DDRB Workshop on Brooklyn Retail Project Today
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2577898307_xbGj8pK-M.jpg)
It's a project that has become progressively worse as it has gone through the Downtown Design Review Board (DDRB) process, which makes one question why Jacksonville has a DDRB in the first place. Nevertheless, after approving a suburban site plan for Fuqua Development's proposed 53,700-square foot retail center, the DDRB believes the Brooklyn project's facade needs to go back to the drawing board. Here are the renderings. What do you think?
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jun-ddrb-workshop-on-brooklyn-retail-project-today
Wouldn't the target customer here live within a 5-minute walk of here? Seems kind of foolish to put so much focus on parking when I would think the type of shops that would locate here are already next to their homes. I mean there is a great Publix within a three minute drive of here. Is the DDRB appointed by the Mayor?
Also, it looks like this plan prevents the Skyway from ever going further into Five Points, is that true?
The Skyway will not be extended into Five Points (I-95 pretty much stops that). However, this project doesn't prevent the Skyway from being extended to Forest Street. Also, the target customer base would be from an area much larger than downtown and Brooklyn. Neither has the population to support the amount of retail this development will provide.
Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Fuqua keeps saying they are having to practically beg the grocer to build there and they ( the organic grocer) specified it had to be in the layout it is in. Do we take the retail, or tell them no, sorry, it needs to be more urban in design and risk them pulling out? This is sort of a tough one.
Say no it needs to be more Urban. There is enough going on in the area something else will come along.
Funny thing is first thing I noticed was a lot of mercedes and corvettes in the parking lot. Look at all the convertibles!
Quote from: civil42806 on June 17, 2013, 08:54:11 AM
Funny thing is first thing I noticed was a lot of mercedes and corvettes in the parking lot. Look at all the convertibles!
With the estimated rent prices for 220, I think the same people should be able to afford them . =)
Quote from: Dapperdan on June 17, 2013, 08:23:13 AM
Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Fuqua keeps saying they are having to practically beg the grocer to build there and they ( the organic grocer) specified it had to be in the layout it is in. Do we take the retail, or tell them no, sorry, it needs to be more urban in design and risk them pulling out? This is sort of a tough one.
That's a cop out. Speaking from years of experience in retail site design, you could have had a better pedestrian scale layout and still accommodated the retailer's site criteria and design requirements......and it would have probably saved Fuqua some cash and gave them more interior surface parking.
A good example is the Publix project right down the street at Riverside Avenue and Margaret Street. However, that ship has sailed since the site plan is already approved. Personally, I don't think decorating the facade is going to make much of a difference outside of raising the cost of the project for Fuqua.
My hope is that JTA wins some TIGER grant money to extend the Skyway because it will at least shield some of this from the street.
Quote from: Dapperdan on June 17, 2013, 08:23:13 AM
Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Fuqua keeps saying they are having to practically beg the grocer to build there and they ( the organic grocer) specified it had to be in the layout it is in. Do we take the retail, or tell them no, sorry, it needs to be more urban in design and risk them pulling out? This is sort of a tough one.
I don't agree.
First off, this development has highway access thanks to the nice new Forrest Street exit ramps completed a few years ago.
Secondly, the demographics for this project draw directly from Riverside/Avondale/San Marco. Try putting this site layout in San Marco or Riverside and see how easy it would be to get done.
Additionally, as Lakelander states... it would actually be beneficial to the developer to make simple adjustments to the site plan in order to be more contextually sensitive to a pedestrian scale environmnet. For one, you would get more parking spaces (and they already applied for, and was denied, a request to increase the project's parking maximum).
Lastly, I'll leave you with a real clear philosophy difference.
Mayor Brown has instructed OED to 'get this done no matter what'.
To contrast that, former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy was in town during One Spark. He mentioned several times that if a developer didn't conform to the type of environment they wanted to create for downtown Pittsburgh, they simply would not approve the project. He completely turned around that city, region and in particular their downtown. Maybe we should take that kind of advice.
Here is a letter he wrote about a massive roadway project, contrast that with Mayor Brown's style and you'll see two distinct forms of 'leadership':
QuoteCommissioner James Dodaro
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
March 27, 1996
Dear Commissioner Dodaro:
I would like to thank you and your staff for taking the time to brief myself, my staff, and Councilmen Jim Ferlo and Bob O’Connor on the status of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project. The City fully recognizes the potential significance of this project not only in the revitalization of the Mon Valley but also in the continued vitality and growth of the City and region as a whole. While I appreciate the hard work and thorough analysis your staff has done on this project, I would like to reiterate what I consider four crucial issues that need to be addressed before the City can fully endorse the project.
•Riverfront Development (Glenwood Bridge to City Line): The riverfronts and Nine Mile Run represent two of this City’s most valuable assets. In no way can this project compromise these assets. The highway must be shown to be compatible with, if not advantageous to, both residential development in Nine Mile Run and the development of park and recreational uses along the riverfront from the Glenwood Bridge to the City line.
•Financial Feasibility: Through our ongoing internal planning and development efforts and work with SPRPC a number of City and regional transportation priorities have been identified. However, as you know, funds for advancing these priorities are becoming increasingly scarce. Consequently, funds for pursuing the Mon/Fayette and Southern Beltway projects must come from sources independent of the regular federal and state funds allocated to this region.
•Highway Design and Amenities: Given the physical scale and presence of this project, it must be shown to be a visual asset to it environment by using sensitive design treatments to minimize its presence and impacts and enhance its natural and physical environments.
•Community Support: In order for the City to be able to fully support this project, the concerns and needs of our neighborhoods must be addressed in a meaningful and thorough manner. The City’s ultimate position will be based in part on this project’s community implications and public deposition.
I believe these conditions are consistent with the City’s current position as understood by your staff. We look forward to working with your staff and insuring not only the project’s feasibility but also its supportability and contribution to the well-being of the City, Mon Valley and entire metropolitan region. Again thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy, Mayor
City of Pittsburgh
See the difference?
QuoteHowever, that ship has sailed since the site plan is already approved. Personally, I don't think decorating the facade is going to make much of a difference outside of raising the cost of the project for Fuqua.
Completey agree. The site plan is the problem, not the facade.
Why the DDRB did not choose to better address the site plan (which would have had very little impact on the pro forma cost of the project), but would make the developer change up the facade treatment (which does have an impact on cost) is really backwards.
I don't think the DDRB knows what they are doing.
What a joke.
And I'm not talking about the fact their parking lot render contains two $500k SLR McLarens.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2013, 06:38:05 AM
The Skyway will not be extended into Five Points (I-95 pretty much stops that). However, this project doesn't prevent the Skyway from being extended to Forest Street. Also, the target customer base would be from an area much larger than downtown and Brooklyn. Neither has the population to support the amount of retail this development will provide.
Isn't I-95 high enough that the Skyway can just go underneath fo it?
Quote from: urbaknight on June 17, 2013, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2013, 06:38:05 AM
The Skyway will not be extended into Five Points (I-95 pretty much stops that). However, this project doesn't prevent the Skyway from being extended to Forest Street. Also, the target customer base would be from an area much larger than downtown and Brooklyn. Neither has the population to support the amount of retail this development will provide.
Isn't I-95 high enough that the Skyway can just go underneath fo it?
Well I initially like the plan to eventually run it to Annie Lytle so I-95 wouldn't be issue. Hopefully by then JTA will be operating with sense.
Okay I was thinking this would be convenience type stores and restaurants for the Brooklyn residents and Riverside Ave office workers
Quote from: urbaknight on June 17, 2013, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2013, 06:38:05 AM
The Skyway will not be extended into Five Points (I-95 pretty much stops that). However, this project doesn't prevent the Skyway from being extended to Forest Street. Also, the target customer base would be from an area much larger than downtown and Brooklyn. Neither has the population to support the amount of retail this development will provide.
Isn't I-95 high enough that the Skyway can just go underneath fo it?
Yes, the expressway is high enough but you can't get the Skyway under there without blocking access to perpendicular streets and adjacent properties. With that said, I'm not aware of any real plans to extend the Skyway south of Forest Street.
Mayor Brown presents….another really big parking lot.
Quote from: fieldafm on June 17, 2013, 09:34:19 AM
Quote from: Dapperdan on June 17, 2013, 08:23:13 AM
Sometimes you have to take what you can get. Fuqua keeps saying they are having to practically beg the grocer to build there and they ( the organic grocer) specified it had to be in the layout it is in. Do we take the retail, or tell them no, sorry, it needs to be more urban in design and risk them pulling out? This is sort of a tough one.
I don't agree.
First off, this development has highway access thanks to the nice new Forrest Street exit ramps completed a few years ago.
Secondly, the demographics for this project draw directly from Riverside/Avondale/San Marco. Try putting this site layout in San Marco or Riverside and see how easy it would be to get done.
Additionally, as Lakelander states... it would actually be beneficial to the developer to make simple adjustments to the site plan in order to be more contextually sensitive to a pedestrian scale environmnet. For one, you would get more parking spaces (and they already applied for, and was denied, a request to increase the project's parking maximum).
Lastly, I'll leave you with a real clear philosophy difference.
Mayor Brown has instructed OED to 'get this done no matter what'.
To contrast that, former Pittsburgh Mayor Tom Murphy was in town during One Spark. He mentioned several times that if a developer didn't conform to the type of environment they wanted to create for downtown Pittsburgh, they simply would not approve the project. He completely turned around that city, region and in particular their downtown. Maybe we should take that kind of advice.
Here is a letter he wrote about a massive roadway project, contrast that with Mayor Brown's style and you'll see two distinct forms of 'leadership':
QuoteCommissioner James Dodaro
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission
March 27, 1996
Dear Commissioner Dodaro:
I would like to thank you and your staff for taking the time to brief myself, my staff, and Councilmen Jim Ferlo and Bob O’Connor on the status of the Mon/Fayette Transportation Project. The City fully recognizes the potential significance of this project not only in the revitalization of the Mon Valley but also in the continued vitality and growth of the City and region as a whole. While I appreciate the hard work and thorough analysis your staff has done on this project, I would like to reiterate what I consider four crucial issues that need to be addressed before the City can fully endorse the project.
•Riverfront Development (Glenwood Bridge to City Line): The riverfronts and Nine Mile Run represent two of this City’s most valuable assets. In no way can this project compromise these assets. The highway must be shown to be compatible with, if not advantageous to, both residential development in Nine Mile Run and the development of park and recreational uses along the riverfront from the Glenwood Bridge to the City line.
•Financial Feasibility: Through our ongoing internal planning and development efforts and work with SPRPC a number of City and regional transportation priorities have been identified. However, as you know, funds for advancing these priorities are becoming increasingly scarce. Consequently, funds for pursuing the Mon/Fayette and Southern Beltway projects must come from sources independent of the regular federal and state funds allocated to this region.
•Highway Design and Amenities: Given the physical scale and presence of this project, it must be shown to be a visual asset to it environment by using sensitive design treatments to minimize its presence and impacts and enhance its natural and physical environments.
•Community Support: In order for the City to be able to fully support this project, the concerns and needs of our neighborhoods must be addressed in a meaningful and thorough manner. The City’s ultimate position will be based in part on this project’s community implications and public deposition.
I believe these conditions are consistent with the City’s current position as understood by your staff. We look forward to working with your staff and insuring not only the project’s feasibility but also its supportability and contribution to the well-being of the City, Mon Valley and entire metropolitan region. Again thank you for your time and efforts.
Sincerely,
Tom Murphy, Mayor
City of Pittsburgh
See the difference?
QuoteHowever, that ship has sailed since the site plan is already approved. Personally, I don't think decorating the facade is going to make much of a difference outside of raising the cost of the project for Fuqua.
Completey agree. The site plan is the problem, not the facade.
Why the DDRB did not choose to better address the site plan (which would have had very little impact on the pro forma cost of the project), but would make the developer change up the facade treatment (which does have an impact on cost) is really backwards.
It's really discouraging that the DDRB approved the site plan and is now quibbling over the facade. And that the developer is balking at even these minor changes after they've already gotten their suburban site plan approved. And that this is a plan that would never have happened in the more suburban neighborhoods of Riverside and San Marco, but got approved in the middle of the central business district. The city really dropped the ball on this one.
Just what the downtown needs .. a strip mall with parking lots ... this city has NO idea how to build a downtown that will attract people. This design leaves NO character. You have 220 Riverside that has a look ... who ever designed this Brooklyn Retail Project should take notice of the area and "TRY" to come up with something to compliment and not look out of place. Does anyone on DDRB have a clue about design?
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2013, 11:10:53 AM
It's really discouraging that the DDRB approved the site plan and is now quibbling over the facade. And that the developer is balking at even these minor changes after they've already gotten their suburban site plan approved. And that this is a plan that would never have happened in the more suburban neighborhoods of Riverside and San Marco, but got approved in the middle of the central business district. The city really dropped the ball on this one.
+1
Agreed, but I've read this same statement on a lot of boards here that talk about DT development, aren't these meetings in public? Don't they allow for public comment, at least from the neighborhood?
Classic Jacksonville. Sad but predictable.
Quote from: AB904 on June 17, 2013, 11:57:18 AM
Just what the downtown needs .. a strip mall with parking lots ... this city has NO idea how to build a downtown that will attract people.
Out of all the exciting things happening in downtown right now, this is probably the largest storm cloud hanging over that area. Our history has proven that for whatever reason, we struggle to build an environment that most equate with vibrancy. Unfortunately, despite all the present day zeal, that issue hasn't changed. If it does not, it won't matter how many ribbon cutting ceremonies we have over the next couple of years. We'll still have an urban environment that will fail to reach its potential.
Tell it lakelander! The entire project is uninspired and born of thinking so sterile and out of touch with what is needed to create vibrancy it can honestly be called "pathetic". All the bravado of the City and Mayor about the redevelopment of Brooklyn has resulted in an offering that falls far short of what should be celebrated as "taking Jacksonville to the next level"! Apparently the next level is a level a step down. How sad really. Having said that, what can be done to derail this mess of a plan?
I don't know if it's worth to time or effort to put energy towards derailing this particular project. This is just a result of a broken system that needs to be completely overhauled.
In essence, it's no different from Parador's garage, JTA's Greyhound station, Main Street Pocket Park or the garages the city built a few years back. Any Tom, Dick or Harry that wants to apply for a variance to not meet the minimal guidelines has been granted that opportunity.
Just look next door to Fuqua's project. The original apartment developer proposed something just as horrible that the DDRB eventually accepted. I remember that developer using the same old tired lines that Fuqua has used, as a means to get the DDRB to lay on its back spread eagle style. The only reason it has significantly improved was because a new developer with lots of experience in urban infill thought it sucked (which it did) and came with a revised plan that was significantly better.
Original DDRB approved Riverside Park project
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Revised/i-zbRfr6c/0/M/DDRB%20April%204%202013%20Agenda_Page_43-M.jpg)
Revised plan by new developer of Riverside park. This change would not have happened through the DDRB review process because we would have caved well before this configuration.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Riverside-Park-Revised/i-CkwSDrc/0/M/DDRB%20April%204%202013%20Agenda_Page_44-M.jpg)
Pollack Shores new Steel House apartments project in downtown Orlando. We'll end up with something like this behind Fuqua's development, only because Pollack prefers this as opposed to the suburban product the original developer wanted and gained DDRB approval for.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Transit/Orlando-Sunrail-Construction/i-P8CGPXd/0/M/P1640559-M.jpg)
They don't try to create anything worthy, or unique, or interesting, or effective, because they know that mediocrity will be approved.
You are correct about the system overhaul Ennis and I heartily agree. I am afraid the reality is however, that the overhaul that is required is going to take time to be made manifest in that the struggles with politicians and developers will be many and arduous. The problem in the meantime is that millions of dollars in taxes as well as private investment are being spent to continue a legacy of bad design and planning. I guess the question then becomes at what point is it "worth it" to say enough of the second rate planning that will result in projects we will live with for years to come. Who is going to advocate for Brooklyn like we see folks advocate in Avondale when they are the least bit concerned about what is going to be built in our community? Just wondering if the few remaining members of that community are happy about the plans. I pose the question knowing that even if they are not, they might not be able to muster the political clout to make their views known and that I put directly on the back of the members of council put in office to represent the public.
With few exceptions, since when has the city council represented the public?
So the property sits on the Skyway path -- that's what a 200 million dollar investment? -- and is easily walkable to the future transit center, and we get this?
It astounds and saddens me that both the use and positive feedback from expensive public transit assets can be so squandered.
Quote from: Jdog on June 17, 2013, 06:55:59 PM
So the property sits on the Skyway path -- that's what a 200 million dollar investment? -- and is easily walkable to the future transit center, and we get this?
It astounds and saddens me that both the use and positive feedback from expensive public transit assets can be so squandered.
This!
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2577898246_ftcjcKx-M.jpg)
The planning process of this stuff is actually pretty damning, considering JTA is actively attempting to expand the Skyway in this project's immediate vicinity. Maybe they just aren't being made available to the public, but I haven't seen one plan or elevation that illustrates where the Skyway will actually go and how this development integrates with it. On the graphic above, the future Skyway's ROW is the green strip full of landscaping and trees, along Riverside Avenue.
It would be pretty ironic if a station ended up being built on Riverside Avenue, right in front of the grocery store's surface parking lot. You'd end u with an urban street edge between Jackson and Stonewall, while all that suburban retail visibility to the main street would be lost. The same would apply, if a station ended up in the front that CVS/Walgreens space (Retail-B).
Anyone know if the DDRB has inquired about how the Skyway would potentially connect its riders with this development?
Quote from: Duvaltopia on June 17, 2013, 11:08:30 AM
Mayor Brown presents….another really big parking lot.
classic!
Quote from: thelakelander on June 17, 2013, 07:59:42 PM
The same would apply, if a station ended up in the front that CVS/Walgreens space (Retail-B).
When I looked at the pic this morning that was the first thing I thought for that space. I would imagine CVS bc closest one to that area I think is down Blanding at San Juan
City board and architects fine-tune design for Brooklyn Riverside Retail ProjectQuote"We have an opportunity to step up the landscaping and make it as lush as we can. That would help relieve the pressure on the parking lot," said board member and landscape architect Chris Flagg.
"We like to have lush centers," said Greer Scoggins, director of construction for Fuqua Development.
QuoteAnother suggestion was to construct a low wall along Riverside Avenue to block the view of the parking lot. Board member Andy Sikes said blocking the view of the parking lot with a wall wouldn't change the fact there is a grocery store on the site.
"Riverside Avenue is not a tourist trap. When people go down that road one time, they'll know what's behind the wall," he said.
QuoteThe design of the grocery store was described by architect Michael Brown, principal of Ponte Vedra Beach-based Wakefield Beasley & Associates, as "white and gray with accent colors to complement the tenant's brand."
He said the potential tenant requires outdoor dining and space outside the store for cooking demonstrations.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2013-06-18
So to you experts on here or should I say guy/gals with urban planning experience is this better than what was originally planned?
Lipstick on a pig. Just look on the bright side and realize that behind its horrible exterior and body shape, you'll have downtown access to fresh bacon.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 18, 2013, 11:40:07 AM
City board and architects fine-tune design for Brooklyn Riverside Retail Project
Quote"We have an opportunity to step up the landscaping and make it as lush as we can. That would help relieve the pressure on the parking lot," said board member and landscape architect Chris Flagg.
"We like to have lush centers," said Greer Scoggins, director of construction for Fuqua Development.
QuoteAnother suggestion was to construct a low wall along Riverside Avenue to block the view of the parking lot. Board member Andy Sikes said blocking the view of the parking lot with a wall wouldn't change the fact there is a grocery store on the site.
"Riverside Avenue is not a tourist trap. When people go down that road one time, they'll know what's behind the wall," he said.
QuoteThe design of the grocery store was described by architect Michael Brown, principal of Ponte Vedra Beach-based Wakefield Beasley & Associates, as "white and gray with accent colors to complement the tenant's brand."
He said the potential tenant requires outdoor dining and space outside the store for cooking demonstrations.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2013-06-18
Just build a wall around it!!!!! This is the mindset of those who make planning and design decisions. Pathetic and so off base. Has anyone contacted JTA directly to see if all of theses city advisers and planners have spoken directly with them about these plans and how the plans as they stand would interface and enhance a skyway extension? The incompetence (yes incompetence) in tandem with the lack of understanding of what is needed to create the vibrancy required seriously upsets me. Over and over again we see bargain basement design on the back of promises of great things and on the back of millions invested. Amazing!
During the Parador parking garage discussions, Roland said 'I don't think ground floor retail is important'.
That should tell you everything you want to know about DDRB. Ashame b/c there are smart people on that board.
Quote from: fieldafm on June 18, 2013, 12:07:12 PM
During the Parador parking garage discussions, Roland said 'I don't think ground floor retail is important'.
That should tell you everything you want to know about DDRB. Ashame b/c there are smart people on that board.
Your kidding me right Mike? Kidding???? This mindset and approach is not acceptable! Is this Roland on the board? What is his last name and what is the background in experience he supposedly brings to the table when it comes to issues reviewed by the DDRB?
Unfortunately, Mike is right. I remember that quote. Btw, if a developer is trying to keep the project's costs down, building a wall around the parking lot isn't going to achieve that goal.....
Speaking of downtown retail, right now I'm working on creating a color coded GIS-based "heat map" of downtown for a friend. Going building-by-building, block-by-block, the frontage of structures that embrace the pedestrian realm is coded green. Those that need improvement but offer that opportunity are being coded yellow. Sidewalk frontage that's pedestrian hostile (ex. surface lots, blank walls, parking garages with no street level retail, etc.) are coded red. The hope is that the result provides a visual map of where targeted improvements could generate the most bang for our buck, in terms of street level vibrancy and connectivity.
Out of the 71 initial blocks I'm doing, it's pretty clear why downtown struggles. It looks like someone stabbed my computer to death.
Computer violence! Oh no! Is it bleeding bits?
Seriously Ennis, I look forward to seeing the result of the map. Perhaps it is time that an education effort is undertaken in this city and directed towards those employed by the city or sitting on relevant boards to bring them up to speed on what it takes to create real vibrancy and thoughtful progress that makes positive change and growth possible. Clearly some don't get it at all!
We have had a grocery store downtown for years, but it has failed to make much of an impact due to a suburban site plan. It has had so little impact, for example, that the mayor who used to work for that company refuses to acknowledge its existence. Why would we build another grocery store in the same manner?? 4 years from now people will be clamoring for a grocery store downtown when they will have 2 within a mile of the city center. We need a pedestrian friendly grocery store that anyone within the urban core can easily reach without the help of a car. An urban store with a skyway stop and a bike rack would accomplish this. The current design does not.
Great point about Winn-Dixie. Yeah, downtown will have the same issue after this new project goes up. Unfortunately, for those wanting a pedestrian friendly store, those chances will drop because there won't be a market for one with two large stores in the vicinity. Hopefully, JTA is successful in their efforts to get the Skyway into Brooklyn, which should alleviate this problem, despite Fuqua's site plan.
Is all this "lush landscape" (planting the crepe myrtles closer together?) going to be in the skyway/utility easement along Riverside? As I understand it, part of that clear space is a Build Nothing Here utility strip.
Yes, the green strip between Riverside Avenue and the shopping center outparcels is the reserved Skyway ROW.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2577898246_ftcjcKx-M.jpg)
So, if the DDRB accepts that as "part of" the shopping center's landscaping, what happens when JTA does extend the Skyway? Or JEA has to dig it up to work on the buried utilities?
It seems wrong to accept landscaping as part of a project on property you don't own or control. Perhaps I could propose a project with 100% lot coverage, but claim the adjacent Hogan Creek Park as "my" landscaping?
horrible!
Perhaps Jacksonville gets this out of their system. Hopes are that once 220 Riverside and this really start taking shape, DDRB/Jax leaders won't be quite as "desperate" for any old development deal to happen near the core (not that 220 is bad, just saying in general).
I will vouch that Jacksonville is a market that peeks interest to retailers and some opportunistic deal/development capital due to its fairly consistent high growth and recent job growth rebound, as well as cheap land (blessing and curse) but everyone knows how untested the urban market is and how risky the entire market is in general for a host of reasons. While some retailers may be willing to enter Nashville with a less formulaic urban concept in a rapidly developing neighborhood (like the Gulch), Jax is quite far behind and they may want to come in with a tried and true formula until there is less risk in doing something more unique. That said, even slight enhancements to this wretched site plan can make a difference without compromising the "must haves" or the proforma for the developer/nationals interested in this location (though architectural soft costs are hilariously large and time to execute is crucial in high-risk markets...this dragging on at this point is probably a deal breaker). And unlike Nashville where an entire side of town has the demographics retailers are looking for, folks have to be "educated" on how Jax demographics work.
Just read this about Fresh Market, completely randomly and ironically. Can't list source as it's an email that came to me.
Quote
The Greensboro, NC-based public company, founded in 1982, operates 133 stores in 25 states. "We're fairly rooftop-centric," Rob (snapped at RECon this year) says on the store's site selection and growth plans. "We're not the kind of grocery store that's dependent as much on the daytime and office populations." The grocer has focused on consumers shopping close to home (late night ice cream runs), particularly in neighborhoods like Wilmette, Kildeer, and Geneva, where they appreciate great food and exceptional customer service, Rob says.
...
The Fresh Market is selective about its real estate. Suburban locations generally anchor or co-anchor 50k to 200k SF shopping centers, but the company has considered more urban models for city stores, including locations under residential developments and that have deck parking (there are certainly enough multifamily projects going up to choose from).
...
How will The Fresh Market stand out and make inroads? With an intimate and manageable 20k to 24k SF shopping experience, heavy employee-customer interaction, and an unrivaled selection of prepared meals, Rob tells us.
Interesting stuff to know.