http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-01-23/story/kickbacks-expansion-fuels-riverside-controversy
Nice article covering the general views of both sides. It will be interesting to read the online debate that's sure to take place today.
well you think of Neptune Beach town center. I think a city garage would really help. I think they have been talking about Garages at the beach and it seems like this might work.
They'd be better off putting garage money into the mobility plan streetcar starter funding pot. Structured parking can run you as much as $20-25k per space and you'll be hard pressed to visually integrate a facility like that in the area. It may be time to get back to the basics. The scale of the context that's there today would not have been possible without having the streetcar as one of the major modes of mobility. Quite frankly, there is no automobile based solution that can serve Riverside and Park & King without taking away from the neighborhood's scale and historic context.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 23, 2012, 06:30:30 AM
Nice article covering the general views of both sides. It will be interesting to read the online debate that's sure to take place today.
Agree...
Quote from: thelakelander on January 23, 2012, 07:34:33 AM
They'd be better off putting garage money into the mobility plan streetcar starter funding pot. Structured parking can run you as much as $20-25k per space and you'll be hard pressed to visually integrate a facility like that in the area. It may be time to get back to the basics. The scale of the context that's there today would not have been possible without having the streetcar as one of the major modes of mobility. Quite frankly, there is no automobile based solution that can serve Riverside and Park & King without taking away from the neighborhood's scale and historic context.
I agree on that. A garage is the last thing that area needs. Finding a different solution will help mitigate the parking issue, allowing those in the neighborhood to get there while freeing up street parking for people in driving distance. It's interesting that the owners of Kickbacks are the
only ones talking about alternative solutions that doesn't require adding parking or artificially sizing the business down to fit the current parking.
“Are they going to buy Panda Express?†he asked. “The first time someone pees on Panda’s back door, they’re going to say ‘no more.’ â€
I'm assuming he means Panda House.
Did the owners of Chew and Orsay have similar issues with RAP when they decided to put in the new building on Margaret St.? How about Orsay, did they have issues regarding thier parking situation with RAP?
Quote
Did the owners of Chew and Orsay have similar issues with RAP when they decided to put in the new building on Margaret St.? How about Orsay, did they have issues regarding thier parking situation with RAP?
Chew is a seperate issue b/c they are in the Urban Transition Zone. Different rules are in play. It's not necessarily apples to oranges... but more oranges to grapefruits.
Orsay went into an existing building. So again, different situation.
QuoteQuite frankly, there is no automobile based solution that can serve Riverside and Park & King without taking away from the neighborhood's scale and historic context.
100% agreed.
Since Orsay was an existing building, it was not required to provide any additional parking. I believe the new Chew got an exception regarding its setback. It will also be adding 11 new spots.
Quote from: cline on January 23, 2012, 09:24:49 AM
Since Orsay was an existing building, it was not required to provide any additional parking. I believe the new Chew got an exception regarding its setback. It will also be adding 11 new spots.
Gotcha.
Still, sounds like nitpicking to me. But, I suppose that is what bureaucracy is...
I sympahtize with Chris, people parking in that double lot driveway is wrong on every level imaginable
but I don't agree with this quote
QuoteYou’ve got an area already at saturation
Historically speaking, the area is actually still underperforming despite the infill growth of the past 5 years. The area can support even more infill... but with a less auto-centric reliance.
^Unfortunately, too many people in this city and state would define "saturation" as "the most amount of cars that can fit, and comfortably."
Quote from: fieldafm on January 23, 2012, 09:30:07 AM
but I don't agree with this quote
QuoteYou’ve got an area already at saturation
Historically speaking, the area is actually still underperforming despite the infill growth of the past 5 years. The area can support even more infill... but with a less auto-centric reliance.
I am over there often and even on Friday nights rarely have an issue finding a parking spot more than a half a block away. Sure, the spots on King are taken. But, there is always someplace LEGAL to park.
Presently, there is a parking distribution problem in the district.... not a parking supply problem.
Think about the distance people are willing to walk from one of the outer parking lots at the St Johns Town Center to any of the popular restaurants. Using Google Earth, I measure about 1,500 feet - on average (that would be the lot south of Dillard's to Maggiano's).
That is the same distance between Kickback's and Park Street. Which is a pretty good spread and covers quite a few residential streets, a majority of which allow street parking.
The parking is distributed such that people have to walk just about as much as they do at any major retail area.
"Kickbacks is full of occupiers!!!!!!!!" <- that was my favorite post from the TU.
I occupy kickbacks pretty often. I have also Occupied Wall Street in five points. Tomorrow night I will be occupying Intuition for the Belgian Beer Seminar.
QuoteThe parking is distributed such that people have to walk just about as much as they do at any major retail area.
Walking distance is not the issue here. Residents are taking issue with people parking on the streets. My opinion is that the streets are public property and on-street parking is legal and should be allowed. Now if people are parking in front of people's driveways- those people should have their cars towed.
Quote from: dougskiles on January 23, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
Think about the distance people are willing to walk from one of the outer parking lots at the St Johns Town Center to any of the popular restaurants. Using Google Earth, I measure about 1,500 feet - on average (that would be the lot south of Dillard's to Maggiano's).
That is the same distance between Kickback's and Park Street. Which is a pretty good spread and covers quite a few residential streets, a majority of which allow street parking.
The parking is distributed such that people have to walk just about as much as they do at any major retail area.
How can you assume that the majority of "residential streets" whose private properties has the first right to use the parking in the street in front of the house would allow street parking for public usage?
-Josh
Quote from: wsansewjs on January 23, 2012, 01:08:16 PM
Quote from: dougskiles on January 23, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
Think about the distance people are willing to walk from one of the outer parking lots at the St Johns Town Center to any of the popular restaurants. Using Google Earth, I measure about 1,500 feet - on average (that would be the lot south of Dillard's to Maggiano's).
That is the same distance between Kickback's and Park Street. Which is a pretty good spread and covers quite a few residential streets, a majority of which allow street parking.
The parking is distributed such that people have to walk just about as much as they do at any major retail area.
How can you assume that the majority of "residential streets" whose private properties has the first right to use the parking in the street in front of the house would allow street parking for public usage?
-Josh
That is incorrect. Residents do not have the first right to use parking on public streets in front of their homes. Anyone can park on the streets.
The resident in the article said that he has people actually park on his lot and that he has to have people towed on average 2x a week. That would get really annoying, but perhaps he needs some additional signage stating his lot is private property.
A hedge, landscaping or a fence would potentially eliminate this particular issue as well.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 23, 2012, 02:31:19 PM
A hedge, landscaping or a fence would potentially eliminate this particular issue as well.
Hell, I would make a deal with a towing company to pay me a little everytime he has to pick up a car. $40-$60/wk for making a few phone calls... I'm in.
Quote from: cline on January 23, 2012, 01:10:37 PM
Quote from: wsansewjs on January 23, 2012, 01:08:16 PM
Quote from: dougskiles on January 23, 2012, 12:29:50 PM
Think about the distance people are willing to walk from one of the outer parking lots at the St Johns Town Center to any of the popular restaurants. Using Google Earth, I measure about 1,500 feet - on average (that would be the lot south of Dillard's to Maggiano's).
That is the same distance between Kickback's and Park Street. Which is a pretty good spread and covers quite a few residential streets, a majority of which allow street parking.
The parking is distributed such that people have to walk just about as much as they do at any major retail area.
How can you assume that the majority of "residential streets" whose private properties has the first right to use the parking in the street in front of the house would allow street parking for public usage?
-Josh
That is incorrect. Residents do not have the first right to use parking on public streets in front of their homes. Anyone can park on the streets.
Cline correctly states the law. Private property ends at the city's right of way. It's a common misconception that homeowners or renters have some sort of preference to park on the street in front of their residence. It's not the case.
What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties. Makes it tight.
People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses. It literally comes with the territory.
Let me start by saying that I like Kickbacks but the parking thing is insane and the "deal with it" attitude given towards long-time residents kinda sucks. They didn't ask to be part of an "entertainment district", they just want to be able to get in and out of their houses without a bunch of hassle. My friend lives within a block of the area and is on-call on the weekends sometimes and she has come very close to losing her job because she couldn't get out of her driveway. It's just stupid. Luckily I live a lot closer now so I've been able to pick her up but it's totally wrong. She was talking to her neighbors about it and a few of them have plainly stated that if it gets worse, they're going to start vandalizing and damaging cars to discourage people parking there. It's crazy but I think some people are just feeling bullied and desperate. I think they could cope with it better if all the disruption was for something important but not being able to leave your driveway or park more than a block away from your house because of a couple of bars? I'd be pretty pissed off as well.
I recentlytalked to someone from RAP about this and promised that I would put in my two cents on this issue. Having read the Times-Union, however, I am still not sure what to think about this issue.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 23, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties. Makes it tight.
People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses. It literally comes with the territory.
now that's the attitude!!
Why does commercial trump neighborhood,residential??
that was the attitude city planning had with the Ortega Boatyard rezone.........parking?...??.....to the neighborhood,a collective middle finger.
Riverside Avondale is destined for decline,
Quote from: Jaxson on January 23, 2012, 07:46:05 PM
I recentlytalked to someone from RAP about this and promised that I would put in my two cents on this issue. Having read the Times-Union, however, I am still not sure what to think about this issue.
Thanks to the TU article RAP position,reasoning is put forth directly rather than left to unknown, conjecture,false narrative.
Quote from: north miami on January 23, 2012, 08:09:48 PM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 23, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties. Makes it tight.
People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses. It literally comes with the territory.
now that's the attitude!!
Why does commercial trump neighborhood,residential??
I don't think the parking situation is a commercial or residential issue. Everyone is focused on Kickbacks but the real issue is much greater than that place and will only get worse with every new or redevelopment project that pops up.
The neighborhood is simply one built at a scale that can't physically support increased automobile use as it rebuilds lost density. At some point alternative modes of mobility will have to be seriously addressed, planned for, and advocated with the same passion or risk endangering the character of the area to create additional capacity for the automobile.
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 23, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties. Makes it tight.
People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses. It literally comes with the territory.
True, but King Street was built as a NEIGHBORHOOD scale commercial district. While it has become a destination in recent years, it was never designed to serve as such.
So along with streetcars I guess we should be bringing back bordellos too?
QuoteAt some point alternative modes of mobility will have to be seriously addressed, planned for, and advocated with the same passion or risk endangering the character of the area to create additional capacity for the automobile.
It's really amazing that the conversation is getting so blurred in this debate. Literally almost every non-work-related conversation I have engage in has revolved around this issue for at least the past week, and everybody keeps going back to the same place.
Which is not surprising... even at the forum-style meeting RAP held months ago, whenever someone brought up alternative forms of transportation, people just became more angry and kept getting back to yelling about people peeing in front yards.
The conversation about planning and ADVOCATING for different ways of moving people around the neighborhood is at a tipping point. The proverbial can cannot be kicked down the road any longer. More infill is happening, and before you know it(even sooner than that based on the interest I have been hearing about some empty sites) new construction is going to take hold...
and by then, it will be too late.
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2012, 07:03:28 AM
Quote from: riverside planner on January 24, 2012, 06:45:33 AM
Quote from: Dog Walker on January 23, 2012, 03:06:59 PM
What aggravates the parking problem is that almost everything south of King St. was built before many people had cars and there was seldom any provision made for parking cars on the properties. Makes it tight.
People who live in cities just have to get used to people that they don't know parking in front of their houses. It literally comes with the territory.
True, but King Street was built as a NEIGHBORHOOD scale commercial district. While it has become a destination in recent years, it was never designed to serve as such.
Im sorry, Riverside Planner, but this is one of the most ridiculous assertions Ive heard.
King Street was built as a residential/commercial/industrial district during a time when Jacksonville was one of the largest tourist draws in the United States.
From its inception as a trolley based expansion of the city, the neighborhood aimed at providing prosperity, upper scale density and high volume shopping to the vacationing millions that visited the city, famous for its climate, incredibly developed entertainment options and bordellos.
Please, can we abandon this fantasy of Jacksonville as a pastoral, quiet little town with nothing more going on in it than the occasional church service followed by a mint julip mixer?
Believe me I harbor no delusions about Jacksonville as a "pastoral, quiet little town". While I wholeheartedly agree that we need truly multimodal transportation, I was on the steering committee for the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and bring that knowledge, as well as my experiences as a resident of the greater Park & King area to the table. Parking was not an issue when this area developed, but it is now. The Overlay is far from perfect, I recognize that, but it is also clear that new commercial construction triggers the need to address parking.
Quotebut it is also clear that new commercial construction triggers the need to address parking.
The Park and King area can in fact support much more commercial density than it has now, while still being a great place to live if the proper parking management policies are put into place and viable alternative modes of transportation are offered. Riverside/Avondale is not unique in this respect. A trip to Williamsburg, Georgetown, Lakeview, etc etc etc shows that with proper policies... mixed use density can co-exist. To continue to ignore this will hurt the neighborhood. Alternatives to heavy auto-centric movement needs to have happened yesterday(not today or tomorrow).
If Kickbacks doesn't kickstart this conversation in earnest... we will all be very sorry a year down the road. I sincerly hope that won't happen.
QuoteThe neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars.
While this is true and undeniable... it is also true and undeniable that there is not and there has not been streetcars for what... a hundred years? Since the demise of the streetcars the 'hood has changed a bit. To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed is clearly causing issues that need to be addressed. To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted, counter productive and will lead to stiffer more organized and vocal opposition to the goal we are all seeking... which is a dense, walkable, neighborhood destination.
QuoteTo simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted
That is not my personal goal one bit. As a matter of fact, its the residents who benefit the most from more diverse transportation options.
QuoteTo restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed
It was this change that has in fact hurt the neighborhood and will be very detrimental if people's reality continues to be complete auto-centric mobility.
Burying one's head in the sand on this issue is not a viable solution.
Since streetcars are not coming anytime soon it would appear that shuttle buses would be needed to get folks from where we want them to park to the King St establishments they want to go to. Where DO we want them to park? Do we want JTA involved in this solution?
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 24, 2012, 10:36:15 AM
Since streetcars are not coming anytime soon it would appear that shuttle buses would be needed to get folks from where we want them to park to the King St establishments they want to go to. Where DO we want them to park? Do we want JTA involved in this solution?
In the short term I think that some sort of private shuttle service would be a solution. There could potentially be some sort of Park-N-Ride in one of the surrounding parking lots (St. Vincents, for example) with a shuttle up through the strip. I believe this idea is being kicked around already.
In the long term, I think that Streetcar is the way to go. It is a shame that the mobility fee is pretty much dead in the water. That could have allowed Streetcar to be built quicker than you might imagine. There is still hope though.
As for JTA, I don't think they should be involved in anything transit-related that we wanted to see become a success.
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2012, 11:00:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2012, 09:50:19 AM
QuoteThe neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars.
While this is true and undeniable... it is also true and undeniable that there is not and there has not been streetcars for what... a hundred years? Since the demise of the streetcars the 'hood has changed a bit. To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed is clearly causing issues that need to be addressed. To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted, counter productive and will lead to stiffer more organized and vocal opposition to the goal we are all seeking... which is a dense, walkable, neighborhood destination.
this is dumb. in reality, a group of residents simply changed the rules of engagement less than three years ago, and are now trying to enforce a pretty stretched definition of those changed rules on the commercial real estate. Are you suggesting that we are to say to the commercial landowners 'too bad' instead?
Sounds nice and fair.
Just as dumb Stephen... since that is not what I said.
An acknowledgement that the residents have legitimate concerns would be a good starting point. One group should not have to lose to the other. Parking issues amongst other are a legitimate concern for the folks who have lived in the area since there have not been streetcars and certainly needs to be addressed for the benefit of the businesses and the residents.
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2012, 11:00:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2012, 09:50:19 AM
QuoteThe neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars.
While this is true and undeniable... it is also true and undeniable that there is not and there has not been streetcars for what... a hundred years? Since the demise of the streetcars the 'hood has changed a bit. To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed is clearly causing issues that need to be addressed. To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted, counter productive and will lead to stiffer more organized and vocal opposition to the goal we are all seeking... which is a dense, walkable, neighborhood destination.
this is dumb. in reality, a group of residents simply changed the rules of engagement less than three years ago, and are now trying to enforce a pretty stretched definition of those changed rules on the commercial real estate. Are you suggesting that we are to say to the commercial landowners 'too bad' instead?
Sounds nice and fair.
Just as FYI, there were commericial interests represented on the Overlay steering committee, including folks with interests on King Street.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 24, 2012, 10:36:15 AM
Since streetcars are not coming anytime soon it would appear that shuttle buses would be needed to get folks from where we want them to park to the King St establishments they want to go to. Where DO we want them to park? Do we want JTA involved in this solution?
Would five years be considered too long term to plan and advocate right now for something that won't cost an additional tax dollar out of your pocket? Dealing with public agencies nearly any solution bought to the table will take at least a year or two to be implemented. What are the implementation time lines associated with various solutions that have been mentioned (ex. parking decals, parking garages, neighborhood circulator, etc.)?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 24, 2012, 11:21:45 AM
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on January 24, 2012, 10:36:15 AM
Since streetcars are not coming anytime soon it would appear that shuttle buses would be needed to get folks from where we want them to park to the King St establishments they want to go to. Where DO we want them to park? Do we want JTA involved in this solution?
Would five years be considered too long term to plan and advocate right now for something that won't cost an additional tax dollar out of your pocket? Dealing with public agencies nearly any solution bought to the table will take at least a year or two to be implemented. What are the implementation time lines associated with various solutions that have been mentioned (ex. parking decals, parking garages, neighborhood circulator, etc.)?
A concrete 4 or 5 year plan seems reasonable provided the current residential / business concerns can be alleviated during the interim.
Quote from: cline on January 24, 2012, 10:48:03 AM
In the long term, I think that Streetcar is the way to go. It is a shame that the mobility fee is pretty much dead in the water. That could have allowed Streetcar to be built quicker than you might imagine. There is still hope though.
With vocal advocation, the moratorium could sunset this fall and money from new development would be following into that funding pot. Not only for the streetcar but also for associated bicycle and pedestrian improvement projects within the district. Combine these pots with other funding opportunities and these improvements could happen faster than raising the cash to pay and maintain a self funded rubber wheeled circulator. Keep ignoring this stuff and the longer it will take to implement these options.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2012, 11:25:40 AM
A concrete 4 or 5 year plan seems reasonable provided the current residential / business concerns can be alleviated during the interim.
Speaking of 4 or 5 years, how long has the talk about a Riverside parking and transportation plan been going on at this point? It's been at least three years since I first heard. Just pointing this out show whatever is proposed will take some time to implement. It would be good to start defining various improvement options with time lines and funding strategies.
well, we had a plan and a funding mechanism to help alleviate some of the traffic, congestion, parking concerns. the City Council snubbed their noses at it, including the Rep from that area. So, they should be venting at him over this!
Quote from: fsujax on January 24, 2012, 11:39:25 AM
well, we had a plan and a funding mechanism to help alleviate some of the traffic, congestion, parking concerns. the City Council snubbed their noses at it, including the Rep from that area. So, they should be venting at him over this!
Vocally advocating the elimination of the mobility fee moratorium this year is probably one of the most cost effective and least time consuming options to obtain funds to address dealing with alternative forms of mobility (transit, bike, pedestrian, etc.) in Riverside/Avondale. If there are questions or fears about certain forms of mobility and their impact on the surrounding environment, now is certainly the time to at seriously research and address these items.
I live 3 blocks away and there ae always spots available on King Street. ALWAYS!!
That being said it would suck to have someone choose to park in your yard.
Here is a do-able solution. Have First Guaranty offer their lot as a central parking spot on weekends, service it with bicycle powered people movers for those who do not want to walk, and have those people movers serve the entire district, from Kickbacks to pele's Wood Fire, and every bar or eating establishment in between. The bars pay the base fee for the cyclists and they pedal for tips. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Quote from: riverside planner on January 24, 2012, 08:36:59 AM
Believe me I harbor no delusions about Jacksonville as a "pastoral, quiet little town". While I wholeheartedly agree that we need truly multimodal transportation, I was on the steering committee for the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and bring that knowledge, as well as my experiences as a resident of the greater Park & King area to the table. Parking was not an issue when this area developed, but it is now. The Overlay is far from perfect, I recognize that, but it is also clear that new commercial construction triggers the need to address parking.
As a member of said steering committee, what then is your recommendation? Surface parking is ugly and would use up land suited for other purposes. Building multi-story garages do not fit either. Changing the configuration of the exisiting parking to nose in rather than parallel will cause the street to become narrower. What
is the solution?
Stopping progress just stunts the forward momentum of the city. For an area to remian vibrant it must have an influx of new and
desired businesses. The desire must come from outside the neighborhood because the neighborhood by itself cannot sustain the business.
Consider this; would Orsay survive without patrons from outsdie the neighborhood? Would O' Brother's, Mossfire, Pele's, Carmine's, Mojo's? How did thye deal with parking issues -- and don't give me that "the overlay doesn't apply to them crap." That's a cop-out. The letter of the law may say they are exempt but I would wager that there are neighbors around Avondale that don't really like the added traffic Mojo's has brought, the people parking on the side streets -- which are considerably narrower, or the late night whiskey drinkers.
So, tell us, what do you propose?
Quote from: thelakelander on January 24, 2012, 11:56:41 AM
Quote from: fsujax on January 24, 2012, 11:39:25 AM
well, we had a plan and a funding mechanism to help alleviate some of the traffic, congestion, parking concerns. the City Council snubbed their noses at it, including the Rep from that area. So, they should be venting at him over this!
Vocally advocating the elimination of the mobility fee moratorium this year is probably one of the most cost effective and least time consuming options to obtain funds to address dealing with alternative forms of mobility (transit, bike, pedestrian, etc.) in Riverside/Avondale. If there are questions or fears about certain forms of mobility and their impact on the surrounding environment, now is certainly the time to at seriously research and address these items.
We just recently had to vocally advocate passing the mobility fee then while the approval ink is still wet the Council passes the moratorium and now we have to vocally advocate lifting the moratorium. It is more than a little frustrating and is clear who is pulling the strings.
As an aside: does any one have any photos available of people parking in front of any driveways they could post?
^It does suck but that's the state of local politics in a city that tends to hover a decade behind its peers in addressing these types of issues.
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2012, 11:45:34 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2012, 11:07:40 AM
Quote from: stephendare on January 24, 2012, 11:00:17 AM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 24, 2012, 09:50:19 AM
QuoteThe neighborhood was never originally designed for cars, it was designed for street cars.
While this is true and undeniable... it is also true and undeniable that there is not and there has not been streetcars for what... a hundred years? Since the demise of the streetcars the 'hood has changed a bit. To restore the original historic density without addressing the fact that the 'hood has changed is clearly causing issues that need to be addressed. To simply say to the residents... "too bad" is short sighted, counter productive and will lead to stiffer more organized and vocal opposition to the goal we are all seeking... which is a dense, walkable, neighborhood destination.
this is dumb. in reality, a group of residents simply changed the rules of engagement less than three years ago, and are now trying to enforce a pretty stretched definition of those changed rules on the commercial real estate. Are you suggesting that we are to say to the commercial landowners 'too bad' instead?
Sounds nice and fair.
Just as dumb Stephen... since that is not what I said.
An acknowledgement that the residents have legitimate concerns would be a good starting point. One group should not have to lose to the other. Parking issues amongst other are a legitimate concern for the folks who have lived in the area since there have not been streetcars and certainly needs to be addressed for the benefit of the businesses and the residents.
im sorry, did the tow truck companies go out of business or something? The entire city owns those parking spaces on the streets, bridge troll.
If a car is improperly parked, blocking access to a driveway, do what the rest of this great nation does. Have it towed.
What other 'concerns' about parking do you think people are entitled to have?
Do you think its a right to have a parking spot ready for you at a business four blocks away?
Here is an example... my wife and I went to Carmines a few weeks back. It was pretty early but parking was already filled up. We proceeded to park on the street in front of Carmines off of King. it is a small residential street and we found a good spot a block or two up the street. Walked to Carmines and stayed later than we usually do. When we walked back to the car... BOTH side of this small street were crowded with cars many of which were entirely or partially blocking driveways. Additionally... with cars parked on both side of this street it was impossible for two cars to use the road at one time... not to mention pedestrians who were walking down the street. So while the vast majority of cars were parked "legally" the sheer number made the road nearly impassable and effectively a one way street for whoevers car was in the street first. I suppose there were three or four "illegally" parked cars blocking or partially blocking access to driveways. Add a tow truck to the mix and the street is now completely impassable.
I support ALL the businesses on King Street. The exception being Pele's because it has just opened and I want to give them time to shake things out.
QuoteThe letter of the law may say they are exempt but I would wager that there are neighbors around Avondale that don't really like the added traffic Mojo's has brought, the people parking on the side streets -- which are considerably narrower, or the late night whiskey drinkers.
I believe this is one of the weaknesses of the Overlay- the fact that the re-use of an existing building is excepted from the parking requirements that are applied to new construction. For example, when the corner of Park & King functioned as a pharmacy it generated far less traffic (trip generation) and thus less parking. Now that it is a restaurant (Pele's) it generates far greater traffic and thus greater parking. However, it was not required to add parking. The change in the establishment had a tremendous effect on parking demand, yet I do not recall hearing the same complaints about it
If we aren't going to seriously consider anything but the automobile in Jacksonville's future, then the only practical solution is a SONIC®, America's Drive-In®. Plenty of parking and the feeding tube goes right into the front window.
(http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1414/1386643697_884b05ae99_o.jpg)
Quote from: Lunican on January 24, 2012, 02:49:16 PM
(http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1414/1386643697_884b05ae99_o.jpg)
Mmmmmm. All I see is the side of a Firehouse Subs.
And who is to conduct,pay for routine predictive 'misbehaviour' that become a designed norm??
Doesn't seem like one of America's "Best Places".
Poking around the neighborhood,really looking,watching (Dellwood West!) it occurs to me that in fact it was good that I did not purchase in the immediate area after a concerted late 80's era search,and that the surrounding neighborhoods are indeed in need of an uplift-perhaps instilled by Commercial resurgence but certainly not a kick in the ass.
Quote from: cline on January 24, 2012, 01:16:39 PM
QuoteThe letter of the law may say they are exempt but I would wager that there are neighbors around Avondale that don't really like the added traffic Mojo's has brought, the people parking on the side streets -- which are considerably narrower, or the late night whiskey drinkers.
I believe this is one of the weaknesses of the Overlay- the fact that the re-use of an existing building is excepted from the parking requirements that are applied to new construction.
At the conclusion of Overlay proceedings RAP officially stated that there were elements not pleasing.The spirit of Consensus!!
During Overlay workshop,and a matter of record,citizens overwhelmingly "Visioned" transformation of the commercial sectionfronting Fishweir Creek(Loop restaurant et al)as public park space.Commercial interests can be smug and assured considering decades of expansion and certain checks and balances,Overlay predetermined outcome,balance.
The proceedings,and template reminded me of Clay County Sector Plan/Beltway proceedings....an uncanny resemblance.
that's right, just a pretender!!
there are jogs in the Beltway route/ Ravines/Reinhold/Ring Power as testimony to my pretense.
Why not interject Roundabout in to the Walkable,Sustainable narrative,you will then take on the Complete Beltway Sector Plan/Beltway mantra.....already you remind me as if Reinhold Sector Plan Beltway Booster.But you will not yank the Vision Map crayon from many hands.The mere 'pretender' charge reveals volumes.
MJ after all "so Jacksonville".
Stephen meets Mayberry head on.
l
Welcome to Oakleaf I mean Riverside. The sad part is how many people wish that was how you should describe Riverside.
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 24, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
Welcome to Oakleaf I mean Riverside. The sad part is how many people wish that was how you should describe Riverside.
Some of 'them',Clay County Sector Plan citizen participants,did refer to "Just Like Avondale".Matter of public record.
(some folks really squirm with this 'matter of record stuff...)
inevitable that RAP would emerge front and center,and MJ sidelined, that is how Inevitable Growth 'works'.
Quote from: MusicMan on January 24, 2012, 12:02:42 PM
I live 3 blocks away and there ae always spots available on King Street. ALWAYS!!
That being said it would suck to have someone choose to park in your yard.
Here is a do-able solution. Have First Guaranty offer their lot as a central parking spot on weekends, service it with bicycle powered people movers for those who do not want to walk, and have those people movers serve the entire district, from Kickbacks to pele's Wood Fire, and every bar or eating establishment in between. The bars pay the base fee for the cyclists and they pedal for tips. PROBLEM SOLVED.
Agreed. Good idea MusicMan.
That may even work now. In the past First Guaranty rejected allowing their lot to be used but there is new ownership now
I could have sworn I saw a bunch of cars parked in the First Guaranty lot last Friday after it had closed. Maybe I was mistaken though.
If street parking on narrow side streets is such an issue the city could always make the problem sections parking on one side only. I will admit that even on post and college with people parked on both sides at night it can get rather tight for safe pedestrian and traffic movement.
Quote from: acme54321 on February 03, 2012, 02:22:27 PM
If street parking on narrow side streets is such an issue the city could always make the problem sections parking on one side only. I will admit that even on post and college with people parked on both sides at night it can get rather tight for safe pedestrian and traffic movement.
No doubt. Do you think a couple of fire trucks could navigate through there?
Just throwing this out there: there wasn't as much of a problem with street space and parking when the streets were one way. Not that the general navigation was better... just an observation....
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 03, 2012, 02:24:48 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on February 03, 2012, 02:22:27 PM
If street parking on narrow side streets is such an issue the city could always make the problem sections parking on one side only. I will admit that even on post and college with people parked on both sides at night it can get rather tight for safe pedestrian and traffic movement.
No doubt. Do you think a couple of fire trucks could navigate through there?
Yeah right. Seriously though. Rather than push against the restaurant why don't they push the city towards marking the streets for safe parking and let them enforce it with tow trucks. I've seen that in planty of other historic districts in large cities, seems to work and doesn't seem to stop anyone from patronizing the businesses in those areas.
I bought my house on College St when it was a one way street, and over the past seven years or so I've been around for at least half a dozen speeding car vs. parked car collisions. Since the street has become clogged with parked cars, I haven't encountered one such incident. In my experience, a crowded street causes drivers to slow down and NOT smash into my or my neighbors vehicles. I'm glad to no longer live on a one-way thoroughfare. And I've never seen cars parked on College Street blocking driveways - a word to the (not-so) wise - I drive a Jeep, and my front bumper is already plenty banged up. If you DO block my driveway, I'll move your car out of the way :-)
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 24, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
Welcome to Oakleaf I mean Riverside. The sad part is how many people wish that was how you should describe Riverside.
Oakleaf residents can a least rest easy in that their neighborhoods are not subject to such impacts.
Same for Silverleaf.
They should be worrying about having to pay a toll to get home or burn more time taking a network of goat's paths to avoid the toll booth. Kickback's is a pimple on the ass of what's headed Oakleaf's way.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 04, 2012, 08:06:48 AM
They should be worrying about having to pay a toll to get home or burn more time taking a network of goat's paths to avoid the toll booth. Kickback's is a pimple on the ass of what's headed Oakleaf's way.
Yes, Oakleaf has far bigger issues than whether or not a restaurant can provide enough parking.
Quote from: north miami on February 04, 2012, 07:32:14 AM
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 24, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
Welcome to Oakleaf I mean Riverside. The sad part is how many people wish that was how you should describe Riverside.
Oakleaf residents can a least rest easy in that their neighborhoods are not subject to such impacts.
Same for Silverleaf.
Lots of great deals in Oakleaf right now. Some even under $50 sqft......Maybe it's time for those who can't cope with burdens of living in Riverside to find that nice homestead free of commercial interference.
]
Quote from: JeffreyS on January 24, 2012, 07:26:20 PM
Welcome to Oakleaf I mean Riverside. The sad part is how many people wish that was how you should describe Riverside.
Oakleaf residents can a least rest easy in that their neighborhoods are not subject to such impacts.
Same for Silverleaf.
[/quote]
Lots of great deals in Oakleaf right now. Some even under $50 sqft......Maybe it's time for those who can't cope with burdens of living in Riverside to find that nice homestead free of commercial interference.
Yep- too bad The Trust For Public Lands let their 1800 acre option slip.......
[/quote]
Quote from: Brian Siebenschuh on February 04, 2012, 03:23:40 AM
- a word to the (not-so) wise - I drive a Jeep, and my front bumper is already plenty banged up. If you DO block my driveway, I'll move your car out of the way :-)
Well,that for dang sure will help create "Walkable" among some of us-rather than risk dent and bash we'll leave the vehicles behind,and walk......or take the train or whatever.
all for a Pint and Pub Fritter
Time to move on to The Resident News article.........'nother round please!!!!!