Is Riverside/Avondale Ready For Mellow Mushroom?

[Dashing Dan]

I would have preferred a 7-11 at that location.

[mtraininjax]

Riverside-Avondale really has no choice but to embrace alternative transportation solutions.

I remember a line from the citizens that states, "when you pry it from my cold dead hands".....This is a car-centric town, but Avondale could change that, for the better.

[simms3]

Meeting tonight at 7:00 PM at Grace Church, corner of Herschel and Edgewood to discuss parking and growth in the Avondale area.

Mellow Mushroom will eliminate about 15 parking spaces around the service station building that now serve the area, and, natch, create a need for many more spaces. The only place the cars can go is into the surrounding residential streets. I'm a few blocks away and hopefully insulated from having to wake up on a Saturday or Sunday morning and move Bud Light beer cans, cigarette filters, and other rubbish from the street, but those living closer to the Shoppes can expect that on a regular basis.

Most of the restaurants and shops in the Shoppes are small storefronts, and I for one would prefer to keep it that way. Mellow, another growing chain operation with low to medium priced food, will be large, and will attract a class of diners less inclined to concern themselves with finding an appropriate place to discard their rubbish.

That's my biased opinion. What's yours?

Perhaps you take care of your house, have a defined driveway, some landscaping, etc etc.  Unfortunately and especially on the Riverside Ave side of the Shoppes, too many homeowners take crap care of their homes and some even look abandoned.  That's just an invitation for blocking driveways and littering.  I contend that even the lowest of the low people recognize when not to block a used driveway or trash an occupied home.

And I still have never had to park more than half a block away.  Avondale is just not that crowded/busy yet.


And I agree with everyone else that there exists a mentality of people wanting to "live urban" but not do urban.  Avondale is not even "urban" in the true sense of the word, and there's hardly an inconvenience to living in even the most crowded of places in Jacksonville.  Urban is not all ups and it is a balance whereby people have to learn to live practically on top of each other and get along, and they have to be used to visitors.  There are pros AND cons.

I'm not pro-MM (actually I have only been twice and did not like either time), but I am a fan of a thriving and successful commercial district.  7-11 probably would have been a better use in terms of serving more locals and employees, but it wouldn't have added to the feel that is the Shoppes of Avondale.

[mtraininjax]

Meeting tonight at 7:00 PM at Grace Church, corner of Herschel and Edgewood to discuss parking and growth in the Avondale area.

The Gracers as I call them are notorious for blocking people's driveways along Edgewood, their pastor does not care and I'd be happy to see them all leave. They would not know growth at Grace if it bit them in the rear! Just a bitch session, like they all have over zoning notices, then no one shows up at the City Meetings.

7-11 probably would have been a better use in terms of serving more locals and employees, but it wouldn't have added to the feel that is the Shoppes of Avondale.

Yeah, walking seven blocks to the AP station is so taxing on the fat lard butts who would have used the 7-11. May we all die of heart clogs because MM makes it easier to raise our cholesterol. The 7-11 would not have put enough money in the pocket of the merchants, so it was better to have it at the AP station.

[fieldafm]

Here is the section in the Overlay that addresses parking for commercial buildings in a defined commercial area:

(2) Parking Requirements.
(a) Retail sales or service establishments and single family residential uses located in contributing structures within an identified commercial character area shall have zero(0) parking requirements. Any expansion of contributing structures, after the date of the adoption of this Subpart shall provide 50% of the required parking for the expansion pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use. Additionally, zero (0) parking shall be required of new structures when such structures are built to the same or less than the square footage of a non-conforming structure if
that structure is being replaced. However, all adjacent on street parking shall be brought into compliance with Section656.399.23(2)(b)(i-iv) and Table 4. Otherwise, the number of
spaces for retail sales and service establishments and multifamily uses shall be 50% of the required number of spaces pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use, provided there are no additional parking credits applied under Section 656.607(d) of the Zoning Code. However contiguous on-street parking may be provided consistent with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i-iv) and Table 4.

I'd argue that beyond the parking requirements, which this building will appear to go above and beyond meeting, this re-use fits in with the purpose and intent of the Overlay and goes even further by developing a public square and bicycle parking for possibly as high as 60 bikes to be shared by the entire commercial district(something the Overlay does not presently require, but should). 



As a point of referance, the picture above showing potential underutilized overflow parking along Van Wert, underutilized off street parking that can be converted to stacked parking arrangments durring off peak hours and the bikes tied to such things as street signs and trees... were all taken b/w 7:45 and 8:00PM. 

[Bewler]

Captain Zissou, thank you for the chuckle.

As for the topic at hand, you guys should be safe as long as it's not a dreaded car wash. You're... you're just not ready for that yet!

[AvonD]

Here is the section in the Overlay that addresses parking for commercial buildings in a defined commercial area:

(2) Parking Requirements.
(a) Retail sales or service establishments and single family residential uses located in contributing structures within an identified commercial character area shall have zero(0) parking requirements. Any expansion of contributing structures, after the date of the adoption of this Subpart shall provide 50% of the required parking for the expansion pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use. Additionally, zero (0) parking shall be required of new structures when such structures are built to the same or less than the square footage of a non-conforming structure if
that structure is being replaced. However, all adjacent on street parking shall be brought into compliance with Section656.399.23(2)(b)(i-iv) and Table 4. Otherwise, the number of
spaces for retail sales and service establishments and multifamily uses shall be 50% of the required number of spaces pursuant to Section 656.604 and Section 656.604(e)(3) for any type of office use, provided there are no additional parking credits applied under Section 656.607(d) of the Zoning Code. However contiguous on-street parking may be provided consistent with Section 656.399.23(2)(b)(i-iv) and Table 4.

I'd argue that beyond the parking requirements, which this building will appear to go above and beyond meeting, this re-use fits in with the purpose and intent of the Overlay and goes even further by developing a public square and bicycle parking for possibly as high as 60 bikes to be shared by the entire commercial district(something the Overlay does not presently require, but should). 



As a point of referance, the picture above showing potential underutilized overflow parking along Van Wert, underutilized off street parking that can be converted to stacked parking arrangments durring off peak hours and the bikes tied to such things as street signs and trees... were all taken b/w 7:45 and 8:00PM.

If the service station is a 1964 building (per the article), how is it then a contributing structure and how would the above reference apply if it is non-contributing?

Two points on the photos - Van Wert parking (Boone Park) is only allowed until 10PM.  The other photo shows a private parking area behind stores owned by other landlords, this is not municipal parking being depicted and is not available for legal "overflow" parking absent consent of the owners.

I guess we will hear more tonight.

[JFman00]

Since when was parking a human right?

[Tonyinchicago]

I could not have said it better myself.  This may very well be the catalyst for improving mass transit in the core.  Transit trackers are essential in allowing potential customers of the JTA to access the system and utilize it's product and benefits.

Riverside-Avondale really has no choice but to embrace alternative transportation solutions.

I remember a line from the citizens that states, "when you pry it from my cold dead hands".....This is a car-centric town, but Avondale could change that, for the better.

[Tonyinchicago]

Since when was parking a human right?

And what right does a business have to tell private citizens (their employees) where they may park on public streets?  And what liability does said businesses assume, in the event of an incident or assault?  Can these business tell their employees where to shop?  Who to vote for?

[Bill Hoff]

It's amazing what can come from adaptive re-use.

9th & Main is another example. Former Goodyear shop, turned into dining & entertainment venue. (too bad COJ is sitting on it.....)

[ChriswUfGator]

It's amazing what can come from adaptive re-use.

9th & Main is another example. Former Goodyear shop, turned into dining & entertainment venue. (too bad COJ is sitting on it.....)

That's not quite the entire story of why 9th and Main failed...but that's for another thread...

[Tonyinchicago]

I am the only one who wouldn't givea damn how many people parked in front of my house? As long as I can give in and out of my driveway, who cares? Maybe I feel that way because I've lived in a real city with much bigger parking issues? Four years in Charleston and a year in NY really put this into perspective.

Yes Ben, I suspect you might be.  For my part, I do.

[thelakelander]

Since when was parking a human right?

And what right does a business have to tell private citizens (their employees) where they may park on public streets?  And what liability does said businesses assume, in the event of an incident or assault?  Can these business tell their employees where to shop?  Who to vote for?

I work downtown.  My business tells me what levels in a six story parking garage that I can and can not park in.  They assume no liability if a towing incident pops up from not following directions.  For those of us who choose not to park in the garage, the city tells us how long and where we can parallel park on public streets while private entities provide similar rules for their lots.

[Know Growth]

Did I just find out that Riverside is located within the Shoppes of Avondale? Perhaps we could leave out the Riverside in this piece, unless we think parking will stretch down to the Riverside area.

Some customers will take a hike,some would not.

Cycling and those inclined to walk will fill some seats ( the cycle racks are a light hook,living just blocks from the Shoppes I can not recall when I last went to Brick,Biscottis,Fox,Bluefish via bike.Probably a necessity in the future)

A Parking train wreck,if there is one,will ultimately affect retail.

Field's piece notes 'parking' contribution,but not total seating needs,unless I missed it.