1534 Oak Street - Appropriate for the Neighborhood?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1015950636_GH6sv-M.jpg)
The Black Sheep Restaurant Group, owners of popular urban core restaurants Chew and Orsay are proposing building a three story building at the corner of Oak and Margaret Streets with rooftop dining. However, not everyone in the neighborhood approves of the development.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-sep-1534-oak-street-appropriate-for-the-neighborhood
Very modernistic...........where does one park? Not really sure it would fit in architecture wise!
Seems too big for the site. Parking is already a problem in the area, and adding one net space for the restaurant and 2 floors of either residential or office is unrealistic. Not working with RAP from the beginning is a real problem - do they perhaps think they have things "greased" with City Council and don't need RAP?
The Oak St side of the building looks like a solid wall, why not continue the glass around both sides?
The thing that I would love to have seen is for them to get a formal agreement with 1661 Riverside, which has a ton of parking. However, they didn't, which means that there is no parking agreement.
I think it looks great and would be a great mix of old and new. Its modern, urban, and doesn't have a sea of surface parking associated with it. Although architecture is always going to be debated, it looks like they've put a lot of thought and effort into the design.
The 1661 garage would be a great location for employees if there is space because when most residents leave for work the office workers in the proposed building will just be arriving which wil leave the on street parking for customers.
i just feel it sucks that downtown loses another business.
The developers are NOT meeting the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay requirements; if City Council votes to allow them the exemptions for parking, set-back, sidewalk, height etc, we might as well throw out the zoning overlay.
The zoning overlay was the result of months of meetings with residents and property owners in the neighborhood.
With minor changes this project could work; as it stands it will not be welcome in the neighborhood.
Quote from: Jason on September 21, 2010, 08:31:41 AMThe 1661 garage would be a great location for employees if there is space because when most residents leave for work the office workers in the proposed building will just be arriving which wil leave the on street parking for customers.
I agree - too bad there is no agreement in place. That would make a lot of people feel better about this.
QuoteThe 1661 garage would be a great location for employees if there is space because when most residents leave for work the office workers in the proposed building will just be arriving which wil leave the on street parking for customers.
You can already park in the bottom levels of the 1661 garage. Its basically additional public parking. There is no way that 1661 would allow the public to park in the upper levels (behind the gate) where residents park.
I imagine LUZ will require provisions for additional parking. Hopefully they will go farther than that - my biggest concerns are with scale (the proposed building really is too large for this location) and the Oak Street elevation.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on September 21, 2010, 06:44:22 AMdo they perhaps think they have things "greased" with City Council and don't need RAP?
If they feel that way, it's REALLY the wrong attitude. It's not that RAP wants to be this all-holy Gestapo, it's just that RAP has been the advocacy group and a very strong voice for the neighborhood.
What's really dissapointing is that the developers of 1661 Riverside and Publix (not local developers, mind you) worked with RAP early on (before the zoning overlay was passed mind you), and made chages to their designs based on their concerns. These folks (local folks) don't seem to want to do that.
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 09:13:55 AMYou can already park in the bottom levels of the 1661 garage. Its basically additional public parking. There is no way that 1661 would allow the public to park in the upper levels (behind the gate) where residents park.
Yes, however it's not designated as such. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no legal agreement that requires them to provide 24 hour residental parking to the developers of this project.
So does RAP control everyrthing that goes on in that side of town? Would be sad to see this project crash.
The project has already passed the Planning Commission with conditions, one of which is to re-design the building and submit the new design to Planning Department staff to ensure it complies with the design regulations in the Zoning Overlay. They had to agree to that condition or the Planning Department would have recommended denial of the PUD. Yet, they still brought their design with them to the Planning Commission hearing as if that design is still going forward. I expect they will still bring it to the LUZ meeting also.
As far as I'm concerned, it's not the modern design so much (although not my personal favorite style and needing high quality materials so it doesn't look cheap) as the building's mass and scale. An architect I know described it as "5 pounds of stuff shoved into a 1 pound bag." I think that's right.
I wouldn't count on LUZ requiring more parking. The Planning Commission did not make that a requirement, even though community members other than RAP spoke about their concerns. If it's a concern, you should contact the LUZ members or Councilman Corrigan.
I'm truly disappointed, but not even slightly surprised, that RAP is against this development. RAP, these days, seems to be against any development that does not fit within their carefully crafted little box of architectural features and building elements. This development would be MORE THAN WELCOME by anyone who actually lives in the neighborhood and gives a damn about good design. Not to mention the fact that this site has been vacant since the original building was torn down to make way for a residential development that failed to get off the ground more than 3 years ago. Another example of Riverside and the City cutting of their noses to spite their faces.
I personally would say screw the overlay, especially considering this site doesn't even fall within the historic boundary of the neighborhood. Lets also not forget about the monstrosity of a building right across the street (the old folks home). It's, what, 20 stories tall? Come on. This development is fresh, new, vibrant, someone said "urban". Riverside needs this. Whether you "like" the design is irrelevant. It's an important step forward for our city and our neighborhood.
Quote from: Steve on September 21, 2010, 09:18:36 AM
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 09:13:55 AMYou can already park in the bottom levels of the 1661 garage. Its basically additional public parking. There is no way that 1661 would allow the public to park in the upper levels (behind the gate) where residents park.
Yes, however it's not designated as such. Correct me if I'm wrong, but there is no legal agreement that requires them to provide 24 hour residental parking to the developers of this project.
I thought I remember when 1661 was being built that they had to provide some sort of available public parking. You are correct though, it is not signed very well and many do not know that it is legal to park there. I doubt there is any sort of legal agreement in regards to parking with the developers of this project.
I'm probably in the minority but I'm actually fine with the size of the building, considering the surrounding environment. When I look at that particular area, I see an environment with a mix of structures and uses, which add to the vibrancy and attractiveness of Five Points, imo. Within a few blocks of the site there are several highrise condo towers, including one that was constructed in the 1920s. Five Points Theater also has some height to it. In addition, 1661 Riverside is four or five stories and is right across the street. I would be more concerned about the size if it were in the middle of residential district but Five Points is a mixed bag of tricks that quite frankly, more density should be encouraged in the future (within the urban transition zone between Margaret and I-95). Nevertheless, I would have loved to see the developers work with the neighborhood in a manner that all parties felt good about the final outcome.
Quote from: stephendare on September 21, 2010, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: dlupercio on September 21, 2010, 09:27:33 AM
So does RAP control everyrthing that goes on in that side of town? Would be sad to see this project crash.
Its not really a question of control. They are the guardians of the neighborhood however.
The City controls the area, and according to the city codes, this structure would not comply with its zoning laws.
RAP would actually like to help the developer get this done so that it does comply, from every conversation Ive had with a RAP person.
What would make it crash is the design groups way of handling it.
well either way i hope they wont deviate from the modern feel of the structure.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 09:35:28 AM
I'm probably in the minority but I'm actually fine with the size of the building, considering the surrounding environment. When I look at that particular area, I see an environment with a mix of structures and uses, which add to the vibrancy and attractiveness of Five Points, imo. Within a few blocks of the site there are several highrise condo towers, including one that was constructed in the 1920s. Five Points Theater also has some height to it. In addition, 1661 Riverside is four or five stories and is right across the street. I would be more concerned about the size if it were in the middle of residential district but Five Points is a mixed bag of tricks that quite frankly, more density should be encouraged in the future (within the urban transition zone between Margaret and I-95). Nevertheless, I would have loved to see the developers work with the neighborhood in a manner that all parties felt good about the final outcome.
Agreed. It will contribute to the surrounding built environment a lot more than the current vacant lot. Although, Jax does seem to have a thing for vacant lots.
No, RAP does not control everything in that goes on the neighborhood. It has, though, acted as a community voice to express concerns and look out for the neighborhood. People call RAP all the time to express concerns and ask for help, including about this project. Architects and neighbors to this property have contacted RAP and asked that RAP express the concerns it has. It's a role RAP has played since the 1970's. It's not that the developers should work with RAP because it's "RAP." Developers should work with RAP because it is a voice for the community. For this particular project RAP has a group of 6 people (including architects, a lawyer, and a planner) reviewing the plans and proposed PUD language, plus input from the RAP board. RAP also arranged to have the developer meet with a local architect at the site to explain how the building's mass and scale could be improved to fit in with the neighborhood.
Unfortunately, while the developer has acquieced to the conditions imposed by the Planning Department, the only comments voluntarily adopted from what RAP suggested is no internal illumination on signs (which is what the code requires) and taking language out of the PUD that would have allowed the possibility of a retention pond.
It WOULD be a shame to not have the project go through. But it would also be a shame to get a poorly designed building in such a vibrant part of the neighborhood. Development is not bad. It just needs to be well designed.
Furthermore, RAP isn't against the modern feel of the building. It's outside the historic district, so it's fine that the developer went modern on this. I personally am fine with that aspect of modernism.
The main thing RAP is pushing is parking. Parking is a huge concern over there. Personally, I avoid the Larry's over there because I can't stand parking three blocks away to spend 5 minutes in a building to pick up a 7 dollar sandwich.
Quote from: archiphreak on September 21, 2010, 09:31:33 AM
I'm truly disappointed, but not even slightly surprised, that RAP is against this development. RAP, these days, seems to be against any development that does not fit within their carefully crafted little box of architectural features and building elements.
Please find me a quote from RAP saying they oppose it because it is modern.
Quote from: archiphreak on September 21, 2010, 09:31:33 AMThis development would be MORE THAN WELCOME by anyone who actually lives in the neighborhood and gives a damn about good design.
I live four blocks from the site, and I think the building is ugly as hell. I welcome the restaraunt however.
Quote from: archiphreak on September 21, 2010, 09:31:33 AMNot to mention the fact that this site has been vacant since the original building was torn down to make way for a residential development that failed to get off the ground more than 3 years ago. Another example of Riverside and the City cutting of their noses to spite their faces.
This is an odd argument. You're essentially saying that anything is better than a vacant lot. This argument left us with Berkman Plaza and the Adam's Mark Hotel (now Hyatt). Yes, a building is better than a vacant lot, but can't we have something designed well too?
Quote from: archiphreak on September 21, 2010, 09:31:33 AMI personally would say screw the overlay, especially considering this site doesn't even fall within the historic boundary of the neighborhood.
Ummm - we will have to agree to disagree on this one.
Quote from: archiphreak on September 21, 2010, 09:31:33 AMLets also not forget about the monstrosity of a building right across the street (the old folks home). It's, what, 20 stories tall?
Again, because Berkman Plaza was allowed to build a crap building, that means that anyone can build a crap building?
Quote from: archiphreak on September 21, 2010, 09:31:33 AMCome on. This development is fresh, new, vibrant, someone said "urban". Riverside needs this. Whether you "like" the design is irrelevant. It's an important step forward for our city and our neighborhood.
I don't think Riverside "needs" this. Riverside seems to be doing just fine. With that said, I believe that a restaraunt is better for the neighborhood than a vacant lot. I also don't think RAP is opposed to a development there. For example, if the design was the same, just didn't have the two floors of residential/office, I think this would have already been approved.
According to the excerpts of the overlay that Lake highlighted, parking requirements for retail and service establishments in contributing structures shall be zero. Wouldn't this building be considered a contributing structure and therefore not required to provide parking?
Archiphreak -- If you "screw the overlay" then the project definately could not be built. The city's current zoning is designed for suburban areas, with large set backs and large parking requirements. This project would need to provide 74 parking spaces if the Overlay wasn't there. Under the Overlay, they will only be required to provide 19 parking spaces (a 75% reduction). The overlay was designed to not only protect the look and feel of the neighborhood, but to also allow developers to build in-fill projects with the same scale, density, and set backs as the surrounding neighborhood without the need for zoning deviations and PUD's. It's good thing for developers to have the overlay because it relaxes a lot of the zoning requirements applicable to the rest of the city.
Alas, they don't even want to meet those relaxed requirements. . .
Quote from: Steve on September 21, 2010, 09:54:51 AM
The main thing RAP is pushing is parking. Parking is a huge concern over there. Personally, I avoid the Larry's over there because I can't stand parking three blocks away to spend 5 minutes in a building to pick up a 7 dollar sandwich.
Sounds like RAP needs to aggressively jump on the streetcar support train. ;)
Is the developer proposing to reconstruct Oak Street similar to what 1661 Riverside and Riverside Square did on Margaret Street? That would be a nice compromise that would add spaces in the immediate area.
From the outside looking in, ultimately the market will most likely dictate that whatever goes on the upper floors will need some number of dedicated spaces before leased or purchased by the end user. This can probably be handled either through working out some agreement with 1661 Riverside next door or rebuilding Oak Street to accommodate more parking.
My biggest beef is with how it addresses the corner. The angle from which it will be most prominent will just be a razor sharp wall pointing at you. Not inviting AT ALL. And that should be a huge deal. An uninviting slab is not a neighborhood improvement. Now picture it empty. The best architecture is what looks good even when it's boarded up (just a strange rule of thumb I like to use :P ...but there is wisdom in considering use is not as static as stone).
In some cultures, sharp corners on a building are like pointing weapons at your neighbors. Plus, just about any pre-WWII building on a sharp corner would have addressed it with a facade (however narrow) and often even an entrance, rather than just a meeting of walls. Corners are friggin' important. People used to know that! All you have to do for an example is go up the street to the corner of Margaret & Dellwood. PERFECT example, and on the same street:
Click here for Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=30.318229,-81.682695&spn=0.004483,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=30.318121,-81.682667&panoid=dJItxUB3LO257aDGcbv_qw&cbp=12,10.04,,1,-0.96)
Look how much more inviting that is.
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 10:03:48 AM
According to the excerpts of the overlay that Lake highlighted, parking requirements for retail and service establishments in contributing structures shall be zero. Wouldn't this building be considered a contributing structure and therefore not required to provide parking?
Contributing structures are historic to the neighborhood. At least 50 years old at the time the historic distric was surveyed. So, no, it won't be "contributing."
Quote from: dlupercio on September 21, 2010, 09:36:18 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 21, 2010, 09:30:50 AM
Quote from: dlupercio on September 21, 2010, 09:27:33 AM
So does RAP control everyrthing that goes on in that side of town? Would be sad to see this project crash.
Its not really a question of control. They are the guardians of the neighborhood however.
The City controls the area, and according to the city codes, this structure would not comply with its zoning laws.
RAP would actually like to help the developer get this done so that it does comply, from every conversation Ive had with a RAP person.
What would make it crash is the design groups way of handling it.
well either way i hope they wont deviate from the modern feel of the structure.
I don't think anyone has expressed concern about the fact that it's a modern design- it's more an issue of scale.
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 10:03:48 AM
According to the excerpts of the overlay that Lake highlighted, parking requirements for retail and service establishments in contributing structures shall be zero. Wouldn't this building be considered a contributing structure and therefore not required to provide parking?
JAM answered the contributing part. I also don't think the parking is as much of an issue with the restaraunt portion as with the residential/office portion.
It is not in the historic district so does it still have to "contribute" to a district it is not in? Is 1661 a contributing structure?
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 10:26:42 AM
It is not in the historic district so does it still have to "contribute" to a district it is not in? Is 1661 contributing?
The term "contributing" referrs to the fact that in order for Riverside and Avondale to be a historic district, they need to have a certain percentage of buildings that "contribute" to the historic nature of the district. Since the site is outside of the historic district (and the proposed building is not 50 years old), "contributing structure" doesn't apply
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 10:08:40 AM
Archiphreak -- If you "screw the overlay" then the project definately could not be built. The city's current zoning is designed for suburban areas, with large set backs and large parking requirements. This project would need to provide 74 parking spaces if the Overlay wasn't there. Under the Overlay, they will only be required to provide 19 parking spaces (a 75% reduction). The overlay was designed to not only protect the look and feel of the neighborhood, but to also allow developers to build in-fill projects with the same scale, density, and set backs as the surrounding neighborhood without the need for zoning deviations and PUD's. It's good thing for developers to have the overlay because it relaxes a lot of the zoning requirements applicable to the rest of the city.
Alas, they don't even want to meet those relaxed requirements. . .
+1
Quote from: rainfrog on September 21, 2010, 10:10:13 AM
The best architecture is what looks good even when it's boarded up (just a strange rule of thumb I like to use
I love it!
Quote from: Steve on September 21, 2010, 10:28:41 AM
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 10:26:42 AM
It is not in the historic district so does it still have to "contribute" to a district it is not in? Is 1661 contributing?
The term "contributing" referrs to the fact that in order for Riverside and Avondale to be a historic district, they need to have a certain percentage of buildings that "contribute" to the historic nature of the district. Since the site is outside of the historic district (and the proposed building is not 50 years old), "contributing structure" doesn't apply
I understand that in order for RA to be considered a historic district it has to have a certain percentage of contributing structures. However, as you mentioned, this area is outside the historic district so the "contributing structure" rule shouldn't apply (in my opinion). However, it is within the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the language within the urban transition design standards makes reference to "contributing structures", evidently including ones not within the historic district. What's the deal with that?
Quote from: Steve on September 21, 2010, 09:54:51 AM
Personally, I avoid the Larry's over there because I can't stand parking three blocks away to spend 5 minutes in a building to pick up a 7 dollar sandwich.
LOL, I always have to park and walk a block or two just to get a sandwich to-go on the way home from work. I more often times than not go home first and then ride my bike up to Larrys... I figure if Im going to walk two blocks, I might as well bike for twenty more, LOL
I agree about many things on here. Steve, how long does the LUZ meeting last and where is this item on the agenda itinerary? I would like to attend but couldn't be there by 5PM.
Ugh, this building is horrible and looks like some sort of medical/dental complex =
I would not want to have dinner on that roof.
I definitely agree that the problem is scale. Two stories instead of three would make a huge difference. I happen to love triangle shaped buildings - dysfunctional as they are - but would personally go for more of a pint sized flat iron building here rather than modern. I have not kept up with this thread totally but the developer may be drawing RAP's ire as much as this building because of his past run ins with RAP.
Not meaning to fan flames with my last post - I *believe* the actual developer is AccuBuild but it may not be.
QuoteI have not kept up with this thread totally but the developer may be drawing RAP's ire as much as this building because of his past run ins with RAP.
I believe the person you are refering to(who also had some issues in San Marco) is not a part of this new project... could be wrong though
seems many here have extremely short memories.
remember the buildings upon the site of 1661 prior to the current blob?
No?
well it didn't "fit" with the historic gems surrounding it.
The similar wedge @ dellwood and margaret addresses its corner differently. And?
this proposed design provides a corner retreat from the elements and is not a solid plane of uninteruppted concrete on Oak St.
notice what looks like portholes.
interesting to see how this rides.
Has anyone read a copy of the Planning and Development Department’s staff report? Just wondering what it says.
With a beer bottle on display in the last model photo, perhaps the designers were just plain drunk? Having only recently moved back from Chicago where these type of buildings were splashed all over gentrifying neighborhoods, they quickly become eyesores as residents and offices find ways to shield the public from floor to ceiling views.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 21, 2010, 10:34:02 AMI agree about many things on here. Steve, how long does the LUZ meeting last and where is this item on the agenda itinerary? I would like to attend but couldn't be there by 5PM.
My understanding is that they expect this meeting to be over in about an hour. My guess is this will be the most debated topic, but I'm not sure.
The term "contributing" does not refer to the fact that a certain percentage of the building in an historic district need to be over 50 old. It is merely a way of inventorying the building stock when the surveys for the historic district were completed. To be contributing (and protected) in the historic district, it has to be 50 years old and retain its achitectural integrity (i.e. it hasn't been remodeled and lost its original architectural style). You have to remember that the Zoning Overlay applies to the entire neighborhood from the Fuller Warren overpass, along the railroad tracks to the North and West and to the Fishweir creek area. That encompasses all of the historic district proper and the surrounding neightborhoods. There are contributing structures and non-contributing structures within the historic district. There are no contributing structures outside of the historic district. Some buildings were carved out of the historic district proper, such as the property at issue here, because they were associated with Riverside Hospital or St. Vincent's Hospital. The distinction is retained in the overlay because of a recognition that historic retail (such as Five Points and St. Johns shops) don't have the land to provide additional parking although they are already commercial. No one wants to kill what's already there. But the intent of the overlay was to make sure that new projects provide at least some parking (hence the 75% reduction from normal parking requirements.
I think it's great that there's new development coming into the neighborhood, but this design feels very large for that lot and a bit overbearing. Would love to see something that echoes the design elements of the buildings nearby, while still keeping it modern.
Quote from: rainfrog on September 21, 2010, 10:10:13 AM
My biggest beef is with how it addresses the corner. The angle from which it will be most prominent will just be a razor sharp wall pointing at you. Not inviting AT ALL. And that should be a huge deal. An uninviting slab is not a neighborhood improvement. Now picture it empty. The best architecture is what looks good even when it's boarded up (just a strange rule of thumb I like to use :P ...but there is wisdom in considering use is not as static as stone).
In some cultures, sharp corners on a building are like pointing weapons at your neighbors. Plus, just about any pre-WWII building on a sharp corner would have addressed it with a facade (however narrow) and often even an entrance, rather than just a meeting of walls. Corners are friggin' important. People used to know that! All you have to do for an example is go up the street to the corner of Margaret & Dellwood. PERFECT example, and on the same street:
Click here for Google Street View (http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=30.318229,-81.682695&spn=0.004483,0.009645&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=30.318121,-81.682667&panoid=dJItxUB3LO257aDGcbv_qw&cbp=12,10.04,,1,-0.96)
Look how much more inviting that is.
I agree, Rainfrong.
JAM, no contributing structures outside the RAP overlay?
you may need to do some homework.
Office space at this point, should only be allowed to expand Downtown. Let's fill the skyscrapers and make Downtown vibrant first. I don't think this should be built. But if it must be, make it a residential.
I've met several of the principals involved in this project and think they're great folks. Frankly, I'm surprised their representatives aren't approaching this project in a more cooperative spirit, especially since just building the thing will require an enormous amount of cooperation from the community.
Managing construction trucks and supply storage issues in this incredibly constrained space will be a real challenge that will require great patience from the neighboring businesses and residences. The proposed narrowing of Margaret Street by four feet to create more sidewalk and parking space for the building has gridlock written all over it--given the traffic and parking load this road already carries, I can only imagine that traffic will be backing up into the Five Points intersection and beyond. Expecting nearby streets to accommodate the additional parking load that comes with a 100+ seat restaurant means that many residents who now rely on on-street parking in front of their homes will no longer have that option--not to mention that the McIver Clinic, Al's Pizza, Wendy's, Regions, and any other area business with their own lots will no doubt have to spend time and money policing said lots to ensure the spaces are there for their own customers, rather than patrons of the hot new restaurant.
I suppose all developers bring a natural arrogance to the process: They're convinced their projects will add value to a community, and that the benefits will outweigh the project's associated negatives. Once they accept that position, they no longer feel an obligation to listen to said community's concerns because, really, everyone will love it in the end, right?
In this case, I would hope the fine people behind the development will want to be part of building a solution everyone can support. The promise of great food is certainly a powerful thing, but it's not enough to paper over these other problems.
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 11:30:02 AMBut the intent of the overlay was to make sure that new projects provide at least some parking (hence the 75% reduction from normal parking requirements.
Just wondering. What type of bearing does the intent of the overlay have on a project applying for a PUD?
Ricker -- not sure what you're saying. I'm trying to explain the definition of "contributing structure" as it's used in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the ordinance establishing the Riverside Avondale Historic District. The term has a defined meaning when applying those ordinances, just like other historic districts have "contributing structures" to their districts. It's not a judgment or comment on the architectual significance of buildings outside the R-A historic district.
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 12:28:50 PM
Ricker -- not sure what you're saying. I'm trying to explain the definition of "contributing structure" as it's used in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the ordinance establishing the Riverside Avondale Historic District. The term has a defined meaning when applying those ordinances, just like other historic districts have "contributing structures" to their districts. It's not a judgment or comment on the architectual significance of buildings outside the R-A historic district.
So basically, a contributing structure that is located in the RA Historic District and a contributing structure that is located outside the historic district but within the RA zoning overlay are defined as the same thing?
The intent of a law is alway relevent to its interpretation. That being said, the city's ordinance says that PUDs are not intended to merely allow an applicant to avoid the appliable zoning. It also provides that in any zoning application (including for a PUD) one of the criteria to be considered is whether the proposed PUD complies with any of the city's land use regulations. So, although a PUD by definition gives special zoning for that parcel, whether the proposed PUD complies with the overlay is relevent.
I think the parking issue can easily be resolved. I love love love the design and am excited to see such sleek modernity enter Jacksonville's urban core, but I think the next developments that go in the area are going to have to address the street more. This is a corner lot and so with limited space it is hard to do that, but I personally wouldn't mind seing the Mossfire building go and something denser with street interaction put in its place. At least this building lays the fabric for that to happen.
I now have a copy of the planning department's staff report for this project in my possession. What are the three most important key issues that people feel aren't being met? I would like to see/post staff's opinion on those particular topics.
Quote from: grimss on September 21, 2010, 12:08:08 PM
I've met several of the principals involved in this project and think they're great folks. Frankly, I'm surprised their representatives aren't approaching this project in a more cooperative spirit, especially since just building the thing will require an enormous amount of cooperation from the community.
Managing construction trucks and supply storage issues in this incredibly constrained space will be a real challenge that will require great patience from the neighboring businesses and residences. The proposed narrowing of Margaret Street by four feet to create more sidewalk and parking space for the building has gridlock written all over it--given the traffic and parking load this road already carries, I can only imagine that traffic will be backing up into the Five Points intersection and beyond. Expecting nearby streets to accommodate the additional parking load that comes with a 100+ seat restaurant means that many residents who now rely on on-street parking in front of their homes will no longer have that option--not to mention that the McIver Clinic, Al's Pizza, Wendy's, Regions, and any other area business with their own lots will no doubt have to spend time and money policing said lots to ensure the spaces are there for their own customers, rather than patrons of the hot new restaurant.
I suppose all developers bring a natural arrogance to the process: They're convinced their projects will add value to a community, and that the benefits will outweigh the project's associated negatives. Once they accept that position, they no longer feel an obligation to listen to said community's concerns because, really, everyone will love it in the end, right?
In this case, I would hope the fine people behind the development will want to be part of building a solution everyone can support. The promise of great food is certainly a powerful thing, but it's not enough to paper over these other problems.
This is well said and probably 100% true in many cases, though I think many developers do listen to the community (how else do they think they have a market for their development?). I think that the city should enter into a public private partnership to purchase nearby land (and towards the River there is plenty) and put in an attractive parking garage. However the partnership is set up, I guarantee that a parking garage will significantly increase the value of current commercial properties, will solve parking, and will create incentives for developers to come in and increase density and make a truly vibrant model neighborhood out of 5 Points. 5 Points and San Marco Square have more potential than any other commercial district to be 24 hour neighborhoods.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 01:07:57 PM
I now have a copy of the planning department's staff report for this project in my possession. What are the three most important key issues that people feel aren't being met? I would like to see/post staff's opinion on those particular topics.
To me, parking is the #1, specificaly for the Residential and Office side. My #2 would be the design.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 01:07:57 PM
I now have a copy of the planning department's staff report for this project in my possession. What are the three most important key issues that people feel aren't being met? I would like to see/post staff's opinion on those particular topics.
The Oak Street side is a big concrete wall, No parking, Small setbacks. That's all I've got.
Cline -- "Contributing structure" means whether it's historic and contributes to the historic district. So by definition there are no "contributing" structures outside of the historic district.
Not much you can do with the design style but here is the proposed PUD site plan:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/1534Oak/agpfilename2010/1016851656_tCyzN-L.jpg)
I don't know the exact number but a significant amount of spaces should be gained on Oak Street, if the street is rebuilt as drawn. Going to 90 degree angle parking, you probably gain a space for every existing parallel parking stall that it replaces on Oak Street. On Margaret, you're just upgrading what is already there. In addition, while the building abuts the property line along Margaret, the first floor is recessed 11' to allow for sidewalk dining without encroaching on the existing sidewalk.
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 12:58:05 PM
The intent of a law is alway relevent to its interpretation. That being said, the city's ordinance says that PUDs are not intended to merely allow an applicant to avoid the appliable zoning. It also provides that in any zoning application (including for a PUD) one of the criteria to be considered is whether the proposed PUD complies with any of the city's land use regulations. So, although a PUD by definition gives special zoning for that parcel, whether the proposed PUD complies with the overlay is relevent.
Spot-on.
I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of where the proposed project is violating the overlay. The staff report is 42 pages long (still reading) but the major exemption appears to be parking, which has been handled by a condition to rebuild Oak and Margaret Streets to accommodate more on-street parking and wider sidewalks. Height, scale, setbacks, etc. seem to already be allowed.
Narrowing Margaret Street is going to cause a problem. Already we have to work our way around the beer and food delivery trucks that are servicing O'Brother's, Mossfire, and Subway. That's hard enough. Narrow the road right there and it might be impossible.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 01:45:12 PM
I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of where the proposed project is violating the overlay. The staff report is 42 pages long (still reading) but the major exemption appears to be parking, which has been handled by a condition to rebuild Oak and Margaret Streets to accommodate more on-street parking and wider sidewalks. Height, scale, setbacks, etc. seem to already be allowed.
The kicker is that the next result of all that rebuilding Oak and Margaret will result in the creation of wait for it.....ONE extra space.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 12:09:53 PM
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 11:30:02 AMBut the intent of the overlay was to make sure that new projects provide at least some parking (hence the 75% reduction from normal parking requirements.
Just wondering. What type of bearing does the intent of the overlay have on a project applying for a PUD?
Our intent with the Overlay was to eliminate the need for PUDs. So needing a PUD means the project doesn't comply with the Overlay.
i like the idea of a modern design building mixed into riverside. it's not as if the tan brick and stucco of 1661 is great design or anything. and regarding the set-back, i don't see why anyone should really care except over the principle of the thing. just give me a good restaurant with lots of stuff happening and forget your requirements.
Quote from: cline on September 21, 2010, 12:47:41 PM
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 12:28:50 PM
Ricker -- not sure what you're saying. I'm trying to explain the definition of "contributing structure" as it's used in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the ordinance establishing the Riverside Avondale Historic District. The term has a defined meaning when applying those ordinances, just like other historic districts have "contributing structures" to their districts. It's not a judgment or comment on the architectual significance of buildings outside the R-A historic district.
So basically, a contributing structure that is located in the RA Historic District and a contributing structure that is located outside the historic district but within the RA zoning overlay are defined as the same thing?
To be counted as a contributing structure the property must be within the boundaries of the local historic district. Not all of 5 Points is within the historic district. The Urban Transition Character Area (UTA) as defined in the Overlay includes 5 Points from Riverside Avenue to the highway. Within the UTA there are pockets of the historic district. For example, the block that includes the 5 Points Theatre is within the historic district boundaries.
This project's parcel is within the Overlay boundaries but not the historic district boundaries.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 01:23:05 PM
Not much you can do with the design style but here is the proposed PUD site plan:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/Development/1534Oak/agpfilename2010/1016851656_tCyzN-L.jpg)
I don't know the exact number but a significant amount of spaces should be gained on Oak Street, if the street is rebuilt as drawn. Going to 90 degree angle parking, you probably gain a space for every existing parallel parking stall that it replaces on Oak Street. On Margaret, you're just upgrading what is already there. In addition, while the building abuts the property line along Margaret, the first floor is recessed 11' to allow for sidewalk dining without encroaching on the existing sidewalk.
Lake: On Oak St. adjacent to the parcel, 7 cars parallel park now. When rebuilt they will have 8 spaces. They are proposing to add 11 additional spaces across Oak St. that do not exist now. They will be removing some green space to do that. However, the current PUD does not require them to add the spaces. The Planning Department is allowing them to count the 20 spaces that exist on the street around their parcel right now. They are adding one to that current count.
Ignore most of my comments. I'm fairly bitter at the moment about two other projects that the City and/or RAP/SPAR are trying to "change" and it's pissing me off. My thesis in college was about how to merge the modern with the "historic", so I'm more than a little passionate about the subject. I did see, Stephen, where RAP is mostly in favor of the project, but as is happening on two other projects that I believe are important opportunities for our city, any "changes" they "suggest" will not help. As this is not a final design, I think that the Architect and Client will go through natural changes in response to various site considerations without anyone else' involvement.
To sum up my overall point of view, I love living in my 1918 Craftsman, but I do not under any circumstances want a home built on the adjacent vacant lot that even remotely resembles my house or any house built in the neighborhood. It should be a modern home built with technology and architectural features that exemplify our current, modern times.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 01:45:12 PM
I guess I'm trying to get a better understanding of where the proposed project is violating the overlay. The staff report is 42 pages long (still reading) but the major exemption appears to be parking, which has been handled by a condition to rebuild Oak and Margaret Streets to accommodate more on-street parking and wider sidewalks. Height, scale, setbacks, etc. seem to already be allowed.
The signage is greater than the Overlay limits, doesn't meet the parking requirement which is already 75% reduced from the regular code. Anywhere else this project would require 74 parking spaces. The Overlay requirement is 25% of the
onsite. It doesn not meet the design guidelines in the Overlay (althought the Planning Dept. has added this as a condition). The PUD also doesn't define height as it is defined in the Overlay and in the regular zoning code.
Here specifically are two issues our community identified through the Overlay development process: "Height and scale of new development is too large and Adequate amounts of parking not being provided." So RAP knows what our community expects. We asked the developers to provide dedicated off-street parking for the office and residential uses. We believe (our architects), as well as architects who have called us about the project, that the building is too large for the parcel and in relation to the rest of the buildings on the block. To alleviate that we are asking that they set 1/3 of the building next to Mossfire back to align with the front plane of the Mossfire building (4'). We also ask that they set back the rest of the building to meet the 8' foot sidewalk or urban buffer requirement instead of moving the sidewalk into the street (approximately 2'). Again, to help alleviate the mass and scale of the building. To help with the parking situation we ar3e asking the medical office uses be prohibited because they are heavy parking users. The restaurant is too and we do not believe the parking situation can accommodate both uses.
^Thanks, Kay.
Can we all just quit obsessing about the parking? Just walk a block or two for heaven's sake! Peak hours for the restaurants are off peak for Publix and the professional offices in the neighborhood. Use those lots. Use the public spaces inside 1661. They are only 1/2 block away. At lunch time use the trolley-bus. Or do what I do and ride your bike. ;D
Sure it's big, but so is 1661. It actually makes a logical step down in height from 1661 to the other buildings in the area. The old Riverside Hospital was much taller. The office building across the street from Susi Cafe is taller and bigger.
The first floor setback for outdoor dining is a great design idea and makes it very street friendly and helps it fit in with it's neighbors.
Quote from: Dog Walker on September 21, 2010, 03:24:11 PM
Can we all just quit obsessing about the parking? Just walk a block or two for heaven's sake! Peak hours for the restaurants are off peak for Publix and the professional offices in the neighborhood. Use those lots. Use the public spaces inside 1661. They are only 1/2 block away. At lunch time use the trolley-bus. Or do what I do and ride your bike. ;D
Sure it's big, but so is 1661. It actually makes a logical step down in height from 1661 to the other buildings in the area. The old Riverside Hospital was much taller. The office building across the street from Susi Cafe is taller and bigger.
The first floor setback for outdoor dining is a great design idea and makes it very street friendly and helps it fit in with it's neighbors.
My concern is not the Restaraunt Parking, it's the residential and office parking. These folks will need dedicated parking, and without an agreement in place with anyone, it's anyone's guess as to where they will park.
Perhaps a design more like this would help to alleviate all of these parking concerns.
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2583/3976032480_46738d9dba.jpg)
Well, I won't be able to make it to the meeting as I won't be leaving work until 6-645ish.
Anybody going to Three Layers tonight that will have gone to the LUZ meeting?
Yes, we'll be at Three Layers tonight. If you don't see us up front, check the room in the back of the courtyard.
Quote from: Kay on September 21, 2010, 02:50:54 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 21, 2010, 12:09:53 PM
Quote from: JAM on September 21, 2010, 11:30:02 AMBut the intent of the overlay was to make sure that new projects provide at least some parking (hence the 75% reduction from normal parking requirements.
Just wondering. What type of bearing does the intent of the overlay have on a project applying for a PUD?
Our intent with the Overlay was to eliminate the need for PUDs. So needing a PUD means the project doesn't comply with the Overlay.
Not necessarily. The intent of the Overlay was to substantially reduce the need for PUDs so that they would be rarely used. As sordid as the history of this site is on the land use and zoning front, it is of a sufficiently odd configuration that a PUD may very well be warranted. While I'm not crazy about this particular site plan and proposed structure, and there may very well be elements of the PUD (which admittedly I have not read) that are inconsistent with the Overlay, it is overly simplistic to say that the proposed PUD is inconsistent with the Overlay by virtue of being a PUD.
^ Thanks for the clarification.
It would seem to me, alot of developers are making a push right now, because of the possibility of Amendment 4 coming up........it passes, there will be a whole lot of stuff stopped! Why have an Overlay if it is not to be adhered too? What about the Land Usage Plan 2030 which may have some bearing?
People try to bring the hip yuppie stuff to this city that everyone crys about, and many on MJ give it a no go. I don't see anything wrong with this project. Even though it's modern, it's not ugly, or outlandish like many modern projects are. IMO it's not a big clash with the surrounding historical concerns. It's simple, modern, and clean.
I-10east...........are you familiar with that area? Nothing modern about the surroundings in any shape fashion or form! Got nothing against modern design but it would stick out like a sore thumb! What about something that would blend into the neighborhood rather than standout?
^^^Yes I'm familiar. How about the lofty Riverside Presbyterian Apts in the area? It's not exactly the grand and stately Park Lane. It's not like they're adding some eyesore like the Wonderworks in O-Town, just a simple and modern low rise structure. The stretch with the Sushi Place is hip and trendy anyway; IMO that proposed building will be a good fit.
Thank you I-10.. those apartments are fugly and don't match the neighborhood. Hell, even the publix shopping center doesn't "match" the neighborhood. I think it's a perfectly appropriate project for the area.
Anybody have an update?? I wasn't able to make the LUZ meeting.
Yikes, just a call that the meeting is still ongoing and the issue unresolved, 3 1/2 hours later.
It ended about 8:30 - at least this issue did (LUZ was still going). It passed with conditions. Music will be prohibited after 10 during the week and 12 on the weekends on the deck up top, and they will have to set the building back 1 foot on the Margaret Street side. In addition, (I believe) CM Corrigan said he was going to push for the perpendicular parking on the 1661 Side of Oak Street, as the next increase in the development as it stands is one space.
It was one of those compromises that no one was really happy about, but both sides worked together to get it done.
You know what I can't stand about this project ? There are so many buildings already on the market that would be perfect for this project. But lets just go ahead and build more !
I know I am not supposed to market my own property on here - but hell - it is only .4 miles from 5pts between Park and Downtown with tons of parking and it's own freestanding building ??? (the old Trophy Center)
WHY do developers insist on building more chaos and jumping thru dog and pony shows downtown for this ????
Stephen - you've seen the inside of my building - you know how "perfect" this would be for a restaurant !!!! 10,000 sq. ft down and 4,000 sq. ft up. As long as we let developers jump thru all the rules, empty buildings will continue to sit thanks to bankrupt developers that came and cleared the "neighborhoods"
Jeanine
This pie building will look out of place but with a space shaped like that there is'nt much else to do. Keeping all of the windows is a must in order to keep the space open and inviting..if not it's going to look like a big piece of cheese sitting on the corner. I say bringing a modern touch could'nt hurt that much but it will stick out..
While the Trophy Center is a great building, my assumption is that there is a desire by this development team to take advantage of a site situated in a great location for the uses proposed. One of the issues with Chew now is that it is in a location (heart of downtown of all places) that is completely isolated when it comes to foot traffic and similar uses, outside of lunch hours. For such a particular use, that same problem would exist in Brooklyn at this time.
Five Points on the other hand, is a seven day a week activity center. It is already has the compact cluster of compatible uses that should fill Chew's doors at lunch, nights and weekends. Other reasons for constructing new buildings could be overall cost or the desire to construct a facility that is designed (from the start) for the use planned to be put into it.
Unfortunately, I think this whole episode has exposed some real loopholes in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay. The Overlay was the end-result of countless meetings between residents, developers, consultants and neighborhood representatives, and its goal (among others) was to create zones that would be both conducive to development and enhance the neighborhood's human-scale and historic character.
Now, with the very first development proposed since the Overlay, we're getting a building that, quite frankly, couldn't have been built in, say, Arlington. I'm not talking about the design--personally, I'm fine with it--but rather the shockingly few parking spaces the developer is being required to provide for a 100+ seat restaurant and associated residential and office uses. Councilman Bill Bishop got the developers on record as not wanting to commit to actually building the 11 actual additional spaces on Oak St. across from their parcel that they included in their site plan. At the very least, I think some sort of shared parking arrangement with area surface lots (McIver, Publix etc.) should have been required, because the parking load on surrounding streets unquestionably is going to increase.
The parking credits/reductions built into the Overlay have somehow netted us a situation in which the developer is being allowed to create exactly ONE NEW SPACE beyond what's already there (and already heavily utilized). IMHO, that's just crazy.
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
There is an existing building in the area that is crying out for someone to put a restaurant in it and it has enough parking on site to meet the overlay. 904 Margaret Street, at the corner of College and Margaret Streets overlooking Riverside Park and next to the Pizza Palace.
It is probably big enough for 100 seats and it is two story. It is a beautiful older building with a tiled terrace out front. A restaurant like Panache would fit perfectly.
It has been vacant for a long time, but has a new roof and is ready for remodeling. I think the price has been drastically reduced from a couple of years ago.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
I agree! It seems like floridians enjoy being a parking lot city. Walk far away....enjoy what five points has to offer. and lose some weight all in the process. see win/win.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
As a native of DC and a former resident of Manhattan, trust me--I get the whole walk-to-your-destination thing. But as Steve noted earlier, the parking issue really has nothing to do with accommodating restaurant visitors. The folks who have a right to be peeved are the businesses whose allocated customer parking will be hijacked, the homeowners who'll have to continually execute complicated three-point parking maneuvers just to pull into their driveways (presuming those haven't been blocked) and the renters who simply won't be able to find a space outside their house. Walking those four or five blocks with your groceries kind of sucks . . .
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
Not to mention that this building is within 50' feet of where MJ and JTA think our vintage streetcar line will pass! Although the designer of this place has a solid wall facing Oak (the streetcar route) if they would spin it around it would open to this unique mass transit, perhaps becoming one of the first businesses to benefit from it. OCKLAWAHA
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 08:35:27 AM
Its still a damned shame that the neighborhood let the entire Brooklyn commercial district get plowed under on the hair trigger hope that it would be redeveloped by those horrible hallmark proposals.
There were some seriously cool buildings there. It will be hundreds of millions of dollars to replace the fabric that the city tore down in the mad dash to make that area safe for suburbanites.
I agree with the location of Jonathan's new restaurant, but Park Street through Brooklyn is probably the most underexploited area in the city. Connecting Five Points and Downtown without the downtown parking policies along with some great old buildings? All it would take would be two or three cool establishments and that area would wake right up.
Probably so, but you'll need someone willing to take a risk to jump start the area. Chew has already taken a risk on downtown and that hasn't worked out so well, so I doubt they're willing to take a risk in Brooklyn right now. Anyway, 200 Riverside is now breaking ground soon and will include a Courtyard by Marriott hotel along with a park in the immediate area. That could help things in Brooklyn but a streetcar would kick things into high gear.
Streetcar or not, the building would be much more on an anchor on that corner if it opened up to Oak as much as it does on Margaret. Granted Mossfire and everything else backs up to oak on that block, but that doesn't really matter. I think not securing the 11 spots on the other side of Oak for the design is also dumb on the city's part.
Quote from: Ocklawaha on September 22, 2010, 09:28:46 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
Not to mention that this building is within 50' feet of where MJ and JTA think our vintage streetcar line will pass! Although the designer of this place has a solid wall facing Oak (the streetcar route) if they would spin it around it would open to this unique mass transit, perhaps becoming one of the first businesses to benefit from it.
OCKLAWAHA
Don't worry, Ock!
You know good ole' JTA is busy plotting to kill off the streetcar line, I doubt there will be anything to look at once they're done!
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
I agree. The parking argument is weak. It is not hard to find parking in the area. Do we really want to start adding parking lots all over the place. Look how that worked for downtown. We don't need to always bow to the automobile.
Anyway, 200 Riverside is now breaking ground soon and will include a Courtyard by Marriott hotel along with a park in the immediate area. That could help things in Brooklyn but a streetcar would kick things into high gear.
1st - I'll believe 200 Riverside when I see it.... for now that excavator they have out there looks to be able to dig a small septic tank. Personally I think something's fishy with that.
2nd- If that is true - then Chew's wouldn't be nearly the risk eh ? with that Blue Cross , Everbank , Fidelity, Haskell AND 200 Riverside and a Marriott hotel all within walking distance to 339 Park St ?
again , it takes me back to Donald Trump trying to get a loan so he hired 10 dumptrucks to cart dirt from one end of a property to another just to make it look like they were doing something. Have you seen that excavator at 200 Riverside ????? omg
Quote2nd- If that is true - then Chew's wouldn't be nearly the risk eh ? with that Blue Cross , Everbank , Fidelity, Haskell AND 200 Riverside and a Marriott hotel all within walking distance to 339 Park St ?
Looking at the two sites, there is a huge difference in terms of immediate environment and connectivity, for a use that won't be an anchor. For a restaurant, the existing foot traffic and number of complementing businesses immediately adjacent are huge positives, so it really comes down to the fact that Five Points is a destination in and of itself. Although Park Street has potential, whoever goes in there first has to be willing to fight it out to make it a destination. That type of risk isn't for everyone.
QuoteAnyway, 200 Riverside is now breaking ground soon and will include a Courtyard by Marriott hotel along with a park in the immediate area. That could help things in Brooklyn but a streetcar would kick things into high gear.
And a small ampitheatre-like feature that will be attached to the existing park at Forrest.
QuoteAlthough Park Street has potential, whoever goes in there first has to be willing to fight it out to make it a destination. That type of risk isn't for everyone.
Exactly. If the dog park was opened up, and Annie Lyttle had a viable use and was connected to Riverside Park... this would at least stimulate something. But right now, that intersection gets no foot traffic to speak of, and really doesn't get much spillover from the traffic flow passing Pizza Palace into 5 Points.
QuoteNot to mention that this building is within 50' feet of where MJ and JTA think our vintage streetcar line will pass! Although the designer of this place has a solid wall facing Oak
That is really the worst part of the design IMO. Margaret is already not pedestrian friendly on that stretch... this would further that isolation if/when a streetcar line gets built on that thoroughfare.
Quote1st - I'll believe 200 Riverside when I see it.... for now that excavator they have out there looks to be able to dig a small septic tank. Personally I think something's fishy with that.
One thing they do have, which makes it believable, is an option with Marriott which puts them in line for bank approval. Brooklyn Park never had jack.
200 Riverside also has financing lined up....all they needed were signed leases for 70% of the office space...and they now have that.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 22, 2010, 01:11:05 PM
200 Riverside also has financing lined up....all they needed were signed leases for 70% of the office space...and they now have that.
Well thats great then ! I knew they needed that 3 years ago, but I hadn't heard they reached that pre-signed finally. Maybe Brooklyn will have a chance ... We hated to leave our building.
Serendipity Baby!!!!! Get it built!
Quote from: cline on September 22, 2010, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
I agree. The parking argument is weak. It is not hard to find parking in the area. Do we really want to start adding parking lots all over the place. Look how that worked for downtown. We don't need to always bow to the automobile.
No one, including RAP is arguing for more parking lots. We are arguing for compliance with our Overlay, and advocating for what our community expects (which we know from workshops throughout the overlay development and surveys and focus groups we've conducted). Our position is that if you cannot meet parking requirements in the Overlay, which in this case are 19 onsite spaces--a 75% discount from the regular code--then you need to give in other areas. We believe the building as designed is too large for its site and that block. Ideally it would be set back on both Margaret and Oak, especially to come no further forward than Mossfire. RAP's preference would be for a two-story restaurant/whatever with a roof top dining area. We worked on the Overlay for 2 years. We thought it through. For example, in the commercial character areas (Avondale Shopps, Park and King) the Overlay requires no parking for contributing historic structures. It also states that if you tear down a non-contributing structure in these areas and build another structure no larger than the previous one, you do not have to add parking. The Overlay is much friendlier to development than the regular code. But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment. You may disagree with us, but we genuinely want this to be a great project and we believe our recommendations would make it better.
Let's try to look at this from another angle: While I understand that there are parking requirments and a desire to not overbuild the area, there is also a force of human nature that doesn't seem to be addressed. If they were mandated to provide 50 dedicated parking spots, and they did - you would still have 60 people trying to park their cars. That area becomes so dense at lunchtime and thursday - saturday night that I would imagine that by not increasing the parking, you would actually help the situation and make the area more pedestrian friendly. If you go to '5-points' - a destination in itself, and already know that parking is limited, wouldn't you be more inclined to park and walk or use the trolley? IMO more parking only adds to the current problem, it's not a solution.
Imagine if we could shut down park st from post down and oak st up from Herschel? Not only could you wander around 5-points shopping, drinking and eating, you wouldn't have to worry about someone clipping you while you teeter in the walkway. Plus it would allow stalls, bands, etc. to set up on the street at the blinky-blinky light - and actually create a party-type environment that would draw even more people.
I know this isn't feasible, but it's a damn, fine idea IMO.
Out of curiosity, who are the architects working on this project?
Quote from: JaxNative68 on September 23, 2010, 11:44:33 AM
Out of curiosity, who are the architects working on this project?
Design Cooperative. http://www.designcooperativefla.com/
Quote from: Kay on September 23, 2010, 06:24:56 AM
Quote from: cline on September 22, 2010, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
I agree. The parking argument is weak. It is not hard to find parking in the area. Do we really want to start adding parking lots all over the place. Look how that worked for downtown. We don't need to always bow to the automobile.
No one, including RAP is arguing for more parking lots. We are arguing for compliance with our Overlay, and advocating for what our community expects (which we know from workshops throughout the overlay development and surveys and focus groups we've conducted). Our position is that if you cannot meet parking requirements in the Overlay, which in this case are 19 onsite spaces--a 75% discount from the regular code--then you need to give in other areas. We believe the building as designed is too large for its site and that block. Ideally it would be set back on both Margaret and Oak, especially to come no further forward than Mossfire. RAP's preference would be for a two-story restaurant/whatever with a roof top dining area. We worked on the Overlay for 2 years. We thought it through. For example, in the commercial character areas (Avondale Shopps, Park and King) the Overlay requires no parking for contributing historic structures. It also states that if you tear down a non-contributing structure in these areas and build another structure no larger than the previous one, you do not have to add parking. The Overlay is much friendlier to development than the regular code. But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment. You may disagree with us, but we genuinely want this to be a great project and we believe our recommendations would make it better.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I think people are looking at the parking situation and not understanding that parking requirements were but one piece in a larger chess match aimed at securing the feel and historic fabric of the neighborhood. You cannot analyze that one consideration in a vacuum, or else the larger picture doesn't make sense.
However, looking at the proposal, I do feel that the highest and best use of that very small triangle-shaped lot may very well be building out to the lot lines. There isn't much room to have any meaningful setbacks but still have the space be commercially viable, that lot is tiny. I am not sure what else they could do, unless the only type of restaurant they were planning on running was a hot dog cart.
But with that said, the proposed design is awful. They are essentially constructing a self-contained walled fortress with no pedestrian/street-level interaction whatsoever. If the proposal included glass walls, some kind or architectural open space (like the Bremer Brace building) then I'd probably be in favor of it. But as it stands, it probably is not appropriate for the location.
Just my $0.02 anyway.
Quote from: RiversideLoki on September 23, 2010, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: JaxNative68 on September 23, 2010, 11:44:33 AM
Out of curiosity, who are the architects working on this project?
Design Cooperative. http://www.designcooperativefla.com/
It looks like they lowered their standards on this one ???
I'll reserve judgement. The only thing we've seen is a little balsa model and a bad render. I'd like to see some better renders.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 23, 2010, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: Kay on September 23, 2010, 06:24:56 AM
Quote from: cline on September 22, 2010, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
I agree. The parking argument is weak. It is not hard to find parking in the area. Do we really want to start adding parking lots all over the place. Look how that worked for downtown. We don't need to always bow to the automobile.
No one, including RAP is arguing for more parking lots. We are arguing for compliance with our Overlay, and advocating for what our community expects (which we know from workshops throughout the overlay development and surveys and focus groups we've conducted). Our position is that if you cannot meet parking requirements in the Overlay, which in this case are 19 onsite spaces--a 75% discount from the regular code--then you need to give in other areas. We believe the building as designed is too large for its site and that block. Ideally it would be set back on both Margaret and Oak, especially to come no further forward than Mossfire. RAP's preference would be for a two-story restaurant/whatever with a roof top dining area. We worked on the Overlay for 2 years. We thought it through. For example, in the commercial character areas (Avondale Shopps, Park and King) the Overlay requires no parking for contributing historic structures. It also states that if you tear down a non-contributing structure in these areas and build another structure no larger than the previous one, you do not have to add parking. The Overlay is much friendlier to development than the regular code. But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment. You may disagree with us, but we genuinely want this to be a great project and we believe our recommendations would make it better.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I think people are looking at the parking situation and not understanding that parking requirements were but one piece in a larger chess match aimed at securing the feel and historic fabric of the neighborhood. You cannot analyze that one consideration in a vacuum, or else the larger picture doesn't make sense.
However, looking at the proposal, I do feel that the highest and best use of that very small triangle-shaped lot may very well be building out to the lot lines. There isn't much room to have any meaningful setbacks but still have the space be commercially viable, that lot is tiny. I am not sure what else they could do, unless the only type of restaurant they were planning on running was a hot dog cart.
But with that said, the proposed design is awful. They are essentially constructing a self-contained walled fortress with no pedestrian/street-level interaction whatsoever. If the proposal included glass walls, some kind or architectural open space (like the Bremer Brace building) then I'd probably be in favor of it. But as it stands, it probably is not appropriate for the location.
Just my $0.02 anyway.
Chris: I understand your point. They are proposing to build 19,600 square feet. All we asked was that the first third of the building next to Mossfire (about 40 feet) be set back to align with Mossfire (4 feet). They'd be losing 480 square feet. Does not seem unreasonable to me and would make a huge difference in how it fits next to Mossfire in our opinion. Along the rest of the Margaret St. frontage is the open outside dining space. Instead, they decided to set the entire building back 1 foot or 390 square feet. I don't think that 1 foot will make much of a difference as it will still be sitting in front of Mossfire. The Planning Dept. conditioned that they have to redesign the building. We're not sure what that actually means. But it would seem to be an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and come up with a more exciting design that would consider the Mossfire building.
Quote from: Kay on September 23, 2010, 01:57:38 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 23, 2010, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: Kay on September 23, 2010, 06:24:56 AM
Quote from: cline on September 22, 2010, 09:49:48 AM
Quote from: stephendare on September 22, 2010, 09:24:19 AM
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 22, 2010, 09:07:24 AM
This 'parking issue' is really out of hand. Is no one willing to walk a few blocks? Every once and while, someone on this post wants to make a reference to Savannah, well, if you've ever hung out at city market or bay street in sav, then you know that you have 3 choices: Drive around looking for a parking spot nearby (not guaranteed), park 4 or 5 blocks away and walk, park 4 or 5 blocks away and sit in a cab for an eternity. I choose to walk. 5 points has those same options now, and it's agreed that adding more will result in more congestion, but really, park a few blocks away and take the time to walk around 5 points. You may just find something/somewhere that's even better than your intended destination. You can't accidentally walk into a cool looking venue when your driving around LOOKING for a parking spot.
Yes. The parking issue is completely out of hand, and these requirements for so much parking are the biggest drivers for demolition. In my opinion, i don't think that a neighborhood can be both historic and comply with the ridiculous suburban parking ethos at the same time
I agree. The parking argument is weak. It is not hard to find parking in the area. Do we really want to start adding parking lots all over the place. Look how that worked for downtown. We don't need to always bow to the automobile.
No one, including RAP is arguing for more parking lots. We are arguing for compliance with our Overlay, and advocating for what our community expects (which we know from workshops throughout the overlay development and surveys and focus groups we've conducted). Our position is that if you cannot meet parking requirements in the Overlay, which in this case are 19 onsite spaces--a 75% discount from the regular code--then you need to give in other areas. We believe the building as designed is too large for its site and that block. Ideally it would be set back on both Margaret and Oak, especially to come no further forward than Mossfire. RAP's preference would be for a two-story restaurant/whatever with a roof top dining area. We worked on the Overlay for 2 years. We thought it through. For example, in the commercial character areas (Avondale Shopps, Park and King) the Overlay requires no parking for contributing historic structures. It also states that if you tear down a non-contributing structure in these areas and build another structure no larger than the previous one, you do not have to add parking. The Overlay is much friendlier to development than the regular code. But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment. You may disagree with us, but we genuinely want this to be a great project and we believe our recommendations would make it better.
That sounds perfectly reasonable. I think people are looking at the parking situation and not understanding that parking requirements were but one piece in a larger chess match aimed at securing the feel and historic fabric of the neighborhood. You cannot analyze that one consideration in a vacuum, or else the larger picture doesn't make sense.
However, looking at the proposal, I do feel that the highest and best use of that very small triangle-shaped lot may very well be building out to the lot lines. There isn't much room to have any meaningful setbacks but still have the space be commercially viable, that lot is tiny. I am not sure what else they could do, unless the only type of restaurant they were planning on running was a hot dog cart.
But with that said, the proposed design is awful. They are essentially constructing a self-contained walled fortress with no pedestrian/street-level interaction whatsoever. If the proposal included glass walls, some kind or architectural open space (like the Bremer Brace building) then I'd probably be in favor of it. But as it stands, it probably is not appropriate for the location.
Just my $0.02 anyway.
Chris: I understand your point. They are proposing to build 19,600 square feet. All we asked was that the first third of the building next to Mossfire (about 40 feet) be set back to align with Mossfire (4 feet). They'd be losing 480 square feet. Does not seem unreasonable to me and would make a huge difference in how it fits next to Mossfire in our opinion. Along the rest of the Margaret St. frontage is the open outside dining space. Instead, they decided to set the entire building back 1 foot or 390 square feet. I don't think that 1 foot will make much of a difference as it will still be sitting in front of Mossfire. The Planning Dept. conditioned that they have to redesign the building. We're not sure what that actually means. But it would seem to be an opportunity to go back to the drawing board and come up with a more exciting design that would consider the Mossfire building.
If all they are losing is 480 square feet then that would seem a reasonable concession. Frankly if that's all we are talking about, I'm really surprised they are being so stubborn over it. But additionally I would think something should be done about better integration between the southeastern wall and oak street.
The current proposal is really quite awful, it will be a solid 3 story high wall with no street interaction whatsoever. At the very least the first floor should be all glass, this will highlight the most striking feature of architecture, which is the tall slender point of the triangle, and will allow the building's interior to have at least some integration with the street and pedestrian traffic.
QuoteThe current proposal is really quite awful, it will be a solid 3 story high wall with no street interaction whatsoever. At the very least the first floor should be all glass, this will highlight the most striking feature of architecture, which is the tall slender point of the triangle, and will allow the building's interior to have at least some integration with the street and pedestrian traffic.
Agreed as to the section facing Oak. That section of the road is pretty desolate as it is. Closing off the last part of developable property on that stretch by a concrete wall would only contribute to this dead street. If a streetcar line gets built on this thoroughfare, how many people are going to complain that not enough foresight was had now to avoid such a problem later??
I still have issue's regarding the parking but can live with that part.............however I agree with the idea of basically a "Fortress Wall" and think there maybe a better way! Something pedestrian friendly or possibly a green space as a buffer! There are a variety of ways of going at it rather than a solid wall of concrete, not to mention the possibility of street car and taking that into account!
Quote from: Kay on September 23, 2010, 06:24:56 AM
Our position is that if you cannot meet parking requirements in the Overlay, which in this case are 19 onsite spaces--a 75% discount from the regular code--then you need to give in other areas. We believe the building as designed is too large for its site and that block. Ideally it would be set back on both Margaret and Oak, especially to come no further forward than Mossfire. RAP's preference would be for a two-story restaurant/whatever with a roof top dining area. We worked on the Overlay for 2 years. We thought it through. For example, in the commercial character areas (Avondale Shopps, Park and King) the Overlay requires no parking for contributing historic structures. It also states that if you tear down a non-contributing structure in these areas and build another structure no larger than the previous one, you do not have to add parking. The Overlay is much friendlier to development than the regular code. But those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment. You may disagree with us, but we genuinely want this to be a great project and we believe our recommendations would make it better.
This is out of my area of expertise, so please excuse the dumb questions I might ask! Why is scale regulated through parking? If there is a clear idea of what is and isn't of the desired scale of the area, why is the line between the two made flexible by something as off-the-subject as the number parking spaces? I would like to think that the community's view of this building being too large would be unaffected by whether it had more parking spaces. Is it just a matter of ease in regulating one indirectly through the other? Or am I completely misunderstanding this? :P
So, moving the building back 1' towards Oak... is the setback from Margaret now going to be 5'(street to building)? I'll be going to Larrys after work and will probably have to walk from the parking garage at 1661(haha) and just want to get a visual of where the building will sit?
Rain, i think the issue of scale is in regards to height of the surrounding buildings.... three storys and rooftop dining(on a tiny tiny lot) would look pretty big next to Regions, Mossfire, OBrothers, the Carter Pharmacy building, the condos across the street, etc.
Yes, it wouldnt be higher than 1661, but it would stick out like a sore thumb over the existing buildings adjacent to it. Especially with a design that makes the eye naturally look skyward when viewing the building.
The parking would be a completely seperate issue.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 23, 2010, 03:54:42 PM
Rain, i think the issue of scale is in regards to height of the surrounding buildings.... three storys and rooftop dining(on a tiny tiny lot) would look pretty big next to Regions, Mossfire, OBrothers, the Carter Pharmacy building, the condos across the street, etc.
Yes, it wouldnt be higher than 1661, but it would stick out like a sore thumb over the existing buildings adjacent to it. Especially with a design that makes the eye naturally look skyward when viewing the building.
The parking would be a completely seperate issue.
You can't really height-limit that lot either, otherwise you won't be able to build anything commercially viable there. Especially if people also want setbacks as well. It's really a very small lot. You have to leave them enough space to do business, or it won't be viable. And nothing is worse than a vacant lot, in this context. There just needs to be more integration and less walled fortress going on.
Quote from: fieldafm on September 23, 2010, 03:54:42 PM
Rain, i think the issue of scale is in regards to height of the surrounding buildings.... three storys and rooftop dining(on a tiny tiny lot) would look pretty big next to Regions, Mossfire, OBrothers, the Carter Pharmacy building, the condos across the street, etc.
Yes, it wouldnt be higher than 1661, but it would stick out like a sore thumb over the existing buildings adjacent to it. Especially with a design that makes the eye naturally look skyward when viewing the building.
The parking would be a completely seperate issue.
I will take anyone's word for it at this point, but the quote I was replying to seems to say otherwise. Can you explain that? It was specifically this that brought up my questions:
Quote from: KayBut those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment.
QuoteBut those parking requirements are there for a reason and that reason is to control development from be larger than the community wants. They like the human scale of the existing built environment.
Id have to defer to Kay, but the way I interpreted that statement was in regards to the fact that the Overlay's parking allowances(discounted from normal code's requirements) tries to make sure the neighborhood's fabric of density and scale do not become more of a suburban model of huge megabox commercial buildings with huge parking lots(as normal code requires quite a bit more parking be made available for a commercial building site construction than does the Riverside Avondale Overlay).
QuoteYou can't really height-limit that lot either, otherwise you won't be able to build anything commercially viable there. Especially if people also want setbacks as well. It's really a very small lot. You have to leave them enough space to do business, or it won't be viable. And nothing is worse than a vacant lot, in this context. There just needs to be more integration and less walled fortress going on.
On no, I agree. In and of itself, you can't regulate the height... but when taken in context with all the other issues combined, it can be agreed that changes to the current plan would be better for the community as a whole... that while the total plan does not grossly violate the Overlay, there are certainly aspects that could be compromised on that fit more with the community's desire as a whole.
I posted pictures and started asking questions about these issues in the aggregate here:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9434.120.html (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9434.120.html)
We can all agree that the site itself creates challenges and limitations.
As I understand it, once buildings in this Overlay area exceed 45 feet in height, some of the parking allowances (not having to match what the city would normally require) disappear. Under 45 feet, you only have to provide 25% of the recommended number; over 45 feet, you have to provide 50%.
According to staff report, this building will be 45' in height, which is allowed in the overlay.
For a real change of pace...........instead of going up for 3 stories, why not go down for five? Put entire setup underground and down as far as needed. Use faux windows for views, each floor would be specific for the floor and every floor would be different. Very small entry at surface to enter elevator, other elevator for freight/goods and park on top of the thing at ground level! Use plantings at surface to direct traffic flow or lounge around ....heck you could even have a fancy garden and charge entrance! IMHO and thinking outside of the box! How energy efficient do you think that would be?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 23, 2010, 06:05:48 PM
According to staff report, this building will be 45' in height, which is allowed in the overlay.
Correct. The Elevator Shaft and stairwell and bathrooms and a couple other things apparently don't count towards overall building height.
Unless I looked at it wrong, the sketch in the staff report indicates that the elevator shaft, stairwell and bathrooms don't exceed 45ft.
Let's think about a few things for a second.... The bottom floor will be housing a restaurant, which would require some full walls against something (the designers chose Oak St.). The next 2 floors would consist of a combination of residential/commercial. The roof (4th floor) would house an outdoor bar, that would only be operating on the 'busy' nights. (prob. thur - sat).
The biggest issue, according to my own personal interpretations of Kay (whom I believe reps RAP) is the lack of parking that the designers have proposed. The second issue, once again according to my own personal interpretation, is the size of the development.
Let's address the 'biggest' issue first: I don't care how many parking spots that are allocated, there will be more cars trying to park in those spots. The entire area doesn't have 32 acres dedicated to parking, so why should one restaurant/business complex/condo be required to fill in the blank spots that have been un-addressed for so long that they shouldn't be the driving force for a business. We have to stop the trend of trying to base the relevance of businesses to the amount of parking that they require. We need to stop depending on the availablility of parking 2 meters within our destination. If that were the case, most of us would have to park in Palm Springs if we wanted to go shopping in Key Biscayne. Learn some alternative methods.
The second
Quote from: thelakelander on September 23, 2010, 11:26:40 PM
Unless I looked at it wrong, the sketch in the staff report indicates that the elevator shaft, stairwell and bathrooms don't exceed 45ft.
If its the same sketch I have, they do exceed 45 feet.
Quote from: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 24, 2010, 12:46:38 AM
Let's think about a few things for a second.... The bottom floor will be housing a restaurant, which would require some full walls against something (the designers chose Oak St.). The next 2 floors would consist of a combination of residential/commercial. The roof (4th floor) would house an outdoor bar, that would only be operating on the 'busy' nights. (prob. thur - sat).
The biggest issue, according to my own personal interpretations of Kay (whom I believe reps RAP) is the lack of parking that the designers have proposed. The second issue, once again according to my own personal interpretation, is the size of the development.
Let's address the 'biggest' issue first: I don't care how many parking spots that are allocated, there will be more cars trying to park in those spots. The entire area doesn't have 32 acres dedicated to parking, so why should one restaurant/business complex/condo be required to fill in the blank spots that have been un-addressed for so long that they shouldn't be the driving force for a business. We have to stop the trend of trying to base the relevance of businesses to the amount of parking that they require. We need to stop depending on the availablility of parking 2 meters within our destination. If that were the case, most of us would have to park in Palm Springs if we wanted to go shopping in Key Biscayne. Learn some alternative methods.
The second
I disagree.
Think of what wonderful integration with the street a restaurant could have if the kitchen was all glass-enclosed, and pedestrians could see people cooking up the food as you walked by. Frankly it's free advertising, and it would probably make me want to go inside and eat something. But I'm not sure where you're getting this idea that restaurants must have some certain number of closed exterior walls, that doesn't have to be the case.
How well would it go over to have non-customers standing outside taking notes? Free recipes! :)
I can't see what is stopping them from putting the kitchen area back on the wall that abuts mossfire. ???
I have one simple question.............everyone is pushing bicycles ...........where are the bicycles going to be parked at?
Quote from: CS Foltz on September 24, 2010, 09:00:49 PM
I have one simple question.............everyone is pushing bicycles ...........where are the bicycles going to be parked at?
um...bike racks
Nope, we'll just chain them to the railing at Mossfire like we do now. ;D
The piece of cake design seems to lack visual stimuli.
Could the ground floor at minimum recede below the cantilevered upper tiers?
this would only partially heal the assault on my sensibilities.
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 25, 2010, 08:42:41 AM
Quote from: CS Foltz on September 24, 2010, 09:00:49 PM
I have one simple question.............everyone is pushing bicycles ...........where are the bicycles going to be parked at?
um...bike racks
I see nothing regarding bike racks in the proposed site plan layout?
Quote from: ricker on September 25, 2010, 10:39:16 AM
The piece of cake design seems to lack visual stimuli.
Could the ground floor at minimum recede below the cantilevered upper tiers?
this would only partially heal the assault on my sensibilities.
While the current model is only a conceptual beginning, it is my understanding that on the Margaret Street side the first floor will be recessed so that there will be "sidewalk" dining and a direct connection to the actual sidewalk. The other floor will be cantilevered over this section of the first.
Quote from: acme54321 on September 24, 2010, 02:25:37 PM
I can't see what is stopping them from putting the kitchen area back on the wall that abuts mossfire. ???
Actually, that is where the kitchen is, not on Oak Street. The area on Oak is a concrete wall with the dining room on the other side.
Also, with regard to bike racks, they are required to provide them. Not sure where they are going.
Does the building code now require bike racks? Great if true, but then there are a lot of new buildings that are not in compliance.
Quote from: Steve on September 25, 2010, 05:32:54 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on September 24, 2010, 02:25:37 PM
I can't see what is stopping them from putting the kitchen area back on the wall that abuts mossfire. ???
Actually, that is where the kitchen is, not on Oak Street. The area on Oak is a concrete wall with the dining room on the other side.
Also, with regard to bike racks, they are required to provide them. Not sure where they are going.
Well then that confirms how easy it would be to use a glass wall rather than concrete on the Oak street facade. Very shortsighted of them to build a 3-story high cement wall when there is no design need for it.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 29, 2010, 07:57:26 AM
Well then that confirms how easy it would be to use a glass wall rather than concrete on the Oak street facade. Very shortsighted of them to build a 3-story high cement wall when there is no design need for it.
No joke. I've never been to a restaurant and requested to be sat next to a concrete wall. ???
Quote from: acme54321 on September 29, 2010, 08:08:14 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 29, 2010, 07:57:26 AM
Well then that confirms how easy it would be to use a glass wall rather than concrete on the Oak street facade. Very shortsighted of them to build a 3-story high cement wall when there is no design need for it.
No joke. I've never been to a restaurant and requested to be sat next to a concrete wall. ???
c'mon. you guys have no clue what the designer intends to do with the inside of that space.
Quote from: arteest on September 29, 2010, 08:22:29 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on September 29, 2010, 08:08:14 AM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on September 29, 2010, 07:57:26 AM
Well then that confirms how easy it would be to use a glass wall rather than concrete on the Oak street facade. Very shortsighted of them to build a 3-story high cement wall when there is no design need for it.
No joke. I've never been to a restaurant and requested to be sat next to a concrete wall. ???
c'mon. you guys have no clue what the designer intends to do with the inside of that space.
Nor do I care. My issue is that a 3-story concrete wall is inappropriate for Oak Street...
[/quote]Nor do I care. My issue is that a 3-story concrete wall is inappropriate for Oak Street...[/quote]
sounds like it's going to be quite appropriate. regardless of what you think. to me it's a good thing.
The bike racks are on Oak street in back of the parking spaces. You can pretty easily see them in the site plan.
Quotesounds like it's going to be quite appropriate. regardless of what you think. to me it's a good thing.
Sorry, but a 3-story cement wall is inappropriate in that location, as it will result in a dead street.
And since RAP is contesting the design approval, all I can say is good luck with that wall (that won't be built).
unless there are standards in the overlay, there isn't much RAP (or anyone else) can say about the physical look of the building.
The "Bike Racks" are supposed to be where? I would guess, they can lose two parking spaces to insert the racks?
Quote from: tufsu1 on September 29, 2010, 12:55:07 PM
unless there are standards in the overlay, there isn't much RAP (or anyone else) can say about the physical look of the building.
My understanding is that it doesn't comport with the overlay, and that this is the whole point of contention.
The building height exceeds the 45' limit and, absent some agreement for dedicated parking, it doesn't meet the minimum parking requirements either. My understanding is that they are seeking special treatment to approve the project anyway, so that isn't a situation where they're entitled to build whatever design they want. It's a subjective process and subject to design concessions.
Being that I've yet to hear anyone in the neighborhood who is happy with the concept of building a solid 3-story cement fortress that walls off Oak Street, it would seem they will probably need to compromise on some issues in order to get it done. They aren't 'entitled' to a nonconforming design, and whether or not it goes forward will depend on community support.
And unlike SPAR's "Landslide of 39" over in Springfield, the truth is that RAP actually does represent a good chunk of the Riverside community and their support is highly relevant and is usually a pretty good indication of how most people who live here feel.
(1) I don't see a 3-story concrete wall on Oak Street. I see a wall broken up with asymmetrical rows of windows, trees and other features. True, more could be done (e.g., color shading and textures, or even a mural or whatever) to make that side more inviting but the fact remains that on a small odd-shaped lot like that it's to be expected that one side contains some wall space.
(2) Some commenters have held up the Publix/Starbucks development as a positive example of working with RAP and the city/community. But the Publix/Starbucks buildings are hideously ugly and dysfunctional, so that just goes to show that you can work within constraints and still very easily produce crap.
(3) Parking. While it's true that the spaces on Margaret between Mossfire and Sake House are always full-to-bursting, within one (or even 1/2) block of there are many opportunities for parking. Parking in 5 Points has not yet reached critical mass.
(4) A propos of nothing, I picture the upper floors more as office spaces than residential.
Just out of professional curiousity........what would take place if RAP said "NO"? What would happen if the neighborhood banded together and said........this looks like "Excrement"! Not to mention, if LR were to go in where it is thought to possibly be, not sure how that would integrate! Set back seems to be a possible issue but I guess if the walls were thick enough and triple pane glass were in place......only part that would be effected would be the rooftop!
Compare the oak street facade to the glass facade planned for Margaret, and tell me that you honestly don't see how folks would consider it a 3-story cement wall. It is what it is.
Quote from: RMidd on September 30, 2010, 07:22:52 PM
(1) I don't see a 3-story concrete wall on Oak Street. I see a wall broken up with asymmetrical rows of windows, trees and other features. True, more could be done (e.g., color shading and textures, or even a mural or whatever) to make that side more inviting but the fact remains that on a small odd-shaped lot like that it's to be expected that one side contains some wall space.
(2) Some commenters have held up the Publix/Starbucks development as a positive example of working with RAP and the city/community. But the Publix/Starbucks buildings are hideously ugly and dysfunctional, so that just goes to show that you can work within constraints and still very easily produce crap.
(3) Parking. While it's true that the spaces on Margaret between Mossfire and Sake House are always full-to-bursting, within one (or even 1/2) block of there are many opportunities for parking. Parking in 5 Points has not yet reached critical mass.
(4) A propos of nothing, I picture the upper floors more as office spaces than residential.
Quote from: CS Foltz on September 30, 2010, 07:38:12 PM
Just out of professional curiousity........what would take place if RAP said "NO"? What would happen if the neighborhood banded together and said........this looks like "Excrement"!
Speaking from experience, as long as code allows for that design to built, it would get built and as long as the food is good, people would end up eating at it. About a decade ago, while in Lakeland, a similar thing happened. Publix wanted to open a store in Lakeland Highlands and the residents banded together to keep them out because they didn't want the extra traffic and people outside of their neighborhoods coming into their area. Long story short, Publix got approval anyway and now those residents keep that store's parking lot full on an around the clock basis.
QuoteNot to mention, if LR were to go in where it is thought to possibly be, not sure how that would integrate!
The streetcar would run in the middle of the street. Whatever the final design and scale of this structure ends up being, it should have no significant impact on the integration of a future streetcar line in public ROW.
Well, out of curiosity, then what happens when a proposed structure exceeds height limits, exceeds setback requirements, and doesn't satisfy the minimum parking capacity called for by the proposed site's zoning?
Quote from: RMidd on September 30, 2010, 07:22:52 PM
(2) Some commenters have held up the Publix/Starbucks development as a positive example of working with RAP and the city/community. But the Publix/Starbucks buildings are hideously ugly and dysfunctional, so that just goes to show that you can work within constraints and still very easily produce crap.
+1
Perhaps the Publix/Starbucks is an example of where the developer engaged RAP but the final product looks terrible.
The original design of the Publix complex at Margaret and Riverside was for a regular suburban type store with a strip of stores surrounded by an asphalt parking lot.
You think the current design is ugly!!
Can you think of a layout that is less pedestrian and neighborhood friendly than a typical suburban layout?
The City's Historic Preservation staff sketched out the current layout, insisted on a design that broke up the big, blank box look of a suburban Publix, passed the ideas back to Sembler's architects for them to execute. The result might not be beautiful architecturally, but is far, far better than what was proposed originally.
Our small Publix and surrounding shops have added greatly to the neighborhood. Can a neighborhood exist without a nearby grocery store? This small Publix is highly successful and has the highest revenue per square foot of any in the state. The overall design of the plaza has worked so well that Publix/Sembler has copied it in several other historic neighborhoods in Florida.
I think we owe a big vote of thanks to our HPC staff people.
I think many people are forgetting the origin of the Publix/Starbucks site.
Sure, you can always pick some kind of fault with the final design of a building, but the Publix development is not comparable in any way to the current project we are discussing. The new Publix replaced a rundown and dilapidated former hospital facility (the old Riverside Hospital) from the 1950s/60s that had been abandoned since at least 1994 and had become a giant eyesore.
The Publix development is absolutely an improvement over what was there before, and unlike this proposal which is starting with a vacant lot and a clean slate, the Publix site required attracting private developers with the capital to pour in millions of dollars for demolition and abatement costs, which they did.
You have to look at what was lost vs. what was gained, which in the case of Publix was nothing vs. a lot, and RAP clearly did the correct thing by supporting it. And even then, the developers conceded design features that make the site integrate with the surrounding fabric, including brick trimwork to integrate the architecture, designing appropriate setbacks, and providing sufficient dedicated parking to support the density of the use.
None of which the developers of the corner of Oak and Margaret street seem to think they have to do. In fact, part of the argument in support of waiving the parking requirements appears to be that people will use the Publix center's spaces, which is grossly unfair to that landowner, considering they bent over backwards to work with the neighborhood and integrate their design, and the developers of this project are not.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 01, 2010, 11:56:55 AM
I think many people are forgetting the origin of the Publix/Starbucks site.
Sure, you can always pick some kind of fault with the final design of a building, but the Publix development is not comparable in any way to the current project we are discussing. The new Publix replaced a rundown and dilapidated former hospital facility (the old Riverside Hospital) from the 1950s/60s that had been abandoned since at least 1994 and had become a giant eyesore.
The Publix development is absolutely an improvement over what was there before, and unlike this proposal which is starting with a vacant lot and a clean slate, the Publix site required attracting private developers with the capital to pour in millions of dollars for demolition and abatement costs, which they did.
You have to look at what was lost vs. what was gained, which in the case of Publix was nothing vs. a lot, and RAP clearly did the correct thing by supporting it. And even then, the developers conceded design features that make the site integrate with the surrounding fabric, including brick trimwork to integrate the architecture, designing appropriate setbacks, and providing sufficient dedicated parking to support the density of the use.
None of which the developers of the corner of Oak and Margaret street seem to think they have to do. In fact, part of the argument in support of waiving the parking requirements appears to be that people will use the Publix center's spaces, which is grossly unfair to that landowner, considering they bent over backwards to work with the neighborhood and integrate their design, and the developers of this project are not.
Yes, the Publix probably is an improvement over what there before. However, the design for the new restaurant is also a big improvement over the vacant lot that is there now. Developers aren't exactly beating down the door to build on that lot.
Quote from: cline on October 01, 2010, 12:18:36 PM
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 01, 2010, 11:56:55 AM
I think many people are forgetting the origin of the Publix/Starbucks site.
Sure, you can always pick some kind of fault with the final design of a building, but the Publix development is not comparable in any way to the current project we are discussing. The new Publix replaced a rundown and dilapidated former hospital facility (the old Riverside Hospital) from the 1950s/60s that had been abandoned since at least 1994 and had become a giant eyesore.
The Publix development is absolutely an improvement over what was there before, and unlike this proposal which is starting with a vacant lot and a clean slate, the Publix site required attracting private developers with the capital to pour in millions of dollars for demolition and abatement costs, which they did.
You have to look at what was lost vs. what was gained, which in the case of Publix was nothing vs. a lot, and RAP clearly did the correct thing by supporting it. And even then, the developers conceded design features that make the site integrate with the surrounding fabric, including brick trimwork to integrate the architecture, designing appropriate setbacks, and providing sufficient dedicated parking to support the density of the use.
None of which the developers of the corner of Oak and Margaret street seem to think they have to do. In fact, part of the argument in support of waiving the parking requirements appears to be that people will use the Publix center's spaces, which is grossly unfair to that landowner, considering they bent over backwards to work with the neighborhood and integrate their design, and the developers of this project are not.
Yes, the Publix probably is an improvement over what there before. However, the design for the new restaurant is also a big improvement over the vacant lot that is there now. Developers aren't exactly beating down the door to build on that lot.
It's not hurting anything either.
The former hospital property was a deteriorating eyesore that was going to require millions of dollars worth of demolition and abatement within the very near future, while this is just a tiny vacant lot. Something had to be done with the old hospital, and it was an expensive proposition, but none of that is the case with this lot.
And even despite the neighborhood's desperation to get something done about the old hospital, the Publix center's developers still worked with the community to incorporate appropriate setbacks and design features, which doesn't appear to be happening with this proposed design. The impact of that one small vacant lot is negligible, and certainly doesn't outweigh the impact of putting up an inappropriate design that exceeds the height limit, violates the setback requirements, walls off Oak Steet, and relies on squatting on other landowners' parking facilities in order to operate.
That is what I'm saying when I say the hospital was a totally different ballgame, and isn't comparable at all. And my understanding is that nobody is opposed to the development of this site, or opposed to the use. It's just that the owners are apparently unwilling to make design concessions that would integrate it with the surrounding fabric, at the same time they need community support in order to construct a nonconforming design. Seems somewhat silly.
Not done right..........could be one more vacant building in the long run!
QuoteIt's just that the owners are apparently unwilling to make design concessions that would integrate it with the surrounding fabric, at the same time they need community support in order to construct a nonconforming design.
Who says they don't have supporters in the community? I've know of people that live (and own businesses) in the area that support it.
Quote from: cline on October 01, 2010, 12:49:19 PM
QuoteIt's just that the owners are apparently unwilling to make design concessions that would integrate it with the surrounding fabric, at the same time they need community support in order to construct a nonconforming design.
Who says they don't have supporters in the community? I've know of people that live (and own businesses) in the area that support it.
Well that seems strange, when none of the people I've talked to seem to agree with your assessment, and I certainly live here. I was getting coffee at starbucks the other day with friends and was minding my own business when I got sucked into a random 20 minute conversation on the problems with this design, a conversation that I did nothing to initiate, by people already at the Starbucks.
And as I said, I live here, and I don't think that walling off Oak street is a good idea. The parking thing doesn't bother me like it seems to bother others, nor does the height really bother me. The setbacks thing I feel for Insetta on, as it's a small lot and you have to maximize space. But making both sides glass would go a ways to fixing the oak street issue.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on October 01, 2010, 09:25:00 AM
Well, out of curiosity, then what happens when a proposed structure exceeds height limits, exceeds setback requirements, and doesn't satisfy the minimum parking capacity called for by the proposed site's zoning?
You (the developer) then apply for a PUD and then attempt to work with the city on a solution that works best for all parties. As an urbanist and graduate architect, I have no problem with the scale, setbacks or architectural design for this project. If it were me, I'd probably do something different, but to each his own, as long as it enhances the urban environment and pedestrian scale streetscape. At this point, I believe it does that.
I think the real issue for debate is parking. However, my focus would be moreso on speeding up fixed mass transit solutions instead of increasing surface or structured parking. I'd be open to developers of infill projects like this paying into some sort of transit fund, in turn of reducing their parking requirements.
I'm cut from a different cloth, so I'm much more accommodating of higher densities and less accepting of sprawl than the average Jacksonvillian. Yet, I do understand nearby resident's concerns and believe that the development group should work with the community on a compromise that works for all.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 01, 2010, 02:17:53 PM
I'd be open to developers of infill projects like this paying into some sort of transit fund, in turn of reducing their parking requirements.
That is not a bad idea at all. If it were implemented on a statewide basis it could really accomplish something useful.
There are examples where this sort of funding is occurring. I'm pretty sure part of Portland's light rail (MAX) was funded by private developers.