Retail-less parking garage proposed for Downtown

[CityLife]

DDRB Application 2012-007.  You can see tomorrow's entire agenda here:

http://www.coj.net/departments/jacksonville-economic-development-commission/downtown-development/downtown-development-review-board-(ddrb)-meeting-i.aspx

Here's the direct link. Scroll to Page 9

http://www.coj.net/departments/jacksonville-economic-development-commission/docs/downtown-development/ddrb-meeting-packet-june-2012.aspx

[CityLife]

Staff recommendations are:

Based on the foregoing, the Downtown Development Review Board Staff recommends
conceptual approval of DDRB Application 2012-006, subject to the following:
1. Applicant to receive a deviation to Section 656.361.13 Entrances to not provide entrances
to the building façade facing Bay Street prior to final DDRB approval.
2. Applicant to pursue the development of commercial retail space within the proposed
project or receive a deviation to Section 656.361.16 Off-Street Parking Overlay to not
provide the required 50% retail space on Bay and Hogan Street frontages prior to final
DDRB approval .
3. Applicant to receive a deviation to Section 656.361.20 to allow for alternative Streetscape
and landscape requirements for Hogan Street frontage prior to final DDRB approval.

[wsansewjs]

Staff recommendations are:

Based on the foregoing, the Downtown Development Review Board Staff recommends
conceptual approval of DDRB Application 2012-006, subject to the following:
1. Applicant to receive a deviation to Section 656.361.13 Entrances to not provide entrances
to the building façade facing Bay Street prior to final DDRB approval.
2. Applicant to pursue the development of commercial retail space within the proposed
project or receive a deviation to Section 656.361.16 Off-Street Parking Overlay to not
provide the required 50% retail space on Bay and Hogan Street frontages prior to final
DDRB approval .
3. Applicant to receive a deviation to Section 656.361.20 to allow for alternative Streetscape
and landscape requirements for Hogan Street frontage prior to final DDRB approval.

So the idiots at the developer agencies / engineering firms didn't even bother to READ about the recommendations.

I hope this bloody stupid design proposal will drop like a fly, then sprayed with a bug killer, then stomped repeatedly before a penny ever being transferred over to them from the city.

-Josh

[Fallen Buckeye]

I'm not into business or real estate, so please correct me if I'm way off on my thinking but...I wonder if they are trying to avoid adding retail space because they don't want to lower rents on current retail spaces in Suntrust (I'm assuming there is some retail inside) or the Landing. I mean vacancies are high as it is and I would imagine if you increase the supply of available retail space that prices would go down. Also, how much additional cost does it add to the project when you increase the space for retail? I agree that the design does not look great, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why they want to go this route in the first place.

[tayana42]

We seem to learn; we say the right things; we have good intentions; but then the developer says "I won't build this unless you waive the rules", and "my job creating building won't be built with your constraints", etc.  Sad day.

[thelakelander]

I'm not into business or real estate, so please correct me if I'm way off on my thinking but...I wonder if they are trying to avoid adding retail space because they don't want to lower rents on current retail spaces in Suntrust (I'm assuming there is some retail inside) or the Landing. I mean vacancies are high as it is and I would imagine if you increase the supply of available retail space that prices would go down. Also, how much additional cost does it add to the project when you increase the space for retail? I agree that the design does not look great, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why they want to go this route in the first place.

The ground floor of the SunTrust Tower is leased.  Since Sleiman has nothing to do with this garage, I can't imagine Landing lease rates having anything to do with this project.  If they don't want to do any retail, they should avoid building on this site, imo.  At the very least, take a page out of Greenville, SC's book and construct the garage with setbacks from the street edge to allow for future infill development.

[I-10east]

I think that it's pretty decent, given that it will provide parking for folks near the Landing. Just kidding, just kidding! yall are right, it sucks, and it's very uninspiring, esp since it's in the heart of DT. What's up with that awkward wannabe 'courtyard space' between the parking garage, and the Jacksonville Center FKA Humana Bldg?

[Adam W]

I'd rather have (potentially) empty retail units at the base of a (potentially) empty parking garage than just a (potentially) empty parking garage. At least that way there's room to grow. It would be criminal to take this prime location and build a parking garage there. And then potentially have to pay lots of $$$ to tear it down in the future when Downtown finally starts to pick up.

This lacks vision and any sort of thought about long-term needs and plans.

[I-10east]

I am still not convinced that dedicated parking spaces in a garage across the street will really work well for the landing. It is still a suburban style shopping center

I'm lost with this statement. So the Landing is built in a suburban style now? Them 'suburban style or suburban' phrases gets thrown around way too much. Now whether you like the style that it's built in is a different story, but it's not suburban.

[simms3]

I'm not into business or real estate, so please correct me if I'm way off on my thinking but...I wonder if they are trying to avoid adding retail space because they don't want to lower rents on current retail spaces in Suntrust (I'm assuming there is some retail inside) or the Landing. I mean vacancies are high as it is and I would imagine if you increase the supply of available retail space that prices would go down. Also, how much additional cost does it add to the project when you increase the space for retail? I agree that the design does not look great, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why they want to go this route in the first place.

The ground floor of the SunTrust Tower is leased.  Since Sleiman has nothing to do with this garage, I can't imagine Landing lease rates having anything to do with this project.  If they don't want to do any retail, they should avoid building on this site, imo.  At the very least, take a page out of Greenville, SC's book and construct the garage with setbacks from the street edge to allow for future infill development.

I think you both are right in that adding retail would a) cost more, b) sit empty, c) take up space that could be more effectively used for parking as the original purpose.  I also think that developers need to know what they are getting themselves into with downtown development - i.e. planning for the future, stricter regulations, more expensive construction, and the need for a cleaner, albeit tighter proforma.

This is a precedent setting development.  If we pass it through, that will signal that we just don't care and anything can be rammed through.  If we don't pass it and instead laugh at the proposal as if it were meaningless, then that would be the right signal that we will hold out for the highest and best possible uses for our best sites.  This thing should be allowed to be built without the blink of an eye on the fringes where nothing better could or would possibly be built...and not every garage needs ground level retail when there's absolutely no retail demand within a 1 mile radius.

Downtown would be better off waiting 10 years for the proper development to come along and trying to work with landowner in meantime for temporary activation of site than to have this piece of crap (shoved through with some serious variances) built.  That is now the line of thinking in more progressive cities with design review boards and citizens thinking more about the long term than the immediate term.

[simms3]

I am still not convinced that dedicated parking spaces in a garage across the street will really work well for the landing. It is still a suburban style shopping center

I'm lost with this statement. So the Landing is built in a suburban style now? Them 'suburban style or suburban' phrases gets thrown around way too much. Now whether you like the style that it's built in is a different story, but it's not suburban.

I think the Landing would be consider kitschy/touristy/suburban in nature in many other cities.  It is walled off and doesn't serve as much of a local purpose as it could (not to mention there is not nearly enough local walk-up traffic to make it a local retail destination).

Urban retail is limited in America, but never includes "shopping centers" like the Landing.  If it is a shopping center of any sort, it is not urban.  I have made a transition in my job and will begin working on real urban retail portfolios along Newbury St in Boston, M St in DC, Alexandria, VA, and ground floor retail in other developments (including in Nashville...retail where NO parking is provided).

[simms3]

I'm not into business or real estate, so please correct me if I'm way off on my thinking but...I wonder if they are trying to avoid adding retail space because they don't want to lower rents on current retail spaces in Suntrust (I'm assuming there is some retail inside) or the Landing. I mean vacancies are high as it is and I would imagine if you increase the supply of available retail space that prices would go down. Also, how much additional cost does it add to the project when you increase the space for retail? I agree that the design does not look great, but I'm trying to wrap my head around why they want to go this route in the first place.

The ground floor of the SunTrust Tower is leased.  Since Sleiman has nothing to do with this garage, I can't imagine Landing lease rates having anything to do with this project.  If they don't want to do any retail, they should avoid building on this site, imo.  At the very least, take a page out of Greenville, SC's book and construct the garage with setbacks from the street edge to allow for future infill development.

I think you both are right in that adding retail would a) cost more, b) sit empty, c) take up space that could be more effectively used for parking as the original purpose.  I also think that developers need to know what they are getting themselves into with downtown development - i.e. planning for the future, stricter regulations, more expensive construction, and the need for a cleaner, albeit tighter proforma.

Downtown would be better off waiting 10 years for the proper development to come along and trying to work with landowner in meantime for temporary activation of site than to have this piece of crap (shoved through with some serious variances) built.  That is now the line of thinking in more progressive cities with design review boards and citizens thinking more about the long term than the immediate term.

Its a requirement of the building codes that the ground floor is developed for retail in all parking garages.

What the group is doing is designing a building that ignores that requirement, and the developer is one of the individuals that intimately knows that requirement.  Whether or not it sits empty for now, once it is built it will still be empty of retail, and will never be converted back.

We're on the same page...the developer has requested that variance and the first review of the design (which seems to have 3 major variances including that one) has recommended approval to the next review.

I personally don't think a garage on let's say N Ocean or E Ashley or somewhere a small 2-3 level garage serving a 5-floor office building on the fringe of downtown should be forced to have ground level retail.  In fact, I personally also don't think a garage should be allowed at all on the proposed site (but so goes the "agreement" with the Landing).

[JFman00]

I am still not convinced that dedicated parking spaces in a garage across the street will really work well for the landing. It is still a suburban style shopping center

I'm lost with this statement. So the Landing is built in a suburban style now? Them 'suburban style or suburban' phrases gets thrown around way too much. Now whether you like the style that it's built in is a different story, but it's not suburban.

Set back from the street, not particularly integrated into the urban fabric. It's not suburban, but it's not particularly urban either. It's not as bad as the New Orleans Riverwalk Mall, I'll say that. But it's a far cry from something like Chicago's Water Tower Place (a quite successful indoor urban shopping mall).

[simms3]

And considering this garage is mostly being constructed as an amenity for nearby office workers, it doesn't truly make sense for the developer to put something expensive/pretty up when a) parking rates in DT Jax top out at ~$120/mo for reserved spots b) there is technically a glut of parking and super high vacancy with few prospects and tenant space reservations may not come in as crazily as to be expected c) I believe SunTrust is office condos? d) local office users have consistently had trouble justifying the cost of paying for parking e) Parador probably cannot soak up the cost in office condo sales or lease-up of SunTrust because rates/prices are soooo low and that prevents the garage from being a true amenity in that sense of the word.  Also the building may already be mostly full and so what is an added garage really going to do to rates/sales/tenant activity?

They are recovering cost of construction with bare minimum parking rates and bare minimum office condo sales/lease-up.  It's really no wonder why underground parking in DC is so common - it's the opposite situation as in Jax.  It's all about what can be justified/what is feasible.  This is where the design review committees need to step in and crack down.  It's not going to "kill" development downtown because there already is NO development downtown (which is really all market-based anyway and nothing to do with regulation or taxes).

[vicupstate]

Its a requirement of the building codes that the ground floor is developed for retail in all parking garages.

What the group is doing is designing a building that ignores that requirement, and the developer is one of the individuals that intimately knows that requirement.  Whether or not it sits empty for now, once it is built it will still be empty of retail, and will never be converted back.

This same issue came up with thr Carling garage.  Vestcor was allowed to leave out the retial but had to build the gargae in such a way as it could be converted to have ground level retail. The same is true for the garage next to Veterans Arena. It is suppose to be 'convertible'.