A New Look For Fuqua's Brooklyn Retail Project?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2628318746_nbXwC9W-M.jpg)
Fuqua Development is proposing a 53,700 square foot, grocery anchored retail development on Riverside Avenue between Jackson Street and Stonewall Street. Controversial due to its suburban layout, the project may receive its final approval at today's Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) meeting. Here is a look at the project's latest site plan and architectural renderings.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jul-a-new-look-for-fuquas-brooklyn-retail-project
They dont quite get it do they? Its going to look ridiculous compared to the area.
Not a huge fan of the strip-mall layout and large setbacks, but overall, this would be a definite net gain for the area.
On a side note, I'm thrilled to see that Organic Grocer has finally decided to take the leap into the Jacksonville market. It's been a long time coming.
The sidewalks aren't even wide enough! Someone should be jailed over this suburban BS!
How could the same developer behind the residential portion go for this? Geez.
Count me in the camp of someone who would rather see a vacant lot than this. Looks like a bunch of cheap stuccoy chains, he hasn't made any announcements as the grocer despite the rumor it's Fresh Market (heck it could be a Publix Greenwise if they're worried about another national eating some of their Riverside/DT traffic sales), the CVS is going to be of the plasticky variety with red accents (I'm actually ok with the drive through - area's not urban enough not to have that feature), and worst of all a car shop like a Pep Boys has been rendered, LoL.
This thing is attrocious! This is why he gets protested and then banned from developing sites in Atlanta and Denver.
Still looks like ass.
At some point, the city has to stop settling for mediocre.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 11, 2013, 10:43:31 AM
How could the same developer behind the residential portion go for this? Geez.
They are being developed by two different development firms.
It looks like an awesome place to hang out if you happen to be a car.
Who appoints members to the DDRB???
Curious, but are they leaving room for the skyway extension?
Is this RAP approved?
so two developments in the same area can be urban in design and this one cant, because the lead tenant wants this layout? what a joke. The city should just tell them to shove it and deny this project, but we know that will not happen because we have no one with a backbone to lead in this city!
Why can't they just move the Organic Grocer to the front sidewalk and put the parking behind as well as the two out parcels? Wouldn't that solve almost everything? Same thing with the pharmacy, bring it all the way front and put the parking in the rear. Heck you could even leave the drive through on the side and it would still work.
Does anyone have the actual names of the tenants? Looks like a CVS and maybe a Whole Foods or Fresh Market?
I do not believe they have been officially announced yet.
Yuck
Sidewalks probably look small to you cause they don't have a palm tree reducing them to functionally half size like Riverside. They are all sidewalk.
I used to work across the street when it was old warehouses and run down offices. This is better than that.
I don't see any stores identified. If a CVS or Walgreens they will take the outparcels near the street if they are big enough.
Quote from: Dapperdan on July 11, 2013, 01:35:14 PM
Why can't they just move the Organic Grocer to the front sidewalk and put the parking behind as well as the two out parcels? Wouldn't that solve almost everything? Same thing with the pharmacy, bring it all the way front and put the parking in the rear. Heck you could even leave the drive through on the side and it would still work.
Seriously, why do they not want to just rotate everything 180°? My guess is reduced parking if they had to move the loading dock.
I think its sadly comical that they are going to spend serious cash dressing up the landscape/hardscape components....and they wouldn't have needed to do that if the overall layout was just more urban
Quote from: fsujax on July 11, 2013, 01:23:33 PM
so two developments in the same area can be urban in design and this one cant, because the lead tenant wants this layout? what a joke. The city should just tell them to shove it and deny this project, but we know that will not happen because we have no one with a backbone to lead in this city!
This seems to be the case with most everything in Jacksonville
Quote from: Dapperdan on July 11, 2013, 01:35:14 PM
Why can't they just move the Organic Grocer to the front sidewalk and put the parking behind as well as the two out parcels? Wouldn't that solve almost everything? Same thing with the pharmacy, bring it all the way front and put the parking in the rear. Heck you could even leave the drive through on the side and it would still work.
It appears that they could even design it so that the outparcels be moved to the side of a Riverside fronting building, which would still give them visibility from Riverside and not be totally hidden. What is most frustrating here is that the COJ Comprehensive Plan and/or DDRB guidelines should be heavily encouraging parking in the rear (or at worst side), if not requiring it to happen.
Does anyone know what the DDRB regs or Comp Plan say about parking behind commercial? Sorry, I don't have time to look myself.
Ridiculous. This is the exact site plan of the Markets at Town Center if you stand on the street looking at Toys R Us. "Chipotle on the left, surrounded by parking lot, big box directly in front of you with lots of parking lot in front, Panda Express on the right surrounded by parking lot, and then a Walgreens on the corner. LOL. Welcome to Jacksonville where rubber stamping "approved" is guaranteed.
Very original design.....
Skeptical:
1) Fuqua is not making any official retail announcements (this is not an SJTC type development where confidentiality is key to marketing and the appeal of the center). He has pulled these types of shenanigans before and gotten the boot as a result.
2) If Fresh Market is so keen on this exact site plan for this location and this market, then clearly they are considering themselves a commodity grocer that captures "going home" traffic and needs visibility and arterial frontage. I am skeptical that is the case, because Fresh Market is a unique appeal - it isn't a drive by grocer and they market to their demographic and expect their demographic to reach them in their configuration.
3) Looking at the renderings, it is clear that the expected tenancy of this shopping center is going to be very low brow, including an auto body shop. Not exactly the desired cotenancy of specialty/high end grocers.
I realize the thing isn't even fully approved yet, but it just seems like the public is being kept out as much as possible and the developer is looking to cut a deal corners with DDRB and city officials and exclude public involvement as much as possible. That's this guy's style over the years. I also realize that Jax citizens aren't really as engaged or involved as citizens of other cities, but nonetheless any developer who wants to exclude public involvement and work backroom with corrupt officials and put cheap crap up with no regard for public taste should not be allowed to do business in the city, especially in the urban core.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on July 11, 2013, 12:33:50 PM
Curious, but are they leaving room for the skyway extension?
Does not look like it - it looks like the "lush" landscaping along Riverside Avenue is in the Skyway/Utility right-of-way. Can the DDRB even approve a developer proposing to landscape property they don't even own? And public property at that? And if they do, when (I'm being optimistic) the Skyway is extended, all that landscaping goes away.
On the other hand, the patio seating under the Skyway might be nice - a bit of shade from the sun.
The tone for this area was set a long time ago, when existing urban fabric that could have been rehabbed or only selectively replaced with new construction, was completely demolished in favor of a high traffic 'highway' design for Riverside Ave.
For the same reason the State/Union corridor will not be urban if and when it finaly redevelops.
Both areas are designed with only auto traffic in mind. So is it that surprising that the private development fits that mold?
Hell, look what's still there across the street, with buildings like Haskell, The Florida Times Union, not exactly Midtown Manhattan.
^Nope. Even Chattanooga requires something a little more walkabe in its core....
Quote from: vicupstate on July 12, 2013, 05:39:24 AM
The tone for this area was set a long time ago, when existing urban fabric that could have been rehabbed or only selectively replaced with new construction, was completely demolished in favor of a high traffic 'highway' design for Riverside Ave.
For the same reason the State/Union corridor will not be urban if and when it finaly redevelops.
Both areas are designed with only auto traffic in mind. So is it that surprising that the private development fits that mold?
I still hold high hopes for Brooklyn. 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside soften the blow. Plus, there's hope that the Skyway extension (if it happens) will at least cover this strip mall's parking lot from the street. I'd love to see a Skyway station placed dead smack in the center of the two retail buildings along Riverside Avenue.
Quote from: vicupstate on July 12, 2013, 05:39:24 AM
For the same reason the State/Union corridor will not be urban if and when it finaly redevelops.
Both areas are designed with only auto traffic in mind. So is it that surprising that the private development fits that mold?
Our city council and planning department could easily change that.
Yeah, it's still hard for me to blame the private sector or even Fuqua for what he's being allowed to throw up. We don't require or demand any thing different. Thus, the ultimate results are what they are. If some random place like Birmingham can pull stuff off multiple infill examples like this, we should be able too.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Birmingham-2013/i-ZKV4BQV/0/M/P1650060-M.jpg)
Forrest Gump was filmed there. It is a big city.
Just smaller than us. That's all.
Wow. If you were to just realigh the thing (i.e. Riverside Publix), it would be immensely better. Not that the Riverside Publix is an architectural gem, but it's WAY better than this.
Coming soon to downtown Jacksonville. Fear of a pharmacy not opening on Riverside Avenue led to the DDRB allowing this:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2628319325_t6cqf7q-M.jpg)
Came across this in Birmingham by accident last week. It includes a drive thru....Go figure...
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Birmingham-2013/i-XwvsNSg/0/M/P1650251-M.jpg)
What? Why does the DDRB exist?
I've obviously seen the negative comments about the Mediterranean style, i.e stucco and barrel tile roof, developments in this city but can't help but think that the Mizner inspired Publix/condo development proposed several years ago in San Marco blew this design away.
Honestly, with the relative limited height of the structures across Riverside Avenue, it seems such a design with residential over retail/commercial would have been a better use of the property in terms of both density, design, and walk-ability.
While I'm at it, came across this as well:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Birmingham-2013/i-mcQBQVb/0/M/P1650289-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Birmingham-2013/i-w2J3V5s/0/M/P1650258-M.jpg)
Pretty different from how this turned out:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/Urban-Construction-02-2013/i-KTks6Xx/0/M/P1610553-M.jpg)
All driven by zoning. These guys will still come if the city reduces front setback requirements in our zoning ordinances....even in the burbs. Over time, even your suburban areas of town will be somewhat walkable for the residents and people who work there. Such a building pattern means using alternative modes of transportation starts to make sense for a larger population and less public money is spent subsidizing automobile oriented infrastructure.
Quote from: John P on July 12, 2013, 03:15:57 PM
Forrest Gump was filmed there. It is a big city.
I thought Forrest Gump was filmed in Savannah
Just to continue to pour salt into our wounds, I passed this in Richmond, VA earlier today. A fairly new CVS built right up on the street and with a brick facade to match the surrounding architecture in Shockoe Bottom.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Richmond-2013/i-cN9G4s8/0/M/P1650583-M.jpg)
Is there such thing as an urban designed building with a drive thru, or are drive thrus the spawn of Satan far as urbanism is concerned? IMO most urbanists complaints with suburban designs are mainly about aesthetics. I'm not totally buying the 'walkability' and 'unsafe auto traffic' arguments; Now there's the rare exception to everything. There's nothing to prove that the average suburban design is more 'dangerous' than an urban one. I don't think that a suburban design will stop any pedestrian (other than the one obsessed urbanist) from getting a Big Mac, or some medicine from Family Dollar, or the Riverside Pharmacy. Hell, urban buildings right on a sidewalk corner (posing blind spots for drivers) is about as dangerous as it gets (regarding pedestrians) but you won't here that from this site for obvious reasons. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a more urban design (particularly on the State/Union corridor) for the simple fact that it's between to urban areas (DT & Springfield).
Quote from: I-10east on July 22, 2013, 12:09:21 AM
Is there such thing as an urban designed building with a drive thru, or are drive thrus the spawn of Satan far as urbanism is concerned? IMO most urbanists complaints with suburban designs are mainly about aesthetics. I'm not totally buying the 'walkability' and 'unsafe auto traffic' arguments; Now there's the rare exception to everything. There's nothing to prove that the average suburban design is more 'dangerous' than an urban one. I don't think that a suburban design will stop any pedestrian (other than the one obsessed urbanist) from getting a Big Mac, or some medicine from Family Dollar, or the Riverside Pharmacy. Hell, urban buildings right on a sidewalk corner (posing blind spots for drivers) is about as dangerous as it gets (regarding pedestrians) but you won't here that from this site for obvious reasons. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a more urban design (particularly on the State/Union corridor) for the simple fact that it's between to urban areas (DT & Springfield).
It's obvious that you favor suburban design in every part of the city. The McDonalds and Dollar store on State street are horrible. I guess for you the same horrible design for Brooklyn is ok. If it were up to you all of Jacksonville would look like River City Market Place a suburban nightmare. I would rather see nothing built there instead of a terrible design that will not go away in my lifetime. Jacksonville blows it way more often then we get it right.
The shocking thing is that the powers here are not looking at the design concessions that companies are making in other urban cores. How can the notion even exist that CVS, McDonalds, etc. will not invest in the urban core (outside of their preferred template)? Ennis is finding example after example of how other "small" cities are luring business and finding common ground.
Quote from: I-10east on July 22, 2013, 12:09:21 AM
Is there such thing as an urban designed building with a drive thru, or are drive thrus the spawn of Satan far as urbanism is concerned? IMO most urbanists complaints with suburban designs are mainly about aesthetics.
Downtown Greenville SC has a CVS with a drive-thru, but no dedicated parking, located on it's Main Street. It is built up to the street corner. The drive-thru is sandwiched between the CVS store and the secondary ground-floor tenant of the building. Access to the drive-thru is via the street that runs parallel to Main, behind the store. An office tenant occupies the second story of this built-to-suit project.
I will try to get some pics posted today to tomorrow.
Wish I had a pic of the CVS they built in Gainesville near the VA recently.
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on July 22, 2013, 01:35:25 AM
The shocking thing is that the powers here are not looking at the design concessions that companies are making in other urban cores. How can the notion even exist that CVS, McDonalds, etc. will not invest in the urban core (outside of their preferred template)? Ennis is finding example after example of how other "small" cities are luring business and finding common ground.
The funny thing is they aren't really making design concessions. The overall store layout and square footages are the same. These other places just feature zoning regulations with limited front setback distances. For example, here's a McDonalds in Louisville. Includes a drive thru and surface parking on the sides, but now the outdoor dining happens on the street, as opposed to the middle of a surface parking lot.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Louisville/i-Qr2HSQ2/0/M/P1240068-M.jpg)
Also, I thought this Checker's drive thru in downtown Sarasota was pretty interesting...
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Sarasota/i-j2PJV7r/0/M/P1590337-M.jpg)
Quote from: I-10east on July 22, 2013, 12:09:21 AM
Is there such thing as an urban designed building with a drive thru, or are drive thrus the spawn of Satan far as urbanism is concerned?
Yes. This thread contains a few shots of some. Two drive thru restaurants are shown above. Both are in walkable sections of town.
QuoteIMO most urbanists complaints with suburban designs are mainly about aesthetics. I'm not totally buying the 'walkability' and 'unsafe auto traffic' arguments; Now there's the rare exception to everything. There's nothing to prove that the average suburban design is more 'dangerous' than an urban one.
You don't have to buy them but statistics prove otherwise:
Jacksonville third worst for traffic deaths among pedestrians
..Transportation for America, based in Washington, highlighted the issue recently in "Dangerous By Design," a study of traffic fatalities from 2000 through 2009. In that study, Jacksonville was ranked as the third worst metropolitan area for pedestrians, with 16.1 percent of all traffic deaths being people on foot....
Read more at Jacksonville.com: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-06-20/story/jacksonville-third-worst-traffic-deaths-among-pedestrians#ixzz2Zm1J2nI4Here's the actual report and a suggestion from the report on how to reduce pedestrian your death rate.
http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign2011/
Most Dangerous Metro Areas
1. Orlando-Kissimmee, FL
2. Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
3. Jacksonville, FL
4. Miami-Fort Lauderdale-Pompano Beach, FL
5. Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario, CA
6. Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
7. Memphis, TN-MS-AR
8. Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
9. Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown, TX
10. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TXSo why do you think our pedestrian death rates are one of the highest in country? Also, what do you think lower density development ultimately does to our tax rolls and pension costs? How about our obesity rates? All of this stuff is related.
QuoteI don't think that a suburban design will stop any pedestrian (other than the one obsessed urbanist) from getting a Big Mac, or some medicine from Family Dollar, or the Riverside Pharmacy. Hell, urban buildings right on a sidewalk corner (posing blind spots for drivers) is about as dangerous as it gets (regarding pedestrians) but you won't here that from this site for obvious reasons. That being said, I wouldn't mind seeing a more urban design (particularly on the State/Union corridor) for the simple fact that it's between to urban areas (DT & Springfield).
You kind of contradict yourself here with no real statistical data to back up the assumptions. However, I like where you're headed. Why are you okay with more urban design between DT and Springfield but not between DT and Riverside, DT and Durkeeville or DT and San Marco? What's the difference in your opinion?
Quote from: Keith-N-Jax on July 22, 2013, 05:23:34 AM
Wish I had a pic of the CVS they built in Gainesville near the VA recently.
here you go...although take note that the design is forced upon developers by zoning regulations...they don't want to build multi-story, just ahve to if they want a drive-thru....but, as the article implies, those regs are likely to be changed soon.
http://www.gainesville.com/article/20130721/ARTICLES/130729989?tc=cr
Thanks for posting that, they did a very nice job with that CVS. Something like that would be so much better.
Don't take this as gospel, but I don't believe CVS will be part of this.
Think it will be Walgreens or another pharmacy chain?
Not sure what it will be, but I heard from someone that would know that it doesn't look like it will be CVS.
Doesn't matter if its CVS or Walgreens, its the design were most concerned with.
^Obviously....I was just pointing out that it likely won't be a CVS.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 21, 2013, 09:44:21 PM
Just to continue to pour salt into our wounds, I passed this in Richmond, VA earlier today. A fairly new CVS built right up on the street and with a brick facade to match the surrounding architecture in Shockoe Bottom.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Learning-From/Richmond-2013/i-cN9G4s8/0/M/P1650583-M.jpg)
I know exactly where that is. There is also a grocery store next to it with the same features.
Quote from: avonjax on July 22, 2013, 12:26:06 AM
It's obvious that you favor suburban design in every part of the city. The McDonalds and Dollar store on State street are horrible.I guess for you the same horrible design for Brooklyn is ok. If it were up to you all of Jacksonville would look like River City Market Place a suburban nightmare. I would rather see nothing built there instead of a terrible design that will not go away in my lifetime. Jacksonville blows it way more often then we get it right.
I already said that I wouldn't mind seeing a more urban designs on the Union/ State corridor, so how can I want 'every part of Jax' to be suburban?
To be honest about Brooklyn, the area pretty much straddles on urban and suburban style buildings. Look at what's across the street? The Florida Times Union, Haskell, and other suburban styles buildings with pretty large parking lots. MJ often says that State/Union cuts off DT from Springfield; IMO the FEC railroad tracks cuts off the Riverside from DT noticeably more, being that the only connection are viaducts. So that's why I'm not throwing a fit with this Brooklyn project. That Riverside Publix is not exactly an urban masterpiece either; The only thing that saves it from being 'very suburban looking' is the line of stores on Margaret St.
With all due respect, it's pretty dumb to 'rather see nothing' than some suburban style restaurants/retail etc in a SUBURBAN AREA, regardless the way it's built. I think that I'm being pretty fair saying that. Talk about being 'anti-progress'. Progress doesn't always = to urban contrary to popular belief. "Costco, close it down because I don't like the way it's built" SMH...
^^^Haha, pretty creative Stephen. I guess that I'm lying about those long time suburban style buildings on Riverside....
^^^Would you be satisfied if the Brooklyn Retail was built similar to the Riverside Publix (with stores fronting on Riverside, like the Papa John's China Wok etc front Margaret?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 22, 2013, 07:48:14 AM
You don't have to buy them but statistics prove otherwise:
Jacksonville third worst for traffic deaths among pedestrians
..Transportation for America, based in Washington, highlighted the issue recently in "Dangerous By Design," a study of traffic fatalities from 2000 through 2009. In that study, Jacksonville was ranked as the third worst metropolitan area for pedestrians, with 16.1 percent of all traffic deaths being people on foot....
IMO these pedestrian accident facts are a lil' too broad to correlate with suburban style property accidents. I watch the news very often; Typically a Jax ped accident will be something like this. "A woman was struck by a car, attempting to cross 103rd" or "A boy was struck by a truck trying to cross Arlington Expressway". I never hear this...."A girl was life flighted to UF Health when she was struck by a car on grounds of the Normandy Mc Donalds".
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2013, 08:21:19 PM
I 10. Im being serious in this question.
How would you define "Urbanist'?
A person that wants everything to resemble New York.
^^^My bad, I should've said "As much as possible" at the end.
Quote from: I-10east on July 22, 2013, 08:43:49 PM
Quote from: stephendare on July 22, 2013, 08:21:19 PM
I 10. Im being serious in this question.
How would you define "Urbanist'?
A person that wants everything to resemble New York.
I definitely consider myself an urbanist...and actually don't care for much of New York City
^^^I was being sarcastic.
I'll read the link Stephen.
Quote from: I-10east on July 22, 2013, 07:44:29 PM
To be honest about Brooklyn, the area pretty much straddles on urban and suburban style buildings. Look at what's across the street? The Florida Times Union, Haskell, and other suburban styles buildings with pretty large parking lots. MJ often says that State/Union cuts off DT from Springfield; IMO the FEC railroad tracks cuts off the Riverside from DT noticeably more, being that the only connection are viaducts. So that's why I'm not throwing a fit with this Brooklyn project. That Riverside Publix is not exactly an urban masterpiece either; The only thing that saves it from being 'very suburban looking' is the line of stores on Margaret St.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/2229063593_k9bCGD9-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1019618971_WRie7-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1280868962_kKDxsbd-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1280868813_wsLxRpG-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1280868755_XJnQSRz-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/453365671_UiomJ-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/453365919_qZGgM-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/453365236_g4TEE-M.jpg)
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/brooklyn/Riverside-Avenue.jpg)
Is this is suburban, what do we call Mandarin and Northern St. Johns County?
Urban CVS with drive-thru in Greenville, SC
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3831/9345694337_0d579c3b2d_m.jpg (http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3831/9345694337_0d579c3b2d_m.jpg)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5507/9348486902_b8c92d1c68_m.jpg (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5507/9348486902_b8c92d1c68_m.jpg)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5470/9345710699_177a97ccdf_m.jpg (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5470/9345710699_177a97ccdf_m.jpg)
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5347/9348501974_62be870a3d_m.jpg (http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5347/9348501974_62be870a3d_m.jpg)
If anyone can convert these to displayed images, please do so.
I think that Jacksonville should strove to be like New York City as much as possible. I hung out in NYC a lot in my late teens early twenties. I really miss all of the pretty brights, the 24 hour mass transit service, the walkability, the accents, the diversity of the people. and being albino, I can walk those streets without harassment, even in Harlem! Everything here in Jax seems to go directly against everything I grew up around! and it sucks! Guess I'm just homesick.
Not to say that we don't have our own set of problems up there.