Author Topic: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco  (Read 14431 times)

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3577
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #45 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.

fieldafm

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4354
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #46 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:



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.


« Last Edit: February 28, 2020, 11:43:48 AM by fieldafm »

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3577
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #47 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.

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3577
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #48 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:



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.

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #49 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?

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #50 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.

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7819
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #51 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!
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31366
    • Modern Cities
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #52 on: August 12, 2020, 09:24:32 AM »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

fieldafm

  • Editor
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4354
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #53 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.

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3864
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #54 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.

ProjectMaximus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3241
    • Firewalking Journey
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #55 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.

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 712
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #56 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
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey

MusicMan

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2158
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #57 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?

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31366
    • Modern Cities
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #58 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.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Non-RedNeck Westsider

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4675
  • Politically Agnostic
Re: Changed plans for Park Place at San Marco
« Reply #59 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.

A common mistake people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.
-Douglas Adams