Metro Jacksonville Rail Plan Already Spurring Development?

[thelakelander]

Planned community on Philips Highway to be 'transit oriented'

Project for those wanting home near work, public transportation



By LIZ FLAISIG, The Times-Union

A blighted portion of Philips Highway will lose its historical ties to the automobile under plans for a new community focused on urban living near mass transit.

Jackson Square at San Marco is proposed for the 18 acres along Philips near Atlantic Boulevard that Jerry Hamm Chevrolet used to occupy.

The development will have 900 apartments ranging from $700 per month for a studio to $1,500 for the largest two-bedroom unit.

Young professionals and couples without children will be targeted because they are part of a growing group looking for homes close to work and public transportation, said Steve Cissel, partner in FirstStar Development Inc.

Plans for Jackson Square include restaurants and boutique shops in 150,000 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of offices.

Cissel pitched the site to financial partners Cypress Real Estate Advisors of Austin, Texas, because of its proximity to the railroad and the road's long history as a transportation corridor.

The group has also worked for the last 18 months with the Jacksonville Transportation Authority on developing the site as a transit-oriented development, or TOD.

The concept is part of "smart growth" principles that have gained popularity in recent years amid heightening environmental concerns in the real estate industry and interest in shorter commutes.

"This is about a lifestyle issue," Cissel said. "These people are younger, working professionals and empty-nesters or waiting later in life to have children. They want smaller spaces to live in with all the amenities and five minutes to work so they don't have to use a car."

Walking, riding a bike or taking the bus will be options in about 36 months, when Cissel expects residents to move in.

And later down the line, JTA's planned bus rapid transit system and light rail are expected to align with Jackson Square.

Though a spokesman was unavailable to comment, JTA has publicly discussed four other TODs, most prominently Kings Avenue Station with its hotels.

All the sites under way are different, but involve the same concept of furthering use of mass transit to ease congestion as Jacksonville grows.

For Paul Basham, president of Basham & Lucas Design Group Inc., the job of designing a TOD community on this spot makes sense.

"Being a TOD is another layer of mixed-use because you can live, shop and get to work and never use a car to do it," Basham said.

Jackson Square has begun the permitting process and is expected to be under construction within the next 24 months.

It will cost an estimated $75 million to $100 million, Cissel said.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080108/bus_312154535.shtml

[stug]

What a one-dimensional article. Disappointing.

[southerngirl]

Disappointing is an understatement.

As the very light-on-details PUD makes its way through the city reviews this month, it'll be interesting to note whether or not those who are reviewing are looking carefully at:

1. Parking -- the developers admit that they're building 50% fewer parking spaces than needed, "to dis-incent residents from having cars." Sure...residents will make the decision not to have cars because there BRT will take them wherever they want to go...to their doctor in the corner of Mandarin and to their kids' school for metings...get real.

2. Impact on small neighboring streets -- the developer/traffic experts apparently told neighbors this week that a mere 50 cars will be added to small roads adjacent to the development. 900 apartments + retail/commercial and there will only be 50 cars a day on neighboring roads?!  Sounds like either someone's seriously underestimating so they don't have to deal with the reality of their impact OR, if their numbers are "real" -- they're going to be content with 10% occupancy and no customers for the retail shops - that equals about 50 cars.

3. Where will the children who live in these apartments go to school?

4. Railroad noise -- there are very active crossings along the west side of the development -- hundreds of feet away from the bedrooms, living rooms, balconies of the apartments. Who's going to want to live with that noise and the vibration that comes when a long, heavy train comes through?

[ProjectMaximus]

I speak on behalf of none of the developers, but:

1) I think, realistic or not, they truly hope to incorporate comprehensive mass transit into the residents' lives. Comprehensive meaning the San Marco and Downtown areas, where they hope residents can get and do whatever they need.

2) Agreed, this seems like a gross understatement.

3) According to the article, they're targeting a demographic without children.

4) This will be a nuisance, clearly. Perhaps the development will be designed to minimize train noise, but nevertheless it cannot be eliminated entirely.

Disappointing is an understatement.

As the very light-on-details PUD makes its way through the city reviews this month, it'll be interesting to note whether or not those who are reviewing are looking carefully at:

1. Parking -- the developers admit that they're building 50% fewer parking spaces than needed, "to dis-incent residents from having cars." Sure...residents will make the decision not to have cars because there BRT will take them wherever they want to go...to their doctor in the corner of Mandarin and to their kids' school for metings...get real.

2. Impact on small neighboring streets -- the developer/traffic experts apparently told neighbors this week that a mere 50 cars will be added to small roads adjacent to the development. 900 apartments + retail/commercial and there will only be 50 cars a day on neighboring roads?!  Sounds like either someone's seriously underestimating so they don't have to deal with the reality of their impact OR, if their numbers are "real" -- they're going to be content with 10% occupancy and no customers for the retail shops - that equals about 50 cars.

3. Where will the children who live in these apartments go to school?

4. Railroad noise -- there are very active crossings along the west side of the development -- hundreds of feet away from the bedrooms, living rooms, balconies of the apartments. Who's going to want to live with that noise and the vibration that comes when a long, heavy train comes through?

[ac]

Re:  Proximity to the railroad-  Isn't that the point of a TOD?  Aren't the developers banking on some sort of commuter rail system, and access from the apartments in the future?  Additionally, it's not as if the distance from the rail line is being kept from potential residents.  I would wager that most of the people interested in living in this development will know what they're in for, at least in regard to train noise anyway.  May that be giving them too much credit?

[southerngirl]

3) According to the article, they're targeting a demographic without children.

The drawings show the residential side as "multi-family."

Those up and comers will have cars and eventually, will have kids...

[Steve]

My Thoughts:

1.  This development is targeting a demographic that does not exist in Jacksonville:  The educated, college degreed young professional that moves to a city with a bunch of student loan debt, who could do without the extra expense of a car.  This doesn't exist here because it can't exist here - there is no transit.  However, this demographic does exist in other cities, and apparently is heating up already in charlotte as I understand.  Yes, people will have cars, but don't expect this development to occurr without some sort of transit element.

2. Development is coming in Jacksonville.  Sure, we've hit a slow spot with the economy, but it is coming regardless.  Who can realistically be the person who closes the gate to Jacksonville as they walk through?  So, given that fact, which would you rather have - Traditional, suburban sprawl apartment complex, or a smarter development? And, as far as the kids goes, in a development like this, there won't be a ton of kids (remember, it's upscale apartments).  And though there will definitely be some, we need to accomodate that.  Again, are we supposed to put up the "No Vancancy Sign", or worse, in my opinion, encourage development at the county line, forcing us to run infrastructure out 20 miles in the middle of nowhere.  It has been proven over and over that infill development is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than development way out.

3. The train - remember, some of the most expensive property in Jacksonville backs up to railroad tracks (San Marco, Ortega, Riverside).  Personally, after my backyard, I have some brush and trees that is maybe 15-20 feet deep, then a sidewalk, then Roosevelt Blvd, then CSX.  When a train goes by a 4AM, and blows the whistle, it is noisy, but not unbearable at all (and I live in an old house in Avondale).  I would have to imagine that a newer construction property would handle noise much better than my place.

[thelakelander]

When the kids come, they'll most likely move to a more kiddie friendly development or section of town.  The development is a TOD, so train noise should be expected and welcome, especially if some of that train noise comes from commuter trains.

As for the parking reduction, imo that's a good thing.  Our current parking requirements are one of the major factors that have transformed our community into a sprawling hell hole.  If we are ever going to get serious about better utilizing our land here, a reduction in required surface parking stalls is a must.

The major thing we need to be worried about with this development, is its impact on the surrounding community.  It should be designed in a manner that enhances the surrounding area without forcing tons of extra traffic down existing residential streets.

[Steve]

The major thing we need to be worried about with this development, is its impact on the surrounding community.  It should be designed in a manner that enhances the surrounding area without forcing tons of extra traffic down existing residential streets.

I completely agree - I haven't looked too tremendously cose at the exact details of this, but this could be a problem, and I agree that that isn't right.  However, good urban development can occurr mixed with low density single family

[ProjectMaximus]

I think Steve and Lake expressed my thoughts sufficiently. Obviously this complex, if filled to capacity, will not be entirely child-less, but in general the developers are targeting yuppies and empty nesters.

3) According to the article, they're targeting a demographic without children.

The drawings show the residential side as "multi-family."

Those up and comers will have cars and eventually, will have kids...

[Charles Hunter]

Regarding schools - are the nearby schools crowded now?  The School Board keeps telling us that part of their capacity problem is that the older schools closer to downtown have empty seats, while the suburban schools farthest from downtown are packed.  That's why they are looking at redistricting, to spread the enrollment.  So, what are the facts on the schools near this development?

[southerngirl]

Upscale apartments are already available at The Strand. The Jackson Sq apts will go from $700-$1500 --this type can already be found anywhere in Jax (especially near places where young up and comers are really working -- Southside, Gate Pkwy, etc.)

Lakelander said, "The development is a TOD, so train noise should be expected and welcome, especially if some of that train noise comes from commuter trains." Really... train noise will be "welcome?"  The vast majority likely won't find the horns and screeching wheels to be nostalgic, especially when they're stuck at the ancient/unsafe crossing at River Oaks, which I assume will be even less safe and more congested/blocked with additional traffic from commuter trains and additional development traffic.

Also, from what I hear, the TOD concept can live or die by the parking/traffic realities - and Jackson Sq. in my opinion hasn't confronted these issues realistically.

Has anyone considered that, today there are three major arterial inlets to Philips Hwy south less than 2/10 of a mile from the development's entrance?  Two I-95 off ramps and the Atlantic/Kings entrance to Philips (the one that makes the swing under 95 at St. Nicholas). All three of those major arteries are going to continue to dump traffic at the doorstep of this development. What happens when that traffic backs up onto 95?

My guess is they're thinking of diverting some of that traffic into the small neighborhoods off Atlantic and Philips -- Spring Park by Douglass Anderson HS, San Diego, River Oaks. These are barely two-lane streets today...are they going to widen them to accommodate the traffic realities of Jackson Square?

If they do widen the streets, they'll have to take 1/2 of the yards from the homes of these small streets, which means that all these new cars will be driving, in some instances, 15 feet from the living rooms of homes that have been in the neighborhood for 70 years. If this happens, there's the real feeling that this development -- while possibly removing some blight from a small pocket of Philips Hwy -- will be the demise of the existing small neighborhoods surrounding a new development.

Is this sort of "progress" worth killing these wonderful neighborhoods?

What can be done to ensure that development happens without making life miserable for the existing pioneers in River Oaks and Spring Park who for years have worked hard to establish this part of the urban core -- the homeowners who are already living there?

[thelakelander]

Upscale apartments are already available at The Strand. The Jackson Sq apts will go from $700-$1500 --this type can already be found anywhere in Jax (especially near places where young up and comers are really working -- Southside, Gate Pkwy, etc.)

We don't have any TOD pedestrian oriented type developments in the inner core.  These types of projects really do appeal to a certain segment of the market that the Strand, Southside condos/apartments, etc. don't.

Lakelander said, "The development is a TOD, so train noise should be expected and welcome, especially if some of that train noise comes from commuter trains." Really... train noise will be "welcome?"  The vast majority likely won't find the horns and screeching wheels to be nostalgic, especially when they're stuck at the ancient/unsafe crossing at River Oaks, which I assume will be even less safe and more congested/blocked with additional traffic from commuter trains and additional development traffic.

TODs are booming next to rail lines in our peer cities across America.  Their success is well proven.

Also, from what I hear, the TOD concept can live or die by the parking/traffic realities - and Jackson Sq. in my opinion hasn't confronted these issues realistically.

I agree.  Hopefully these issues will be further hatched out during their approval/permitting process.

Has anyone considered that, today there are three major arterial inlets to Philips Hwy south less than 2/10 of a mile from the development's entrance?  Two I-95 off ramps and the Atlantic/Kings entrance to Philips (the one that makes the swing under 95 at St. Nicholas). All three of those major arteries are going to continue to dump traffic at the doorstep of this development. What happens when that traffic backs up onto 95?

I seriously doubt this development will stimulate enough traffic to back up on to I-95.  However, if no transit is in place (I mean something more efficient than BRT), the TOD idea, then flies out of the window until we really get serious about rail.

My guess is they're thinking of diverting some of that traffic into the small neighborhoods off Atlantic and Philips -- Spring Park by Douglass Anderson HS, San Diego, River Oaks. These are barely two-lane streets today...are they going to widen them to accommodate the traffic realities of Jackson Square?

If Philips can handle the new Walmart, Lowes and BJs, it should be able to handle this development with no problem.  So, pushing traffic through areas like River Oaks should not have to be a priority for its implementation.

If they do widen the streets, they'll have to take 1/2 of the yards from the homes of these small streets, which means that all these new cars will be driving, in some instances, 15 feet from the living rooms of homes that have been in the neighborhood for 70 years. If this happens, there's the real feeling that this development -- while possibly removing some blight from a small pocket of Philips Hwy -- will be the demise of the existing small neighborhoods surrounding a new development.

Is this sort of "progress" worth killing these wonderful neighborhoods?

I seriously doubt a development of this size will result in the widening of single family home neighborhood streets.  If that's the case, then its not progress.

What can be done to ensure that development happens without making life miserable for the existing pioneers in River Oaks and Spring Park who for years have worked hard to establish this part of the urban core -- the homeowners who are already living there?

Simple. Implement commuter rail to make it a true TOD and push all vehicular traffic from this development to Philips Highway (also close the River Oaks railroad crossing).  This way, the neighborhoods around gain the benefit from having new retail nearby and higher property values, without having extra auto traffic coming through their streets.

[fsujax]

I have been reading the post from the folks who live in the neighborhood that runs behind this proposed development and it amazes me how they are balking at it. What would they rather have streetwalkers and closed down businesses or a thriving development that would actually help to increase thier property values and give them better access to transit and possibly retail.  Sometimes people amaze me at their shortsightedness.

[stug]

My Thoughts:

1.  This development is targeting a demographic that does not exist in Jacksonville:  The educated, college degreed young professional that moves to a city with a bunch of student loan debt, who could do without the extra expense of a car.  This doesn't exist here because it can't exist here - there is no transit.  However, this demographic does exist in other cities, and apparently is heating up already in charlotte as I understand.  Yes, people will have cars, but don't expect this development to occurr without some sort of transit element.

I agree with you completely! I think I belong to the closest thing this city has to this target demographic, but does that mean I would live in one of these apartments and ditch my car (which is, in fact, a huge expense) with the hope that a decent, reliable mass transit system will get off the ground ... hell no! Transit first, TOD later.