Riverside Park Development Proposed For Brooklyn

[duvaldude08]

The Walmart quote came from Riverside Park's representative in response to placing parking in the middle of the site:

The board questioned the design in terms of parking lots surrounding the project and asked if more parking could be designed for the center of the property.

Shallat said that would give the exterior a look “similar to a Walmart” and that the site plan intended the central area to resemble “an internal community along the lines of what you see in Riverside and Avondale.”

It's pretty clear, he's viewing this development as an isolated, self centered project instead of one actually being within a real urban area.

I am just glad the city has cracked down on these design standards. Its about time for us to do things right.

[AbelH]

“One day, we don’t want the gates. We have to provide them to get financing. People have to want to live there,”

This is the quote that popped out to me.

If you want gates, urban life isn't for you.

[simms3]

Haven't posted in a while, so here goes.

A) This is a great "1st step" for Jacksonville.  I agree with Lakelander that this PRELIMINARY design needs a few aesthetic changes, but I also agree with I-10 East that beggars cannot be choosers.  In terms of 21st century economies, urban development and growth of the urban/educated class Jacksonville is no longer playing catch up to Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, Salt Lake and even Oklahoma City.  Small towns like Chattanooga, Columbus GA and Sarasota (well that's a little larger) are far ahead of Jacksonville in terms of urban development and downtown amenities for young professionals recently out of college.

2) There is NO WAY retail is going to be a component of this.  Quit sipping the Koolaid, urban retail is challenging even in some much more urban, much larger cities.  No retailer would survive or even consider locating to this area before it is developed MUCH MORE and the perception of crime and grit is gone.  Plus this is the first development, and we don’t even know yet who will move to the area.  It could be lower income families escaping bad areas or it could be single 25-year olds with median incomes of about $90K (doubtful).  Those two groups require different retailers.

3) This does not "front" any major pedestrian street.  One day MAYBE Riverside Ave in that area will be a pedestrian street, and MAYBE Park St, but as of now even I would not want to be a pedestrian in that area.  Riverside Ave is way "TOO FAST" in terms of traffic and Park was once a great little industrial district but is now a run down shithole.  Develop a few of these types of properties in the area first, get that park finished, and then naturally it will be more pedestrian (and doubtfully Riverside Ave, which is like a highway with landscaped sidewalks fronted by office campuses).

4) The COJ parking ratios are absurd, even for being a totally un-urban town.  1.75 spaces per 1 bedroom unit?  That will eventually need to change as the area builds up decades from now.  That being said, PARKING is a major factor in any development.  There are 3 20+ story apartment towers currently rising within 2 blocks of me now, and two sit above decks with ground level retail (that will take a while even here to rent out because rates can't really be lower than $50/SF...which obviously Jacksonville can't yet comprehend, even at SJTC), but Novare's new tower affords them cost savings because they are putting 400 spaces in a deck to the side, not below.  And that's 400 spaces for 8,000 SF retail and 320 units, so not too unsimilar to what is proposed here - in a MUCH more urban area.  Until you get up to NYC, Toronto, DC, San Fran and Seattle density levels, parking will always be a heavy requirement.

5) You guys think this will rent up so nicely, and it probably will BECAUSE it is OBVIOUSLY going to be "affordable".  The most expensive apartment in the city is the Strand, a 28 floor riverfront high-rise with class A++ amenities and finishes.  Its most expensive unit, a 3-bedroom, doesn't even climb high enough to see $2,000.  Last I checked, the rate for their "PH" 3+/BR  1,821 SF unit was around $1,900, or slightly above $1/SF.  I can promise you that due to those rates, the original developer and the lender suffered immensely.

To get a new high-rise off the ground here in Atlanta, the cheapest of the "really-large" markets, rents must be about $1.70/SF or higher.  That same 1,821 SF unit probably needs to go for $1.60/SF min, and the 1BRs, which make up the majority of all units need to push or even well exceed $2/SF.  These are the rates in the Novare/UBS and the Daniel/Northwestern Mutal towers going up now...1 BRs will be about $1450-$1650 and 2 BRs will be about $2200-$2500 (there will be no 3 BRs), and they are pushing the envelope with these reduced prices AND calling these apartments "affordable."  Nashville and Charlotte have similar pricing in their new developments geared for young professionals.  Anything less is not geared for young professionals and is considered affordable and entry-level, and usually built stick/tilt construction.

Bottom line is there is no affluent young prof market in Jacksonville like there is in say a Nashville or Charlotte.  There simply aren't enough people willing or able to spend $1,500-$2,000+ for a 1-bedroom, so there eliminates your high-rises and your luxury mid-rises/low-rises.  What's left are the suburban "stick" type developments that can be built at a cost basis that allows for rents that the market can support.  There won't be concrete construction here.  There won't be tower cranes.  This will be as cheap a construction as they can make it without totally killing their chance of attracting UNF or FSU grads with a more sophisticated urban mindset.

6) Pope & Land has this on their website already (the land acquisition).  They really have no experience in intown Atlanta as Buckhead is as close in as they get.  Niles Bolton is also based in Atlanta and hasn't really done CBD stuff aside from Luxe, a sold-out luxury condo highrise that opened in 2008.  They DO have a lot of stuff on the Piedmont Rd/Lindbergh corridor that is actually much denser than what is proposed in Jax, and a lot of it looks pretty cool.  LPC also has a good reputation, but they vary in the properties they manage...from stick complexes in the burbs to stick affordable complexes in town (Atlanta example and what you guys will be getting) to high-rise and mid-rise luxury apartments in the city (they don't have such properties in the SE).

Also Tufsu brought up Post Properties (another Atlanta firm) and Hyde Park in Tampa.  What works in Hyde Park and in Tampa overall cannot work here.  Two different animals.  Hyde Park is that city's most affluent and perhaps its most urban overall area, and it appeals to both wealthy families and to wealthy educated young professionals.  It’s like San Marco + Avondale + the nicest elements of Riverside + Tapestry Park, etc etc.  Brooklyn Jacksonville is a crater of an area with absolutely the worst perception among passersby, and who can forget that nearby Lavilla was ranked "the most dangerous" place in the city and one of the most dangerous in the country and the news around there really pounced on that story.  People don't forget.

On top of this, you think there are a lot of urban pioneers in Jax, and they have all gone to Springfield and parts of Riverside, but if there really were a supposed whole bunch of urban pioneers, the city wouldn't be where it is today - in the doldrums.  A place like Brooklyn might already be developed.  Springfield would already be nice, like say an Inman Park in Atlanta.

And where the hell are the local developers?  Charlotte has the Bissell family and others.  Nashville has Giarratan, which is putting up a new 13-story hotel across from a building we have with Novare there in Sobro, and it has done plenty of other things. Austin has a ton of its own developers.  Orlando did have and benefit from Cameron Kuhn.  Miami has a ton of developers.  Obviously Atlanta has a ton of developers because one of them is involved with this project.

I mean seriously, where is ONE person with vision and deep resources in that city?  The largest local urban developer is a restaurateur, and I commend him for his 5 Points development - truly a great thing.  BUT is that all Jax has?  Jacksonville is really not going to get anywhere until someone connected locally and influential locally decides to start making a change, bit by bit.  NOBODY locally is really doing that.  Unfortunately the city does not benefit from a very "educated/urban/cultured/city-pride" population.  Neither does Raleigh, so it's not alone, BUT Raleigh has a very educated population - they are just really nerdy and don't care about "living in the city" and going to good restaurants and listening to opera.  They live and work in RTP and pride themselves on their airport.  Jax can't have that sort of un-urban but educated population because it's not a magnet for tech firms, universities, research hospitals, etc.

[BigGuy219]

“One day, we don’t want the gates. We have to provide them to get financing. People have to want to live there,”

This is the quote that popped out to me.

If you want gates, urban life isn't for you.

I personally wouldn't want to live there if there were no gates. We're talking about two story buildings here and the idea that just anyone can walk up to your door or to your window is a little unsettling.

That area has had problems in the past, so it's understandable why it would be hard to secure financing without the gates. All it takes is one burglary, assault, or God forbid a murder and the entire complex will be forever tainted.

Where I live downtown now you need an electronic pass card to get in. It makes me feel somewhat secure. In another building I lived in downtown you needed an electronic pass card to get in, and then a seperate one t access a specific floor on the elevator, and there was armed security. Both were high rises.

I think the gates are a good cost effective way of making perspective residents feel secure.

I do not think Jacksonville is overflowing with young urban professionals. We need to draw in people looking at the Southside, Mandarin, Orange Park, etc. We need to compete with the rest of Jacksonville, instead of just competing with different areas of downtown.

We can't fill what we have now in terms of rental spaces. So, if we're going to build more, then it has to be different. It has to provide an alternative. It has to market to a different type of individual.

What this area really needs is families. And for families to feel secure with their children ... then the gates are all the more essential.

There is a perception that the area is unsafe. Whether it is unsafe or not is debatable, but it's clear that the area is viewed as unsafe and that assumption should be catered to rather than argued with.

[ben says]

Welcome back simms, your points are well taken.

[tufsu1]

I personally wouldn't want to live there if there were no gates. We're talking about two story buildings here and the idea that just anyone can walk up to your door or to your window is a little unsettling.

I have lived downtown at the Parks @ Cathedral for  years....we have all kinds of people walking by our complex, and yet I've never had a problem with someone coming up to my door....as for windows, the answer is shades/blinds

[thelakelander]

Simms is right, it will most likely be a stick built project.  I believe 220 Riverside will be frame construction as well.  Parks @ Cathedral and Villas of St. Johns are frame as well.  As a matter of fact, just about everything on the Southside and around SJTC is frame.  That's Jax's market, so be it.  Let's just make sure the stuff properly addresses the street. 

As for gates, BigGuy219, I'd live in a location like that with no problem.  It's literally a moonscape.  There are only four houses scattered over the 16 blocks between Park & Riverside, north of Forest.  Other than the warehouses lining Park, its all dirt.  With that said, both Parks @ Cathedral and Villas of St. Johns are gated communities.  However, they still fit within the surrounding environment.  There's no financial reason Riverside Park can't as well.

[tufsu1]

actually the parks are steel frame construction with block

[I-10east]

Great post Simms; Very comprehensive. I'm still shocked that someone actually agreed with me on an urban thread LOL. Good take pointing out the lack of pedestrian traffic, and the speedy Park Street vehicular traffic coming off of that bridge. I'm not the most well spoken or whatever, but my gut was tellin' me, considering the area that the proposed development is in, it looks decent; IMO it would look kinda outta place if it was in a true urban style. Now I would be screaming from the mountaintops with the majority if it was in 5 points, or another area with alotta foot traffic.   

[billy]

It's easy to point things out in retrospect, but the long ago demolition/clearing of LaVilla and portions of Brooklyn
took away the small/medium size potential adaptive reuse buildings that multiple small local developers, or owner/users
could have taken on as projects. 

That opportunity to connect the dots, as in Riverside to downtown, was lost.

Getting back to the thread, Lincoln is trying to do a project that can be financed.
Ground up multifamily that is not in an "A" location/market is still very difficult to get built.
The SJTC area apartments have, I understand, broken ground.

In Brooklyn we have two projects that will be competing for financing.

I do believe, and hope, that a lot of people want housing options, and would like to be intown.

[thelakelander]

Are they competing?  220 Riverside appears to already have its financing.  I'd say, these projects complement each other as opposed to compete against each other.  Go down Gate Parkway or Southside Boulevard and you'll find thousands of similar units within close proximity of one another.  For whatever reason, this type of housing didn't take off a decade ago but there's clearly a pent up demand and that location is pretty decent (between DT & Five Points with the river a short walk away. 

With that said, this project's financing won't be hurt by moving the surface parking to the interior of the site and the building footprints to the exterior.  Such a move would reduce the amount of fencing desired while still keeping the thing's interior secured.  They could keep all the gates they want and that slight modification would still address most of the concerns raised by the DDRB.  I have a feeling they'll do just that.

[ben says]

I think for these projects, we need to focus on connectivity to Five Points/Riverside, NOT downtown. I don't think connecting with downtown is feasible right now. Same thing should be done with San Marco....expand San Marco from San Marco's core in concentric circles out. Five Points/Riverside should be treated the same way. Eventually both circles will hit downtown.

[Tacachale]

^We should connect to both. Especially since the people who woul live there are much likelier to be working downtown or across the street in Brooklyn (which is essentially Downtown jr.) than in Riverside itself.

[JeffreyS]

I think for these projects, we need to focus on connectivity to Five Points/Riverside, NOT downtown. I don't think connecting with downtown is feasible right now. Same thing should be done with San Marco....expand San Marco from San Marco's core in concentric circles out. Five Points/Riverside should be treated the same way. Eventually both circles will hit downtown.

We can connect these projects to downtown with just a set of stairs to the Brooklyn end point of the skyway that is already there at maintenance yard. So we have to at least do that. 
The developments will be very convenient for the people who live there easy access to downtown, riverside and a new on ramp to I95.

[simms3]

While both projects may receive financing, especially considering who the partners are for both (NAI for the other, LPC/Pope & Land for this), there will still be a level of competition for financing.  You're talking between 500-600 units constructed simultaneously in a completely untested submarket and in an overall market hostile to urban development with several notable failures.  On top of all of this, downtown has been bleeding jobs and multifamily depends on only one thing: nearby jobs.  Lenders will take note of all of this.  They will take note of local demographics, which for that area are  shady as hell at best.  They will take note of how many college grads there are in the city and where they are working and how much they are making.  They will scrutinize construction costs and put together their own proforma based on what they believe rents will need to be.  This last part may be the deal breaker itself.

Don't think the financing is closed for either yet.  You'll hear about it in the BizJournal because whoever arranges it will want credit.