I am sure the Jaguars would do a quality job, but is their vision for this property in the best interest of the public? Shouldn't we at least wait until the CRA is completed?
This is why we need a community-supported vision for developing our riverfront. Whatever we do with these public properties should be done as part of a coordinated and strategic plan that allows us to realize the full potential of our riverfront.
We have a golden opportunity with the Shipyards, the old courthouse, and the JEA property on the southbank that we will never again have once these properties are developed. Let's make sure that our decisions maximize the overall benefits to the public and downtown revitalization efforts.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543178
^ Agreed
This is how a big boy city has developed a similar property. If anyone at COJ wants their hand held while reading this, I'd be happy to help out.
http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/pages/pier-6-rfp
I think the Jags vision can easily be molded into one that serves the community well. So yes, I think it can be in the best interest of the public WITH PROPER INPUT AND PLANNING!
Quote from: CityLife on June 12, 2014, 01:40:36 PM
This is how a big boy city has developed a similar property. If anyone at COJ wants their hand held while reading this, I'd be happy to help out.
http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/pages/pier-6-rfp
That looks too big and expensive for Jax. We should spend more money doing some studies. I'm sure there's some historic value we'd be destroying if we develop this land. I'm scared of change and new nice things. We don't need more apartments downtown the ones we have aren't making enough money. (ok i think I've said everything that needs to be said. Carry on)
In all seriousness though, a development similar to Lake Eola in Orlando would be amazing. Sprawling public green space along the river. Offices, apartments, condos and restaurants, venues for sports, music etc mixed with park space... Yeah I could dig that.
Another similar effort is the redevelopment of the Hunters Point/Candlestick Park area in San Francisco
If we insist on holding out for "highest and best use" (whatever that means) these properties will probably not be developed in my lifetime. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
I tend to agree here. Jaguars practice/training facility combined with an Armada soccer stadium might be "good" use of land today, BUT not 20 years from now. At that time a 50 story hotel/condo/appt. building may be best and Kahn can sell it for a profit.
Quote from: riverkeepered on June 12, 2014, 12:11:12 PM
I am sure the Jaguars would do a quality job, but is their vision for this property in the best interest of the public? Shouldn't we at least wait until the CRA is completed?
This is why we need a community-supported vision for developing our riverfront. Whatever we do with these public properties should be done as part of a coordinated and strategic plan that allows us to realize the full potential of our riverfront.
We have a golden opportunity with the Shipyards, the old courthouse, and the JEA property on the southbank that we will never again have once these properties are developed. Let's make sure that our decisions maximize the overall benefits to the public and downtown revitalization efforts.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543178
States most likely no decision for 6 months. The CRA should be done by then I would hope, I mean they have only been working on it for a year or so now. Can't wait too long on this city as it will never happen. Maybe someone like Khan putting a decision date out there will kick someone into action FiNALLY.
I've met with the Jags to discuss their ideas for the Shipyards, as I have with the people who envision Seaglass Tower and with the Riverkeeper. There are also ideas out there for an aquarium and the USS Adams museum. My hope is to convince everyone to work together to put as many ideas as possible into the space so we get the most bang for our buck. I've also suggested putting some sort of adventure sport aspect into the plans, whether it be a zip line across the river or a rock climbing wall on the outside of the tower, as well as a possible downtown beach space with increased water access for the public and maybe even a floating pool. Whatever the plans end up being, clearly we need to decide what is best for the city in the long run before we start building or giving the land away.
Quote from: Jtetlak on June 12, 2014, 03:48:56 PM
Whatever the plans end up being, clearly we need to decide what is best for the city in the long run before we start building or giving the land away.
How would you suggest deciding what's best for the city in the long run and how would you suggest the city dispose of the land? Yes this is a test...but its open book. The answer can be found by looking at the link I posted earlier.
Unfortunately, our city has dragged its feet too long on the Shipyards and we have a mayor who is going to want some shiny new plans to show the public prior to the next election.....
http://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/pages/project-development
Quote from: Jtetlak on June 12, 2014, 03:48:56 PM
I've met with the Jags to discuss their ideas for the Shipyards, as I have with the people who envision Seaglass Tower and with the Riverkeeper. There are also ideas out there for an aquarium and the USS Adams museum. My hope is to convince everyone to work together to put as many ideas as possible into the space so we get the most bang for our buck. I've also suggested putting some sort of adventure sport aspect into the plans, whether it be a zip line across the river or a rock climbing wall on the outside of the tower, as well as a possible downtown beach space with increased water access for the public and maybe even a floating pool. Whatever the plans end up being, clearly we need to decide what is best for the city in the long run before we start building or giving the land away.
Since you talked to them yourself what are their plans for the space? Or is pretty much what everyone else is saying in respect to a practice field.
I'm still trying to grasp what you're trying to say, CityLife. I mean, the Brooklyn Bridge project already has guidelines on how they would like to see the property developed. They have it somewhat platted out into the uses that they would prefer to see in each area. And have assistance money lined up for the winning bid.
Don't take this the wrong way, but shouldn't they just let the property be, as is, and throw a couple $20M or so to the first large developer that wants to build an Assisted Care Living Facility or a Gated Luxury Condo or something that would encompass the entire area and cater strictly to it's residents.
Besides, you're not thinking at all about legacy. If AB were to have his staff draw up a rather impressive RFP with Long Range goals, everyone knows that whomever is mayor when the project is finished will get all the credit. Can't have that happen! All or nothing, baby, and let's do it for now!
I'm saying the exact same thing as the Riverkeeper, just showing an example of how it has been done. Create a development plan with input from the public, and then start cranking the RFP's out as the market dictates. Obviously a lot more complicated than that, but the Brooklyn project and others create a road map of how non-backwater places have created successful public-private partnerships.
Been a long day, I'll try to share more detailed thoughts this weekend...
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 12, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
If we insist on holding out for "highest and best use" (whatever that means) these properties will probably not be developed in my lifetime. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
+100
Quote from: CityLife on June 12, 2014, 08:14:47 PM
Been a long day, I'll try to share more detailed thoughts this weekend...
No need, man, I'm just being facetious.
It's been a pretty long day on my end of the keyboard as well, and the reason that I've posted so much today is kind of due to a lack of competence by others, so I have some 'free time'; Hence the tone of most of my posts.
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade. We have a tendency in this city to rip proposals apart before ground is even broken on said projects. Mark Lamping of the Jags clearly said in the article that they were in discussions with the other interested developers as well. Clearly they would like to make this a combo of several things( Observation Tower, Aquarium, Retail, Housing, Jags themed venues, Naval Museum etc) But that's not good enough for some people. Hell I even forgot about Lamping saying they would like to have green space as well. We don't need more studies, and we shouldn't be considered a "backwater city" if we don't do it like Brooklyn or San Francisco. I am not saying we should just throw something on the property just to have something there, but I am tired of the huge gap between DT and the Sports District. Lets all try to stay positive and give the Jags a chance to get this worked out.
Quote from: urbanlibertarian on June 12, 2014, 03:01:51 PM
If we insist on holding out for "highest and best use" (whatever that means) these properties will probably not be developed in my lifetime. Let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Agree.
Reminds me of the poster that says "Waiting for the Perfect Man". And it shows a skeleton sitting on a bench.
Look what Clay County did to itself.....via community supported vision,Planners & Consultants et al 8)
Let's rename the town "Potential"
What would San Francisco do with 100 undeveloped waterfont acres??
;)
Quote from: riverkeepered on June 12, 2014, 12:11:12 PM
I am sure the Jaguars would do a quality job, but is their vision for this property in the best interest of the public? Shouldn't we at least wait until the CRA is completed?
This is why we need a community-supported vision for developing our riverfront. Whatever we do with these public properties should be done as part of a coordinated and strategic plan that allows us to realize the full potential of our riverfront.
We have a golden opportunity with the Shipyards, the old courthouse, and the JEA property on the southbank that we will never again have once these properties are developed. Let's make sure that our decisions maximize the overall benefits to the public and downtown revitalization efforts.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543178
RK and not picking on you but you started this thread and so what are your specific suggestions?
This CRA is still being drafted and the zone of this new Waterfront boundary is from the Fuller Warren Bridge to the Mathews Bridge. There is active legislation 2014-305 that has to do with new Docking Rules and penalties. I was at the 6/11/14 Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting when this was being discussed and Tera Meeks was the only one answering questions. The sponsor of the legislation wasn't there. The Chair of Waterways Don Redman deferred the legislation because of questions and concerns. So will it come back before Waterways again before being voted on by the entire Jacksonville city council? Waterways doesn't meet in July so it would be August. This legislation will now be in Finance and RCD in 4 days. Then it could theoretically be brought to the full Jacksonville city council on 6/24/14 with no amendments and then fall into the guidelines that will be our new CRA/DIA and the Public shut out again. Another token stop in Waterways. Scott Wilson we talked about this yesterday so feel free to jump in here and correct me on that. Have you told Don? Visit Jacksonville!! This legislation has everything to do with Shipyards and Downtown.
You have concerns. How about the Promised Shipyards Pier 2010-604 or Bay St. Pier Park?
I can go on and on but when anyone asks me that we are getting more Public Access and economic opportunity to our St. johns River our American Heritage River a FEDERAL Initiative in our new super duper restricted CRA/DIA zone I tell them that we are getting crushed. Pick and choose the winners and losers. Who should be joining Tony Nelson in Federal prison. Total Backroom deals.
Please share the strategic plan that allows us to realize the full potential of our Riverfront.
QuoteLets all try to stay positive and give the Jags a chance to get this worked out.
We should all stay positive why? Because the Jacksonville Jaguars are in the land development business? Why not let the people who develop properties talk the talk and walk the walk, instead of having another debacle of "fish out of water" come in and try and make a go of it?
No matter what is built, it will benefit downtown and the stadium area. Let the people who do this for a living do it, Jags, based on their record the last few years, should stick to managing football. Not building a new supercenter.
Quote from: GatorShane on June 12, 2014, 09:37:29 PM
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade.
The real irony of this post is that the people who are in favor of just giving the land away to the Jags are the pessimists. You are the ones that think Jacksonville has to settle for mediocrity. That nobody in the private market would want prime riverfront property. That a football team can develop public land better than people in the development business. That Jacksonville can't do things the same way that wildly successful cities do.
Unfortunately, our city government is so inept, that some people have a very jaded view on how this process should work. Hopefully the CRA will provide a little more clarity and guidance. However, given the Jags public and private posturing for this land and Khan's relationship with the mayor, they are probably influencing that process as well.
Quote from: mtraininjax on June 13, 2014, 07:33:24 AM
Let the people who do this for a living do it, Jags, based on their record the last few years, should stick to managing football. Not building a new supercenter.
So the fact that our new owner brought in a guy, Mark Lamping, who's developed 2 world class sports venues in the past decade or so doesn't fit your idea of, '...the people who do this for a living..."?
He may not fit the bill for your typical developer, but in several ways, that's a good thing as he and Shad will probably bring ideas to the table that a 'typical' developer may not think of. Being outside of the box can be a good thing. And the other point, that City keeps hitting on, is the lackluster effort that our own city has done with the property.
There absolutely should already be some sort of plan in place. Nothing set in stone, but at the very minimum, some general guidelines to follow by whomever ends up developing the property. But is obvious that they're quite happy sitting on their hands until someone presents their own plan so they can (IMO): a) Take credit for making the property a success or b) wash their hands of it if it's an epic failure.
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: GatorShane on June 12, 2014, 09:37:29 PM
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade.
The real irony of this post is that the people who are in favor of just giving the land away to the Jags are the pessimists. You are the ones that think Jacksonville has to settle for mediocrity. That nobody in the private market would want prime riverfront property. That a football team can develop public land better than people in the development business. That Jacksonville can't do things the same way that wildly successful cities do.
Unfortunately, our city government is so inept, that some people have a very jaded view on how this process should work. Hopefully the CRA will provide a little more clarity and guidance. However, given the Jags public and private posturing for this land and Khan's relationship with the mayor, they are probably influencing that process as well.
For the most part, the people in the "development business" have given this city absolute crap.
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: GatorShane on June 12, 2014, 09:37:29 PM
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade.
The real irony of this post is that the people who are in favor of just giving the land away to the Jags are the pessimists. You are the ones that think Jacksonville has to settle for mediocrity. That nobody in the private market would want prime riverfront property. That a football team can develop public land better than people in the development business. That Jacksonville can't do things the same way that wildly successful cities do.
Unfortunately, our city government is so inept, that some people have a very jaded view on how this process should work. Hopefully the CRA will provide a little more clarity and guidance. However, given the Jags public and private posturing for this land and Khan's relationship with the mayor, they are probably influencing that process as well.
For the most part, the people in the "development business" have given this city absolute crap.
That's an awfully broad brush....Are you saying all the new projects in Brooklyn (Jax) are crap? Because those are the most recent examples of what we've gotten. Are you saying the Jaguars could serve as master developer better than say, Hines? Who does have a local presence, but haven't done anything in the urban core that I'm aware of.
http://www.hines.com/about/
I personally don't see what's so 'dumbed down' about the Jaguars proposal. It sounds exciting to me. They are proposing some rental apartments, entertainment, retail, a marina, a park-like setting, and the multipurpose practice facility. What in the hell is so anticlimactic about that? Nevertheless not even viewing the diagrams.
Does everything have to be a highrise or convention center? Even in upstart places like Charlotte, that high rise construction boom has slowed down dramatically, with everything being proposals. To already deem this Jaguar plan as 'a consolation' you're already going with a 'glass half empty' mindset. Have something positive at the Shipyards, or wait another 25 years for something to be there, the latter option is literally being complacent.
@CityLife, the CRA will show what will be best for the city in the long run, JCCI's Jax2025 plan already shows how the people feel about what is best for Jacksonville. I imagine it will be DIAs job to green light individual projects.
@AuditoreEnterprise, the Jags plan does a pretty good job leaving places for retail and green spaces. The most interesting part for me was an idea for an NFL training facility to train officials, which I was told would probably be funded at least in part by the NFL. Again, this would have to be incorporated in a way that it wasn't wasted space 90% of the time, perhaps with an Armada partnership of some sort?
Until the CRA is finished I don't see anyone making any progress or decisions. Everyone I have talked to is pretty much in the idea phase. In any case, ideally I would like to see the city retain control of the land as much as possible rather than give it away to developers.
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: GatorShane on June 12, 2014, 09:37:29 PM
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade.
The real irony of this post is that the people who are in favor of just giving the land away to the Jags are the pessimists. You are the ones that think Jacksonville has to settle for mediocrity. That nobody in the private market would want prime riverfront property. That a football team can develop public land better than people in the development business. That Jacksonville can't do things the same way that wildly successful cities do.
Unfortunately, our city government is so inept, that some people have a very jaded view on how this process should work. Hopefully the CRA will provide a little more clarity and guidance. However, given the Jags public and private posturing for this land and Khan's relationship with the mayor, they are probably influencing that process as well.
For the most part, the people in the "development business" have given this city absolute crap.
That's an awfully broad brush....Are you saying all the new projects in Brooklyn (Jax) are crap? Because those are the most recent examples of what we've gotten. Are you saying the Jaguars could serve as master developer better than say, Hines? Who does have a local presence, but haven't done anything in the urban core that I'm aware of.
http://www.hines.com/about/
The suburban shopping center in Brooklyn is terrible.
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: GatorShane on June 12, 2014, 09:37:29 PM
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade.
The real irony of this post is that the people who are in favor of just giving the land away to the Jags are the pessimists. You are the ones that think Jacksonville has to settle for mediocrity. That nobody in the private market would want prime riverfront property. That a football team can develop public land better than people in the development business. That Jacksonville can't do things the same way that wildly successful cities do.
Unfortunately, our city government is so inept, that some people have a very jaded view on how this process should work. Hopefully the CRA will provide a little more clarity and guidance. However, given the Jags public and private posturing for this land and Khan's relationship with the mayor, they are probably influencing that process as well.
For the most part, the people in the "development business" have given this city absolute crap.
That's an awfully broad brush....Are you saying all the new projects in Brooklyn (Jax) are crap? Because those are the most recent examples of what we've gotten. Are you saying the Jaguars could serve as master developer better than say, Hines? Who does have a local presence, but haven't done anything in the urban core that I'm aware of.
http://www.hines.com/about/
I think many people are in the mindset that somehow there will be football people developing this. The team's president Mark Lamping oversaw the building of the new Busch Stadium in St Louis. He left the Cardinals to oversee the building of the most expensive stadium in the country in MetLife Stadium. He is overseeing the current Everbank Field upgrades. He's not some layman when it comes to this.
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 09:28:09 AM
I think many people are in the mindset that somehow there will be football people developing this. The team's president Mark Lamping oversaw the building of the new Busch Stadium in St Louis. He left the Cardinals to oversee the building of the most expensive stadium in the country in MetLife Stadium. He is overseeing the current Everbank Field upgrades. He's not some layman when it comes to this.
Isn't that the definition of a "football people"? Not drawing up plays, but working on football facilities. He may well have the skills to develop a multi-use, non-football (or less football), project, but that resume' doesn't include any examples.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 13, 2014, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 09:28:09 AM
I think many people are in the mindset that somehow there will be football people developing this. The team's president Mark Lamping oversaw the building of the new Busch Stadium in St Louis. He left the Cardinals to oversee the building of the most expensive stadium in the country in MetLife Stadium. He is overseeing the current Everbank Field upgrades. He's not some layman when it comes to this.
Isn't that the definition of a "football people"? Not drawing up plays, but working on football facilities. He may well have the skills to develop a multi-use, non-football (or less football), project, but that resume' doesn't include any examples.
Actually, no. The Jaguars are the first football team he has worked for.
Speaking of real estate development:
Shad Khan supposedly funded the purchase of the Marble Bank Trio and the old Barnett Bank building. Last time I went by not one thing has been done to any of those buildings. Didn't this transaction occur over a year ago? How many traditional lenders would let it sit while they (the buyers) tried to figure out what to do with it. Is there a start date on the renovations on these buildings? Finalized projects with start and end dates?
The best plan for The Shipyards not only serves all of the broader Jacksonville community but also draws tourists driving south on I 95 into downtown for a day, and maybe even as an overnight stay. Done properly it could draw folks up from Orlando and Daytona. Something that works 365 days a year, not just when the football team is working. I don't know what that plan is, but you have to build a destination that works 365 days a year. Without that type/style of project you are missing the boat.
Barnett is in work. The others... not yet.
I think a great example of what can be done here is Patriots Place. Its Patriot themed, but is mixed-use has a movie theater, dining, shopping, etc. Not saying this exact model would necessarily work in downtown Jax, but this is an example of what could be done. And you guessed the project was spearheaded by the Kraft Group.
http://www.patriot-place.com/
Quote from: MusicMan on June 13, 2014, 01:01:03 PM
Speaking of real estate development:
Shad Khan supposedly funded the purchase of the Marble Bank Trio and the old Barnett Bank building. Last time I went by not one thing has been done to any of those buildings. Didn't this transaction occur over a year ago? How many traditional lenders would let it sit while they (the buyers) tried to figure out what to do with it. Is there a start date on the renovations on these buildings? Finalized projects with start and end dates?
The best plan for The Shipyards not only serves all of the broader Jacksonville community but also draws tourists driving south on I 95 into downtown for a day, and maybe even as an overnight stay. Done properly it could draw folks up from Orlando and Daytona. Something that works 365 days a year, not just when the football team is working. I don't know what that plan is, but you have to build a destination that works 365 days a year. Without that type/style of project you are missing the boat.
The Jaguars have already stated it has to be something that works 365 days a year. They are aware of that.
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 12:16:48 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 13, 2014, 11:45:49 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 09:28:09 AM
I think many people are in the mindset that somehow there will be football people developing this. The team's president Mark Lamping oversaw the building of the new Busch Stadium in St Louis. He left the Cardinals to oversee the building of the most expensive stadium in the country in MetLife Stadium. He is overseeing the current Everbank Field upgrades. He's not some layman when it comes to this.
Isn't that the definition of a "football people"? Not drawing up plays, but working on football facilities. He may well have the skills to develop a multi-use, non-football (or less football), project, but that resume' doesn't include any examples.
Actually, no. The Jaguars are the first football team he has worked for.
Guess I missed on making my point - the examples were of football venues, whether or not he was "employed" by a football team - does he have other - not football stadium - development experience that might be applicable to a multi-use Shipyards?
^^or perhaps they would bring someone on board with that experience to work with on the project? I mean they are six months out from deciding if they even want to get involved in it from a development standpoint. I think we are all getting ahead of ourselves without any real concrete information.
Quote from: Know Growth on June 12, 2014, 10:15:09 PM
Look what Clay County did to itself.....via community supported vision,Planners & Consultants et al 8)
Let's rename the town "Potential"
What would San Francisco do with 100 undeveloped waterfont acres??
;)
Develop it!!!
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 09:22:45 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:55:58 AM
Quote from: copperfiend on June 13, 2014, 08:45:55 AM
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2014, 08:09:13 AM
Quote from: GatorShane on June 12, 2014, 09:37:29 PM
Excuse me for raining on some peoples pessimistic parade.
The real irony of this post is that the people who are in favor of just giving the land away to the Jags are the pessimists. You are the ones that think Jacksonville has to settle for mediocrity. That nobody in the private market would want prime riverfront property. That a football team can develop public land better than people in the development business. That Jacksonville can't do things the same way that wildly successful cities do.
Unfortunately, our city government is so inept, that some people have a very jaded view on how this process should work. Hopefully the CRA will provide a little more clarity and guidance. However, given the Jags public and private posturing for this land and Khan's relationship with the mayor, they are probably influencing that process as well.
For the most part, the people in the "development business" have given this city absolute crap.
That's an awfully broad brush....Are you saying all the new projects in Brooklyn (Jax) are crap? Because those are the most recent examples of what we've gotten. Are you saying the Jaguars could serve as master developer better than say, Hines? Who does have a local presence, but haven't done anything in the urban core that I'm aware of.
http://www.hines.com/about/
The suburban shopping center in Brooklyn is terrible.
Agreed. Why did the shopping center have to turn out like the one with a Fresh Market off Atlantic and San Pablo?
^ likely because that's what Fresh Market wanted
^And the DDRB didn't enforce the standards.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2014, 11:47:42 PM
^And the DDRB didn't enforce the standards.
partially true....from what I recall, DDRB fought hard to get the developer to improve the design....keep in mind there was political pressure since the Mayor
REALLY wanted the project...in fact, the other night he claimed that 220 Riverside and Fresh Market were
his projects.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 18, 2014, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2014, 11:47:42 PM
^And the DDRB didn't enforce the standards.
partially true....from what I recall, DDRB fought hard to get the developer to improve the design....keep in mind there was political pressure since the Mayor REALLY wanted the project...in fact, the other night he claimed that 220 Riverside and Fresh Market were his projects.
And therein lies the problem. We are one of the few cities where developers tell our leadership how they will do things instead of vice versa.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 18, 2014, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2014, 11:47:42 PM
^And the DDRB didn't enforce the standards.
partially true....from what I recall, DDRB fought hard to get the developer to improve the design....keep in mind there was political pressure since the Mayor REALLY wanted the project...in fact, the other night he claimed that 220 Riverside and Fresh Market were his projects.
Yes, absolutely. I didn't mean that as a slight against DDRB, just pointing out we do have standards though we often don't stick to them. In this case, largely because the mayor was pushing them not to.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 18, 2014, 10:18:45 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 18, 2014, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2014, 11:47:42 PM
^And the DDRB didn't enforce the standards.
partially true....from what I recall, DDRB fought hard to get the developer to improve the design....keep in mind there was political pressure since the Mayor REALLY wanted the project...in fact, the other night he claimed that 220 Riverside and Fresh Market were his projects.
Yes, absolutely. I didn't mean that as a slight against DDRB, just pointing out we do have standards though we often don't stick to them. In this case, largely because the mayor was pushing them not to.
Seems to be the norm among city leadership.
Quote from: pierre on June 18, 2014, 09:04:01 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 18, 2014, 08:39:00 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 17, 2014, 11:47:42 PM
^And the DDRB didn't enforce the standards.
partially true....from what I recall, DDRB fought hard to get the developer to improve the design....keep in mind there was political pressure since the Mayor REALLY wanted the project...in fact, the other night he claimed that 220 Riverside and Fresh Market were his projects.
And therein lies the problem. We are one of the few cities where developers tell our leadership how they will do things instead of vice versa.
actually it happens in a lot more cities than you might think