Retail Development Proposed for Brooklyn

[FSBA]

Too many are letting Good be the enemy of perfect with this. If the project does come to fruition it will provide a very important niche regardless of a few design nitpicks.

[leyden jar]

Butt ugly and stupid looking.

It's as tacky, fake, and pretentious as shoulder pads were in the 1980s. And yes, I hated them then.

It'll fit right in around these parts.

[Rocshaboc]

Yuck! Why not have the buildings aligned Riverside and hide the parking lots to keep pedestrian connectivity along Riverside w/ the Hallmark site?  They could still extend Skyway inside the site or leave some room outside to run along Riverside. Terrible concept imo. Yuck again. 

[jaxlore]

definitely needs some improvement. we are not trying to turn riverside/DT into mandarin. give us a break.

[urbaknight]

Scrap the design and oust the designers. But this is Jacksonville after all, the garbage can for bad ideas, and a haven for those rejected by more progressive cities.

Bring in someone in from NYC to design and develop the site and watch how urban it would be.

[jcjohnpaint]

Why does everything here have to be fo stucco?  Looks pretty bad to me.  Would rather a park for now

[thelakelander]

The retail design was approved:

Riverside Park includes a 65,000-square-foot commercial retail element, which was presented by J.J. Connors, president of Chestnut Hill Investments, representing Fuqua Development, also based in Atlanta. Fuqua is the developer of the retail component of the project.

Connors said the site plan was developed for a national-chain grocer and drug store and restaurants with outdoor dining and drive-thru lanes.

When board members Flagg and Andy Sikes objected to the number of parking spaces in the design and their proximity to Riverside Avenue, Greer Scoggins, Fuqua director of construction, said the prospective grocery-store tenant requires parking because the brand will attract customers not only from the residential units adjacent to the retail center, but also from surrounding areas.

"To us, this is about the only plan that works," he said. "We can't change the constraints of a national grocer's requirements."

The board approved the conceptual design of the retail component with the condition that additional design information is presented at the board's next meeting, when application will be made for zoning variances to allow the drive-thru lanes.

full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=539173

[Tacachale]

They approved the entire design? That's pretty weak.

[TD*]

its not terrible.

[Coolyfett]

it seems pretty close to the skyway

[thelakelander]

^Literally across the street.  We'll be doing downtown revitalization a huge disservice if we don't figure out how to have skyway service to this retail development in operation by the time it actually opens.

They approved the entire design? That's pretty weak.

Can't really say I'm surprised.  Being experienced with site planning projects for national retailers in the past, I'm sure the development team was not lying when they mentioned designing the site to accommodate the site selection requirements of the preferred tenants they're negotiating to bring in.  I'm actually not too concerned about the amount of surface parking needed, the square footage required by the anchors (btw, looking at the footprints, one appears to be a CVS) or the fact that they are setback (there appear to be some easements forcing this also) from the street. 

However, I do believe these requirements could have still been met with a design that would have provided for a better pedestrian experience along Riverside Avenue.  In fact, we don't have to go far to pull from on what to do.  The Publix development right up the street in Riverside is and its frontage at Riverside & Margaret, is all the example we need.  Surface parking that meets the anchor's requirements yet specialty retail (or outparcels) designed to add life to the urban street edge.

Needless to say, even with this particular site layout, what will make or break it, is what they do with the frontage of the retail adjacent to the JTA skyway easement and the pedestrian experience created within that easement.  From the city's, DIA's and JTA's standpoint, the most pressing issue should be figuring out how to get skyway service at least to the existing yard across the street.  Doing that creates a situation where the Brooklyn developments benefit the concept of urban living and connectivity in all of downtown.  Ignoring the transit component means Brooklyn remains just as isolated from downtown (the actual walkable Northbank and Southbank) as San Marco and Riverside.

[Tacachale]

^Yeah, I'm knocking the project by any means. I could live with the parking if they improved the street interaction, which shouldn't be that hard.

[Cheshire Cat]

I agree Ennis.  This "IS" the time for a Skyway extension.  Now lets see how serious folks are about this restoration and getting it right.

[simms3]

No anchor is going to sign less than a 10 year lease and I'm sure they'll want several options, so we'll have to live with a strip center in a potentially up and coming urban neighborhood for a long time.  This developer has been turned away in Atlanta and Denver, so it's hard not to feel like Jacksonville is getting the bottom of the barrel, *however* this is still a big kind of first step for Jacksonville.  I think what we're getting is fine.

Keep in mind that Atlanta has strip centers right in the heart of town.  It's only in the past 10-15 years that they have been doing more "big city" things and it has now turned into a sort of proven secondary market (along with Denver, Minneapolis, San Diego, Austin, Charlotte, etc).  Charlotte and Nashville certainly went through a lot of baby steps to get to where they are now.

I really think if 220 Riverside is successful, then developers will take a second hard look at the city.  We're just now seeing people even considering investing in the urban frontier...it will take a higher level confidence booster to get retailers and developers and equity partners/lenders to consider really "thinking outside the box" for the market.  I'm sure some improvements could have been made/approved for this site, but I doubt that the demographics are superb and remember, these retailers have site selection/"investment" committees to go before, as well.  Trying a seldom used "urban" concept for a very unurban, arguably distressed sunbelt market such as Jax probably wouldn't be approved anyway.  The kind of retailers this will attract (Fresh Market, Walgreens, etc) are very formulaic and don't like to test their more difficult concepts in iffy markets.

[simms3]

Speaking of Walgreens...a little bit about how it works - they are considering opening one flagship urban concept (inclusive of market and high end things and 2 floors open glass concept, would be the 2nd after one in Chicago) OR two generic retail stores under residential building within 1 mile along Peachtree in Midtown Atlanta.  These retailers give this stuff a lot of thought nowadays.

I'm sure we could cite example after example in other cities of similar sites done other ways, but this is Jacksonville and it's difficult to compare when there are so many other things at play.