Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-4p2TvZQ/0/X2/i-4p2TvZQ-X2.jpg)
The Downtown Investment Authority has approved a $31.59 million incentives package for the former Florida Times-Union site on Brooklyn's riverfront. In doing so, has the site been locked into a suburban-style site plan that's incongruous with an urban environment?
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/is-the-ftu-site-locked-into-a-suburban-site-plan/
When is the next meeting related to this development?
I think with some tweaks the current design can be saved. Remove all of the scattered parking at riverside and the dead end road because that will just add to site traffic. People will just drive back and forth between them to save walking an extra 50 feet. Keep the two north/south roads where they are and make the main east west road in the middle where it is currently dead end parking. Put angle parking on the north/south roads with retail commercial fronting the street for the whole length on the west "main entrance" and retail on the first floor of the phase 2 residential at the intersection of the east/west road. The garage entrance on should be on the east/west road. The signature restaurant should be at the intersection of the main road and the riverwalk, but not obstruct river views. For events you can close the entrance road south of the east/west road and there should be public space/river access where the current garage entrance is.
Definitely seems doable. There's a ton of space dedicated to vehicular movement, especially having individual entrances/ramps for each level of the garage, outside of the parking structure itself. I assume that's a cost savings move, given the sloping elevation of the site. My main question would be around determining if the site plan is far enough along to where the developer is already locked into the Phase I residential and garage footprints of the plan? They basically drive the direction of everything else moving forward.
^Yeah. I'd say if there's any hope of saving it at all, it'll take very quick action by DIA. Otherwise we're just going further and further down the same path.
That is why I was so surprised they were moving so fast on this. A conceptual design still costs time and money, even if it isn't exact. Meaning it has to be close to what the developer was thinking. I really wish they put more thought into the creek activation and location. If they keep it where it is, they could have shops on each side similar to cities like Venice or Amsterdam. At least don't make it a bad afterthought for part 2 of the project.
When asked about the FTU site plan, Lori Boyer stated that Fuqua has already submitted conceptual designs to DDRB and that any changes to the site plans would have to be made by them. The DIA is mostly concerned with the riverfront restaurant and daylighting McCoy's creek
The DIA is worse than useless. They are causing harm to downtown, instead of improving it.
Time for a Reset.
Quote from: Zac T on September 24, 2021, 03:18:30 PM
When asked about the FTU site plan, Lori Boyer stated that Fuqua has already submitted conceptual designs to DDRB and that any changes to the site plans would have to be made by them. The DIA is mostly concerned with the riverfront restaurant and daylighting McCoy's creek
Hate to say we told everyone so. That site plan was anything but conceptual and now we've likely committed ourselves to incentiving a substandard layout and using tax money to prop up a restaurant that will ultimately fail.
Also, when daylighted, the creek will be an afterthought and not properly integrated with the development. When you don't get your site plan properly set up early, none of the vertical fluff is going to overcome that.
Are there any city planners on the DIA board or is it just people associated with development generally? I appreciate people serving/volunteering in unpaid civic positions but the trade-off is you may have people in over their heads regarding evaluating the projects the staff presents to them due to lack of experience, time, capacity or interest. I think we had this problem at JEA, thus the blowup there, and we have at JTA, thus the U2C going forward toward doomsday.
Civic boards should follow best practices for corporate boards: A diversity of perspectives, experiences and talents relevant to the board's mission from people who understand they have a fiduciary responsibility to appropriately investigate, question and evaluate to some level of detail what they are presented with by staff. Not be a rubber stamp. Also, not have a conflict of interest or be too buddy-buddy with the staff that they aren't comfortable confronting them with some degree of skepticism at times. Corporate boards also compensate board members at a level that assures the board members will devote the time and energy to perform their roles adequately. There are clearly exceptions, but given there are thousands of well managed and successful companies using this model, it works most of the time.
Here's what the Ordinance Code says about DIA Board Members, reformated into bullet format for clarity
Quote
From Section 55.107
(b)(1) Board membership. The Board shall consist of nine members,
five to be appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by Council and
one shall be a resident or have substantial business interests in the Southbank CRA; and
one shall be a resident or have substantial business in the Northbank CRA.
four to be appointed by the Council President and confirmed by Council. Of the four appointed by Council,
one shall be a resident or have substantial business interests in the Southbank CRA; and
one shall be a resident or have substantial business interests in the Northbank CRA.
The remaining five members shall fulfill one of the following categories without duplication:
downtown resident (a minimum of two years);
a downtown retail operator;
a downtown real property owner,
a member of the banking or finance industry,
a person with business management expertise,
a practicing attorney,
a person with commercial real estate experience,
an architect,
or an urban planner.
(2) Term of office and appointment. Members shall be appointed for four-year staggered terms, expiring on June 30 of the subject term. ... No member shall serve for more than two consecutive full terms; ...
(3) Removal. Members shall serve at the pleasure of the Mayor and may be removed at any time by the Mayor with Council approval.
There are nine categories for the "remaining five members" and one person cannot check two (or more) of those boxes.
The current DIA Board Members - the DIA website does not identify into which of the boxes their members belong, just what their "day job" is.
Mayor's appointees
W. Braxton Gillam, Esq. - Board Chair - an Attorney, term expires 6/30/24
William E. Adams, Esq. - lawyer - 6/30/22
Todd Froats - Pres. ICX Group (ICX Group provides companies with highly skilled professionals on a project, consulting or permanent basis) - 6/30/22
David Ward, Esq. - Senior Corporate Counsel, Global Payments, Inc. - 6/30/23
Craig Gibbs, Esq. - lawyer 6/30/20, 2nd Term
Council appointees
Carol Worsham - Board Vice Chair - VP of HDR - 6/30/22
James P. (Jim) Citrano, Jr. - Board Secretary - Sr. VP and Commercial Real Estate Mgmt. BB&T (now Truist) Bank - 6/30/23
Oliver Barakat - Sr. VP CBRE Brokerage Services - 6/30/23
Ron Moody - CEO Moody Williams Appraisal Group - Council - 6/30/24
I don't see any planners or architects on the DIA Board.
HDR is a planning firm. Their VP is on the DIA board. There are also planners at the staff level. I have no idea how we keep approving and incentiving autocentric infill. There's way too much of the core of this site dedicated to asphalt. Seriously, does that parking garage really need four separate auto entrances and multiple ramps outside of it. I'd rather incentivize a better garage layout in order to free up space in the center of the site than fund an isolated and poorly accessible full service restaurant at the helipad.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 24, 2021, 10:18:30 PM
HDR is a planning firm. Their VP is on the DIA board.
That does not mean that Ms. Worsham is a Planner, just that she may have Planners as [in]direct reports. At my last job, the Planning staff reported to an Engineer.
Previous Plan:
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-4p2TvZQ/0/X2/i-4p2TvZQ-X2.jpg)
Latest Plan:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-8CFxLt2/0/59b01600/X4/20211014_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_095-X4.jpg)
^ Ennis, hard to read the fine print without being able to blow these up. Can you give us a summary of the changes and your comments on same?
Here you go!
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-RLk6mrf/0/fc555ed2/X2/Slide1-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-FtDDPhc/0/1fbdb29f/X2/Slide2-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-WXrD5cz/0/9184e0d2/X2/Slide3-X2.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-jDKXLfS/0/07ab92c1/X2/Slide4-X2.jpg)
That helps, but could you summarize the changes and discuss how you think they make the site plan better or worse? (Sounds like a Jaxson Article!)
I haven't taken a deep dive into the plan yet. Just glancing at it, the proposed riverwalk restaurant location is in a better spot than helipad. The amount of space dedicated to accessing the parking garage has been reduced as well. Would still prefer to see it reduced further and the weird shaped apartment amenity building becoming retail, or having a stronger and visible connection between the riverwalk restaurant and the retail/grocery box fronting Riverside Avenue. While there's definitely a dramatic elevation change from Riverside Avenue to the riverwalk, I'd still prefer an option that pushed the grocery store to the left, and that row of parking shifted elsewhere.
In short, Leila Street should be treated like a mixed-use street with as much retail/dining as possible on the ground level between Riverside Avenue and the riverwalk. Think the main street of Tapestry Park.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1455287211_5B57DW3-L.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Neighborhoods/Tap-Park/i-wtWgrkf/2/49966230/L/100_2165-L.jpg)
Even if they bumped the tracery one row of parking to the left, providing on street parking would help. Sad the Creek walk is such an afterthought
Why does that middle East-West strip not connect to the Phase 2 North-South road? The improvements to this are minimal and it's still a garbage design for this area. I'm sure the developer can point to the other suburban designed developments that have been approved across the street, but just because those were approved it doesn't make what he's proposing a good site plan.
Good question. I assume they don't connect because in this particular design, the roads are at different elevations. It looks like the May Street extension is at a lower grade, based on the grocery store loading docks. It would be good to blow the design up and start over but it appears we're way past that point now unfortunately.
Months later, nothing has really changed with the site plan. They just added more bushes in the renderings so you can't see the cars in the graphics. Pretty horrible garage design that basically controls what you can and can't do with the site. Brickell City Center is several times the size of this small project, has garages with thousands of spaces and they don't even need five separate vehicular entrances. If this development could lose two of the five entrances, it would allow for Leila to actually be pedestrian friendly 100% through the property. Those two would be the grocery level garage entrance to the far right....which would allow a few more spaces in the garage and the access road between the grocery and garage to slope down to the secondary May Street entrance. The other would be the basement level garage entrance off Leila Street. Since that level also has an entrance off May, there's no need for two, if you can slope the road between the grocery box and garage down to May Street. As of now, the garage design make the autocentric site layout a self imposed hardship.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-PFhX7NC/0/X3/i-PFhX7NC-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xNtWPVH/0/X3/i-xNtWPVH-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-xLDTKqn/0/X3/i-xLDTKqn-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-nFq6dwX/0/X3/i-nFq6dwX-X3.jpg)
Before
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-4x3PN3M/0/X3/i-4x3PN3M-X3.jpg)
After
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-chpMGFW/0/X3/i-chpMGFW-X3.jpg)
That's going to be mayhem in the evenings with people coming home from work and others trying to grab dinner/groceries. Just a multidirectional log jam with all of those entrances and exits.
How long does it take these developers to produce one of the mock ups? How expensive is it?
Quote from: CityLife on November 04, 2021, 10:49:58 AMIt's really a shame because the market is strong and there is a lot happening...but years from now people will look around and lament at how poorly designed many of these projects are.
You can see it on Riverside Avenue now, a good decade after 220 Riverside was complete. The street and the atmosphere look pretty horrible. It's a great example of what not to do when discussing the future of other urban neighborhoods in Jax, across the state and the country. While it has had its fair share of market rate development and infill, the physical outcome is what one should expect when there's no vision in place of what the overall end game should resemble. History erased, no sense of place, no unique character and dead at the pedestrian scale level despite hundreds of millions in new infill development taking place over the last decade. One Riverside fits right into this unfortunate scenario. Good to see new development but things could have been significantly better for Brooklyn and Downtown Jax in general if laid out differently.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 04, 2021, 09:17:49 AM
Months later, nothing has really changed with the site plan.
In your opinion, why is Fuqua so resistant to making some of the changes you've suggested - cost, time, inconvenience?
IMO, they don't need too. At this point, there's no real incentive to create a better product. After months of working on this, whatever previous negotiations they've had with the DIA have already shaped what the project will be. If they get any pushback, just name drop Publix or say the project will die if it's not approved as is (although definitely not true). I have serious doubts either the DIA or the majority of the DDRB will make them do anything more than minor cosmetic changes.
This one is on DIA. Original conceptual plans showed grocery at the street. Then all of a sudden the plan changes and it's set in stone. Not the way to do business. Is it time for the DIA/DDRB system to be changed or replaced? Lake, how are other cities systems structured?
Quote from: jaxjags on November 04, 2021, 05:48:57 PM
This one is on DIA. Original conceptual plans showed grocery at the street. Then all of a sudden the plan changes and it's set in stone. Not the way to do business. Is it time for the DIA/DDRB system to be changed or replaced? Lake, how are other cities systems structured?
From a layman's perspective, seems like requiring DDRB approval prior to DIA incentives would put the onus on getting the design right.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 04, 2021, 06:10:38 PM
Quote from: jaxjags on November 04, 2021, 05:48:57 PM
This one is on DIA. Original conceptual plans showed grocery at the street. Then all of a sudden the plan changes and it's set in stone. Not the way to do business. Is it time for the DIA/DDRB system to be changed or replaced? Lake, how are other cities systems structured?
From a layman's perspective, seems like requiring DDRB approval prior to DIA incentives would put the onus on getting the design right.
Seems like amending the zoning code to not allow for surface parking lots fronting a major pedestrian/retail street, and instead requiring such parking to be behind the building (like what is required on Gaines Street as pictured in this article) would provide a better, more clear blueprint for developers from the very beginning of their due diligence process. This particular site has been under contract since the end of February 2021... so, what you see today did not just happen over the past 30-60 days.
What is maddening, is that the location of the surface parking lots and the number of parking garage entrances proposed here is actually NOT a relief from the existing code. That's insane.
Meanwhile, three blocks away, staff recommended denying a much better surface parking treatment (replacing an ILLEGAL surface parking lot the DIA allowed to be 'temporarily' built) here: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/brooklyn-projects-show-need-to-define-primary-streets/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/brooklyn-projects-show-need-to-define-primary-streets/)
I don't blame Fuqua for putting this suburban site plan together. They clearly put better products out there when they are required to do so. They aren't required to do so here.... and as such, this is what you get.
Agree 100%, so what needs to occur to make these kinds of changes before the next project comes along, as I have no idea.
What needs to happen (modifying policies that contribute to poor site planning), won't before the next poorly designed project pops up. Before you can modify policy, you first have to admit that something is not working. I don't think we're there yet.
What a disaster.
Here is the DIA staff report. It pretty much tells you all you need to know about why we keep seeing poorly designed projects popping up in downtown.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-PFhX7NC/0/dc7b3635/X5/20211110_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_053-X5.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-3nM6f6P/0/5a0f5f7e/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_1-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-6cdNx6W/0/6c09316c/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_2-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-xNmKQbC/0/70afa4f5/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_3-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-HL9spbb/0/534583b2/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_4-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-G9TTjXd/0/7a9e87a7/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_5-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-FgjBJNV/0/3a5f51c6/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_6-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-jW5NN66/0/2246b3b1/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_7-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-CfGN9Ss/0/1246d0ec/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_8-X4.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Times-Union---Fuqua/i-xfjPngJ/0/3ca4f306/X4/DDRB%202021-014%201%20Riverside%20Ave_Final%20Review_Page_9-X4.jpg)
The DIA conclusions are as follows:
-Even though we paid an expert to do a road diet study (here: https://investdtjax.com/wp-content/themes/dia-theme-2020/assets/pdf/brooklyn-neighborhood-road-diet-study-2017.pdf (https://investdtjax.com/wp-content/themes/dia-theme-2020/assets/pdf/brooklyn-neighborhood-road-diet-study-2017.pdf)) to right the wrongs of making Brooklyn not walkable two decades ago, we don't need to eliminate the right turn as that study suggests because its ok to use a speed bump painted bright colors instead. This will ensure that when pedestrians get run over, they will have spent their last minutes on earth either alive or not horribly paralyzed mesmerized by bright colors.
-We don't need to eliminate surface parking lots on Leila, because even though this opens the grid network back up.... its not really a street. Therefore, our strict code about surface parking lots enacted in 2011 don't apply here. Also, we've included some bushes to really spruce up the experience.
-Although we don't consider the reopening of Leila St to be actually true, we still think there is a variance because of view corridors. Basically, we're going to pick and choose what we consider constitutes opening up the street grid. See item above regarding surface parking lots, that's not really what we mean when we talk about opening up the street grid. But it is considered to be opening up the street grid when it comes to view corridors. Confused? Don't worry, we've added some shrubs.
-Even though there is no justifiable reason for this parking garage to have 5 total entrances/exits... we've added some bushes. You're welcome. Also, watch out for that car.
-This parking garage will have more ingress/egress access than any other garage Downtown, despite not even being the biggest garage within our entire redevelopment boundary. We are breaking records here! Any time you can break a record, that is proof positive about our glowing performance as a redevelopment agency.
-The site plan really isn't suburban or completely auto oriented in any way, because here are some nicer pictures than what we had before. See, there are more bushes now. Problem solved.
-If you are listening to Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World" while reading our staff report...it will invariably allow our conclusions to make more sense. In the end, good design isn't the real challenge. The real challenge is that we all need more positive thoughts, and we feel that an uplifting song will soothe over many of your concerns. Hey, check out figure 5! That's a real nice bush, amiright?
This is a pretty brilliant staff report. Best work DIA has ever done. Bravo!
As the site plan was set once DIA did their thing, essentially DDRB worked on Landscaping.
Pretty much.....basically landscaping and building paint colors. A complete waste of time for those who are actually interested in downtown becoming a vibrant place at the pedestrian scale level.
QuoteUpdated look at Brooklyn's One Riverside Avenue
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-xNtWPVH/0/L/i-xNtWPVH-L.jpg)
A look at the latest redevelopment plans for the former Florida Times-Union site in Brooklyn.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/updated-look-at-brooklyns-one-riverside-avenue/
The "comparable projects" on pages 9 and 10 illustrate pretty concisely the aesthetic we're going to be stuck with for a very long time if we don't start demanding better. What will they allow on a prime piece of property like the Ford on Bay?
Pretty much! Each project serves as precedence for the next.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on November 11, 2021, 09:44:12 AM
The "comparable projects" on pages 9 and 10 illustrate pretty concisely the aesthetic we're going to be stuck with for a very long time if we don't start demanding better. What will they allow on a prime piece of property like the Ford on Bay?
It's my understanding architecture will be a scored component in the RFP for the Ford on Bay site.
At least verbally, multiple members of the DDRB have pondered aloud about expecting more re: architecture/development. Moving the needle from technically satisfactory to above average is obviously quite difficult without policy to give it teeth.
Quote from: fsu813 on November 11, 2021, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on November 11, 2021, 09:44:12 AM
The "comparable projects" on pages 9 and 10 illustrate pretty concisely the aesthetic we're going to be stuck with for a very long time if we don't start demanding better. What will they allow on a prime piece of property like the Ford on Bay?
It's my understanding architecture will be a scored component in the RFP for the Ford on Bay site.
Like the public art was a major factor in scoring the proposals for the park at the Former Landing Site? And how a specific art concept put the winning proposal over the top? A public art piece that may not happen?
Quote from: Charles Hunter on November 11, 2021, 12:30:49 PM
Quote from: fsu813 on November 11, 2021, 12:26:31 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on November 11, 2021, 09:44:12 AM
The "comparable projects" on pages 9 and 10 illustrate pretty concisely the aesthetic we're going to be stuck with for a very long time if we don't start demanding better. What will they allow on a prime piece of property like the Ford on Bay?
It's my understanding architecture will be a scored component in the RFP for the Ford on Bay site.
Like the public art was a major factor in scoring the proposals for the park at the Former Landing Site? And how a specific art concept put the winning proposal over the top? A public art piece that may not happen?
Funny, was chatting with someone this morning who is working on the aforementioned public art piece. COJ chose a high end design firm, and have sticker shock about the costs. Who would have thunk?!
Quote from: fsu813 on November 11, 2021, 12:26:31 PM
At least verbally, multiple members of the DDRB have pondered aloud about expecting more re: architecture/development. Moving the needle from technically satisfactory to above average is obviously quite difficult without policy to give it teeth.
One of the members of DDRB is responsible for 2 of the projects that have contributed to our current aesthetic downtown.
I also think suggesting that the Vestcor projects on Water street are "comps" in any way is part of the problem. 2 workforce housing projects in what was a vacant area at the time should not have the same design concept as a signature waterfront piece of property in a neighborhood that is seeing tremendous growth (for jacksonville at least).
All this development is missing is a flyover ramp from Riverside Ave to the top of the parking garage in the development. Speed limit 65.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on November 11, 2021, 12:49:38 PM
Quote from: fsu813 on November 11, 2021, 12:26:31 PM
At least verbally, multiple members of the DDRB have pondered aloud about expecting more re: architecture/development. Moving the needle from technically satisfactory to above average is obviously quite difficult without policy to give it teeth.
One of the members of DDRB is responsible for 2 of the projects that have contributed to our current aesthetic downtown.
I also think suggesting that the Vestcor projects on Water street are "comps" in any way is part of the problem. 2 workforce housing projects in what was a vacant area at the time should not have the same design concept as a signature waterfront piece of property in a neighborhood that is seeing tremendous growth (for jacksonville at least).
This is what is so frustrating. The DDRB
knows this is a problem, actively expresses objections, and at the end of the day...grants final approval. The city has leverage in its granting of incentives that it is choosing not to use. And that is why we're comparing inland workforce housing as "comps" to a waterfront development. Visitors can take a boat tour and admire our Soviet Public Housing theme, but with more colors!
^in addition to approval there is 0 accountability. Remember how the first apartment building looked in it's renders vs what we got? Remember how there was supposed to be an iconic glass lotus in the middle of the retention pond? Parking lot issues, etc, etc... Same with the Suntrust/Landing/Vystar parking garage... The powers at be will rubber stamp anything and everything and do the absolute bare minimum for every project that arises with 0 enforcement.
My comments on this project and DDRB/DIA:
Proof that DDRB/DIA is a complete waste of time are the renderings of the 8 existing apartment structures appended to the application. Nothing says boring and unimaginative better than these pictures (they could add a few more such as the ones adjacent to the One Call tower and the upcoming project at River City Brewing):
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-KXWJCfZ/0/L/i-KXWJCfZ-L.jpg)
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-FqwhXX7/0/L/i-FqwhXX7-L.jpg)
With respect to this project, aside from the many critiques offered already on this thread, I continue to be disturbed by the willingness to allow tall buildings way too close to the river's edge. I also note the waiver by DDRB of the rule for building perpendicular, instead of parallel, to the river. The rationale for caving in, ironically, is we need more "development" along the river. For whose enjoyment? Certainly not the general public. Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?
DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development. I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show. If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere. Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on November 11, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?
DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development. I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show. If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere. Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.
Just thinking that maybe an urban environment isn't the best place for you...
Quote from: Zac T on November 12, 2021, 10:13:11 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on November 11, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?
DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development. I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show. If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere. Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.
Just thinking that maybe an urban environment isn't the best place for you...
Major urban cities around the US (and world) have quality public space along their rivers and bays. From Memphis, to Chatanooga, to St. Pete, to NYC, to Chicago, etc, quality public space on the waterfront is a valued amenity that cities are investing in. Talent follows place, place requires investment.
Quote from: Zac T on November 12, 2021, 10:13:11 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on November 11, 2021, 10:23:58 PM
Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?
DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development. I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show. If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere. Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.
Just thinking that maybe an urban environment isn't the best place for you...
Not so, quite the opposite. If we want to attract a wide range of urban dwellers, we also need to provide adequate open and green spaces for them to recreate in. Paving and building over too much of that and we are losing a valuable amenity to attract both dwellers and visitors.
If I want to walk in the valleys of tall buildings surrounded with mostly hardscape, I don't need a river. That environment can be built most anywhere. Nothing special about that. Our river is what makes our Downtown unique. If we are not going to respect it, it is a major lost opportunity and a slap at our natural identity.
Downtown Denver is a great example of how to build along a river. Obviously, their rivers aren't as grand as the St Johns, but the green space and trails on either side are world class. Multiple parks to stop at that are all different, skate park, walking and bike trails, pedestrian bridges and the buildings along the river aren't unreasonably tall. The buildings progressively get taller as you move into the core.
The trails are incredibly long to. You can safely ride a bike for several miles without crossing more than 2-3 at grade intersections.
Final design approval.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/one-riverside-residential-design-approved-by-downtown-development-review-board
Only in Jacksonville can you transplant an apartment complex from a suburban outdoor mall (SJTC) to prime riverfront property in the downtown core.
^ Quotes from the article would suggest board members are just fine with the outcome.
QuoteMosley said the development team also addressed the board's concerns about pedestrian safety and park access.
QuoteBoard member Joe Loretta said the design was "a great finish" to the board's previous concerns with the project.
"Candidly, this is a fantastic project," Loretta said.
"Overall between architecture, hardscape, landscape and everything of that nature, I'm not sure we've seen too many better in the past seven years I've been on the board."
Joe Loretta must be proud of himself
^ DIA, DDRB and other City officials should be required to read the Jaxon threads before opining on any projects involving the urban core. The lack of basic sensibilities regarding good design and planning is appalling. The deciders must spend a whole 5 minutes thinking about the items they vote on. Sad for our City.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/fuqua-buys-riverfront-times-union-property-plans-dollar250-million-redevelopment%3famp
Done deal.
Quote from Fuqua himself:
Quote"To go through the city process and financing, they (usually) don't happen that fast in a deal this complicated," he said.
Could it be because our City doesn't have a clue what a good development standard is or has any principles or vision to enforce? Or gives away the bank to developers because the City is a terrible negotiator?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 06, 2022, 04:01:25 PM
Quote from Fuqua himself:
Quote"To go through the city process and financing, they (usually) don't happen that fast in a deal this complicated," he said.
Could it be because our City doesn't have a clue what a good development standard is or has any principles or vision to enforce? Or gives away the bank to developers because the City is a terrible negotiator?
The development process SHOULDN'T be overly difficult or have needless red tape and mindless bureaucracy. So stories like this should be the NORM.
If you step off your anti-development/every developer is a dirt bag soap box for just a sec... the real issue with this site plan is that the Code doesn't do what its supposed to do.
I don't blame COJ for not wanting to chase away a grocery store that will break the internet when its finally announced, and instead choose to be a 'tough negotiator'.
Daily Record reporting that demo permits have been issue. Site expected to be cleared by July.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 07, 2022, 03:17:37 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 06, 2022, 04:01:25 PM
Could it be because our City doesn't have a clue what a good development standard is or has any principles or vision to enforce? ....
....the real issue with this site plan is that the Code doesn't do what its supposed to do....
Looks to me like we actually agree. Who is responsible for the Code? The City!
I am not anti-development, I am pro quality development. I think it is clear from the Jaxson, quality development in Jax is hard to find.
And, yes, I am not for giving developer's blank checks drawn on the taxpayer's accounts. With today's real estate prices and market conditions, much of what is being incentivized is not necessary. It's clear that developers can easily flip their developments at tremendous gains based on reported sales. Like the parking garage fiasco, the City takes much or all of the risks and none of the gains. It has a long track record of being a terrible deal maker.
To counter your comment about my position, it seems you have never seen a development, no matter how badly conceived, that you don't support moving forward. I guess we are opposite sides of the coin.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 28, 2022, 07:17:16 PM
To counter your comment about my position, it seems you have never seen a development, no matter how badly conceived, that you don't support moving forward. I guess we are opposite sides of the coin.
I was one of the few people on the planet working behind the scenes to improve this project.
Your uninformed assertion is ignorant, baseless and stupid.
^Okay, simmer down, folks.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 28, 2022, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 28, 2022, 07:17:16 PM
To counter your comment about my position, it seems you have never seen a development, no matter how badly conceived, that you don't support moving forward. I guess we are opposite sides of the coin.
I was one of the few people on the planet working behind the scenes to improve this project.
Your uninformed assertion is ignorant, baseless and stupid.
Now, if you were working behind the scenes, how would I be expected to know that? While your efforts are appreciated, the over-the-top commentary is disrespectful and uncalled for. Apparently I hit a nerve - not intended.
Walked by today.
For such a high profile property, the residential buildings almost look like Vestcor workforce housing units.
Excited for the Whole Foods, but genuinely surprised to see how cheap the housing looks for such a prime piece of property.
Looking at Fuqua Development and TriBridge Residential's website, it seems all of their projects are pretty average at best
Glad The Mouth Of McCoys Creek is no longer under a parking lot.
Free to The Sky!
Unlike so many new residents moving in there.....
Quote from: fieldafm on February 28, 2022, 10:21:01 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 28, 2022, 07:17:16 PM
To counter your comment about my position, it seems you have never seen a development, no matter how badly conceived, that you don't support moving forward. I guess we are opposite sides of the coin.
I was one of the few people on the planet working behind the scenes to improve this project.
Your uninformed assertion is ignorant, baseless and stupid.
Based on incoming reviews, I don't think my comments questioning the quality of this project are turning out to be "ignorant, baseless and stupid." Prescient might be more apt.
5 over 2 really isn't intended for any architectural features. It was invented as a cheaper alternative (in LA) to other frame materials & for cheaper housing. There's no disputing that. We will have to wait for the related tower to get anything "cool" building wise on the river... those projects have the "budget" to incorporate design elements that 5 over 2's simply can't afford. It's the equivalent of seeing a 08 Camry with 250k miles w/ brand new chrome rims. The conversation here isn't about code at all but incentives. How could we have incentivized them to not build the cheapest form of mid-density housing on the river? The code here is about as liberal as anything in the country near a downtown river... (Ex. No affordable requirements, very little public space mandates, almost zero control on the proposed use)
Vista Brooklyn really is the only example of mid-density project downtown & is the only (market rate) block apartment building built in all of DT Jax in the last X years... also a pretty sharp building for what it is in my opinion. Hard to understand why they are the only building to do that, but nonetheless that's where we are. Maybe that Southbank storage building will be all block who knows.
I've said before that the 5 over 2 stuff needs to be controlled downtown & the incentive packages for Brooklyn & the Southbank really needs to be reconsidered. There isn't some large magical gap in rents in those areas to what would be required to make economic sense for these 5 over 2's & there is genuinely zero incentives to even look at block here. I would personally feel much better about the incentives if they went to pushing developers over the edge to choosing block/steel... The buildings last much longer, hold more density & most look way better.
We've already done it on the Northbank.
Agree with that. I think the only incentives in Brooklyn and on the Southbank should be for true high-rise stuff, with exceptions perhaps on things like Vista Brooklyn which actually checks a lot of boxes, to the point above.
I'd also think that in the Northbank core, we've got to better encourage density. I know a full concrete building will be much more expensive per unit. Ok great - the incentives can be aligned accordingly.