Retail-less parking garage proposed for Downtown

[thelakelander]

A few things:

Holmes proceeded with the presentation and said one of the reasons there is no retail space included in the design is that the state building code requires any mixed-use development to have sprinklers as part of the fire safety design.

Holmes said that would add $300,000 to the cost of the garage, which the developers would like to avoid.

So this has little to do with retail market and more on saving some cash even though $3.5 million (nearly have of the costs) will be provided by taxpayers.

“The City is granting $3.5 million in incentives; $300,000 for sprinklers is not unreasonable,” said Fischer.

Great point!

As for the design of the structure, Holmes said it “mimics the appearance” of SunTrust Tower, is the same height as the base of the office building and will be constructed of precast concrete.

LOL!  Looks like the basic design of any parking garage with a SunTrust paint scheme.  I'm sure something better can be done.

Board member Chris Flagg said he doesn’t support putting a parking garage in the location. It is between SunTrust Tower, Enterprise Center and the Omni Hotel, one of the few undeveloped parcels on the Northbank.

Yes, a garage should not be placed on that site alone, ruining it for the next century.  Even if all they want is a garage, that site is large enough to be laid out in a manner than could support additional structures along the street edge at a future date.

Here are a few pictures of Greenville's Spring Street garage.  It was constructed in the middle of the block.  When the market was right, the spaces between the garage and street edge were utilized for infill development.

[fieldafm]

So this has little to do with retail market and more on saving some cash even though $3.5 million (nearly have of the costs) will be provided by taxpayers.

They opened up the public comment period for a second time to allow the developer to speak.. which he did through a representative at which point it was made clear that sprinkler savings or not, retail space was not going to be pursued.  The sprinkler system seemed to be a straw man argument.  From personal observation, it appears the main motivation is to put up as cheap of a parking structure as possible.

[Lunican]

It's still not clear why the city is giving them $3.5 million, especially if it does not resolve the parking obligation for The Landing.

[thelakelander]

^I have no idea why they are being given the $3.5 million.  However, I think it goes back to the fight between Sleiman and the JEDC/Peyton over the lot across the street that Sleiman wanted.

From personal observation, it appears the main motivation is to put up as cheap of a parking structure as possible.

It definitely sounds like that.  Facade design aside, IMO, under no circumstances should a garage be allowed on that site without the potential of additional structures being able to be incorporated to shield this monstrosity and it's associated surface parking lot on Bay Street from the street.

[fieldafm]

It's still not clear why the city is giving them $3.5 million, especially if it does not resolve the parking obligation for The Landing.

It actually carves out specific parking for the Landing as a part of the garage and a parking validation program serving that dedicated parking... that's a seperate issue from the DDRB's review yesterday, but it does serve to satisfy the City's two decade old long obligation to provide dedicated Landing parking.

[If_I_Loved_you]

I don't agree Dunkin Donuts isn't just for the morning & lunch time crowd's.

not true...many DD's stay open until 10pm or later. 

In fact, I stopped in one in downtown Atlanta a few months ago at 9pm and theer were several people in the store....also saw one in the tourist area of San Juan, PR that was open at midnight....I'm willing to bet they'd stay open late here if the market demand was there.

That said, requirting that retail space be provided is a good idea....regulating the type (or brand) of retail is not.

I know this but my point was after 5pm here in Jacksonville Fl this DD would be dead!

[fieldafm]

Facade design aside, IMO, under no circumstances should a garage be allowed on that site without the potential of additional structures being able to be incorporated to shield this monstrosity and it's associated surface parking lot on Bay Street from the street.

Obviously I agree.

Few on this site are for satisfying the Landing's parking obligation as much as I am... but this project as presented would create a permanent dead zone in the heart of the city for decades to come, all b/c of the short term interests of a developer getting taxpayer assistance to make a building more attractive for office condo tenants and therefore more attractive to sell down the road.  Clearly, the best interests of the community are of little importance in this circumstance... and that is beyond unacceptable. 

[tufsu1]

It's still not clear why the city is giving them $3.5 million, especially if it does not resolve the parking obligation for The Landing.

because in the City's mind, it does

[fsujax]

I was under the impression that part of it would be designed so that retail space could be built out at a later date. Did I misunderstand? Initially, they will want no retail space. We simply can not allow this to happen. One member kept saying he wasn't too worried about the garage not having retail, he thought it was more important to activate the facade, not quite sure what he means by that.

[thelakelander]

That was the member who works at Haskell.  Activating the facade means nothing if the structure is dead at ground level.

[fsujax]

Yeah, his name is Roland Udenze. I was puzzled by his suggestions.

[Overstreet]

Norfolk's Waterside has an attached parking garage that's been there from the begining. That is one of the differences. However like the Landing it drained off the customers and killed a local brick pavered business district nearby just like the Landing did to Heming Plaza, namely JP Muggs and others. 

They wanted to build it without retail on the first floor because of cost. The column to column for parking vs other uses, HVAC (ventilation) and fire codes make mixed use more expensive. Requiring the retail may make the deal less workable in this economic climate.

[Tacachale]

^Fine, then don't build it at all if following the code makes it unworkable right now.

[thelakelander]

I second that.  The validity of not wanting to spend an extra $300k to follow the minimum guidelines goes down the tubes when you also want $3.5 million of public money for your project.

[thelakelander]

Norfolk's Waterside has an attached parking garage that's been there from the begining. That is one of the differences. However like the Landing it drained off the customers and killed a local brick pavered business district nearby just like the Landing did to Heming Plaza, namely JP Muggs and others.

The Landing didn't kill downtown's retail sector.  It was already on its last legs when the Landing opened.  Sears, Furchgott's, JCPenney, Ivey's, etc. had all closed a few years before the Landing opened.