Another apartment complex for Lavilla?
http://jacksonville.com/business/business-notebook/real-estate/2017-03-11/sunday-notebook-another-low-income-apartment?utm_medium=social&utm_source=The_Florida_Times-Union
Yes. Here's the full presentation with conceptual renderings and floor plans:
(http://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Lofts-at-Monroe/i-hf787dV/0/L/20170316_DDRB%20Agenda%20packet_Page_22-L.jpg)
http://www.moderncities.com/article/2017-mar-the-lofts-at-monroe-proposed-for-lavilla
So the Lofts at Lavilla and Lofts on Monroe are both low income based housing and the Houston street manor is a geared toward seniors. I am just wondering if there is and/or should be a limit on how many buildings are able to get the low income building tax credit (not sure the exact name). I understand that there needs to be some low income housing in Lavilla and that it will help change the perception of it being a bad place to live. But how far are we from housing being built in lavilla that is not based on minimum incomes. At least 1-2 more? 5 more? Or do we have enough already?
As far as I'm concerned, they should build as many units as they can. I don't see the negative in having more than white collar job holding millennials and empty nesters living in downtown. The more people, the merrier.
If there is the market for it I don't see the problem. Not a huge fan of the site layout with that huge surface lot.
Hmmm, not really excited about the surface parking lot either. Seems like a missed opportunity to really maximize the potential of an ENTIRE city block versus settling for a little over 100 units...
It's progress lol
Parking lot ruins it
I kinda agree with rattownryan for a few reasons. I grew up in LaVilla (826 West Duval Street), and back in the day LaVilla was very low income, rooming houses, very low income apartments, and of course predominantly African American (which means nothing). I would hope we would get away from the past and those precepts and precipitate a "come one, come all" type of mentality; as Lake said, "the more the merrier" regardless of who they are, low income, high income, etc., my sentiments exactly, but, let's try to get some high tier/income residents in there as well; mix them in. This is not the 50's, 60's, and 70s and even beyond up to the year 2000. However, if they did have 7 to 10 seniors, low income, huds in LaVilla, then oh well; that's the way it is, but as long as there is in fill and we fill up those empty lots with housing, any type of housing mind you, that's ok with me. As they taught in college, economics is based on people, so if the market is there for these residences, and the people fill them up and come live there, then I am in fact a "happy camper." Lastly, if the people "fill up" those residences after build up/build out, then comes the commercial aspect, more restaurants, night clubs, dining, laundromats, gas stations, convenience stores, and I could go on and on; so let's get these plans off paper and in construction and crane mode.
I want to slap whoever approved the surface lot.
And this isn't low income, it's medium income. Just like Lofts at LaVilla.
The only good thing about that lot is that if the market keeps on going they could build on top of it with another building that includes structured parking below. Maybe they why they have it laid out like that.
Quote from: Jim on March 13, 2017, 03:20:57 PM
I want to slap whoever approved the surface lot.
And this isn't low income, it's medium income. Just like Lofts at LaVilla.
You might want to educate rattownryan; he was the first to say low income. Thanks.
Quote from: Jim on March 13, 2017, 03:20:57 PM
I want to slap whoever approved the surface lot.
And this isn't low income, it's medium income. Just like Lofts at LaVilla.
Nothing has been approved. It goes before the board Thursday. So voice your concern to those that will be making the decision.
Sorry but the title of the article is "Another low-income apartment complex planned for Lavilla". The maximum income level for a single person is no more than $27K and two people is $31K. While going through college full time and working part time i was pushing $25K. I just think that alot of people that might have want to live here wont be able to because they have a full time job.
I understand the mentality of wanting market and luxury apartments too but the way I see it, this is the smartest possible move for Jax. Cities all around the country are struggling to find places for affordable housing in their downtowns and we are baking it right in with our redevelopment. One positive of being so behind the curve is that we can learn from others' mistakes. Brooklyn will be all luxury and market rate most-likely so LaVilla having a few low to middle income residences is a great thing. I do hope that the next one that is proposed (and there should be more) will be market rate so you get that mix but every other project going up around downtown is market rate or luxury already.
For Example:
Broad Stone River house
200 Riverside
The Barnett and Trio
Ventures' SouthBank Development
Future Shipyards development
The District
Southern Baptist apartments
Allowing LaVilla to be an affordable neighborhood of downtown with quick access to the new JRTC transit hub is a smart move. One that could theoretically increase ridership on our transit system too. At the end of the day, anything is better than vacant lots and stuff like this will go a long way in changing the perception of the area.
This, along with other developments in this area will be highly visible from I-95. Nice, but it needs to be much taller. I wish Jacksonville would lift these ridiculous height restrictions in downtown, of all places. High rises should be the order -of- the- day in downtown. It would help to build our image as a big city. We are the largest city in Florida (land area and population), and 12th largest in the country, but you wouldn't know it by looking at downtown.
I don't believe there are height restrictions downtown. We just don't have a market that can support significant highrise construction.
Us being 12th largest in the US is also kind of deceiving since the city is consolidated with the county. In reality, we're around 40th.
Incorrect. Recent info. on the subject shows Jax as 12th in the U.S. in city population, which is how city's are ranked, not metro area that covers everything within a hundred miles or so, which is always deceiving. Our city population ranks us ahead of Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc., making Jax the largest city in the southeastern U.S.; that's real figures, not Metro area figures which have Miami and Atlanta bragging about 5 -Plus million people, when neither has an actual city population over a half million. It's time Jax wakes up and stop denying that it's already a big city and go ahead and build a downtown commensurate with that status.
Lake's point is that the city limits are consolidated with the county, which is why our city population is so high. Our city is the largest by area in the continental US at 875 sq miles. Miami's is only 56. Miami's city population would dwarf Jacksonville's if you measured a corresponding area.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on March 13, 2017, 04:04:51 PM
I understand the mentality of wanting market and luxury apartments too but the way I see it, this is the smartest possible move for Jax. Cities all around the country are struggling to find places for affordable housing in their downtowns and we are baking it right in with our redevelopment. One positive of being so behind the curve is that we can learn from others' mistakes. Brooklyn will be all luxury and market rate most-likely so LaVilla having a few low to middle income residences is a great thing. I do hope that the next one that is proposed (and there should be more) will be market rate so you get that mix but every other project going up around downtown is market rate or luxury already.
For Example:
Broad Stone River house
200 Riverside
The Barnett and Trio
Ventures' SouthBank Development
Future Shipyards development
The District
Southern Baptist apartments
Allowing LaVilla to be an affordable neighborhood of downtown with quick access to the new JRTC transit hub is a smart move. One that could theoretically increase ridership on our transit system too. At the end of the day, anything is better than vacant lots and stuff like this will go a long way in changing the perception of the area.
On the plus side, this will give people working in the city (once it takes off) a place to live nearby. Decreased commuting cost and time will definitely be a plus and this would also increase the number of people shopping in the area.
I have several co-workers who used to work in London before and the time and money it took them to get to work (and they do have a good public transport system) was quite a thing. Prices for living in the city were prohibitive so they had to live quite a bit away from downtown.
Quote from: howfam on March 13, 2017, 11:35:59 PM
Incorrect. Recent info. on the subject shows Jax as 12th in the U.S. in city population, which is how city's are ranked, not metro area that covers everything within a hundred miles or so, which is always deceiving. Our city population ranks us ahead of Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc., making Jax the largest city in the southeastern U.S.; that's real figures, not Metro area figures which have Miami and Atlanta bragging about 5 -Plus million people, when neither has an actual city population over a half million. It's time Jax wakes up and stop denying that it's already a big city and go ahead and build a downtown commensurate with that status.
Sure, statistically you're correct. Though the real estate market and investors are all looking at metro areas. I'm not saying Jax isn't a big city but to try to say it's "bigger" than Atlanta or Miami is foolish.
It's a regional second tier type city on every level except for the amount of land area. So it shouldn't be surprising that 47 square mile San Francisco has a ton of more skyscrapers despite technically being smaller than 747 square mile Jax in city population. With that said, it doesn't mean that Jax can't be a great regional second tier type city. Two good examples out there are Portland and Salt Lake City.
Quote from: howfam on March 13, 2017, 11:35:59 PM
Incorrect. Recent info. on the subject shows Jax as 12th in the U.S. in city population, which is how city's are ranked, not metro area that covers everything within a hundred miles or so, which is always deceiving. Our city population ranks us ahead of Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, etc., making Jax the largest city in the southeastern U.S.; that's real figures, not Metro area figures which have Miami and Atlanta bragging about 5 -Plus million people, when neither has an actual city population over a half million. It's time Jax wakes up and stop denying that it's already a big city and go ahead and build a downtown commensurate with that status.
So are all of those people who live in Miami and Atlanta really just alternative facts?
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on March 14, 2017, 12:03:40 AM
Lake's point is that the city limits are consolidated with the county, which is why our city population is so high. Our city is the largest by area in the continental US at 875 sq miles. Miami's is only 56. Miami's city population would dwarf Jacksonville's if you measured a corresponding area.
That's If we measured corresponding area. But we can't, because Miami doesn't have 875 sq. miles of area to compare to Jax within its city limits thereby disqualifying anything counted outside its legal boundaries as city population. Only its metro area eclipses Jax's. Same for Atlanta, Charlotte, San Fran. etc. Jax is the largest city in the southeastern U.S., a sleeping (well awakening) giant. And when it finally wakes up and realizes its own potential, the world will take notice.
Quote from: howfam on March 14, 2017, 11:53:30 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on March 14, 2017, 12:03:40 AM
Lake's point is that the city limits are consolidated with the county, which is why our city population is so high. Our city is the largest by area in the continental US at 875 sq miles. Miami's is only 56. Miami's city population would dwarf Jacksonville's if you measured a corresponding area.
That's If we measured corresponding area. But we can't, because Miami doesn't have 875 sq. miles of area to compare to Jax within its city limits thereby disqualifying anything counted outside its legal boundaries as city population. Only its metro area eclipses Jax's. Same for Atlanta, Charlotte, San Fran. etc. Jax is the largest city in the southeastern U.S., a sleeping (well awakening) giant. And when it finally wakes up and realizes its own potential, the world will take notice.
The point is there are
far more people in the surrounding area of Miami and Atlanta than there are in Jacksonville, and that supports things like you are mentioning. Jacksonville doesn't have the same demand for skyscrapers that those cities do.
Quote from: howfam on March 14, 2017, 11:53:30 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on March 14, 2017, 12:03:40 AM
Lake's point is that the city limits are consolidated with the county, which is why our city population is so high. Our city is the largest by area in the continental US at 875 sq miles. Miami's is only 56. Miami's city population would dwarf Jacksonville's if you measured a corresponding area.
That's If we measured corresponding area. But we can't, because Miami doesn't have 875 sq. miles of area to compare to Jax within its city limits thereby disqualifying anything counted outside its legal boundaries as city population. Only its metro area eclipses Jax's. Same for Atlanta, Charlotte, San Fran. etc. Jax is the largest city in the southeastern U.S., a sleeping (well awakening) giant. And when it finally wakes up and realizes its own potential, the world will take notice.
Use population density then. I don't think you're going to like the results.
Quote from: howfam on March 14, 2017, 11:53:30 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on March 14, 2017, 12:03:40 AM
Lake's point is that the city limits are consolidated with the county, which is why our city population is so high. Our city is the largest by area in the continental US at 875 sq miles. Miami's is only 56. Miami's city population would dwarf Jacksonville's if you measured a corresponding area.
That's If we measured corresponding area. But we can't, because Miami doesn't have 875 sq. miles of area to compare to Jax within its city limits thereby disqualifying anything counted outside its legal boundaries as city population. Only its metro area eclipses Jax's. Same for Atlanta, Charlotte, San Fran. etc. Jax is the largest city in the southeastern U.S., a sleeping (well awakening) giant. And when it finally wakes up and realizes its own potential, the world will take notice.
I've tried to craft a number of responses to this ranging from serious to sarcastic, but I'm at a loss. How are you not getting this? Maybe if you thought of the "metro area" as the MARKET AREA it might make sense to you. Miami has more buildings, restaurants, businesses, hotels, towers, transit, stores, trash cans, tennis shoes.............etc because their market is 4 times larger than ours. There are 4 times more people in the nearby area to patronize a bar, restaurant, hotel, or other business. They also draw in more tourists. The city limits have far less impact than the quantity of people in close proximity to the city. Miami and Atlanta have 4 times more people who regularly do business in the city center and support projects around there.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on March 14, 2017, 01:02:03 PM
Quote from: howfam on March 14, 2017, 11:53:30 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on March 14, 2017, 12:03:40 AM
Lake's point is that the city limits are consolidated with the county, which is why our city population is so high. Our city is the largest by area in the continental US at 875 sq miles. Miami's is only 56. Miami's city population would dwarf Jacksonville's if you measured a corresponding area.
That's If we measured corresponding area. But we can't, because Miami doesn't have 875 sq. miles of area to compare to Jax within its city limits thereby disqualifying anything counted outside its legal boundaries as city population. Only its metro area eclipses Jax's. Same for Atlanta, Charlotte, San Fran. etc. Jax is the largest city in the southeastern U.S., a sleeping (well awakening) giant. And when it finally wakes up and realizes its own potential, the world will take notice.
I've tried to craft a number of responses to this ranging from serious to sarcastic, but I'm at a loss. How are you not getting this? Maybe if you thought of the "metro area" as the MARKET AREA it might make sense to you. Miami has more buildings, restaurants, businesses, hotels, towers, transit, stores, trash cans, tennis shoes.............etc because their market is 4 times larger than ours. There are 4 times more people in the nearby area to patronize a bar, restaurant, hotel, or other business. They also draw in more tourists. The city limits have far less impact than the quantity of people in close proximity to the city. Miami and Atlanta have 4 times more people who regularly do business in the city center and support projects around there.
I'm sorry, but there's no proof that number of tall buildings in any city's downtown is determined by its population. Miami had tall buildings downtown before it had the large metro population, as did Miami Beach (a separate city by the way). What they had is activity levels and attractions that turned attention to their area and drew people from outside the metro area into their cities. Miami would be nowhere if not for the millions of non-resident tourists that flock to the area yearly. So activities, setting, and general appeal a city has draws people ,albeit intermittently, to an area thereby necessitating buildings such as high-rise hotels to accommodate them. Orlando had Disney before it had its current metro population because that, along with the other activities , theme parks etc. put the area on the map; hence the old adage : build it and they will come. Jax needs to pick up the pace when it comes to big events and permanent tourist attractions, and then it will be something to marvel at like other cities its size and smaller.
Quote from: howfam on March 14, 2017, 03:59:34 PMOrlando had Disney before it had its current metro population because that, along with the other activities , theme parks etc. put the area on the map; hence the old adage : build it and they will come.
Orlando didn't pick Disney - Disney found an area with good weather and cheap land. Not to mention Disney is not exactly in Orlando - it's mostly in Osceola County (southwest of Orlando), sort of like saying St Augustine is in Jacksonville.
In addition, I'm not sure that recruiting a family to go to Disney is the same as leasing Office Space that would likely have to be leased for $25+ SqFt plus to make ends meet.
Orlando is a bad example. It doesn't have much of a skyline for a metropolitan area its size. Also, I'd argue much of Miami's real money came from it being an international hub for the drug trade. Nevertheless, howfam is correct:
Quote from: howfam on March 14, 2017, 03:59:34 PM
I'm sorry, but there's no proof that number of tall buildings in any city's downtown is determined by its population.
Jax is living proof. Just because you have +800k people spread out across your city limits doesn't mean you can support a San Francisco or Miami-sized skyline.
Sounds like per The Daily Record this received a less than enthusiastic response from the review board yesterday. Have been told to make it more urban, although conceptual approval granted???
Jax Daily Record article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=549554
I was surprised no one quoted in the article mentioned flipping the layout, to put the building along Adams and Lee Streets.
The rents look pretty reasonable at least
"It feels very suburban because of the amount of parking. It looks like it belongs on Baymeadows Road, not Adams Street."
It does look a bit like Spyglass.
I hate the surface parking.
I also don't quite understand the income limits. According to the Times Union the income limit for a single person is $27,300 and for two people it's $31,200. I guess that means they want couples with one breadwinner since the increase for the second person is hardly enough to cover their marginal increase in food expenses. I'm sure they've studied the demographics and think they can fill the units with those limits. I'd rather they add a couple more floors to the building and increase the income limit for two people to at least the single person plus 50%.
Perhaps turn the parts of the surface parking lot that abut the streets into a pedestrian plaza, and make the most interior parts of the lot the parking. That way, there's some pedestrian feature buffering the car lot from the streetscape.
Here's the updated plan. They stuck a dumpster/bike building on Adams Street.....
Before
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Lofts-at-Monroe/i-SSLcGbx/0/X3/20170316_DDRB%20Agenda%20packet_Page_37-X3.jpg)
After
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Lofts-at-Monroe/i-gkqv4qM/0/X2/20170420_DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_084-X2.jpg)
Haha, they might as well have put a big middle finger in the rendering
Chances the DDRB approves this design?
It really is a joke of a 2nd submission.
That looks awful. Maybe could work right up against the highway but not right in the middle of LaVilla on a relatively important road in and out of downtown. Really they need to do something with Adams St. I am less concerned with Lee St. since there is a swamp across the street.
Do they realize it still contains a surface lot?
This is terrible. If I were them (Assuming they don't have the money to front the entire block), I'd:
- Turn this into a U that faces Davis/Monroe/Adams, and stops mid-block so that the other half of the block isn't touched at all.
- Reduce the height by 1 floor, thereby reducing the parking need.
- Leave the other half for another development or market it for sale.
Seriously, this thing's site plan is ghastly. Their "update" assumes that the DDRB is just going to approve it, and they did the least amount of work they possibly could have, without doing literally zero. That's the most unimaginative thing they could have ever done this side of a Gate Gas Station.
Btw, DDRB staff recommends final approval. In regards to the Adams Street situation:
Quote1. Sec. 656.361.11.- Setback or "Build To" Lines (Complies)
The intent of the Setback and "Build To" Lines is for buildings to provide continuous frontage along sidewalks creating a pedestrian-oriented and pedestrian-scaled environment.
The site plan shows a residential project with street frontage on N. Lee, N. Davis, W. Adams, and W. Monroe Streets. The drawings and site plan indicate building facades built to the property lines not with-standing areas for landscape and parking. It is noted that portions of the building are set back to accommodate the first floor of surface parking and a landscape buffer. The primary entrance for the project is proposed for the corner of Davis and Monroe Streets. As such, the drawings show compliance with this design guideline.
Also, a letter from the developer to the DDRB states:
Quote"At the request of the board, the southwest corner of the site was redesigned to capture the urban corner with a bike building that could be inwardly and outwardly focused, connecting the residents back to the city. The modified contemporary hardscape and landscape give the project a more urban feel and also provides residents with an enhanced sense of security."
(https://media3.giphy.com/media/l46CzfD0yZGtX0r28/200.webp#75)
Something tells me it is about time the DDRB needs to be replaced with something or someone with the guts to make things correct. This and the gate station shows they are just puppets of the developers.
Went and talked with the staff at the Lofts of LaVilla site. It would seem that Vestor is planning to move on a 3rd location within the LaVilla area. The third will not be low income based.
I believe the third location is next door to Lofts of LaVilla. Basically, right next to the Skyway's Jefferson St Station.
Interesting. So are they doing that one without subsidy? That would be great if the market can sustain such a development.
That's great to hear! And makes total sense. That whole vacant strip should be made into residential. Hopefully it comes with a few retail bays on the ground floor.
Excellent news! This is basically what happened here in Orlando over the past 5 years. A few companies invested in apartments on the cheap empty lots on the edge of downtown. Suddenly there was a boom when investors realized how quickly they'd fill. It went from about 3 projects 5 years ago to ~10 just in the last 2-3 years.
It's insane how much more housing there is downtown now, compared to when I moved here. I have a feeling Jax is on a similar, but slightly longer, timeline.
Quote from: UNFurbanist on July 22, 2017, 04:15:29 PM
That's great to hear! And makes total sense. That whole vacant strip should be made into residential. Hopefully it comes with a few retail bays on the ground floor.
No chance of retail unless forced.
Personally, I think it's ok for the first few developers in this area to not include retail. They're a little too far from everything to be supported by the business crowd during the week and aside from the convention center and fed there's not enough to do in that area to support restaurants/retail.
^ I agree, I'd rather have the money that would be spent creating retail spaces used for more residential units initially. The retail will come naturally if a critical mass of residents is created out there.
Lofts on Monroe has some retail space included. JTA's JRTC will also have some retail. As the area grows, more retail will come naturally to support the population. Ideally, what we should be doing at this point is to make sure the ground floors of various projects are designed to accommodate a mix of uses, as the market evolves.
Is this project where that large crane showed up this weekend? I think that's the first once on the northbank since I've moved here that isn't for a public project. Pretty cool.
No. The project with the crane is Houston Street Manor. It will be a 7-story apartment building for seniors.
This is a bad picture from Saturday:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU072317/i-mqLjWTZ/0/70dbdc68/L/DSCF4002-L.jpg)
Here's a rendering of this particular project:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Urban-Project-Renderings/i-gMpxfwk/0/85a017f1/L/20151217_DDRB%20Meeting%20Packet2_Page_38A-L-L.jpg)
Glad to see Houston is finally moving along. I was worried it want going to start since all the way back in 2015 they said it was going to be started/completed Dec this year haha.
Having that lot filled in will relieve a massive eyesore... Now we just need all of those other empty lots/fugly abandoned buildings filled in/replaced :D
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2017, 08:43:03 AM
This is a bad picture from Saturday:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU072317/i-mqLjWTZ/0/70dbdc68/L/DSCF4002-L.jpg)
Here's a rendering of this particular project:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Urban-Project-Renderings/i-gMpxfwk/0/85a017f1/L/20151217_DDRB%20Meeting%20Packet2_Page_38A-L-L.jpg)
Did the crane go up on Saturday? Usually I notice these things and it first caught my eye on Sunday.
Quote from: acme54321 on July 24, 2017, 11:14:50 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 24, 2017, 08:43:03 AM
This is a bad picture from Saturday:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU072317/i-mqLjWTZ/0/70dbdc68/L/DSCF4002-L.jpg)
Here's a rendering of this particular project:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Urban-Project-Renderings/i-gMpxfwk/0/85a017f1/L/20151217_DDRB%20Meeting%20Packet2_Page_38A-L-L.jpg)
Did the crane go up on Saturday? Usually I notice these things and it first caught my eye on Sunday.
It was there on Thursday and Friday. Not certain about prior to then.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 14, 2017, 10:32:16 AM
Btw, DDRB staff recommends final approval. In regards to the Adams Street situation:
Quote1. Sec. 656.361.11.- Setback or "Build To" Lines (Complies)
The intent of the Setback and "Build To" Lines is for buildings to provide continuous frontage along sidewalks creating a pedestrian-oriented and pedestrian-scaled environment.
The site plan shows a residential project with street frontage on N. Lee, N. Davis, W. Adams, and W. Monroe Streets. The drawings and site plan indicate building facades built to the property lines not with-standing areas for landscape and parking. It is noted that portions of the building are set back to accommodate the first floor of surface parking and a landscape buffer. The primary entrance for the project is proposed for the corner of Davis and Monroe Streets. As such, the drawings show compliance with this design guideline.
Also, a letter from the developer to the DDRB states:
Quote"At the request of the board, the southwest corner of the site was redesigned to capture the urban corner with a bike building that could be inwardly and outwardly focused, connecting the residents back to the city. The modified contemporary hardscape and landscape give the project a more urban feel and also provides residents with an enhanced sense of security."
Hey lakelander , have you seen the site work going on and the fencing up at the Lofts of Monroe? Exciting to see it get started. Wow! That's a record for Jax- at least 7 projects underway in downtown at one time.
Quote from: heights unknown on March 13, 2017, 03:12:08 PM
I kinda agree with rattownryan for a few reasons. I grew up in LaVilla (826 West Duval Street), and back in the day LaVilla was very low income, rooming houses, very low income apartments, and of course predominantly African American (which means nothing). I would hope we would get away from the past and those precepts and precipitate a "come one, come all" type of mentality; as Lake said, "the more the merrier" regardless of who they are, low income, high income, etc., my sentiments exactly, but, let's try to get some high tier/income residents in there as well; mix them in. This is not the 50's, 60's, and 70s and even beyond up to the year 2000. However, if they did have 7 to 10 seniors, low income, huds in LaVilla, then oh well; that's the way it is, but as long as there is in fill and we fill up those empty lots with housing, any type of housing mind you, that's ok with me. As they taught in college, economics is based on people, so if the market is there for these residences, and the people fill them up and come live there, then I am in fact a "happy camper." Lastly, if the people "fill up" those residences after build up/build out, then comes the commercial aspect, more restaurants, night clubs, dining, laundromats, gas stations, convenience stores, and I could go on and on; so let's get these plans off paper and in construction and crane mode.
heights unknown: Construction activity- site clearing, fencing etc. has started already at the Lofts At Monroe. Comments?
Thanx "fam" for the update. I am indeed elated and happy that FINALLY there are multiple residential projects going on in and around downtown Jacksonville. I am planning a visit soon to see with my own eyes. I can hardly wait to see and view, with my own eyeballs, all of the construction and activity in the urban core. I'm real old school, and lived in Jax in the 70''s, 80's, and early 90's in which there was very little activity, numerous empty parking lots, and razing of properties with no plans whatsoever relative to anything at all replacing the razing. I thought this was horrific to say the least. With all of this going on, I've also got my finger crossed relative to the brand new upcoming JEA Building. I am hoping, and yes praying, for a signature, in your face, very tall office tower being built (700 feet, I know, might not be a justification for one that tall and/or the market may not support it), the first of such type in over 27 years (BOA Building I think was the last "true" office tower in downtown built in 1990 I believe). So that would be great as other major Florida cities have some really serious towers and developments in the planning pipeline. Hope these comments are enough "fam."
A few images from this week's upcoming urban construction update:
(http://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU100817/i-HW264f8/0/0e460034/L/20171029_142244-L.jpg)
(http://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU100817/i-PfCd8Bx/0/293f5cad/L/20171029_142302-L.jpg)
Quote from: heights unknown on November 05, 2017, 01:38:52 AM
Thanx "fam" for the update. I am indeed elated and happy that FINALLY there are multiple residential projects going on in and around downtown Jacksonville. I am planning a visit soon to see with my own eyes. I can hardly wait to see and view, with my own eyeballs, all of the construction and activity in the urban core. I'm real old school, and lived in Jax in the 70''s, 80's, and early 90's in which there was very little activity, numerous empty parking lots, and razing of properties with no plans whatsoever relative to anything at all replacing the razing. I thought this was horrific to say the least. With all of this going on, I've also got my finger crossed relative to the brand new upcoming JEA Building. I am hoping, and yes praying, for a signature, in your face, very tall office tower being built (700 feet, I know, might not be a justification for one that tall and/or the market may not support it), the first of such type in over 27 years (BOA Building I think was the last "true" office tower in downtown built in 1990 I believe). So that would be great as other major Florida cities have some really serious towers and developments in the planning pipeline. Hope these comments are enough "fam."
heights unknown: Yes it's nice to see so many projects going on at once. I wish they were all highrises. Hopefully JEA will break the highrise drought and give us all something we can really marvel at for a change./ howfam
High-rises are overrated. Do an image search of Amsterdam. You can be a great city with amazing street-side vibrancy, without towers. You do, however, need density and walkability and place-making. Many american inner cities have always had more high-rises than European cities, and yet they were as dead as door knobs for decades.
Miami as an example
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 18, 2017, 12:49:48 PM
High-rises are overrated. Do an image search of Amsterdam. You can be a great city with amazing street-side vibrancy, without towers. You do, however, need density and walkability and place-making. Many american inner cities have always had more high-rises than European cities, and yet they were as dead as door knobs for decades.
Those European cities you speak of were founded long before skyscrapers came on the scene. Amsterdam dates back to the early 1300's and was likely more densely developed by the time Jax came about (1822) than downtown Jax is today. American cities are known for their high rises and Jax should be no exception. It's time we stop with the excuses and build this city into the great city it has the potential of becoming. We should aspire to have not only the tallest building in Florida , but also tallest in the U.S. , and eventually tallest in the world.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on November 18, 2017, 01:57:28 PM
Miami as an example
See today's front page article. Miami changed their zoning code a few years back. It's evolving into a more walkable city as we speak. Can't say the same for Jax at the moment.
I'll be there in a few weeks, so I look forward to checking everything out. I always felt it was quite empty for all of those residential towers. South Beach on the other hand is quite active.
Quote from: howfam on November 22, 2017, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 18, 2017, 12:49:48 PM
High-rises are overrated. Do an image search of Amsterdam. You can be a great city with amazing street-side vibrancy, without towers. You do, however, need density and walkability and place-making. Many american inner cities have always had more high-rises than European cities, and yet they were as dead as door knobs for decades.
Those European cities you speak of were founded long before skyscrapers came on the scene. Amsterdam dates back to the early 1300's and was likely more densely developed by the time Jax came about (1822) than downtown Jax is today. American cities are known for their high rises and Jax should be no exception. It's time we stop with the excuses and build this city into the great city it has the potential of becoming. We should aspire to have not only the tallest building in Florida , but also tallest in the U.S. , and eventually tallest in the world.
You've got to be kidding, lol.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on November 22, 2017, 09:22:57 AM
I'll be there in a few weeks, so I look forward to checking everything out. I always felt it was quite empty for all of those residential towers. South Beach on the other hand is quite active.
Miami's skyline wasn't that much larger than Jax's 25 to 30 years ago. Many of the towers in the skyline were constructed during the real estate boom of the early 2000s. Many sat empty as investors and developers lost their shirts with the crash. One's loss became the next person's gain with the return of a good economy. Those empty units were snatched up at reduced prices, resulting in significant population growth, which resulted in a new found market for retail and entertainment. Those things then attract more people, thus more towers popping up in the skyline that are designed to be more ped friendly at street level (result of revised zoning). Unlike Miami, most of our proposed projects were not underway when the market crash. So our proposals just died instead of being completed, sitting empty and rapidly filling up at reduced prices.
Jax must figure out how to be an amazing city in its own right. I've lived in NYC for years, and we've always referred to Miami as the 6th borough. Miami is also an international city and the gateway to Latin America. Miami has been shaped at its cultural core by immigration, which has intensified its cross-border appeal, and Miami has been enriched by massive pools of wealth (very likely underground and funded by drugs). What's happening in downtown Miami and in South Beach are results of all those factors I've just named above. That will not be Jax anytime soon. Nor should it be. I don't think Jax has enough existing or new population who actually desire high-rise living. People here like the sun, they like barbecues...it's hard to pull that off in high-rises. But that's no reason not to fill up downtown with population. You can look at cities all over the globe and find examples of really cool, creative, urban, pedestrian-scale residential options that are NOT high-rises. And it's not just because they were established in the Middle Ages, lol. It's because if most people had their druthers, they wouldn't be stacked on top of each other for their primary residential arrangements. That's probably even more true in a place of "Jeffersonian" cultural persuasian like Jacksonville. People here want a piece of terra firma or something close to it...not to be startled every time a plate drops at the neighbor's. But again, that should not be an obstruction to filling up downtown blocks with amazing things to see and experience when on two feet. I like a vision of Jax that has nothing to do with how Jax looks from a drone or from someone's car window on the Fuller Warren. If I can take a train into Jax, exit the station, and walk along sidewalks, up and down avenues, and take in an abundance of things to see and do, most of which are unique to Jax and really make a positive mark, well then downtown has made it.
Yes, NYC has a wow factor because of its canyons of steel, but once you've actually lived among them, it puts things into perspective.