Five Points Village Plans Cause Concern

[Metro Jacksonville]

Five Points Village Plans Cause Concern



In June 2012, Five Points Village was partially destroyed by fire.  Now Peter Sleiman's Retail Properties, Inc. is prepared to improve their strip mall and the community isn't happy about it.


Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-nov-five-points-village-plans-cause-concern

[Captain Zissou]

Retail Properties is making an effort, which is commendable.  In looking at the aerial for the site as well as the proposed RAP plans, I just don't think that is feasible.  The hybrid proposal will break up the site significantly, but it may be the only to put something up against the street.  If this site is done well, and the Pizza Palace property can be redeveloped, the connection between 5 points and Riverside Park will be very strong.  Riverside/Avondale has a number of commercial strips, but very few multi-block districts that extend in all directions. A large district encompassing Riverside Park to Memorial Park and along Lomax, Oak, Post, Park, and Riverside Ave is our best chance at this so each site needs to be designed towards the optimum use in regards to connectivity and pedestrian use.

[fsujax]

whats wrong with internally illuminated signs?

[PeeJayEss]

I thought the alternative plan, which appeared to be proposed by Retail Partners, was a pretty decent alternative, better even than the sketched one. Wouldn't the building fronting all of Margaret be ideal?

[thelakelander]

Specialty retail that has no visibility has no value.  Placing a building in front of an existing specialty retail center without some sort of anchor to pull people into only runs your tenants out of business.

[cline]

So no widening of the sidewalks on Forbes Street and no outdoor seating for the parcels at the ends of the strip?  I'm with CZ and Lake, having two separate buildings doesn't sound like a good idea.  That being said, isn't the Doll House looking to relocate since they had to make way for the Overland Bridge?

[Captain Zissou]

The ideal would be a mirror image of the previous site plan fronting Margaret and Park with patio seating facing the Forbes/Margaret corner and the Park/Margaret corner.  That is too much to ask of the developer without the city offering to pay for much of it.  That said, the only way to do it would be the metrojax proposed plan with a small structure fronting Margaret with patio seating on the north side that doesn't obstruct the view of the back building. 

What buildings are between Hovan and the former Wasabi?  They look like houses from the aerial view, but at street view they look to be commercial.

[Tacachale]

Just shows why it never should have been zoned for a strip mall in the first place. There's almost nothing that can be done to fix it.

[PeeJayEss]

What buildings are between Hovan and the former Wasabi?  They look like houses from the aerial view, but at street view they look to be commercial.

Parking lot, office building (house), then Forbes.

Aren't storefronts along Margaret the best use of the commercial land? Why not rebuild in two phases: the alternatively-proposed building along the full block on Margaret, then knock down the rest of the existing building. Rebuild it so that it is along Post and eliminate the separate parking lot and extra entrance to the property on Post.

The Forbes street side doesn't come out good in any of these scenarios, but the cars need their spaces, I suppose.

[thelakelander]

Aren't storefronts along Margaret the best use of the commercial land? Why not rebuild in two phases: the alternatively-proposed building along the full block on Margaret, then knock down the rest of the existing building. Rebuild it so that it is along Post and eliminate the separate parking lot and extra entrance to the property on Post.

There's nothing wrong with the majority of the existing structure and it's 100% leased with tenants already in it.  You can't force the existing owner to spend millions on a new building product that would render the existing leased structure useless.  If push came to shove, the owner could simply call it a day, clean up the site, put up some fresh paint and call it a day without doing anything else.

The Forbes street side doesn't come out good in any of these scenarios, but the cars need their spaces, I suppose.

The Forbes Street side basically remains the same in the two alternative scenarios shown.  You'd end up with a building on the corner with parking in the rear.  This is less about cars and more about economics, unless the community is willing to throw money into the pot.

[Overstreet]

If I were the owner of the property I'd think that the city was being pretty loose with my money. Especially since the city doesn't honnor their committments.  I'd more likely tear down the damaged structure for safety sake, weather proof the end of the building, plant and water the bare land for errosion control, and wait. 

[Captain Zissou]

If I were the owner of the property I'd think that the city was being pretty loose with my money. Especially since the city doesn't honnor their committments.  I'd more likely tear down the damaged structure for safety sake, weather proof the end of the building, plant and water the bare land for errosion control, and wait. 

Wait for what?  Does the city owe them money?

[PeeJayEss]

There's nothing wrong with the majority of the existing structure and it's 100% leased with tenants already in it.  You can't force the existing owner to spend millions on a new building product that would render the existing leased structure useless.

But isn't that Margaret-fronting building exactly what they proposed in their "alternative"? In that case, they are proposing to tank the building in back, and you are the one worried about them losing money on the existing building. I just happen to think the Margaret-fronting piece of the design is the best part of any designs shown, and it doesn't matter to me if it kills the existing building. It seems like the metrojax alternative is designed to save the developer/owner money and the tanking of the back building in exchange for an inferior product along Margaret. I'd rather get the better product along Margaret, let the developer realize their error, and then let them figure that part out too.

[thelakelander]

I thought the alternative plan, which appeared to be proposed by Retail Partners, was a pretty decent alternative, better even than the sketched one. Wouldn't the building fronting all of Margaret be ideal?

This plan?  It was proposed by RAP, not the developer.

[thelakelander]

There's nothing wrong with the majority of the existing structure and it's 100% leased with tenants already in it.  You can't force the existing owner to spend millions on a new building product that would render the existing leased structure useless.

But isn't that Margaret-fronting building exactly what they proposed in their "alternative"?

This is what the developer is proposing:

In that case, they are proposing to tank the building in back, and you are the one worried about them losing money on the existing building. I just happen to think the Margaret-fronting piece of the design is the best part of any designs shown, and it doesn't matter to me if it kills the existing building.

I think you have the plans confused and it never really matters as much when the one not caring isn't footing the financial bill.  If you had your cash in the game, the value of your holding would matter.

It seems like the metrojax alternative is designed to save the developer/owner money and the tanking of the back building in exchange for an inferior product along Margaret. I'd rather get the better product along Margaret, let the developer realize their error, and then let them figure that part out too.

The alternative I created was simply a merging of the two to achieve various goals expressed by each party while also considering the financial reality of the situation.