Convention Center Wars

[KenFSU]

I agree with carving up properties into smaller RFPs. It increases density, the playing field, and encourages more diversity in development participation.

Unless, of course, we don't want to broaden the playing field and encourage more diversity in development participation because it makes it harder to rig the outcome.

[jaxnyc79]

Would Audra Wallace's replacement be the one to influence these conceptual plans before diving into deal-making?  Small RFPs is exactly what there should be more of, especially along our immediate waterfront.  No more behemoths on the water, especially in core downtown.  If one has access to funding right now for a 3-story middle housing structure in downtown, how easy is that to get done?

[Tacachale]

I agree with carving up properties into smaller RFPs. It increases density, the playing field, and encourages more diversity in development participation. With this plan, I'm still not understanding the need to close Market Street for a sprawling five-story stick built apartment complex more suitable for Gate Parkway and East Baymeadows than it is for the Northbank. Still interesting to see no one crying about view corridors. Sleiman was tar and feathered over his plan to block Hogan Street. Perhaps it is more about the man and not the project.

The whole plan is just a consolation prize for the site not getting to be a convention center. There's no need to close Market Street and create a super block for this boring design. With a design like this, we'd have been far better off keeping and adapting City Hall.

[Bill Hoff]

Why is Jax so afraid of the cluster?

Because the right people aren't making money from it.

Khan just cares about Khan's property. Clustering be damned.

[jaxnyc79]

Walking through the south street seaport today in manhattan. A version of a seaport village from landing to courthouse site would be nice.  Buildings small, clustered, cobblestone streets, no more than 4 stories tall for the most part.

[howfam]

^And if we do demo, it should at least be an improvement on what's already there.

Rimrock's plan for the old courthouse site creates a ton of dead space along Bay Street and hides its best feature (and the river) from downtown, but at least it's adding bodies and restaurants downtown.

But there's no universe where a parking lot and a sad limited-service hotel is a suitable replacement for the Annex property:



I know we've got a fetish for RFPing large swaths of riverfront property as a package, but perhaps one way to encourage denser, more compact use would be to RFP the two properties separately, rather than jointly.

It might cost a little more, but there's no reason that Rimrock couldn't fit everything proposed in that two-block plan onto the old Courthouse site.

Amen to that.  Small is beautiful.  I wish we could divvy up spaces along the riverfront into mini-blocks with narrow streets with mostly clustered 2 and 3 story mixed use structures, creating a waterfront village feel with max pedestrian scale and tenor

No!!! None of that Jax Beach mess in our downtown with 3 story structures on the waterfront. This is an urban setting and high rise buildings are appropriate, even on the river. Stop trying to downsize this city by denying the opportunity for high-rise construction like any big city should have. NO MORE STICK-FRAME BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN!!!!!

[marcuscnelson]

^^^

Small can be beautiful, but we don't need a "waterfront village" in what's supposed to be an urban center. Downtown Jacksonville should look like a city, not a village.

It's totally possible to have pedestrian scale on the ground floor of an urban building, other cities do it all the time. You don't need to limit the size of buildings in order to do that. Manhattan can get away with something like South Street Seaport because it's Manhattan and we aren't. There's plenty of room for villages in other areas, but it shouldn't be on the riverfront we're trying to activate.

[jaxnyc79]

This fetish for monstrous buildings right on the riverfront is ill-advised and insane, haha.  Jax is NOT Manhattan, nor should it be.  Plenty of major, international cities, protect their immediate waterfronts from too much verticality by keeping structures low-rise and a "breathable" feel where there's riverfront access.  You can have as many massive buildings as you want just a block or two off the river, although Jax really has no need for soaring skyscrapers at this point because there's just not that much demand for space and it's really not space-constrained.  But that's no reason to stop development and to fill in the city with density and clustered growth.

[thelakelander]

Jax is no Manhattan or even Miami but in this particular location (which is a mega block from the river channel) there's no need to de-densify the little density we do have.

[jaxnyc79]

Jax is no Manhattan or even Miami but in this particular location (which is a mega block from the river channel) there's no need to de-densify the little density we do have.

In my view, the imperative isn't so much density with verticality, but a clustering and diversity of buildings with a range of uses all of which directly open up to the sidewalk to maximize pedestrian access and pedestrian engagement at as many points as possible.  Out of curiosity, who on this thread currently lives in core Downtown Jax, or in a Downtown period?

[thelakelander]

In my view, in the case of this site, adaptive reuse should considered over demolition in order to make room for less pedestrian friendly redevelopment.

I have a downtown office in the old Atlantic National Bank Building. I looked long and hard at 11 East and the Carling when I moved to town. Back then, they were the only residential units available. I also looked at 220 Riverside. In all cases I felt they were overpriced for an urban environment that would have required me to do a reverse commute to access things I wanted in a walkable setting.

[RattlerGator]

Jax is no Manhattan or even Miami but in this particular location (which is a mega block from the river channel) there's no need to de-densify the little density we do have.

Good grief. Somehow I knew this thread would not disappoint and it certainly hasn't. Thank you, jaxnyc79, for this:

"In my view, the imperative isn't so much density with verticality, but a clustering and diversity of buildings with a range of uses all of which directly open up to the sidewalk to maximize pedestrian access and pedestrian engagement at as many points as possible."

To hell with density, density, density. I remember y'all bitching and moaning about the Gate Gas Station in Brooklyn; that freaking space is always busy, provides a great service, and is obviously valued by a wide range of people downtown.

I'll tell you something else; to hell with this strong desire to dictate, dictate, dictate. Just get the hell out of the way. And, while you're at it, hire a damn third party with expertise in property management to handle city-owned properties in the core.

[thelakelander]

To hell with density, density, density. I remember y'all bitching and moaning about the Gate Gas Station in Brooklyn; that freaking space is always busy, provides a great service, and is obviously valued by a wide range of people downtown.

Hopefully, downtown advocates aren't really saying to hell with density. If so, let's stop subsidizing it and let autocentric policies take a hold of the area like they have throughout the rest of the city.

For the record, I don't think anyone said Gate would not do good business. If I recall, the complaints were focused on them coming to the table with a more pedestrian friendly site design. With that said, there aren't many people walking around that area now, so the point of it not being pedestrian friendly or contributing to a future walkable district has been proven.

[fieldafm]

Jax is no Manhattan or even Miami but in this particular location (which is a mega block from the river channel) there's no need to de-densify the little density we do have.

Good grief. Somehow I knew this thread would not disappoint and it certainly hasn't. Thank you, jaxnyc79, for this:

"In my view, the imperative isn't so much density with verticality, but a clustering and diversity of buildings with a range of uses all of which directly open up to the sidewalk to maximize pedestrian access and pedestrian engagement at as many points as possible."

To hell with density, density, density. I remember y'all bitching and moaning about the Gate Gas Station in Brooklyn; that freaking space is always busy, provides a great service, and is obviously valued by a wide range of people downtown.

I'll tell you something else; to hell with this strong desire to dictate, dictate, dictate. Just get the hell out of the way. And, while you're at it, hire a damn third party with expertise in property management to handle city-owned properties in the core.

You forgot "Make America Great Again"

[KenFSU]

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2018/09/05/convention-center-proposals-vary-widely-on.html

Sorry, it's probably behind a paywall and I'm on mobile, but the JBJ has released details of the three other convention center bids.

Preston Hollow is probably a better deal for the city, while Jacobs would work in tandem with the Hyatt.

Rimrock seems like they'll probably be cut quickly, if they haven't been already for revising their proposal and calling the Shipyards a better location.

My kneejerk reaction is that both the Preston Hollow and Jacobs bids are SIGNIFICANTLY better than what the Jags are proposing.