A Tour of Bartram Park
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6578-p1150162.JPG)
The 'Southern Gateway' to Jacksonville, Bartram Park is a master planned 2,600 acre mixed-use development adjacent to Interstate 95.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/896
Cookie cutter....same old Florida crap....Go to 5 other Florida cities cant tell the difference.No Architecture!!!!!
While Bartram is definately cookie-cutter, cookie-cutter can also become a part of a sustainable community if designed right. Imo, there are some elements that make Bartram a text book example of what to avoid as Jax continues to grow.
1. The arterial road system. Although it provides two main entrances miles apart, each individual multifamily community comes with its own entry gate, making them impossible to move between. So instead of embracing some sort of street grid that would give the community the feel of a neighborhood, each development feels like an individual apartment complex.
2. Building setbacks. The buildings are too far from the main road, making walkability difficult and the area seem like a modern Southside Blvd.
3. Mixing of uses. Although marketed as "mixed-use", its segregated. The commercial component comes in the form of two typical strip centers (one hasn't been built yet) miles apart with a ton of individual gated multi-family developments in between. There's no community center or sense of place. Instead it feels more like the stretch of Baymeadows between San Jose and Philips.
The major problem with continuing to allow this style of development is that once the newness wears off, there's nothing special to keep it from going the same route former suburban hotspots like Arlington, Emerson and Lem Turner. Even with cookie-cutter architecture, if it successfully handles the three things discussed above, it gives off a completely different vibe. At some point, if we want things to change for the better, we're going to have to demand more, in terms of public poicy.
What is so special about that place? It's multi-use but not mixed-use. I'll take Springfield any day over that.
it is just another sprawl, only town homes not single-family. I agree with lakelander. That place is very car dependent and there is nothing walkable about it.
I teach one day a week down at SJRCC, and I have to drive past this going to and coming home. I want to vomit each time. Seeing places like this makes me want to become a tax attorney or something other than an Architect in the state of Florida. All of these developers should be burned at the stake for shoving this kind of crap down our throats. It's sickening.
glad to have you back archiphreak
QuoteAll of these developers should be burned at the stake for shoving this kind of crap down our throats. It's sickening.
Perhaps you should direct your anger towards the willing buyers of this type of development rather than the developers. Until consumers decide that they would rather live closer to the urban core, this type of development will continue.
I need to snap a shot of the beautiful plastic fence along I95. So classy!
Quote from: cline on September 18, 2008, 08:58:33 AM
QuoteAll of these developers should be burned at the stake for shoving this kind of crap down our throats. It's sickening.
Perhaps you should direct your anger towards the willing buyers of this type of development rather than the developers. Until consumers decide that they would rather live closer to the urban core, this type of development will continue.
Cline,
Unfortunately you have a point. That place really sucks.
Its not the buyers, its the policy makers and it has little to do with living in the urban core. We're raping the natural beauty of our community and straining our infrastructure and resources in the process. Even with bad architecture, we can create a better community by making sure our zoning and land use requirements demand better results.
Quote from: archiphreak on September 18, 2008, 08:33:21 AM
I teach one day a week down at SJRCC, and I have to drive past this going to and coming home. I want to vomit each time. Seeing places like this makes me want to become a tax attorney or something other than an Architect in the state of Florida. All of these developers should be burned at the stake for shoving this kind of crap down our throats. It's sickening.
This isn't directed at you so please don't take offense, but it is aimed at everyone who whines about projects like this after the fact. Unfortunately this is a typical emotional response! and it is an ineffective response.
is the place nice? I don't think so, is this how I would develop the property, i don't think so. But my money wasn't involved so I or any other "outsiders' don't have too much of a say in the style of the development. (before you say wrong read on)
The developer feels that this type of development will provide the best return on his investment, in this country people are still allowed to maximize their profit potential, within the boundaries of the laws.
The proper way to attack projects like this is speak up and have input before they sprout up, people need to get involved with projects like this in the planning stages and from what little I know about how the game is played here in NE FLA I can see that there is little to no oversight or public participation during the planning stages of most projects.
Doesn't Duval have a planning board, or some other development oversight board? if they do (and I am certain that there is some form of board) doesn't the board hold hearings regarding their planning/zoning and land use decisions? If they do hold hearings (and I am sure that they do) that is the time for "outsiders" ie: the public to have their say as to the location, design, impact, density and almost any other facet of any proposed development. Once the place is built any complaining is just a waste of energy.
Again this is aimed at nobody in particular, but so much time and intellectual energy is wasted babbling about lipstick on a pig and other nonsense that we really can little impact on and very little effort is put into how crooked local officials team up with developers to "rape and pillage" when it comes to land use and development issues.
Are you tired of congestion, tired of more strip malls? tired of sprawl? learn how to take on the developers in their own venues and work for reasonable development or one day you'll wake up and find JAX looking like NJ
QuoteIts not the buyers, its the policy makers and it has little to do with living in the urban core. We're raping the natural beauty of our community and straining our infrastructure and resources in the process. Even with bad architecture, we can create a better community by making sure our zoning and land use requirements demand better results.
I can agree with that to an extent. Unfortunately, policy makers are often directed by elected officials who are influenced by citizens (consumers as well as developers). If individuals are telling elected officials this is what they want then the policies will reflect that.
The only positive part is the large JACKSONVILLE on the overpass. This development will be A LONG WAY from being built out. The Pulte property has had little activity since last year.
Quote from: reednavy on September 18, 2008, 10:02:12 AM
The only positive part is the large JACKSONVILLE on the overpass. This development will be A LONG WAY from being built out. The Pulte property has had little activity since last year.
I agree completely, the Jacksonville sign and the well manicured I-95 and Old St Augustine interchange are the best parts of this project. I worked next to Baptist South this summer and it was great to drive through such a nice interchange. Other than that, the project is awful.
Where's the park?
Quote from: cline on September 18, 2008, 09:14:53 AM
QuoteIts not the buyers, its the policy makers and it has little to do with living in the urban core. We're raping the natural beauty of our community and straining our infrastructure and resources in the process. Even with bad architecture, we can create a better community by making sure our zoning and land use requirements demand better results.
I can agree with that to an extent. Unfortunately, policy makers are often directed by elected officials who are influenced by citizens (consumers as well as developers). If individuals are telling elected officials this is what they want then the policies will reflect that.
The individuals telling elected officials what they want in policies aren't the ones buying and living in these types of developments. The general public, at least in most the community meetings I've sat in over the last few years, want the type of things that make the community more sustainable.
Most may not know how to get there, but if asked, they can tell you what they want or wish. However, I will admit that local politics play a huge role in the way or policies are enforced and carried out. Unfortunately, that's going to have to change if we want a better community.
I definitely blame the policy makers. Suburban land development codes require this type of development. Its amazing how neighborhoods like Riverside and Springfield were created before zoning. I can't blame Jacksonville's planning department because the City Council rarely listens to their recommendations anyways.
Quote from: apvbguy on September 18, 2008, 09:10:56 AM
Quote from: archiphreak on September 18, 2008, 08:33:21 AM
I teach one day a week down at SJRCC, and I have to drive past this going to and coming home. I want to vomit each time. Seeing places like this makes me want to become a tax attorney or something other than an Architect in the state of Florida. All of these developers should be burned at the stake for shoving this kind of crap down our throats. It's sickening.
This isn't directed at you so please don't take offense, but it is aimed at everyone who whines about projects like this after the fact. Unfortunately this is a typical emotional response! and it is an ineffective response.
I don't take this as an offense, but I'll try to respond to some of your points.
Quoteis the place nice? I don't think so, is this how I would develop the property, i don't think so. But my money wasn't involved so I or any other "outsiders' don't have too much of a say in the style of the development. (before you say wrong read on)
Your money is indirectly involved. When eventually built out over 10,000 residents will have no choice but to exit out at two major stop lights. When congestion occurs on the nearby streets, it will be up to John Q. Taxpayer to ultimately pay for the expansion of adjacent roads. So to a degree, we're all "insiders".
QuoteThe developer feels that this type of development will provide the best return on his investment, in this country people are still allowed to maximize their profit potential, within the boundaries of the laws.
The developer's desire to provide the best return on his investment is fine and is one that we all should have. However, the failure occurs with the way our law is written. We start off on the wrong path, so its difficult to expect improvement. There are things that we can change in the law that would provide a higher return for the developer and create a better community in the long run. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we haven't gotten there yet.
QuoteThe proper way to attack projects like this is speak up and have input before they sprout up, people need to get involved with projects like this in the planning stages and from what little I know about how the game is played here in NE FLA I can see that there is little to no oversight or public participation during the planning stages of most projects.
Public participation doesn't mean squat if the zoning policy doesn't back you up.
QuoteDoesn't Duval have a planning board, or some other development oversight board? if they do (and I am certain that there is some form of board) doesn't the board hold hearings regarding their planning/zoning and land use decisions? If they do hold hearings (and I am sure that they do) that is the time for "outsiders" ie: the public to have their say as to the location, design, impact, density and almost any other facet of any proposed development. Once the place is built any complaining is just a waste of energy.
The time for the public to have their say is in the community visioning processes. If the policy can be improved early on, if will enhance nearly all future developments coming online. Also, taking note of the negatives of a completed development isn't a waste of energy. Its the best way to avoid making similar mistakes and coming up with better options in the future.
QuoteAre you tired of congestion, tired of more strip malls? tired of sprawl? learn how to take on the developers in their own venues and work for reasonable development or one day you'll wake up and find JAX looking like NJ
Well NJ does have rail......just kidding :). Seriously though, if you're tired of crap, demand better. Its easier to change things at a public level when there is a public outcry. Expect more of the same if everyone keeps their complaints to themselves.
yikes...does anyone else find these kinds of places creepy?
Quote from: Matt on September 18, 2008, 12:03:22 PM
yikes...does anyone else find these kinds of places creepy?
How are they creepy?
I don't find it creepy, because these come a dime a dozen across the country, but it is a wasted opportunity. Cheap architecture and construction aside, the community would have a completely different atmosphere if connecting interior streets, reduced building setbacks and better mixing in of the recreational and commercial components were incorporated into the plan.
These things sound like a lot, but really they don't cost the developer more than bad layouts do. However, they make a world of difference in creating a community.
The shocking part was I saw brick used on some of the buildings!
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2008, 11:04:14 AM
The developer's desire to provide the best return on his investment is fine and is one that we all should have. However, the failure occurs with the way our law is written. We start off on the wrong path, so its difficult to expect improvement. There are things that we can change in the law that would provide a higher return for the developer and create a better community in the long run. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, we haven't gotten there yet.
---
Public participation doesn't mean squat if the zoning policy doesn't back you up.
Thank you for that breath of sanity Lakelander! I wish that our elected officials had the same grasp of the true issues that you do!
These kinds of land use failures are rarely the fault of the developer or consumer. Almost every example of poor land use planning in places like Bartram park can be directly attributed to stupid government regulations. Most developers would be happy to build urban projects at urban densities (they can make more money that way). However, our zoning code, amongst other regulations, explicitly prohibits both urban design and urban density.
Why are Bartram Park's streets so wide and houses so far apart? Our building code demands it - based on absurd and outdated fire safety regulations.
Why is Bartam Park so disconnected, with only a couple access points? DOT traffic engineers purposefully force developers to limit access points. Nonsense "wetlands" regulations often require seemingly arbitrary buffer zones and preservation zones, even at the expense of preserving true contiguous undeveloped land.
The list goes on, and on, and on, and on ...
Quote from: thelakelander on September 18, 2008, 12:12:07 PM
I don't find it creepy, because these come a dime a dozen across the country, but it is a wasted opportunity.
Not to mince words or disagree with you (because you're absolutely right), but I think it bears noting that developments such as some of these are not just a dime-a-dozen across the country, they're a dime-a-dozen right here
in town. Pulte's developments of Drayton Park on Touchton and one of the Ironwoods on Gate Pkwy West are EXACT replicas of some of the townhouse construction that you've pictured in the article - down to the design details and color palette.
If we're going to be stuck with duplicate construction, at least change the colors to make me believe I'm in a newer, different subdivision than the lackluster one I lived in previously. Gag.
Quote from: copperfiend on September 18, 2008, 10:29:56 AM
Where's the park?
The wetlands to the west of the development are labeled as public space on the master site plan. Each apartment/condo/townhouse community also has their own individual amenity center with a clubhouse, pool and tot lot. I don't know if there there will be any place available for a game of baseball or soccer.
Yeah!! Whatever happened to the ballfields?? *That's* what's missing from so many similarly 'master-planned' communities! (y'know, along with all those other important things like gridded streets, setbacks, sense of community...)
Quote from: Doctor_K on September 18, 2008, 01:02:24 PM
Yeah!! Whatever happened to the ballfields?? *That's* what's missing from so many similarly 'master-planned' communities! (y'know, along with all those other important things like gridded streets, setbacks, sense of community...)
where were you with these great questions when the project was in the planning stages?
it's too late to note any deficiencies now, the baby has been born!
next time, if projects like this bother you so much get involved in the planning stages and have your input heard.
The politicians who are on these boards will allow the developers to cut corners and get away with anything if nobody is watching
QuoteI wish that our elected officials had the same grasp of the true issues that you do!
They are elected by the people. Change starts at the ballot box.
looks like a decent starter neighborhood. No reason to fret.
Philips and Emerson was once known as Miracle Mile, 30 years ago. Normandy was once as vibrant as Argyle is today. What happens to this area in 30 years? Can it stand the test of time? Riverside, San Marco, San Jose, etc. have held up well, but they had enough character to maintain a sense of place.
Except for a grocery store and a smidge of retail, this community is my version of hell on earth.
Quote from: apvbguy on September 18, 2008, 01:36:37 PM
Quote from: Doctor_K on September 18, 2008, 01:02:24 PM
Yeah!! Whatever happened to the ballfields?? *That's* what's missing from so many similarly 'master-planned' communities! (y'know, along with all those other important things like gridded streets, setbacks, sense of community...)
where were you with these great questions when the project was in the planning stages?
it's too late to note any deficiencies now, the baby has been born!
next time, if projects like this bother you so much get involved in the planning stages and have your input heard.
The politicians who are on these boards will allow the developers to cut corners and get away with anything if nobody is watching
Fair question, dear sir! The answer to it is, I was not yet living in town when a lot of the 'communities' opening up or nearing completion were first planned/proposed. However, you can be sure that this serves as the catalyst for me to get on the ball and attempt to be more outspoken for community affairs such as this. It's definitely stirring me into action.
really jacksonville??
let's try to be more backwards in our thinking and development. we have a core. let's exploit it.
Alright, I'm going to be honest here...this thread is really infuriating me. The sheer elitism and attitude of "why the hell would anyone want to live in this craptastic setup?" demonstrates not only why folks around here (in general, not absolute) can't get any of their goals accomplished in this town, but why the positions advocated here are actively ignored. When your attitude exudes "we know better than any of these dolts" you're guaranteed to be ignored.
Listen up folks...believe it or not, Bartram Park actually APPEALS to people. I know that might be shocking in this sometimes echo chamber, but it's true. Let's establish my demographic...I'm a young professional (28), engaged to be married next year, and currently in the market for a home once we get married. And I look at the various developments and locations that are advertised around here...and between any of the new lofts downtown, Jackson Square, or just about anything in Arlington, Springfield, etc, etc, Bartram Park is wildly superior in just about every aspect.
I'm in the demographic that the aforementioned alternatives should appeal to, and yet I want nothing to do with them. They're in area of town I want nothing to do with (let alone children down the line), reputations of being unsafe, and significantly longer commutes than the alternative.
I look at Bartram Park, and I see new construction (because you need a strong financial backing and handy thumb to want a significantly older home), with enough amenities in the area, in an area that has a reputation for being relatively safe, with good schools, within a 5 mile drive to my office (7 miles for my fiancee). What wouldn't appeal to me? What does the core have to offer that Bartram Park doesn't? Simply put: nothing.
More importantly, I don't understand why it's a Bartram Park (et al.) vs. the core anyway. I'm not a Jax native, and I've lived most of my life in a city and county where the city isn't the county, and regionalism means cooperation, not domination. Suburban areas should be able to compete with the core, not be dependent on them, or be a "funding alternative" for them. I'm a firm believer in competition, and if you let suburbs actually compete with the urban areas, you get better development in both. Right now, what incentive does the city have to compete against areas like Bartram Park? None whatsoever - the residents are still on the tax rolls, the majority of their jobs are still at various points of the county, and they can still claim new construction success.
Also, another fact to consider is other reasons why normal people want nothing to do with Bartram Park. I've investigated the area, and I'm avoiding purchasing there for a simple reason - I don't want to own a condo/townhouse (note that every photo provided is of some sort of that kind of setup). Myself, like a good number of potential homeowners, want to own a HOME, not a glorified apartment. So people like me (and there's far more of us than you might think) avoid Bartram Park (and in turn, Jackson Square, downtown lofts, and other multi-unit housing) for a completely different reason than the complaints here.
In addition, while I'm completely on-board with the advocated transit positions in this area, there's an honest question that needs to be asked - if the commuter rail plan goes into practice, how does that discourage stuff like Bartram Park? I mean, put a station right over 95 at Phillips there, and for those that don't work on the Southside have an easy shot downtown. I understand the TOD concepts...but slightly removed developments (like Bartram Park) would be encouraged even further, wouldn't they?
At the end of the day, advocates around here need to mention a basic consideration - if someone in my demographic wants to avoid Bartram Park for those reasons, why would I even want to CONSIDER something in the core? What does the core have to offer that various suburban locations don't? I've seen a lot of "promote Jacksonville's culture" posts around here, but there's not much of it actually happening. I mean, in the 3 years I've lived in this town, I can count on two hands (that's being generous...it might really be one, but I'm allowing for something I forgot) why I've been drawn downtown (or to other various "core" points) for just about anything.
Slag Bartram Park (and the like) all you want. But until an actual, comparable, viable alternative in the core is a reality (and not just a glorified pipe dream), then folks like me are going to ignore the core and want considerations like Bartram Park.
Clem, I accept your viewpoint and to be clear, I have no planning expertise. So there shouldn't be any perception of pretension from my side. Likewise, I'm probably not qualified to respond the way I am about to, but I'll take a stab anyway.
I think you're missing the point, perhaps just as a few others before you did as well. This obviously isn't a "suburbs vs. the core" argument because the location is invariable. In your frustration, you keep asking what more the core has to offer, but the real question is what more could Bartram Park offer with certain revisions to the master plan? What I believe the article was intending to demonstrate were these possible improvements that could be (or could have been) made to a suburban development. As you say, these are mostly townhouses, so considering that, couldn't some of them have been mixed-use with retail or office space? Could the buildings have been set closer to the street? Could those streets have been gridded, bringing everything into closer proximity?
Maybe you wouldn't like those changes, but more than likely you would. And in any case, these are steps that have proven to make communities more "sustainable." It is true that suburban sprawl has competed directly with urban centers over the last half-century, but the two can certainly coexist. If dense and well-planned suburban areas aren't your thing either, then maybe it is the gated country club you're looking for. And that's cool with me...I lived in one growing up, stay in one when I visit my parents, and perhaps will look to raise a family in one, oh say, at least 8 years from now. But I don't think anyone would take issue with your preferences, in this discussion we're simply trying to find ways to improve future developments that may or may not ultimately appeal to you, but ideally would benefit the quality of life throughout the city. Because these developments can affect everyone, not just those in living in them.
Oh, and also about the possibility of commuter rail and how that factors into all of this...I think that if there were to be rail service to the Bartram area and a great demand for it between there and downtown, then that would give even greater importance to proper planning of the neighborhood. As you say, it would make the place more appealing to potential residents, but it would also make the deficiencies that much more glaring.
Good answer, ProjectMaximus. Its definately not a suburb vs. urban core analysis. The original article is simply a neighborhood photo tour, but most of the discussion following it has been about the desire to see even our suburban areas become more sustainable.
Quote from: zoo on September 18, 2008, 03:28:08 PM
Except for a grocery store and a smidge of retail, this community is my version of hell on earth.
If you saw parts of India that I have seen, you would change your mind.
QuoteGood answer, ProjectMaximus. Its definately not a suburb vs. urban core analysis. The original article is simply a neighborhood photo tour, but most of the discussion following it has been about the desire to see even our suburban areas become more sustainable.
If it is sustainability you are after there are other areas in Jacksonville that can be redeveloped (infill) with something like this rather than building on the suburban fringe of Jacksonville. I hardly think building a large subdivision in the midst of forest and wetlands would ever be considered sustainable even with the addition of a gridded street network and different building setbacks.
Cline, when you know better, you strive to do better.
Even in the burbs, better layouts, connecting streets, etc. will result in reducing the strain on infrastructure, which ultimately saves taxpayer money.
In 2000 when Bartram Park DRI went to the regional council for approval, the developer had worked a deal with the city to purchase the desirable Julington-Durbin wetlands, made up of 2000 acres of wetlands and 600 acres of uplands. The developer wanted this mitigation for wetland impacts to also stand as mitigation for the destruction of over 630 gopher tortoises, an upland tortoise which was found throughout the development. At that time the Fish and Wildlife Commission would give a permit for the entombment or crushing of the tortoises although they were opposing the granting of this permit. The large number of tortoises to be destroyed on this project would make it the largest gopher tortoise destruction in the state. Duval County led the state in numbers of tortoises destroyed. The irony in the situation is that John Bartram, for whom the development was named, was the first naturalist to describe this animal over 200 years ago.
Over the next year, a lot of negotiations with the regional council, the FWCC, the water management district, Sierra Club, the Gopher Tortoise Council, and others led to an arrangement for the tortoises in the path of the bulldozers They would be moved to the preservation upland acres. This is a very labor intensive effort involving identifying holes where the animals live, setting up bucket traps to catch them when they emerge, checking them for injury and disease and moving them to a new tortoise home. The water management district agreed to burn the tract to make it more suitable habitat for the increased tortoise population. Volunteers as well as paid workers helped to mark the holes and move some of the tortoises.
I think my point is that Florida has been quick to benefit from the economics of construction. We haven't done so well about insisting on the other things. Sustainability should also include such things as energy efficiency, water conservation, and protection of native wildlife and habitat. It should not be cheaper to carve out a large development in our rural areas, forests, wetlands and salt marshes rather than redevelop crumbling suburbs and urban areas.
Good background info!
Quote from: lindab on September 19, 2008, 11:52:27 AM
It should not be cheaper to carve out a large development in our rural areas, forests, wetlands and salt marshes rather than redevelop crumbling suburbs and urban areas.
Man, that's so true. Very true.
QuoteIt should not be cheaper to carve out a large development in our rural areas, forests, wetlands and salt marshes rather than redevelop crumbling suburbs and urban areas.
Agreed. But the sad reality is that it is true. For example, I just noticed that they have begun clearing trees on the southeast corner of Baymeadows and Southside Blvd in order to put in retail (The Sembler Company). Currently, there is a large shopping center on the northwest corner of the same intersection. This center is fairly old and a little run down but would pose some very interesting opportunities for redevelopment in my opinion. Instead, a bunch of trees are going to be bulldozed so that we can have another (new) shopping center. We will now have a shopping center on each corner of this intersection.
Yeah, I noticed that too. I always thought that land was pretty wet, but apparently its not wet enough to build on.
QuoteYeah, I noticed that too. I always thought that land was pretty wet, but apparently its not wet enough to build on.
It did look wet. Also, from what I understand they paid about 700k in fair share due to traffic issues. Seems like a good deal for them considering that Baymeadows Road is a traffic nightmare right now.
Quote from: cline on September 19, 2008, 01:13:35 PM
QuoteIt should not be cheaper to carve out a large development in our rural areas, forests, wetlands and salt marshes rather than redevelop crumbling suburbs and urban areas.
Agreed. But the sad reality is that it is true. For example, I just noticed that they have begun clearing trees on the southeast corner of Baymeadows and Southside Blvd in order to put in retail (The Sembler Company). Currently, there is a large shopping center on the northwest corner of the same intersection. This center is fairly old and a little run down but would pose some very interesting opportunities for redevelopment in my opinion. Instead, a bunch of trees are going to be bulldozed so that we can have another (new) shopping center. We will now have a shopping center on each corner of this intersection.
I assume you're talking about the Publix center. The center is pretty busy and seems to have some pretty strong tenants. I don't think it's going anywhere.
QuoteI assume you're talking about the Publix center. The center is pretty busy and seems to have some pretty strong tenants. I don't think it's going anywhere.
Yes, I meant to say northwest rather than northeast. I didn't say that it would go anywhere though, I was just mentioning that it could be renovated and updated and would then be more appealing.
oh wow. that wouldve been shocking for me to see next time I went home.
I grew up in Deercreek and one of my best friends lived in Hampton Glen...I drove around that corner of the intersection many many times...that intersection (traffic-wise) is gonna get much worse now.
Speaking of which, can anyone tell me what's happened with, umm, hopefully my memory isn't betraying me right now...i believe that im thinking about the intersection of beach and university? Back around 2000-2002 I used to drive up from Stanton to JU after school let out and it was a monstrosity. Some days I'd be stuck at the light for as many as 4 or 5 cycles, or 15 minutes, or basically backed up so far that you couldn't even come close to seeing the intersection from where you were. I recall rumors of a potential overpass, though that seemed really unlikely.
Is it still the way it was when I was in high school?
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on September 23, 2008, 03:28:08 AM
Speaking of which, can anyone tell me what's happened with, umm, hopefully my memory isn't betraying me right now...i believe that im thinking about the intersection of beach and university? Back around 2000-2002 I used to drive up from Stanton to JU after school let out and it was a monstrosity. Some days I'd be stuck at the light for as many as 4 or 5 cycles, or 15 minutes, or basically backed up so far that you couldn't even come close to seeing the intersection from where you were. I recall rumors of a potential overpass, though that seemed really unlikely.
Is it still the way it was when I was in high school?
Let's just say... my car overheated while waiting at that light last month... and I had to miss class because of it.