Old Gen Station - Ground Broken

[bl8jaxnative]

They've got stakes out and are starting to move dirt at the old generator station property next to Duval Public Schools.

[tufsu1]

Healthy Town baby!

[Peter Griffin]

This is the proposed District property, right?

[marcuscnelson]

It should be. I'm not aware of any other downtown generator station next to the DCPS building.

Maybe this thread should be merged into one of the existing ones on The District.

[heights unknown]

This has gotta be for infrastructure right? Does infrastructure have to be built, constructed and laid out first before any buildings are constructed or can infrastructure be done along with construction of the buildings?

[thelakelander]

Infrastructure. No buildings have been announced to date.

[thelakelander]

Just drove by. They are building the surface parking lot for the school board building.

[marcuscnelson]

Just drove by. They are building the surface parking lot for the school board building.

Funny to think about that being the first thing built, with DCPS now considering a move.

[acme54321]

They've been stringing together a big pipe all the way across the site this week.  Not sure what it is but I doubt it's tied specifically to the construction of a of a parking lot.  Almost looks like a water main but it's laying on the ground and hard to believe they'd do that without putting it straight in trench, but I'm no expert.

[thelakelander]

Preston Hollow plans May 25 groundbreaking at The District

In the April 23 interview, Albarran said the Dallas-based real estate capital firm will not be a vertical developer on the project and will market the individual property parcels at the 32-acre site to other developers.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/preston-hollow-plans-may-25-groundbreaking-at-the-district

[jaxlongtimer]

Another riverfront project... and another possible exception to the setback heights DIA supposedly was to enforce.  Up to 160 feet approaching the edge of the water.  One building on the site plan shows 135 feet right up to the Riverwalk.  What a joke.

Just like Jax zoning rules, so full of exceptions and loopholes as to be meaningless.  Watch out for more exception requests as they sell off the parcels to developers.

FYI, the only buildings below 50 feet shown are at the river's edge too, so getting an exception to 50 feet is, per the below article, again, making the policy worthless.

The Downtown Development Review Board will be asked to consider changes to the site plan at its May 13 meeting that could increase building height limits on two of individual project parcels to 50-feet.

Documents filed by CDD engineering firm Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc. say the changes will allow three-floor town houses with potential rooftop decks to be built near the southeast corner of the development.

Kimley-Horn's report also shows mixed-use, hotel, office, retail and residential parcels on the west half of The District property.

The engineering firm reports the change would  "promote a mix of uses within the development and provides greater flexibility in accommodating the end-users."

The District's tallest building could be up to 350 feet, according to Kimley-Horn's presentation. The rest of the site will have mid-rise and low-rise buildings, two riverfront public parks and a Southbank Riverwalk extension.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/preston-hollow-plans-may-25-groundbreaking-at-the-district

[jaxlongtimer]

Field, I am wondering if you would reconsider your position from our previous exchange regarding height exceptions along the river.  I predicted the City would continue to violate its own policy gutting its effectiveness.  I perceive that you had more confidence that they would adhere to it.  Unfortunately, I feel at this time, my prediction is becoming more accurate.  Do you agree?

It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.

No, the (new) zoning code does not permit new construction akin to the Strand/Peninsula along the riverfront. There are max height limits within so many feet of the waterfront.  If apartments are constructed on the RCB site, they would likely be set back from the waterfront. Most of the property is off the river (the trees in between the restaurant and Friendship Fountain are all on COJ property). I believe 5 stories is the max along the riverfront (see: Broadstone apartments next to School Board).

I see the apartments adjacent to the One Call building, the recent ones on the water in Riverside, the FIS HQ's, etc. close to the river. 

The apartments going up next to the One Call building had an entitlement that pre-dated the new zoning code, which I think is a reasonable condition for an exception to the 60 ft height rule. Nevertheless, they did come down from their initial proposal, and later came down further based on a lawsuit from the adjacent property owner

FIS received a small height variance, however the building is set back from the river... and Fidelity already paid for (20+ years ago) the public park and Riverwalk extension (public access) in between the river and the new office tower under construction.  There is no infringement of public access caused by that building.

Frankly, opposing either of those projects (a residential tower in an oddly shaped lot next to very noisy train tracks... and the expansion of a F500 headquarters which is likely the best economic development deal EVER done by COJ) would be failing to see the forest through the trees, IMO.

[bl8jaxnative]

Looks good.  Nice to see things moving forward.

[Zac T]

Was The District's site plans approved before or after the new height restrictions were put in place?

[marcuscnelson]

Seeing as they are still building a decent-sized park along the property, and certainly isn't nearly as egregious as The Peninsula, I find it hard to justify protesting. It's particularly hard to come up with a decent case against it when "Riverfront Plaza" ends up being the city's example of building larger setbacks from the river, in which we don't invest enough in making it a useful public space anyway.

One thing that stands out to me is remembering people ask why the city didn't do something akin to this with the Shipyards before. Remediate the land, prepare the infrastructure, and then get the money back by selling the parcels and receiving property taxes. To be clear: that's not the same thing as demolishing existing structures with potential uses and reducing them to a grass lot in hopes of "preparing for development."