Khan interested in developing shipyards

[thelakelander]

Speaking of large undeveloped urban waterfront sites, we're not the only one's with something like the Shipyards.  Baltimore has the Honeywell site.  It started off as the Baltimore Chrome Works Facility was constructed in the mid-nineteenth century near Fells Point. Chromium ore was processed to produce chromium chemicals until 1985.

Allied Chemicals, later AlliedSignal, now Honeywell, acquired the plant in 1954. Environmental investigations conducted at the site during the 1980's established that large quantities of chromium, calculated to be approximately 62 pounds per day, were migrating from the site, with most of the chromium being released to the Baltimore harbor.

So far, Honeywell has spent over $100 million in capping the contaminated property. Plans are to eventually redevelop the entire site into a mixed use project.

http://www.mde.state.md.us/assets/document/Allied%20Honeywell%20short.pdf

[ChriswUfGator]

It's 0.62 miles from the Acosta Bridge to the Hyatt.  It's a half mile from Haborplace to Little Italy.

The crazy thing is we've invested in nearly the same stuff as Baltimore did over a similar 30 year period.  Their investments were purposely clustered together and our investments appear as if someone kicked an ant hill.  Their compact placement of complementing attractions created synergy which attracted additional development.  Looking at us, we could set off a similar chain reaction by taking a small piece of the urban waterfront, improving existing amenities and infilling it with additional amenities.  However, that option would be better served focusing between CSX and the Hyatt area as a higher priority.

That's analyzing it in a vacuum though. Baltimore didn't run around demolishing the rest of their city while working on the harbor, lol.

It doesn't really matter what gimmick we built here, there just aren't any significant number of people to speak of downtown, where we've demolished the reasons they'd be there in the first place, and then we ran off the few remaining large employers with asinine parking policies. Except for EverBank, who got so many concessions it got to where it would almost have cost them money not to move. Which apparently is what it takes to get a tenant downtown these days.

The land area down there doesn't matter as much as the fact that there's just nothing there, and by demolishing 2/3's of it, they've made it economically unfeasible for small businesses to locate there. You have to build a new building now, you can't just rent. Even if you do build a new building, that's expensive, and accordingly so will be the rent. It basically already reached critical mass and imploded back in the 1990s. Absent drastic policy changes and public investment it's not changing anytime soon, the shipyards aren't really going to affect it one way or the other.

You're kind of doing what you're accusing me of.  You're obviously assuming Baltimore didn't run around demolishing areas of town while working on the harbor.  In actuality, there are some areas in close proximity of the harbor and harbor itself that were subject to lots of urban renewal.  Jax isn't close to being alone when it comes to late 20th century demolition, although many of us believe we are.

Looking at the early 20th century Baltimore shots, nearly every building surrounding the Inner Harbor no longer exists today.  The Inner Harbor succeeds, not because of the rest of the city's density, but the synergy of compact, complementing uses fueling an environment that attracts a ton of outsiders to spend money there.  Next time, you're in Baltimore, try walking a few blocks NW of the Inner Harbor and into the heart of downtown or NE near Johns Hopkins or where Jonestown used to be.  It's a completely different environment.



However, you're basically describing why the Shipyards should be less of a focus.  There's one area of downtown where building density has actually increased in the last few decades and that's the Northbank waterfront between the Acosta and Hyatt.  It's were most people who visit downtown go now. If we have any hope in adding life back within a compact area (in the short term), it's that spot because you're not starting from scratch.  There are excellent opportunities with the linear green space between CSX and the Landing, the Landing, Omni, Performing Arts Center, Suntrust Tower and Wells Fargo Center.  You really don't need major infill in this area to enhance it.  It can easily be improved by enhancing connectivity and improving the public realm spaces between the existing attractions themselves.

Also, this isn't a gimmick as much as it's common sense and a proven method to increasing pedestrian scale walkability and interaction, which eventually equals vibrancy within a compact setting.

Apples and oranges. Baltimore didn't hold a candle to our four decade-long demolition rampage that took out 2/3 of downtown, all of the immediately adjacent urban areas, and still continues today. They're absolutely nothing like one another in that regard. Analysis of what works and what doesn't is fine, and helpful. But this is a false comparison, Baltimore and jacksonville have such different starting points, simply because of what isn't here vs. what was still there when it starting turning around. What worked there won't work here because we simply don't have the assets (mainly building stock) they still had.

[thelakelander]

I'd challenge you to take a stroll around Baltimore the next time you're up there and actually dig into its history.  It isn't all peaches and cream like you're attempting to paint it.  Nevertheless, demolition away from the riverfront/inner harbor isn't the main driver in the difference between the Inner Harbor and Jax's riverfront.  Go back to the 1970s, and you'll discover the revitalization starting points and investments were pretty similar during that era.  The same applies to cities like San Diego and Portland as well.

We even had building fabric still standing and occupied back in those days (although most of that stock was on the other side of Bay Street). In the past 30 years, those places established a vision and stuck to the plan of incrementally implementing it.  We've done the exact opposite and the result is what we have today.

If we're talking specifically about turning DT Jax around, we're going to have to start small and work with what we have.  Unfortunately, to get to a level of where the Inner Harbor is today, it will probably take use another 30 years, but it is what it is.  If we don't think that works, then we might as well give up because there's no Donald Trump coming to town to magically turn DT Jax into a 24/7 city any time soon.

[ChriswUfGator]

I'd challenge you to take a stroll around Baltimore the next time you're up there and actually dig into its history.  It isn't all peaches and cream like you're attempting to paint it.  Nevertheless, demolition away from the riverfront/inner harbor isn't the main driver in the difference between the Inner Harbor and Jax's riverfront.  Go back to the 1970s, and you'll discover the revitalization starting points and investments were pretty similar during that era.  The same applies to cities like San Diego and Portland as well.

We even had building fabric still standing and occupied back in those days (although most of that stock was on the other side of Bay Street). In the past 30 years, those places established a vision and stuck to the plan of incrementally implementing it.  We've done the exact opposite and the result is what we have today.

If we're talking specifically about turning DT Jax around, we're going to have to start small and work with what we have.  Unfortunately, to get to a level of where the Inner Harbor is today, it will probably take use another 30 years, but it is what it is.  If we don't think that works, then we might as well give up because there's no Donald Trump coming to town to magically turn DT Jax into a 24/7 city any time soon.

Ennis don't kid a kidder, I never said Baltimore was all peaches and cream, in fact I agree that it used to be one giant slum, they had a lot to overcome, and I certainly wasn't arguing that. The distinguishable difference is they didn't demolish virtually their entire urban core like Jacksonville did. The question as a practical matter is how does one come back from that?

You have this fundamental structural problem now, where you just don't have sufficient building stock there anymore to have organic growth. New construction is economically unviable in this scenario because it's expensive and accordingly so will be the rents. Nobody's going to pay $4k/mo for zero foot traffic, they just go elsewhere. And the developers know that, so it just sits.

I disagree with the Jacksonville mindset that, into the middle of this kind of fundamental structural problem, we're going to throw some condo project or a convention center up and this will revitalize the area. The problem is much larger than that, and these magic-bullet projects won't change anything, and they can make it worse. At some point if the city really wants downtown back then it's going to have to start offering construction and rent subsidies, eliminate paid parking, quit trying to fix the problem by buying up the few remaining buildings and putting city offices in them, and a laundry list of other things we've hashed out repeatedly over the years, with the basic goal being to lower the cost of being down there to reflect the market reality.

You and I agree that growth has to be organic, the issue is they've removed all of the soil where anything could grow, and before you can expect anything to happen you have to put it back. This isn't done with magic-bullet projects, downtowns thrive on small and medium size commercial, especially retail, and there is very little of that type of space left in ours, and what little is there is exorbitantly expensive for no logical reason. At some point we just have to get the checkbook out and encourage construction and low rents. Something this city uniquely has zero political appetite for. So it just sits.

[thelakelander]

Ennis don't kid a kidder, I never said Baltimore was all peaches and cream, in fact I agree that it used to be one giant slum, they had a lot to overcome, and I certainly wasn't arguing that. The distinguishable difference is they didn't demolish virtually their entire urban core like Jacksonville did.

I'm trying to be serious.  I do this stuff for a living.  It seems you're basing your opinion on the aftermath of two different results following 40 years of revitalization tactics. I'm trying to put this in it's proper perspective. While some major areas of DT Jax are a smoldering heap of building foundations, when both of these places started (yes, we started revitalization efforts decades ago) that was not so.  Specifically, the inner harbor is about as big of an urban renewal project as any during the second half of the 20th century.  If our paths prove anything, it's that what we've been doing for the last 40 years is a prime example for other communities of what not to do.

The question as a practical matter is how does one come back from that?

This is the easy question that we continue to make difficult, resulting in our forty years of failure, becoming 50.  You don't start by spending hundreds of millions on isolated sites with limited connectivity and ability to stimulate your heart.  In the short term, you preserve, improve, and add to what little you already have while making it easier for the private sector to operate.

You have this fundamental structural problem now, where you just don't have sufficient building stock there anymore to have organic growth. New construction is economically unviable in this scenario because it's expensive and accordingly so will be the rents. Nobody's going to pay $4k/mo for zero foot traffic, they just go elsewhere. And the developers know that, so it just sits.

How much building stock to you need to focus on the heart of the Northbank?  We have more than enough to get started within a limited compact area.  Several cities with less building stock than us have already proven this.

I disagree with the Jacksonville mindset that, into the middle of this kind of fundamental structural problem, we're going to throw some condo project or a convention center up and this will revitalize the area. The problem is much larger than that, and these magic-bullet projects won't change anything, and they can make it worse.

I agree with you.  That's what we've been doing for the last 40 years and it hasn't worked.

At some point if the city really wants downtown back then it's going to have to start offering construction and rent subsidies, eliminate paid parking, quit trying to fix the problem by buying up the few remaining buildings and putting city offices in them, and a laundry list of other things we've hashed out repeatedly over the years, with the basic goal being to lower the cost of being down there to reflect the market reality.

For the most part, I agree with this statement.  You do have to level the playing field and fill in the financing gaps.  That's why some places like Detroit and Cincinnati actually are paying people to live in certain areas of their urban cores....and it's working for them.

You and I agree that growth has to be organic, the issue is they've removed all of the soil where anything could grow, and before you can expect anything to happen you have to put it back. This isn't done with magic-bullet projects, downtowns thrive on small and medium size commercial, and there is virtually none of that type of space left in ours. At some point we just have to get the checkbook out and encourage construction and low rents. Something this city uniquely has zero political appetite for. So it just sits.

Once people realize that Jax is a small second tier community and stop lusting over the big-one-trick pony project dreams, we'll discover revitalization is much easier than we've made it to be.

[strider]

The following is just my layman opinion.

Baltimore has a checked past.  Those that lived in Metro DC area thought of Baltimore as the slums of slums.  The first time I went to the Annapolis Boat Show in 1983 I made the mistake of staying in Baltimore.  I only made that mistake once.  By the time I moved to Maryland in the 90's , things were different.  I had friends that lived in Fells Point and later bought one of the row houses by the stadiums.  The ones that were sold for a dollar in 1978.  The city did move the addicts out before the sale but made no guarantees they would not move back. By the end of the 90's, there were selling for $300 plus a SF. A few years ago, we got to spend most of the Summer and Fall up in Baltimore, based in Fells Point. We walked to the grocery store, we walked to the West Marine (we were on our boat) and we walked to places like Little Italy and the Inner Harbor.  We drove around a lot too and there are lots of neighborhoods that have lots of historic looking buildings stock left.  Some are in use, many are not.  Some of the outer ones look a lot like Springfield, but without the big, empty spaces.

I find it hard to compare Jacksonville to Baltimore for several reasons.  To begin with, the city was poor for decades.  It did not have the funding to demolish whole neighborhoods and so they remain.  A few smart leaders seemed to realize that they had better do it right with what little they did have and so they did not demolish those flea invested row houses that were next to nothing in 1978, they basically took them and gave the problem to someone else. Not to save them, but because it was cheaper to keep them.

There is a common thread with historic buildings. If the owners through the years were wealthy, the buildings got well maintained and updated through the years.  The facades were changed and made to look more modern.  Those buildings with poorer owners that were not well maintained still have the original historic facades. I think cities are pretty much the same way.  Baltimore was poor and so things remain.  When the Inner Harbor was being developed, of course some buildings had to go.  It is just the way it has to be.  Some old must go to allow for the new.  Otherwise, no new Wright or Klutho could ever make their mark on a city.  I think it is not the demolition of some buildings, it is the extent that is the problem.

Jacksonville, I think, found itself with more funding than Baltimore had.  I also think that Jacksonville is about as corrupt as a city can get. Add to that the issues brought in by Consolidation and we have a recipe for developer driven greed on the part of the leadership.  Things get demolished in the Urban core perhaps not to allow for easier development of those land areas but to insure the values of the land in the suburbs.  That downtown buildings go away to insure there is nothing to compete with the suburban sprawl the developers are getting rich from.  This is not to say places like Baltimore are not corrupt, but to simply try to state that once a path is started down, greed keeps the city on that path.

It will take someone like Khan to believe that a vibrant city center is worth while.  Even then, I can see the Shipyards being more important to him that the actual downtown as it builds towards his primary area of concern, the stadiums. We have to hope that the greed follows his money if we want the kind of urban core we say we do.

[thelakelander]

Don't compare cities.  Baltimore is a significantly larger city than Jacksonville has ever been.  I think consolidation screws with our minds.  We think we're in the same size range as the Atlantas, Miamis, etc. but in reality we're the scale of Dayton, OH that's annexed its core county. Instead, you compare redevelopment strategies of the Inner Harbor and Jacksonville's waterfront over a common time period. 

One strategy was built around the idea of clustering complementing uses together within a compact pedestrian scale setting and the other was not.  This alone, will result in significant differences over a 40 year period regardless of whether you're dealing with a Baltimore, Jacksonville, Houston, Delray Beach or an El Paso.

[Lunican]

Kahn's total net worth is $2.5 billion. We could pour every penny he has into the current machine and end up with grass fields and building foundations.

[thelakelander]

Kahn didn't make his money being a fool.  I wouldn't expect him to light his fortune on fire trying to turn around downtown single handedly.  Make no doubt about it, whatever development he puts his money in, it's an investment.

[Cheshire Cat]

Interesting piece in today's Daily Record.

http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=540624  (click link for full story)

Thursday, September 26, 10:14 AM EDT

by Mark Basch, Contributing Writer
Looking out the window of The River Club Downtown Wednesday, Jacksonville Jaguars President Mark Lamping had a clear view of EverBank Field and the riverfront properties leading up to the team's stadium.

During a luncheon speech to the Jacksonville Bankruptcy Bar Association, Lamping explained why Jaguars owner Shad Khan is interested in development of the vacant, blighted-looking Shipyards property.

"We think the Shipyards are really the front door to the sports complex," he said.

"We think having that developed will strengthen the state of the Jaguars."

Make no mistake – Lamping knows the biggest problem attracting fans to Jaguars games right now is the team's poor performance on the field.

"Winning can mask a lot of problems," he said.

"If there are 10 things to do, the first five are to put a better team on the field. But in some respects, it's not the only thing," he said.

Lamping outlined some of the other steps the team is taking to attract more fans, including Khan's involvement in economic development in Jacksonville.

Khan told the Daily Record in June that he was interested in the Shipyards. Lamping said Khan is hoping to attract other parties for development projects at the site.

"Almost view us as the developer of last resort," Lamping said but he added, "We're not going to sit another five or 10 years."

Khan has demonstrated his commitment to Jacksonville in other ways in recent months, including financing development of the Laura Street Trio and the old Barnett Bank Building Downtown. He also recently met with Gov. Rick Scott to discuss economic development in Jacksonville.

"We know the stronger Downtown is, the stronger the Jaguars will be," Lamping said

[Wacca Pilatka]

Jacksonville is very fortunate to have community-minded men in charge of its football team. People who see the opportunity to help the city realize its potential and who take responsibility for improving the franchise and its revenue streams. When you compare the actions of Khan and Lamping to those of team officials who severed relationships with their cities, the distinction could not be more obvious. The way these men invest in the city also underscores why it's in every Jaxson's interest to root for the team to succeed, regardless of who his or her favorite team might be, and not to join the flippant commentary about how "embarrassing" a losing team is.

[Cheshire Cat]

Jacksonville is very fortunate to have community-minded men in charge of its football team. People who see the opportunity to help the city realize its potential and who take responsibility for improving the franchise and its revenue streams. When you compare the actions of Khan and Lamping to those of team officials who severed relationships with their cities, the distinction could not be more obvious. The way these men invest in the city also underscores why it's in every Jaxson's interest to root for the team to succeed, regardless of who his or her favorite team might be, and not to join the flippant commentary about how "embarrassing" a losing team is.

Agreed, but I think we would be remiss not to mention the millions upon millions of dollars the Weaver's poured into various community programs and efforts.  They did much for Jacksonville. 

[Wacca Pilatka]

Yes, I definitely do not mean to take anything away from the Weavers in saying that.

[Cheshire Cat]

Yes, I definitely do not mean to take anything away from the Weavers in saying that.

I didn't think you did.    I know Dolores recently gave over 50 million for use by local charities.  That is outstanding.  I  think Khan is bringing something different to Jacksonville's table with his focus which will help us in ways that we have yet to imagine.  I am looking forward to good things.

[I-10east]

Apparently Khan is sick of Jax's complacency with the Shipyards.

www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=541085