1534 Oak Street - Appropriate for the Neighborhood?

[CS Foltz]

The "Bike Racks" are supposed to be where? I would guess, they can lose two parking spaces to insert the racks?

[ChriswUfGator]

unless there are standards in the overlay, there isn't much RAP (or anyone else) can say about the physical look of the building.

My understanding is that it doesn't comport with the overlay, and that this is the whole point of contention.

The building height exceeds the 45' limit and, absent some agreement for dedicated parking, it doesn't meet the minimum parking requirements either. My understanding is that they are seeking special treatment to approve the project anyway, so that isn't a situation where they're entitled to build whatever design they want. It's a subjective process and subject to design concessions.

Being that I've yet to hear anyone in the neighborhood who is happy with the concept of building a solid 3-story cement fortress that walls off Oak Street, it would seem they will probably need to compromise on some issues in order to get it done. They aren't 'entitled' to a nonconforming design, and whether or not it goes forward will depend on community support.

And unlike SPAR's "Landslide of 39" over in Springfield, the truth is that RAP actually does represent a good chunk of the Riverside community and their support is highly relevant and is usually a pretty good indication of how most people who live here feel.

[RMidd]

(1) I don't see a 3-story concrete wall on Oak Street. I see a wall broken up with asymmetrical rows of windows, trees and other features. True, more could be done (e.g., color shading and textures, or even a mural or whatever) to make that side more inviting but the fact remains that on a small odd-shaped lot like that it's to be expected that one side contains some wall space.

(2) Some commenters have held up the Publix/Starbucks development as a positive example of working with RAP and the city/community. But the Publix/Starbucks buildings are hideously ugly and dysfunctional, so that just goes to show that you can work within constraints and still very easily produce crap.

(3) Parking. While it's true that the spaces on Margaret between Mossfire and Sake House are always full-to-bursting, within one (or even 1/2) block of there are many opportunities for parking. Parking in 5 Points has not yet reached critical mass.

(4) A propos of nothing, I picture the upper floors more as office spaces than residential.

[CS Foltz]

Just out of professional curiousity........what would take place if RAP said "NO"? What would happen if the neighborhood banded together and said........this looks like "Excrement"! Not to mention, if LR were to go in where it is thought to possibly be, not sure how that would integrate! Set back seems to be a possible issue but I guess if the walls were thick enough and triple pane glass were in place......only part that would be effected would be the rooftop!

[ChriswUfGator]

Compare the oak street facade to the glass facade planned for Margaret, and tell me that you honestly don't see how folks would consider it a 3-story cement wall. It is what it is.

(1) I don't see a 3-story concrete wall on Oak Street. I see a wall broken up with asymmetrical rows of windows, trees and other features. True, more could be done (e.g., color shading and textures, or even a mural or whatever) to make that side more inviting but the fact remains that on a small odd-shaped lot like that it's to be expected that one side contains some wall space.

(2) Some commenters have held up the Publix/Starbucks development as a positive example of working with RAP and the city/community. But the Publix/Starbucks buildings are hideously ugly and dysfunctional, so that just goes to show that you can work within constraints and still very easily produce crap.

(3) Parking. While it's true that the spaces on Margaret between Mossfire and Sake House are always full-to-bursting, within one (or even 1/2) block of there are many opportunities for parking. Parking in 5 Points has not yet reached critical mass.

(4) A propos of nothing, I picture the upper floors more as office spaces than residential.

[thelakelander]

Just out of professional curiousity........what would take place if RAP said "NO"? What would happen if the neighborhood banded together and said........this looks like "Excrement"!

Speaking from experience, as long as code allows for that design to built, it would get built and as long as the food is good, people would end up eating at it.  About a decade ago, while in Lakeland, a similar thing happened.  Publix wanted to open a store in Lakeland Highlands and the residents banded together to keep them out because they didn't want the extra traffic and people outside of their neighborhoods coming into their area.  Long story short, Publix got approval anyway and now those residents keep that store's parking lot full on an around the clock basis.

Not to mention, if LR were to go in where it is thought to possibly be, not sure how that would integrate!

The streetcar would run in the middle of the street.  Whatever the final design and scale of this structure ends up being, it should have no significant impact on the integration of a future streetcar line in public ROW.

[ChriswUfGator]

Well, out of curiosity, then what happens when a proposed structure exceeds height limits, exceeds setback requirements, and doesn't satisfy the minimum parking capacity called for by the proposed site's zoning?

[cline]

(2) Some commenters have held up the Publix/Starbucks development as a positive example of working with RAP and the city/community. But the Publix/Starbucks buildings are hideously ugly and dysfunctional, so that just goes to show that you can work within constraints and still very easily produce crap.

+1

Perhaps the Publix/Starbucks is an example of where the developer engaged RAP but the final product looks terrible. 

[Dog Walker]

The original design of the Publix complex at Margaret and Riverside was for a regular suburban type store with a strip of stores surrounded by an asphalt parking lot.  

You think the current design is ugly!!

Can you think of a layout that is less pedestrian and neighborhood friendly than a typical suburban layout?

The City's Historic Preservation staff sketched out the current layout, insisted on a design that broke up the big, blank box look of a suburban Publix, passed the ideas back to Sembler's architects for them to execute.  The result might not be beautiful architecturally, but is far, far better than what was proposed originally.

Our small Publix and surrounding shops have added greatly to the neighborhood.  Can a neighborhood exist without a nearby grocery store?  This small Publix is highly successful and has the highest revenue per square foot of any in the state.  The overall design of the plaza has worked so well that Publix/Sembler has copied it in several other historic neighborhoods in Florida.

I think we owe a big vote of thanks to our HPC staff people.

[ChriswUfGator]

I think many people are forgetting the origin of the Publix/Starbucks site.

Sure, you can always pick some kind of fault with the final design of a building, but the Publix development is not comparable in any way to the current project we are discussing. The new Publix replaced a rundown and dilapidated former hospital facility (the old Riverside Hospital) from the 1950s/60s that had been abandoned since at least 1994 and had become a giant eyesore.

The Publix development is absolutely an improvement over what was there before, and unlike this proposal which is starting with a vacant lot and a clean slate, the Publix site required attracting private developers with the capital to pour in millions of dollars for demolition and abatement costs, which they did.

You have to look at what was lost vs. what was gained, which in the case of Publix was nothing vs. a lot, and RAP clearly did the correct thing by supporting it. And even then, the developers conceded design features that make the site integrate with the surrounding fabric, including brick trimwork to integrate the architecture, designing appropriate setbacks, and providing sufficient dedicated parking to support the density of the use.

None of which the developers of the corner of Oak and Margaret street seem to think they have to do. In fact, part of the argument in support of waiving the parking requirements appears to be that people will use the Publix center's spaces, which is grossly unfair to that landowner, considering they bent over backwards to work with the neighborhood and integrate their design, and the developers of this project are not.

[cline]

I think many people are forgetting the origin of the Publix/Starbucks site.

Sure, you can always pick some kind of fault with the final design of a building, but the Publix development is not comparable in any way to the current project we are discussing. The new Publix replaced a rundown and dilapidated former hospital facility (the old Riverside Hospital) from the 1950s/60s that had been abandoned since at least 1994 and had become a giant eyesore.

The Publix development is absolutely an improvement over what was there before, and unlike this proposal which is starting with a vacant lot and a clean slate, the Publix site required attracting private developers with the capital to pour in millions of dollars for demolition and abatement costs, which they did.

You have to look at what was lost vs. what was gained, which in the case of Publix was nothing vs. a lot, and RAP clearly did the correct thing by supporting it. And even then, the developers conceded design features that make the site integrate with the surrounding fabric, including brick trimwork to integrate the architecture, designing appropriate setbacks, and providing sufficient dedicated parking to support the density of the use.

None of which the developers of the corner of Oak and Margaret street seem to think they have to do. In fact, part of the argument in support of waiving the parking requirements appears to be that people will use the Publix center's spaces, which is grossly unfair to that landowner, considering they bent over backwards to work with the neighborhood and integrate their design, and the developers of this project are not.

Yes, the Publix probably is an improvement over what there before.  However, the design for the new restaurant is also a big improvement over the vacant lot that is there now.  Developers aren't exactly beating down the door to build on that lot.

[ChriswUfGator]

I think many people are forgetting the origin of the Publix/Starbucks site.

Sure, you can always pick some kind of fault with the final design of a building, but the Publix development is not comparable in any way to the current project we are discussing. The new Publix replaced a rundown and dilapidated former hospital facility (the old Riverside Hospital) from the 1950s/60s that had been abandoned since at least 1994 and had become a giant eyesore.

The Publix development is absolutely an improvement over what was there before, and unlike this proposal which is starting with a vacant lot and a clean slate, the Publix site required attracting private developers with the capital to pour in millions of dollars for demolition and abatement costs, which they did.

You have to look at what was lost vs. what was gained, which in the case of Publix was nothing vs. a lot, and RAP clearly did the correct thing by supporting it. And even then, the developers conceded design features that make the site integrate with the surrounding fabric, including brick trimwork to integrate the architecture, designing appropriate setbacks, and providing sufficient dedicated parking to support the density of the use.

None of which the developers of the corner of Oak and Margaret street seem to think they have to do. In fact, part of the argument in support of waiving the parking requirements appears to be that people will use the Publix center's spaces, which is grossly unfair to that landowner, considering they bent over backwards to work with the neighborhood and integrate their design, and the developers of this project are not.

Yes, the Publix probably is an improvement over what there before.  However, the design for the new restaurant is also a big improvement over the vacant lot that is there now.  Developers aren't exactly beating down the door to build on that lot.

It's not hurting anything either.

The former hospital property was a deteriorating eyesore that was going to require millions of dollars worth of demolition and abatement within the very near future, while this is just a tiny vacant lot. Something had to be done with the old hospital, and it was an expensive proposition, but none of that is the case with this lot.

And even despite the neighborhood's desperation to get something done about the old hospital, the Publix center's developers still worked with the community to incorporate appropriate setbacks and design features, which doesn't appear to be happening with this proposed design. The impact of that one small vacant lot is negligible, and certainly doesn't outweigh the impact of putting up an inappropriate design that exceeds the height limit, violates the setback requirements, walls off Oak Steet, and relies on squatting on other landowners' parking facilities in order to operate.

That is what I'm saying when I say the hospital was a totally different ballgame, and isn't comparable at all. And my understanding is that nobody is opposed to the development of this site, or opposed to the use. It's just that the owners are apparently unwilling to make design concessions that would integrate it with the surrounding fabric, at the same time they need community support in order to construct a nonconforming design. Seems somewhat silly.

[CS Foltz]

Not done right..........could be one more vacant building in the long run!

[cline]

It's just that the owners are apparently unwilling to make design concessions that would integrate it with the surrounding fabric, at the same time they need community support in order to construct a nonconforming design.

Who says they don't have supporters in the community?  I've know of people that live (and own businesses) in the area that support it.

[ChriswUfGator]

It's just that the owners are apparently unwilling to make design concessions that would integrate it with the surrounding fabric, at the same time they need community support in order to construct a nonconforming design.

Who says they don't have supporters in the community?  I've know of people that live (and own businesses) in the area that support it.

Well that seems strange, when none of the people I've talked to seem to agree with your assessment, and I certainly live here. I was getting coffee at starbucks the other day with friends and was minding my own business when I got sucked into a random 20 minute conversation on the problems with this design, a conversation that I did nothing to initiate, by people already at the Starbucks.

And as I said, I live here, and I don't think that walling off Oak street is a good idea. The parking thing doesn't bother me like it seems to bother others, nor does the height really bother me. The setbacks thing I feel for Insetta on, as it's a small lot and you have to maximize space. But making both sides glass would go a ways to fixing the oak street issue.