1534 Oak Street - Appropriate for the Neighborhood?

[tennessun]

I think it's great that there's new development coming into the neighborhood, but this design feels very large for that lot and a bit overbearing.  Would love to see something that echoes the design elements of the buildings nearby, while still keeping it modern.

[JAM]

My biggest beef is with how it addresses the corner. The angle from which it will be most prominent will just be a razor sharp wall pointing at you. Not inviting AT ALL. And that should be a huge deal. An uninviting slab is not a neighborhood improvement. Now picture it empty. The best architecture is what looks good even when it's boarded up (just a strange rule of thumb I like to use ...but there is wisdom in considering use is not as static as stone).

In some cultures, sharp corners on a building are like pointing weapons at your neighbors. Plus, just about any pre-WWII building on a sharp corner would have addressed it with a facade (however narrow) and often even an entrance, rather than just a meeting of walls. Corners are friggin' important. People used to know that! All you have to do for an example is go up the street to the corner of Margaret & Dellwood. PERFECT example, and on the same street:
Click here for Google Street View

Look how much more inviting that is.

I agree, Rainfrong.

[ricker]

JAM, no contributing structures outside the RAP overlay?
you may need to do some homework.

[urbaknight]

Office space at this point, should only be allowed to expand Downtown. Let's fill the skyscrapers and make Downtown vibrant first. I don't think this should be built. But if it must be, make it a residential.

[grimss]

I've met several of the principals involved in this project and think they're great folks. Frankly, I'm surprised their representatives aren't approaching this project in a more cooperative spirit, especially since just building the thing will require an enormous amount of cooperation from the community.

Managing construction trucks and supply storage issues in this incredibly constrained space will be a real challenge that will require great patience from the neighboring businesses and residences.  The proposed narrowing of Margaret Street by four feet to create more sidewalk and parking space for the building has gridlock written all over it--given the traffic and parking load this road already carries, I can only imagine that traffic will be backing up into the Five Points intersection and beyond.  Expecting nearby streets to accommodate the additional parking load that comes with a 100+ seat restaurant means that many residents who now rely on on-street parking in front of their homes will no longer have that option--not to mention that the McIver Clinic, Al's Pizza, Wendy's, Regions, and any other area business with their own lots will no doubt have to spend time and money policing said lots to ensure the spaces are there for their own customers, rather than patrons of the hot new restaurant.

I suppose all developers bring a natural arrogance to the process: They're convinced their projects will add value to a community, and that the benefits will outweigh the project's associated negatives. Once they accept that position, they no longer feel an obligation to listen to said community's concerns because, really, everyone will love it in the end, right?

In this case, I would hope the fine people behind the development will want to be part of building a solution everyone can support. The promise of great food is certainly a powerful thing, but it's not enough to paper over these other problems.

[thelakelander]

But the intent of the overlay was to make sure that new projects provide at least some parking (hence the 75% reduction from normal parking requirements.

Just wondering.  What type of bearing does the intent of the overlay have on a project applying for a PUD?

[JAM]

Ricker -- not sure what you're saying. I'm trying to explain the definition of "contributing structure" as it's used in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the ordinance establishing the Riverside Avondale Historic District.  The term has a defined meaning when applying those ordinances, just like other historic districts have "contributing structures" to their districts. It's not a judgment or comment on the architectual significance of buildings outside the R-A historic district.

[cline]

Ricker -- not sure what you're saying. I'm trying to explain the definition of "contributing structure" as it's used in the Riverside Avondale Zoning Overlay and the ordinance establishing the Riverside Avondale Historic District.  The term has a defined meaning when applying those ordinances, just like other historic districts have "contributing structures" to their districts. It's not a judgment or comment on the architectual significance of buildings outside the R-A historic district.

So basically, a contributing structure that is located in the RA Historic District and a contributing structure that is located outside the historic district but within the RA zoning overlay are defined as the same thing?

[JAM]

The intent of a law is alway relevent to its interpretation. That being said, the city's ordinance says that PUDs are not intended to merely allow an applicant to avoid the appliable zoning. It also provides that in any zoning application (including for a PUD) one of the criteria to be considered is whether the proposed PUD complies with any of the city's land use regulations. So, although a PUD by definition gives special zoning for that parcel, whether the proposed PUD complies with the overlay is relevent.

[simms3]

I think the parking issue can easily be resolved.  I love love love the design and am excited to see such sleek modernity enter Jacksonville's urban core, but I think the next developments that go in the area are going to have to address the street more.  This is a corner lot and so with limited space it is hard to do that, but I personally wouldn't mind seing the Mossfire building go and something denser with street interaction put in its place.  At least this building lays the fabric for that to happen.

[thelakelander]

I now have a copy of the planning department's staff report for this project in my possession.  What are the three most important key issues that people feel aren't being met?  I would like to see/post staff's opinion on those particular topics.

[simms3]

I've met several of the principals involved in this project and think they're great folks. Frankly, I'm surprised their representatives aren't approaching this project in a more cooperative spirit, especially since just building the thing will require an enormous amount of cooperation from the community.

Managing construction trucks and supply storage issues in this incredibly constrained space will be a real challenge that will require great patience from the neighboring businesses and residences.  The proposed narrowing of Margaret Street by four feet to create more sidewalk and parking space for the building has gridlock written all over it--given the traffic and parking load this road already carries, I can only imagine that traffic will be backing up into the Five Points intersection and beyond.  Expecting nearby streets to accommodate the additional parking load that comes with a 100+ seat restaurant means that many residents who now rely on on-street parking in front of their homes will no longer have that option--not to mention that the McIver Clinic, Al's Pizza, Wendy's, Regions, and any other area business with their own lots will no doubt have to spend time and money policing said lots to ensure the spaces are there for their own customers, rather than patrons of the hot new restaurant.

I suppose all developers bring a natural arrogance to the process: They're convinced their projects will add value to a community, and that the benefits will outweigh the project's associated negatives. Once they accept that position, they no longer feel an obligation to listen to said community's concerns because, really, everyone will love it in the end, right?

In this case, I would hope the fine people behind the development will want to be part of building a solution everyone can support. The promise of great food is certainly a powerful thing, but it's not enough to paper over these other problems.

This is well said and probably 100% true in many cases, though I think many developers do listen to the community (how else do they think they have a market for their development?).  I think that the city should enter into a public private partnership to purchase nearby land (and towards the River there is plenty) and put in an attractive parking garage.  However the partnership is set up, I guarantee that a parking garage will significantly increase the value of current commercial properties, will solve parking, and will create incentives for developers to come in and increase density and make a truly vibrant model neighborhood out of 5 Points.  5 Points and San Marco Square have more potential than any other commercial district to be 24 hour neighborhoods.

[Steve]

I now have a copy of the planning department's staff report for this project in my possession.  What are the three most important key issues that people feel aren't being met?  I would like to see/post staff's opinion on those particular topics.

To me, parking is the #1, specificaly for the Residential and Office side.  My #2 would be the design.

[acme54321]

I now have a copy of the planning department's staff report for this project in my possession.  What are the three most important key issues that people feel aren't being met?  I would like to see/post staff's opinion on those particular topics.

The Oak Street side is a big concrete wall, No parking, Small setbacks.  That's all I've got.

[JAM]

Cline -- "Contributing structure" means whether it's historic and contributes to the historic district. So by definition there are no "contributing" structures outside of the historic district.