Berkman II may not sit empty forever....
QuoteBy Max Marbut, Staff Writer
"They have a great plan if we can pull it off. We've got to get moving," City Council member Bill Gulliford said Tuesday after meeting with the owners of the Berkman II condominium tower, a potential developer and city economic development officials.
The plan could include apartments, retail space and possibly even workforce housing.
"We're definitely excited about the project and the opportunity," said Brett Oliver, director of development for Atlanta-based Cocke Finkelstein Inc., after the meeting.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=543545
Was this what StephenDare was referring to?
Also, hopefully this takes off sooner rather than later! This combined with the shipyards announcement coming from Khan would be HUGE! If Deutsche Bank announces they'll develop the old JEA land AND the other proposals go through, by George well have a completely different looking city and maybe enough leverage to extend the Skyway! :o
Looking at that company's website, they appear to have the experience and expertise to pull this off.
http://www.cockefinkelstein.com/services/
So much exciting news going on! Excited for the future :)
Man, I was beginning to think we'd never see the day. Hopefully they can execute.
This is a good line:
Quote
Gulliford said whatever any future plans might be for the Shipyards, "We need more parking."
"We could realign the parking garage to intrude a little on the Shipyards property for future development. That's a good option," Gulliford said. "We're looking at a vehicle where we can give them the incentives they need to make the deal work with the bank."
The larger parking garage also could be designed to include retail space and possibly even workforce housing, while the apartments in the tower are proposed to be rented at high-market rate.
Imagine that, a parking garage with retail and housing.
I'm just pleased someone in our leadership thinks parking garages should be mixed use, instead of just throwing up window boxes and creating a permanent dead zone.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2014, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 30, 2014, 12:21:13 PM
I'm just pleased someone in our leadership thinks parking garages should be mixed use, instead of just throwing up window boxes and creating a permanent dead zone.
lol. that would at least bring the steaming into the 1990s progress wise. (when observations lofts were as cool as digital watches in the 1970s.) ;)
I just wish that we would start thinking along two important lines.
1. Density is desirable.
2. The first response to density cannot be more parking and automobiles.
Does the area really need more parking? Like 'definitely'?
Or does it need a better circulation system downtown that obviates the need for parking (which is plentiful, and kept artificially hard to use)
Right - don't think "How can I bring more cars into this area?", think "How can I bring more people into this area?". A car never shopped for anything, or rode an amusement ride, or rented an apartment :)
I do know a fair amount of people park on these lots for all of the big events that happen in the area. I would imagine at least one or 2 garages would be needed to make up for this. Also the people who live/work in the area will need a place to park. I makes more sense to build up with mixed use than to force people unfamiliar with the area into places they have to commute from 5 miles away :P
We need to increase density by getting rid of most of our off-street parking spaces. Better mobility and connectivity can be achieved by investing in alternative forms of transportation, which happen to be cheaper and more pedestrian oriented. As for all of our lots, most sit empty for significant portions of the day/night. There's more than enough ample opportunity to share parking facilities for many uses.
Quote from: stephendare on July 30, 2014, 02:21:46 PM
Downtown's land space is 60% parking lots, jaxjaguar. Don't you think thats a lot?
I live downtown, but I don't see it... How much of that is owned by First Baptist, over-priced dilapidated street level lots and garages that close after 10pm?
As I stated in my thread a week or so ago, parking is one of the biggest issues for my guests when they come in town. Heck, it's $40 a month, for the two lots next to my building, for a pass. Both lots are completely run down with huge pot holes and broken glass, look abandoned and there's no option for daily use. If they catch you in those lots with out a monthly pass they tow you.... Where are my friends supposed to park when the streets are full and the garages closed or unusable except on Sundays?
From a 2011 article. Parking lots, both surface and garage are highlighted in red...
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1360076259_nnJL9XK-600x10000.jpg)
Other city examples here:
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jul-surface-parking-lots-a-downtown-vibrancy-killer#.U9lCwfldViZ
How much of the above would be available to residents of the building? Obviously not the closest lots shown in red being the Shipyards and Jail and MH parking lots?
I was showing the map and speaking in regard to downtown parking in general. This 2011 graphic does not correlate directly with whatever this particular proposal or the future development of the shipyards will be. Those things will not be known until an actual project materializes.
One thing I find funny are the people that own the little crap corner lots trying to get people to fork over 5-10 bucks on the weekend to park when they can use the meter spots for free.
Fine, just seemed since this thread is about a specific potential project and some comments in said thread about not needing more parking I just assumed the discussion was there was no need for a parking garage should this development move forward.
I would be 100% on board with no parking garage if the city owned and maintained some of those lots and set up long term parking meters on them ($2.50 a day/free weekends like the long term meters), but the real problem lies with the land squatters sitting on those lots which are severely under-kept and over priced.
My proposal is for the city to buy back some of this land and uses it as cheap parking to kill off the squatters and force them to sell or be fined for not keeping their lots in shape. Detroit did something similar to this with the run down houses and it worked.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on July 30, 2014, 03:56:08 PM
I would be 100% on board with no parking garage if the city owned and maintained some of those lots and set up long term parking meters on them ($2.50 a day/free weekends like the long term meters), but the real problem lies with the land squatters sitting on those lots which are severely under-kept and over priced.
My proposal is for the city to buy back some of this land and uses it as cheap parking to kill off the squatters and force them to sell or be fined for not keeping their lots in shape. Detroit did something similar to this with the run down houses and it worked.
I know it's hard, but try an picture another 'program' that has had practically zero follow through...
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-dec-downtowns-blighted-surface-parking-lots-under-fire#.U9lOZ_ldXT8
^^ yea agree on that. I did see a grass lot close to new court house this morning when drove by that looks like it may at least be getting paved. At least I assume that is what the activity there was about.
I mean on this specific project I think you are going to have to have a parking garage. The story indicated the tower would be high market rate rentals. I seriously doubt anyone is going to pay high market rate without dedicated close by and safe parking.
Quote from: edjax on July 30, 2014, 03:43:42 PM
Fine, just seemed since this thread is about a specific potential project and some comments in said thread about not needing more parking I just assumed the discussion was there was no need for a parking garage should this development move forward.
This thread is just pure speculation. At this time, there's no official project far enough along to define what the ultimate parking needs will be.
?? Yes it is speculation but I guess seems to make sense our discussion at least is in line with what they are speculating. Otherwise the comments can just be about anything and that kind of defeats the purpose of a specific thread on a specific proposal in my opinion.
Perhaps, I've not been as clear as I could have been in the previous responses.
Since we don't know the actual number of proposed residential units, square footage of retail space, etc., we can't determine parking needs at this point. So there's no way to answer the question below at this point:
Quote from: edjax on July 30, 2014, 03:21:00 PM
How much of the above would be available to residents of the building?
If the proposal materializes into a more detailed project, this information will become clear.
Well lets just keep our fingers crossed this actually happens
I will not usher another word about parking. Everyone else make note, that includes you Stephen. As Mr Lakelander notes not enough is known to speak on that aspect of this project.
Sigh. I only mentioned parking in the first place because Gulliford mentioned the garage as being mixed-use from the get go. I think that's refreshing; typically, our leadership bends over backward to allow developers build them without any mixed use element, as we saw with the Parador garage. Clearly we won't know what how things actually develop until a full project is announced.
Quote from: edjax on July 30, 2014, 05:36:24 PM
I will not usher another word about parking. Everyone else make note, that includes you Stephen. As Mr Lakelander notes not enough is known to speak on that aspect of this project.
Don't take it personal. :) Everyone can speak on whatever they wish. Nevertheless, without any details, as Tacachale mentioned, we won't known how things actually develop until a project is announced.
Quote from: edjax on July 30, 2014, 04:05:21 PM
I mean on this specific project I think you are going to have to have a parking garage. The story indicated the tower would be high market rate rentals. I seriously doubt anyone is going to pay high market rate without dedicated close by and safe parking.
I agree. I doubt anyone would have purchased in Berkman 1 or the Townhouses without a parking space as part of the package.
this can only help. http://folioweekly.com/BRING-THE-USS-ADAMS-TO-JACKSONVILLE,10703
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2014, 06:06:10 PM
Quote from: edjax on July 30, 2014, 05:36:24 PM
I will not usher another word about parking. Everyone else make note, that includes you Stephen. As Mr Lakelander notes not enough is known to speak on that aspect of this project.
Don't take it personal. :) Everyone can speak on whatever they wish. Nevertheless, without any details, as Tacachale mentioned, we won't known how things actually develop until a project is announced.
word is that DIA is having regular meetings with the developer. Should be resolved soon. Anyone know a fly on the wall?