Riverside Village Development Coming To Memorial Park

[vicupstate]

In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it.  With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, “preserving the canopy” makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don’t have to go anywhere.

That is what I would do except I wouldn't do a Food Hall, I would do a midrise mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. Parking in the back.   

[JeffreyS]

In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it.  With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, “preserving the canopy” makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don’t have to go anywhere.

That is what I would do except I wouldn't do a Food Hall, I would do a midrise mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. Parking in the back.   

Yes that’s what I was suggesting. I like moving number 3 offsite with the RAP
Borders.

[Kerry]

Someone has to push for better because no one else is doing it.  Not at the City level, the developer level, or even on this board.  Just a bunch people fine with the status quo or so set in mediocrity that anyone demanding better is just a complainer.

Says the guy that literally spends all day complaining on a message board.

But I don't complain without offering solutions or suggestions.

[Kerry]

Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.

It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.

From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area. 

Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.

So let the developer figure out their parking needs - not the City.  Establishing some random pre-determined parking requirement applicable across the board is non-sense.  Also, there is plenty of room for parking.  Tear it all down, move the structures to the sidewalk, and all the interior space opens up.  Parking spaces reserved for residents and business patrons can park on the street.  They could even make it one parking space per housing unit (not per bedroom like many do now).

Anyhow, if someone is looking for obstacles, they can find them.  That is so easy anyone can do it.  Solutions take knowledge.

[vicupstate]

In the perfect world I would keep #1, move #3 to another location and demolish #2, 4 and 5. In addition I would convince 1725 on the corner to sell his property to then demolish it.  With that much land you could easily build an awesome high ceiling one story food hall lining memorial park drive from the row house on the corner to where 1725 is now. Or you could go two stories and have offices on top. The back would be sufficient for parking and outdoor seating. Finally, “preserving the canopy” makes no sense as the large trees in front of the sidewalk don’t have to go anywhere.

That is what I would do except I wouldn't do a Food Hall, I would do a midrise mixed use building with retail on the ground floor and residential above. Parking in the back.   

Yes that’s what I was suggesting. I like moving number 3 offsite with the RAP
Borders.

Agreed. Charleston has done the same type of thing quite often.   

[CityLife]

Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.

It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.

From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area. 

Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.

So let the developer figure out their parking needs - not the City.  Establishing some random pre-determined parking requirement applicable across the board is non-sense.  Also, there is plenty of room for parking.  Tear it all down, move the structures to the sidewalk, and all the interior space opens up.  Parking spaces reserved for residents and business patrons can park on the street.  They could even make it one parking space per housing unit (not per bedroom like many do now).

Anyhow, if someone is looking for obstacles, they can find them.  That is so easy anyone can do it.  Solutions take knowledge.

Oh Kerry. This is just an elaborate troll right? If so, hats off to you. If not, you have a severe case of Dunning-Krueger.

I actually listed 6 different solutions that the developers could use to solve parking issues and pointed out that they are not easy problems to solve. Particularly when there is minimal financial gain to be had.

I’m not in love with the proposed plan, but having actually done work on projects like this professionally, it’s hard to make blanket judgements without knowing everything the development team knows and what constraints they are working with.

[Kerry]

Reductions in parking aren't just based on whims or random articles on the internet. They are founded on data and analysis. Sometimes a parking demand statement will show that when the ITE parking generation standards are applied to a site, they result in a lower demand than required by the code. Sometimes a municipality can create reductions in parking in a defined area based on oversupply of on-street or public parking (Downtown's case) or when public transit reduces dependence on the automobile. Sometimes (in larger mixed use developments) reductions in parking can be granted when internal uses have different peak demands, shown through a shared parking analysis.

It's unlikely that any of those type of arguments can be made on the site. Also, due to the site's irregular geometry and need to preserve at least 2 buildings, it's unlikely and maybe impossible to design any kind of parking deck. You probably don't even have room to ramp up to rooftop parking on a new building either. Not that that is a good solution anyways.

From a quick eyeball of the site, the only real option to intensify the project in today's autocentric world is to create a stacked parking structure with three lifts (which triples surface parking and is half the price of a garage), or arrange an off-site parking agreement. However, there are virtually no surface lots nearby and nobody would want to encumber surface parking with high land values in the immediate area. 

Not sure how prevalent stacked parking is in Jacksonville today, but is becoming an increasingly popular alternative to parking decks in areas with high redevelopment value. The problem is you essentially have to have permanent valet surface to operate them and they do not work in high turnover retail environments. So probably not an ideal solution here. Long story short, adding intensity to the site is a challenge.

So let the developer figure out their parking needs - not the City.  Establishing some random pre-determined parking requirement applicable across the board is non-sense.  Also, there is plenty of room for parking.  Tear it all down, move the structures to the sidewalk, and all the interior space opens up.  Parking spaces reserved for residents and business patrons can park on the street.  They could even make it one parking space per housing unit (not per bedroom like many do now).

Anyhow, if someone is looking for obstacles, they can find them.  That is so easy anyone can do it.  Solutions take knowledge.

Oh Kerry. This is just an elaborate troll right? If so, hats off to you. If not, you have a severe case of Dunning-Krueger.

I actually listed 6 different solutions that the developers could use to solve parking issues and pointed out that they are not easy problems to solve. Particularly when there is minimal financial gain to be had.

I’m not in love with the proposed plan, but having actually done work on projects like this professionally, it’s hard to make blanket judgements without knowing everything the development team knows and what constraints they are working with.

You lost me at "autocentric".  I'm not interested in accommodating cars.  They can park on the street and walk.

[thelakelander]

You may not be interested but everything needed to get the project actually built, from securing financing to signing deals with tenants will involve a lot more than "they can park on the street and walk". I said it somewhere else the last few days but this remains the same.......context is key.

[Bill Hoff]

I've heard they plan to keep all five existing buildings: one will remain residential, one will remain medical, one will be a small cafe, and two (adjoining) will be a thai restaurant. No parking adjustments required, I believe.

[thelakelander]

Planning Commission recommends approval for Riverside Village

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/planning-commission-recommends-approval-for-riverside-village

[bl8jaxnative]

nice

[Tacachale]

Sounds good to me. Bring it on.

[marcuscnelson]

Unanimous approval by Council.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/city-council-signs-off-on-mixed-use-multifamily-restaurants-near-memorial-park

[Florida Power And Light]

^If folks want (some of) the buildings torn down, I suppose they could make the new owners an offer and then

Interesting