Five Points Village Plans Cause Concern

[urbaknight]

It will take awhile to go back to an urban style, unless we make a priority or an obsessively exclusive goal. (putting everything else on hold)

That's the way I want to see it done. I admit to being selfish as I say, I want to be able to enjoy the urbansim, vibrancy, transit taking me anywhere I want to go at almost anytime, Population density that allows me to have a better chance of meeting women and making many different types of friends.

I want all of this ASAP, while I'm still young enough to enjoy it. I'm 33 now, I estimate about 15 more years of my prime.

[thelakelander]

My suggestion would be to travel quite often.  If I didn't, which allows me to take part in environments I find attractive, I don't know if I'd still be living in Jax.  You're only young once.

[Bativac]

It will take awhile to go back to an urban style, unless we make a priority or an obsessively exclusive goal. (putting everything else on hold)

That's the way I want to see it done. I admit to being selfish as I say, I want to be able to enjoy the urbansim, vibrancy, transit taking me anywhere I want to go at almost anytime, Population density that allows me to have a better chance of meeting women and making many different types of friends.

I want all of this ASAP, while I'm still young enough to enjoy it. I'm 33 now, I estimate about 15 more years of my prime.

You and I are the same age. My wife is 30 and has told me we have two years to figure out where else we want to go. We travel quite a bit but at some point you wonder "why do we keep traveling and dread going back home?" She's not from here and can't figure out why I wanted to stay in the first place. I've got friends my same age who left town already or are preparing to do so in the next few months. My sister just moved at age 30 - she's never lived anywhere but here, and now that she's been somewhere else for six months, she's kicking herself for not doing it ten years ago. Sad but Jax doesn't have what we want and it is apparent the city isn't ready to move forward.

Hope Jacksonville gets downtown back on track but we won't be here to see it.

[PeeJayEss]

I thought the alternative plan, which appeared to be proposed by Retail Partners, was a pretty decent alternative, better even than the sketched one. Wouldn't the building fronting all of Margaret be ideal?

This plan?  It was proposed by RAP, not the developer.

Ah, okay, I misread that. I still like it best, but your alternative is also better than Retail Partners'. And neither would be, I think, a long-term ideally-finished product, so either is better. I think either alternative plan would logically lead to the eventual demolition of the existing building, in which case your alternative would be extended along Margaret just like the RAP design. The RAP design would just get there quicker, assuming it would kill the businesses in the existing building.

Anything they do should be better than the previous building, which involved basically a big blank wall along Forbes. In fact, I'd check with those residents if I was looking for the arsonist (I mean, after the Buffet owner).

and there isnt another coin operated laundry until you get to king street.

Stockton between Oak and Herschel, next to the kwik-e-mart place ("Good Stuff"? or something like that, at least last time it had a sign).

[thelakelander]

The RAP design would just get there quicker, assuming it would kill the businesses in the existing building.

The problem here is that the developer isn't going to invest millions in their already owned and revenue generating property to kill their investment.  If given those options, 99.9% of those placed in that situation would simply do nothing more than put a fresh coat of paint on the existing building, clean off the fire damaged portion and call it a day.  You don't need a rezoning for that.

[PeeJayEss]

The RAP design would just get there quicker, assuming it would kill the businesses in the existing building.

The problem here is that the developer isn't going to invest millions in their already owned and revenue generating property to kill their investment.  If given those options, 99.9% of those placed in that situation would simply do nothing more than put a fresh coat of paint on the existing building, clean off the fire damaged portion and call it a day.  You don't need a rezoning for that.

If they did that, wouldn't the property have less value to them, and make it a candidate for sale? That's a big piece of land in what could be a prime location, I would think somebody would be interested...

[thelakelander]

But why would the developer want their property to be of less value to them?  Aren't they in the business to make a profit?  Spending millions of your own money to reduce the value and profitability of an existing investment property doesn't make financial sense for an entity in the business of generating revenue.

[John P]

It will take awhile to go back to an urban style, unless we make a priority or an obsessively exclusive goal. (putting everything else on hold)

That's the way I want to see it done. I admit to being selfish as I say, I want to be able to enjoy the urbansim, vibrancy, transit taking me anywhere I want to go at almost anytime, Population density that allows me to have a better chance of meeting women and making many different types of friends.

I want all of this ASAP, while I'm still young enough to enjoy it. I'm 33 now, I estimate about 15 more years of my prime.

You and I are the same age. My wife is 30 and has told me we have two years to figure out where else we want to go. We travel quite a bit but at some point you wonder "why do we keep traveling and dread going back home?" She's not from here and can't figure out why I wanted to stay in the first place. I've got friends my same age who left town already or are preparing to do so in the next few months. My sister just moved at age 30 - she's never lived anywhere but here, and now that she's been somewhere else for six months, she's kicking herself for not doing it ten years ago. Sad but Jax doesn't have what we want and it is apparent the city isn't ready to move forward.

Hope Jacksonville gets downtown back on track but we won't be here to see it.

Was all that to say you are going move someday? Thanks for letting the world know. We are all very interested. People move all the time.

[thelakelander]

A few shots of the developer's original proposal before the fire.

[strider]

I also find it a bit interesting that the proposal RAP had drawn up reduces the number of parking spaces from the developer's proposal by over 20% and increases the possible retail (and restaurant?) space by over 20%.  Just an interesting comparison to that other development RAP is involved with.

[cline]

I also find it a bit interesting that the proposal RAP had drawn up reduces the number of parking spaces from the developer's proposal by over 20% and increases the possible retail (and restaurant?) space by over 20%.  Just an interesting comparison to that other development RAP is involved with.

Agreed.  I think it is due to the fact that RAP is simply kowtowing to a couple resident complaints now when it comes to development rather than thinking big picture- neighborhood wide.  A few squeaky wheels get oil now.  For example: A couple people of Forbes complained about dumpster and what not so now the design has to be changed completely to placate these people.  Just like a few people in Avondale complain about "nightclubs" masquerading as pizza joints so now they have to come out against that too.  It's getting old and it is not good for the neighborhood.

[Riverside_Resident]

Beware the spin job in motion here by the property owner. 

RAP is not kowtowing to a couple of residents.  It is a neighborhood organization taking feedback from a lot of residents. 

The dumpsters often smell horrible and can be smelled a block or two away.  They are not dealt with in a timely manner, and on many occasions we have seen vermin around the dumpsters (rabies anyone).  This is a city violation which has been reported on numerous occasions over many years, but has yet to improve.  The grease traps are in-ground (no longer to code) and often smell as well.

You can smell this property a block or two away when it's at its most ripe (which is all too often).

When the building caught of fire it's fire alarm equipment did not work.  The fire was reported by local residents.  This may seem like a small thing, but when these building were built the take up the entire property boundary on one side and are only a few feet (yes a few feet) from someones roof.  It is FORTUNATE that person's house did not catch on fire.

The statement about 100% occupancy is incorrect.  Half of the building is a shell because of the fire, so at best there's 50% occupancy? 

The RAP sketches were created to put pictures to the conversation.  The owner seems willing to allow everything to remain vague (which will benefit him).  Any reduction in parking spaces is due to city ordinance, not RAP.   

The property owner continues to act as if nothing is wrong and none of these things are true.  Any plans he has violate multiple city ordnance and he offers NO improvement to the current issues (other than perhaps fire alarms that will actually work).     

On the surface, this may look like a couple of home owners that are being unfair.  That really is not the case. 

Don't take my word for it.  Inform yourself. 

[strider]

Beware the spin job in motion here by the property owner. 

RAP is not kowtowing to a couple of residents.  It is a neighborhood organization taking feedback from a lot of residents. 

The dumpsters often smell horrible and can be smelled a block or two away.  They are not dealt with in a timely manner, and on many occasions we have seen vermin around the dumpsters (rabies anyone).  This is a city violation which has been reported on numerous occasions over many years, but has yet to improve.  The grease traps are in-ground (no longer to code) and often smell as well.

You can smell this property a block or two away when it's at its most ripe (which is all too often).

When the building caught of fire it's fire alarm equipment did not work.  The fire was reported by local residents.  This may seem like a small thing, but when these building were built the take up the entire property boundary on one side and are only a few feet (yes a few feet) from someones roof.  It is FORTUNATE that person's house did not catch on fire.

The statement about 100% occupancy is incorrect.  Half of the building is a shell because of the fire, so at best there's 50% occupancy? 

The RAP sketches were created to put pictures to the conversation.  The owner seems willing to allow everything to remain vague (which will benefit him).  Any reduction in parking spaces is due to city ordinance, not RAP.   

The property owner continues to act as if nothing is wrong and none of these things are true.  Any plans he has violate multiple city ordnance and he offers NO improvement to the current issues (other than perhaps fire alarms that will actually work).     

On the surface, this may look like a couple of home owners that are being unfair.  That really is not the case. 

Don't take my word for it.  Inform yourself. 

So here is a case where the owner of an existing and damaged building is trying to make it better for the community by making improvements, reducing the SF from what it was before the fire and having even more parking spaces than required by code and it is not good enough?  I understand the smell issue.  That seems more on the individual lessee rather than the building owner.  How often do you clean your garbage cans out?  The same must apply to those dumpsters, they need cleaned out to keep the smell down.  The grease traps in the ground, while they are not what the current code may ask for, are most likely grandfathered in because they certainly met code when they were installed. The fire alarm issue could be a state problem.  They must be inspected every 6 months I believe and the state license is what checks up on it.  Of course, I had a main board go on an alarm and no one found out until the inspection.  No way of telling if the trouble lights do not go on and no one bothers to test the thing.   Again, something that is a tenant related issue not the owner of the building.  Of course, the city doesn't do a very consistent job on their inspections as they do not have the manpower to do them within the Fire Marshals office. Oh, and if 50% of the building is not usable and the remaining 50% is and leased, then it is as close to 100% occupancy as it can get at the moment.  And what codes are the owner's proposal in violation of? If they are, then one would think the regular process of zoning, permitting and inspections, and then add in the tenant licencing by either the state or the city, would insure that it is indeed within the codes it is supposed to follow and comply with. As someone who has had organizations like RAP make codes up, and get the public to believe them and even try to get MCCD or Zoning to buy into the made up stuff, I have trouble in believing that this proposal is in violation of anything real.

Things certainly can be spun anyway you want them to be.

[MEGATRON]

Beware the spin job in motion here by the property owner. 

RAP is not kowtowing to a couple of residents.  It is a neighborhood organization taking feedback from a lot of residents.

You lost me here.

[sheclown]

Dumpster issue -- I think -- is resolved isn't it?  Isn't the owner taking control over that (instead of tenants?)

I was at the HPC meeting.

Ridiculous -- this whole thing --