Thursday, December 4thAdvertising  |  About Us  |  Contact Us
Jackson Square Controversy Brewing Print E-mail
Tuesday, 26 August 2008

 

Opposition is brewing in San Marco concerning the impact of Jacksonville's latest proposed transit oriented development.  Can common ground be found between opposing sides?

 What is Jackson Square?

Jackson Square is a 17.2 acre transit oriented development proposed between a potential JTA commuter rail line and a blighted section of Philips Highway.  If approved, the two phase project will replace an abandoned car dealership with 900 apartments, 200,000 square feet of office space and 150,000 square feet of boutique retail space.


What is a TOD?

TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT is a fast growing trend in creating vibrant, livable communities. Also known as Transit Oriented Design, or TOD, it is the creation of compact, walkable communities centered around high quality train systems. This makes it possible to live a higher quality life without complete dependence on a car for mobility and survival.


COMPONENTS OF TRANSIT ORIENTED DESIGN

-Walkable design with pedestrian as the highest priority
-Train station as prominent feature of town center
-A regional node containing a mixture of uses in close proximity including office, residential, retail, and civic uses
-High density, high-quality development within 10-minute walk circle surrounding train station
-Collector support transit systems including trolleys, streetcars, light rail, and buses, etc
-Designed to include the easy use of bicycles, scooters, and rollerblades as daily support transportation systems
-Reduced and managed parking inside 10-minute walk circle around town center / train station

BENEFITS

-Higher quality of life
-Better places to live, work, and play
-Greater mobility with ease of moving around
-Increased transit ridership
-Reduced traffic congestion and driving
-Reduced car accidents and injuries
-Reduced household spending on transportation, resulting in more affordable housing
-Healthier lifestyle with more walking, and less stress
-Higher, more stable property values
-Increased foot traffic and customers for area businesses
-Greatly reduced dependence on foreign oil
-Greatly reduced pollution and environmental destruction
-Reduced incentive to sprawl, increased incentive for compact development
-Less expensive than building roads and sprawl
-Enhanced ability to maintain economic competitiveness

http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/

 

 

Examples of Transit Oriented Developments


Saltillo Lofts

City: Austin, TX
Year completed: 2006
Mass Transit Option: Metrorail (commuter rail)


Saltillo Lofts is a mixed-income development within walking distance to commercial corridors, major employment centers, and urban neighborhoods. The transit oriented and pedestrian-friendly nature of the project reduces automobile use/air pollution and creates a vibrant metropolitan atmosphere. Eleven of the development's 29 units are priced for residents making 80% of Austin's median family income. This development resuscitated an area of town that was previously considered undesirable, and created housing for an often overlooked group of homebuyers who don't want to live in a suburban area yet can't quite afford central city prices.

http://www.austinenergy.com/energy%20efficiency/programs/

 

The Promenade Rio Vista

City: San Diego, CA
Year completed: 2003
Mass Transit Option: San Diego Trolley (light rail)
Description: 970-unit upscale apartment complex


"Think how nice it would be to welcome your friends over to a place that perfectly reflects your sophisticated style. Imagine leaving the car at home and still being able to get to your favorite destinations easily. Consider the rewards of refreshingly civilized living..."

Welcome to The Promenade Rio Vista, the most unique and desirable apartment community in San Diego, “America’s finest city.” A self-contained village in the heart of vibrant Mission Valley, The Promenade truly has it all.
http://www.promenadeliving.com

 

Dadeland Station

City: Miami, FL
Year completed: 1996
Mass Transit Option: Miami Metrorail (heavy rail)

Dadeland Station was a joint-development effort between BDG and the Metro-Dade Transit Authority. Dade County successfully converted a surplus and dormant, County-owned surface parking lot into an income-producing asset estimated to produce in excess of $100,000,000 taxpayers over its 90 year lease term.

Dadeland Station combines architectural and urban innovation with a strategic rethinking of the commercial retail mall in the creation of the first, major vertical power center in the United States. By stacking multiple “big-box” retailers on top of each other, the development team creatively placed 350,000 square feet of retail space and a 1,450-car, vertical parking lot onto a constrained 7.5-acre tract of land. A covered galleria, on an urban scale and visible on the Miami skyline, provides direct, covered access from the three levels of the retail complex to the six-level garage.

BDG is the Developer and 60% Owner of the Dadeland Station Shopping Center. Dadeland Station is a 350,000 ± sq. ft. vertical power center located adjacent to Dadeland Mall and the Dadeland North Metrorail Station at US Highway 1 and the Snapper Creek Expressway [SR 878], in Miami, Florida.
www.berkowitzdevelopment.com/aboutus.htm

 

 

Streetcar Lofts

City: Portland, OR
Year completed: 2001
Mass Transit Option: Portland Streetcar (streetcar)
Description: 135 condominium units with street level retail. 

 


The Streetcar Lofts are located at 12th and Lovejoy. The ‘Go By Streetcar’ sign and the Streetcar Lofts are one of the most recognized residences in Portland.

Streetcar Lofts broke the mold in downtown Portland living. Built to look like an historic Soho loft building, Streetcar earned national architecture awards for its industrial architecture and interior features.
http://pearldistrict.com/pearl-district-streetcar-lofts.html

 

Philips Highway Today:

Recent images show that the Philips Highway corridor is in need of a makeover.

 



 

 

 

The Opposition:

Although Jackson Square faces Philips Highway, nearby River Oaks Road residents fear the development will negatively impact their community by bringing additional traffic to their neighborhood.  Some also believe that the Southside's first potential transit oriented development will lead to lower property values and a reduction in the quality of life for their neighborhood. 

Most are calling for the city to close the River Oaks Road railroad crossing and want the developer to support them in their effort.  Some are even threatening to oppose the approval of the development altogether if this is not done.

Single family residences line River Oaks Road on the west side of the railroad crossing.  Residents fear the approval of Jackson Square will result in a large number of drivers using their neighborhood street as a shortcut between Philips Highway and San Jose Blvd.

The Florida East Coast Railway separates the River Oaks Road community and the Jackson Square property.

 


The Con of Closing River Oaks:

Closing the only crossing over the railroad tracks between Atlantic Blvd. and St. Augustine Road, River Oaks residents driving east will create the traffic they are fighting to keep off their street. It is a solution that eliminates multiple access points, which serve to diffuse through traffic, and ultimately ends up making traffic congestion and sprawl much worse.

Closing the railroad crossing and restricting traffic flow to single streets follows a path of road planning that has historically led to major congestion on arterial highways.

 

The Pro of Closing River Oaks: 

Closing the crossing would eliminate most of the River Oaks community's opposition.  FEC would likely favor closing the crossing because it reduces their exposure to accidents and trespassers.  Closing the crossing could even become a concession that could help allow commuter rail along this rail corridor in the future.

 


Metro Jacksonville's Position:

It is Metro Jacksonville's opinion that if we are serious about curbing sprawl and becoming more sustainable, Jackson Square is the type of development Jacksonville needs.  It also appears that the closing of River Oaks Road and the rezoning approval of Jackson Square are two separate issues.  This is because, regardless of whether the River Oaks crossing is closed, the Jackson Square development's main access point is Philips Highway.  The opening or closing of the River Oaks crossing does not appear to impact the design of the development in any fashion.

While the discussion of closing River Oaks Road needs to be seriously vetted, its a separate issue that should not be tied to the rezoning approval of Jackson Square, unless a completed traffic study deems it necessary.  However, we fully believe JTA, the planning department, River Oaks residents and the developer should work together to develop solution that enhances both the existing community and the proposed development.

 

The latest site plan shows most of the development's vehicular movement positioned to feed into Philips Highway.  A secondary access point connects to River Oaks Road.  Depending on the results of a traffic study, a right-in/right-out or right-in/left-out could help reduce any potential negative traffic impacts to River Oaks Road.

One issue that has been overlooked is the fact that surface parking will sit between this development and Philips Highway.  To better encourage walkability and stimulate similar development, the buildings should be moved to front Philips Highway.

 

Jackson Square with surface parking lots between Philips Highway and the buildings.

 

Jackson Square with buildings next to sidewalks, as opposed to surface parking lots.

 

Public Hearing Meeting Dates

Application Number: R-2008-563


City Council - Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 5:00P.M.
(Procedure: Formal hearing, 3-limit, no general discussion.)

Planning Commission - Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 1:00P.M.
(Procedure: Public Meeting. Technical review and advisory recommendation to the LUZ Committee.  Opportunity to speak at the discretion of the Chairman.)

Land Use & Zoning Committee - Wednesday, September 3, 2008 at 5:00P.M.
(Procedure: All testimony will be heard, and this committee recommends a proposed final action to the full City Council.  The Planning and Development Department and applicant/representative should be present with information.)

 

What Can You Do?

Regardless of your position, it is important to let city officials hear your voice.  To voice your support, opposition, or concerns regarding the approval of this development, contact the City Council to express your concerns. 

 Send an email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

Article written by Ennis Davis

 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Latest Features

Latest News

Related Articles

SeaGrove: St. Augustine Beach gets it right
SeaGrove is a 116 acre mixed-use, pedestrian friendly community located in St. Augustine Beach. This community is a great example of quality land...
Transit Oriented Development: Emeryville, CA
The development of the Emeryville Amtrak Station and the surrounding office, retail and residential uses provides a unique example of a long-term, multiphase redevelopment oriented...
Downtown Construction Update - August 2007
The August update of Downtown's construction projects.  
>> 144 Comments
jeh1980
August 26, 2008, 5:18 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Jacksonville needs this project if you ask me! I don't see why we shouldn't built it.
stjohnsguy
August 26, 2008, 7:05 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

That would be a major improvement to that stretch of Phillips Hwy.I guess the ladies of the night would have to relocate to Beaver Street.Sounds right!!!!Just Kidding ..I hope this is built
.
gatorback
August 26, 2008, 7:38 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Try it; you'll like it.  Trust me.  I know. Wink
Ocklawaha
August 26, 2008, 9:58 am
Crossing + Dollars

Another benefit of closing the crossing is the city earns money $$, Yeah, the DOT has a program to help close excess rail crossings and the perks are around 10/20,000 per. Not a fortune, but money that will buy some nice benches, or a kiosk in that park.

Add to this, the "good will" if we did it telling the FEC this is just the start, allow commter rail and we'll be bridging or closing a bunch more. To the railroad that spells safety, liability relief and dollars. Sometimes Millions of dollars.


OCKLAWAHA
Jason
August 26, 2008, 10:18 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I definitely like the alternative of moving the building on the west side of Philips to the roadside.  The eastside of the development where the residential is proposed already does this.  Plus, it will make the walk that much shorter for the residents and commuters to access.
cayohueso
August 26, 2008, 10:28 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

What? Tear down Money Earnin' Mount Vernon Motor Lodge? Now I'll have to find another hotel for the inlaws this Christmas.
brooklynborn
August 26, 2008, 10:30 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I agree that it should be store front we have enough surface parking lots in jax already. One thing that I would like to see is the skyway going down phillips hwy. It would bring alot of foot traffic along the corridor making phillips a destination and oneday hopefully it could make it all the way to the avenues mall (HOPEFULLY).
Ocklawaha
August 26, 2008, 10:58 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Quote
One thing that I would like to see is the skyway going down phillips hwy. It would bring alot of foot traffic along the corridor making phillips a destination and oneday hopefully it could make it all the way to the avenues mall (HOPEFULLY).

The Skyway is not designed as a regional system, rather a short distance downtown carrier-shuttle. It certainly needs expansion to become truely viable, but this is in the Brooklyn-North Riverside, Stadium-Bay Street, King Street Station-San Marco segments. Extensions to the new Courthouse, to Myrtle, or North to Shands are not impossible either.

At least one plan for Jackson Square calls for the Skyway to reach the development. Otherwise, Avenues and points south all the way to St. Augustine will have to be commuter rail (the Skyway is expensive). Light Rail might also play into the picture, but I think more in an eastward direction to the beaches.


OCKLAWAHA
brooklynborn
August 26, 2008, 11:29 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I see what u mean ock. my head was in the clouds
brooklynborn
August 26, 2008, 11:34 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

yo ock i think u should make a map of the all the places the skyway should go so i can get a idea of the area. I'm new in jax
midnightblackrx
August 26, 2008, 12:16 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I can't really see why residents on River Oaks would want the access to be blocked across the rail lines???

Suppose this project does lift off the ground and there are retail stores popping up along Philips, do they really want to drive North to Atlantic cross over and get to Philips?  They may be regretting that in the future if they do succeed in shutting down access.

I hope this project does go through...as long as the area doesn't clean up to the point where it's no longer entertaining to drive along Philips Hwy afterwork.
thelakelander
August 26, 2008, 12:39 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

That's the negative in closing the crossing.  Grids typically work better than Cul-de-sacs.  River Oaks residents will most likely end up driving to the retail shops (one site plan shows a pharmacy like a Walgreens/CVS) and restaurants that this center will offer.  This means they'll most likely use the residential streets just to the south that connect San Jose Blvd. with St. Augustine Road.  So the negative impact of going to an arterial based suburban road layout is you end up increasing traffic on a few similar streets, to reduce traffic on one.  By keeping all streets open, you spread out traffic on several streets because drivers (River Oaks drivers included) have multiple access points to reach various destinations.

I would assume another reason for closing the crossing would be to eliminate direct access between a lower and higher income area.  Anyway, I can't speak for River Oaks residents.  I'm sure as the public debates begin, everyone will learn more about the existing community's desire.  The main thing is that even if everyone does not see eye to eye, everyone must be willing to work together to create a project the entire community can be proud of. 
southerngirl
August 26, 2008, 2:00 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Gotta weigh in here on the neighbors' side:

In theory - the "spread the traffic out" concept makes sense. However, in reality, River Oaks Road is the most direct link and people use the heck out of it today.  That's ONLY going to get worse with apartments and retail. There's no way you're going to convince the neighbors that the traffic will use Philips Hwy exclusively. See attached pictures of River Oaks on a congested day this July. Again, PRE-Jax Sq.

By the way -- why is there NO discussion of using the roads on the OTHER side of the development -- Perry Place, Mitchell Avenue, Bethune -- as access. Well, first of all -- the city gave a number of them away to the developer. But there are still some that are open and not being considered as access points to the development AT ALL.  Wonder what property owners over there did to get access from their side restricted?

Back to the RR crossing issue: this is a dangerous crossing that simply cannot handle more traffic. Evidence of this can be found in a COJ-sponsored study of the crossing in 2006 that recommended its closure. FEC FULLY supports closing the crossing and has VOLUNTEERED to pay for the removal of the signals ($100K) and the barricades that will be necessary.

I also somewhat disagree with the theory put forward here that Jackson Sq and the River Oaks crossing closing are two separate issues. The traffic impact of Jackson Square is what is pushing the neighborhood into protective mode. Sure, we wanted the crossing closed before because it's dangerous, but the risk escalates exponentially as you put hundreds more cars on this barely two lane street.

Here's a picture of the road on a busy day. Tell me that hundreds more cars on here is a good idea.
southerngirl
August 26, 2008, 2:03 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

pictures included here...

First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)

Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)
southerngirl
August 26, 2008, 2:06 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I can't really see why residents on River Oaks would want the access to be blocked across the rail lines???

Suppose this project does lift off the ground and there are retail stores popping up along Philips, do they really want to drive North to Atlantic cross over and get to Philips?  They may be regretting that in the future if they do succeed in shutting down access.

I hope this project does go through...as long as the area doesn't clean up to the point where it's no longer entertaining to drive along Philips Hwy afterwork.

We would do what you people want us to -- WE WOULD WALK!!!
aceman
August 26, 2008, 3:36 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Being a San Marco resident of 35 years, I am trying to understand the benefit. For one thing: Is the ferderally subsidized housing?, Since there will be 950 units, that means, at least over 1,900 temporary residents, which means probably over 1,000 vehicles. That is a huge impact on that small corridor., Does everybody realize that the Skyway is not city funded but federally funded since it's inception?, If the feds have not extended so far, what makes you think they will now? They havent even extended it to the stadium. And for the retail, which is my business, until it's built, anything can change even after initial planning approval. They show an electronics store. You think Best Buy. It will probably be a Save-a-Lot. You see an office supply and think Ofice Depot. It will probably be some sort of mega pawn shop. Thank God the FDOT has access approval. I'm not trying to stereo-type, I'm just saying that this project has the potential to do more harm than good. And I'm sure that they will be asking for some sort of city assistance, being loans, real estate tax deferment, etc. The city and taxpayers got burned with the shipyards, do you think that the city and tax payers can't get burned again.
BridgeTroll
August 26, 2008, 3:42 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

What do the residents of San Marco want there?  All would agree that what is/was there was very rundown.  I am sure we do not need another strip mall complete with Taco Bell and McDonalds...
hound dog
August 26, 2008, 3:42 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Yup, River Oaks Road clearly doesn't have the capacity to handle any more traffic.  This traffic would come from a chunk of the 900+ residents using it as a short cut to Hendricks (especially those with kids at Hendricks elementary), and retail-generated traffic from San Marco.  It's already everybody's favorite short-cut, and the main arteries can handle the diversion of its closure. Is anyone proposing that a residential street take pressure off of 4-lane roads like Atlantic?

Residents would be more likely favor the development if:

-direct access to River Oaks Road via Summerall were eliminated.  This would take some short-cut pressure off the street.

-sufficient on-site parking were required. The PUD application for Jackson Square calls for only half the parking capacity required by zoning laws.  This creates an incentive for people to park on side streets, especially River Oaks Road.

-JTA makes contracts and commitments for a light rail/BRT station at Jackson Square.  Current JTA studies recommend Emerson Street over Jackson Square for a station because it has everything River Oaks doesn't: a multi-lane east/west corridor, existing commuter parking, & an improved rail crossing.  If Jackson Square gets passed over for a transit station, you can bet there'll be a lot more cars going down River Oaks Road.

-residential units were reduced by half or two-thirds the current number.  Any way you slice it, more residents=more traffic. 900 units=a lot of traffic.

See, River Oaks Road is already pedestrian friendly.  It's a 10-minute walk to San Marco Square.  It's already transit friendly; you can hop on the bus at Hendricks or Phillips.  It's not like it's a swanky neighborhood; it's solid working/middle class.  I can understand why residents wouldn't want their quality of life to go south in the name of what they already have.

I'm all in favor of infill/transit-oriented/pedestrian-friendly development, as long as it's proportional, sensitive to its surroundings, and safe from a traffic angle.  TOD's are meant to reduce traffic, not increase it.

Thanks for readin'.
BridgeTroll
August 26, 2008, 3:44 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

What do the residents of San Marco want there?  All would agree that what is/was there was very rundown.  I am sure we do not need another strip mall complete with Taco Bell and McDonalds...

My apologies... I meant the side facing Phillips... NOT the surrounding homeowners...
Coolyfett
August 26, 2008, 5:26 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

That's the negative in closing the crossing.  Grids typically work better than Cul-de-sacs.  River Oaks residents will most likely end up driving to the retail shops (one site plan shows a pharmacy like a Walgreens/CVS) and restaurants that this center will offer.  This means they'll most likely use the residential streets just to the south that connect San Jose Blvd. with St. Augustine Road.  So the negative impact of going to an arterial based suburban road layout is you end up increasing traffic on a few similar streets, to reduce traffic on one.  By keeping all streets open, you spread out traffic on several streets because drivers (River Oaks drivers included) have multiple access points to reach various destinations.

Lake is on point with this. Perfect example is College, Post, Forbes, Park, Riverside Ave during rush hour. When they were redoing Park Street, Post & College got packed more then they normally did. I don't think closing that rail crossing is a good idea.
tufsu1
August 26, 2008, 6:04 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

pictures included here...

First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)

Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)

omg...there is ONE car moving down the road...the others appear to be parked!
tufsu1
August 26, 2008, 6:07 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I can't really see why residents on River Oaks would want the access to be blocked across the rail lines???

Suppose this project does lift off the ground and there are retail stores popping up along Philips, do they really want to drive North to Atlantic cross over and get to Philips?  They may be regretting that in the future if they do succeed in shutting down access.

I hope this project does go through...as long as the area doesn't clean up to the point where it's no longer entertaining to drive along Philips Hwy afterwork.

from what I hear, some neighbors also want a massive wall where River Oaks would get closed off...if that gets built, how would you walk to Jackson Square?


We would do what you people want us to -- WE WOULD WALK!!!
tufsu1
August 26, 2008, 6:13 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Being a San Marco resident of 35 years, I am trying to understand the benefit. For one thing: Is the ferderally subsidized housing?, Since there will be 950 units, that means, at least over 1,900 temporary residents, which means probably over 1,000 vehicles. That is a huge impact on that small corridor., Does everybody realize that the Skyway is not city funded but federally funded since it's inception?, If the feds have not extended so far, what makes you think they will now? They havent even extended it to the stadium. And for the retail, which is my business, until it's built, anything can change even after initial planning approval. They show an electronics store. You think Best Buy. It will probably be a Save-a-Lot. You see an office supply and think Ofice Depot. It will probably be some sort of mega pawn shop. Thank God the FDOT has access approval. I'm not trying to stereo-type, I'm just saying that this project has the potential to do more harm than good. And I'm sure that they will be asking for some sort of city assistance, being loans, real estate tax deferment, etc. The city and taxpayers got burned with the shipyards, do you think that the city and tax payers can't get burned again.

I strongly disagree...first off, there is nothing that implies this project is federally subsidized housing...it will likely be fairly upscale, taking advantage of the proximity to Downtown, Southbank, San Marco, and Riverside....if traffic was your only real concern, you would not have even mentioned the potential of "lower class" people living there.

Since you are a resident of San Marco you should clearly understand the lack of basic retail in the area...I mean the closest grocery stores are Publix at University/St. Augustine and Winn Dixie at University/Hendricks...so what makes you think that things like a grocery store, Best Buy, and Office Depot can't happen?
 
tufsu1
August 26, 2008, 7:02 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

THIS JUST IN...

City Council just heard public comment on this project....but they have agreed to re-open the comment period at the 9/9 meeting ( 2 weeks)

The project approval timeline will also have a 4 week extension in order to allow more coordinatoion between the developer, the neighborhood, and City staff.
southerngirl
August 26, 2008, 8:44 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

pictures included here...

First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)

Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)

omg...there is ONE car moving down the road...the others appear to be parked!

EXACTLY!  When there are cars parked on both sides of River Oaks -- the street CANNOT handle two lanes of traffic.   The cars in these shots on the sides of the road ARE PARKED!  And only one car can get down it. 

NOW, imagine that same street, PLUS Jackson Sq. traffic, PLUS the speed bumps some people think will solve the problem. Oh yeah -- a train  -- or MANY MORE TRAINS -- are coming.  What do you do???
tufsu1
August 26, 2008, 9:08 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

pictures included here...

First is River Oaks looking WEST (toward traffic light @ Hendricks)

Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)

omg...there is ONE car moving down the road...the others appear to be parked!

EXACTLY!  When there are cars parked on both sides of River Oaks -- the street CANNOT handle two lanes of traffic.   The cars in these shots on the sides of the road ARE PARKED!  And only one car can get down it. 

NOW, imagine that same street, PLUS Jackson Sq. traffic, PLUS the speed bumps some people think will solve the problem. Oh yeah -- a train  -- or MANY MORE TRAINS -- are coming.  What do you do???

simple...the same thing done in most places....either yield (which you all probably do now)...or if its really an issue, restrict on-street parking to one side of the road.
civil42806
August 26, 2008, 9:25 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I'm sorry but whenever you see this type of plan its always important to ask if the housing would be available for section 8 subsides.   The atlantic ran a great story on memphis and the effects of section 8 dispersal

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/memphis-crime

Having lived in a development that was destroyed by section 8 housing, its a question that has to be asked.
avonjax
August 26, 2008, 11:29 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I think the real issue here is everyone says they encourage and want to see projects like these, but not in their neighborhoods....
That section of San Marco on Philips has been a slum for years and unless something like this kind of developement happens it will be a slum for the next 50 years.
Even the location leads me to think it will be a pretty decent project.
And as for all the cars parked on River Oaks, how can moderate size houses have so many cars anyway?
I live on a similar street in Avondale and there are 3 or 4 cars per house which means 2 of them have to be parked on the street. And most of the houses on my street are between 1000 to maybe 1400 sq ft with 2 to 3 bedrooms....
It's a giant pain to back out of your driveway and sometimes  cars gets backed into or sideswiped. BUT on the plus side most people avoid my street because you HAVE to drive slowly to navigate....
So River Oaks could be bumper cars or not nearly as bad as you might think. At least you can be sure people probably won't be able to speed through.....



hound dog
August 26, 2008, 11:56 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

First: If River Oaks is like my street, it gets a lot of residential services: delivery trucks, yard services, cable trucks, the works.  That's where on-street parking cannot be fixed by residents just parking in their driveways.

Second: Who wouldn't love, LOVE to have a transit oriented development in their neighborhood.  Hop a train downtown, or to St. Augustine.  But, will JTA build light rail?  And will they build a station at Jackson Square?  Will there be transit?

Third: Quality retail would be TERRIFIC.  I hear they need a grocery store.

BUT...

900 apartments? on 17 acres? 50+ units per acre? 900+ cars and only half the parking? 90 foot towers?

That's just too BIG.  And it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fit that on the space. What nobody here gets is that Jackson Square has applied for waivers on ALL RESTRICTIONS so they can build whatever they want if their pie in the sky doesn't bake.  Their zoning application bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the lovely renderings you see above.

So scale back the residential portion.  Get a 50/50 residential/retail ratio. Provide sufficient parking ON SITE.  Limit height to 3 or 4 stories.  Get a contract with JTA and guarantee the transit.  It can't be all or nothing, folks; we've got to find a middle ground.  Middle ground makes for livable neighborhoods.

If River Oaks wants to close their crossing and miss out on a good thing, let 'em.  But they'd better get behind speed bumps on their parallel streets.  They'd owe it to their neighbors.
hound dog
August 27, 2008, 12:03 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

P.S.  As I understand it, Jackson Square is privately backed, and is receiving no federal dollars for construction.  They hope to convert from apartments to condos several years down the line.  I'm rooting for that scenario, but that's leaving a lot to chance.  And it doesn't preclude HUD conversion 8 years after it's been built.  Just because the feds aren't on board now doesn't mean they won't be later.

thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 12:38 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

P.S.  As I understand it, Jackson Square is privately backed, and is receiving no federal dollars for construction.  They hope to convert from apartments to condos several years down the line.  I'm rooting for that scenario, but that's leaving a lot to chance.  And it doesn't preclude HUD conversion 8 years after it's been built.  Just because the feds aren't on board now doesn't mean they won't be later.

What type of HUD housing comes with multiple private swimming pools, multiple parking garages and 350,000 square feet of office/retail space?  The investment it would take to get something like this off the ground eliminates the possibility of it converting to HUD housing.  The land would sit vacant before that happens.
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 12:57 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

First: If River Oaks is like my street, it gets a lot of residential services: delivery trucks, yard services, cable trucks, the works.  That's where on-street parking cannot be fixed by residents just parking in their driveways.

Second: Who wouldn't love, LOVE to have a transit oriented development in their neighborhood.  Hop a train downtown, or to St. Augustine.  But, will JTA build light rail?  And will they build a station at Jackson Square?  Will there be transit?

Good point.  The commuter rail study does not recommend a station being added at Jackson Square.  However, the station locations identified so far are only being done so to generate ridership numbers.  There's nothing stopping a potential system from having a station at Emerson AND Jackson Square (assuming its built).  Nevertheless, there should be some commitment from JTA regarding mass transit coming into the area.  I assume the commitment right now is BRT, not commuter rail.

Quote
Third: Quality retail would be TERRIFIC.  I hear they need a grocery store.

BUT...

900 apartments? on 17 acres? 50+ units per acre? 900+ cars and only half the parking? 90 foot towers?

That's just too BIG.  And it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to fit that on the space. What nobody here gets is that Jackson Square has applied for waivers on ALL RESTRICTIONS so they can build whatever they want if their pie in the sky doesn't bake.  Their zoning application bears NO RESEMBLANCE to the lovely renderings you see above.

They have 17.31 acres.  That's a lot of land for a vertical project.  The site is ideal for a project of this magnitude.

Quote
So scale back the residential portion.  Get a 50/50 residential/retail ratio. Provide sufficient parking ON SITE.  Limit height to 3 or 4 stories.  Get a contract with JTA and guarantee the transit.  It can't be all or nothing, folks; we've got to find a middle ground.  Middle ground makes for livable neighborhoods.

Retail generates more traffic then residential.  Going 50/50 would increase the proposed amount of traffic.  There are other ways to meet the middle ground, then reducing components that may end up in the development becoming unfeasible.

Quote
If River Oaks wants to close their crossing and miss out on a good thing, let 'em.  But they'd better get behind speed bumps on their parallel streets.  They'd owe it to their neighbors.

I'm torn on this one.  On one end, I see how closing the crossing can be a negative for automobile traffic movement.  However, closing it benefits the effort to bring commuter rail to this corridor.  As for River Oaks residents walking to this development (someone mentioned this in an earlier post), that brings just as much liability to FEC as the existing crossing does (unless a pedestrian overpass is constructed).
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 1:05 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Residents would be more likely favor the development if:

-direct access to River Oaks Road via Summerall were eliminated.  This would take some short-cut pressure off the street.

-sufficient on-site parking were required. The PUD application for Jackson Square calls for only half the parking capacity required by zoning laws.  This creates an incentive for people to park on side streets, especially River Oaks Road.


Assuming the crossing is closed, does having a restriction in off-street parking even matter?  Its well known that our current zoning laws require more parking than actually needed.  This defeats the purposes of having a TOD. Besides, most vibrant urban areas take advantage of on-street parking.  A closed River Oaks (east of the tracks) offers the opportunity for existing public infrastructure to be used for excess parking.
midnightblackrx
August 27, 2008, 7:15 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Civil - Interesting article and interesting point.  It is a valid question and I would not be satisfied if I lived in the area and it were not addressed. 

I have seen areas though, such the Gateway Project in Columbus, OH that have transformed crack-ridden areas into attractive residential and commercial destinations.
aceman
August 27, 2008, 11:01 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

First of all I didn't say it was federally funded. I just asked the question. Also, if you read the post traffic is not my only concern. As I live within 1/4 mile of this proposed project, crime is also a concern. Next, I do understand the lack of a grocery store. I really could care less about having other retail as Lakewood and Riverside are within a 5 minute drive. Now lets get to the real point of your comment. Do you truely believe that tgis will be upscale. Allow me to take you for a walk down Philips. Immediately south on the left is federally subsidized housing. I guess the government will evict all tenant's in lieu of this project. Then we stroll alittle further to the road that leads to Douglas Anderson. This is a very low income neighborhood. I guess they will be asked to relocate. Then further down on the right, we have the juvenile detention facility, encased in barbed wire. I guess the city will jump on relocating this also. Then, of course on the left, we have the adult only motel. I am sure that, when family members come in town for holidays to catch up with other family members living in this upscale development, they will have a close place to stay. Go a little further down and on thright we have another transient motel, albeit newly painted. The we have Emerson, gotta love Sable Palms subsidized housing to the right and to the left you have Wakko's. I heard they have a great lunch special. I can keep going on and on but if you think that people will do a drive by and pay top dollar for an upscale in this neighborhood, when maybe 10 years down the road it may be cleaned up a little, your crazy. They know this.  Plus If someone was going to pay top dollar, why wouldn't they buy into one af the several units available on the river? The reason they stopped construction on the East San Marco development is because of the glut in high end condos and apartments, so your saying that someone is going against the grain and is smarter than Regency and St. Joe. OK. Besides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?
Being a San Marco resident of 35 years, I am trying to understand the benefit. For one thing: Is the ferderally subsidized housing?, Since there will be 950 units, that means, at least over 1,900 temporary residents, which means probably over 1,000 vehicles. That is a huge impact on that small corridor., Does everybody realize that the Skyway is not city funded but federally funded since it's inception?, If the feds have not extended so far, what makes you think they will now? They havent even extended it to the stadium. And for the retail, which is my business, until it's built, anything can change even after initial planning approval. They show an electronics store. You think Best Buy. It will probably be a Save-a-Lot. You see an office supply and think Ofice Depot. It will probably be some sort of mega pawn shop. Thank God the FDOT has access approval. I'm not trying to stereo-type, I'm just saying that this project has the potential to do more harm than good. And I'm sure that they will be asking for some sort of city assistance, being loans, real estate tax deferment, etc. The city and taxpayers got burned with the shipyards, do you think that the city and tax payers can't get burned again.

I strongly disagree...first off, there is nothing that implies this project is federally subsidized housing...it will likely be fairly upscale, taking advantage of the proximity to Downtown, Southbank, San Marco, and Riverside....if traffic was your only real concern, you would not have even mentioned the potential of "lower class" people living there.

Since you are a resident of San Marco you should clearly understand the lack of basic retail in the area...I mean the closest grocery stores are Publix at University/St. Augustine and Winn Dixie at University/Hendricks...so what makes you think that things like a grocery store, Best Buy, and Office Depot can't happen?
 
hound dog
August 27, 2008, 11:07 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Lakelander, good points.  Thanks for the constructive dialog!
cline
August 27, 2008, 11:36 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Quote
I can keep going on and on but if you think that people will do a drive by and pay top dollar for an upscale in this neighborhood, when maybe 10 years down the road it may be cleaned up a little, your crazy. They know this.  Plus If someone was going to pay top dollar, why wouldn't they buy into one af the several units available on the river? The reason they stopped construction on the East San Marco development is because of the glut in high end condos and apartments, so your saying that someone is going against the grain and is smarter than Regency and St. Joe. OK.

As was mentioned by a previous poster, revitalization has to start somewhere.  You mention that in 10 years the  road might be cleaned up a little.  How can this happen if new projects can never get off the ground?  Should the land just remain an abandoned lot?  That's not going to start any revitalization.

Perhaps the developer should just scrap this project and build another strip joint or seedy motel.  That way it would fit in with the current fabric of Philips Highway.  Why even try to make a change for the better, right?
JeffreyS
August 27, 2008, 11:51 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

The question of can this area be improved easily with development is a no brainer.  Lets see St. Nicholas, the south bank and FREAKIN San Marco are on it's borders.  I just do not understand the keep it pristine for the prostitutes plan of preserving quality of life and home values. So people who rent apartments are worse than hookers, drug dealers, abandoned properties and seedy motels.  At least the traffic argument makes sense and should be addressed but this fear that the developers will drag Phillips highway down is ridiculous.
David
August 27, 2008, 11:51 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

This is only loosely related to the topic, but River Oaks road is the epitome of the "wrong side of the tracks" cliché. I use it on a daily basis to cut from Phillips to Hendricks, the very reason the nearby residents want it closed off.  The transition from down-trodden hooker infested slum to lovely historic tree lined neighborhood is instantaneous! I mean BAM as soon as you cross the tracks it's noticeable. You'd think they would have wanted  it already closed off in the past just to separate their neighborhood from the seedy Phillips corridor.

Also, didn't the residents of River Hills drive at Univ & Atlantic have a similar push years ago to block their street off for the same reason?



I'm not sure if they were successful with the push to close the road and if they were, i'm curious if the traffic calming benefits was really worth it.
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 11:52 am
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Lakelander, good points.  Thanks for the constructive dialog!

No problem.  I believe everyone having constructive dialog is a sound way to come up and implement solutions that make all parties winners in the end.
David
August 27, 2008, 12:08 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

That's the negative in closing the crossing.  Grids typically work better than Cul-de-sacs.  River Oaks residents will most likely end up driving to the retail shops (one site plan shows a pharmacy like a Walgreens/CVS) and restaurants that this center will offer.  This means they'll most likely use the residential streets just to the south that connect San Jose Blvd. with St. Augustine Road.  So the negative impact of going to an arterial based suburban road layout is you end up increasing traffic on a few similar streets, to reduce traffic on one.  By keeping all streets open, you spread out traffic on several streets because drivers (River Oaks drivers included) have multiple access points to reach various destinations.
 

That's exactly what I think.

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as a motorist.



thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 12:15 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

First of all I didn't say it was federally funded. I just asked the question. Also, if you read the post traffic is not my only concern. As I live within 1/4 mile of this proposed project, crime is also a concern. Next, I do understand the lack of a grocery store. I really could care less about having other retail as Lakewood and Riverside are within a 5 minute drive. Now lets get to the real point of your comment. Do you truely believe that tgis will be upscale. Allow me to take you for a walk down Philips. Immediately south on the left is federally subsidized housing. I guess the government will evict all tenant's in lieu of this project. Then we stroll alittle further to the road that leads to Douglas Anderson. This is a very low income neighborhood. I guess they will be asked to relocate.

Check out Channelside (Tampa), Columbia Heights (DC), the Saltillo District (Austin).  All of these are examples of shady areas of town, once in worse shape than Philips, that have turned around with the help of transit oriented developments.  There's too many successful examples out there to believe that this can't be done.......if carried out right.

Quote
Then further down on the right, we have the juvenile detention facility, encased in barbed wire. I guess the city will jump on relocating this also. Then, of course on the left, we have the adult only motel. I am sure that, when family members come in town for holidays to catch up with other family members living in this upscale development, they will have a close place to stay. Go a little further down and on thright we have another transient motel, albeit newly painted. The we have Emerson, gotta love Sable Palms subsidized housing to the right and to the left you have Wakko's. I heard they have a great lunch special. I can keep going on and on but if you think that people will do a drive by and pay top dollar for an upscale in this neighborhood, when maybe 10 years down the road it may be cleaned up a little, your crazy. They know this.

Typically, a development goes in that appeals to a market rate (not luxury) crowd.  That project exposes the area's potential and then slum lords sell their blighted properties to make a profit.  New projects take over those, while others are renovated and over time the entire district has changed.  In some areas, this process can happen fairly quickly (within 5 to 10 years).  Anyway, I don't think Philips will become Ponte Vedra anytime soon.  But it can become a sustainable urban working class neighborhood and commercial corridor for San Marco and the surrounding Inner Southside neighborhoods.  That would be a major plus for everyone.

Quote
Plus If someone was going to pay top dollar, why wouldn't they buy into one af the several units available on the river? The reason they stopped construction on the East San Marco development is because of the glut in high end condos and apartments, so your saying that someone is going against the grain and is smarter than Regency and St. Joe. OK.

East San Marco stopped because the condo market (not rental) went downhill.  However, I've heard from friends in the industry that it may be getting ready to get started again as apartments instead of condos.

Quote
Besides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?

Development, Real Estate, Architecture and Land Planning.  My opinion has always been that Jacksonville is about ten years behind most of its peer cities in catching on and embracing the trends.  This style of development has been highly successful in similar sized communities for a long time now.  Once we catch on and accept them, they'll be highly successful here as well.  If anyone is smart and has a little extra cash to burn, now is a good time to invest in surrounding property along the Philips Highway corridor.
southerngirl
August 27, 2008, 1:58 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Anyone know why the developer is focused on a River Oaks entrance and stating in their PUD that there will be NO entrance to the development from the Perry/Mitchell side?  There are far fewer homes on that side of the development -- it borders the railroad and FirstStar has bought up many of the others.

Why don't they create their second entrance on THAT side -- which connects directly to Atlantic?
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 2:20 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I noticed that on the plan.  I also wonder why these streets are not connected.  If community integration is a key, the development would be better integrated into the community if it were directly connected to streets surrounding it on all sides.

FDOT is also planning to rebuild the nearby I-95 interchange.  I wonder how that design will affect the small residential neighborhood to the north?
Jason
August 27, 2008, 2:45 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Quote
FDOT is also planning to rebuild the nearby I-95 interchange.  I wonder how that design will affect the small residential neighborhood to the north?


Bulldozers....
tufsu1
August 27, 2008, 3:03 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Besides, just out of curiousity, I am a developer. I have lived in this neighborhood and seen its growth. What is your experience?

I am an urban planner with a specialization in transportation planning.  I have a Masters degree in Urban Planning and have been certified since 1998.  Is this good enough?
southerngirl
August 27, 2008, 3:10 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as motorist.

The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't.  The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ.  It's dangerous and overcrowded.

Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings.  River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.

I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.

The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards.  And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.

NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community? 
David
August 27, 2008, 3:19 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as a motorist.

The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't.  The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ.  It's dangerous and overcrowded.

Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings.  River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.

I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.

The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards.  And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.

NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community? 

Very much so. Thanks for clarfiying!
gatorback
August 27, 2008, 3:28 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

So only people living near this area would have a say?
southerngirl
August 27, 2008, 5:24 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Don't you think that people whose homes, kids, cars and lives are directly tied to the street should have a bit more say than cut-through commuters?

We know that River Oaks Road is a nice convenience for cut-throughers. Let me tell you about one I saw today at about 2 p.m.  She was a high schooler, driving a big SUV, no seatbelt, flying down River Oaks doing at least 45 trying to catch the light.  This is what we see all day every day.  And that's before Jackson Square traffic starts doing the same dangerous things.

Add hundreds more of these folks onto our little streets and it'll be no time before there are painful lessons the city learns about listening to the people who know what traffic does on this street.
vicupstate
August 27, 2008, 7:53 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I haven't read everything in this thread, so forgive me if this has been covered already, but is the ONLY significant objection to this project from the neighborhood, is the impact on traffic on River Oaks? 

If so, it seems to me a remediation or compromise could be found.   

Perhaps what is needed for River Oaks (regardless of this project, since speeding/cut throughs are already a problem) is speed bumps. 

I recently lived on a street with significant cut through traffic.  Speed bumps (too large to take at normal speed limit) were added, as were small shrub 'islands' at a couple of intersections (which narrowed both lanes).  These had a noticeable effect on speed and reduced cut-throwns quite a bit.  Inexpensive traffic calming measures do work.   
Joe
August 27, 2008, 8:45 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I haven't read everything in this thread, so forgive me if this has been covered already, but is the ONLY significant objection to this project from the neighborhood, is the impact on traffic on River Oaks?    

It's the only objection that's even potentially valid/legal, yes. Even then, I suspect that if an impartial traffic engineering firm were to evaluate River Oaks, they'd determine that it's well under capacity. The real issue is that people who live on an urban cut-through street are presumably angry that ANYONE is using their street, regardless of its actual capacity. They are trying to turn it into a cul-de-sac to increase their property values. Your suggestion about speed bumps is far more reasonable, in my opinion.

However, it's also quite obvious that many people are also opposing this project because they don't want any apartments near their homes. They are worried about the "type" of people that would move into apartments on Phillips Highway. You can read between the lines about the rest.

It would  be illegal for the city to deny a zoning change because residents are worried about the "type" of people moving into a new development. However, sadly, the traffic complaints could be used as phoney justification for a zoning denial.

Hopefully, the city council will try a more moderate approach to residents' concerns. It would be really easy to monitor future traffic increases once Jackson Square is built. Hopefully the street would only be closed AFTER other traffic calming devices had been attempted.
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 9:09 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Ok, just from a layman's point of view- if they are successful in closing this road off, like you said that would push traffic south down to St Augustine road with various connections to Hendricks, (Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood etc) So what would stop the residents along these streets from pushing for a similar road closure? Seems like it would have a dominio effect and make traffic worse for the surrounding streets, but like I said, i'm not an transportation engineer. I'm just giving an example of the alternate routes i'd take as motorist.

The difference for River Oaks is -- it has a railroad crossing, and the others don't.  The crossing was recommended for closure in 2006 by a study that was commissioned by the COJ.  It's dangerous and overcrowded.

Lorimier, Dunsford, Kingswood, etc., have no traffic lights or crossings.  River Oaks has both, which make traffic calming measures (read: speed bumps) -- more difficult to install.

I heard that at the City Council meeting last night, Paul Harden recommended "other measures" for dealing with the impact on River Oaks (which means he KNOWS that this development is going to impact River Oaks) -- apparently he talked about installing medians at either end, as well as some sort of neighborhood signs.

The medians would mean street widening and existing urban core homeowners losing their yards.  And losing on-street parking, which some houses on River Oaks rely on. It's another takeaway from the neighborhood and giveaway to the developer.

NOW you see why the neighbors are angry and don't trust those who are selling this as a win-win-win for the River Oaks community? 

I watched the council meeting on tv last night.  From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street.  I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened.  Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.
southerngirl
August 27, 2008, 9:12 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?

When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.

You want your kids running out to play in that?
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 9:16 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

I seriously doubt the city/developer plans to widen River Oaks Road to two lanes with a continous median.  That's an insanely expensive and un-needed traffic calming solution.  Evidently, this project has been deferred so both sides can meet to iron out their differences.  Hopefully, it will be a forum where everyone can get on the same page.
southerngirl
August 27, 2008, 9:24 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing


I watched the council meeting on tv last night.  From a planner's perspective, I took the comments to be that the medians would be placed at the railroad crossing, not the entire street.  I doubt the traffic impact would be significant to the point that River Oaks Road would have to be widened.  Of course a traffic study will have to confirm this, either way.

Word today is the median will go all the way down River Oaks -- conveniently providing the developer with a place to plant the trees that will be required to replace the ones that he's taking down for his development (since he has NO space left on his 18 acres for planting...that's all for buildings). Can I spell it out any more clearly -- they are going to take River Oaks Road and turn it into a major entrance for their development!

As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days.  Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...

Lakelander -- we WISH that there could be a decent, HONEST conversation about all of this, but it 's becoming increasingly obvious that the backroom stuff and tacit approvals are happening  and we are NOT getting the whole truth -- from the city or from the developer.

That's what we want -- the truth. These are our homes. Our families. Our lives. We just want the truth.
tufsu1
August 27, 2008, 9:40 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

Hey Joe -- if you owned a home on River Oaks and the city was secretly plotting with a developer to come in and take 1/2 of your front yard so that developers and commuters would be convenienced, wouldn't you be a little upset and do what you could to protect your family and investment?

When and if they plow through with this plan, these people's front doors will be 15 FEET from River Oaks Road.

You want your kids running out to play in that?

If the City wanted to do this, they would have to acquire the land via eminent domain...and if the only reason for doing so would be for this development project, they would have a difficult time....while the Supreme Court upheld what the City of New London, CT did for a redevelopment project, most states (includfing FL) have since updated their eminent domain laws.
tufsu1
August 27, 2008, 9:43 pm
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing

As for traffic studies -- I don't trust anything coming out of the city or developer on this. Someone put down traffic counters last week for about three or four days.  Of course, they did it over a weekend and before school commuters were making their twice daily cut-through. Those are going to be REALLY accurate counts...

Those who conduct traffic studies are required to use professionally acceptable methods...if not, they can lose their certification/license.

That said, if you still don't trust the City's and/or Developer's traffic people, the neighborhood could always go and hire their own traffic consultant.
thelakelander
August 27, 2008, 9:51 pm
Re: Jackson S