Peyton Suggests Ball Fields for JEA Site

[reednavy]

Wasn't this the proposed site of the San Marco Village or was it San Marco Riverfront with 6 towers?

[stjr]

The land that would be central park used to be a wasteland off of the river that was home to junkyards and was very toxic. 

FYI, according to the recently released Downtown visioning report, the JEA site was identified as a brownfield.  Maybe we should find out just how "brown" it is.

I think this is a great excuse to not add park land.  If we keep producing sub par park space, residents will never support funding any new park space.  Lets start improving or developing current parks into great destinations before we shove more pocket parks down anyone's throat.

I don't hear anyone hear making that case about our public transit.  We do a poor job running our buses and the $ky-high-way, yet people continue to advocate for more in the form of street cars, commuter rail, expansion of the $ky-high-way, BRT, etc.  In fact, my argument, in part, against the $ky-high-way is that it serves as poster child to tarnish the public transit's community image in the same manner that you say a poorly maintained park does for parks.

My concern here is that large parcels of well located land such as the JEA and Shipyards sites in an urban core may only come up once in generations, especially at a time when values are depressed and the land may actually be relatively affordable.  As such, I think these parcels are worthy of some long term visioning/thinking as to how they could play into Downtown's future over the next 100 or more years.

I think we need more long term thinking like this to make Downtown long term successful.  The "project of the week" isn't getting it done.

[Ocklawaha]

Allow me to offer a few more innovated and inspiring ideas for the JEA site, to make it unique to DOWNTOWN Jacksonville.






Mongolian Gaming Field







Russian Spaceport











Refuge for the LAST, last Tasmanian Tiger












Create a replica Coopers Hill, and start an American Head Cheese race tradition












Zeppelin Airport












Primate Sanctuary












Samurai Training Academy...FOR CATS!












Nuclear Power Plant












Shrine to the worlds largest pumpkin












A new Agent Orange test site













Kudzu Seed Farm











Military Bombing Range






PURE ZEN MAN! PURE ZEN!





OCKLAWAHA

[Captain Zissou]

stjr, we actually agree more than I thought.  I see your argument regarding transit, and can agree that the skyway is creating a negative image for transit in jax.  I doubt many would be willing to build a streetcar with the failed (in its current form) skyway overhead. I also agree that the two sites are once in a generation pieces of property, but I think there are higher and better uses for them than a park.  However, I think a park component for both should be mandatory.

[Miss Fixit]

Riverfront ball fields?  Another waste of taxpayer money.  Spend the money on Klutho Park!!!!!

[thelakelander]

I don't hear anyone hear making that case about our public transit.  We do a poor job running our buses and the $ky-high-way, yet people continue to advocate for more in the form of street cars, commuter rail, expansion of the $ky-high-way, BRT, etc.

There is a major difference. We already have the recreational amenities you describe in several of our existing urban core parks.  Many of which were and can be great spaces, when maintained.  On the other hand, we don't have fixed rail transit capable of spurring sustainable walkable development.  This is where the need for fixed rail comes into play.  BRT and buses aren't bringing that equation to the table.

My concern here is that large parcels of well located land such as the JEA and Shipyards sites in an urban core may only come up once in generations, especially at a time when values are depressed and the land may actually be relatively affordable.  As such, I think these parcels are worthy of some long term visioning/thinking as to how they could play into Downtown's future over the next 100 or more years.

There is no problem with planning.  It just might not be the best us of public money to develop these sites as park space with expensive amenities and infrastructure before improving what's already in place.

I think we need more long term thinking like this to make Downtown long term successful.  The "project of the week" isn't getting it done.[/b]

I agree, however the JEA site is not really centralized to the downtown urban core.  If thinking long term about the urban core, then I would agree with others in that more emphasis should be placed on the Hogan Creek park system and its connection with the surrounding urban area.

[stjr]

There is a major difference. We already have the recreational amenities you describe in several of our existing urban core parks.  Many of which were and can be great spaces, when maintained.  On the other hand, we don't have fixed rail transit capable of spurring sustainable walkable development.

Lake, you are speaking as someone who is into the nuances of public transit but maybe not parks.  The general public is certainly not as discerning about the difference in mass transit as you are.  You can split hairs about rail vs. non-rail, but John Q. Public could care less.  It's all mass transit to them.

But, if you can split hairs, so can I.  I don't think we have any Downtown parks that fully achieve the vision I have for JEA or the Shipyards sites, especially in combining the attributes of riverfront location, size, potential amenities, orientation to Downtown and potential mass transit service, etc.  By the way, both of these sites hosted major Super Bowl activities (NFL Experience at JEA, concerts at Shipyards), not Hogan Park.  That alone should indicate why they are special properties.

It just might not be the best us of public money to develop these sites as park space with expensive amenities and infrastructure before improving what's already in place.

Again, you are repeating the same argument some make against expanding mass transit.  I believe if we wait for every park to be perfect, we will never acquire any more park space.  By the way, acquisition is the key.  And, I use that loosely since the Shipyards appears to be reverting back to the City and the JEA site is controlled by a City owned agency.  Park development could be phased in during the years to follow.  Just having a few level and sodded playing fields would be a good and inexpensive start.  

To some degree, long term capital expenditures need to continue regardless of deficiencies in daily operations.  The world will never be perfect.  "Just do it".

If thinking long term about the urban core, then I would agree with others in that more emphasis should be placed on the Hogan Creek park system and its connection with the surrounding urban area.

Lake, I find this line of thought somewhat frustrating and typical of Jax (and other governmental) planning.  This, to me, is a false choice.  I don't think this decision should be couched as "either-or" but rather as we should be doing BOTH.

Our public officials use this tactic all the time.  They fail to properly do their job addressing a mission of government and then, rather than level with the taxpayers and say we need more resources (i.e. usually more taxes), they pit one mission against another in a fight to the death.  By example, that's why we have the 50th in the nation lowest funded education system.  Not buying this excuse for dereliction of duty and neither should anyone else.

[vicupstate]

There is a fundamental difference between passive parks like found in urban districts (like Hemming Plaza), and the active/recreation-based parks that you (stjr) are referring too.  Passive parks require much less space (although they CAN be large in some instances, such as Central Park) and are found in virtually every successful urban core area.  Active/recreational parks require far more land, (and thus cost-prohibitive in most big cities) and require more organized use (ie baseball or soccer leagues, etc. as opposed to individuals just walking to or through a park).   

Active/recreational parks are not practical in an urban setting because they consume a lot of space that has a higher use, while providing a single purpose that is rarely used.  A Baseball diamond is of no use to anyone, except while a game is in progress.  Hemming Plaza (pretend the homeless aren't there) provides an ambience and respite from the paved urban environment, around the clock for any and every person that is desires it. 

Would someone strolling along the Southbank Riverwalk be drawn to an empty baseball field, or even one with a recreation league game in progress?  Probably not, they also wouldn't be carrying a ball and bat to start their own pick up game either.  But if there was an shaded, attractive path with nice plantings and the sound of a water fountain in the background, then they will be tempted to explore. 


               

[TheProfessor]

I wonder what happened to the huge

Wasn't this the proposed site of the San Marco Village or was it San Marco Riverfront with 6 towers?

Yes it was a huge mixed use development planned with many towers.  It had already gone through conceptual design.  I'm guessing all of those plans are scratched.

[tufsu1]

perhaps the idea of fields on the JEA site is more to serve San Marco and the Southbank than it is for downtown.

[thelakelander]

San Marco is completely cut off from the JEA site by I-95 and the FEC railroad tracks.  If you want fields for San Marco, use FEC Park instead.  Its more accessible to that community.  Sorry guys, I'm just not sold on a suburban regional park being the best use for waterfront property in DT.  I believe our existing parks can be stronger economic generators and better for the urban community if better preserved, invested in and maintained.  They served the urban core well for over 50 years before we abandoned them for the suburbs.  

As for the JEA and Shipyards properties, we should be thinking about mixed-uses (this should include integrated public space, not single-use regional), economic anchors and better connectivity with those parcels, imo.  If regional ballfields are a true need, there are a ton of better non-riverfront sites that could accomodate this type of need.  Thus, even if public money is spent acquiring these sites, I'd probably advocate identifying a centralized public space, then carving the rest of the parcels up into an urban street grid then selling those parcels off to the private sector.

[thelakelander]

There is a major difference. We already have the recreational amenities you describe in several of our existing urban core parks.  Many of which were and can be great spaces, when maintained.  On the other hand, we don't have fixed rail transit capable of spurring sustainable walkable development.

Lake, you are speaking as someone who is into the nuances of public transit but maybe not parks.  The general public is certainly not as discerning about the difference in mass transit as you are.  You can split hairs about rail vs. non-rail, but John Q. Public could care less.  It's all mass transit to them.

But, if you can split hairs, so can I.  I don't think we have any Downtown parks that fully achieve the vision I have for JEA or the Shipyards sites, especially in combining the attributes of riverfront location, size, potential amenities, orientation to Downtown and potential mass transit service, etc.  By the way, both of these sites hosted major Super Bowl activities (NFL Experience at JEA, concerts at Shipyards), not Hogan Park.  That alone should indicate why they are special properties.

It just might not be the best us of public money to develop these sites as park space with expensive amenities and infrastructure before improving what's already in place.

Again, you are repeating the same argument some make against expanding mass transit.  I believe if we wait for every park to be perfect, we will never acquire any more park space.  By the way, acquisition is the key.  And, I use that loosely since the Shipyards appears to be reverting back to the City and the JEA site is controlled by a City owned agency.  Park development could be phased in during the years to follow.  Just having a few level and sodded playing fields would be a good and inexpensive start. 

To some degree, long term capital expenditures need to continue regardless of deficiencies in daily operations.  The world will never be perfect.  "Just do it".

If thinking long term about the urban core, then I would agree with others in that more emphasis should be placed on the Hogan Creek park system and its connection with the surrounding urban area.

Lake, I find this line of thought somewhat frustrating and typical of Jax (and other governmental) planning.  This, to me, is a false choice.  I don't think this decision should be couched as "either-or" but rather as we should be doing BOTH.

My whole reason for backing rail transit has always been about stimulating economic development.  From this angle, you simply can't compare or substitute a bus with rail.  That's not semantics, that's just the truth and examples to prove this can be found in every city that has rail transit in this country.

On the park angle, I'm just failing to see using an entire Shipyards or JEA site as limited use recreation only parks as visionary.  On the other hand, I see vision as getting as much as we can out of those sites in the future to stimulate 24/7 continuous activity.  To me that means a dense mixed-use setting fully integrated with the area surrounding the site.



Perhaps something like Manhattan's East River Park would be feasible for the JEA site.  However, that's just a thin strip of active greenspace hugging the river with high density uses directly adjacent to it.  Something like this would meet the definition of a dense mixed-use setting designed to stimulate 24/7 use.

[CS Foltz]

Lake I agree! But I need to add one small element..............if we don't start taking care of what Parks we have now, we won't have any Parks soon! Rail has been proven beyond doubt to be an "Economic Engine" along way points and routes............Jacksonville's transit purveyors and so-called experts have selected concrete and BRT's.....dumb a**'s!

[mtraininjax]

Imo, the JEA site would be best used for a mix of uses instead of one dominant use.

Lake - You get the gold star. Peyton is dumb as mud, and so are his ideas. 18 months cannot come soon enough. Why would you take a property that can be taxed and turn it into non-taxing status? His intellect is clearly on the demise....

[copperfiend]

Imo, the JEA site would be best used for a mix of uses instead of one dominant use.

Lake - You get the gold star. Peyton is dumb as mud, and so are his ideas. 18 months cannot come soon enough. Why would you take a property that can be taxed and turn it into non-taxing status? His intellect is clearly on the demise....

I wonder how serious he was or if it was just him being courteous on a radio show.