QuotePlans for the redevelopment of the CenterState Bank property at 1232 King St. appear to be delayed.
The Riverside Avondale Preservation newsletter reports the proposed redevelopment plans from the potential purchaser are scrapped.
J.B. Ritz Inc. presented proposed development plans to RAP for a multifamily mixed-use project on the site that included the construction of a smaller bank building.
The economics of the development would require the development of 118 dwelling units, which in turn required relaxation from the overlay district height restrictions, according to the RAP newsletter.
The newsletter said the developer likely would not receive the relief needed to make the project work, which would be determined by the city with a recommendation by RAP.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/group-says-proposed-redevelopment-plan-for-centerstate-bank-property-in-riverside-scrapped
How much higher than the overlay limit would be required? A foot or two, or ten, or more? I suspect the more significant concern is the proposed 118 units.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 27, 2018, 10:34:43 AM
QuotePlans for the redevelopment of the CenterState Bank property at 1232 King St. appear to be delayed.
The Riverside Avondale Preservation newsletter reports the proposed redevelopment plans from the potential purchaser are scrapped.
J.B. Ritz Inc. presented proposed development plans to RAP for a multifamily mixed-use project on the site that included the construction of a smaller bank building.
The economics of the development would require the development of 118 dwelling units, which in turn required relaxation from the overlay district height restrictions, according to the RAP newsletter.
The newsletter said the developer likely would not receive the relief needed to make the project work, which would be determined by the city with a recommendation by RAP.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/group-says-proposed-redevelopment-plan-for-centerstate-bank-property-in-riverside-scrapped
Haven't seen the plans obviously, but this city confuses me, and seems super uptight as it relates to density. I imagine the developer would have taken care to create an aesthetically pleasing adjacency and the project would have added more fuel to the district"s mixed-use vitality, yet I was on Cassatt Avenue this morning and miles of the avenue look like a complete and abandoned dump with seemingly no standards for design. The signs looked especially horrible.
So Riverside does or doesn't want urbanization? Just when I was thinking riverside might be the city's cool and funky dense zone to make up for a laggard downtown, I see this article and sounds like riverside wants to be Leave it to beaver-ville.
^Riverside doesn't want urbanization. The community is fine being the equivalent of a first ring Detroit or Chicago style suburb. It will never have the density of a Lakeview or Wicker Park. That fight has been going on a while now. IMO, it's fueled the redevelopment and popularity of Brooklyn and Murray Hill. Both are close enough to benefit from the demographics and popularity, yet they come without fights business owners and developers would face within the historic district.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 27, 2018, 01:08:30 PM
^Riverside doesn't want urbanization. The community is fine being the equivalent of a first ring Detroit or Chicago style suburb. It will never have the density of a Lakeview or Wicker Park. That fight has been going on a while now. IMO, it's fueled the redevelopment and popularity of Brooklyn and Murray Hill. Both are close enough to benefit from the demographics and popularity, yet they come without fights business owners and developers would face within the historic district.
Maybe parts of Charlotte are like this, but From what I've seen, dense infill residential is nearly ubiquitous in charlotte, and consequently, you're hard-pressed to find abandoned or vacant strip centers anywhere. By the way, adjacent commercial/retail almost always have monument signage fairly low to the ground.
Silly thing for RAP to push back on. Residential would be a much better use of the site.
Riverside-Avondale is closed to growth. Got it. And what exactly does 'community fit' mean - showering RAP management with perks?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 27, 2018, 01:15:23 PMMaybe parts of Charlotte are like this, but From what I've seen, dense infill residential is nearly ubiquitous in charlotte, and consequently, you're hard-pressed to find abandoned or vacant strip centers anywhere. By the way, adjacent commercial/retail almost always have monument signage fairly low to the ground.
Charlotte is way more progressive than Jax when it comes to embracing density! That city reminds me more of a new up and comer like Orlando or Austin. Dilworth is probably Charlotte's version of Riverside. It's also a historic district. You won't find as much high density urban development in the heart of that neighborhood. Instead, you'll find it on the edges, like South Boulevard (South End) and Moorehead Street. Jax is definitely in need of a zoning overhaul. The areas where we have moonscape are the spots we should definitely be pushing for dense infill development.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 27, 2018, 01:23:18 PM
Riverside-Avondale is closed to growth. Got it. And what exactly does 'community fit' mean - showering RAP management with perks?
More or less, though I wouldn't say the neighborhood as a whole opposes density. There are people who are excited about it when it comes up. However, zoning discourages it, and currently RAP tends to oppose such changes.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 27, 2018, 01:25:26 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 27, 2018, 01:15:23 PMMaybe parts of Charlotte are like this, but From what I've seen, dense infill residential is nearly ubiquitous in charlotte, and consequently, you're hard-pressed to find abandoned or vacant strip centers anywhere. By the way, adjacent commercial/retail almost always have monument signage fairly low to the ground.
Charlotte is way more progressive than Jax when it comes to embracing density! That city reminds me more of a new up and comer like Orlando or Austin. Dilworth is probably Charlotte's version of Riverside. It's also a historic district. You won't find as much high density urban development in the heart of that neighborhood. Instead, you'll find it on the edges, like South Boulevard (South End) and Moorehead Street. Jax is definitely in need of a zoning overhaul. The areas where we have moonscape are the spots we should definitely be pushing for dense infill development.
I seriously considered a place in dilworth (or claiming to be dilworth) when searching. Yes, mostly big historic homes on large lots, and yes, all around the perimeter and in certain selective spots, dense residential and mixed use (ground floor retail) under construction or newly finished. I opted for south end because of light rail. Charlotte zoning and design standards for various uses adjacent to one another, should be considered by Jax. This is my first trip back to Jax since moving from NYC to Charlotte, and the city just feels like a laggard in so many ways, from downtown vitality to even the appearance of relatively new south side shopping centers. Landscaping standards in suburbia appear weak - the trees look sickly lol. Chin up Jax - jeez.
I was at a holiday party during luminaria in my neighborhood Avondale. We were talking about this project likely not going forward. Five different home owners from the area all thought RAP was wrong to oppose this. I wonder if RAP may be getting a bit out of touch. Wonderful group but sometimes I think other than chain stores they have suburb envy. I am not sure how high the proposed building were.
The zoning overlay in that area was updated relatively recently, was it not? And with A LOT of community involvement. It'd be one thing if the zoning overlay wasn't updated, but the community & city just approved an updated version a few years ago...
Has anyone seen the actual proposal?
I saw an earlier version that was all residential - the developer acknowledged that King Street might be a good location for retail but said they just didn't do retail. This early version also had a one story bank branch with a drive through that was on one side of the property. Overall the thing represented small time thinking.
This property is literally one of the 3 largest redevelopment opportunities in Riverside. Why settle for something mediocre?
When the Overlay was being developed, First Guaranty Bank insisted on, and got, a 45' height allowance on this property, which is higher than most of the neighborhood outside of 5 Points.
Interesting.
Was this property ever offered for sale on the open market? I certainly do not remember it. Sounds like the "developer" had an inside track to purchase this parcel, which is indeed "Prime real estate" in a hot neighborhood. In fact this parcel is in 32205 Avondale according to the MLS.
I have investors who would have paid top dollar for the opportunity to develop this parcel, and 118 units IS WAY TOO FEW for this site.
Catalyst Development Partners is doing 145 units on a smaller parcel in San Marco.
It is massively underutilized for sure.
If all you can go up is 45 feet, you're basically limited to three floors.
I don't know if it was offered on the open market. If I remember correctly CenterState got the whole parcel when they acquired First Guaranty Bank.
The parcel was part of the assets of First Guaranty, that Centerstate acquired during the recession.
For the proposal that I saw, the developer was a longtime acquaintance of someone at Centerstate. I don't think it ever hit the open market.
To put some actual numbers behind what Music Man said, SoBa is 144 units and 221 parking spaces in structured parking on 1.9 acres. This includes 2 courtyards in the middle of the building and 4 floors of residential. This property is just under 3 acres and 118 units, but has to include a bank on the property.
I'm guessing this project would not have structured parking, so that would be a tight squeeze with the bank on this property. A 3 story U shaped structure fronting Park, King, and Frederica place wrapped around a garage with rooftop green space and the bank fronting Lydia and King with dedicated spaces in the garage and a drive through on Lydia would work. Bell Riverside has a big portion that is like this and it works well. I lived on a ground floor unit that faced the garage. It wasn't amazing, but I was barely there and the location more than made up for the lack of view.
I guess my question would be: Can't we do a better job than a somewhat mediocre project that was built almost 20 years ago, in an area that was then considered kind of sketchy?
If King Street were picked up and placed in Atlanta, Orlando, Tampa, etc. I think developers would be dying to build a 4 story mixed use project on this site. I think the neighborhood would get behind something like that.
The fact that the property has never really been marketed suggests that we have not seen the highest and best proposal just yet...
Some similar to Hyde Park condos in Tampa would work on that property but they would definitely need a height exception.
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x88c2c361f945b885%3A0x52a47a55d78630b8!2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2Fhyde%2Bpark%2Bwalk%2Btampa%2Bcondo%2F%4027.9351904%2C-82.4758192%2C3a%2C75y%2C75.99h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D&imagekey=!1e2!2sAjKUawPhfM3FznMWeskBPQ
Quote from: JaxAvondale on January 01, 2019, 10:26:33 PM
Some similar to Hyde Park condos in Tampa would work on that property but they would definitely need a height exception.
https://www.google.com/maps/uv?hl=en&pb=!1s0x88c2c361f945b885%3A0x52a47a55d78630b8!2m22!2m2!1i80!2i80!3m1!2i20!16m16!1b1!2m2!1m1!1e1!2m2!1m1!1e3!2m2!1m1!1e5!2m2!1m1!1e4!2m2!1m1!1e6!3m1!7e115!4s%2Fmaps%2Fplace%2Fhyde%2Bpark%2Bwalk%2Btampa%2Bcondo%2F%4027.9351904%2C-82.4758192%2C3a%2C75y%2C75.99h%2C90t%2Fdata%3D&imagekey=!1e2!2sAjKUawPhfM3FznMWeskBPQ
Yeah, if 45 feet is the height limit, anything above three stories is going to exceed that.
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 27, 2018, 05:48:23 PM
I was at a holiday party during luminaria in my neighborhood Avondale. We were talking about this project likely not going forward. Five different home owners from the area all thought RAP was wrong to oppose this. I wonder if RAP may be getting a bit out of touch. Wonderful group but sometimes I think other than chain stores they have suburb envy. I am not sure how high the proposed building were.
Not sure I agree. Having been on the RAP board for 6 years and a former resident of Riverside, I tend to think that RAP actually has a good pulse n the neighborhood. Personally, I don't mind density but the neighborhood clearly isn't a fan. Plus, the project wasn't exactly mindblowing. There are like 5 streets in all of Riverside and Avondale (excluding the "Urban Transition Area" which is basically everything east of 5 Points) that really scream retail and this was one of them.
RAP has a reputation that if a project is killed in the neighborhood, the project was amazing and RAP sucks. In my time on the board there were definitely some things that RAP got wrong (some at the time I thought were wrong decisions, some I thought were the right decisions but hindsight shows maybe they weren't). This I thought they got right.
^RAP was definitely wrong on that one. It's been happening a good bit lately.
Five Points is a slice of something that could be a national draw in Jax. It just needs scale. It's too small to be a traveler's priority. Any chance of a Five Points East along Park Street in Brooklyn? A continuation of the funky design of Five Points West of the Interstate. Are we too far gone?
It's possible to build more density in Brooklyn. However, for it to be cohesive, we'll have to find away to stop allowing most of the new developments to have surface parking between their front door and the sidewalk. If not, we'll turn Brooklyn into an urban form of Gate Parkway or Deerwood Park Boulevard.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 02, 2019, 09:53:08 PM
It's possible to build more density in Brooklyn. However, for it to be cohesive, we'll have to find away to stop allowing most of the new developments to have surface parking between their front door and the sidewalk. If not, we'll turn Brooklyn into an urban form of Gate Parkway or Deerwood Park Boulevard.
I agree, but I thought Brooklyn was protected from that with current requirements? Overlay or otherwise. Also, hopefully Lori Boyer's new project addresses that.
Hopefully. But what's currently in place didn't protect Gate from putting in a big suburban gas station or Marriott winning approval for adding a surface parking lot between their proposed hotel and Unity Plaza.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on January 02, 2019, 09:05:16 PM
Five Points is a slice of something that could be a national draw in Jax. It just needs scale. It's too small to be a traveler's priority. Any chance of a Five Points East along Park Street in Brooklyn? A continuation of the funky design of Five Points West of the Interstate. Are we too far gone?
There are like 4 blocks between 5 points and Riverside Ave that are nothing but random single story office buildings, surface lots, and retirement towers. Talk about potential.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on January 02, 2019, 09:05:16 PM
Five Points is a slice of something that could be a national draw in Jax. It just needs scale. It's too small to be a traveler's priority. Any chance of a Five Points East along Park Street in Brooklyn? A continuation of the funky design of Five Points West of the Interstate. Are we too far gone?
The huge grass lot owned by Riverside Presbyterian is ready to be developed, as are the surface lots along Oak and Post. If we can see Lomax, Oak, and Post get developed with walkable retail and multifamily, I think that would be a great first step.
Gotta say, I am kind of happy to see the critical comments about RAP. I personally have a higher level of disdain for them than the average bear, to the point that I would probably help work with a counter-group that was pro-growth, pro-density, and pro-affordable housing. Since the area is one of the top destinations for millennials in the country it probably wouldn't be hard to get them all aboard. They are being misrepresented by RAP.
Quote from: Kerry on January 04, 2019, 09:56:01 AM
Gotta say, I am kind of happy to see the critical comments about RAP. I personally have a higher level of disdain for them than the average bear, to the point that I would probably help work with a counter-group that was pro-growth, pro-density, and pro-affordable housing. Since the area is one of the top destinations for millennials in the country it probably wouldn't be hard to get them all aboard. They are being misrepresented by RAP.
What exactly is your axe to grind? I still don't understand your beef other than this project?
Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2019, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 27, 2018, 05:48:23 PM
I was at a holiday party during luminaria in my neighborhood Avondale. We were talking about this project likely not going forward. Five different home owners from the area all thought RAP was wrong to oppose this. I wonder if RAP may be getting a bit out of touch. Wonderful group but sometimes I think other than chain stores they have suburb envy. I am not sure how high the proposed building were.
Not sure I agree. Having been on the RAP board for 6 years and a former resident of Riverside, I tend to think that RAP actually has a good pulse n the neighborhood. Personally, I don't mind density but the neighborhood clearly isn't a fan. Plus, the project wasn't exactly mindblowing. There are like 5 streets in all of Riverside and Avondale (excluding the "Urban Transition Area" which is basically everything east of 5 Points) that really scream retail and this was one of them.
RAP has a reputation that if a project is killed in the neighborhood, the project was amazing and RAP sucks. In my time on the board there were definitely some things that RAP got wrong (some at the time I thought were wrong decisions, some I thought were the right decisions but hindsight shows maybe they weren't). This I thought they got right.
First of all in that post I said RAP was a wonderful group not that they suck and I hadn't seen the proposal. I will clarify what I mean about suburb envy. It was most specifically about density. I think they worry a little more about cars than they should near the retail/ dinning clusters. I am a fan of RAP though I disagree with some decisions now and then.
Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2019, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 27, 2018, 05:48:23 PM
I was at a holiday party during luminaria in my neighborhood Avondale. We were talking about this project likely not going forward. Five different home owners from the area all thought RAP was wrong to oppose this. I wonder if RAP may be getting a bit out of touch. Wonderful group but sometimes I think other than chain stores they have suburb envy. I am not sure how high the proposed building were.
Not sure I agree. Having been on the RAP board for 6 years and a former resident of Riverside, I tend to think that RAP actually has a good pulse n the neighborhood. Personally, I don't mind density but the neighborhood clearly isn't a fan. Plus, the project wasn't exactly mindblowing. There are like 5 streets in all of Riverside and Avondale (excluding the "Urban Transition Area" which is basically everything east of 5 Points) that really scream retail and this was one of them.
Why exactly does this spot scream retail? King Street and the intersection at Park and King seem to provide plenty of retail, some of which could use some TLC. When you have eyesores like the Panda House and its gas station neighbor, I don't get the need to force more retail on the area. Apartments would increase the population and foot traffic, which would likely lead to reinvestment in existing retail laggards.
Quote from: DrQue on January 04, 2019, 01:58:39 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 02, 2019, 02:32:38 PM
Quote from: JeffreyS on December 27, 2018, 05:48:23 PM
I was at a holiday party during luminaria in my neighborhood Avondale. We were talking about this project likely not going forward. Five different home owners from the area all thought RAP was wrong to oppose this. I wonder if RAP may be getting a bit out of touch. Wonderful group but sometimes I think other than chain stores they have suburb envy. I am not sure how high the proposed building were.
Not sure I agree. Having been on the RAP board for 6 years and a former resident of Riverside, I tend to think that RAP actually has a good pulse n the neighborhood. Personally, I don't mind density but the neighborhood clearly isn't a fan. Plus, the project wasn't exactly mindblowing. There are like 5 streets in all of Riverside and Avondale (excluding the "Urban Transition Area" which is basically everything east of 5 Points) that really scream retail and this was one of them.
Why exactly does this spot scream retail? King Street and the intersection at Park and King seem to provide plenty of retail, some of which could use some TLC. When you have eyesores like the Panda House and its gas station neighbor, I don't get the need to force more retail on the area. Apartments would increase the population and foot traffic, which would likely lead to reinvestment in existing retail laggards.
All things considered, there aren't many commercial streets in the neighborhood. This is one of them and it's walking distance from one of the busiest intersections in the neighborhood.
This project could be amazing, with retail and a nice SMALL walk in bank + ATM. But you gotta have (at least) 200 units to make it work. I would think the commercial business owners within a few blocks would love that added density.
From ResidentNews on the community meeting concerning the Centerbank property redevelopment:
More than 70 people had attended the November meeting, where primary concerns centered around mass (too many units), scale (building height) and lack of retail on the King Street side. "I want to see more retail. No one expects to see an apartment complex in the middle of a business district," said David Joudi, owner of Riverside Liquors on King Street.
Who's this David Joudi guy? Apartment complex in the middle of a business district...has this guy ever heard of mixed use development? How many people in Riverside-Avondale live in this sort of bubble?
It would be great to see a gas station or Family Dollar there:).
David Joudi has owner Riverside Liquors for approximately 500 years (not really, but a while for sure). Personally, I agree with him.
While I didn't hear the context, I bet he was talking about the first floor.
Quote from: Steve on January 05, 2019, 07:25:32 PM
David Joudi has owner Riverside Liquors for approximately 500 years (not really, but a while for sure). Personally, I agree with him.
While I didn't hear the context, I bet he was talking about the first floor.
oh dear, the liquor store guy and his lines that just can't be crossed for the good of the neighborhood...
There's likely some challenges with this site. Assuming street level retail is desired, you'll likely need a certain number of minimum units, structured parking and building height much higher than 45 feet to make the development numbers work.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 05, 2019, 08:58:10 PM
There's likely some challenges with this site. Assuming street level retail is desired, you'll likely need a certain number of minimum units, structured parking and building height much higher than 45 feet to make the development numbers work.
OK, so say this parcel sits vacant for the next 12 years because the neighbors would rather have that over scale intensification, what's stopping this developer from a similar project on the numerous empty lots in Brooklyn, LaVilla, etc? Apart from how the places are branded/widely perceived, geographically they're quite proximal. Surely the same concept could go up in Brooklyn under the branding "Riverside East or Five Points East," and would anyone really know the difference? Plus, city incentives may be in order.
The more neighborhoods like Riverside/Avondale/San Marco there are to reject intense uses alongside their single-family historic structures, the more developers have only downtown as the option for scale intensification, no? That should work in downtown's favor in the medium-to-long term?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on January 05, 2019, 08:42:14 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 05, 2019, 07:25:32 PM
David Joudi has owner Riverside Liquors for approximately 500 years (not really, but a while for sure). Personally, I agree with him.
While I didn't hear the context, I bet he was talking about the first floor.
oh dear, the liquor store guy and his lines that just can't be crossed for the good of the neighborhood...
He's been in the neighborhood for quite a long time and a good dude. Riverside Liquors was on Park St in 5 Points forever, until (my understanding) they raised rent. He took the opportunity to expand his place by moving to King. Definitely a neighborhood staple, plus he's quite a charitable guy.
Plus, when it comes to the ground floor I agree with him. The highest and best use is retail on the ground floor of King. Plus, I'm guessing you can charge more for a retail space per SqFt than a residential unit.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on January 06, 2019, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 05, 2019, 08:58:10 PM
There's likely some challenges with this site. Assuming street level retail is desired, you'll likely need a certain number of minimum units, structured parking and building height much higher than 45 feet to make the development numbers work.
OK, so say this parcel sits vacant for the next 12 years because the neighbors would rather have that over scale intensification, what's stopping this developer from a similar project on the numerous empty lots in Brooklyn, LaVilla, etc?
Basically the same thing that's not stopping the developer from doing their project in Charlotte, Austin, Orlando, Chicago or Mexico City......nothing. Short of a few people like Dan Gilbert, most developers are in the business to make money, not make a certain city or neighborhood walkable. They don't owe Jax anything.
David is a good guy not sure why he would be singled out of the 70. I think mixed use with four stories along the King street side of the block with parking on the west side of the lot would fit perfectly.
Just read the article sounds like the real concerns were parking and traffic and the wish to be oakleaf with old homes.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 06, 2019, 01:41:01 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on January 06, 2019, 09:53:03 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on January 05, 2019, 08:58:10 PM
There's likely some challenges with this site. Assuming street level retail is desired, you'll likely need a certain number of minimum units, structured parking and building height much higher than 45 feet to make the development numbers work.
OK, so say this parcel sits vacant for the next 12 years because the neighbors would rather have that over scale intensification, what's stopping this developer from a similar project on the numerous empty lots in Brooklyn, LaVilla, etc?
Basically the same thing that's not stopping the developer from doing their project in Charlotte, Austin, Orlando, Chicago or Mexico City......nothing. Short of a few people like Dan Gilbert, most developers are in the business to make money, not make a certain city or neighborhood walkable. They don't owe Jax anything.
I don't understand if you're speaking in response to my post or making a general statement about profit motive. My point was that if that area of riverside doesn't want residential intensity, perhaps the development team can be redirected to Brooklyn.
I was just making a general statement that the development team can invest anywhere....including other cities. From my experience, every development site comes with its own set of challenges and opportunities. Just because land is sitting vacant in Brooklyn doesn't mean opportunities/challenges are the same or if the land is available for them at the same figures or even utility coverage.
After all,residential is the primary feature of the Riverside Avondale landscape,and the residents (and apparently some King Street business owners) have spoken....not this development/substantial deviation as proposed.
I was impressed with the citizen comment that the development might certainly be great for the newcomers,but not for those already there.
A chapter right out of Garrett Hardin's 'Tragedy Of The Commons'.
Does anyone have an update regarding the building at 1021 King Street? Years ago it was a antique store, as I remember run by the building owner. It includes the large vacant lot adjacent to it. It's been vacant for quite some time, and I would imagine there are lots of potential buyers for the property if it were to come available.
Quote from: Florida Power And Light on February 05, 2019, 08:48:30 PM
After all,residential is the primary feature of the Riverside Avondale landscape,and the residents (and apparently some King Street business owners) have spoken....not this development/substantial deviation as proposed.
I was impressed with the citizen comment that the development might certainly be great for the newcomers,but not for those already there.
A chapter right out of Garrett Hardin's 'Tragedy Of The Commons'.
This developer wasn't looking to work the neighborhood so it's a no go. However this type of project in that spot had great potential to be a win for everyone. Sounds like it needed to embrace the retail more.
Quote from: JeffreyS on February 06, 2019, 09:46:04 AM
This developer wasn't looking to work the neighborhood so it's a no go. However this type of project in that spot had great potential to be a win for everyone. Sounds like it needed to embrace the retail more.
I wonder too perhaps the developer did not have effective legal counsel lined up to pursue Deviation,perhaps legal team typically retained for RAP development process unwilling to be involved?
I think it's likely the developer has a cheap standard set of plans and throws them at a bunch of places then builds where there is an easy yes.
They built where the financial numbers make the most sense for their investors. Nothing wrong with that. Not many people are in the development business for charity.