Peytons Pocket Park Disaster
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/mainst_park/DSC_0013.JPG)
Seventeen months ago, Metro Jacksonville began warning the Mayor's office that their plan for a pocket park on Main Street was not well thought out and had several serious design flaws that would impede its success. The mayor himself vowed to look into the issue to determine if our concerns held any merit. It was determined they did not and the $700,000 park proceeded as planned.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/613
I drive by the park every morning on the way to work and walk by/through it several days a week.....this is the first time I've seen trash strewed about this way.
You all need to remember that the $ was from an FDOT grant and had to be used on/adjacent to a state road....its not like the City wasted $ from their own budget.
As I said many months ago, GET OVER IT!
Why is it ok to waste state money?
As we said many months ago, there are plenty of existing parks along state roads that could have used the money.
Wow, what a case study!! In any event, I guess could say the park is not officially completed.
QuoteI drive by the park every morning on the way to work and walk by/through it several days a week
I've seen trash out there a few times and I'll say the city normally does a pretty good job of quickly getting out and picking up the trash let over by vagrants. Anyway, for those who do drive by on a regular occassion, do you see people reading books, eating lunch or playing in the grass during various times of the day? For whatever reason, other than the occassional dog watering the grass, the completed portion does not seem to be getting much usage when I drive by.
QuoteYou all need to remember that the $ was from an FDOT grant and had to be used on/adjacent to a state road....its not like the City wasted $ from their own budget.
Are you sure about that? The park was
NOT funded by the FDOT grant, the Main Street streetscaping was. As mentioned over a year ago, the park was funded by the city's tree mitigation trust fund. The money used for the construction of the pocket park could have went towards the improvement of many existing parks littered across the city. Here's a quote from a May 6, 2006 Times Union article on the funding breakdown.
"The cost of creating a pocket park and planting new plants along Main Street is estimated at $1.8 million. A Florida Department of Transportation grant will provide about $610,000. Another $990,000 will come from a tree mitigation trust fund and the rest from leftover bond money for parks, according to Peyton spokeswoman Misty Skipper. The trust fund has about $11.5 million that comes from developers who don't replant protected trees torn down during construction. The City Council will need to approve using the fund for the landscaping projects."Here's a link: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050306/met_21774622.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050306/met_21774622.shtml)
Unfortunately, we did invest $700k in that site. Instead of getting over it, maybe we should add it to a list of shame and use for an example of how "NOT" to do things, when we plan for future projects.
Quote from: Lunican on October 09, 2007, 08:21:03 AM
Why is it ok to waste state money?
Although we live in Florida, it did not come out of our pockets, its free money that raineth from the heavens.....duh.
Where are the 100 year old oaks that the rendering shows? I think we got ripped off.
Quote from: Lunican on October 09, 2007, 08:21:03 AMAs we said many months ago, there are plenty of existing parks along state roads that could have used the money.
Lets see....in downtown....
Confederate Park
Friendship Fountain
Treaty Oak Park
Northbank Riverwalk
Southbank Riverwalk
Brooklyn Central Park
Bay & Broad pocket park
Forsyth & Newnan pocket park (across from the Florida Theater)
its not like any of these parks need money for improvement anyway. Other than a few pumps not working on a fountain and a riverwalk falling into the river everything looks peachy clean and pristine. Besides, like the Skyway....it was free money that came from outside of Duval's county limits.
At the time, the mayor and friends were insisting that the $700,000 was just a "drop in the bucket". Now that they are trimming $10,000 and $20,000 at a time in order to approach a balanced budget, maybe that was a foolish stance afterall.
I'm glad to see the park getting used by at least one person.
and I suppose the parking lot that was there before was better....
many people on this site say the land should have been made available for private development....I agree.....but there are plenty of vacant lots downtown and not very many developers stepping up to buy and redevelop them!
Confederate Park
Friendship Fountain
Treaty Oak Park
Northbank Riverwalk
Southbank Riverwalk
Brooklyn Central Park
Bay & Broad pocket park
Forsyth & Newnan pocket park (across from the Florida Theater)[/size][/size][/size][/size]
There is NO such thing as a Brooklyn Central Park yet - The city has bungled that too thinking they were going to get the dirt for cheap by eminent domain. What they didn't think about is taking square blocks off of the market also takes them off of the tax rolls and potential tax rolls from developers that do want them. There is no way they are going to get that Park thru City Council in light of the Riverside Park's proximity (.25 mile) and the tax base potential that those blocks hold.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2007, 09:31:36 AM
and I suppose the parking lot that was there before was better....
ummm.....yes. It did not cost $700k and was no more of an eyesore to the area then the surface parking lots still in use next door. No matter which way it is spinned, its tough to justify spending $700k for a half a block of elevated sod at that particular location.
Quotemany people on this site say the land should have been made available for private development....I agree.....but there are plenty of vacant lots downtown and not very many developers stepping up to buy and redevelop them!
Actually, in the last few years several have stepped up to the plate and purchased vacant buildings and lots for new uses. Chamblins, Burrito Gallery, Churchwell Lofts, Cesery's Lofts in Springfield, 122 Ocean, the Lerner Shops Building, etc. However, before we can get to that point, we have to make the property available first. Like the city's vacant lots in Springfield, that was never allowed and especially not advertised in this case.
Speaking of City Owned Springfield lots.
071446 0000 6th and Laura,(on Laura) third lot from NW corner
070943 0000 3rd and Market (on E 3rd), two lots down from NE corner
072643 0000 3rd and Ionia,(on E 3rd) 2nd lot from SW corner
071272 0000 5th and Hubbard,(on E 5th) 3rd Lot from NW corner
073132 0090 Perry, across from Cottage (This maybe a parking lot for emergency services)
071083 0000 4th and Laura, (on Laura) 2nd lot from NW corner
072783 0000 2nd and Market, (on Market) third lot from SW corner
071936 0000 8th and Market (on Market), 3rd lot from NW corner
072429 0000 4th and Liberty (on liberty), 3rd Lot from NE corner
072480 0000 4th and Ionia (on Ionia) third lot from NE corner.
And all of these were over grown, and it took nearly an act of congress to get them mowed, and some of them never did...
Supposedly the city is working on a plan to dispose of them. I guess we shall see.
For those who may have designed this park or are familiar with it, I have a question:
How we get from the bottom of the park to the top? Are we supposed
to step over the retaining walls and cross through the dirt to access each level of greenspace?
Jason, I agree with you, where are those 100 year old oaks???? To be honest I drive past that park everday and have never seen anyone sitting in it, reading a book or doing anything for that matter.
i think the city could somehow divert disaster with these parkets if they could get retail and/or housing surrounding them. there's still lots of surface parking on the east side of them, from what i remember. perhaps retail that fronts the parkets with a large pedestrian walkway instead of a road. it would create more of a parking problem, but it'd be nice to have a row of shops, restaurants and bars with outdoor seating that has a small buffer between the road instead of the usual 3-ft walkway and curb. throw in some residential units above and more retail/residential facing oceanand you would definitely need a parking garage, but i think in the long run it would be better than unused parkets and surface parking lots.
I drive by the park pretty much every day also and I have seen exactly two people "using" the park since it was finished. One was a clearly deranged homeless woman similar to the photos above and another was some guy I saw sitting in the park today who was staring into space. There is just no reason for the park and nothing to do there except sit on the bench and stare at the back of the library or the traffic whizzing by on Main Street (which needs to be significantly slowed and curtailed also BTW). It has also been a trash magnet for vagrants and for passing motorists who toss litter out of their windows. Finally, I saw today a number of weeds popping up through the expensive looking sod the City laid there.
TUFSU: Perhaps no developers would have wanted to build at this site. But, we will never know if, given a proper RFP at a reasonable price, a developer could have been brought in. We already know that a market rate housing firm (I cant remember the name now) was scouting downtown for sites. Perhaps if we had proactive intelligent leadership they could have approached these people and cut a deal to develop the site. Now, since no efforts of any kind were made, we will never know. The bottom line is this site will now sit fallow until we have better leadership in City Hall.
Yeah, what builder in his right mind would want a Main St Address three blocks from the river...
Novarre is the developer you're thinking about Riverside.
perhaps you all should do some research on Novare is planning for Jax....maybe then you can find out what parcels they are considering....I think you'll find that Main Street would not be on the top of their list.
Novarre has not announced any plans to develop a property in Jacksonville, yet. I'm keeping a close eye on them. When/if something is announced you will here about it here first.
This Park looks great compare to what was there. The mayor didn't beat back developers to build this park. As much as you all hate surface parking lots, I would think this a welcomed band-aid. The lot is still there and when it becomes valuable to a developer - sell it. Build something great.
As to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
Quote from: JWW on October 09, 2007, 05:14:29 PM
This Park looks great compare to what was there. The mayor didn't beat back developers to build this park. As much as you all hate surface parking lots, I would think this a welcomed band-aid. The lot is still there and when it becomes valuable to a developer - sell it. Build something great.
As to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
We're pinching pennies to balance the city's budget, yet its okay to blow $700k on a feel good temporary band aid? Being wasteful of funds is never a good thing, parking lots, elevated grass or not.
Quote from: JWW on October 09, 2007, 05:14:29 PM
This Park looks great compare to what was there. The mayor didn't beat back developers to build this park. As much as you all hate surface parking lots, I would think this a welcomed band-aid. The lot is still there and when it becomes valuable to a developer - sell it. Build something great.
As to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
The land was never offered, so for all anyone knows, there might have been numerous developers interested in it. As Gator says, we will never know. What would have been lost by putting an RFP out there and seeing what bites? If no one came forward with a proposal, at least you would have had some EVIDENCE to back up the assertion.
What we do know is that the administration was willing to sell the old library for a fraction of it's worth ($1mm) to Peterbrooke when not ONE but TWO proposals for major, mixed-use projects were on the table. As bad as that was, they even considered keeping the building for SOE storage.
My belief is that the administration does not believe that the middle class wants to live DT (off the river). That explains why they cannot visualize this site as anything other than landscaping, why the mixed use proposals for the old library were not taken seriously (until there was only one option remaining), why the words 'LaVilla' and 'residential' never come out of their mouths, why it doesn't bother them that Hemming Plaza is returning to 9-5 again, why street-level retail is not even considered for the Haverty/City Hall annex building, why upgrading the parking meters was quickly dismissed as too expensive(wouldn't $700,000 have covered that cost, BTW?), etc.
They are suburban folks with a suburban mindset, who only pay lip service to being in favor of DT redevelopment. Actions speak louder than words.
I'm not satisfied with the fact that the parcel is visiually more appealing (at least when it is clean). Minor, marginal improvements is not sufficient for a city that is already a decade plus behind the curve.
If one looked closely with the COJ comprehensive plan you would see that we had a State requirement to build 18 fields by the year 2005,and an additional 29 by the year 2020. I can't for the life of me understand why ever dime doen't go towards this goal. The athletic community is screaming for more facilities or just for minor improvements to our existing parks. It is time for the citizens to stop this misguided mayor for he was the one to put the unqualified directors on his staff. We need to impeach him before any more damage is done to the citizens of Jacksonville. This is the worst Mayor I've ever seen for the citizens. We need leadership to step upso the process of removal can begin!
Boy people really do hate this pocket park. Maybe as time goes on it will gradually get better; Who knows, overtime it can sorta be our NY Central park here in Jax; Maybe not. ::) :P
Quote from: Jason on October 09, 2007, 04:15:59 PM
Novarre has not announced any plans to develop a property in Jacksonville, yet. I'm keeping a close eye on them. When/if something is announced you will here about it here first.
they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering
Quote from: vicupstate on October 09, 2007, 06:26:27 PM
Quote from: JWW on October 09, 2007, 05:14:29 PM
This Park looks great compare to what was there. The mayor didn't beat back developers to build this park. As much as you all hate surface parking lots, I would think this a welcomed band-aid. The lot is still there and when it becomes valuable to a developer - sell it. Build something great.
As to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
My belief is that the administration does not believe that the middle class wants to live DT (off the river).
some of us "middle class" folks already do live downtown (off the river)...fo example, there is The Parks @ Cathedral townhomes....a development partially subsidized by the City.
There goes that theory.....next?
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2007, 08:10:07 PM
they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering
ok tufsu1 , for those inquiring minds that haven't been able to find out where Novarre is looking at - please tell us... !!!
Quote from: I-10east on October 09, 2007, 07:49:59 PM
Boy people really do hate this pocket park. Maybe as time goes on it will gradually get better; Who knows, overtime it can sorta be our NY Central park here in Jax; Maybe not. ::) :P
Yeah, minus another 828 some odd acres :-) That park is smaller than Strawberry Fields or the land required for Cleopatras Needle.. or any one of the 10 some odd baseball fields... :-)
It wouldnt be as bad if they made it interesting. Art work, sculptures, statues, history markers... there would be ways to make it more beautiful and permanent, and used.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2007, 08:10:07 PM
Quote from: Jason on October 09, 2007, 04:15:59 PM
Novarre has not announced any plans to develop a property in Jacksonville, yet. I'm keeping a close eye on them. When/if something is announced you will here about it here first.
they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering
I don't know what sites Novare may be looking at, but regardless of what they choose, its difficult to present a convincing argument that no private entity would have been interested in a parcel located on one of downtown's busiest streets, if it were placed on the market at a realistic price. As for developments on Main, Cesery is preparing to construct a development at Main & 3rd.
Well, it's obvious. They should've build a skyscraper on the spot instead of a park. Mayor Peyton, we all due respect, but please, no more downtown parks...unless their is a high rise next to it. :-\
Quote from: downtownparks on October 09, 2007, 09:26:29 PM
Quote from: I-10east on October 09, 2007, 07:49:59 PM
Boy people really do hate this pocket park. Maybe as time goes on it will gradually get better; Who knows, overtime it can sorta be our NY Central park here in Jax; Maybe not. ::) :P
Yeah, minus another 828 some odd acres :-) That park is smaller than Strawberry Fields or the land required for Cleopatras Needle.. or any one of the 10 some odd baseball fields... :-)
It wouldnt be as bad if they made it interesting. Art work, sculptures, statues, history markers... there would be ways to make it more beautiful and permanent, and used.
This issue was bought up at a Downtown Action Committee meeting back in April of 2006. An urban park will only as successful as its surroundings and how it integrates with them. We are working to build a downtown that is actually a living neighborhood, as opposed to a museum viewed from our speeding cars down Main Street. With any urban public space project, if you want it to do well, it needs to be designed in a manner that attracts a diverse range of people on an around the clock basis and it needs to offer activities that incorporates users from nearby establishments. This is why most new urban parks include features like fountains, sidewalk cafes, retail, monuments, tot lots, etc. instead of just....grass. In other words, it needs to become an interactive space, instead of a feel good drive by story on days when litter is not present.
Quote from: jeh1980 on October 09, 2007, 10:43:43 PM
Well, it's obvious. They should've build a skyscraper on the spot instead of a park. Mayor Peyton, we all due respect, but please, no more downtown parks...unless their is a high rise next to it. :-\
I'd say at this point, the core would be better off WITHOUT any more grand visions from the 4th floor. If this is the type of stuff we have to look forward to, we're better off with the money not being spent.
Instead of trying to leave a legacy, lets get back to the basics and focus on getting the non-press release items corrected. These would include finally getting wayfinding and directional signage, trolley stops that actually are identifiable, getting JTA's BRT system out of the heart of the core, selling vacant/under utilized city-owned properties, CORRECTLY revising the parking meter situation and working with JSO to come up with a compromise on the Sports District street closing issue.
These little things aren't as exciting as putting hot dogs in the middle of a working drawbridge, finding a way to spend $700k on elevated sod or creating an "E-Town", but they will have a more powerful impact on the viability of the core.
Quote from: brooklyn-ite on October 09, 2007, 08:55:00 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2007, 08:10:07 PM
they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering
ok tufsu1 , for those inquiring minds that haven't been able to find out where Novarre is looking at - please tell us... !!!
no can do
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2007, 08:14:51 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on October 09, 2007, 06:26:27 PM
Quote from: JWW on October 09, 2007, 05:14:29 PM
This Park looks great compare to what was there. The mayor didn't beat back developers to build this park. As much as you all hate surface parking lots, I would think this a welcomed band-aid. The lot is still there and when it becomes valuable to a developer - sell it. Build something great.
As to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
My belief is that the administration does not believe that the middle class wants to live DT (off the river).
some of us "middle class" folks already do live downtown (off the river)...fo example, there is The Parks @ Cathedral townhomes....a development partially subsidized by the City.
There goes that theory.....next?
I am SO glad you brought that up.
The Parks at The Cathedral was supported fnancially by the DELANEY administartion !!
Same story with The Carling, 11 E., Knight Lofts, Shipyards, the Peninsula, and the Strand. Delaney GOT IT. He understood the importance of residential. This guy doesn't!
Thanks for providing MORE supporting evidence of my theory.
The fact of the matter is, there was supposed to be a SECOND phase of the Parks at the Cathedral. Peyton's church, St. John's Episcopal had contributed the land for it, but took it back. Why didn't Peyton use his influence to shepherd the second phasse to completion.
Again, their ACTIONS say it all.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 10, 2007, 07:48:31 AM
Quote from: brooklyn-ite on October 09, 2007, 08:55:00 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 09, 2007, 08:10:07 PM
they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering
ok tufsu1 , for those inquiring minds that haven't been able to find out where Novarre is looking at - please tell us... !!!
no can do
I'm just happy they are still looking around.
the second phase has not been built because it wouldn't work financially....units in Phase 1 were originally sold for around $150k...even with the subsides the builders cut all kinds of corners so they could make even a small profit....it is likely that the costs for the 12 units proposed for Phase 2 would be over $300k....which some would say is no longer targeted for the middle class...not sure I agree but that's another issue
Quote from: jeh1980 on October 09, 2007, 10:43:43 PM
Well, it's obvious. They should've build a skyscraper on the spot instead of a park. Mayor Peyton, we all due respect, but please, no more downtown parks...unless their is a high rise next to it. :-\
My beef with the park has nothing to do with it being a park, just the fact that no other idea was entertained for the property. Pocket parks a wonderful elements of modern urbanism, however without a residential base to support them they become burdens on the budget.
IMO, a better proposal would have been to issue an RFP for a residential structure with a ground level retail/dining element that fronted a small pocket park at the corner of the property That way there is a built in user for the park. The tax income from the residences would then offset the cost of maintaining the park versus adding to the strain of an already distressed city budget.
Quote from: tufsu1 on October 10, 2007, 09:14:48 AM
the second phase has not been built because it wouldn't work financially....units in Phase 1 were originally sold for around $150k...even with the subsides the builders cut all kinds of corners so they could make even a small profit....it is likely that the costs for the 12 units proposed for Phase 2 would be over $300k....which some would say is no longer targeted for the middle class...not sure I agree but that's another issue
My understanding is that some expensive drainage required for the site, which the city would not pay for, made the numbers not work. I don't know if it was attempted, but a reworking of the development plan might have made something work.
The first phase lost a lot of potential buyers because the units are tri-level. Demand for flats was unmet. Perhaps this site could have been converted to 4-5 stories of flats with ground level parking. The number of additional units might have covered the high drainage costs and the cost of 'up' rather than 'out' construction.
The numbers might have worked or not, but I question if that idea was even considered.
Wait, Vic... are you suggesting that we put dense vertical residential structures in the urban core???
Mods, can we get this guy banned, he clearly is just trying to cause problems... :o :o :o
;D ;D ;D ;D
Alright, tell me this everyone. Which would be the better option for downtown Jacksonville?
This?
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/mainst_park/DSC_0013.JPG)
Or this?
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/MainStreetProposal-3.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/MainStreetProposal-5.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/MainStreetProposal-7.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/MainStreetProposal-4.jpg)
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/MainStreetProposal-6.jpg)
Of course, the second option would require some actual effort to fully coordinate but projects like these are being built in urban areas around the country and are reshaping and complimenting the environment in which they are built. Furthermore, developments like these add money to the city coffers, require little infrastructure upgrades, enhance walkability, revive once blighted areas, spur other similar infill developments, etc. The benefits of developing this site far outweigh the benefits of a park.
to end this once and for all...Option 2 is clearly better....no argument.....
but nothing about Option1 precludes Option 2.....the park is still in public ownership, and if the development market rebounds and a bunch of other empty available parcels are developed, then this site (and the adjacent parking lots) could be as well!
you are correct with one big caveat... we could have not only done option 2 without spending 700K, we would have put that lot back on the tax rolls. Even if we gave the developer a HUGE discount on the property taxes as an incentive for market rate housing, we still would have NOT spent 700K. As it sits now, its not on the tax rolls and its not being used. At least as a parking lot it was being used...
Yes, we can still have option 2, but would could have spent that 700K in another park that would truly benefit the community around it, and would have been used.
Option 2? Yea that is great, but come on. The choice was between a vacant lot or the Park. This is Main Street across from the new Library with new sidewalks and planters stretching several blocks north and south. We needed this. If it is easier, Just consider it landscaping.
So is the park up for sale to the highest bidder? Does the city normally sell off park land to developers? I would think it would be harder to build something on a park than a parking lot.
City Hall stated that their goal was to get buildings on these blocks, but then they went ahead and spent money to get them further from their goal. Kind of weird.
We didn't NEED to spend $700k on sod. If we really wanted to green the lot, you can get a 500sf pallet of St. Augustine Sod for about $100 bucks. The site is 33,075sf, which means it would have taken 66 pallets of sod to fill it and create a passive greenspace (if desired). At $100/pallet that comes out to $6,615.00. Assume the same amount for labor and that puts you at $13,230. Even if you wanted improved lighting and a few perimeter trees (the Federal grant would have funded them along Main) it could still be done for well less than $100k.
So with that said, the better choice should have been to leave the vacant lot and apply to $700k to improving a permanent public space. Lets get real, this site is across the street from the butt of the Library. The community would have been better served taking that money and spending it in Hemming (or some other park) to make them more of an inviting place and allow the free market to take control of the Main Street lot.
i'm thinking this park needs more attention from the tax payers. since nobody is using this lot, we could also try to change that. if people actually use the park, it's not a complete disaster and developers might be more likely to want to use downtown.
i'm thinking if there is a group of people in this parket during rush hour, people will notice. since these parkets are too small for most park activities except sitting activities, i'm thinking we could play croquet. then again, i don't know enough about that to know if it would fit on one of these parkets.
regardless, i think it would draw attention, because how often do you actually see a group of people playing croquet. we could set up a large sign or signs saying something like "the cost of this croquet field was $700,000" and large enough for people to easily read it while driving. i also think this is better than just trying to draw attention to the cost, because people from the suburbs would see that people actually do things downtown when there isn't an event drawing them there.
does anyone else think this is a good idea? if it does nothing else, i will at least have learned how to play croquet...maybe.
I find it hard to believe that this park will ever be sold off to developers. 10 to 20 years from now this park my be a welcomed addition in what could be a very active, urban, and dense downtown environment, however, the cost of the park could/should have been the responsibility of a developer versus the city. There are too many other parks out there (as many have mentioned) that are being neglected and ignored that could have used the money and attention.
I guess these arguments are pointless though because it is built and isn't going anywhere and as Big Ben has suggested, we should try to make something of it so that it doesn't fall off of the charts like so many others around town. This should be a "lesson learned" by the city though.
They did not spend 700K on just sod. I'm all about the free market, but the free market gave us all those surface parking lots. Free market can still give you the computer graphic middle class housing that is in such high demand, but for some reason the Mayor kept it off the property tax rolls. Metrojacksonville has complained about surface parking lots and tearing down buildings, and the blight it has caused downtown. Now, the city turns one backwards and still can't win. "Is this park for sale to the highest bidder?","can you build on a park"? Yes - in a free market everything is for sale.
QuoteThey did not spend 700K on just sod.
I agree. If it is a temporary fix, it was flushed down the toilet on permanent elements like retaining walls.
QuoteI'm all about the free market, but the free market gave us all those surface parking lots.
Actually the free market didn't. The creation of many of downtown's surface parking lots are heavily influenced by public policy.
QuoteMetrojacksonville has complained about surface parking lots and tearing down buildings, and the blight it has caused downtown. Now, the city turns one backwards and still can't win.
Its not a game. The winners and losers are me, you and Duval County taxpayers. The idea of a public park next to a Salvation Army, a one way freeway, the butt of the library and asphalt lots is a bad one, plain and simple. It was bad a year ago and you're seeing the results off little usage today.
Quote"Is this park for sale to the highest bidder?","can you build on a park"? Yes - in a free market everything is for sale.
I think you're missing the point, unless you have no problem lighting money on fire. The $700k could have been spent somewhere else and had a greater impact on more of the existing population.
Because that block is green, it won't bring people to the core and it won't get much usage, due to the location. It may look nice driving by, but downtown should be designed to be a fish bowl or a tour ride. In Baymeadows this type of designing may work, but in urban areas the success of public spaces are contingent on what takes place around them and how well they integrates with them.
Quote from: JWW on October 11, 2007, 01:49:31 PM
They did not spend 700K on just sod. I'm all about the free market, but the free market gave us all those surface parking lots. Free market can still give you the computer graphic middle class housing that is in such high demand, but for some reason the Mayor kept it off the property tax rolls. Metrojacksonville has complained about surface parking lots and tearing down buildings, and the blight it has caused downtown. Now, the city turns one backwards and still can't win. "Is this park for sale to the highest bidder?","can you build on a park"? Yes - in a free market everything is for sale.
There is quite often OPPOSITION to converting park land to something else. There was a proposal to convert a SMALL PERCENTAGE of an existing pocket park at the corner of Broad and Bay into parking so that an adacent building could have residential units. The city council turned it down, primarily because 'park space shouldn't be developed'.
It's not like the city didn't already have several useless pocket parks. The one across the Florida Theater and the aforementioned Bay and Broad one show that they don't generate activity in and of themselves.
In fact that $700,000 could have implemented Tri VU's plan for the FL Theater pocket park that would have made it a viable space.
JAX has enough 'lessons learned' on DT screw-ups, to bring Wikipedia to it's knees. It needs to start getting it right for a change.
Well, I agree the park isn't going to be used as a park (lounging, picnic, etc.) - I don't plan on going there. The streetscape improvements would have been enough to visually improve main street as you drive through without the grass area. What type of space is needed for the residence of the Cathedrals, 11 E. Forsyth, the Carling, Berkmans, Churchill Lofts, etc. to go walk, relax, play with dogs and children? Is that the focus, and what needs to be built to start Downtown Jax on the right path?
I think one of the things we suggested at the time was for the city to issue an RFP that included not only market rate housing, but also included green elements. I believe it was over on MetJax, but I am pretty sure several people posted examples of mid/high rise style buildings with green elements.
Yeah, here are some of the threads from back then... We have hashed this all out before.
We are making the same points now that we made then. This to me was an issue on two fronts. The waste of money that could have been used in other parks, and the fact that we are continuing to turn our downtowns back on Main St.
Here is where it all started, and the issue was jumped on immediately by many of us.
http://www.metjax.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2020&
Here is when we realized they were hammering it though regardless.
http://www.metjax.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3756&
Yes, some of us also met with Adam Hollingsworth and Paul Crawford and suggested that as well. In that case, the site would have been developed into something that put it back on the tax rolls, but also included a linear greenspace element.....at the developer's expense. By combining the two you would have then had a space with retail/housing opening up onto it, thus providing it with a continuous flow of traffic.
QuoteWhat type of space is needed for the residence of the Cathedrals, 11 E. Forsyth, the Carling, Berkmans, Churchill Lofts, etc. to go walk, relax, play with dogs and children? Is that the focus, and what needs to be built to start Downtown Jax on the right path?
There's a quaint pocket park at Market and Church Streets. We have the Riverwalk, Hemming Plaza and a few existing pocket parks scattered in between. On top of that you then have Metropolitan Park and the chain of parks lining Hogans Creek. It can be argued that there's already plenty of park space in core that we need to improve and build upon to help them recieve more usage.
As for getting downtown off to the right track, I think we have to look at the issue of connectivity. Overall we've made significant progress from a few years ago, but we need that extra umph to push it to the next level.
People attract people and the more you can pile into a compact area with a diverse amount of uses, the more successful downtown will be. If we applied that concept to parks, then we'd take a space like Hemming Plaza, clean it up, add additional uses within it (like a tot lot) and fill its borders with a mix of uses that are alive around the clock on all four sides (including city hall). Once the vibrant epicenter is formed, things spreadout from there and connect to other nearby popular nodes like the Landing and the waterfront, via redeveloping corridors like Laura Street.
Drove by the park for the 1st time in a year and saw a few what I think homeless people hanging out in the park. As far as posts go, I think this thread has been one of the best threads on the site.
Parks are ok. But we need jobs in this town. We need businesses to stay open instead of closing. People needs to work to support their families and pay bills. Unemployment is not going to be there much longer for some of the people.
Here is an article that I found on the Daily Record under Financial News & Daily Record Chronicling Business and Law in Jacksonville.
This guy is from Georgia taking away our jobs in construction here in Jacksonville.
Developer Ben Carter: Retail, movies, downtown and the farm
04/07/2010
Ben Carter, founder and chairman of Atlanta-based Ben Carter Properties, is best known in Jacksonville for developing St. Johns Town Center in Southside, opening the first phase in 2005 and the second in 2007. Carter has strong ties to Jacksonville and led a Downtown retail task force to help determine a City action plan for development. Carter met with the Daily Record editorial staff Monday.
How’s it going at St. Johns Town Center? What’s the occupancy rate?
It’s very successful and even in this recession, it’s fared very well. Occupancy is 98 percent.
Did you imagine this type of success?
Yes. The early criticism was Regency and the Avenues were too close. But, neither had that mix that attracts higher incomes. To make it different, we needed a lot of retail that was high-end and catered to ‘bridge and better.’ That was Phase One. Phase Two was a notch higher and more trendy and more upscale. We also got Target for the value-oriented side. That’s what makes Town Center unique. We have both value-oriented and high-end.
We are also 10 minutes from the Beach and we knew 9A was being expanded and JTB was being expanded.
There’s long been talk that St. Johns Town Center will land a Macy’s, Nordstrom or other new big-name retailer. Macy’s continues to advertise on television in this market. When can we expect one of these stores, and which one?
There’s really no update on that. We have the location that Macy’s or Nordstrom or Saks or Neiman Marcus would want. Dillard’s (already there) and Macy’s are very similar, so my real focus is Neiman or Saks or Nordstrom, but it is going to be when they are ready.
What is the top store and restaurant at Town Center?
I am not sure which is the top store, but all of the restaurants are doing approximately $1,000 a square foot, which is extraordinary.
Are you ever amazed by the number of people at Town Center no matter what day or time it is?
The daytime office population creates a lot of traffic between 11 a.m. and 2 p.m. The primary retail hours are 11 a.m. to 6 p.m. And, the restaurants at night are driving incredible traffic.
People don’t care if there’s a two-hour wait if they can have a cocktail and walk around for a while.
It’s very rewarding. The company is focused on creating places people enjoy. That’s our mantra.
Anything good for the city will continue to have variety. We are beyond the point of trying to induce retailers. It (Town Center) speaks for itself.
When you hear bad things about Town Center, such as a complaint about parking, what do you do?
We hear about the walking distance from the parking lots and the distance from one end to the other. People tend to shop in zones. We’ve experimented with train rides and golf carts. I think one day there will be some type of regular transportation on the main spine.
What retailers have you said ‘no’ to?
I said no to a martini bar. The primary reason was they weren’t going to open until 7 at night and they were going to draw a crowd that was not complementary to our family environment and retailers.
I said no to a number of retailers already operating in Regency and Orange Park Mall, not because they are not great retailers, but we are looking for unique retailers.
How’s the new entertainment area coming along?
Whisky River is getting ready to open with a grand opening April 14. There are going to be three restaurants there clustered together, which will create a nice entertainment venue. In fact, I just walked into Whisky River and it looks pretty interesting.
Any plans for a movie theater?
We’re a little too close to Tinseltown, which is large and successful. Theaters have to compete for movies and it’s hard for them to come in and compete, but we are starting to talk to some theaters that are small venues with a bar and restaurant. We are trying to do that and we have some land available for that. I went to my first one a couple months ago and it was pretty nice. I was watching “Avatar†(in 3-D), so it was hard to eat.
What about residential at St. Johns Town Center? Do you see a time when residential could be more closely integrated?
We tried to do residential over the retail and it ended up being next door. It’s a difficult prototype to do, because the resident wants parking near their unit and the retailer wants parking near their store. It’s also difficult in terms of operating hours. The resident doesn’t want trash pickup while they’re asleep and at most retail venues, that occurs before business and after business. There are some operational things you have to coordinate, but mainly I think it’s just an evolution of development prototypes and people are figuring out more and more. Yeah, I think residential could be on top of retail when the market comes back.
You keep in tune with commercial real estate. How is it doing here in Northeast Florida?
The office vacancy rate is at an all-time high and retail vacancy is in the low teens. A lot of that is older product and more local merchants. I think the biggest issue business has out there is being able to rely on their banks. Banks are not lending anymore. Whether you own a company or are in the retail business, historically, you’ve relied on financing to help pay bills and grow. That’s virtually nonexistent and until that comes back, we’re not going to have a sustained recovery. The lenders, I think, are going to be more aggressive in taking things back vs. not being paid. I think there will be an increase in foreclosures, but not as dramatic as everyone thinks. Now that everybody feels we’re in a recovery, I think a lot of lenders think they can wait a little longer rather than take a loss on their balance sheet.
Do you think the enclosed shopping mall is a thing of the past?
The enclosed mall is the most dominant retail format in America. I don’t think it’s going away, but I think we will see more of a trend toward open-air, mixed-use development.
The most successful shopping areas in the world are streets. I think part of that is because of the experience. A big part of retail is entertainment. It’s watching people and interacting with people and doing something with your family that you can do together. That’s more of an experience in a open-air environment because it’s more than just shopping.
Where do you think the next big retail development will be in North Florida?
I looked in St. Augustine and had a site there down at World Golf Village, but it was growth-driven. When the residential growth stopped, it had to be put on the back burner. I think there will be something in that area because I think Jacksonville is growing south primarily and I think St. Augustine is growing north. It’s also perfect spacing from the Avenues mall and 20 miles from St. Johns Town Center. It will be a few years, but I think that area of St. Johns County will justify development.
You chaired the Retail Task Force that contributed to the City’s 2007 Downtown Action Plan. Retail development in the urban core remains a hot topic. What’s it going to take to get some momentum going?
I’ve spoken to the mayor on several occasions and one of the things I said to him was that St. Johns Town Center was an idea in 1999 that opened in 2005. It took six years. Just because you’re in a recession doesn’t mean you can’t start laying groundwork. It’s not going to happen overnight, but there are a lot of people talking about Downtown and a lot of people are interested in it. I think all the advocacy groups need to get on the same page.
Does the idea of downtown retail development have any strong points?
Jacksonville’s average age is 33 years old and that’s perfect for urban revival. We have to focus on getting that age group Downtown. Retail follows demographics. What you’ve got right now is a daytime population of 60,000 people, but there’s not enough to keep them there, so they are going home (after work). Interestingly enough, that’s about the same office population that’s around St. Johns Town Center.
Every successful downtown that has come back has come back because of young people. I don’t think the 18- to 25- year-olds today are interested in gated communities. They’re interested in a different kind of lifestyle.
One of the things I said to the mayor is he needs to be going after technical schools, cosmetology schools, computer skills training and arts and graphics. All of those people are urban-minded and they’re in the right age bracket. I would love to see a focus on taking advantage of the recession and lower office rents and the availability of space to bring two or three schools Downtown. We’re working with one in Atlanta that has 300 students. If there were three of those here, you’d have 900 young professionals who are spending all day Downtown and are more likely to stick around after work because they’re looking for entertainment.
What has been the reception from the mayor’s office?
It’s been terrific. Unfortunately, he’s running out of time (Mayor John Peyton’s second term ends June 30, 2011).
I think he’d like to see something in place before he goes, something that will go beyond his term. It’s (Downtown development) a building block and it goes block-by-block. I’d have a singular focus on the urban core and let the ripples in that water spread.
Can people who live in the suburbs support Downtown’s revitalization?
You’ve got some of the best demographics in Jacksonville a mile and a half from Downtown. San Marco, Riverside and Arlington need to start coming back Downtown. My focus would be on bringing young professionals and my second focus would be providing things that are family-oriented. Football games are one piece of that, but it doesn’t happen often enough.
What part of Downtown should be addressed first?
I think there has been too much focus on Brooklyn, Southbank and Northbank. We need to focus on the city’s center. Southbank is successful. Brooklyn on the riverfront is successful. I think what we need to focus on is the urban core. That’s Laura Street, Bay Street and the river.
For the life of me, I don’t understand why the Riverside Arts Market is not sitting right Downtown on the riverfront. That’s one of the successful new things that’s going on. Why is it located two miles from Downtown?
How often are you in Jacksonville?
I’m spending more time here; about half here and half in Atlanta.
What do you do when you’re not working?
I have a farm in Madison, Ga., and I love to travel. We have a house here and a house in Atlanta. We bounce around those three and keep up with the kids.
He developed town center and took jobs away? Sounds like fuzzy math.