Brooklyn Riverside Residential Development Renderings

[Metro Jacksonville]

Brooklyn Riverside Residential Development Renderings



DDRB Application 2012-004 is before the DDRB requesting Final Approval and Deviations for
the residential development in the Brooklyn and Riverside neighborhood. The property owner of the proposed residential properties for development is P&L Jax Riverside, L.P. Here is a look at the project's latest renderings.

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-jul-brooklyn-riverside-residential-development-renderings

[Josh]

I like it.

[InnerCityPressure]

Wow.  Much more visually interesting than I thought it would be.

[Tacachale]

Dang. I really like it.

[jcjohnpaint]

Very nice.  Who owns the empty parcel on the front right?

[Cheshire Cat]

Agree with everyone above.  This is a good design! 

[fsujax]

good design here and bad desgin next door.

[Cheshire Cat]

good design here and bad desgin next door.

Agree. The design next door definitely needs to be reworked!

[hightowerlover]

I never thought this was going to look this interesting!  I'm excited we are getting such a splash of color instead of a pile of dirt over here.

[brainstormer]

This is a project that has improved every time it has been reworked.  I love the young, urban design and the bold colors.  The parking is hidden and the area by the leasing office is really quaint.  It really is disappointing that the development next door does not compliment this one at all.   

[ralpho37]

Has the developer released the RFP yet?

[JaxArchitect]

I can't believe the positive response this is getting.  This design, while attempting to integrate some of today's more popular modern design elements (the bent plate or "ribbon"), there is no sense of overall composition to the facades whatsoever.  It's like they just slapped a bunch of shapes on the facade.  They're really just used as a different type of ornament rather than informing the passerby about what's happening inside.
Additionally, the colors are just completely over the top.  I have no objection to vivid colors normally but you have to control how they're used (sparingly) or they just end up looking childish.....just my opinion.

[ben says]

I can't believe the positive response this is getting.  This design, while attempting to integrate some of today's more popular modern design elements (the bent plate or "ribbon"), there is no sense of overall composition to the facades whatsoever.  It's like they just slapped a bunch of shapes on the facade.  They're really just used as a different type of ornament rather than informing the passerby about what's happening inside.
Additionally, the colors are just completely over the top.  I have no objection to vivid colors normally but you have to control how they're used (sparingly) or they just end up looking childish.....just my opinion.

+1

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I can't believe the positive response this is getting.  This design, while attempting to integrate some of today's more popular modern design elements (the bent plate or "ribbon"), there is no sense of overall composition to the facades whatsoever.  It's like they just slapped a bunch of shapes on the facade.  They're really just used as a different type of ornament rather than informing the passerby about what's happening inside.
Additionally, the colors are just completely over the top.  I have no objection to vivid colors normally but you have to control how they're used (sparingly) or they just end up looking childish.....just my opinion.

Here we go....

The 'overall composition' would lead me towards a more vibrant, industrial feel - straight, clean lines, bold colors, muted back-grounds.  Lots of steel-colors and glass....

You know what I don't see in the renderings?   Beige. 

And if the passerby needs to know what's going on inside, one would only need to pass through the clearly, accented front entrance, which happens to be only a couple dozen feet from the sidewalk, and ask someone in what I'm assuming would be some sort of modern amenity center/office with both workers and residents hanging about. 

And the colors, while definitely bold and possibly over the top, contrast nicely, IMO.  Besides, we're looking at a rendering and not the actual product.  Depending on the material that has been spec'd it's not only possible, but probable that the colors, even though primaries, will end up a lot more muted.

Also, only my opinion.

[simms3]

Count me in the group that isn't amazed.  I am happy for development of the site, but I'm not going to swoon.

1) The rendering really hasn't changed so no need to get excited.

Before:





After:




2. The site is around 11 acres including the retail and will feature 310 units, while closing off streets.  At ~1.6 people per unit (1.2 people per 185 1BRs and 2.2 people per 125 2BRs), that's 472 people at average occupancy.  220 Riverside is 294 apartments in 6.5 acres - call it 1.7 people per unit that's 475 people at average occupancy.  So Brooklyn will have 947 new residents in a couple of years with not much more room for more intense development.  We are so excited for these, but the isolation of Brooklyn via highways and the space that current developments will take up will prohibit the area from ever becoming a highly populated urban oasis that can truly support its own retail.  In Jacksonville's multifamily areas, the SS will likely be even more densely populated - garden style apartments like this proposal squished together over a larger area.

Site plan:




Generally I have a hard time calling this "urban" since it could easily go up in various degrees in the burbs as well.  Take note of the "Uptown at St. Johns" (from another Atlanta developer) - less flamboyant colors, but it also features a typically inexpensive Sunbelt infill exterior facade so commonly seen nowadays.   However, the SJTC development has a garage wrapped by 210 units also more inexpensive "modern" design isn't too dissimilar, and overall density is not too dissimilar - the parcel there is 5.5 acres whereas it's around 6-7 acres for the multifamily component in Brooklyn, 6.5 acres for 220 Riverside.





Rents here are asking $1.23-$1.43/sf for 1 BRs ranging from 709 SF to 848 SF, and $1.06-$1.30/sf for 2 BRs ranging from 1,143-1,501 SF.  Looks like units here are likely larger than in the Brooklyn dev, and potentially very slightly cheaper - maybe.

Considering the Uptown residents have nearly 2 million SF of commercial uses to walk to from their apartment whereas residents of Brooklyn will likely never have much to walk to since ~1,000 residents is not enough by itself to support significant commercial development (bars, restaurants, retail) - can we say the Uptown with its structured parking and destination walkability is ironically more urban?


And just for anyone who's interested in numbers, Miles Development paid ~$30/sf for the land in 2001 (~$1.3M/acre).  Pope & Land bought for $14/sf in 2011 ($615K/acre).  Tribridge bought the land for the Uptown last year for $600K/acre, or basically the same price as this prime "downtown" real estate.  All of these land prices are insanely cheap compared to equivalent land in Raleigh, Nashville, Austin, Orlando, Charlotte, etc.

Miles had also originally proposed 1,200-1,300 units over retail on the same land, to be phased over 5-7 years.  We are getting 310 units now instead.

I'm not purposely trying to be a negative nancy but this is all reality and perspective.  Looking forward to the day that this type of project is "beneath" Jacksonville and bigger and better things are happening!