Metro Jacksonville

The single story Avondale Shops is starting to become very full.  Is it possible to add a second or third story to some of the buildings surrounding the shops for more space? 

I heard there's still around 15,000 square feet of retail space in that strip that could still be put to better use.

Sounds like unless you were making a second story roof top parking RAP and the locals would have a fit.

I wouldn't seek to "expand' the shoppes. My thought - for denser retail, shouldn't folks look more to Brooklyn?

^A streetcar connecting Riverside to downtown would do just that.

The more I look at it the more I'm convinced that any streetcar line that runs through the middle of Riverside and Avondale, needs to be anchored on the north at no less then Newnan/Bay. The streetcar that originates at Newnan/Bay would be much more successful if the south end was anchored at St. Johns/Roosevelt, next to Roosevelt Plaza.

The streetcar neighborhoods from north to south would then be:

Downtown - Offices
La Villa - Desert
Brooklyn - New Development
Art's Market - Recreation
5-Points - Retail - Recreation - Dining
Riverside - Dense Residential
King Street - Entertainment/Dining
Avondale - Dense Residential - Dining/boutique shopping
Boone Park - Recreation
Fairfax - Dense Residential/boutique shopping
Roosevelt Plaza - Major shopping Center + A line commuter rail

Such a mix in a fairly short route would guarantee success beyond our wildest projections.

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: thelakelander on May 05, 2012, 04:52:33 PM
^A streetcar connecting Riverside to downtown would do just that.

Does fixed-rail transit spur that type of development? Funny, I think I've heard that before.

It would be a pressure reliever for Riverside actually by pulling the retail focus to Brooklyn, a centralized spot between Riverside and Downtown.

Park St. in Brooklyn, between I-95 and downtown is really dismal right now.  Put fixed rail down the middle of it and you would have another booming retail and apartment/townhouse district, I bet.

Has Riverside/Avondale cashed in it's transit chips yet?  This area has some of the highest property values in Jacksonville.  This means they pay a lot of money in local and state property taxes.

At the same time, transpiration spending is at an all time low for them.  Unless a two lane road cost a fortune to maintain, this area looks like it's getting the spare change of transit spending compared to the multimillion dollar mega interchanges some areas get.

It sounds like now is a good time for Riverside/Avondale to have it's own multimillion dollar transit project.  Unless someone wants to demolish half of Riverside, the only option there is mass transit. 

Also, is it true that Avondale Shops is still on septic tanks?  Any word on moving them to the sewer system?

Convince the council to let the mobility fee moratorium expire and the area will have a stack of cash to spend on mobility in five to ten years.

Since these areas were built around transit, they'll never reach their true potential without adding transit back to them. You can only add so much automobile infrastructure (parking, roads, etc) to areas like this before it starts to become a real mess. Not to mention, ugly.

Quote from: cityimrov on May 04, 2012, 10:35:27 PM
The single story Avondale Shops is starting to become very full.  Is it possible to add a second or third story to some of the buildings surrounding the shops for more space?

Study the Overlay

QuoteIt would be a pressure reliever for Riverside actually by pulling the retail focus to Brooklyn, a centralized spot between Riverside and Downtown.

+1

If anyone wants to throw something against the wall and see what sticks, Brooklyn is the best place for it. Nothing there right now, so no RAP crazies to protest. Turn Brooklyn into your playground and prove something will work.

Brooklyn would be an excellent economic development case study.  It's not a historic district, there's existing building fabric for small business/residential investment and there are large vacant parcels for major development, all within proximity of the riverfront and I-95/I-10.  Downtown is immediately north and Riverside immediately south.  On top of this, you have thousands of people already working in the area on Riverside Avenue, serving as a built in starter market.  However, for it to effectively blossom as a case study, you would at least need fixed transit connectivity to Five Points, which would serve as a viable terminal spot for a transit investment.

I sure wish there was a will (from the City) to connect Riverside with Downtown via Brooklyn with a streetcar. It would be an excellent case study.

I'd love to see the shops add a couple of stories, but for apartments only. San Marco, Five Points and Edgewood in Murray Hill  ought to do the same thing. That's what we do in the Northeast. That's how to create maximum density while cutting down on the demand for cars and increasing the demand for mass transit.

I'd say the density is already there for mass transit in Riverside.  Additional density is needed in other areas and pockets of the city.  With this in mind, I find Atlanta to be a good case study of urban infill over the last 20 years.  There you'll see preserved historic districts like the Highlands maintain their scale and sense of place, while adjacent blighted industrial sites along the old beltline ROW (ex. Glenwood Park, Inman Park, etc.) have been transformed into mixed use infill development.

Inman Park
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Atlanta-Neighborhoods-March/i-vtBtjB8/0/M/P1540144-M.jpg)

That's what we're trying to do is maintain its orignal scale.  And the original scale was not for 250 seats and greater restaurants and a proliferation of bars.  Steve C. made a great point that those larger establishments need to locate elsewhere like Brooklyn or downtown so as not to negatively impact residential quality of life. 

These residents aren't complaining because they enjoy it.  They are complaining because their lives are currently being affected in ways that they were not in the past because of inappropriate intensity and in some cases because of the Overlay's parking credits.

Can I say again that no where else in this City are parking requirements cut back by 35%, 50%, 75% and 100% depending on locale.  So why is the Overlay being bashed exactly? 

Many of the posters on this site appear to be pro business at the expense of residents.  And that is wrongheaded and shortsighted.  Like Lake has written, we need to create win/win solutions whereby businesses can florish and residents can enjoy a peaceful quality of life while they are trying to sleep.  Business owners need to be partners in this effort and realize they have a responsiblity here.

From the outside looking in, I think that too much is being read into seating capacity.  Can someone clarify how seating in a restaurant is calculated?

Does it takes into account bar seats, outdoor/patio seating, as well as traditional table/booth seating at equal face value? 

Quote from: Kay on May 07, 2012, 10:58:59 AM
That's what we're trying to do is maintain its orignal scale.  And the original scale was not for 250 seats and greater restaurants and a proliferation of bars.  Steve C. made a great point that those larger establishments need to locate elsewhere like Brooklyn or downtown so as not to negatively impact residential quality of life. 

These residents aren't complaining because they enjoy it.  They are complaining because their lives are currently being affected in ways that they were not in the past because of inappropriate intensity and in some cases because of the Overlay's parking credits.

Can I say again that no where else in this City are parking requirements cut back by 35%, 50%, 75% and 100% depending on locale.  So why is the Overlay being bashed exactly?

Springfield has similar (less required than the suburbs) parking requirements for certain uses and downtown may as well.  With that said, COJ's parking requirements are a joke and they are one of the reasons that the entire zoning code should be rewritten, IMO.  The suburban based zoning code (which does not recognize that our neighborhoods have a variety of densities and scale) is leading to the continued piecemeal destruction of our historical urban core, primarily the sections of town that aren't classified as official historic districts.  A great example is the historic structure that was torn down on Myrtle and Kings for a suburban Family Dollar in New Town last year.

With that said, I do believe the concept of a streetcar funded by the mobility plan is a critical element in relieving the commercial pressure on Riverside by providing a market rate incentive to shift this type of development to Brooklyn, where there is less regulation, cheaper real estate, and potential connectivity to Riverside and Downtown.  Right now, there's really no incentive for redevelopment of these alternative areas.

Quote from: Kay on May 07, 2012, 10:58:59 AM

Can I say again that no where else in this City are parking requirements cut back by 35%, 50%, 75% and 100% depending on locale.

Ease of parking requirements has probably led to the diverse businesses and activities residents love and wish others would not flock to. The oakleafs of the world have lot's of parking but no Biscotti's or Mossfire.

Quote from: Kay on May 07, 2012, 10:58:59 AM
residents can enjoy a peaceful quality of life while they are trying to sleep.

If what they want is Mayberry or Julington Creek type Quite why pick an Urban core Neighborhood that has been the most densely populated area in Jax for a long time?

There are trade offs with everything if you want all of the wonderful things that come with those special neighborhoods in this country you need transit or a lot of patience with parking.

If what you prioritize is lots of parking you will likely have to settle with a sprawlville or less attractive neighborhood.

QuoteAnd the original scale was not for 250 seats and greater restaurants and a proliferation of bars.

The original scale didn't accomodate two to three cars per household while simultaneously restricting and/or eliminate alternative modes of transportation... yet that is the reality of today.  Until you address this reality, with a combination of parking management(short term) and viable alternatives(long term) it will just get worse.  I think we both agree on that. 

The proliferation of restaurants into existing commercial buildings/area is not something the law restricts(in fact adaptive re-use is encouraged). 

Quotewe need to create win/win solutions

Quite a few have been presented here.  In the spirit of creating win/win solutions, which specifically do you not agree with Kay and why?

Quote from: JeffreyS on May 05, 2012, 08:33:39 AM
Sounds like unless you were making a second story roof top parking RAP and the locals would have a fit.

A great neighborhood never did betray the heart that loved it


Cheers!
Mike

Quote from: thelakelander on May 06, 2012, 08:36:53 PM
Convince the council to let the mobility fee moratorium expire and the area will have a stack of cash to spend on mobility in five to ten years.

I don't think Riverside/Avondale should even need the mobility fee to expand their transportation system.  It's a nice idea but Riverside/Avondale mass transit system.  There is money out there and it's being poured into major projects worth hundreds of millions around town.  Riverside/Avondale has been paying that and so very little of that money is going back to them.

The answer is to get the state and the city to stop spending hundreds of millions of dollars on some on-ramp in the middle of nowhere and use that cash to help build up a place where people already live! 

^You'll have an easier path and more success getting the local mobility fee moratorium expired, as opposed to going to FDOT for a piece of their statewide funding pie.  FDOT could really care less about Riverside's parking management issues.  That's not the central purpose of their existence and their roadway funding pot comes from a completely different revenue stream.

FDOT will spend money on Roosevelt because it is a State Road.  The only other road in the district is St. Johns (SR 211) and outside of a drainage or resurfacing project, they aren't going to do anything to that road.  They probably don't even want it on the State Road System anymore.  Lake is right, the Mobility Fee would be the better way to generate revenue.  Hopefully it will be coming back.

But Cityimrov is right in one respect that Riverside does  not need the mobility Fee to get transit. The few who are worried about parking need to figure out that transit is what they should be shouting for. Instead they waste their time shouting that they do not want so many good things to come into the neighborhood.

Well if you build your barriers to business growth you won't see more unique local projects come your way because McDonald's and such will be the only ones with the legal budgets to get by those barriers so that is what you will get.

The mobility fee is Riverside's easiest chance for additional transit oriented funding that won't require a raise in taxes or finding someone with a bucket of extra money to burn out of the goodness of their heart.  All of the work has been done, it's been approved by the state, and adopted by the council.  All we need to do is advocate for the expiration of the moratorium this fall, to let it do what it was intended to do.  With that in mind, having a mobility fee at your disposal doesn't mean you can't pursue other funding options and combine cash for a large pot.  In fact, I'd encourage such a strategy.

I am in full support of the Mobility Fee and perhaps asking people to act in their own best interest is a much more daunting task. So by all means get the Mobility Fee back in effect.

I'm afraid that with everyone's ability to conveniently forget the facts, ending the moratorium will be harder than you think.  You know, with all these projects coming to life all of a sudden:  7-11, SJTC Developments, Brooklyn Park, even to some extent the Kickbacks expansion, the King St. explosion, MM expanding:  I believe too many people will put 2 & 2 together, even it's only 2 & ZERO.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM
I'm afraid that with everyone's ability to conveniently forget the facts, ending the moratorium will be harder than you think.  You know, with all these projects coming to life all of a sudden:  7-11, SJTC Developments, Brooklyn Park, even to some extent the Kickbacks expansion, the King St. explosion, MM expanding:  I believe too many people will put 2 & 2 together, even it's only 2 & ZERO.

Unfortunately this is already happening.  People equate all this "development" on the Mobility Fee Moratorium which is why, in my opinion, it will never be put back in place.  Quite unfortunate.

Quote from: cline on May 07, 2012, 03:38:02 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM
I'm afraid that with everyone's ability to conveniently forget the facts, ending the moratorium will be harder than you think.  You know, with all these projects coming to life all of a sudden:  7-11, SJTC Developments, Brooklyn Park, even to some extent the Kickbacks expansion, the King St. explosion, MM expanding:  I believe too many people will put 2 & 2 together, even it's only 2 & ZERO.

Unfortunately this is already happening.  People equate all this "development" on the Mobility Fee Moratorium which is why, in my opinion, it will never be put back in place.  Quite unfortunate.

95% of that development was in the pipeline before the Moratorium.  It just simply is not true.  Market conditions, cheap land, housing trends(shifting to dense apartment complexes rather than single family home construction) and loosening of credit led to the construction around town.  You'll notice, the majority of new businesses are still infill projects within the in-town neighborhoods and the beach.

One day, when I won't get in trouble for doing so... I'll publish all the mobility fees lost out on. 

Quote from: fieldafm on May 07, 2012, 04:29:44 PM

Quote from: cline on May 07, 2012, 03:38:02 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 07, 2012, 03:13:18 PM
I'm afraid that with everyone's ability to conveniently forget the facts, ending the moratorium will be harder than you think.  You know, with all these projects coming to life all of a sudden:  7-11, SJTC Developments, Brooklyn Park, even to some extent the Kickbacks expansion, the King St. explosion, MM expanding:  I believe too many people will put 2 & 2 together, even it's only 2 & ZERO.

Unfortunately this is already happening.  People equate all this "development" on the Mobility Fee Moratorium which is why, in my opinion, it will never be put back in place.  Quite unfortunate.

95% of that development was in the pipeline before the Moratorium.  It just simply is not true.  Market conditions, cheap land, housing trends(shifting to dense apartment complexes rather than single family home construction) and loosening of credit led to the construction around town.  You'll notice, the majority of new businesses are still infill projects within the in-town neighborhoods and the beach.

One day, when I won't get in trouble for doing so... I'll publish all the mobility fees lost out on.

Nobody's doubting that.  At least no one that reads this website regularly.  Perception is reality in most people's view, and don't think for an instant that the people pushing for the moratorium to begin with won't conveniently omit that fact.  You can already read the headline next year, I'll go ahead and quote it here for future posterity:

"End the Mobility Fee Moratorium?  You Better Thank Your Lucky Slurpees that it Doesn't Happen."

There will be no mention of all the already pending contracts.  There will be no mention of the incentives already in place.  There will be broad assumptions that this building would have never gotten off the ground if the Mobility Fee was still in place - that the moratorium alone was the reason for all of the 'new growth'.

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 07, 2012, 06:27:12 PM
Nobody's doubting that.  At least no one that reads this website regularly.  Perception is reality in most people's view, and don't think for an instant that the people pushing for the moratorium to begin with won't conveniently omit that fact.  You can already read the headline next year, I'll go ahead and quote it here for future posterity:

"End the Mobility Fee Moratorium?  You Better Thank Your Lucky Slurpees that it Doesn't Happen."

There will be no mention of all the already pending contracts.  There will be no mention of the incentives already in place.  There will be broad assumptions that this building would have never gotten off the ground if the Mobility Fee was still in place - that the moratorium alone was the reason for all of the 'new growth'.

This would mean that Jax's economy would have had to be better than other communities (ex. like St. Johns County) with impact fees still in place during the last year.  It would be fairly easy to compare.  The big question would be if anyone here would even care.

I do not believe Jacksonville at large even knows about the Moratorium or the Mobility Fee for that matter. One of the reason's is that the Council rushed the process and eliminated the public meetings this type of legislation that should have been in the process.

This is a fight we can win the council does not want it's sellout of it's constituents exposed.  We have to ring the bell louder than we have been about this insider/ Good ol Boy gift on the community's tab.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 07, 2012, 09:25:41 PM

Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on May 07, 2012, 06:27:12 PM
Nobody's doubting that.  At least no one that reads this website regularly.  Perception is reality in most people's view, and don't think for an instant that the people pushing for the moratorium to begin with won't conveniently omit that fact.  You can already read the headline next year, I'll go ahead and quote it here for future posterity:

"End the Mobility Fee Moratorium?  You Better Thank Your Lucky Slurpees that it Doesn't Happen."

There will be no mention of all the already pending contracts.  There will be no mention of the incentives already in place.  There will be broad assumptions that this building would have never gotten off the ground if the Mobility Fee was still in place - that the moratorium alone was the reason for all of the 'new growth'.

This would mean that Jax's economy would have had to be better than other communities (ex. like St. Johns County) with impact fees still in place during the last year.  It would be fairly easy to compare.  The big question would be if anyone here would even care.

Given how much crap people around here rant about paying taxes... I'm sure they will care!  If sold the right way!

QuoteI'd love to see the shops add a couple of stories, but for apartments only. San Marco, Five Points and Edgewood in Murray Hill  ought to do the same thing.

I have a few properties in Murray Hill that I would gladly allow the State to take off my hands with an Overland Highway right down the center of the neighborhood.

For those who cannot stand growth and change, there are nice places in St. Johns County, I hear.