A 100 room Home 2 Suites by Hilton is proposed for 600 Park Street in Brooklyn. Currently a surface parking lot next door to Jimmy Johns, the hotel would be six levels and include space for a ground floor restaurant at the intersection of Park and Rosselle Streets. The hotel would be built along Park Street with a surface parking lot in the rear of the structure. A DDRB workshop was held for the project this afternoon. Founded in 2009, Home2 Suites by Hilton is an all-suite extended-stay hotel that competes with TownePlace Suites by Marriott and InterContinental Hotels Group's Candlewood Suites.
Is this the second or third hotel in Brooklyn?
Does anybody have a link to the renderings?
The design will change but I have some screenshots I can upload.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-FSbsZ7P/0/78874b86/XL/Slide5-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-XgQKtqW/0/4aaaeeba/XL/Slide7-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-bZZd7Gr/0/6241e3a8/XL/Slide2-XL.jpg)
During the workshop, the DDRB recommended that the design team enhance the facade of the structure, especially at the corner where the restaurant will be located.
Not bad.
Interesting project. It will be nice to have a Hilton property in the area. Many of my vendors that visit me are loyal Hilton Honors members.
Just stayed in a Home2 in Greenville SC... I was impressed...
The new design is here, as Lake said. And the restaurant facade was fixed.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/downtown-development-review-board-to-consider-park-street-home2suites-hotel
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/318358_standard.jpeg)
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/318361_standard.jpeg)
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/318359_standard.jpeg)
You can also see the DDRB plans for the Independent Life Building and Central Fire Station here:
https://dia.coj.net/Meetings/Upcoming-Meetings/DDRB/DDRB-Meeting-December-2020
Quote from: thelakelander on December 03, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
You can also see the DDRB plans for the Independent Life Building and Central Fire Station here:
https://dia.coj.net/Meetings/Upcoming-Meetings/DDRB/DDRB-Meeting-December-2020
Maybe I don't understand, but the DDRB packet says it recommends rejection of the hotel project unless they seek a deviation because of their surface lot? I assume this means either the design will be tweaked to conform further to the downtown zoning layout banning visible surface lots or they'll work with them to get them a deviation granted?
I need to process that one. On the surface I'm not sure how this is any different than the Vestcor apartments they tossed up in LaVilla and Brooklyn.
Aside from that I thought the design was "fine". Not overwhelming and not going to win any awards, but for that site (currently a dirt parking lot if I remember right), unquestionably an improvement.
My first reaction is the board should override staff and approve. It's pretty rare I feel that way!
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on December 03, 2020, 10:10:21 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 03, 2020, 05:53:06 PM
You can also see the DDRB plans for the Independent Life Building and Central Fire Station here:
https://dia.coj.net/Meetings/Upcoming-Meetings/DDRB/DDRB-Meeting-December-2020
Maybe I don't understand, but the DDRB packet says it recommends rejection of the hotel project unless they seek a deviation because of their surface lot? I assume this means either the design will be tweaked to conform further to the downtown zoning layout banning visible surface lots or they'll work with them to get them a deviation granted?
Basically, the building frotange doesn't wrap around enough of the surface parking lot.
Frankly, I think the recommendation is absurd. The building fully abuts Park Street.. which is your main artery. There is an outdoor seating amenity proposed along Roselle, to complement the first floor ground retail space along Park Street. Although the Code is insufficient because it doesn't identify what should be pedestrian-oriented/retail arteries and what should be considered service arteries (if it did, Roselle would be a service artery)... Park Street is where you should most care about how the building interacts on a pedestrian scale. Quibble if you want about requiring an overhang/awning at both the Park Street hotel entrance and restaurant entrance.. that's fine, requiring that doesn't even move a decimal point in the project's construction budget. On the proposed site design, a surface parking lot (on what would be considered a service road) is directly across the street from a drive-thru fast food restaurant (the irony is thick in that 'deviation').
Across the street, the dialysis clinic (!) was approved with a surface parking lot that required the same deviation (and has no transparent windows along Park Street... the hotel will at least have 35% of its ground floor frontage with full-length windows dedicated to an on-site gym, and about 20-25% each for a hotel entrance and a restaurant entrance). One block away, a suburban-oriented gas station was approved, and a parking garage was approved and constructed in a manner which will never provide ground-level retail (despite whatever the nonbinding language in the approval read.. it was not built with a facade that can be easily converted for retail). A block away from that, a hotel was approved that doesn't even front the street at all... in fact, its about as a suburban layout as possible. Two more blocks away, the Vestcor podium style building has only a slightly less % of a parking deviation... and two blocks from that, a surface parking lots fronts more than 50% of your main arterial across an entire city block within the Fresh Market grocery store-anchored strip mall.
The biggest irony, is that the current property owner (who is under contract to sell to the proposed developer) tore down two buildings on this site about 5 years ago.. and about a year and a half ago, was somehow permitted to build a surface parking lot for Florida Blue on the site.
Forget about overlay deviations... the specific act of tearing down buildings to build surface parking lot is ILLEGAL (no exceptions, no deviations, etc) in the current code. Furthermore, the current parking lot doesn't even conform to the current parking lot standards if it was a grandfathered use (it was not a grandfathered use.. it was just built less than two years ago... a decade after the parking lot standards went into effect).
The hotel fixes, in very real terms, something that was never allowed to happen in the first place... tearing down buildings to build a chain link fence-bordered surface parking lot. And it does so in a much better site design than anything that was previously approved within a 5 block area.
It's perfectly in line or better than most everything else approved in Brooklyn. The use meets a very unmet need (long term hotel accommodations near two Fortune 500 companies and a vibrant commercial district). You have an experienced hotel operator and an an experienced local developer. Approve the damn thing and get it built already!
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 09:52:19 AM
Basically, the building frotange doesn't wrap around enough of the surface parking lot.
No argument with anything you said, but again, what is different here vs. the Vestcor stuff in LaVilla? Those buildings don't wrap around the parking lots either.
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 09:52:19 AM
It's perfectly in line or better than most everything else approved in Brooklyn. The use meets a very unmet need (long term hotel accommodations near two Fortune 500 companies and a vibrant commercial district). You have an experienced hotel operator and an an experienced local developer. Approve the damn thing and get it built already!
THIS!
Quote from: Steve on December 04, 2020, 10:07:57 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 09:52:19 AM
Basically, the building frotange doesn't wrap around enough of the surface parking lot.
No argument with anything you said, but again, what is different here vs. the Vestcor stuff in LaVilla? Those buildings don't wrap around the parking lots either.
Those buildings (which required deviations) wrap around slightly more of the parking lots than this hotel does. It's an eye-rolling 'distinction'. The DDRB staff reports didn't have the words 'recommend denial' imbedded when the Vestcor projects came up for review. That's really what grinds my gears in this case.
Andy Allen piss someone off?
Quote from: Steve on December 04, 2020, 10:52:53 AM
Andy Allen piss someone off?
I doubt that's even possible.
Seems its just typical inconsistent COJ bureaucracy. See other eye-rolling COJ staff recommendations like https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/will-parking-derail-post-modern-brewing/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/will-parking-derail-post-modern-brewing/) and https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/).
The inconceivable irony in this hotel application is that the DIA allowed, once again, someone to tear down buildings to build an illegal parking lot... and now 'recommends' denial of a much more sensible and urban-friendly use and site plan. DDRB would be foolish to deny, but having nonsensical workshops on this proposal, while some really alarmingly bad site designs get approved without blinking an eye, is mind-numbing.
QuoteThe biggest irony, is that the current property owner (who is under contract to sell to the proposed developer) tore down two buildings on this site about 5 years ago.. and about a year and a half ago, was somehow permitted to build a surface parking lot for Florida Blue on the site. Forget about overlay deviations... the specific act of tearing down buildings to build surface parking lot is ILLEGAL (no exceptions, no deviations, etc) in the current code. Furthermore, the current parking lot doesn't even conform to the current parking lot standards if it was a grandfathered use (it was not a grandfathered use.. it was just built less than two years ago... a decade after the parking lot standards went into effect).
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 10:13:56 AM
Quote from: Steve on December 04, 2020, 10:07:57 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 09:52:19 AM
Basically, the building frotange doesn't wrap around enough of the surface parking lot.
No argument with anything you said, but again, what is different here vs. the Vestcor stuff in LaVilla? Those buildings don't wrap around the parking lots either.
Those buildings (which required deviations) wrap around slightly more of the parking lots than this hotel does. It's an eye-rolling 'distinction'. The DDRB staff reports didn't have the words 'recommend denial' imbedded when the Vestcor projects came up for review. That's really what grinds my gears in this case.
The Vestcor projects have more screening than proposed here - but again, agree that this should be approved
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 11:38:17 AM
Quote from: Steve on December 04, 2020, 10:52:53 AM
Andy Allen piss someone off?
I doubt that's even possible.
Seems its just typical inconsistent COJ bureaucracy. See other eye-rolling COJ staff recommendations like https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/will-parking-derail-post-modern-brewing/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/will-parking-derail-post-modern-brewing/) and https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/grassroots-owners-restaurant-faces-changes-hurdles/).
The inconceivable irony in this hotel application is that the DIA allowed, once again, someone to tear down buildings to build an illegal parking lot... and now 'recommends' denial of a much more sensible and urban-friendly use and site plan. DDRB would be foolish to deny, but having nonsensical workshops on this proposal, while some really alarmingly bad site designs get approved without blinking an eye, is mind-numbing.
QuoteThe biggest irony, is that the current property owner (who is under contract to sell to the proposed developer) tore down two buildings on this site about 5 years ago.. and about a year and a half ago, was somehow permitted to build a surface parking lot for Florida Blue on the site. Forget about overlay deviations... the specific act of tearing down buildings to build surface parking lot is ILLEGAL (no exceptions, no deviations, etc) in the current code. Furthermore, the current parking lot doesn't even conform to the current parking lot standards if it was a grandfathered use (it was not a grandfathered use.. it was just built less than two years ago... a decade after the parking lot standards went into effect).
Yea, I mean I said that in jest about Allen because I don't really get it. If the only difference is how Vestcor screened the parking, then DIA should have approved this with the condition that upon Final approval (remember, this is only conceptual) they enhance the screening.
While this thing won't win any architectural or design awards, for that location it's totally fine and a big improvement on what's there now. It's miles better than the previously approved Residence Inn.
Though I firmly believe that DIA's role should never get into business viability, I would also believe that this hotel would do quite well and getting a sit down restaurant in the location shouldn't be too hard, especially considering the captive hotel audience.
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 11:38:17 AMThe inconceivable irony in this hotel application is that the DIA allowed, once again, someone to tear down buildings to build an illegal parking lot... and now 'recommends' denial of a much more sensible and urban-friendly use and site plan.
Was chuckling a bit about this during the DIA's Lot J meeting earlier this week when members were worried about "breaking from policy and setting bad precedents."
Meanwhile, 19 months and counting since the DIA sent a letter to Ramon Llorens/AK Pearl demanding that they cease using the old GreyHound parcel for illegal surface parking, it's still in daily use as paid surface parking for TIAA execs.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 04, 2020, 10:13:07 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on December 04, 2020, 09:52:19 AM
It's perfectly in line or better than most everything else approved in Brooklyn. The use meets a very unmet need (long term hotel accommodations near two Fortune 500 companies and a vibrant commercial district). You have an experienced hotel operator and an an experienced local developer. Approve the damn thing and get it built already!
THIS!
Preach!
That area of Park St needs all the help it can get.
It's the gap between what's been taking place in Brooklyn and Five Points. They need to do whatever it takes to get projects like this off the ground in that area.
QuoteHome2Suites project for Brooklyn up for DDRB review
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-sdTn5pk/0/13a5a51a/L/20201210_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_099-L.jpg)
A Home 2 Suites by Hilton hotel could be on its way to filling a pedestrian hostile gap between Brooklyn and Five Points. Here is a look at the project's presentation to the Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) as the applicant seeks conceptual approval at the Thursday, December 10 board meeting.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/home2suites-project-for-brooklyn-up-for-ddrb-review/
This will be a nice addition to the area. I think those lilac colored trees in the renderings are a bit of a stretch (from reality) though.
I still can't understand why staff recommended denial here. Let's look at the recent developments along Park St in that vicinity:
Gate Gas Station - typical suburban gas station (approved)
Florida Blue Parking garage - supposedly it could accommodate retail...sort of unless retail at that corner could lease for $1,000 SqFt (approved)
Dialysis Clinic - surface parking lot adjacent (approved)
Residence Inn - surface parking on three sides of the building (approved)
This is far and away the best site plan of all of them.
I'm still somewhat confused at why the Gate and Residence Inn projects weren't recommended for denial, much less approved in their current state.
I'm surprised that they were so hung up on Chelsea St.
Same here. It did pass, with conditions to review the Chelsea St side as well as to try to upgrade the architectural materials at Final review.
It looks like legally, they effectively have to treat Chelsea St no different than any street downtown. That's a flaw.
^That's definitely a flaw. The policies need to identity street hierarchy. Chelsea should not be viewed in the same light as Park. Some streets need to be designated as service or secondary corridors and others need to be designated differently. Without doing that, they'll never have a corridor that stretches blocks and blocks with complementary pedestrian scale uses at street level.
Maybe they are starting to grow some balls? Of it all I am most OK with the Florida Blue garage because of what it's facilitated down on the river.
I honestly don't think it's entirely that (unfortunately). With a couple exceptions, they definitely understood that Park and Rosselle were the important streets. Most were indifferent about the Chelsea treatment.
In listening to the discussion, I understand why staff did what they did as technically, they were following the existing law. (I'd like to see the staff reports for a couple of the other Park/Forest area projects). But either way, they need to make this one work.
The other objection they had was around the aesthetics. I kind of get it-they definitely seem to have gone low budget. At the same time, this isn't New York and this isn't the JW Marriott here. I think they could dress it up a little.
But with that said, I've always cared more about the site plans vs the architectural details, especially at this site.
^Same here. I don't care what type of materials were used on Gate, it's still a suburban gas station.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2020, 10:51:25 AM
I'm still somewhat confused at why the Gate and Residence Inn projects weren't recommended for denial, much less approved in their current state.
only one DDRB board member voted no on Gate.
As to what is different now with DDRB - staff to the board now comes from DIA...and there is new talent there along with a new boss.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2020, 10:03:15 PM
^Same here. I don't care what type of materials were used on Gate, it's still a suburban gas station.
Better lobbyists and relationships. Simple as that.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 10, 2020, 10:42:21 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2020, 10:51:25 AM
I'm still somewhat confused at why the Gate and Residence Inn projects weren't recommended for denial, much less approved in their current state.
only one DDRB board member voted no on Gate.
As to what is different now with DDRB - staff to the board now comes from DIA...and there is new talent there along with a new boss.
Good. I'm glad they addressed that. I mean, I understand the position Staff was in - they are basically told to follow the rules and they did so. In going back, that IS the rule (law).
Now, the (law) is flawed. Every city has those streets that are "service" streets. Heck, in Chicago they handled it in the Streeterville neighborhood with an "upper" roadway and a "lower" roadway, so delivery/service vehicles use the lower level and regular cars/peds use the upper level. I don't see THAT happening here though!
Since we're not going down that path, we need to really understand and codify street hierarchy. For example, if they objected because they had a parking lot fronting Laura Street, then I'd agree with that. In that section of Brooklyn, I think the key streets you have to hold in Reverence are Riverside, Park, Forest, Myrtle at a minimum. If you really look at it you may also say Roselle and Jackson as well. I'd say most else would be a "secondary" street, and then we need to be realistic about streets that are cut off because of road/highway expansion, like Chelsea or the ends of streets that dead end into something.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 10, 2020, 06:51:01 PM
^That's definitely a flaw. The policies need to identity street hierarchy. Chelsea should not be viewed in the same light as Park. Some streets need to be designated as service or secondary corridors and others need to be designated differently. Without doing that, they'll never have a corridor that stretches blocks and blocks with complementary pedestrian scale uses at street level.
See Peachtree Street Atlanta
What about Peachtree Street?
Blocks and blocks of pedestrian scale development on Peachtree Street. The point being if you look at all the places on Peachtree Street in ATL, the fronts facing the street are mostly pedestrian scale. The side and backs are either service or residential There are a few shopping mall type places left over from the 70's, but they are slowly being replaced as land value increase. I agree the code/approach needs to treat each site relative to it's street environment. Not sure how ATL does it, but maybe we out smart ourselves and "over code".
Gotcha. Initially, I was thinking more along the lines of King Street in Charleston or Central Avenue in St. Petersburg over the last 20 years. The infill on Peachtree Street is another good example.
Did a little on line looking at Home 2 Suites facade's in other cities. First I think all are pretty ugly and suburban looking. Only one in NYC is in Long Island City in Brooklyn. Just as suburban looking as many others, just 12 stories high. Boston is more suburban than NYC. Mid town ATL has bigger windows. DT Columbus has wood accents. Charlotte is the worse. Same basic colors and façade as Jax, but is tall and skinny. Actually looks funny. Again some are a little better but still not much different than a suburban H2S. Remember where these rank in Hilton, as mid priced extended stay. I think the developers could afford the wood accents (which is probably not real wood) and change to the softer color scheme and get approval.
What do you think about their hotels in downtown Kansas City or Greenville, SC? To me, it would be nice to see the ground level along Park Street activated a bit more. I'd like with the regular hotel facade if extra attention could be provided to better integrating the restuarant and lobby area with the adjacent sidewalk on Park instead of the side streets.
Love the Greenville one... will stay there again
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/ddrb-says-brooklyn-home2-suites-by-hilton-looks-too-suburban
Mendenhall @ JDR did a nice writeup of the meeting.
While I don't want complete trash to get built downtown, I didn't think the aesthetics were THAT bad personally. Nothing to write home about for sure, but again, this isn't the Waldorf-Astoria here.
Plus, I'm much more interested in site plans vs. building aesthetics. If the ground floor is laid out well I'm good.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2020, 04:54:59 PM
What do you think about their hotels in downtown Kansas City or Greenville, SC? To me, it would be nice to see the ground level along Park Street activated a bit more. I'd like with the regular hotel facade if extra attention could be provided to better integrating the restuarant and lobby area with the adjacent sidewalk on Park instead of the side streets.
The Kansas City hotel I like. The Jax hotel could look similar to this very easily. Remove the perimeter bump outs, use the darker exterior color throughout, and add some modern accent lighting on tower area. I think it will look good with the 1st floor being mostly glass.
I also agree they should move the restaurant area to Park Street with the outdoor seating at the end where parking lot is now. Actually if I were on the DDRB, that would have been my first recommendation over any exterior changes. Oh well.
QuoteNew Home2 Suites hotels in peer city downtowns
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-mDzVq9N/0/7333d35b/X2/Slide3-X2.jpg)
The Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) has criticized a Home2 Suites by Hilton hotel proposal for Brooklyn as being too suburban looking? While granting conceptual design approval, the DDRB would like to see more high quality architectural finishes. With that in mind, here are seven comparable recently constructed Home2 Suite by Hilton hotels in various downtown environments across the country. Take a look and let us know which Home2 Suites design you prefer!
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/new-home2-suites-hotels-in-peer-city-downtowns/
Quote from: jaxjags on December 14, 2020, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 13, 2020, 04:54:59 PM
What do you think about their hotels in downtown Kansas City or Greenville, SC? To me, it would be nice to see the ground level along Park Street activated a bit more. I'd like with the regular hotel facade if extra attention could be provided to better integrating the restuarant and lobby area with the adjacent sidewalk on Park instead of the side streets.
The Kansas City hotel I like. The Jax hotel could look similar to this very easily. Remove the perimeter bump outs, use the darker exterior color throughout, and add some modern accent lighting on tower area. I think it will look good with the 1st floor being mostly glass.
I also agree they should move the restaurant area to Park Street with the outdoor seating at the end where parking lot is now. Actually if I were on the DDRB, that would have been my first recommendation over any exterior changes. Oh well.
In fairness the developer did say if the Park Street Road Diet came to fruition, they would adjust the restaurant to better face Park.
I mean we're definitely getting the "budget" Home2. With that said, the downtown hotel market isn't great right now, especially compared to a lot of those other cities.
I would like to see them use different materials here, but if they don't I'd personally still be in favor.
Quote from: Steve on December 15, 2020, 09:17:01 AM
In fairness the developer did say if the Park Street Road Diet came to fruition, they would adjust the restaurant to better face Park.
I think, regardless of the road diet, the Park Street sidewalk frontage should be upgraded with this project and the ground floor should be integrated with it. This should be as simple as having outdoor seating along the sidewalk in front of the restaurant space and lobby area.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-sdTn5pk/0/13a5a51a/L/20201210_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_099-L.jpg)
^It seems in the rendering that the first floor lobby area and restaurant space are both transparent with the sidewalk on Park, which is good. Below are three different ways that more sidewalk integration has been designed with various Home2 Suite concepts. Overall, I don't think they have to do much with the facade or structure of the building to become a pedestrian friendly contribution to Park Street. The basic nature of the site layout and ground floor uses of the project are significantly better than what we normally see seeking DDRB approval at this stage.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-9CG4ftK/0/86e201a3/X2/Slide1-X2.jpg)
Greenville
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-XB4bPrV/0/9f022d01/X2/Slide6-X2.jpg)
Dallas
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-p9fLwXz/0/f4911827/X2/Slide4-X2.jpg)
Louisville
The Park Street road diet will not extend South of Forrest, the roadway and pedestrian improvements will be focused on Park from Forrest through the viaduct leading to Prime Osborne. The section of Park between Forrest and the I-95 exit ramp has a traffic count that is already at the max level of service, and the Florida Blue garage will only add to that traffic count during peak hours- making this section of Park not suitable for a road diet.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Park-Street-Road-Diet-DDRB-/i-h8JRRr8/0/6250db07/L/20200820_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET-17-L.jpg)
That said, the developer has to work within the current ROW, which is a standard 1970's-era/5-foot COJ sidewalk. You can't do much with outdoor seating along Park, unless you do something within the building's ingress/footprint (probably not the right term). In that context, I don't see a problem with the current proposal that has transparent windows along Park Street (which is not the case for the building just constructed across the street... nor the blank wall created by the storage unit diagonally across from this proposed hotel)... and providing covered outdoor seating along Roselle. The developer is also required to have a landscape plan that plants trees along Park Street... which further reduces the space to work with along the sidewalk. Again, another one of the Code's unintended consequences- why the Code doesnt allow awnings along the building to substitute for a crape myrtle is curious, to say the least. Both provide shade.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-4x5cZwm/0/cb8535eb/X2/1608047844931-X2.jpg)
Here is the site in its current condition along Park Street. Not exactly a sizeable pedestrian zone. Also, a beautiful image of an illegal parking lot (take THAT Downtown zoning overlay!)
The City's ROW along Chelsea behind the proposed development isn't much smaller than Park Street's ROW... however Chelsea provides a lot more potential pedestrian zone as the actual street is only two lanes (versus the 4 lanes on Park). Given that the street grid was forever cutoff with the widening of Forrest Street and I-95, effectively making Chelsea a permanent service street... it creates an almost comical contrast between Park and Chelsea.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-Ct3Gtwm/0/9782cd0c/X2/1608047838553-X2.jpg)
Roselle Street today.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-XxDXJN6/0/57963c85/X2/1608047850546-X2.jpg)
Chelsea Street today.
The reference to the Park Street road diet was probably to highlight the prospect that in future years... Brooklyn will have a very active, walkable commercial corridor... and whatever fills in along Park Street between Forrest and Riverside Park will act as a way to pull pedestrian activity back and forth from one commercial district to another (Five Points).
What I really notice that impacts the sidewalk, distracts from the building regardless of the design and does not look urban, is the above ground utilities. Any plans to remove. Also your comment about trees/landscaping is so right on. Our code is over detailed. Look at the urban hotels Lake provided. Not a lot of trees. Urban hotels can also look suburban due to landscaping.
Park only has an AADT of 2900. The next time it's up for resurfacing would be a great opportunity to reduce it from a 4-lane undivided to a 3-lane with bike lanes or parallel parking in select areas. I'm working on a similar project in Downtown Orlando. With that one, the road will go from a 4-lane undivided to a 3-lane with a two-way cycle track. The existing AADT on that road is 18,500.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Home-2-Suites-Brooklyn/i-FSbsZ7P/0/78874b86/L/Slide5-L.jpg)
They'll have to replace the broken up sidewalk and old driveways on Park Street, even though the sidewalk is outside of their ROW. Similar to the dialysis clinic across the street (picture below), this is an opportunity to redo the sidewalk adjacent to the building. With a much wider sidewalk (by paving over the grass utility strip) and perhaps bulb out at the corner of Park and Roselle, it would be perfect for movable outdoor seating wrapping the corner restaurant and lobby entrance. I agree that the fact the ground floor is already transparent with a lobby, fitness center and meeting room facing the sidewalk, it's already more interactive with the street than anything else recently built along this stretch of Park Street.
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU092720/i-pK8cDqR/0/b0d0effb/L/20200927_162402-L.jpg)
A couple of years we did a study for SR 40 through Downtown Ocala. Due to the high AADT, we couldn't reduce it from 4-lanes but we were able to create opportunities for bulb-outs at the intersections with side streets. As the area continues to redevelop, these will become spaces where there's opportunity to add a little outdoor seating and/or placemake, etc. Here's a few images from one of the recently upgraded intersections:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Ocala-September-2020/i-HFnFC8C/0/ccd3cdfe/L/DSCF6115-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Ocala-September-2020/i-6zNvMgp/0/cab14f12/L/20200904_144857-L.jpg)
Either Greeneville or Dallas; if I had to pick one, probably Greeneville.
Quote from: Steve on December 15, 2020, 09:22:46 AM
I mean we're definitely getting the "budget" Home2. With that said, the downtown hotel market isn't great right now, especially compared to a lot of those other cities.
I would like to see them use different materials here, but if they don't I'd personally still be in favor.
It looks like it will fit in well with the uninspiring trendy box architecture practiced by Vestcor and other apartment developers in Brooklyn. No imagination, just copy and paste designs that are cheap to build and dress up with some contrasting paint colors.
Yes, it is better than what is there now but, over time, these buildings will be around for decades. With no long term vision or standards, they could actually hold back or diminish future possibilities. Can quality architecture add that much more to the building budget given the size of some of these projects? Like other variances and incentives, it just seems, as a City, we have very little backbone.