|
Metro Jacksonville highlights a selection of recently constructed projects in the Urban Core of Jacksonville and ranks them by their ability to help create a walkable environment.
THE CREAM OF THE CROP These projects are designed with the human scale in mind, thus promoting and encouraging walkability. These are the type of developments Jacksonville will need if the city's goal for downtown is to create a vibrant, energetic, and self-sufficient urban atmosphere. Everbank Plaza 
A great example of urban infill on a compact site that incorporates office, parking, and retail uses. The Parks at the Cathedral 
A townhouse development where the buildings line the sidewalks, thus creating a walkable environment along its borders. Parking needs are accommodated with on-street parallel parking and private parking in the middle of the block, shielded from public view.
1661 Riverside  A great example of combining residential, retail, and parking in a multi-story structure. By properly addressing the street at ground level, this project extends the retail and dining link along Margaret Street, between Park Street and Memorial Park.
Wachovia Bank - San Marco Place 
An example of a simple bank building that fronts the street and shields its surface parking lot from the sidewalk. Alone it may not have much impact but combined with more buildings featuring the same characteristics, the inviting environment of San Marco Square can expand towards a potential commuter rail stop.
First Baptist Church Children's Building & Welcome Center  Churches are well known for destroying historic areas for expansion purposes. However, The Children's Building at First Baptist is an excellent example of integrating new development into an urban walkable setting. IT COULD BE BETTER These projects are examples of developments that consider the pedestrian and the urban environment, but still incorporate things that keep them from fully embracing walkability. Alfred I. duPont Testamentary Trust 
The good news is that this will be a LEED certified building that replaces a vacant overgrown lot. The bad news is, it has little interaction with the new riverfront pocket park next door and there will be a gated surface parking lot between the front of the building and Forest Street.
Harmony Dental Laboratory 
The Harmony building is one of the better laid out buildings in LaVilla because it does not ignore Monroe Street, but all of tenants face the parking lot on the other side of the building.
Main Library 
While the library is an asset to Hemming Plaza and Laura Street, there is a blank wall on Monroe and Duval Streets and it eliminated the Rhodes Furniture Building, an impressive Chicago-School highrise facing Main Street.
Main Street Pocket Park

An example of over-thinking an urban problem. Urban parks are dependent upon the activities that take place around them. If parks are not designed to be self sufficient or properly integrated with their surroundings, they tend to attract little use. So while the result is a $700,000 project that looks better than the surface parking lot it replaced, the poor location struggles to attracts a diverse amount of positive pedestrian use in the heart of the Parking Lot and Social Services District.
Main Library Parking Garage  It was a good move to make sure street level retail was incorporated into our parking garages. However, retail rarely succeeds when it faces a blank wall and has no floors. Things may have turned out differently if the retail in this garage was designed to face Main Street, one of the busiest streets in the core, as opposed to the lightly traveled Duval Street. WHO POISONED THE GROUND WATER? The projects below are representative of bringing the suburbs and strip mall concepts to the downtown core. Despite what may take place on the inside of these structures, because the human scale is an afterthought, their layouts become an obstacle to the idea of a downtown environment that is built to accommodate the pedestrian and mass transit use over automobiles. These developments typically introduce large suburban-like building setbacks or surface parking lots to the downtown core, effectively reducing the potential of downtown to densify. From a walkability and connectivity standpoint, they are more of a negative on the urban core than a positive. LaVilla School of the Arts

This project could have been easily constructed on two city blocks. Instead, it eliminated six blocks in the heart of LaVilla, including a large section of what was once known as the Harlem of the South. LaVilla 2 Medical Office Building 
The main entrance faces a surface parking lot in the middle of the block, as opposed to facing what should be a major intersection. Instead, the corner and sidewalk have been blessed with a jail like covered parking facility.
Community Connections 
Every building in this area abuts the sidewalk. However, this layout ignores the historical pattern with a surface parking lot and a large retaining wall. Sax Seafood Bar & Grill 
With the Ritz Theater across the street, this could have been the opportunity to bring a complementing development to the area to help move pedestrian traffic along Davis Street. Unfortunately, this layout is a typical suburban style that is geared for the automobile, consuming a full block of what could have been a more dense development. Combined with the LaVilla School of Arts, it further isolates the Ritz Theater from the downtown core.
Southbank Extended Stay, Hampton Inn & Morton's Steakhouse 
Three needed developments that could have had a stronger positive impact on Hendricks Avenue and Treaty Oak Park if the buildings lined the street, shielding their parking needs from the sidewalk.
These images show that there are several well designed projects that have been constructed in the Urban Core in recent years. However, they also show that Jacksonville is still prone approving poorly designed structures in what was and what should remain a walkable community.
The redevelopment of the Urban Core is a marathon and not a sprint. However, if we want to make it to the finish line, we need to make sure we are taking the right route. One of Jacksonville's major challenges will be grow to the point where the every new project is designed to positively contribute to the concept of a walkable urban community. Article written by Ennis Davis
|
June 27, 2008, 8:27 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
The hotels on the southbank make me sick everytime I see them. What a waste. As for a positive, the Everbank Building is one of my favorites.
June 27, 2008, 8:46 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Everbank and the Parks at the Cathedral ar my two favs.
Great article Ennis and thanks for pointing out the positives as well as the negatives.
June 27, 2008, 9:34 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Props to Parks @ the Cathedral....I'll let them know
June 27, 2008, 11:28 am
The Good, AMAZING streetcar museum site.
after the laughter died down last Tuesday, Stephendare and I took another look at SAX SEAFOOD. Thinking "Anchor of the Trolley System". This building is suited well to becoming a first class museum, with gift shop, bistro, car shop and storage yard. Tracks could pull out onto Beaver to Davis, and hence South and help recreate one of the most exciting streets of the former Harlem District of LaVilla. Davis is small, quiet, yet fairly dense with some pretty cool places on both sides.
The Sax place is plenty tall enough, either in the kitchen? or the dining room areas. Lots of parking would make it a park and ride site for a host of historic venues. Beaver and Davis streets may still have streetcar tracks in them as both are historic Jacksonville Traction routes. The Sax location would do something else for our Streetcar operation. We would trump New Orleans, Memphis, Little Rock, Tampa, Ft. Smith or Dallas in having the museum/carbarn located just a block off the interstate with it's own exit/entrance. Moreover, we would have the only on with a brand new - turn key - exhibit space. Toss in a "World Class" hobby shop with internet/mail order and a focus on trolleys - railroads - highway systems - buses - air - ships - Navy and we would boost the operating income and offer yet ANOTHER spot for some family fun.
I invite all of you to head down there and take another good look for yourselves. Look at that high ceiling or roof. Look at the size of the place. Look at the location in relation to Water - Union Station - downtown. Look at it and tell me you don't hear bells!
If this city had just one visionary political type in a leadership position we could be all of that...
Ocklawaha
June 27, 2008, 12:01 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
What ever happened to the idea of using the old Claude Nolan Building for this same purpose?
Anyway, there was an RFP out on this property and it just closed. I wonder who's going to get it.
Responses are currently being reviewed by staff. Please check back soon for more information.
http://www.coj.net/Departments/Jacksonville+Economic+Development+Commission/JEDC+Information/Real+Estate+RFPs.htm
June 27, 2008, 1:09 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
I'm not feeling the plain, blockish red brick designs of that area at all- this is Florid after all - showcase some beauty!
I don't see people taking an interest unless a more modern, creative architectural space is created there. Jacksonville has plenty of "historic (old!)" to it already. Showcase some new creativity!
June 27, 2008, 2:31 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Apologies, but I have to insert shameless plug. EverBank Plaza is currently looking for retail tenants to occupy the amazing space along Riverside Avenue. I have attached some photos to show the great space. If you know someone who is interested, contact me at mcharden@hardenassociates.com. We have trolley stops at both sides of Riverside Avenue and 1,000 of employees in our building, BCBS, and FIS. Thanks for the nice comments.
June 28, 2008, 2:25 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Thanks for a great article Ennis! As a student of the FCCJ advanced campus..and always passing by I have always wondered why Lavilla School took up so much historic space? Why hasn't anyone thought of bringing back a block or two of the old school entertainment Venues?The Ritz just doesn't cut it..Imagine dragging old Blues Legends back to perform to the crowd that has always loved them.(Me too!) Didn't Ray and Leadbelly and Bo and , More than I can mention play in LaVilla before? I don't think we should be satisfied with the Ritz as the "Premier" LaVilla Entertainment venue. I Hope my Fine City has a worthy Private entertainment investor to step up to the plate. they would have to build new due to the "Demolition and figure it out later" mentality that is the usual Jax. A Serious Blues club in LaVilla could excite some of us....
June 28, 2008, 1:53 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
The EverBank Plaza is a beautiful building/complex; would have been even more awesome looking with about 15 more stories added; but anyway, can't have your cake and eat it too; still a superb and beautiful building.
Heights Unknown -
June 28, 2008, 8:59 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Lakelander, Claude Nolan would work great if it could be restored to Prairie Style and the East side of the area used for park and parking. Some of the warehouse annex stuff might have to come out, but the main buildings could stay. On the other hand I had no idea that the Sax building was a possibility or that it was as big as it is. The location is certianly great, making every tourist visit an easy on/easy off deal. Otherwise, some other building may have to do. I figure the entire Park Street row from Union Station to 5-Points is threatened. There are only a couple hidden within downtown, or NE side of Springfield. While they might have some attraction, neither would be easy to find. Maybe the RFPs will come back duds and we can offer something exciting.
Ocklawaha
July 8, 2008, 10:56 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
The Main Street "pocket park" really irritates me more than any other examples provided. Walking by it the other day, it quickly becomes apparent that it is completely useless. It is as if it is designed to be looked at and not actually used for anything. What were they thinking with this one?
July 8, 2008, 11:11 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
I think you answered it. If the high priority was to design a public space to be used everyday by a diverse collection of pedestrians, it would have never been built in that configeration or location.
July 8, 2008, 12:08 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Agreed. The park was clearly designed by amateurs, i.e. the Peyton administration. BTW, what is the photo in your avatar of? It is an interesting looking structure.
July 8, 2008, 12:18 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
It looks like a brownstone.
July 8, 2008, 1:54 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
It is a townhouse on Bull street from our neighboring city to the North, Savannah.
July 10, 2008, 9:37 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
I think their thought was that they had a vacant half lot used for library construction, and a park was easy to do.
July 11, 2008, 6:12 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
The had DOT money to spend and they used on something that drive-by voters could see.
July 11, 2008, 7:43 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
The DOT money had to be spent on Main Street. The park money came from the tree mitigation fund. So if they wanted to, they could have spent the DOT money fixing up the street and leaving the site like it was and make a little money by selling it back to the private sector.
July 13, 2008, 4:06 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
I am all for new development but in my opinion 1661 Riverside Ave is not really a good example of "Urban Infill" like the article states. Maybe "good for Jacksonville" but not good for urban development. To me this project was constructed with a very suburban mindset.
1. The retail spaces are set back too far from the street which makes them not very visible to the passerby's. The location of these parcels could of attracted some great retail had they been more visible and closer to the street.
2. The retail spaces are separated by grass and gardens which potential customers have to walk through to get to the shops. The sidewalk in front of the stores is also far too narrow.
3. The sidewalks don't line up when crossing May St (I think it's May St?) forcing you to either cross the road or walk on the grass. (Why is there grass there anyway?)
Besides that, It destroyed a beautiful building designed by one of Jacksonville's most significant architects. One which I think could of been restored to a historic landmark and became a real destination for the area.
Cheers,
Shaan
www.nest-living.com
July 13, 2008, 10:26 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
I am all for new development but in my opinion 1661 Riverside Ave is not really a good example of "Urban Infill" like the article states. Maybe "good for Jacksonville" but not good for urban development. To me this project was constructed with a very suburban mindset.
1. The retail spaces are set back too far from the street which makes them not very visible to the passerby's. The location of these parcels could of attracted some great retail had they been more visible and closer to the street.
2. The retail spaces are separated by grass and gardens which potential customers have to walk through to get to the shops. The sidewalk in front of the stores is also far too narrow.
3. The sidewalks don't line up when crossing May St (I think it's May St?) forcing you to either cross the road or walk on the grass. (Why is there grass there anyway?)
Besides that, It destroyed a beautiful building designed by one of Jacksonville's most significant architects. One which I think could of been restored to a historic landmark and became a real destination for the area.
I'm totally with you on #3 (it's actually Oak St) - it irritates me every time I walk through it. #2 is also an issue, but one that I think people deal with. I'm not sure what you mean about #1.
As far as destroying Hardwicks building, frankly I thought it was a very suburban oriented building with the parking lining the streets, and very difficult for pedestrian access.
July 13, 2008, 11:06 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
1, 2 and 3 are correct but saving Hardwick's old structure?? That thing was ghastly.
It was a huge improvement for the neighborhood when this eyesore and that of the old Riverside Hospital bit the dust.
I think the bottom line is that there are some (correctable) flaws with 1661 but, on the whole, it is an improvement and an asset to the neighborhood.
July 14, 2008, 8:33 am
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Agreed. The old building was awful. While 1661 isn't perfect, its a lot better than most of the stuff they're building around Jax.
July 14, 2008, 12:25 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
July 14, 2008, 12:48 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Ghastly parking lot that separated the building from the sidewalk, offering no connectivity between it and the urban environment around it.
The Hardwick Building was a suburban design placed in the middle of an urban area. Imo, that era represented the Dark Ages of Urban Jacksonville development (1950's-1970's) as the beginning of Jax going from a pedestrian oriented walkable city to one that values automobiles and asphalt parking lots over people and the environment.
As for the architectural style, a lot of people don't like Moderism, but at least it was unique. We should be embarrassed with the amount of crap we are putting up today.
July 14, 2008, 1:50 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Both. It was a truly awful structure with few redeeming qualities.
It was an inappropriate structure for the site the day it was built and did not fit into the context of the area well. That area was never suburban in the sense that San Jose Blvd is. It was a fairly dense area from the beginning. So, the design of the building was a step back in terms of land use. I am glad it is gone and we can always appreciate it in memory.
I seriously cannot envision how this structure was the highest and best use for this parcel. Sure, it could have been rehabbed and reused, but it was like an empty hole of lifelessness compared to what it is now.
July 14, 2008, 3:24 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.
As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...
July 14, 2008, 11:04 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
As for the architectural style, a lot of people don't like Moderism, but at least it was unique. We should be embarrassed with the amount of crap we are putting up today.
I would have to say that Modernism is much more popular in this city than preservation.
July 14, 2008, 11:19 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Neither seems to be popular to me, but preservation is an afterthought in Jacksonville.
July 15, 2008, 12:31 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.
As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...
Maybe it's proper for an Australian to say "could of"...I don't know. The grammar doesn't really upset me as much, obviously.
July 15, 2008, 12:34 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Well, here is the problem.
"Oh, it's good enough for Jacksonville.."
July 15, 2008, 12:59 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Ghastly in Design or Condition?
I have not lived in Jax for long but in my opinion when the Hardwick 1661 building was built, It was a suburban design built for a suburban area. It should be our responsibility as residents to appreciate the building for what it is and adapt and reuse it in a way that benefits the changing community while still being true to the design of what should of been a significant structure for modern architecture in Jacksonville.
The new 1661 development is a good development, considering, however it could of gone anywhere, and they chose to demolish a building that had it been given an opportunity, could of been a real asset for Jacksonville.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
Sorry to sound like a douche, but could you please use the appropriate phrase "could have" or "could've?" I don't know why but it really annoys me and now that you've done it four times I feel compelled to say something. No offense to you, anyone can make a simple mistake.
As for 1661...I'm sorry, I've never been to the new building and was not familiar with the old structure either, so I have absolutely no insight or opinion to offer. Carry on...
Maybe it's proper for an Australian to say "could of"...I don't know. The grammar doesn't really upset me as much, obviously.
Funny you say that. I had to actually look it up to see, but he (or she) is right and proved that I am an uneducated shopkeeper. He could of told me something I didn't know.
I was going to respond in typical Australian fashion but was tired.I'll just beat the shit out of him at the pub next time I see him.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
July 15, 2008, 1:37 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Actually I don't think that 1661 is simply "good enough" I happen to think that it is a great addition to that neighborhood in particular and Jacksonville in general. I like that more retail is coming into the first floor and creating a more vibrant pedestrian environment. But I suppose if you prefer an old building with a large surface parking lot separating it from the street then you would be upset with the demolition of the old structure.
July 15, 2008, 1:43 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Funny you say that. I had to actually look it up to see, but he (or she) is right and proved that I am an uneducated shopkeeper. He could of told me something I didn't know.
I was going to respond in typical Australian fashion but was tired.I'll just beat the shit out of him at the pub next time I see him.
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
LOL. yes, it is "he" and you're gonna beat the shit out of "him"...although I hope you don't. Don't take it personally, man, we all make mistakes, especially typing in message boards and forums online. For whatever reason though (it's not important to explain), I got frustrated over this one, and since you did it four out of four times I thought it was clearly not just a typo. And I was right...now that you've looked it up, you know the proper wording.
As for the "uneducated shopkeeper," I'm aware you're just being facetiously self-deprecating, but nevertheless I'll respond. I've just recently nurtured an interest in urban development, transit planning and downtown revitalization...so while I'm quite ignorant of these topics, I've learned a tremendous amount from everyone's opinions, yours among them. I really appreciate all the insight, uneducated shopkeepers' included.
July 15, 2008, 2:20 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
LOL. yes, it is "he" and you're gonna beat the shit out of "him"...although I hope you don't. Don't take it personally, man, we all make mistakes, especially typing in message boards and forums online. For whatever reason though (it's not important to explain), I got frustrated over this one, and since you did it four out of four times I thought it was clearly not just a typo. And I was right...now that you've looked it up, you know the proper wording.
As for the "uneducated shopkeeper," I'm aware you're just being facetiously self-deprecating, but nevertheless I'll respond. I've just recently nurtured an interest in urban development, transit planning and downtown revitalization...so while I'm quite ignorant of these topics, I've learned a tremendous amount from everyone's opinions, yours among them. I really appreciate all the insight, uneducated shopkeepers' included.
no worries...I am cool with my terrible spelling and writing skills. You should however add modern American design to your list of interests, as it seems as though we need some support in this city. In many major cities throughout the world that building would of been celebrated and in my opinion by having it demolished, was very simple minded. We as a city need to be better at blending architectural styles and quit making new construction look old. The rest of the world has, and it changes the fabric of an area and adds to it's appeal.
One day we are going to be pissed that we as a city destroyed a really cool era in architecture.
FYI. I think that nestliving has a really good collection of design/Urban Infill/Architecture/Sustainability books for you to check out!
Cheers,
Shaan
nest-living.com
July 15, 2008, 7:05 pm
Re: Urban Infill: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly
Actually I don't think that 1661 is simply "good enough" I happen to think that it is a great addition to that neighborhood in particular and Jacksonville in general. I like that more retail is coming into the first floor and creating a more vibrant pedestrian environment. But I suppose if you prefer an old building with a large surface parking lot separating it from the street then you would be upset with the demolition of the old structure.
It's not an either/or argument for me. The lot could have been used in a much better way, and I agree with Shaan about the problems the new building carries.
I think the surface lot of the old 1661 could have been in-filled with something and kept the structure itself intact.
Just look at the horrible behemoths they were going to replace the old library with, until finally, a group came up with a plan to use the existing building.
Rehabs can be done, they're just sometimes not easy...and Jacksonville loves "easy".
What are the benefits of having a MetroJacksonville.com account?
- Share your opinion by posting comments on stories that interest you.
- Stay up to date on all of the latest issues affecting your neighborhood.
- Create a network of friends working towards a better Jacksonville.
>> Register now <<