Developer asks to scale back roadwork in 780-acre Jacksonville project

[thelakelander]

I find the quote below to be very interesting. 

“Either it’s eliminated and the project can move forward, or it’s not eliminated and the project cannot move forward,” T.R. Hainline, an attorney representing ICI Homes, told the neighborhood representatives.

A Daytona Beach development firm wants to build up to 3,100 residential units on the last major undeveloped tract on Beach Boulevard between Kernan and Hodges Boulevard.  As a part of the original agreement, the developer has to construct a $17 million, four-lane road that would parallel and already congested and dangerous Beach Boulevard.

Now that the market has changed, the development team would like to build the project without the internal roadway.

The new application by the developer remains insistent the city should free Tamaya, which was previously known as Meditierra, from the requirement that it build a four-lane road connecting Kernan and Hodges boulevards. That road would give Tamaya direct connections to both Kernan and Hodges, plus Beach Boulevard.
But in the current real estate market, it’s not feasible for the developer to absorb the expense of building the road for more than $17 million, its representatives said in a meeting last month with neighborhood representatives.

“Either it’s eliminated and the project can move forward, or it’s not eliminated and the project cannot move forward,” T.R. Hainline, an attorney representing ICI Homes, told the neighborhood representatives.

full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-08-21/story/developer-asks-scale-back-roadwork-780-acre-jacksonville-project

What's everyone's thoughts on this?

[Ocklawaha]

If the road is 'needed' to better disperse the traffic flowing into and out of the neighborhood then it seems to me that an OLD FLORIDA solution is in order here. Back in the post WWII era Florida built many highways where they laid down a 2 lane road, and alongside was the graded level right-of-way (sometimes including the bridges) for another 2 lanes in the future. Such a demand from the COJ could apply to various subdivisions now planned or under construction. It calls the builders bluff to build according to agreed upon plans or fly-by-night.

[thelakelander]

I wonder what the negative is if the development isn't built?  Are we sure that the costs associated with an additional 3,100 homes in an already congested area don't outweigh the benefits?

I also agree with the idea that something should connect to both streets.  You don't want that many people being forced onto Beach for their everyday trips.  However, it doesn't have to be four lanes.  Build a two lane "context sensitive" road that accommodates pedestrians and cyclist and leave the ROW for potential expansion in the future.

[Tacachale]

These cats need to either build the infrastructure correctly, or not build at all. Simple as that.

I have no idea whether a four-lane connector is the best way to go, but I'm pretty confident "nothing" is much worse.

[Dog Walker]

Sure proof that a developer is up to no good?  They hire Paul Harden or T.R. Hainline to represent them.

[Captain Zissou]

I wonder what the negative is if the development isn't built?  Are we sure that the costs associated with an additional 3,100 homes in an already congested area don't outweigh the benefits?

I say call their bluff.  If they quit the project, fine.  This development will do very little for our city except add to the oversupply of cheap, poorly planned communities on the Southside.  If we don't pander to them maybe it will let other developers know we mean business.

[Tacachale]

^I know, right? What do we lose if this doesn't pan out? I know our leaders are fairly short sighted, but something will go there eventually, we might as well hold it to building the damn infrastructure.

[Captain Zissou]

^I know, right? What do we lose if this doesn't pan out? I know our leaders are fairly short sighted, but something will go there eventually, we might as well hold it to building the damn infrastructure.

The city already does this all the time with downtown developments.  Let's just wait until 'the right project' comes along.  I don't really believe in doing this downtown, but I think we need another masterplanned community on the Southside like we need another youtube video from DVI.

[John P]

I wonder what the negative is if the development isn't built?  Are we sure that the costs associated with an additional 3,100 homes in an already congested area don't outweigh the benefits?

I say call their bluff.  If they quit the project, fine.  This development will do very little for our city except add to the oversupply of cheap, poorly planned communities on the Southside.  If we don't pander to them maybe it will let other developers know we mean business.

Let them build it with poor planning and craftsmanship. It just makes that part of town even more dangerous for pedestrains and generic. It enhances the contrast.

[urbanlibertarian]

If you know any underemployed carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc, ask them what the downside of not building this development would be.

[Captain Zissou]

If you know any underemployed carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc, ask them what the downside of not building this development would be.

I'm not anti development.  I am anti-poorly planned communities and developers strong-arming the city. 

If the developers can't afford to do something that they previously agreed to because the market has changed, maybe they should look to see what else about the market has changed since they originally designed their project.  New urbanism and densification is much more popular now than it was a few years ago, people want to be close to shops and retail, people want to bike and walk to their destinations, and being sustainable is more important now than in the past.  If they create a denser development with some townhomes and condos incorporated into the single family mixture with a section for commercial, maybe they will find some money to put towards the road.

[thelakelander]

If the developers can't afford to do something that they previously agreed to because the market has changed, maybe they should look to see what else about the market has changed since they originally designed their project.

+1000.  The market has obviously changed.  Perhaps the entire proposed product needs to be modified as well.  Not all development and growth is good.  By the same token, it isn't all bad.  The key here for Jax (I know its hard, given our history and disregard for decent planning) is to not fiscally shoot ourselves in the foot long term for the hope of potential short term (and I mean short) gain.

[JFman00]

If you know any underemployed carpenters, electricians, plumbers, etc, ask them what the downside of not building this development would be.

I'm not anti development.  I am anti-poorly planned communities and developers strong-arming the city. 

If the developers can't afford to do something that they previously agreed to because the market has changed, maybe they should look to see what else about the market has changed since they originally designed their project.  New urbanism and densification is much more popular now than it was a few years ago, people want to be close to shops and retail, people want to bike and walk to their destinations, and being sustainable is more important now than in the past.  If they create a denser development with some townhomes and condos incorporated into the single family mixture with a section for commercial, maybe they will find some money to put towards the road.

Aside from Tapestry Park, I don't think mixed-use is in the vocabulary of Jacksonville developers. In terms of density, we should be chasing density of uses, not density of units.

[urbaknight]

Instead of building 3,100 units that requires the use of a car to enter and exit safely, they should consider building a 5 to 10 story apartment building Downtown. A building "completely" surrounded by sidewalk with shops on the first floor. Why are these stupid things constantly being built Southside (in many cases, most people don't even know they're being built at all) But getting projects like 220 Riverside Blvd, the Laura st Trio, the Barnett building and many more built, are as difficult as a small child pulling off a slam dunk at an NBA game. Is there any way to stop, or maybe even slow down  suburban development. Can we sue developers in federal for ADA violations. I'd personally love to charge them with first degree murder. A charge for everyone run over and killed in these pedestrian hostile areas. It may sound harsh but, I'd love to see these small minded idiots fry.

[jcjohnpaint]

Well I live right around the corner from this site.  They might not build downtown or in town, but it is going to convince me to move away from another faceless sprawling community.  As for the road- It seems to be right in the middle of the development and the way I look at it- Their problem, their development, their road.  IF they don't want to build it, tell them to go to hell.  The city needs to grow a spine when dealing with developers.  The land will eventually get developed.  The city decides how well planned.