Print Article
Riverside Park Development Team
The Riverside Park development team consists of Lincoln Property Company, Pope & Land Enterprises, and Niles Bolton Associates.
Project Location
Riverside Park will be the first phase of Pope & Land Enterprises' acquisition of the failed Brooklyn Park project, proposed by Miles Development in 2007. Located at the intersection of Riverside Avenue and Jackson Street, phase II is expected to be an infill office development.
Riverside Park Site Plan
The proposed 297 unit multi-family development would be a gated rental community featuring 10 two story carriage houses lining Park Street. The development's main entrance would be from Riverside Avenue.
Riverside Park Conceptual Perspective Renderings
The proposed development would feature residential buildings in the center of the site with surface parking along Jackson Street. Carriage houses would form an urban street edge along Park Street. The interior of the site would not have public access.
Park Street is the street at the top of this image.
This view is of Park Street looking towards Riverside Avenue.
This view looks at the development from Riverside Avenue.
This is a bird's eye view from Park Street looking south.
Park Street perspectives.
Proposed Development Style
The following slides capture the development style the Lincoln Property Company envisions for Riverside Park.
Altering The Street Grid
As a part of the Riverside Park proposal, Brooklyn's street grid would be altered.
Project Highlights
Neighborhood Integration: Something To Consider
Although Riverside Park is a badly needed infill residential project for Jacksonville's urban core, more attention should be paid to integrating this development in with the surrounding Brooklyn neighborhood. This can be accomplished through good urban design without an additional cost to the developer. The five examples below represent where infill residential projects, similar to Riverside Park, have been properly integrated into the surrounding urban core environment. Several manage to maintain a vibrant street edge, while also accommodating surface parking, which is significantly cheaper for the developer than structured parking facilities.
Auburn Pointe - Atlanta, GA
Auburn Pointe is a multi-phase, multi-income community featuring 300 multi-family rental units, 48 affordable and market priced for-sale homes, and 324 senior residences in an economically challenged neighborhood, just outside of Atlanta.
Quote
Taking its name from historic Auburn Avenue and the ‘Sweet Auburn’ district of Atlanta, Auburn Pointe demonstrates the successful revival of one of Atlanta’s most beloved African American communities. Using its Renaissance 20/20 platform, Integral is working with residents, the Atlanta Housing Authority, city leaders and the private sector to transform an outdated economically challenged inner-city neighborhood into a vibrant multigenerational community with distinctive and diverse architecture that celebrates the area’s culture and history.http://www.integral-online.com/realEstateDevelopmentPortfolio.php?id=2&navType=nt2&propID=87
Madison at SoHo - Tampa, FL
Madison at SoHo is a 128 unit multifamily development in South Tampa's Hyde Park/SoHo district.
Villages at Sailboat Bend - Fort Lauderdale, FL
Lennar Homes' The Villages at Sailboat Bend is a 250 unit multifamily development in a revitalizing community a mile west of downtown Fort Lauderdale.
Seigle Point - Charlotte, NC
Seigle Point is a 204-unit HOPE VI Mixed-Income development adjacent to Uptown Charlotte.
Gables State Thomas - Dallas, TX
The Gables State Thomas townhomes are one of several infill projects in Uptown Dallas that are seamlessly integrated into the existing street grid.
The examples above indicate that it should be possible to incorporate slight design changes into the Riverside Park plan that will result in a quality development for Lincoln Properties, downtown, and the surrounding community. Metro Jacksonville looks forward to the successful implementation of a well rounded quality product.
Article by Ennis Davis
Share this article
RSS
Noone
February 29, 2012, 04:05:35 AMVery nice. Is there any street parking?
cgaskins
February 29, 2012, 04:27:39 AMThis is bullhonkey! How can we protest the design? Building in that area is a must, but these people are sticking a "nice suburban spread" in an urban space. Those blocks deserve real buildings, not a bunch of prefarhsyiogdf! I didn't want to curse so I pressed keys to create a pejorative, so you just read an angry spread of letters. Decide what you want of it.
Seriously, this plan is total crap. Do you think we can write them and change their mind?
If we get a couple thousand people to write snail mail, and we also write email, then maybe we can tell these ¢unts they need put up buildings of worth instead of shabby blah.
This is Jax, so we only except things that are strange and unusual or ahead of the times. Right?!?!
dougskiles
March 01, 2012, 06:27:35 AMThey don't have to drive far to see an example of what would be a great product for this site - Tapestry Park. And please leave the gates off.
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 06:32:58 AMFor those who aren't familiar with Tapestry Park:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-sep-southsides-tapestry-park
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 07:00:09 AMLooking at the plan, I'd say Tapestry Park is identical to Riverside Park in regards to its layout. While its mixed use and not completely gated, like Riverside Park, it focuses in on itself and does not create an urban street edge with Gate Parkway or Southside Boulevard north of its central entrance on Deer Lake. I've always felt that the north of end of Tapestry (Deer Lake and Gate Parkway) is fairly suburban when it should be a major entry point.
acme54321
March 01, 2012, 07:15:53 AMIn the presentation most of the examples that they give for the proposed look and style of these apartments are on the street. These are not good. They could easily make these front the street (or at least appear to) and use the existing streets. If they really want to gate the thing they could put gated parking internal to the complex.
Lake you seem to have some connections with the DDRB, what do you think they will say about this?
jcjohnpaint
March 01, 2012, 07:18:59 AMI think the original Brooklyn Park was so much better in use of the land. Sad it didn't materialize. As much as I want to be enthusiastic about this land being developed, I am really unhappy with this design. Even if they flipped the buildings around it would be better. It is closed off and PRIVATE/ suburban. This plan takes nice urban fabric and turns it away from the community and locks it up behind gates. Lets hope something better comes out of this meeting.
acme54321
March 01, 2012, 07:21:01 AMIt think the first lines of this slide solidifies what is driving a lot of this. They are scared of the area, so they are planning to build a fortress. Fences and parking lots make a great barrier between the buildings and the "hood" (that no one lives in).
Lucasjj
March 01, 2012, 07:56:51 AM^This is what caught my eye also. The line thats says "Develop a community with an Urban Look"...makes me worried.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 08:01:20 AMThis slide emphasizes a point I have been making for years. It's exponentially cheaper to build large sprawling parking lots than it is to build to density. Allow things to be built to the least common denominator, and they will get built that way.
I really don't think it would take much for this design to be much more urban friendly.
The first phase of Tapestry Park is a great example locally. And to Lake's point, they couldn't front Southside and couldnt get an entrance to Southside in the second part of the development (although it does empty on to another street that has access to Merril Lynch and BCBSF). Tapestry Park was literally hard to build based on how zoning laws are set up on the Southside (which is a shame).
I thought I had pictures of them on my camera from a trip a few weeks ago, but I don't... however the Row Houses of Soho in Tampa (across from a Greenworks Publix built at density with a parking garage built into the store) are a great example as well.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 08:03:24 AMNo different than the two new apartment complexes being built at the Town Center (two of several projects I cited as reasons not to pass the Mobility Fee moratorium). They are touted as having an 'urban feel', even though you physically can't walk from them to the Markets at Town Center phase... because there aren't even sidewalks to allow you to do so.
tufsu1
March 01, 2012, 08:07:36 AMPost Properties learned this lesson....first they built Post Hyde Park in Tampa as a suburban apartment complex in an urban neighborhood (see below)...after that, the company made a nation-wide decision to only build urban-style properties....they then built Post Walk a few blocks away in the heart of Hyde Park....rental rates were higher and a few years ago that property was converted to condos at a nice profit for Post.
http://www.postproperties.com/myCommunity.aspx?community=203100
dougskiles
March 01, 2012, 08:08:35 AMTrue. Riverside Avenue and Park Street lend themselves to become more of a pedestrian oriented corridor than Southside Blvd. I wonder why they are choosing to use Park Street as the front door for Phase I and not Riverside Avenue? I would think the uses along Riverside (Haskell, FTU, YMCA) would be enough to support a lunch restaurant business and draw people in after work for retail/dining/bars. And engaging the street similar to this sketch and then drawing people into the internal street would be superior. This image shows their proposed Park Street side, but I would flip it around to bring it in from Riverside first and then let Phase II do the same thing on Park Street.
JeffreyS
March 01, 2012, 08:09:57 AMLake I think you need to bullet point your ideas in the article better. Are you advocating taking down the fences, not changing the grid and doors to the street ? Right now it looks like an apartment complex on SS or Baymeadows the thing is those are popular to rent in Jax. Gated is suburban no doubt. I want this to be more urban but I really want it to be successful in renting units.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 08:11:34 AMIt is my understanding the second phase fronting Riverside will be a commercial development (probably in a year or two).
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 08:15:43 AMLooking at occupancy rates just a 1/4 mile down the road.. I don't think filling up these places will be a problem. The design will be a problem though for many, many years if changes aren't made.
I really hope DDRB leans this way... although I have very little confidence they will.
Tacachale
March 01, 2012, 08:23:01 AM^There's no way they'll have trouble renting out this place no matter what the design is. Bottom line, it shouldn't be hard to rework this basic design into an urban format. Hopefully they'll be held to that and the thing will work out fine for all involved.
There's no excuse for building a Gate Parkway-style suburban development not only in an urban area, but actually in the central business district.
Dapperdan
March 01, 2012, 08:27:43 AMIs JTA still thinking of making a short extension from their service yard to take advantage of these two developements? I would think they could extend the skyway one or two blocks fairly easily correct? To me, this small step would reap huge ridership rewards.
I-10east
March 01, 2012, 08:30:06 AMThese dwellings are under midrise status, and height means 'everything', so the majority of MJ will not like these buildings no matter what.
downtownjag
March 01, 2012, 08:39:04 AMI know a lot of us want this to feel more urban, and I agree that it should feature more street level retail; but it's a great "gateway" rental opportunity to people that want to be close to downtown but don't want downtown.
I think it will be very popular with the young professional types that want a nice part of town, a pool, but don't like being somewhere that there is a wings restuarant around every corner. Wishing them the best at their planning meeting today.
mbwright
March 01, 2012, 08:43:24 AMI love how they call themselves master developers....and a leader in urban development, when there are obvious problems with this design...
Kaiser Soze
March 01, 2012, 09:04:14 AMdowntownjag
March 01, 2012, 09:21:56 AMIs this on Riverside Ave? It looks like it's back off the street and "phase 2" has the parcels right on Riverside
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 09:37:17 AMAll I'm really advocating is moving the buildings up against the perimeter street edge (Park, Jackson, Magnolia, etc.) in a manner that doesn't increase the cost to construct or the project's proforma. Thus, I don't mind the gated surface parking, not having ground level retail, keeping the same building footprints, etc.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 09:44:49 AMMaybe you should visit more places. Tons of midrises are pedestrian-scaled. Atlanta is full of them.
Brownstone of SoHo Tampa
Directly across the street from Greenwise Publix (a building with self-contained parking)
Here are some other examples:
A lot of people commenting on this thread do this for a living.. our income is derived from building things. But, it really doesn't take much for things to be built that are a better design for the long-term performance of a given neighborhood. We all want to make profits, but there is a big difference b/w building something just to build it... and building something in such a way that contributes to the pedestrian scale of a given neighoborhood. These things contribute to the sustainable fabric of a community.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 09:45:44 AMHonestly, with that... and with a few other minor changes, I'd be ok with the site plan.
Kaiser Soze
March 01, 2012, 09:48:19 AMFieldafm, the buildings you referenced in Tampa and ATL are beautiful. I agree with you there. But Jacksonville has a much more limited market for the higher-end apartments that you are suggesting.
Tacachale
March 01, 2012, 09:55:14 AM^These don't have to be high end apartments to be built according to an urban setting.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 09:55:56 AMThe numbers don't suggest that. This would be the sixth new high end apartment complex to be built in Jacksonville this year.
NONE of which had anything to do with the lack of a Mobility Fee, btw (to be fair, Brooklyn Park is seperate from Mobility, this falls under a JEDC redevelopment agreement).
Kaiser Soze
March 01, 2012, 10:02:51 AMvicupstate
March 01, 2012, 10:06:17 AMWhy is anyone building so much rental when there are foreclosed houses everywhere and rental rates are depressed? I realize it is a free market, but I'm surprised the lenders will fund them.
I-10east
March 01, 2012, 10:10:36 AMWhether I been to alotta places or not doesn't matter, MJ is destined to micromanage this Brooklyn development like a drill sergeant. This is Brooklyn in Jax not in NY. I'm no genius when it comes to architechure, but I know a lil' about it. This development looks like a good thing for Brooklyn. Beggars can't be choosy here, it looks decent to me. Maybe a couple of coffee joints, alotta parasols, and yuppies/hipsters throughout the complex will make up for the 'supposed' shortcomings. Atleast wait until the thing gets builted become bashing it already.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 10:12:12 AMIt's actually the complete opposite. Rental rates on apartment communities are increasing and occupancy is quite healthy.
Apartment communities are actually quite hot right now. If you have a quality referal, I bet you I could find cheap money to build one.
Why do you think Hallmark recently changed their plans for 220 Riverside?
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 10:15:52 AMIf you hate MJ so much, why post so often?
I would also counter that 'micromanaging' is the exact opposite of what Ennis is saying. It literally does not affect the overall cost structure to flip a few things around in the design of the complex.
Captain Zissou
March 01, 2012, 10:19:17 AMA perfect example of what could be done is just over a mile away, The Villas of St Johns. They front the street, conceal parking within the development, and ensure the safety of the residents by using gates. That's all Riverside Park needs to do. The occupancy rate at the Villas is also very very high, while having some of the highest rents in the neighborhood. The market is definitely there for a well done urban apartment community.
One question I have is how expensive would a 2 level parking garage be?? Just one single deck over a surface parking lot. It would cut the footprint of parking in half, but be less expensive per space than a full garage. Then they would be able to advertise 200 carport spaces on the first floor. I also think it's funny that they are bemoaning the "75 to 100 basis point decrease in profit". That's 0.75-1%. I know they aren't philanthropists, but I think the increased cost would be eliminated by a rent and occupancy increase.
fieldafm
March 01, 2012, 10:22:46 AMIt would be about 4-5 times the cost of surface parking. It's not a 1% difference, that's for sure.
I-10east
March 01, 2012, 10:37:31 AMI don't hate MJ, I put up with it; JK, I love MJ. MJ would be a pretty boring site if everyone shared the same exact opinion don't ya think? Okay I get it, Capt'n mentioned The Villas of St Johns, so basically yall wan't a 'tall wall' of buildings directly on the street huh? Okay, I or most of the general public don't think that the current proposed Brooklyn design 'flaws' is a big deal, but yall are pretty knit-picky when it comes to stuff like that. I hope that it will change the way yall want it to for the sake of me not hearing about the 'failed Brooklyn design' for three straight years.
Kaiser Soze
March 01, 2012, 10:40:47 AMCaptain Zissou
March 01, 2012, 10:55:29 AMI imagine this will be stick built or tilt up, so what would the build out costs for something like this be?
This is how we ended up with a 6 story, 6 block courthouse.
The villas is just this development done in a more urban fashion. Neither of these developments have a retail component, so there aren't going to be storefronts or cafes or anything.
stephendare
March 01, 2012, 10:57:59 AM+1
Critics keep us all honest, and we cannot afford to do without them. The day that we cannot return an argument based on the merits and have to rely solely on the personalities, then we are finished as an honest broker.
I-10east
March 01, 2012, 11:26:48 AMOkay, but not all developments are designed for retail, for all we know no retail is ever gonna come, even with the 'MJ 's streetscape plan'. If I'm not mistaken, the Villas of St Johns had all of the retail stores included (I'm not sure though). I'll put it this way, if this Brooklyn plan is discouraging any future adjoining or nearby retail developments (it's kinda hard to say that in stone right now, esp since it's so early) then I agree with you; If it never was designed to have retail at all (regardless of the layout design) then I don't think that the 'shortcomings' are a big deal at all.
vicupstate
March 01, 2012, 11:30:11 AMI was aware of the apartment building freenzy nationally, and here in my home state of SC. But we were spared the brunt of the foreclosure wave. It would seem the plethora of rental houses would be filling the demand for rentals. Aren't Southside condos selling for a couple of dimes on the dollar still?
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 11:34:59 AMYes, but the market conditions are driving people to rent instead of buy, in most cases.
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 11:37:50 AMNot having retail isn't a short coming. There's plenty of opportunity for retail in the area, with existing buildings and proposed adjacent developments like 220 Riverside. That area needs residents and lots of them. The entire urban core needs more housing options at a variety of sizes and price ranges. A project like this serves these needs perfectly.
CityLife
March 01, 2012, 11:40:06 AMWonder if there will be sentries posted on the carriage houses? The developers/architects may perceive this as an "unsafe" area (it isn't). However, designing it as if its in the middle of East St. Louis may seem like the right move to them now, but it will be outdated in 5 years when the surrounding area has become properly developed. The article pointed out the obvious solutions. Just make the buildings front the street and take away the stupid carriage houses and fences. Make the residents feel like they are in an urban, walkable community. Don't hide them behind fences and parking. That creates a mental/physical buffer between residents and the surrounding community.
As it is designed, I see this is a possibility for failure. The last thing Jax needs is a failed example of urban residential development. Especially when a few tweaks could make the development much more successful.
Bike Jax
March 01, 2012, 12:09:15 PMI say no gates in the urban core. You want live in this community, then you live in this community.
copperfiend
March 01, 2012, 12:20:00 PMExactly. Want security? Hire some security company to have a guard overnight.
Jimmy
March 01, 2012, 12:22:45 PM+1, and...
I say we already have something in town named Riverside Park. http://apps2.coj.net/parksinternet/parkdetails.asp?parkid=200
Can they come up with a different name? I mean, Riverside Park has been there for over a hundred years...
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 12:29:09 PMI don't have a problem with it being gated parking. That's no different from having a garage in your backyard or in an alley. It all boils down to making sure each project maintains a pedestrian scale street edge. That means no surface parking and blank walls along the perimeter streets. By the way, you don't have to close public streets to secure private parking.
cline
March 01, 2012, 12:42:09 PMThe Parks at the Cathedral is gated. Do you take issue with that development?
tufsu1
March 01, 2012, 01:04:08 PM^ yep....but all of our front doors are accessible from the street...the gate is purely to access the vehicle court and common area (pool, mini-park, and clubhouse)....it is the perfect compromise for an urban setting
and for that matter, buildings like 11E and the Carling have locking front doors and/or gated garages
thelakelander
March 01, 2012, 01:09:40 PMGood observations.
BigGuy219
March 01, 2012, 01:25:12 PMAs is, this looks like a wonderful place to live. Close to downtown. Close to Riverside. I don't think they'll have much trouble selling these.
I'm not sure why everyone is so upset about the lack of inclusion of retail. Not everyone wants to live above a Chinese takeout restaurant you know.
If I did not rely heavily on JTA, I would consider relocating there if and when it's completed.
For those of you in love with the idea of mixed use residential/commercial ... I live at 11 East and we've been unable to find a renter for a retail storefront for years. It's a prime location on Forsyth and Main. There's 16 floors of residents directly above it with built in customers. It faces a law office and other successful businesses. Yet it sits as a sad empty reminder of the Starbucks implosion of a few years back.
comncense
March 01, 2012, 02:08:05 PMI think the old Starbucks location is gonna suffer from the lack of parking in the immediate area. Most of the spaces on Forsyth are always taken. You can't park in the garage unless you're a resident and the surface lot isn't really open to the general public during the day. It would be tricky to get in and out quickly of whatever establishment opens there. I'm surprised Starbucks lasted as long as it did really.
I personally love the idea of mixing retail in with residential. I live at Berkman now and there's a lot of times I just don't feel like hopping in my car, coming down 3 floors of the parking garage just to head over to BG / Indochine or Chomp Chomp. Yes... call me lazy.
second_pancake
March 01, 2012, 03:21:06 PMOn the "Encroachments" slide, the picture in the bottom right is of a building in Grapevine, TX directly on the corner of Grapevine Hwy (26) and Main St. It is right across from the historic train depot and downtown historic Grapevine. The building is great - many apartments are loft style, and there is retail all along the first floor in the building that fronts the major roads (the buildings in the middle and back do not contain retail, but have 4 floors of residences). If they build the Brooklyn project in the manner they built the Grapevine project, like someone noted here, with retail facing the major road (Riverside), then this would be fantastic.
jcjohnpaint
March 01, 2012, 03:35:07 PMWhat is the little corner lot on the project land on Magnolia. It looks like it is a park or is it future storefronts?
fsujax
March 01, 2012, 04:27:07 PMDDRB raised major concerns and deferred it.
copperfiend
March 01, 2012, 04:38:39 PMGood
Tacachale
March 01, 2012, 04:50:02 PM^Okay, cool, I hope they work it out. Hopefully it shouldn't be too hard to hammer out a design that works for all involved.
John P
March 01, 2012, 04:58:35 PMdeferred until next month I guess
duvaldude08
March 01, 2012, 05:24:07 PMIm actually okay with the design. It needs to tweeked a little, but thats it. It just needs to be intergrated in its surrounds better. This is actually, IMO, the most important residential project downtown has seen. Its not big expensive high rise condos, but afforable rental units make this very attractive. People Ive talked to have said they would to stay downtown, but everything is to expensive unless you have two incomes , (couple or room mate). And going rental is smart. Being that the housing market melted down, the rental market is booming and probably will be for a very long time. Personally, had I not just bought a home, I would consider staying there.
Seraphs
March 01, 2012, 06:59:19 PMThe design is not the best possible design for an urban area. But, I agree with many others we need the warm bodies downtown.
ben says
March 01, 2012, 07:43:52 PMCan't we get them to look a little more like....
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=georgetown+row+houses&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=qxdQT9XrPObi0QH-w6C8DQ&biw=1280&bih=621&sei=rRdQT569Mor10gGmj-m-DQ
copperfiend
March 02, 2012, 08:24:57 AMWhy not like this
http://savegriffintown.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/fq_prphoto_01.jpg
goldy21
March 02, 2012, 10:36:41 AMLots of good infill concepts in Denver right now:
http://denverinfill.com/blog/category/downtown-districts/uptown
Kaiser Soze
March 02, 2012, 10:37:39 AMthelakelander
March 02, 2012, 10:49:50 AM^Which is why the simple solution is to move the buildings to the perimeter street edges and surface parking to the center of the development. While development costs remain the same and building footprints won't change (I wouldn't doubt they are using plans from another project they've developed), the development would fit seamlessly with the urban area surrounding it. Instead of self centering it on Stonewall, the action would be on Park, Jackson, and Magnolia.
fsujax
March 02, 2012, 11:02:19 AMFrom today's Daily Record
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2012-03-02
thelakelander
March 02, 2012, 11:03:25 AM220 Riverside is pretty much in the same area. Why does one site need "security" and to be "self enclosed" but the other doesn't? Also, why are people so afraid of Brooklyn? There's literally nothing left. It's a moonscape at best.
full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/downtowntoday.php?dt_date=2012-03-02
Tacachale
March 02, 2012, 11:15:01 AMIt sounds like the JEDC review board raised all the right concerns. Hopefully they can hammer this out and get it built in the appropriate urban format.
Non-RedNeck Westsider
March 02, 2012, 11:15:45 AMNon-RedNeck Westsider
March 02, 2012, 11:21:33 AMFrom what I'm seeing, it appears you don't even have to change the footprints of the building plans, just relocate and rotate, and you can accomplish most of what's being proposed.
It worries me that their design is already compared to "looking like a Walmart". I don't care how much parking is put between the road and the building, a walmart is still a walmart.
vicupstate
March 02, 2012, 11:47:01 AMWhy is it that 220 Riverside can get financing and be un-gated, but Riverside Park cannot on both counts? Maybe 220 Riverside should give R.P. their finance guy's number.
Kaiser Soze
March 02, 2012, 11:48:02 AMI love Walmart.
thelakelander
March 02, 2012, 06:40:19 PMThe Walmart quote came from Riverside Park's representative in response to placing parking in the middle of the site:
It's pretty clear, he's viewing this development as an isolated, self centered project instead of one actually being within a real urban area.
duvaldude08
March 02, 2012, 06:55:50 PMI am just glad the city has cracked down on these design standards. Its about time for us to do things right.
AbelH
March 02, 2012, 07:35:58 PMThis is the quote that popped out to me.
If you want gates, urban life isn't for you.
simms3
March 03, 2012, 11:12:08 AMHaven't posted in a while, so here goes.
A) This is a great "1st step" for Jacksonville. I agree with Lakelander that this PRELIMINARY design needs a few aesthetic changes, but I also agree with I-10 East that beggars cannot be choosers. In terms of 21st century economies, urban development and growth of the urban/educated class Jacksonville is no longer playing catch up to Charlotte, Austin, Nashville, Salt Lake and even Oklahoma City. Small towns like Chattanooga, Columbus GA and Sarasota (well that's a little larger) are far ahead of Jacksonville in terms of urban development and downtown amenities for young professionals recently out of college.
2) There is NO WAY retail is going to be a component of this. Quit sipping the Koolaid, urban retail is challenging even in some much more urban, much larger cities. No retailer would survive or even consider locating to this area before it is developed MUCH MORE and the perception of crime and grit is gone. Plus this is the first development, and we don’t even know yet who will move to the area. It could be lower income families escaping bad areas or it could be single 25-year olds with median incomes of about $90K (doubtful). Those two groups require different retailers.
3) This does not "front" any major pedestrian street. One day MAYBE Riverside Ave in that area will be a pedestrian street, and MAYBE Park St, but as of now even I would not want to be a pedestrian in that area. Riverside Ave is way "TOO FAST" in terms of traffic and Park was once a great little industrial district but is now a run down shithole. Develop a few of these types of properties in the area first, get that park finished, and then naturally it will be more pedestrian (and doubtfully Riverside Ave, which is like a highway with landscaped sidewalks fronted by office campuses).
4) The COJ parking ratios are absurd, even for being a totally un-urban town. 1.75 spaces per 1 bedroom unit? That will eventually need to change as the area builds up decades from now. That being said, PARKING is a major factor in any development. There are 3 20+ story apartment towers currently rising within 2 blocks of me now, and two sit above decks with ground level retail (that will take a while even here to rent out because rates can't really be lower than $50/SF...which obviously Jacksonville can't yet comprehend, even at SJTC), but Novare's new tower affords them cost savings because they are putting 400 spaces in a deck to the side, not below. And that's 400 spaces for 8,000 SF retail and 320 units, so not too unsimilar to what is proposed here - in a MUCH more urban area. Until you get up to NYC, Toronto, DC, San Fran and Seattle density levels, parking will always be a heavy requirement.
5) You guys think this will rent up so nicely, and it probably will BECAUSE it is OBVIOUSLY going to be "affordable". The most expensive apartment in the city is the Strand, a 28 floor riverfront high-rise with class A++ amenities and finishes. Its most expensive unit, a 3-bedroom, doesn't even climb high enough to see $2,000. Last I checked, the rate for their "PH" 3+/BR 1,821 SF unit was around $1,900, or slightly above $1/SF. I can promise you that due to those rates, the original developer and the lender suffered immensely.
To get a new high-rise off the ground here in Atlanta, the cheapest of the "really-large" markets, rents must be about $1.70/SF or higher. That same 1,821 SF unit probably needs to go for $1.60/SF min, and the 1BRs, which make up the majority of all units need to push or even well exceed $2/SF. These are the rates in the Novare/UBS and the Daniel/Northwestern Mutal towers going up now...1 BRs will be about $1450-$1650 and 2 BRs will be about $2200-$2500 (there will be no 3 BRs), and they are pushing the envelope with these reduced prices AND calling these apartments "affordable." Nashville and Charlotte have similar pricing in their new developments geared for young professionals. Anything less is not geared for young professionals and is considered affordable and entry-level, and usually built stick/tilt construction.
Bottom line is there is no affluent young prof market in Jacksonville like there is in say a Nashville or Charlotte. There simply aren't enough people willing or able to spend $1,500-$2,000+ for a 1-bedroom, so there eliminates your high-rises and your luxury mid-rises/low-rises. What's left are the suburban "stick" type developments that can be built at a cost basis that allows for rents that the market can support. There won't be concrete construction here. There won't be tower cranes. This will be as cheap a construction as they can make it without totally killing their chance of attracting UNF or FSU grads with a more sophisticated urban mindset.
6) Pope & Land has this on their website already (the land acquisition). They really have no experience in intown Atlanta as Buckhead is as close in as they get. Niles Bolton is also based in Atlanta and hasn't really done CBD stuff aside from Luxe, a sold-out luxury condo highrise that opened in 2008. They DO have a lot of stuff on the Piedmont Rd/Lindbergh corridor that is actually much denser than what is proposed in Jax, and a lot of it looks pretty cool. LPC also has a good reputation, but they vary in the properties they manage...from stick complexes in the burbs to stick affordable complexes in town (Atlanta example and what you guys will be getting) to high-rise and mid-rise luxury apartments in the city (they don't have such properties in the SE).
Also Tufsu brought up Post Properties (another Atlanta firm) and Hyde Park in Tampa. What works in Hyde Park and in Tampa overall cannot work here. Two different animals. Hyde Park is that city's most affluent and perhaps its most urban overall area, and it appeals to both wealthy families and to wealthy educated young professionals. It’s like San Marco + Avondale + the nicest elements of Riverside + Tapestry Park, etc etc. Brooklyn Jacksonville is a crater of an area with absolutely the worst perception among passersby, and who can forget that nearby Lavilla was ranked "the most dangerous" place in the city and one of the most dangerous in the country and the news around there really pounced on that story. People don't forget.
On top of this, you think there are a lot of urban pioneers in Jax, and they have all gone to Springfield and parts of Riverside, but if there really were a supposed whole bunch of urban pioneers, the city wouldn't be where it is today - in the doldrums. A place like Brooklyn might already be developed. Springfield would already be nice, like say an Inman Park in Atlanta.
And where the hell are the local developers? Charlotte has the Bissell family and others. Nashville has Giarratan, which is putting up a new 13-story hotel across from a building we have with Novare there in Sobro, and it has done plenty of other things. Austin has a ton of its own developers. Orlando did have and benefit from Cameron Kuhn. Miami has a ton of developers. Obviously Atlanta has a ton of developers because one of them is involved with this project.
I mean seriously, where is ONE person with vision and deep resources in that city? The largest local urban developer is a restaurateur, and I commend him for his 5 Points development - truly a great thing. BUT is that all Jax has?
BigGuy219
March 03, 2012, 02:18:02 PMI personally wouldn't want to live there if there were no gates. We're talking about two story buildings here and the idea that just anyone can walk up to your door or to your window is a little unsettling.
That area has had problems in the past, so it's understandable why it would be hard to secure financing without the gates. All it takes is one burglary, assault, or God forbid a murder and the entire complex will be forever tainted.
Where I live downtown now you need an electronic pass card to get in. It makes me feel somewhat secure. In another building I lived in downtown you needed an electronic pass card to get in, and then a seperate one t access a specific floor on the elevator, and there was armed security. Both were high rises.
I think the gates are a good cost effective way of making perspective residents feel secure.
I do not think Jacksonville is overflowing with young urban professionals. We need to draw in people looking at the Southside, Mandarin, Orange Park, etc. We need to compete with the rest of Jacksonville, instead of just competing with different areas of downtown.
We can't fill what we have now in terms of rental spaces. So, if we're going to build more, then it has to be different. It has to provide an alternative. It has to market to a different type of individual.
What this area really needs is families. And for families to feel secure with their children ... then the gates are all the more essential.
There is a perception that the area is unsafe. Whether it is unsafe or not is debatable, but it's clear that the area is viewed as unsafe and that assumption should be catered to rather than argued with.
ben says
March 03, 2012, 02:23:22 PMWelcome back simms, your points are well taken.
tufsu1
March 03, 2012, 04:23:36 PMI have lived downtown at the Parks @ Cathedral for years....we have all kinds of people walking by our complex, and yet I've never had a problem with someone coming up to my door....as for windows, the answer is shades/blinds
thelakelander
March 03, 2012, 05:07:56 PMSimms is right, it will most likely be a stick built project. I believe 220 Riverside will be frame construction as well. Parks @ Cathedral and Villas of St. Johns are frame as well. As a matter of fact, just about everything on the Southside and around SJTC is frame. That's Jax's market, so be it. Let's just make sure the stuff properly addresses the street.
As for gates, BigGuy219, I'd live in a location like that with no problem. It's literally a moonscape. There are only four houses scattered over the 16 blocks between Park & Riverside, north of Forest. Other than the warehouses lining Park, its all dirt. With that said, both Parks @ Cathedral and Villas of St. Johns are gated communities. However, they still fit within the surrounding environment. There's no financial reason Riverside Park can't as well.
tufsu1
March 03, 2012, 10:00:40 PMactually the parks are steel frame construction with block
I-10east
March 03, 2012, 11:00:02 PMGreat post Simms; Very comprehensive. I'm still shocked that someone actually agreed with me on an urban thread LOL. Good take pointing out the lack of pedestrian traffic, and the speedy Park Street vehicular traffic coming off of that bridge. I'm not the most well spoken or whatever, but my gut was tellin' me, considering the area that the proposed development is in, it looks decent; IMO it would look kinda outta place if it was in a true urban style. Now I would be screaming from the mountaintops with the majority if it was in 5 points, or another area with alotta foot traffic.
billy
March 04, 2012, 05:59:45 AMIt's easy to point things out in retrospect, but the long ago demolition/clearing of LaVilla and portions of Brooklyn
took away the small/medium size potential adaptive reuse buildings that multiple small local developers, or owner/users
could have taken on as projects.
That opportunity to connect the dots, as in Riverside to downtown, was lost.
Getting back to the thread, Lincoln is trying to do a project that can be financed.
Ground up multifamily that is not in an "A" location/market is still very difficult to get built.
The SJTC area apartments have, I understand, broken ground.
In Brooklyn we have two projects that will be competing for financing.
I do believe, and hope, that a lot of people want housing options, and would like to be intown.
thelakelander
March 04, 2012, 07:17:57 AMAre they competing? 220 Riverside appears to already have its financing. I'd say, these projects complement each other as opposed to compete against each other. Go down Gate Parkway or Southside Boulevard and you'll find thousands of similar units within close proximity of one another. For whatever reason, this type of housing didn't take off a decade ago but there's clearly a pent up demand and that location is pretty decent (between DT & Five Points with the river a short walk away.
With that said, this project's financing won't be hurt by moving the surface parking to the interior of the site and the building footprints to the exterior. Such a move would reduce the amount of fencing desired while still keeping the thing's interior secured. They could keep all the gates they want and that slight modification would still address most of the concerns raised by the DDRB. I have a feeling they'll do just that.
ben says
March 04, 2012, 08:49:35 AMI think for these projects, we need to focus on connectivity to Five Points/Riverside, NOT downtown. I don't think connecting with downtown is feasible right now. Same thing should be done with San Marco....expand San Marco from San Marco's core in concentric circles out. Five Points/Riverside should be treated the same way. Eventually both circles will hit downtown.
Tacachale
March 04, 2012, 09:01:45 AM^We should connect to both. Especially since the people who woul live there are much likelier to be working downtown or across the street in Brooklyn (which is essentially Downtown jr.) than in Riverside itself.
JeffreyS
March 04, 2012, 09:33:34 AMWe can connect these projects to downtown with just a set of stairs to the Brooklyn end point of the skyway that is already there at maintenance yard. So we have to at least do that.
The developments will be very convenient for the people who live there easy access to downtown, riverside and a new on ramp to I95.
simms3
March 04, 2012, 10:29:32 AMWhile both projects may receive financing, especially considering who the partners are for both (NAI for the other, LPC/Pope & Land for this), there will still be a level of competition for financing. You're talking between 500-600 units constructed simultaneously in a completely untested submarket and in an overall market hostile to urban development with several notable failures. On top of all of this, downtown has been bleeding jobs and multifamily depends on only one thing: nearby jobs. Lenders will take note of all of this. They will take note of local demographics, which for that area are shady as hell at best. They will take note of how many college grads there are in the city and where they are working and how much they are making. They will scrutinize construction costs and put together their own proforma based on what they believe rents will need to be. This last part may be the deal breaker itself.
Don't think the financing is closed for either yet. You'll hear about it in the BizJournal because whoever arranges it will want credit.
urbanlibertarian
March 04, 2012, 11:26:41 AMIt appears to me that isolation was a goal in the design of this project because investors believe that will expand the number of potential renters and make it more likely to be successful. First and foremost I would like to see SOMETHING built there in the moonscape. If it needs to be fenced and gated with a surface parking buffer zone to be built and fully rented, then so be it.
thelakelander
March 04, 2012, 11:49:51 AMA more thoughtful layout that doesn't alter building footprints, gated features, number of desired parking stalls, etc. isn't going to sink a project like this. Besides, this is typical in the conceptual design stage. No reason to roll over so easily and early on something that will only improve the project and the area. I fully expect Lincoln to come back with a better site layout.
simms3
March 04, 2012, 12:10:17 PMPope & Land is the developer of the project. Lincoln will manage the property and receive fees from P&L. Niles Bolton is the architect. Let's not confuse roles. Whatever the design ends up being will be a reflection on the developer, the lender, the design review board and the architect. LPC will likely not have any say.
Whatever the design review board approves may not be acceptable in the end to a lender. Lenders today don't just sign off on projects such as these; they take very active roles. Considering Pope & Land is backing this and has previously faced disaster with its 3360 Peachtree highrise development in Buckhead, the lender may think it's more at risk than anyone here.
thelakelander
March 04, 2012, 12:39:49 PMAlthough the project was represented by Lincoln at the DDRB meeting, who the developer is doesn't really matter when it comes to zoning regulations and the conceptual site planning process. They'll go back and modify their site plan in a manner that better addresses the DDRB's concerns, without raising the project's cost or endangering its feasibility. I used to layout projects like this for developers all across the state when the market was good. What's taking place really isn't a big deal at this point.
fsujax
April 06, 2012, 11:43:35 AMHere is the latest, they went back to DDRB yesterday and recieved approval for their concept.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=536116
Tacachale
April 06, 2012, 11:56:39 AMWhat did they even change?
thelakelander
April 06, 2012, 11:57:38 AMLooks like they added some carriage houses along the perimeter.
JeffreyS
April 06, 2012, 12:03:25 PMThat will make the sidewalks nicer. Pedestrian access from the street would have made it more urban.
jcjohnpaint
April 06, 2012, 02:13:08 PMI hope pedestrians at least have access to walk trough the walkways. What is the empty portion in the front rt corner for/ future retail I suppose?
jcjohnpaint
April 06, 2012, 02:17:23 PMAlso they are not showing the exterior, but I hope they are brick and not pink fo stucco.
fsujax
April 06, 2012, 02:20:25 PMthat will be shown the next time they come to DDRB.
acme54321
April 06, 2012, 02:41:26 PMIs there still a fence all the way around it?
fsujax
April 06, 2012, 02:43:04 PMyep.
copperfiend
April 06, 2012, 02:51:44 PMExcuse my language but having a fence like that is just butt ugly.
Riverrat
April 23, 2012, 02:34:21 PMWait - am I seeing this correctly? "Carriage Houses" will dot Riverside Avenue to shield Riverside Avenue from the parking lot? Wake up! This is supposed to be / should be an urban neighborhood that connects Riverside to Downtown...this could be one of the coolest locations in the city...it has the potential to be a great "Midtown" in Atlanta...or West End in Nashville...but instead, here's what has happened / is happening: LaVilla.
So, first, the Fidelity building goes in and has parking lots facing the street. Then, that weird Alfred duPont building goes in with its weird little winding road. Then, almost every single corner lot on Forest, between 95 & Riverside Ave. has been converted to a parking lot, retention pond, or culdesac...NOW we're adding in carriage houses?! And I recall reading somewhere of the possibility of a Courtyard Marriott going in to one of these projects? Seriously? Courtyard Marriott? There isn't a chain more "office park" related than Courtyard Marriott. Seriously, I'm waiting to read the "Brooklyn Frankenstein" story.
Suburbia doesn't work in what should be an urban neighborhood!
JFman00
April 23, 2012, 03:04:22 PMI'm curious what impact city-mandated parking requirements had on the development, if any.
Riverrat
April 23, 2012, 03:22:16 PMA garage somewhere (the middle?) or parking in the middle (similar to the Springfield building where Uptown Market is located) is the answer here. NOT Carriage Houses. The larger portion of the development needs to be up to the street here.
tufsu1
April 23, 2012, 04:38:48 PMthere is no problem with having shorter buildings close to the street as long as they aren't set back much....in fact, cities like San Diego and Vancouver mandate that condo towers step back, so that at the street they appear to only be about 3 stories high (perfect for pedestrians).
as for the garage, sure that would be great....but at $20,000+ per space, that would add almost 10 million to the cost of teh project....perhaps it doesn't fit the pro forma.
JaxArchitect
July 10, 2012, 10:11:20 AMThe new plan is a slight improvement but they really need to rethink the overall layout. As many have already indicated, they need to put more priority on placing the buildings along the primary street edges.
I think the overall development plan makes sense, will be a great benefit to this neighborhood, and they don't need to burden the development with the cost of a parking structure. They just need to rework the plan to address the streets in a more appropriate manner.
I think their strategy of starting at the Park St side of the property (with residential only) is interesting because it would allow the development to fill in with residents prior to building the commercial space that will be necessary along Riverside, providing the necessary built-in customers. That's kind of smart IMO.
Tacachale
July 10, 2012, 10:23:31 AMIt was a mistake to approve the design as it was. At any rate, new units in the CBD are new units in the CBD so it's a net gain.
Ocklawaha
September 28, 2012, 09:43:08 AMNo one at MJ is bashing or micromanaging these projects. MJ is the city's only alternative voice for 'new urbanism,' 'sustainability,' and 'pedestrian scale development' as well as 'fixed route mass transit.' The fact that you attack any discussion where serious dialog is taking place with a tirade of incredibly constructed prose speaks volumes.
Otherwise let the discussions among planners and concerned residents continue.
duvaldude08
September 28, 2012, 10:54:46 AMI wonder when construction will start. I see they requested a permit a few weeks back. It was for something infrastrcture related. Atleast its moving foward.
tufsu1
September 28, 2012, 11:03:35 AMfrom what I hear next month
thelakelander
September 28, 2012, 11:43:41 AMRiverside Park or 200 Riverside?