Author Topic: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released  (Read 26147 times)

For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #15 on: October 23, 2014, 01:10:58 PM »
If this happens, is there any chance Deutche Bank still comes downtown? Shipyards? Or the seemingly hundred other empty lots in Northbank?

I like the plan, but wish Jacksonville had the market to support a tower with some real density as well there.

finehoe

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #16 on: October 23, 2014, 01:20:44 PM »
If we're going to spend money extending the Skyway on the Southbank...

Why "we're"?  In most places if a developer wants a transit extension to their property, THEY pay for it.  If Peter Rummell really wants this to be a healthy and sustainable development, he should consider adding an extension himself.

thelakelander

  • Metro Jacksonville
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26542
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #17 on: October 23, 2014, 01:45:14 PM »
I doubt Rummell wants to do that. It's not shown in his plans. Rummell didn't make his money by spending millions on things that won't be profitable.

finehoe

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #18 on: October 23, 2014, 02:01:06 PM »
I doubt Rummell wants to do that. It's not shown in his plans.

That's what I thought.  Then talk of extending the Skyway is foolishness.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 02:04:36 PM by finehoe »

CityLife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #19 on: October 23, 2014, 02:15:40 PM »
At the JTA TOD workshop a few years ago, I advocated extending the skyway by the JEA site and then swinging it south towards San Marco. Pretty sure Lake, TUFSU, and others disagreed. Now that this site plan is ready and I've looked at the site and surrounding area, I'm changing my mind. As others have pointed out, the Kings Avenue station is a short walk and easy bike ride from Healthy Town. Extending the skyway probably doesn't open any dense development/TOD opportunities to the east/southeast. It looks like the large 9 acre COJ owned parcel to the south of the JEA site is wetlands, or at minimum in a flood zone. Pretty much everything else west of Bishop Kenny is single family. So this may be the last urban frontier east of Kings Avenue Station and north of 95 for the foreseeable future.

Given the lack of development options east/southeast of Healthy Town, I agree that taking the Skyway directly south along Hendricks or Kings is probably the best way to go if there is to be an extension.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 02:28:12 PM by CityLife »

Tacachale

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2014, 02:26:10 PM »
It would probably increase the value of the property if they did go in that direction. But I don't see how it would even be possible to get out there either way. You'd either have to double back from the station and go down Prudential, or cut around south by 95 and then back up Broadcast, which could be a mile of track to reach a population less than half a mile from a station already. And as others say it's not like it could spark additional development opportunities; they're already planning on developing the whole site besides the creek.

I think a better bet is for the developer and the city to do a strong job on the Prudential, Broadcast, and Riverwalk connections from a pedestrian standpoint so all these healthy people will easily be able to get to the station and the surrounding areas without having to get in the car.

pierre

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2014, 02:33:06 PM »
I hope something is done with Broadcast Rd too. It is near the urban core, a mile from the river and looks like Shindler Drive.

BD51

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #22 on: October 23, 2014, 03:38:16 PM »
Although the renderings and site plan look nice, it would fit in much better near the SJTC. Also, I see what appear to be 3 - 4 story buildings which certainly doesn't take advantage of the river views for the residential space. I understand the market may not be able to currently absorb 30+ story towers, but the views from The Peninsula and Strand can't be beat. Balanky built San Marco Place and should push for a couple taller buildings.

BoldCityRealist

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #23 on: October 23, 2014, 04:15:00 PM »
I mean, it's not horrible. Kinda fits into the whole San Marco/Southbank vibe stylewise.

fieldafm

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #24 on: October 23, 2014, 04:37:22 PM »
Quote
At the JTA TOD workshop a few years ago, I advocated extending the skyway by the JEA site and then swinging it south towards San Marco. Pretty sure Lake, TUFSU, and others disagreed. Now that this site plan is ready and I've looked at the site and surrounding area, I'm changing my mind. As others have pointed out, the Kings Avenue station is a short walk and easy bike ride from Healthy Town. Extending the skyway probably doesn't open any dense development/TOD opportunities to the east/southeast. It looks like the large 9 acre COJ owned parcel to the south of the JEA site is wetlands, or at minimum in a flood zone. Pretty much everything else west of Bishop Kenny is single family. So this may be the last urban frontier east of Kings Avenue Station and north of 95 for the foreseeable future.


I remember that, but you weren't taking into consideration the ROW that was already owned by JTA, options on land held by private developers and the new Atlantic Blvd exit being constructed due to the Overland Bridge project that opens up major commercial development opportunities in North San Marco (the reason why First Coast Energy just bought a large pacel off Atlantic, with others soon following)... which is why the preferred route for any potential Skyway expansions into San Marco was ultimately placed where it was. Additionally there was never a junction built to accomodate future expansion towards the JEA site and you could not drop the Skyway down to grade by snaking the Skyway that direction (another huge benefit of the ultimate preferred route proposed)... which substantially increases the cost of construction (with no more bang for the buck considering there is a two block radius to walk from this site to the neartest Skyway station - exactly the same distance b/w 220 Riverside and the Brooklyn expansion often talked about that JTA has twice applied for a TIGER grant to complete).

The JEA site has roadway access issues and Prudential Drive still has context sensitive roadway issues that need to be solved. Those are much, much more important (and cheaper) than a Skyway extension.
« Last Edit: October 23, 2014, 04:39:16 PM by fieldafm »

tayana42

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #25 on: October 23, 2014, 07:39:48 PM »
I believe Rummell and Balanky have more than a year to decide if they want to go ahead with the land purchase and develop it.  If they build something, it might be very different than the plan shown.

ProjectMaximus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2617
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #26 on: October 23, 2014, 11:35:26 PM »
I mentioned the skyway station thinking it was a bit absurd just .2 miles (by sidewalk) from the Kings Ave Station. As others have said, extending to the East San Marco site would be much more worthwhile. The only way this makes sense (essentially creating another line) would be if the Elements property donates land to extend farther into the center of the development, perhaps integrated into one of the structures.

JimInJax

  • Guest
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2014, 10:16:53 AM »
I think this is a good step in the right direction!

iMarvin

  • Guest

CityLife

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1840
Re: Peter Rummell's Healthy Town Site Plan Released
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2015, 05:26:12 PM »
Very glad to see they are exploring a name change. Definitely a step in the right direction if they are seeking to avoid becoming a senior living community.

Rummell and Balanky will be rock stars if they can break ground by the fall.