Shoppes of Avondale Photo Tour
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1060791212_D7yDb-M.jpg)
The Shoppes of Avondale is the commercial district along St. Johns Avenue, from Talbot Avenue to Dancy Street. Comprised of various shops and restaurants, this district serves as a primary shopping and entertainment center for Avondale and the city at large.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-shoppes-of-avondale-photo-tour
The new sidewalks are nice. It's a shame FIVE mature live oak trees were cut down during this redevelopment phase. Look how nice the remaining large oaks are on the west side of St. Johns Ave. Bluefish Restaurant cut down two and replaced them with cheesy small palm trees--one reason I won't eat there. The city cut down the other three live oaks (no, they were not water oaks) and replaced them with generic sidewalk elm trees like you'd find in a Costco parking lot. So much for maintaining original character and beauty of the neighborhood's canopy.
The nice thing about the live oaks is that they are green year round.
I know it is not the most photogenic of the Avondale shoppes but the land mark of the group is West end cantina (aka Montes). You may want to add a shot of it.
All 4 of the garbage cans are gone too...
Quote from: ubben on December 14, 2010, 08:56:54 AM
The new sidewalks are nice. It's a shame FIVE mature live oak trees were cut down during this redevelopment phase. Look how nice the remaining large oaks are on the west side of St. Johns Ave. Bluefish Restaurant cut down two and replaced them with cheesy small palm trees--one reason I won't eat there. The city cut down the other three live oaks (no, they were not water oaks) and replaced them with generic sidewalk elm trees like you'd find in a Costco parking lot. So much for maintaining original character and beauty of the neighborhood's canopy.
+1
JEA & COJ have done so much irreparable damage to the tree canopy in Riverside that it's truly shocking. It will take decades to get back what was lost in order to save JEA the potential hassle of repairing a power line that in this day and age, and considering the obnoxious prices we pay for power, should be buried in the first place. And I too am sick of that fallback "but they're all water oaks" B.S. They're not all water oaks, a lot of them are live oaks, and anyone born in Florida knows the difference.
People need to actually look at the trees involved rather than just accepting the excuse. The water oaks excuse got launched a couple years ago when there was an uproar over the beginning phases of canopy destruction that got started after that tropical storm we had in 2007 or 2008. During the storm JEA had to come out a couple times to repair lines that had been impacted by trees, so they revised their guidelines on how close they could be to powerlines, and the next thing you know Riverside woke up to JEA trucks all over the neighborhood chopping trees down. And it has continued relatively unabated since, to the point where we have very few canopied streets left.
I have seen live oaks tagged with orange X's and destroyed around here, because JEA deems them too close to power lines. The lines should be buried anyway, rather than destroying hundred year old tree growth that you can't get back. There were some water oaks, sure, but there are many other varieties being disposed of because of this power line thing. I have seen on my own street a live oak that JEA came by and trimmed all the major branches off of 3 years ago. Of course, JEA isn't hiring a tree company to do this, it's just JEA Joe Schmos with a bucket truck and chainsaws, they don't know how to trim a tree. So naturally, it died. Then they came back this year and chopped the rest of it down because it died, leaving the giant stump and telling the private property owner it was his responsibility to remove the stump after JEA killed his tree. The giant stump is still in the yard. JEA claims they only have to cut the stump down to 3' and aren't responsible for anything more.
This process is constantly repeating itself. We have lost half the canopy already, I hope someone stands up soon before the other half is gone. It won't be long at this rate. And the ones in front of Bluefish were especially egregious to eliminate, because no sooner had they come down than they buried the power lines. There was no legitimate reason to remove those trees, I wonder what the excuse was? Weren't they on COJ property (in the sidewalk, with all the other oaks on that row)?
The side walk planters are too wide and not tall enough to sit on. Looks great but some details could have been improved.
The ones Blue Fish took down were on their property, not City property, so nothing the City could really do about that.
I wonder if people who live in the district would vote for a tax increment district to raise money to bury the power lines? Residents would vote for a millage increase that would go into a fund for this purpose. JEA has no interest in burying the lines so I think the only way that will happen is if we figure out how to do it ourselves.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 14, 2010, 11:09:01 AM
The side walk planters are too wide and not tall enough to sit on. Looks great but some details could have been improved.
I was thinking the same thing. They could still probably put benches around the trees. As they're currently arranged, those big planters are a waste of space.
Have they put in the two 'iconic monuments' that are supposed to greet people on either end of the strip?? Like San Marco square has on the North side. I expected more decoration and adornment beyond just planters and shrubs. That horse statue is ok, but we can do better.
Wow, an MJ photo essay that actually shows people on the streets. Most seem like they are taken at 6:00 on a Sunday morning.
Quote from: finehoe on December 14, 2010, 12:03:25 PM
Wow, an MJ photo essay that actually shows people on the streets. Most seem like they are taken at 6:00 on a Sunday morning.
Well many of them are photographs of downtown, not much to work with, in all fairness, lol...
True. Most local shots tend to show what's there, which happens to be nothing. The commercial districts in Riverside/Avondale, San Marco and the beaches tend to be the exceptions.
I spoke with frank this morning about these comments and the same few people who keep making them. As to the trees that we removed, here are the facts. Yes, they were on our property but a permit is required to cut them down and the city granted us permission to do so. They were laurel oaks. We consulted with several tree experts who determined they contained rot on their interior trunks and were dying at the tops. This, along with the fact they were past maturity and less than 4' from the building itself and poised a significant threat, were the only reason they were approved for removal. Additionally, the building has extensive infrastructure underground in front along St Johns Avenue. This includes multiple water supply lines, multiple sewer lines and a grease trap, and the tree's root systems were damaging these lines and required constant repairs throughout the years we operated Sterlings. The trees in front of the parking lot were magnolia, not oaks, and were nearly dead and were an eyesore. Additionally, the city requested we bury the electrical lines to remove the concrete power line. This was done at OUR expense and was substantial, $17,000.00. Then there were the requests from the city, property and shop owners concerning the continuity of the sidewalk and allowing an uninterrupted flow of foot traffic along the north side.
Thanks for the response Tony. You are probably catching more than your share of heat due to the JEA's over doing it with the trees through out Riverside.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 14, 2010, 12:26:07 PM
True. Most local shots tend to show what's there, which happens to be nothing. The commercial districts in Riverside/Avondale, San Marco and the beaches tend to be the exceptions.
I wasn't really thinking of the Jacksonville-specific ones. Most of the Elements of Urbanism series always seems to have photos devoid of people. I don't know if this is a deliberate choice to highlight the built environment or what, but that is my perception.
Quote from: Tonyinchicago on December 14, 2010, 12:54:43 PM
I spoke with frank this morning about these comments and the same few people who keep making them. As to the trees that we removed, here are the facts. Yes, they were on our property but a permit is required to cut them down and the city granted us permission to do so. They were laurel oaks. We consulted with several tree experts who determined they contained rot on their interior trunks and were dying at the tops. This, along with the fact they were past maturity and less than 4' from the building itself and poised a significant threat, were the only reason they were approved for removal. Additionally, the building has extensive infrastructure underground in front along St Johns Avenue. This includes multiple water supply lines, multiple sewer lines and a grease trap, and the tree's root systems were damaging these lines and required constant repairs throughout the years we operated Sterlings. The trees in front of the parking lot were magnolia, not oaks, and were nearly dead and were an eyesore. Additionally, the city requested we bury the electrical lines to remove the concrete power line. This was done at OUR expense and was substantial, $17,000.00. Then there were the requests from the city, property and shop owners concerning the continuity of the sidewalk and allowing an uninterrupted flow of foot traffic along the north side.
You're mixed up, I defended Frank and said I liked him and thought he was a nice guy in the other thread. I don't know what happened to all of that, it got deleted. But don't get me confused with someone else. I was't the one making negative comments, that was somebody else.
Regarding the trees, people regularly misidentify laurel oak vs swamp laurel oak vs live oak, they can be very similar in appearance if they get trimmed regularly and are thus prevented from developing their natural canopy shapes. They were probably misidentified, as it would seem rather odd that on a street lined with multiple oak trees all planted at the same time and all being in good health, that only these two were of a different type and in bad health? But I suppose stranger things certainly happen every day. I don't think you or Frank had any ill will. Its just a shame all the trees around here keep disappearing, but even that's really JEA's fault not yours. I agree with Jeffrey that JEA has really overdone tree removal around here, and there is a lot of frustration about it, some of which is probably falling onto you.
Also, as a side note, every time I've ever dealt with one of those tree surgeon / tree 'expert' companies, it seems like they always say the tree needs to be removed for $3k. I suspect it's like that undercover study the news did awhile ago with taking a car they had already checked out into various repair shops, and almost every single one of them made up nonexistent problems in order to charge for more work.
And for the record, here is a brief lesson on Oak identification before people continue to take these things down.
Here is live oak bark;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2632/3760758254_a9eeddecc8.jpg?v=0)
Here is laurel oak bark;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2481/3759963311_d675c4d635.jpg?v=0)
Live oak bark is rough and dark grey or blackish, while laurel oak bark is smooth and often has a lighter grey / greenish tint to it. Additionally, here is a comparison of the leaves, laurel oak is on the left and live oak on the right;
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2611/3760770294_81fcac3792.jpg?v=0)
As you can clearly see from the pictures MetroJacksonville has posted in this thread, the twin rows of oaks down Saint Johns Avenue are live oaks. I would have no idea why the original developers would have planted all of a particular type of tree up and down Saint Johns Avenue, with the sole exception of just the handful in front of Sterling's? That seems rather unlikely, though it's certainly possible. It does seem far more likely they were probably misidentified. But you guys didn't do anything wrong, you obviously thought they were laurel oaks. Most people can't tell the difference, tree identification is something of a boring hobby.
Lemme tell you, JEA clearly doesn't know the difference either. Or more likely, JEA just doesn't care because they think they're saving money by not having to fix a power line down the road. I agree with Kay about doing something to bury the lines and save the tree canopy, if it keeps disappearing at this rate there won't be anything left, and the canopy is really a big part of why this place feels the way it does. I suspect people would pay a few more dollars in tax to have completely reliable electrical service during storms and still keep the tree canopy. That definitely may be something to explore.
Thanks Chris, i was referring to the silly comments that somehow the Blue fish and it's current operator, Richard Grenamyer, were responsible for the tree removal. He does not own the building and no input in the decision. Frank told me they were laurel and thats all I know. We had to climb onto the roof on a weekly basis to remove the debris that constantly clogged the drains (to avoid the flat roof from becoming a swimming pool and subsequently causing ceiling leaks) and from up above, you could see the problems the branches contained. This went on for years and we hesitated to take any action until the building's integrity and infrastructure i outlined earlier were in peril. Who would allow a huge tree 3 1/2 feet from a building that is diseased to remain? Really, nobody loves the trees in our neighborhood more or has a bigger vested interest in preserving the character of the area than we do, owning 5 properties on St johns Ave alone. For some to suggest that somehow we extract pleasure from cutting down trees is an outrage.
Quote from: Tonyinchicago on December 14, 2010, 02:19:13 PM
Thanks Chris, i was referring to the silly comments that somehow the Blue fish and it's current operator, Richard Grenamyer, were responsible for the tree removal. He does not own the building and no input in the decision. Frank told me they were laurel and thats all I know. We had to climb onto the roof on a weekly basis to remove the debris that constantly clogged the drains (to avoid the flat roof from becoming a swimming pool and subsequently causing ceiling leaks) and from up above, you could see the problems the branches contained. This went on for years and we hesitated to take any action until the building's integrity and infrastructure i outlined earlier were in peril. Who would allow a huge tree 3 1/2 feet from a building that is diseased to remain? Really, nobody loves the trees in our neighborhood more or has a bigger vested interest in preserving the character of the area than we do, owning 5 properties on St johns Ave alone. For some to suggest that somehow we extract pleasure from cutting down trees is an outrage.
Maybe they were laurels, then. I am having a hard time visualizing it, now that the new streetscape is finished and has set itself into my memory, but were those trees in front of sterlings set back from the row of other trees?
They may have been planted later by whoever did all the work to that property. Your building was changed around, you guys have a lot more sidewalk real estate than the other buildings, and the original layout of the parcel was changed and well after the strip was originally constructed, so I suppose they could have been re-planted at that time. From the basic architecture, I'm guessing that probably would have been the 60s, so well before you owned it.
Very good observation, and yes the property layout is unique to the others as we have what was the alley behind grandfathered as ours. Joseph LaRose was the owner for many decades and he designed the interior staircase, layout and exterior facade in the 60's. I suspect he planted the trees sometime during the 70's or 80's. They were out of line with the other trees along the strip being much closer to the building. And after looking at the photos you posted, you have confirmed for me (100%) that they were indeed laurel. I would know, having dealt with the leaves for 2 decades. And the bark is correct too. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to thoughtfully post these photos for us.
Quote from: Tonyinchicago on December 14, 2010, 02:42:38 PM
Very good observation, and yes the property layout is unique to the others as we have what was the alley behind grandfathered as ours. Joseph LaRose was the owner for many decades and he designed the interior staircase, layout and exterior facade in the 60's. I suspect he planted the trees sometime during the 70's or 80's. They were out of line with the other trees along the strip being much closer to the building. And after looking at the photos you posted, you have confirmed for me (100%) that they were indeed laurel. I would know, having dealt with the leaves for 2 decades. And the bark is correct too. Thank you for taking the time and trouble to thoughtfully post these photos for us.
Thanks for confirming that, I thought I remembered your trees being set back from the rest of the line of trees, but now that I've been through there since the streetscaping I was having a hard time visualizing it. Well as far as I'm concerned that settles it, then. The renovations to your place in the 60s would have given a laurel oak almost the exact amount of time it would need to reach that size, and that certainly would explain why the trees weren't the originals. Your building is unique to that strip, the others are mostly untouched while yours went through a complete overhaul 50 years ago. It would make sense that they would have redone the landscaping as part of the project.
Check out the Mediterranean house on the NW corner of Avondale and St. Johns, the same house was originally the building, and was modified over the years to what it is today. There are areas inside Blue fish today where this is plainly evident.
I drive past the Shoppes every day, and have since 1996, and can't remember a time when the area has looked better. Even with the handful of vacant storefronts (and the oozing sore that is the empty garage), there's never been a finer selection of restaurants or nice boutique shops. Still in mourning over the loss of Armor and Karl's, and still holding out for a great gourmet takeaway (remember when Biscotti's used to do this?), but I think this area is somehow managing to hold its own during this recession.
Wondering what you can do in a single day at the Shoppes? Check this out: http://letsgolo.wordpress.com/avondale/