Metro Jacksonville

Metro Jacksonville Rail Plan Already Spurring Development?

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-4043-jacksonsquare-jta1.jpg)

Move over Charlotte, Will Jackson Square At San Marco become the first of several transit oriented developments to line Jacksonville's potential commuter rail lines and revitalize Philips Highway in the process?

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/737

It's pretty interesting that these renderings show a proposed commuter rail station at this development instead of a BRT station.

I love seeing these concepts and the free-flow of ideas pertaining to the improvement of Jax.  Phillips highway really needs some love or it's going to continue to degrade.  However, that being said, the drawings are pretty but the ground needs to start breaking.  I'm tired of everything being a pipe-dream.

Quote from: Lunican on March 13, 2008, 08:42:16 AM
It's pretty interesting that these renderings show a proposed commuter rail station at this development instead of a BRT station.

Is there any secret that the majority of "TOD" style development being announced in this city is taking place either along rail lines or the skyway, as opposed to bus only routes?

If developers are looking for additional investors, its much easier to attract more money to the table for a project supported by a more reliable sexy fixed mode of transit, than one that could pick up and move a year after the development opens.

I love it. The more pedestrian friendly you can make it the more people can take the train to shop at your shoppes.

YES!  This is what we need!  I do wonder what made them indicate commuter rail stops as opposed to JTA's wildly popular BRT plan.

What a fantastic proposal.  The transit corridor side facing FEC Park seems very pedestrian friendly and places everything within a short walk of the proposed transit station.  I also like the idea of the skyway extension to that point.  I don't think extending the skyway to tat point would be a duplication because those living in this development would have a more direct and transfer free connection to the DT area and the rest of San Marco.  The commuter rail line would allow travellers from outside of the area to access the area or simply bypass it on their way to the multimodal center.  Another skyway station could also be plopped down at Atlantic Blvd providing a connection point for San Marco Square.  That will allow JTA's "trolly" busses to close the loop by connecting the Atlantic Blvd Station with the Baptist complex and Prudential station via San Marco Blvd.  The skyway could even be lowered down to grade through that corridor to save money on construction and make transfers easier as Ock has suggested in the past.

Good point, Jason.  Its exactly one mile from this site to the Kings Avenue Skyway station.

When is this project breaking ground?

Anyone discussing neighborhood impact? River Oaks Road between Hendricks & Phillips isn't anywhere near ready/able to handle this dramatic traffic increase.

If you look closely at the map, the main access to this whole development is through River Oaks...again, this is barely a two-lane avenue (esp. when cars are parked on River Oaks). It is by no means a major throughway that can handle the serious traffic increase both from "new" residents of the proposed 4-story family dwellings or from the traffic coming from Hendricks TO the whole development.

Also, the RR crossing at River Oaks is notorious for backing up badly when trains are stopped. This could become a nightmare if the traffic quadruples.

And, for the homeowners on River Oaks, there is no setback...I can't believe this plan could proceed safely without addressing this safety issue.

Will town hall meetings be held?  Anyone know more about timing?

Quote from: southwood on March 13, 2008, 10:05:35 PM
Anyone discussing neighborhood impact? River Oaks Road between Hendricks & Phillips isn't anywhere near ready/able to handle this dramatic traffic increase.

If this project progresses, it would have to successfully pass a traffic concurrency study.  For those concerned about River Oaks Road, I'd suggest you contact the Jacksonville Planning Department.

QuoteIf you look closely at the map, the main access to this whole development is through River Oaks...again, this is barely a two-lane avenue (esp. when cars are parked on River Oaks). It is by no means a major throughway that can handle the serious traffic increase both from "new" residents of the proposed 4-story family dwellings or from the traffic coming from Hendricks TO the whole development.

As an apartment complex, it could connect directly with Philips Highway, not have any access to River Oaks Road and work out just fine.  It appears the connection to River Oaks makes it easier to get buses using the proposed Bus Rapid Transit corridor from the rail right-of-way back to Philips Highway.

QuoteAlso, the RR crossing at River Oaks is notorious for backing up badly when trains are stopped. This could become a nightmare if the traffic quadruples.

Access to River Oaks could be totally avoided if the busway isn't built.  River Oaks residents should be very concerned about the negative impact a bus expressway paralleling the FEC tracks, could have on their crossing and the neighborhood.  Integrating a four story apartment building on that site in a way that enhances the surrounding area is the easy part.  The difficult issue will be dealing with constant bus noise, speed, pollution (both visual and environmental) and decreasing property values coming from the construction of a dedicated busway near this residential area.

QuoteAnd, for the homeowners on River Oaks, there is no setback...I can't believe this plan could proceed safely without addressing this safety issue.

Including the 100' wide FEC rail corridor, there's at least 150' of space between these buildings and the closest residence on River Oaks.  That's a ton of space.  More could be created if the buildings are moved to directly front Philips Highway with parking behind them.  In any event, at some point, this plan would have to come before nearby residents before approval could be given.

QuoteWill town hall meetings be held?  Anyone know more about timing?

It appears to be early in the process.  If this plan moves forward its sure to change.  The land would also have to be rezoned at some point and the rezoning process would require notices mailed out to neighbors and a public hearing.  To find out where they currently stand, I'd contact the Jacksonville Planning Department.

Wow! I like this plan. It's what the area would really need 8). I hope that it will start real soon.

lakelander -- thanks for the insights.  The issue with River Oaks is that today it serves as one of the main links between Hendricks and Phillips. Many commuters from Mandarin, San Jose, Lakewood and San Marco use River Oaks as a cut-through to get to Phillips/I-95. If more development is added that will draw countless others onto River Oaks - retail, apartments, etc. -- the volume is going to be entirely too much for that little street to handle. 

This is a residential neighborhood -- kids, cars, etc. The setbacks I was thinking about weren't up near the development, they're the ones that might include the city's easement and the yards of the houses on River Oaks. These are small lots with no room for widening whatsoever...I can't even imagine how they could put more cars on this small street.

Thanks for the tip about contacting Planning to see about status, etc.

Quote from: southwood on March 14, 2008, 10:27:57 AM
lakelander -- thanks for the insights.  The issue with River Oaks is that today it serves as one of the main links between Hendricks and Phillips. Many commuters from Mandarin, San Jose, Lakewood and San Marco use River Oaks as a cut-through to get to Phillips/I-95. If more development is added that will draw countless others onto River Oaks - retail, apartments, etc. -- the volume is going to be entirely too much for that little street to handle. 

This is a residential neighborhood -- kids, cars, etc. The setbacks I was thinking about weren't up near the development, they're the ones that might include the city's easement and the yards of the houses on River Oaks. These are small lots with no room for widening whatsoever...I can't even imagine how they could put more cars on this small street.

Thanks for the tip about contacting Planning to see about status, etc.

No problem, your concerns for River Oaks Road are definately valid.  Because it is used as a short cut between San Jose and Philips (another negative of not having gridded streets to diffuse traffic), as Philips redevelops, its going to be an issue regardless of whether its the Jackson Square site or any other east of the tracks.

I can't think of anyone, with a heart, advocating the elimination of an attractive residential neighborhood to increase vehicular capacity.  Looking from the outside in, this is why its important for areas like this to have a master plan or long range vision set in stone of how the city and JTA will deal with these types of planning and transportation issues.

One way to deal with this issue would be the construction of a railroad overpass over St. Augustine Road (cheaper than building a road overpass) and the closure of the River Oaks track crossing.  This eliminates fast moving thru traffic in the River Oaks residential community and makes Old St. Augustine Road a more viable option for crossover traffic because it would not be affected by heavy rail traffic heading into and from the FEC Bowden Yard. 

Its something that could be done as a part of implementing commuter rail because it also enhances FEC's rail capacity, which could lead to easier negoitations between JTA and the rail company for use of the ROW.  For a change, JTA would bring something to the table in rail discussions, as opposed to asking for what the railroad will view as a negative by itself.....passenger rail liability.

It also helps that between River Oaks and Emerson, there are 12 streets that connect Hendricks to St. Augustine Road, which means crossover traffic would be diffused, instead of being forced down one attractive residential street.

Putting a freight (and commuter) rail track up in the air is cheaper than putting a road over? Rail overpasses need much much longer approaches, to keep the grades shallow.  Also, if people complain about the 'eyesore' of a road overpass - an elevated rail (what, 2, 3, 4 tracks wide, with Commuter Rail) would be prettier?

I need convincing.

Let me try to convince you.

QuoteRail overpasses need much much longer approaches, to keep the grades shallow.

1. I think we can agree that at grade laying track is cheaper and it takes up  less ROW.  The width of a rail overpass carrying three track would be about the same as a the width of a two lane road.

2. While the approach would be much longer, it would not have to be concrete.  Compacted fill would be used for most of the approach. 

3. The width of the FEC corridor at that point is 100'.  If you constructed a vehicular bridge, the actual bridge would have to span the entire corridor.  On the other hand, the railroad bridge would not have to be 100' long.  It would be around 50'.

4. St. Augustine Road, at that point, is in the middle of a curve and has streets intersecting with it less than a block from the crossing.  You would spend much more constructing a curving +40 ft wide automobile bridge over the FEC tracks than you would with a typical bridge.

5. You would also spend much more on the approach considering there are intersections on both sides of the crossing that would also have to be raised.

QuoteAlso, if people complain about the 'eyesore' of a road overpass - an elevated rail (what, 2, 3, 4 tracks wide, with Commuter Rail) would be prettier?

1. The FEC corridor is 100' wide.  There's plenty of space to buffer the bridge, plus the corridor is already lined with a good amount of vegetation.

2. A vehicular bridge would be more of an eyesore, because it would be curving over the tracks, longer, wider and the intersections leading into nearby residential neighborhoods would be raised.  So the stop sign at the end of a residential street could be at a higher elevation than the height of nearby houses.

So, looking at that particular location, I believe based on the argument above, that a railroad overpass would be less expensive and more visually appealing than elevating St. Augustine Road.

Railroad or highway bridge can be solved right here and now... Highway's go up, railroads DON'T. The reason isn't cost, space or economics of engineering. It boils down to simple formulas that play into how every rail car is routed. Who can do it fastest? Who can do it for the least fuel? Adding a mile or two of grade to the FEC would be about as well recieved as us telling them we'll start landing aircraft from JIA out on their tracks tomorrow!

Fella's this is one idea this IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!  

Ocklawaha

I don't think anyone is saying that FEC would do this out of the goodness of their hearts, they would probably need some incentive.  In addition, I'd also think that a combination overpass/underpass would be a viable option as well - it wouldn't raise the grade too much, and it wouldn't be too unsightly.

Not too mention, what is the elevation around that site anyway?

QuoteIn addition, I'd also think that a combination overpass/underpass would be a viable option as well - it wouldn't raise the grade too much, and it wouldn't be too unsightly.

Bingo.  I don't see why a combination of the two isn't possible.  Its not like it hasn't been done before.  Nevertheless, its just a suggestion on how to deal with the issue of traffic destroying residential neighborhoods.  Its not Bible, but dialouge is needed on issues like this.  Too often we get wrapped in our own little box of agendas and forget about the people being negatively impacted by other's grand visions.  Once again, another reason why a long range plan is needed before we start spending money on any of this.

QuoteNot too mention, what is the elevation around that site anyway?

The railroad grade is about 5ft higher than the stretch of St. Augustine Road east of the crossing and about 10ft higher than the lowest point of the road, west of the crossing. 

When we came up with the commuter rail layouts, we always knew passenger rail down the FEC corridor would end being much more expensive and difficult to pull off, than the CSX A and S-Line corridors.  JTA's consultants will discover this too as their studies continue.  I think to successfully get commuter rail in this corridor, a deal would have to include several overpasses/underpasses along these tracks.  Right now, there's no bridge to cross the tracks between downtown and University and there's already heavy rail traffic using this corridor.  You'll probably pull in a lot of "anti-rail/mass transit period" support if bridges of some sort were added somewhere in the Southbank, this particular area and Sunbeam or Shad Roads in Mandarin.  It would raise the costs, but it would enhance the flow of vehicular traffic on several major east/west streets in the Southside, plus help capacity issues with FEC.  Its basically killing two birds with one stone.  That's something you can't do if the decision remains to build a busway in this corridor.

What are some other options that could be implemented to solve long term traffic and neighborhood integration problems along the Philips Highway corridor?

Elevation of maybe a couple of feet extra, might be a hard sell, but maybe we could get that much... Under no incentives or conditions do I see FEC allowing us a 10-20 foot elevated right-of-way. There are simply no conditions or incentives that would make the fuel costs of starting a 100 car train of 250,000 pound freight cars up and over that hill, come down and stay down.

I'm not saying their isn't a solution, simply put, from the railroads view. My recent talk with the VP over there, says highways OVER rail at Sunbeam, St. Augustine and a few more choke points...  Using modern tunnel tech, their is no reason why the road can't just get down below the railroad if we don't want overpasses. Water table, or sea level should have no effect on a properly engineered underpass.

Railroads are built with a ruling grade (yes even in Florida where believe it or not, the steepest grades on the old Atlantic Coast Line, and Seaboard Air Line Railroads were found)... exceed the ruling grade and your head goes into the bucket. So let's say we get an 10' rise in the track out of FEC. With a 1/2% grade, starting our freight transfer for CSX or NS at 100 cars is equal to pulling 25 MILLION pounds up hill. The reason I am saying this would quickly become a big deal is:

1. Extra fuel, burning fuel is not cheap anyway you cut it.

2. Add an extra Locomotive? See the first reason.

3. Starting or stopping a heavy train on the "hill" is costly on two other appliances. Brakes and Wheel slip, both come at a price.

4. FEC, CSX, NS etc... pay rent or "PER DIEM" charges or fee's for every foreign line freight car that rolls on their rails. Allow your track to trash the frame, brakes or appliances and it could get costly. Remember, railroading is very profitable, but THE MOST cash intensive business bar none. Where else could you see a 250,000 pound brand new freight car, with all the latest appliances, From distant Canada or Mexico, so fresh the $125,000 dollar price tag is still hanging from the door.... Traveling 6,000 miles round trip, with a load of rare sand, worth about $1,500 dollars... Hell the shipping charges are $2,250! This little sample is to show that cars that get messed up, delayed or sit, won't pay the rent... Even our little hill is just one more obstacle to profit, that line is razor thin and very big bucks.

5. Some hills are so severe that they require "helper districts" where extra teams of Locomotive lash-ups, wait for the next heavy up or down train to supply the extra muscle to get up and over, or to provide the extra weight and brakes to slow the damn thing down. (I'll admit this isn't one of those type of hills, but it perhaps gives some of you an idea, why you saw engines on the front and back of that train in NC, PA, NY, CA, AZ, CO, UT, WA, OR, etc...) Oh hell, one more freebie too: Why were the extra, or "helpers" cut into the back, the middle and the front of the train? Why not just hook them all on the front?

Give UP?????

Come on... Give it a try?

No luck yet?

ANSWER: The weakest link between the cars is the couplers, sometimes here in flat as a pancake Florida, we get "Broken Trains" (IE: the couplers broke like castings will sometimes do... shattered like glass) The weight or motion was just too much or a tiny bubble, or impurity deep within the coupler as it was cast created a "Fault line", sooner or later it would just give up. Now if we have 100 very heavy cars, and hang all the engines on the front, we are tempting fate to break couplers. So to better distribute the forces some engines will push, others pull and the middle group may do either.

Hope all this "RAILROAD 101" helps you, the developer or the City to come up with a good solution that makes everyone happy. We should argue for the railroad that NOTHING is done to mess up that passenger speedway. As for costing "FAR MORE THEN THE "S" or "A"... I don't agree, FEC is not the old FEC, and they will be the nicest of the whole group to work with...  

Ocklawaha

Fancy that.

Great info, Ock.  Given that the road is already about ten feet lower than railroad grade, a railroad overpass/road tunnel, etc. should be fine without having to raise the current track elevation.  As for the cost, if bridges or extra track is needed, in addition to ROW, its going to cost more than a line that does not require the extra frills.  I don't see any way it can't cost more.

The key here is the Florida East Coast WAS once completely double tracked, Jacksonville to Miami. Add to this long passing sidings due to heavy passenger traffic and high speeds and we have one heck of a right of way to work with. In the City, St. Augustine, Bowden, Terminal, Bunnell etc... all of the right of way is 3 or even 4 track! Adding a line of railroad on such a ready made spot is a piece of cake.  
Ocklawaha

Yes its cheaper than building a parallel busway or road, but you would not need to add additional track to the A Line, which is why I say it would be cheaper.  Also, are you assuming there would be no cost to use private rail ROW?

For some reason I just realised that the east side of Phillips is to be developed as well.  Having buildings of 20-30 feet fronting the highway wil be surreal.  I don't think that segment of US-1 has ever seen development like that.

No, but it would transform that entire area into a district on its own, which is a far cry from what it has fallen down to today.

You got that right.  I don't know why suburban development hasn't taken to the concept of provideing parking in the rear of the building before recently.

Does anyone know who is planning on developing this project? I've looked up CRVI Phillips LLP and First Star Development and can't seem to get an actual office or company. Has anyone found out a contact person for the developers?

You can try to contact the planning department or the architect.

Anyone know where this subject (development of Philips at Wishart/95) stands? The Jerry Hamm dealership property is now completely vacant...wondering if there has been any official discussion of this project or if there is any plan for community consultation?

ok...looks as though something is happening in the area that this discussion thread has been talking about. As of this week, there are "road closed" barriers around the entire area.

Anyone know if demolition is about to take place and what, if any, real permitted plans are on the books???

I haven't heard of any actual plans.  I thought this was still in the concept stages.

I'm not aware of any rezonings, development approvals or marketing taking place for this development.  Whoever has purchased the property could just be clearing it, which is something that happens quite often in Jacksonville.

Quote from: thelakelander on May 07, 2008, 01:55:12 PM
I'm not aware of any rezonings, development approvals or marketing taking place for this development.  Whoever has purchased the property could just be clearing it, which is something that happens quite often in Jacksonville.

We do that a lot - especially downtown.

Neighbors on River Oaks are getting vibes that this project is moving forward...fast.  And they're NOT HAPPY.

Anyone know which councilman has this property in his/her district? Or who else we can contact to get details and determine if there has been ANY consideration given to the barely one-lane street they're planning to send hundreds/thousands of cars down?

That thin strip is a part of District 9.  Warren Jones is the councilman for this property's area.  You can also contact the City's traffic engineering department, but I seriously don't think they have approvals to do anything other than possibly clearing the property.

Quote from: southwood on May 08, 2008, 08:28:48 PM
Neighbors on River Oaks are getting vibes that this project is moving forward...fast.  And they're NOT HAPPY.

I live on River Oaks Road but West of Hendricks. I have not heard of these plans, and merely stumbled upon them through this forum. Was this ever featured on the Fla Times-Union? Seems that I have missed it, if it ever were.

Please enlighten me... with money as tight as it is, and with similar previously well-trumpeted plans like East San Marco being indefinitely shelved, who is the major backer of this project??

This is a well-established neighborhood with hard working people whose families have lived in the area for decades. What about the folks who live there? It sounds like no meetings with local residents have been scheduled or held.

I can't promise that it's correct, but try this contact info (and please update the forum here if you find out anything worth reporting back):

  Firststar Development, Inc.
  Stephen R. Cissel
  230 Canal Blvd
  Suite 4
  Ponte Vedra, FL 32082

I don't think its gotten that far yet.  From what I've been told, this development is in the early conceptual phases of design.  Before they can really move forward, they will be required to go through public hearings where local residents will be able to voice their concerns.  In the meantime, local residents should contact their council representative to notify him of their concerns.

In May, I sent a public info request to both councilmen -- Shad and Jones -- whose districts will be affected by this development. Here is what Shad's assistant wrote in reply:

The legislation for this project has not been filed, yet. As soon as it is, we will let you know. The only thing that has been turned in so far is a pending road-closure application for Mitchell Place (District 9). The attached documents, that were given to us by the developer, are probably the same ones you are seeing on Metro Jacksonville. There are no other public records at this time. Please give us a call if you have any questions.

Me again...River Oaks Road is NOT wide enough to handle the traffic increase, regardless of whether or not the rail component is included. The neighbors are organizing to see that this project, if it begins to get legs, takes that reality into consideration. If you're not convinced, drive it one day at 5:15 p.m., after a train has backed up traffic and there are cars legally parked on River Oaks. You can barely get through the maze. Add thousands more cars and it'll be a nightmare of traffic AND extremely dangerous for the families with children who live on River Oaks.

The closure of River Oaks at the RR tracks is the best alternative, though a decision of this sort will be fought by drivers who use it as a cut-through to Phillips/I-95. When the time comes, those of us on the east/River Oaks side will kindly ask all those cut-throughers if they'd like to see this sort of traffic increase on their own residential  street. It's a legitimate question, and one that should cause the city to carefully revisit their traffic planning for this major development. 

I live on Mitchell Place at the north end of the block and was amazed that they closed all the access around Jerry Hamm.  At first I was told that the streets could not be closed until the city turned them over to the developer after all of the permitting and council approval.  After I called another city department I was told that the streets would only be closed temporarily until site testing for envirionmental was done.  I told them that the streets were closed and that was unacceptable.  Service ST is now open but the other streets to the south up to River Oaks are closed.  This is crap.  I sent an email to Warren Jones on May 8 and have yet to receive a reply.  My end of the street has very many rehabed houses and has become quite nice.  I hate that this mess is coming.  We were just getting rid of the street walkers and now we will have all this noise.  There are already houses that have been sold to this developer that are now boarded up awaiting demolition. I do like the transportation aspect of the plan but all of that retail will be hard to swallow next to what is now a quiet neighborhood.  I think the city and the developer should be more forthcoming on plans since they will be affecting the current homeowners in the area.   I guess the gerrymandered part of district 9 on the southside is not important enough for Mr Jones to respond.

Being a long time resident of San Marco in a home adjoining FEC Park, I am amazed at the proposals that include this park and neighborhood.  I grew up in the same home that I am currently living in and attended Southside Grammar School and Landon High School.  FEC Park was used by Landon as a practice field for football and also to a limited degree for baseball.  This has always been a passive park for the neighborhood with a large flat area.  In recent years, the park has become a place where people from other neighborhoods are coming to play football, soccer, and other sports.  The park really has only a limited amount of parking and the parking is on streets adjacent to the park and adjacent to homes in the neighborhood.  Often, the cars parked on River Oaks Road near the railroad tracks cause a bottleneck and unsafe condition.  In the period when I was growing up, everyone walked to the park including the football team from Landon.

Now we are seeing the beginnings of a proposal to possibly develop the park further, put in a transit station for the Skyway Express, and even build an overpass over the railroad tracks.  The proposals that are being put forward even mention the ability of people coming to the area and walking to the San Marco shopping area.  If you frequent San Marco, you know that there is no parking available now and most of the restaurants do not have space available to sit and eat during peak times even if you find a parking space or get there by walking.  We also have an under utilized parking garage on Kings Avenue and Skyway Express station and we are talking about extending the Skyway Express and building another station about one mile away.  In theory and when you look at models, proposals, and drawings, this looks good to a lot of people, especially a developer trying to build a major development. 

If the San Marco development by giants like Regency and St. Joe is on hold or delayed because of the current economic situation, why would this new development be any better to proceed at this time?  Are we being prepared to give government assistance to the new development?  Is the new development going to be filled with low income housing or public assistance housing?  Are we as neighbors to the project not being fully informed until it is too late or almost impossible to make a difference in the type or scale of the new project?  When a previous proposal was made to put a dog run in FEC Park, I was informed that San Marco Preservation had signed off on the project as well as Art Shad, the local councilman.  I was surprised and asked if there was any discussions with the neighbors residing on or adjacent to the park.  I was told that the neighbors were contacted that lived adjacent to the park.  This is not true.  I have lived at the same address for all of my life and no one contacted me or made an attempt to contact me. 

A development of this magnitude needs to be fully discussed with public, private, and government groups before decisions are made.  Back room deals that involve taxpayer dollars should not happend.  We need to make sure that any government participation in this or any project like this is above board and in the sunshine.  Our city government is looking for ways to provide necessary services with limited tax revenues available and we always seem to have money for pet projects or government assistance to private projects. 

Road and parking improvements are something residential developers seem to go overboard with in northeast Florida.  If you are have traffic issues you can not get a developer in fast enough.  The city ignores areas where no development is going on.  The developer is the only way you will see infrastructure improvement.  Consider supporting this as the means to your ends.  This development allows you to work with the management and growth of the area.  The Craig feild people believe they have won but it is just a stay.  When the development is happening is when you can make demands.

JeffreyS has a point.  If any improvements need to be made in this area, this is a chance for local residents in the surrounding area to work with the city and the developer to create some type of development that benefits all parties, especially those existing residents impacted by the proposed development. 

At this point, it does not seem like this development is far along.  Before they can do anything worthwhile (other than buying the property, closing streets and demolishing the existing structures), they'll have to rezone the land, which will require public hearings.  River Oaks residents will have their say in what eventually happens with this site.

From the Sunday T/U's  "in the pipeline" biz section.


St. Johns River Water Management District review
Construction of Jackson Square at San Marco 
Business Type: Commercial
Project Address: Philips Highway near Interstate 95
Entry Date: 6/26/2008
File Date: 6/5/2008
Acreage: 17.3
City Development Number:
Agent: Cypress Realty, Austin, Texas
Owner: CRVI Phillips LLP
Engineer: Environmental Services Inc
Engineer Phone: (904) 470-2200

Latest update from the City (via Councilman Shad's office):
The PUD application was received in the Planning Department on 6/23 and the Ordinance number was assigned this past Friday. 2008-563 will be introduced at the 8/12 City Council meeting. There will be public hearings at Council on 8/26, at Planning Commission on 8/28 and at the Land Use & Zoning (LUZ) Committee on 9/3. The Planning Dept. is currently reviewing the application (which includes a traffic impact study) and will submit its report to the Planning Commission on 8/28.

Here's how the developer (First Star) describes the project and status:
We are very early in the process, we just filed for zoning.
We are in the process of cleaning up the site by demolition which should start in July.
This will be a mixed use community planned as a TOD which stands for a Transportation Oriented Development utilizing mass transit systems like the BRT and the Skyway light rail system as it is extended south along the existing railroad right of way.

The first phase of the community should be apartments positioned in the market for the young up and coming market that wants to be located close in to downtown and likes a very active lifestyle that is associated with the urban lifestyles of good health, leisure time and work-live-play settings.  San Marco is a beautiful area and this “redevelopment site” will be a great asset for the generation looking for a place to live close to work so they don’t spend two hours every day in traffic. 

Sounds like they are sticking to the idea of extending the skyway.

I don't think they are willing to pay to expand it.   If they aren't, it probably won't be extended south anytime soon (ex. before your newborn graduates high school).

Interesting, but I can't imagine the Skyway expansion being held up with such major dollars at stake. Extending South to Atlantic is almost a MUST to make the Southbank branch anything but an expensive horizontal elevator. A ROSA PARKS type center at the FEC/Skyway/Atlantic would be a way to work BRT WITHOUT going into downtown at all.

The developers are in a real power position with the city, they should use it.

JTA better wake up and smell the coffee, LRT or Skyway is the only thing that makes any sense here, in addition to commuter rail.

JTA needs to figure out what a "Transfer" is and start using them.

Get the fares off the Skyway completely and as it expands, allow it to replace the downtown "PCT TROLLEYS"

Otherwise fill in the lesser downtown shuttles with H2 fuel cell or electric buses, shortly buses.

DAMN IT COJ, GIVE ME A CRACK AT THIS!

Ocklawaha

I don't see the Skyway being extended to Jackson Square.  There is just no money or political will to do so.
Unless the developer is going to do it.

I seriously don't see that happening.  To recoup the money on such an investment, Jackson Square would probably need to be three or four times as dense as plans currently show.

My guess is that JTA is still pushing BRT down that corridor and if they get approval from FEC to build on their property, it will be connected to downtown with a busway.

Btw, having a busway in that area is something River Oaks residents should probably be more concerned about.  A luxury infill development raises nearby land values, but having buses speed through on a continuous basis belching out diesel fumes will have the reverse effect.

Hmm. They all ready have a San Marco Station. What would they call this new one St Nicholas Station  or Atlantic Station??

While the costs of the Skyway extension should be slight, as 75% of the costs are already invested in the control system, equipment and O & M base/car barn. With these economys in mind and JTA's expressed desire to reach Kings Avenue Station Hotel via Skyway, it would seem a minor undertaking. One that begs the question will "BRT" come to mean: BUSES REPLACE THINKING?

Looks like another here we go again Jacksonville...

Ocklawaha

lakelander wrote:
Btw, having a busway in that area is something River Oaks residents should probably be more concerned about.  A luxury infill development raises nearby land values, but having buses speed through on a continuous basis belching out diesel fumes will have the reverse effect.

Does ANYONE know if this really IS going to be a "luxury" development -- I can understand how people would pay for "luxury" and proximity to downtown by moving to the new high-rise apartments on the southbank.

But let's be honest - it's a stretch to think they'd opt for Phillips Hwy, with its current residents/transients, the trains that will be sounding their horns at the River Oaks crossing right through their windows and the possible bus station in their back door. 

Something's off here.  Anyone know more about who these apartments are really going to be targeted to?  Also, anyone know how tall they're going to be be, story-wise?

Quote from: southwood on July 04, 2008, 10:03:42 AM
lakelander wrote:
Btw, having a busway in that area is something River Oaks residents should probably be more concerned about.  A luxury infill development raises nearby land values, but having buses speed through on a continuous basis belching out diesel fumes will have the reverse effect.

Does ANYONE know if this really IS going to be a "luxury" development -- I can understand how people would pay for "luxury" and proximity to downtown by moving to the new high-rise apartments on the southbank.

But let's be honest - it's a stretch to think they'd opt for Phillips Hwy, with its current residents/transients, the trains that will be sounding their horns at the River Oaks crossing right through their windows and the possible bus station in their back door. 

Something's off here.  Anyone know more about who these apartments are really going to be targeted to?  Also, anyone know how tall they're going to be be, story-wise?

Although Jacksonville is behind in this style of development, this type of project appeals to a segment of the urban market that overpriced luxury highrises on the river don't.  There are several of these type of developments on the edge of downtowns in cities like Charlotte, Denver, Salt Lake City and Austin. The site plan also shows a development featuring multiple levels (four stories), parking decks, private swimming pools and residential over retail.  Many of these are characteristics not associated with low income housing.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/images/development/jackson_square_at_san_marco/jacksonsquare-jta3.jpg)

QuoteThe first phase of the community should be apartments positioned in the market for the young up and coming market that wants to be located close in to downtown and likes a very active lifestyle that is associated with the urban lifestyles of good health, leisure time and work-live-play settings.

Examples of similar styled multi-family housing in other cities:

Charlotte
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-4934-96698963.jpg)

San Diego
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/commuter_rail/SanDiego-TOD.jpg)

Emeryville, CA
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/emeryville/cnw8564n_fl_fu_emy3_s1.jpg..jpg)

Austin
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2302-136068939_56a6ef1b61_b.jpg)

As the city urbanizes, and infill becomes more dense, THIS is the "investment gold mine of the future," these tight, close in, often run down neighborhoods are headed for greatness. Add real mass transit and the places will explode like wild flowers in the spring. Our job as concerned citizens is to keep JTA directed towards high quality answers and not to trash the opportunities for BILLIONS of investment dollars on some cheap imitation transit system. "Looks like a trolley" or "as good as rail only cheaper" just won't get the job done. Lakelander is right, these developments are the engine that will drive future cities...But not without the fuel...TRANSIT.


Ocklawaha

Lakelander...that helps some, but still, I've spent a lot of time in both Charlotte and Austin (and if this development happens without some thought to impact on the surrounding neighbors and homes, I might move to one of those permanently)...AND, I live in the River Oaks area, so I know it well.  This area is NO Charlotte and it's NO Austin.

Here's something I noted when I looked more closely at the Jackson Sq. schematic -- they're proposing a new traffic signal at the Phillips entrance in the middle of the development. Do they KNOW how fast cars come off 95 onto Phillips?  These cars are coming off a major highway going 50-70 mph (before they slow to the 45 mph of Phillips) -- and now they are going to stop for a traffic signal?

I just don't understand how the traffic reality of this massive development isn't being addressed...yet.

In the road realignment concept, they're also showing a new signal on Atlantic that will apparently be designed to move traffic south toward Phillips via White Ave. This will become a huge enticement to traffic that currently has to run down Atlantic to Phillips or Hendricks to go south on this new cut-through.

With this potential new routing -- that traffic will divert onto the White now, speeding past Douglas Anderson High School (small street/dangerous), and down the "new" River Oaks (small street/dangerous).

Most of the neighbors I've spoken with over the past week, as this thing is getting more attention and notice, are not as concerned about the development component as they are about the amount of traffic that is going to be fed onto VERY SMALL STREETS that can't handle it.

Again, this makes ABSOLUTELY no sense whatsoever. It might look easy on an overhead view, but these are very narrow streets, with homes and schools and on-street parking. There is NO way they can handle this traffic realignment.

More power to you on the infill development stuff, I have no problem with the attempt to use space more efficiently and get some of the blight off Phillips. But, this cannot be done in a way that makes life dangerous for people who live on small neighborhood streets that abut this area. 

If they planned one of these in your backyard, you'd probably feel the same way.

If they would simply close the RR crossing at River Oaks, there will be a LOT less concern from the River Oaks neighborhood -- from the neighbors, who will not have to be afraid the kids playing in their front yards will be hit by a bus or by the thousands of cars that will be using this small street and from the potential apartment dwellers, who won't have to hear train horns in their ears all day/night. I'm sure FEC, CSX and NS would love it, too.

Let me say again development is the only answer for your trafic situation. That is where the money comes from to take care of the problem. Do not say we have bad trffic so do not develop. Say we want to develop so take care of our trafic so we can.

JeffreyS is right.  River Oak residents need to take advantage of the developer's investment in this property to push towards the implementation of a solution that benefits all parties.  Leaving things along Philips the way they are now is not the right thing to do, but neither is funneling traffic into the additional existing neighborhoods in the area.  Maybe closing off the River Oaks crossing is the best thing to do to accomodate both sides.

QuoteThis area is NO Charlotte and it's NO Austin.

Btw, the Austin image is of the Satillo Lofts project.  That particular area of Austin is no panacea.  The city is taking advantage of the new rail metrorail line to renovate this blighted industrial area into a transit oriented development district centered around a new rail stop.

QuoteAll is quiet on a Sunday morning on the 11 acres of trash-strewn open space formerly called the rail yard, now more elegantly dubbed the Saltillo District. Not even the squawking of chickens in surrounding back yards disrupts the solitude, though one can always hear the whoosh of speeding cars on nearby I-35. Trailers are lined up north to south; aside from the tracks that still poke through both the paved streets and the brush, most of the signs that this was once a railroad corridor are long gone. On one block, a stack of broken wood lies with plastic soda bottles and other litter near the street. To the south of the next block is a junkyard with piles of discarded fans and metal furniture. The paint of a nearby graffiti mural depicting two cartoonish boys slowly chips away with age.

full article: Here Comes the Neighborhood - www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:165619

In essence, that's all we're saying. Close River Oaks at the RR tracks.

Develop Phillips in a smart way, and funnel the traffic down streets that are wide enough to handle it: Phillips, Atlantic, Emerson, St. Augustine. Shifting all of the traffic burden of this onto the small neighboring streets isn't safe and isn't smart.

Quote from: thelakelander on July 04, 2008, 12:24:53 PM

QuoteThis area is NO Charlotte and it's NO Austin.

Btw, the Austin image is of the Satillo Lofts project.  That particular area of Austin is no panacea.  The city is taking advantage of the new rail metrorail line to renovate this blighted industrial area into a transit oriented development district centered around a new rail stop.

full article: Here Comes the Neighborhood - www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:165619

VERY interesting piece....thanks for sharing.

Ya know what stood out in my read of it...how the city of Austin involved the community in the planning of this revitalization. The article's author used the word "partnership" to describe the relationship between the residents, city and developers. 

Sadly for us, there's one of the major differences between Austin and Jax.  At this point, Jackson Sq. at San Marco looks to be a prime example of a major neighborhood redevelopment initiative that has been created and, as we're learning, almost executed without any direct community involvement.

If this is the first phase in a major city-sponsored revitalization of Phillips Hwy, it would make sense for the city to approach it that way and get neighbors/taxpayers engaged and involved. But that doesn't appear to be the case here. 

Another thing that's interesting to many of us is how this hasn't even received a whiff of interest from the T-U or Folio. Someone is buying up/taking over homes on Mitchell Avenue and closing that street now, they are demo'ing the Jerry Hamm property and have put up a big, pretty sign (with a scene of the San Marco gazebo and fountain) with a website for info (www.jacksonsquareatsanmarco.com).

Yet no media have even wondered what's going on there, who's being affected, what the city's role in this is, what the taxpayer impact will be...there's a JEA pumping station in that area, there's a railroad crossing that will need to be upgraded or closed, there are traffic lights and street realignment (with property that will need to be bought by the city or the developer for the road realignment) -- who pays for all of this?

Will they only get interested when it's on the city council's agenda?  Just curious.

Great points.  It is pretty amazing and unfortunate that the TU or Folio hasn't picked up on what seems like it will be a major development.

I wish the city and the developer would go ahead and publicly solicit and address concerns like Southwood's.

Quote from: JeffreyS on July 04, 2008, 02:46:42 PM
I wish the city and the developer would go ahead and publicly solicit and address concerns like Southwood's.

Agreed. I'm all for development but the concerns of the residents in the area should be of high consideration.

Ugh.  Hope their website improves.  Construction with "Ks"?
I notice their map doesn't highlight the new signal they propose at their entrance off Philips.
And I still say the chances of a Skyway extension to Jackson Square (what a lame name - this isn't New Orleans) are somewhere between "nil" and "never".  Also, the BRT coming I-95 to Philips, diverting into this development, then back onto Philips is a dumb idea, too.  Maybe if the BRT used the FEC corridor from Kings Avenue station to this development, then went out onto Philips, that would make sense.  If the BRT is along Philips at that point, the stop will be along Philips, not in the back.  If you were riding to/from The Avenues or Mandarin on the BRT, would you want to waste time going several blocks off the route for this one stop?

I think I agree with the concerns above - close the RR crossing at River Oaks as a condition of this development.  And am concerned about making White Avenue a major corridor, with a new light on Atlantic.

Update on timing (from Councilman Shad's office today):

2008-563 will be introduced at Council on Tuesday, 7/22/08, not 8/12/08.  This does not affect any of the other dates.

Anyone who's been through this before able to explain what to expect at the introduction?

The City Council Section on COJ.net will be more exact, but here is a bried synopsis:

When a bill is introduced, it is assigned to a committee (this one should be assigned to Land Use and Zoning, referred to as LUZ).  The committee meets during the working day, but really is your best opportinity to get your voice heard.  Once it gets out of committee (Assuming it is approved, think of it like a train going 60 miles an hour and you are a car about a mile and a half ahead sitting on the tracks), it will probably get through the full council.  Only once have I seen a land use bill get passed by LUZ and voted down by the full committee (I'm sure it happens, but it is rare)

This is a quick synopsis, but this should help.

Great info, thanks.

So, based on the schedule we've gotten -- public hearings at Council on 8/26, at Planning Commission on 8/28 and at the Land Use & Zoning (LUZ) Committee on 9/3 -- we shoot for all three?

Quote from: southwood on July 09, 2008, 09:33:24 PM
Great info, thanks.

So, based on the schedule we've gotten -- public hearings at Council on 8/26, at Planning Commission on 8/28 and at the Land Use & Zoning (LUZ) Committee on 9/3 -- we shoot for all three?

It depends - what is your goal?

I guess it's three-tiered:
1. Get facts about what actually is going in the multi-use facility
2. Learn more about the city's plans with transit associated with the development (BRT?)
3. Voice concern about the traffic impact on the small neighborhood streets that surround the development.

I'd recommend shooting for all three. Each board has different members.

First reported here, back in early March 2008, the TU will have a story on this development in tomorrow's paper.

QuoteNew mixed-use development in works along Philips Highway
Posted: Thursday, July 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
By LIZ FLAISIG
The Times-Union

A new mixed-use development has been proposed for 18 acres along Philips Highway near its intersection with Atlantic Boulevard.

Jackson Square at San Marco is being designed by Basham & Lucas Design Group as a transit-oriented development that would connect residents and pedestrians with buses and other modes of transportation.

FirstStar Development’s plans for the community include 900 multifamily rental units, retail and office space.

See jacksonville.com, for updates and Friday’s Times-Union.

http://news.jacksonville.com/justin/2008/07/31/new-mixed-use-development-in-works-along-philips-highway/

The story was covered on First Coast News a night or two ago.

QuotePlanned community on Philips Highway to be 'transit oriented'

Project for those wanting home near work, public transportation

(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/mdControlled/cms/2008/08/01/312235652.jpg)

By LIZ FLAISIG, The Times-Union

A blighted portion of Philips Highway will lose its historical ties to the automobile under plans for a new community focused on urban living near mass transit.

Jackson Square at San Marco is proposed for the 18 acres along Philips near Atlantic Boulevard that Jerry Hamm Chevrolet used to occupy.

The development will have 900 apartments ranging from $700 per month for a studio to $1,500 for the largest two-bedroom unit.

Young professionals and couples without children will be targeted because they are part of a growing group looking for homes close to work and public transportation, said Steve Cissel, partner in FirstStar Development Inc.

Plans for Jackson Square include restaurants and boutique shops in 150,000 square feet of retail space and 200,000 square feet of offices.

Cissel pitched the site to financial partners Cypress Real Estate Advisors of Austin, Texas, because of its proximity to the railroad and the road's long history as a transportation corridor.

The group has also worked for the last 18 months with the Jacksonville Transportation Authority on developing the site as a transit-oriented development, or TOD.

The concept is part of "smart growth" principles that have gained popularity in recent years amid heightening environmental concerns in the real estate industry and interest in shorter commutes.

"This is about a lifestyle issue," Cissel said. "These people are younger, working professionals and empty-nesters or waiting later in life to have children. They want smaller spaces to live in with all the amenities and five minutes to work so they don't have to use a car."

Walking, riding a bike or taking the bus will be options in about 36 months, when Cissel expects residents to move in.

And later down the line, JTA's planned bus rapid transit system and light rail are expected to align with Jackson Square.

Though a spokesman was unavailable to comment, JTA has publicly discussed four other TODs, most prominently Kings Avenue Station with its hotels.

All the sites under way are different, but involve the same concept of furthering use of mass transit to ease congestion as Jacksonville grows.

For Paul Basham, president of Basham & Lucas Design Group Inc., the job of designing a TOD community on this spot makes sense.

"Being a TOD is another layer of mixed-use because you can live, shop and get to work and never use a car to do it," Basham said.

Jackson Square has begun the permitting process and is expected to be under construction within the next 24 months.

It will cost an estimated $75 million to $100 million, Cissel said.

http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/080108/bus_312154535.shtml

What a one-dimensional article. Disappointing.

Disappointing is an understatement.

As the very light-on-details PUD makes its way through the city reviews this month, it'll be interesting to note whether or not those who are reviewing are looking carefully at:

1. Parking -- the developers admit that they're building 50% fewer parking spaces than needed, "to dis-incent residents from having cars." Sure...residents will make the decision not to have cars because there BRT will take them wherever they want to go...to their doctor in the corner of Mandarin and to their kids' school for metings...get real.

2. Impact on small neighboring streets -- the developer/traffic experts apparently told neighbors this week that a mere 50 cars will be added to small roads adjacent to the development. 900 apartments + retail/commercial and there will only be 50 cars a day on neighboring roads?!  Sounds like either someone's seriously underestimating so they don't have to deal with the reality of their impact OR, if their numbers are "real" -- they're going to be content with 10% occupancy and no customers for the retail shops - that equals about 50 cars.

3. Where will the children who live in these apartments go to school?

4. Railroad noise -- there are very active crossings along the west side of the development -- hundreds of feet away from the bedrooms, living rooms, balconies of the apartments. Who's going to want to live with that noise and the vibration that comes when a long, heavy train comes through?

I speak on behalf of none of the developers, but:

1) I think, realistic or not, they truly hope to incorporate comprehensive mass transit into the residents' lives. Comprehensive meaning the San Marco and Downtown areas, where they hope residents can get and do whatever they need.

2) Agreed, this seems like a gross understatement.

3) According to the article, they're targeting a demographic without children.

4) This will be a nuisance, clearly. Perhaps the development will be designed to minimize train noise, but nevertheless it cannot be eliminated entirely.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 07, 2008, 04:29:29 PM
Disappointing is an understatement.

As the very light-on-details PUD makes its way through the city reviews this month, it'll be interesting to note whether or not those who are reviewing are looking carefully at:

1. Parking -- the developers admit that they're building 50% fewer parking spaces than needed, "to dis-incent residents from having cars." Sure...residents will make the decision not to have cars because there BRT will take them wherever they want to go...to their doctor in the corner of Mandarin and to their kids' school for metings...get real.

2. Impact on small neighboring streets -- the developer/traffic experts apparently told neighbors this week that a mere 50 cars will be added to small roads adjacent to the development. 900 apartments + retail/commercial and there will only be 50 cars a day on neighboring roads?!  Sounds like either someone's seriously underestimating so they don't have to deal with the reality of their impact OR, if their numbers are "real" -- they're going to be content with 10% occupancy and no customers for the retail shops - that equals about 50 cars.

3. Where will the children who live in these apartments go to school?

4. Railroad noise -- there are very active crossings along the west side of the development -- hundreds of feet away from the bedrooms, living rooms, balconies of the apartments. Who's going to want to live with that noise and the vibration that comes when a long, heavy train comes through?

Re:  Proximity to the railroad-  Isn't that the point of a TOD?  Aren't the developers banking on some sort of commuter rail system, and access from the apartments in the future?  Additionally, it's not as if the distance from the rail line is being kept from potential residents.  I would wager that most of the people interested in living in this development will know what they're in for, at least in regard to train noise anyway.  May that be giving them too much credit?

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 07, 2008, 04:53:06 PM

3) According to the article, they're targeting a demographic without children.

The drawings show the residential side as "multi-family."

Those up and comers will have cars and eventually, will have kids...

My Thoughts:

1.  This development is targeting a demographic that does not exist in Jacksonville:  The educated, college degreed young professional that moves to a city with a bunch of student loan debt, who could do without the extra expense of a car.  This doesn't exist here because it can't exist here - there is no transit.  However, this demographic does exist in other cities, and apparently is heating up already in charlotte as I understand.  Yes, people will have cars, but don't expect this development to occurr without some sort of transit element.

2. Development is coming in Jacksonville.  Sure, we've hit a slow spot with the economy, but it is coming regardless.  Who can realistically be the person who closes the gate to Jacksonville as they walk through?  So, given that fact, which would you rather have - Traditional, suburban sprawl apartment complex, or a smarter development? And, as far as the kids goes, in a development like this, there won't be a ton of kids (remember, it's upscale apartments).  And though there will definitely be some, we need to accomodate that.  Again, are we supposed to put up the "No Vancancy Sign", or worse, in my opinion, encourage development at the county line, forcing us to run infrastructure out 20 miles in the middle of nowhere.  It has been proven over and over that infill development is SIGNIFICANTLY cheaper than development way out.

3. The train - remember, some of the most expensive property in Jacksonville backs up to railroad tracks (San Marco, Ortega, Riverside).  Personally, after my backyard, I have some brush and trees that is maybe 15-20 feet deep, then a sidewalk, then Roosevelt Blvd, then CSX.  When a train goes by a 4AM, and blows the whistle, it is noisy, but not unbearable at all (and I live in an old house in Avondale).  I would have to imagine that a newer construction property would handle noise much better than my place.

When the kids come, they'll most likely move to a more kiddie friendly development or section of town.  The development is a TOD, so train noise should be expected and welcome, especially if some of that train noise comes from commuter trains.

As for the parking reduction, imo that's a good thing.  Our current parking requirements are one of the major factors that have transformed our community into a sprawling hell hole.  If we are ever going to get serious about better utilizing our land here, a reduction in required surface parking stalls is a must.

The major thing we need to be worried about with this development, is its impact on the surrounding community.  It should be designed in a manner that enhances the surrounding area without forcing tons of extra traffic down existing residential streets.

Quote from: thelakelander on August 07, 2008, 11:52:49 PM
The major thing we need to be worried about with this development, is its impact on the surrounding community.  It should be designed in a manner that enhances the surrounding area without forcing tons of extra traffic down existing residential streets.

I completely agree - I haven't looked too tremendously cose at the exact details of this, but this could be a problem, and I agree that that isn't right.  However, good urban development can occurr mixed with low density single family

I think Steve and Lake expressed my thoughts sufficiently. Obviously this complex, if filled to capacity, will not be entirely child-less, but in general the developers are targeting yuppies and empty nesters.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 07, 2008, 05:36:49 PM

Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 07, 2008, 04:53:06 PM

3) According to the article, they're targeting a demographic without children.

The drawings show the residential side as "multi-family."

Those up and comers will have cars and eventually, will have kids...

Regarding schools - are the nearby schools crowded now?  The School Board keeps telling us that part of their capacity problem is that the older schools closer to downtown have empty seats, while the suburban schools farthest from downtown are packed.  That's why they are looking at redistricting, to spread the enrollment.  So, what are the facts on the schools near this development?

Upscale apartments are already available at The Strand. The Jackson Sq apts will go from $700-$1500 --this type can already be found anywhere in Jax (especially near places where young up and comers are really working -- Southside, Gate Pkwy, etc.)

Lakelander said, "The development is a TOD, so train noise should be expected and welcome, especially if some of that train noise comes from commuter trains." Really... train noise will be "welcome?"  The vast majority likely won't find the horns and screeching wheels to be nostalgic, especially when they're stuck at the ancient/unsafe crossing at River Oaks, which I assume will be even less safe and more congested/blocked with additional traffic from commuter trains and additional development traffic.

Also, from what I hear, the TOD concept can live or die by the parking/traffic realities - and Jackson Sq. in my opinion hasn't confronted these issues realistically.

Has anyone considered that, today there are three major arterial inlets to Philips Hwy south less than 2/10 of a mile from the development's entrance?  Two I-95 off ramps and the Atlantic/Kings entrance to Philips (the one that makes the swing under 95 at St. Nicholas). All three of those major arteries are going to continue to dump traffic at the doorstep of this development. What happens when that traffic backs up onto 95?

My guess is they're thinking of diverting some of that traffic into the small neighborhoods off Atlantic and Philips -- Spring Park by Douglass Anderson HS, San Diego, River Oaks. These are barely two-lane streets today...are they going to widen them to accommodate the traffic realities of Jackson Square?

If they do widen the streets, they'll have to take 1/2 of the yards from the homes of these small streets, which means that all these new cars will be driving, in some instances, 15 feet from the living rooms of homes that have been in the neighborhood for 70 years. If this happens, there's the real feeling that this development -- while possibly removing some blight from a small pocket of Philips Hwy -- will be the demise of the existing small neighborhoods surrounding a new development.

Is this sort of "progress" worth killing these wonderful neighborhoods?

What can be done to ensure that development happens without making life miserable for the existing pioneers in River Oaks and Spring Park who for years have worked hard to establish this part of the urban core -- the homeowners who are already living there?

Quote from: southerngirl on August 08, 2008, 09:23:11 AM
Upscale apartments are already available at The Strand. The Jackson Sq apts will go from $700-$1500 --this type can already be found anywhere in Jax (especially near places where young up and comers are really working -- Southside, Gate Pkwy, etc.)

We don't have any TOD pedestrian oriented type developments in the inner core.  These types of projects really do appeal to a certain segment of the market that the Strand, Southside condos/apartments, etc. don't.

QuoteLakelander said, "The development is a TOD, so train noise should be expected and welcome, especially if some of that train noise comes from commuter trains." Really... train noise will be "welcome?"  The vast majority likely won't find the horns and screeching wheels to be nostalgic, especially when they're stuck at the ancient/unsafe crossing at River Oaks, which I assume will be even less safe and more congested/blocked with additional traffic from commuter trains and additional development traffic.

TODs are booming next to rail lines in our peer cities across America.  Their success is well proven.

QuoteAlso, from what I hear, the TOD concept can live or die by the parking/traffic realities - and Jackson Sq. in my opinion hasn't confronted these issues realistically.

I agree.  Hopefully these issues will be further hatched out during their approval/permitting process.

QuoteHas anyone considered that, today there are three major arterial inlets to Philips Hwy south less than 2/10 of a mile from the development's entrance?  Two I-95 off ramps and the Atlantic/Kings entrance to Philips (the one that makes the swing under 95 at St. Nicholas). All three of those major arteries are going to continue to dump traffic at the doorstep of this development. What happens when that traffic backs up onto 95?

I seriously doubt this development will stimulate enough traffic to back up on to I-95.  However, if no transit is in place (I mean something more efficient than BRT), the TOD idea, then flies out of the window until we really get serious about rail.

QuoteMy guess is they're thinking of diverting some of that traffic into the small neighborhoods off Atlantic and Philips -- Spring Park by Douglass Anderson HS, San Diego, River Oaks. These are barely two-lane streets today...are they going to widen them to accommodate the traffic realities of Jackson Square?

If Philips can handle the new Walmart, Lowes and BJs, it should be able to handle this development with no problem.  So, pushing traffic through areas like River Oaks should not have to be a priority for its implementation.

QuoteIf they do widen the streets, they'll have to take 1/2 of the yards from the homes of these small streets, which means that all these new cars will be driving, in some instances, 15 feet from the living rooms of homes that have been in the neighborhood for 70 years. If this happens, there's the real feeling that this development -- while possibly removing some blight from a small pocket of Philips Hwy -- will be the demise of the existing small neighborhoods surrounding a new development.

Is this sort of "progress" worth killing these wonderful neighborhoods?

I seriously doubt a development of this size will result in the widening of single family home neighborhood streets.  If that's the case, then its not progress.

QuoteWhat can be done to ensure that development happens without making life miserable for the existing pioneers in River Oaks and Spring Park who for years have worked hard to establish this part of the urban core -- the homeowners who are already living there?

Simple. Implement commuter rail to make it a true TOD and push all vehicular traffic from this development to Philips Highway (also close the River Oaks railroad crossing).  This way, the neighborhoods around gain the benefit from having new retail nearby and higher property values, without having extra auto traffic coming through their streets.

I have been reading the post from the folks who live in the neighborhood that runs behind this proposed development and it amazes me how they are balking at it. What would they rather have streetwalkers and closed down businesses or a thriving development that would actually help to increase thier property values and give them better access to transit and possibly retail.  Sometimes people amaze me at their shortsightedness.

Quote from: Steve on August 07, 2008, 11:52:03 PM
My Thoughts:

1.  This development is targeting a demographic that does not exist in Jacksonville:  The educated, college degreed young professional that moves to a city with a bunch of student loan debt, who could do without the extra expense of a car.  This doesn't exist here because it can't exist here - there is no transit.  However, this demographic does exist in other cities, and apparently is heating up already in charlotte as I understand.  Yes, people will have cars, but don't expect this development to occurr without some sort of transit element.

I agree with you completely! I think I belong to the closest thing this city has to this target demographic, but does that mean I would live in one of these apartments and ditch my car (which is, in fact, a huge expense) with the hope that a decent, reliable mass transit system will get off the ground ... hell no! Transit first, TOD later.

Quote from: fsujax on August 08, 2008, 10:23:22 AM
I have been reading the post from the folks who live in the neighborhood that runs behind this proposed development and it amazes me how they are balking at it. What would they rather have streetwalkers and closed down businesses or a thriving development that would actually help to increase thier property values and give them better access to transit and possibly retail.  Sometimes people amaze me at their shortsightedness.

"Shortsightedness?"  Sounds like a developer to me.  "Take what we're giving you...it's better than the prostitutes..."  Prove to me that this development is going to transform Philips and I might be more inclined to throw more support to it.

As is, I'm not opposing the development -- I'm simply asking that its impact be CAREFULLY CONSIDERED relative to the stable neighborhoods near it.

And...just where do you think the prostitutes are going to move to? Take the BRT out to the 'burbs that will no be vacant because everyone has rediscovered the urban core?

Out of curiosity: FSUJAX -- do you live on a neighborhood street?  If so, how would you like it if the city turned it into a major transit artery to benefit developers?  Wouldn't you want some measures taken to ensure the safety of your family and property?

I happen to live in Springfield and would love to have a development like this along one of our main arteries.

Quote from: fsujax on August 08, 2008, 01:43:33 PM
I happen to live in Springfield and would love to have a development like this along one of our main arteries.

There's a difference between having a development RUN along an EXISTING main artery and forcing small streets into becoming main arteries.

That's all I'm saying.

The simple solution is to just close the River Oaks railroad crossing and ditch the insane idea of building a dedicated busway in people's backyards along the FEC corridor.  It would also be good for the developer/city to get out an engage the community early on in the process.  From my experience, projects that tend to do this, end up being much better in the long run. 

Allow me to ask a basic question. 

Is this the right time to be adding  700 units of housing  to Jacksonville?  Everyone in the country seems to agree that we have a glut of housing,.  Everyone seems to agree that we have a mortgage crisis.  It is estimated to be between $300 billion (Treasury Department's estimate) and $1.5 trillion (NYU economist Nouriel Roubini's estimate) of mortgage foreclosures coming.

So,  where is Firststar (btw,  is Firststar Steve Cissel from PVB?) getting  the money?  If they don't have financing,  can they get it?  Can they complete this project if they start it,  and if they can't,  will this prime piece of real estate end up as a HUD project owned by the City of Jacksonville?   What if they build these 700 units and can't fill them with young urban professionals?  Who moves in then?

Quote from: Eros Faust on August 17, 2008, 10:06:59 PM
Allow me to ask a basic question. 

Is this the right time to be adding  700 units of housing  to Jacksonville?  Everyone in the country seems to agree that we have a glut of housing,.  Everyone seems to agree that we have a mortgage crisis.  It is estimated to be between $300 billion (Treasury Department's estimate) and $1.5 trillion (NYU economist Nouriel Roubini's estimate) of mortgage foreclosures coming.

Yes, its a great time.  It would be one thing if the housing was being added to the Gate Parkway area, but its planned in a location that does not have adaquate supply for the intended target market.

QuoteSo,  where is Firststar (btw,  is Firststar Steve Cissel from PVB?) getting  the money?  If they don't have financing,  can they get it?  Can they complete this project if they start it,  and if they can't,  will this prime piece of real estate end up as a HUD project owned by the City of Jacksonville?   What if they build these 700 units and can't fill them with young urban professionals?  Who moves in then?

Serious doubt it ends up as HUD housing or in City of Jacksonville ownership.  If the developer can't get financing to pull off the rental project, the land will most likely sit empty (ex. JEA property, the St. John Tower site, etc.), or they'll flip it to another developer. 

Quote from: southerngirl on August 08, 2008, 03:31:39 PM

Quote from: fsujax on August 08, 2008, 01:43:33 PM
I happen to live in Springfield and would love to have a development like this along one of our main arteries.

There's a difference between having a development RUN along an EXISTING main artery and forcing small streets into becoming main arteries.

That's all I'm saying.

Isnt this project planned along Phillps Highway? What makes you think this will add burden to any of the back streets?

Nearby residents are concerned because the preliminary sketch shows River Oaks Road becoming part of an improve secondary access point to the site.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/images/development/jackson_square_at_san_marco/jacksonsquare-jta2.jpg)

Quote from: Eros Faust on August 17, 2008, 10:06:59 PM
What if they build these 700 units and can't fill them with young urban professionals?  Who moves in then?

I'd really love to hear some elaboration on this point from the River Oaks residents. More than one person (on this forum and the TU forum) has argued that this is about more than just traffic. It seems like some people really hate the idea of multfamily housing, regardless of whether the traffic is mitigated or not.

I think it is clear that they are concerned that the multi-family will eventually turn into slum housing.  This fear is not without some merit frankly given the location.  The developers should try to reassure the current residents that this is not what will happen.

The area is already a slum.  Just about anything you put there is going to be an improvement.  A mixed use development, such as Jackson Square would increase the entire area's property values, if pulled off right.  I really think everyone involved with this project need to make a valid effort to work with the community to make sure their concerns are addressed.

Quote from: Joe on August 17, 2008, 11:05:45 PM

Quote from: Eros Faust on August 17, 2008, 10:06:59 PM
What if they build these 700 units and can't fill them with young urban professionals?  Who moves in then?

I'd really love to hear some elaboration on this point from the River Oaks residents. More than one person (on this forum and the TU forum) has argued that this is about more than just traffic. It seems like some people really hate the idea of multfamily housing, regardless of whether the traffic is mitigated or not.

An interesting thought about multi-family housing...

Folks in single family neighborhoods are often scared about the "criminals" that live in apartments....of course, almost every one of us has lived in apartments at one point or another.....and are we all criminals?

Quote from: thelakelander on August 20, 2008, 01:47:52 PM
The area is already a slum.  Just about anything you put there is going to be an improvement.  A mixed use development, such as Jackson Square would increase the entire area's property values, if pulled off right.  I really think everyone involved with this project need to make a valid effort to work with the community to make sure their concerns are addressed.

I agree with Lake...there are about 3 projects over in that area, from the looks of the map I guess those places are being torn down. Those people will either move further south on Philips or east toward Atlantic-Beach splitter.

I don't believe that the area will fall into decay, assuming it gets built, it is priced towards professionals, and at least the idea of rail transit continues to press forward.  If the project ends up half built (The Coves on baymeadows), it's doomed to become a drug/crime/terrorist haven that everyone fears.  If rail transit fades, it will turn into an OP/Mandarin/anywhere USA type of neighborhood.  If the rates fall enough for a rougher crowd to move in, it could lose its luster.  If East San Marco comes through and Jackson Square starts well, i see no reason for it to do poorly.

Imo, the existing single family home residences are more likely to develop into slums, than this new development (if built).  Assuming the River Oaks crossing stays open, are there other traffic calming devices that can be put in place (if it is proven that there's a traffic increase on the street).  Also, what are the other concerns that nearby residents have with this development?

I guess what I'm getting at, is can nearby neighborhoods and this development co-exist with some concessions or do residents want to flat out keep it out of the corridor, hell or high water?

Jackson Square's first public hearing will be held August 26, 2008 at city hall.  I went ahead and color coded the site plan attached in the project's PUD application for better understanding.

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v226/urbanjax7816/JacksonSquare.jpg)

Phase I = blue

Phase II = green

Multi family residential = yellow

Parking garage = orange

Street level retail with residential above = red

Future JTA Bus Rapid Transit ROW = purple

From the layout, the development appears to have very little impact on River Oaks Road (although a traffic study would have to confirm this).  Personally, the layout could improve by shifting the buildings to front the sidewalks along Philips Highway.  This project should be something that completely begins to remake the atmosphere of this blighted corridor.  Parking lots that sit between the buildings and Philips should be discouraged.

this website shows many different traffic calming devices that could be used

http://www.pedbikeimages.org (http://www.pedbikeimages.org)

I think if this is done properly it will enhance the value of the properties on River Oak as well as their quality of life.  There is a lot of great infill development like this in Atlanta which has helped to raise up the surrounding neighborhood.  I wish I could remember the name of the place but there is a similar development in Atlanta south of downtown near the old cemetery which has aided with the resurgence of the surrounding area.  The same could happen here IMO.  These neighbors should try to work with the developers and city officials to get the right plans and architecture in place.

Has metrojax done a "Learning from Atlanta" piece?  I think we could learn a lot from studying what Atlanta has done in the past 5-10 years since hosting the Olympics. 

Learning from Downtown Atlanta: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/465/118/

Learning from Atlantic Station: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/455/118/

Learning from Centennial Olympic Park: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/section/8/118/10/40/

Quote from: RiversideGator on August 20, 2008, 05:02:17 PM
I think if this is done properly it will enhance the value of the properties on River Oak as well as their quality of life.  There is a lot of great infill development like this in Atlanta which has helped to raise up the surrounding neighborhood.  I wish I could remember the name of the place but there is a similar development in Atlanta south of downtown near the old cemetery which has aided with the resurgence of the surrounding area.  The same could happen here IMO.  These neighbors should try to work with the developers and city officials to get the right plans and architecture in place.

Atlantic Station

http://www.atlanticstation.com/home.php

No, it wasnt Atlantic Station.  It was a much smaller development near the cemetery.

I think you're talking about the Fulton Bag and Cotton Mill lofts, near Cabbagetown that was damaged by the tornado.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9d/Fulton-Bag-and-Cotton-Mills-01.jpg/800px-Fulton-Bag-and-Cotton-Mills-01.jpg)

That is a good example but the one I was thinking of was not so grand.  It was located across the highway it seems also.  It was a red brick new retail strip with what appeared to be second story condos/apartments in some places.

are you thinking of Glenwood Park?

http://glenwoodpark.com/ (http://glenwoodpark.com/)

tufsu:  Yes.  I think that is it.  Great find.  It is a neat development.  I drove through there after just wandering around the area adjacent to the old Atlanta cemetery and Cabbagetown.

Anyway, this is a good example of a new development helping to revitalize a formerly downscale area.  It was done on a similar scale to what was there already and has been well received.  This should be what the San Marco developers should shoot for IMO.

Agreed...Glenwood Park may be the best urban version of "new urbanism" I have seen yet...I drove through there last year....architectural styles fit in and the street grid has even been connected to the surrounding neighborhood...unfortunately, it is quite expensive!

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 24, 2008, 05:27:43 PM
Agreed...Glenwood Park may be the best urban version of "new urbanism" I have seen yet...I drove through there last year....architectural styles fit in and the street grid has even been connected to the surrounding neighborhood...unfortunately, it is quite expensive!

I have not seen this area yet. How close is the Inman Park/Reynoldstown Station to this location? (if you know) seems to me the one in Jax would be better than this, They will have a Skyway Station right at the front/back doors right?

that looks pretty nice. would have to see it in person to form a concrete opinion though.

I visited my friend in Orlando last weekend, and she'd just moved into Baldwin Park, which is a similar neighborhood development. It's a bit more spread out with fewer mixed-use buildings but plenty of apt clusters and a central retail area (counting Publix and CVS among its businesses). It's far from perfect, but there are offices available with residential above and the most fascinating thing to me was the fact that the many houses (traditional neighborhood homes) are all within easy walking distance to the development's schools, churches, parks, and aforementioned "downtown" area.

http://www.baldwinparkfl.com/web/village.asp

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 24, 2008, 08:55:57 AM
are you thinking of Glenwood Park?

http://glenwoodpark.com/ (http://glenwoodpark.com/)

Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

Quote from: Coolyfett on August 24, 2008, 11:34:26 PM

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 24, 2008, 05:27:43 PM
Agreed...Glenwood Park may be the best urban version of "new urbanism" I have seen yet...I drove through there last year....architectural styles fit in and the street grid has even been connected to the surrounding neighborhood...unfortunately, it is quite expensive!

I have not seen this area yet. How close is the Inman Park/Reynoldstown Station to this location? (if you know) seems to me the one in Jax would be better than this, They will have a Skyway Station right at the front/back doors right?

pretty much just across I-20 from the Inman Park area...so probably about 1 mile

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

All of the project depictions make it quite clear these will not be low-rent apts....the only way to fit 900 on the site is to provide structured parking....that inflates the cost of the units alone!

Plus...what are you so scared of...as I pointed out a few posts back, everyone of us has probably lived in an apt. at some point in time.

^ I think it's really damn obvious what they are actually scared of. I just don't want to open that can of worms by saying it.

QuoteCan I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

It is refreshing to see a project like this that will be affordable to the average person.  Many of the projects mentioned previously, while very good, are not reasonably affordable for the average person.  Just because the project consists of apartments rather than "lovely townhomes" isn't a bad thing.  Are you insinuating that the Philips HIghway area is not able to be revitalized?

Quote from: Joe on August 25, 2008, 08:21:20 AM
^ I think it's really damn obvious what they are actually scared of. I just don't want to open that can of worms by saying it.

Everything is bound to come out sooner or later.  I believe the first public hearing on the rezoning is coming up soon.  We're also going to feature this subject as tomorrow's front page article.

Since the PUD was so "thin" and lacking in details, nobody really knows what this thing will become, which rightfully explains why the surrounding neighborhoods are worried and want answers. We've all driven by the monstrosity that was crammed into the University/Atlantic area and, in protecting our home values (which are hurting enough already, thanks), are wary of the same thing happening here.

The neighbors just want the impact, which will be felt all over these small, single-family, bungalow homes, to be considered.  We have been here, establishing and supporting the "urban core" for years and just wish that there was some respect for that vs. what we're hearing from the developers and many of you here: "This is good for Jacksonville and will fix Philips Hwy, so just deal with it."  That's not "community."

Show me the Transit piece installed and working, show me the clean up of the rest of Philips Hwy between 95 and Emerson, and then maybe I'll believe that we're not about to have to live in the shadow of 900 un-rented apartments and buses and more rail traffic from commuter rail making dangerous crossings and streets like River Oaks even more dangerous.

Why does our little neighborhood have to be the incubator without our being asked/included/considered?

That's all I'm saying, guys.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

700$ is low rent!?!?!? I better move then! Anywho if the Skyway goes there as intended the price may go up a couple hundred.

Quote from: Joe on August 25, 2008, 08:21:20 AM
^ I think it's really damn obvious what they are actually scared of. I just don't want to open that can of worms by saying it.

Yea I hear ya, They are going through the same thing in Atlanta. Maybe thats why republicans hate trains so much lol.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

I think these are very reasonable concerns.  I love the proposal that has been talked about here but with the current hosing market residents need to be concerned with what developers are doing. 

Clearly Southerngirl has made up her mind in advance that this will be a negative impact development. I understand that change scares people all the time. That does not mean anyone should decide in advance that this project will be all that we hope.   

Quotethey're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

Yes look out for the worst case scenario but if you choose to live in a core neighborhood of a growing city you should probably consider there will be infill.

Great points, Southerngirl.  With the public hearings coming up, this will be the opportunity to iron out these issues to ensure the the development has a positive impact with the surrounding community.  

The site is currently zoned CCG-2.  Here's a list of what can go up on this site right now, regardless of what currently surrounds it.

QuoteV.   Commercial Community/General-2 (CCG-2) District.    
(a)   Permitted uses and structures.    
(1)   Commercial Retail Sales and Service Establishments
(2)   Retail sales of new or used automobiles, trucks and tractors, mobile homes, boats, pawnshops subject to Part 4, automotive vehicle parts (but not automobile wrecking yards, junkyards or scrap processing yards), heavy machinery and equipment, dairy supplies, feed, fertilizer, plant nurseries, lumber and building supplies and similar products.
(3)   Service stations, truck stops, car wash, major automotive repair, car or truck rental, restaurants, laundromat or dry cleaners, veterinarians, animal boarding kennels meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4, pest control, carpenter or cabinet shops, home equipment rentals, job printing or newspapers, radio or television offices and studios, blood donor stations and similar uses.
(4)   Commercial, recreational and entertainment facilities such as carnivals or circuses, theaters (including open-air theaters), skating rinks, athletic complexes, arenas, auditoriums, convention centers, go-cart tracks, driving ranges, indoor and outdoor facilities operated by a licensed pari-mutuel permitholder, and similar uses.
(5)   Fruit, vegetable, poultry or fish markets.
(6)   All types of professional and business offices.
(7)   All establishment or facility which includes the retail sale and service of all alcoholic beverages including liquor, beer or wine for off-premises consumption and on-premises consumption in conjunction with the service of food which is ordered from a menu and prepared or served for pay for consumption on premises.
(8 )   Small scale operations including wholesaling, warehousing, storage, distributorship business where the total operation does not require more than 10,000 square feet of floor space, no vehicle is used in excess of one and one-half ton capacity, all merchandise is stored within an enclosed building and no heavy machinery or manufacturing is located on the premises.
(9)   Hotels and motels.
(10)   Day care centers and care centers meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4.
(11)   Hospital, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, group care homes, housing for the elderly or orphans and similar uses.
(12)   Boatyards.
(13)   Racetracks for animals or vehicles.
(14)   Adult entertainment.
(15)   Light manufacturing, processing (including food processing but not slaughterhouse), packaging or fabricating.
(16)   Off-street commercial parking lots meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4.
(17)   Retail outlets for sale of used wearing apparel, toys, books, luggage, jewelry, cameras, sporting goods, home furnishing and appliances, furniture and similar uses.
(18)   Recycling collection points meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4.
(19)   Essential services, including water, sewer, gas, telephone, radio, television and electric, meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4.
(20)   Private clubs.
(21)   Churches, including a rectory or similar use.
(22)   Personal property storage establishments meeting the performance standards and development criteria set forth in Part 4.
(23)   Vocational, trade and business schools.
(24)   Banks, including drive-thru tellers.
(25)   Dancing entertainment establishments not serving alcohol. This provision shall not supersede any other approvals or requirements for such use found elsewhere in this Chapter or elsewhere in the Ordinance Code.

http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=12174&sid=9

Nearby residents should view this as a process to create a compatible development.  Unfortunately, some sound like they want to kill it instead attempting to make sure its fully integrated.  As long as both sides are willing to work together, this is the opportunity to improve the entire area.  

Quote from: Coolyfett on August 25, 2008, 12:43:42 PM

Quote from: Joe on August 25, 2008, 08:21:20 AM
^ I think it's really damn obvious what they are actually scared of. I just don't want to open that can of worms by saying it.

Yea I hear ya, They are going through the same thing in Atlanta. Maybe thats why republicans hate trains so much lol.

Yes and they tried to restrict MARTA to the poorest neighborhoods only to miss out on the increased property values MARTA brought with it.

southerngirl....you ask that the transit be installed and working and that all of Phillips Hwy. be revitalized before you agree to allow this development....how would that be posible...you have to start somewhere....this type of project is designed to support/encourage transit and could become a catalyst for other redevelopment.

The PUD is somewhat thin, but it does include a site plan which clearly shows what the project is envisioned to be...any significant deviation from that later would require a resubmittal.

the fact is, assuming this development is done right, home values in the area will likely increase (case studies all over prove that)....using your logic, I suppose that any increases in home values that can be attributed to Jackson Square should be turned over to the developer!

Quotethey're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

This should be seen as a great thing.  San Marco does not need any help in becoming a vibrant community.  It already is.  Its now time to focus on spreading that vibrancy.  Philips needs a catalyst and this development may be what's needed.  The focus needs to be on working to properly integrate and fill in what's missing (in response to the PUD application).  If this is done, the development will be a 100% asset to the River Oaks community.

I sincerely hope all of you who believe this will be done right are right.

As far as the neighborhood having made up its mind -- while there does seem to be a pretty unified voice about traffic impact (on River Oaks, Lorimier, Dunsford), there's certainly not a clear majority that San Marco is completely against the development going in there. But just like if they were putting the BIGGEST DEVELOPMENT IN JAX in your neighborhood, you'd want to have some input and be heard.  That's what the River Oaks/San Marco "community" is doing.  Asking to be heard.

Again, if the developer and his legal representation had listened more to the individual neighbors and been honest about traffic impact (with a serious face, they told the neighborhood that their traffic studies indicated there would only be an additional 50 cars/day on River Oaks Road -- 900 apartments +  retail/commercial and only 50 cars a day, right), this would probably not be as snarly as it is.

Instead of catching more flies with honey, their approach appears to have been to swat them away again and again. There's still time for them to do the right thing -- and the neighborhood is hopeful they will.

QuoteI sincerely hope all of you who believe this will be done right are right.

Imo, it can only be done right, if the developer, city and residents are willing to sit down together and work to create a viable plan that alleviates everyone's concerns.

QuoteAgain, if the developer and his legal representation had listened more to the individual neighbors and been honest about traffic impact (with a serious face, they told the neighborhood that their traffic studies indicated there would only be an additional 50 cars/day on River Oaks Road -- 900 apartments +  retail/commercial and only 50 cars a day, right), this would probably not be as snarly as it is.

What is the traffic impact?  I wasn't aware that one had been done.  What would be the result if the connection between the development and River Oaks Road was shifted to St. Augustine Road instead?

QuoteInstead of catching more flies with honey, their approach appears to have been to swat them away again and again. There's still time for them to do the right thing -- and the neighborhood is hopeful they will.

Speaking from experience in the development field, its pretty easy to catch flies with honey.  Many times neighbors just want to be heard and a part of the planning process.  When this is done, these projects normally turn out better and are easily approved because they have gained the community's support.  I hope that happens here.  Philips Highway could really benefit from a positive shot in the arm.

QuoteI sincerely hope all of you who believe this will be done right are right.

As far as the neighborhood having made up its mind -- while there does seem to be a pretty unified voice about traffic impact (on River Oaks, Lorimier, Dunsford), there's certainly not a clear majority that San Marco is completely against the development going in there. But just like if they were putting the BIGGEST DEVELOPMENT IN JAX in your neighborhood, you'd want to have some input and be heard.  That's what the River Oaks/San Marco "community" is doing.  Asking to be heard.

Again, if the developer and his legal representation had listened more to the individual neighbors and been honest about traffic impact (with a serious face, they told the neighborhood that their traffic studies indicated there would only be an additional 50 cars/day on River Oaks Road -- 900 apartments +  retail/commercial and only 50 cars a day, right), this would probably not be as snarly as it is.

Instead of catching more flies with honey, their approach appears to have been to swat them away again and again. There's still time for them to do the right thing -- and the neighborhood is hopeful they will.

Since you seem to be against the development as it stands, I would be interested to hear what infill development you and the neighborhood envision for this specific piece of land?  What would feel would be acceptable? 

I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

Remember, the impact from the development that was there -- a car dealership -- was minimal to the neighborhood. This development is going to be more dense, so the traffic impact must be addressed honestly, without trying to make everyone believe that there won't BE any traffic b/c it's a TOD. The TOD isn't there yet, so there will be cars. And lots of them. The neighboring streets weren't built to handle that traffic and shouldn't be forced to.

The developers would be go a long way with the neighbors if they would support the call to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks Road and would actively request that the City put traffic calming measures on the other streets that, unfortunately, feed to St. Augustine -- Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, Inwood Terrace.

QuoteI, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

Would you be open to any residential?

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 01:59:18 PM
I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

It appears, there are some things that nearby residents will like, but its coming along with a large number of residential units.  Its just a vertical mix of uses instead of spread out.  It will have a ton of retail, according to the site plan and PUD application.  I don't know about a traditional Publix type store, but it looks like it will have restaurants and a Walgreens/CVS type pharmacy.  

QuoteRemember, the impact from the development that was there -- a car dealership -- was minimal to the neighborhood. This development is going to be more dense, so the traffic impact must be addressed honestly, without trying to make everyone believe that there won't BE any traffic b/c it's a TOD. The TOD isn't there yet, so there will be cars. And lots of them. The neighboring streets weren't built to handle that traffic and shouldn't be forced to.

The key is too determine where traffic will come from.  Its also possibly by design, to create a situation where the majority of traffic travels on certain streets, as opposed to others.  For example, a right-in/right out or direct access to St. Augustine Road (as opposed to River Oaks) would reduce the amount on River Oaks, etc.)

QuoteThe developers would be go a long way with the neighbors if they would support the call to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks Road and would actively request that the City put traffic calming measures on the other streets that, unfortunately, feed to St. Augustine -- Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, Inwood Terrace.

Is it possible to keep the River Oaks crossing open, if street calming measures were taken and if there was no access to/from River Oaks Road?  Or is the railroad crossing a make or break issue?

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 01:59:18 PM
I, personally, would rather see more of a mix use -- fewer units of housing and more retail -- of the sort that's missing in San Marco. Say, a grocery store, Walgreens/CVS...drop a Target in there while you're at it. Restaurants. All things that I bet the neighborhood would embrace and even consider walking to (further helping the whole TOD/parking situation).

Remember, the impact from the development that was there -- a car dealership -- was minimal to the neighborhood. This development is going to be more dense, so the traffic impact must be addressed honestly, without trying to make everyone believe that there won't BE any traffic b/c it's a TOD. The TOD isn't there yet, so there will be cars. And lots of them. The neighboring streets weren't built to handle that traffic and shouldn't be forced to.

The developers would be go a long way with the neighbors if they would support the call to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks Road and would actively request that the City put traffic calming measures on the other streets that, unfortunately, feed to St. Augustine -- Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, Inwood Terrace.

It seems that one of your biggest concerns is traffic....yet you want more retail...and even mention a Target!

FYI....the 900 apartments would likely generate around 500 trips in the PM peak hour....the 200,000 sf of office will generate around 300 trips....and the 150,000 sf of general retail will generate about 600 trips (and the grocery/CVS type retail you mentioned generates even more trips than general retail)....as you can see, the retail proposed would have more trips than the residential....and you want a Target too (Super Target's these days are usually around 200,000 sf)!

Now I do understand that some of the retail uses you have proposed would be neighborhood serving and might not yield a significant increase in "new trips"....but the same could be said for the proposed mixed use development...as stated above, it could generate 1400+/- total trips in the peak hour...but after acounting for internal capture (trips within the development) as well as pass-by (trips already driving past the project today), the "net new trips" would likely be less 900.

As for the developer stating that 50 additional cars would use River Oaks each day, they may have meant 50 cars in the PM peak hour (usually how traffic impacts are measured)....that's less than 1 per minute!

I think the neighborhood would be open to some residential -- just not the density they're talking about. At most, a 50/50 split (50% residential, 50% retail/commercial) would be the most that the neighbors would like.

Lakelander -- they're talking 90% residential, 10% retail -- not sure I can agree with your assessment that that is a lot of retail.

The River Oaks crossing closure is a big deal and, at least for the River Oaks community, the reason we're so adamant about this. The safety issues on River Oaks without this development today are a problem -- this is a seriously substandard crossing there today, with a 90 degree turn and very limited visibility for cars or trains. A COJ-sponsored study in 2006 recommended its closure -- that was BEFORE any of this additional potential traffic was even being considered.

Traffic calming measures wouldn't be safe on River Oaks because of 1) legally parked cars on River Oaks that make the road a one-laner, 2) the traffic light at the Hendricks end and 3) the existing crossing -- if there were a backup at one of those ends because of traffic after a long/slow train comes through, the traffic calming measures (speed bumps) would create bigger safety concerns.

Also -- "incenting" traffic to come into/out of the development via Philips only is fine, but if River Oaks still has an active crossing, the traffic will still use it heavily. We see how many people love that cut-through and use it ALL day now. What in the world makes anyone think that traffic going to the development won't come down River Oaks, take a left onto Philips and another left into the development. And vice versa on the return route.  

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 02:32:17 PM
I think the neighborhood would be open to some residential -- just not the density they're talking about. At most, a 50/50 split (50% residential, 50% retail/commercial) would be the most that the neighbors would like.

please read my post above...I don't think you understand what 50/50 could mean....for example, what if the development had 500 units plus 500,000 sf of non-res (200 office, 300 retail)....that would generate about 1750 trips (vs. the 1400 in the current scenario).

it seems clear to me that traffic is not your big issue....having apartments (read lower-class people) adjacent to your neighborhood is.

Traffic has been our number one issue for years BEFORE this development and still is today.

The question of what goes into the development, is a secondary concern, but a legitimate issue for anyone who lives in this area. 

Ask yourself this -- if this were YOUR neighborhood and you had a choice or voice in what would be developed in YOUR neighborhood, what would you choose or ask for? 

Don't try to slough this off on some exaggeration of my comment about the cost of the apartments. This isn't about class -- trust me, I'm one of the dying breed of middle class people in this world. This is about securing the traffic safety of our neighborhood and doing our best to ensure that the neighborhood we have all worked hard to build doesn't get sold out to some developer who got a big piece of land on a bad highway and didn't do the best with it.

Quote from: tufsu1 on August 25, 2008, 02:36:08 PM

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 02:32:17 PM
I think the neighborhood would be open to some residential -- just not the density they're talking about. At most, a 50/50 split (50% residential, 50% retail/commercial) would be the most that the neighbors would like.

please read my post above...I don't think you understand what 50/50 could mean....for example, what if the development had 500 units plus 500,000 sf of non-res (200 office, 300 retail)....that would generate about 1750 trips (vs. the 1400 in the current scenario).

it seems clear to me that traffic is not your big issue....having apartments (read lower-class people) adjacent to your neighborhood is.

Surely with a development like this it wouldn't be low income apartments. I have never seen a situation like that before. I don't think the 50/50 is a good percent, but 90/10 is also a lil weird.....maybe 70/30. That would be a cool percentage imo. You are going to have traffic regardless if it is residence or business. BUT if a Skyway Station is really going over there, it would only generate more foot traffic and less car traffic.

Quote from: Coolyfett on August 25, 2008, 02:59:39 PM
Surely with a development like this it wouldn't be low income apartments. I have never seen a situation like that before. I don't think the 50/50 is a good percent, but 90/10 is also a lil weird.....maybe 70/30. That would be a cool percentage imo. You are going to have traffic regardless if it is residence or business. BUT if a Skyway Station is really going over there, it would only generate more foot traffic and less car traffic.[/color]

Don't pay too much attention to the 90/10 mix....the general premise in real estate is you need between 20 and 50 sf of commercial services for each residential unit....so the 900 units would generate the need for between 18,000 and 45,000 square feet....the developer is proposing 150,000....so clearly this is a heavy dose of retail already.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 02:50:00 PM

Ask yourself this -- if this were YOUR neighborhood and you had a choice or voice in what would be developed in YOUR neighborhood, what would you choose or ask for? 

Yes, I would be very interested...but as someone who has also chosen to live in the urban core, this is exactly the kind of project I would want in my neighborhood!

Well if the Skyway did go there, and the whole thing fell into deep disrepair, at least the hookers would have a safe way to travel from downtown to the north end of Philips.

But then, so would the thousands of daily commuters that jam the bridges at rush hour.

Bottom line? If the Jackson Square folks and the JTA sink that kind of bucks into this, the whole area will see a revival, one that will sweep Philips clean and jump start St. Nicholas too.

OCKLAWAHA

I hope the community won't just dig in it's heals and decide to try and kill this before the first public meeting.

Would closing the River Oaks RR Crossing erase the neighborhood concerns over the mix of development at Jackson Square? (dumb name, btw, this ain't N'awlens)

Quotedevelopment at Jackson Square? (dumb name, btw, this ain't N'awlens)

Not N'awlens, is right, however this IS OLD HICKORYS TOWN! He may have never slept here, but he got to St. Augustine before the era of bridges. Maybe on the old Tallahassee-St. Augustine trail, but an easier crossing one direction or the other would have been in downtown JACKSONVILLE.

He never hung out much in N'awlens either, twice as I recall, once as an "Indian fighter" the other as leader of a ragtag army that sent the Britt's packing. Down here, chasing Indians, and deciding without orders that "Spanish Florida" was arming them, he seized an entire republic and nearly started a World War. I'd say we have a leg up on the name JACKSON SQUARE.

Now on closing that crossing? GO FOR IT!  

OCKLAWAHA

just found out about this project a few months back and today driving
by notice the banner's on the fence along with  two prostitutes,a guy
selling crack to a guy on a bike and some sort of police sting at the
scottish inn which is just about daily and cars coming off 95 doing at
least 60 to 65 mph.this is going to be funny to watch how they work
all this out,not to mention the murders that have taken place a block
away inbetween westmont road and san diego road over the years.
great idea ::)

Sounds like Columbia Heights in DC, ten years ago.   They put in a new metrorail station, a TOD popped up and now its a completely different scene.

Columbia Heights (before mass transit) - this place made Philips Highway look like San Marco.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/columbia_heights/11_DCUSA.jpg)

Columbia Heights (with rail and transit oriented development) - if it can happen here, it can happen anywhere.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/columbia_heights/CH-Tivoli.jpg)

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/340/116/

I hope Lakeland never gets you back. Thanks Lake. :D

I can pull a lot more examples of rail systems helping redevelop rough areas of town.  Just down the street in Tampa, during the late 80s/early 90s, the Channel District was an area of town one would not want to be caught walking through at night.  The industrial district between 7th Avenue & Highway 60 in Ybor was pretty rough too.  The small line there has been a major catalyst in turning that area around also.  I have a ton of images from when I interned down there nine years ago, before the streetcar line opened.  One of these days I'll upload some of those old images to show before/after results.

Hey lakelander -- can you pull some shots of 6-story buildings so that folks can get a sense of how huge this thing will potentially be?  They're asking for height of 90'.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 01:44:22 PM
Hey lakelander -- can you pull some shots of 6-story buildings so that folks can get a sense of how huge this thing will potentially be?  They're asking for height of 90'.

Sure....

Fat City Lofts - infilll development in NoDa (North Davidson neighborhood in Charlotte, NC)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6142-p1140389.JPG)

mixed used condo in Charlotte's Gateway District. (this looks to be slightly taller than 100')
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6164-p1130841.JPG)

Hilton Garden Inn (an infill hotel project in Savannah's historic district)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-5140-p1100913.JPG)

This infill Courtyard by Marriott, in Chattanooga, TN is around 90' high
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-3285-p1060405.JPG)

An infill apartment complex, with street retail in Dilworth neighborhood (Charlotte, NC)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1329-p1000930.jpg)

Piedmont Town Center (new development in suburban area of Charlotte, NC)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-1325-p1000909.jpg)

While the height will have a significant impact along Philips (which is a good thing, imo), it should not be viewable from the River Oaks neighborhood.  The reason it won't be viewable is because of FEC's 100' wide ROW.  As long as this heavy band of oaks remain in place, the view of a 90' structure setback from the property line will be blocked.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6392-p1140818.JPG)

The other major project proposed in the area, East San Marco (which also abuts this neighborhood) will have around 6-8 stories in its main building

Kings Avenue Station has 8 stories and it does not look out of place or even very big.

If I remember correctly, East San Marco was originally going to be many stories tall, but it was redesigned to fit in the San Marco design plan, so it's planned to be much lower. Do I remember something about the current design plan involves graduated height? I dont' think it's now planned to be anywhere near six stories.

As to Jackson Square being a 6-story structure: my opinion -- this will be totally foreign, compared to neighboring structures and stick out big time. Kings Ave. Station is MUCH smaller than this (acreage-wise) and not in a neighborhood, so the scale isn't the same.

Lake -- based on the pics you posted of the 6-story developments, the people in our neighborhood will DEFINITELY have this as our eastern view. We are NOT that far away -- the Right of Way might look large, but it isn't. The tree height between FEC Park and this development is maybe 30' tops. These apartments will tower over the small neighborhoods nearby.

Hey, before I forget -- who mentioned they'd heard East San Marco was going to start up again, possibly as apartments now?  Anyone know more detail?

Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 05:09:28 PM
If I remember correctly, East San Marco was originally going to be many stories tall, but it was redesigned to fit in the San Marco design plan, so it's planned to be much lower. Do I remember something about the current design plan involves graduated height? I dont' think it's now planned to be anywhere near six stories.

East San Marco is still six stories.  They are setback, but not as far back as Jackson Square from the community west of the railroad tracks.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/san_marco_render/sanmarco_presentation19.jpg)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/san_marco_render/sanmarco_presentation18.jpg)

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/san_marco_render/sanmarco_presentation16.jpg)

more East San Marco images: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/215/122/

QuoteAs to Jackson Square being a 6-story structure: my opinion -- this will be totally foreign, compared to neighboring structures and stick out big time. Kings Ave. Station is MUCH smaller than this (acreage-wise) and not in a neighborhood, so the scale isn't the same.

At six stories, it would be the same height as East San Marco, which is in the heart of San Marco.  Kings Avenue Station is eight stories.  However, its more related to Jackson Square because both are on the edge of San Marco, as opposed to the heart.

QuoteLake -- based on the pics you posted of the 6-story developments, the people in our neighborhood will DEFINITELY have this as our eastern view. We are NOT that far away -- the Right of Way might look large, but it isn't. The tree height between FEC Park and this development is maybe 30' tops. These apartments will tower over the small neighborhoods nearby.

Only if they were on a same line, located directly next to each other and if there were no trees in the yards of existing residences along River Oaks Road.  Once you add in the trees in the River Oaks yards, the 100' wide rail ROW, two dense rows of +30/40ft oaks, and the setback on Jackson Oak's property, a six story building won't be seen from that direction.

QuoteHey, before I forget -- who mentioned they'd heard East San Marco was going to start up again, possibly as apartments now?  Anyone know more detail?

It was bought up during a general discussion with a former co-worker about a month or so ago.  I don't know the exact details, but to get it started back up, something will have to happen to the condo element.  With Prado Walk, developers chopped off the upper level condos of their project to move forward with the retail segment.  In Springfield, the Lofts on Main changed their entire concept from luxury condos to rental to move forward.  If East San Marco is going to move forward anytime soon, they'll have to take a similar path.

There is so much more to consider regarding this project than just how the people on River Oaks will be affected, such as:

1. How is the local school system supposed to handle 900 new families?  Hendricks Ave. Elementary has several portables now because they are exceeding capacity.  Landon and Wolfson are overflowing as is.  What are we going to do for all these new students?

2. What is going to happen to this development in 5 years when the developer (Cypress) decides to sell it?  They aren't going to manage it forever, and then what? They will have made their money and left, and we will have to live with the remains.

3. Who the heck is going to live in these apartments?  They're going to be a bunch of cracker boxes crammed together on a street that has a seedy reputation, a loud train horn at all times of the day or night, overcrowded schools, unsafe surroundings, "hot sheet" motels right down the street, a juvenile center within a block, and a thriving criminal element? How many of  the people posting on this board who say Jackson Square (as proposed) is a good idea would live there?  How many of you would recommend it to your friends and family?

4. If River Oaks is closed, traffic will flow down the other residential streets (Lorimier, Brookwood, Dunsford, etc.) causing unsafe conditions for children and pets in these neighborhoods.  No one is going to pay for speed bumps down all these streets - and how is the neighborhood supposed to deal with all the extra traffic?

5. Although the residential plan is not HUD housing, it is very low-end. I saw advance advertisements for $700/mo.  Imagine 900 of these occupied!  Where will they all park?  What will happen when Cypress sells the property?  What is the plan for upkeep?  Bringing in low-income residents can only contribute to increased crime in the area - many will see our neighborhood as "easy pickings."  What happens of the majority of these apartments don't rent for $700/mo?  Will the developer keep lowering the rent until they can achieve the occupancy rate required for them to make money?

6. The JTA has NOT approved any form of transit project or station for this area.  When would it come?  This is not "Field of Dreams (if you build it, they will come).  It seems to me that the zoning should be applied for AFTER JTA has definite plans to build a transit station on this site. Then coordinate the effort.  The assumption is that because this will be zoned as Transit use, people who live here will not have cars, so only 1/2 the parking required is planned for.  WRONG-O.  People in Jacksonville are not used to mass transit and everyone has a car.  Even if you use mass transit to get to work, you still use your car to get to the mall, beach, movies, grocery store, etc.  And what do they do with their cars while they wait for the transit station?  Walk?  Let's be realistic!

San Marco residents are not snobs or elitists.  We're reasonable people who have chosen a lifestyle in one of Jacksonville's oldest and most charming areas.  We pay more per square foot for our homes than most in the city, we constantly work on repairing, upgrading and beautifying our homes, we have a love for the traditional style of the neighborhood and the small-town feel. This neighborhood is not only our home, it's our culture and lifestyle.  Neighbors all know each other and help each other, and most people live her very long term and pass their homes down to their children.  Our houses are not "real estate" or "property" to us - they're our home and our life. 

We definitely want to see improvement to that stretch of Philips Highway and do NOT want to block any type of progress that will improve our city.  No one wants to see the blight on Philips eliminated more than we do. We do not argue with commercial development on this property - heck, I bet we'd all love to see a Home Depot, Lowe's or something similar here.  Our objection is to cramming 900 families into cracker-box apartments, expecting them to find a place to park on the street, expecting them to put their children in portable classrooms, and expecting all of us to dodge them as they use our residential streets as cut-throughs when they're on their way to work.

Development - yes!  The RIGHT type of development - yes!  But let's look at this from the point of view of the people who will be affected most - the residents who go to bed at night with the hope that their neighborhood will be safe.  I believe we should have a louder voice than the people who merely drive by the site on their way to Wal-Mart or The Avenues.

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

This is the issue!  Too many people in too small a space. The developer is selling it to us like it will be luxury condos, when they are actually crackerbox apartments.

Quote from: SanMarcoResident on August 29, 2008, 03:32:02 PM

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

This is the issue!  Too many people in too small a space. The developer is selling it to us like it will be luxury condos, when they are actually crackerbox apartments.

So the people who rent these apartments with pools and expensive parking structures will be worse than the prostitutes, seedy motels and abandoned properties are now for neighborhood safety and values.

Once again with the argument that this development will drag Phillips Highway down hilarious.

Quote from: JeffreyS on August 29, 2008, 03:55:38 PM

Quote from: SanMarcoResident on August 29, 2008, 03:32:02 PM

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

This is the issue!  Too many people in too small a space. The developer is selling it to us like it will be luxury condos, when they are actually crackerbox apartments.

So the people who rent these apartments with pools and expensive parking structures will be worse than the prostitutes, seedy motels and abandoned properties are now for neighborhood safety and values.

Once again with the argument that this development will drag Phillips Highway down hilarious.

Expensive parking structures and swimming pools will not magically "fix" the situation on Philips.  900 low-rent apartments are definitely not the answer.  In 5 years they could turn into more of the same thing as what we already have (except they will rent by the month, not the hour)

Why not put a Home Depot there instead, and a SMALLER amount of nicer upscale apartments (limit to 300).  Why do we need 900 crackerboxes on the border of a well-established, single-family home neighborhood.  There is no infrastructure for 900 families, their cars, their children, and their needs.

Do you know that Jacksonville's rental market is currently at 80% occupancy?  And they just built an apartment complex on Atlantic and University.  Why do we need 900 more?  Does anyone honestly think they will be rented?  There are so many alternatives to choose from to rent rather than an apartment that is blasted by a train horn at all hours and down the street from "hot sheet" motels.  Who wants to raise their kids in that environment when there are plenty of other apartments to choose from?

So, if the developer doesn't get the occupancy levels they want, they'll have to lower the rent.  $700/month is already pretty low.  What if they go down to $500/mo?  What will we have then?  I don't think that will kill the blight in Philips, it will only contribute to it.  And the prostitutes will just have some new customers and drug dealers will have a park (FEC Park) to do business in. Cypress will be long gone trying to sell their next project to the unsuspecting public.

Has this developer been pulling bait and switches. Maybe guilty of not making good plans and developments going bad or a history of having negative impacts on neiborhoods?

Quote from: SanMarcoResident on August 29, 2008, 03:32:02 PM

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

actually no...some of the highest end apartments and condos are in fact very dense...comparable projects in other cities have been shown.

btw...since when is $700 for a studio apt. "low end"?

This is the issue!  Too many people in too small a space. The developer is selling it to us like it will be luxury condos, when they are actually crackerbox apartments.

Quote from: SanMarcoResident on August 29, 2008, 03:32:02 PM

Quote from: southerngirl on August 25, 2008, 07:58:35 AM
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

And they'll be $700/month apartments at that. And, they're ON PHILIPS HWY.  Not in "San Marco."  They will be Philips Highway low-rent apartments.

This is the issue!  Too many people in too small a space. The developer is selling it to us like it will be luxury condos, when they are actually crackerbox apartments.

Since no actual floor plans and construction documents have been completed, its off-base to call anything crackerbox, at this point.  Just because a development has high density does not mean it has to be slums.  Anyone who believes this, has not spent much time in walkable residential districts of America's largest urban centers.

Quote from: SanMarcoResident on August 29, 2008, 06:07:21 PM
Do you know that Jacksonville's rental market is currently at 80% occupancy?  And they just built an apartment complex on Atlantic and University.  Why do we need 900 more?

Location, location, location.  Atlantic and University is not the urban core.  A transit oriented development appeals to a certain crowd that typical suburban developments don't.

QuoteDoes anyone honestly think they will be rented?  There are so many alternatives to choose from to rent rather than an apartment that is blasted by a train horn at all hours and down the street from "hot sheet" motels.  Who wants to raise their kids in that environment when there are plenty of other apartments to choose from?

Yes, I fully believe they will be rented.  I base this off the success of similar projects across the country.  We're behind the curve on this.  Also, the targeted tenants won't be traditional families with multiple kids.  They're more likely to be recent college graduates, empty nesters and singles.

QuoteSo, if the developer doesn't get the occupancy levels they want, they'll have to lower the rent.  $700/month is already pretty low.  What if they go down to $500/mo?  What will we have then?

Keep in mind, the development would total 900 units at buildout.  If the occupancy levels are low, the developer would not move forward with the second phase.  Depending on the design, if it does not work as residential (which is doubtful), perhaps it can be switched to office space.  After all, the PUD calls for 200,000 square feet office space, but the site plan does not indicate it.

QuoteI don't think that will kill the blight in Philips, it will only contribute to it.  And the prostitutes will just have some new customers and drug dealers will have a park (FEC Park) to do business in. Cypress will be long gone trying to sell their next project to the unsuspecting public.

Please take a look through the entire two threads on this topic.  There are various images of this type of project in our peer cities.  They'll give you a better idea of whats being proposed.

Quote
Can I just quickly insert a brief reality check on Jackson Sq vs. the lovely places you guys are showing/talking about in ATL and Orlando:

This development will mainly be 900 APARTMENTS.  Not lovely townhouses/condos like the Atlanta. In the PUD as it exists today, they're asking for a 90/10 split -- 90% apartments, 10% retail.   With that math -- this will ALL be about the apartments.

There are several lovely apartment buildings in Atlanta's and Orlando's urban core.  We'll be lucky if we can get a few well designed structures in Jacksonville.  Also, don't focus on the split.  150,000 square feet of retail is a ton.  Make it 50/50 and this development will be a lot denser than proposed.

QuoteExpensive parking structures and swimming pools will not magically "fix" the situation on Philips.  900 low-rent apartments are definitely not the answer.  In 5 years they could turn into more of the same thing as what we already have (except they will rent by the month, not the hour)

Why not put a Home Depot there instead, and a SMALLER amount of nicer upscale apartments (limit to 300).  Why do we need 900 crackerboxes on the border of a well-established, single-family home neighborhood.  There is no infrastructure for 900 families, their cars, their children, and their needs.

A Home Depot with a couple of hundred units of apartments on top of it, would be nice.  A suburban big box store with huge asphalt parking lots in this area would be a waste.  This style of design sent this area down the tubes a few decades ago.  Jacksonville's core needs to become a walkable mixed-use community again.  Suburbanism is ruining our city and straining our resources.

While I'm certainly for having a TOD approved at this site, these are things that need to be worked out:

QuoteAs a long-time resident of San Marco, I am greatly concerned about what I have heard about the Jackson Square project.  The developer has presented one set of information to the San Marco Preservation Society and a completely different set of information in their PUD.  For example, they told us that the residential use would be about 300 dwellings â€" not the 900 they are proposing. They told us that the height of the buildings would not exceed 4 stories, but the PUD proposes 7 stories.  They do not have a compatibility plan for schools, water runoff, vehicle access or parking.  They have limited their plan to only 10% green space â€" which includes the existing park.  It’s a travesty!

Things will go a lot smoother on projects like this if all sides are willing to work together and keep everything in the open.

Lake - the problem is, all of the details that are typically required in a PUD BEFORE it's submitted were somehow allowed to be omitted from this particular PUD. 

Do the names attached to this project -- Petway/Harden -- have anything to do with the speed and under-the-radar-ness of the approval of components of this PUD?

Seems the Planning Dept hasn't required nearly the level of scrutiny of a project of this size -- one that is being tied to an as-yet approved TOD -- that are necessary for a PUD application.

FirstStar says they've been working on this for 18 months, but Harden & Co. cram a very weak PUD through in a matter of weeks and now the neighbors are supposed to hope that there will be dialogue?

So, since we're getting the feeling that this one is a done deal -- does anyone know much about train horn noise and how it bounces off 6-story buildings? Should we all now take out second mortgages to buy new windows to protect from the noise?  What about the lights for a residential/commercial site of this size? Are we going to have to drive out of town to ever see the stars again?

Quote from: southerngirl on August 29, 2008, 11:39:21 PM
Lake - the problem is, all of the details that are typically required in a PUD BEFORE it's submitted were somehow allowed to be omitted from this particular PUD. 

Do the names attached to this project -- Petway/Harden -- have anything to do with the speed and under-the-radar-ness of the approval of components of this PUD?

Seems the Planning Dept hasn't required nearly the level of scrutiny of a project of this size -- one that is being tied to an as-yet approved TOD -- that are necessary for a PUD application.

FirstStar says they've been working on this for 18 months, but Harden & Co. cram a very weak PUD through in a matter of weeks and now the neighbors are supposed to hope that there will be dialogue?

So, since we're getting the feeling that this one is a done deal -- does anyone know much about train horn noise and how it bounces off 6-story buildings? Should we all now take out second mortgages to buy new windows to protect from the noise?  What about the lights for a residential/commercial site of this size? Are we going to have to drive out of town to ever see the stars again?

Southerngirl I agree with you.  The reason the residents are suspicious of this development is the tactics being used by this developer.  We're NOT against development - but we feel we are being hoodwinked!  They come with their smooth, slick presentation to appease all of us that they are building Shangri-la in our backyard, give us phony numbers, and expect that none of us have a brain cell large enough to comprehend the PUD, it's incompleteness, and the big push to get this through before we notice that their application doesn't match what they told us.  One of the reps from the developer even had the nerve to address a concerned resident as "little lady" and said she didn't need to worry her head over these matters - that they were the experts!  How can we trust them when they take this approach? They are insulting our intelligence and it is only fair that we all examine the total impact of this project and have a voice so that we can reach some synergies between all interests.

Lakeland - you make some very good points and have educated me in many ways.  All of us in the neighborhood agree IN THEORY with the concept, but we want a voice, and we would like to see this scaled down from 900 to a more manageable number of residents - perhaps 300-350, higher end units.  The project is touted as "mixed use" yet with 90% residential, it hardly seems "mixed use" to me.  I would love to see this site become attractive and SUSTAINABLE.  We see a lot of pretty pictures on this board - does anyone have any that are 8-10 years old?  That's what we want to see - long-term viability, which means more than just a nice facade facing Philips.

Quote-- does anyone know much about train horn noise and how it bounces off 6-story buildings?

If the crossing at River Oaks remains you WILL hear the horn of the train. Standard operating rules require TWO LONG - ONE SHORT - ONE LONG.... (held if needed), at each crossing. If a City passes a no horn rule then they must assume some liability for accidents.

The horn it's self will have a "Dopler Effect" You will hear one sound going out, and another going back. Same when a train passes a crossing holding that last note. As the locomotives pass, the pitch of the horn will change.

If commuter rail comes along and the crossing is closed. Trains pulling out will sound two very short horn signals just before they roll foward, 3 if they are backing up, 1 to stop-though this last one is largely not followed today.

If commuter rail turns out to be Light Rail or a City owned RDC/DMU type vehicle, they could be equipped as most INTERURBANS and LRT lines. A soft voiced "Whooo Whoooo" type WHISTLE (not a horn) can still be heard at the crossing but hardly at all a block away. Most of these vehicles include a fire-truck type horn to sound in emergencys such as car on the track, or man down on the track.  

OCKLAWAHA

I think it would be difficult to get a quiet zone created at this location. The new FRA rules, which allow the creation of quiet zones if a crossing has extra safety devices installed, are not applicable on the Florida East Coast Railway because of FRA Emergency Order 15. Also, FEC opposes quiet zones.

There are no exempt crossings in Jacksonville. I believe there are a few in South Florida.

QuoteEmergency Order 15, issued in 1991, requires the Florida East Coast Railway Company to sound locomotive horns at all public grade crossings. The Emergency Order preempted State and local laws that permitted nighttime bans on the use of locomotive horns. Amendments to the Emergency Order did, however, permit the establishment of quiet zones if supplementary safety measures were implemented at every crossing within a proposed quiet zone. The supplementary safety measures specified in the Emergency Order are similar, but are not identical, to the supplementary safety measures contained in FRA’s Final Rule on the Use of Locomotive Horns at Highway-Rail Grade Crossings (70 FR 21844).

Today's posts just add legitimate reasons to the list of why the city should close the crossing at River Oaks and put in speed bumps on Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood and Inwood to alleviate their concerns, as well.

FEC wants it closed. The direct-impact neighborhood overwhelmingly supports closure. The folks on Belote, Pineridge and Marco, now that we're becoming increasingly aware of the sound bounce impact of the massive structures are also going to hope the city does something to prevent train horns in that corridor.

Closing the crossing just makes sense for so many reasons:
1. It's a documented unsafe crossing (as determined by a COJ-sponsored study in 2006),
2. Protects the traffic safety of the River Oaks Community,
3. Removes the need for the city to consider widening a street that simply can't be widened without putting cars in people's living rooms
4. Stops train horns from being blasted and bounced off a potential 6-story complex back into this area.

If the city and the developer REALLY want to show good faith and interest in their impact on the neighboring streets -- they'd come to the table with a proposal and timeline for closing the crossing.

If they won't consider it at all -- then what we suspect is happening behind the scenes is probably, sadly, true:  powerful people are planning to make River Oaks Road a major throughway. To do so, they will have to take the yards on this street and they're just too chicken to admit it.

Speaking of chickens...guess which Councilman didn't show up for the community meeting Thursday night where the issue was discussed in detail?  Yup.  Councilman Shad.  This was the biggest community meeting in his district in years, about a subject that HIS constituents are wanting answers and to be heard and he DOES NOT SHOW AGAIN.  He didn't attend a meeting at the developer's site three weeks ago and now he doesn't have the courage to show up to listen to the needs of his constituents again this week.

How are the people of this community EVER going to be heard -- when deals are being made under the table, and their councilman won't participate in the discussions??

Quote from: SanMarcoResident on August 30, 2008, 12:12:01 PM
Lakeland - you make some very good points and have educated me in many ways.  All of us in the neighborhood agree IN THEORY with the concept, but we want a voice, and we would like to see this scaled down from 900 to a more manageable number of residents - perhaps 300-350, higher end units.  The project is touted as "mixed use" yet with 90% residential, it hardly seems "mixed use" to me.  I would love to see this site become attractive and SUSTAINABLE.  We see a lot of pretty pictures on this board - does anyone have any that are 8-10 years old?  That's what we want to see - long-term viability, which means more than just a nice facade facing Philips.

Camden Ybor City was a 454-unit apartment complex built on an 8-acre site, about two blocks north of the future streetcar line (the streetcar line was under construction during this period).  After burning to the ground, during its construction in 2000, it was rebuilt and opened in 2001.

(http://www.sptimes.com/News/051301/photos/tb-resident.jpg)
an image taken back in 2001.

In 2005, Camden sold the complex to Tarragon.  Tarragon converted the complex into condos.  Today, its called the Quarters of Ybor.  They are selling 1 bedroom condos now for $99k.

QuoteEscape to The Quarter's stylish resort-style swimming pool or walk to nearby restaurants and cafes. Step up to the ultimate experience in living at the hippest new condo in the city. Conveniences such as multi-level garage parking, street entrances, and attached quick-stop store enhance this dapper urban lifestyle. Other amenities include a huge second-story fitness center overlooking the sun-soaked pool area, business center, recreation room with billiards, bar, and movie theatre.

link: http://www.thequarteratybor.com

(http://www.condoleaf.com/users/up/.resized_425x244_The_Quarter_at_Ybor.jpg)

(http://media.tbo.com/tbo/graphics/sections/homes/photos/061707a.jpg)

(http://www.findtampaapartments.com/images/qy/CRAIG-2.JPG)

Here's a link to a PDF site plan of the Quarters.  Eight years ago I wasn't impressed because it took out my free parking spot for my night trips to Ybor, but the plan is urban, walkable and the street grid was respected.

http://www.thequarteratybor.com/site/PDFs/YBOR_SITEPLAN.pdf

Littlepage ranting about Train Horn Noise, in today's 10/27 TU, anyone else really see this as an issue to debate?

QuoteA railroad track runs near the cabins at my Georgia hunt camp.

When a train comes by in the wee hours of the morning and blasts its horn, an interesting thing often happens.

Packs of coyotes commence to yipping and yapping, and create a ruckus that, if you've never heard it before, will send chills down your spine.

That and the train horn will certainly wake you up.

Pretty much the same thing happens when CSX and Florida East Coast Railway trains sound their horns - once, twice, three times - at intersections in Jacksonville's sleeping neighborhoods in the early morning hours.

In this case, those doing the howling are residents deprived of needed rest. (I can speak with authority because I'm one of them.)

A person continually making that kind of racket at 4 a.m. would be arrested for violating the city's noise ordinance.

But the railroads get away with it because, well, they are the railroads, and railroads get away with things.

Hope for sweet sleep, however, springs eternal.

According to a Times-Union news story, City Councilman Art Shad is going to explore giving the city the right to establish "quiet zones" on FEC tracks.

The city can already do that on CSX tracks but hasn't, which doesn't create a lot of confidence that anything will get done even if Shad is successful in getting the federal government to go along with the same rules for FEC.

The railroads argue that it's a safety issue, that the annoying horn blasts discourage motorists from trying to cross the tracks before the oncoming train smacks into them.

Sleep deprived, I'm not feeling a whole lot of sympathy for motorists who are dumb enough to ignore flashing red lights, clanging bells and a closed crossing gate in an attempt to save a little time.

There are federal requirements for establishing quiet zones, say from 10 p.m. until 6 a.m., when trains can't blast their horns on certain stretches of track.

One way is to install four-way gate systems or medians that would prevent motorists from going around a closed gate.

Another is to use directional horns at crossings that alert nearby drivers that a train is coming, not neighborhoods for miles around.

Those alternatives have been suggested for CSX tracks on the Westside for years, but the ideas have gone nowhere.

One reason is the expense. Another is CSX doesn't like quiet zones and, well, the railroads are the railroads and usually get what they want.

Hopefully, Shad will stick with establishing quiet zones on both FEC tracks, which run through his Southside district, and CSX tracks, which run through the Westside.

Other City Council members have talked a good game in the past, but then done nothing about it.

Maybe if we turned a pack of coyotes loose in their backyards, they would understand the need to finally get this done.

Great idea... but... I wonder if Littlepage knew there were trains and train crossings before he moved in?

Ron lives down the street from me here in Avondale, and I've lived here for 10 years, and I sleep with windows open, and we just get used to them. Apparently he is not used to the coyotes yelping at his hunt camp in Georgia.

Quiet zones could be implemented with Amtrak upgrades if we get the Miami run going.

Quote from: mtraininjax on October 27, 2009, 09:25:15 AM
Ron lives down the street from me here in Avondale, and I've lived here for 10 years, and I sleep with windows open, and we just get used to them. Apparently he is not used to the coyotes yelping at his hunt camp in Georgia.

Littlepage lives directly across the street from my sister.  I have only once woken up from a train horn while house-sitting there.  Where I currently live is much worse I think.

I own a rental house on Dellwood in Riverside and the tracks are right behind it, we have new windows in it, and insulation, you get used to it so says my tenant. And if my tenant can take it, anyone can take it.

Just a thought, what about improving train horn technology??  As far as I know, they have been unchanged for quite some time.  Is there a way to make the noise more concentrated or reduce it's effects at farther distances??

One thing I have seen is putting the "noise" on the crossing gates to focus the noise there at the crossing, than the blatant blasting that takes place with a train horn. Of course this costs money at every crossing, something RRs would not enjoy doing, but screw 'em Ron Littlepage needs to sleep, and so do our coyotes.

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 27, 2009, 09:23:40 AM
Great idea... but... I wonder if Littlepage knew there were trains and train crossings before he moved in?

littlepage could get some headphones or tampons for his ear's Or just live with it most of us in Jacksonville live with the train horns if you are near a CSX line! :P

Jackson Square Update

QuoteA new bloom on Philips Highway plants seed of change

Behind a fence full of “No Trespassing” signs and beside hills of fill dirt and asphalt millings, a football-size field of flowers is sprouting in an unlikely spot along Philips Highway.

A few months ago, developer Steve Cissel planted the garden of blooms including zinnias, crimson clovers, black-eyed Susans and California poppies on the property just outside Jacksonville’s downtown.

In a mostly commercial area with a reputation for other kinds of seedy activity, Cissel said someone asked him if the poppies were an opium den in the making.

“People say ‘Philips Highway? That’s Hooker Highway,’” he said.

The land is actually part of a plot of about 18 acres slated to become a cluster of apartments, retail and office space. In the future, it also could include a commuter station for people to board buses or a light rail bound for the downtown.

But with no money to break ground because of the economic downturn, Cissel’s trying to attract positive buzz to a site that once included an old Chevy dealership.

While the blooms are mostly past their peak now, for months Cissel let people cut flowers for free. Now he wants to develop a community garden, and has no-cost plots available in what will become a winter vegetable garden.

City Planning Department supervisor Sean Kelly said the city approved the Jackson Square at San Marco development in October 2008. The go-ahead came despite strong objections of some residents who live on the ritzy side of nearby River Oaks Road railroad crossing at F.E.C. Park.

He said some of those San Marco residents complained about traffic that a new mixed-use development would bring to their streets and the San Marco Square area. But a city study showed the impact would be minimal.

“This is a dream kind of project,” Kelly said. “...This is exactly what we should be doing all over the older urbanized areas.”

Controversy about closing the railroad crossing and blocking the road between the two neighborhoods lingers. Department of Transportation officials said they issued a notice they intended to close the crossing after a River Oaks Road resident appealed to them to do so, including a petition with 95 signatures.

But DOT officials said the city and Cissel filed an appeal, meaning an administrative law judge would recommend an outcome to the DOT’s secretary, who would make the final decision. The parties are scheduled to meet next month to try to resolve the issue, DOT spokesman Dick Kane said.

At the same time, Cissel is hoping to stir a rebirth of perceptions about the interconnected highway strip. Southside resident Carol Kartsonis grew up on land that will include the new project, and sold him her grandmother’s house and land.

“Whether the people in that neighborhood like it or not, I believe they would be well served by a project that promotes mass transit,” the 42-year-old said of those on the rail crossing’s other side. “...I was born on that street. It’s been the wrong side of the tracks in San Marco the whole time.”

Across Philips Highway, some who live in houses that back up to Interstate 95 are also looking forward to a boost in a residential neighborhood that is dying out, including Unita Barnes Fowler.

She and her extended family have lived on Crawford Street for more than 50 years. The 67-year-old said she’s pleased to see something sprouting on the mostly vacant lot if construction isn’t starting.

“I’d much rather see something growing or going up,” Fowler said.

Fans of the Cissel’s flowers said it was a surprise to see the field pop up while driving down the highway.

San Marco resident Leone Faust noticed the zinnias one day because they were a favorite of her mother’s, who had been in a nursing home for several months. When her mother died a few days later, Faust and her sister cut some of the blooms for their loved one’s funeral service.
“It was just meant to be,” Faust said.

San Marco resident Michael Hayden, a 66-year-old retiree and gardening enthusiast, said he’s stopped several times to cut flowers since the day he found the field.

“I said ‘My God!’ I was amazed.”

Hayden said he brings the blooms to friends in retirement homes and likes seeing new life along the tired stretch of highway.

“If he’s allowing vegetables,” Hayden said of Cissel, “maybe I’ll do that, too.”

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-11-20/story/a_new_bloom_on_philips_highway_plants_seed_of_change