AC Hotel proposed in Brooklyn seeks DDRB approval

[thelakelander]

An AC Hotel and supporting parking deck is proposed at 800 and 825 Dora Street in Brooklyn. The project will seek conceptual approval from the Downtown Development Review Board on May 8 2024. Here is a look at the project's conceptual plans. Let us know what you think!

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/ac-hotel-proposed-in-brooklyn-seeks-ddrb-approval/

[jcjohnpaint]

Nice to see retail added to the garage

[Charles Hunter]

Who will be responsible for repaving Dora Street and the enhanced crosswalks of both Dora and Magnolia Streets?

Will the only ADA parking space be the one near the hotel entrance at the corner of Magnolia and Dora? That seems insufficient for 128 hotel rooms and the commercial spaces in the garage.

The renderings show Magnolia, Dora, and Oak Streets with new asphalt pavement and enhanced (pavers) crosswalks in all directions at both Dora intersections.. However, the plans in the DDRB agenda show new asphalt on Dora near Magnolia, and the only concrete paver pedestrian crossing is across Dora at this intersection. Dora is shown as "new concrete pavement," replacing the existing concrete pavement. Is the City going to do the rest of the street enhancements?

[jaxlongtimer]

Ho hum... another look-alike building.  This could be any hotel or apartment building today, by the looks.

Do like the Brooklyn mural though  .

[acme54321]

Meh all around.  At least this deck is kind of hidden on a midblock between Riverside and Park.  These shitbox hotels aren't going to age well.

[Makedtjaxgreatagain]

Too bad we can't get a new high rise hotel in the core. Every major city at least has a glass JW Marriott tower. Are we not trying to host a Super Bowl in 2030?

[marcuscnelson]

The Gateway Jax tower at Riverfront Plaza would essentially provide that if built:



And the Four Seasons by the stadium is essentially meant to fill that role.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ Recently, I have talked to some old timers before me.  There was supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" that nothing tall would be built between the WF/Independent Life Tower and the river.  Proposing any high rise on the property violates that trust.

It makes no sense to dominate or partition park land for a high rise.  I don't agree with Salem on his tactics but would rather the City not do a land swap if that kills any tower project on this land.

Aesthetically, any major structure also looks forced/squeezed in between the bridge and existing tower.  What's wrong building one block back somewhere and leaving the riverfront as open greenspace?

[Ken_FSU]

^ Recently, I have talked to some old timers before me.  There was supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" that nothing tall would be built between the WF/Independent Life Tower and the river.  Proposing any high rise on the property violates that trust.

Respectfully, fuck that trust 

Uncodified "gentlemen's agreements" from the old timers led us to the mess we're currently in.

The Independent Life tower is now on its seventh owner, I'm sure they'll understand.

Totally get the desire for more greenspace, but we've got 70 acres of parkland coming up between Riverfront Plaza, Shipyards West, Mosh 2.0, Four Seasons, Met Park, RiversEdge, Friendship Park, and McCoys Creek.

What we don't have are active uses to keep them funded, programmed, patrolled, and successful.

Without that private use, which occupies a relatively minor portion of the property, where is that $300k annually for programming coming from? What's making people stay at the park? What's incentivizing the city to keep it clean and safe?

Agree in a lot of cases, but this tower will be the best thing to happen to Riverfront Plaza.

[jaxlongtimer]

^ I respectfully differ with your take here.  We are thinking short term, not long term, to forfeit our public lands on the river.  If we aggressively developed our parks by redirecting our tens of millions in incentive funds to developers into those green spaces, we would have little trouble attracting developers investing a block inward knowing they had (a) green space amenities/river access/views for their occupants and (b) knowing that no one would ever build between them and the river.

Do you think 50 years from now those developers will still be helping to "fund, program, patrol" greenspaces?  Are those agreements forever no matter the future of their properties?

The lack of "funding, programming, patrolling" to be successful falls to the City but the City choses to spend its resources in other ways... whether at the stadium, developer incentives, wasteful projects like the U2C, subsidizing garbage fees, ballooning pension costs, reducing taxes, etc. 

I note the City has come up with $100 million for UF, $50 million for MOSH, $1+ billion for the stadium, $100 million for Four Seasons, tens of millions for developer incentives, $30+ million for the ballpark, $400+ million for U2C, $3 million for E-sports at UNF, $5 million for EWU's football stadium, tens of millions for unlimited JSO requests... all while mostly holding the line on taxes, some of the lowest of any major city in Florida.  The money can be found if the City wants to get it done... you can't convince me otherwise. 

It is just not a priority.

I don't know why Jax can't figure out what most every city in the world has... this is 101 City planning.  A dollar invested in public spaces yields many more dollars in return.  Plain and simple.

By the way, $300,000 is a drop in the bucket in the big scheme of things.  It isn't even equal to one month's interest on the financing for most of these projects and it is a mere decimal point in the City's budget.  Sad if the City is that desperate to sell out for so little.

To be creative, the City should set up "Adopt A Park" nonprofits like many cities do.  They could likely raise much of the money that way and/or build endowments for each park that would fund maintenance and improvements perpetually.  But, no one thinks outside the box here.

[Captain Zissou]

Aesthetically, any major structure also looks forced/squeezed in between the bridge and existing tower.  What's wrong building one block back somewhere and leaving the riverfront as open greenspace?

Austin has one of the most active "riverwalks" I've ever encountered and it's just a gravel path between a highway and the rest of downtown. The average width is about 120 feet between the water and the highway, but much of that is sloped or covered in wild plantings.  It was nice, but nothing revolutionary, but there were dozens of people walking by every minute for hours.  The reason it's so busy is because of the concentration of uses around it, not the path itself.  Bradenton, FL, has what I'd argue is a a better and more activated riverwalk than Jax, but it's largely empty due to a lower surrounding population.  Anchored at one end by a museum and other cultural institutions, the entire length of the riverwalk has connected parks of different uses on the upland side.  They have a fishing pier, a skate park, volleyball courts, a passive green space, an amphitheater, a great lawn for larger events with support amenities, and a splash pad all in a row and connected by a riverwalk similar to what we have downtown.  An amazing public space, but sparsely used because it's not surrounded by density.

The Landing property is almost 400 feet deep.  I think we can spare a portion of the downtown side for further development.  Also, your statement about "anything tall" is extremely subjective.  I would argue that the proposed 16 floors by Gateway is not tall at all and an appropriate step down from the 35 floor Independent Square tower to a flat park space.  Put 16 floors in middleburg and yes that's tall, but in the context of a major downtown, that's great infill between the skyscrapers. 

[copperfiend]

Too bad we can't get a new high rise hotel in the core. Every major city at least has a glass JW Marriott tower. Are we not trying to host a Super Bowl in 2030?

Super Bowl in 2030? That's a first. I'm pretty sure anyone in a leadership position knows the city is not getting another Super Bowl. Ever.

Maybe a college football playoff game. But even that is probably a one time thing.

[Jagsdrew]

Moll did say that maintenance of the park would be coming out of the HOA fees and Hotel Tax surcharge from the condos and hotel rooms. So the park will be funded by those staying and living there.

And while maintenance is a loose term here, this is most likely maintaining the quality of the park (cleanliness, lawn service, event activation, etc.), not capital improvements or other substantial repairs since the park is still city owned.

[Ken_FSU]

Moll did say that maintenance of the park would be coming out of the HOA fees and Hotel Tax surcharge from the condos and hotel rooms. So the park will be funded by those staying and living there.

And while maintenance is a loose term here, this is most likely maintaining the quality of the park (cleanliness, lawn service, event activation, etc.), not capital improvements or other substantial repairs since the park is still city owned.

Yep! Similar to the upkeep that the Jags will provide for Met Park based on their donations and fees. Similar to what Related has mentioned for Friendship Park/St. Johns Park. And hopefully we'll see something similar with RiversEdge and the greenspace there. Ditto the park planned near One Riverside. We've seen what happens historically when the city is left in charge of upkeep, love the idea of a reliable, dedicate, consistent stream of revenue for upkeep, collected by a private entity with a vested interest in keeping the space nice.

[marcuscnelson]

^ Recently, I have talked to some old timers before me.  There was supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" that nothing tall would be built between the WF/Independent Life Tower and the river.  Proposing any high rise on the property violates that trust.

I don't see why a modern city in 2025 would be under any obligation to honor some unwritten "gentlemen's agreement" from however long ago. If the owners of 1 Independent Square want to preserve a view then they are welcome to make an offer for the land themselves in order to do that, instead of expecting indefinite taxpayer subsidy based on a handshake by people who may no longer be involved or alive. If you want to talk about trust, how about the public's trust that agreements that impact the city are being made in the sunshine as they ought to be?

On top of that, clearly no one at the city or in the private sector has heard of such an agreement given that there are proposals for buildings taller than the Landing as far back as 2003, and the Curry Administration picked the Perkins & Will design including a tower on it, then initially backed the American Lions proposal.