Via Jacksonville.com; Riverside YMCA to announce expansion and redevelopment plans this Friday afternoon at an invite only lunch.
Quote
The YMCA of Florida’s First Coast will announce plans Friday for a new facility to serve the Riverside area.
The announcement about the project will be made at an outdoor invitation-only luncheon at the existing YMCA in Riverside, according to a media advisory.
Design details will be presented, as well as a progress report on a capital fundraising campaign
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-15/story/ymca-go-public-plans-riverside#ixzz29OySS3sP
More info here: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-15/story/ymca-go-public-plans-riverside (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-15/story/ymca-go-public-plans-riverside)
Quote from: Captain Zissou on October 15, 2012, 04:32:24 PM
Via Jacksonville.com; Riverside YMCA to announce expansion and redevelopment plans this Friday afternoon at an invite only lunch.
Quote
The YMCA of Florida’s First Coast will announce plans Friday for a new facility to serve the Riverside area.
The announcement about the project will be made at an outdoor invitation-only luncheon at the existing YMCA in Riverside, according to a media advisory.
Design details will be presented, as well as a progress report on a capital fundraising campaign
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-15/story/ymca-go-public-plans-riverside#ixzz29OySS3sP
More info here: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-15/story/ymca-go-public-plans-riverside (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-15/story/ymca-go-public-plans-riverside)
I hope they don't tear down the existing building. Any word on that?
One of the architects is my neighbor - from what she describes it'll be more interactive with the Riverwalk.
I'm just going to assume that because of this they're never going to fix the myriad leaks the Riverside Y has.
The old one is coming down
Quote
YMCA to confirm new Riverside facility
Jacksonville Business Journal by Ashley Gurbal Kritzer, Reporter
Date: Monday, October 15, 2012, 3:40pm EDT
Enlarge Image Natalie Kennedy
Sponsored Links
Paychex® Payroll & HR Solutions
Payroll, Human Resources and Benefits. Trusted by 500K businesses. Get a quote!
Paychex.com
Planning for Retirement?
$500,000 portfolio? Download the guide by Forbes Columnist Ken Fisher's firm.
www.FisherInvestments.com
Get Listed Here
Ashley Gurbal Kritzer
Reporter- Jacksonville Business Journal
Email | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook The Yates Family YMCA will announce its “new Riverside Y project†at a luncheon Friday, according to a media advisory.
Earlier this year, the Y started putting together a fundraising campaign for a new facility closer to the river and hiring an architect for the project, The Business Journal reported in February.
“In the current plan, that [current] building would remain operational while the new building is constructed,†Y spokesman Nikos Westmoreland said at the time. “At some point that building would be demolished.â€
Westmoreland said the current building may become a surface parking lot. If there’s interest in developing that land, it could become a parking garage with another building on top of it.
In March, Mayor Alvin Brown told a crowd at the First Coast Real Estate Economic Outlook conference that he opposed the idea.
“I’d rather that property be used for new development on the water,†Brown said at the time. “The Y will not generate new tax revenue for the city. ... If [Jacksonville Jaguars owner] Shahid Khan wants to build a mixed-use [development] there ... which would you rather have? That or the Y? Clap if you want the $100 million development!â€
The Y’s new building would be the latest development in that area of Riverside.
Hallmark Partners Inc. has said it intends to break ground soon on an apartment complex in Brooklyn, and Fresh Market Inc. is also eyeing a site along Riverside Avenue
Why does this Mayor oppose a community service that is funded privately by the community? if its to create more tax revenue then why not focus on the over 100 acres of DT waterfront land currently under city ownership? Unbelievable!
I don't mind them being on the river as long as the structure actually interacts with the riverwalk. However, I'd be more concerned with what happens with the frontage along Riverside Avenue. I'm really not a fan of surface parking there.
I actually like the look of the existing building, though I have never been in it and I understand from many that it has issues and is apparently not fit for purpose or isn't really getting the job done.
I don't oppose the demolition of the building because it's historical or anything - I just like the way it looks from the street.
It would really suck if they turn it into a parking lot, though.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 15, 2012, 06:25:48 PM
I don't mind them being on the river as long as the structure actually interacts with the riverwalk. However, I'd be more concerned with what happens with the frontage along Riverside Avenue. I'm really not a fan of surface parking there.
This is my main issue, too.
Quote from: ben says on October 15, 2012, 06:55:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 15, 2012, 06:25:48 PM
I don't mind them being on the river as long as the structure actually interacts with the riverwalk. However, I'd be more concerned with what happens with the frontage along Riverside Avenue. I'm really not a fan of surface parking there.
This is my main issue, too.
Where would the parking be placed then? Don't want it on the river. Don't want it on Riverside. There is only so much room.
It's a four acre urban site. Parking could be under the building like Haskell next door, on the roof like the Urbana retail strip at Jax Beach or in the middle of the site, like the Publix shopping center down the street in Riverside. You have a lot of options, so the default suburban alternative should be avoided at all costs.
Quote from: SunKing on October 15, 2012, 06:17:45 PM
Why does this Mayor oppose a community service that is funded privately by the community?
Because it doesn't represent the highest and best use of this very high potential property. A 1-2 story building with surface parking is a total waste for a large waterfront parcel on the water.
Quoteif its to create more tax revenue then why not focus on the over 100 acres of DT waterfront land currently under city ownership
Why not do both?
It wouldn't be a bad idea for these guys to team up with one of the other projects in the immediate vicinity and consolidate development sites. Someone mentioned this in the thread about the retail development across the street. I don't know if it's feasible, given the multiple property owners, but I think its worth exploring.
Since the land naturally slopes down from Riverside Ave to the Riverwalk, it would be easy to conceal parking behind whatever fronts the street. I'd like to see a mid-rise building fronting the road with retail, then at least 3 levels of parking integrated into the front building and utilizing the slope of the land for an extra level like at FNF, then the Y can do what it wants on the riverfront, but a cafe or smoothie shop fronting the riverwalk would be a great addition. It would be benificial to YMCA to sell off part of the land to help fund construction and to partner with a company to share the costs of parking. It would benefit the company to have that view and a great asset for employees to use next door. It would benefit the city to generate some tax revenue out of that site and avoid any mess over trying to force the Y out hoping for a buyer that may not materialize.
Quote from: vicupstate on October 15, 2012, 08:17:01 PM
Quote from: SunKing on October 15, 2012, 06:17:45 PM
Why does this Mayor oppose a community service that is funded privately by the community?
Because it doesn't represent the highest and best use of this very high potential property. A 1-2 story building with surface parking is a total waste for a large waterfront parcel on the water.
Sooo, maybe they should do nothing? The Y currently occupies a 2 story building with waterfront surface parking. Would that be the highest and best use?
Quoteif its to create more tax revenue then why not focus on the over 100 acres of DT waterfront land currently under city ownership
Why not do both?
Exactly, promote both.
I suggested to the Y that they open their own smoothies shop inside their facility in order to generate more money of it's own. I'd love a nutritious fruit smoothie after a good workout!
I agree with the idea of putting parking between the Y and a a building on Riverside ave. The Riverside ave building should be a highrise apartment building, not condos but rentals with parking hidden from view.
Quote from: urbaknight on October 17, 2012, 01:20:35 PM
I suggested to the Y that they open their own smoothies shop inside their facility in order to generate more money of it's own. I'd love a nutritious fruit smoothie after a good workout!
They used to have exactly what you describe - a smoothie bar with healthy lunches, drinks, etc. I guess it didn't turn a profit.
Hey, I second smoothies. The Brooks Y has a juice bar, though I believe it's a left-over from when it was still just a Brooks facility.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-19/story/ymca-announces-21-million-riverside-y-replace-current-building (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-19/story/ymca-announces-21-million-riverside-y-replace-current-building)
QuoteBy Beth Reese Cracey
After years of planning, the YMCA of Florida’s First Coast has kicked off an aggressive plan to fund a $21 million three-story showplace to replace the aging Riverside branch, expand services throughout neighboring areas and help rejuvenate downtown.
The 80,000-square-foot, glass-fronted complex will be built on vacant riverfront property behind the current branch, which is on Riverside Drive near the Acosta Bridge. When construction is complete, the old building will be torn down and replaced with surface parking.
The expanded space will allow the branch to offer literacy, healthy habits, summer learning and leadership programs to 5,000 area children. Also, the Y will partner with the medical community to provide wellness and health-care programs for 25,000 people in the Westside, Eastside and downtown.
The announcement was made at a luncheon Thursday, set up under a large white tent on what will become the construction site.
“I envision the Jaguars 10-0, on Monday Night Football, this dramatic view from the bridges,†said Eric K. Mann, executive director of the First Coast YMCA, to a few laughs. “But at the end of the day, I want this facility to be about people, to make people proud, about putting our stake in the ground.â€
The Y’s headquarters staff, currently housed on the Southside, will move to the new Riverside branch.
The Times-Union will be updating this story.
Beth Reese Cravey: (904) 359-4109
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-10-19/story/ymca-announces-21-million-riverside-y-replace-current-building#ixzz29m9l9pfG
So let me get this straight...surface parking facing the street? >:(
I mean I'm glad they're moving their Southside location to the Core, but wtf?
Lol, Welcome to Jacksonville. We're still learning the importance of pedestrian scale design. Hopefully, the layout will be improved once they start working with DDRB or DIA.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 19, 2012, 04:19:12 PM
Lol, Welcome to Jacksonville. We're still learning the importance of pedestrian scale design. Hopefully, the layout will be improved once they start working with DDRB or DIA.
I see you added "hopefully" the layout will be improved.
Let's be serious....do we have a reason to be hopeful? What's the likely outcome? Something tells me when an organization like the Y spends thousands on plans for a $21 million dollar renovation, they're not going to want to spend more $$ to change what they already see as a good design.
Whats funny is, they are bringing it closer to the river, and further away from the street! haha
Quote from: ben says on October 19, 2012, 05:04:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 19, 2012, 04:19:12 PM
Lol, Welcome to Jacksonville. We're still learning the importance of pedestrian scale design. Hopefully, the layout will be improved once they start working with DDRB or DIA.
I see you added "hopefully" the layout will be improved.
Let's be serious....do we have a reason to be hopeful? What's the likely outcome? Something tells me when an organization like the Y spends thousands on plans for a $21 million dollar renovation, they're not going to want to spend more $$ to change what they already see as a good design.
To be honest, I seriously doubt they have a set of construction documents ready to go to permitting. At best, they probably have some conceptual drawings and pretty renderings to help raise money to construct it. So there will be a design review process at some point. It will ultimately be up to the DDRB or DIA to decide if they'll grant approval of a plan that doesn't comply with the area's guidelines.
I was a lifeguard at Yates in the early 90's and the facility was pretty well "seasoned" (old) back then. We had a fire about '94 and they subsequently renovated a lot of the downstairs and office area, added a lunch counter etc. and it was somewhat improved. It is a great location and I'm glad to see that they will expand and modernize an already popular downtown/Riverside attraction.
This is going to be just like Parador. DDRB will express disapproval with the poor connection to Riverside Avenue. Then some drawings will be provided that shows how the parking lot will be replaced someday with a parking structue and street level retail. Will it happen when the Y reaches 65% membership?
And here is the great irony... An organization that is promoting healthy lifestyles is buildng a facility that ignores all of the design aspects that would promote healthy access. I wonder if we can get the Health Planning Council to weigh in on this design?
The one difference is that because the Mayor is not a supporter of the project, Office of Economic Development, will likely not be lobbying DDRB to approve the layout.
Quote from: dougskiles on October 20, 2012, 07:42:57 AM
The one difference is that because the Mayor is not a supporter of the project, Office of Economic Development, will likely not be lobbying DDRB to approve the layout.
Good point
Quote from: dougskiles on October 20, 2012, 07:42:57 AM
This is going to be just like Parador. DDRB will express disapproval with the poor connection to Riverside Avenue. Then some drawings will be provided that shows how the parking lot will be replaced someday with a parking structue and street level retail. Will it happen when the Y reaches 65% membership?
Maybe it's time to lobby for a change in the make up of the DDRB or for rolling it into the DIA.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 20, 2012, 08:37:51 AM
Quote from: dougskiles on October 20, 2012, 07:42:57 AM
This is going to be just like Parador. DDRB will express disapproval with the poor connection to Riverside Avenue. Then some drawings will be provided that shows how the parking lot will be replaced someday with a parking structue and street level retail. Will it happen when the Y reaches 65% membership?
Maybe it's time to lobby for a change in the make up of the DDRB or for rolling it into the DIA.
It will be interesting to see how the groups are coordinated. I'm not sure I like the idea of DDRB operating under the control of DIA. Ideally DDRB will be isolated from the motivations that will naturally exist within DIA to push a project through. DDRB should have one purpose - to maintain design quality for Downtown. The moment they get entangled in the politics of trying to get a project approved, they lose their purpose.
Then it would make more sense to attempt to modify the make up of the DDRB with individuals that truly understand the importance of quality design at the pedestrian scale level. Right now, I'm not sure the DDRB (as a whole) has this understanding.
Agreed.
DDRB is a DESIGN review board. They are not charged with "how do I get others to accept a substandard design so that the company I work for gets their project approved". They are not charged with "how do I help the project to become more economically feasible by relaxing the design standards".
The Y folks did mention that they were open to proposals for development along Riverside Ave. It would make sense for them to long-term-lease or sell a strip there for retail development. With the complex being built directly across the street this might just work for them.
The properties along riverside are difficult because they are long and linear....and folks want to be near the river.
Not that this concept would work for the Y,but my idea would be two buildings with parking in between
I like the idea of the new Y being on the Riverwalk and a rental apartment high-rise with an incorporated parking garage and retail fronting Riverside Ave. The garage, of course, would have to provide parking for residents, retail customers, and the Y.
Since that idea might be a bit far fetched, then maybe they could consider this. They build the new building as planned on the track closer to the river and work out a temporary arrangement to use the lot next to them for parking. Then they can postpone the administrative move while they build an extension to the new building were the old building is. This extension would a parking garage (I'm thinking ground and sub level) with some type of interaction on Riverside Ave and the new administrative offices on top.
River Fit Gym in the Landing has no Jesus paintings hanging on the wall and no ridiculous bibles on podiums in the middle of the gym floor. Feeling insecure much, YMCA? And oh yeah, it costs a whole lot less to be a member. Better view too.
Quote from: ubben on October 21, 2012, 08:34:43 PM
River Fit Gym in the Landing has no Jesus paintings hanging on the wall and no ridiculous bibles on podiums in the middle of the gym floor. Feeling insecure much, YMCA? And oh yeah, it costs a whole lot less to be a member. Better view too.
An apples to oranges comparison, don't you think?
http://www.ymca.net/
Quote from: ubben on October 21, 2012, 08:34:43 PM
River Fit Gym in the Landing has no Jesus paintings hanging on the wall and no ridiculous bibles on podiums in the middle of the gym floor. Feeling insecure much, YMCA? And oh yeah, it costs a whole lot less to be a member. Better view too.
So don't go there. Jesus
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 21, 2012, 02:26:48 PM
The properties along riverside are difficult because they are long and linear....and folks want to be near the river.
Not that this concept would work for the Y,but my idea would be two buildings with parking in between
The Everbank building is behind the dupont trust, but employees have an uninterupted view of the river because the first few floors are parking. Riverside Ave is probably 20-25 feet higher than the riverwalk, so a building with any height to it put at the street would be able to see over any 3 story 40 foot building on the water anyway. Street level retail doesn't need windows in the rear and a residential or commercial building usually would have utilities, a lobby, or parking on the first floor which wouldn't need river views.
Quote from: ubben on October 21, 2012, 08:34:43 PM
River Fit Gym in the Landing has no Jesus paintings hanging on the wall and no ridiculous bibles on podiums in the middle of the gym floor. Feeling insecure much, YMCA? And oh yeah, it costs a whole lot less to be a member. Better view too.
This is some weird animosity. I'm both a member of the Y and an atheist. They could have life-sized marble statues of Christ on the cross for all I care; as long as I don't have staff members proselytizing at me at every turn, I'm content.
The only valid criticism you have is the cost. I get a discount through my job; I pay $30 a month for access to every Y in the city. If it weren't for that, I'd sign up for somewhere else. (And, honestly, I'm close to signing up with somewhere else, anyway. I may join Snap Fitness once they get their Oak Street location up and running. I've already experienced two price hikes at the Y since joining nearly four years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if another one comes along to help pay for the new building.)
A while back I considered joining the Y, but was turned off by the membership fees being based on your annual income. It didn't seem fair that I had to pay $35+ more than someone else for the same membership and use of the same facility ammenities. Were they actually going to ask for a copy of my W-2 for proof of what they were going to charge me? Do they still continue with this practice?
They do. That I get the bargain I do is due to my place of employment partnering with the Y. If it weren't for that, I'd be paying a lot more for my membership. Not that I'd be a member if I had to pay more. $30 a month is a bargain considering the access it gives me, but only once or twice a month do I trek out to a location that isn't the Riverside one, as why would I go to that trouble when I have one right in my neighborhood? The only reason I didn't join Snap when I moved to Riverside is the Margaret location is far too small.
There is precedent for a Y to sell off part of their land. In Arlington, they sold the riverfront to a residential developer (just before the res. market tanked). Not sure what they did with the money, because, from driving by, it doesn't look like there's any new facilities.
So, maybe they will sell, or lease, the Riverside Avenue frontage to a developer?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 22, 2012, 03:38:54 PM
There is precedent for a Y to sell off part of their land. In Arlington, they sold the riverfront to a residential developer (just before the res. market tanked). Not sure what they did with the money, because, from driving by, it doesn't look like there's any new facilities.
So, maybe they will sell, or lease, the Riverside Avenue frontage to a developer?
I have little doubt that the Y would love to do that, if it can find someone interested in the property. I think that's at least a few years away seeing as how the frontage at teh Haskell property has gone undeveloped at the retail in the Everbank building is empty.
Quote from: ben says on October 19, 2012, 05:04:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 19, 2012, 04:19:12 PM
Lol, Welcome to Jacksonville. We're still learning the importance of pedestrian scale design. Hopefully, the layout will be improved once they start working with DDRB or DIA.
I see you added "hopefully" the layout will be improved.
Let's be serious....do we have a reason to be hopeful? What's the likely outcome? Something tells me when an organization like the Y spends thousands on plans for a $21 million dollar renovation, they're not going to want to spend more $$ to change what they already see as a good design.
There is always hope:
http://www.youtube.com/v/1ix03iJm3Bw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1ix03iJm3Bw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1ix03iJm3Bw)
The one reason I left the "Y" several years ago I didn't like the group shower's. I hope they have changed this since I left back in the 1980's. I look forward to this new building and if I'm still in this town by then I will join! 8)
Quote from: MEGATRON on October 22, 2012, 04:51:32 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 22, 2012, 03:38:54 PM
There is precedent for a Y to sell off part of their land. In Arlington, they sold the riverfront to a residential developer (just before the res. market tanked). Not sure what they did with the money, because, from driving by, it doesn't look like there's any new facilities.
So, maybe they will sell, or lease, the Riverside Avenue frontage to a developer?
I have little doubt that the Y would love to do that, if it can find someone interested in the property. I think that's at least a few years away seeing as how the frontage at teh Haskell property has gone undeveloped at the retail in the Everbank building is empty.
With the residential going up over there that may quickly change
Quote from: ben says on October 19, 2012, 05:04:51 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 19, 2012, 04:19:12 PM
Lol, Welcome to Jacksonville. We're still learning the importance of pedestrian scale design. Hopefully, the layout will be improved once they start working with DDRB or DIA.
I see you added "hopefully" the layout will be improved.
Let's be serious....do we have a reason to be hopeful? What's the likely outcome? Something tells me when an organization like the Y spends thousands on plans for a $21 million dollar renovation, they're not going to want to spend more $$ to change what they already see as a good design.
I'm amazed at audacity of this thread. A lot of people here are asking the Y to take on a much bigger burden than other buildings in the area. Jacksonville doesn't make it easy to integrate urban design. In other cities, you just have to look at your left and at your right and build a building that's similar in urban style. The design, the planning, and the pedestrian walkways are given by their neighbors.
What you guys are asking is for the Y to do is to not only build their expansion building but to do all the urban planning (on their own dime) for the entire area from scratch! Like the post above mentions, the Y has already spent thousands of dollars on this project and you guys are asking they spend even more that neither Haskell Building to the left nor the St Joe Building to the right has done. They are the Y, not an urban land developer. I might be wrong in this and the Y could have bigger ambitions but I think all they want is place to put their gym and some of their offices, not create the Shipyards II.
If you're doing something that doesn't comply, you lose the right to cry about financial hardship. Besides, the Y would be fools to proceed through design development and construction document stages without first getting approval from the DDRB on their conceptual ideas.
Nevertheless, nobody is asking for the Shipyards II. However, that doesn't mean to lay on your back and accept what every Tom, Dick, and Harry initially brings to the table either. There's no harm in requiring projects to be designed to meet the area's design guidelines. It's not like they are new.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 24, 2012, 05:44:36 PM
Nevertheless, nobody is asking for the Shipyards II. However, that doesn't mean to lay on your back and accept what every Tom, Dick, and Harry initially brings to the table either. There's no harm in requiring projects to be designed to meet the area's design guidelines. It's not like they are new.
I think they are. There are people on this thread who are talking about highrise apartments, retail frontage, and parking garages in the Y's lot.
Does this area even have a design guidelines? To the left is the Haskell building and to the right is the St Joe. I'm not sure either buildings have urban design in mind. A bit further from that and you have Times Union to the left and a parking lot to the right. Those areas are definitely not urban. If the Y is forced on higher standard then St Joe or Haskell, won't that be unfair to the Y?
^Yes.
Quote from: cityimrov on October 24, 2012, 05:58:30 PM
Does this area even have a design guidelines?
Yes. Brooklyn falls within what the JEDC had officially recognized as downtown. Both 220 Riverside and Riverside Park had to have their designs approved by the DDRB earlier this year.
QuoteTo the left is the Haskell building and to the right is the St Joe. I'm not sure either buildings have urban design in mind. A bit further from that and you have Times Union to the left and a parking lot to the right. Those areas are definitely not urban. If the Y is forced on higher standard then St Joe or Haskell, won't that be unfair to the Y?
I'm sure those buildings were designed and constructed before there were design guidelines. Some of them may be part of the reason we actually have them now.