Coulter Kirkpatrick/Times-Union -- 4/22/09
The Good:
A well known local developer has plans to possibly bring a pharmacy into one of Jacksonville's few vibrant pedestrian friendly commercial districts. Despite a down real estate market, Five Points continues to be a highly attractive location for infill commercial development. The addition of a pharmacy should create additional synergy and pedestrian traffic flow at the last under utilized parcel at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Margaret Street.
The Bad:
The developer plans demolishing two perfectly fine historic structures in a national historic district to accommodate a "big box" style pharmacy with a drive-through lane and parking lot.
The Ugly:
In the typical Jacksonville fashion, it appears that the two opposing sides may be drawing their lines in the sand instead of attempting to find a compromise to take advantage of the potential opportunity at hand.
Look close. What do these images have in common?
CVS Pharmacy - Downtown Detroit, MI
CVS Pharmacy - Dowtown Winston-Salem, NC
Walgreen's - San Juan, PR
Border's Books - Downtown Indianapolis, IN
Shopper's Drug Mart - Toronto
McDonald's Restaurant - Manhattan, NY
Starbuck's Coffee - Yonge Street - Toronto
Walgreen's Main Street - Downtown Memphis, TN - Image by Exothermic at www.flickr.com
Rite Aid Pharmacy - Camden, ME - image by nnecapa at www.flickr.com
Rite Aid Pharmacy - Downtown Los Angeles, CA - Image by Eric Richardson at www.flickr.com
Rite Aid Pharmacy - U Street - Washington, DC
Publix - Congaree Vista District - Columbia, SC
Courtyard by Marriott - Downtown St. Petersburg, FL
Rite Aid Pharmacy - Downtown Bridgeport, CT
CVS Pharmacy - Uptown Charlotte
KFC - Downtown Atlanta, GA
Hard Rock Cafe - Center City Philadelphia, PA
Office Depot - Chicago, IL
All of these images capture major retailers operating out of buildings that are not typical of their usual suburban store layouts. These retailers in pedestrian friendly areas have found a way to incorporate their business model into an existing location, without replacing the structure with their standard box layouts.
The Renaissance Group has done great work over the years in restoring commercial properties in Jacksonville. Being a part of the Bay Street Station, Kings Avenue Station and Laura Street Station development teams, they are also major players in the the urban core's development scene.
However, Riverside is a National Historic District and the historic building fabric is the main ingredient that creates the neighborhood's unique sense of place and atmosphere. No individual infill project is more important than the neighborhood and urban environment that surrounds it. Without this unique urban setting, the pharmacy's interest in this specific site would not be as strong as it is today. That alone should point towards the continued preservation of the remaining historical building stock in the community.
Very few would oppose the validity of Five Points being a successful environment for the pharmacy proposed by The Renaissance Group, a development and realty group led by Carlton Jones. However, lines should not be drawn in the sand between opposing parties.
Godwin said she thought a pharmacy would do well in the area, but a better alternative to tearing the building down would be to put the pharmacy in the historic building.
"It would be very cool to go there," she said, "just like they have in Boston or New York City."
http://www.jacksonville.com/community/the_sun/2009-05-02/story/jacksonville_developer_threatens_demolition_of_historic_buildings
The community should not be forced to chose between a "big box" and the preservation of its significant building stock. As mentioned by Godwin and backed by the images above, through creative design, discussion and open minds, it should be possible to come up with a solution that can accomodate retail within the historic structures and the surface parking lot located on the Jelks Building site.
Article by Ennis Davis
Share this article
RSS
deathstar
May 07, 2009, 05:15:07 AMVery valid point proven here Ennis, I wholeheartedly agree with using the existing structure to accommodate said business looking to open there. There has been too much loss of too many historical sites in the past, and with a chance to save another building that has potential, I hope the right parties step up to the plate ready to hit a home-run.
jeh1980
May 07, 2009, 05:26:13 AMGood article. I don't feel that they should tear down that building...although I'm not to fond of the idea of a drive-thru pharmacy. A mid-rise building or a skyscraper perhaps, but not a drive-thru pharmacy.
Hurricane
May 07, 2009, 06:27:02 AMThis is one of the best compiled topics I have seen, great job! Way to be on the ball with this one! Great real life examples of how to accomplish putting in a big box retailer into a historic / urban setting.
I completely agree and hope that this arcticle finds its way to every decision maker involved with this project. If anyone reading this has contacts at the review board, please send them the link to these excellent examples of how to get it done right.
Keep kicking ass! Great catch!
fsujax
May 07, 2009, 07:47:05 AMOMG...I have been to that Walgreens in San Juan!
thelakelander
May 07, 2009, 08:00:18 AMSmall world fsujax. That one snuck up on me. I was walking down the sidewalk in Old San Juan and next thing I know, there's a Walgreens. Anyway, according to the property appraiser, the Jelks Building's floor heights average around 12'. If all parties make an effort to compromise, that entire site could become something that could set the local standard for redeveloping and incorporating historic structures into new projects.
heights unknown
May 07, 2009, 08:16:54 AMI agree with Godwin, and applaud the Riverside Avondale Preservation for "sticking to their guns;" find innovative ways to build the pharmacy and keep the historic building, yes, put it on the ground floor of the building, and, it doesn't have to be 7,000 square feet; that area has a lot of traffic and is primarily residential, but I think a smaller pharmacy would be more ideal. Parking could also be an issue so even if they kept the building and someone added the pharmacy in the mix, parking will be an issue.
Heights Unknown
Abhishek
May 07, 2009, 08:19:52 AMWell compiled post. Very impressive.
will
May 07, 2009, 08:57:33 AMIt seems like such a no-brainer to use the existing structure. I'd personally love a pharmacy like that. I'm sometimes forced to go the walgreens on park and king. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something instantly menacing and downtrodden about walking through that parking lot. I don't get that feeling with any of the adjacent historical structures. You can definitely feel when a building has been constructed and laid out for cars rather than people.
stug
May 07, 2009, 09:16:10 AMI will strap myself to that building in protest. Anyone with me?
hightowerlover
May 07, 2009, 09:24:55 AMwell yeah - that all makes sense. please post the pictures when they tear down the buildings though.
Gatorziggy
May 07, 2009, 09:36:03 AMYou missed a good example two blocks north. The Regions bank was a historic building that was upgraded with a drive-thru and limited parking and still keeps the historic building. This is a little bigger, but can be done the same way to accommodate both sides.
RiversideLoki
May 07, 2009, 09:42:20 AMThat building has massive potential. It would be a shame to see it torn down for another McBuilding.
mtraininjax
May 07, 2009, 09:46:37 AMWell, at least this helps RAP swell its ranks. They should setup a booth/tent across in the park and hold 24 hour vigils on the demolition. Who will be first to camp out for days on end in the sweltering sun? Sign me up!
Deuce
May 07, 2009, 09:58:38 AMAh, the U Street/Cardozo neighborhood. That takes me back to some cool nights in the clubs around there. What many on this board may not know by looking at that picture is that 10 yrs ago that place was worse than Springfield.
Dog Walker
May 07, 2009, 10:19:10 AMThe Publix shopping center across the street was originally going to be a standard, suburban layout too; a big box surrounded by asphalt. Our own Historic Commission staff came up with the redesign that we see there today. It has worked so well that Sembler has used the same concept in some other cities. Jones and CVS should consult with them.
thelakelander
May 07, 2009, 10:26:37 AMDeuce, I used to hang out in the U Street area, back in the mid 90s. You're right, it was worse than many neighborhoods in Jacksonville. During that time it was not uncommon to step over vagrants sleeping on the sidewalks. That entire strip and the neighborhoods to the north changed overnight when the Metro's Green Line was expanded to Fort Totten. I really wish I would have been into urbanism back in those days. If I had taken images, the difference today would be night and day. If anything, U Street's turn around just means that anything is possible when the proper planning and implementation takes place. Hopefully, Jones and CVS will embrace the neighborhood's historic setting and make a real effort to work with the community.
Bewler
May 07, 2009, 11:08:10 AMI love this: "one of Jacksonville's few vibrant pedestrian friendly commercial districts."
And yet whole reason they are wanting to tear it down is so they can make it a drive thru.
Why? We've already established that there are lots of pedestrians in this area, so what's the point of having a drive thru? I'm not saying it would never get used but is it really necessary? This isn't exactly Southside Blvd.
Captain Zissou
May 07, 2009, 11:10:47 AMI think this is a great opportunity to set a precedent for future historic development in Jacksonville. This would be an easy fit, so why not earn some positive press in the process? If they do demolish the buildings, I think it will have a very negative impact on the performance of the store.
Ernest Street
May 07, 2009, 11:18:40 AMI also applaud RAP for standing by this building. They have been concentrating on the local residents dwellings with an unnecessarily large Magnifying glass for way too long and letting any hair salon or medical building get a free pass (cough ..chrome scissors in the window)
CMG22
May 07, 2009, 01:09:27 PMI'll be the first to admit, I was literally walking around Publix yesterday wishing that there was a CVS/Walgreen's there so that I could maybe pick up a picnic blanket to sit out in Memorial Park with a friend (I lost the one in my car). If I were less lazy, I could have gone down to Park and King. Despite that, does Publix not have a pharmacy?
I absolutely want the building preserved, but what is the point of putting a pharmacy here? The Publix is tiny, for sure, and these types of pharmacies only offer a small selection anyway. It seems to me that you're adding one tiny store, next to another diminutive store--both of which offer a limited selection, and much of it will overlap. Wouldn't this building be better suited for some other type of retail development?
grimss
May 07, 2009, 01:13:56 PMPersonally, I'd love to see a great bookstore on the ground level! Office or apartments (building's original purpose) above.
Can anyone tell me what 70,000 sf. is roughly equivalent to? Is that the same size at the Park & King Walgreen's, or bigger?
exnewsman
May 07, 2009, 01:16:24 PMI live next to that building. Margaret Street cannot handle the additional traffic that a large retail would bring. The intersection at MArgaret/Riverside Ave is collasping. Margaret next to the park in a constant mess with people parking to go play in the park. Add a Walgreens/CVS traffic situation and it wil be total disaster. That's on top of tearing down a perfect lovely building. Lakae had some great examples of how it could be done properly - but that won't help the traffic. This is very disturning news.
thelakelander
May 07, 2009, 01:26:14 PMThe Publix across the street is 28,000sf. 70,000 sf would be roughly the size of a small anchor store at a mall (ex. Dick's Sporting Goods at SJTC). My guess, is that TU's square footage count was a mix up. A 70,000sf structure on this site would have to be vertical and a surface parking lot and drive through would most likely not be a part of those plans.
Any idea of that intersection's traffic count? On the surface it would seem that the traffic issue could be resolved without major reconstruction of the surrounding roads.
lindab
May 07, 2009, 01:44:46 PMI completely agree with you, exnews. There have already been some threads on this forum talking about the horrible traffic along Riverside Avenue in this vicinity. These two properties should be much lower traffic generators. Stupid stupid thinking - buy historic properties in order to demolish them and muck up the street grid.
stjr
May 07, 2009, 02:21:55 PMFor those on this thread that missed the prior thread started, I repost my previous comment here:
If people are on Medicare, Medicaid, or insurance, all they need is service. The prices are fixed by the government or insurance company. Having another pharmacy isn't going to change the market place.
tufsu1
May 07, 2009, 02:25:45 PMthe 2005 daily traffic count on Riverside Avenue (in front of Publix) was around 17,000...basically that is right at "capacity"....now, that doesn't speak to peak hour conditions...which are usually worse.
But I am not in favor of building roads (or stopping development for that matter) based on heavy traffic for less than 2 hours a day.
Note: The statement above is general, and has nothing to do with this specific case.
CMG22
May 07, 2009, 02:29:50 PMThanks, sjtr. Good point, which buttresses mine from above. I don't live in the area, otherwise I would use them. I've always noticed it, but never walked in...
thelakelander
May 07, 2009, 02:31:44 PM^Thanks, tufsu1. Well you know me. I'm all for diversification if it forces us to seriously invest in mass transit alternatives. A streetcar link between Riverside and Downtown will fare pretty well if the areas along that path continue to densify in a pedestrian friendly manner.
grimss
May 07, 2009, 02:50:09 PMForgot to mention in my earlier post what a great job you've done with this, Lake. How you manage to find so many pertinent photos so quickly is a miracle to me . . .
Just noticed that RAP has posted their position on all this on http://riverside-avondale.blogspot.com/.
thelakelander
May 07, 2009, 02:57:24 PMA mix of memory from trips in the past and Metro Jacksonville's City Comparison photo archives. After three years of building up the site's database, we have images that cover just about every urban issue that comes up in Jacksonville.
grimss
May 07, 2009, 03:10:22 PMAt this rate, you're going to give Wayne Wood a run for his money. At last count, his building photo database was something like 20,000 structures.
Ocklawaha
May 07, 2009, 08:49:23 PMAbout 30 years ago, a baby RAP and Streetcar Movement, lost the old Power House, the Car Barns (the ones that jumped in the way of the new Acosta Bridge ramps - until the project was done then had a knee slapping moment - "Oops, didn't hit the road after all --- let's build a Skyway facility there!") and a REAL almost perfect streetcar. All of that distruction within about 2 years. If it did nothing else, we all emerged from the battle's a bit stronger and wary of our City's "deals and projects."
I hope this is a case of we lost those battles and won the war. Let's win one for the pharmacy too!
OCKLAWAHA
exnewsman
May 08, 2009, 12:12:34 PMAs a resident in the area I am not against the builidng being used (properly and reasonably). I wouldn't consider a big box pharmacy either -especailly if there don't plan on re-use of the structure. As for other usage - there is a decent amount of on-site parking behind the building - but getting cars in/out of that section of Margaret Street on onto Riverside Ave will be problematic in its best light.
This location certainly doesn't compare to an area like King/Park where you have a bit more space liek with the Walgreens (although I'm not a fan of the building design in that neighborhood either). I don't understand the corporate need to "develop" rather than "re-develop" a site location. Except taht its the easy way out.
jaxlore
May 08, 2009, 04:32:21 PMbeen to that Detroit CVS on several occasions, will probably be visiting memorial day weekend. Lets hope some sort of compromise can be reached we need more historic conversions and less "that looks historic but really isn't".
Hurricane
May 11, 2009, 07:02:51 AMExnewsman - Keep in mind what a big box retailer is usually most interested in - the bottom line.
By knocking down an old building and starting from scratch, they know exactly what that will cost. By trying to renovate an old building, they will be working with a huge unknown as to how much they will spend as there can be some massive structural, plumbing, and electrical costs that could easily make the project come to a halt (20 West Adams as an example). Plus, by building a new standard store, they have tweaked the prototype design of the store in order to most efficiently utilize every square foot. If they renovate, they will lose all of those efficiencies and have to pay more money for a new design.
With all that being said, hopefully the retailer will realize that the public wants them to renovate and not demolish. The main way they would not demolish is if they realized that they would be causing an uproar in the community if they went through with it.
grimss
May 11, 2009, 07:24:41 AMIf things worked the way they're supposed to, this wouldn't get past the Historic Preservation Commission. These are contributing structures and perfectly sound, and so HPC would deny the application, and then the Planning Commission and LUZ would respect that decision--not to mention the Historic District Overlay--and the developer would have to look elsewhere for a place for his big box store. Unfortunately, one can't always assume the city will follow its own rules . . .
b real
May 11, 2009, 09:00:40 AMGood Article!
I'm a confused as to why they would want to build a pharmacy when we already have a locally owner pharmacy in 5 points and another one at the corner of Park and King? There is also a CVS on the corner of Park and King.....a short bike ride or drive from 5 points. How will another pharmacy contribute to the growth of 5 points?
jaxlore
May 11, 2009, 09:40:43 AMits all competition especially if its cvs, they probably could care less about the locally owned pharmacy or walgreens and would hope to put them out of business if it was up to them/
rjp2008
May 11, 2009, 09:47:13 AMI have no problem with the plan. There are enough old and musty buildings in that area as it is.
Steve
May 11, 2009, 09:59:32 AMRemind me to exterminate some senior centers too - the people there are old and musty as well.
Seriously, this is the point of a historic district. The area is not hsitoric because of Publix's building.
BTW, the pharmacy at Park and King is a Walgreen's, so my guess is this is CVS.
reednavy
May 11, 2009, 10:01:18 AMThe pharmacy at Park and King is a Walgreen's, not CVS.
Rjp, you're in the extreme minority on this one, plus you're reasoning has no merit really.
Besides CVS, it could be a RiteAid, that's my only other guess.
JeffreyS
May 11, 2009, 10:44:13 AMHopefully it will be a 24hour job in the existing building.
b real
May 11, 2009, 11:38:00 AMWhy demolition a well built historic building to build a box that in years to come will look old/rundown maybe left vacant until it is demolished to build another box in its place? Doesn’t seem very "green" or right for the community....
JeffreyS
May 11, 2009, 12:25:56 PM^If it has survived this long without looking rundown or at all vacant why can't it be kept in good condition for years to come.
If you want a brand new suburban CVS I think you should have one and luckily Jax has numerous gentrified suburbs where you can find them enjoy.
exnewsman
May 11, 2009, 01:03:41 PMPerhaps the corner currently occupied by the Pizza Palace would be a better location for such a store. Strip mall across the street. Shell gas station on the other side. Corner lot location. PP doens't seem to do that well.
obie1
May 11, 2009, 02:41:28 PMSeriously, this is an outrage. Imma writing some letters and I never do that.
Deuce
May 11, 2009, 05:09:29 PMAre you saying this to provoke a response or are you daft?
jtrophy
May 11, 2009, 11:08:22 PMI have a great full block available for sale that would be a perfect location for a CVS/Walgreens or heck we need a Rite Aid to really get the game going.
Our 2 acres @ 300 Park Street is a much better location.
Trophy Center
Convenient to ALL 3 hospitals (Baptist/St.Vincents/Shands) AND much closer to Downtown for all the Daytimers .
ubben
May 21, 2009, 10:40:16 PMI have no problem putting that building to a commercial use. But if they try to tear it down, they will have to bulldoze me with it. I will super glue my body to the facade before that happens. I'm not kidding. They want a war, there going to get one.
hanjin1
May 27, 2009, 11:11:52 AMI just read this
http://www.news4jax.com/news/19572245/detail.html
looks like they won't be building a pharmacy, and I didn't know that it was 2 buildings in question.
Deuce
May 27, 2009, 11:53:44 AMSo maybe we got our panties in a bunch for nothing! Still better to be vigilant.
Charles Hunter
May 27, 2009, 09:46:17 PMOr the owner is responding to the outcry from here and from RAP.