Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-5301-p1110136.JPG)
Metro Jacksonville highlights a selection of recently constructed projects in the Urban Core of Jacksonville and ranks them by their ability to help create a walkable environment.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/821
The hotels on the southbank make me sick everytime I see them. What a waste. As for a positive, the Everbank Building is one of my favorites.
Everbank and the Parks at the Cathedral ar my two favs.
Great article Ennis and thanks for pointing out the positives as well as the negatives.
Props to Parks @ the Cathedral....I'll let them know :D
after the laughter died down last Tuesday, Stephendare and I took another look at SAX SEAFOOD. Thinking "Anchor of the Trolley System". This building is suited well to becoming a first class museum, with gift shop, bistro, car shop and storage yard. Tracks could pull out onto Beaver to Davis, and hence South and help recreate one of the most exciting streets of the former Harlem District of LaVilla. Davis is small, quiet, yet fairly dense with some pretty cool places on both sides.
The Sax place is plenty tall enough, either in the kitchen? or the dining room areas. Lots of parking would make it a park and ride site for a host of historic venues. Beaver and Davis streets may still have streetcar tracks in them as both are historic Jacksonville Traction routes. The Sax location would do something else for our Streetcar operation. We would trump New Orleans, Memphis, Little Rock, Tampa, Ft. Smith or Dallas in having the museum/carbarn located just a block off the interstate with it's own exit/entrance. Moreover, we would have the only on with a brand new - turn key - exhibit space. Toss in a "World Class" hobby shop with internet/mail order and a focus on trolleys - railroads - highway systems - buses - air - ships - Navy and we would boost the operating income and offer yet ANOTHER spot for some family fun.
I invite all of you to head down there and take another good look for yourselves. Look at that high ceiling or roof. Look at the size of the place. Look at the location in relation to Water - Union Station - downtown. Look at it and tell me you don't hear bells!
If this city had just one visionary political type in a leadership position we could be all of that...
Ocklawaha
What ever happened to the idea of using the old Claude Nolan Building for this same purpose?
Anyway, there was an RFP out on this property and it just closed. I wonder who's going to get it.
Quote816 West Union Street (partially completed restaurant site)
Responses are currently being reviewed by staff. Please check back soon for more information.
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Jacksonville+Economic+Development+Commission/JEDC+Information/Real+Estate+RFPs.htm
I'm not feeling the plain, blockish red brick designs of that area at all- this is Florid after all - showcase some beauty!
I don't see people taking an interest unless a more modern, creative architectural space is created there. Jacksonville has plenty of "historic (old!)" to it already. Showcase some new creativity!
Apologies, but I have to insert shameless plug. EverBank Plaza is currently looking for retail tenants to occupy the amazing space along Riverside Avenue. I have attached some photos to show the great space. If you know someone who is interested, contact me at mcharden@hardenassociates.com. We have trolley stops at both sides of Riverside Avenue and 1,000 of employees in our building, BCBS, and FIS. Thanks for the nice comments.
Thanks for a great article Ennis! As a student of the FCCJ advanced campus..and always passing by I have always wondered why Lavilla School took up so much historic space? Why hasn't anyone thought of bringing back a block or two of the old school entertainment Venues?The Ritz just doesn't cut it..Imagine dragging old Blues Legends back to perform to the crowd that has always loved them.(Me too!) Didn't Ray and Leadbelly and Bo and , More than I can mention play in LaVilla before? I don't think we should be satisfied with the Ritz as the "Premier" LaVilla Entertainment venue. I Hope my Fine City has a worthy Private entertainment investor to step up to the plate. they would have to build new due to the "Demolition and figure it out later" mentality that is the usual Jax. A Serious Blues club in LaVilla could excite some of us....
The EverBank Plaza is a beautiful building/complex; would have been even more awesome looking with about 15 more stories added; but anyway, can't have your cake and eat it too; still a superb and beautiful building.
Heights Unknown -
Lakelander, Claude Nolan would work great if it could be restored to Prairie Style and the East side of the area used for park and parking. Some of the warehouse annex stuff might have to come out, but the main buildings could stay. On the other hand I had no idea that the Sax building was a possibility or that it was as big as it is. The location is certianly great, making every tourist visit an easy on/easy off deal. Otherwise, some other building may have to do. I figure the entire Park Street row from Union Station to 5-Points is threatened. There are only a couple hidden within downtown, or NE side of Springfield. While they might have some attraction, neither would be easy to find. Maybe the RFPs will come back duds and we can offer something exciting.
Ocklawaha
The Main Street "pocket park" really irritates me more than any other examples provided. Walking by it the other day, it quickly becomes apparent that it is completely useless. It is as if it is designed to be looked at and not actually used for anything. What were they thinking with this one?
QuoteIt is as if it is designed to be looked at and not actually used for anything.
I think you answered it. If the high priority was to design a public space to be used everyday by a diverse collection of pedestrians, it would have never been built in that configeration or location.
Quote from: ormolu611 on July 08, 2008, 10:56:31 AM
The Main Street "pocket park" really irritates me more than any other examples provided. Walking by it the other day, it quickly becomes apparent that it is completely useless. It is as if it is designed to be looked at and not actually used for anything. What were they thinking with this one?
Agreed. The park was clearly designed by amateurs, i.e. the Peyton administration. BTW, what is the photo in your avatar of? It is an interesting looking structure.
It looks like a brownstone.
It is a townhouse on Bull street from our neighboring city to the North, Savannah.
Quote from: ormolu611 on July 08, 2008, 10:56:31 AM
The Main Street "pocket park" really irritates me more than any other examples provided. Walking by it the other day, it quickly becomes apparent that it is completely useless. It is as if it is designed to be looked at and not actually used for anything. What were they thinking with this one?
I think their thought was that they had a vacant half lot used for library construction, and a park was easy to do.
The had DOT money to spend and they used on something that drive-by voters could see.
The DOT money had to be spent on Main Street. The park money came from the tree mitigation fund. So if they wanted to, they could have spent the DOT money fixing up the street and leaving the site like it was and make a little money by selling it back to the private sector.
I am all for new development but in my opinion 1661 Riverside Ave is not really a good example of "Urban Infill" like the article states. Maybe "good for Jacksonville" but not good for urban development. To me this project was constructed with a very suburban mindset.
1. The retail spaces are set back too far from the street which makes them not very visible to the passerby's. The location of these parcels could of attracted some great retail had they been more visible and closer to the street.
2. The retail spaces are separated by grass and gardens which potential customers have to walk through to get to the shops. The sidewalk in front of the stores is also far too narrow.
3. The sidewalks don't line up when crossing May St (I think it's May St?) forcing you to either cross the road or walk on the grass. (Why is there grass there anyway?)
Besides that, It destroyed a beautiful building designed by one of Jacksonville's most significant architects. One which I think could of been restored to a historic landmark and became a real destination for the area.
Cheers,
Shaan
www.nest-living.com
(//)
Quote from: nestliving on July 13, 2008, 04:06:33 PM
I am all for new development but in my opinion 1661 Riverside Ave is not really a good example of "Urban Infill" like the article states. Maybe "good for Jacksonville" but not good for urban development. To me this project was constructed with a very suburban mindset.
1. The retail spaces are set back too far from the street which makes them not very visible to the passerby's. The location of these parcels could of attracted some great retail had they been more visible and closer to the street.
2. The retail spaces are separated by grass and gardens which potential customers have to walk through to get to the shops. The sidewalk in front of the stores is also far too narrow.
3. The sidewalks don't line up when crossing May St (I think it's May St?) forcing you to either cross the road or walk on the grass. (Why is there grass there anyway?)
Besides that, It destroyed a beautiful building designed by one of Jacksonville's most significant architects. One which I think could of been restored to a historic landmark and became a real destination for the area.
I'm totally with you on #3 (it's actually Oak St) - it irritates me every time I walk through it. #2 is also an issue, but one that I think people deal with. I'm not sure what you mean about #1.
As far as destroying Hardwicks building, frankly I thought it was a very suburban oriented building with the parking lining the streets, and very difficult for pedestrian access.
1, 2 and 3 are correct but saving Hardwick's old structure?? That thing was ghastly. :-X
It was a huge improvement for the neighborhood when this eyesore and that of the old Riverside Hospital bit the dust.
I think the bottom line is that there are some (correctable) flaws with 1661 but, on the whole, it is an improvement and an asset to the neighborhood.
Quote1, 2 and 3 are correct but saving Hardwick's old structure?? That thing was ghastly.
Agreed. The old building was awful. While 1661 isn't perfect, its a lot better than most of the stuff they're building around Jax.
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
QuoteGhastly in Design or Condition?
Ghastly parking lot that separated the building from the sidewalk, offering no connectivity between it and the urban environment around it.
The Hardwick Building was a suburban design placed in the middle of an urban area. Imo, that era represented the Dark Ages of Urban Jacksonville development (1950's-1970's) as the beginning of Jax going from a pedestrian oriented walkable city to one that values automobiles and asphalt parking lots over people and the environment.
As for the architectural style, a lot of people don't like Moderism, but at least it was unique. We should be embarrassed with the amount of crap we are putting up today.
Quote from: nestliving on July 14, 2008, 12:25:31 PM
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
Both. It was a truly awful structure with few redeeming qualities.
Quote
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
It was an inappropriate structure for the site the day it was built and did not fit into the context of the area well. That area was never suburban in the sense that San Jose Blvd is. It was a fairly dense area from the beginning. So, the design of the building was a step back in terms of land use. I am glad it is gone and we can always appreciate it in memory. ;)
Quote
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
I seriously cannot envision how this structure was the highest and best use for this parcel. Sure, it could have been rehabbed and reused, but it was like an empty hole of lifelessness compared to what it is now.
Quote from: nestliving on July 14, 2008, 12:25:31 PM
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.
As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...
Quote from: thelakelander on July 14, 2008, 12:48:19 PM
QuoteGhastly in Design or Condition?
As for the architectural style, a lot of people don't like Moderism, but at least it was unique. We should be embarrassed with the amount of crap we are putting up today.
I would have to say that Modernism is much more popular in this city than preservation.
Neither seems to be popular to me, but preservation is an afterthought in Jacksonville.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on July 14, 2008, 03:24:44 PM
Quote from: nestliving on July 14, 2008, 12:25:31 PM
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.
As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...
Maybe it's proper for an Australian to say "could of"...I don't know. The grammar doesn't really upset me as much, obviously.
Quote from: cline on July 14, 2008, 08:33:17 AM
Quote1, 2 and 3 are correct but saving Hardwick's old structure?? That thing was ghastly.
While 1661 isn't perfect, its a lot better than most of the stuff they're building around Jax.
Well, here is the problem. ;D
"Oh, it's good enough for Jacksonville.."
Quote from: JoeMerchant on July 15, 2008, 12:31:33 PM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on July 14, 2008, 03:24:44 PM
Quote from: nestliving on July 14, 2008, 12:25:31 PM
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.
As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...
Maybe it's proper for an Australian to say "could of"...I don't know. The grammar doesn't really upset me as much, obviously.
Funny you say that. I had to actually look it up to see, but he (or she) is right and proved that I am an uneducated shopkeeper. He
could of told me something I didn't know.
I was going to respond in typical Australian fashion but was tired.I'll just beat the shit out of him at the pub next time I see him.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
QuoteWell, here is the problem. "Oh, it's good enough for Jacksonville.."
Actually I don't think that 1661 is simply "good enough" I happen to think that it is a great addition to that neighborhood in particular and Jacksonville in general. I like that more retail is coming into the first floor and creating a more vibrant pedestrian environment. But I suppose if you prefer an old building with a large surface parking lot separating it from the street then you would be upset with the demolition of the old structure.
Quote from: nestliving on July 15, 2008, 12:59:24 PM
Funny you say that. I had to actually look it up to see, but he (or she) is right and proved that I am an uneducated shopkeeper. He could of told me something I didn't know.
I was going to respond in typical Australian fashion but was tired.I'll just beat the shit out of him at the pub next time I see him.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
LOL. yes, it is "he" and you're gonna beat the shit out of "him"...although I hope you don't. Don't take it personally, man, we all make mistakes, especially typing in message boards and forums online. For whatever reason though (it's not important to explain), I got frustrated over this one, and since you did it four out of four times I thought it was clearly not just a typo. And I was right...now that you've looked it up, you know the proper wording.
As for the "uneducated shopkeeper," I'm aware you're just being facetiously self-deprecating, but nevertheless I'll respond. I've just recently nurtured an interest in urban development, transit planning and downtown revitalization...so while I'm quite ignorant of these topics, I've learned a tremendous amount from everyone's opinions, yours among them. I really appreciate all the insight, uneducated shopkeepers' included. ;D
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on July 15, 2008, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: nestliving on July 15, 2008, 12:59:24 PM
LOL. yes, it is "he" and you're gonna beat the shit out of "him"...although I hope you don't. Don't take it personally, man, we all make mistakes, especially typing in message boards and forums online. For whatever reason though (it's not important to explain), I got frustrated over this one, and since you did it four out of four times I thought it was clearly not just a typo. And I was right...now that you've looked it up, you know the proper wording.
As for the "uneducated shopkeeper," I'm aware you're just being facetiously self-deprecating, but nevertheless I'll respond. I've just recently nurtured an interest in urban development, transit planning and downtown revitalization...so while I'm quite ignorant of these topics, I've learned a tremendous amount from everyone's opinions, yours among them. I really appreciate all the insight, uneducated shopkeepers' included. ;D
no worries...I am cool with my terrible spelling and writing skills. You should however add modern American design to your list of interests, as it seems as though we need some support in this city. In many major cities throughout the world that building would of been celebrated and in my opinion by having it demolished, was very simple minded. We as a city need to be better at blending architectural styles and quit making new construction look old. The rest of the world has, and it changes the fabric of an area and adds to it's appeal.
One day we are going to be pissed that we as a city destroyed a really cool era in architecture.
FYI. I think that nestliving has a really good collection of design/Urban Infill/Architecture/Sustainability books for you to check out! ;)
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Quote from: cline on July 15, 2008, 01:37:35 PM
QuoteWell, here is the problem. "Oh, it's good enough for Jacksonville.."
Actually I don't think that 1661 is simply "good enough" I happen to think that it is a great addition to that neighborhood in particular and Jacksonville in general. I like that more retail is coming into the first floor and creating a more vibrant pedestrian environment. But I suppose if you prefer an old building with a large surface parking lot separating it from the street then you would be upset with the demolition of the old structure.
It's not an either/or argument for me. The lot could have been used in a much better way, and I agree with Shaan about the problems the new building carries.
I think the surface lot of the old 1661 could have been in-filled with something and kept the structure itself intact.
Just look at the horrible behemoths they were going to replace the old library with, until finally, a group came up with a plan to use the existing building.
Rehabs can be done, they're just sometimes not easy...and Jacksonville loves "easy".