Retail Development Proposed for Brooklyn
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2439719760_3HRKMdT-M.jpg)
The long anticipated Brooklyn infill retail project proposed by Fuqua Development of Atlanta appears to be moving forward. Plans, which include a grocery store, pharmacy and restaurant outparcels have been submitted to the Downtown Development Review Board for conceptual review.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-apr-retail-development-proposed-for-brooklyn (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-apr-retail-development-proposed-for-brooklyn)
Glad to see these things come to Brooklyn but a bit suburban in design.
Very suburban feel to it IMO. Hopefully DDRB will keep in mind the connectivity to downtown and Riverside mass transit connections when approving these projects. That being said, this is great news. Those blocks between Park and Riverside have been empty for too long.
This is an exciting project! I think it builds on the success of similar retail in Riverside (developed by Sembler, where Fuqua came from). Fuqua has relationships in this city through the Riverside development, which is why I think he is pursuing this development.
I still caution everyone to be on the lookout. Fuqua came from Sembler. He is a generic retail guy, out to make a certain kind of return for he and his investors over trying to "create a sense of place" for purely personal return and satisfaction. He has relationships with Walmart (think Neighborhood Market if Fresh Market doesn't pan out). He is not loved by the citizens of Atlanta or Denver (in both cities he has literally spurred full on riots and caused such an uproar among people that city councils had no choice but to block all of his development attempts).
I'm not sure something like a Neighborhood Market would be bad for the area if the Fresh Market rumors don't plan out. That combined with a CVS/Walgreens as anchors would resolve a huge need in this particular area of downtown. While I'm not crazy about the site plan, I can see there are some major challenges, such as easement locations that increase some setbacks from Riverside Avenue. However, there may be some concepts utilizing fencing/gates, landscaping and outdoor seating that could make the site plan more pedestrian scale and attractive from Riverside Avenue. I'd also be interested to find out what it will actually take to get the skyway connected to this development. Otherwise, downtown residents from the Northbank and Southbank will still have to drive to access this development, which goes against the concept of urban living.
It looks like the distance from transportation to the stores will be a bit far. I would think closer would be better. Many developers go the path of least resistance, and most profit. I am sure there were reasons for no love in Denver and Atlanta. Hard to get too excited about more generic development, but it is better than empty lots.
It would be awesome to have a Fresh Market though...
Did Fuqua put that "Future Skyway" stuff in there to prod the city a bit?: "We'll build this if you finish this..."
I'm going to go to the meeting today since it should be interesting to learn more about these developments but my guess is they included the future skyway stuff to assist in an argument for why some buildings have to be setback from the street. One perspective rendering missing from the presentation is what the project will look like from Riverside Avenue. I think that's more important than what the interior parking lot looks like.
color me less than impressed with the site design...I'm sure the view from Riverside is missing because it wouldn't be pretty....sure hope DDRB makes them urbanize that a bit
Yeah. I was not very happy about the site design for the retail. It would suck to have this crap slapped right next to two developments like 220 Riverside and Riverside Park
The layout's not impressive, but it will be nice to have that stuff in that area. I think some of it could be fixed with some minor changes, perhaps having the buildings on Riverside in the left parcel face the street rather than the parking lot. The setbacks for the skyway shouldn't be as much of an issue; looks like it will just be a wider sidewalk.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 04, 2013, 09:11:37 AM
I'm going to go to the meeting today since it should be interesting to learn more about these developments but my guess is they included the future skyway stuff to assist in an argument for why some buildings have to setback from the street. One perspective rendering missing from the presentation is what the project will look like from Riverside Avenue. I think that's more important than what the interior parking lot looks like.
Highly interested (and nervous from the look of those site plans) as well. Text me a pic when your there!
Well given that Riverside Ave has become a sort of arterial road for commuters rushing home from DT to R-A-Ortega, it does make a bit of sense that Fuqua treat the road similarly to how he would treat San Jose Blvd or Southside. Had the city been smart about how it redesigned Riverside Blvd to accomodate the more urban developments now proposed or UC nearby, then perhaps we would be hearing proposals for more urban appropriate retail (read: mixed-use) developments along the busy road.
Of course Fuqua is incorporating Skyway into his design. He incorporated the Beltline into one of his strip designs in Atlanta and the people saw right through that and got the City to not approve a development of his based on the conflict of walkability and parameters set for new developments along the Beltline (I don't believe there are design parameters set to coincide with the Skyway...i.e. TOD parameters, etc).
From what I can tell, the only incorporation of the Skyway is not building within the reserved easement. In a similar fashion, the pharmacy is set back because of the May Street easement. Nevertheless, that easement could be a pedestrian friendly linear green space featuring courtyards from the outparcel restaurants lining it. In the event JTA ever did extend the skyway, the station would probably block the surface lot and visibility of the grocery store from Riverside Avenue.
Straight up suburban design. I hope there is more thought put in to it at some point in the process. Exciting to have this move forward, but lets not jump the gun just to fill a (prime) piece of real estate. There is huge potential here.
Too many are letting Good be the enemy of perfect with this. If the project does come to fruition it will provide a very important niche regardless of a few design nitpicks.
Butt ugly and stupid looking.
It's as tacky, fake, and pretentious as shoulder pads were in the 1980s. And yes, I hated them then.
It'll fit right in around these parts.
Yuck! Why not have the buildings aligned Riverside and hide the parking lots to keep pedestrian connectivity along Riverside w/ the Hallmark site? ??? They could still extend Skyway inside the site or leave some room outside to run along Riverside. Terrible concept imo. Yuck again. :(
definitely needs some improvement. we are not trying to turn riverside/DT into mandarin. give us a break.
Scrap the design and oust the designers. But this is Jacksonville after all, the garbage can for bad ideas, and a haven for those rejected by more progressive cities.
Bring in someone in from NYC to design and develop the site and watch how urban it would be.
Why does everything here have to be fo stucco? Looks pretty bad to me. Would rather a park for now
The retail design was approved:
QuoteRiverside Park includes a 65,000-square-foot commercial retail element, which was presented by J.J. Connors, president of Chestnut Hill Investments, representing Fuqua Development, also based in Atlanta. Fuqua is the developer of the retail component of the project.
Connors said the site plan was developed for a national-chain grocer and drug store and restaurants with outdoor dining and drive-thru lanes.
When board members Flagg and Andy Sikes objected to the number of parking spaces in the design and their proximity to Riverside Avenue, Greer Scoggins, Fuqua director of construction, said the prospective grocery-store tenant requires parking because the brand will attract customers not only from the residential units adjacent to the retail center, but also from surrounding areas.
"To us, this is about the only plan that works," he said. "We can't change the constraints of a national grocer's requirements."
The board approved the conceptual design of the retail component with the condition that additional design information is presented at the board's next meeting, when application will be made for zoning variances to allow the drive-thru lanes.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539173
They approved the entire design? That's pretty weak.
its not terrible.
it seems pretty close to the skyway
^Literally across the street. We'll be doing downtown revitalization a huge disservice if we don't figure out how to have skyway service to this retail development in operation by the time it actually opens.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 08, 2013, 11:47:30 AM
They approved the entire design? That's pretty weak.
Can't really say I'm surprised. Being experienced with site planning projects for national retailers in the past, I'm sure the development team was not lying when they mentioned designing the site to accommodate the site selection requirements of the preferred tenants they're negotiating to bring in. I'm actually not too concerned about the amount of surface parking needed, the square footage required by the anchors (btw, looking at the footprints, one appears to be a CVS) or the fact that they are setback (there appear to be some easements forcing this also) from the street.
However, I do believe these requirements could have still been met with a design that would have provided for a better pedestrian experience along Riverside Avenue. In fact, we don't have to go far to pull from on what to do. The Publix development right up the street in Riverside is and its frontage at Riverside & Margaret, is all the example we need. Surface parking that meets the anchor's requirements yet specialty retail (or outparcels) designed to add life to the urban street edge.
Needless to say, even with this particular site layout, what will make or break it, is what they do with the frontage of the retail adjacent to the JTA skyway easement and the pedestrian experience created within that easement. From the city's, DIA's and JTA's standpoint, the most pressing issue should be figuring out how to get skyway service at least to the existing yard across the street. Doing that creates a situation where the Brooklyn developments benefit the concept of urban living and connectivity in all of downtown. Ignoring the transit component means Brooklyn remains just as isolated from downtown (the actual walkable Northbank and Southbank) as San Marco and Riverside.
^Yeah, I'm knocking the project by any means. I could live with the parking if they improved the street interaction, which shouldn't be that hard.
I agree Ennis. This "IS" the time for a Skyway extension. Now lets see how serious folks are about this restoration and getting it right.
No anchor is going to sign less than a 10 year lease and I'm sure they'll want several options, so we'll have to live with a strip center in a potentially up and coming urban neighborhood for a long time. This developer has been turned away in Atlanta and Denver, so it's hard not to feel like Jacksonville is getting the bottom of the barrel, *however* this is still a big kind of first step for Jacksonville. I think what we're getting is fine.
Keep in mind that Atlanta has strip centers right in the heart of town. It's only in the past 10-15 years that they have been doing more "big city" things and it has now turned into a sort of proven secondary market (along with Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Austin, Charlotte, etc). Charlotte and Nashville certainly went through a lot of baby steps to get to where they are now.
I really think if 220 Riverside is successful, then developers will take a second hard look at the city. We're just now seeing people even considering investing in the urban frontier...it will take a higher level confidence booster to get retailers and developers and equity partners/lenders to consider really "thinking outside the box" for the market. I'm sure some improvements could have been made/approved for this site, but I doubt that the demographics are superb and remember, these retailers have site selection/"investment" committees to go before, as well. Trying a seldom used "urban" concept for a very unurban, arguably distressed sunbelt market such as Jax probably wouldn't be approved anyway. The kind of retailers this will attract (Fresh Market, Walgreens, etc) are very formulaic and don't like to test their more difficult concepts in iffy markets.
Speaking of Walgreens...a little bit about how it works - they are considering opening one flagship urban concept (inclusive of market and high end things and 2 floors open glass concept, would be the 2nd after one in Chicago) OR two generic retail stores under residential building within 1 mile along Peachtree in Midtown Atlanta. These retailers give this stuff a lot of thought nowadays.
I'm sure we could cite example after example in other cities of similar sites done other ways, but this is Jacksonville and it's difficult to compare when there are so many other things at play.
Quote from: simms3 on April 09, 2013, 12:08:04 AM
The kind of retailers this will attract (Fresh Market, Walgreens, etc) are very formulaic and don't like to test their more difficult concepts in iffy markets.
I do have to ask, though, what the master plan for Brooklyn is? It seems one thing always missing in Jacksonville is a defined master plan with the full backing of the city and developers looking to take part. I think if there were such a thing and real and tangible guidelines to follow and an obvious drive by the city to get it done, then everyone - retailers, developers, lenders, sponsors' investment committees, etc - would be more excited to take more risks and to just do more.
Even here in SF it seems every neighborhood has a really strict masterplan, created over multiple years by a bunch of former private sector guys and phDs. I know NYC has very strict, comprehensive master plans, as well. Seems if the two most urban cities in the country are still designing their city and creating enthusiasm for private money to come in and make the plans reality, that Jacksonville should be doing the same. It almost seems that these developers are coming in completely on their own, devising their own plans for individual approval by the city with a master set of codes to follow rather than a very comprehensive and thoroughly well-planned specific set of guidelines for the specific area. That just creates noise and a lack of cohesiveness.
I'm not sure there is a strict master plan that the city actually follows. My guess is the DIA's CRA plan, that they must create, will be the master plan for the entire downtown core, including Brooklyn, LaVilla and Southbank.
A few parcels must be acquired from FDOT and a landowner not motivated by money before this project can move forward:
Quote“It has been a challenge,†she said. “[The owner] is not motivated by money, so it’s very difficult to get them where we need to be. We thought we had them last week, and they threw a curve ball, but Pope & Land has been very tenacious.â€
Second Riverside Avenue apartment development faces more challengeshttp://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2013/04/second-riverside-avenue.html
What kind of sick individual is not motivated by money?
It's also nice to see the taxpayers getting more for the land than it's probably worth right now for once.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 19, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
It's also nice to see the taxpayers getting more for the land than it's probably worth right now for once.
It sounds like the city is purchasing the land at that inflated rate and selling it back to the developer for the same price, so there's no money being made. If anything, the city will lose money for the time the property is held and for the necessary public listing. Where there is a will to lose money, there is a way, and Jacksonville will find a way.
Okay Im very confused. How can proceed with clearing the land and all this other stuff, but has not actually bought it yet? Somebody enlighten me on the process because I am now lost :o
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 19, 2013, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 19, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
It's also nice to see the taxpayers getting more for the land than it's probably worth right now for once.
It sounds like the city is purchasing the land at that inflated rate and selling it back to the developer for the same price, so there's no money being made. If anything, the city will lose money for the time the property is held and for the necessary public listing. Where there is a will to lose money, there is a way, and Jacksonville will find a way.
The city's buying it from FDOT (ie the taxpayers) to transfer it to the private owner at the rate they paid. I don't know why Pope and Land couldn't just buy it from FDOT, but if this helps the project move forward I ain't complaining.
Quote from: Tacachale on April 19, 2013, 10:42:59 AM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on April 19, 2013, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on April 19, 2013, 10:01:49 AM
It's also nice to see the taxpayers getting more for the land than it's probably worth right now for once.
It sounds like the city is purchasing the land at that inflated rate and selling it back to the developer for the same price, so there's no money being made. If anything, the city will lose money for the time the property is held and for the necessary public listing. Where there is a will to lose money, there is a way, and Jacksonville will find a way.
The city's buying it from FDOT (ie the taxpayers) to transfer it to the private owner at the rate they paid. I don't know why Pope and Land couldn't just buy it from FDOT, but if this helps the project move forward I ain't complaining.
I was more so speaking of the parcel that is own by a private owner.
Watch the grocery... N.C.-based Earth Fare Inc. or the Arizona-based Sprouts Farmers Markets LLC both have connections with other Fuqua Developments.
http://sprouts.com/stores
https://www.earthfare.com
Quote from: Ocklawaha on April 19, 2013, 01:10:23 PM
Watch the grocery... N.C.-based Earth Fare Inc. or the Arizona-based Sprouts Farmers Markets LLC both have connections with other Fuqua Developments.
http://sprouts.com/stores
https://www.earthfare.com
I liked Earth Fare when I lived in Charlotte. Pretty much the same thing as Whole Foods.
An update on this development from the Times Union:
QuoteKaren Nasrallah, redevelopment manager with the city’s Office of Economic Development, said she expects final city approval in June or July. Jeff Fuqua, the developer of the retail center, said he expects to start construction in August and opening the summer of 2014.
Fuqua, who developed the Riverside Publix shopping center when he was with Sembler Co., said he’s working with a national grocery chain that he can’t announce yet. But he said the grocery store will take about half the commercial space. (The project’s plans call it a “natural grocer.â€)
He said there will also be fast casual and sit-down dining, with outside tables along Riverside Avenue. A national drugstore chain with a drive-through will be on the east side of Stonewall.
Fuqua said he hoped to be able to announce the specific tenants within 60 days or less.
Nasrallah said that some members of the review board were concerned the retail development looked too much like a suburban shopping center.
“People don’t realize how many site constraints are on that property and how hard it was to place the buildings,†she said.
For example, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority has an easement running along Riverside Avenue, she said. And there are underground utilities that can’t be moved or built over.
full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/2013-04-19/story/new-mixed-development-next-220-riverside-final-approval-stage
Interesting, I thought the underground utilities were in the same easement that JTA has. Sounds like trying to double-count drawbacks to justify the suburban design.
Their site plan indicates utilities are still under May Street.
I assume the drug store will be either Walgreens or CVS. I'm curious what the grocery will be. Business Journal says Fresh Market, and it could be right. But they tend to print anything they hear
Perhaps the organic grocer could be local such as Native Sun?
Yeah, good that this area is finally being developed and "filled in." I mean, I like foilage, trees, bushes, nature, etc., but everytime I passed by this area I thought I was 50 miles west on I-10 out in the boonies. Everything looks good to me, but hey, Jax is so behind all of the other Florida major cities, and yes lagging behind, anything significant in this vain is super!
Heights
Looks like DDRB is giving some half-assed pushback on the retail development. If the developers of 220 Riverside can make that work certainly these people can do a little better.
QuoteBrooklyn project design approval postponed
Tuesday, June 11, 9:04 AM EDT
by Max Marbut, Staff Writer
The proposed Riverside Commercial Development along Riverside Avenue in Brooklyn moved closer to final approval Monday, but the design of a grocery store and pharmacy won't be approved until project architects and City Office of Economic Development's Downtown Development Review Board members hold a design workshop.
The proposed 53,700-square-foot retail center is bounded by Riverside Avenue on the south, Magnolia Street on the north, Leila Street on the east and Jackson Street on the west.
Atlanta-based Fuqua Development LP plans to develop the retail center north of the 220 Riverside project under construction.
The board did approve a zoning variance to allow drive-thru lanes for the pharmacy building; setback and build-to lines to allow for a surface parking lot and loading dock; and a transparency variance to allow less glass in the design than is mandated by Downtown design criteria.
The architecture of the structures in the project raised questions among board members.
Board member Roland Udenze, an architect at The Haskell Co., said the design for the pharmacy "looks like the beach" as opposed to an urban design.
Board member Chris Flagg, a landscape architect, said the design for the project has a "fragmented, disjointed feel" and the architecture presented Monday "shows the weakness of the site plan."
Architect Tim Miller, chair of the design board, said he preferred the designs previously presented for the project.
"Architecturally, I think you've taken a couple of steps back," he said.
Flagg said he'd like to see designs more similar to those of the 220 Riverside development.
"They are really pushing the envelope architecturally," he said.
"You're building a destination here. Tenants will accept different exterior designs," Udenze said.
"Urban is edgier. In the suburbs, you stucco everything," he said.
J.J. Conners, president of Jacksonville-based Chestnut Hill Investments, represents Fuqua and said the design elements of the project are a cost issue.
"A more expensive design increases the development cost and raises the rent for the tenants," he said.
Miller compared the Brooklyn project to Sawgrass Village in terms of prospective tenants accepting exterior design requirements as long as they could maintain the desired interior floor plan.
Conner said the two projects cannot be compared in that way.
"You probably had tenants fighting over the Sawgrass Village location. We're holding their hand and dragging them to this location," he said.
The design workshop for the project is scheduled at 10 a.m. Monday at City Hall.
In other business, the board granted final approval for a 5,100-square-foot retail development at 841 Prudential Drive adjacent to the Aetna Building parking garage. Southshore Group, the property owner, expects three tenants in the retail center, including Dunkin' Donuts.
Also approved were new signs for the Florida Blue Building along Riverside Avenue near Interstate 95. The six existing Blue Cross Blue Shield building identification signs will be replaced with Florida Blue logo signage, reflecting the rebranding of the company.
The board's next meeting is scheduled at 2 p.m. July 11 in the Lynwood Roberts Room at City Hall.
mmarbut@baileypub.com
(904) 356-2466
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539712
Its not ideal, but why not just push all the building to the front and leave the parking in the back? I understand the grocery store wants the parking a certain way.
So they're allowing the setbacks for surface parking but they're fighting them on the exterior of the building. Seems a bit backwards.
Bingo. The hell with the façade. It really doesn't amount to a hill of beans if it sucks from a human scale standpoint. Hopefully, visibility is somewhat covered up by the proposed Skyway extension.