Peyton Suggests Ball Fields for JEA Site

[Clem1029]

This is the ticket, BASEBALL! Let's subject another ball park to our city's stellar maintenance!

Exactly...the city can't maintain the fields it has now, especially for its organized leagues, let alone just for general family recreation. I recently played a season for one of the softball leagues, only to have, out of 9 games, 3 outright canceled, and 4 others postponed multiple times simply because the city couldn't get the fields in order after the last rain - which was 3+ days prior. It was an absolute travesty - as with much being proposed, the city needs to demonstrate it can take care of what it has now before adding to their problems.

[copperfiend]

Who are the ballfields for?

Copper, go back to the top of the thread:

Let's put this on the list of Downtown improvements to attract families both as visitors and residents of Downtown.  Don't forget some area schools by working with the School Board.  The playing fields in parks could double as school playgrounds.  And, the schools could host adult education classes, smaller cultural events (in their auditoriums or gyms), etc. in the evenings.

If we want people, including families and fitness/outdoorsy types (often, young professionals), to live Downtown and rely on walkable neighborhoods and public transit, not cars, a major attraction will be having recreational opportunities within easy access.  These same facilities can serve area schools as well.

We need to get it that even though people live Downtown, they want many of the same amenities of the suburbs.  Surbanites are famous for saying they prefer the suburbs to have a yard for the kids to play in and for the added "green space" not found in many urban areas.  This would level the "playing field", literally! 

So are the people living downtown going to drive to these new ball fields?

[buckethead]

The problem with putting "temporary" ball feilds in this location is trying to do anything else with it in the future. Litigation expenses would soon outrun plausibility.

Should the residential units currently in the area ever sell out, that is a prime location for more, with a healthy shot of Mixed Use, Downtown Jax becomes even more livable.

Business and residence will revive downtown, if transit is mixed in. Ball fields could be a hinderence.

[stjr]

So are the people living downtown going to drive to these new ball fields?

Copper, again read my posts, please.

I stated that these parks should be primarily accessible by pedestrians and public transit.  Some parking may be necessary for equipment drop off, maintenance vehicles, or visitors from outlying areas if they can't otherwise "park and ride" from a public transit hub.  Actually, with the JEA site, the already existing and under used Kings Road garage should serve this need very well.  And, a JEA park will give urban core areas an excuse to use the $ky-high-way that terminates there.  That should make some posters here happy.

[stjr]

The problem with putting "temporary" ball feilds in this location is trying to do anything else with it in the future. Litigation expenses would soon outrun plausibility.

Should the residential units currently in the area ever sell out, that is a prime location for more, with a healthy shot of Mixed Use, Downtown Jax becomes even more livable.

Business and residence will revive downtown, if transit is mixed in. Ball fields could be a hinderence.

Bucket, I agree about temporary.  I am advocating for permanent park space.  Residential units can be built around the periphery of JEA park.  Just like living units around NY's Central Park, they would likely be premium units due to proximity to the park.  See also living units built around Memorial Park in Riverside.

I see the park fostering residential development, not hindering it.  With the disdain some are showing here for parks, they are demonstrating, IMHO, why Jax is being held back.  Most successful urban revitalizations I have witnessed has large and centrally located parks playing an integral role as both a catalyst and attraction.

Until Jax starts doing things differently, we will continue to spin our wheels.  "Wishing" for Downtown residential isn't going to make it happen.  Providing amenities to create demand for it will.

[buckethead]

The Skyway is minimally useful, but with a grocery store near a station, those precious few downtown residents would have a new reason to patronize it.

It now stops near museums, art galleries, the best Library our city has ever known, a college campus and residential hi-rise.

I really beleive it could be a success if just a few more sections are added, coupled with a few more residents and retail grocery/dry cleaning, daily neccesity shops in close proximity to one or more stations.

Had it gone to Publix in Riverside, I would have used it as a means to buy groceries, not to mention walking the family over to the Cummer. Hey... would there possibly any new ridership driven from that location?

How many lovely urbanites live within 2 blocks of that Publix?

[copperfiend]

So are the people living downtown going to drive to these new ball fields?

Copper, again read my posts, please.

I stated that these parks should be primarily accessible by pedestrians and public transit.  Some parking may be necessary for equipment drop off, maintenance vehicles, or visitors from outlying areas if they can't otherwise "park and ride" from a public transit hub.  Actually, with the JEA site, the already existing and under used Kings Road garage should serve this need very well.  And, a JEA park will give urban core areas an excuse to use the $ky-high-way that terminates there.  That should make some posters here happy.

I think this is completely unrealistic.

[thelakelander]

Why do we assume there is no public space in the urban core?  If there's money laying around to improve recreational space (fields, tot lots, greens, tennis courts, etc.), to me its hard to justify spending it on something new at the JEA site before fixing up the countless number of urban parks with these amenities that already exist.

[fsujax]

I agree. We have enough freaking parks around the urban core that are in need of great repair. Let's stop building new ones until we can better take care of the ones we have!

[stjr]

I think this is completely unrealistic.

To each their own.  Just realize how many cities already have accomplished this.  With your thinking, Central Park would not exist.

Let's stop building new ones until we can better take care of the ones we have!

Park land needs to be put aside when the land is available or the opportunity may be forever lost.  Mayor Delaney realized this when he launched his ambitious park land acquisition program.  It may be years before they are fully developed, but we would never have park land if we waited for development money at the same time as acquisition monies.  Failure to maintain parks should not be an excuse for not adding to park land.  The City needs to simply get its house in order and start doing its job.  We citizens shouldn't be penalized for decades for current incompetencies.

[thelakelander]

If all we are talking about is setting aside some land for future development, then COJ should work on some type of development agreement with JEA to make sure recreational space is accomodated in future plans.  If we're talking about immediately spending capital we don't have to build a park for residents that aren't there, then I think we are better off using the money we have to improve existing urban core parks and amenities.

[fsujax]

If we are going to build ACTIVE parks, then they need to be MAINTAINED!! Our City has a poor track record on this. We can't even properly maintain passive parks. I do not have a problem with purchasing land in its natural state for preservation.

[copperfiend]

To each their own.  Just realize how many cities already have accomplished this.  With your thinking, Central Park would not exist.

Not exactly. And it's laughable to try and compare building teeball fields on a tract of land sitting next to our suburban style School Board Building to an 800 acre park.

[Captain Zissou]

To each their own.  Just realize how many cities already have accomplished this.  With your thinking, Central Park would not exist.

Not a good comparison.  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.  Frederick Law Olmsted was able to convert it into a park through drainage, purification, and genius.  JEA is prime undeveloped land on the St Johns without any nearby residents (I wouldn't count Peninsula, Strand, SMP as a community just yet) or complimentary uses.

I think preserving 10-15 acres of the site for green space (As a part of the master plan for a development) is a good idea.  San Marco Riverfront District had 12 acres reserved for a natural wetlands and park space with trails and board walks.  For the time being, I think improving drainage and increase access to the JEA land is about as far as we need to go in developing it. 

Failure to maintain parks should not be an excuse for not adding to park land.

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.

[Springfield Girl]

No more parks until the city can maintain what we already have! Fixing Klutho would be a great start.