Author Topic: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing  (Read 51470 times)

Metro Jacksonville

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2644
    • MetroJacksonville.com
Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« on: August 26, 2008, 05:00:00 AM »
Jackson Square Controversy Brewing



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?

Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/881

jeh1980

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 311
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #1 on: August 26, 2008, 05:18:19 AM »
Jacksonville needs this project if you ask me! I don't see why we shouldn't built it.

stjohnsguy

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #2 on: August 26, 2008, 07:05:03 AM »
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

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2336
  • “Know thyself.”
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #3 on: August 26, 2008, 07:38:03 AM »
Try it; you'll like it.  Trust me.  I know. ;)
'As a sinner I am truly conscious of having often offended my Creator and I beg him to forgive me, but as a Queen and Sovereign, I am aware of no fault or offence for which I have to render account to anyone here below.'   Mary, queen of Scots to her jailer, Sir Amyas Paulet; October 1586

Ocklawaha

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Crossing + Dollars
« Reply #4 on: August 26, 2008, 09:58:06 AM »
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

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4290
  • I am the man in the box...
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #5 on: August 26, 2008, 10:18:16 AM »
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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #6 on: August 26, 2008, 10:28:40 AM »
What? Tear down Money Earnin' Mount Vernon Motor Lodge? Now I'll have to find another hotel for the inlaws this Christmas.

brooklynborn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #7 on: August 26, 2008, 10:30:20 AM »
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

  • Phd. Ferroequinology
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10438
  • Monster of Mobility! Ocklawaha is Robert Mann
    • LIGHT RAIL JACKSONVILLE
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #8 on: August 26, 2008, 10:58:05 AM »
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

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #9 on: August 26, 2008, 11:29:01 AM »
I see what u mean ock. my head was in the clouds

brooklynborn

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 13
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #10 on: August 26, 2008, 11:34:49 AM »
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

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 152
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #11 on: August 26, 2008, 12:16:41 PM »
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

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31542
    • Modern Cities
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #12 on: August 26, 2008, 12:39:26 PM »
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. 
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 12:42:26 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

southerngirl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #13 on: August 26, 2008, 02:00:18 PM »
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.
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 02:23:24 PM by southerngirl »

southerngirl

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 59
Re: Jackson Square Controversy Brewing
« Reply #14 on: August 26, 2008, 02:03:05 PM »
pictures included here...

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

Second pic is River Oaks looking EAST (towards RR tracks)
« Last Edit: August 26, 2008, 02:22:40 PM by southerngirl »