Expanding Avondale Shops?

[fsujax]

I sure wish there was a will (from the City) to connect Riverside with Downtown via Brooklyn with a streetcar. It would be an excellent case study.

[urbaknight]

I'd love to see the shops add a couple of stories, but for apartments only. San Marco, Five Points and Edgewood in Murray Hill  ought to do the same thing. That's what we do in the Northeast. That's how to create maximum density while cutting down on the demand for cars and increasing the demand for mass transit.

[thelakelander]

I'd say the density is already there for mass transit in Riverside.  Additional density is needed in other areas and pockets of the city.  With this in mind, I find Atlanta to be a good case study of urban infill over the last 20 years.  There you'll see preserved historic districts like the Highlands maintain their scale and sense of place, while adjacent blighted industrial sites along the old beltline ROW (ex. Glenwood Park, Inman Park, etc.) have been transformed into mixed use infill development.

Inman Park

[Kay]

That's what we're trying to do is maintain its orignal scale.  And the original scale was not for 250 seats and greater restaurants and a proliferation of bars.  Steve C. made a great point that those larger establishments need to locate elsewhere like Brooklyn or downtown so as not to negatively impact residential quality of life. 

These residents aren't complaining because they enjoy it.  They are complaining because their lives are currently being affected in ways that they were not in the past because of inappropriate intensity and in some cases because of the Overlay's parking credits.

Can I say again that no where else in this City are parking requirements cut back by 35%, 50%, 75% and 100% depending on locale.  So why is the Overlay being bashed exactly? 

Many of the posters on this site appear to be pro business at the expense of residents.  And that is wrongheaded and shortsighted.  Like Lake has written, we need to create win/win solutions whereby businesses can florish and residents can enjoy a peaceful quality of life while they are trying to sleep.  Business owners need to be partners in this effort and realize they have a responsiblity here.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

From the outside looking in, I think that too much is being read into seating capacity.  Can someone clarify how seating in a restaurant is calculated?

Does it takes into account bar seats, outdoor/patio seating, as well as traditional table/booth seating at equal face value? 

[thelakelander]

That's what we're trying to do is maintain its orignal scale.  And the original scale was not for 250 seats and greater restaurants and a proliferation of bars.  Steve C. made a great point that those larger establishments need to locate elsewhere like Brooklyn or downtown so as not to negatively impact residential quality of life. 

These residents aren't complaining because they enjoy it.  They are complaining because their lives are currently being affected in ways that they were not in the past because of inappropriate intensity and in some cases because of the Overlay's parking credits.

Can I say again that no where else in this City are parking requirements cut back by 35%, 50%, 75% and 100% depending on locale.  So why is the Overlay being bashed exactly?

Springfield has similar (less required than the suburbs) parking requirements for certain uses and downtown may as well.  With that said, COJ's parking requirements are a joke and they are one of the reasons that the entire zoning code should be rewritten, IMO.  The suburban based zoning code (which does not recognize that our neighborhoods have a variety of densities and scale) is leading to the continued piecemeal destruction of our historical urban core, primarily the sections of town that aren't classified as official historic districts.  A great example is the historic structure that was torn down on Myrtle and Kings for a suburban Family Dollar in New Town last year.

With that said, I do believe the concept of a streetcar funded by the mobility plan is a critical element in relieving the commercial pressure on Riverside by providing a market rate incentive to shift this type of development to Brooklyn, where there is less regulation, cheaper real estate, and potential connectivity to Riverside and Downtown.  Right now, there's really no incentive for redevelopment of these alternative areas.

[JeffreyS]

Can I say again that no where else in this City are parking requirements cut back by 35%, 50%, 75% and 100% depending on locale.

Ease of parking requirements has probably led to the diverse businesses and activities residents love and wish others would not flock to. The oakleafs of the world have lot's of parking but no Biscotti's or Mossfire.

residents can enjoy a peaceful quality of life while they are trying to sleep.

If what they want is Mayberry or Julington Creek type Quite why pick an Urban core Neighborhood that has been the most densely populated area in Jax for a long time?

There are trade offs with everything if you want all of the wonderful things that come with those special neighborhoods in this country you need transit or a lot of patience with parking.

If what you prioritize is lots of parking you will likely have to settle with a sprawlville or less attractive neighborhood.

[fieldafm]

And the original scale was not for 250 seats and greater restaurants and a proliferation of bars.

The original scale didn't accomodate two to three cars per household while simultaneously restricting and/or eliminate alternative modes of transportation... yet that is the reality of today.  Until you address this reality, with a combination of parking management(short term) and viable alternatives(long term) it will just get worse.  I think we both agree on that. 

The proliferation of restaurants into existing commercial buildings/area is not something the law restricts(in fact adaptive re-use is encouraged). 

we need to create win/win solutions

Quite a few have been presented here.  In the spirit of creating win/win solutions, which specifically do you not agree with Kay and why?

[Know Growth]

Sounds like unless you were making a second story roof top parking RAP and the locals would have a fit.

A great neighborhood never did betray the heart that loved it


Cheers!
Mike

[cityimrov]

Convince the council to let the mobility fee moratorium expire and the area will have a stack of cash to spend on mobility in five to ten years.

I don't think Riverside/Avondale should even need the mobility fee to expand their transportation system.  It's a nice idea but Riverside/Avondale mass transit system.  There is money out there and it's being poured into major projects worth hundreds of millions around town.  Riverside/Avondale has been paying that and so very little of that money is going back to them.

The answer is to get the state and the city to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on some on-ramp in the middle of nowhere and use that cash to help build up a place where people already live! 

[thelakelander]

^You'll have an easier path and more success getting the local mobility fee moratorium expired, as opposed to going to FDOT for a piece of their statewide funding pie.  FDOT could really care less about Riverside's parking management issues.  That's not the central purpose of their existence and their roadway funding pot comes from a completely different revenue stream.

[cline]

FDOT will spend money on Roosevelt because it is a State Road.  The only other road in the district is St. Johns (SR 211) and outside of a drainage or resurfacing project, they aren't going to do anything to that road.  They probably don't even want it on the State Road System anymore.  Lake is right, the Mobility Fee would be the better way to generate revenue.  Hopefully it will be coming back.

[JeffreyS]

But Cityimrov is right in one respect that Riverside does  not need the mobility Fee to get transit. The few who are worried about parking need to figure out that transit is what they should be shouting for. Instead they waste their time shouting that they do not want so many good things to come into the neighborhood.

Well if you build your barriers to business growth you won't see more unique local projects come your way because McDonald's and such will be the only ones with the legal budgets to get by those barriers so that is what you will get.

[thelakelander]

The mobility fee is Riverside's easiest chance for additional transit oriented funding that won't require a raise in taxes or finding someone with a bucket of extra money to burn out of the goodness of their heart.  All of the work has been done, it's been approved by the state, and adopted by the council.  All we need to do is advocate for the expiration of the moratorium this fall, to let it do what it was intended to do.  With that in mind, having a mobility fee at your disposal doesn't mean you can't pursue other funding options and combine cash for a large pot.  In fact, I'd encourage such a strategy.

[JeffreyS]

I am in full support of the Mobility Fee and perhaps asking people to act in their own best interest is a much more daunting task. So by all means get the Mobility Fee back in effect.