COJ and UF take first major step towards LaVilla campus

[fsu813]

Anyone know what happened at City Council today with the Riverfront Plaza/Interline vote?

I think the meeting was at 1, but haven't heard any info yet.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/may/21/owner-reduces-asking-price-for-building-that-city-would-provide-for-uf-campus/

[Tacachale]

Turned into a workshop as there wasn't quorum, with several council members not making it. Will do a second Committee of the Whole first week of June.

[Joey Mackey]

I just watched the Committe on the Whole meeting (https://www.jacksonville.gov/city-council/city-council-meetings-online). I can't really understand the pushback for this project from some City Council Members. For those who seemed to be in opposition: Salem just wants to buy the building and leave Parcel B as an empty lot - with the hope that a future RFP will change that; Arias just fundamentally rather see twenty small projects get funded instead of one mega-project, he also had some hangup with Avant Construction that I couldn't' really follow; Miller doesn't like how he received so much lobbying in favor of it, which made him suspicious. And overall, a general sense that they do not like the "process."

Option A is to have an empty lot. Option B is to have an integrated river front high rise. Seems simple.

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Laura Street Trio travesty, where Parcel B stays an empty lot next to an $80 million park for the next twenty years.

[jaxlongtimer]

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Laura Street Trio travesty, where Parcel B stays an empty lot next to an $80 million park for the next twenty years.

There are those of us would like to see Parcel B included in the park.  That option should still be on the table.  Plenty of other places around Downtown to build high rises. 

Don't need to "squeeze" one in on public land here.  I have heard all the reasons for doing so but, I don't think building on this corner will stand the test of time as a good decision.  Short sighted to only think about the immediate future, which is so typical of Downtown "planning."  Where has that gotten us?

[Joey Mackey]

I actually agree with Bryan Moll on the necessity of developing Parcel B. Currently, there are no amenities integrated with Riverfront Plaza Park. There are no restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. (I understand a small cafe is being built currently). It is currently designed to be an island by itself. The argument he made at the meeting, based on his experience in Tampa, is a great urban park needs both. The park itself needs to be great (check) and there needs to be integrated amenities that guarantee a base line of visitors on a daily basis, like integrated restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. Also, the Independent One Building and the Vystar Building do not provide that type of ground floor integration. With the Gateway proposal, the argument is people will always be at Riverfront Plaza Park either because they live there, they are staying there, or they are eating/shopping there. Otherwise, Riverfront Plaza Park, by itself, will not attract the necessary number of daily visitors to obtain the critical mass of "vibrancy."

[fsu813]

I actually agree with Bryan Moll on the necessity of developing Parcel B. Currently, there are no amenities integrated with Riverfront Plaza Park. There are no restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. (I understand a small cafe is being built currently). It is currently designed to be an island by itself. The argument he made at the meeting, based on his experience in Tampa, is a great urban park needs both. The park itself needs to be great (check) and there needs to be integrated amenities that guarantee a base line of visitors on a daily basis, like integrated restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. Also, the Independent One Building and the Vystar Building do not provide that type of ground floor integration. With the Gateway proposal, the argument is people will always be at Riverfront Plaza Park either because they live there, they are staying there, or they are eating/shopping there. Otherwise, Riverfront Plaza Park, by itself, will not attract the necessary number of daily visitors to obtain the critical mass of "vibrancy."

The choice on parcel B is not to develop a high rise or keep as green space. That's a false choice pushed by advocates of X side.

A low rise development on parcel B would provide activation, cost far less, be much quicker, and is line with Tampa's popular outdoor riverfront spaces. But I think that ship has sailed.

Also, there is a restaurant planned for each quarter of the "park". Cafe in NW quarter, restaurant in SW quarter, beer garden in SE quarter, and the high rise in the NE quarter. Certainly no island. In fact, I'm not sure how much greenspace there will actually be if all these developments come to fruition - more like a restaurant area with common space than a green space park. And that can be OK. There are great urban parks which are highly structured/hardscapped, but I think the average Joe, as the quoted comments indicate, doesn't understand that it'll be more "plaza" than "park" if the current plans play out.

Personally, I'm hopeful the restaurant development pad in the SW quarter is permanently cut. Spending money on a new construction building in a highly vulnerable, controversial location, when there a bazillion existing buildings that could use financial incentives to be productive/activated, is a head scratcher. Not to mention, the market study wasn't great.

Devils in the details. As is greatness.

[jaxoNOLE]

^given the DIA's request to repurchase the $1M restaurant contingency fund for Snyder church, the restaurant looks like it may be dead. However, I dont see why a development on the tower site -- regardless of height-- couldn't or shouldn't include a restaurant and beer garden. IMO, that needs to happen. I dont care if that building is 2 stories or 20, but I suspect the economics of any development may well require a certain density.

(Apologies in advance to heights_unknown )

[Zac T]

Arias just fundamentally rather see twenty small projects get funded instead of one mega-project, he also had some hangup with Avant Construction that I couldn't' really follow;

That's interesting considering the council pushback at the committee hearing for the Juliette Balcony incentives. Doesn't really seem like the council has an appetite to do anything productive to move Downtown forward at the moment.

2027 council elections will be very important for those who want a successful Downtown. We need a city council that is not trying to hamstring the mayor at every turn

[jcjohnpaint]

I don't remember a council that was pro downtown. A few members here and there. Wasn't long ago, council was full of tea baggers. Now DOGE.

[Tacachale]

^given the DIA's request to repurchase the $1M restaurant contingency fund for Snyder church, the restaurant looks like it may be dead. However, I dont see why a development on the tower site -- regardless of height-- couldn't or shouldn't include a restaurant and beer garden. IMO, that needs to happen. I dont care if that building is 2 stories or 20, but I suspect the economics of any development may well require a certain density.

(Apologies in advance to heights_unknown )

The restaurant is still planned, but delayed given the current deals. Hopefully, we can get the swap done on schedule and the whole Landing can be completed together. If not, of course there will be delays on the various amenities.

[Tacachale]

I actually agree with Bryan Moll on the necessity of developing Parcel B. Currently, there are no amenities integrated with Riverfront Plaza Park. There are no restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. (I understand a small cafe is being built currently). It is currently designed to be an island by itself. The argument he made at the meeting, based on his experience in Tampa, is a great urban park needs both. The park itself needs to be great (check) and there needs to be integrated amenities that guarantee a base line of visitors on a daily basis, like integrated restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. Also, the Independent One Building and the Vystar Building do not provide that type of ground floor integration. With the Gateway proposal, the argument is people will always be at Riverfront Plaza Park either because they live there, they are staying there, or they are eating/shopping there. Otherwise, Riverfront Plaza Park, by itself, will not attract the necessary number of daily visitors to obtain the critical mass of "vibrancy."

The choice on parcel B is not to develop a high rise or keep as green space. That's a false choice pushed by advocates of X side.

A low rise development on parcel B would provide activation, cost far less, be much quicker, and is line with Tampa's popular outdoor riverfront spaces. But I think that ship has sailed.

Also, there is a restaurant planned for each quarter of the "park". Cafe in NW quarter, restaurant in SW quarter, beer garden in SE quarter, and the high rise in the NE quarter. Certainly no island. In fact, I'm not sure how much greenspace there will actually be if all these developments come to fruition - more like a restaurant area with common space than a green space park. And that can be OK. There are great urban parks which are highly structured/hardscapped, but I think the average Joe, as the quoted comments indicate, doesn't understand that it'll be more "plaza" than "park" if the current plans play out.

Personally, I'm hopeful the restaurant development pad in the SW quarter is permanently cut. Spending money on a new construction building in a highly vulnerable, controversial location, when there a bazillion existing buildings that could use financial incentives to be productive/activated, is a head scratcher. Not to mention, the market study wasn't great.

Devils in the details. As is greatness.

The currently proposed building is much smaller than the American Lions proposal. It's 17 stories with hotel and condos plus restaurant and terrace space on the bottom floor. In addition to adding needed density, the deal would be contributing annual money to programming and upkeep which is where other spaces in Jax have struggled. It's always been part of the overall design, this is just a version that can actually work.

[Tacachale]

I just watched the Committe on the Whole meeting (https://www.jacksonville.gov/city-council/city-council-meetings-online). I can't really understand the pushback for this project from some City Council Members. For those who seemed to be in opposition: Salem just wants to buy the building and leave Parcel B as an empty lot - with the hope that a future RFP will change that; Arias just fundamentally rather see twenty small projects get funded instead of one mega-project, he also had some hangup with Avant Construction that I couldn't' really follow; Miller doesn't like how he received so much lobbying in favor of it, which made him suspicious. And overall, a general sense that they do not like the "process."

Option A is to have an empty lot. Option B is to have an integrated river front high rise. Seems simple.

I really hope this doesn't turn into another Laura Street Trio travesty, where Parcel B stays an empty lot next to an $80 million park for the next twenty years.

I actually agree with Bryan Moll on the necessity of developing Parcel B. Currently, there are no amenities integrated with Riverfront Plaza Park. There are no restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. (I understand a small cafe is being built currently). It is currently designed to be an island by itself. The argument he made at the meeting, based on his experience in Tampa, is a great urban park needs both. The park itself needs to be great (check) and there needs to be integrated amenities that guarantee a base line of visitors on a daily basis, like integrated restaurants/residences/hotels/retail. Also, the Independent One Building and the Vystar Building do not provide that type of ground floor integration. With the Gateway proposal, the argument is people will always be at Riverfront Plaza Park either because they live there, they are staying there, or they are eating/shopping there. Otherwise, Riverfront Plaza Park, by itself, will not attract the necessary number of daily visitors to obtain the critical mass of "vibrancy."

Excellent observations.

Arias just fundamentally rather see twenty small projects get funded instead of one mega-project, he also had some hangup with Avant Construction that I couldn't' really follow;

That's interesting considering the council pushback at the committee hearing for the Juliette Balcony incentives. Doesn't really seem like the council has an appetite to do anything productive to move Downtown forward at the moment.

2027 council elections will be very important for those who want a successful Downtown. We need a city council that is not trying to hamstring the mayor at every turn

+1,000,000

[Ken_FSU]

Live City Council meeting.

https://jaxcityc.granicus.com/player/event/3209?view_id=1&redirect=true

[heights unknown]

OK...so, WHAT was the outcome of this meeting? And the purpose? And...what will happen on the June 12th meeting? Thanks.

[Tacachale]

Quorum was broken (by several CMs not showing up, and then one running out once it appeared there'd be quorum after all). So they weren't able to take a vote but they did hold discussion. Disappointing but not surprising. As a result, they'll either have to move the bills at one of the next two scheduled Council meetings (June 10 or June 24j or schedule another committee of the whole and hope enough members show. Sorry, but I can't say much more than that.