Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-4043-jacksonsquare-jta1.jpg)
Opposition is brewing in San Marco concerning the impact of Jacksonville's latest proposed transit oriented development. Can common ground be found between opposing sides?
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/881
Jacksonville needs this project if you ask me! I don't see why we shouldn't built it.
That would be a major improvement to that stretch of Phillips Hwy.I guess the ladies of the night would have to relocate to Beaver Street.Sounds right!!!!Just Kidding ..I hope this is built
.
Try it; you'll like it. Trust me. I know. ;)
Another benefit of closing the crossing is the city earns money $$, Yeah, the DOT has a program to help close excess rail crossings and the perks are around 10/20,000 per. Not a fortune, but money that will buy some nice benches, or a kiosk in that park.
Add to this, the "good will" if we did it telling the FEC this is just the start, allow commter rail and we'll be bridging or closing a bunch more. To the railroad that spells safety, liability relief and dollars. Sometimes Millions of dollars.
OCKLAWAHA
I definitely like the alternative of moving the building on the west side of Philips to the roadside. The eastside of the development where the residential is proposed already does this. Plus, it will make the walk that much shorter for the residents and commuters to access.
What? Tear down Money Earnin' Mount Vernon Motor Lodge? Now I'll have to find another hotel for the inlaws this Christmas.
I agree that it should be store front we have enough surface parking lots in jax already. One thing that I would like to see is the skyway going down phillips hwy. It would bring alot of foot traffic along the corridor making phillips a destination and oneday hopefully it could make it all the way to the avenues mall (HOPEFULLY).
QuoteOne thing that I would like to see is the skyway going down phillips hwy. It would bring alot of foot traffic along the corridor making phillips a destination and oneday hopefully it could make it all the way to the avenues mall (HOPEFULLY).
The Skyway is not designed as a regional system, rather a short distance downtown carrier-shuttle. It certainly needs expansion to become truely viable, but this is in the Brooklyn-North Riverside, Stadium-Bay Street, King Street Station-San Marco segments. Extensions to the new Courthouse, to Myrtle, or North to Shands are not impossible either.
At least one plan for Jackson Square calls for the Skyway to reach the development. Otherwise, Avenues and points south all the way to St. Augustine will have to be commuter rail (the Skyway is expensive). Light Rail might also play into the picture, but I think more in an eastward direction to the beaches. OCKLAWAHA
I see what u mean ock. my head was in the clouds
yo ock i think u should make a map of the all the places the skyway should go so i can get a idea of the area. I'm new in jax
I can't really see why residents on River Oaks would want the access to be blocked across the rail lines???
Suppose this project does lift off the ground and there are retail stores popping up along Philips, do they really want to drive North to Atlantic cross over and get to Philips? They may be regretting that in the future if they do succeed in shutting down access.
I hope this project does go through...as long as the area doesn't clean up to the point where it's no longer entertaining to drive along Philips Hwy afterwork.
That's the negative in closing the crossing. Grids typically work better than Cul-de-sacs. River Oaks residents will most likely end up driving to the retail shops (one site plan shows a pharmacy like a Walgreens/CVS) and restaurants that this center will offer. This means they'll most likely use the residential streets just to the south that connect San Jose Blvd. with St. Augustine Road. So the negative impact of going to an arterial based suburban road layout is you end up increasing traffic on a few similar streets, to reduce traffic on one. By keeping all streets open, you spread out traffic on several streets because drivers (River Oaks drivers included) have multiple access points to reach various destinations.
I would assume another reason for closing the crossing would be to eliminate direct access between a lower and higher income area. Anyway, I can't speak for River Oaks residents. I'm sure as the public debates begin, everyone will learn more about the existing community's desire. The main thing is that even if everyone does not see eye to eye, everyone must be willing to work together to create a project the entire community can be proud of.
Gotta weigh in here on the neighbors' side:
In theory - the "spread the traffic out" concept makes sense. However, in reality, River Oaks Road is the most direct link and people use the heck out of it today. That's ONLY going to get worse with apartments and retail. There's no way you're going to convince the neighbors that the traffic will use Philips Hwy exclusively. See attached pictures of River Oaks on a congested day this July. Again, PRE-Jax Sq.
By the way -- why is there NO discussion of using the roads on the OTHER side of the development -- Perry Place, Mitchell Avenue, Bethune -- as access. Well, first of all -- the city gave a number of them away to the developer. But there are still some that are open and not being considered as access points to the development AT ALL. Wonder what property owners over there did to get access from their side restricted?
Back to the RR crossing issue: this is a dangerous crossing that simply cannot handle more traffic. Evidence of this can be found in a COJ-sponsored study of the crossing in 2006 that recommended its closure. FEC FULLY supports closing the crossing and has VOLUNTEERED to pay for the removal of the signals ($100K) and the barricades that will be necessary.
I also somewhat disagree with the theory put forward here that Jackson Sq and the River Oaks crossing closing are two separate issues. The traffic impact of Jackson Square is what is pushing the neighborhood into protective mode. Sure, we wanted the crossing closed before because it's dangerous, but the risk escalates exponentially as you put hundreds more cars on this barely two lane street.
Here's a picture of the road on a busy day. Tell me that hundreds more cars on here is a good idea.
pictures included here...
First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)
Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)
Quote from: midnightblackrx on August 26, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
I can't really see why residents on River Oaks would want the access to be blocked across the rail lines???
Suppose this project does lift off the ground and there are retail stores popping up along Philips, do they really want to drive North to Atlantic cross over and get to Philips? They may be regretting that in the future if they do succeed in shutting down access.
I hope this project does go through...as long as the area doesn't clean up to the point where it's no longer entertaining to drive along Philips Hwy afterwork.
We would do what you people want us to -- WE WOULD WALK!!!
Being a San Marco resident of 35 years, I am trying to understand the benefit. For one thing: Is the ferderally subsidized housing?, Since there will be 950 units, that means, at least over 1,900 temporary residents, which means probably over 1,000 vehicles. That is a huge impact on that small corridor., Does everybody realize that the Skyway is not city funded but federally funded since it's inception?, If the feds have not extended so far, what makes you think they will now? They havent even extended it to the stadium. And for the retail, which is my business, until it's built, anything can change even after initial planning approval. They show an electronics store. You think Best Buy. It will probably be a Save-a-Lot. You see an office supply and think Ofice Depot. It will probably be some sort of mega pawn shop. Thank God the FDOT has access approval. I'm not trying to stereo-type, I'm just saying that this project has the potential to do more harm than good. And I'm sure that they will be asking for some sort of city assistance, being loans, real estate tax deferment, etc. The city and taxpayers got burned with the shipyards, do you think that the city and tax payers can't get burned again.
What do the residents of San Marco want there? All would agree that what is/was there was very rundown. I am sure we do not need another strip mall complete with Taco Bell and McDonalds...
Yup, River Oaks Road clearly doesn't have the capacity to handle any more traffic. This traffic would come from a chunk of the 900+ residents using it as a short cut to Hendricks (especially those with kids at Hendricks elementary), and retail-generated traffic from San Marco. It's already everybody's favorite short-cut, and the main arteries can handle the diversion of its closure. Is anyone proposing that a residential street take pressure off of 4-lane roads like Atlantic?
Residents would be more likely favor the development if:
-direct access to River Oaks Road via Summerall were eliminated. This would take some short-cut pressure off the street.
-sufficient on-site parking were required. The PUD application for Jackson Square calls for only half the parking capacity required by zoning laws. This creates an incentive for people to park on side streets, especially River Oaks Road.
-JTA makes contracts and commitments for a light rail/BRT station at Jackson Square. Current JTA studies recommend Emerson Street over Jackson Square for a station because it has everything River Oaks doesn't: a multi-lane east/west corridor, existing commuter parking, & an improved rail crossing. If Jackson Square gets passed over for a transit station, you can bet there'll be a lot more cars going down River Oaks Road.
-residential units were reduced by half or two-thirds the current number. Any way you slice it, more residents=more traffic. 900 units=a lot of traffic.
See, River Oaks Road is already pedestrian friendly. It's a 10-minute walk to San Marco Square. It's already transit friendly; you can hop on the bus at Hendricks or Phillips. It's not like it's a swanky neighborhood; it's solid working/middle class. I can understand why residents wouldn't want their quality of life to go south in the name of what they already have.
I'm all in favor of infill/transit-oriented/pedestrian-friendly development, as long as it's proportional, sensitive to its surroundings, and safe from a traffic angle. TOD's are meant to reduce traffic, not increase it.
Thanks for readin'.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on August 26, 2008, 03:42:17 PM
What do the residents of San Marco want there? All would agree that what is/was there was very rundown. I am sure we do not need another strip mall complete with Taco Bell and McDonalds...
My apologies... I meant the side facing Phillips... NOT the surrounding homeowners...
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2008, 12:39:26 PM
That's the negative in closing the crossing. Grids typically work better than Cul-de-sacs. River Oaks residents will most likely end up driving to the retail shops (one site plan shows a pharmacy like a Walgreens/CVS) and restaurants that this center will offer. This means they'll most likely use the residential streets just to the south that connect San Jose Blvd. with St. Augustine Road. So the negative impact of going to an arterial based suburban road layout is you end up increasing traffic on a few similar streets, to reduce traffic on one. By keeping all streets open, you spread out traffic on several streets because drivers (River Oaks drivers included) have multiple access points to reach various destinations.
Lake is on point with this. Perfect example is College, Post, Forbes, Park, Riverside Ave during rush hour. When they were redoing Park Street, Post & College got packed more then they normally did. I don't think closing that rail crossing is a good idea.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 26, 2008, 02:03:05 PM
pictures included here...
First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)
Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)
omg...there is ONE car moving down the road...the others appear to be parked!
Quote from: southerngirl on August 26, 2008, 02:06:36 PM
Quote from: midnightblackrx on August 26, 2008, 12:16:41 PM
I can't really see why residents on River Oaks would want the access to be blocked across the rail lines???
Suppose this project does lift off the ground and there are retail stores popping up along Philips, do they really want to drive North to Atlantic cross over and get to Philips? They may be regretting that in the future if they do succeed in shutting down access.
I hope this project does go through...as long as the area doesn't clean up to the point where it's no longer entertaining to drive along Philips Hwy afterwork.
from what I hear, some neighbors also want a massive wall where River Oaks would get closed off...if that gets built, how would you walk to Jackson Square?
We would do what you people want us to -- WE WOULD WALK!!!
Quote from: aceman on August 26, 2008, 03:36:15 PM
Being a San Marco resident of 35 years, I am trying to understand the benefit. For one thing: Is the ferderally subsidized housing?, Since there will be 950 units, that means, at least over 1,900 temporary residents, which means probably over 1,000 vehicles. That is a huge impact on that small corridor., Does everybody realize that the Skyway is not city funded but federally funded since it's inception?, If the feds have not extended so far, what makes you think they will now? They havent even extended it to the stadium. And for the retail, which is my business, until it's built, anything can change even after initial planning approval. They show an electronics store. You think Best Buy. It will probably be a Save-a-Lot. You see an office supply and think Ofice Depot. It will probably be some sort of mega pawn shop. Thank God the FDOT has access approval. I'm not trying to stereo-type, I'm just saying that this project has the potential to do more harm than good. And I'm sure that they will be asking for some sort of city assistance, being loans, real estate tax deferment, etc. The city and taxpayers got burned with the shipyards, do you think that the city and tax payers can't get burned again.
I strongly disagree...first off, there is nothing that implies this project is federally subsidized housing...it will likely be fairly upscale, taking advantage of the proximity to Downtown, Southbank, San Marco, and Riverside....if traffic was your only real concern, you would not have even mentioned the potential of "lower class" people living there.
Since you are a resident of San Marco you should clearly understand the lack of basic retail in the area...I mean the closest grocery stores are Publix at University/St. Augustine and Winn Dixie at University/Hendricks...so what makes you think that things like a grocery store, Best Buy, and Office Depot can't happen?
THIS JUST IN...
City Council just heard public comment on this project....but they have agreed to re-open the comment period at the 9/9 meeting ( 2 weeks)
The project approval timeline will also have a 4 week extension in order to allow more coordinatoion between the developer, the neighborhood, and City staff.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 26, 2008, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: southerngirl on August 26, 2008, 02:03:05 PM
pictures included here...
First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)
Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)
omg...there is ONE car moving down the road...the others appear to be parked!
EXACTLY! When there are cars parked on both sides of River Oaks -- the street CANNOT handle two lanes of traffic. The cars in these shots on the sides of the road ARE PARKED! And only one car can get down it.
NOW, imagine that same street, PLUS Jackson Sq. traffic, PLUS the speed bumps some people think will solve the problem. Oh yeah -- a train -- or MANY MORE TRAINS -- are coming. What do you do???
Quote from: southerngirl on August 26, 2008, 08:44:21 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 26, 2008, 06:04:14 PM
Quote from: southerngirl on August 26, 2008, 02:03:05 PM
pictures included here...
First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)
Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)
omg...there is ONE car moving down the road...the others appear to be parked!
EXACTLY! When there are cars parked on both sides of River Oaks -- the street CANNOT handle two lanes of traffic. The cars in these shots on the sides of the road ARE PARKED! And only one car can get down it.
NOW, imagine that same street, PLUS Jackson Sq. traffic, PLUS the speed bumps some people think will solve the problem. Oh yeah -- a train -- or MANY MORE TRAINS -- are coming. What do you do???
simple...the same thing done in most places....either yield (which you all probably do now)...or if its really an issue, restrict on-street parking to one side of the road.
I'm sorry but whenever you see this type of plan its always important to ask if the housing would be available for section 8 subsides. The atlantic ran a great story on memphis and the effects of section 8 dispersal
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime
Having lived in a development that was destroyed by section 8 housing, its a question that has to be asked.
I think the real issue here is everyone says they encourage and want to see projects like these, but not in their neighborhoods....
That section of San Marco on Philips has been a slum for years and unless something like this kind of developement happens it will be a slum for the next 50 years.
Even the location leads me to think it will be a pretty decent project.
And as for all the cars parked on River Oaks, how can moderate size houses have so many cars anyway?
I live on a similar street in Avondale and there are 3 or 4 cars per house which means 2 of them have to be parked on the street. And most of the houses on my street are between 1000 to maybe 1400 sq ft with 2 to 3 bedrooms....
It's a giant pain to back out of your driveway and sometimes cars gets backed into or sideswiped. BUT on the plus side most people avoid my street because you HAVE to drive slowly to navigate....
So River Oaks could be bumper cars or not nearly as bad as you might think. At least you can be sure people probably won't be able to speed through.....
First: If River Oaks is like my street, it gets a lot of residential services: delivery trucks, yard services, cable trucks, the works. That's where on-street parking cannot be fixed by residents just parking in their driveways.
Second: Who wouldn't love, LOVE to have a transit oriented development in their neighborhood. Hop a train downtown, or to St. Augustine. But, will JTA build light rail? And will they build a station at Jackson Square? Will there be transit?
Third: Quality retail would be TERRIFIC. I hear they need a grocery store.
BUT...
900 apartments? on 17 acres? 50+ units per acre? 900+ cars and only half the parking? 90 foot towers?
That's just too BIG. And it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fit that on the space. What nobody here gets is that Jackson Square has applied for waivers on ALL RESTRICTIONS so they can build whatever they want if their pie in the sky doesn't bake. Their zoning application bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the lovely renderings you see above.
So scale back the residential portion. Get a 50/50 residential/retail ratio. Provide sufficient parking ON SITE. Limit height to 3 or 4 stories. Get a contract with JTA and guarantee the transit. It can't be all or nothing, folks; we've got to find a middle ground. Middle ground makes for livable neighborhoods.
If River Oaks wants to close their crossing and miss out on a good thing, let 'em. But they'd better get behind speed bumps on their parallel streets. They'd owe it to their neighbors.
P.S. As I understand it, Jackson Square is privately backed, and is receiving no federal dollars for construction. They hope to convert from apartments to condos several years down the line. I'm rooting for that scenario, but that's leaving a lot to chance. And it doesn't preclude HUD conversion 8 years after it's been built. Just because the feds aren't on board now doesn't mean they won't be later.
Quote from: hound dog on August 27, 2008, 12:03:50 AM
P.S. As I understand it, Jackson Square is privately backed, and is receiving no federal dollars for construction. They hope to convert from apartments to condos several years down the line. I'm rooting for that scenario, but that's leaving a lot to chance. And it doesn't preclude HUD conversion 8 years after it's been built. Just because the feds aren't on board now doesn't mean they won't be later.
What type of HUD housing comes with multiple private swimming pools, multiple parking garages and 350,000 square feet of office/retail space? The investment it would take to get something like this off the ground eliminates the possibility of it converting to HUD housing. The land would sit vacant before that happens.
Quote from: hound dog on August 26, 2008, 11:56:06 PM
First: If River Oaks is like my street, it gets a lot of residential services: delivery trucks, yard services, cable trucks, the works. That's where on-street parking cannot be fixed by residents just parking in their driveways.
Second: Who wouldn't love, LOVE to have a transit oriented development in their neighborhood. Hop a train downtown, or to St. Augustine. But, will JTA build light rail? And will they build a station at Jackson Square? Will there be transit?
Good point. The commuter rail study does not recommend a station being added at Jackson Square. However, the station locations identified so far are only being done so to generate ridership numbers. There's nothing stopping a potential system from having a station at Emerson AND Jackson Square (assuming its built). Nevertheless, there should be some commitment from JTA regarding mass transit coming into the area. I assume the commitment right now is BRT, not commuter rail.
QuoteThird: Quality retail would be TERRIFIC. I hear they need a grocery store.
BUT...
900 apartments? on 17 acres? 50+ units per acre? 900+ cars and only half the parking? 90 foot towers?
That's just too BIG. And it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fit that on the space. What nobody here gets is that Jackson Square has applied for waivers on ALL RESTRICTIONS so they can build whatever they want if their pie in the sky doesn't bake. Their zoning application bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the lovely renderings you see above.
They have 17.31 acres. That's a lot of land for a vertical project. The site is ideal for a project of this magnitude.
QuoteSo scale back the residential portion. Get a 50/50 residential/retail ratio. Provide sufficient parking ON SITE. Limit height to 3 or 4 stories. Get a contract with JTA and guarantee the transit. It can't be all or nothing, folks; we've got to find a middle ground. Middle ground makes for livable neighborhoods.
Retail generates more traffic then residential. Going 50/50 would increase the proposed amount of traffic. There are other ways to meet the middle ground, then reducing components that may end up in the development becoming unfeasible.
QuoteIf River Oaks wants to close their crossing and miss out on a good thing, let 'em. But they'd better get behind speed bumps on their parallel streets. They'd owe it to their neighbors.
I'm torn on this one. On one end, I see how closing the crossing can be a negative for automobile traffic movement. However, closing it benefits the effort to bring commuter rail to this corridor. As for River Oaks residents walking to this development (someone mentioned this in an earlier post), that brings just as much liability to FEC as the existing crossing does (unless a pedestrian overpass is constructed).
Quote from: hound dog on August 26, 2008, 03:42:53 PM
Residents would be more likely favor the development if:
-direct access to River Oaks Road via Summerall were eliminated. This would take some short-cut pressure off the street.
-sufficient on-site parking were required. The PUD application for Jackson Square calls for only half the parking capacity required by zoning laws. This creates an incentive for people to park on side streets, especially River Oaks Road.
Assuming the crossing is closed, does having a restriction in off-street parking even matter? Its well known that our current zoning laws require more parking than actually needed. This defeats the purposes of having a TOD. Besides, most vibrant urban areas take advantage of on-street parking. A closed River Oaks (east of the tracks) offers the opportunity for existing public infrastructure to be used for excess parking.
Civil - Interesting article and interesting point. It is a valid question and I would not be satisfied if I lived in the area and it were not addressed.
I have seen areas though, such the Gateway Project in Columbus, OH that have transformed crack-ridden areas into attractive residential and commercial destinations.
First of all I didn't say it was federally funded. I just asked the question. Also, if you read the post traffic is not my only concern. As I live within 1/4 mile of this proposed project, crime is also a concern. Next, I do understand the lack of a grocery store. I really could care less about having other retail as Lakewood and Riverside are within a 5 minute drive. Now lets get to the real point of your comment. Do you truely believe that tgis will be upscale. Allow me to take you for a walk down Philips. Immediately south on the left is federally subsidized housing. I guess the government will evict all tenant's in lieu of this project. Then we stroll alittle further to the road that leads to Douglas Anderson. This is a very low income neighborhood. I guess they will be asked to relocate. Then further down on the right, we have the juvenile detention facility, encased in barbed wire. I guess the city will jump on relocating this also. Then, of course on the left, we have the adult only motel. I am sure that, when family members come in town for holidays to catch up with other family members living in this upscale development, they will have a close place to stay. Go a little further down and on thright we have another transient motel, albeit newly painted. The we have Emerson, gotta love Sable Palms subsidized housing to the right and to the left you have Wakko's. I heard they have a great lunch special. I can keep going on and on but if you think that people will do a drive by and pay top dollar for an upscale in this neighborhood, when maybe 10 years down the road it may be cleaned up a little, your crazy. They know this. Plus If someone was going to pay top dollar, why wouldn't they buy into one af the several units available on the river? The reason they stopped construction on the East San Marco development is because of the glut in high end condos and apartments, so your saying that someone is going against the grain and is smarter than Regency and St. Joe. OK. Besides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 26, 2008, 06:13:25 PM
Quote from: aceman on August 26, 2008, 03:36:15 PM
Being a San Marco resident of 35 years, I am trying to understand the benefit. For one thing: Is the ferderally subsidized housing?, Since there will be 950 units, that means, at least over 1,900 temporary residents, which means probably over 1,000 vehicles. That is a huge impact on that small corridor., Does everybody realize that the Skyway is not city funded but federally funded since it's inception?, If the feds have not extended so far, what makes you think they will now? They havent even extended it to the stadium. And for the retail, which is my business, until it's built, anything can change even after initial planning approval. They show an electronics store. You think Best Buy. It will probably be a Save-a-Lot. You see an office supply and think Ofice Depot. It will probably be some sort of mega pawn shop. Thank God the FDOT has access approval. I'm not trying to stereo-type, I'm just saying that this project has the potential to do more harm than good. And I'm sure that they will be asking for some sort of city assistance, being loans, real estate tax deferment, etc. The city and taxpayers got burned with the shipyards, do you think that the city and tax payers can't get burned again.
I strongly disagree...first off, there is nothing that implies this project is federally subsidized housing...it will likely be fairly upscale, taking advantage of the proximity to Downtown, Southbank, San Marco, and Riverside....if traffic was your only real concern, you would not have even mentioned the potential of "lower class" people living there.
Since you are a resident of San Marco you should clearly understand the lack of basic retail in the area...I mean the closest grocery stores are Publix at University/St. Augustine and Winn Dixie at University/Hendricks...so what makes you think that things like a grocery store, Best Buy, and Office Depot can't happen?
Lakelander, good points. Thanks for the constructive dialog!
QuoteI can keep going on and on but if you think that people will do a drive by and pay top dollar for an upscale in this neighborhood, when maybe 10 years down the road it may be cleaned up a little, your crazy. They know this. Plus If someone was going to pay top dollar, why wouldn't they buy into one af the several units available on the river? The reason they stopped construction on the East San Marco development is because of the glut in high end condos and apartments, so your saying that someone is going against the grain and is smarter than Regency and St. Joe. OK.
As was mentioned by a previous poster, revitalization has to start somewhere. You mention that in 10 years the road might be cleaned up a little. How can this happen if new projects can never get off the ground? Should the land just remain an abandoned lot? That's not going to start any revitalization.
Perhaps the developer should just scrap this project and build another strip joint or seedy motel. That way it would fit in with the current fabric of Philips Highway. Why even try to make a change for the better, right?
The question of can this area be improved easily with development is a no brainer. Lets see St. Nicholas, the south bank and FREAKIN San Marco are on it's borders. I just do not understand the keep it pristine for the prostitutes plan of preserving quality of life and home values. So people who rent apartments are worse than hookers, drug dealers, abandoned properties and seedy motels. At least the traffic argument makes sense and should be addressed but this fear that the developers will drag Phillips highway down is ridiculous.
This is only loosely related to the topic, but River Oaks road is the epitome of the "wrong side of the tracks" cliché. I use it on a daily basis to cut from Phillips to Hendricks, the very reason the nearby residents want it closed off. The transition from down-trodden hooker infested slum to lovely historic tree lined neighborhood is instantaneous! I mean BAM as soon as you cross the tracks it's noticeable. You'd think they would have wanted it already closed off in the past just to separate their neighborhood from the seedy Phillips corridor.
Also, didn't the residents of River Hills drive at Univ & Atlantic have a similar push years ago to block their street off for the same reason?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v451/eldeadcow/riverhills.jpg)
I'm not sure if they were successful with the push to close the road and if they were, i'm curious if the traffic calming benefits was really worth it.
Quote from: hound dog on August 27, 2008, 11:07:15 AM
Lakelander, good points. Thanks for the constructive dialog!
No problem. I believe everyone having constructive dialog is a sound way to come up and implement solutions that make all parties winners in the end.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 26, 2008, 12:39:26 PM
That's the negative in closing the crossing. Grids typically work better than Cul-de-sacs. River Oaks residents will most likely end up driving to the retail shops (one site plan shows a pharmacy like a Walgreens/CVS) and restaurants that this center will offer. This means they'll most likely use the residential streets just to the south that connect San Jose Blvd. with St. Augustine Road. So the negative impact of going to an arterial based suburban road layout is you end up increasing traffic on a few similar streets, to reduce traffic on one. By keeping all streets open, you spread out traffic on several streets because drivers (River Oaks drivers included) have multiple access points to reach various destinations.
That's exactly what I think.
Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as a motorist.
Quote from: aceman on August 27, 2008, 11:01:28 AM
First of all I didn't say it was federally funded. I just asked the question. Also, if you read the post traffic is not my only concern. As I live within 1/4 mile of this proposed project, crime is also a concern. Next, I do understand the lack of a grocery store. I really could care less about having other retail as Lakewood and Riverside are within a 5 minute drive. Now lets get to the real point of your comment. Do you truely believe that tgis will be upscale. Allow me to take you for a walk down Philips. Immediately south on the left is federally subsidized housing. I guess the government will evict all tenant's in lieu of this project. Then we stroll alittle further to the road that leads to Douglas Anderson. This is a very low income neighborhood. I guess they will be asked to relocate.
Check out Channelside (Tampa), Columbia Heights (DC), the Saltillo District (Austin). All of these are examples of shady areas of town, once in worse shape than Philips, that have turned around with the help of transit oriented developments. There's too many successful examples out there to believe that this can't be done.......if carried out right.
QuoteThen further down on the right, we have the juvenile detention facility, encased in barbed wire. I guess the city will jump on relocating this also. Then, of course on the left, we have the adult only motel. I am sure that, when family members come in town for holidays to catch up with other family members living in this upscale development, they will have a close place to stay. Go a little further down and on thright we have another transient motel, albeit newly painted. The we have Emerson, gotta love Sable Palms subsidized housing to the right and to the left you have Wakko's. I heard they have a great lunch special. I can keep going on and on but if you think that people will do a drive by and pay top dollar for an upscale in this neighborhood, when maybe 10 years down the road it may be cleaned up a little, your crazy. They know this.
Typically, a development goes in that appeals to a market rate (not luxury) crowd. That project exposes the area's potential and then slum lords sell their blighted properties to make a profit. New projects take over those, while others are renovated and over time the entire district has changed. In some areas, this process can happen fairly quickly (within 5 to 10 years). Anyway, I don't think Philips will become Ponte Vedra anytime soon. But it can become a sustainable urban working class neighborhood and commercial corridor for San Marco and the surrounding Inner Southside neighborhoods. That would be a major plus for everyone.
QuotePlus If someone was going to pay top dollar, why wouldn't they buy into one af the several units available on the river? The reason they stopped construction on the East San Marco development is because of the glut in high end condos and apartments, so your saying that someone is going against the grain and is smarter than Regency and St. Joe. OK.
East San Marco stopped because the condo market (not rental) went downhill. However, I've heard from friends in the industry that it may be getting ready to get started again as apartments instead of condos.
QuoteBesides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?
Development, Real Estate, Architecture and Land Planning. My opinion has always been that Jacksonville is about ten years behind most of its peer cities in catching on and embracing the trends. This style of development has been highly successful in similar sized communities for a long time now. Once we catch on and accept them, they'll be highly successful here as well. If anyone is smart and has a little extra cash to burn, now is a good time to invest in surrounding property along the Philips Highway corridor.
Anyone know why the developer is focused on a River Oaks entrance and stating in their PUD that there will be NO entrance to the development from the Perry/Mitchell side? There are far fewer homes on that side of the development -- it borders the railroad and FirstStar has bought up many of the others.
Why don't they create their second entrance on THAT side -- which connects directly to Atlantic?
I noticed that on the plan. I also wonder why these streets are not connected. If community integration is a key, the development would be better integrated into the community if it were directly connected to streets surrounding it on all sides.
FDOT is also planning to rebuild the nearby I-95 interchange. I wonder how that design will affect the small residential neighborhood to the north?
QuoteFDOT is also planning to rebuild the nearby I-95 interchange. I wonder how that design will affect the small residential neighborhood to the north?
Bulldozers....
Quote from: aceman on August 27, 2008, 11:01:28 AM
Besides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?
I am an urban planner with a specialization in transportation planning. I have a Masters degree in Urban Planning and have been certified since 1998. Is this good enough?
Quote from: David on August 27, 2008, 12:08:28 PM
Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as motorist.
The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't. The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ. It's dangerous and overcrowded.
Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings. River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.
I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.
The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards. And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.
NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community?
Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 03:10:23 PM
Quote from: David on August 27, 2008, 12:08:28 PM
Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as a motorist.
The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't. The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ. It's dangerous and overcrowded.
Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings. River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.
I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.
The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards. And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.
NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community?
Very much so. Thanks for clarfiying!
So only people living near this area would have a say?
Don't you think that people whose homes, kids, cars and lives are directly tied to the street should have a bit more say than cut-through commuters?
We know that River Oaks Road is a nice convenience for cut-throughers. Let me tell you about one I saw today at about 2 p.m. She was a high schooler, driving a big SUV, no seatbelt, flying down River Oaks doing at least 45 trying to catch the light. This is what we see all day every day. And that's before Jackson Square traffic starts doing the same dangerous things.
Add hundreds more of these folks onto our little streets and it'll be no time before there are painful lessons the city learns about listening to the people who know what traffic does on this street.
I haven't read everything in this thread, so forgive me if this has been covered already, but is the ONLY significant objection to this project from the neighborhood, is the impact on traffic on River Oaks?
If so, it seems to me a remediation or compromise could be found.
Perhaps what is needed for River Oaks (regardless of this project, since speeding/cut throughs are already a problem) is speed bumps.
I recently lived on a street with significant cut through traffic. Speed bumps (too large to take at normal speed limit) were added, as were small shrub 'islands' at a couple of intersections (which narrowed both lanes). These had a noticeable effect on speed and reduced cut-throwns quite a bit. Inexpensive traffic calming measures do work.
Quote from: vicupstate on August 27, 2008, 07:53:52 PM
I haven't read everything in this thread, so forgive me if this has been covered already, but is the ONLY significant objection to this project from the neighborhood, is the impact on traffic on River Oaks?
It's the only objection that's even potentially valid/legal, yes. Even then, I suspect that if an impartial traffic engineering firm were to evaluate River Oaks, they'd determine that it's well under capacity. The real issue is that people who live on an urban cut-through street are presumably angry that ANYONE is using their street, regardless of its actual capacity. They are trying to turn it into a cul-de-sac to increase their property values. Your suggestion about speed bumps is far more reasonable, in my opinion.
However, it's also quite obvious that many people are also opposing this project because they don't want any apartments near their homes. They are worried about the "type" of people that would move into apartments on Phillips Highway. You can read between the lines about the rest.
It would be illegal for the city to deny a zoning change because residents are worried about the "type" of people moving into a new development. However, sadly, the traffic complaints could be used as phoney justification for a zoning denial.
Hopefully, the city council will try a more moderate approach to residents' concerns. It would be really easy to monitor future traffic increases once Jackson Square is built. Hopefully the street would only be closed AFTER other traffic calming devices had been attempted.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 03:10:23 PM
Quote from: David on August 27, 2008, 12:08:28 PM
Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as motorist.
The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't. The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ. It's dangerous and overcrowded.
Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings. River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.
I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.
The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards. And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.
NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community?
I watched the council meeting on tv last night. From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street. I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened. Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.
Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?
When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.
You want your kids running out to play in that?
I seriously doubt the city/developer plans to widen River Oaks Road to two lanes with a continous median. That's an insanely expensive and un-needed traffic calming solution. Evidently, this project has been deferred so both sides can meet to iron out their differences. Hopefully, it will be a forum where everyone can get on the same page.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2008, 09:09:43 PM
I watched the council meeting on tv last night. From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street. I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened. Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.
Word today is the median will go all the way down River Oaks -- conveniently providing the developer with a place to plant the trees that will be required to replace the ones that he's taking down for his development (since he has NO space left on his 18 acres for planting...that's all for buildings). Can I spell it out any more clearly -- they are going to take River Oaks Road and turn it into a major entrance for their development!
As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days. Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...
Lakelander -- we WISH that there could be a decent, HONEST conversation about all of this, but it 's becoming increasingly obvious that the backroom stuff and tacit approvals are happening and we are NOT getting the whole truth -- from the city or from the developer.
That's what we want -- the truth. These are our homes. Our families. Our lives. We just want the truth.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 09:12:45 PM
Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?
When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.
You want your kids running out to play in that?
If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 09:24:52 PM
As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days. Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...
Those who conduct traffic studies are required to use professionally acceptable methods...if not, they can lose their certification/license.
That said, if you still don't trust the City's and/or Developer's traffic people, the neighborhood could always go and hire their own traffic consultant.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 09:24:52 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 27, 2008, 09:09:43 PM
I watched the council meeting on tv last night. From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street. I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened. Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.
Word today is the median will go all the way down River Oaks -- conveniently providing the developer with a place to plant the trees that will be required to replace the ones that he's taking down for his development (since he has NO space left on his 18 acres for planting...that's all for buildings). Can I spell it out any more clearly -- they are going to take River Oaks Road and turn it into a major entrance for their development!
They are taking over a former car dealership. The new site plan has more green space than the dealer did. No one is going to take blocks of resident's property and spend money widening that long of a stretch of road. That type of expense would most likely make a development like this unfeasible. The PUD site plan shows a side entrance that's already there, connecting to River Oaks. However, most of the vehicular traffic will flow directly into/off Philips Highway.
PUD site plan
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6386-b-w-siteplan.jpg)
QuoteAs for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days. Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...
Has a traffic study been completed? It would be interesting to see what numbers they come up with.
QuoteLakelander -- we WISH that there could be a decent, HONEST conversation about all of this, but it 's becoming increasingly obvious that the backroom stuff and tacit approvals are happening and we are NOT getting the whole truth -- from the city or from the developer.
That's what we want -- the truth. These are our homes. Our families. Our lives. We just want the truth.
I hope that the upcoming meeting between the developer, the city and the residents is one that clears up a lot of misconceptions on all sides. If everyone is willing to tell the truth and work together, this can be something that benefits all parties.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2008, 09:40:41 PM
If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.
Don't think so. Most city streets do not use all of the city's right-of-way, there is usually a strip of space the city owns outside the curbline. Look for the telephone poles, they are often (but not always) on the right-of-way line. A 15' widening should not be a right-of-way problem for the City. Just the cost (both $$ and in angry citizens) of actually doing the work.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the City of New London case applies here (if the City
did need more right-of-way for River Oaks). The justification would be for traffic safety. New London was about the city condemning property from several private owners to sell to one private owner. If the City were to condemn some property near the old car dealership to make the Jackson Square parcel bigger - that would run afoul of New London.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 27, 2008, 09:12:45 PM
Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?
When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.
You want your kids running out to play in that?
Based on previous neighborhood complaints - about how River Oaks was too narrow to handle the traffic capacity - I would have assumed that widening the road and adding a median would be a good-faith attempt at addressing the neighborhood's problem. Wasn't the problem supposedly that the road was too narrow?
If the neighborhood doesn't want the road expanded ... it's probably a really bad tactic to complain that the street is too narrow.
(Also, Charles' comments are basically correct. The city probably owns large easments along River Oaks, as they would in almost any front yard in the city. Consequently, several feet of "their" front yards are already "owned" by the city, in a manner of speaking. No eminent domain is required. Even if eminent domain were needed, it would almost certainly be legal, as road widening has a clear public purpose element. Road widening is one of the most basic public domain functions, and it isn't seriously impacted by new state laws.)
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 27, 2008, 10:54:26 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 27, 2008, 09:40:41 PM
If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.
Don't think so. Most city streets do not use all of the city's right-of-way, there is usually a strip of space the city owns outside the curbline. Look for the telephone poles, they are often (but not always) on the right-of-way line. A 15' widening should not be a right-of-way problem for the City. Just the cost (both $$ and in angry citizens) of actually doing the work.
Also, I am not a lawyer, but I don't think the City of New London case applies here (if the City did need more right-of-way for River Oaks). The justification would be for traffic safety. New London was about the city condemning property from several private owners to sell to one private owner. If the City were to condemn some property near the old car dealership to make the Jackson Square parcel bigger - that would run afoul of New London.
The reason for mentioning New London is that, according to the neighbors, the only reason for widening their street would be for this development...as such, it directly relates to economic development...you are correct that it is not quite the same, but there are pieces that would relate.
As for the extra ROW that is already there....if they widened the street for even a 8-10' median, they would still need to keep the power poles and other utilities....so they would still have to find land outside the current ROW.
The exception would be if the City already had an easement on the properties there that could be used.
At this point, I believe people are jumping to conclusions on the need to widen River Oaks Road between the RR crossing and San Jose/Hendricks. A multiple block median seems excessive, especially when it does not appear a traffic study has even been completed.
Anyway, here's an image of River Oaks Road. Widening the road would change the character of the community.
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6393-p1140820.JPG)
^ And don't forget that neither the developer nor the city want to spend money that they don't have to. Widening would be very expensive. They'll only widen a road if people pressure them to do it (i.e. if they are constantly hearing complaints about the a road's lack of capacity).
Turning a residential street into a main traffic corridor and adding 1000+ potential new residents to the area sounds like a really bad deal for the neighborhood. Atlantic and St Augustine and Emerson are already wide for multiple lanes and really not that far out of the way to use as connectors. From the corner of River Oaks and Hendricks it is slightly under 1/2 a mile, and less than a minute's drive to go to Atlantic Blvd. Turning a nice residential street into a busy traffic corridor can be avoided if River Oaks is dead-ended, and then most opposition to this project will be dealt with; the inconvenience of an extra half mile drive doesn't seem that big of a deal. How hard will it be to fit an extra one or two minutes into your commute to let the neighborhood have it's street? the railroad wants to close it for safety reasons, and they've offered to foot the bill- why not?
Quote from: cottonwood on August 28, 2008, 10:02:42 AM
Turning a residential street into a main traffic corridor and adding 1000+ potential new residents to the area sounds like a really bad deal for the neighborhood.
It does. However, it seems like everyone is going off assumptions based off a lack of information passing between both groups (the residents & developers). For example, it appears that a traffic study has not even been conducted. Until one is done, no one knows what the impact to River Oaks Road will be. It seems like this should be one of the first things generated before both sides start taking about traffic calming measures, road widenings or closing crossings.
QuoteAtlantic and St Augustine and Emerson are already wide for multiple lanes and really not that far out of the way to use as connectors. From the corner of River Oaks and Hendricks it is slightly under 1/2 a mile, and less than a minute's drive to go to Atlantic Blvd. Turning a nice residential street into a busy traffic corridor can be avoided if River Oaks is dead-ended, and then most opposition to this project will be dealt with; the inconvenience of an extra half mile drive doesn't seem that big of a deal. How hard will it be to fit an extra one or two minutes into your commute to let the neighborhood have it's street? the railroad wants to close it for safety reasons, and they've offered to foot the bill- why not?
Both sides are also overlooking the impact of attempting to get commuter rail down FEC's corridor. FEC is not going to allow the liability of having passenger trains run down their busy line without some concessions that improve their ability to haul freight. Closing the crossing (and many others) may be required to get commuter rail. If this is the case, perhaps there should be no debate on this issue.
If this crossing were closed would that bar pedestrian traffic as well? This site has regularly advocated for slowing traffic in neighborhoods and I believe will stand with the residents to control traffic problems.
Yes. Pedestrians crossing railroad tracks are a liability just like vehicular crossings. However, Jackson Square plans show a pedestrian overpass between FEC park and Jackson Square. This could be used by River Oaks residents to gain access to Jackson Square's retail and dining destinations.
QuoteThis site has regularly advocated for slowing traffic in neighborhoods and I believe will stand with the residents to control traffic problems.
The problem here is that residents on these streets will then add to the crossover problems on nearby residential streets, running into Atlantic Blvd or St. Augustine Road. So you don't solve a percieved problem, you just shift it to the neighbor next door. This is why a traditional grid is typically the best format in moving traffic. All roads combine to diffuse all types of traffic. The cul-de-sac/gated community style of planning creates congestion on major arterial streets. Nevertheless, if the goal is to get commuter rail, closing River Oaks is the lesser of two evils and the debate is moot anyway.
But, let's be honest: River Oaks is going to sustain the most traffic impact from this development.
In theory, your grid idea is fine. But in reality -- the destination will be at the end of River Oaks, and the workaround to get there from the other grid streets isn't as direct.
Everyone will, as they do today, USE River Oaks. Just listen to the comments of some of the cut-throughers who are complaining about the idea of closing the crossing...it's convenient. And will be even MORE convenient to apartments, retail and commercial patrons of Jackson Square.
By the way -- by advocating for the closure of the crossing, we are giving up the convenience of that crossing to Philips/95, ourselves. That's a sacrifice we're willing to make to keep our small streets safe and to keep the city from coming in and taking our yards to widen the road to provide access to a developer.
Those of us who want it closed completely understand that there will be runoff traffic onto our neighboring streets, and we certainly advocate for calming measures (speed bumps) to keep the impact as low as possible.
Quote from: southerngirl on August 30, 2008, 03:17:07 PM
But, let's be honest: River Oaks is going to sustain the most traffic impact from this development.
To be honest, I don't know. That's why I would be interested in seeing the results from a traffic study. A traffic study would help determine where most of the trips to and from this development will generate from. Knowing that, we could then identify the streets receiving the most traffic. Once that's known, the PUD application/site plan should be modified, as needed.
QuoteIn theory, your grid idea is fine. But in reality -- the destination will be at the end of River Oaks, and the workaround to get there from the other grid streets isn't as direct.
Everyone will, as they do today, USE River Oaks. Just listen to the comments of some of the cut-throughers who are complaining about the idea of closing the crossing...it's convenient. And will be even MORE convenient to apartments, retail and commercial patrons of Jackson Square.
Without a traffic study in hand, this account would make the assumption that most vehicular trips to Jackson Square would be made from Hendricks. No one knows if that's true at this point, which makes comments like the city taking resident's yards to widen the entire length of River Oaks speculation. I don't know if tying in the PUD rezoning with the crossing issue is the best way to get it closed. The developer could break ground on a shopping center tomorrow, under the existing zoning, bringing more traffic into the area and residents would have no power to hold him to closing the crossing. Unless a traffic study suggest a surge in traffic along River Oaks Road, they really do seem like separate issues. It seems like the FEC liability/commuter rail/crossing safety issue may be the stronger argument for closing the crossing.
QuoteBy the way -- by advocating for the closure of the crossing, we are giving up the convenience of that crossing to Philips/95, ourselves. That's a sacrifice we're willing to make to keep our small streets safe and to keep the city from coming in and taking our yards to widen the road to provide access to a developer.
Those of us who want it closed completely understand that there will be runoff traffic onto our neighboring streets, and we certainly advocate for calming measures (speed bumps) to keep the impact as low as possible.
How do residents on Lorimier and Dunsford feel about potentially closing the crossing?
Quote from: southerngirl on August 30, 2008, 03:17:07 PM
But, let's be honest: River Oaks is going to sustain the most traffic impact from this development.
honestly, you are wrong....clearly the majority of traffic to/from this development will be on Phillips Hwy.
I mean the neighborhood impact...sure Philips, WHICH IS A HIGHWAY, will take on many cars, but River Oaks, WHICH IS A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD ROAD, is currently the ONLY neighborhood street that is planned with a formal entry into the development. Apart from Philips, River Oaks stands to take the biggest hit.
Looking at aerials, my guess is its probably something like this:
1. Philips Highway
2. St. Augustine Road (more opportunities to cross over for northbound Hendricks/San Marco traffic)
3. Atlantic Blvd. (street provides easier/quicker to access from the north)
4. River Oaks Road (most likely will be dominated by River Oaks and San Marco residents, west of Hendricks)
So if we strip away all the more efficient access points surrounding the site, River Oaks would be the first secondary/residential street to see an impact. The largest question would be determining what type of impact that might be. Nevertheless, a result that calls for widening the street is highly unlikely.
I live in San Marco very close to River Oaks Road and on a regular occasion use River Oaks Road to commute.
Here are my quick thoughts on what may be the facts or near facts:
*A. From a google map I see that a street call Summerall Ave connects to River Oaks and I think it should be shut off from being connected to River Oaks Road. (see attached jpeg)
*B. Trinity Street also connects Summerall Ave should be possibly be extended to connect to Phillips Hwy or St. Augustine Rd. (see attached jpeg)
*C. If the traffic becomes a problem, then very serious consideration must be given to shutting off River Oaks Road around the railroad track area. (see attached jpeg)
*D. Under NO conditions should River Oaks Road be widened. San Marco has a beautiful old charm that should not be traded in for modern highway.
Some other quick thoughts:
* 900 to 950 residential living units sound like too many. The developer can be flexable, make some of the units bigger, thus not increasing the number of families, offering more space, and drawing a higher end buyer??? Just a thought.
*Sounds like at least a bit more parking is needed.
Just my 2 cents.
Jaxphotocat
Hey Jaxphotocat --
Drive by there today if you get a chance -- they've already CLOSED Trinity -- it's part of the development now.
The developer's attorney (and puppetmaster for Art Shad), Paul Harden, said that since Jerry Hamm owned property on either side of those streets, they had the "right" to "petition" the city to close the streets. Jerry Hamm did that prior to the sale, and the developers who bought the Hamm property were then given the whole property -- streets and all. Shrewd move.
ALL of this was done out of the clear sight of anyone in the area. They've been laying the groundwork for this for 18 months...and it appears there's no turning back.
More importantly, there is a rapidly closing window of opportunity for comment. PLEASE SEND YOUR CONCERNS TO CITY COUNCIL and the MAYOR'S OFFICE:
JPeyton@coj.net; adamh@coj.net; BThoburn@coj.net; Clay@coj.net; SKELLY@coj.net; WBishop@coj.net; RClark@coj.net; Redman@coj.net; AShad@coj.net; Webb@coj.net; Gaffney@coj.net; EDLee@coj.net; WAJones@coj.net; MJones@coj.net; Holt@coj.net; DDavis@coj.net; ArtG@coj.net; Corrigan@coj.net; RonnieF@coj.net; Joost@coj.net; KHyde@coj.net; GloriousJ@coj.net
They NEED TO KNOW that neighbors of the development have concerns that MUST be addressed, especially since our Councilman can't be counted on to advocate for our concerns and needs.
Southerngirl,
Thanks for the info. I probably have driven by since it was closed off but simply did not notice.
I am becoming more and more concerned about how fast this has progressed without so much of the nearby community knowing about it or details about it.
In the basic concept, I am all for it, but having to many living units and a lack of parking can really be a concern.
I know our current parking requirements are higher than they need to be, but I'm not up to speed on how many stalls will be eliminated here or if the goal is to share a certain percentage of retail/residential parking. How many parking stalls will this development contain? I've heard a lot of complaints about parking, but have not seen any actual real numbers. Are there at least 1,800 spaces?
Lake -- you've nailed the problem. There are NO DETAILS that answer this or hundreds of other specific questions in the PUD.
NONE.
ZERO.
All they're stating in the PUD is they plan to provide 1/2 the required parking.
I have heard there has been 2 community meetings regarding concerns over this development and the lack of communication with nearby residents. At those 2 meetings I heard Art Shad did not appear? He is the city council member that is suppose to represent San Marco?
Amazing with all this technology that most are all of the basic numbers are not clearly posted somewhere for the community to see?
That's something that should be included as a condition for PUD approval. Has the planning department already taken at this? Did any representatives from the city attend the most recent meeting with residents? I can't imagine them approving a PUD like this, without this type of information included. What else is missing?
Quote from: jaxphotocat on September 01, 2008, 02:45:11 PM
I have heard there has been 2 community meetings regarding concerns over this development and the lack of communication with nearby residents. At those 2 meetings I heard Art Shad did not appear? He is the city council member that is suppose to represent San Marco?
Amazing with all this technology that most are all of the basic numbers are not clearly posted somewhere for the community to see?
I think Shad represents San Marco, but Warren Jones represents the area where Jackson Square is located. What' Shad's position at this point?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 01, 2008, 02:51:54 PM
Quote from: jaxphotocat on September 01, 2008, 02:45:11 PM
I have heard there has been 2 community meetings regarding concerns over this development and the lack of communication with nearby residents. At those 2 meetings I heard Art Shad did not appear? He is the city council member that is suppose to represent San Marco?
Amazing with all this technology that most are all of the basic numbers are not clearly posted somewhere for the community to see?
I think Shad represents San Marco, but Warren Jones represents the area where Jackson Square is located. What' Shad's position at this point?
I think Shad's position is whatever Harden wants it to be.
Isn't the FECRR the boundary between Shad and WJones?
Quote from: thelakelanderI can't imagine them approving a PUD like this, without this type of information included. What else is missing?
Paul Harden is the Developer's lawyer. Paul Harden owns the 4th Floor of City Hall. Why bother with useless details like reviewing the non-existent details in the PUD? Why attend a public meeting?
QuoteJackson Square development gets closer
A major development in San Marco is closer to reality as designs are complete for what will be called Jackson Square at San Marco, a proposed transit-oriented development along Philips Highway just south of Interstate 95.
The development site covers approximately 18 acres, including the former Jerry Hamm Chevrolet location and other smaller parcels. It is the largest redevelopment project on the boards in Jacksonville’s San Marco district.
Jackson Square is based on the design principals of Transit Oriented Development and designs have been done by the Basham & Lucas Design Group. This new trend emphasizes the creation of livable, walkable communities oriented around public transportation systems. This type of development also makes it possible to live a high quality life without complete dependence upon an automobile.
Full Article:
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=50741
Jackson Square will be discussed in detail at today's TOD woprkshop (info. in another thread)....Lakelander and I are both attending/presenting and will be able to report back.
I'll give the developer, Steve Cissel this: he has CERTAINLY gotten his message out.
Sadly, NOBODY -- newspapers, blogs, LUZ, Council -- is asking the questions they should about impact (traffic, safety, noise) or wondering why this thing is getting not only the green light but a friggin' HOV lane of its own to zoom it straight through to completion before anyone asks a single thing.
There is NO guarantee of a commuter rail much less a stop at this location (the presentation I saw said that Emerson/Philips was the better location b/c of east/west traffic access), so how are they able to trade so simply on their TOD project? If running a bus through the development counts as a TOD, than every damn street in Jax has a TOD on it already.
And, contrary to Paul Harden's repeated BS about hosting all of these meetings with neighbors (he was a part of ONE of them, and he was condescending as hell the entire time), they don't care ONE BIT about their impact on the surrounding areas. They're sloughing off the "where will these kids go to school?" question by saying "it's a concurrency issue" or "we don't expect there to be that many children in this development." Come on. We're not that dumb, are we?
He attended a separate meeting last week and, once again, condescended the whole time. He's not interested in listening or adjusting the development plans ONE BIT. He wants what he wants and he's using his friends on the Council and in the Planning department to get whatever he wants. I guess the City's edict that Planning Dept. employees no longer are able to sit in Harden's box at Jags games isn't really stopping his influence on them, eh?
Is there any new news? Is there a source that I can go to to see the some of the confirmed details about the Jackson Square project? The number of living units concerns me most and I guess I have to lump parking into that also.
Jaxphotocat
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 04, 2008, 08:27:39 AM
Jackson Square will be discussed in detail at today's TOD woprkshop (info. in another thread)....Lakelander and I are both attending/presenting and will be able to report back.
Jaxphotocat...check this other discussion for more details on the TOD meeting...especially the more recent posts:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,2840.0.html
Jacksonville's planning department has sold out River Oaks Road in its concurrency negotiations with Steve Cissel and Paul Harden. Cissel declares with confidence that the RR crossing won't be closed, that the street will be re-aligned and widened, that a tree-lined median will be installed as part of his landscape concurrency requirements, that on-street parking lanes will take up the easements, and that utilities will be moved back onto residents' private property. As with all concurrency negotiations, these were carried out without public hearings.
However, the concurrency negotiations must be made available to the public via Sunshine laws. Demand to see the notes on those meetings. The planning department feels comfortable rubber-stamping the 5-page Jackson Square PUD application when others require 100+ pages of detailed plans and data. They are behind the rezoning and maximum intensity development 100%. They have made up their minds before hearing any of the staff recommendations required by law. Why? What's going on in there between the developer and the city?
This department feels qualified to waive any part of its planning code when it feels convenient, starting with the appointment of the notably unqualified Brad Thoburn after a bogus "national search". The COJ planning department has become a law unto itself, and must be held accountable to its own code and procedures. Demand transparency now.
That does not sound good. The people on River Oaks Road (and other San Marco residents) need to work together to preserve what makes San Marco so desirable and that does not includes constant widening of roads.
I think from the railroad tracks to Hendricks most likely should be left alone, but from the tracks going toward Phillips is fair game since it is such an ugly mess at this time and almost anything could improve that little area.
Where is the representation in the city council for the San Marco community? Art Shad should be meeting with residents and helping resolve these issues.
Would someone PLEASE explain how this can be happening? How can a city allow a developer to call the shots and, simultaneously destroy the integrity of an existing neighborhood in the interest of "progress" that nobody can assure anyone will ever happen.
Has ANYONE considered:
1. There is NO BRT or light rail in Jacksonville. How in the HELL can a developer be allowed to claim the benefits of a TOD when there is no "TO" there??
2. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is going to PAY MONEY TO LIVE ON PHILIPS HIGHWAY?? The developer can talk about how "purty" his "little ol" development is going to be, but that won't erase the reality of that part of Philips. Ask the police -- it's one of the highest crime areas IN JACKSONVILLE!!!! Prostitution, drugs, murder... Do you want your "young up and coming" daughter or son to move into that?
The developer and his lobby/lawyer, Paul Harden, are trying to make the neighbors sound like the evil ones in this dispute. Our crime is having been the ones to move to the adjacent area and help establish this part of the urban core for the past 40+ years. We are middle class homeowners who simply want to ensure that our homes and neighborhood are being considered in these discussions.
Shame on anyone who tries to blame this fiasco on the neighbors who it appears now stand to lose the safety of their children, their street, their front yards and their way of life.
If you're looking for who to make accountable for THAT crime: then blame for the lack of oversight from the Planning Dept. lies at Brad Thoburn's feet and the blame for sloppily and casually writing the PUD lies at the feet of Paul Harden. Let's not leave out Art Shad as we're tossing blame around. He's not doing his job in advocating for his constituents, but there's nothing new in that. He hasn't for years. The recall campaign starts now.
Quote from: southerngirl on September 10, 2008, 04:29:45 PM
Would someone PLEASE explain how this can be happening? How can a city allow a developer to call the shots and, simultaneously destroy the integrity of an existing neighborhood in the interest of "progress" that nobody can assure anyone will ever happen.
Has ANYONE considered:
1. There is NO BRT or light rail in Jacksonville. How in the HELL can a developer be allowed to claim the benefits of a TOD when there is no "TO" there??
2. WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND is going to PAY MONEY TO LIVE ON PHILIPS HIGHWAY?? The developer can talk about how "purty" his "little ol" development is going to be, but that won't erase the reality of that part of Philips. Ask the police -- it's one of the highest crime areas IN JACKSONVILLE!!!! Prostitution, drugs, murder... Do you want your "young up and coming" daughter or son to move into that?
The developer and his lobby/lawyer, Paul Harden, are trying to make the neighbors sound like the evil ones in this dispute. Our crime is having been the ones to move to the adjacent area and help establish this part of the urban core for the past 40+ years. We are middle class homeowners who simply want to ensure that our homes and neighborhood are being considered in these discussions.
Shame on anyone who tries to blame this fiasco on the neighbors who it appears now stand to lose the safety of their children, their street, their front yards and their way of life.
If you're looking for who to make accountable for THAT crime: then blame for the lack of oversight from the Planning Dept. lies at Brad Thoburn's feet and the blame for sloppily and casually writing the PUD lies at the feet of Paul Harden. Let's not leave out Art Shad as we're tossing blame around. He's not doing his job in advocating for his constituents, but there's nothing new in that. He hasn't for years. The recall campaign starts now.
Your absouley right there is no rail and I would bet a week salary there never will be. Just destroy yet another neighborhood, so another place can be built for people to buy useless crap with money they don't have.
Oh i forgot, alway remember its for the "Greater Good". Always capitalize the G's
Well, the people on River Oaks Road better gather now and start to speak up and loud to at least attempt to have some rights on this matter.
Metro Jax needs to understand that this development is not a TOD. JTA has confirmed that there are no plans for a transit station in this area and the developer is not providing any space in the development for a transit station. The developer is trading on the attractiveness of a TOD with absolutely nothing to substantiate it !
not true...at a minimum, there is bus service along US 1 and the Developer will be providing a bus stop w/ shelter.
But the reality is that this development is oriented toward development of either
1. BRT
2. Commuter Rail
3. Skyway extension
Do you think the whole project will be up in running in 2010....no....it will take several years to build everything....and that may be the time JTA needs to get their plans firmed up.
Quote from: marco on September 17, 2008, 10:30:11 AM
Metro Jax needs to understand that this development is not a TOD. JTA has confirmed that there are no plans for a transit station in this area and the developer is not providing any space in the development for a transit station. The developer is trading on the attractiveness of a TOD with absolutely nothing to substantiate it !
Take everything JTA says with a grain, hell, handful of salt.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 17, 2008, 10:48:01 AM
not true...at a minimum, there is bus service along US 1 and the Developer will be providing a bus stop w/ shelter.
But the reality is that this development is oriented toward development of either
1. BRT
2. Commuter Rail
3. Skyway extension
Do you think the whole project will be up in running in 2010....no....it will take several years to build everything....and that may be the time JTA needs to get their plans firmed up.
All due respect, but if a bus stop = a TOD, then this city is light years ahead of others in transit-oriented development...
Seriously, if the city will JUST STOP the mad rush to let developers throw whatever they want up (via PUDs, not a TOD-specific zoning process that smart cities like Austin have implemented), this could be done right and would be WELCOME in the community.
The neighbors in the area are moving toward a more favorable position about the development, but, sadly, the developers aren't moving any closer to making adjustments that would benefit all. One thing they COULD do, and by law, city code requires them to do, is PUT THE DETAILS ABOUT THEIR DEVELOPMENT IN THE PUD.
It REALLY IS THAT SIMPLE. Today, their PUD is 26 pages -- pages 1-21 are simply pages with signatures of the property owners noting their ownership involved in the development, pages 22-25 (FOUR PAGES) are the "details" of the development, page 26 is a line drawing of the outline of the property.
THIS IS A SLAP in the face to all of us. The city Planning Dept. is allowing this developer, who has no track record to speak of in the area, and his attorney (who has worked his mojo on Council yet again), to roll right through them on the way to building a massive high-density multi-use facility on a HOPE that transit will come there.
Where are the concurrency facts? Where will these kids go to school? Someone's trying to use redistricting as an alternative to the overcrowded schools those kids would go to today. Like the lack of transit at the site -- there is NO redistricting plan approved to guarantee that this concern will be taken care of. The schools these kids are to go to today are defined as overcrowded by the school system.
Where are they planning their req'd 30% green space, given that they are planning to build on 90% of the property (90+30 = no green space)? The city says they're "allowing" the developer to include FEC Park (across the railroad tracks) as their green space. The city is GIVING THEM A PARK? What in the WORLD??
What about stormwater runoff? Again -- 90% of property covered in pavement...where's the water going?
What about
parking? Here's how the developer characterizes his parking plan for a 900-unit apartment complex, a 350,000 retail commercial space: Parking requirements shall be 1/2 of the required parking for CCG-1 [commercial section] and 1/2 of required parking for residential uses. Off-site adjacent parking to the development shall be credited against any parking requirements. There shall be no setbacks for required parking.
1/2 of required parking for this entire development? Off-site parking? Where? On what street? Philips Highway? Nope, River Oaks Road. That's right -- a barely two-lane residential street is going to become a parking lot -- LITERALLY -- because of the city's INABILITY TO REQUIRE THE DEVELOPER PROPERLY and LEGALLY plan for the impact of his development.
Now, if there were more specificity in the PUD, perhaps we'd know how he REALLY plans to handle the parking concern. But because there are NO details in the PUD application, NOBODY has an ability to see if this development meets code requirements or will have an impact far beyond what they're telling people. The neighbors and taxpayers who just had to EAT $1 million from concurrency screwups (same lawyer here, folks) just want to SEE, in detailed schematics/plans, in written description, etc., what they are going to do with this property.
Look -- as I said, neighbors are coming around and trying to be reasonable (they've met with the developer multiple times, but the developer is not making any adjustments, nor do they seem to be willing to provide any real details on their project), despite the fact that the city is NOT requiring this developer to abide by zoning laws. ALL WE have been asking for is facts, and we're not getting any - from the city or from the developer. "Trust us" doesn't work when you're talking about a development that is THIS massive and that is relying on a whole lot of as-yet confirmed commitments from the city for things like legitimate transit options (light rail, not just a bus stop) and traffic.
Any reasonable person would suspect that there's something being hidden in the lack of details, which is why the suspicion won't go away.
The City is ASKING for a lawsuit on this one, and they might just get it, if they don't SLOW THIS DOWN, require of the developer's PUD what the LAW REQUIRES.
It's really that simple.
one of the main purposes of doing a PUD is so you don't have to follow all the local rules...things such as 30% open space or specific setback & parking requirements...in return, the City gets to review more details on the project such as design details.
The River Oaks crowd should retain a lawyer now. I like this project but I hate the idea of back room deals. If the project can't stand the light of day it shouldn't happen.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 18, 2008, 05:00:28 PM
one of the main purposes of doing a PUD is so you don't have to follow all the local rules...things such as 30% open space or specific setback & parking requirements...in return, the City gets to review more details on the project such as design details.
OK, so WHEN does the city get to "review more details on the project such as design details?"
After construction is underway? What sense does that make?
That's for people who prefer an "ask for forgiveness" approach to everything, rather than one where we ALL abide by the laws in the first place. The "Ask for forgiveness" approach just cost Jacksonville taxpayers $1 million in another of Harden's deals....are we really stupid enough not to REQUIRE the details ahead of time on this one?
This is the greatest idea i've seen in jacksonville, and now people are opposing it. I don't understand the people here in jacksonville.
QuoteQuoteMetro Jax needs to understand that this development is not a TOD. JTA has confirmed that there are no plans for a transit station in this area and the developer is not providing any space in the development for a transit station. The developer is trading on the attractiveness of a TOD with absolutely nothing to substantiate it !
Take everything JTA says with a grain, hell, handful of salt.
In defense of JTA on this one, the plans are not in any phase that nails down certain stops. Jackson Square is not ruled out. Why?
In early planning models, mandated by the FTA, DOT etc. the game is simply roll out some prospective routes. This is usually based on a study and local knowledge of travel patterns, traffic counts etc. Then a number of dots are placed along the route called "stops". But they really are NOT. They are locaitons from which the model pulls in population and consolidates commute number esitmates. They have no regard to reality, cross connections or true station locations. One might say they are very rough guesses just for numbers sake.
Phase 2, once the numbers on the above are complete and show a population base that will support XX services, then a much more detailed study looks at REAL station sites, and starts to calculate connecting transit, park-and-ride, multi-modal connections etc. THIS is the phase where stations will be hammered down and JTA is not there yet.
The game for home owners in any given area now is to step up to the plate at JTA and be heard about where you WANT the stations, park-and-rides etc. OCKLAWAHA
Not sure "opposing" is the correct term. Seems they have legitimate unanswered concerns. Please read the entire thread and the reasons are very clear.
Does ANYONE out there know if the City/Planning Dept. has a master plan for River Oaks Road/San Diego that would explain why they are NOT supportive of restricting access to the Jackson Square development from River Oaks?
At the Planning Commission meeting last week, commissioners listened for hours to dozens of neighbors who are legitimately terrified about the addition of 1,000 cars to their small neighborhood street every day. Even though the developer and his rep (Harden) couldn't give a reason why they needed the River Oaks/Summerall access to their development, the Planning Dept. people who were there kept feebly arguing against denying access to/from the development onto this small street. They did admit that River Oaks is designated as a neighborhood street, not a collector, which means this street is not designed to handle the addition of this volume of new traffic.
Ultimately, the Commissioners did the smart thing and unanimously voted to add a condition to the PUD to restrict access to the development from the southern side of the development (meaning, no development access through River Oaks/Summerall).
This is a true WIN-WIN. The Planning Commissioners' solution means that these working-class neighbors' fear of increased traffic safety concerns are taken care of, and the development, which the neighbors are supportive of, still has access through major arteries like Philips Hwy, St. Augustine and Atlantic Blvd.
Let's hope the LUZ committee (Oct. 7) and the full Council (Oct. 14) see the wisdom in this compromise and support the traffic solution as drafted and voted on by the Planning Commission. If not, then the suspicion that the Planning Dept has some secret, more sinister intentions for River Oaks Road (including widening and thereby killing this wonderful stable neighborhood all for this one development) might just be more than a rumor.
Did the Jackson Square developer agree with having no access from his project to River Oaks Road?
Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2008, 03:24:28 PM
Did the Jackson Square developer agree with having no access from his project to River Oaks Road?
Not that the neighbors are aware of. It appears that they're going to have to be "forced" to do in this PUD review process, which is why the neighbors are worried that the Planning Commission's recommendation for the new condition won't hold through LUZ/Council, where Harden's influence is legendary.
I am happy for River Oaks crowd that it looks like they are getting some support for their concerns without trying to kill the project.
UPDATE: News came in last night that at a meeting with the developer and Harden, they are now saying they will NOT agree to the Planning Commission's condition that was unanimously voted in to alleviate the traffic concerns on River Oaks.
Harden apparently plans to actively fight the decision at this week's LUZ committee meeting.
So much for his "willingness to work with the neighborhood."
This is just a travesty. The neighbors have come all the way around to supporting the development and the developer and his "agent" won't even consider doing anything to lessen the impact on the small, existing, stable, working class neighborhoods nearby. That's not progress, folks. That's dominance and destruction in the name of greed.
I just do not understand why the developer thinks river oaks acess would improve this project.
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 04, 2008, 09:26:11 AM
I just do not understand why the developer thinks river oaks acess would improve this project.
Jeffrey -- see, herein lies the rub. The neighbors don't think this is all about the developer's wishes...they believe there's something far worse for River Oaks Road being planned between the Planning Dept and Harden's developer -- more commercial/retail development on the other side of Philips later. You can see pics of the developer's master plan here (click on the drawings to get larger views of them):
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/737/
Some neighbors saw sketches (but can't seem to get their hands on them now) and heard from the developer's MOUTH that there are City plans for a massive realignment of traffic that will require substantial changes to River Oaks (widening, medians w/trees, moving utilities, etc.), all the way down River Oaks Road and up through San Diego on the other side of Philips.
All the neighbors are asking is for the city not to kill these small neighborhoods. Any secret master plan that includes widening River Oaks Road will remove the front yards of the homes on River Oaks, will make the safety of kids playing in those yards tenuous at best, and will require the removal of the handful of sidewalks that make this a true neighborhood.
And without "improvements," the City KNOWS that River Oaks Road cannot handle the cars/trucks that will use River Oaks to get to/from the development. Neither the City nor the developer/Harden are being up front and truthful about their intents where River Oaks is concerned.
The ONLY ONES WHO GET IT are the Planning Commissioners, who made the right call and provided for a compromise solution that the neighborhood was content with. Sadly, Harden has NO interest in compromise. He wants it all. And his puppets in the Planning Dept. are more than willing to sacrifice existing, stable neighborhoods just for their favorite developer/agent.
assuming you are correct about some "grand plan" by the City (and that's a big leasp for me)...
all that needs to happen is to remove parking from River Oaks or add a parking lane between the existing pavement and the sidewalk...the road could then handle the additional traffic and nobody would lose their front yard.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 04, 2008, 10:32:03 AM
assuming you are correct about some "grand plan" by the City (and that's a big leasp for me)...
all that needs to happen is to remove parking from River Oaks or add a parking lane between the existing pavement and the sidewalk...the road could then handle the additional traffic and nobody would lose their front yard.
What in the world are you talking about? Remove parking from River Oaks? Where will families with more than one car park? What about contractors who come to your house to work? What about lawn mowing companies' trucks? It's not optimal, but parking on River Oaks is crucial for some homeowners. Their driveways are too short to accommodate multiple cars and nobody that I know of has the space to double-wide their driveway, and anyone who did would have to back out onto River Oaks -- if it's a speedway, that will be horribly dangerous.
Besides, why should those who have already established this wonderful, stable neighborhood have to give up so much for a developer?
Honestly, is it right to kill this street in the interest of the development, when a solution as simple as closing off access to the development from the River Oaks/Summerall side is a PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE answer? Why not accept the compromise? The neighbors did.
fine...so don't remove the parking...add a parking lane...there is plenty of room within the existing road right of way
that said, I agree that access to the site from River Oaks is not needed...I was just working from your agument that there are bigger plans afoot at the City
tufsu, I just "drove" down River Oaks with Google Street View. It looks to me the only way to add "parking lanes" to this street is to remove the landscape strip between the curb and the sidewalks. This looks to be about a 10' wide (or more) area that is probably City right-of-way, but I'm sure the residents consider part of their front yards (like on most suburban streets).
Is anybody looking into closing the River Oaks RR crossing? I seem to remember mention of that, earlier in this discussion.
I drove river oaks as a looky lou since we started this thread. If you own a home on that street you would lose value fast if traffic capacity were increased. I like grids not dead ends but that street shouldn't be a major throughway.
Quote from: JeffreyS on October 04, 2008, 01:01:29 PM
I drove river oaks as a looky lou since we started this thread. If you own a home on that street you would lose value fast if traffic capacity were increased. I like grids not dead ends but that street shouldn't be a major throughway.
Jeffrey -- you've seen what we've been trying to get folks to understand for two months now. You get it. The Planning Commissioners get it. Anyone who drives on River Oaks Road can see clearly that the increase in traffic will absolutely kill this neighborhood. Not just home values, but the small streets, close neighbors, kids in yards, dog walkers on the sidewalks -- all will be lost to the traffic nightmare that is certain to come with 900 apartments and 350,000 sq ft of retail/commercial space.
Paul Harden knows the issues, but he doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone except himself and his client (note: see current Waste Management brouhaha for further evidence that he doesn't give a sh** about anyone but himself and his clients). The City Planning Dept. doesn't get it because Paul Harden told them not to and they do whatever Harden tells them to.
Turning River Oaks Road into a major artery just for this development is short-sighted, selfish and just plain wrong. People who stop, listen and consider the impact understand it. Harden and Cissel, Thoburn and Sean Kelly have no interest in listening. They believe they have the power to do whatever they want, and the neighbors are afraid they're going to, regardless of the Planning Commissioners' recommendation or the thoughtful pleas from rightfully scared homeowners.
Anyone who'd like to join the River Oaks homeowners and help support the preservation of this small, stable wonderful middle class neighborhood is encouraged to send an email to the LUZ Committee them to do the right thing for this neighborhood. Block access to River Oaks Road from the development -- send traffic onto the streets that are better able to handle it -- Philips, Atlantic, St. Augustine (though they weren't built for it either...)
Quote from: southerngirl on October 04, 2008, 05:11:13 PM
Paul Harden knows the issues, but he doesn't give a rat's rear about anyone except himself and his client (note: see current Waste Management brouhaha for further evidence that he doesn't give a sh** about anyone but himself and his clients). The City Planning Dept. doesn't get it because Paul Harden told them not to and they do whatever Harden tells them to.
I am noit defending Harden....but you should know that the #1 job of any attorney is to defend their client's position.
And, I really don't think you give the Planning Dept. enough credit...if they are in agreement with harden, its because they have a good planning reason....like connectivity!
Your right Tufsu1 who thinks government could ever have coruption?
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 04, 2008, 08:22:45 PM
And, I really don't think you give the Planning Dept. enough credit...if they are in agreement with harden, its because they have a good planning reason....like connectivity!
That would be the employees of the Jacksonville Planning Dept? The same ones who have been told by their bosses that they can no longer accept Harden's invites to his suite at the Jags games?
Sure. Their motives are all about connectivity -- TO PAUL HARDEN.
I know quite a few of the PD staff...and they are good, honest people....
If there's something fishy going on, its above the staff level.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 04, 2008, 11:03:03 PM
I know quite a few of the PD staff...and they are good, honest people....
If there's something fishy going on, its above the staff level.
Bingo!
Jackson Square PUD was approved by LUZ Committee last night with some amendments, but NOT the one that the Planning Commissioners so thoughtfully advocated and unanimously voted for (restricting access to River Oaks Road), which was intended to protect and save the small neighborhood nearby.
It's truly disappointing to see the LUZ Committee deny the Planning Commission's recommendation and throw this existing stable neighborhood into traffic hell, all for this development. The agent and his henchmen from Planning made up absolutely BOGUS traffic numbers -- they kept repeating that their models (NO TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN DONE) showed only 20 cars at peak hour - you mean to tell me between 900 apartments and 350,000 sq ft of retail/commercial space they only expect 20 cars to want to use River Oaks to get to San Jose, Mandarin, Clay County??
Also, while they were arguing that there will only be this handful of cars affecting River Oaks Road, when asked by Joost why, then, they NEEDED River Oaks Road since such a small number would be using it, Harden turned it around and said that they should not deny San Marco people the access to the development from River Oaks. That's when the 800+ average daily cars use number sneaks in.
WHICH IS IT, PAUL and SEAN KELLY? Will there be cars or won't there? YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS BOTH WAYS.
It's an absolute INSULT to the neighbors and to the retailers and commercial space owners to try to make ANYONE believe that only 20 cars will use River Oaks Road. This process was rigged from the get-go, as Harden kept deferring to Sean Kelly throughout the proceeding, and Sean Kelly kept toting Harden's water for him. Obscene.
Quote from: southerngirl on October 08, 2008, 10:57:16 PM
Jackson Square PUD was approved by LUZ Committee last night with some amendments, but NOT the one that the Planning Commissioners so thoughtfully advocated and unanimously voted for (restricting access to River Oaks Road), which was intended to protect and save the small neighborhood nearby.
It's truly disappointing to see the LUZ Committee deny the Planning Commission's recommendation and throw this existing stable neighborhood into traffic hell, all for this development. The agent and his henchmen from Planning made up absolutely BOGUS traffic numbers -- they kept repeating that their models (NO TRAFFIC STUDY HAS BEEN DONE) showed only 20 cars at peak hour - you mean to tell me between 900 apartments and 350,000 sq ft of retail/commercial space they only expect 20 cars to want to use River Oaks to get to San Jose, Mandarin, Clay County??
Also, while they were arguing that there will only be this handful of cars affecting River Oaks Road, when asked by Joost why, then, they NEEDED River Oaks Road since such a small number would be using it, Harden turned it around and said that they should not deny San Marco people the access to the development from River Oaks. That's when the 800+ average daily cars use number sneaks in.
WHICH IS IT, PAUL and SEAN KELLY? Will there be cars or won't there? YOU CANNOT HAVE THIS BOTH WAYS.
It's an absolute INSULT to the neighbors and to the retailers and commercial space owners to try to make ANYONE believe that only 20 cars will use River Oaks Road. This process was rigged from the get-go, as Harden kept deferring to Sean Kelly throughout the proceeding, and Sean Kelly kept toting Harden's water for him. Obscene.
Unfortunately this is the standard operating procedure for the city. They are more than willing to throw a nice neighborhood under the bus, to ensure that the right people make a mint. The only hope is with the down turn in the economy the whole plan may be dumpe.
While I feel the pain of those that think they are being buried by the city, I really don't think anything evil is in the works at Jackson Square.
TOD, YES! Very possible from a rail - bus or BRT angle, even remotely the Skyway too.
River Oaks Drama? I think so, only because I have lived in Jax on and off for over a half century including Powers, San Jose, San Marco, Philips and Mandarin. We have always loved to shop et San Marco Village, know all the back streets and even took The Lakelander to see "Oriental Gardens". In all those years of moving about the neighborhood, I have never once "needed" River Oaks. In fact my first trip on it was after this thread took off. The neighbors should ask for a traffic survey, or do a volunteer one, get the drivers that pass simply to tell you what part of town they started their trip in and what part they are going to. I think, in fact would bet that your "traffic troubles" is about 90% locals from the neighborhood. Even if I live at Jackson Square (and I might), I wouldn't use that route to San Marco when Philips takes me to Atlantic. If I have a train or bus, forget driving, I'm riding.
OCKLAWAHA
At least install speed bumps.
QuoteIt's an absolute INSULT to the neighbors and to the retailers and commercial space owners to try to make ANYONE believe that only 20 cars will use River Oaks Road.
If you do not have confidence in their traffic numbers then you and your neighbors should have hired a consultant to perform an independent study for your own comparison and to show the LUZ. I disagree with your conclusion that River Oaks Road will carry the majority of the project traffic, most traffic will load on to Philips Highway.
The cut-through traffic we have is NOT San Marco traffic alone...trust me, I see it ALL DAY every day.
The problems stem from the traffic coming from Philips to River Oaks to Hendricks, then heading south to San Jose, Mandarin, Clay County...all these folks with kids at Bishop Kenney and Douglas Anderson. All these people who've learned how convenient the access to 95 is just 1/2 mile north of the River Oaks cut through.
A city study two years ago on this street said that it was overburdened already and made the railroad crossing dangerous. The addition of Jackson Square traffic will only make the problem worse.
Speed bumps aren't the solution. As Sean Kelly himself said at the LUZ meeting, emergency vehicles do not like speed humps.
The solution now is to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks, thus stopping the traffic issue altogether. FDOT is in favor, as is FEC Railroad, which owns the crossing. I'm SURE all you rail fans out there know that railroads will tell the best crossing is a closed one. We agree.
Southern Girl, While speed bumps will only slow down the same amount of cars that choose to use the street, rather then the total amount of cars that choose to use the street. I still doubt that 20 people a day would use River Oaks from Jackson Square. WHY? What is on San Jose that they can't reach quicker on Beach or Atlantic or I-95, or Philips, or JTB? They sure won't shop in Mandarin. They won't work there either. To get to NAS, it's quicker to use Roosevelt from I-95/I-10. While I understand the Bolles Crowd sneaking through to GET to Beach/Atlantic or 95, I don't see the reverse. These Jackson Square folks aren't going to crash your street to get over to Bolles. QuoteThe solution now is to close the railroad crossing at River Oaks, thus stopping the traffic issue altogether. FDOT is in favor, as is FEC Railroad, which owns the crossing. I'm SURE all you rail fans out there know that railroads will tell the best crossing is a closed one. We agree.
In this you are 100% correct - "THE ONLY GOOD CROSSING IS A CLOSED CROSSING!" Now here is an angle you can work with both the City, State and FEC. I'd call their legal dept and have a chat. They and the City get CASH for closing those crossings. Maybe enough to equip FEC park with all the nice perks of other parks. usually 5,000-10,000 dollars per crossing.
Hope you understand, I really don't have a "side" in this, just want to help get both... A bright new development in a very blighted area of Philips, and happy neighbors across the tracks. OCKLAWAHA
ock -- since this brouhaha started, I've been very impressed with your knowledge and advocacy for real improvements to this city, and I regret anything I've written that might indicate otherwise. This is an emotional issue as well as a logistical one. Those of us who love this neighborhood with all our hearts just want to be sure that the development (that we have come to see as necessary and good) is done in a way that not only respects the fact that we're here and we have been here making this area viable, but actually acts in a way that shows that respect.
Thanks for your advice on the rr crossing. We've got the application (and signed petitions in favor of closure) in with FDOT already, they're fully-supportive as is FEC. In fact, the FEC rep has been the most responsive, helpful person we've encountered in this whole mess. (Love me some RR people...I spent a bit of time working for one of the majors). Councilman Shad went on the record at the LUZ meeting saying he supports closure, so now we're going to have to get the rest of the City bigs on board. Ideas?
- SG
Yeah, a big dog that might help too. OPERATION LIFE SAVER. Call any railroad for the rep. they might help. I've got a meeting with JTA in a few, but keep in touch, I'll add more later. Also I'll scan some industry magazines to check sources for you.
Meanwhile call the City manager, CITY OF KINGFISHER, OKLAHOMA. I was a councilman at nearby tiny CASHION. Kingfisher is a town about like Starke - with a distinct twist, it honest to God looks like they polish the streets every day. Busy and near perfect. They closed 3-4 crossings on the Union Pacific (former Rock Island) and got a check that rebuilt the city parks/pool and all. You might also talk to OK DOT in OKC, ask about the crossing closures and get the case file. I know this because the manager at Kingfisher and I redesigned the whole park (which is HUGE).
OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: cline on October 09, 2008, 08:55:42 AM
QuoteIt's an absolute INSULT to the neighbors and to the retailers and commercial space owners to try to make ANYONE believe that only 20 cars will use River Oaks Road.
If you do not have confidence in their traffic numbers then you and your neighbors should have hired a consultant to perform an independent study for your own comparison and to show the LUZ. I disagree with your conclusion that River Oaks Road will carry the majority of the project traffic, most traffic will load on to Philips Highway.
I agree Cline...your reasoning is very sound...almost as if you are a transportation planner ;)
My problem is that with there already being a capacity problem at Hendricks Avenue Elementary School that the building of these units will impact the school even more. There should be a consideration by the city, school board and the developer that any elementary age children be slated to attend Spring Park Elementary School. Currently Spring Park Elementary is only using 46% of it's school's utilization because of low enrollment, Hendricks Avenue Elementary school is at 115%.
QuoteSan Marco project before Jacksonville City Council
Despite vocal opposition from some San Marco residents, the City Council is poised to approve a new development that supporters said will help revitalize the northern Philips Highway corridor.
The proposed Jackson Square project will include up to 900 apartments. There will be up to 200,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail use. The 17-acre development would be on the west side of Philips Highway south of Atlantic Boulevard.
full article: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101408/met_343654919.shtml
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101408/met_343654919.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101408/met_343654919.shtml)
QuoteSan Marco project before Jacksonville City Council
Backers tout revitalizing area; opponents fret neighborhood effects.
By TIA MITCHELL, The Times-Union
Despite vocal opposition from some San Marco residents, the City Council is poised to approve a new development that supporters said will help revitalize the northern Philips Highway corridor.
The proposed Jackson Square project will include up to 900 apartments. There will be up to 200,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail use. The 17-acre development would be on the west side of Philips Highway south of Atlantic Boulevard.
A new road named Jackson Square Boulevard will both provide access to the development and serve as a mass transit hub or station.
Supporters said Jackson Square will provide development in a part of town that is dotted with closed or decaying buildings.
Opposition from the community has centered on the impact the development would have on nearby residential neighborhoods.
The main criticism has surrounded access to Jackson Square from River Oaks Road, which defines the southern edge of the property and is a connector to Hendricks Avenue.
The San Marco Preservation Society has hired a lawyer to fight the development.
The matter is on the agenda but a representative of the developer said Monday that both sides needed to clarify the long list of conditions the city has put on the project.
tia.mitchell@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4425
I hate that they have hired a lawyer to fight the development instead of hired a lawyer to address their concerns of how the development should proceed. I do not blame them however as any look at River Oaks leads to an obvious conclusion (with or without a traffic study) that new traffic on the street needs to be mitigated.
Sorry I didn't mean to double up that post.
Good news.
I think Tia got it wrong -- as I understand, San Marco Preservation's lawyer was hired to argue the SPMS issues at the LUZ meeting only. I don't believe they're planning to fight the development.
In fact, they've been trying all along to work with the developer, but his agent tended to make a lot of excuses for why he wasn't able to cooperate (hint: all of them were SMPS's fault, per Harden).
The issue of traffic impact hasn't gone away. The neighbors plan to fight hard to close the railroad crossing, since there are no other ways to reduce traffic, per the Planning Dept., and thanks to the LUZ's vote NOT to accept the Planning Commission's wise recommendation/condition to restrict flow from the development onto River Oaks Road.
Now, Mr. Harden is going to push his remaining city buttons (Thoburn, Peyton) to stop the closure. They're already starting to apply pressure. Here's the rub for Harden -- he's going to have to choose: either, as he stated at LUZ, the traffic impact they expect will be around 20 cars at peak hour (meaning, no impact), or the traffic will be so massive going to/from the development that the crossing HAS to stay open.
He can't have it both ways. The City can't either. They're BOTH ON THE RECORD saying that they expect there will be no traffic on River Oaks Road from this now approved PUD. OK, if that's the case, then they shouldn't really care whether or not the crossing is open or closed.
Did the developer give a reason for why the crossing should remain open? They should not care either way. It seems that would something the city would either want or oppose.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 14, 2008, 10:41:38 PM
Did the developer give a reason for why the crossing should remain open? They should not care either way. It seems that would something the city would either want or oppose.
At LUZ two weeks ago, Harden said, "...if that happens [closure of crossing], there's nothing I can do about it..."
That's what he's saying publicly.
But, I believe he wouldn't have fought so hard to overturn the Planning Commission's condition if he didn't want that road wide open for his "20 cars." And additional developments that are being planned for the other side of Philips.
Harden went on to say, about access to the development from River Oaks, "I think access is appropriate for the same reason Mr. Kelly [Sean Kelly, Planning Dept.] does."
These guys are one in the same. Throughout the transcript of LUZ, the two are speaking for and about each other in a sad and creepy pas de deux.
one last quote from LUZ...Art Shad went on record at the start of this meeting supporting the crossing closure.
Here's Harden's thought at the end of LUZ on Shad's decision to back the neighborhood he supports and recommend the closure of the crossing:
"If Councilman Shad is successful in doing that, then that's a different hill to die on, I guess."
Wonder what he means by "die on?"
QuoteISSUE: Jackson Square development
WHAT IT MEANS: The council approved a proposed development on north Philips Highway, which will include up to 750 apartments, 200,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of retail space. The San Marco Preservation Society has expressed concern about traffic impacts on existing neighborhoods. A floor amendment reduced the number of apartments from 900, the original proposal. Bill No. 2008-563
ACTION: Passed, 18-0
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/101508/met_344128811.shtml
Quote from: southerngirl on October 14, 2008, 11:45:56 PM
Harden went on to say, about access to the development from River Oaks, "I think access is appropriate for the same reason Mr. Kelly [Sean Kelly, Planning Dept.] does."
These guys are one in the same. Throughout the transcript of LUZ, the two are speaking for and about each other in a sad and creepy pas de deux.
or maybe they just both realize that keeping the crossing open is a good thing for overall circulation...which doesn't necessarily mean lots of traffic...it just means that people in the neighborhood could get to Jackson Square, Douglas Anderson H.S., and Phillips Highway.
So, which is it? Lots of traffic/needs to stay open, or no traffic/closure not a big deal, since there are literally 10 other ways to get to Philips, Douglas Anderson, BK -- starting with Emerson, and coming north to Brookwood, Dunsford, Lorimier, and ATLANTIC.
Again, I have to ask: why are the residents of River Oaks being asked to shoulder this additional burden? There are other options the city can pursue (traffic calming speed humps on Lorimier, Dunsford and Brookwood should do the trick) to divert the former cut-throughers onto streets that were designed to handle the traffic.
Apparently this has been abandoned. All signage was removed from fences and no equipment on site. I last saw any activity earlier this year in March.
That is not good news.
Well, the residents of River Oaks should be happy. Now they can have their crack heads and protistutes even longer!
Just talked to someone from the number on their website and the project is still moving forward just slowly.
The economic conditions are not conductive to building a dense multifamily TOD with no transit system truly committed or funded to support it. If we want to see places like Jackson Square come to life we need to make a financial commitment to our rail corridors.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 10, 2009, 04:38:10 PM
The economic conditions are not conductive to building a dense multifamily TOD with no transit system truly committed or funded to support it. If we want to see places like Jackson Square come to life we need to make a financial commitment to our rail corridors.
This. I sure wouldn't go it alone, only to get hung out to dry by JTA.
Interesting -
A new bloom on Philips Highway plants seed of changeQuoteBehind a fence full of “No Trespassing†signs and beside hills of fill dirt and asphalt millings, a football-size field of flowers is sprouting in an unlikely spot along Philips Highway.
A few months ago, developer Steve Cissel planted the garden of blooms including zinnias, crimson clovers, black-eyed Susans and California poppies on the property just outside Jacksonville’s downtown.
In a mostly commercial area with a reputation for other kinds of seedy activity, Cissel said someone asked him if the poppies were an opium den in the making.
“People say ‘Philips Highway? That’s Hooker Highway,’†he said.
The land is actually part of a plot of about 18 acres slated to become a cluster of apartments, retail and office space. In the future, it also could include a commuter station for people to board buses or a light rail bound for the downtown.
But with no money to break ground because of the economic downturn, Cissel’s trying to attract positive buzz to a site that once included an old Chevy dealership.
While the blooms are mostly past their peak now, for months Cissel let people cut flowers for free. Now he wants to develop a community garden, and has no-cost plots available in what will become a winter vegetable garden.
City Planning Department supervisor Sean Kelly said the city approved the Jackson Square at San Marco development in October 2008. The go-ahead came despite strong objections of some residents who live on the ritzy side of nearby River Oaks Road railroad crossing at F.E.C. Park.
He said some of those San Marco residents complained about traffic that a new mixed-use development would bring to their streets and the San Marco Square area. But a city study showed the impact would be minimal.
“This is a dream kind of project,†Kelly said. “...This is exactly what we should be doing all over the older urbanized areas.â€
Controversy about closing the railroad crossing and blocking the road between the two neighborhoods lingers. Department of Transportation officials said they issued a notice they intended to close the crossing after a River Oaks Road resident appealed to them to do so, including a petition with 95 signatures.
But DOT officials said the city and Cissel filed an appeal, meaning an administrative law judge would recommend an outcome to the DOT’s secretary, who would make the final decision. The parties are scheduled to meet next month to try to resolve the issue, DOT spokesman Dick Kane said.
At the same time, Cissel is hoping to stir a rebirth of perceptions about the interconnected highway strip. Southside resident Carol Kartsonis grew up on land that will include the new project, and sold him her grandmother’s house and land.
“Whether the people in that neighborhood like it or not, I believe they would be well served by a project that promotes mass transit,†the 42-year-old said of those on the rail crossing’s other side. “...I was born on that street. It’s been the wrong side of the tracks in San Marco the whole time.â€
Across Philips Highway, some who live in houses that back up to Interstate 95 are also looking forward to a boost in a residential neighborhood that is dying out, including Unita Barnes Fowler.
She and her extended family have lived on Crawford Street for more than 50 years. The 67-year-old said she’s pleased to see something sprouting on the mostly vacant lot if construction isn’t starting.
“I’d much rather see something growing or going up,†Fowler said.
Fans of the Cissel’s flowers said it was a surprise to see the field pop up while driving down the highway.
San Marco resident Leone Faust noticed the zinnias one day because they were a favorite of her mother’s, who had been in a nursing home for several months. When her mother died a few days later, Faust and her sister cut some of the blooms for their loved one’s funeral service.
“It was just meant to be,†Faust said.
San Marco resident Michael Hayden, a 66-year-old retiree and gardening enthusiast, said he’s stopped several times to cut flowers since the day he found the field.
“I said ‘My God!’ I was amazed.â€
Hayden said he brings the blooms to friends in retirement homes and likes seeing new life along the tired stretch of highway.
“If he’s allowing vegetables,†Hayden said of Cissel, “maybe I’ll do that, too.â€
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-11-20/story/a_new_bloom_on_philips_highway_plants_seed_of_change
QuoteA few months ago, developer Steve Cissel planted the garden of blooms including zinnias, crimson clovers, black-eyed Susans and California poppies on the property just outside Jacksonville’s downtown.
In a mostly commercial area with a reputation for other kinds of seedy activity, Cissel said someone asked him if the poppies were an opium den in the making.
“People say ‘Philips Highway? That’s Hooker Highway,’†he said.
The land is actually part of a plot of about 18 acres slated to become a cluster of apartments, retail and office space. In the future, it also could include a commuter station for people to board buses or a light rail bound for the downtown.
FIRST, RELAX THIS ISN'T OPIUM... LOL!(http://z.about.com/d/healing/1/0/V/S/feg_califpoppy.jpg)
California Poppy
Sedative; DiureticDESCRIPTION
Eschscholzia californica is a perennial herb growing approx 30 cm tall. Leaves are grayish green and finely divided. Four petalled flowers range from white to red, though most commonly orange and yellow. It is the state flower of California. Does not contain opium. It IS mildly stoning and contains LEGAL Hallucinogens when the leaves and seeds are dried and smoked. While it is a legal Psychoactive Plant anyone looking for a wipe out high is going to be major league disappointed.
TAKE IT EASY PEOPLE, TOMATOES CAN GET YOU STONED!
No kidding as they are a close relation of canibis, so what to do? Well, you can't make twine out of a tomato plant, but if someone were to dry it and smoke it, all of the medicinal and psychotropic effects of marijuana would be present. tetrahydrocannabinol or THC (the main psychoactive ingredient in cannabis) and CBD (cannabidiol, another component in cannabis that may decrease anxiety). But is it legal? Actually, yes, since tomatoes and other plants are not illegal, a person would be well within the law to grow them and use them as they please.
Talk about funny, check out THIS legal plant: (http://www.wsu.edu/~lohr/wcl/PoppyOriental.jpg)
The Opium Poppy, Papaver somniferum, available in all of your favorite colors at you local garden supply.
Opium poppies are specifically scheduled under U.S. Law. The Controlled Substances Act, Schedule II, lists "Opium poppy and poppy straw" as well as "Concentrate of poppy straw (the crude extract of poppy straw in either liquid, solid or powder form which contains the phenanthrene alkaloids of the opium poppy)". Opium and its constituent chemicals are listed in Schedule II and some derivatives (such as Heroin) are listed in Schedule I.
There is some confusion in the law, however, because opium-producing poppies are widely grown around the US and Canada and the opium poppy seeds are omnipresent in cooking, breads, and deserts. The grey-blue poppy seeds sold in virtually every grocery store in the US contain low levels of opiates (not psychoactive at amounts used in cooking). Poppy pods are widely used in dry flower arrangements.
Law enforcement in the US is somewhat inconsistent about these plants, although there are continual attempts to try to stop them from being sold or grown. If poppies are grown as sources for opiates, there is no question that it violates the CSA. If poppies are purely grown for ornamental purposes, their legal position is somewhat less clear cut, since they are so widely grown and available.
The other clearly illegal act is cutting the bulb under the flower, which causes it to bleed the psychoactive chemicals. Not that I've ever done this, but I've read the book, seen the movie...
THEN THERE IS THE DEADLIEST PLANT ON EARTH! THE DREDED CANNABIS SATIVA (marijuana).(http://cjlagombra.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/cannabis-sativa-2.jpg)
GOD WHAT A COUNTRY!OCKLAWAHA
FYI...if the T-U had done a BIT of research, they would have found that the neighborhood on River Oaks behind this property is not, in fact, "ritzy" -- it's got 75 or so bungalow homes...homes that are full of working class people who are concerned that this development is going to dump all of its traffic onto a small neighborhood street with a railroad crossing that FDOT has determined after years' worth of research and traffic studies should be closed.
Steve Cissel's wildflowers can't camouflage the ugly reality that this massive development got a free ride on a "transit-oriented development" plan that has no base in reality. They're already talking about their desire to lower the number of apartment units (b/c they won't be able to fill them) and subsequently lower the number of commercial/retail sq feet in Phase 1.
The dead wildflowers are somehow very fitting. But leave it to Steve Cissel to put a wildflower garden in the middle of his trough.
L A M E ! ! !
Quote from: Coolyfett on March 19, 2010, 11:16:50 AM
L A M E ! ! !
Not really. The development isn't dead, just in a holding pattern. While the developer waits, he wants to beautify his site. I wish the market was better and this could move forward, but for the time being this is a good use for a derelict site. Imagine if the Shipyards did this! What a beautiful site that would be.
Just drove by the property and they have sprinklers going on about 2 acres of the property. The area still has the dead remains of last years flowers all over it, but I imagine they spread new seed over top of it.
With all the apartment/condo development on the Southbank and San Marco, do you think this one starts to turn the corner and gets moving?
I think it would be a great spot for a skate park, community swimming pool, and small soccer field for practice. Room for an olympic sized track as well. There's nothing like that serving the greater area is there?
I don't think the economics would work out in favor of a skate park, pool, and track.
Most likely you are correct. That being said, he has been sitting on it for 10 years or so, and not sure what type of income it is producing right now.
This project is back:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Urban-Project-Renderings/i-bbQ9f3V/0/2bfb7061/M/Jackson%20Square-M.jpg)
http://residentnews.net/2017/05/03/developers-plan-less-intense-jackson-square-development/
Gamechanger...
With a little luck this could be completed before Publix breaks ground!
So this is the same firm that apparently is out of money to finish the project in Avondale that stalled out after the demo?
Quote from: MusicMan on May 04, 2017, 08:19:28 AM
With a little luck this could be completed before Publix breaks ground!
Well it's definitely less complex and complicated and it's still "mixed-use" in a suburban oriented type of way. Comparing the two Jackson Square site plans, it's now phased and a fraction of the square footage and units. There's also no more structured parking. It's essentially what you see popping up near SJTC, East Baymeadows and Gate Parkway.
Original:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-4045-jacksonsquare-jta3.jpg)
Revised:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Urban-Project-Renderings/i-bbQ9f3V/0/2bfb7061/M/Jackson%20Square-M.jpg)
To be honest, the site plan isn't that bad, considering the proposed product. While some slight modifications could make it more pedestrian friendly, building placement is decent and most of the surface parking is hidden from the street.
Nevertheless, given the site's location and access to the new I-95 interchange, they should shoot for a grocery, big box or retail outparcels along Philips. With I-95's new ponds, this site is pretty visible from the interstate now. Sites this size that are adjacent to an interstate interchange are hard to come across in the urban core.
Sweet, more good things. Unlike 10 years ago, if 25% of it all actually happens then we'll be good to go.
http://jacksonville.com/business/real-estate/2017-05-30/big-plans-property-north-end-philips
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/styles/teaser__620x350/public/field/image/2672344_web1_copy_17095-rendering--1.jpg?itok=luCpk3Am)
For a garden apartment complex it looks fine to me. Give that section of Philips and Kings Avenue a few years to settle after the construction of the Overland Bridge project is complete. It will be just as popular as Brooklyn has become for infill development in recent years.
640 units? That's more than 220 Riverside and Brooklyn Riverside have combined. Nice.
QuoteA $42 million residential and retail development designed for up to 640 apartments is moving forward east of San Marco.
The Jacksonville Planning Commission on Thursday approved a minor modification to the original site plans.
Chance Partners LLC plans to turn 17 acres, starting at 2600 Philips Highway between River Oaks Road and Mitchell Avenue, into a mixed-use development of apartments and retail space.
"We like to build projects that are walkable and this promotes that," said principal Jeff Rosen.
Rosen said the mixed-use development also will create "more of a neighborhood feel in that area, which we think needs some attention."
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=549994
640? That sounds a lot closer in scope to the original plans than the revised ones provided in early May.
Phase One is 286 apartments. More to be added with Phase Two.
Combine this with the Florida Baptist site on Hendricks and that is well over 500 new apartments. How does this impact the proposed Publix project on Atlantic?
They have no impact on Publix and East San Marco. There was a market for Publix back in 2006. East San Marco's issue is one of financing for a building type featuring multiple floors of structured parking and residential on top of retail. Within whatever proforma they're using, it appears that their pre-bust mid-2000s land acquisition costs also play a significant role in why that project is delayed.
Quote from: MusicMan on June 09, 2017, 11:46:32 AM
Phase One is 286 apartments. More to be added with Phase Two.
Combine this with the Florida Baptist site on Hendricks and that is well over 500 new apartments. How does this impact the proposed Publix project on Atlantic?
Not to mention the Broadstone River House under construction on the river, the 13 story tower by Aetna, the apartments planned off Hendricks just north of I-95, the District ....
There's already a market for Publix, so more residential units isn't going to make Publix open at East San Marco any faster.
What chance does the constant delays to East San Marco prompt another grocer to move forward into the Southbank/San Marco area?
The guys developing East San Marco are already behind schedule. My opinion is, if over 1000 new apartments begin construction before they even sell the damn real estate it will be put off into an unforeseeable date in the future. So I see a potentially fatal impact on that development. And perhaps Publix looking elsewhere.
Yeah, all these new rentals coming online can't possibly be helping East San Marco's pro forma. Maybe they will switch back to condos? ;D
I really don't think it has an impact on East San Marco. In some ways, I think it shows a strong market for them to move forward in. Their property is a prime time location. It is all about their ability to turn a profit that is made difficult due to the land acquisition costs of 2005-06. The demand to live on that property is already there.
Condos today would move fast, In 2 years I don't know.
Reminds me a lot of 2003 through 2006. Tons of proposals but most failed to materialize. Even now, East San Marco is far ahead of most of these proposals. Time will tell but I wouldn't worry about their impact on East San Marco. Most of our peer cities have at least two times as many units actually already under construction or recently completed....only to see more proposals pop up. The same can be said of Town Center. People want to stay in cities. Jax is just late to the game. If East San Marco fails to happen, it will fail on it's on financial obstacles, as opposed to a saturated market.
OK but every day you wait the land acquisition cost goes up. Not down. Correct?
Quote from: MusicMan on June 09, 2017, 03:01:46 PM
OK but every day you wait the land acquisition cost goes up. Not down. Correct?
It's complicated but I don't think that's the issue here. Regency already owns the land, and the plan is to sell it to a secondary developer, and then buy back the retail space. My understanding is that that is how Regency is hoping to get their money out if it, after spending so much on the acquisition back in the day. However, taxes and stuff will continue to rise, so it'll be a problem, though probably not as much of a problem as if they sold off the land now at a loss.
Quote from: Jim on June 09, 2017, 02:08:39 PM
What chance does the constant delays to East San Marco prompt another grocer to move forward into the Southbank/San Marco area?
I'd keep my eye on the project proposed at the old Baptist site on Hendricks at I-95. Like East San Marco, it also includes a large street level space that would be suitable for an urban retail anchor tenant. Other than that, I thought I read somewhere (I could be wrong) that Walmart Neighborhood Market was looking at going into the shopping center in St Nicholas, off Beach Blvd.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2017, 03:31:22 PM
Quote from: Jim on June 09, 2017, 02:08:39 PM
What chance does the constant delays to East San Marco prompt another grocer to move forward into the Southbank/San Marco area?
I'd keep my eye on the project proposed at the old Baptist site on Hendricks at I-95. Like East San Marco, it also includes a large street level space that would be suitable for an urban retail anchor tenant. Other than that, I thought I read somewhere (I could be wrong) that Walmart Neighborhood Market was looking at going into the shopping center in St Nicholas, off Beach Blvd.
:o Ohhh which one? The one with Save-A-Lot?
I drove by the other day and it looks like site work has begun on this site. After Archer Western moved out a few months ago it was vacant but now there is equipment back on it and Chance has changed out the signage along the fence. Good stuff. Anyone know when they are supposed to start building on the Assembly of God site?
Interesting article in The Resident News about a new San Marco East Business Association which will encompass the Atlantic to Emerson stretch of Phillips Hwy.
https://residentnews.net/2018/07/01/business-association-seeks-to-rebrand-philips-corridor-as-san-marco-east/
The article makes reference to a walkable commercial district. I hope they're serious about this and will incorporate urban design principles as a standard and disciplined requirement to ensure that what evolves over time is a unique and differentiated experience for patrons and a boon for the neighborhood. I only Jax would be more holistic in addressing the need for and value of walkability, city-wide.
It's 1.6 miles from Atlantic to Emerson on Philips. That's pretty big for a commercial district. I'm guessing the 3.3 acre property referenced in the article is the old children's facility of some sort that St Augustine wraps around across from their property. That's great news about Wells Fargo. That's a huge piece of property.