Downtown Development Update: What's rising, what's delayed

[Ken_FSU]

Desert Rider temporarily closed, pending new ownership:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2026/sep/17/founders-of-sweet-petes-candy-take-over-desert-rider-sandwich-shop-downtown/

[MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain]

Is there anything that can be shared about Project Revival prior to the 10/1 meeting? If I'm not mistaken, that was the code name given for the Berkman II site.

[Ken_FSU]

Is there anything that can be shared about Project Revival prior to the 10/1 meeting? If I'm not mistaken, that was the code name given for the Berkman II site.

Correct. The Hard Rock hotel + condos proposed for Berkman II. Can't imagine the public ask will be low.

[tufsu1]

^ my understanding is that no materials have been provided ahead of the workshop. I would assume the project would then come forward at the regularly scheduled DDRB meeting in October or November

[Ken_FSU]

Fascinating bit of history that I wasn't aware of:

The Finance Committee has gutted the budget for the proposed James Weldon Johnson Park redesign. The estimate to build the park to design was $12 million. They're getting $5 million. With the potential for $750,000 more in 2028 to build out a stage.

Parks has apparently greatly value-engineered the Hood Design concept (very curious to see what this looks like), as much of the budget will need to go to subterranean excavation work.

That's the interesting part. Others might know this, but apparently Hemming Park had underground, segregated restrooms beneath it, accessible from stairs along Laura Street. They were built in 1952, later desegregated, and controversially closed/paved over as part of the 1978 "Plaza" redesign. Apparently City Council didn't want people staying in the park, just crossing through, and viewed restrooms (and trees, and shade) as being too inviting for the homeless.

Also of note: Friends of James Weldon Johnson Park seems to be going away? Or, at the very least, ceding control of JWJP over to the DVI. I've been hearing about this for a while, but it sounds like it's being formalized with the new redesign. $600,000 will the park's annual operating budget under the DVI (similar to what Friends was receiving). From my understanding, the DVI has positioned it as a smart move in terms of economies of scale. Instead of carrying $300k in salary (JWJP typically employed between 6-8 people to manage, maintain, program, and market the park) against that $600k budget, they'll be able to pull in their ambassadors and existing staff to operate the park.

Will keep an open mind, but the reason that Friends of Hemming Park was established was because the city didn't want such an important space to be just another park pulling from shared resources. They wanted a fully dedicated staff whose only job was to make that park as vibrant and revenue-generating as possible.

Wildest thing to me continues to be how everyone in leadership seems to view JWJP as an afterthought. Even the $5 million was a struggle, with council members asking questions like, "Aren't the riverfront parks enough?"

[thelakelander]

Parks has apparently greatly value-engineered the Hood Design concept (very curious to see what this looks like), as much of the budget will need to go to subterranean excavation work.

That's the interesting part. Others might know this, but apparently Hemming Park had underground, segregated restrooms beneath it, accessible from stairs along Laura Street. They were built in 1952, later desegregated, and controversially closed/paved over as part of the 1978 "Plaza" redesign. Apparently City Council didn't want people staying in the park, just crossing through, and viewed restrooms (and trees, and shade) as being too inviting for the homeless.

For us old heads still around, its well known that the old restrooms are still there. Here's another possible example of where it could make financial and logical sense to keep and upgrade the old underground restrooms instead of spending a big expense tearing them out.  Anyway, less is probably more with the JWJ Park design. The original Hood Design was a bit of expensive overkill. Upgrading JWJ Park should not be so complicated.

[Charles Hunter]

For us old heads still around, its well known that the old restrooms are still there. Here's another possible example of where it could make financial and logical sense to keep and upgrade the old underground restrooms instead of spending a big expense tearing them out.  Anyway, less is probably more with the JWJ Park design. The original Hood Design was a bit of expensive overkill. Upgrading JWJ Park should not be so complicated.

But that would mean making them ADA compliant, which would involve an elevator, or a really long ramp.

[thelakelander]

A ramp wouldn't be a major expense.

[jaxlongtimer]

I think the biggest issue with public restrooms, even ones designed to be "bullet proof," are John and Mary Q. Public.  Having operated some over the years on private property, you wouldn't believe the "worse than animal" behavior of some humans.  Enough to make trying to keep such restrooms clean and operating for the rest of us a major expense and near-losing battle.  So, I get why the City would back off providing them. 

To add, if underground, if someone were accosted in one, you could imagine the lawsuits due to their lack of visibility and security.  If we want restrooms, I would carve out some space in a street facing building where they are highly visible and easily monitored.  Maybe the MOCA or Library buildings or even along the Snyder church property.  I would say also City Hall but know our elected officials, with their double standards, wouldn't want to share their spaces with "ordinary folk"  .

FYI, I found in Europe, some public restrooms (including restaurants and train stations) actually have a full time attendant that goes in after every use and cleans the facility.  For this, they typically charge one Euro to use the restroom.  Takes some getting use to as an American, but at least you know you are getting a clean and secure room.  With the cost of labor and everything else, this could be a coming attraction to the U.S. one day!  After all, who would have dreamed 50 years ago that people would pay for plain ol' water.

[Charles Hunter]

True, but how much of the limited space in JWJ would an ADA ramp consume?
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation is about 15' by 60' to get down 12 feet (just a guess at the depth of the floor of the restrooms), at the minimum 1:12 ADA slope, with two switchbacks on a five-foot-wide ramp.  (Unless, my math is wrong. Please correct me.)

And, what JLT said about security and euro-potties.

[jaxlongtimer]

True, but how much of the limited space in JWJ would an ADA ramp consume?
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation is about 15' by 60' to get down 12 feet (just a guess at the depth of the floor of the restrooms), at the minimum 1:12 ADA slope, with two switchbacks on a five-foot-wide ramp.  (Unless, my math is wrong. Please correct me.)

And, what JLT said about security and euro-potties.

Charles, I think it's worse than you stated.  At a one inch drop per foot, it would be 12 feet for every foot of drop.  If the drop is 12 feet, you would need 144 feet of ramp plus a 5 foot square platform every 30 feet per AI's review of ADA standards.  I figure that adds 30 more feet (6 platforms consisting of 4 switchbacks, one landing at the beginning, and one landing at the end) for a total of 174 feet!  That's over half a football field  . The ramp itself needs to be at least 36 inches wide between the handrails.  If true switchbacks, could do in 40 feet of length (30 foot of ramp run plus a 5 foot long landing/platform at either end of the run) and need to figure double width for the switchback or close to 7 feet wide.

If the drop was 8 feet, minimum decent ceiling height, I figure 96 feet of ramp and 5 platforms/landings (3 switchbacks and a beginning and ending landing) for a total of 121 feet.  Would still take up 40 feet of length by about 7 feet wide, just not as much in height.

None of this accounts for the footprint of a hallway to the bathrooms or the bathroom footprints.

Feel free to check my calculations, too.

[thelakelander]

True, but how much of the limited space in JWJ would an ADA ramp consume?
A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation is about 15' by 60' to get down 12 feet (just a guess at the depth of the floor of the restrooms), at the minimum 1:12 ADA slope, with two switchbacks on a five-foot-wide ramp.  (Unless, my math is wrong. Please correct me.)

And, what JLT said about security and euro-potties.

The park is a full city block. The elevation also shifts. There's tons of space to accommodate an ADA accessible ramp, if it were desired.

As for security, most cities have long figured out how to accommodate safe and secure public restrooms in public spaces.

I'm long failed to understand why Jax hasn't. Nevertheless, its the lack of common, everyday basic human comfort amenities, such as public restrooms that will limit these spaces from being places where people frequent.

Luckily, public restrooms have been included in most of the recent downtown parks projects. I hope they are included in a space that was originally budgeted at $12 million. No way should we invest that much cash into a space and still omit public restrooms.