Fleet Landing Riverside seeks DDRB conceptual approval

[thelakelander]

After a failed attempt to acquire the DCPS Southbank headquarters, Fleet Landing now has plans for a 32-story tower in Brooklyn at 111 Riverside Avenue. The project will seek conceptual approval from the Downtown Development Review Board on March 12, 2026. Here is a look at the project's conceptual plans. Let us know what you think!

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/fleet-landing-riverside-seeks-ddrb-conceptual-approval/

[jaxlongtimer]

Due to relevancy, reposting here from the Haskell Building thread:

Great share! The Fleet Landing proposal looks really nice, and well put together - just stands out a bit from my opinion. I'm curious if they plan to acquire the empty lot next door for a potential Phase 2 as well.

Looking at the Fleet site plan, they appear to be only taking 1/2 of the Haskell Building's footprint creating an empty lot where there is none now.  I gather you are talking about the next lot over, to be clear.

Curious about the planned auditorium and its use.  Being on the riverfront, will it be open to public events or only for residents?  What will be its seating capacity?  I thought they were going to also include a restaurant open to the public?

I note that part of the tower violates the height setbacks from the river.  Once again, it appears the City is rolling over for this.  I get there is a volume/massing allowance swap here but I still feel that this creates a  massive (pun intended ) loophole that frustrates the purpose of the guideline, especially, when repeatedly violated.

I note the following guideline cited by DDRB that it is pushing aside:

Waterfront Design and River Views: setbacks, height and access corridors.
It is the intent of this subsection to encourage and protect enticing views of the river
from as many places in downtown as possible by providing View and Access Corridors
at the street level, to maximize overall value by providing both enhanced public spaces
at the riverfront and by facilitating river and creek views from as many buildings as
possible, as well as managing building forms and massing to be respectful of the
context of the surrounding buildings and of the pedestrian environment by stepping
buildings up from the river and defining height zones as delineated hereunder to allow
views around, over and through the architecture, and, to respect the scale of the context
in which development occurs.

And, here is the guideline vs. the request:

ZONE C
100' TO 175' SETBACK FROM MHWL
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED: 75'
Request: 375 feet!

FINDING: The conceptual site plan identifies a view corridor aligned with
Stonewall Street extending from Riverside Avenue to the St. Johns River. The
proposed development maintains this corridor and provides a public plaza and
pedestrian access connection linking Riverside Avenue to the Riverwalk. The
submitted volume diagram indicates building height distributed within Zones B
and C in accordance with the waterfront height provisions of §656.361.6.2.H.

What's the point of having a rule that is easily circumvented?!

[howfam]

If the ordinance that restricts the height of buildings in favor of view corridors stops this building from being built the way it is shown, then the ordinance should be repealed. It's just another excuse to stop building up our Downtown. Truth is, any building you build, a one story bld. would block the view to a pedestrian. Truth is, the best, most "enticing" views of our river and downtown can be seen from the various bridges we have, especially from the Fuller Warren (Best Panorama) and Acosta (Best Close-Up) Bridges. Lets hope this and other proposed high rises are approved so we can look forward to many years of seeing these buildings as much-needed additions to our skyline. 

[jaxlongtimer]

If the ordinance that restricts the height of buildings in favor of view corridors stops this building from being built the way it is shown, then the ordinance should be repealed. It's just another excuse to stop building up our Downtown. Truth is, any building you build, a one story bld. would block the view to a pedestrian. Truth is, the best, most "enticing" views of our river and downtown can be seen from the various bridges we have, especially from the Fuller Warren (Best Panorama) and Acosta (Best Close-Up) Bridges. Lets hope this and other proposed high rises are approved so we can look forward to many years of seeing these buildings as much-needed additions to our skyline. 

This is not about preventing high rises downtown.  It's about preserving views of the river that make such high rises attractive.  Looking out the window of one building to look at another isn't very exciting.  And, for those not in buildings, having a view along the banks of the river, not just the water itself, is part of completing and framing the natural environment that is the centerpiece of the City.

Manhattan and other major cities do just fine building up their skylines back from their waterfront or in landlocked parcels.  In fact, if you live/work back from the waterfront, you will be looking to have enjoyable access to it, not having to fight a wall of high rises.  So, if you really want to build up Downtown, leave some green spaces along the river as an amenity.

The lack of high rises Downtown has more to do with poor planning and management than focusing on the river.

By the way, the Fuller Warren only has sidewalks on its west facing side.  The east facing side toward Downtown is cars only so taking in that view at 60+ mph isn't going to last long.

[simms3]

They could flip the garage and the high rise and that might solve the height and setback issue, but would that be better, having the garage on the river side?

Another option is having a parking podium style tower, thus making the tower significantly taller but maybe putting it up at Riverside.  I've been told this makes the project *significantly* more expensive and thus infeasible.

They have not mentioned needing incentives and I do not believe that are asking for them.  At least we have THAT, MAJOR positive relative to other projects.

I hope this project gets built.  This target demographic (empty nesters and retirees) is the perfect demographic to include alongside young professionals downtown.  They will fill restaurants and cultural venues and museums.  And spend money that young professionals don't have.

[thelakelander]

This one was approved by DDRB. I was the lone no vote. Not because I'm against the project because I also hope it gets built. I voted against the precedent that was set where an applicant can walk in, and get conceptual approval with a high level paper napkin sketch and not have to come back to the DDRB until they're ready for final approval.

They could flip the garage and the high rise and that might solve the height and setback issue, but would that be better, having the garage on the river side?

Another option is having a parking podium style tower, thus making the tower significantly taller but maybe putting it up at Riverside.  I've been told this makes the project *significantly* more expensive and thus infeasible.

All valid possibilities but none of this will happen since the site layout was basically approved as is. I did ask the question of what was the decision to go FIS-style with a separate garage and tower, as that leads to some constraints with ground floor retail spacing and pushes the closer to the river. I knew the answer was financial feasibility, but I wanted the applicant to say it on record. I may be in the minority with this opinion, but incentives should be considered for projects that go above and beyond the minimum (i.e. better urban site design, that may lead to higher costs). Anyway, I wish the project the best and hope they do what they said they would, but did not want to be required to do.

[jcjohnpaint]

When do they typically ask for incentives in the process? Simms, you said they are not asking?

[thelakelander]

I'd be surprised if they don't end up eventually asking for some type of incentives. Why wouldn't they ask is a better question. Anyway, at this point, they're in a very early stage of planning.

[jcjohnpaint]

So, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives and the design isn't flushed out and/or vague. Could they change anything they showed once approved? Sorry for the confusion.

[thelakelander]

So, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives and the design isn't flushed out and/or vague. Could they change anything they showed once approved? Sorry for the confusion.

I was concerned about the process and the precedent set. Basically,  if you can get a fairly vague idea through conceptual approval and you don't "have to" come back until you're ready for final approval, that's a really bad practice for a community (in this case, downtown). Ultimately, you're placing your downtown hope on each individual applicant getting it right. History has shown, thats a pretty bad position to be in.

I know if someone walked into one of the historically Black neighborhoods I work with, we'd immediately chop their heads off due to the importance of making sure all concepts align with the greater community vision.

[MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain]

@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned. Raymond James has a wonky parking lot as well, but also proposed to build a storefront on Riverside Ave. Considering all 3 locations what do you think best suites each? The Hub is rocking! Anejos is also really good. One Riverside is will be getting a premiere Michelin restaurant. Can the storefront being on Riverside ave, be enough to activate the riverwalk?

[thelakelander]

So, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives..

Regarding downtown incentives, I have no control or say in those but I have been quietly following the debate.

My two cents are that I do think incentives are needed for various downtown projects and we're nowhere close to a period in time where they will not be needed.

However, its the wild west with downtown right now policy-wise. So we aren't getting the most bang for our buck. Some strategy with incentives would be a great thing.

For example if you're separating your garage from your tower because of feasibility concerns, perhaps incentives are used to alleviate that concern, leading to a better product as a whole. Or if you're getting incentives, you should be required to put some ground floor retail on a major street your project is facing, as opposed to a blank parking garage wall. These things can't be decided within a siloed approach. For years, we have made much decision-making in silos. So a Frankenstein set of outcomes is what happens as a result.

[thelakelander]

@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned.

FIS' retail was an afterthought. A bad add-on, similar to Vesctor's retail space at Lofts of Monroe in LaVilla. With that one, we ended up with the retail space facing low traffic Monroe Street, while high traffic Adams ends up with the ass of the building and a surface parking lot. News flash...that retail spot is still empty. If it were on Adams facing LEVS Park, the Emerald Trail and Johnson Commons, someone would probably be in it by now. That situation was totally avoidable if addressed during the conceptual planning stage of that project.

I used to do site selection and planning work for retail developers before shifting to transportation planning and ultimately launching my own urban planning practice. Just so happens, I'm very familiar with supermarkets, big boxes, varioud F&B chains, pharmacies, etc. and their site site design criteria in both urban and suburban areas. That type of product won't work in that space as it was shown at DDRB. It would likely sit empty like FIS' and it would have nothing to do with the market.

Its a simple fix though and one I hope they work out down the line, but could change the costs to construct. The retail would need to be integrated with the garage, allowing for a much larger box footprint and not a narrow side addition squeezed in between the garage and the property line like FIS'.

[jcjohnpaint]

Thank You!

[marcuscnelson]

I didn't know you had your own practice now Ennis! Great to hear you're rolling up your sleeves like that.