and that the scale of the penalty comports with Trump's gains, including his profits on properties financed with the loans and the interest he saved by getting favorable terms offered to wealthy borrowers. The civil fraud case was just one of several legal obstacles for Trump as he campaigned, won and segued to a second term as president. On Jan. 10, he was sentenced in his criminal hush money case to what's known as an unconditional discharge, leaving his conviction on the books but sparing him jail, probation, a fine or other punishment. He is appealing the conviction. And in December, a federal appeals court upheld a jury's finding that Trump sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll in the mid-1990s and later defamed her, affirming a $5 million judgment against him. The appeals court declined in June to reconsider; he still can try to get the Supreme Court to hear his appeal. ___
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Minnesota sues TikTok, alleges child exploitation through addictive strategy
SAINT PAUL, Minn. — Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison on Aug. 19 filed a lawsuit against TikTok, claiming its addictive algorithm exploits children and violates Minnesota's consumer protection laws. TikTok, which uses an algorithm to recommend content to its users, has creators who have launched reality television shows like "The Secret Lives of Mormon Wives" and offer book recommendations on "BookTok.' Ellison's office said the app's features include TikTok LIVE from which users can livestream content to audience members. A Minnesota Attorney General's Office statement alleges TikTok operates "an illegal money transfer system through TikTok LIVE that (allows) the company to profit from the financial and sexual exploitation of children." In the lawsuit's complaint, filed in Hennepin County District Court and reviewed by the St. Cloud Times, Ellison states TikTok's internal investigations reportedly show "hundreds of thousands of children" bypass the platform's minimum age restrictions for TikTok LIVE, exposing them to potential exploitation. More: St. Cloud Mayor Jake Anderson proposes 4.5% tax rate increase to correct revenue pattern "TikTok profited significantly from 'transactional gifting' involving nudity and sexual activity, all facilitated by TikTok's virtual currency system," the civil complaint reads. The social media platform restricts monetization to users 18 years old and older, and Ellison's office in the complaint called TikTok's age filter "lax and ineffective." Ellison argues TikTok targets children through its use of popular Disney characters and colorful, animated emojis, which it uses as digital currency. Ellison, in the same civil complaint, alleges the social media platform targets users through the algorithm. He argues this creates a "habitual dependence" to allegedly further exploit children. "By exploiting children's unfinished neurological reward systems that drive desire and motivation, TikTok creates widespread habitual dependence on its app among young people," the civil complaint reads. Minnesota governor's race 2026: Republican hopeful Kendall Qualls wants school choice, more law enforcement Children between the ages of 13 and 17 years old check TikTok an average of 17 times a day, totaling to approximately two hours daily, according to the civil complaint that cites TikTok's own data. More than 20% of teenagers reportedly check the platform between midnight and 5 a.m. Ellison also accuses the same algorithm of allegedly impacting youth mental health. In the civil complaint, Ellison cites a 2023 University of Minnesota study that claims the app has "harmful consequences to their (the users) well-being." The complaint further compares the purported symptoms to that of addicts, including excessive preoccupation, irritability, anxiety and increased interpersonal conflicts. The civil complaint also alleges prolonged TikTok use increases body dissatisfaction, disordered eating behaviors, low self-esteem, self-harm and suicidal thoughts. TikTok calls lawsuit 'misleading' TikTok called the lawsuit 'misleading and inaccurate' in a statement emailed to the St. Cloud Times. "This lawsuit is based on misleading and inaccurate claims that fail to recognize the robust safety measures TikTok has voluntarily implemented to support the well-being of our community,' TikTok wrote in a statement. 'Teen accounts on TikTok come with 50+ features and settings designed to help young people safely express themselves, discover and learn. Through our Family Pairing tool, parents can view or customize 20+ content and privacy settings, including screen time, content filters, and our time away feature to pause a teen's access to our app." Could TikTok go dark in the US? President Donald Trump has less than one month to finalize the sale of TikTok or it could be banned from the U.S. Some government officials have concerns TikTok could jeopardize national security. Those vocal against TikTok fear its parent company, ByteDance, shares U.S. user data with the People's Republic of China (PRC). The company denies these allegations. Trump has extended the deadline for ByteDance to sell the social media platform three times since January. The next deadline is Sept. 17, though Trump could extended the deadline a fourth time. Corey Schmidt covers politics and courts for the St. Cloud Times. He can be reached at cschmidt@ USA TODAY reporter Greta Cross contributed.
