Metro Jacksonville Rail Plan Already Spurring Development?

[cline]

I sincerely hope all of you who believe this will be done right are right.

As far as the neighborhood having made up its mind -- while there does seem to be a pretty unified voice about traffic impact (on River Oaks, Lorimier, Dunsford), there's certainly not a clear majority that San Marco is completely against the development going in there. But just like if they were putting the BIGGEST DEVELOPMENT IN JAX in your neighborhood, you'd want to have some input and be heard.  That's what the River Oaks/San Marco "community" is doing.  Asking to be heard.

Again, if the developer and his legal representation had listened more to the individual neighbors and been honest about traffic impact (with a serious face, they told the neighborhood that their traffic studies indicated there would only be an additional 50 cars/day on River Oaks Road -- 900 apartments +  retail/commercial and only 50 cars a day, right), this would probably not be as snarly as it is.

Instead of catching more flies with honey, their approach appears to have been to swat them away again and again. There's still time for them to do the right thing -- and the neighborhood is hopeful they will.

Since you seem to be against the development as it stands, I would be interested to hear what infill development you and the neighborhood envision for this specific piece of land?  What would feel would be acceptable? 

[southerngirl]

I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

Remember, the impact from the development that was there -- a car dealership -- was minimal to the neighborhood. This development is going to be more dense, so the traffic impact must be addressed honestly, without trying to make everyone believe that there won't BE any traffic b/c it's a TOD. The TOD isn't there yet, so there will be cars. And lots of them. The neighboring streets weren't built to handle that traffic and shouldn't be forced to.

The developers would be go a long way with the neighbors if they would support the call to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks Road and would actively request that the City put traffic calming measures on the other streets that, unfortunately, feed to St. Augustine -- Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, Inwood Terrace.

[cline]

I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

Would you be open to any residential?

[thelakelander]

I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

It appears, there are some things that nearby residents will like, but its coming along with a large number of residential units.  Its just a vertical mix of uses instead of spread out.  It will have a ton of retail, according to the site plan and PUD application.  I don't know about a traditional Publix type store, but it looks like it will have restaurants and a Walgreens/CVS type pharmacy.  

Remember, the impact from the development that was there -- a car dealership -- was minimal to the neighborhood. This development is going to be more dense, so the traffic impact must be addressed honestly, without trying to make everyone believe that there won't BE any traffic b/c it's a TOD. The TOD isn't there yet, so there will be cars. And lots of them. The neighboring streets weren't built to handle that traffic and shouldn't be forced to.

The key is too determine where traffic will come from.  Its also possibly by design, to create a situation where the majority of traffic travels on certain streets, as opposed to others.  For example, a right-in/right out or direct access to St. Augustine Road (as opposed to River Oaks) would reduce the amount on River Oaks, etc.)

The developers would be go a long way with the neighbors if they would support the call to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks Road and would actively request that the City put traffic calming measures on the other streets that, unfortunately, feed to St. Augustine -- Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, Inwood Terrace.

Is it possible to keep the River Oaks crossing open, if street calming measures were taken and if there was no access to/from River Oaks Road?  Or is the railroad crossing a make or break issue?

[tufsu1]

I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

Remember, the impact from the development that was there -- a car dealership -- was minimal to the neighborhood. This development is going to be more dense, so the traffic impact must be addressed honestly, without trying to make everyone believe that there won't BE any traffic b/c it's a TOD. The TOD isn't there yet, so there will be cars. And lots of them. The neighboring streets weren't built to handle that traffic and shouldn't be forced to.

The developers would be go a long way with the neighbors if they would support the call to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks Road and would actively request that the City put traffic calming measures on the other streets that, unfortunately, feed to St. Augustine -- Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, Inwood Terrace.

It seems that one of your biggest concerns is traffic....yet you want more retail...and even mention a Target!

FYI....the 900 apartments would likely generate around 500 trips in the PM peak hour....the 200,000 sf of office will generate around 300 trips....and the 150,000 sf of general retail will generate about 600 trips (and the grocery/CVS type retail you mentioned generates even more trips than general retail)....as you can see, the retail proposed would have more trips than the residential....and you want a Target too (Super Target's these days are usually around 200,000 sf)!

Now I do understand that some of the retail uses you have proposed would be neighborhood serving and might not yield a significant increase in "new trips"....but the same could be said for the proposed mixed use development...as stated above, it could generate 1400+/- total trips in the peak hour...but after acounting for internal capture (trips within the development) as well as pass-by (trips already driving past the project today), the "net new trips" would likely be less 900.

As for the developer stating that 50 additional cars would use River Oaks each day, they may have meant 50 cars in the PM peak hour (usually how traffic impacts are measured)....that's less than 1 per minute!

[southerngirl]

I think the neighborhood would be open to some residential -- just not the density they're talking about. At most, a 50/50 split (50% residential, 50% retail/commercial) would be the most that the neighbors would like.

Lakelander -- they're talking 90% residential, 10% retail -- not sure I can agree with your assessment that that is a lot of retail.

The River Oaks crossing closure is a big deal and, at least for the River Oaks community, the reason we're so adamant about this. The safety issues on River Oaks without this development today are a problem -- this is a seriously substandard crossing there today, with a 90 degree turn and very limited visibility for cars or trains. A COJ-sponsored study in 2006 recommended its closure -- that was BEFORE any of this additional potential traffic was even being considered.

Traffic calming measures wouldn't be safe on River Oaks because of 1) legally parked cars on River Oaks that make the road a one-laner, 2) the traffic light at the Hendricks end and 3) the existing crossing -- if there were a backup at one of those ends because of traffic after a long/slow train comes through, the traffic calming measures (speed bumps) would create bigger safety concerns.

Also -- "incenting" traffic to come into/out of the development via Philips only is fine, but if River Oaks still has an active crossing, the traffic will still use it heavily. We see how many people love that cut-through and use it ALL day now. What in the world makes anyone think that traffic going to the development won't come down River Oaks, take a left onto Philips and another left into the development. And vice versa on the return route.  

[tufsu1]

I think the neighborhood would be open to some residential -- just not the density they're talking about. At most, a 50/50 split (50% residential, 50% retail/commercial) would be the most that the neighbors would like.

please read my post above...I don't think you understand what 50/50 could mean....for example, what if the development had 500 units plus 500,000 sf of non-res (200 office, 300 retail)....that would generate about 1750 trips (vs. the 1400 in the current scenario).

it seems clear to me that traffic is not your big issue....having apartments (read lower-class people) adjacent to your neighborhood is.

[southerngirl]

Traffic has been our number one issue for years BEFORE this development and still is today.

The question of what goes into the development, is a secondary concern, but a legitimate issue for anyone who lives in this area. 

Ask yourself this -- if this were YOUR neighborhood and you had a choice or voice in what would be developed in YOUR neighborhood, what would you choose or ask for? 

Don't try to slough this off on some exaggeration of my comment about the cost of the apartments. This isn't about class -- trust me, I'm one of the dying breed of middle class people in this world. This is about securing the traffic safety of our neighborhood and doing our best to ensure that the neighborhood we have all worked hard to build doesn't get sold out to some developer who got a big piece of land on a bad highway and didn't do the best with it.

[Coolyfett]

I think the neighborhood would be open to some residential -- just not the density they're talking about. At most, a 50/50 split (50% residential, 50% retail/commercial) would be the most that the neighbors would like.

please read my post above...I don't think you understand what 50/50 could mean....for example, what if the development had 500 units plus 500,000 sf of non-res (200 office, 300 retail)....that would generate about 1750 trips (vs. the 1400 in the current scenario).

it seems clear to me that traffic is not your big issue....having apartments (read lower-class people) adjacent to your neighborhood is.

Surely with a development like this it wouldn't be low income apartments. I have never seen a situation like that before. I don't think the 50/50 is a good percent, but 90/10 is also a lil weird.....maybe 70/30. That would be a cool percentage imo. You are going to have traffic regardless if it is residence or business. BUT if a Skyway Station is really going over there, it would only generate more foot traffic and less car traffic.

[tufsu1]

Surely with a development like this it wouldn't be low income apartments. I have never seen a situation like that before. I don't think the 50/50 is a good percent, but 90/10 is also a lil weird.....maybe 70/30. That would be a cool percentage imo. You are going to have traffic regardless if it is residence or business. BUT if a Skyway Station is really going over there, it would only generate more foot traffic and less car traffic.[/color]

Don't pay too much attention to the 90/10 mix....the general premise in real estate is you need between 20 and 50 sf of commercial services for each residential unit....so the 900 units would generate the need for between 18,000 and 45,000 square feet....the developer is proposing 150,000....so clearly this is a heavy dose of retail already.

[tufsu1]

Ask yourself this -- if this were YOUR neighborhood and you had a choice or voice in what would be developed in YOUR neighborhood, what would you choose or ask for? 

Yes, I would be very interested...but as someone who has also chosen to live in the urban core, this is exactly the kind of project I would want in my neighborhood!

[Ocklawaha]

Well if the Skyway did go there, and the whole thing fell into deep disrepair, at least the hookers would have a safe way to travel from downtown to the north end of Philips.

But then, so would the thousands of daily commuters that jam the bridges at rush hour.

Bottom line? If the Jackson Square folks and the JTA sink that kind of bucks into this, the whole area will see a revival, one that will sweep Philips clean and jump start St. Nicholas too.

OCKLAWAHA

[JeffreyS]

I hope the community won't just dig in it's heals and decide to try and kill this before the first public meeting.

[Charles Hunter]

Would closing the River Oaks RR Crossing erase the neighborhood concerns over the mix of development at Jackson Square? (dumb name, btw, this ain't N'awlens)

[Ocklawaha]

development at Jackson Square? (dumb name, btw, this ain't N'awlens)

Not N'awlens, is right, however this IS OLD HICKORYS TOWN! He may have never slept here, but he got to St. Augustine before the era of bridges. Maybe on the old Tallahassee-St. Augustine trail, but an easier crossing one direction or the other would have been in downtown JACKSONVILLE.

He never hung out much in N'awlens either, twice as I recall, once as an "Indian fighter" the other as leader of a ragtag army that sent the Britt's packing. Down here, chasing Indians, and deciding without orders that "Spanish Florida" was arming them, he seized an entire republic and nearly started a World War. I'd say we have a leg up on the name JACKSON SQUARE.

Now on closing that crossing? GO FOR IT!

OCKLAWAHA