Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

[ormolu611]

It is a townhouse on Bull street from our neighboring city to the North, Savannah.

[Steve]

The Main Street "pocket park" really irritates me more than any other examples provided. Walking by it the other day, it quickly becomes apparent that it is completely useless. It is as if it is designed to be looked at and not actually used for anything. What were they thinking with this one?

I think their thought was that they had a vacant half lot used for library construction, and a park was easy to do.

[urbanlibertarian]

The had DOT money to spend and they used on something that drive-by voters could see.

[thelakelander]

The DOT money had to be spent on Main Street.  The park money came from the tree mitigation fund.  So if they wanted to, they could have spent the DOT money fixing up the street and leaving the site like it was and make a little money by selling it back to the private sector.

[nestliving]

I am all for new development but in my opinion 1661 Riverside Ave is not really a good example of "Urban Infill" like the article states. Maybe "good for Jacksonville" but not good for urban development. To me this project was constructed with a very suburban mindset.

1. The retail spaces are set back too far from the street which makes them not very visible to the passerby's. The location of these parcels could of attracted some great retail had they been more visible and closer to the street.

2. The retail spaces are separated by grass and gardens which potential customers have to walk through to get to the shops. The sidewalk in front of the stores is also far too narrow.

3. The sidewalks don't line up when crossing May St (I think it's May St?) forcing you to either cross the road or walk on the grass. (Why is there grass there anyway?)

Besides that, It destroyed a beautiful building designed by one of Jacksonville's most significant architects. One which I think could of been restored to a historic landmark and became a real destination for the area.





Cheers,

Shaan

www.nest-living.com

[Steve]

I am all for new development but in my opinion 1661 Riverside Ave is not really a good example of "Urban Infill" like the article states. Maybe "good for Jacksonville" but not good for urban development. To me this project was constructed with a very suburban mindset.

1. The retail spaces are set back too far from the street which makes them not very visible to the passerby's. The location of these parcels could of attracted some great retail had they been more visible and closer to the street.

2. The retail spaces are separated by grass and gardens which potential customers have to walk through to get to the shops. The sidewalk in front of the stores is also far too narrow.

3. The sidewalks don't line up when crossing May St (I think it's May St?) forcing you to either cross the road or walk on the grass. (Why is there grass there anyway?)

Besides that, It destroyed a beautiful building designed by one of Jacksonville's most significant architects. One which I think could of been restored to a historic landmark and became a real destination for the area.

I'm totally with you on #3 (it's actually Oak St) - it irritates me every time I walk through it.  #2 is also an issue, but one that I think people deal with.  I'm not sure what you mean about #1.

As far as destroying Hardwicks building, frankly I thought it was a very suburban oriented building with the parking lining the streets, and very difficult for pedestrian access.

[RiversideGator]

1, 2 and 3 are correct but saving Hardwick's old structure??  That thing was ghastly.   

It was a huge improvement for the neighborhood when this eyesore and that of the old Riverside Hospital bit the dust. 

I think the bottom line is that there are some (correctable) flaws with 1661 but, on the whole, it is an improvement and an asset to the neighborhood.

[cline]

1, 2 and 3 are correct but saving Hardwick's old structure??  That thing was ghastly.

Agreed.  The old building was awful.  While 1661 isn't perfect, its a lot better than most of the stuff they're building around Jax.

[nestliving]

Ghastly in Design or Condition?

I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.

The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.


Cheers,

Shaan

nest-living.com

[thelakelander]

Ghastly in Design or Condition?

Ghastly parking lot that separated the building from the sidewalk, offering no connectivity between it and the urban environment around it.

The Hardwick Building was a suburban design placed in the middle of an urban area.  Imo, that era represented the Dark Ages of Urban Jacksonville development (1950's-1970's) as the beginning of Jax going from a pedestrian oriented walkable city to one that values automobiles and asphalt parking lots over people and the environment.

As for the architectural style, a lot of people don't like Moderism, but at least it was unique.  We should be embarrassed with the amount of crap we are putting up today.

[RiversideGator]

Ghastly in Design or Condition?

Both.  It was a truly awful structure with few redeeming qualities.

I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.

It was an inappropriate structure for the site the day it was built and did not fit into the context of the area well.  That area was never suburban in the sense that San Jose Blvd is.  It was a fairly dense area from the beginning.  So, the design of the building was a step back in terms of land use.  I am glad it is gone and we can always appreciate it in memory.   

The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.

I seriously cannot envision how this structure was the highest and best use for this parcel.  Sure, it could have been rehabbed and reused, but it was like an empty hole of lifelessness compared to what it is now.

[ProjectMaximus]

Ghastly in Design or Condition?

I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.

The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.


Cheers,

Shaan

nest-living.com

Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.

As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...

[nestliving]

Ghastly in Design or Condition?

As for the architectural style, a lot of people don't like Moderism, but at least it was unique.  We should be embarrassed with the amount of crap we are putting up today.

I would have to say that Modernism is much more popular in this city than preservation.

[thelakelander]

Neither seems to be popular to me, but preservation is an afterthought in Jacksonville.

[jason_contentdg]

Ghastly in Design or Condition?

I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.

The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.


Cheers,

Shaan

nest-living.com

Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.

As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...

Maybe it's proper for an Australian to say "could of"...I don't know.  The grammar doesn't really upset me as much, obviously.