LaVilla master development plan

[fhrathore]

Anyone know where I can find the master development plan LaVilla referenced in this article? I'm interested in reading it if it is available. Thank you!

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/12/31/first-look-at-lavillas-master-development-plan.html

[Charles Hunter]

From the article:

This report has not yet been released to the public. The Business Journal obtained a copy through record requests with the city.

But, you could make a public records request, too. Looks like DIA, JTA, and the City are the sponsors, so a request to one of these agencies (or all 3) could get you the draft.  For a study begun in 2016, you would think they'd be getting close to completion.

[thelakelander]

The article is behind a paywall so I guess I'll have to read it whenever I can catch up with the print version in my Jax office. In the meantime, I can see a map that identifies top priorities for achieving the vision:

1. Development of apartments at State & Union

2. Development of housing on Adams, west of Lee Street.

3. A LaVilla Heritage Trail with a path (hopefully I'm wrong and that line is not the route) that misses the most historically significant parts of the neighborhood.

4. A road diet on Water Street

5. Scattered infill throughout the neighborhood

Without seeing the rest, it's hard to tell what the vision is. I'm most interested in the preservation, heritage portion of the plan. Like does it include modification of zoning policy to protect significant historic sites still standing and ensure that new infill is designed to build upon and establish a unique sense of place for LaVilla that's different from the rest of downtown?

[Charles Hunter]

I guess this is 'fair use' - the paragraph about the Trail, which doesn't say where it goes:

Among the priority projects that the study recommended was a "LaVilla Heritage Trail," which would go through the neighborhood and connect to the planned Emerald Necklace trail. The trail would connect small plaza areas with showcased art and signage that would tell the story of LaVilla's history, including the stories of influential black people who lived in the neighborhood, such as James Weldon Johnson, John Rosamond Johnson, A. Philip Randolph and Clara White.

[thelakelander]

Hmmm....so the trail is actually a trail? I'm not crazy about what's described in that statement. I'll need to dig into the details but in general, spare the art and small pocket parks and instead build some damn density and work with what's left (as much as possible) to provide a more authentic urban experience. Also LaVilla was much more than just a black neighborhood.

[Charles Hunter]

Also, Water Street would be reduced from 5 lanes to 3, and a cycle track added, between Park (Lee) and Jefferson.

[thelakelander]

Makes sense in the long run for overall bike system connectivity but I don't know if I'd label it a critical part of redeveloping the neighborhood. But I guess it all depends on whatever specific vision they're attempting to accomplish. 4 of the top 5 things identify what to possibly do with city owned land and streets. Perhaps the strategy simply identifies how to prioritize their development and not how to make LaVilla different from the plain jane infill taking place across the rest of the downtown area.

[jaxnyc79]

Makes sense in the long run for overall bike system connectivity but I don't know if I'd label it a critical part of redeveloping the neighborhood. But I guess it all depends on whatever specific vision they're attempting to accomplish. 4 of the top 5 things identify what to possibly do with city owned land and streets. Perhaps the strategy simply identifies how to prioritize their development and not how to make LaVilla different from the plain jane infill taking place across the rest of the downtown area.

I have a question.  The LaVilla study was conducted by Rummel-Munz along with other design groups.  These guys are principals of the entity managing/developing the District.  Is this standard in most cities to have developers who seek city financing for their development projects to actually conduct neighborhood strategy planning at the request of a city agency - for a separate neighborhood outside of the immediate vicinity of their current project?  Feels like there's a really conspicuous conflict here.  The Bizjournal reports on the study paint a fairly bland picture of the strategy.  We need two multi-family developments and 50 infill townhomes on city-owned lots?  I like the focus on street-activation, but as someone who's just relocated to the city center of Charlotte and just returned from an extensive holiday visit to Jax, I'm unclear on any sort of draw to live in LaVilla. 

[Charles Hunter]

More from the Bizjournal on the LaVilla study

"Significant retail will not locate in Downtown; [retail] prefers suburban locations with more concentrated buying power," the report argues, adding that any significant retail in and near the Urban Core is limited to "historic" centers such as Five Points and San Marco.

The report also notes that in Brooklyn, which connects La Villa to Riverside, retail hasn't performed as expected. The mixed-use development 220 Riverside, for instance, lost its last retail tenant in early 2018.

To overcome this issue in La Villa, the report suggests incentivizing a small amount of retail, which would be necessary to "activate the street" and attract market-rate residential users.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/02/report-outlines-the-main-factors-preventing-la.html?ana=e_mc_prem&s=newsletter&ed=2019-01-02&u=qn2xgMusSvJCgTcRVcM9Dg07e466fb&t=1546440606&j=85793361

Regarding residential

One idea the report listed was the construction of a 285-unit apartment complex with a five- to six-story parking garage at the northwest corner of North Jefferson Street and West Beaver Street. The study designated this area as a key entrance into LaVilla in the neighborhood's first phase of development.

Another would see the development of 32 units in four-unit townhome buildings at the northwest corner of Lee Street and Houston Street. Ideally, according to the study, these units would be for-sale, which would add diversity into the types of real estate available in the area.

The city could also create a program to develop townhomes on city-owned infill properties, which the study argues could add 50 residential units downtown at below market cost. The city would play a role in keeping the units affordable through methods such as land markdowns or land trusts.

[thelakelander]

Makes sense in the long run for overall bike system connectivity but I don't know if I'd label it a critical part of redeveloping the neighborhood. But I guess it all depends on whatever specific vision they're attempting to accomplish. 4 of the top 5 things identify what to possibly do with city owned land and streets. Perhaps the strategy simply identifies how to prioritize their development and not how to make LaVilla different from the plain jane infill taking place across the rest of the downtown area.

I have a question.  The LaVilla study was conducted by Rummel-Munz along with other design groups.  These guys are principals of the entity managing/developing the District.  Is this standard in most cities to have developers who seek city financing for their development projects to actually conduct neighborhood strategy planning at the request of a city agency - for a separate neighborhood outside of the immediate vicinity of their current project?  Feels like there's a really conspicuous conflict here.  The Bizjournal reports on the study paint a fairly bland picture of the strategy.  We need two multi-family developments and 50 infill townhomes on city-owned lots?  I like the focus on street-activation, but as someone who's just relocated to the city center of Charlotte and just returned from an extensive holiday visit to Jax, I'm unclear on any sort of draw to live in LaVilla. 

^I can't speak for the conflict issue but I'm not sure we needed a redevelopment plan to determine what should go on two city-owned lots or figure out that Water Street doesn't need to be four lanes. As you know, I'm a big proponent of modifying public policy and aligning it with market forces to allow a long term vision to incrementally take place naturally. Many cities have policies that when they resurface existing four lane roads with low AADT, they road diet them. It's not a big deal, the way we make it here and when coordinated with 3Rs, can happen quick and cheap. Also, I'm not opposed to those tracks incorporating housing. However, I hope that this doesn't mean they can't be something else if the market determines this. For example, State and Union Streets have the highest traffic counts in the downtown core. The site identified for apartments is right off a major I-95 interchange.  It should be a high profile commercial site, so I'd hope this would allow for mixed use (it may, I haven't seen the details).

This also brings up another issue. LaVilla's draw should be its storied history and we still have a good amount of historical significant buildings still standing around the intersection of Broad and Ashley streets. That area can easily be a unique draw again with some vision, public policy modification and market alignment. Along with Davis, Forsyth, Bay and Adams, these were the dominate commercial (dense) corridors within the neighborhood. I was hoping a development strategy would identify certain areas where districts of complimenting activities could be clustered to create scenes that do build a "draw" to the area. Broad and State are two corridors that stand out today. Broad seems like an easy one. We don't need a major capital improvement project to make that happen (unless it's a streetscape that's unique to the downtown area) but we do need our policies to ensure adequate preservation, adaptive reuse and compatible infill opportunities as opposed to hodge podge incremental infill development. I was hoping the development strategy addressed this. Perhaps the focus should be Councilwoman Boyer's downtown zoning rewrite instead.

[thelakelander]

More from the Bizjournal on the LaVilla study

"Significant retail will not locate in Downtown; [retail] prefers suburban locations with more concentrated buying power," the report argues, adding that any significant retail in and near the Urban Core is limited to "historic" centers such as Five Points and San Marco.

The report also notes that in Brooklyn, which connects La Villa to Riverside, retail hasn't performed as expected. The mixed-use development 220 Riverside, for instance, lost its last retail tenant in early 2018.

To overcome this issue in La Villa, the report suggests incentivizing a small amount of retail, which would be necessary to "activate the street" and attract market-rate residential users.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/02/report-outlines-the-main-factors-preventing-la.html?ana=e_mc_prem&s=newsletter&ed=2019-01-02&u=qn2xgMusSvJCgTcRVcM9Dg07e466fb&t=1546440606&j=85793361

Some of this I agree with. Other parts I don't. For one, we need a definition of significant retail. I assume they're talking about something like the area around SJTC. If so, that's correct. However, 220 Riverside is a poor example. That place has a horrible design for anchorless retail to succeed. However, across the street, the Fresh Market anchored center is 100% occupied and more retail is coming in next door. That says more about the design of individual projects than the area's retail potential. Design is something that can be formed through public policy.

Also, they should have identified LaVilla's "historic" centers. Five Points and San Marco Square aren't unique. Every urban core neighborhood built before 1950 has at least one. LaVilla's were Broad, Ashley and Davis. Davis and Ashley were razed in the late 1990s. The autocentric redevelopment of Davis during the early 2000s kills all possibilities of it being one again. The school sits on top of Ashley, so that's out. However, Broad still has a solid strip (although largely vacant) between Adams and Union streets. Combine adaptive reuse with strategically positioned infill (I'd argue the city-owned Genovar's Hall block should be a top development priority), and the foundation for that "historic" center will be reestablished in time.

A few examples of Broad:






^That looks historic. Can it be LaVilla's version of a Five Points or San Marco Square with a mix of reuse and compatible infill? Sure. We're seeing this happen now with 8th & Main in Springfield.

Regarding residential

One idea the report listed was the construction of a 285-unit apartment complex with a five- to six-story parking garage at the northwest corner of North Jefferson Street and West Beaver Street. The study designated this area as a key entrance into LaVilla in the neighborhood's first phase of development.

Another would see the development of 32 units in four-unit townhome buildings at the northwest corner of Lee Street and Houston Street. Ideally, according to the study, these units would be for-sale, which would add diversity into the types of real estate available in the area.

The city could also create a program to develop townhomes on city-owned infill properties, which the study argues could add 50 residential units downtown at below market cost. The city would play a role in keeping the units affordable through methods such as land markdowns or land trusts.

Nothing wrong with more residential. However, we probably don't need to determine what the building type and tenant mix will be for each specific site. Generally define a vision (make sure zoning is flexible enough) for these sites within a RFP and let the private sector do the rest.

[jaxnyc79]

More from the Bizjournal on the LaVilla study

"Significant retail will not locate in Downtown; [retail] prefers suburban locations with more concentrated buying power," the report argues, adding that any significant retail in and near the Urban Core is limited to "historic" centers such as Five Points and San Marco.

The report also notes that in Brooklyn, which connects La Villa to Riverside, retail hasn't performed as expected. The mixed-use development 220 Riverside, for instance, lost its last retail tenant in early 2018.

To overcome this issue in La Villa, the report suggests incentivizing a small amount of retail, which would be necessary to "activate the street" and attract market-rate residential users.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2019/01/02/report-outlines-the-main-factors-preventing-la.html?ana=e_mc_prem&s=newsletter&ed=2019-01-02&u=qn2xgMusSvJCgTcRVcM9Dg07e466fb&t=1546440606&j=85793361

Some of this I agree with. Other parts I don't. For one, we need a definition of significant retail. I assume they're talking about something like the area around SJTC. If so, that's correct. However, 220 Riverside is a poor example. That place has a horrible design for anchorless retail to succeed. However, across the street, the Fresh Market anchored center is 100% occupied and more retail is coming in next door. That says more about the design of individual projects than the area's retail potential. Design is something that can be formed through public policy.

Also, they should have identified LaVilla's "historic" centers. Five Points and San Marco Square aren't unique. Every urban core neighborhood built before 1950 has at least one. LaVilla's were Broad, Ashley and Davis. Davis and Ashley were razed in the late 1990s. The autocentric redevelopment of Davis during the early 2000s kills all possibilities of it being one again. The school sits on top of Ashley, so that's out. However, Broad still has a solid strip (although largely vacant) between Adams and Union streets. Combine adaptive reuse with strategically positioned infill (I'd argue the city-owned Genovar's Hall block should be a top development priority), and the foundation for that "historic" center will be reestablished in time.

A few examples of Broad:






^That looks historic. Can it be LaVilla's version of a Five Points or San Marco Square with a mix of reuse and compatible infill? Sure. We're seeing this happen now with 8th & Main in Springfield.

Regarding residential

One idea the report listed was the construction of a 285-unit apartment complex with a five- to six-story parking garage at the northwest corner of North Jefferson Street and West Beaver Street. The study designated this area as a key entrance into LaVilla in the neighborhood's first phase of development.

Another would see the development of 32 units in four-unit townhome buildings at the northwest corner of Lee Street and Houston Street. Ideally, according to the study, these units would be for-sale, which would add diversity into the types of real estate available in the area.

The city could also create a program to develop townhomes on city-owned infill properties, which the study argues could add 50 residential units downtown at below market cost. The city would play a role in keeping the units affordable through methods such as land markdowns or land trusts.

Nothing wrong with more residential. However, we probably don't need to determine what the building type and tenant mix will be for each specific site. Generally define a vision (make sure zoning is flexible enough) for these sites within a RFP and let the private sector do the rest.

I sort of groused about the retail section as well.  I don't think urban core retail has to look like the big box, national chain landscape of suburbia.  It is my hope that whatever retail develops is unique to the area, perhaps crafty, and becomes a regional destination unto itself.  I suppose the Bizjournal writer is focusing on the report's call to action for the DIA.  In other words, fund the heritage trail, create a townhome infill program, and issue a couple RFPs.  Did I read correctly that this report has been in the works since 2016?  My God, this city moves glacially.  No sense of urgency?

On a separate note, has anyone looked into what the murder rate for Jax would be based on pre-consolidation figures?  I took a look at a November article listing the cities with the highest murder rates (no city segmentations based on size).  Jax wasn't anywhere on the list, and I was surprised to learn that Memphis and Kansas City and St. Louis were on the list.  Of course, Baltimore is #5 with a population of 618K crammed into 92 square miles.  Consolidation of your county's more peaceable hinterlands may be a great to way to get off such a list. 

[thelakelander]

If the original city were compared in those types of list, Jax would look better on some and worse on others.

[Steve]

I need to wait until I can get my free 3 articles a month to see the whole thing, but I see some good and bad:

- A road diet on Water with a Cycle Track is good in concept, so long as there's some sort of vision around the bike lanes and connectivity.
- Housing is generally a positive, as is RFP'ing the city-owned property (so long as the city doesn't think their properties are some goldmine
- I like the walking trail, but I defer to lakelander on whether or not the path is correct. It definitely needs to be accurate towards the neighborhood's history. I don't pretend to know every historical site, but there are plenty of people (including lakelander himself) that know it well. As a whole Jacksonville does a pretty terrible job embracing history; let's get this one right please!

But, with all of that said what's the goal of the plan? The Peyton Administration was pretty fantastic at commissioning studies for the sake of a study. I like the idea of helping LaVilla, but let's make sure we understand the goals here.

I'll defer the rest of the comments until I have a change to read the entire thing.

[thelakelander]

A trail is fine for recreation and commuting. It's a slap in the face of the community if it is supposed to serve as the historical component of a redevelopment strategy while we let significant sites still standing, fall apart or be randomly razed in the future, like other downtown buildings have recently. Historical markers, etc. can be put up with or without the DIA (that's not a considerable expense and a few already exist in LaVilla) but what good is reading about what's been pulverized? How about incorporating what's left, which can open the door for more equitable access to the inclusion of small business growth and cultural tourism opportunities?

I don't think anyone expects the neighborhood and business districts of 1940 to return or a museum or anything, but there's a lot that can be done with future development and existing buildings to build a new community that fits within the market, honors history and heritage and creates a district within downtown that has a unique sense of place from anything else in Jax. With that said, I've requested a copy of the draft to get a better read on that aspect of the plan.