Riverside’s Deluxe Laundry Building Condemned

[Adam White]

Once again confirming that too many in the RAP area want Oakleaf with old homes instead of the vibrancy that drew us to the area in The first place.

But there was a laundry there first? There's never been a bar/restaurant/whatever in that spot.

[fieldafm]

I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them.

That's the same fear mongering language that's been used by some opposed. The Local in Miramar is a mirror image of what was proposed in this building four years ago. To call that a 'live music bar', a 'nightclub in disguise' or many other terms used... is simply hyperbole. I can go get a coffee and omlet at The Local in the morning and see Mayor Curry sitting at the next table. In the evening, I can drink a cold-pressed juice and eat a vegan sandwhich while a family sits at the adjoining table drinking smoothies. Just because you can order a beer there as well, doesn't make it some nefarious, neighborhood-destroying bar.

Hell, the gym next door to the proposed Roost is open 24 hours. People that lift weights must all be steroid-abusing meatheads, right? And the speakers inside the gym are playing Metallica at 3am. So sounds like it's not a gym, but really a nightclub in disguise for drug abusers and hardcore death metal.

[Adam White]

I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them.

That's the same fear mongering language that's been used by some opposed. The Local in Miramar is a mirror image of what was proposed in this building four years ago. To call that a 'live music bar', a 'nightclub in disguise' or many other terms used... is simply hyperbole. I can go get a coffee and omlet at The Local in the morning and see Mayor Curry sitting at the next table. In the evening, I can drink a cold-pressed juice and eat a vegan sandwhich while a family sits at the adjoining table drinking smoothies. Just because you can order a beer there as well, doesn't make it some nefarious, neighborhood-destroying bar.

Hell, the gym next door to the proposed Roost is open 24 hours. People that lift weights must all be steroid-abusing meatheads, right? And the speakers inside the gym are playing Metallica at 3am. So sounds like it's not a gym, but really a nightclub in disguise for drug abusers and hardcore death metal.

Fear mongering? If you move into a house with a dry cleaner's across the road and then someone wants to turn it into a restaurant and bar that features live music, you'd be within your rights to not be chuffed about it. Especially as the area wasn't zoned for it when you moved in.

Good for you if you're into that sort of thing. It might just be that it doesn't appeal to everyone.

I never really thought about the "type of people" that would frequent the establishment, but that's probaby because that's not where my mind goes immediately when this sort of thing is proposed.

But, now that I know that you and Mayor Curry would frequent the place, I'm convinced it would draw the wrong sort of crowd to the area.

And Metallica isn't "hardcore death metal" whatever that is. It's best to stick to things you know something about (for example, coordinating your footwear with your t-shirt) if you want to be truly effective delivering snarky comments.

[fieldafm]

You got the personal attacks out of your system?  Feel better about your superiority now?

If so...

I think its important to realize that zoning isn't meant to ensure that only one type of business occupies a building until the end of time. Blockbuster Video stores, ice houses and photo labs aren't in widespread existence anymore. Just because there was an ice house across the street from you in 1948, doesn't mean that by 2019 you should expect not to have central heat and air, refrigerators and microwaves so that same ice house will still be delivering chunks of ice to keep your food from rotting.

The property in question has been a commercial use since 1923.

Neighborhoods, streets, residential real estate and commercial real estate evolve over time. On Oak Street, streetcar noises have been replaced by the noises of helicopters (considering the St Vincents helipad is a stone's throw away). A dry cleaners has been replaced by a gym. A hospital has been replaced with a Publix.

What's key in this case is context, which has remained the same. Oak Street between Margaret and King, was a streetcar corridor 100 years ago. Just like then, today it can be described as the most mixed use corridor that exists in Riverside. The street features offices, medical clinics, a storage yard for busses, retail stores (including restaurants), surface parking lots, a big-box grocery store, mixed-use buildings (retail on bottom with residential on top), single family homes, and multifamily homes. Single family homes are in the minority along this stretch of Oak.

Its reasonable to perhaps limit the hours that a guy with a string guitar can play music on the outdoor patio at night, or to ensure that a gigantic Seinfeld-esque Kenny Rogers Roasters neon sign doesn't blind you so that you can't get to sleep. What's not reasonable is ensuring that the building sit and rot because a few neighbors are opposed to ANY type of restaurant... which is the basis of the PROUD appeal. 

*I have lived on this street and the next street over in the past for over a four year period, have owned property a block away for even longer, use that gym almost daily, have eaten at The Local, have never used steroids and have gone to a Metallica concert. I'd like to think that makes me somewhat familiar with the context in question. Considering you live in a different continent, there are pictures of The Local in the article that disprove the characterization as a 'live music bar'.. which is just as hyperbolic as calling Snap Fitness a nightclub in disguise for drug abusers and hardcore death metal.

[Tacachale]

I don't blame the local residents for not wanting a live music bar next to/across the street from them.

That's the same fear mongering language that's been used by some opposed. The Local in Miramar is a mirror image of what was proposed in this building four years ago. To call that a 'live music bar', a 'nightclub in disguise' or many other terms used... is simply hyperbole. I can go get a coffee and omlet at The Local in the morning and see Mayor Curry sitting at the next table. In the evening, I can drink a cold-pressed juice and eat a vegan sandwhich while a family sits at the adjoining table drinking smoothies. Just because you can order a beer there as well, doesn't make it some nefarious, neighborhood-destroying bar.

Hell, the gym next door to the proposed Roost is open 24 hours. People that lift weights must all be steroid-abusing meatheads, right? And the speakers inside the gym are playing Metallica at 3am. So sounds like it's not a gym, but really a nightclub in disguise for drug abusers and hardcore death metal.

Fear mongering? If you move into a house with a dry cleaner's across the road and then someone wants to turn it into a restaurant and bar that features live music, you'd be within your rights to not be chuffed about it. Especially as the area wasn't zoned for it when you moved in.

Good for you if you're into that sort of thing. It might just be that it doesn't appeal to everyone.

I never really thought about the "type of people" that would frequent the establishment, but that's probaby because that's not where my mind goes immediately when this sort of thing is proposed.

But, now that I know that you and Mayor Curry would frequent the place, I'm convinced it would draw the wrong sort of crowd to the area.

And Metallica isn't "hardcore death metal" whatever that is. It's best to stick to things you know something about (for example, coordinating your footwear with your t-shirt) if you want to be truly effective delivering snarky comments.

A few points here. I think it's fair to say that the Roost would have a bar and have live music. However, there were a number of conditions the owners agreed to in the rezoning process in order to reduce the level to which it would impact the neighbors. I didn't get into it as the focus here is on the condemnation of the building. There is to be no service on the patio after 5 pm (which seems excessive), music only inside and only until 10 pm, and no TVs anywhere on the property, of all things. It's also going to close by 11 or 12. That's not really what I think of when I hear "bar", let alone "nightclub", which is something I've heard thrown around repeatedly.

Mike, I agree that the Local in Miramar seems to be essentially what the Roost would/will be, other than the Roost having a liquor license (and therefore needing 150 seats). I haven't heard of any pushback there, and it also had to get some variances.

[Adam White]

My point is that I can appreciate why some local homeowners wouldn't want a restaurant or bar or whatever there. I don't understand why so many automatically vilify them solely for their opposition.

As I said earlier, it's a shame that the building has been condemned and it would be nice to see something there. Functioning neighborhoods benefit from a variety of businesses. While I appreciate that it might be difficult for a number of businesses to survive in this spot (including, it would seem, a dry cleaner) I don't get why the only acceptable business to many is another restaurant or bar.

But yeah, I'm "fear mongering".

So yes, I moved away from Jax over 12 years ago. But I lived a block away from that location for years. And I lived a street over, too. I didn't own property, so I guess you win or whatever and I don't have such a nuanced understanding of the "context" as you.

But anyway, living "in" a different continent isn't something that automatically should invalidate one's opinion.

[fieldafm]

I don't get why the only acceptable business to many is another restaurant or bar.

That's an economic argument.  The building is in bad shape. What kind of user, in today's market, is going to have the kind of return that would justify spending more than $1million on renovating these buildings?  It's not going to be a flower shop or a seamstress. For 13 years, anyone else that's sniffed at this building has come back realizing that their proposed use would simply not be economically feasible.

That's why the underlying zoning does not reflect the economic realities of today's market, and why a rezoning is reasonable. 

If your goals really revolve around historic preservation and ensuring that a compact, walkable neighborhood remains intact and thriving (as opposed to decaying buildings, or worse, more demolitions)... then I don't think its reasonable whatsoever to stick your head in the sand and issue blanket "no's" against a restaurant.  Particularly for an investor that lives in the neighborhood, has the capacity to invest the money needed to rehab, has proven that their product would be well used and contribute to a neighborhood's quality of life (see The Local), and one that has already agreed to reasonable (and some unreasonable) conditions to ensure that they are a good neighbor (There is to be no service on the patio after 5 pm, music only inside and only until 10 pm, and no TVs anywhere on the property, of all things. It's also going to close by 11 or 12.)

[Adam White]

I don't get why the only acceptable business to many is another restaurant or bar.

That's an economic argument.  The building is in bad shape. What kind of user, in today's market, is going to have the kind of return that would justify spending more than $1million on renovating these buildings?  It's not going to be a flower shop or a seamstress.

That's why the underlying zoning does not reflect the economic realities of today's market. 

Frankly, if your goals really revolve around historic preservation and ensuring that a compact, walkable neighborhood remains intact and thriving (as opposed to decaying buildings, or worse, more demolitions)... then I don't think its reasonable whatsoever to stick your head in the sand and issue blanket "no's" against a restaurant.  Particularly for an investor that lives in the neighborhood, has the capacity to invest the money needed to rehab, has proven that their product would be well used and contribute to a neighborhood's quality of life (see The Local), and one that has already agreed to reasonable (and some unreasonable) conditions to ensure that they are a good neighbor.

Blanket no's? I would agree that's not helpful. But at the same time, dismissing all concerns raised by local residents as "sticking one's head in the sand" or being opposed to having a walkable and vibrant neighborhood is specious, at best. And it's easy to say it would contribute to the neighborhood's quality of life - but I reckon those who opposed it were a bit more worried about their quality of life. And while the people behind this project agreed to all sorts of conditions, that doesn't mean they wouldn't start ignoring them once they were established in the space. Or that they wouldn't try to get them changed later. Once the business is there, it's very difficult to do anything about it.

In any event, it may have worked. But the process is the process and just as a few 'investors' can decide they want to propose a restaurant in a particular place, those who live in that place can decide whether or not they wish to support it. It's a dialogue and ultimately a decision has to be made. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose - but it's no reason to throw your toys out of the pram just because some local homeowners didn't get onboard.

In a democratic society, people get to petition the government. It's not just the white knights with their bags of cash who get to decide what's best for everyone else. Or it shouldn't be. Maybe the playing field should be more level? Perhaps - but at the same time, I think it's fair to argue that the people who have to live around a business are the ones who are ultimately going to have to shoulder the negative externalities associated with that business (assuming there are any).

As I've been saying this entire time, I can see why some locals opposed this particular project. But maybe someone will come up with something that everyone can get behind. But yeah - if there are people who are going to say "no" to any idea, then I can't see much future for this space.

[fieldafm]

I don't get why the only acceptable business to many is another restaurant or bar.

That's an economic argument.  The building is in bad shape. What kind of user, in today's market, is going to have the kind of return that would justify spending more than $1million on renovating these buildings?  It's not going to be a flower shop or a seamstress.

That's why the underlying zoning does not reflect the economic realities of today's market. 

Frankly, if your goals really revolve around historic preservation and ensuring that a compact, walkable neighborhood remains intact and thriving (as opposed to decaying buildings, or worse, more demolitions)... then I don't think its reasonable whatsoever to stick your head in the sand and issue blanket "no's" against a restaurant.  Particularly for an investor that lives in the neighborhood, has the capacity to invest the money needed to rehab, has proven that their product would be well used and contribute to a neighborhood's quality of life (see The Local), and one that has already agreed to reasonable (and some unreasonable) conditions to ensure that they are a good neighbor.

In a democratic society, people get to petition the government. It's not just the white knights with their bags of cash who get to decide what's best for everyone else. Or it shouldn't be.

They did. Which is why this episode has gone beyond being reasonable. The developer met with neighbors, met with neighborhood groups, went through the rezoning process and as a result of that process- worked to assuage concerns raised, agreed to several conditions, ultimately gained approval... and then was sued.

A blanket edict of 'we will support no restaurant here, whatsoever' is what I call sticking your head in the sand.  Don't want live music blasting your living room at 10pm? That's reasonable, and was agreed to. Do I find it reasonable that you can't be served food on the patio at 5:30pm, while less than 300 feet away a delivery truck is being unloaded at the Publix?  No, but to their credit, the developer did. I'm not dismissing concerns raised. I once lived on Oak St, and it incensed me that a garbage truck would unload a dumpster across the street at 4am three days a week. However, I feel that many of those concerns were addressed in the conditional approval that The Roost gained.

Don't want a restaurant under any conditions? Sorry, that's not reasonable. And here we are four years later and the building is now in danger of being nothing but a dirt lot.

[jaxjags]

I enjoyed reading the debate. Good points on both sides. My thought on both of these locations is quite simple. The owner applies for all zoning exceptions needed. Agrees to meet the demands of the local citizens. Goes to the city government and get all exceptions approved. Gets city council to approve. Then "someone" just says I don't want a restaurant of any type here. Maybe to simple but in reality that is what happened in both cases.

[Adam White]

I enjoyed reading the debate. Good points on both sides. My thought on both of these locations is quite simple. The owner applies for all zoning exceptions needed. Agrees to meet the demands of the local citizens. Goes to the city government and get all exceptions approved. Gets city council to approve. Then "someone" just says I don't want a restaurant of any type here. Maybe to simple but in reality that is what happened in both cases.

Thanks! You're far too kind - my points were mediocre at best 

[Steve]

This one was tough, and I'd venture to say tougher than any of the zoning items that RAP reviewed in the 6 years that I was on the RAP board.

First of all, not having a restaurant going in and the fact that the current owner is basically attempting "demolition by neglect" are completely unrelated. As a building owner, you're responsible for the structural integrity of the place whether or not there is someone paying you rent. This point here is a huge frustration of mine.

As far as the restaurant is concerned, I do agree the restaurant bent quite a bit from their original proposal. If I was a neighbor, I'd not be thrilled with the proposal but I'd be content with it. While the person may have lived their for 20 years and it was a dry cleaner, it was a commercial site for a LONG time. Now, does that mean every commercial use would be okay? No. I'd personally not be thrilled with a true nightclub there.

This reminded me of a Restaurant in Boston called 75 Chestnut (Yes, at 75 Chestnut Street). It is literally the only commercial place on an otherwise residential street. There was commercial uses two blocks away in two different directions, Beacon St (Northern border of Boston Common for context) and Charles Street.

https://www.google.com/maps/@42.3567752,-71.0710055,3a,60y,46.78h,84.99t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_8mylZqevxcXhkERCNw8kA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

They fit in REALLY well, and have a full bar. But, a few things:

- I couldn't imagine any live music in there, save for maybe a person with an unplugged guitar.
- There was no outside service
- The place held MAYBE 75 people (stupid Florida 150 person rule - should be abolished on people entirely so long as the food is 51% of sales)

If it was that, I'd LOVE it across the street from me.

[JaxAvondale]

The live music compliant is just silly to me. It wasn't going to be any different then the live music that gets played at Mellow.

[JeffreyS]

Once again confirming that too many in the RAP area want Oakleaf with old homes instead of the vibrancy that drew us to the area in The first place.

But there was a laundry there first? There's never been a bar/restaurant/whatever in that spot.

I was speaking in a broader scope than just the one spot. The specific NiMBYism is just another example.

[Josh]

So what's the angle here?

Accurately reporting a story of interest in the Urban Core.

Not the angle of the reporting. The angle of who led to this building (part of) being condemned.