Riverfront Parks Now

[jaxlongtimer]

I think this subject deserves a dedicated thread so here it is! 

To start the conversation, this from another thread:

The coalition of groups supporting downtown, and specifically riverfront, parks is opposing allowing Iguana Investments access to the "city" portion of Metro Park for environmental testing.

Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations representing thousands of citizens, is asking the public to oppose the DIA resolution, recognizing that commercial development of the property will rob locals of the opportunity to maintain public access and ownership, and to create something distinctive, inviting, and resilient.
https://jaxlookout.com/metro-park/?fbclid=IwAR2SqVvFkGhuOPTRLcTdN3xj-jNEdjhRB5wOf6XdbjsuprQti28s_F5iiqU

I fully support the mission of Riverfront Parks Now and agree that we should preserve as much of our riverfront as possible as green space and public access.  Any development set back behind such spaces should retain or even increase in value with these spaces as an added amenity as proven in cities all over the world.  It is really a relatively inexpensive economic development driver.

We are blessed that the City already owns so much of this land and we need to not squander the opportunity away.  Khan and his ilk are welcome to build all day long across from such spaces.  Future generations of Jacksons will be thanking us for our foresight.

Added benefits include urban health, environmental and resiliency.  It should be a no-brainer.  Only in our City due we have to fight for this type of decision.

And, today, this audio exchange to lead off First Coast Connect:

https://news.wjct.org/post/riverfront-parks-now-bryant-academy-reunion-aid-music-venues-wgw

How should Jacksonville best develop its underutilized riverfront?

We discussed the issue in more detail with Scenic Jacksonville Director Nancy Powell and St. Johns Riverkeeper Executive Jimmy Orth.  Both are members of Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations that is challenging the city's developers with another vision for the St. Johns River front.

[jaxlongtimer]

Adding this letter to the T-U about Lori Boyer and urban and riverfront parks to this thread:

What happened to Lori Boyer?

As a San Marco resident I was always pleased with Lori Boyer's representation of our district on the City Council. She seemed attuned to the needs of the area and advocated on our behalf. I was also impressed by her recognition of the importance of the St Johns River to the identity and livability of the city. She made efforts to increase access to the river and make it the centerpiece of activity in the urban core.

After becoming CEO of the Downtown Investment Authority (DIA) though, she seems to have succumbed to the groupthink that has guided city leaders and planners for years. That is, add more concrete and pavement to the downtown area and people will want to live there. A mindset where livability and visual appeal appear to be foreign concepts. She also seems to concur with the thinking that any downtown area with soil, grass, and natural elements is a wasted opportunity for development and a drag on the tax roll.

I am surprised by this because I thought she would bring a fresh perspective to the DIA and take steps to increase the livability of the downtown area. What she has done, though, is perpetuated the notion that greenspace is nothing more than another opportunity for a new structure or parking lot. This is a shame because there is now greenspace in the urban core and along the river that could be converted to an interconnected park system that would be the envy of other cities and make the urban core a desirable place to live.

Such parks would also serve as a resilient, natural barrier to river overflow. If she and other city planners were not under the spell of a stale urban planning philosophy, they might realize the once in a lifetime opportunity they have. Lori, please return to your roots and break the shackles of the dated school of thought that guided many failed downtown ventures of the past. Please don't miss this one-time opportunity!

Logan Cross, San Marco

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/02/20/letters-readers-when-america-great/4512008001/

[bl8jaxnative]

Not sure I get what the fuss is all about.  They want to extend the riverwalk and have some more parkland.  Fine.  We all like that.

We should be careful with some of the tools they're proposing to use.  Tax Increment Districts tie money up for long periods of time, making it unavailable to use on all the services those "new" residents + businesses are consuming.  In a way, they let developers pay for the their development with tax dollars instead private loans.  etc, etc, etc.    And a lot of the development was going to happen --- people need houses after all --- it was just a matter of where. 

That's a pretty expensive way to shape development. They're not wrong but they're a dangerous tool and should rarely be used.


Just don't forget that cities like Stockton went bankrupt while pouring money into their riverfronts.  And those developments haven't panned out 20 years later.

Remember, most of the resurgence of inner cities that's happened that helps make these riverfront projects look successful was driven by demographics --> the millenials.  They're getting into their 40s + looking for backyards for their kids.  Gen Z is smaller.

Throw that in with Jacksonville being below average in incomes, education, et al & the money probably isn't there for the thousands of $2.5K / mo 2 bd apartments and $548K condos.  Without those, things can't pay for themselves.

[jaxlongtimer]

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/02/23/dia-talks-riverfront-development-workshop.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=ae&utm_content=ja&ana=&j=23026171

From the above article on today's DIA meeting, I find the following totally inadequate:

....Boyer outlined several strategic objectives, such as ensuring that the riverfront is physically and visually accessible, enforcing a 50-foot minimum building setback from the river, formalizing guidelines for the design and orientation of buildings, prioritizing beautification via Florida-friendly landscaping and encouraging public river access...

I have a problem with 50 feet and then up goes walls like we are seeing at the River City site.  50 feet (I would really like to see at least 100+ feet or a full lot of green space) should be a minimum PLUS, beyond that, by example, a foot of horizontal setback for every foot of height to some other minimum setback, say 200 to 300 feet or more.  My point is this approach should be considered in some form and maybe its used in other cities we can learn from.

By the way, that is not an original thought.  I took this from a similar setback requirement in a fire code but it makes sense to me that a 45 degree line of elevation should be a minimum scaling line up to a point for visual purposes too.

[marcuscnelson]

^ Would the Wells Fargo and Bank of America buildings fit those guidelines? Or CSX, or DoubleTree, Ameris, the Peninsula and Strand and Berkman buildings? Or even the Hyatt?

I understand having a goal for setbacks for visual or resiliency purposes, but I can't help but wonder what that would leave the skyline looking like to set limits like that. I'm not saying Jacksonville should look like Manhattan or anything, but it's hard enough to get vertical construction downtown as it is.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Would the Wells Fargo and Bank of America buildings fit those guidelines? Or CSX, or DoubleTree, Ameris, the Peninsula and Strand and Berkman buildings? Or even the Hyatt?

I understand having a goal for setbacks for visual or resiliency purposes, but I can't help but wonder what that would leave the skyline looking like to set limits like that. I'm not saying Jacksonville should look like Manhattan or anything, but it's hard enough to get vertical construction downtown as it is.

Marcus, note that I suggested after, say, 200 or 300 feet the guidelines would not apply.  In my opinion, the skyline would look much better  .  Ideally, if we made more of our city owned riverfront parcels green space, these guidelines would become moot in more instances.

Wells Fargo, per Google Maps, is 490 feet from the river, so it would not be impacted (nor would the B of A tower which is further back).  Yes, some of the others might have to stand back a bit more by these standards.  But, having a 200 to 300 wide strip (behind the 50 to 100 foot minimum) of low rise or stepped buildings would make our river views much nicer.

By the way, I particularly dislike the Hyatt's "wall of windows" along the river.  It is, at its midpoint, only about 75 feet back and is a poster child for the concerns I have.

FYI, per my Google Maps estimates, Berkman is 164 feet back.  CSX varies from 98 to 130 feet (the high rise, not the low rise in the center), Ameris is at about 246 feet at its midpoint, and the Double Tree is about 188 feet for the high rise portion.  The Peninsula is only 35 feet.  I am including the Riverwalk in these numbers even though in some places it is actually out over the river and should not be counted.

[CityLife]

Can and should Jax do more to celebrate the St. John's and create better park space Downtown (including doing something with Exchange Island)? That's an obvious yes, but I'm going to drop a truth bomb here. Many people move to Florida for our beautiful beaches, crystal clear water, golf, and a tropical environment. Not to live next to a blackwater river (and I say this as a kid that grew up fishing, swimming, and going to aquatics camp in the river). You cannot look at Louisville, Chattanooga, etc in a vacuum and think successes there will automatically translate to Jacksonville. Existing residents in those places do not have the opportunity to live on or near the beach in places like Ponte Vedra, Atlantic/Neptune/Jax Beaches, St. Augustine, or Amelia Island. Prospective out of town middle/upper income residents looking to move to Florida also have the opportunity to live in South Florida, Tampa Bay, SW Florida, 30A, all of which have crystal clear water, and considerably better better water front housing, recreational, and boating options than Downtown Jax. 

As a quality of life strategy, it can be a big boost for the existing residents of Jacksonville, but as an economic development or new resident attraction strategy, it's not a guaranteed game changer unless heavily tied in with music, events, dining, and redevelopment opportunities.

I'm glad this group is making a push for this, because frankly Jacksonville's parks system is a joke. Throw out the largest park's system in the country marketing BS, it's a bad parks system. I just hope that there is some realism grounded in whatever this group is doing. They have to create something TRULY unique and special to really move the needle and they need to be fully aware of what they are up against. 

[Captain Zissou]

I'm glad this group is making a push for this, because frankly Jacksonville's parks system is a joke. Throw out the largest park's system in the country marketing BS, it's a bad parks system. I just hope that there is some realism grounded in whatever this group is doing. They have to create something TRULY unique and special to really move the needle and they need to be fully aware of what they are up against. 

This is my main concern.  Before we start designating huge swaths of the most visible land in town as parks, we need to fix our park system.  We can't manage what we already have, so I'm very hesitant to give them even more.  Add in the groundworks plan, daylighting McCoy's creek, fixing Hogan's creek, S-Line.... all these new grand park initiatives and I think we're headed for disaster.  Typical Jacksonville logic.  All hype for big budget items while the existing assets languish and decay. 

As a runner, cyclist, dog owner, and thrower of frisbees, I would love quality park space.  I just don't think our current government or parks department will be able to pull it off.

[thelakelander]

^I'd love to see a strategy that would first focus in on upgrading and maintaining existing parks. At this point, the shipyards could be a property tax generating shipyard, boat yard or scrap yard as for as I'm concerned, if it means we can get existing spaces like Springfield Park, James Weldon Johnson Park, Courthouse Plaza, etc. clean, sparkling and consistently programmed.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive.  To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks.  Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.

The problem with deferring many park acquisitions is the land is often gone "forever" and can't be obtained when funds finally become available.  Or, it is far more expensive due to additional development occurring around the parks.

Many parks are passively owned following acquisition until more funds are found to develop them for use by the citizenry.  We don't need to instantly develop parkland upon acquisition.

[marcuscnelson]

Nate Monroe put out an interesting article a few weeks ago about how Jacksonville's deliberately low taxes and lack of dedicated funds (compared to peer cities) have left a severe burden on public services by running a budget on survival mode for decades. At the end of the day, people always say they want this and that here, but the question for the ages is: how willing are we to pay for it? We only just answered that question with schools last year, and there are a lot more problems like that.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/02/05/nate-monroe-pandemic-not-jacksonville-crisis-mode-too-often/4403718001/

[thelakelander]

^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive.  To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks.  Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.

^Unfortunately, our current condition is our reality. We don't have enough money to do a lot of quality of life things, from mass transit and parks, to septic tanks, water/sewer and keeping public libraries open. With that said, I'm in favor of a tax increase to cover many quality of life issues throughout the city.

[Charles Hunter]

[cross posted from "Mayor, Local Leaders ... Downtown Jacksonville]
Running in parallel is the City's Adaption Action Area workshop series, looking at the coming impacts of sea and river level rise, increased rainfall, and other changes leading to more widespread flooding.  Four of the six workshops have been held - including one this morning. The remaining two are Friday morning, at 10:00 AM, and Monday evening at 6:00 PM, they run between 90 minutes and 2 hours.

Here is the project website https://gather.cdmsmith.com/v/Xw1Lx9X21L8

The Adaption Area (in purple) covers much of downtown, notably including pretty much the entire stadium area (sorry, I can't seem to embed this image)
https://gather.cdmsmith.com/v/5VjYlOyJzob

[fsu813]

^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive.  To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks.  Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.

^Unfortunately, our current condition is our reality. We don't have enough money to do a lot of quality of life things, from mass transit and parks, to septic tanks, water/sewer and keeping public libraries open. With that said, I'm in favor of a tax increase to cover many quality of life issues throughout the city.

The next Mayor, whomever it is, will be raising taxes out of necessity. Curry may be convinced to take one for the team, as it were, and do it before he leaves, so the next Mayor doesn't have to lift that weight. I suppose it would depend on his parachute strategy leaving office.

[vicupstate]

The next Mayor, whomever it is, will be raising taxes out of necessity. Curry may be convinced to take one for the team, as it were, and do it before he leaves, so the next Mayor doesn't have to lift that weight. I suppose it would depend on his parachute strategy leaving office.

I said essentially the same thing about Peyton and the pension situation. He wasn't able to run for re-election and wasn't going to run for higher office, so he could help the city tremendously without hurting himself much. Of course, he did nothing of the kind.