Via Jax Biz Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/10/03/fresh-market-considering-riverside.html
I hope this happens. I drive out to the one in Julington Creek. Would be nice to have one in our backyard.
That would be terrific if it happened.
Just look at the site plan and you'll be singing a different tune. The commercial development indicated is a suburban layout with a large parking lot fronting Riverside.... IMO, it would fit the context of the neighborhood much better if it were part of a mixed use multi-level structure.
http://www.fuquadevelopment.com/files/jacksonville/riversideandjackson.pdf
That's 3 miles from my house in Springfield.....sounds good to me. My wife would be happy, that's for sure.
I've heard rumors of this commercial project for a while now. It's nice to see it moving forward. The site plan is bad but I don't see why it can't be modified like the residential component behind it was. Swap the building/parking lot locations, similar to Sawgrass Village in Ponte Vedra or the Publix in Riverside and it works pretty well.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Development/i-3Ltp5NF/0/L/Fresh-Market-L.jpg)
This will basically come down to the backbone of the DDRB and DIA to make sure the site design fits in properly with its surroundings.
I love Grassroots and Publix, but please Fresh Market, come to Riverside!! Perfect compliment between the two pre-existing grocery stores.
It should also definitely shut up the stuff about there not being a grocery downtown, despite the Winn Dixie on Union Street. However, if these projects (200 Riverside, Riverside Park, etc.) are coming on line by 2014, JTA needs to go ahead and get to work on at least opening a skyway station at their Riverside Avenue maintenance yard.
The site plan needs some work, but otherwise this is great news for the downtown area. Now to see it come to fruition...
I really love the fact that all these projects are coming to Brooklyn. A Fresh Market would be amazing there. I'll take what we can get, but am I the only one looking at site plan thinking it looks a bit too suburban for this part of the core?
Again, If this is as good as it gets, I'll it any day of the week over abandoned grassland, but it looks rather suburban to me.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2012, 12:57:52 PM
I've heard rumors of this commercial project for a while now. It's nice to see it moving forward. The site plan is bad but I don't see why it can't be modified like the residential component behind it was. Swap the building/parking lot locations, similar to Sawgrass Village in Ponte Vedra or the Publix in Riverside and it works pretty well.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Development/i-3Ltp5NF/0/L/Fresh-Market-L.jpg)
This will basically come down to the backbone of the DDRB and DIA to make sure the site design fits in properly with its surroundings.
Development partnership of Pope & Land and Jeff Fuqua/Fuqua Dev (both Atlanta-based, the latter formerly with Sembler, which did Riverside Ave Publix shopping center). I really don't think the development is spectacular (in fact it would be considered CRAP elsewhere), but anything for that area is better than nothing, I suppose, and Fresh Market would be BIG news.
Fuqua's development plans in Atlanta have been put on ice after city council has blocked his attempts at land use changes to incorporate big box retail in with residential, and he has also been shut down in Denver. He has made a horrible reputation for himself as a Walmart pimp, but fortunately neither city is desperate enough for new development to cow tow to his plans (which are all similar I might add to the above, with denser residential component).
Plans for Buckhead Walmart Near Lindbergh City Center Fall Short in City Council (http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201210020203KRTRIB__BUSNEWS_48405_55405-1¶ms=timestamp%7C%7C10/02/2012%202:03%20AM%20ET%7C%7Cheadline%7C%7CPlans%20for%20Buckhead%20Wal-Mart%20near%20Lindbergh%20Center%20fall%20short%20in%20City%20Council%20%5BThe%20Atlanta%20Journal-Constitution%5D%7C%7CdocSource%7C%7CKnight%20Ridder/Tribune%7C%7Cprovider%7C%7CACQUIREMEDIA%7C%7Cbridgesymbol%7C%7CUS;BBY&ticker=BBY)
Bait And Switch: Walmart Wants In On 9th And Colorado Blvd. (http://www.glendalecherrycreek.com/bait-and-switch-walmart-wants-in-on-9th-and-colorado-blvd/)
http://fuquadevelopment.com/
Here is the flyer for the project, called Riverside and Jackson (we have already seen this, BTW):
http://www.fuquadevelopment.com/files/jacksonville/riversideandjackson.pdf
Here is what was just SHOT DOWN:
QuoteLindbergh Place is a high density mix-use transit oriented development located in the heart of the Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta, across from the MARTA station. The project will include 175,000 sq ft of retail with a grocery store, 225 residential units and a 3-acre urban park. The park is a major addition to the area and will be beautifully appealing for the community.
http://www.fuquadevelopment.com/files/atlanta/lindberghplace.pdf
and more quotes about Fuqua for your reading pleasure:
QuoteGod help you folks in Atlanta. We in Denver are fighting Fuqua who got all this special zoning approved and then announced he was bringing in Walmart. Fuqua has a history of not fulfilling his promises, so don't expect to see the trail, etc. Highlands and another community near Denver, Ellich Gardens successfully opposed a Walmart destroying their neighborhood and area businesses, that's what we're hoping to do. If you think Fuqua doesn't work for Walmart - you're dreaming. Check out these papers re: Fuqua/Walmart in Cherry Creek Chronicle and Denver Post.
QuoteDora - He tried to pull the same thing here (TIF funding) when he was still with Sembler, the evil company that spawned him when they proposed Town Brookhaven. They were turned down by DeKalb County, but built it anyway. Don't believe ANYTHING this guy tells you folks. He's a snake, plain and simple.
QuoteActually Town Sembler in Brookhaven was on its way to getting insane tax subsidies but that information got out and citizens went ballistic which blocked the subsidy package. Nevertheless, they still got another subsidy that involved a sale lease back with the DeKalb Development authority that didn't need commissioner approval. Granted it was not as large a subsidy. But the site plan also went through several revisions.
With that said its not horrible for the area except that it is too far from the MARTA station and thus should have not had that density and it demolished decent work force housing that was there.
QuoteI live in Denver, CO and we are currently fighting Fuqua and one of his urban Walmart developments. He wants to put it right in the middle of numerous historic neighborhoods. We are having similar concerns regarding traffic and poor urban planning. I haven't met anyone here who likes him or his plans. He has been deceptive and outright lied to us many times. We hope he will go away!! And I hope you can stop him too!! Our website is stopwalmartcolorado.com if you want to check out what is happening here.
Just keep an eye on this development and be careful what you wish for. With this particular guy it might actually be better to have available land than some of the crap he has tried to build in the past. He has to deploy capital for his investors and he may just be looking to throw money at easy crap in Jacksonville to get some money out the door, so watch out. As you can tell, folks in Atlanta and Denver really love him, LoL (actually he probably needs armed protection!)
Creative Loafing always has interesting and informed posters:
http://clatl.com/freshloaf/archives/2012/09/19/fuqua-on-proposed-development-incorrect-to-say-walmart-is-tenant-well-build-part-of-beltline-trail
This would be AWESOME! I'd like to think that my wife had something to do with this. Literally last Sunday as we were on our way home from Fresh Market she emailed them to tell then that they needed on in the Ortega/Riverside Avondale /Springfield area! ;D
Great news. It's a good location and would be an awesome addition for Riverside and for Downtown. I love Fresh Market.
I'm surprised there aren't more negative opinions of the site plan. The development would fit in better next to SJTC than right in Brooklyn, FYI. It's going to be CHEAP stucco stick apartments, surface parking (essentially suburban garden apartments) with a strip center next door. I know the allure of Fresh Market is strong, but are we really going to **** all the developers' **** to get that Fresh Market?
This is an example of deploying capital as fast as possible and using whatever past relationships you have to do so (Lincoln, Pope & Land, Fuqua - all Atl buddies, then Fresh Market and Panera - both have working relationships with the developers...good thing it's not a Walmart as Fuqua has proposed in nearly all of his other devs).
Pope & Land owns the land - 4 blocks. Why is the partnership trying to develop all 4 blocks at once? Why not test the market with a better/riskier product (but actually less risk bc less size). Incorporate the Fresh Market *into* a multifamily structure (still stick, not too far above market rate rents) and provide covered/concealed parking.
Give it a rest Simms. Geez. Just chill out.
Whow!! DT is looking up! It would be nice to see that strecth of Riverside Ave active and not just parcels of land.
i dunno, fsujax. i think he's got a point. there's already more than enough housing floating around this area, and if we delude ourselves into believing that we need more, why get it from someöne who's pissed off the residents ov several other towns. i'm indifferent about the fresh market itself, but the rest ov the plan looks like bullshit.
Quote from: simms3 on October 03, 2012, 02:16:35 PM
I'm surprised there aren't more negative opinions of the site plan. The development would fit in better next to SJTC than right in Brooklyn, FYI. It's going to be CHEAP stucco stick apartments, surface parking (essentially suburban garden apartments) with a strip center next door. I know the allure of Fresh Market is strong, but are we really going to **** all the developers' **** to get that Fresh Market?
At this point in time, cheap stucco stick apartments (everyone can't afford $2k/month for an 1bd/1ba apartment), surface parking and a strip mall are fine, with the right site layout. The reality is Brooklyn isn't going to instantly turn into Midtown Atlanta or Brickell. It's perfectly okay infilling incrementally at all price points as long as the developments are pedestrian scale along the street and fit into their surroundings. Anything proposed would have to go through the design review process, so the opportunity to enhance the site layout stands.
Quote from: chipwich on October 03, 2012, 01:38:23 PM
I really love the fact that all these projects are coming to Brooklyn. A Fresh Market would be amazing there. I'll take what we can get, but am I the only one looking at site plan thinking it looks a bit too suburban for this part of the core?
Again, If this is as good as it gets, I'll it any day of the week over abandoned grassland, but it looks rather suburban to me.
While Simms has taken it to the opposite end, you don't have to lay down and except every bad plan that comes across your desk. Simple modifications can possibly enhance the developer's profit and the surrounding streetscape. In this case, you can demand better without raising the developer's construction costs by simply revising the site layout.
For example, here is a quick alternative simply moving the same boxes around on the site. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets Fuqua more surface parking to accommodate additional retail pads while also providing the retail with higher visibility from the street.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Development/i-6Xnj696/0/L/Fresh-Market-Alternative-L.jpg)
Here are some images from various places incorporating elements of what's shown above.
1. Move specialty retail and one big box up to Riverside Avenue at main entrance to provide an impressive multimodal friendly entrance.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Uptown-Charlotte/i-fMzR9s8/0/M/P1560740-M.jpg)
2. Buffer surface parking from main entry point to apartments, similar to this situation on Naples' 5th Avenue.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Naples/i-vvFJhw5/0/M/P1590261-M.jpg)
3. The better parking layout creates space for additional retail pads at entrance to apartments on main access drive.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Columbus-Ohio/i-TKWsQnW/0/M/P1560972-M.jpg)
4. Typical bix box surface parking in middle of site, hidden from street.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Fort-Myers/i-99N7tpN/0/M/P1590150-M.jpg)
5. Back of a Publix in Downtown Fort Myers
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Fort-Myers/i-SwDwSNQ/0/M/P1590154-M.jpg)
6-1. Push outparcels up to street
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Atlanta-Linbergh-Station-MARTA/i-49zzDCF/0/M/P1520043-M.jpg)
6-2. You can even include a courtyard that provides outdoor dining and visibility to big box in rear.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Atlanta-Linbergh-Station-MARTA/i-SHmRNPw/0/M/P1520065-M.jpg)
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on October 03, 2012, 02:59:11 PM
i dunno, fsujax. i think he's got a point. there's already more than enough housing floating around this area, and if we delude ourselves into believing that we need more, why get it from someöne who's pissed off the residents ov several other towns. i'm indifferent about the fresh market itself, but the rest ov the plan looks like bullshit.
There actually isn't enough multifamily rental properties available in the downtown area. That's why 200 Riverside and Riverside Park have popped up.
Quote from: fsujax on October 03, 2012, 02:20:53 PM
Give it a rest Simms. Geez. Just chill out.
It seriously sounds like a few people on this thread are drunk and they're mad at Simms for trying to call them a cab. That site plan is horrendous. This looks almost identical to the target on Roosevelt, the Target/Publix on San Jose in Mandarin, the Target/Comp USA center on Southside, the BestBuy on Southside, the Markets at Town Center........ ETC. Brooklyn is one of our last opportunities in town to create smart development and mid-high density residential that will tie our two densest neighborhoods together. Currently it's a blank slate and the possibilities are endless. If this project is approved without serious modifications to its orientation to the street, we'll be putting the area, DT, and the urban core at a big disadvantage and it will set a horrible precedent. Jacksonville can't afford to throw away Brooklyn to some hot shot developer with a power point. I think downtown has some momentum going for it now that will embolden the DIA and DDRB to force the developer to improve their site plan, but if this development goes in it will really fail to meet the potential of this neighborhood. I could pass on it.
Lake, I understand your points completely, however, I have to say that Brooklyn is technically "Downtown" and should not be developed with single story/single use retail structures lining the riverfront skyline. Your proposed revamp works perfectly for lower density areas such as Riverside, Springfield, San Marco, etc.
We need developments like 200 Riverside and Everbank Center to populate that corridor allowing a higher density mixture of uses out of each property. That entire development could be stacked up on one parcel versus spreading out in a "feaux urban" suburban layout.
Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.
While we are all having cows, Is everyone missing that the site layout can be changed? I think is the point Lake is making.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2012, 03:02:37 PM
Quote from: simms3 on October 03, 2012, 02:16:35 PM
I'm surprised there aren't more negative opinions of the site plan. The development would fit in better next to SJTC than right in Brooklyn, FYI. It's going to be CHEAP stucco stick apartments, surface parking (essentially suburban garden apartments) with a strip center next door. I know the allure of Fresh Market is strong, but are we really going to **** all the developers' **** to get that Fresh Market?
At this point in time, cheap stucco stick apartments (everyone can't afford $2k/month for an 1bd/1ba apartment), surface parking and a strip mall are fine, with the right site layout. The reality is Brooklyn isn't going to instantly turn into Midtown Atlanta or Brickell. It's perfectly okay infilling incrementally at all price points as long as the developments are pedestrian scale along the street and fit into their surroundings. Anything proposed would have to go through the design review process, so the opportunity to enhance the site layout stands.
I do agree Jax is not ready for $2K 600SF 1BRs. Neither is anywhere else in the south in abundance with few microcosmic exceptions here and there. I do think Jax is ready for $150K/unit construction and $1.50psf/mo rents in small doses here and there, which can be achieved with a major modification of the design. The rents at some of those newer/upscale ~100-200 unit devs going up near SJTC are going to really push the limits for Jax...I think it would be easier to push these rents in an urban development that might appeal to young 25-30 year old transplants used to living in similar projects in other cities (and paying more).
Instead of doing all 4-6 blocks at once, why not try to test the waters with 1-2? Fresh Market most likely needs to "front" Riverside Ave to go in there (hence its facing the Ave in the original site plan). One redeeming quality was the wide sidewalk separating the Ave and the dev and the curb cuts/ingress/egress points on the side streets rather than ON the Ave (which undoubtedly would never fly, even in an unprogressive town, given the potential traffic nightmare).
Why not develop just those two blocks, which are only 1 block down from the proposed 225 Riverside, into apartment wrapped garages with ground floor retail, and a corner cutout for the Fresh Market (putting one directly below apartments *would* increase the hard costs and therefore the rents significantly. I've seen too many examples of what I just described in cities the size of Jax (or in suburban areas trying to densify/become more walkable). Jax can do the same.
The last thing the site needs is surface parking anywhere. Asphalt parking should in fact be illegal in FL altogether (at mininum go for stained concrete rather than black tar).
Given the limited amount of knowledge I have about development, and judging by the decision of the market, the product, the quality, who's behind it, etc...these guys are trying to move capital as fast as possible. They are essentially "using" Jacksonville to put in cheap apartments and a strip center because none of the developers have anything major going on anywhere else (and at least one *can't* get any projects approved elsewhere because they are so bad).
What is deemed by some to be a positive (and it HAS positives, don't get me wrong) is none other than a desperate attempt by others (kind of like sloppy seconds, except there weren't even firsts...or all the firsts were repulsed and won't have anymore after their bad experience)
Quote from: Jason on October 03, 2012, 03:14:57 PM
Lake, I understand your points completely, however, I have to say that Brooklyn is technically "Downtown" and should not be developed with single story/single use retail structures lining the riverfront skyline. Your proposed revamp works perfectly for lower density areas such as Riverside, Springfield, San Marco, etc.
We need developments like 200 Riverside and Everbank Center to populate that corridor allowing a higher density mixture of uses out of each property. That entire development could be stacked up on one parcel versus spreading out in a "feaux urban" suburban layout.
I might be one of the few downtown advocates out there who doesn't believe we're going to see it mushroom into the next urban mecca before 2020.
With our vacancy rates and the change in the amount of office space needed for many companies, we'd wait 30 years for this corridor to be infilled with additional Everbank Centers. Even 200 Riverside has been a decade in the making and a part of that decade was one of the largest urban boom periods in the last 50 years.
I don't see single or two story commercial on this property being a problem at this point. However, I also don't see Brooklyn or LaVilla as being "downtown" either. The only thing making them "downtown" or a part of the "CBD" is the JEDC's imaginary borders that have been extended over the years. They're historically low rise urban core neighborhoods that can still be more dense than anything else in Jax by just filling in. I'm prefectly fine if those neighborhoods infill into an environment and scale similar to Savannah, Charleston or DC. Besides, by the time all of our underutilized lots fill in, this development will have served its natural life anyway and would just become an infill redevelopment site 30 years down the line.
Quote from: fsujax on October 03, 2012, 03:21:13 PM
Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.
You are pretty funny (and completely misguided). Why would I bring up Atlanta (and Denver and other cities) in this convo? Because the friggin developers hail from there and there are relevant situations going on...there. Bend over and take whatever they give you and don't complain in 10 years when finally there is momentum in the area and some developers from the utopia that is Atlanta came in and raped the city of Jacksonville, creating an evil red-headed stepchild in the form of strip malls on downtown's doorway and apartments that won't look any better than projects in 5 years.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2012, 03:04:10 PMactually isn't enough multifamily rental properties available in the downtown area. That's why 200 Riverside and Riverside Park have popped up.
i may've spoken a little sloppily--i realize there's a shortage ov stuff that can be rented tomorrow--but the buildings are there, they just need work. i believe we should fix existing buildings before paying out-ov-towners to throw new ones up.
Quote from: simms3 on October 03, 2012, 03:28:23 PM
Instead of doing all 4-6 blocks at once, why not try to test the waters with 1-2? Fresh Market most likely needs to "front" Riverside Ave to go in there (hence its facing the Ave in the original site plan).
What's wrong with developing all six blocks between 2-4 stories? It's not like we have a space crunch on land, which would make denser projects more financially feasible.
QuoteWhy not develop just those two blocks, which are only 1 block down from the proposed 225 Riverside, into apartment wrapped garages with ground floor retail, and a corner cutout for the Fresh Market (putting one directly below apartments *would* increase the hard costs and therefore the rents significantly. I've seen too many examples of what I just described in cities the size of Jax (or in suburban areas trying to densify/become more walkable). Jax can do the same.
Primarily higher construction costs. However, that doesn't mean this won't happen on other blocks within the core. We've got room for a variety of projects at different scales and market prices. At this point, I'd be more concerned with getting a few initial developments off of paper and into reality, while making sure they work at pedestrian level.
QuoteThe last thing the site needs is surface parking anywhere. Asphalt parking should in fact be illegal in FL altogether (at mininum go for stained concrete rather than black tar).
Force every development in this area to have structured parking and we might was well rename Brooklyn, Eastside Detroit. Because other than a project or two, most of the land will sit empty.
QuoteGiven the limited amount of knowledge I have about development, and judging by the decision of the market, the product, the quality, who's behind it, etc...these guys are trying to move capital as fast as possible. They are essentially "using" Jacksonville to put in cheap apartments and a strip center because none of the developers have anything major going on anywhere else (and at least one *can't* get any projects approved elsewhere because they are so bad).
What is deemed by some to be a positive (and it HAS positives, don't get me wrong) is none other than a desperate attempt by others (kind of like sloppy seconds, except there weren't even firsts...or all the firsts were repulsed and won't have anymore after their bad experience)
[/quote]
Jax hasn't gotten laid in a while and its always the last person selected for the pick up basketball game. Now the head cheerleader has taken interest for whatever reason. You can have a little fun with Atlanta's sloppy seconds without marrying her. Just ask Kayne West if he's enjoying Ray J's and Reggie Bush's leftovers!
Quote from: KuroiKetsunoHana on October 03, 2012, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2012, 03:04:10 PMactually isn't enough multifamily rental properties available in the downtown area. That's why 200 Riverside and Riverside Park have popped up.
i may've spoken a little sloppily--i realize there's a shortage ov stuff that can be rented tomorrow--but the buildings are there, they just need work. i believe we should fix existing buildings before paying out-ov-towners to throw new ones up.
Unless you're going to give away the house in incentives, not all buildings can be renovated into similar projects. Riverside Park is a 300 unit apartment project. There is no existing site in the Northbank that is readily available to be renovated into what they are proposing.
i'm probably exposing my naiveté here, but a 300-unit apartment building isn't enough? if that many people need apartments in the area, where the hell are they staying now?
A chunk of people head to the Southside because that type of product isn't available downtown. Also, if you want to get your population up to 5,000 (the number quoted by DIA board member Don Shea), you'll need a lot more than 300 new units.
Quote from: fsujax on October 03, 2012, 03:21:13 PM
Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.
I get what simms was saying, but have to agree with fsujax here
as for the site plan, I seem to remember that JTA controlled a certain amount of space along Riverside Avenue for possible skyway extension....if so, it would make it more difficult to pull the buildings up to the street (although parking under the skyway is doable).
See in bold.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2012, 03:43:21 PM
What's wrong with developing all six blocks between 2-4 stories? It's not like we have a space crunch on land, which would make denser projects more financially feasible.
Their proposal looks to be 30% building, 70% parking/median. I'm totally fine with 2-4 floors, though 2-3 floors implies townhomes, which would never be financed right there right now (for sale). See my comment below and you can probably tell where I'm coming from.
Primarily higher construction costs.
I can guarantee you it's not construction costs. Sure the price of concrete is rising and so a concealed prefab structured arrangement might force them to put more units on 1-2 blocks, leaving 4 more blocks untouched for the time being, but it's exactly that. If they only owned 2 blocks, that's what they would do. I promise. They could lease the place up at $1.30-$1.40psf just as easily as $1.10-$1.20psf with the surface parking (we're not talking a huge $ amount difference here, and they could probably do more/smaller units with the hybrid format than with this garden format which will attract renters expecting more space and better interior finishes ala suburban apts).
They have 6 freakin blocks that were cheap as hell (allowing them to do low-med density garden + strip center and surface parking), but they're also paying taxes on 6 city blocks. That carry cost and potential need to beat out the market/competition is spurring them to just fill all 6 blocks with less than mediocre crap and one shining star of an anchor retail tenant (who would be just as happy with the same visibility on Riverside via signage/corner door and secondary entrance through garage in the back).
I suppose the one MAJOR advantage to the whole 6 block scheme is now every other parcel in Brooklyn is that much more valuable, which might push higher density and ultimately better design and potentially better quality, especially if the 2 proposals on the table exceed projections.
This is not Related looking to do 6 blocks in Manhattan with institutional/sovereign equity coming out their ears. These are on the edge SE developers looking to deploy capital for their investors as quickly and generically as possible, which means they need quick and cheap debt (risk free garden apts with abundant parking in underserved "infill" area anchored by Fresh Market in cookie cutter strip next door, woohoo!)
However, that doesn't mean this won't happen on other blocks within the core. We've got room for a variety of projects at different scales and market prices. At this point, I'd be more concerned with getting a few initial developments off of paper and into reality, while making sure they work at pedestrian level.
Touche and agreed. Market prices for Brooklyn will always be higher than equivalence off Baymeadows, though.
Force every development in this area to have structured parking and we might was well rename Brooklyn, Eastside Detroit. Because other than a project or two, most of the land will sit empty.
Deep down I agree. I don't want to, though. Keep in mind as I stated above if this were a 1-2 block deal they could just as easily do concealed structured parking wrapped by efficient urban apartments above the retail as they can do garden apts with surface parking and a strip center on 6 blocks.
Jax hasn't gotten laid in a while and its always the last person selected for the pick up basketball game. Now the head cheerleader has taken interest for whatever reason. You can have a little fun with Atlanta's sloppy seconds without marrying her. Just ask Kayne West if he's enjoying Ray J's and Reggie Bush's leftovers!
Major touche.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 03, 2012, 05:06:54 PM
Quote from: fsujax on October 03, 2012, 03:21:13 PM
Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.
I get what simms was saying, but have to agree with fsujax here
as for the site plan, I seem to remember that JTA controlled a certain amount of space along Riverside Avenue for possible skyway extension....if so, it would make it more difficult to pull the buildings up to the street (although parking under the skyway is doable).
That would explain the major ROW between the retail and Riverside Ave according to site plan (as well as the lack of ingress/egress directly on Riverside). Also, grow up - You know I make valid points but you just want to hate. :)
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 03, 2012, 05:06:54 PM
Quote from: fsujax on October 03, 2012, 03:21:13 PM
Guys i agree the site plan can be revised to better to fit the area. It just seems Simms is always finding some way to trash Jacksonville and is trying to make us believe how much better everything in Atlanta is.
I get what simms was saying, but have to agree with fsujax here
as for the site plan, I seem to remember that JTA controlled a certain amount of space along Riverside Avenue for possible skyway extension....if so, it would make it more difficult to pull the buildings up to the street (although parking under the skyway is doable).
You pull them up to your property line and the space reserved for the skyway becomes a linear green space. That's even better than pulling a storefront directly up to Riverside Avenue. Assuming the area infills over time, a linear green with a mix of uses opening up to it could be a pretty decent third person atmosphere.
Quote from: simms3 on October 03, 2012, 05:20:34 PM
Their proposal looks to be 30% building, 70% parking/median. I'm totally fine with 2-4 floors, though 2-3 floors implies townhomes, which would never be financed right there right now (for sale).
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1728125797_pxKvxjh-M.jpg)
Not the best site plan but it appears the massing of the main apartment buildings are 5 stories. While I wish the apartment buildings were against the property line, depending on how the carriage homes are designed, even them at 2 stories on Park and Stonewall won't necessarily be that bad. With this development, I'd be more concerned if these were interior blocks in Brooklyn. However, the parking (not talking about the retail component) is basically out of mind out of site.
Primarily higher construction costs.
QuoteThey have 6 freakin blocks that were cheap as hell (allowing them to do low-med density garden + strip center and surface parking), but they're also paying taxes on 6 city blocks. That carry cost and potential need to beat out the market/competition is spurring them to just fill all 6 blocks with less than mediocre crap and one shining star of an anchor retail tenant (who would be just as happy with the same visibility on Riverside via signage/corner door and secondary entrance through garage in the back).
I suppose the one MAJOR advantage to the whole 6 block scheme is now every other parcel in Brooklyn is that much more valuable, which might push higher density and ultimately better design and potentially better quality, especially if the 2 proposals on the table exceed projections.
With so much land available and the dynamics of this specific site, I'm not as concerned. Looking at the long term picture, I see much of this development as being incremental to reaching a larger goal. For the retail component, I'm even fine with a Riverside Publix style development on that block as long as its up on the street and not in the strip mall format currently shown. With that said, I still believe it can be better than the downtown St. Petersburg Publix development Sembler did.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8084-p1170748.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8078-p1170751.JPG)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-8072-p1170747.JPG)
From original discussion:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2012-feb-riverside-park-development-proposed-for-brooklyn
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1728125987_xnv5XF4-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1728126046_V5nNV6g-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1728126047_LMMSHPx-M.jpg)
Man if this thing weren't 6 blocks (and now I think I'm counting 8!), it would be a totally different story. I can't find it, but I believe I had seen some rent numbers for this deal either on this site or on BizJournal (maybe through grapevine, I dunno). They were higher than I would imagine they needed to be for this deal (like almost as high as could be justified with structured parking on cheap infill dirt). 1 BRs started in the 900s or low 1000s if I recall. 2 BRs started around 1400 and went to 1800? Can someone find this info?
Riverside Ave apts sold for $150K/door.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2012/07/27/riverside-apartment-property-sells.html
Tapestry Park apts sell for $153K/door.
http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2011/06/24/tatersall-at-tapestry-park-sold-for.html
Garden deals on the SS around Gate are trading at $120K-$130K/door, so note the difference in structured parking deals vs non-structured (15-25% at most in Jax), plus Tattersall and Villas have more luxurious features and larger floorplans than required by infill urban deals seeking a different group of renters. Trade luxury finishes with higher land cost and you have the same deal in Brooklyn as Villas and Tattersall. I don't think it's a stretch (these kinds of deals are getting done in DT/south of DT Birmingham, AL of all places).
The other thing to consider is the potential for Brooklyn devs to "steal" renters from the SS, due to their location and uniqueness, if a scene/community forms. All of a sudden investor activity shifts focus from Gate Pkwy to Riverside Ave and you could be protected on your back end as a developer (and increase your financing capabilities).
Again...we're talking one partnership owning 8 blocks in an un-pioneered market. I think their strategy is to get in and get out with a huge "IRR", which requires them to "cram" all 8 blocks with something fast and something they know will work without a doubt (and that lenders know will work...which means cookie cutter to the max). Cookie cutter for what is 8 "walled off" blocks - 40 acres? would be garden style and strip center. Cookie cutter for 1-2 actual city blocks would be hybrid stick wrapped around structured parking with space for retail below with nobody actually underwriting the retail unless a creative design team could somehow fit in that Fresh Market.
No doubt the old Brooklyn Park was a superior development proposal to this site. However, if it can be a catalyst to stimulate additional market rate activity in the area, be designed to fit in at the pedestrian scale and be up by 2014, why not? If these Atlanta guys make a ton of cash off Jax overnight but leave a viable project that helps encourage more activity in Brooklyn and downtown by bringing in a residential component and retailers that downtown has long struggled to land, why not?
If it were in the middle of downtown or taking out blocks of existing buildings in a historic neighborhood, I'd feel different. However, this particular 12.5-acre site backs up to the Park Street viaduct and JTA's skyway maintenance yard. So Lincoln is proposing what basically amounts to a Villas of St. Johns (a previous development of theirs) in Brooklyn with interior surface parking shielded from the street with two story townhomes. It's not the best but it surely isn't the worst thing to move forward in Brooklyn. On top of that, Pope & Land is flipping the remaining two blocks to Fuqua, who is proposing 60,000 square feet of retail anchored by a Fresh Market. The initial layout resembles a strip mall off Baymeadows but we still have an opportunity to have the site modified into a more urban format.
Taking a bigger look at this situation, there is a strong possibility that in two years, between this and 200 Riverside, we can have 600 multifamily units, nearly 70,000 square feet of leased retail and an urban public park/plaza replacing seven blocks of moonscape between DT and Riverside. You can't tell me that the influence of these two projects going up that quick won't immediately positively impact the market for additional infill on the surrounding blocks. Quite frankly, I'd take this situation over the Parador garage any day. Out of all the things plaguing the core, what these guys are bringing to the table are the least of my concerns.
If I'm JTA, I should be giving the green light to at least adding an additional skyway stop on Riverside Avenue.
If anything, I'd be more concerned about this:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1728125987_xnv5XF4-M.jpg)
That's way too much parking to force into an urban site for a project this size.
Agree and agree. Just always have to play devil's advocate. It all trickles down. In Toronto I hear that people there are literally tired of 70 floor condos with major high street retail going in, and they actually want a less intense use and something more "down to earth". In Denver and Seattle they have moved on to a similar level of development (in terms of quality) as Chicago, San Francisco and Boston and would die at the thought of a parking pedestal beneath a new tower (well actually Chicago still does that!), or another apartment wrapped garage with "ground level retail". In Atlanta I think we have really grown tired of Novare's level of development, of parking pedestals and the 20-30 new podium style or wrapped garage style apts now going up and we want something better and would like to get to Seattle's level (hence the huge pushbacks to developments like you guys are receiving and the outcasting of developers like Fuqua for even attempting to bring Walmart to the city...though Seattle does have an awesome 3 floor Target right downtown, and so does SF...seen both now). I forget that Jax really hasn't participated in anything yet...so if I were down there I would be super duper excited at this proposal. I do agree Fresh Market right there would be huge...like basically to the level of Whole Foods.
I don't think Riverside Ave will be a hip street in that area in 20 years anyways. Too much of a highway. Park St could really be walkable and special and should be saved for such potential.
BTW that whole site is really only 12.5AC? From Park to Riverside and 2 long blocks wide? (If you count it as 6 blocks that's only 2 acres a block!) I guess that's about right! I was way off!
http://www.land4ever.com/block.htm
Yeah, it's roughly six blocks. A chunk of the land between Riverside and May Street is ROW that FDOT set aside to JTA for a possible skyway extension to Forest Street. When they widened Riverside Avenue, they had to rip down a full block of buildings between Riverside and May since they lined the street.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/brooklyn/Riverside-Avenue.jpg)
Also, I agree about Park Street. I think it can be a really nice street with a great urban vibe. It's not an official historic district like Riverside but it still has a good supply of old brick buildings and warehouses. It's a great opportunity to mix in modern infill with older buildings.
Btw, for those of you that are skeptical and fearful of a streetcar connecting Park & King to Downtown, that image above is your road based alternative when the Auto Level of Service on Riverside Avenue and Park Street fails. More expensive and definitely more damaging for a historic neighborhood where the building stock lines the sidewalks.
I remember very vividly the old Riverside Ave and that hulking brick structure. I miss it! All those old buildings could have been turned into office space for small companies, coffee shops, restaurants, etc creating a demand for higher density infill to be built nearby (in a better form than proposed). Very similar corridor to Memorial near Oakland Park Cemetery in Atl (4 lanes, heavy traffic leading into/out of downtown to interstate, bordering historic neighborhoods...now lined with infill and restored warehouses/restaurants).
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2012, 07:53:38 PM
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/brooklyn/Riverside-Avenue.jpg)
I miss Riverside Avenue circa 2000 :( It felt like an urban roadway rather than a landing strip.
Wasn't here in 2000, but holy crap what the fuck did you guys do? Set fire to the whole street? Thanks for posting that picture
We just "had" to get those wide roadway lanes and median in there to move automobiles since that's the most important thing in transportation planning. The buildings had to go because they were in the way. What were those guys from 100 years ago thinking when they built that close to the street?
Quote from: fsquid on October 03, 2012, 10:35:28 PM
Wasn't here in 2000, but holy crap what the fuck did you guys do? Set fire to the whole street? Thanks for posting that picture
X2
That's insane.
The evolution of Riverside Avenue and Forest Street over the last 20 years will be an interesting one.
1994
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-F92TFM9/0/L/1994-L.jpg)
2002
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-Z79bz2w/0/L/2002-L.jpg)
2011
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Other/mi/i-vzrkJd9/0/L/2011-L.jpg)
2014?
Quote from: simms3 on October 03, 2012, 08:48:59 PM
I remember very vividly the old Riverside Ave and that hulking brick structure. I miss it! All those old buildings could have been turned into office space for small companies, coffee shops, restaurants, etc creating a demand for higher density infill to be built nearby (in a better form than proposed). Very similar corridor to Memorial near Oakland Park Cemetery in Atl (4 lanes, heavy traffic leading into/out of downtown to interstate, bordering historic neighborhoods...now lined with infill and restored warehouses/restaurants).
That old hulking building was Delcher Moving and Storage and had been vacant for many years. It was a storage building with low ceilings and concrete ramps so unsuited to any other use unfortunately.
Quote from: acme54321 on October 04, 2012, 07:11:48 AM
Quote from: fsquid on October 03, 2012, 10:35:28 PM
Wasn't here in 2000, but holy crap what the fuck did you guys do? Set fire to the whole street? Thanks for posting that picture
X2
That's insane.
Ditto. Had no idea. That's atrocious. The 2000 picture really does look like a big-boy city, whereas 2006 (and today) it just looks like a wasteland bypass.
FDOT planning at its best! As long as it looks pretty and moves cars it's good.
^ please...for FDOT, it usually doesn't even have to look pretty
Quote from: PeeJayEss on October 04, 2012, 09:48:31 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on October 04, 2012, 07:11:48 AM
Quote from: fsquid on October 03, 2012, 10:35:28 PM
Wasn't here in 2000, but holy crap what the fuck did you guys do? Set fire to the whole street? Thanks for posting that picture
X2
That's insane.
Ditto. Had no idea. That's atrocious. The 2000 picture really does look like a big-boy city, whereas 2006 (and today) it just looks like a wasteland bypass.
Great now I have the song "This is how we do it" stuck in my head.
Because around here that is how it's done.
Back to the point, this fresh market development looks pretty lame. You have 220 Riverside going up next door than then this crap being proposed? Ugh. Looks like something from Mandarin.
Not only was the Riverside Ave. widening the wrong thing to do, but IIRC it was the most expensive road project per mile ever done in Jacksonville, at least at the time. The reason of course is because to do the widening, so many buildings had to be demolished, as opposed to just taking some lawn or parking.
I also remember a T-U article saying the area was targeted to become Jacksonville's equivalent to the Brickell corridor in Miami. With two, now three Fortune 500 companies HQ'ed there, that actually made some sense.
It's great that Fresh market wants to come, but this project is just not up to snuff, IMO. Eight blocks is too much land for so little density. This looks like LaVilla Part 2. I know jax is desperate, but 220 Riverside is much better, and if that can happen, why not demand something at least that good.
I wish a new YMCA could be incorporated into this project (or better still, 220 Riverside). They need a new facility and it could serve as the Fitness center for the apartment projects. Plus the Y could sell their high dollar site and have a nice endowment to operate with.
It is true as soon as this and 220 Riverside are built, there is not that much available land to develop on (especially not without demo'ing more buildings). I was beginning to agree with Lakelander that the city should just invite the development being that it is in no place to say "no", but looking at those aerials this development will essentially "be" Brooklyn...so you'll really be stuck with these 2 developments and not much room for anything else save for a few additions and rehabs here and there. It won't really be enough to justify extending the skyway given how much we all know that thing costs to go even a quarter of a mile.
Quote from: simms3 on October 04, 2012, 03:21:43 PM
It is true as soon as this and 220 Riverside are built, there is not that much available land to develop on (especially not without demo'ing more buildings).
There won't be land on those seven blocks but the majority of downtown is nothing but parking lots. Even Brooklyn has blocks of parking, vacant buildings and vacant parcels available for infill. A max out of land after 600 units and 70,000 square feet of retail going up on seven dead blocks isn't happening.
QuoteI was beginning to agree with Lakelander that the city should just invite the development being that it is in no place to say "no", but looking at those aerials this development will essentially "be" Brooklyn...so you'll really be stuck with these 2 developments and not much room for anything else save for a few additions and rehabs here and there.
I didn't say, just invite them "as is". I said work with them to modify their plans to make them workable at the pedestrian scale. I just happen to think you can do that without forcing someone into adding structured parking. Lay them out right and they can still accommodate infill at a later date if the market supports it.
QuoteIt won't really be enough to justify extending the skyway given how much we all know that thing costs to go even a quarter of a mile.
To be honest, other than opening a station at the maintenance yard, it makes no sense to spend the money to extend the skyway. If the streetcar funded by the mobility plan between DT and Riverside comes online, it serves the corridor better. If you got another pot of money laying around for a skyway expansion, use it on getting the skyway a half mile south to Atlantic Boulevard in San Marco. Don't blow your transit wad on two fixed transit lines a block or two parallel to each other.
Fresh Market, Classical music playing, lots of good wholesome food, no cigarettes, and a lot of free samples. The woods in Brooklyn are a favorite locale of the homeless. I see they haven't pushed all of the locals out. Zombieland (aka the Methadone Clinic at Park and Forest) will find it convenient. The free people mover is close by to provide free transportation. I think this clash of cultures would make a good reality show. I'd watch it.