DDRB Workshop on Brooklyn Retail Project Today

[Tacachale]

Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Fuqua keeps saying they are having to practically beg the grocer to build there and they ( the organic grocer) specified it had to be  in the layout it is in. Do we take the retail, or tell them no, sorry, it needs to be more urban in design and risk them pulling out? This is sort of a tough one.

I don't agree.

First off, this development has highway access thanks to the nice new Forrest Street exit ramps completed a few years ago. 

Secondly, the demographics for this project draw directly from Riverside/Avondale/San Marco.  Try putting this site layout in San Marco or Riverside and see how easy it would be to get done.

Additionally, as Lakelander states... it would actually be beneficial to the developer to make simple adjustments to the site plan in order to be more contextually sensitive to a pedestrian scale environmnet.  For one, you would get more parking spaces (and they already applied for, and was denied, a request to increase the project's parking maximum). 

Lastly, I'll leave you with a real clear philosophy difference. 
Mayor Brown has instructed OED to 'get this done no matter what'. 

To contrast that, former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy was in town during One Spark.  He mentioned several times that if a developer didn't conform to the type of environment they wanted to create for downtown Pittsburgh, they simply would not approve the project.  He completely turned around that city, region and in particular their downtown.  Maybe we should take that kind of advice.

Here is a letter he wrote about a massive roadway project, contrast that with Mayor Brown's style and you'll see two distinct forms of 'leadership':

Commissioner James Dodaro
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
March 27, 1996

Dear Commissioner Dodaro:

I would like to thank you and your staff for taking the time to brief myself, my staff, and Councilmen Jim Ferlo and Bob O’Connor on the status of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project. The City fully recognizes the potential significance of this project not only in the revitalization of the Mon Valley but also in the continued vitality and growth of the City and region as a whole. While I appreciate the hard work and thorough analysis your staff has done on this project, I would like to reiterate what I consider four crucial issues that need to be addressed before the City can fully endorse the project.

•Riverfront Development (Glenwood Bridge to City Line): The riverfronts and Nine Mile Run represent two of this City’s most valuable assets. In no way can this project compromise these assets. The highway must be shown to be compatible with, if not advantageous to, both residential development in Nine Mile Run and the development of park and recreational uses along the riverfront from the Glenwood Bridge to the City line.
•Financial Feasibility: Through our ongoing internal planning and development efforts and work with SPRPC a number of City and regional transportation priorities have been identified. However, as you know, funds for advancing these priorities are becoming increasingly scarce. Consequently, funds for pursuing the Mon/Fayette and Southern Beltway projects must come from sources independent of the regular federal and state funds allocated to this region.
•Highway Design and Amenities: Given the physical scale and presence of this project, it must be shown to be a visual asset to it environment by using sensitive design treatments to minimize its presence and impacts and enhance its natural and physical environments.
•Community Support: In order for the City to be able to fully support this project, the concerns and needs of our neighborhoods must be addressed in a meaningful and thorough manner. The City’s ultimate position will be based in part on this project’s community implications and public deposition.
I believe these conditions are consistent with the City’s current position as understood by your staff. We look forward to working with your staff and insuring not only the project’s feasibility but also its supportability and contribution to the well-being of the City, Mon Valley and entire metropolitan region. Again thank you for your time and efforts.

Sincerely,
Tom Murphy, Mayor
City of Pittsburgh

See the difference?

However, that ship has sailed since the site plan is already approved.  Personally, I don't think decorating the facade is going to make much of a difference outside of raising the cost of the project for Fuqua.

Completey agree.  The site plan is the problem, not the facade. 

Why the DDRB did not choose to better address the site plan (which would have had very little impact on the pro forma cost of the project), but would make the developer change up the facade treatment (which does have an impact on cost) is really backwards.

It's really discouraging that the DDRB approved the site plan and is now quibbling over the facade. And that the developer is balking at even these minor changes after they've already gotten their suburban site plan approved. And that this is a plan that would never have happened in the more suburban neighborhoods of Riverside and San Marco, but got approved in the middle of the central business district. The city really dropped the ball on this one.

[AB904]

Just what the downtown needs .. a strip mall with parking lots ... this city has NO idea how to build a downtown that will attract people. This design leaves NO character. You have 220 Riverside that has a look ... who ever designed this Brooklyn Retail Project should take notice of the area and "TRY" to come up with something to compliment and not look out of place. Does anyone on DDRB have a clue about design?

[JayBird]

It's really discouraging that the DDRB approved the site plan and is now quibbling over the facade. And that the developer is balking at even these minor changes after they've already gotten their suburban site plan approved. And that this is a plan that would never have happened in the more suburban neighborhoods of Riverside and San Marco, but got approved in the middle of the central business district. The city really dropped the ball on this one.

+1
Agreed, but I've read this same statement on a lot of boards here that talk about DT development, aren't these meetings in public? Don't they allow for public comment, at least from the neighborhood?

[copperfiend]

Classic Jacksonville. Sad but predictable.

[thelakelander]

Just what the downtown needs .. a strip mall with parking lots ... this city has NO idea how to build a downtown that will attract people.

Out of all the exciting things happening in downtown right now, this is probably the largest storm cloud hanging over that area.  Our history has proven that for whatever reason, we struggle to build an environment that most equate with vibrancy.  Unfortunately, despite all the present day zeal, that issue hasn't changed.  If it does not, it won't matter how many ribbon cutting ceremonies we have over the next couple of years.  We'll still have an urban environment that will fail to reach its potential.

[Cheshire Cat]

Tell it lakelander!  The entire project is uninspired and born of thinking so sterile and out of touch with what is needed to create vibrancy it can honestly be called "pathetic".  All the bravado of the City and Mayor about the redevelopment of Brooklyn has resulted in an offering that falls far short of what should be celebrated as "taking Jacksonville to the next level"!  Apparently the next level is a level a step down.  How sad really.  Having said that, what can be done to derail this mess of a plan?

[thelakelander]

I don't know if it's worth to time or effort to put energy towards derailing this particular project.  This is just a result of a broken system that needs to be completely overhauled. 

In essence, it's no different from Parador's garage, JTA's Greyhound station, Main Street Pocket Park or the garages the city built a few years back. Any Tom, Dick or Harry that wants to apply for a variance to not meet the minimal guidelines has been granted that opportunity.

Just look next door to Fuqua's project.  The original apartment developer proposed something just as horrible that the DDRB eventually accepted.  I remember that developer using the same old tired lines that Fuqua has used, as a means to get the DDRB to lay on its back spread eagle style.  The only reason it has significantly improved was because a new developer with lots of experience in urban infill thought it sucked (which it did) and came with a revised plan that was significantly better.

Original DDRB approved Riverside Park project


Revised plan by new developer of Riverside park. This change would not have happened through the DDRB review process because we would have caved well before this configuration.


Pollack Shores new Steel House apartments project in downtown Orlando. We'll end up with something like this behind Fuqua's development, only because Pollack prefers this as opposed to the suburban product the original developer wanted and gained DDRB approval for.

[mbwright]

They don't try to create anything worthy, or unique, or interesting, or effective, because they know that mediocrity will be approved.

[Cheshire Cat]

You are correct about the system overhaul Ennis and I heartily agree.  I am afraid the reality is however, that the overhaul that is required is going to take time to be made manifest in that the struggles with politicians and developers will be many and arduous. The problem in the meantime is that millions of dollars in taxes as well as private investment are being spent to continue a legacy of bad design and planning.  I guess the question then becomes at what point is it "worth it" to say enough of the second rate planning that will result in projects we will live with for years to come.  Who is going to advocate for Brooklyn like we see folks advocate in Avondale when they are the least bit concerned about what is going to be built in our community?  Just wondering if the few remaining members of that community are happy about the plans.  I pose the question knowing that even if they are not, they might not be able to muster the political clout to make their views known and that I put directly on the back of the members of council put in office to represent the public.

[mbwright]

With few exceptions, since when has the city council represented the public?

[Jdog]

So the property sits on the Skyway path -- that's what a 200 million dollar investment? -- and is easily walkable to the future transit center, and we get this? 

It astounds and saddens me that both the use and positive feedback from expensive public transit assets can be so squandered. 

[Cheshire Cat]

So the property sits on the Skyway path -- that's what a 200 million dollar investment? -- and is easily walkable to the future transit center, and we get this? 

It astounds and saddens me that both the use and positive feedback from expensive public transit assets can be so squandered. 

This!

[thelakelander]

The planning process of this stuff is actually pretty damning, considering JTA is actively attempting to expand the Skyway in this project's immediate vicinity.  Maybe they just aren't being made available to the public, but I haven't seen one plan or elevation that illustrates where the Skyway will actually go and how this development integrates with it.  On the graphic above, the future Skyway's ROW is the green strip full of landscaping and trees, along Riverside Avenue.

It would be pretty ironic if a station ended up being built on Riverside Avenue, right in front of the grocery store's surface parking lot.  You'd end u with an urban street edge between Jackson and Stonewall, while all that suburban retail visibility to the main street would be lost.  The same would apply, if a station ended up in the front that CVS/Walgreens space (Retail-B).

Anyone know if the DDRB has inquired about how the Skyway would potentially connect its riders with this development?

[tufsu1]

Mayor Brown presents….another really big parking lot.

classic!

[JayBird]

The same would apply, if a station ended up in the front that CVS/Walgreens space (Retail-B).

When I looked at the pic this morning that was the first thing I thought for that space. I would imagine CVS bc closest one to that area I think is down Blanding at San Juan