Disappearing Brooklyn: The Riverside Atlantic Bank

[thelakelander]

E_Dubya, adding a Walmart, a TA Travel Center or a paper mill with lots of parking are all forms of development. Judging from the public interest in the Shipyards, it seems like most do want a certain type of development as opposed to any type of development. If that were not the case, that site would be a property tax generating warehouse complex right now.

I think most people want development that leads to a vibrant pedestrian friendly environment in and around downtown. Not development for the sake of development or demolition (without quality replacement) that leads to what much of the Northbank resembles today.

[E_Dubya]

I can understand those frustrations, and I know there is a major distate for surface parking lots in most capacities in urban areas. However, until our public transit improves (and extends to areas of demand such as Riverside, Brooklyn, San Marco, etc.) the demand for such parking surfaces will continue to exist. So, in order for developers to get the bang for their buck, it's a necessary evil. I'm hopeful that as Brooklyn continues to develop, with the likes of Unity Plaza and what seems to be more residental development in the future, the "strip mall" appearance of Brooklyn won't be the feature that stands out.

As to the second issue you mentioned, putting on the shoes of a developer, I would prefer to purchase and raze land that is closer to other development, rather than leave spaces and hope that someone else comes along and works the facade of older buildings into what is coming. From a dollar standpoint, having new development next to older/dilapidated structures next to new developments devalues property as well as kills the aesthetic draw for incoming business.

Had Brooklyn been managed better for the decades leading up to where we are now, I think the restoration of more structures in that neighborhood would have been much more plausible. I would have much prefered Brooklyn's callsic structures have been salvaged/preserved much like older buildings in 5 points and on King Street have been. However, I have to return to the point that development of Brooklyn into a commercial and residential hub with light manufacturing and other warehouses (it gives a working city vibe in the end) is better than just a string of warehouses between Riverside and Downtown.

[E_Dubya]

E_Dubya, adding a Walmart, a TA Travel Center or a paper mill with lots of parking are all forms of development. Judging from the public interest in the Shipyards, it seems like most do want a certain type of development as opposed to any type of development. If that were not the case, that site would be a property tax generating warehouse complex right now.

I think most people want development that leads to a vibrant pedestrian friendly environment in and around downtown. Not development for the sake of development or demolition (without quality replacement) that leads to what much of the Northbank resembles today.

I would hardly compare the Brooklyn development to a Walmart or TA Travel Center. And I hope it does not come across as though I'm advocating development for the sake of development. Obviously, developing land should aid in and at times focus on enriching the area to its full potential to further the city- especially when said development is taking place so close to a downtown that desperately needs draw.

Furthermore, I'm hopeful that Brooklyn (not just the frontage on Riverside Ave) can be made pedestrian friendly. I think much of that comes down to what is done on Park St. and West. You have two lanes with loads of usable store front that lends itself to a walking district, much like 5 points. The placement of Brooklyn Station lends itself to the realization of that type of revitalization in the neighborhood as a whole.

[thelakelander]

I can understand those frustrations, and I know there is a major distate for surface parking lots in most capacities in urban areas. However, until our public transit improves (and extends to areas of demand such as Riverside, Brooklyn, San Marco, etc.) the demand for such parking surfaces will continue to exist. So, in order for developers to get the bang for their buck, it's a necessary evil. I'm hopeful that as Brooklyn continues to develop, with the likes of Unity Plaza and what seems to be more residental development in the future, the "strip mall" appearance of Brooklyn won't be the feature that stands out.

To me, this is a cop out because enough information is out there to know that we can do better. Even without any public transit (downtown does have ample bus service and the skyway....a lot more than many MSAs Jax's size) there are ways to deal with parking. Downtown's conditions today aren't a result of parking demand.

As to the second issue you mentioned, putting on the shoes of a developer, I would prefer to purchase and raze land that is closer to other development, rather than leave spaces and hope that someone else comes along and works the facade of older buildings into what is coming. From a dollar standpoint, having new development next to older/dilapidated structures next to new developments devalues property as well as kills the aesthetic draw for incoming business.

The image below is the reality of purchasing and razing land, only to never follow through with planned intentions...



This is the unsuccessful model that has been implemented in downtown Jacksonville for decades. It doesn't work......if the end goal is pedestrian scale vibrancy.

[thelakelander]

I would hardly compare the Brooklyn development to a Walmart or TA Travel Center. And I hope it does not come across as though I'm advocating development for the sake of development. Obviously, developing land should aid in and at times focus on enriching the area to its full potential to further the city- especially when said development is taking place so close to a downtown that desperately needs draw.

Furthermore, I'm hopeful that Brooklyn (not just the frontage on Riverside Ave) can be made pedestrian friendly. I think much of that comes down to what is done on Park St. and West. You have two lanes with loads of usable store front that lends itself to a walking district, much like 5 points. The placement of Brooklyn Station lends itself to the realization of that type of revitalization in the neighborhood as a whole.

I wasn't commenting on any particular development in Brooklyn with my earlier comments. Just hoping we avoid the path that got us to where we're at today.

[CCMjax]

Man, looking at the before and after photos, they sure did "Floridafy" Riverside Ave.  They actually managed to make it look like a suburban thoroughfare.  I didn't realize it actually looked like an urban street just 10 years ago.

[E_Dubya]

I can understand those frustrations, and I know there is a major distate for surface parking lots in most capacities in urban areas. However, until our public transit improves (and extends to areas of demand such as Riverside, Brooklyn, San Marco, etc.) the demand for such parking surfaces will continue to exist. So, in order for developers to get the bang for their buck, it's a necessary evil. I'm hopeful that as Brooklyn continues to develop, with the likes of Unity Plaza and what seems to be more residental development in the future, the "strip mall" appearance of Brooklyn won't be the feature that stands out.

To me, this is a cop out because enough information is out there to know that we can do better. Even without any public transit (downtown does have ample bus service and the skyway....a lot more than many MSAs Jax's size) there are ways to deal with parking. Downtown's conditions today aren't a result of parking demand.

As to the second issue you mentioned, putting on the shoes of a developer, I would prefer to purchase and raze land that is closer to other development, rather than leave spaces and hope that someone else comes along and works the facade of older buildings into what is coming. From a dollar standpoint, having new development next to older/dilapidated structures next to new developments devalues property as well as kills the aesthetic draw for incoming business.

The image below is the reality of purchasing and razing land, only to never follow through with planned intentions...



This is the unsuccessful model that has been implemented in downtown Jacksonville for decades. It doesn't work......if the end goal is pedestrian scale vibrancy.

So when past developers haven't followed through on planned intentions, development that involves any kind of structural remova in generall is destined to fail? I think that is a potential outcome of development when the developer fails. I feel like there may be a misunderstanding between us, though. I'm not advocating for the demolition of structures and leaving broken concrete in the wake of a bunch of out of town developers. I also don't think that failed development in the past should make us shy of any development whatsoever. For example, I think the potential development of East San Marco at the corner of Hendricks and Atlantic would do wonders. It would do much better than how the land is being used now (sitting vacant, weed ridden, and fenced in).

As to your other response, I agree to a certain extent. Trust me, I ride the skyway often. I work downtown, and anytime I go to the south bank to grab a bite for lunch, I take it across the river. I'm not sure I follow you with the rest of this point though. Are you wrapping Brooklyn into part of DT?

[E_Dubya]

I would hardly compare the Brooklyn development to a Walmart or TA Travel Center. And I hope it does not come across as though I'm advocating development for the sake of development. Obviously, developing land should aid in and at times focus on enriching the area to its full potential to further the city- especially when said development is taking place so close to a downtown that desperately needs draw.

Furthermore, I'm hopeful that Brooklyn (not just the frontage on Riverside Ave) can be made pedestrian friendly. I think much of that comes down to what is done on Park St. and West. You have two lanes with loads of usable store front that lends itself to a walking district, much like 5 points. The placement of Brooklyn Station lends itself to the realization of that type of revitalization in the neighborhood as a whole.

I wasn't commenting on any particular development in Brooklyn with my earlier comments. Just hoping we avoid the path that got us to where we're at today.

My mistake. I was reading further into your comments than you intended. I think, at the end of the day, we're on the same page with how we want devleopment in the area to turn out. I may just be a bit more liberal in my acceptance- could be due to my youth and the fact that the major development gaffes in our history occurred when I was quite a bit younger.

[thelakelander]

So when past developers haven't followed through on planned intentions, development that involves any kind of structural remova in generall is destined to fail? I think that is a potential outcome of development when the developer fails.

In general, the most successful urban revitalization pattern in this country is in the form of small scale reuse of existing building fabric, leading to a market where large scale private development becomes feasible.  Relying on major projects where complete tear down and rebuild is necessary is the most risky. Things happen, economies change, financing doesn't always come through. You also lose your unique historical heritage and identity this way. Also, have our demolitions in the core don't happen for redevelopment purposes. So I don't relate demolitions with development.

For example, I think the potential development of East San Marco at the corner of Hendricks and Atlantic would do wonders. It would do much better than how the land is being used now (sitting vacant, weed ridden, and fenced in).

This particular block looks the way it does because existing occupied retail stores and a bank building were cleared for East San Marco almost 8 years ago. The economy changed and the project fell a part. Hopefully, they'll get something together soon.

As to your other response, I agree to a certain extent. Trust me, I ride the skyway often. I work downtown, and anytime I go to the south bank to grab a bite for lunch, I take it across the river. I'm not sure I follow you with the rest of this point though. Are you wrapping Brooklyn into part of DT?

Yes, I wrap Brooklyn into it too. Jacksonville once was a 30 square mile walkable city, in the same fashion that many older Midwestern and Northern cities are today. We've destroyed most of the original city over the last 60 years in the name of "redevelopment", thinking old, dense and vacant wasn't cool. I believe our urban core can be vibrant again. However, to meet the potential we'll need to change our past tendencies.

[Jumpinjack]

I always thought that Brooklyn was developed. It had homes, churches, businesses. You're right, it was dense and old and not cool.
A lot of businesses are still there and doing well but it sounds as if they are going to be redeveloped too. 
Anyway, thanks for the article, and thanks also to the Jacksonville Historical Society for their efforts.

[mtraininjax]

Brooklyn in Jax, has been a commercial area. Not really residential, sure there are some shacks and some houses located North of Park Street, along Myrtle, but the area around Forest and I95 and areas around those are Ash sites, places you don't want to disturb the land, lots of nasty things in the soil. Its been a blue collar area of town, and not much wealth. You can use your imagination and take the homes you see there now, and place them in LaVilla and get an idea of what that neighborhood used to look like, before Mayor Austin took a flamethrowner to the neighborhood.

As far as most of the warehouses in use along Park Street, I know of Alsco and Britton's as the two most active. Both on the north side of Park. The warehouses and old DCF building on the south side of the street, more or less could come down, sure would be nice to incorportate a cool design with them, but these are not storefronts like you see in 5-points. In fact, Sherwin Williams has been trying to sell their Park Street store for a while now, used mostly by commercial vendors.

It will be interesting to see when the drug-rehab clinic of River Region is moved out of the area and where. Its neat to see drug addicts in the area, rubbing elbows with the swanky crowds of Unity Plaza, but as "progress" moves to RR, you wonder how long they last on that corner. Maybe downtown may be getting a new client?

[CCMjax]

I really hope they revised the plans for the new hotel and we aren't clearing acres of buildings for a gigantic parking lot as shown in the renderings.  The Brooklyn developments so far have been kind of a hybrid of suburban/urban style development.  A giant street facing surface lot with hotel would be planting the suburban model into what should be a more urban neighborhood.  I too thought the art deco style of some of the warehouses was kind of cool, but if they are replacing with denser development I will not shed too many tears, though still sad.  If they are replacing with parking lots and a single hotel it will be raining tears of frustration.