Duval County Courthouse: How much is too much?
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/14620270.jpg)
Better Jacksonville Plan voters were promised a $190 million courthouse, now Mayor Peyton wants us to pay $400 million. Unfortunately, no one is asking why a courthouse costs this much.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/648
Quote from: Metro Jacksonville on January 30, 2008, 04:00:00 AM
Duval County Courthouse: How much is too much?
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/14620270.jpg)
Better Jacksonville Plan voters were promised a $190 million courthouse, now Mayor Peyton wants us to pay $400 million. Unfortunately, no one is asking why a courthouse costs this much.
Full Article
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/648 (http://www.metrojacksonville.com/content/view/648)
Peyton's Palace? ::) What kind of name is that for a courthouse? I think that sometimes we give our city a bad name let alone the Mayor. I'm sure he'll have to do something.
Quote from: jeh1980 on January 30, 2008, 04:54:51 AMPeyton's Palace? ::) What kind of name is that for a courthouse? I think that sometimes we give our city a bad name let alone the Mayor. I'm sure he'll have to do something.
How about Peyon's Plan? Name aside, what's your take on the city borrowing money to build a $400 million complex? Can we afford it? Should we immediately move forward?
If Ron Littlepage's recent courthouse editorial is right, I think the passing of Amendment 1 will change the Mayor's plan to borrow hundreds of millions to get the courthouse done. We have some serious budget problems facing this city and the county courthouse expansion (as currently proposed) may not be the highest priority on the list of needs.
QuoteIn my view, Peyton's courthouse doesn't pass that test. It's simply too expensive at a time the economy is souring and when the city has other needs that must be met.
Peyton's courthouse would require issuing $132 million in long-term bonds. Paying that debt would take at least $8 million a year out of the city's general fund for 30 years.
full editorial: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012908/opl_241346335.shtml (http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/012908/opl_241346335.shtml)
How about a $50 per month courthouse fee?
All of the cities with before mentioned courthouses all had their completion dates on or before 2004 which is right around the time concrete started becomming scarce adn therefore MUCH more expensive. I agree the courthouse should look more like the Federal courthouse, but I think the price comparison numbers are scewed because of massively rising construction costs.
We should at least force the Mayor to turn the bottom street level into retail. Why does every builder except the city have to have ground level retail?
Charlotte's courthouse was completed in February 2007.
Quote from: Dapperdan on January 30, 2008, 07:37:27 AM
All of the cities with before mentioned courthouses all had their completion dates on or before 2004 which is right around the time concrete started becomming scarce adn therefore MUCH more expensive. I agree the courthouse should look more like the Federal courthouse, but I think the price comparison numbers are scewed because of massively rising construction costs.
They may not be too scewed. Charlotte's courthouse opened in 2007 and we did make a mistake. Calgary's courthouse opened last week, not last year as mentioned in the article.
Mecklenburg County Courthouse - Charlotte, NC
http://www.ncbar.org/ncLawyer/10/2183/index.aspx?type=article (http://www.ncbar.org/ncLawyer/10/2183/index.aspx?type=article)
Calgary Courts Centre
http://www.alberta.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?ReleaseID=/acn/200801/22953B2A6DFBE-E81E-D31F-39BFADE899E10DAF.html (http://www.alberta.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?ReleaseID=/acn/200801/22953B2A6DFBE-E81E-D31F-39BFADE899E10DAF.html)
While the cost of building materials has risen, it does not mean all materials/building designs carry the same costs. While a huge glass atrium may be nice, its also not an absolute must for an efficient complex. Also, the less land it complex takes up, the more the overall costs drop. So, from an architectural design point of view, the building does not necessarily have to cost taxpayers $400 million. It really boils down to how much are we willing to spend and are we willing to go with a "no-frills" type of approach.
QuoteWe should at least force the Mayor to turn the bottom street level into retail. Why does every builder except the city have to have ground level retail?
At the very least, the city should seriously consider using an urban design that takes up the smallest amount of land possible and sell excess land back to the private sector. The money coming in from the land sale could at least help cover a portion of the building costs.
Another correction for the article: $300 million for 1 million square foot complex = $300/sf.
QuoteCalgary Courts Centre Facts
About the building
Highest point: 129.8 metres
The 20-floor south tower: 99.7 metres
The 24-floor north tower: 116.9 metres
The Calgary Courts Centre’s floors are taller than conventional buildingsâ€"its 24 courtroom stories equal a regular 32-storey building.
One of the most striking architectural features of the building is the 125-metre, full-height glass atrium that connects the two towers. The glass public elevators run in the centre of the atrium providing spectacular views to the city and to the Rocky Mountains.
This is one of the largest consolidated courthouses in all of North America, with one-million square feet of floor space and 73 courtrooms.
There are 12 public elevators â€" six hi-rise and six low-rise.
Approximately 12 million kilograms of rebar was used in the buildingâ€"that’s equivalent to the weight of 4,000 yellow school buses.
The building contains 22,221 square metres of glass.
At the start of construction, 77,328 cubic metres of material was excavatedâ€"enough to fill 77 Olympic-sized swimming pools.
People
Approximately 600 people work in the Calgary Courts Centre, including justices and judges, security personnel and court, library and external agencies’ employees.
About 1,000 people (600 at peak of construction) worked on the construction project.
Cost and Partners
The Government of Alberta funded the project at a cost of $300 million. The private sector designed, built and operates the facility.
Partners:
Government of Alberta
GWL Realty Advisors Inc.
CANA Management Ltd.
Kasian Architecture Interior Design and Planning
Spillis Candela â€" DMJM
NORR Limited
SNC-Lavalin ProFac Inc.
RGO Office Furnishings
Stantec Consulting
Hemisphere Engineering
Stebnicki Robertson and Associates
AMEC
Timelines
Phase one started in August 2004; Phase two is set to start in spring 2008.
Phase one of the project consists of two atrium-linked towers with a 24-floor north tower and a 20-floor south tower, and a secure underground parkade. An additional 700 parking stalls are included in Phase Two.
Technology
The Calgary Courts Centre includes state-of-the-art technology that will enable advanced solutions for courtroom audio, presentation, digital signage, communication and remote conferencing.
Courtrooms: Audio elements include fixed microphones, amplified speakers, digital recording, and wireless microphones. A variety of LCD screens are set up in the courtroom to ensure accessibility of information for the spectators, jury members, the witness and the accused. Each courtroom has a moveable podium that allows presentation of video, images, and documents. Video conferencing, remote witness facilitation and electronic annotation will also be available.
Digital Signage: Large LCD monitors will be positioned strategically throughout the courthouse, with a large number located on the main floor. These monitors list the courtroom participants in a fashion similar to airport departure/arrival monitors. Each courtroom will be equipped with a smaller monitor located outside the door to show the courtroom-specific events.
Specialty Courtrooms: There are four specialty courtrooms â€" large trial courtroom, high security courtroom, commercial courtroom, and a special multipurpose/Aboriginal courtroom. The high security and commercial courtrooms are designed for proceedings involving multiple litigants. The Aboriginal courtroom is equipped with a healing circle and ventilation system to allow for smudging.
Green building design and operations
The building’s design is expected to meet or exceed the LEED Silver standard, which government adopted in May 2006. For more information about LEED, visit the Canada Green Building Council at http://www.cagbc.org. The building’s operations will satisfy the BOMA Go Green standard, which government adopted in March 2006 for all major government-owned and supported facilities. For more information on Go Green, visit http://www.bomagogreen.com.
Notable sustainable green design features include low-flow toilets, triple-glazed windows, rainwater collection for irrigation, a heat reclaim recovery system, daylight harvesting, re-use of salvaged construction materials from demolition, proximity to the C-train and the availability of bicycle storage with showers and change room facilities to encourage the use of non-automotive means of transportation.
The need for a new courthouse
Calgary's Court of Queen's Bench and Provincial Court were, until now, located in five separate facilities: the Provincial Court building; the John J. Bowlen Building; Court of Queen’s Bench building; Trimac House and Rocky Mountain Plaza. A sixth building, the Courthouse Annex, was demolished to make way for construction of the new project. All courts were near or over capacity and there was continued pressure to expand due to population and business growth.
There was also a need to improve courtroom technology, security, and to create more healthy buildings. Reasons for this include:
Growth in workload of the courts since the 1970s
Longer and more complex proceedings
Increased complex corporate litigation due to the growth and development of Calgary as a major business centre
QuotePhase two of the project includes restoration of the historic Court of Appeal building, demolition of the Court of Queen's Bench building, and construction of a 700-stall underground parkade with an urban park on the Queen’s Bench site. Phase two will start this spring at an estimated cost of $50 million.
http://www.alberta.ca/home/NewsFrame.cfm?ReleaseID=/acn/200801/22953B2A6DFBE-E81E-D31F-39BFADE899E10DAF.html
Quote from: thelakelander on January 30, 2008, 06:09:57 AM
Quote from: jeh1980 on January 30, 2008, 04:54:51 AMPeyton's Palace? ::) What kind of name is that for a courthouse? I think that sometimes we give our city a bad name let alone the Mayor. I'm sure he'll have to do something.
How about Peyon's Plan? Name aside, what's your take on the city borrowing money to build a $400 million complex? Can we afford it? Should we immediately move forward?
Yes....get it done!
another question....why is a 7-story building considered "suburban"....you all may want to check the average height of buildings in Washington D.C.....like the Supreme Court for example....downtown buidings don't need to be tall!
It has less to do with height and more to do with the amount of land it will consume. If the goal is to use as much land as possible, it is not an urban design.
Between the courthouse and the JTA transportation center, half of downtown is gone.
Quoteanother question....why is a 7-story building considered "suburban"....you all may want to check the average height of buildings in Washington D.C.....like the Supreme Court for example....downtown buidings don't need to be tall!
Go to Houston, Atlanta or Orlando and you'll see several examples of 20 story suburban oriented buildings. Its not as much about the height as it is about the land area consumed and the poor relationship with the urban fabric around it. If you take a look at the comparison buildings shown or do a google earth aerial search, you'll find they tend to abut the sidewalk in a compact manner, which leads to the formation of an urban street edge and less land used by the complex.
On the other hand, our current plan involves closing a street and leaves what appears to be rarely usable yard space between the sidewalk and building edge. Cut the footprint in half by going up 14 stories, then line the building's wall directly on the sidewalk (which would be more in line with how downtown's building fabric has historically developed) and you have an urban footprint with half the amount of land used. That land saved can then be sold back to the private sector which then helps reduce the taxpayer's ultimate expense for this project and leads to a more compact vibrant downtown scene.
its called creating a "signature" landmark building....that's what public buildings should be....think of the old City Hall....did it fill an entire block with the building up against the sidewalk?
I agree that the building takes up a lot of land....but space is not much of a problem for many parts of our downtown (yes I realize that's because buildings were torn down)....you all keep saying sell the land back to the private sector.....there alreday is plenty of property available in/near downtown....and there doesn't seem to be many takers!
oh yeah...if you could post a site plan, it might help your argument....I mean from what I see, the builkding likely meets the sidewalk on 3 sides....and I don't see where any streets are guarnteed to be closed.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2008, 10:51:59 AM
its called creating a "signature" landmark building....that's what public buildings should be....think of the old City Hall....did it fill an entire block with the building up against the sidewalk?
There's no rule that equates huge or minimum setbacks with "signature design". A competent designer should be able to handle both settings if the will is there. Nevertheless the most important thing revolves around how much is too much to spend on a "signature design" when the municipality does not have the money? If all you can afford is a Camry, you shouldn't be at the lot looking for a Lexus. That's the biggest and most important element of this situation right now.
QuoteI agree that the building takes up a lot of land....but space is not much of a problem for many parts of our downtown (yes I realize that's because buildings were torn down)
The courthouse should not be designed in a fashion that does not consider the surrounding urban fabric, especially downtown. This type of thinking kills connectivity and results in projects like the Main Street Pocket Park, the failed LaVilla plan and the Landing (in its current configuration that turns its back to Laura Street).
Its one thing if our overall goal is to create a Southpoint part II, but if we want a vibrant walkable urban core, density, in terms of building fabric and residential population is the key. To continue approving horizontal projects with poor street interaction, only because the land is there, on enhances downtown's obstacles that it has to overcome.
Quote....you all keep saying sell the land back to the private sector.....there alreday is plenty of property available in/near downtown....and there doesn't seem to be many takers!
You can't just say there aren't many takers when you have a big hole in the heart of downtown and the city still has no grand vision of what they want the core to be. If we can figure out the courthouse, transportation center and convention center issues, you will see an increase of interest on nearby properties from the private sector (at least this is how it works in most cities).
And while you're at it, could you also post a detailed architectural rendering of the inside of your new building as well?
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2008, 10:54:35 AM
oh yeah...if you could post a site plan, it might help your argument....I mean from what I see, the builkding likely meets the sidewalk on 3 sides....and I don't see where any streets are guarnteed to be closed.
I don't have a plan on me right now, but here's a description of what it was in November, when the new plan first came out.
Considering the completed parking garage and existing old Federal Courthouse take up two blocks, there's five square blocks of grass remaining. The new complex, as designed, is take up four blocks and the city will hold on to the last for possible expansion in the future. It would most likely be landscaped until the need for expansion comes along. Clay and Pearl would both end up being closed, but Monroe, while being re-routed, would remain open.
As far as the height issue goes, the claim is that the judges don't want a vertical building because it would be dangerous to have prisoners moved. Considering the building is already 7 stories, its already "vertical", so whether its 7 or 14, thats an issue that still has to be dealt with.
Quote from: Midway on January 30, 2008, 11:11:49 AM
And while you're at it, could you also post a detailed architectural rendering of the inside of your new building as well?
??? I don't have a new building. Tonight, the city council will hold a meeting discussing the pros and cons of various options. Personally, I hope more effort is put into the idea of a public/private relationship to get it done, as opposed to forcing the city into more debt on a building that sucks up too much valuable property.
The red and orange area outlined in black is the location of the proposed courthouse. The orange area is the location within the four block area that the proposed building will sit on. The building will sit across Hogan facing east and west.
The large structure to the right of the orange area is the recently completed courthouse garage that sits empty....
To the left of the blue square is the old Federal Courthouse and in front of that is the new federal courthouse.
(http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y74/asonj23/Google%20Earth%20Snapshots/CourthouseLot-11.jpg)
Personally, the area I outlined in blue could be a great location for a compact vertical courthouse because of its vicinity to the new garage, other courthouses, and skyway station at Hemming Park.
But since the four block square has already been purchased the location in orange makes the most sence for a structure that crossed over Hogan. I'm not against blocking the road but it has to be done in a manner that addresses its surroundings and leaves the remaining two blocks for private development.
I think it would be great if the entire thing could sit on the area of blue, they keep the lot just west of that for future expansion and sell off the remaining three for private development and leave all the streets open. The value of those lots go up big time with a new $272 building sitting complex next door.
If the blue lot is left open and reserved for future development, it kills the chance of good connectivity taking place between everything east of Julia, unless they plan to poor a boatload of money into making it a public square....which defeats the purpose of Hemming Plaza.
What building is that on the blue lot, do you know?
Thats the construction trailer for the courthouse.
Ha!!
Here is a shot:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/then_and_now/Adams-at-Julia-Now.jpg)
This is what used to be there:
(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/images/then_and_now/Adams-At-Julia-Before.jpg)
You guys want a signature landmark building? This was the Duval County Courthouse:
(http://fpc.dos.state.fl.us/spottswood/sp01556.jpg)
One of the ugliest parking garages known to man now sits in its place.
nice pic of the old courthouse....it kind of makes my point....major public/civic buildings are supposed to be landmarks.
now the argument of some is that we can't afford to build a landmark given the financial situation...my take on that is if you can't spend the $ to do it right, don't do it at all!
I don't think courthouses are "supposed" to be landmarks, that's just how they were historically built. Since Jacksonville has already destroyed its landmark courthouse, the opportunity has been lost.
I guess it just depends on ones definition of "doing it right", but a courthouse is "supposed" to be a functional building for holding court.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2008, 07:08:19 PM
nice pic of the old courthouse....it kind of makes my point....major public/civic buildings are supposed to be landmarks.
This should kill the point of thinking that a landmark must have grass in front of it.
Savannah City Hall
(http://www.terragalleria.com/images/us-se/usga38384.jpeg)
http://www.terragalleria.com/america/georgia/savannah/picture.usga38384.html
Is it not a landmark?
Quotenow the argument of some is that we can't afford to build a landmark given the financial situation...my take on that is if you can't spend the $ to do it right, don't do it at all!
Why can't we build a landmark within budget? Is the design team that poor that it can't be done at a reasonable price? Btw, just because someone spends an insane amount of money for something does not mean they are "doing it right". For proof all you need to look at is the riderless skyway. Something 100 times better could have been built for a fraction of the cost.
Btw, guys I stopped by the meeting tonight for about an hour. To sum it up I felt bad for Hollingsworth and Mosley, both of which were getting taking to task by the council. I couldn't stick around, but unless they did a 180, I don't the $400 million plan will survive in its current state.
How about some more landmarks that meet the street?
Old New York County Courthouse - NYC
(http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/old-new-york-county-courthouse-new-york-city-ny001.jpg)
Allegheny County Courthouse - Pittsburgh
(http://z.about.com/d/pittsburgh/1/0/Y/8/courthouse2.jpg)
These should prove beyond a doubt that a civic landmark can be created without excess sod and setbacks. I'm not saying ours definately has to be this way, but given the price tag, we need to find a way to reduce the cost and the easiest way to cut the budget, short of shrinking the building is to reduce the amount of land area used. As for the entrance, it does not necessarily have to tightly abut the sidewalk. It would be a perfect anchor point for a public space that includes retail or cultural establishments lining its borders.
Redwood, CA (a short walk from the Caltrain commuter rail station)
(http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/tomorrow/Plaza%20Renderings/renderings/plaza_2.jpg)
(http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/tomorrow/Plaza%20Renderings/renderings/plaza_7.jpg)
(http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/tomorrow/Plaza%20Renderings/renderings/plaza_8.jpg)
(http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/tomorrow/Plaza%20Renderings/renderings/plaza_1.jpg)
(http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/tomorrow/Plaza%20Renderings/renderings/plaza_4.jpg)
QuoteThe City of Redwood City is pleased to offer three concession spaces in Courthouse Square, the new outdoor “living room†in the heart of Downtown, in front of the historic County Courthouse building / History Museum.
The Square includes:
Two pavilions - each with two concession spaces
Movable café seating
Four decorative water fountains
Landscaping
This beautiful new public space will be comfortable and inviting for residents and visitors to Redwood City’s downtown, employees on their lunch hour, visitors to the San Mateo County History Museum (inside the historic Courthouse), and special events.
Each concession space includes an enclosed area of approximately 190 square feet that can be used for food and beverage operations or other sales activity that provides a complementary fit with the Square and the revitalized Downtown.
http://www.redwoodcity.org/cds/redevelopment/downtown/tomorrow/squarerfq.html
Apparently if the Council does nothing, the current contract with Turner to build a criminal only courthouse will move forward with construction starting late summer/early fall 2008. The Council also previously approved money for the design of an integrated criminal and civil courthouse that they were unaware of.
Pretty much nothing was decided. The questions coming from the Council probably should have been asked about 5 years ago.
What a bunch of whiners... Get a life for gosh sakes. Don't you see a Jacksonville simplicity to the current plans?
1. We convert the Union Terminal into a high-school gym size Convention Center
2. We anchor it with a Skyway that doesn't go anywhere.
3. We build a landing mall without parking and far too small for big ticket events or big box stores.
4. We wreck the JSI shipyards and build residential towers with folding parking lots.
5. We'll build a new court house at the high-school Gym Convention Center
6. Take down River City Brewing so we can build a real fish camp downtown
7. Take down the Metropolitan Park and the Frendship Fountain and consolidate them by the fish camp.
8. We build a giant new convention center on the moon scape created by the current court house site
(we'll regain the high school cheerleader champs.)
9. The Hyatt will expand their ballroom to twice the size of our giant new convention center. (Hyatt will take the high school cheerleader champs)
10. Amtrak will finally get funded and need to stop at our new Transportation Center built over and all around our new Prime Osbourne Courthouse.
11. We'll blow a hole through Durkeeville to bring a new railroad in to build an Amtrak Terminal North of the proposed Greyhound Site.
12. We'll connect the old Terminal tunnels with the old bank and other city tunnels for an underground BRT system, but we'll only use gasoline powered vehicles down below... This system will do two things, keep all of these exciting new things connected and the emissions will keep our population stupid enough to buy into all of it!
13. Friendship fountain will be reconstructed in Green Cove Springs, but the Sulfur will turn it green.
14. JTA will propose building the Skyway from the new Convention Center to the new Courthouse. Also from the New Convention Center to the Hyatt Center. A branchline will extend to the former metropolitan park flex space, to be used only in the event of another Super Bowl. There will also be a proposal to build a BRT line from the New Convention Center to the Hyatt Center. A branchline will extend to the former metropolitan park flex space, to be used on in the event of another Super Bowl.
15. As a result of all of this new civic building spree, our new fee's will go up about 50x times and Motel Six will announce a new 60 room mega hotel at the corner of State and Main Street... Go figure...
Ocklawaha
how does the courthouse shown in Redwood, CA meet the street?
I never said the building had to be set back or have grass in front....a civic plaza (as shown in redwood) would be fine...so would having the building come up to the street
But until you show me a site plan, I will not be convinced the design is poor....I mean Lake said the building takes up 4 blocks....somebody else said 2....which is it?
tufsu... if you think you are confused, you should have heard council last night. yikes.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 31, 2008, 10:10:16 AM
how does the courthouse shown in Redwood, CA meet the street?
With a vibrant spot for civil and cultural activity in the form of a public square. This would be great for the courthouse, except that we already have Hemming Plaza. It would be nice is the creation of something like that could be done along Monroe to connect with the old Federal Courthouse, Ed Ball Building, Federal Courthouse and Hemming Plaza. However, this isn't the main issue concerning our courthouse.
QuoteI never said the building had to be set back or have grass in front....a civic plaza (as shown in redwood) would be fine...so would having the building come up to the street
But until you show me a site plan, I will not be convinced the design is poor....I mean Lake said the building takes up 4 blocks....somebody else said 2....which is it?
Adam Mosley and Ron Littlepage both claim the complex will take up four blocks with one left for future expansion. The main issue is that the plan will cost taxpayers $400 million and we simply don't have it. This means we need to find ways to reduce the cost, not borrow more money. One of the easiest ways to do that is to cut back the amount of land area the building takes up.
Number of blocks aside, we do know that its 800,000sf building spread over 7 floors. If we can go to 14 floors, you free up half the land area now set aside and cover the same amount of floor area. In fact, this was Autcher's solution before they went belly up. Doing this would then offer the opportunity to sell the extra land to the private sector which would find it desirable to be right next door to a new $272 million building. The money made from that land sale, along with the sale of the Bay Street lot could then be used to reduce the impact of the building's overall cost on John Q. Taxpayer.
Then factor in downtown's problem of connectivity and the fact that most likely three sides of the courthouse will be pretty dead, in terms of pedestrian activity. So not only is excess land not taken advantage of, we're also willing to accept nearly everything between Broad and Pearl to remain as dead pedestrian pockets, even after the complex opens. So, considering we can't afford a design that takes up twice as much land area as the previous design/build group's solution, yes the design to reduce in height and spread out horizontally is a poor one.
ahh...we're finally getting somewhere
800,000 sq. ft. over 7 floors = 115,000 sq. ft. per floor (assuming all are of equal size)
each block in the area is about 200' x 300' = 60,000 sq. ft.
So based on this, the proposed building fits on 2 blocks.....not 4!
That's what I said. The diagram I posted assumed that the front two blocks would be consumed by the proposed building. The footprint you see is pretty close to what the building will occupy.
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 31, 2008, 01:56:24 PM
ahh...we're finally getting somewhere
800,000 sq. ft. over 7 floors = 115,000 sq. ft. per floor (assuming all are of equal size)
each block in the area is about 200' x 300' = 60,000 sq. ft.
So based on this, the proposed building fits on 2 blocks.....not 4!
The 800,000 sq. ft. is interior air-conditioned space only. Add in the thickness of exterior walls, etc. and it takes up more space.
Nevertheless, even at those numbers there would not be much setback between the building and the surrounding streets. If any landscaped setback is included on a structure that size, it could easily take up more than two city blocks.
Now lets try to get somewhere with this.
Current proposal800,000 sq. ft. over 7 floors = 115,000 sq. ft. per floor (assuming all are of equal size)
reducing the land area800,000 sq. ft. over 14 floors = 57,143 sq. ft. per floor (assuming all are of equal size)
This means even if the original takes up two blocks and results in closing a street, at 14 floors you only take up one block or half of the land area. Instead of holding on to that half, you sell it to the private sector once the new courthouse is complete. Whatever that value is, along with the value of the riverfront property is millions of profit coming to the city that can be used to offset the cost of building a $272 million courthouse building.
Is this not a sure fire way to possibly reduce the $400 million pricetag facing John Q. Taxpayer?
Another idea would be to completely re-evaluate the staff we have occupying the current building and start making some much needed staff reduction.
Does anyone know many square feet the proposed $400 million civil and criminal courthouse would be?
And why does Duval County need so much more space than Mecklenburg County? More criminals?
good question.
New Courthouse - 801,274 sq. ft.
Old Federal Courthouse - 174,740 sq. ft.
Ed Ball Building - 70,000 sq. ft.
Total - 1,046,014 sq. ft.
QuoteExpensive new courthouse plan receives a new motto
By RON LITTLEPAGE, The Times-Union
First, an update:
In a column published Tuesday, I wrote that if John McCain wins the Republican nomination and picks Gov. Charlie Crist as his running mate, a hot topic in the political speculation world, Crist would have to resign his governorship to run.
Well, guess what. During his first few months in office, Crist signed into law a bill that changed Florida's resign-to-run requirement, which had been in effect for three decades, to exclude those seeking a federal office.
How convenient.
To increase his popularity, he goes after property taxes, and disregards the negative effects on local governments. He endorses McCain at a key moment in the campaign to curry favor with him. When asked about a potential vice presidential run, he refuses to say no. And he signed a law that would allow it.
Crist is the ultimate politician. Was this his plan all along?
Moving on to Peyton's Folly, the new courthouse. Administration officials began trying to convince City Council members to support Peyton's vision of a $400 million courthouse during a special council meeting Wednesday evening. They ran into tough sledding.
Councilman Stephen Joost asked a pertinent question: Didn't the passage of Amendment 1, which will sharply reduce the city's property tax revenue, change the landscape?
Shouldn't the council know the effects of that reduction on other city services and programs before considering increasing the $263 million budgeted for a courthouse by $132 million?
(Remember, this was a courthouse that voters who approved the Better Jacksonville Plan had been told would cost $190 million.)
Councilwoman Denise Lee hammered home another point: Wouldn't taking at least $8 million a year for 30 years out of the general fund to pay off the additional debt cut into the ability to do other needed capital projects?
It was like pulling teeth, but she finally got an answer that, of course, it would.
The City Council is taking the correct approach to the courthouse.
Wednesday evening council members discussed legal questions and funding mechanisms. They then began looking at options, starting with a proposal to convert the Prime Osborn Convention Center into a courthouse instead of building Peyton's $400 million version.
The council will continue that discussion and look at other options when it next meets on the courthouse.
Here are some questions that need answers in the meantime:
A consultant hired by the city told council members that the projected cost of $200 million to convert the Prime into a courthouse was wrong and that it actually would cost $21 million more than Peyton's plan.
Those numbers need to be closely examined.
For instance, how does the consultant's price per square foot compare with the costs of recently built courthouses in other cities?
The city told the consultant that a 2-acre lot adjacent to the Prime would have to be purchased at a cost of $6 million. The current market value of that land, according to city records, is $1.8 million. Why the difference?
There may be a lot of reasons why the Prime wouldn't do as a courthouse, but the council needs to make sure the numbers aren't being inflated.
Wednesday's meeting did produce a new, obviously rehearsed talking point.
Administration officials repeatedly called the new courthouse "critical infrastructure for the community that meets a critical need."
I suppose parks and libraries and decent roads aren't "critical needs" in the administration's view, as they will be the losers if this much money is sucked out of the general fund.
Which would you rather have, a nice park to enjoy or a fancy new courthouse?
ron.littlepage@jacksonville.com, (904) 359-4284
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020108/opl_242470162.shtml
QuoteTake a second look
By The Times-Union
Mayor John Peyton's most recent courthouse plan - to build a single, $400 million facility at LaVilla - seemed to make sense a few months ago, when he proposed it.
But circumstances have changed.
On Tuesday, voters approved a property tax referendum. As a result, City Hall will have less revenue.
How much less? About $30 million, according to the Mayor's Office.
To make up the difference, the city will have to raise fees or cut expenses.
In light of that, does the city want to increase spending on the courthouse?
Current plans call for building a criminal courts facility now, at a cost of $260 million, and adding civil courts space later - when the city can afford it.
If the City Council votes to build everything at once, like Peyton now wants, it will take on at least $8 million a year in new debt service for 30 years.
That made sense before the property tax amendment took away tens of millions of dollars in city revenues. It makes less sense now.
Not that the "full courthouse" plan should be jettisoned, necessarily. But take a fresh look.
The city has many pressing problems, and they all require money to fix. Wider roads are needed, for example, and some neighborhoods still use septic tanks.
It will be tough, with property tax revenues shrinking, to address those problems and assume millions of dollars more of debt service on the courthouse.
And pressure also is building for a massive expansion of the Sheriff's Office. That, if it happens, will take a lot of money.
Where will it come from?
Shouldn't the council answer that question before - rather than after - it commits to spending millions of dollars a year more on the courthouse project?
Significant new fees were imposed last year, at the same time visible spending cuts were inflicted. Library hours were reduced, for example.
It figures that more of those cuts will be necessary to make up the current shortfall. If so, how much of it could be avoided by sticking to the old "half courthouse" plan?
City Council should consider the courthouse as part of the entire budget, not as a stand-alone item.
Don't approve the mayor's plan now - and find out later that a series of unpopular fee increases and cuts in services are needed to correct a budget imbalance that the plan helped create.
It may still make sense to follow the mayor's plan.
But the lost revenues are significant enough to merit a long and objective re-evaluation, based on overall city needs.
http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/020108/opi_242457277.shtml
What if the city were to go ahead with the criminal court building that's already approved and move the civil court, family court, juvenille court, etc. to empty buildings in that general area like Jones Bros furniture, Ind. Life/JEA, Ambassador Hotel, Old Old Federal Reserve, etc.? Would that save tax dollars and preserve some of the remaining historic buildings?
It would definately save some of the older buildings. I don't know how much money it would save or if its really feasible, but it would be better than turning the Prime Osborn into a courthouse.
Another MetroJax article and it's another time that the city of Charlotte, NC is doing things better and more efficiently. Someone go up there and kidnap some public officials and bring them back to Jax. Then send Peyton up there to work his big box/sprawl magic.
That might be a good idea for a trading places reality show: Meet your New Mayor.
I would tend to agree that it is not completely fair to compare costs of buildings completed much earlier than this one. Construction costs are absolutely crazy right now. When the original designs for the courthouse came out, a yard of concrete was somewhere in the $60-65 range. Now, it is in the $95-105 range, depending on strength, etc. Steel costs are absolutely ridiculous.
As for the design, I haven't seen the plans for this thing, but I know you say it takes up a lot of space. Originally (back when the competition was originally done) that KBJ solution was a taller building that only took up 2 blocks immediately behind the old Federal Courthouse. Hogan street (I believe it was) was NOT to be crossed (by direction of the competition rules). Parking garages were behind the building, the old federal courthouse was to be incorporated into the design, and there was retail space in a portion of the parking garages. The only thing that I can think of that would change to what you say is covering 4 blocks now is someone was directing the designers to do this.
I think it would be much better to do something along the original design lines compared to this thing that is spread out. That would leave at least 2 blocks of the 4 (colored in orange above) for private development.
QuoteI would tend to agree that it is not completely fair to compare costs of buildings completed much earlier than this one. Construction costs are absolutely crazy right now. When the original designs for the courthouse came out, a yard of concrete was somewhere in the $60-65 range. Now, it is in the $95-105 range, depending on strength, etc. Steel costs are absolutely ridiculous.
A few of these places were completed less than a year ago and one this past month. The cost of construction material has risen since 2000, but the jump from a year or two ago is not that significant. We can build a courthouse for under $400 million still, we just need to learn how to live within a budget.
I believe I have the best idea to save money. Just go ahead and put all of them in portable buildings. Stack them right next to each other, throw some cheap tables and chairs in there and a couple chalkboards. I'm sure the whole plan would not cost more than $1M to complete. Then again we could just revamp all of our schools in Duval County with real buildings and use those now unused portables to save even more...
Hey, if it works for the majority of our schools, why not them??
-MK
Yes Downtown DC has a height restriction (taller than 7 stories) and it is definately an exception to the rule.
Quote from: rolfinney on May 25, 2008, 11:22:18 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2008, 09:45:48 AM
another question....why is a 7-story building considered "suburban"....you all may want to check the average height of buildings in Washington D.C.....like the Supreme Court for example....downtown buidings don't need to be tall!
Am I mistaken that DC has building height restrictions? If I am not, you have just attempted to use the exception to establish a rule.
We want it to be tall because we honestly feel it will save more money, and, we want our skyline to have another tall to fill in that area of town in the skyline, and, we are all "tall addicts" and/or "tall queens" and would love to have another tall buildling grace and enhance our skyline.
Yes, I too am a "tall freak!"
Heights Unknown
since you all brought my post from Jan back up....the heigh restriction in DC is around 15 stories...Philly had an unwritten rule of no more than 25 floors before 1987.
Tall buildings are nice.... but the pedestrian view (or street view) is more important....given all of the vacant land in our very large downtown, constructing a mid-rise building over several blocks may not be a such a bad idea....especially if it is able to balance the need for security with a relatively nice pedestrian street ambience.
The problem is not the height. There's nothing wrong with a mid rise building that interacts with its urban surroundings, as opposed to a plan that creates huge dead zones. Cost aside, site integration is probably the major issue for those looking for the project to spur seamless additional compact development and foot traffic in the Northbank area.
Take a look at the new Charlotte county courthouse.
(http://www.office-environments.com/clients/PortfolioImages/meck007.jpg)
Building architecture aside, the layout is designed in a way that also encourages foot traffic at street level.
A. The midrise building (its nine stories) uses a compact space of land. This means every single square inch of the property is used, as opposed to leaving patches of left over unusable open space. The layout also creates a covered walkway along the street edges, protecting through foot traffic from oppressing heat or rain storms. Chalk that up as a plus for the pedestrian.
B. The courthouse, like many office towers, has its own cafe space. However, the cafe fronts the street and was designed to have a separate entry from the main courthouse entrance. This design features makes the cafe a secondary focal point that can pull in street traffic at another street corner and generate foot traffic between the two entry points.
C. The backside of the building contains a public outdoor plaza, with a secondary entrance to the main courthouse atrium space.
See floor plan here: http://www.nccourts.org/County/Mecklenburg/Documents/building_guide_final.pdf
Overall, these three minor elements of design change the nature of a building that has a use that must focus in on itself. The entry points are strategically placed to generate foot traffic around the entire block limiting dead zones. So when we throw out costs (its cheaper to go vertical), the height does not matter. Its more about designing the interior spaces in a fashion that serves the courthouse's needs and stimulates foot traffic for additional growth in the area of downtown its located in. For $350 million, we should be able to do better.
GAO says millions of dollars are wasted on federal courthouses that are too big
By Ed O'Keefe
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 4, 2010; B03
Call it "Extreme Makeover: Courthouse Edition."
Some federal judges and court workers occupy courthouses that are bigger than necessary, according to a preliminary report by government auditors.
The Government Accountability Office revealed last week that 27 of the 33 federal courthouses built by the General Services Administration since 2000 contain about 3.6 million square feet of extra space -- or 28 percent of the total federal court space built in the last decade. The excess space has soaked up $835 million in construction costs and $51 million in annual rent and operations costs, the GAO said.
The report came at the request of a House subcommittee that oversees federal court construction. It cited three reasons for the excess space: Courthouses are being built larger than the space authorized by Congress, federal courts are overestimating their space needs, and judges aren't sharing courtrooms. The plus-size courthouses include the newer annex to the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in downtown Washington and the Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix.
"The findings of government waste, mismanagement, and disregard for the congressional authorization process are appalling," Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-Fla.) said last week at a hearing focused on the findings.
But Robert A. Peck, GSA Public Buildings Service commissioner, said auditors incorrectly included negative space in the atriums of tall buildings and "phantom floors" in double-height courtrooms. The incorrect measurements meant auditors mistakenly assigned normal operating and construction costs to the empty space, he said.
"We built only courtrooms requested by the judiciary and authorized by Congress," Peck said. "GSA has been forthright and transparent in all of our documents, testimony, and briefings to Congress throughout the history of our courthouse program."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/02/AR2010060204456.html
At this point we just have to finish the damn thing. We can remember what we did wrong at election time.
Im not gonna lie though.. I dont agree with the cost, but it is sure nice to look at them build it. ;D
well the GAO report is about Federal courthouses...so if there's an issue in Jax, it is with the new tower next to Hemming Plaza
Well...let's see if we can't make lemonade out of this situation. When the time comes, perhaps some really smart people can come up with designs for some other structures around the courthouse that can take advantaged of the otherwise useless space?
"How Much is Too Much?"
Well I think we're all finding out as this monstrosity is taking shape downtown, aren't we?
Yeah Chris ....we are! We go from a voter approved $190 Million dollars to who the hell know just what the final figure is going to be! $58 Million Dollars in the hole next Budget cycle and this is probably just one small reason why.............but most assuredly part of the problem! Spend ....Spend ....Spend when is it gonna end? I start to rhyme and I had better stop there!
Quote from: thelakelander on May 26, 2008, 12:57:40 AM
Yes Downtown DC has a height restriction (taller than 7 stories) and it is definately an exception to the rule.
DC's height restriction is based on the height of the dome on the nation's capital. Your overall allowable building height depending on where your site falls on the district's topography in relationship to the dome in combination with to your allowable building area in relationship to code and zoning.
Quote from: CS Foltz on June 09, 2010, 05:42:32 PM
We go from a voter approved $190 Million dollars to who the hell know just what the final figure is going to be! $58 Million Dollars in the hole next Budget cycle and this is probably just one small reason why.............but most assuredly part of the problem!
actually no...as has been stated many times, the capital budget and the operating budget are 2 separate things...and the funs can not be comingled
The Heights of Buildings Act in 1899 restricted any new building in Washington from exceeding the height of the U.S. Capitol. However, the act was amended in 1910 to allow buildings to be 20 feet higher than the width of the adjacent street.
The tallest building in downtown Washington â€" excluding the Washington Monument, U.S. Capitol, Washington National Cathedral, and the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, all of which are outside of the downtown district â€" is the Old Post Office, whose 315-foot-tall clock tower looms far above the other nearby structures. Built in 1899, it was grandfathered past the Heights of Buildings Act. The tallest commercial building is One Franklin Square at 210 feet.