DDRB to Evaluate Revisions to Brooklyn Retail Project
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2439720077_vb3rxcR-M.jpg)
Fuqua Development's proposed Riverside Avenue commercial project is back before the Downtown Development Review Board and the site design appears to be more pedestrian unfriendly than the previous concept.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-may-ddrb-to-evaluate-revisions-to-brooklyn-retail-project-
geeze, thats freaking worse
Not sure being on the April 4 meeting agenda will help us out all that much. The site certainly needs to be improved for pedestrian purposes this is southside site plan.
Has DDRB ever denied a site plan? Or have they become a rubber stamping committee?
April 4 agenda? It is May 1st.
Not liking putting the required landscaping in the JTA corridor. If JTA ever does use it, there is no way it will ever reappear on the site.
Don't really like much of the proposed changes ... suburban development in Brooklyn.
Indescribably awful.
These changes make the site look like the corner of Beach and Hodges. There are ways to accommodate parking requirements within urban settings. I seriously hope that the DDRB has the balls to deny this plan.
Southside, meet Brooklyn. Brooklyn, meet Southside.
I would rather a grassy field with grazing cows over this.
What the hell is different?
Awful plan! :(
I am fed up with our city being held hostage by the demands of national chains. What they are arguing is that these chains won't come if they don't get their ridiculously high parking ratios and suburban building placement. It's basically design-by-prototype.
It is fine with me if they stay away. I much prefer the locally owned businesses anyhow.
Quote from: dougskiles on May 01, 2013, 08:35:28 PM
I am fed up with our city being held hostage by the demands of national chains. What they are arguing is that these chains won't come if they don't get their ridiculously high parking ratios and suburban building placement. It's basically design-by-prototype.
It is fine with me if they stay away. I much prefer the locally owned businesses anyhow.
^All of the above.
I think just like with the other Brooklyn projects if they hold the developer to the appropriate standards he/she will comply. If he/she doesn't well don't let the door hit ya.
Quote from: dougskiles on May 01, 2013, 06:39:32 PM
Has DDRB ever denied a site plan? Or have they become a rubber stamping committee?
I think you're on to something here. Tom Murphy gave a great speech about this very subject during One Spark. Really wish more DDRB members besides Chris Flagg were there.
I agree with JeffreyS. I also wouldn't blame the national chains at this point. They may have certain site criteria requirements, such as number of parking spaces but they don't typically demand a certain overall development design. For example, an entity like Publix may require a certain amount of dedicated parking spaces but they don't necessarily say where all the complementing specialty retail or outparcels should be. Speaking from experience, the site design process is being controlled by the developer/architect/engineer more so than a CVS or Walgreens.
Just looking at this site, there's clearly a better way to incorporate chain requirements while also shielding surface parking. However, we'll probably never get to that stage because we historically have a pattern of caving in.
QuoteJust looking at this site, there's clearly a better way to incorporate chain requirements while also shielding surface parking. However, we'll probably never get to that stage because we historically have a pattern of caving in.
100 percent agree.
Vacant field overgrown with weeds is better. Maybe in a few years, developers and policy makers will have gained a clue from the folks here at MetroJacksonville ... even better, the folks here at MetroJacksonville will BE the developers and policy makers.
I hate to say I told you guys. This same developer was already denied basically the ability to develop a huge bit of land in Atlanta (similar deal - crappy site plan and neighbors were riotously anti-Walmart). He has tried 3 or 4 times unsuccessfully to ram another suburban layout on a site right next to the Beltline, within the Beltline overlay (of course requiring a bible of variances). He was run out of Denver in a contested battle with residents in one of its neighborhoods (I think he may have scored a minor victory there, but lost in other ways).
Be careful...it's all I'm saying. If the city gives him the seal of approval without any pushback whatsoever, he will proceed to mow over the town every which way he can similar in scope to Sleiman, but with potentially more capital at his disposal (I very much doubt Jax has as many zealously anti-Fuqua/anti-chain residents as Atlanta or Denver to sway council and DDRB).
Wow, that's awful. What can be done at this point?
Unfortunately, I'm not sure. I really doubt we do something that's rarely been done in the past. We're like a battered housewife. We're going to eat the cake to keep Fuqua from choking, throwing us over the couch and locking us in the bedroom. I fully expect it to get approved in its highly suburban state.
Rediculous... they seem to be testing the water like simms mentioned. Show some back bone . Please turn this down!
Taking bets. Introducing a plate of hot grits or spreading eagle?
Looking at the site plan, it appears the CVS (my guess based on the building footprint) parcel is an outparcel that may be flipped. It includes a May Street easement that forces the building to be setback from the street. My question would be, what's in that easement that can't be replaced to allow the need for it to disappear?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Retail/i-zQDbQwP/0/L/Fuqua%20Original-L.jpg)
With that in mind, I mentioned earlier, as suburban as this plan is, you can accommodate national chain requirements and still make a more pedestrian friendly site plan. A quick example is shown below.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Retail/i-WvBsGgk/0/L/Fuqua%20Alt%20A-L.jpg)
I copied and pasted the real plan's buildings in photoshop, so the boxes are still the same, only rearranged. This plan relocates all the specialty retail to line Riverside Avenue, without penetrating the JTA easement. In turn, you get a decent sized interior area for parking. Also, what's the point of treating Magnolia like a separate street? Why not incorporate it into your parking area, while leaving it open for public access. At least this way, the apartment units facing Magnolia will have a better view than the back walls of retail stores. Btw, the store footprint is pretty similar to the Fresh Market stores on Atlantic and San Jose. Given the similarities (entry design, box square footage, etc.), Fresh Market is probably the grocery anchor. Also, assuming it is possible to vacate the easement, you could also shift the location of the CVS, as shown below:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Retail/i-p3JJcmB/0/L/Fuqua%20Alt%20B-L.jpg)
So what does this look like? There's a similar strip center anchored by a Home Depot in Atlanta, near Marta's Lindbergh Station. Strip retail lines the street. Surface parking happens to be in the middle of the site, with a regular Home Depot box in the rear. Where strip retail breaks to provide visibility to the big box anchor, it features outdoor courtyard space for the strip retail. Here are some images below:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Atlanta-Linbergh-Station-MARTA/i-N9P9N5p/0/M/P1520054-M.jpg)
Home Depot and interior site surface parking.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Atlanta-Linbergh-Station-MARTA/i-VTcXZGM/0/M/P1520053-M.jpg)
Interior surface parking behind strip retail.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Atlanta-Linbergh-Station-MARTA/i-VQ4KLwD/0/M/P1520063-M.jpg)
Courtyards between strip retail buildings allows for outdoor seating along the street and site visibility to big box anchor in rear of property.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Atlanta-Linbergh-Station-MARTA/i-qMpsLfq/0/M/P1520058-M.jpg)
Strip retail adjacent to main street, provides center pedestrian friendly street edge, despite center being fairly suburban.
This stuff isn't rocket science. You can make a center like this more pedestrian friendly. We have a great example on this same street in Five Points. The only difference between that Sembler project (Fuqua was with Sembler then) and this Fuqua one is RAP and the DDRB. Say what you want to say about RAP, but one thing they don't do is cave in to whatever proposal comes across their desk.
QuoteAlso, assuming it is possible to vacate the easement, you could also shift the location of the CVS, as shown below
The question becomes, how would that effect traffic circulation for the roudabout? Seems as though under that plan traffic flow is compromised uneccessarily (from a layman's view).
I like your first option. The grocery store could then incorporate outdoor seating along Magnolia similar to this:
(http://www.downtownaustintexascorporateapartment.com/whole_foods.jpg)
or (an option which would be more expensive and they probably dont want a seperate entrance, which I can definately understand) this:
(http://blogs.technomic.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/backgroundphotowholefoods_550.jpg)
Quote
This project will be on the Downtown Development Review Board's (DDRB) April 4, 2013 meeting agenda. The meeting will be held at:
City Hall at St. James, 117 West Duval Street
Lynwood Roberts Room
Thursday, April 4, 2013 - 2:00 p.m.
Ennis, this date is for last month. Do you mean today's meeting?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Retail/i-WvBsGgk/0/L/Fuqua%20Alt%20A-L.jpg)
I do not see where there would be any downside to the developer for doing this. Would it cost more or accomodate less parking?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 02, 2013, 09:13:31 AM
Quote
This project will be on the Downtown Development Review Board's (DDRB) April 4, 2013 meeting agenda. The meeting will be held at:
City Hall at St. James, 117 West Duval Street
Lynwood Roberts Room
Thursday, April 4, 2013 - 2:00 p.m.
Ennis, this date is for last month. Do you mean today's meeting?
^Yes, sorry about that. It's corrected:
QuoteThe Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) meeting will be held Thursday, May 3, 2013 - 2:00pm at City Hall (117 West Duval Street).
Thanks. Is there contact info for the current board? Maybe they'll listen one day.
^^ Fix it one more time.
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 02, 2013, 09:23:55 AM
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Retail/i-WvBsGgk/0/L/Fuqua%20Alt%20A-L.jpg)
I do not see where there would be any downside to the developer for doing this. Would it cost more or accomodate less parking?
I don't see how it would cost more. The buildings didn't change shape or sizes. They are just rearranged so walkability isn't an afterthought in the conceptual planning process. By squaring off the parking lot, you'd get a more efficient parking layout, which would most likely result in an increased amount of parking spaces. The easements shown in previous plans are still preserved as well. I used to do this all the time for Publix. After a while, you figure out how to maximize parking efficiency/truck movement, etc. early in the conceptual land planning stage.
The one catch in this plan is you'd have to go back to last month's grocery footprint to accommodate the grocery's loading dock. It seems like over the last 30 days, the loading area was modified to specifically tailor to the site plan they are seeking approval for.
Quote from: PeeJayEss on May 02, 2013, 09:39:20 AM
^^ Fix it one more time.
LOL, I don't know where my brain is this morning!
QuoteThe Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) meeting will be held Thursday, May 2, 2013 - 2:00pm at City Hall (117 West Duval Street).
I can not make the meeting today. I did email all of the members to express that the current design is unacceptable and pasted your first suggestion Lake as an alternative that could make the project into a real positive for Brooklyn and the surrounding areas.
Here is the list if anyone else wants to reach out before the DDRB meeting today.
'ericl@coj.net'; 'roland.udenze@thehaskellco.com'; 'andy.sikes@bmcjax.com'; 'selimm@bellsouth.net'; 'rink@designcooperativefla.com'; 'tmiller@elm-plan.com'; 'jfischer@marandbuilders.com'; 'jgarza@garzabuilt.com'; 'JBailey@baileypub.com'; 'cflagg@flaggdesignstudio.com'
I can't make the meeting but I sent an email as well.
I also sent an email to all members. I encourage all to do the same. It may be the only chance to change this development.
If anyone can attend today, it would be good to say a few words during the public comment session. It is believed that it would be insightful for board members and help strengthen the argument for a more pedestrian level, street sensitive design.
Why do the developers want to stick with a suburban, auto-centric layout? There are lots of examples out there including our own Publix Plaza that show that more pedestrian oriented layouts work just fine.
Does anyone have any insight into the motives?
Urgh--just sent an email.
Brooklyn doesn't have the density to support a pedestrian focus. If more people worked/lived nearby, then they wouldn't need cars to get there.
I am no fan of another cookie cutter strip, but if the planned tenants can't justify their existence without some sort of drive up ability, then they won't come.
That is why a lot of urban centers have mixed use developments to kick start renewal in a transition space. High density living driving pedestrians into the retail mix that came with it. That would usually bring in surrounding retail etc.
Don't ask these guys to build a garage, the psf costs to support the higher CAM would scare away the prospective tenants.
You can't have it both ways. But you have to start somewhere.
Yes but should Brooklyn be developed as a dense walkable neighbor hood? If you answer yes then that is the way it has to be developed. IMO Density isn't a litmus test it is a goal for walk-ability, transit and urban design to achieve.
Spuwho, this project doesn't happen without the 600 residential units surrounding it. Factoring those in, you will have more foot traffic then what exists today, when this thing opens. You also have to expect additional infill development in close proximity. Within a block of this site alone, there's room for a second phase of 220 Riverside and mixed-use project at the YMCA site.
Anyway, I don't think anyone has asked them to build a garage. However, speaking from experience (I've designed site plans for guys and projects like this for years) you can make these pedestrian friendly pretty easy. The Publix in Five Points is a great example. However, if you lay down and don't require better, you'll always get rolled over with the worst plan out there.
So did anyone go today? Any updates?
Quote from: Tacachale on May 02, 2013, 10:39:57 PM
So did anyone go today? Any updates?
Seriously what happened?
I was told by someone in attendance yesterday that Fuqua will get what he wants. Heard CM Jones even showed up to support the project "as is" for the sake of getting it built. At this point in time, we're too desperate to demand anything that we believe may cause the developer to abandon the project. However, this isn't surprising, considering something like the Parador garage got approved without any retail.
I was told Roland said 'If they don't build this thing now, nothing will get built there for a very long time'.
LOL at that one!
Conceptual was approved, parking deviation was either denied or deferred.
Also heard that Hallmark did not want a grocery building's wall facing their apartments. Personally, Id rather look at a building instead of a parking lot.
Quote from: fieldafm on May 03, 2013, 12:14:03 PM
I was told Roland said 'If they don't build this thing now, nothing will get built there for a very long time'.
LOL at that one!
Hmm. I'm not like Savannah. She's beautiful, her breast are perky, her hair is long and her ass is firm. I'm Jacksonville. Yes, he throws me down the stairs every once and a while but without him , nobody would want me....
QuoteAlso heard that Hallmark did not want a grocery building's wall facing their apartments. Personally, Id rather look at a building instead of a parking lot.
Classic cause and effect. Because we have a strong history of accepting lower standards, Hallmark knows they'd be facing a blank wall, loaded with half empty pallets, broken shopping carts and dumpsters. Assuming we'd grow a backbone, we'd end up with something like the stuff below and Hallmark would have no problem.
Downtown Fort Myers Publix (this is the rear)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Fort-Myers/i-SwDwSNQ/0/M/P1590154-M.jpg)
Downtown West Palm Beach Publix (surface parking in rear of store)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/West-Palm-Beach-September-2011/i-LPWs8RM/0/M/P1500342-M.jpg)
Downtown San Diego Ralph's
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-T7phpGT/0/M/P1490141-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-8xsQNHk/0/M/P1490150-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-6C94GJc/0/M/P1490152-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-pq58cnm/0/M/P1490142-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-XZVWrM3/0/M/P1490144-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/San-Diego-2011/i-vPtNtnS/0/M/P1490146-M.jpg)
Quote from: spuwho on May 02, 2013, 08:37:12 PM
Brooklyn doesn't have the density to support a pedestrian focus. If more people worked/lived nearby, then they wouldn't need cars to get there.
I am no fan of another cookie cutter strip, but if the planned tenants can't justify their existence without some sort of drive up ability, then they won't come.
That is why a lot of urban centers have mixed use developments to kick start renewal in a transition space. High density living driving pedestrians into the retail mix that came with it. That would usually bring in surrounding retail etc.
Don't ask these guys to build a garage, the psf costs to support the higher CAM would scare away the prospective tenants.
You can't have it both ways. But you have to start somewhere.
I think these are good points. I do agree with Lake, though, that the site can accomodate drive in traffic and still be better integrated with a planning thesis that the neighborhood will one day be "walkable" (still deson't mean there will actually be consistent foot traffic). Fuqua is an aggressive developer...he worked on the Riverside deal, actually, when he was with Sembler, and he split off to go his own route 2 years ago in a very highly publicized rift in local (Atlanta) development circles. He has been pushed back consistently and aggressively by two other cities for bad plans that don't embody sound development principles for the areas specific to their proposals, and so I would hate for him to start picking on a smaller city with no backbone and no plan in place such as Jacksonville.
Otherwise, I agree with you...have to start somewhere. If you look at Midtown Atlanta, which is now finally turning into a dense walkable urban area (like literally just now even after 20+ buildings have gone up), there are strip center type developments scattered about from previous eras as the city was growing up, and residents do walk to them. It's very hard to make the reverse conversion from auto orientation to pedestrian orientation, politically, financially, time-wise, and let's face it - it's still a newish phenomenon with a lot of kinks to work out and a lot of best practices that have yet to be shared or mastered.
Even if all 600 units get built, the Y, this retail, and maybe a few other things, the foot traffic will still be almost nonexistent. That much I can promise, even if some of the more optimistic posters want to debate and share that their experiences tell them otherwise. I have worked on the investment side on these kinds of deals...nobody is relying or going to rely on foot traffic, and we'd all think they're smoking crack if they did. In fact, I wonder if Hallmark even underwrote all of its retail component at 225 Riverside. Not sure how their capital stack is working and what kind of overall return they are going for, but it wouldn't surprise me if they downplayed their reliance on the lease-up of their own retail (there are "altruistic" developers out there, and those with flexibility to experiment). I know of larger tower deals in Atlanta that aren't directly on Peachtree where 20-30,000 SF retail was built as part of the local code, but the underwriting did not even consider any cash flow (so any lease-up would just be a nice little unexpected pop), and this in a much more walkable area with 15,000-20,000 ppsm and much better demographics, etc etc.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 03, 2013, 01:53:56 PM
Downtown Fort Myers Publix (this is the rear)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Fort-Myers/i-SwDwSNQ/0/M/P1590154-M.jpg)
This is very doable. It's sad the city isn't at least requiring this. In fact, there should be language in zoning/code documents that describe this sort of thing (I would be surprised if there weren't?). Some of the other stuff is pie in the sky for Jax for at least another generation (unless we turn into Austin overnight).
QuoteFuqua is an aggressive developer...he worked on the Riverside deal, actually, when he was with Sembler
He was with Sembler at the time, but not involved in Five Points Publix.
10-4
Quote from: simms3 on May 03, 2013, 01:58:41 PM
Even if all 600 units get built, the Y, this retail, and maybe a few other things, the foot traffic will still be almost nonexistent. That much I can promise, even if some of the more optimistic posters want to debate and share that their experiences tell them otherwise. I have worked on the investment side on these kinds of deals...nobody is relying or going to rely on foot traffic, and we'd all think they're smoking crack if they did.
Tell this to Orlando or Charlotte. Heck, go tell this to RAP. Downtown Jacksonville is screwed if we don't make sure all of our infill developments (both large and small) are designed to be pedestrian friendly. This doesn't mean you have to build parking garages or vertical leasable space but it's not too much to ask that your project positively interacts with the sidewalks and land uses surrounding it. We're really smoking crack if we thing we can create any type of vibrant urban atmosphere while totally ignoring the pedestrian.
^^^Omg, Lake, we're just having another communication breakdown. Clearly, if you read my post, we're on the same page in that we need better design. I agree we should plan as if the area will be walkable and we need to give developers set guidelines to follow that move in that direction. That doesn't mean that ~600 units (IF all actually get built), a rebuilt Y, and a Fresh Market will equate to people actually walking around in quantifiable numbers. Heck, look at the density of units along Brickell or in Midtown Atlanta and what little foot traffic each still generates...it takes A LOT to get a real walking foot traffic environment. What's going on in Brooklyn is a big step for Jax, but it's amateur hour still. It's small time. It's not going to all of a sudden make for a pedestrian oriented environment - that's decades away when this is multiplied by 100-200 across a large area, and as you say, connected via a usable transit system.
We're on the same page. However, I have to lay things out in a different manner for others following the conversation.
For example:
QuoteThat doesn't mean that ~600 units (IF all actually get built), a rebuilt Y, and a Fresh Market will equate to people actually walking around in quantifiable numbers.
This is true. However, this isn't why the city should have a backbone to demand pedestrian friendly projects. The concept of pedestrian friendly design is a instrumental incremental step in building a long term overall walkable environment. If we don't do certain things incrementally, we'll never achieve the desired end result.
I like the layouts Lake posted. Great alternative to the wall/dumpster/flattened boxes typical of rear retail.
If COJ had some sort of strategic plan for Brooklyn, something they could plan around for the next 15-20 years, then they would have guidance on how to vote on these props.
But the cynic in me, that see Mobility plans reversed based on the words of a couple of lobbyists convinces me that we are one desperate child and will take just about any suitor offering a 15 cent ice cream.
Brooklyn's gain is Jacksonville's gain. Not perfect, but the beginning.
I still have a wild hair and think COJ should create large parcel blocks and bid them off to developers to come up with some original planning.
QuoteBut the cynic in me, that see Mobility plans reversed based on the words of a couple of lobbyists convinces me that we are one desperate child and will take just about any suitor offering a 15 cent ice cream.
Unfortunately, I can't debate this one. We are a desperate child when it comes to downtown. The problem with being too desperate is you tend to forget or overlook what type of development patterns incrementally lead to a vibrant atmosphere. We should understand this by now. We've spent billions in downtown since the 1980s and we still don't have a decent cluster of pedestrian scale development with foot traffic. That's a direct result of accepting anything for the sake of visual development, even when it flies in the face of accommodating the pedestrian as a priority.
QuoteBrooklyn's gain is Jacksonville's gain. Not perfect, but the beginning.
Some said the same about the "revitalization" of LaVilla.... 20 years later, it remains a shell of itself.
QuoteI still have a wild hair and think COJ should create large parcel blocks and bid them off to developers to come up with some original planning.
I'd actually prefer COJ to not do this. COJ has never been great when it comes to the land development business. We'd be better modifying policy to make the environment easier for pedestrian scale private development of all sizes and getting out of the way. Successes like CoRK and King Street tend to happen with limited or no city involvement. When the city gets too involved, we've ended up with our largest failures, such as LaVilla and the shipyards. I think the public realm is where the city can play a better role. Clean, well lit streets, maintained/programmed parks, reliable/attractive mass transit, two-waying streets, facilitating facade grant programs, etc. are where the city can have a quick significant positive impact.
Quote from: simms3 on May 03, 2013, 02:02:20 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on May 03, 2013, 01:53:56 PM
Downtown Fort Myers Publix (this is the rear)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Fort-Myers/i-SwDwSNQ/0/M/P1590154-M.jpg)
This is very doable. It's sad the city isn't at least requiring this. In fact, there should be language in zoning/code documents that describe this sort of thing (I would be surprised if there weren't?). Some of the other stuff is pie in the sky for Jax for at least another generation (unless we turn into Austin overnight).
When I speak of designing to engage the pedestrian in an incremental process, this is the type of stuff that I envision. I'm not talking about forcing projects like this to be vertical, include structured parking or be densities the market can't support.
These developers can make their projects engage with the public realm surrounding their properties and still accommodate the needs of the chains they're going after. I know, because I've helped create site plans for hundreds of projects like this, over the years.
To a degree, I think we may have some with influence on the approval process who may not truly understand the difference between retail site selection criteria and incremental pedestrian scale design. You can have all the surface parking in the world and still create a decent layout that's also pedestrian scale.
(http://fileserver.surveygizmo.com/users/12728/pedestrian-oriented%20retail_commercial_office.jpg)
Boise, ID - http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=149418Locally, we have isolated examples so I've never really understood the tendency to cave in and accept the lowest standards of design.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/513348614_fVPsb-M.jpg)
Entrance at Oakleaf Town Center.This is one of the reasons I'm a huge proponent of having a form-based zoning code, not just in downtown but for most of the city.
Quote from: thelakelander on May 05, 2013, 07:36:03 AM
I'd actually prefer COJ to not do this. COJ has never been great when it comes to the land development business. We'd be better modifying policy to make the environment easier for pedestrian scale private development of all sizes and getting out of the way. Successes like CoRK and King Street tend to happen with limited or no city involvement. When the city gets too involved, we've ended up with our largest failures, such as LaVilla and the shipyards. I think the public realm is where the city can play a better role. Clean, well lit streets, maintained/programmed parks, reliable/attractive mass transit, two-waying streets, facilitating facade grant programs, etc. are where the city can have a quick significant positive impact.
Lake, I think we agree. By COJ spinning off all the empty parcels they own, they essentially are getting out of the development business. That is what I was thinking of.
Like the US bidding out spectrum to carriers, set up the parcels as packages that can be bid on. COJ gets cash, developers get a parcel to develop on with some mixed use teeth and COJ reverts to its role in code, planning, streets and public infrastructure services.
Gotcha. At first, I was under the impression you were advocating COJ take control over more privately owned property (ex. the LaVilla experience). Yes, I do agree with COJ getting rid of the underutilized parcels already owned.