Tonight’s The Night: Pinnacle Companies to Unveil Name, Plans for Hotel in Montclair

BY  |  Monday, Jun 09, 2014 9:07am  |  COMMENTS (49)

LCOR Development at 638 Bloomfield Ave 2

The wait is almost over. Tonight, the Pinnacle Companies will unveil the name, brand and design details and site plans for a new full-service hotel in Montclair.

The announcement will take place tonight at 7:30 p.m. the Montclair Planning Board meeting; plans to be unveiled will include public gathering spaces, art installations, farm-to-table restaurant and a rooftop bar. Hotel guests will access a six-story solar powered, automated parking garage shared with Valley & Bloom.

The new hotel is part of Phase II of the Montclair Center Gateway Redevelopment Plan, known as CentroVerde, on the site of the former DCH Automotive Group.


  1. POSTED BY redrum  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:15 am

    Moldy Ceiling Inn & Suites? Foambox Hotel?

  2. POSTED BY stu  |  June 09, 2014 @ 2:20 pm

    Super 8.

  3. POSTED BY parkour  |  June 09, 2014 @ 2:45 pm

    sometimes I get upset when I read the self-serving, arrogant and all around cynical comments that get typed up in these forums in response to anything and everything has to do with building a town that is more sustainable. Then I realize that they are typed by the same 10-12 people, over and over and over again citing that they represent the majority view. Garbage! The vast majority of people I talk to in this town see why Transit Oriented and Mixed-Use Development is just the direction Montclair and a lot of other towns should and are going in. There is an active poll on Montclair Patch which asks for people opinions on this project and the Valley and Bloom project and it is 70% for and 20% against. It borders on absurd to cite the fact that Montclair’s 1% might have a portion of their NYC skyline views blocked as a reason why we should not allow the type of development that will preserve any type of socio-economic diversity at all.

    The people who are against all this have better get used to it… or better yet move to one of the million other places that all subscribe to car oriented development. Seriously, how many darn comments on here relate to traffic and how bad it is…when all of these density driven, walkability increasing proposals seek to do it take cars OFF the road. There will always be suburbia, and there will always be a desire for the single family home on a large plot of land, but the pendulum is definitely swinging back. Demand will drive the market and more and more people have little to no interest in maintaining a 120 year old house, with 30,000 in property taxes and slowly rotting in their cars as they shave years of their lives sitting in the insane asylum that is NJ traffic. I and my family of four would much rather take my chances that a new development will have to work through some problems with moist walls, walk to the train into the city than spend the rest of my life mowing my giant pesticide soaked lawn and wearing a path between my house and Home Depot tinkering to keep my outdated “charming” colonial in any kind of working condition.

  4. POSTED BY parkour  |  June 09, 2014 @ 2:57 pm

    The last five years have seen nothing but a remarkable improvement made to the charm and aesthetic appeal of downtown Montclair. Anyone who can look at the corner of Bloomfield and Church five years ago with what it looks like now and say it looks worse is flat out lying to themselves. There is 20 times the foot traffic there was. There is exponentially more vibrant sounds and sights on any night of the week as it is now a place that people want to actually sit, and be with other, rather than speed through in their car at 30 miles an hour cursing because they missed a light or god forbid a pedestrian impede their vehicles progress.

    Our town continues to win awards for street design, and walkability and is a place more and more people are desiring to be. How can all of these awards and opinions be outweighed by the Sienna’s poor brick color choice and a few leaky ceilings.

    Traffic will always be bad. There is no solution to it. You could add a million lanes to Valley RD and you would still be dissatisfied with how slow you were going. All the new proposals will only decrease traffic not add to it. I live in one. Every person on my floor takes public transportation to work. 50% of the people in my building do not even own a car…at all. How is this adding to the traffic problem Does this really require a traffic study? We are a nation obsessed with cars and driving them. The more places you give people to put their cars (parking garages, roads, the more they will fill them up. So let’s take the opportunities to drive and park cars away…not add them.

  5. POSTED BY ewright  |  June 09, 2014 @ 3:34 pm

    parkour – you’ve inspired me to make an account and post! Walkability is a major reason my family moved to Montclair. We can walk to a downtown, a train station, a park, etc. There is no arguing with you there that one of Montclair’s main draws is its walkability, and anything that helps to improve that is certainly a positive. I would love to see more bike paths, stricter enforcement of speed limits, and a way for people to get from the various downtowns without having to get into a car!

    That being said, I absolutely have to take issue with your comment: “Demand will drive the market and more and more people have little to no interest in maintaining a 120 year old house”. Montclair’s beautiful, historic home stock is a major reason why my family, and many other young families that we know in town moved here. If people wanted to live in smaller, newer homes there are literally ENDLESS amounts of other towns to chose from – most of them MUCH less expensive to live in. You could live almost anywhere else in the state! Montclair has a special and unique charm to it that draws buyers here – and most of Montclair’s residents live in old homes that they bought specifically for that reason.

    What makes Montclair special, unique, and beautiful is that its architecture and homes are not that of a typical post-WII, car dependent suburb. People choose this town precisely because of the homes and the charm that it brings. It’s why the town is so sought after to live in! Similar to neighborhoods like Brooklyn Heights or the West Village – both are sought after neighborhoods because they’ve mostly kept out modern development and have kept their charm. I think its borderline silly to suggest that most Montclair residents don’t care about preserving the town’s home stock and charm!

    That being said, I don’t think development of more residential units on Bloomfield Ave is a bad thing. There are too many empty storefronts, and I think the more people that are living, and walking, along Bloomfield Ave, the better off the town is going to be. What I do take issue with is that buildings like the Siena are built with no regard to the structures around it. It ends up looking cheap, and takes away from the charm of our downtowns. And again, charm is a MAJOR reason why people pay the premium that they do to live in Montclair (not to mention why out of towners come to Montclair to stroll and shop instead of going to a mall!). A friend visiting from Brooklyn not too long ago saw the Siena and asked “Why wouldn’t the town just force them to make it look like the buildings around it?”

    I think if more people were confident this new construction would look nice, and fit in with the feel and charm of Montclair, more people would be for it. I think the Siena didn’t do that, and has shook a lot of people’s confidence in these sort of projects. Princeton is a good example of another historic town who seems to keep their downtown vibrant without losing its historic feel and charm. I feel like we should be modeling ourselves after them!

    For anyone interested, Ridgewood, a town that has a similar feel to Montclair, is having a similar fight of its own right now:

  6. POSTED BY frankgg  |  June 09, 2014 @ 3:57 pm

    I seriously doubt that there is any real public demand for a new hotel building in town, especially in a NEW building that has nothing to do with the existing characteristic atmosphere that makes Montclair desireable.
    My view on the best solution for a hotel….( and would be very welcomed by mostly everyone that I know ) would be the type of hotel that the Georgian Inn proposes. I am very much in favor of the adaptive re use of Montclair’s fine old characteristic houses as bead & breakfasts and smaller residential inns… not an overscaled new hotel building that could be in “Anywhere USA”…. this would also be inconsistant with maintaining the historic quality of our neighborhoods. (something that is mentioned in the Master Plan proposal.) When people come to Montclair, their expectations are fine old houses and well established neighborhoods. Not a new “Anywhere USA” feeling….
    The Mansion House Hotel, that was once at the site of Valley & Bloom… was intentioally designed to look like a big fabulous Montclair mansion…. probably so that guests could feel that they were truly staying in Montclair…a place famous for fine houses.
    Hillside Avenue was populated with inns and boardinghouses…. why not re develop Montclair’s traditional type of hospitality run by the community and not big business?

  7. POSTED BY State Street Pete  |  June 09, 2014 @ 4:11 pm

    “more people have little to no interest in maintaining a 120 year old house” – parkour, there are many things in your comments that I disagree with but that quote ciinched my impression that you don’t have your finger on the pulse of Montclair.

  8. POSTED BY zidarich  |  June 09, 2014 @ 4:34 pm

    Speaking of old homes, anyone notice the recent reno job on the 1890’s victorian on 29 Northview Ave?

    Saw the open house of this when it originally went up for sale, and it was in BAD shape. Like, falling apart bad shape. Would have been the perfect excuse/candidate for another tear down, and that’s exactly what I thought was going to happen to it. Was pleasantly surprised instead to see it’s been renovated from top to bottom!

    I haven’t seen the inside yet, but from the outside it looks like they did an incredible job of restoring and maintaining the original character and detail of the home:

    Just wanted to send a congrats and thank you to whoever did the beautiful work on this home!

  9. POSTED BY parkour  |  June 09, 2014 @ 4:50 pm

    I did not say that no one has any interest in maintaining a 120 year old home at all. I said that less people are interested and the number of people who are interested in the future is going to decline more. The number of people renting in Montclair, and a lot of other places is on the rise. The square footage that people are willing live in is also on the decline. Over a third of Montclair’s dwellings are rentals. That is higher than the state and national average. A lot of people coming are very interested in what Montclair possesses. A vibrant town that is very safe (relatively speaking) enough to even consider raising a family. Sure, I can get all the drinks and nightlife I want in Jersey City and Bushwick but I also take a risk of getting attacked if I make a wrong turn at night. A lot of Montclair looks and feels like the parts of Brooklyn that has become so astronomically priced that very few can afford to live there, even if the schools were good. All this point to a market that should increase the number of people looking into calling Montclair home. I am not saying we should tear down the old homes and put up condos, I am not trashing anyone for their desire to want to buy and old home and refurbish it. That’s not what I want to do, but it is every bit their right. What is it not their right to do it forbid anyone else from becoming part of “their town” People often hide their dislike for who is coming in (renters and occupants of newer developments)behind silly things like blocked views of multi millionaires and poor brick color choices. When really the angst is against who is moving in, not what they are moving into. There are so many trend that are swinging towards this type of development that people really better get used to it. Montclair is changing as ALL places do over time. We have reached peak suburb and are now moving towards a recommitment to inner ring railroad communities of major cities. The numbers are all there. Brooklyn and NYC exorbitant rents and home prices will only speed up the mass exodus to the suburbs that deliver a product closest to what the city does. In 10 years, let’s check back in and see how Jersey city, Newark, The Oranges, Brunswicks, Yonkers, White Plains are doing. They are all primed.

  10. POSTED BY frankgg  |  June 09, 2014 @ 5:08 pm

    “silly things like blocked views of multi millionaires”

    …its not so silly if you understand the statistics of whos paying most of the property taxes in town and paying for most of the township’s services…

  11. POSTED BY uptowndowntown  |  June 09, 2014 @ 5:08 pm

    Speaking of walkability, I often wish there was a trolley in town that just made a circle and at the very least included Bloomfield Ave., Watchung Plaza and Bellevue Ave./Valley Rd. Run it on the weekends and run it every half hour between 10 am – 5 pm or something. Not only would this potentially reduce traffic throughout town, but I think it would foster more of a sense of community and make Montclair more attractive.

  12. POSTED BY flipside  |  June 09, 2014 @ 6:47 pm

    Whether you like it or not parkour is correct. The population of Montclair is constantly turning over. The new people coming in are not going to be concerned with how Montclair used to look. Old houses with outdated interiors won’t be worth restoring…they are not to their taste. Wood burning fireplace…heavy woodwork…yuck. There are towns that don’t change much…Montclair isn’t one of them.

  13. POSTED BY frankgg  |  June 09, 2014 @ 6:56 pm


  14. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 7:22 pm


    Can’t ever happen with this Council and the current residents. Once of the 2012 council slates advocated a trolly and was, let us say, “derided” by just abut everyone – particularly the slate that makes up most of the current council and most of the township.

    Good idea. Share it with Red Bank or Westfield.

  15. POSTED BY Liz George  |  June 09, 2014 @ 8:46 pm

    @baristanet: Montclair to get new MC Hotel – brand is Marriott Autograph Collection @Marriott

  16. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  June 09, 2014 @ 8:48 pm

    “its not so silly if you understand the statistics of whos paying most of the property taxes in town and paying for most of the township’s service”

    —it is, of course, entirely silly, but thank goodness frank is here to stick up for the line-of-sight “rights” of the poor, downtrodden 1%ers in this town who just happen to have this particular view.

    “People choose this town precisely because of the homes and the charm that it brings…most of Montclair’s residents live in old homes that they bought specifically for that reason.”

    —like frank, here’s yet another b’netter who presumes to be able to think for “most” of Montclair’s residents. please join the rest of us and just admit you have no firm idea why “most” people in Montclair do ANYTHING, if for no other reason than you do not know “most” residents. why isn’t it enough for your POV to simply be YOUR POV?

  17. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:04 pm

    because that wouldn’t provoke you.

  18. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:16 pm

    I know it’s tough to believe, Frank R, but I wasn’t talking about you…

  19. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:17 pm

    Who is handling the TV34 panning & zooming?
    There is rom for some improvement.

  20. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:19 pm

    I know you were not. I wouldn’t intentionally provoke you.
    Frankgg, however, seems to think he can change people’s minds.

  21. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:24 pm

    For what it is worth, I saw the renderings for the hotel.
    Full disclosure: I totally believe renderings are misleading in favor of the developer.
    That said, I think I am going to take the Summer off on this subject, too.

  22. POSTED BY frankgg  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:29 pm

    Thanks Liz
    It’s not my cup of tea… But I do wish them luck… And hope they hire local people.

  23. POSTED BY townie  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:35 pm

    Let’s be optimistic. The Marriott Autograph website has some sweet looking buildings so maybe this will require the developer to upgrade the exterior,

    This is a diverse town, and should have something for everyone, so I say parkour, frankgg, jcunningham, red rum and the entire crowd who have posted here all make valid points, they are all alright.

  24. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:36 pm

    Unfortunately, while the B Team (me) may want to take the Summer off, the A Team (my wife) has graciously committed to stepping in. Apparently, she thinks an Flat Iron Bldg wanna-be isn’t a good fit for Montclair…and that is the PG version.

  25. POSTED BY frankgg  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:37 pm

    Frank R … It’s awareness and education that changes people’s mind.

  26. POSTED BY willjames  |  June 09, 2014 @ 9:43 pm

    The camera operator at TV 34 needs to keep the view on the projection screen. Not the back of the presenter’s head!

  27. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:01 pm

    Well, if awareness and education are the key drivers, then let’s put this hotel rendering on the cover of the Master Plan report and get rid of the Edgemont Memorial Obelisk as the Township logo and replace it with the Gateway Hotel Tower.

    Somehow, I think our Planning Board and our Council might be a little hesitant about my ideas.

  28. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:06 pm

    Sorry frankgg, awareness and education eliminate ignorance. That’s it.

  29. POSTED BY willjames  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:17 pm

    From 1994, when I first lived in this town, to 2009 when I moved back, the corner currently being discussed featured an abandoned auto dealership. The corner opposite? It still “features” a crappy Delta station. I remember my first impression very vividly: how does this town allow this intersection—just a hop, skip & jump from the Montclair Art Museum—to look like such a *DUMP*? Whatever pot shots one takes at the proposed design for this luxury hotel, you’re going to sound like a fool if you claim that this building will somehow be *worse* for this location than what was sitting there unused for a decade before it, or somehow detracts from whatever it is that that Delta station contributes to that corner.

  30. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:32 pm

    Pot shots, fool or worse – call detractors like me what you will. This is the state of modern suburban architecture. I get it. As long as you are better than a vacant lot, then you have exceeded expectations. So, this might become Montclair’s standard. It will be to the 3rd Ward what the Bellaire House Condos are to Upper Montclair. As someone wiser in these matters said to me, we will need a dog or two to be built so we can get the rest right, hopefully.

  31. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:39 pm

    BTW, that is exactly the mindset that has people in Upper Montclair afraid of what this township will allow on Warner Communication site on Lorraine Ave. When you argue it that way, it pretty much assures anything over 3 stories (including incentives) is outright untenable.

  32. POSTED BY qby33  |  June 09, 2014 @ 10:43 pm

    Oh, I think the Marriott Autograph Collection is a classy and fantastic choice! Many who have come to visit have had to use the Marriotts in West Orange. Don’t you all think we need such an offer in our town? Look at it this way, there is now a very nice option besides your spare BR for the irritating cousin or mother in law 😉

  33. POSTED BY zidarich  |  June 09, 2014 @ 11:04 pm

    Frank and Will – good points by both of you in the last two posts. I hope the hotel ends up looks fantastic, and helps invigorate and grow the downtown even more. I’m going to be optimistic about this one!

    And Joe, though we all can’t be landlords of fancy, modern apartment buildings like yourself, let me apologize for offending you and rephrase my comments:

    I would GUESS that most of Montclair’s homeowners, who then, by default, own an old home in Montclair, and, who also then by default, paid a lot of money to buy that house (Montclair is expensive you know) and pay A LOT of money in taxes to live there, do so because they like their old house and their neihjnorhood of old houses. Otherwise, they’d, I dunno, move?

    Again, JUST a guess. I could be wrong, and it could totally be the case that most of Montclair’s homeowners pay an average of $675,000 and $25,000 a year in taxes for their house because they hate it, and hate the neighborhoods they live in and could care less if they get torn down and it will just be me sitting here on Baristanet complaining to noone, the 2014 equivalent of the old man yelling at the kids to get off his lawn.

    The town absolutely could be so sought after, bidding wars so common, JUST so people could spend a lot more money than they would in neighboring towns so they could buy their anti-dream home that they never actually really wanted in a neighborhood they’re excited to see get demolished around them.

    But again, what do I really know? I’m just guessing.

  34. POSTED BY zidarich  |  June 09, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

    jcunningham (I don’t know why I assumed your name was Joe, unless you’ve said that before) – I realize going back you weren’t responding to something I said, but were quoting someone else here. None the less, the point remains!

  35. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  June 10, 2014 @ 5:20 am

    “And Joe, though we all can’t be landlords of fancy, modern apartment buildings like yourself…jcunningham (I don’t know why I assumed your name was Joe, unless you’ve said that before) – I realize going back you weren’t responding to something I said, but were quoting someone else here. None the less, the point remains!”

    —yes, zidarch, the “point remains”—that is, if “the point” is that you have no idea what you are talking about (or who you are talking to)…

  36. POSTED BY unmitigated gall  |  June 10, 2014 @ 5:44 am

    “silly things like blocked views of multi millionaires”

    There are apartment buildings on St. Luke’s Place, South Mountain Avenue, and Walden Place whose views will be obstructed by this thing. There may be multi-millionaires living in them but I’m guessing they are average folk.

    The behemoth will also block the views of the green mountains for everyone driving up Bloomfield Ave, regardless of their income.

    Everyone wants something done with the block, but it doesn’t need to be 6-8 stories tall and most likely as clunky looking and leaky/moldy as The Siena.

  37. POSTED BY jcunningham  |  June 10, 2014 @ 6:27 am

    “The behemoth will also block the views of the green mountains for everyone driving up Bloomfield Ave, regardless of their income.”

    —this explains the complaints about traffic. how about keeping your eyes on the road when you’re driving?

  38. POSTED BY unmitigated gall  |  June 10, 2014 @ 6:55 am

    “how about keeping your eyes on the road when you’re driving?”

    How about using a little imagination. One can be stopped at a red light. Also, you are supposed to be aware of your entire driving environment not just the road in front of you. You do use the rear view mirrors, I hope, and are aware of vehicles to your side, not to mention pedestrians stepping off the curb. A little thing called peripheral vision.
    Because if you only look straight ahead you are one dangerous driver.

  39. POSTED BY silverleaf  |  June 12, 2014 @ 8:52 am

    “Over a third of Montclair’s dwellings are rentals.” – parkour

    I very seriously doubt that. From where did you pull that statistic? Please site source.

    And I do not consider student housing at MSU rentals.

  40. POSTED BY willjames  |  June 14, 2014 @ 10:13 pm


    12,744 of the persons counted as residents of Montclair in the 2010 census lived in rental housing. That’s 34% of the total population (37,333).

    Data is split between 07042 and 07043 here:



  41. POSTED BY parkour  |  June 15, 2014 @ 4:10 pm

    Here Ya Go Silverleaf…

    Home Values and Rental Rates
    2010 Homeowner Statistics Montclair, NJ New Jersey United States
    Owner Occupied Units 8,439 2,155,692 80,110,230

    2010 Housing Rental Rates Montclair, NJ New Jersey United States
    Renter Occupied Units 6,558 1,089,429 38,291,913

  42. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 15, 2014 @ 7:42 pm

    while willjames and parkour have the general proportions right…and no surprise to many.

    what will surprising to willjames and parkour is that they didn’t bother to check the trend line.

    and since the former mayor state categorically that renters can’t find a polling place to save their lives, much less vote, I’d would have to ask why you are even bringing up renters.

    PS: I didn’t agree with the ex-Mayor’s statement. I like renters. They ride bicycles.

  43. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 15, 2014 @ 7:57 pm

    Just to be clear, I was speaking of Mayor Crawford.

  44. POSTED BY silverleaf  |  June 15, 2014 @ 9:40 pm

    willjames – parkour’s quote was “over a third of Montclair’s dwellings are rentals.”

    DWELLINGS not dwellers. Very big differnce!

    parkour – I have no idea what those stats mean.

  45. POSTED BY parkour  |  June 16, 2014 @ 8:33 am

    Maybe my data is wrong silverleaf, but it appears to me that I am looking at DWELLINGS and not dwellers….I am well aware to the difference. However, I believe this source to be correct and from the most recent census data. If anything, the pendulum will definitely contintue to shift towards even more rentals. Just thinking of the past 5 years which have seen close to 1000 new rentals hit the market to about 10 new houses.

    2010 Housing Occupancy Statistics Montclair, NJ New Jersey United States

    Total Units 15,367
    Total Housing Units 8,439 54%
    Renter Occupied Units 6,558 43%

  46. POSTED BY willjames  |  June 16, 2014 @ 12:19 pm

    The U.S. Census Bureau’s “Factfinder” site gives you the data you’re looking for, whether you’re talking dwellings or dwellers. Here’s what they have for dwellings:

    Total occupied housing units: 10,696
    Renter-occupied housing units: 5,753

    Total occupied housing units: 4,377
    Renter-occupied housing units: 745

    Montclair total
    Total occupied housing units: 15,073
    Renter-occupied housing units: 6,498

    That’s 43% of all housing units.

  47. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 16, 2014 @ 12:57 pm

    Just so you know what your referencing, about 4% of 07043 Census data is within Clifton and GR.

    Once again, not that it changes the overall proportions, only the direction of the trend.

  48. POSTED BY willjames  |  June 16, 2014 @ 1:17 pm

    Thanks, Frank. Wish I could somehow select simply “Montclair,” but for some reason that seems not to be an option at Factfinder…

  49. POSTED BY Frank Rubacky  |  June 16, 2014 @ 2:10 pm

    third party providers..$

Featured Comment

And we can get this project completed in time for Montclair's sesquicentennial when we can stick a fork into historic preservation as a public policy.

Tip, Follow, Friend, Subscribe

Links & Information