A New Look for Avondale's St. Johns Village Project

[thelakelander]

If you look at San Marco's new roundabouts, there are big pedestrian crossing signs, but the pedestrian has to wait until a car bothers to notice them. Not sure how well this would work for kids going to school.

The Jacksonville driver is a highly untrained one when it comes to noticing anything on the road that doesn't utilize at least four wheels. How are kids crossing the intersection now? I imagine that intersection (and many more) would benefit from the presence of big pedestrian crossing signs regardless of configuration.  Over time, they'll help modify driver behavior.

[cline]

I still believe in my heart of hearts that a roundabout is sorely needed at the Herschel/St Johns intersection.

I talked recently to a traffic engineer about whether a roundabout could work here, and he expressed concerns about pedestrian traffic to the school. Presently, traffic stops when the light turns red, giving students the chance to cross Herschel and St. Johns. With a traffic circle, the traffic, theoretically, doesn't stop unless it's compelled to yield to a car already in the circle.

If you look at San Marco's new roundabouts, there are big pedestrian crossing signs, but the pedestrian has to wait until a car bothers to notice them. Not sure how well this would work for kids going to school.

However, I do agree that the entire intersection needs rethinking.

A roundabout serves as a traffic calming device and helps to reduce speeds and conflict points, thus making an intersections safer by reducing crashes.  It is possible (and perhaps in this situation warranted) to install a pedestrian actuated signal that would cause cars to stop so that peds can cross the road.  This may be one of those situations.

[Captain Zissou]

When I lived at the Commander, they hadn't yet shrunk the lanes on St Johns and cars went pretty fast through those S curves b/c they could use all of the entire width of that very wide road.  Late at night, you could hear motorcyles tear through that fun little stretch of road as fast as possible.  It literally reminded me of the race tracks at Roebling Road and Road Atlanta...

My bad Field. I have many fond memories of late nights at the old curves. I'd even get my Grand Cherokee a little sideways back in the day. If I got my hands on something faster or more nimble, forget about it!! Yes, I realize it was unsafe and inconsiderate, but that's what you get for putting a racetrack in Avondale! Between the curves and the bump on Edgewood, it was a veritable autopark in the historic district!!!

[Cheshire Cat]

A new design for the St. John's Town Center has been panned by RAP founder Wayne Wood.  The developer however believes he has come up with a good downsized plan. (link below quote will take you to full story)

l
The developer of the proposed project at Fishweir Creek in Avondale has filed his plans with the city. Wednesday, he's holding a meeting to show them to the neighborhood.
Mike Balanky, owner of developer Chase Properties, first unveiled his plans in March for the $40 million project, that would replace the Commander Apartments and the St. Johns Village shopping strip on St. Johns Avenue. The first figures for the new project, also called St. Johns Village, were 350 apartments and 42,000 square feet of retail space. At the time, Balanky said he had no plans for something that large. Since then, there have been a series of community meetings and size reductions.
Last week, he submitted plans with the city for 260 apartments and 10,000 square feet of retail. Two of the apartment buildings are four stories, the third is three stories.
It goes before the city's planning commission on Oct. 24 and the land use and zoning committee on Nov. 5, said Steve Diebenow, Balanky's attorney on the project.
That would require no changes in land use, Diebenow said, but it would require a Planned Unit Development zoning change simply because there are changes to the last approval for the parcel under previous developers.
If it's passed through both panels, it would go to the full City Council on Nov. 12, he said.
But first, there's this evening's meeting at 6:30 p.m. in the auditorium at Florida State College at Jacksonville's Kent campus.
"We think we've complied with everything that they've asked us," Balanky said. "The overlay, land use, height. There are still people who want less density. But the numbers just don't work for us. We think we're where we need to be."
But Wayne Wood, founder of Riverside Avondale Preservation, strongly disagreed.
"We are by no means satisfied," he said. "It's out of scale not only for the neighborhood, but for what the comprehensive plan allows. Just because his attorney says it meets the plan doesn't make it true.
"We want people in the neighborhood to realize how monstrous this really is."
Wood also said he wasn't impressed that Balanky had reduced the project's size.
"He scaled it down from something that was impossible to build to begin with to make it look generous," he said. "But he's not even at the starting point yet."


Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-10-08/story/fishweir-creek-development-scaled-down-rap-founder-still-says-its#ixzz2hBElKzFs[/quote

[Cheshire Cat]

I wonder what "scale" would be acceptable?  I am not sure what formula Wayne is using to determine scale.  Anyone know?

[thelakelander]

Who knows?  If the article is correct in that the new plan requires no changes in land use, the developer is essentially building what's allowed under the overlay.

[Scrub Palmetto]

It's very difficult for me not to see the "scale" opposition as a red herring. This 3- and 4-story development is "monstrous?" And what has the 16-story Commander Apartments done all these years, cause people to perish upon its sight?

As for the retail, it's 10,000 sq ft planned, but isn't the current St. Johns Village Center 40,000 sq ft? If I'm not missing something, and that's a loss of 30,000 sq ft, then I guess the opposition is mostly because of the residential portion?

Density would be impacted, but density is a tricky thing, because it depends entirely on how big or how small of an area you're looking at. It also has a tendency to defy people's assumptions that are usually based on visual evidence (the visual bulk of buildings, for instance) or the real impact of greatly increasing density on only a small piece of land.

Let's say you're looking at a 12 block neighborhood and you triple the population or housing density on one of them. A 200% increase. There were 35 people on the block, now there are 105. That sounds like a big impact, right? But the density and the population of the 12 blocks only increased by 17%. There were 420 people, now there are 490. Now it sounds like a much smaller impact.

Using assumptions of 94% occupancy rate and 2 people per unit, the 90 units lost from Commander and the 260 gained from this development would increase the immediate 0.21-square-mile census block group from 4,338 people per square mile (ppsm) to 5,834 ppsm, or the raw numbers from 927 people to 1,247. This is looking at the smallest and most impacted geographic unit I could, but even so, 5,800 ppsm is not high. It's a common density reached by car-oriented, American suburban subdivisions, even.

Here's another aid in perspective. This is a census block group in Miami that has 467 housing units, 452 of which (97%) are detached, single-family houses. 1,540 people. It has a population density of 12,044 ppsm, more than twice what the Avondale block group would be after this development. Now, this is partly achieved through larger than average household sizes, which is typical of places with a high percentage of foreign-born population like Miami. However, adjusting it to the national average household size, the block group would still have 9,459 ppsm. This gives an idea of how much of the density is attributed to the small lot sizes common in Miami, usually hidden from street view, because they're small front-to-back, not side-to-side (the narrow houses of Springfield with deep backyards being a contrasting example.)

The point of this wordy post being: the houses in the link above visually give a sense of a quiet, low-density neighborhood, while the numbers show a different picture. In the reverse, NIMBYs usually get bent out of shape over something that LOOKS in their minds like it will bring inappropriate numbers of people, vehicles, and levels of activity, even when the numbers again show a different picture. Personally, I think the numbers are pretty darn important. I don't think people would care half as much about projects like this if they truly thought its greatest impacts were visual. It's the assumptions about what the visual change is accompanied by that fires up NIMBYism as much as anything, and density is one thing assumptions aren't too good with.

EDIT: fixed a couple of typos.

[mtraininjax]

This may be a new round of WLA appeals since their Mellow conquest is all but dead. I like Dr. Wood, but I don't see what the fuss is, as the plans look to follow the overlay and the drawings look appealing compared to what is there now.

[Cheshire Cat]

It's very difficult for me not to see the "scale" opposition as a red herring. This 3- and 4-story development is "monstrous?" And what has the 16-story Commander Apartments done all these years, cause people to perish upon its sight?

As for the retail, it's 10,000 sq ft planned, but isn't the current St. Johns Village Center 40,000 sq ft? If I'm not missing something, and that's a loss of 30,000 sq ft, then I guess the opposition is mostly because of the residential portion?

Density would be impacted, but density is a tricky thing, because it depends entirely on how big or how small of an area you're looking it. It also has a tendency to defy people's assumptions that are usually based on visual evidence (the visual bulk of buildings, for instance) or the real impact of greatly increasing density on only a small piece of land.

Let's say you're looking at a 12 block neighborhood and you triple the population or housing density on one of them. A 200% increase. There were 35 people on the block, now there are 105. That sounds like a big impact, right? But the density and the population of the 12 blocks only increased by 17%. There were 420 people, now there are 490. Now it sounds like a much smaller impact.

Using assumptions of 94% occupancy rate and 2 people per unit, the 90 units lost from Commander and the 260 gained from this development would increase the immediate 0.21-square-mile census block group from 4,338 people per square mile (ppsm) to 5,834 ppsm, or the raw numbers from 927 people to 1,247. This is looking at the smallest and most impacted geographic unit I could, but even so, 5,800 ppsm is not high. It's a common density reached by car-oriented, American suburban subdivisions, even.

Here's another aid in perspective. This is a census block in Miami that has 467 housing units, 452 of which (97%) are detached, single-family houses. 1,540 people. It has a population density of 12,044 ppsm, more than twice what the Avondale block group would be after this development. Now, this is partly achieved through larger than average household sizes, which is typical of places with a high percentage of foreign-born population like Miami. However, adjusting it to the national average household size, the block group would still have 9,459 ppsm. This gives an idea of how much of the density is attributed to the small lot sizes common in Miami, usually hidden from street view, because they're small front-to-back, not side-to-side (the narrow houses of Springfield with deep backyards being a contrasting example.)

The point of this wordy post being: the houses in the link above visually give a sense of a quiet, low-density neighborhood, while the numbers show a different picture. In the reverse, NIMBYs usually get bent out of shape over something that LOOKS in their minds like it will bring inappropriate numbers of people, vehicles, and levels of activity, even when the numbers again show a different picture. Personally, I think the numbers are pretty darn important. I don't think people would care half as much about projects like this if they truly thought its greatest impacts were visual. It's the assumptions about what the visual change is accompanied by that fires up NIMBYism as much as anything, and density is one thing assumptions aren't too good with.

Very good points.  I am very appreciative of Wayne Woods understanding and love of history and preservation in Jacksonville.  Love his books as well.  That being said, I don't understand the drama or scale issue either.  Of course on the surface it provides something to point to as a problem for Avondale, but as stated above we have lived with a rather shabby looking sizable apartment complex as well as an under performing and an unattractive shopping center with entrance and exit problems.  At this point it is looking to me like there are folks who just have a need to impose their views about development on everyone else as well as a drive to drive away people who want to improve their own investments and in the process make the area more attractive and vibrant.  This is a fight not needing to be had with an investor who is working within the parameters of what may be built on a property he owns.  You need to step back Wayne and take a hard look at this reality and ask is this really about what is right for Avondale or is it actually about imposing a personal take on what is right for Avondale?  I think the latter is the case and that this is more about exerting control that has gotten a bit out of hand lately. I own and live here too as do other family members and friends and frankly don't agree with the your scale argument.  What we currently have is far inferior than what is being proposed in my view and the view of others.

[Stephen]

I am just looking forward to driving or kayaking by the site and not having to look at that horrible looking Commander Apts ..Why does Dr.Woods think he runs this neighborhood ?The developer of this project has appeared to be almost bending over backwards to please the neighbors..To be honest I liked the original concept with a higher tower.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Monstrous.  Out of Scale.  Generalizations. 

And is this RAP speaking through their founder, or just Dr. Wood speaking as a resident? 

Has he suggested any specific changes that he feels should be made or just make it smaller and less dense?

[fsujax]

and what does he consider that ugly tower to be? I do not see how this development is any worse than what currently exist there today.

[Stephen]

Is he going to derail this project which is a hell of a lot better than what is there now? How do these people get such power? This is why I was asking the same question about RAP last week..Mellow Mushroom is going to be great..but they sure wet their pants about it.

[Cheshire Cat]

I am just looking forward to driving or kayaking by the site and not having to look at that horrible looking Commander Apts ..Why does Dr.Woods think he runs this neighborhood ?The developer of this project has appeared to be almost bending over backwards to please the neighbors..To be honest I liked the original concept with a higher tower.

Because he is the founder of RAP and over time has learned that RAP can be used to promote or attack an issue in our community.  I had long been a member of RAP and have supported much of their agenda when it comes to keeping the structure and fabric of the community intact.  I know RAP folks currently on the board as well as past members and leadership.  Wayne Wood is well known in the community and in Jacksonville and has done much to make it better and preserve it's history.  From his books to his creative ideas for things like the Riverside Arts Market.  Wayne in many ways has long been one of Jacksonville's cool kids and as a result some people do not want to appear to be in opposition to him on an issue and remain quiet cause, well Avondale is it's own world in many ways.  The back side of not speaking up is that Mr. Wood can also rally the troops and many will follow along, cause well he is Wayne Wood, the cool kid.  lol   Again, I respect and like Wayne but he was already quoted as saying if the developer did not fall into line with "his" views of what the property owner should do with his own dang property, inside what the zoning overlays require he would dig in and do everything in his power to stop the development from going forward unless he i.e. RAP got its way.  This makes it clear to me at least that this is about a stand off based in a personal view of the community.  While RAP has and continues to do many good things and I support those things, I think both Wayne Wood and RAP need to remember that their organization does not speak for everyone in Jacksonville and that in some ways it has now become obstructionist in it's endeavors as opposed to helpful and that is not a good thing.  Now I know my words are going to annoy some RAP followers and that is not my intent.  My intent is to point out that what one group may feel they do in the best interest of the community may simply be in the best interest of some in that they are using their influence in the group to impose their personal view of what Avondale is and should remain on the entire community and that is a problem.  When we see things like the all out attack on a business man and his idea like "Mellow Mushroom" and now the man proposing a new plan for his own property that is within what is legally allowed we are seeing a group that has lost sight of the reality that they are part of the community not leaders of the community which some of them see themselves as.  Perspective has been lost. 

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

Yes,  A full 'scale' replica of Tara.

Wouldn't Sean Penn's character's spread in "Carlito's Way" be more appropriate....  considering the waterfront parcel overlooking the city skyline?