The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Urban Neighborhoods => San Marco => Topic started by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 10:35:42 AM

Title: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 10:35:42 AM
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Park-Place-San-Marco/i-N6XhtKq/0/61dc7599/L/Park%20Place%20color-L.jpg)

Quote
Following pushback from some in the neighborhood, the developers behind San Marco's planned Park Place apartment complex have tweaked their plans.

https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/changed-plans-for-park-place-at-san-marco/
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 21, 2020, 11:48:12 AM
I love that working with RSSM has resulted in a taller building with larger set backs.  Keep going until it's a 20 foot by 20 foot spire reaching 1,000 feet into the air.  It will be a global monument to their nimby-ism.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: vicupstate on January 21, 2020, 12:17:10 PM
I love that working with RSSM has resulted in a taller building with larger set backs.  Keep going until it's a 20 foot by 20 foot spire reaching 1,000 feet into the air.  It will be a global monument to their nimby-ism.

Heights Unknown likes that idea.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 01:01:58 PM
I love that working with RSSM has resulted in a taller building with larger set backs.  Keep going until it's a 20 foot by 20 foot spire reaching 1,000 feet into the air.  It will be a global monument to their nimby-ism.

Yeah, it's quite the thing. To be fair, they apparently aren't happy with the current plans either.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: acme54321 on January 21, 2020, 01:36:45 PM
Very interested to see what the architectural changes are...
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jcjohnpaint on January 21, 2020, 05:15:17 PM
Them move to Ponte Vedra! 
So, the apartments against the garage are gone? 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on January 21, 2020, 08:19:09 PM
Time to email all City Council Members again. All Jaxson's show your support. If not, I don't have a good feeling about this.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 22, 2020, 03:35:56 PM
The original design was less than 35 feet tall, they try and accommodate the hypocrites at alt-Right Size San Marco, which results in a height increase to 45 feet, now they are getting scolded for going above 35 feet....??  These guys just can't win.  I think everything about the previous site plan was better, but I just want this built.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Kerry on January 22, 2020, 03:50:32 PM
Alt-Right in San Marco?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 22, 2020, 04:20:01 PM
San Marco Preservation Society has come out against the latest PUD application.

http://smpsjax.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SMPS-Written-Statement-re.-2019-0750-and-2019-0751.pdf?fbclid=IwAR2qu-G1vs2sVLDQbDviiyX5g47inv_Tlp89HYAmsh_j-5CNxWlGKG34Bl4
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on January 22, 2020, 08:24:36 PM
On a wide scale, this is the exact attitude that eventually results in $4,000 studio rents and a wide-sweeping homelessness crisis.  Just saying...it HAS happened to other cities and could happen here at some point in our distant future.

At some point, and while we still can, we should ask these opposition groups to draw up the plans and designs the DO want.  What is it that they DO want?  Can they hire an architect and engineer and pull permits and eventually hire a contractor and manage the construction and then lease-up of what they DO want?

I am not part of the conversation, so it could be that these opposition groups are working quite well hand in hand with Corner Lot, and maybe it is emotionally easy to arrive at a joint conclusion on what gets built.  My experience tells me that the personalities involved in opposition groups are quite difficult to handle and BECAUSE we aren't quite San Francisco yet in our NIMBYism, there should be pragmatism but also practicality.

Many precedents will be set by what happens with this development.  Let's not let any of them be bad precedents.

And by bad precedents - for anyone following the squatting Oakland moms...they DID end up getting the house!  Now that is an example of a BAD precedent.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/21/mothers-who-occupied-vacant-oakland-house-will-be-allowed-to-buy-it

(for background beyond what was stated in the above article, these moms took over this house with their children, shortly after it was bought out of foreclosure, and the company that bought the house actually offered to pay to relocate all of the moms/children and cover a period of rent somewhere, and these moms said HELL NO BITCH and continued squatting and drumming up a huge politically motivated PR campaign for their cause until there was so much bad press on the owner of the house that they were essentially forced to sell to a non-profit at appraised value...

the backlash against the movement is simple - it entirely erodes private property rights and sets incredibly bad precedent.  The way to solve homelessness and the issues that cause it is not to take property forcefully the way they did.)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Transman on January 23, 2020, 09:03:55 AM
It is sad that a very small local group can hold up a good development. 

Basically, this is all about a few homes on one street and one person who just completed a new home opposite the development.  His home and the others have driveways and garages on the adjacent street where the apartments are going to be built.  There was nothing wrong with the original plan.  Now that San Marco Preservation Society has jumped on the bandwagon, we now have a bunch of people who really don't know anything and have no risk, trying to call the shots.

This is really bad for San Marco and Jacksonville.  There are a lot of places to build apartments and other developments than Jacksonville.  If I was a developer why would I want to mess around in the area with this type of grief?  There is a lot of developable land in the San Marco area, the word will get around and firms may not want to invest in the area, not good.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 23, 2020, 09:58:21 AM
It is sad that a very small local group can hold up a good development. 

Basically, this is all about a few homes on one street and one person who just completed a new home opposite the development. 

Word on the street is the person who completed the new home had to get a zoning variance to do so... Now he's quoting zoning and the overlay to prevent someone from completing a project that makes more sense for the area than his McMansion fronting a major arterial roadway.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: ProjectMaximus on January 27, 2020, 10:35:45 AM
For anyone interested , this is the site for those of us that are in favor of this development. I have been told there will be no yard signs :)

https://www.smartsanmarco.com/

Great website! Who is this Morgan person, why are they so smart, and why isn't their name Matt?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on January 27, 2020, 12:10:09 PM
For anyone interested , this is the site for those of us that are in favor of this development. I have been told there will be no yard signs :)

https://www.smartsanmarco.com/

Great website! Who is this Morgan person, why are they so smart, and why isn't their name Matt?

I’ve been in touch with her. I plan to talk to both sides for a future article.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: acme54321 on February 06, 2020, 07:38:36 AM
Anyone go to the town hall they had last night?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 06, 2020, 10:44:38 AM
I did not. I've talked to some of the various sides of this, and may be doing another article in the future. In my opinion, Right Size San Marco has a pretty strong legal argument for their perspective, based on what the city land use and zoning says. The developers and supporters have a good argument as far as what the development would bring to the neighborhood and local businesses, but I'm not sure what their legal argument is. At any rate, It's going to be a matter of the interpretation that City Council finds most persuasive.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 06, 2020, 08:18:54 PM
This is what I sent to all CC menbers about this is. I encourage others to do the same. Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments. My biggest concern is a future of NO development and empty pocket parks.

I am writing to support the development of Park Place at San Marco apartments. Review of the plans and comments by the developer and his staff gives the following reasons for this support:

1.   This is a Right Sized development. The building size and unit make-up will not lead to increased traffic or overloading of public services in the area.
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.
3.   This building fits the San Marco area with good choice of architectural details.
4.   The building fits the scale of the area as rooflines will be similar to the new Publix and the existing church.
5.   This development will not lower property values in the area.

I believe some area residents just don’t want apartments in the San Marco area.

I believe that the City Council must listen to all voices and then make a decision which is best for the neighborhood, the community at large and Jacksonville. Only a few vocal people should not dictate the situation. If we turn down development that is done well just because we don’t want density, then we will end up with NO development. We will have more abandoned buildings and empty lots turned parking.

I live in North County and have 2 new subdivisions going in with over 200 homes within a .25 mile of my home. I encourage this development as long as it done correctly. It will help raise property values and bring new services both public and private.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: acme54321 on February 07, 2020, 08:28:06 AM
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.

I don't believe this is still part of the proposal.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 07, 2020, 10:22:27 AM
2.   The developer is taking into account the neighbors, as in the use of apartments to hide the garage on Mitchel Street.

I don't believe this is still part of the proposal.

It isn’t.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 07, 2020, 06:03:42 PM
My second email to CC members had that removed and asked why would someone want to look at a garage and not what looks like a house. Not sure I get it?

But if that was what was requested, the developers obliged them.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 07, 2020, 07:21:46 PM
My second email to CC members had that removed and asked why would someone want to look at a garage and not what looks like a house. Not sure I get it?

But if that was what was requested, the developers obliged them.

Well, they want the whole development shorter as per the overlay. The developers dropped the height on the garage side and the only way to do that without loosing parking spots was to replace those units with more parking.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 07, 2020, 11:41:17 PM
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: JPalmer on February 08, 2020, 09:35:47 PM
Honestly, considering the fact that Andy Allen was clearly part of the JEA con-job.  I’m not certain I would be mad to see this and every one of Corner Lot’s deals to fall through. 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 09, 2020, 08:52:26 PM
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.

Then we will have a church building in very bad disrepair or a lot empty for 10-20 years(see Publix lot). The church owns property. They have property rights as all of us do. Maybe they should go back to a commercial development. Not sure I would consider this church property historic.




also
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 08:18:23 AM
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use, and then they could have built something within the existing guidelines on the backside, allowing for a nice complex that worked for everyone.   Once you start trying to make the most possible money out of the situation (like a developer),  then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries, which it seems to me, has put us in this predicament.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 10, 2020, 09:01:05 AM
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use, and then they could have built something within the existing guidelines on the backside, allowing for a nice complex that worked for everyone.   Once you start trying to make the most possible money out of the situation (like a developer),  then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries, which it seems to me, has put us in this predicament.

Delores Weaver lost tons of money on John Gorrie and the only reason that development happened is because she's a billionaire who didn't care about financial returns, but wanted to complete the project as a gift to the neighborhood.  The developers may not only care about money, but they do need to make money on this project.  Comparing this to John Gorrie is inaccurate and that project probably screwed up things for local developers because the uninformed think ta similar product is financially feasible for anyone.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 09:52:12 AM
Let me help you Captain.

"I love what the Weavers's did with John Gorrie"..... They used the existing structure to make their units.

"I wish the church elders had thought about that before going into a contract"...... It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed.  Were any other proposals looked at?

The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool. 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: fieldafm on February 10, 2020, 10:21:01 AM
Quote
then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries

They could have just torn down all the buildings and built a strip mall within the confines of the existing zoning code. Perhaps the existing zoning code doesn't adequately reflect the realities of today.

Quote
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use

Comparing the John Gorrie to the hodgepodge of buildings on this site is apples to oranges. Gorrie has much more square feet in its existing footprint, has parking on site (btw, it needed a parking variance), is much more interesting architecturally... and was a passion project that did not make money for the developer. 

BTW, its now 15 years later and the Gorrie retail pad sites are still not developed.

Quote
It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed. 

The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?

Quote
The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool.

Another apples to grapefruit comparison... but clearly you've never penciled out either kind of development, so its understandable that the context escapes you.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 10:30:37 AM
 "
The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?"

Wow, hard to explain all the pushback.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxjags on February 10, 2020, 01:26:53 PM
Quote
then you start 'pushing the envelope' of the existing overlay boundaries

They could have just torn down all the buildings and built a strip mall within the confines of the existing zoning code. Perhaps the existing zoning code doesn't adequately reflect the realities of today.

Quote
I loved what the Weavers did at John Gorrie, and I wish the Church elders had thought about that before going into a contract. When I go over to the site, it looks like the existing building fronting Hendricks (between the sanctuary and Mathews)  is suitable for residential re-use

Comparing the John Gorrie to the hodgepodge of buildings on this site is apples to oranges. Gorrie has much more square feet in its existing footprint, has parking on site (btw, it needed a parking variance), is much more interesting architecturally... and was a passion project that did not make money for the developer. 

BTW, its now 15 years later and the Gorrie retail pad sites are still not developed.

Quote
It might have been smart to hire an experienced local Commercial broker or real estate attorney to vet the proposal(s) prior to signing. Preferably one with San Marco background. Perhaps they did, but I have not seen that discussed. 

The developer lives in San Marco. The developer hired another local developer who lives in San Marco, whose headquarters are in San Marco, and has more property in San Marco than only 2 or 3 other companies. The civil engineer lives in San Marco and has designed many award-winning commercial projects in San Marco... oh, they also redesigned San Marco Square/Balis Park and were largely responsible for the San Marco By Design design guidelines.   

BUT, the planning consultant and the land use attorney both live in Avondale... so maybe you have a point?

Quote
The fact that the Weavers spent $15 million is hard to fathom, as that is about the budget CDP had to build from ground up the 145 units at SoBa, including a big garage and pool.

Another apples to grapefruit comparison... but clearly you've never penciled out either kind of development, so its understandable that the context escapes you.

+1000 . Present zoning allows a strip mall. Go for it. But the developers want better for San Marco. The existing buildings are disjointed, don't really fit San Marco today and are not historic.

I really believe this is another case of a small group of residents who disdain the idea of apartments so close to their homes.

CC needs to evaluate if this zoning change is better for the neighborhood, San Marco and the City of Jax, as compared to a potential strip mall. The church, one way or another, is going to sell the property.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 04:14:55 PM
I think they (Right Size San Marco) have made it clear, they understand something will be built. They just want it to fit in the neighborhood.
That desire seems pretty reasonable to me, even if the developer gets everything they want. 

Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: bl8jaxnative on February 11, 2020, 11:38:04 AM
Strip malls ==> the only things that scare urbanistas more than a cul-de-sac with out a sidewalk.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 15, 2020, 02:28:07 PM
Zoning and overlays may be against this, but how many times has that been over ridden for other developments...

The below is a famous quote from a German Lutheran pastor about the expansion of Nazi power:
Quote
    First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—

         Because I was not a socialist.

    Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a trade unionist.

    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
         Because I was not a Jew.

    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.


Not to put it on the same plane, but many fight zoning changes in their neighborhood with the same concern expressed here ... that if they don't fight the first battle, there will be evermore impactful developments to follow that get harder to attack due to prior precedents.  Where does it all end? 

You basically confirm this fear with this line:  "how many times has that been over ridden for other developments."  This is why much of Jacksonville's historic buildings and neighborhood character has been greatly chiseled away.  We never draw a hard line in the sand and stand by it but rather defend rampant development because, once we made one exception, we might as well make exceptions for everyone without discrimination.  We see the same pattern leading to suburban sprawl and the gradual decimation of virgin green space and environmentally sensitive lands.

The article below adds to my comments above about where is the line drawn on rezoning exceptions and how one change can set precedent for the whole city, as developers cry "Me too!"  This is just another reason why residents need to be vigilant, pay attention to other zoning battles in the City and resist rampant exceptions to carefully thought out zoning restrictions and long term overlay plans.   What good are zoning and overlays if they are not enforced?

Quote
https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200214/san-marco-zoning-height-dispute-raising-questions-elsewhere

(Emphasis added)
Quote
Apartments proposed for San Marco church property might be shorter than a shopping center planned across the street, but a zoning debate surrounding them could cast a shadow on neighborhoods across Jacksonville.

People outside the area have stayed quiet so far about Park Place at San Marco, a four-story apartment building and garage that developers hope to build on land now housing part of the landmark South Jacksonville Presbyterian Church.

But questions about a calculation used to define the project’s height – letting a 49.5-foot-tall building meet a 35-foot height limit in that neighborhood – have drawn attention from people wondering about ripple effects in the rest of the city.

“It’s not something we’ve seen used before,” said Warren Jones, executive director of Riverside Avondale Preservation, the neighborhood group for the historic district on the opposite side of the St. Johns River.

“We wonder if, since we in the district use the term ‘maximum height,’ would this be used here,” Jones said. “And if so, what would the effect be on height calculations for us?”....
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 17, 2020, 02:21:10 PM
San Marco height fight on steroids in the Big Apple!

How about this story from New York about a developer that pushed the building department to stretch zoning rules for height limits?  It now may cost them the removal of up to 20 floors already built!  Lessons for Jacksonville?

Quote
New York skyscraper must remove top 20 floors, judge rules

Fifty-two story block built far too high by taking advantage of zoning loophole

In an extraordinary ruling, a state supreme court judge has ordered the developers of a nearly completed 668-foot block of flats in New York to remove as many as 20 or more floors from the top of the building.

The decision is a major victory for community groups who opposed the project on the grounds that the developers used a zoning loophole to create the tallest building on the Upper West Side of Manhattan. A lawyer representing the project said the developers would appeal the decision.

Justice W Franc Perry ordered that the Department of Buildings revoke the building permit for the tower at 200 Amsterdam Avenue and remove all floors that exceed the zoning limit. Exactly how many floors might need to be deconstructed has yet to be determined, but under one interpretation of the law, the building might have to remove 20 floors or more from the 52-storey tower to conform to the regulation.

“We’re elated,” said Olive Freud, the president of the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development, one of the community groups that brought the suit.

“The developers knew that they were building at their own peril,” said Richard Emery, a lawyer representing the community groups that challenged the project before the foundation was even completed. Mr Emery said this decision sent a warning to other developers who proceed with construction despite pending litigation.

The question at the heart of the suit was whether the developers had abused zoning rules to justify the project’s size.

It is common for developers to purchase the unused development rights of adjacent buildings to add height and bulk to their project. But in this case opponents of the project argued that the developers, SJP Properties and Mitsui Fudosan America, created a “gerrymandered”, highly unusual 39-sided zoning lot to take advantage of the development rights from a number of tenuously connected lots. Without this technique, the tower might have been little more than 20 storeys tall, instead of the nearly finished 52-storey tower that now stands.

The decision also sets an important precedent, said Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the Municipal Art Society of New York, one of the advocacy groups that brought the suit against the project.

“The way this zoning lot was constructed has been invalidated, and that is extremely important,” Ms Goldstein said, adding that the decision would deter other developers from attempting similar strategies.

Scott Mollen, a lawyer with the firm Herrick Feinstein, which is representing the project, said the ruling contradicted earlier decisions from the Department of Buildings and the Board of Standards and Appeals that were based on a long-established zoning interpretation. SJP, one of the developers, said they would “appeal this decision vigorously”.

What comes next is unclear. While further litigation would effectively postpone any disassembly of the tower, sales at the luxury block would also be held up. Marketing is well underway for the 112 luxury apartments, and the most lucrative units are on the top floors — including a $21m (£16m) penthouse, which would likely be removed if the decision stands.

The New York Times
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: edjax on February 20, 2020, 09:59:07 AM
How did the meeting go last night?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 20, 2020, 11:05:22 AM
I too would love to see the Fuhrer's comments, so do you have a link where I could indoctrinate myself with his wise teachings?  I have been singing his praises far and wide to the masses.  He masterfully is opposing a zoning change when he himself received a zoning change for his architectural masterpiece fronting Hendricks avenue.  Truly a strategic mastermind at work.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 27, 2020, 01:40:54 PM
Anybody going to the Smart San Marco event tonight?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Papa33 on February 27, 2020, 02:21:50 PM
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 27, 2020, 05:33:31 PM
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.

I agree. Be honest with the height and ask for the variance. Personally, I still would have been for it.

I will say....not impressed with Andy Allen’s comments on this one. I like his development, but I like him less after this.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 28, 2020, 09:32:45 AM
Did you go?

I did.  I am sure they burned through the 133 drinks, as there were always about 40-50 people in the room despite people coming and going throughout the evening.  Spirits were high as everyone was celebrating logic and reason triumphing over NIMBYism.  Some of the G&G regulars became community activists to get in on the free drinks.  I suspect their activism has since faded.

Scott Wilson and Leanna Cumber came through, so I guess they are with the good guys on this one.  I spoke with some of the guys on the project and it sounds like you're right that RSSM is even nastier in person.  Corner Lot offered to do more to accommodate RSSM, but were met with something to the effect of "don't bother, we're going to get this project shut down anyway".
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on February 28, 2020, 09:54:57 AM

I hope you got a chance to watch the council meeting clip I referenced in the PM I sent.

Please share!
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 28, 2020, 10:14:01 AM
I get about 2 PMs a year, so I rarely check, but I just watched about 15 minutes of the comments.  The condescension by all toward the council and the veiled threats by the Fuhrer at the end of his comments are gold!   
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 10:50:00 AM
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.

I agree. Be honest with the height and ask for the variance. Personally, I still would have been for it.

I will say....not impressed with Andy Allen’s comments on this one. I like his development, but I like him less after this.

I do not know Mr Allen and not  sure what he said related to this that offended you but I will give these developers credit for bending over backwards with changes and concessions to a group that unfortunately had no intention of actually compromising. Probably would have been helpful to know that up front. Considering the ridiculous performance from some of RSSM at these public meetings, I can’t imagine what it was like to deal with them directly.

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 10:54:52 AM

 I spoke with some of the guys on the project and it sounds like you're right that RSSM is even nastier in person.  Corner Lot offered to do more to accommodate RSSM, but were met with something to the effect of "don't bother, we're going to get this project shut down anyway".

Sadly, they became worse as the realization had set in that they were “ not going to get their way “. I expect they are not accustomed to that feeling. I just hope their lawyer cranks up the billable hours for however long this process takes.

I hope you got a chance to watch the council meeting clip I referenced in the PM I sent.

This is not surprising at all and in 6 years on RAP we dealt with this a TON of times. You have a developer that wanted to do something that would not comply with the overlay, you had a group of neighbors which would fight it either way, and you had RAP that was trying to keep everyone happy. It isn't a easy job and more often than not, RAP was portrayed as the bad guy.

This is one area where I think SMPS didn't do a great job controlling the conversation. The two names you heard the most was Corner Lot and RSSM. I'm not saying SMPS' role here was easy, but it's never easy. I feel like I'm in the know but I STILL don't know what exactly SMPS' complaints were (I knew they were against it but what were the specific reasons), and what was their counter proposal. That's an issue.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 11:30:41 AM

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

Wow.  That’s what bothered you? Sure you didn’t  read that while checking the DAL ticker?  If you think that comment is nasty and emotionally charged, you may have needed a safe space if you had to deal with the other side :)


I mean, did I lose sleep and have nightmares over it? Of course not. But, it adds zero to the conversation and it makes it harder for other developments in the future.

Like I said, if it were me I'd approve the development at 49.5 feet anyway.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: fieldafm on February 28, 2020, 11:34:01 AM
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.

I agree. Be honest with the height and ask for the variance. Personally, I still would have been for it.

I will say....not impressed with Andy Allen’s comments on this one. I like his development, but I like him less after this.

I do not know Mr Allen and not  sure what he said related to this that offended you but I will give these developers credit for bending over backwards with changes and concessions to a group that unfortunately had no intention of actually compromising. Probably would have been helpful to know that up front. Considering the ridiculous performance from some of RSSM at these public meetings, I can’t imagine what it was like to deal with them directly.

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

I've found Andy to be affable, accommodating, reasonable and even keeled- both as a person and as a developer.

For him to be that frustrated at RSSM, then I have to believe that his frustration is warranted.

Frankly, his comments are pretty spot on about NIMBY'ism- particularly when it affects small business owners who are trying very hard to invest in a neighborhood.


As to the height/weighted average theory... I get the rationale in relation to a creative response to the concerns about scale.

This is what was approved next door over various times:

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/East-San-Marco/i-5gvZjqj/0/32018bab/L/ESM-2006-L.jpg)

You can see that what is proposed at the church property is in line with what was previously approved at the Regency/Publix site... and the height steps down as you get closer to the single family properties.  You can make a reasonable argument that how the height transitions down on the North vs the South ends of the property are more contextually sensitive to the commercial area on one side, and the residential area on the other side in this 'weighted average' scenario.


Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 12:46:40 PM

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

Wow.  That’s what bothered you? Sure you didn’t  read that while checking the DAL ticker?  If you think that comment is nasty and emotionally charged, you may have needed a safe space if you had to deal with the other side :)


I mean, did I lose sleep and have nightmares over it? Of course not. But, it adds zero to the conversation and it makes it harder for other developments in the future.

Like I said, if it were me I'd approve the development at 49.5 feet anyway.

I am certainly glad you aren’t losing sleep over the DAL ticker. Sounds like you are in a good place with your risk tolerance level.

I have a completely different concern about future development in my community. I am wondering if it is less likely developers try to to work with the community over concerns after the RSSM embarrassing behavior. Hopefully their actions are viewed as the exception.



This is another reason why I think SMPS could have done a better job driving the conversation.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on February 28, 2020, 01:03:51 PM
I want to see this development come to fruition, but I have to say, I find this whole "weighted average" to be a bogus concept.

I agree. Be honest with the height and ask for the variance. Personally, I still would have been for it.

I will say....not impressed with Andy Allen’s comments on this one. I like his development, but I like him less after this.

I do not know Mr Allen and not  sure what he said related to this that offended you but I will give these developers credit for bending over backwards with changes and concessions to a group that unfortunately had no intention of actually compromising. Probably would have been helpful to know that up front. Considering the ridiculous performance from some of RSSM at these public meetings, I can’t imagine what it was like to deal with them directly.

Here's one of a few quotes of his:

Quote
I'm tired of small businesses shutting down, I'm tired of Nimbyism, and I'm tired of neighboring homes saying they want the development while making it impossible to build.  I find it hard to believe them especially after we conceded everything they requested in November to "make them happy!"

Here's why I don't like it: While the folks at RSSM would likely only settle for single family homes on the site and I believe some of their asks are ridiculous. With that said, they have every right to fight for what they want, just like the developers have the right to hire attorneys to fight for what THEY want. To me the tone is overly nasty and emotionally charged, which could come back to bite later IMO.

This, combined with "Weighted Average Height" isn't a good look. I have to agree that Weighted Average Height is a bit of nonsense. If you want to comply with 35 feet, then comply. If you don't, own it, and say your development is 49.5 Feet tall and you intend to apply for a variance.

I've found Andy to be affable, accommodating, reasonable and even keeled- both as a person and as a developer.

For him to be that frustrated at RSSM, then I have to believe that his frustration is warranted.

Frankly, his comments are pretty spot on about NIMBY'ism- particularly when it affects small business owners who are trying very hard to invest in a neighborhood.


As to the height/weighted average theory... I get the rationale in relation to a creative response to the concerns about scale.

This is what was approved next door over various times:

(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/East-San-Marco/i-5gvZjqj/0/32018bab/L/ESM-2006-L.jpg)

You can see that what is proposed at the church property is in line with what was previously approved at the Regency/Publix site... and the height steps down as you get closer to the single family properties.  You can make a reasonable argument that how the height transitions down on the North vs the South ends of the property are more contextually sensitive to the commercial area on one side, and the residential area on the other side in this 'weighted average' scenario.


No arguments on the comparison to the various iterations of East San Marco. Like I said, I think the development is fine (and personally I thought the original one was better as it shrouded the garage better if I'm remembering right). That's a huge thing for me. Both this and the new East San Marco is FAR less dense than the original proposal for East San Marco - that is something that should absolutely be considered.

I've not met Andy. He might be God's gift to development (he certainly seems to be South Jax Presbyterian's as this helps them out immensely). I know he partnered with Alex Sifakis on the Johnson Commons development proposal for LaVilla which I thought was a million times better than Vestcor's original proposal.

Now full disclosure: Part of my view IS related to his tenure on the JEA board. He resigned before Zahn got tossed (along with the rest of the board a month later), but his board tenure was when stuff really went into motion with the planned JEA sale. Either the board as a whole was asleep at the wheel or actually thought selling in this manner was a good idea (or a combination of the two). Nothing will change my mind on the Board's work here so I guess I certainly view him in that negative light.

Here's my final point, then I'd say the horse is dead: We all get frustrated at times, and I have no idea what RSSM did. From the rumors I've heard here and other places, they seem to be the opposite of level leaded and reasonable. The problem is (and that LinkedIn quote was one of a few that he made; that one was just the easiest to look back and find) if someone at RSSM did some really crappy stuff, either share it (which he likely wouldn't do as I can't imagine what good comes from that) or just don't respond.

That's it. Now build the darn thing.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on March 01, 2020, 12:14:24 PM
I don't know a lot about Regency except "they are best in class shopping mall developers"....   That being said, I cannot help but think they would have been interested in the church site if they had been given a chance to put in an offer for it. With that extra parcel combined with what they already own they could have possibly done a truly amazing development..  Surely they have deeper pockets than the folks from Alabama (Harbert Realty) who are working with Corner Lot.

Or are they coordinating with them?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on March 01, 2020, 04:03:05 PM
I didn't say that! :o

I put forth the idea that with a couple more acres they might be able to do something incredible. Whatever they do now will be way less than what was put forth 15 years ago.  And I don't think anyone expects much more than a Publix..... But I'd love to see a true complement to San Marco Square, a pedestrian friendly retail development with residential on 2 to 4 floors above it. Beautifully designed and built on the entire parcel. Because I really love the original San Marco Square.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on March 02, 2020, 02:17:58 PM
I didn't say that! :o

I put forth the idea that with a couple more acres they might be able to do something incredible. Whatever they do now will be way less than what was put forth 15 years ago.  And I don't think anyone expects much more than a Publix..... But I'd love to see a true complement to San Marco Square, a pedestrian friendly retail development with residential on 2 to 4 floors above it. Beautifully designed and built on the entire parcel. Because I really love the original San Marco Square.

The last thing we need in San Marco is an incredible project. I can’t imagine the construction and don’t get me started on the Traffic! And... Non House owners!?! It would tear the fabric of the community apart. Keep those renters on the other side of the tracks on Phillips. Ahh...reminds me of the good old days when we could protect San Marco...keep those undesirable  elements on the other side of the tracks. Sigh....Those were the days.

Ha!
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: thelakelander on August 12, 2020, 09:24:32 AM
Park Place at San Marco developers push for fourth-quarter groundbreaking

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/park-place-at-san-marco-developers-push-for-fourth-quarter-groundbreaking
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: fieldafm on August 12, 2020, 12:57:26 PM
Park Place at San Marco developers push for fourth-quarter groundbreaking

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/park-place-at-san-marco-developers-push-for-fourth-quarter-groundbreaking

I will be shocked if RSSM does not continue legal action so expect more delays. But very pleased by developers commitment and that it appears that Covid will not do RSSM’s job for them.

I have to say I am rather happy with all of the units added to the area( I always consider South Bank with San Marco and not DT) , Especially San Marco Crossing( err...Barlow and Exchange) coming online next year. Just need this development to actually start.

Now...if we could just get a grocery store....

Being a former Southbank resident, I 100% agree.  I could walk to Aardwolf and Mayday Ice Cream in less time than it took me to walk from the Peninsula to Friendship Fountain.  I could walk to San Marco Square in the same amount of time it took me to walk to Bellwether.   

The walk to San Marco Square included passing no less than three dozen open and vibrant retail businesses.  The walk to Bellwether included passing through several surface parking lots, crossing a bridge, getting panhandled and walking by several blank walls and retail-deficient parking garages. 

My wife would routinely say that we lived in San Marco, and I got to the point where I stopped correcting her to say that we actually lived Downtown. It felt more like living in San Marco than it did living Downtown. 

Very much anticipating groundbreaking for Park Place, and with it more residents moving in walkable proximity to the local businesses within the Square, Hendricks Ave, Kings Ave and Atlantic Blvd.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Captain Zissou on August 12, 2020, 01:32:18 PM
I lived in the Peninsula in 2009-2011 and the situation downtown was even worse then.  Dinner was an impossibility on Monday-Wednesday.  At that point my only walk-able (my walk-able range is less than Mike's) options were Sake House, bb's, and Ruth's on special occasions.  As the retail has filled in along Hendricks, the link to the southbank has definitely strengthened.  Anything that builds density and builds the connection between the square and the southbank is great, in my opinion.  The mixed use project across from V Pizza will be the center of the walkable urban community.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: ProjectMaximus on August 12, 2020, 04:08:19 PM
I was in town a few weeks ago and ran through many of the old stomping grounds.

Did a pretty thorough run through San Marco and one through the Southbank as well. Park Place would be as "game changing" as anything we've seen in quite awhile.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 02, 2020, 10:16:20 AM
Park Place at San Marco opponents ask for review of judge’s recommendation

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/park-place-at-san-marco-opponents-ask-for-review-of-judges-recommendation
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on September 02, 2020, 10:47:35 AM
How many new apartments are available TODAY in Greater San Marco? What is average rent for a 1 bedroom? What will rent be for Park Place?
That's a lot of inventory to absorb.  Of course Park Place is years away from renting their first unit, so a lot can/will change. And what is status of Publix/East San Marco. Still no groundbreaking yet?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: thelakelander on September 02, 2020, 11:32:23 AM
I don't know the answers to any of these questions but they have nothing to do with if the project can be legally allowed to happen or not.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Non-RedNeck Westsider on September 02, 2020, 12:12:52 PM
How many new apartments are available TODAY in Greater San Marco? What is average rent for a 1 bedroom?

Are there any realtors in the house that know the San Marco area that could help out here?

For those in the back.

(https://7esl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Dramatic-Irony-2-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on September 02, 2020, 12:40:23 PM
Sorry if that confused you. I left out the sarcasm font.

There are "lots" of apartment vacancies in the area, and maybe 1000 more to be built or become available. So the point I'm making is that this project is possibly not financially feasible going forward. The same decision the developers of east San Marco Publix have been arriving at for the 16 or so years they have owned the parcel at Atlantic and Hendricks.


And for the record, the large apt complexes almost never use the MLS to market their vacancies, although on rare occasion they will. Such as when they are brand new or have a lot of inventory. For instance, today on MLS there are 19 Rentals being offered in SM. None are from the large complexes  i.e.  SoBa, The Strand......  Privately owned condos at The Peninsula are on MLS as rentals.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 02, 2020, 12:44:33 PM
It wasn't you, dude.

Although the impression I was under was that Park Place is financially feasible, but it's getting this pushback. East San Marco's problem is that their numbers only worked at the prices they paid before the Great Recession.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: MusicMan on September 02, 2020, 01:39:40 PM
By the time they are filling units here you'll be living in Greenville anyway.................. 8)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: JPalmer on September 02, 2020, 02:45:07 PM
The developers, Corner Lot posted on LinkedIn they just hired an industry veteran (Scott Hobby) to help get them to the finish line.  Have a feeling Corner Lot's inexperience in combination with our current economic situation has them in over their head. 
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: JPalmer on September 02, 2020, 02:52:35 PM
Plus, Andy Allen was part of the scheme to defraud us of possibly a billion dollars with the sale of JEA.  So I should probably admit I would like to see it fail.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on September 02, 2020, 03:33:01 PM
How many new apartments are available TODAY in Greater San Marco? What is average rent for a 1 bedroom?

Are there any realtors in the house that know the San Marco area that could help out here?

Check rentals on Zillow using their map.  Most of those are 4-plexes, triplexes, duplexes and single family although they sometimes have ads interspersed for complexes.  But it will give you a good idea.  Note prices can vary widely based on condition and if the building has been updated.  I would estimate an updated 1,000 sf apartment on Zillow in the heart of San Marco would go for between $1,300 and $1,600 or $1.30 to $1.60 a square foot.

For a full blown new complex, I think you would have to look at the new developments along the River, by I-95 or down Phillips Highway.  Also, the Strand although waterfront should get a premium.  Maybe check Town Center to see the upper limits for something comparable in that they are apartments adjacent to a shopping mecca.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Tacachale on September 02, 2020, 11:32:48 PM
Plus, Andy Allen was part of the scheme to defraud us of possibly a billion dollars with the sale of JEA.  So I should probably admit I would like to see it fail.

He was on the JEA board, not the management, and he was there less than 6 months before quitting.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: JPalmer on September 03, 2020, 01:22:27 AM
I’m not certain how much utilities industry experience he had to make him a good board appointee by Lenny Curry in the first place.  But we all know Lenny and Zahn were acting in concert. You’re right, he did only serve 6 months in late 2019 when many of the shady dealings were taking place at JEA.  He left as soon as he knew the sale was off, but before the names really started coming out in the TU.

Who knows, if the sale did get completed maybe CornerLot would have gotten a huge development contract for that piece of land that is owned by Aaron Zahn and Dino.  Zahn certainly would have an immediate influx of capital to invest.

This is how corruption works.  Trust me, plenty of money was going to funneled back to Lenny as well.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 03, 2020, 02:14:04 AM
Remember that before becoming Mayor, Curry was Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. How much does it say about the party that the guy who was in charge ended up wrapping himself in a billion dollar scandal?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 03, 2020, 07:33:06 AM
 
Remember that before becoming Mayor, Curry was Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. How much does it say about the party that the guy who was in charge ended up wrapping himself in a billion dollar scandal?
Probably as much as it says about the party that nominated the guy who lost to DeSantis...  :o ::)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: JPalmer on September 03, 2020, 08:46:12 AM
I certainly wasn’t mentioning National Political Parties that don’t even belong in local politics.  Just sad our city was banking on a corrupt deal to help fund even more corrupt deals like lot J.  Andy Allen was part of that scheme and I have little reason to believe otherwise.  So in turn, I hope nothing more to see this and all of Corner Lot’s deals to fall through.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 03, 2020, 09:55:52 AM
Remember that before becoming Mayor, Curry was Chairman of the Republican Party of Florida. How much does it say about the party that the guy who was in charge ended up wrapping himself in a billion dollar scandal?
Probably as much as it says about the party that nominated the guy who lost to DeSantis...  :o ::)

Touché.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: bl8jaxnative on September 04, 2020, 10:10:43 AM
How many new apartments are available TODAY in Greater San Marco? What is average rent for a 1 bedroom? What will rent be for Park Place?
That's a lot of inventory to absorb.  Of course Park Place is years away from renting their first unit, so a lot can/will change. And what is status of Publix/East San Marco. Still no groundbreaking yet?

I'd expect there's a bit of flexibility when it comes to apartments ( same with home buying ).  I know some folks that have been dead set on a specific neighborhoods.  Hell, even some crazy ones that insisted on living downtown.

If that's more or less right for most folks, then they're pulling from a bigger area.

Plus, if the population is growing 1.5% - 2.2%, recent estimates, there's going to be a lot of need for more housing units.

I'd be curious if given the area if more apartment units encourage more apartment units since they can support more of the amenities that appeal to folks.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on September 04, 2020, 03:12:09 PM
How many new apartments are available TODAY in Greater San Marco? What is average rent for a 1 bedroom?

Are there any realtors in the house that know the San Marco area that could help out here?

Check rentals on Zillow using their map.  Most of those are 4-plexes, triplexes, duplexes and single family although they sometimes have ads interspersed for complexes.  But it will give you a good idea.  Note prices can vary widely based on condition and if the building has been updated.  I would estimate an updated 1,000 sf apartment on Zillow in the heart of San Marco would go for between $1,300 and $1,600 or $1.30 to $1.60 a square foot.

For a full blown new complex, I think you would have to look at the new developments along the River, by I-95 or down Phillips Highway.  Also, the Strand although waterfront should get a premium.  Maybe check Town Center to see the upper limits for something comparable in that they are apartments adjacent to a shopping mecca.

Drove through San Marco Square yesterday and there were pop-up sings everywhere promoting 2 months free rent for the San Marco Promenade apartment complex.  I wonder if this is a "sign" that the market is softening in the area for larger apartment complexes.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on September 04, 2020, 03:27:29 PM
It does feel like a weird time to move unless you really have to.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on September 08, 2020, 06:26:46 PM
It's perfectly normal, I'd say standard procedure, to have concessions for a new community opening up.  I would not yet jump to any conclusions about our market specifically.  Now 2 years into the future if they were offering such concessions after lease-up and stabilization had presumably been accomplished, then one can reasonably assume that they are seeing a softening of the market, but not necessarily one that required rent cuts, merely concessions.

They want to fill up the ~500+ units they have in a timely manner and to do so they need to get bodies in and fast.  Upfront concessions are one popular way of doing so.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on September 08, 2020, 06:28:13 PM
On a separate note, one can see that the Soba garage is full of cars when driving by on 95.  That is a great sign and anecdotal evidence that they have stabilized or are coming close.  Granted, that community is only 147 units and it has been a year since their soft opening of floors 1 and 4...but still, great sight to see for Jax.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: jaxlongtimer on September 08, 2020, 11:47:43 PM
Then there is this about rental properties suffering (emphasis added)...

Quote
The gloom

"On the rental side, that's where we really see the shortfall in demand you would expect in a recession," Tucker says. "There's a huge shortfall in rental demand right now." Vacancy rates are climbing in cities around the United States.

In normal times, it would be good news that rents have stopped rocketing and are even falling significantly in cities like San Francisco and New York after a long period of astronomical increases. This seems to be playing out much differently than during the last recession, when home prices plummeted but rents did not.

But the emptying of apartments and the fall of rents is because of the pandemic and the collapse of employment, especially in the in-person service sector in U.S. cities. Almost 30 million Americans are currently receiving some form of unemployment insurance benefits. For many renters, this government assistance and the Trump administration's recent order through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to halt evictions through December are the only tenuous threads in a housing safety net.

Well, not the only threads in the safety net. Family also helps. According to research from Zillow, almost 3 million adults moved in with their parents or grandparents during the pandemic. This influx was largely 18- to 25-year-old Gen Zers, but they've joined a large population of millennials who were already living at home. As of April, a record-breaking 32 million American adults were living with their parents or grandparents.


Excerpt from https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2020/09/08/909680016/zoom-towns-and-the-new-housing-market-for-the-2-americas (https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2020/09/08/909680016/zoom-towns-and-the-new-housing-market-for-the-2-americas)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on September 09, 2020, 12:38:28 PM
Not all markets are suffering the same...I am not currently working in the multifamily sphere, but I have my anecdotal hunches and my sources that Jax is not suffering nearly to the same degree as SF and NYC (and other like-kind cities).

Many people from NYC (families and otherwise) have PERMANENTLY moved out of the city.  There's a lot going on there that would provide such an impetus for that kind of exodus.  Jax is a winner from this, and both apartments and homes are the beneficiaries.  The same goes for SF though that migratory pattern does not benefit Jax from a geographic perspective.

If apartments were suffering in Jax as much as the NPR article suggests nationwide, then you wouldn't be seeing new projects continuing forward to the same extent they are.  In fact, I can only think of one local news story where conventional market-rate multifamily has been "diminished" from future plans, and that was not due to market forces, but rather local opposition (the recent article about the rezoning of the land at Hodges and JTB).  New projects have been announced, all previously announced projects have moved forward, and there have been some hefty sales thrown in for good mix, during this pandemic.  Class A rent collections have shown virtually no drop over this time period.  I know this from several sources, including a recent offering memorandum that I looked at (it's a talking point).  The same cannot be said for class C "working class" apartments, but the new construction apartments are doing just fine.

Now anecdotally, at least half of all JAX-born people I know who were living/working in NYC pre-COVID and pre-George Floyd (which really has been icing on the cake in terms of the effects seen and felt in the city) have moved back to Jax permanently and are either living with mom and dad until able to buy, or they have bought homes in the area, or in a couple cases are renting.

The effects of 2020 for the next year or two are drastic and Jax is a big winner, with major cities like NYC, Chicago, SF, DC, etc etc all losing big time.  SF is still shut down.  Can you imagine justifying the rent there if the restaurants aren't even open, let alone bars/clubs?  Many tech employers have gone to a "permanent" WFH situation allowing people to flee that city.  The homeless problem has gotten much worse over this time period, and nobody will say it publicly for fear of reprisal but the politics of that situation is not working for most people who live there.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Adam White on September 09, 2020, 12:51:50 PM
Obviously, anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much probative value. But I have found that moving to NYC oftentimes seems to lead to leaving NYC eventually and moving back to Jax anyway. I have a fairly large handful of friends (two handfuls?) who have all done that and all moved back before the pandemic and the recent uptick in protests. I do however also have a very close friend who moved home for a few months because his restaurant was shut down - but he's back in NYC and planning on staying. Who knows. I suspect that a lot of the headlines about people leaving NYC in droves are over-egging the custard more than just a little bit. We'll see.

Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on September 09, 2020, 02:44:57 PM
Won't the result in cities like NYC/SF/etc. be that if a lot of people leave, then there will be a real estate reset (of some scale), and people that want to move to the city (but couldn't afford it previously) will now look to move in? So many price/SqFt in SF becomes 10x Jacksonville vs. 14x (making those numbers up).

I mean, this will end eventually (both the protests and COVID-19) one way or another.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on September 09, 2020, 03:10:57 PM
Obviously, anecdotal evidence doesn't carry much probative value. But I have found that moving to NYC oftentimes seems to lead to leaving NYC eventually and moving back to Jax anyway. I have a fairly large handful of friends (two handfuls?) who have all done that and all moved back before the pandemic and the recent uptick in protests. I do however also have a very close friend who moved home for a few months because his restaurant was shut down - but he's back in NYC and planning on staying. Who knows. I suspect that a lot of the headlines about people leaving NYC in droves are over-egging the custard more than just a little bit. We'll see.



Yes yes and yes.  However, having recently moved back from one of those two cities, my "social" world still revolves between the both of them and that's my anecdotal contribution in addition to what I see here in Jax among those from my "Jax" world who ended up in NYC (not many ended up on the west coast) and have all of a sudden returned with their non-Jax spouses with no plans to ever return.

I have seen a couple OMs from here in Jax and so I have seen hard data without even really searching for it.  A real estate PE friend of mine from San Francisco who is still in San Francisco actually brought one of the OMs here in Jax to my attention.  While "golden child" cities of the past decade such as SF have seen rents plummet relative to their peaks and have seen an actual exodus with hard data to point to it (and I think we all know the reasons why), the city of Jacksonville has not seen the same result despite having much higher COVID numbers than SF (over 3x the cases and 3x the deaths in Duval County than SF County).  At a minimum, across a wide swath of rental properties here in Jax, rents have remained stable due to an absence in reductions of collections, and rent growth is forecast to continue.

Going back to the initial concern, our rental market is doing just fine while other cities' are not.  Perhaps we can all celebrate the good news?  :)
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: simms3 on September 09, 2020, 03:25:50 PM
Won't the result in cities like NYC/SF/etc. be that if a lot of people leave, then there will be a real estate reset (of some scale), and people that want to move to the city (but couldn't afford it previously) will now look to move in? So many price/SqFt in SF becomes 10x Jacksonville vs. 14x (making those numbers up).

I mean, this will end eventually (both the protests and COVID-19) one way or another.

True.  But it's much easier and less time consuming to wreck an economy, whether just locally or nationally, than it is to build or rebuild a booming economy.  We have all seen that this year.  SF is trying to solve its own local real estate issues (which are major issues for a number of reasons - Pinterest just paid a REIT prepared to break ground on an office building for it in Soma $85 million just to break the lease and not anchor the office building).

SF absolutely depends on extorting developers and landlords in that city, and those sources are looking to be a bit dry for the foreseeable future, so rather than ease restrictions and heinus laws that all but strangle real estate investors in that city without all the extra shit happening, leadership appears to be going in the other direction.  Of course that city has always been a long game for big money investors, but now it's nearly impossible to see what the future looks like even over just a 3-5 year horizon there, and that is probably a major deterrent for investors coming in.

Employers have been pulling out in a way that was inevitable even before the crisis, but that city's response to this pandemic has certainly expedited things.  This includes Uber, which all but went to Dallas, and other major employers.  Many many many restaurants have been forced to close for good, and the restaurant scene did a lot for the culture there.  Bars/clubs the same.  The elements that made SF cool have all but been eradicated.  The homeless issue has gotten completely out of control.  Gap, a store that was looted pretty badly, announced that it would permanently close its Union Square flagship (Gap is headquartered in SF, unironically).  Many other retailers have made similar announcements.  Conventions were already skipping the city before this year based on the street level issues that conventioneers did not enjoy.

My point is that yes, at some point in the future the city will rebound.  Is the city and its leadership taking action now to help that happen sooner rather than later?  NO.  In fact, the opposite.  Current leadership is ensuring that SF's rebound happens at some undisclosed time at some point in most of our lifetimes in the future.  Many would say that Bill de Blasio is also absolutely killing NYC and who knows when that city will be the same?

I am very bullish that the reduced rents in those cities will not offset the shitshow that is going on there enough for us in Jacksonville NOT to benefit from the stark contrast we provide for those looking to start life anew elsewhere.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: BridgeTroll on September 09, 2020, 05:20:55 PM
Wow... proud of you to acknowledge what many have said only to be shouted down... That the homeless situation  in SF is grave and out of control.  Frankly it has been for awhile... San Francisco was once my second favorite city in the world... currently I  have zero desire to visit again. I want to remember it as it once was...
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Adam White on September 09, 2020, 05:55:09 PM
Going back to the initial concern, our rental market is doing just fine while other cities' are not.  Perhaps we can all celebrate the good news?  :)

I've no idea - I didn't comment on Jax because I just don't know much about what's going on in the rental market these days. I simply said that I wouldn't be surprised if the stories about people fleeing NCY en masse are possibly a bit over the top.

But yeah, sure.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Steve on September 09, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Many would say that Bill de Blasio is also absolutely killing NYC and who knows when that city will be the same?

I don’t know SF at all, but I know NYC better through friends and family that live there...on both the right and the left. Seriously, I can’t find anyone that likes this guy. He’s been terrible by all accounts.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 09, 2020, 07:53:24 PM
To think he decided to run for President.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: thelakelander on September 12, 2020, 09:13:34 AM
I wonder how much money has been burned fighting this and what it could have been used for to improve the surrounding community?
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: Bill1234 on September 28, 2020, 03:23:03 PM
Wrong size San Marco has dropped their second lawsuit (petition for writ of certiorari). Litigation is over, developer can go forward with their plans.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 28, 2020, 08:55:31 PM
So that's it?

I wonder how much money those people just wasted.
Title: Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
Post by: ProjectMaximus on September 30, 2020, 10:04:07 AM
Unless they managed to delay it into a financial crisis. Hopefully not.