Quote(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Riverside-Village/i-kTt9b7b/0/96bade28/L/243835_standard-L.jpg)
A new mixed use development featuring the adaptive reuse of four buildings dating back to 1909 could be on its way to Riverside's Memorial Park.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/riverside-village-development-coming-to-memorial-park/
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
Yea, let's tear down one of two remaining houses from The Row on Riverside Ave. Good call.
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
Yea, let's tear down one of two remaining houses from The Row on Riverside Ave. Good call.
Oh, Kerry. Never change.
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
Context is key. As for the row houses, we do have shotguns (the historical version of the South's row house) in neighborhoods like the Eastside near downtown. For the coming soon type that would better fit your liking, both the District and Vestcor (in LaVilla) have proposed them.
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
Yea, let's tear down one of two remaining houses from The Row on Riverside Ave. Good call.
Yea, I'm not a preservationist. I am an urbanist. While the original Row was impressive, what made losing it a shame is what it was replaced with - freeways and corporate buildings. The City needs to learn to trade up, not trade down. What comes next needs to be better than what it repalced. If preservationist had been around 200 years ago we would all still be living in log cabins with no AC or electricity.
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
I came to the comments first to see what negative comments Kerry would make.... he didn't disappoint.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 23, 2019, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
I came to the comments first to see what negative comments Kerry would make.... he didn't disappoint.
Someone has to push for better because no one else is doing it. Not at the City level, the developer level, or even on this board. Just a bunch people fine with the status quo or so set in mediocrity that anyone demanding better is just a complainer. Lakelander posts lots of articles about cities in the region which are doing amazing things and creating places people want to live, work, and visit. Here in Jax we get all excited about some new coats of paint and signage on some buildings adjacent to an Olmsted Park. You know how many places would kill for an Olmsted Park and we can't even keep our maintained, let alone use it as designed. It is a long time past due that Jax steps it up.
http://www.olmsted.org/the-olmsted-legacy/about-the-olmsted-legacy
Quote
Beginning in 1857 with the design for Central Park in New York City, Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), his sons and successor firm created designs for more than 6,000 landscapes across North America, including many of the world's most important parks. Olmsted's remarkable design legacy includes Prospect Park in Brooklyn, Boston's Emerald Necklace, Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina, Mount Royal in Montreal, the grounds of the United States Capitol and the White House, and Washington Park, Jackson Park and the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago. Olmsted's sons were founding members of the American Society of Landscape Architects and played an influential role in the creation of the National Park Service.
From Buffalo to Louisville, Atlanta to Seattle, Baltimore to Los Angeles, the Olmsteds' work reflects a vision of American communities and American society still relevant today—a commitment to visually compelling and accessible green space that restores and nurtures the body and spirit of all people, regardless of their economic circumstances. The Olmsteds believed in the restorative value of landscape and that parks can bring social improvement by promoting a greater sense of community and providing recreational opportunities, especially in urban environments.
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 09:46:44 AM
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 09:02:37 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
Yea, let's tear down one of two remaining houses from The Row on Riverside Ave. Good call.
Yea, I'm not a preservationist. I am an urbanist. While the original Row was impressive, what made losing it a shame is what it was replaced with - freeways and corporate buildings. The City needs to learn to trade up, not trade down. What comes next needs to be better than what it repalced. If preservationist had been around 200 years ago we would all still be living in log cabins with no AC or electricity.
In that regard I don't fundamentally disagree. I don't consider myself a preservationist at heart (to be clear - demolition of landmarks is bad and demolition for vacant lots is idiotic). But.....I am a preservationist in regard to Riverside and Avondale. The people voted to be a historic district and I believe that preservation should be closely followed.
Jacksonville use to be quite urban. Not just DT but pretty much the whole city. If it had PRESREVD that environment, it still would be.
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
I think you guys are throwing out the baby with the bathwater in terms of Kerry's argument.
If you remove 1571 Riverside - which should
never be touched (and 1721 Memorial Park Drive to a lesser extent) - from the equation, I actually agree with him in terms of the rest of the area.
Love Memorial Park, eat lunch there at least once a week, probably my favorite spot in Jacksonville.
Would love to see more active uses surrounding it.
The two historic houses aside, the rest of the site could easily pass for a 1980s suburban office park off Baymeadows.
The North Florida Dermatology building is a single-story building with no historical significance surrounded by a moat of asphalt, directly at the east entrance to the park.
(https://snag.gy/TD7Xuq.jpg)
The brunt of the property that opens up to Memorial Park is asphalt parking and small buildings set way back from the park.
(https://snag.gy/VMfx0S.jpg)
Happy it's being redeveloped, but would also not be at all disappointed if everything other than the Row house at 1571 was knocked down and replaced with a denser, marquee mixed-use development fronting and complementing our city's premier urban park.
You could do a
lot with that triangle of land and all that asphalt just past the Row house.
(https://snag.gy/ZuiBaE.jpg)
Ken, I'd agree with you if he didn't say, "....tear it all down.". I don't have a problem with your suggestions.
Personally, I'm not in love with the 1950's era buildings on the site. They don't address the street well at all and have zero distinguishing architecture. Like I said, I'm not hellbent against all demolition, so long as what is replacing the building is better (to be clear, a vacant lot or surface parking lot is NEVER better).
Long story short, I don't have an issue with this proposal. I could see something cooler there, but not every development can be amazing.
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Parking requirements is a whole other issue. Nearly every city worth their salt has either eliminated them or are in the process of doing so. As long as government mandates that the automobile is a primary design requirement all we are going to get are places designed for cars.
This map is already 4 years old but you can see how many cities are at least 4 years ahead of us.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/18/a-map-of-cities-that-got-rid-of-parking-minimums
If the house could be kept then great, but it for sure should not be used as office space. It needs to be a single family home, a rooming house, or a bed and breakfast. Heck, an Airbnb is better than another Law or Insurance office.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Urban Transition Area - would be MUCH easier to get through.
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
If the house could be kept then great, but it for sure should not be used as office space. It needs to be a single family home, a rooming house, or a bed and breakfast. Heck, an Airbnb is better than another Law or Insurance office.
Aren't you the one that talked about Jacksonville is overzoned? What do you care what they use it for as long as it isn't a Meth House?
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
Parking requirements is a whole other issue. Nearly every city worth their salt has either eliminated them or are in the process of doing so. As long as government mandates that the automobile is a primary design requirement all we are going to get are places designed for cars.
This map is already 4 years old but you can see how many cities are at least 4 years ahead of us.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/18/a-map-of-cities-that-got-rid-of-parking-minimums
The definition of a Green Pin on this map is, "parking minimums completely eliminated in at least one area of the city." By that definition Jacksonville should have a green pin as Downtown no longer has parking minimums as of last week.
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Parking requirements is a whole other issue. Nearly every city worth their salt has either eliminated them or are in the process of doing so. As long as government mandates that the automobile is a primary design requirement all we are going to get are places designed for cars.
This map is already 4 years old but you can see how many cities are at least 4 years ahead of us.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/18/a-map-of-cities-that-got-rid-of-parking-minimums
If the house could be kept then great, but it for sure should not be used as office space. It needs to be a single family home, a rooming house, or a bed and breakfast. Heck, an Airbnb is better than another Law or Insurance office.
These 'cities worth their salt' didn't eliminate parking minimums throughout their entire city. They were eliminated, or reduced, in certain neighborhoods. In Jax, downtown now has zero parking minimums... and the neighborhood in question (Riverside) has a reduction in parking depending on various factors. Does Riverside's parking reduction go far enough? Not really.... but the dumpster fire you are spewing on a keyboard is ridiculous and has zero understanding of context.
Btw, you forgot to blame Khan.
KKKHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAANNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quotebut would also not be at all disappointed if everything other than the Row house at 1571 was knocked down and replaced with a denser, marquee mixed-use development fronting and complementing our city's premier urban park.
That would then trip a whole new set of parking deviations, and would likely render this project dead. See:
Quote^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 12:54:11 PM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
Parking requirements is a whole other issue. Nearly every city worth their salt has either eliminated them or are in the process of doing so. As long as government mandates that the automobile is a primary design requirement all we are going to get are places designed for cars.
This map is already 4 years old but you can see how many cities are at least 4 years ahead of us.
https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2015/11/18/a-map-of-cities-that-got-rid-of-parking-minimums
The definition of a Green Pin on this map is, "parking minimums completely eliminated in at least one area of the city." By that definition Jacksonville should have a green pin as Downtown no longer has parking minimums as of last week.
I guess I missed that, but good deal. Thanks for letting me know.
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 12:52:44 PM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
If the house could be kept then great, but it for sure should not be used as office space. It needs to be a single family home, a rooming house, or a bed and breakfast. Heck, an Airbnb is better than another Law or Insurance office.
Aren't you the one that talked about Jacksonville is overzoned? What do you care what they use it for as long as it isn't a Meth House?
Back in the 80's homes were allowed to be used for businesses in order to save them from abandonment and eventual rot. That isn't the case today. Residential structures should be returned to residential uses and office space built for businesses. If this one house was sacrificed and replaced with an office building that contained space for 6 businesses, that could potentially free up 6 other Riverside houses currently being used as businesses to return to housing.
Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.
It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.
From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area.
Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.
^Fantastic breakdown!
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 10:52:10 AM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on May 23, 2019, 10:22:01 AM
Quote from: Kerry on May 23, 2019, 08:43:13 AM
They should just tear it all down and build something with better density. They are getting a ridiculously low amount of floor space for all the land being taken up and way to much surface space being used for parking. Would it kill Jax to get some Brownstones or Row Houses?
I came to the comments first to see what negative comments Kerry would make.... he didn't disappoint.
Someone has to push for better because no one else is doing it. Not at the City level, the developer level, or even on this board. Just a bunch people fine with the status quo or so set in mediocrity that anyone demanding better is just a complainer. Lakelander posts lots of articles about cities in the region which are doing amazing things and creating places people want to live, work, and visit. Here in Jax we get all excited about some new coats of paint and signage on some buildings adjacent to an Olmsted Park. You know how many places would kill for an Olmsted Park and we can't even keep our maintained, let alone use it as designed. It is a long time past due that Jax steps it up.
http://www.olmsted.org/the-olmsted-legacy/about-the-olmsted-legacy
Quote
Beginning in 1857 with the design for Central Park in New York City, Frederick Law Olmsted (1822–1903), his sons and successor firm created designs for more than 6,000 landscapes across North America, including many of the world's most important parks. Olmsted's remarkable design legacy includes Prospect Park in Brooklyn, Boston's Emerald Necklace, Biltmore Estate in Asheville, North Carolina, Mount Royal in Montreal, the grounds of the United States Capitol and the White House, and Washington Park, Jackson Park and the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago. Olmsted's sons were founding members of the American Society of Landscape Architects and played an influential role in the creation of the National Park Service.
From Buffalo to Louisville, Atlanta to Seattle, Baltimore to Los Angeles, the Olmsteds' work reflects a vision of American communities and American society still relevant today—a commitment to visually compelling and accessible green space that restores and nurtures the body and spirit of all people, regardless of their economic circumstances. The Olmsteds believed in the restorative value of landscape and that parks can bring social improvement by promoting a greater sense of community and providing recreational opportunities, especially in urban environments.
Memorial Park was designed by Olmsted's sons.
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Urban Transition Area - would be MUCH easier to get through.
I love that you believe that.
QuoteSomeone has to push for better because no one else is doing it. Not at the City level, the developer level, or even on this board. Just a bunch people fine with the status quo or so set in mediocrity that anyone demanding better is just a complainer.
Says the guy that literally spends all day complaining on a message board.
Tear down building 2, move building 3 next to 1 on Riverside ave preserving the two historic structures there. Then you have a nice large frontage on Memorial Park drive to build multi use facing the park with parking in the back.
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 04:06:47 PM
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then do what they want with the site. But good luck getting approvals without parking. That's what happened to Spirit Animal.
Urban Transition Area - would be MUCH easier to get through.
I love that you believe that.
This was the specific reason the Black Sheep building got approved. I was in the green room for this one and it would have been denied had it been across the street.
I'm not saying it's simple. I'm saying it's easier.
I think the plan to leverage the tree canopy and create a courtyard type atmosphere has merit. There does necessarily need to be brick and mortar to activate a space.
Converting the 1551 building and surrounding land into something like the Katy Trail Ice House in Dallas would be much more energizing than a row of brownstones. Now whether or not it would be allowed is a whole other story.
http://katyicehouse.com/gallery.html#content
In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it. With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, "preserving the canopy" makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don't have to go anywhere.
Quote from: jagsonville on May 23, 2019, 08:41:09 PM
In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it. With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, "preserving the canopy" makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don't have to go anywhere.
That is what I would do except I wouldn't do a Food Hall, I would do a midrise mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. Parking in the back.
Quote from: vicupstate on May 24, 2019, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: jagsonville on May 23, 2019, 08:41:09 PM
In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it. With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, "preserving the canopy" makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don't have to go anywhere.
That is what I would do except I wouldn't do a Food Hall, I would do a midrise mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. Parking in the back.
Yes that's what I was suggesting. I like moving number 3 offsite with the RAP
Borders.
Quote from: fieldafm on May 23, 2019, 04:19:02 PM
QuoteSomeone has to push for better because no one else is doing it. Not at the City level, the developer level, or even on this board. Just a bunch people fine with the status quo or so set in mediocrity that anyone demanding better is just a complainer.
Says the guy that literally spends all day complaining on a message board.
But I don't complain without offering solutions or suggestions.
Quote from: CityLife on May 23, 2019, 03:30:49 PM
Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.
It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.
From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area.
Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.
So let the developer figure out their parking needs - not the City. Establishing some random pre-determined parking requirement applicable across the board is non-sense. Also, there is plenty of room for parking. Tear it all down, move the structures to the sidewalk, and all the interior space opens up. Parking spaces reserved for residents and business patrons can park on the street. They could even make it one parking space per housing unit (not per bedroom like many do now).
Anyhow, if someone is looking for obstacles, they can find them. That is so easy anyone can do it. Solutions take knowledge.
Quote from: JeffreyS on May 24, 2019, 10:10:16 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on May 24, 2019, 09:59:01 AM
Quote from: jagsonville on May 23, 2019, 08:41:09 PM
In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it. With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, "preserving the canopy" makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don't have to go anywhere.
That is what I would do except I wouldn't do a Food Hall, I would do a midrise mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. Parking in the back.
Yes that's what I was suggesting. I like moving number 3 offsite with the RAP
Borders.
Agreed. Charleston has done the same type of thing quite often.
Quote from: Kerry on May 24, 2019, 11:03:48 AM
Quote from: CityLife on May 23, 2019, 03:30:49 PM
Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.
It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.
From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area.
Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.
So let the developer figure out their parking needs - not the City. Establishing some random pre-determined parking requirement applicable across the board is non-sense. Also, there is plenty of room for parking. Tear it all down, move the structures to the sidewalk, and all the interior space opens up. Parking spaces reserved for residents and business patrons can park on the street. They could even make it one parking space per housing unit (not per bedroom like many do now).
Anyhow, if someone is looking for obstacles, they can find them. That is so easy anyone can do it. Solutions take knowledge.
Oh Kerry. This is just an elaborate troll right? If so, hats off to you. If not, you have a severe case of Dunning-Krueger.
I actually listed 6 different solutions that the developers could use to solve parking issues and pointed out that they are not easy problems to solve. Particularly when there is minimal financial gain to be had.
I'm not in love with the proposed plan, but having actually done work on projects like this professionally, it's hard to make blanket judgements without knowing everything the development team knows and what constraints they are working with.
Quote from: CityLife on May 24, 2019, 04:34:30 PM
Quote from: Kerry on May 24, 2019, 11:03:48 AM
Quote from: CityLife on May 23, 2019, 03:30:49 PM
Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.
It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.
From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area.
Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.
So let the developer figure out their parking needs - not the City. Establishing some random pre-determined parking requirement applicable across the board is non-sense. Also, there is plenty of room for parking. Tear it all down, move the structures to the sidewalk, and all the interior space opens up. Parking spaces reserved for residents and business patrons can park on the street. They could even make it one parking space per housing unit (not per bedroom like many do now).
Anyhow, if someone is looking for obstacles, they can find them. That is so easy anyone can do it. Solutions take knowledge.
Oh Kerry. This is just an elaborate troll right? If so, hats off to you. If not, you have a severe case of Dunning-Krueger.
I actually listed 6 different solutions that the developers could use to solve parking issues and pointed out that they are not easy problems to solve. Particularly when there is minimal financial gain to be had.
I'm not in love with the proposed plan, but having actually done work on projects like this professionally, it's hard to make blanket judgements without knowing everything the development team knows and what constraints they are working with.
You lost me at "autocentric". I'm not interested in accommodating cars. They can park on the street and walk.
You may not be interested but everything needed to get the project actually built, from securing financing to signing deals with tenants will involve a lot more than "they can park on the street and walk". I said it somewhere else the last few days but this remains the same.......context is key.
I've heard they plan to keep all five existing buildings: one will remain residential, one will remain medical, one will be a small cafe, and two (adjoining) will be a thai restaurant. No parking adjustments required, I believe.
Planning Commission recommends approval for Riverside Village
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/planning-commission-recommends-approval-for-riverside-village
nice
Sounds good to me. Bring it on.
Unanimous approval by Council.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-council-signs-off-on-mixed-use-multifamily-restaurants-near-memorial-park
Quote from: Steve on May 23, 2019, 12:51:33 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on May 23, 2019, 11:46:53 AM
^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then
Interesting