Fresh Market on Riverside Ave!

[thelakelander]

A chunk of people head to the Southside because that type of product isn't available downtown.  Also, if you want to get your population up to 5,000 (the number quoted by DIA board member Don Shea), you'll need a lot more than 300 new units.

[tufsu1]

Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.

I get what simms was saying, but have to agree with fsujax here

as for the site plan, I seem to remember that JTA controlled a certain amount of space along Riverside Avenue for possible skyway extension....if so, it would make it more difficult to pull the buildings up to the street (although parking under the skyway is doable).

[simms3]

See in bold.

What's wrong with developing all six blocks between 2-4 stories?  It's not like we have a space crunch on land, which would make denser projects more financially feasible.

Their proposal looks to be 30% building, 70% parking/median.  I'm totally fine with 2-4 floors, though 2-3 floors implies townhomes, which would never be financed right there right now (for sale).  See my comment below and you can probably tell where I'm coming from.

Primarily higher construction costs.

I can guarantee you it's not construction costs.  Sure the price of concrete is rising and so a concealed prefab structured arrangement might force them to put more units on 1-2 blocks, leaving 4 more blocks untouched for the time being, but it's exactly that.  If they only owned 2 blocks, that's what they would do.  I promise.  They could lease the place up at $1.30-$1.40psf just as easily as $1.10-$1.20psf with the surface parking (we're not talking a huge $ amount difference here, and they could probably do more/smaller units with the hybrid format than with this garden format which will attract renters expecting more space and better interior finishes ala suburban apts).

They have 6 freakin blocks that were cheap as hell (allowing them to do low-med density garden + strip center and surface parking), but they're also paying taxes on 6 city blocks.  That carry cost and potential need to beat out the market/competition is spurring them to just fill all 6 blocks with less than mediocre crap and one shining star of an anchor retail tenant (who would be just as happy with the same visibility on Riverside via signage/corner door and secondary entrance through garage in the back).

I suppose the one MAJOR advantage to the whole 6 block scheme is now every other parcel in Brooklyn is that much more valuable, which might push higher density and ultimately better design and potentially better quality, especially if the 2 proposals on the table exceed projections.

This is not Related looking to do 6 blocks in Manhattan with institutional/sovereign equity coming out their ears.  These are on the edge SE developers looking to deploy capital for their investors as quickly and generically as possible, which means they need quick and cheap debt (risk free garden apts with abundant parking in underserved "infill" area anchored by Fresh Market in cookie cutter strip next door, woohoo!)

However, that doesn't mean this won't happen on other blocks within the core.  We've got room for a variety of projects at different scales and market prices.  At this point, I'd be more concerned with getting a few initial developments off of paper and into reality, while making sure they work at pedestrian level.

Touche and agreed.  Market prices for Brooklyn will always be higher than equivalence off Baymeadows, though.

Force every development in this area to have structured parking and we might was well rename Brooklyn, Eastside Detroit.  Because other than a project or two, most of the land will sit empty.

Deep down I agree.  I don't want to, though.  Keep in mind as I stated above if this were a 1-2 block deal they could just as easily do concealed structured parking wrapped by efficient urban apartments above the retail as they can do garden apts with surface parking and a strip center on 6 blocks.

Jax hasn't gotten laid in a while and its always the last person selected for the pick up basketball game. Now the head cheerleader has taken interest for whatever reason.  You can have a little fun with Atlanta's sloppy seconds without marrying her. Just ask Kayne West if he's enjoying Ray J's and Reggie Bush's leftovers!

Major touche.

[simms3]

Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.

I get what simms was saying, but have to agree with fsujax here

as for the site plan, I seem to remember that JTA controlled a certain amount of space along Riverside Avenue for possible skyway extension....if so, it would make it more difficult to pull the buildings up to the street (although parking under the skyway is doable).

That would explain the major ROW between the retail and Riverside Ave according to site plan (as well as the lack of ingress/egress directly on Riverside).  Also, grow up - You know I make valid points but you just want to hate. 

[thelakelander]

Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.

I get what simms was saying, but have to agree with fsujax here

as for the site plan, I seem to remember that JTA controlled a certain amount of space along Riverside Avenue for possible skyway extension....if so, it would make it more difficult to pull the buildings up to the street (although parking under the skyway is doable).

You pull them up to your property line and the space reserved for the skyway becomes a linear green space.  That's even better than pulling a storefront directly up to Riverside Avenue.  Assuming the area infills over time, a linear green with a mix of uses opening up to it could be a pretty decent third person atmosphere.

[thelakelander]

Their proposal looks to be 30% building, 70% parking/median.  I'm totally fine with 2-4 floors, though 2-3 floors implies townhomes, which would never be financed right there right now (for sale).

Not the best site plan but it appears the massing of the main apartment buildings are 5 stories.  While I wish the apartment buildings were against the property line, depending on how the carriage homes are designed, even them at 2 stories on Park and Stonewall won't necessarily be that bad.  With this development, I'd be more concerned if these were interior blocks in Brooklyn.  However, the parking (not talking about the retail component) is basically out of mind out of site.

Primarily higher construction costs.

They have 6 freakin blocks that were cheap as hell (allowing them to do low-med density garden + strip center and surface parking), but they're also paying taxes on 6 city blocks.  That carry cost and potential need to beat out the market/competition is spurring them to just fill all 6 blocks with less than mediocre crap and one shining star of an anchor retail tenant (who would be just as happy with the same visibility on Riverside via signage/corner door and secondary entrance through garage in the back).

I suppose the one MAJOR advantage to the whole 6 block scheme is now every other parcel in Brooklyn is that much more valuable, which might push higher density and ultimately better design and potentially better quality, especially if the 2 proposals on the table exceed projections.

With so much land available and the dynamics of this specific site, I'm not as concerned.  Looking at the long term picture, I see much of this development as being incremental to reaching a larger goal.  For the retail component, I'm even fine with a Riverside Publix style development on that block as long as its up on the street and not in the strip mall format currently shown.  With that said, I still believe it can be better than the downtown St. Petersburg Publix development Sembler did.

[simms3]

From original discussion:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-riverside-park-development-proposed-for-brooklyn







Man if this thing weren't 6 blocks (and now I think I'm counting 8!), it would be a totally different story.  I can't find it, but I believe I had seen some rent numbers for this deal either on this site or on BizJournal (maybe through grapevine, I dunno).  They were higher than I would imagine they needed to be for this deal (like almost as high as could be justified with structured parking on cheap infill dirt). 1 BRs started in the 900s or low 1000s if I recall.  2 BRs started around 1400 and went to 1800?  Can someone find this info?

Riverside Ave apts sold for $150K/door.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/07/27/riverside-apartment-property-sells.html

Tapestry Park apts sell for $153K/door.

http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2011/06/24/tatersall-at-tapestry-park-sold-for.html

Garden deals on the SS around Gate are trading at $120K-$130K/door, so note the difference in structured parking deals vs non-structured (15-25% at most in Jax), plus Tattersall and Villas have more luxurious features and larger floorplans than required by infill urban deals seeking a different group of renters.  Trade luxury finishes with higher land cost and you have the same deal in Brooklyn as Villas and Tattersall.  I don't think it's a stretch (these kinds of deals are getting done in DT/south of DT Birmingham, AL of all places).

The other thing to consider is the potential for Brooklyn devs to "steal" renters from the SS, due to their location and uniqueness, if a scene/community forms.  All of a sudden investor activity shifts focus from Gate Pkwy to Riverside Ave and you could be protected on your back end as a developer (and increase your financing capabilities).

Again...we're talking one partnership owning 8 blocks in an un-pioneered market.  I think their strategy is to get in and get out with a huge "IRR", which requires them to "cram" all 8 blocks with something fast and something they know will work without a doubt (and that lenders know will work...which means cookie cutter to the max).  Cookie cutter for what is 8 "walled off" blocks - 40 acres? would be garden style and strip center.  Cookie cutter for 1-2 actual city blocks would be hybrid stick wrapped around structured parking with space for retail below with nobody actually underwriting the retail unless a creative design team could somehow fit in that Fresh Market.

[thelakelander]

No doubt the old Brooklyn Park was a superior development proposal to this site.  However, if it can be a catalyst to stimulate additional market rate activity in the area, be designed to fit in at the pedestrian scale and be up by 2014, why not?  If these Atlanta guys make a ton of cash off Jax overnight but leave a viable project that helps encourage more activity in Brooklyn and downtown by bringing in a residential component and retailers that downtown has long struggled to land, why not?

If it were in the middle of downtown or taking out blocks of existing buildings in a historic neighborhood, I'd feel different.  However, this particular 12.5-acre site backs up to the Park Street viaduct and JTA's skyway maintenance yard.  So Lincoln is proposing what basically amounts to a Villas of St. Johns (a previous development of theirs) in Brooklyn with interior surface parking shielded from the street with two story townhomes.  It's not the best but it surely isn't the worst thing to move forward in Brooklyn.  On top of that, Pope & Land is flipping the remaining two blocks to Fuqua, who is proposing 60,000 square feet of retail anchored by a Fresh Market.  The initial layout resembles a strip mall off Baymeadows but we still have an opportunity to have the site modified into a more urban format. 

Taking a bigger look at this situation, there is a strong possibility that in two years, between this and 200 Riverside, we can have 600 multifamily units, nearly 70,000 square feet of leased retail and an urban public park/plaza replacing seven blocks of moonscape between DT and Riverside.  You can't tell me that the influence of these two projects going up that quick won't immediately positively impact the market for additional infill on the surrounding blocks. Quite frankly, I'd take this situation over the Parador garage any day.  Out of all the things plaguing the core, what these guys are bringing to the table are the least of my concerns. 

If I'm JTA, I should be giving the green light to at least adding an additional skyway stop on Riverside Avenue.

[thelakelander]

If anything, I'd be more concerned about this:



That's way too much parking to force into an urban site for a project this size.

[simms3]

Agree and agree.  Just always have to play devil's advocate.  It all trickles down.  In Toronto I hear that people there are literally tired of 70 floor condos with major high street retail going in, and they actually want a less intense use and something more "down to earth".  In Denver and Seattle they have moved on to a similar level of development (in terms of quality) as Chicago, San Francisco and Boston and would die at the thought of a parking pedestal beneath a new tower (well actually Chicago still does that!), or another apartment wrapped garage with "ground level retail".  In Atlanta I think we have really grown tired of Novare's level of development, of parking pedestals and the 20-30 new podium style or wrapped garage style apts now going up and we want something better and would like to get to Seattle's level (hence the huge pushbacks to developments like you guys are receiving and the outcasting of developers like Fuqua for even attempting to bring Walmart to the city...though Seattle does have an awesome 3 floor Target right downtown, and so does SF...seen both now).  I forget that Jax really hasn't participated in anything yet...so if I were down there I would be super duper excited at this proposal.  I do agree Fresh Market right there would be huge...like basically to the level of Whole Foods.

I don't think Riverside Ave will be a hip street in that area in 20 years anyways.  Too much of a highway.  Park St could really be walkable and special and should be saved for such potential.

[simms3]

BTW that whole site is really only 12.5AC?  From Park to Riverside and 2 long blocks wide?  (If you count it as 6 blocks that's only 2 acres a block!)  I guess that's about right!  I was way off!

http://www.land4ever.com/block.htm

[thelakelander]

Yeah, it's roughly six blocks.  A chunk of the land between Riverside and May Street is ROW that FDOT set aside to JTA for a possible skyway extension to Forest Street.  When they widened Riverside Avenue, they had to rip down a full block of buildings between Riverside and May since they lined the street.



Also, I agree about Park Street.  I think it can be a really nice street with a great urban vibe.  It's not an official historic district like Riverside but it still has a good supply of old brick buildings and warehouses.  It's a great opportunity to mix in modern infill with older buildings.

Btw, for those of you that are skeptical and fearful of a streetcar connecting Park & King to Downtown, that image above is your road based alternative when the Auto Level of Service on Riverside Avenue and Park Street fails.  More expensive and definitely more damaging for a historic neighborhood where the building stock lines the sidewalks.

[simms3]

I remember very vividly the old Riverside Ave and that hulking brick structure.  I miss it!  All those old buildings could have been turned into office space for small companies, coffee shops, restaurants, etc creating a demand for higher density infill to be built nearby (in a better form than proposed).  Very similar corridor to Memorial near Oakland Park Cemetery in Atl (4 lanes, heavy traffic leading into/out of downtown to interstate, bordering historic neighborhoods...now lined with infill and restored warehouses/restaurants).

[riverside planner]

I miss Riverside Avenue circa 2000   It felt like an urban roadway rather than a landing strip.

[fsquid]

Wasn't here in 2000, but holy crap what the fuck did you guys do?  Set fire to the whole street?  Thanks for posting that picture