San Marco Publix Site Plan and Renderings

[Tacachale]

All right folks, give it a rest.

[jaxnyc79]

One thing I believe is not in dispute is that as things stand today, January 16 of 2019, the "Publix in San Marco" venture has been a failure.
Yes it "takes a long time" to put these deals together, but 10 years is extreme. And quite frankly, NO ONE BLOGGING HERE knows when if at all a Publix will eventually open on the site.

What's not up for dispute is that a project combining a venture that includes "Publix with multiple levels of multifamily housing above it in San Marco" has been a failure. That project has been scrapped. Time will tell if a strip mall featuring a Publix will come to fruition on the property now.

And it does seem that there are a lot of projects that are stuck in limbo, The Shipyards being one, and the Berkman II being another large high profile project that no one actually knows when they will be started, much less completed. It took 4 years for Rummell to close on The District, and honestly that ventured into 'la la land' near the end when Mayor Curry and others tried to screw with the financing....

There's a lot more going on around town than the couple of projects that come with high fanfare and media coverage but don't make sense from a market rate perspective.  Vista Brooklyn is turning dirt, hundreds of units are going up on Philips, both projects on Hendricks around I-95 are moving forward, Broadstone is wrapping up, etc. Personally, I think there needs to be more effort targeting specific sites within the Northbank to cluster development more but the Shipyards, Berkman II and the District are necessarily indicative of the core's health.

I think it's time to stop making excuses for the developers and acknowledge they screwed the pooch in quite a few places of real importance to neighborhoods we like and live in.  In the meantime I'll keep driving down St Augustine to the Publix at University....

These guys don't owe the neighborhood anything. Some projects end up happening and others for a variety of reasons don't. That's consistent regardless of the neighborhood, city or metropolitan area.

IMO, even though San Marco and the Southbank are associated with core/urban Jax, they just aren't all that dense (residentially speaking).  I do believe that will change in the next 10 years and should fuel a greater intensity of commercial/retail activity.  My mom travels from Deerwood to shop at a couple of the boutiques in San Marco Square, but she would never do that for a Publix (not destination shopping).  Given the Publix right down the road on University, and given higher ROI hurdles that real estate projects must clear to be justified post-crisis, I'd guess that someone figured the neighborhood lacked the residential density to justify any urgency in the project.  However, they're keeping the connection to the plot because as more infill projects come to fruition and the area achieves real urban density, a store will make sense.  Pure speculation here, but I think nothing gets done there for another 5 years, and then development eventually materializes as mid-rise, mixed-use once again.

Not really what happened. The original plans were for mixed use developments. That's a much trickier proposition than a shopping center. If it was always just a shopping center, it would have been built years ago.

Is it possible the Publix numbers worked years ago when a density of upscale residential purchasing power were embedded in its new location as part of the original construction.  When on-site residential was dropped, Publix has at least publicly remained on board because of emerging residential density in the broader neighborhood?  Might Publix still be rooting to be part of a mixed-use, vertical development?

[thelakelander]

^No. Early in my career, I worked for a firm that laid out potential sites for Publix during the due diligence process. A 300 unit apartment complex isn't going to impact Publix's decision to locate. More like having an area of at least 20,000 people to pull from will.

[MusicMan]

A lot of people get groceries at Walmart on Phillips too. Would that impact their desire to go into San Marco Square?

[thelakelander]

While they may be committed to being an anchor, Publix isn't developing the shopping center.

[ProjectMaximus]

I realize some of you guys are half-kidding with MusicMan but perhaps it went a little too far this time. I get MM wanting to defend himself since this is his livelihood and there's no reason to attack him to such a degree. Yes he makes some mistakes and occasionally misspeaks on these forums but imo he typically comes here with questions, not to act like some all-knowing commercial real estate guru. And on that note, I have worked with MM on a transaction and to be fair he did a good job on my behalf dealing with an institutional seller that was acting a bit difficult. It was an unusual circumstance and a good end result for me.

MM, the concept that seems out of your grasp is that breaking ground does not automatically equal success. Regency has the resources to develop the entire parcel themselves without partners or financing if they so chose, but they actually do right by their shareholders by holding out for the right opportunity, right partners, and right project. If this had been little ol' me and I purchased at the wrong time with financing I would have lost my shirt and had to dump it at a loss. Perhaps that would have been a win-win for the next guy and the neighborhood as most likely we would see development in that spot, but I would have been crushed. Regency is not some small potatoes group and they can afford to wait until this project works for them.

And evidently the time frame for commercial developers like Regency are much longer than other types of investors. 

Of course. No their time frames don't have to be much longer but they can afford to be patient when necessary. Small investors cannot wait something like this out.

Just curious about your opinion, what did Regency pay for all the "Publix in San Marco" parcels and what could they sell it for today?

No matter what they can sell it for today, unless it is a fluke or unwitting buyer, they would be better off keeping it for themselves, right? Doesn't that make sense? (I mean, assuming it is retail. If the best opportunity was without retail then obviously they'd sell and let someone else tackle that)

[MusicMan]

Thanks Max.  I am learning.  And while I am disappointed about the San Marco Publix site I did not 'attack' Regency or say they sucked.

And of course I remember the transaction with you. You were way ahead of the curve in that location! 

[Kerry]

A land value tax would get this project moving.  Regency wouldn't be able to afford doing nothing.

[thelakelander]

I'm not sure that would do anything other than hurt multiple development projects and potential investments across the city.

[Kerry]

I'm not sure that would do anything other than hurt multiple development projects and potential investments across the city.

Ummm, not sure how to respond other than to say taxing the land and not what is built on it would open up a wave of development not seen in Jax since 1902.  Every vacant lot would be under development in 12 months.  People sitting on vacant lots couldn't afford to do nothing.  That would have to develop it or sell to someone who would.

It would probably solve the affordable housing problem within 5 years.

[thelakelander]

We already pay a property tax. Anything that isn't in alignment with market realities will only cause more harm. Simply raising the tax on land would not necessarily encourage development because there's only so much supply and demand out there. If a project isn't feasible under current conditions, adding to the financial burden of the property owner (in many cases, the property owner isn't the developer) isn't necessarily going to lead to redevelopment. You're more likely to shut down the growth you do have. There's also a social justice and equality issue (this solution would hurt the lower and middle class) that will likely end up with the city in court. All this for a freaking Publix on a specific site in San Marco sounds like overkill. Btw, if we want to solve the affordable housing problem, we should modify our zoning restrictions that stop market rate affordable housing developments from being viable.

[Kerry]

The entire global urbanization community supports a land value tax.  That is how I found out about it.  Left-wing, right-wing, no-wing....it seems to be universaly accepted as the best way to urbanize cities and protect natural habitats.

[Kerry]

Left Wing LVT video from Liberal Democrat Action on Land Tax and Economic Reform
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTxyNQ0ea-k

Right Wing LVT video from Dominic Frisbey
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gD_dZvPwAj0

No Wing LVT video from StrongTowns
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok2uR3btMrE

[thelakelander]

A few videos doesn't mean things will necessarily be applicable to something locally that's highly questionable to be labeled a real problem.

[Kerry]

Fine - just keep doing what we have been doing and hope for a different outcome.