Brooklyn: Riverside Park Development Announced

Started by thelakelander, February 27, 2012, 12:00:41 PM

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions

brainstormer

#15
February 27, 2012, 07:30:12 PM
To allow a development company to plop some crappy suburban footprint into an urban area sounds awful.  I would be okay with something like the pictures Lake posted, or maybe something like Tapestry Park, with townhomes lining Riverside Avenue.  I want to see the development happen, but is it too much to ask for something creative and original?

Ocklawaha

#16
February 27, 2012, 09:29:45 PM
Seems to me like any project in a pseudo-industrial-office-railroad yard- type urban district some form of high rise or mid rise buildings would be MUCH more likely to rent or sell based on the ability to secure the property. It's a hell of a lot easier to watch a couple of doors then it is to watch 600 of them. The Peninsula, Strand, Metropolitan Lofts, 11E, etc. as well as the condo in Medellin, all have this type of  "Grand Hotel-Ballroom'' entry.

Ocklawaha

Non-RedNeck Westsider

#17
February 27, 2012, 09:44:05 PM
Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 27, 2012, 09:29:45 PM
Seems to me like any project in a pseudo-industrial-office-railroad yard- type urban district some form of high rise or mid rise buildings would be MUCH more likely to rent or sell based on the ability to secure the property. It's a hell of a lot easier to watch a couple of doors then it is to watch 600 of them. The Peninsula, Strand, Metropolitan Lofts, 11E, etc. as well as the condo in Medellin, all have this type of  "Grand Hotel-Ballroom'' entry.

Ocklawaha

Kinda tough to give a low rise the grand-hotel ballroom entry with 8'-10' celings.  I was part of the reason for Peninsula's grand entry and loved the finished product.  Hard to replicate without 20' vertical to your disposal.
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-Douglas Adams

mtraininjax

#18
February 27, 2012, 10:06:47 PM
Will I need a permit to park out in front of it, if I live in Riverside? That is ridiculous!
And, that $115 will save Jacksonville from financial ruin. - Mayor John Peyton

"This is a game-changer. This is what I mean when I say taking Jacksonville to the next level."
-Mayor Alvin Brown on new video boards at Everbank Field

thelakelander

#19
February 28, 2012, 06:26:24 AM
Here's the proposed site plan and a perspective rendering:



"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

jcjohnpaint

#20
February 28, 2012, 07:29:20 AM
I really wish the buildings were flipped putting the parking on the inside instead of the outside. 

acme54321

#21
February 28, 2012, 07:43:02 AM
Ugh. 

Few things I don't like.

1) The layout and buildings.  Parking needs to be on the inside, it needs to be an urban design.  It's just bleh.

2) They are closing off 2 city streets to traffic.  I would perfer that they leave oak and stonewall as is and not gate or close them off like the rendering shows.

RiversideLoki

#22
February 28, 2012, 07:52:15 AM
Well, that's delightfully uninspiring.
Find Jacksonville on Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/jacksonville!

Non-RedNeck Westsider

#23
February 28, 2012, 07:59:20 AM
That view from park st seems a little elevated....  Are they building an overpass, too?
A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-Douglas Adams

copperfiend

#24
February 28, 2012, 08:20:00 AM
Gate Parkway comes to the core.

Tacachale

#25
February 28, 2012, 08:21:43 AM
That plan doesn't seem like it would be too hard to redesign for an urban setting. I hope they are held to that.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

thelakelander

#26
February 28, 2012, 08:39:24 AM
^I agree.  It looks as simple as shifting buildings to front Jackson and Park Streets, thus moving the surface parking to the middle of the development.  It would also be pretty easy to keep a few of those streets open and still have gated privacy for residents, if that's what they are pushing for.  Hopefully, the DDRB doesn't cave in.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

Captain Zissou

#27
February 28, 2012, 09:10:57 AM
I don't think it's THAT bad.  I just don't get the point of the 2 story townhouses being scattered about or the car ports.  Why not mass the townhomes together facing one street with a shared green space behind them.  I saw dozens of examples of this in Atlanta last weekend.   Then they need to mass the 5 story parts better and have them addressing at least one main street, restrict access points to improve safety like Ock suggested, hide the parking, and make the rest a green space or a public plaza.

acme54321

#28
February 28, 2012, 09:21:29 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 28, 2012, 08:39:24 AM
^I agree.  It looks as simple as shifting buildings to front Jackson and Park Streets, thus moving the surface parking to the middle of the development.  It would also be pretty easy to keep a few of those streets open and still have gated privacy for residents, if that's what they are pushing for.  Hopefully, the DDRB doesn't cave in.

Lake is there no way for public comments to the DDRB?

copperfiend

#29
February 28, 2012, 09:21:55 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on February 28, 2012, 07:43:02 AM
Ugh. 

Few things I don't like.

1) The layout and buildings.  Parking needs to be on the inside, it needs to be an urban design.  It's just bleh.

2) They are closing off 2 city streets to traffic.  I would perfer that they leave oak and stonewall as is and not gate or close them off like the rendering shows.

Can't disagree with either point. I don't understand why this can't be built without closing the streets.
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4
User actions