City will seek Proposals for Shipyards + Met Park Combined Development

[FlaBoy]

Funny thing is the hotel is probably the most realistic part of the proposal.

I just want them to put in the hotel and move the park. I actually think a nice waterfront park with the USS Adams closer to the core could help the Berkman II and other development get off the ground. It will all be market forces from here. I do think it would be nice for the city to figure out a long term solution for the jail soon to also incentivize development in the Shipyards.

^what he said.  And most likely as well. Except for the jail, which is a monstrosity that will be expensive to move.

I am not saying now, or in 5-10 years, but at least a commitment to moving the jail in a long term plan in the 11 to 20 year range.

Kerry, if Khan wants public money for a hotel, I think he kind of needs a convention center attached to make it worth it for the city to put money into it. For the city, there is no benefit paying for a big hotel across from the stadium otherwise unless it can help attract new conventions and revenue streams for the city similar to the Amphitheater. It will be an interesting year if the convention center discussion really heats up. 

[RattlerGator]

[4] RattleGator earned his billions in property development, as evidenced by his insistence that no one who isn't a billionaire developer can understand, or have an opinion about, this stuff.

I love the way you rather blatantly put words in my mouth any idiot can see I didn't remotely suggest, and how you (and Kerry) very conveniently overlook what I didn't simply suggest but rather explicitly claimed: the billionaire, (our billionaire), hired an accomplished executive that you can't critique -- so, ipso facto, you just magically ignore the accomplished executive. Poor thang.

Unfortunately for you, many (not all!) rich smart people *do* hire well. And Shad is clearly a rich, smart man who has hired well.

It isn't hard to comprehend how we're clearly better off as a community because of it.

Adam, unless I get deterred, I'll be in London for about a week (22-29 March) soon. If I remember correctly, you're over in Britain -- right? If so, and if you ain't skurred (and are open to a meet-up, of course), let me know.

[KenFSU]

With a couple of days to think it over and move past the "it's not exactly what I think would be best" mentality, the Jaguars proposal really is starting to grow on me a bit. It's obviously going to come down to execution and terms, but if we can get this thing built within five years, as Lamping is suggesting, via public-private partnership with the Jags, then I think it's a great net win for the city.

A few comments and questions on the site plan, moving east to west.

Hotel/Spa/Expo Space:



I really like the inclusion of a gateway feature, and I hope it's one of several. What I loved most about the original renderings from 2015 is that even though the uses varied widely, the entire proposed Shipyards development had a unified sense of place. With all of the confusion about Met Park moving to the Shipyards and development moving to Met Park, I sincerely hope that the area remains branded as "The Shipyards," rather than something goofy like "The River District." It's authentic, deeply connected to the actual history of the area, and dare I say, a very marketable name to boot.

I also like the orientation of the hotel, and the pedestrian overpass is in line with the vision that Khan has always had of the stadium connecting directly to the river. Looks similar to what we saw with the original Daily's Place renderings:



On all that expo space, however, I really do think that, as a city, we need to make an ultimate decision as to how we're going to move forward with a convention center before we start throwing public money into exhibition space that may potentially cannibalize those efforts. Not saying we need to build it tomorrow, but at least commit to a solution.

Mixed-use Entertainment:



To me, this is going to be the key part of the entire project, and the part we can least afford to cheap out on. If it's so nondescript that it could pass as Phase 14 of the St. Johns Town Center, then it's going to be nothing more than a place that people drive through on their way to a sporting event or concert. But if it's unique and architecturally interesting, it will become a destination in its own right, feeding additional people into the sports district. I would really hope that this entire entertainment zone is integrated together in a whole-greater-than-the-parts kind of way.

As an example, I loved the new Bucks development that Mike wrote about a week or two ago on Modern Cities, with the interesting walkways, balcony seating, four-story brewery, etc:

http://www.moderncities.com/article/2017-jan-milwaukee-bucks-enter-the-placemaking-business/page/1

Someone mentioned the Packers' new Titletown District as well, and it would be great to see something Jags-themed for that central greenspace in the entertainment zone as well.



Really, I'd love to see this area of the development find ways to tie in with all of our sports franchises, particularly those that play in the stadium district (Jags, Jumbo Shrimp, Icemen, Giants). Such a great way to strengthen the bond between our franchises and the city. And by having those strong tie-ins, this area would easily become the place to spend your day for Jags road games as well.

Or, we could build a Starbucks, Panera, and Hooters, and call it a day.

The main thing I could see standing in the way of the construction of a unified entertainment district is remediation. Construction for the area would likely be staggered, as buildings to the right of the park area lie on clean land (formerly Met Park), while those to the left lie in a heavily contaminated area.

Whatever happens, we need to start cleaning up this land yesterday.

Park & Residential:



The park, as designed, is still my least favorite part of the entire proposal. I think, as a city, we can do much better with our signature waterfront park. And, by including an exit ramp and a parking lot, I feel like we're cheating on the land swap. I also think we've got to do better on the restaurant component (the strip-mall looking render presented by the Jags). If it was on Met Park property, it wouldn't be as big of a deal. But if we're going to be paying upwards of $1 million to remediate the land under the restaurant, we shouldn't just throw up a pre-fabbed Crispers.

Still don't think we should name it Veteran's Park and relocate the memorial there, either. Again, we love our veterans, but central, family parks are supposed to be fun, boisterous places, not solemn memorials. No one hangs out at the Vietnam Memorial to kick back on a Saturday afternoon. It's a bad decision that needs to be pivoted on before it becomes politically impossible to do so.

On the positive side, the USS Adams is clearly a great addition, as is the kayak launch (though, how do the kayaks get past a floating dock?). I like the connection to Hogan's Creek, and should the greenway ever become more akin to our "Central Park" for lack of a better term, that would mitigate some of my concerns with what was presented.

And though calling the pedestrian overpass a "mini High Line" fundamentally ignores everything that makes the HL the unique, special place that it is, I do think it could be a great addition to the park if it's not half-assed (as in, it would need good landscaping, intermittent cover from the elements, and amenities (seating, photography spots (of the Adams, not the prison), etc.). Also, a little longer term, I do quite like how the overpass loops around the proposed residential and to the old Courthouse, potentially linking whatever is developed there to the park and Shipyards.

Finally, on the residential, you've got to wonder whether the city's plan is to partially remediate the property, and then complete remediation when the market dictates. I mention this because the most heavily contaminated area is clearly isolated off by itself (the westernmost residential building + parking garage). Could the plan be to shelf this expense for now and leave that land as is?

Other than that:

1) The proposed development, as noted, is pretty low density. As the project is being developed, I hope opportunities for future infill or expansion are considered.

2) Others might totally disagree, lord knows we've all had this argument for years, but the only thing missing that I'd really like to see included is space for an aquarium. There aren't a lot of major metros without one, and it would be add an additional attraction to the area. Plus, as a city, a huge portion of our value prop is built upon our waterways. It's a natural tie-in, particularly if linked to the zoo by water taxi as has long been discussed. Might take 10 years to build, but I think it deserves a good spot on the river.

3) Jax needs a 1,000 foot tower like it needs a hole in the head, but there are some interesting aspects of the other proposals. If I'm the city, Khan is selected, and the financial backing looks halfway legitimate for the other two suitors, I'm pitching the old courthouse and Annex sites to them yesterday. You know, the old Courthouse would actually make a really interesting spot for an aquarium and zoo-launch once it's opened up to the water.

[Kerry]

The City doesn't need Khan to do that.  If that is the whole plan why involve a middle man?

this sentiment must be based on the assumption that shad has no skin in the game.  the city would be on the hook for $$ for sure, but shad is not just some middle man he would be a partner.  you act like he's some kinda gc just wanting to skim his % off the top

I would use the term grifter, but that is just my opinion.  I can't help but imagine if Khan sold the Jags we would never hear from him again.  His interest in Jacksonville extends only to point that it benefits the Jags.  At least the other developers have a primary interest in real estate development.

I'm not particular excited about comments from the other proposal either.  Both are using buzz words that are so 'yesterday' it is actually off-putting.  Honestly, I think the City should just come out say we didn't get any viable proposals and scale down the available land and re-bid it.

Luring people off I-95?  This is 2017, not 1957.  Creating an innovation district?  2001 called, they want their slogan back.

[Adam White]

Adam, unless I get deterred, I'll be in London for about a week (22-29 March) soon. If I remember correctly, you're over in Britain -- right? If so, and if you ain't skurred (and are open to a meet-up, of course), let me know.

Hit me up! Although I live in the deepest, darkest recesses of East London, I work in the City. We can maybe meet up for a pint or something one day during the week.

[heights unknown]

Funny thing is the hotel is probably the most realistic part of the proposal.

I just want them to put in the hotel and move the park. I actually think a nice waterfront park with the USS Adams closer to the core could help the Berkman II and other development get off the ground. It will all be market forces from here. I do think it would be nice for the city to figure out a long term solution for the jail soon to also incentivize development in the Shipyards.

Move the Jail, as soon as the money is there to commence planning, etc., out near the Cecil Commerce Center area; lots of open land out in that area and I think putting the Jail out there would be appropriate as many cities, both small and large, have made that move and/or are making that move, i.e., moving jails from inner cities out into the "boonies" in the county. There are other areas in the county you could put the jail, but in my opinion, that area would be the most appropriate (bus lines are in that area too leading to all areas of the county; so once an imate is released, give them a voucher to get on a bus and get back home).

[KenFSU]

I think I'm the only one wholly unconcerned with the jail.

Unless you're paying incredibly close attention, it really doesn't look that much different than your standard, dated, urban office building.

And if anything, the heightened police presence makes the whole area feel the safer.

[FlaBoy]

Ken,

I don't think the Jags really spent much time on a real plan this time around but generally I like it. They know this is going to be a process. I really agree with you about the entrance ramp in the park. It makes no sense. I really don't understand why there needs to be a vehicular aspect to the remaining Hart overpasses. Otherwise, I think the convention issue, which has been discussed ad nauseum, will have to come to a head and a final decision made for the future of the city's convention center.

[Kerry]

I think I'm the only one wholly unconcerned with the jail.

Unless you're paying incredibly close attention, it really doesn't look that much different than your standard, dated, urban office building.

And if anything, the heightened police presence makes the whole area feel the safer.

I'm not really bothered by the jail either.  If anything, I could do without the brutalist police headquarters.  Fix that and the rest wouldn't look so bad.  The jail, its staff, and spin-off businesses aren't bad for the downtown economy, the execution just sucks.  To bad we don't have something like this.

[thelakelander]

The jail doesn't bother me either. I actually think the police headquarters would be fine if it were allowed to age like it was originally designed for:





When it opened in 1977, it was designed to function as a rooftop garden with multiple terraces, plantings, a pool, fountain and heliport. Similar to the Oakland Museum of California.  For whatever reason...security...maintenance, etc. the garden was closed and the plantings ripped out.  If allowed to mature, it could have resembled the matured landscape of the Oakland Museum by now.

[TimmyB]

I think I'm the only one wholly unconcerned with the jail.

Unless you're paying incredibly close attention, it really doesn't look that much different than your standard, dated, urban office building.

And if anything, the heightened police presence makes the whole area feel the safer.

I agree.  My wife and I have been downtown a few times in our visits.  Walking, biking, taking in a Suns (no, I won't refer to them by that other name) game, etc.  We didn't even know the jail was down there, and when I saw in an earlier post people talking about it, I actually had to go to Google Maps to identify it.  Clearly not any worse than many other buildings downtown, and as you said, it actually makes you feel safer knowing there are a few dozen officers nearby.

[Tacachale]

I think I'm the only one wholly unconcerned with the jail.

Unless you're paying incredibly close attention, it really doesn't look that much different than your standard, dated, urban office building.

And if anything, the heightened police presence makes the whole area feel the safer.

The jail was built in the early 90s. With a building like that you hope to get a good 40 or 50 years out of it. At that point we can move it to a better location.

[heights unknown]

Moving the Jail will not prevent officers from being assigned, detailed, or on patrol downtown or anywhere else in the city or county. The Jail doesn't bother me either, however, it appears that some or most in this forum, and others outside of this forum, would rather see something else downtown or on that property other than the Jail; and if so, then like most other cities, move it into the suburbs. Moving it will not make downtown, the city or the county less safe.

[FlaBoy]

I think I'm the only one wholly unconcerned with the jail.

Unless you're paying incredibly close attention, it really doesn't look that much different than your standard, dated, urban office building.

And if anything, the heightened police presence makes the whole area feel the safer.

The jail was built in the early 90s. With a building like that you hope to get a good 40 or 50 years out of it. At that point we can move it to a better location.

It has nothing to do with the look of the building. It has more to do with bail bond places, shelters next door, and vagrants wandering around after their brief or extended stays asking for money to get to here, there, wherever, and hanging out. It may be unpopular, and we talk about it all the time, but it remains an issue for people going downtown and just the vibe of the area. I agree though that it isn't going away anytime soon.

[Kerry]

To paraphrase Howard Kunstler, there isn't enough Prozac in the world to make this architecture acceptable.