Source:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543899
QuoteHallmark Partners pursuing wellness-focused hotel for Brooklyn development
Thursday, September 18, 11:03 AM EDT
By Carole Hawkins, Staff Writer
NAI Hallmark Partners, developers of 220 Riverside/Unity Plaza in Brooklyn, has picked up land for another project — a wellness-oriented hotel.
Hallmark Partners purchased a warehouse parcel Tuesday at 803 Price St., just west of 220 Riverside, from Parkview Plaza Partners LLC for $645,000.
It's the final piece Hallmark needed to pursue a hotel project the company has contemplated for nearly a year.
"We've had that property under contract for quite some time," said Alex Coley, a Hallmark principal. "This acquisition puts us in a position to build that hotel."
Hallmark, since last year's Jacksonville Jaguars game in England, has been in talks with InterContinental Hotels Group, an international hotel giant that operates Crowne Plaza, Holiday Inn and others.
InterContinental is considering opening an EVEN hotel in Brooklyn, a new brand that caters to wellness-minded travelers.
EVEN hotels feature a 24/7 fresh-food bar, with healthy choices like fresh orange juice, yogurt, granola, goji berries and dried fruit. The hotel brand has an extensive gym and its hotel rooms have cork flooring, yoga mats, exercise balls and bands. The idea is that people don't have to sacrifice a wellness lifestyle when traveling.
More at above link.
Sounds interesting. Looking forward to hearing more on this one.
That whole area looks to be hoppin' real soon. I wonder if development will continue down or around Forest ?
QuoteEVEN hotels feature a 24/7 fresh-food bar, with healthy choices like fresh orange juice, yogurt, granola, goji berries and dried fruit. The hotel brand has an extensive gym and its hotel rooms have cork flooring, yoga mats, exercise balls and bands. The idea is that people don't have to sacrifice a wellness lifestyle when traveling.
M_m_R - sounds like an ever BETTER spot for your "friend's" artisan water & cracker concept.
That's that strange building that has "Education is the Key" and warriors painted on the sides, and is almost impossible to get to despite having one wall up against Price. I think it's the only thing on the entire block. I wonder who owned it before?
that's interesting
Need to get that Skyway expanded!
for some reason I thought it was the land between 220 and Fresh Market. What is that land for
Most likely guest parking.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on September 18, 2014, 02:52:57 PM
for some reason I thought it was the land between 220 and Fresh Market. What is that land for
On a site plan on another thread for 220 Riverside it shows it as an out parcel for a future office building.
There is a small guest parking area, but further over is a nice plot. I do hope this hotel isn't garden style with lots of surface parking. I hope it is more urban.
My info comes from awhile back so I may have gotten confused at this point, but I think there was indeed a possibility that the hotel was going to be on the area you're talking about, jcj. There was a snag in negotiations over ownership of that lot, which in the near term is supposed to serve as additional parking.
Looks like they moved on and acquired this lot instead. And my info (which again is quite old) was that this land had been intended for Unity Plaza to utilize as an extension of the park area. Obviously all the "plans" are fluid...
I would love to see a smaller urban footprint with vertical height for this development. It will be nice to have a different hotel experience available as an option for visitors.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on September 18, 2014, 03:31:09 PM
There is a small guest parking area, but further over is a nice plot. I do hope this hotel isn't garden style with lots of surface parking. I hope it is more urban.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1665761342_H2RQmsB-M.jpg)
^I assume it's the building with the parking lot in this site plan.
Here's an updated rendering of what Unity Plaza may look like through 2017. The hotel is the building surrounded by the parking lots.
(https://unityplazajax.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/campus-vision.jpeg?w=942&h=448)
QuoteIncluding Amphitheater with extended stage, UP commUNITY Center, Wellness Pavilion, food and beverage kiosks, neighboring hotel, Magnolia Street Lawn, and office building.
http://unityplazajax.com/2015/05/21/unity-plaza-campus-vision-board/
Are they showing surface parking all the way to Park? That would be a mistake. No more big surface lots right on the main streets, have we not learned? Park isn't much now, but who knows what will be going on there in the next decade. This big surface lot could kill any sort of momentum northwest of Park. Someday, someone is going to come along and want to fix up and develop the area along McCoy Creek because it is just waiting to be rediscovered and parts of Park and they will "man it is a shame there is a giant parking lot right on Park."
Ok I just went off on a tangent. If it's not even going to Park and I'm misunderstanding the rendering then I'll shut up.
I hope that changes. Nevertheless, yes, that's a huge surface parking lot along Park.
Earlier mentioned an Even Hotel. But the pic here that is on their website shows the hotel to be an AC Hotel by Mariott. Perhaps a change? Would not think they would show a brand on their website if not moving forward.
I would love to see a few townhomes incorporated into development of the other sites. Perhaps townhomes could "enclose" some of the planned surface lots. I think diversifying the types of housing available in the neighborhood would really add to it. It also would be kind of cool to build some "look alike" shotgun houses as a throwback to the history of Brooklyn. I know "look alike" houses aren't ideal, but infill housing in Springfield has worked out pretty well at maintaining the look of the historic district.
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/09/Natural-Talent-Design-Competition-The-Little-Easy-1.jpg)
It also wouldn't be much more expensive to make the first few floors of the office building parking. This would raise the height of the building, and also put the offices above 220 Riverside and provide beautiful views of the river and surrounding area. Having parking built into the footprint of the building would eliminate the need for so many surface lots. I agree, the developers should do everything possible to avoid surface parking that fronts the street.
Whoa! Where is that rendering from! ^
^ New LEED Platinum homes in New Orleans.
These are brand new hurricane resistant houses. 2 bedroom, 1 bath, 672 sq. ft. A row of these could easily be a buffer between the street and a surface parking lot. They don't have garages and residents could just park in the parking lot behind their houses.
(http://houseplansllcblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/672-b-3-photo-1_plan-detail.jpg?w=500)
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
I hope that changes. Nevertheless, yes, that's a huge surface parking lot along Park.
Perhaps it is my naiveté, but wouldn't it be ok to have a surface lot until future development warrants higher density? Like, if the suntrust garage had been done correctly? They could certainly plan a parking structure into future phases right? Maybe it's unwarranted, but so far I'd give the Hallmark Partners the benefit of doubt when it comes to proper urban design. The Brooklyn-Riverside guys? Not so much.
Quote from: edjax on August 26, 2015, 07:16:34 PM
Earlier mentioned an Even Hotel. But the pic here that is on their website shows the hotel to be an AC Hotel by Mariott. Perhaps a change? Would not think they would show a brand on their website if not moving forward.
haha, maybe Rummell stole them away with his
Healthytown plan.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 26, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
I hope that changes. Nevertheless, yes, that's a huge surface parking lot along Park.
Perhaps it is my naiveté, but wouldn't it be ok to have a surface lot until future development warrants higher density?
Most of the Northbank was demolished under the same idea. I'm not sure I'd give anyone the benefit of the doubt after 40 years of overall failure.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 26, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
I hope that changes. Nevertheless, yes, that's a huge surface parking lot along Park.
Perhaps it is my naiveté, but wouldn't it be ok to have a surface lot until future development warrants higher density?
Most of the Northbank was demolished under the same idea. I'm not sure I'd give anyone the benefit of the doubt after 40 years of overall failure.
Yeah, if they do a big surface lot there now I would imagine it would be there for a very long time. It looks like it would be private property owned by the hotel, maybe their strategy is just to absorb as much land around them so another hotel can't go in there. I don't think they would sell it off down the road, and they wouldn't add on most likely. What's that hotel at the end of Atlantic that has the huge surface lot facing downtown Atlantic Beach? It would turn into that and just be a wasted space for decades owned by the hotel.
Quote from: brainstormer on August 26, 2015, 08:33:25 PM
I would love to see a few townhomes incorporated into development of the other sites. Perhaps townhomes could "enclose" some of the planned surface lots. I think diversifying the types of housing available in the neighborhood would really add to it. It also would be kind of cool to build some "look alike" shotgun houses as a throwback to the history of Brooklyn. I know "look alike" houses aren't ideal, but infill housing in Springfield has worked out pretty well at maintaining the look of the historic district.
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/09/Natural-Talent-Design-Competition-The-Little-Easy-1.jpg)
It also wouldn't be much more expensive to make the first few floors of the office building parking. This would raise the height of the building, and also put the offices above 220 Riverside and provide beautiful views of the river and surrounding area. Having parking built into the footprint of the building would eliminate the need for so many surface lots. I agree, the developers should do everything possible to avoid surface parking that fronts the street.
Cool concept. I was also thinking townhomes and similar more urban detached single family homes tucked away closer to McCoy's Creek. Does everyone else see how fantastic that area would be if they cleaned up the creek and made a nice public park with lit walkways along the creek? And then yes, had the mix of homes on those adjacent streets. You would have the quite creekside park on one side and the huge riverfront just down the street, not to mention Unity Plaza. Great public spaces!
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 26, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
I hope that changes. Nevertheless, yes, that's a huge surface parking lot along Park.
Perhaps it is my naiveté, but wouldn't it be ok to have a surface lot until future development warrants higher density?
Most of the Northbank was demolished under the same idea. I'm not sure I'd give anyone the benefit of the doubt after 40 years of overall failure.
Not sure that demolishing buildings is the same thing as not building one. In any case, this is exactly what they did to begin with, right? Phase 1 is utilizing the lot to the east of the apts for parking, while phase 2 will see that area developed? I've been on this site long enough to know the pitfalls of crossing your fingers and hoping things are done right (or done at all) but my point is simply that Alex Coley has said and done all the right things to make me at least give him a chance (pushing mixed-use, community space, engaging the arts and creatives, road diet for Riverside ave). If I were developing this space and market conditions required multiple phases, I'd hope others could trust the vision too.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 26, 2015, 11:15:46 PM
Yeah, if they do a big surface lot there now I would imagine it would be there for a very long time. It looks like it would be private property owned by the hotel, maybe their strategy is just to absorb as much land around them so another hotel can't go in there. I don't think they would sell it off down the road, and they wouldn't add on most likely. What's that hotel at the end of Atlantic that has the huge surface lot facing downtown Atlantic Beach? It would turn into that and just be a wasted space for decades owned by the hotel.
That's One Ocean Resort. And you have a point...on this site it's actually the obvious point. I'm just suggesting that the alternative could turn out ok in the long run, it's not beyond possibility that the entire site is developed eventually. I know that at one point Hallmark was trying really hard to acquire much of the land north of the plaza and possibly Park St. Now if only the skyway (in whatever incarnation) could be tied into this area very soon.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 27, 2015, 01:00:11 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 10:28:26 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on August 26, 2015, 09:40:35 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2015, 06:31:27 PM
I hope that changes. Nevertheless, yes, that's a huge surface parking lot along Park.
Perhaps it is my naiveté, but wouldn't it be ok to have a surface lot until future development warrants higher density?
Most of the Northbank was demolished under the same idea. I'm not sure I'd give anyone the benefit of the doubt after 40 years of overall failure.
Not sure that demolishing buildings is the same thing as not building one.
Examples of blocks of buildings lost to new proposals that never came to fruition:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/667259707_emTdj-M.jpg)
JEA tore this block down in the 70s. The plan was to build a new headquarters complex. They ended up buying the Universal Marion Building. This theatre district block ended up with a two-level metal garage on it. The Forsyth Street side of that block is shown in the two images below:(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/667259636_6JV6F-M.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4054331413_RvPG725-L.jpg)
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/667259653_cfBb7-M.jpg)
^This block of business owners were literally kicked out and their buildings torn down for future new development. Three decades have past and we're still waiting. Now the best prospect for new development on it is a parking garage for the Trio project.(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/520606636_UwnsD-M.jpg)
^Knights of Pythias Building was the tallest structure on Ashley Street. It contained a hotel, meeting rooms, and street level retail. It was demolished in 1957. In a scenario that plays out time and again, the project planned to replace it never made it off the drawing board.(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/lavilla_history/2006-11-08/LaVilla-aerial-library.jpg)
^The worst of all....LaVilla. Ripped down for revitalization.No individual, company or personal vision is bigger and more important the community they live and invest in. This is where a "Learning From" to a place like Savannah or Charleston is good. Jax has no identity, vibe or whatever because most of what made it visually unique and dense has been destroyed for failed dreams and visions that never came true. Those other two cities still have their character.
I'm not saying there's something special worth keeping about the trophy center and whatever else is on that block. I'm just saying it's general a bad idea to demolish your character and building fabric for "what ifs", regardless of who's behind the "what if." In the examples pictured above, many people behind had good intentions. Things happened and the intentions didn't play out the way originally envisioned.
QuoteIn any case, this is exactly what they did to begin with, right? Phase 1 is utilizing the lot to the east of the apts for parking, while phase 2 will see that area developed?
Most of that area was demolished for the widening of Riverside Avenue in the early 2000s. It's taken nearly 15 years to get to this point and that area still has a long way to go. It's kind of funny because that was one of the most expensive widening projects the state had ever done and now we want to go back to 4-lanes because the road is too wide. Like Sugar Hill, most of the west side of Brooklyn was lost to a failed HUD urban renewal project from the 1970s. 40 years have passed and we're still waiting for redevelopment there. One of my concerns with continued demolishing for things that may or may not happen a decade or two down the road is that you kill the historic character. Park is definitely one of the last few strips in the area where there's a chance to integrate old with new and for it all to be pedestrian scale and unique in its own right. Revitalization with turning existing building fabric into temporary surface lots will give you a better chance at recreating East Baymeadows moreso to anything remotely urban and pedestrian scale over an extended amount of land area.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2015, 07:37:06 AM
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/667259636_6JV6F-M.jpg)
This parking deck is one of the worst things going downtown. That site is basically the gateway to downtown and a 2 story crappy steel parking deck from the 60s is about the worst thing I could think of there. The only thing worse would be an empty lot with hobo camps and drum fires.
I agree with you Lake (but perhaps a bit less cynical). I just misunderstood you to be in favor of the demolition with a different layout. If you want the hotel to front Park St with surface parking in back I'm simply saying the given layout could still be ok. Obviously reusing the building fabric would be ideal.
Oh, I don't mind the hotel location. Just not crazy about an urban environment changing, large scale surface parking lot on what should be a prime corridor like Park Street. In general, if you want to establish a walkable community, parking should be interior oriented or integrated within the structure. 220 Riverside is a good example of integration. However, it's understandable that structured parking can blow a project's feasibility altogether.
Neighboring Brooklyn Riverside is a good example of placing parking on the interior. It follows the traditional commercial "framing of the street". Despite the differences in building height, the compact pedestrian scale setting established by building setbacks remains.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4229154774_RrNw9tb-L.jpg)
What we should avoid (assuming the end goal is more density and walkability) under all circumstances is this:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4294723625_z2Qh7hs-L.jpg)
All you need is a large future project or two that fails to materialize and your entire district's walkability ends up being critically hampered for the next few decades.
Let's not forget about the large entry way surface lot they are showing on Forest Street. So that's 2 of the 3 main streets right in the heart of Brooklyn where they are planning on putting large surface lots. This is a ridiculous copy of the same Disneyland florida style resort hotel model that does not add value to the community, it actually helps destroy what potential it has. I would assume they are currently trying to permit for this, that is bad! Assume whatever they get permitted in terms of surface lots will be there for at least three decades. All parking for this development should be off oak and magnolia and hidden from the main streets if structured parking is not an option. They need to get more creative. I know the owner's response would be, "well we've done studies that show statistically people are more likely to stay at our hotels if they see parking from the street." That is complete BS, it may be true but we are talking Brooklyn that has potential to be a real urban option for Jax, this is not Baymeadows or Southside. I would rather the hotel not locate there if they are going to occupy 2 of the 3 main streets with surface lots. Come on Hallmark! You started out so well with 220, why go back to the old 1980's model?
There are plenty of examples of other urban hotels that handle their parking situation in a much better way than this. Has this been before DDRB yet?
I wouldn't be too worried about things at this point. That's why I keep mentioning surface lots "in general". In terms of Hallmark's sketch, it looks like a conceptual sketchup drawing. Something quickly assembled for show. I suspect there will be quite a few variations and design concepts studied before anything real reaches a point where its ready to go to the DDRB.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2015, 01:28:26 PM
I wouldn't be too worried about things at this point. That's why I keep mentioning surface lots "in general". In terms of Hallmark's sketch, it looks like a conceptual sketchup drawing. Something quickly assembled for show. I suspect there will be quite a few variations and design concepts studied before anything real reaches a point where its ready to go to the DDRB.
Are there any meetings planned that will be open to the public? I need somewhere to go with my pitchfork in hand on this one!
Quote from: CCMjax on August 27, 2015, 02:58:34 PM
Are there any meetings planned that will be open to the public? I need somewhere to go with my pitchfork in hand on this one!
I laughed at this.
There's a soon to be meeting about traffic flow in 5 points that should be happening really soon. You know... if you need a little practice. I can bring torches.
Quote from: CCMjax on August 27, 2015, 12:32:26 PM
Let's not forget about the large entry way surface lot they are showing on Forest Street. So that's 2 of the 3 main streets right in the heart of Brooklyn where they are planning on putting large surface lots.
Lol, that was supposed to be an "extension" of Unity Plaza supposedly. Hallmark was wanting to have more greenspace around the park.
Look, I know I'm giving Hallmark a lot of credit, perhaps too much, and I'd rather be safe than sorry looking back. I'm just saying that Hallmark was the one who wanted to prove mixed-use in our market and if we see Healthytown, East San Marco, etc move forward, these guys deserve a little of the credit. So I'll join you at a meeting if it looks like DDRB is gonna approve a poor design, but at the moment I don't think the pitchfork needs to come out.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2015, 01:28:26 PM
I wouldn't be too worried about things at this point. That's why I keep mentioning surface lots "in general". In terms of Hallmark's sketch, it looks like a conceptual sketchup drawing. Something quickly assembled for show. I suspect there will be quite a few variations and design concepts studied before anything real reaches a point where its ready to go to the DDRB.
How can they be so fundamentally off the mark on this? Didn't one of their execs recently speak on a "road diet" for riverside avenue in Brooklyn? Did they let summer interns draw up this site plan? I hate to chide investments in these previously moribund districts, but Jax must have the confidence to set a vision and guide growth to that vision. It matters for the future sustainability of in-town urban neighborhoods.
I really hope that don't put a surface lot there. Park Street from 5 Points to Brooklyn Station needs more retail. The distance between the two is very walkable and could be a good connector if properly developed.
Why couldn't they have filled up LaVilla with homes like these? The core city density doesn't have to be all high-rises...in fact, those houses make more sense for Jacksonville.
Quote from: brainstormer on August 26, 2015, 08:33:25 PM
I would love to see a few townhomes incorporated into development of the other sites. Perhaps townhomes could "enclose" some of the planned surface lots. I think diversifying the types of housing available in the neighborhood would really add to it. It also would be kind of cool to build some "look alike" shotgun houses as a throwback to the history of Brooklyn. I know "look alike" houses aren't ideal, but infill housing in Springfield has worked out pretty well at maintaining the look of the historic district.
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/09/Natural-Talent-Design-Competition-The-Little-Easy-1.jpg)
It also wouldn't be much more expensive to make the first few floors of the office building parking. This would raise the height of the building, and also put the offices above 220 Riverside and provide beautiful views of the river and surrounding area. Having parking built into the footprint of the building would eliminate the need for so many surface lots. I agree, the developers should do everything possible to avoid surface parking that fronts the street.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on August 27, 2015, 09:55:38 PM
Why couldn't they have filled up LaVilla with homes like these? The core city density doesn't have to be all high-rises...in fact, those houses make more sense for Jacksonville.
Quote from: brainstormer on August 26, 2015, 08:33:25 PM
I would love to see a few townhomes incorporated into development of the other sites. Perhaps townhomes could "enclose" some of the planned surface lots. I think diversifying the types of housing available in the neighborhood would really add to it. It also would be kind of cool to build some "look alike" shotgun houses as a throwback to the history of Brooklyn. I know "look alike" houses aren't ideal, but infill housing in Springfield has worked out pretty well at maintaining the look of the historic district.
(http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2010/09/Natural-Talent-Design-Competition-The-Little-Easy-1.jpg)
It also wouldn't be much more expensive to make the first few floors of the office building parking. This would raise the height of the building, and also put the offices above 220 Riverside and provide beautiful views of the river and surrounding area. Having parking built into the footprint of the building would eliminate the need for so many surface lots. I agree, the developers should do everything possible to avoid surface parking that fronts the street.
They were there before but got torn down, you can still see some of them standing but abandoned. I think medium rise mixed use would be good for the Water Street, Jefferson, Bay and Forsyth corridors then a mix of those style homes one and two story and town homes throughout the rest of La Villa would be great. It's pretty much what the infrastructure is set up for and it would be going back to the original fabric. But by restoring what's there and infilling what has been lost, not just continue demo in hopes that some magical development will go in.
Let's not forget about the Church Street area in the norheast section of downtown though. I never hear anyone mention that area. It's the one part of downtown where a lot of the historic residents are still in tact, just need a little love. People live there currently but the area could be better. Since so much demolition has occurred in Jacksonville, the preservation if this small pocket must be a priority for a downtown masterplan.
^Cathedral District! I mention it from time to time. Yes, we should not forget about it.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 28, 2015, 07:30:59 AM
^Cathedral District! I mention it from time to time. Yes, we should not forget about it.
Cathedral District, sorry Lake, I knew it had a name, still relatively new to Jax. It's a shame they planted a "Community Transition Center" and jail in that area. Kind of discourages people from living there. And the transition center is right on what could potentially be a beautiful section of Hogan's Creak parkway. Kind of kills the whole Emerald Necklace urban park network idea in that section. They didn't really think that one through did they? Sort of like building a bunch of government buildings on the riverfront. It is as if there was a period of a few decades where the leaders of this city were actually on a mission to destroy downtown.
I really think the city needs to consider relocating the police station, jail and transition center out of that neighborhood and away from the water (both river and creek) to a tower with all three within the same tower. Not sure if the JEA building or the building at Duval and Julia could be repurposed for that or if a new tower would be needed. But over by the courthouse makes sense and placing all three in one also makes sense in my mind. No one would be able to tell what it is other than a police station if the jail and transition centers were on the upper floors. I posted long ago that there is one in Chicago that is a tower right in the loop and the average person walking by has no idea what the building actually is, just looks like another tower. There are literally thousands of people living (in nice places) and working all around it.