A new office tower for JEA coming soon?
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/1415035400_QS27QHT-L.jpg)
We've recently learned that the downtown campus the Jacksonville Electric Authority (JEA), once gleefully proclaimed a Christmas present to JEA, is now viewed as a crumbling albatross. To rid itself of the imposing liability, the JEA is moving forward with study to determine if it should retrofit, move, or demolish and rebuild their 19-story downtown headquarters. If we view this situation outside of the JEA's perspective, the resolution becomes quite clear.
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-aug-a-new-office-tower-for-jea-coming-soon
We didn't demo the Barnett Building, City Hall Annex, the old Independent Life, and many other replaced buildings. I see no reason why this one should come down either, esp when there are so many other vacant spots available DT. I absolutely LOVE the view of the skyline BTW.
I feel that the suggestion to sell the existing building and convert it back to mixed use while building a new one (please don't make it so fugly) sounds like a reasonable proposal.
But this:
QuoteHowever, the JEA believes the structure is a safety hazard because it has an underground parking garage, making it a possible target for a bomb in a vehicle.
Seriously ? The JEA building in DT Jacksonville being a potential terrorist target ? Who comes up with this ? Or are they thinking about really upset clients ?
Unfortunately nothing is impossible but I still find this scenario highly unlikely.
The downtown JEA building should never house critical components of the building. JEA has many buildings and facilities located around Jacksonville to handle the operations aspect of its business. Thinking it had all these critical components downtown would be akin to thinking that CSX had its railroad operations center on the river, duh-in case of flood- ugh!
So what you see downtown is merely for the people and operational discussions, the bulk of the transmission stuff is carried out in the suburbs in various locations. They don't need a new 19 story building, with all the empty space available, they really only need a sweet deal from the city to get into a nice building downtown and call it their own.
Why isn't Renovate A Vacant Downtown Building (Barnett/Laura Trio?) part of the equation?
Good question. I can only assume it would be the same as renovating the place they're already in. It seems pretty clear they want a certain type of product that may not be available. Thus, the things an existing structurally sound structure like 21 West Church Street has, that should be considered amenities, are being viewed as negatives.
great job on this Ennis!
Since when does it cost $50mm to replace or upgrade 8 cable elevators and some plumbing in a 19 story building?
Obviously they've decided they want a new building, the die is cast. This strikes me as just part of the sales pitch. But come on, $50mm for that? You gotta be kidding.
Quote from: ChriswUfGator on August 19, 2015, 08:31:50 AM
Since when does it cost $50mm to replace or upgrade 8 cable elevators and some plumbing in a 19 story building?
Obviously they've decided they want a new building, the die is cast. This strikes me as just part of the sales pitch. But come on, $50mm for that? You gotta be kidding.
Yeah, it certainly sounds like a decision is already made and this is just justification/window dressing for the critics.
Are there other buildings DT that are empty or nearly so that could be bought and rehabbed? The Laura Trio would be pretty tricky given it is three separate buildings and each has a small footprint. Barnett might be a good option.
I fear that JEA will want to build a suburban style 'complex' on the Northbank somewhere. Frankly they should have considered building new on the 42 acres they just sold on the Southbank. It could be a good office user for Healthy Town.
Downtown needs new buildings as much as it needs to have the historic buildings saved and reused. If anyone should build new in our economic environment, it is entities like JEA. Like that home owner who lovingly restores a historic house, JEA can build its dream home and not worry if it can pay for itself with leases or will appraise high enough to justify the expense, but rather only be concerned that it can be a proper home for several decades. And yes, the key is to keep it downtown.
Good job Ennis, now if we can only get JEA to listen to you.....including the part about selling off the exiting building at a great deal for someone to help insure it does get used. Jacksonville often seems reluctant to do that for some reason.
Ennis, hopefully they're putting your check in the mail right now. If this is the song and dance they feel they need to go through to justify new construction, that's fine, but $1M for a study on a single building is still absurd. Chris is right. Renovations wouldn't cost $50M, so it's clear they want new construction. I don't think anyone is morally opposed to that, so let's get the show on the road.
Quote from: Gunnar on August 19, 2015, 05:15:25 AM
I feel that the suggestion to sell the existing building and convert it back to mixed use while building a new one (please don't make it so fugly) sounds like a reasonable proposal.
+1
This idea solves a lot of problems. Have you ever tried to live in the same house you were renovating? It's not fun. What elevators, bathrooms, etc will the JEA employees use as the old ones are being worked on? It doesn't make any sense to renovate the building as the current staff continues to work there. Why not repurpose the building as mixed use after a new building is built on some vacant downtown land? This makes everyone happy.
1.) Downtown gets more citizens.
2.) Downtown gets more businesses.
3.) Downtown gets a new building on unused land that is currently an eyesore.
4.) JEA employees don't have to walk multiple stories as the elevator is being overhauled. I'm sure they have pregnant and physically disabled employees. Expecting a disabled or pregnant person to use the stairs is not a great plan.
While I understand the urban renewal bias of this website (I myself have done and am in the middle of an expensive urban renewal project), just painting the 'save everything' and 'anything new is bad' brush on all development seems short sighted in this case.
No one raised cain when COJ moved into the Ed Ball Building. IMO, JEA be better off presenting an argument that they've outgrown the space or that it's simply too obsolete, making their operation pretty inefficient in today's environment. Both of those perspectives are logical and simple to understand.
In terms of what's best for DT Jax, having JEA "security up" that mixed-use retail complex is like having a convention center in a train station! ;) DT Jax would be a lot better off if we stop trying to stuff square pegs into round holes. Get them a space more conductive to their needs and utilize the existing structures as another 24/7-type of anchor along Laura Street.
Great job!! Great tie into yesterdays article. I do hope they build for future needs if they do build new. I hope you email the link to JEA :D
QuoteAccording to 1988 interviews with JEA's director Royce Lyles, JEA would move 300 workers into the complex and that it would meet the needs of the JEA for at least the next 20 years. Well 20 years is quickly approaching and the building now houses 758 employees, more than double what was initially envisioned.
Second time I've used this recently, but....
(https://i.imgur.com/BO7rmKK.jpg)
JEA should definitely build a new tower somewhere in LaVilla and sell the current building for cheap. It would be great to see the retail space actually being used maybe even for that DT grocery store everyone wants or something else thats needed. Also, having a restaurant or maybe night club up at that rotating deck would be awesome!
That last photo in the article gave me an idea. The Federal Reserve Bank on Water St has space to lease and they are surely secure enough for JEA's security sensitive operations. They could build a structure across the street from the FRB for customer service and office space.
QuoteMike Hightower will return to JEA as its top lobbyist
Mike Hightower, the former top lobbyist for health-insurance giant Florida Blue and a prolific Jacksonville Republican fundraiser, is JEA's new chief public affairs officer, CEO Paul McElroy told the Times-Union on Thursday.
Hightower had been a long-time fixture at JEA as a board member, having recently served two years in a row as chairman. Now, JEA officials are hoping Hightower's fat Rolodex of City Hall and Tallahassee contacts will help the agency navigate many high-stakes issues that could drastically affect its financial spreadsheets and ratepayers' bank accounts.
He'll be paid $199,000 a year.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-08-20/story/mike-hightower-will-return-jea-its-top-lobbyist
Maybe they can renovate the old JEA tower and move into that. Then in 20 years move back again.
Isn't the old tower smaller than their current one / lacking a parking garage? I thought that's why they moved in the first place?
I see where Mike HIGHTOWER has signed on as their lobbyist.
I like the idea of a Jefferson St station adjacent tower and converting the current building to residential/retail/dining.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 20, 2015, 05:15:01 PM
I see where Mike HIGHTOWER has signed on as their lobbyist.
oh I see what you did there :)
QuoteI see where Mike HIGHTOWER has signed on as their lobbyist.
Because this is critically important to the thread of JEA finding a new building in a downtown full of empty buildings....
Quote from: Noone on August 31, 2015, 06:39:30 AM
Does Putnam county know about this?
Still have a surplus JEA house on the River next to a FIND project to sell you.
What a community.
Great work Ennis.
Are you drunk? What does Putnam county have anything to do with this?
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-06-20/say-goodbye-jea-tower-utility-will-build-new-headquarters
Now that this is official. We need to make sure these buildings are saved. What a shame it would be to lose this whole block so it can match the surface lot next door on Main St.
Random things that I'm curious about:
1) We know that JEA and the city will be executing a land swap for the property that JEA's new tower will sit on. Where will the garage be located? Will the JEA pay fair market value for said land? Hopefully any new garage would include ground level retail.
2) How long will JEA have to sell the existing building and property before the city forces them to demolish it and transfer it over to COJ?
3) We all want to see the old building preserved, but is there a realistic market for it? I have no clue, that's why I'm asking. It looks rather oppressive from the outside, and I'd imagine that you'd have to completely redesign the windows. Throw in the existing issues with the building that the JEA considers cost-prohibitive to fix, and I'm not super optimistic that this building will be sold. That said, if cost of demolition is say, $500k, wouldn't it technically make more sense for JEA to pay someone $499k to take the property than it would be to hold onto it and be forced to demolish?
Quote from: KenFSU on June 20, 2017, 04:11:43 PM
Random things that I'm curious about:
1) We know that JEA and the city will be executing a land swap for the property that JEA's new tower will sit on. Where will the garage be located? Will the JEA pay fair market value for said land? Hopefully any new garage would include ground level retail.
The lot is big enough for a building and a garage. They'll just both have to be vertical. Hopefully, they'll follow the guidelines already in place for street level infill. Especially along Adams Street.
Quote2) How long will JEA have to sell the existing building and property before the city forces them to demolish it and transfer it over to COJ?
I'm not sure but this is the scary part, if you're in favor of preserving the existing structure. What happens if the desired sales price does not match the market?
Quote3) We all want to see the old building preserved, but is there a realistic market for it? I have no clue, that's why I'm asking. It looks rather oppressive from the outside, and I'd imagine that you'd have to completely redesign the windows. Throw in the existing issues with the building that the JEA considers cost-prohibitive to fix, and I'm not super optimistic that this building will be sold. That said, if cost of demolition is say, $500k, wouldn't it technically make more sense for JEA to pay someone $499k to take the property than it would be to hold onto it and be forced to demolish?
Why not give the building away or sell it at a reduced price to work within the market? You'll recoup your financial incentive (land/building acquisition costs) through the use of an existing high density block (currently not paying property taxes), generating new tax revenue. There's countless examples of other cities with more vibrant downtowns doing things like this to kick off revitalization. You tear it down and you'll never see something built on that site, with the amount of tax revenue generating potential that the existing structure contains.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 20, 2017, 04:30:25 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 20, 2017, 04:11:43 PM
Random things that I'm curious about:
1) We know that JEA and the city will be executing a land swap for the property that JEA's new tower will sit on. Where will the garage be located? Will the JEA pay fair market value for said land? Hopefully any new garage would include ground level retail.
The lot is big enough for a building and a garage. They'll just both have to be vertical. Hopefully, they'll follow the guidelines already in place for street level infill. Especially along Adams Street.
Quote2) How long will JEA have to sell the existing building and property before the city forces them to demolish it and transfer it over to COJ?
I'm not sure but this is the scary part, if you're in favor of preserving the existing structure. What happens if the desired sales price does not match the market?
Quote3) We all want to see the old building preserved, but is there a realistic market for it? I have no clue, that's why I'm asking. It looks rather oppressive from the outside, and I'd imagine that you'd have to completely redesign the windows. Throw in the existing issues with the building that the JEA considers cost-prohibitive to fix, and I'm not super optimistic that this building will be sold. That said, if cost of demolition is say, $500k, wouldn't it technically make more sense for JEA to pay someone $499k to take the property than it would be to hold onto it and be forced to demolish?
Why not give the building away or sell it at a reduced price to work within the market? You'll recoup your financial incentive (land/building acquisition costs) through the use of an existing high density block (currently not paying property taxes), generating new tax revenue. There's countless examples of other cities with more vibrant downtowns doing things like this to kick off revitalization. You tear it down and you'll never see something built on that site, with the amount of tax revenue generating potential that the existing structure contains.
If you demolish both of these buildings, we won't see something built on them for a generation with all of the more desirable parcels closer to the river. I keep thinking maybe the Customer Center may be a good fit for DCPS to move downtown and sell their riverfront property. We had also mentioned maybe a tourist welcome center especially in the old revolving restaurant upstairs. The building may not be in great shape but it is still in working shape unlike some of the other buildings needed for adaptive reuse. The building may not be the most beautiful, but is definitely a contributing structure to the historic development of DT as the previous tallest building on the Northbank. COJ needs to learn the lessons of the past.
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
QuoteJEA said the 19-story building is outdated, in disrepair and expensive to maintain. Elevators, plumbing, electrical, heating and air-conditioning systems need replacement, which Dykes said would be costly.
"Even if you look at renovating the spaces, you're talking about having to maintain a building that's substantially bigger than we need," she said.
Dykes said the utility hasn't started the design, but was seeking about 200,000 square feet of space. JEA's current campus, comprising the tower and a customer care center, has 337,600 square feet of space.
"Between the two buildings we have at least 100,000 square feet too much," she said.
Dykes said a benefit of the new site also is its proximity to other government buildings, like the Duval County Courthouse and the city's Ed Ball Building.
"We think a move there would help to really solidify that government center portion of Downtown, and Downtown redevelopment overall," Dykes said.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=550042
So, after both sides agree with the terms of the deal, they basically have 1.5 years to find a buyer for the building. What are the odds the building is sold in two years from today?
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
It may be ugly but it is historically significant and a good example of mid-century architecture that is quite frankly rare in our downtown right now. Also, until all the open lots around downtown, even just in the city core, are filled, why are we knocking down buildings?
^Yeah, I really do not understand the drive to demolish that building. Why even bother?
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 21, 2017, 12:39:32 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
It may be ugly but it is historically significant and a good example of mid-century architecture that is quite frankly rare in our downtown right now. Also, until all the open lots around downtown, even just in the city core, are filled, why are we knocking down buildings?
Worst case scenario over the next couple of years = bulldozing of JEA Building, the old court house, the court house Annex, and Berkman II, with no potential buyers for any of the properties.
If they are considering a parking garage for their new building, please incorporate some type of street level retail opportunities.
They are seeking 200,000 square ft of office space on 1.4 acre property, any idea of how high vertical construction will go? Floors?
^I'd be surprised if its more than 10 to 15 stories.
Quote from: KenFSU on June 21, 2017, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 21, 2017, 12:39:32 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
It may be ugly but it is historically significant and a good example of mid-century architecture that is quite frankly rare in our downtown right now. Also, until all the open lots around downtown, even just in the city core, are filled, why are we knocking down buildings?
Worst case scenario over the next couple of years = bulldozing of JEA Building, the old court house, the court house Annex, and Berkman II, with no potential buyers for any of the properties.
Worst case scenario is burning tax dollars on demolition and never really having a market to get that type of lost density back. We'd be better off financially, giving them away for free as a part of an RFP for redevelopment. Eliminating the land/building acquisition costs, probably makes restoration feasible from a market perspective. It wouldn't cost us a dime and we'd put multiple properties back on the tax rolls, at densities new construction will not match.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 21, 2017, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 21, 2017, 12:39:32 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
It may be ugly but it is historically significant and a good example of mid-century architecture that is quite frankly rare in our downtown right now. Also, until all the open lots around downtown, even just in the city core, are filled, why are we knocking down buildings?
Worst case scenario over the next couple of years = bulldozing of JEA Building, the old court house, the court house Annex, and Berkman II, with no potential buyers for any of the properties.
Worst case scenario is burning tax dollars on demolition and never really having a market to get that type of lost density back. We'd be better off financially, giving them away for free as a part of an RFP for redevelopment. Eliminating the land/building acquisition costs, probably makes restoration feasible from a market perspective. It wouldn't cost us a dime and we'd put multiple properties back on the tax rolls, at densities new construction will not match.
That would be great in theory and it seems like the logical thing to do in certain instances. But how do you vet potential owners?
Assuming you have three prospects with very similar ideas, how do you choose? How do you convince the public there is not some back-room deal going on? Giving away city owned property seems like a slippery slope to me.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 21, 2017, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 21, 2017, 12:39:32 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
It may be ugly but it is historically significant and a good example of mid-century architecture that is quite frankly rare in our downtown right now. Also, until all the open lots around downtown, even just in the city core, are filled, why are we knocking down buildings?
Worst case scenario over the next couple of years = bulldozing of JEA Building, the old court house, the court house Annex, and Berkman II, with no potential buyers for any of the properties.
Worst case scenario is burning tax dollars on demolition and never really having a market to get that type of lost density back. We'd be better off financially, giving them away for free as a part of an RFP for redevelopment. Eliminating the land/building acquisition costs, probably makes restoration feasible from a market perspective. It wouldn't cost us a dime and we'd put multiple properties back on the tax rolls, at densities new construction will not match.
There has to be reversion options for the property contracts that the city can literally give the property away but if there is not a certificate of occupancy on a building within 2 years, maybe even for a specific purpose such as mixed-use residential and commerical, the property reverts back to COJ.
It would be nice to keep the tower portion of the Annex even if we did demolish the old Courthouse and Annex for a convention center...
I wonder if they have renderings ready to show soon...would be cool to see something like the Tulsa City Hall building. Something that shows life instead of massive concrete structures.
Quote from: camarocane on June 21, 2017, 02:28:22 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2017, 01:05:29 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on June 21, 2017, 12:48:14 PM
Quote from: FlaBoy on June 21, 2017, 12:39:32 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
It may be ugly but it is historically significant and a good example of mid-century architecture that is quite frankly rare in our downtown right now. Also, until all the open lots around downtown, even just in the city core, are filled, why are we knocking down buildings?
Worst case scenario over the next couple of years = bulldozing of JEA Building, the old court house, the court house Annex, and Berkman II, with no potential buyers for any of the properties.
Worst case scenario is burning tax dollars on demolition and never really having a market to get that type of lost density back. We'd be better off financially, giving them away for free as a part of an RFP for redevelopment. Eliminating the land/building acquisition costs, probably makes restoration feasible from a market perspective. It wouldn't cost us a dime and we'd put multiple properties back on the tax rolls, at densities new construction will not match.
That would be great in theory and it seems like the logical thing to do in certain instances. But how do you vet potential owners?
Assuming you have three prospects with very similar ideas, how do you choose? How do you convince the public there is not some back-room deal going on? Giving away city owned property seems like a slippery slope to me.
IMO, nothing is new under the sun. Call up a peer city that has created and implemented successful RFPs that give or lease property as greatly discounted rates.
Everyone thinks Charlotte has been pretty successful with Uptown Charlotte's redevelopment. Well not all of it had to do with the banks. Here's an example of what it took to lure Johnson & Wales to Uptown in the early 2000s. This campus has grown significantly since then:
QuoteJohnson & Wales New $112 million Charlotte Campus
Will Have First Year Enrollment of 1,200[/b]
By Kathleen Purvis, The Charlotte Observer, N.C.
Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News
Aug. 23, 2004 - Trade Street won't eclipse Paris as the epicenter of the culinary world.
Four-star tables will not sprout like toadstools overnight.
But when Johnson & Wales University's Charlotte campus finally welcomes its first students Sept. 6, a change will begin that will reverberate through the city.....
....Two years ago, Johnson & Wales announced it would close campuses in Charleston and Norfolk, Va., and build a ground-breaking culinary and business school in the center of the Gateway district. It was lured by both an urban location and attractive public and private deals.
The city sold it land for $1 million that had been valued at $7 million; food-service giant Compass Group and the state kicked in at least $12 million; and Bank of America offered incentives that included reduced rates for space in Gateway Village and Gateway Center. The university's eventual economic impact is expected to be at least $100 million a year.
Full article: http://www.hotel-online.com/News/PR2004_3rd/Aug04_CharlotteSchool.html
^So that's an example of selling city property for significantly less than what its worth to lure a catalytic anchor to a downtown, creating synergy for additional development and growth. Here's another example of leasing city owned buildings to spur downtown redevelopment. I saw this play out personally in Lakeland, back in high school. Over 20 years have passed and downtown Lakeland is night and day, compared to what it was when retail abandoned it for the suburban shopping malls.
QuoteRestaurants and retailers make it the place to be.
By Sandra Dimsdale
Posted Jan 25, 2006 at 12:01 AM
...And then came Watkins Motor Lines and Publix Super Markets.
Watkins bought the former Maas Bros. building and moved about 400 workers downtown in 1994. Then Publix agreed to lease the old JC Penney building from the Community Redevelopment Agency for $1 a year for 20 years. In 1995, Publix moved 500 workers into the downtown building.
"It was a big deal," says O'Reilly. "Watkins was on the north side, and Publix was on the west side. But they made a commitment to downtown, and they were good people."
The jobs brought more people downtown. Today, about 9,000 people work downtown, 1,200 of them at Watkins and Publix.
"You want the foot traffic," says O'Reilly. "If you go out at noon and there's no one around, you're going to look around and say, `Well, this isn't where I want my business to be.′
"But with people downtown, the restaurants -- like Harry's and Crispers -- were doing business. Then it became the place to be."
Full article: http://www.theledger.com/article/LK/20060125/News/608101203/LL/
A little more detail on the Publix and Watkins deals back in the mid 1990s:
QuotePublix plans move to JCPenney's
Tampa Tribune, The (FL) (Published as The Tampa Tribune) - September 23, 1994
LAKELAND -- Publix Super Markets plans to move 350 to 500 clerical workers from its corporate headquarters to the vacant JCPenney building downtown, city officials said.
A proposed lease between the grocery story company and the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority is being developed by the company, said Jim Edwards, executive director of the LDDA. The lease, subject to the approval of the downtown agency, should go to downtown board members within two weeks, Edwards said.
The deal resembles a similar agreement made in June with Watkins Motor Lines, Edwards said. Watkins has agreed to expand its operations into the Burdines building. Burdines is moving to Lakeland Square mall later this year.
Publix workers are crowded in their campus on George Jenkins Boulevard.
Sources said the proposal being negotiated would have Publix pay $1 a year for 20 years with an option to buy the 120,000-square-foot building. Publix would pay the $36,000 annual taxes, although other options have been discussed.
The company also would pay the estimated $4 million to $5 million in repairs to the JCPenney building.
Sources said the company could begin moving its employees into the downtown building by late summer.
Publix Super Markets Inc. has a "fully executed" agreement with the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority to lease the vacant JCPenney building, said Publix spokesman Clayton Hollis. He declined to elaborate.
Greg Mugg of the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority board said the move shows Publix -- along with Watkins -- has Lakeland's interest at heart.
"They could have built on their campus but instead they're putting their money in downtown," he said. "They have deliberately made a social and conscientious decision to benefit the whole city. This will ensure the stability of downtown.
"Instead of having to blow up the JCPenney building, it will be transformed to a place where people are living and working," Mugg said.
Gloria Brooke, chairwoman of LDDA, was excited at the prospect of having the grocery store giant move into the city's core.
"This is great," she said. "It is much better to have a tenant like this come downtown. They have a vested interest in the city."
The Lakeland-based grocery store chain, the largest company based in the Tampa Bay area, continues to lead the industry with record sales and earnings gains and a heightened pace of store openings.
The JCPenney building has been vacant since 1990. The department store chain donated the building to the downtown agency for up to $400,000 in tax breaks.
News of the move came Thursday came about a month after downtown officials acknowledged that negotiations with Sony Corp., which also had been eyeing the building, had cooled.
Sony had been considering moving its consumer services division to the 120,000-square-foot building. However, Lakeland City Manager Gene Strickland said neither he nor anyone from Lakeland had talked to Sony in several weeks. He said he interpreted that as meaning Sony was no longer interested in moving to Lakeland.
But Sony let Lakeland officials know it was seriously considering other cities, such as Fort Myers and Columbus, Ga.
The Sony move would have brought about 200 jobs, which could increase to 500 jobs within three years with an annual payroll of up to $16 million. The company had told Lakeland city and economic development officials that it would hire locally, with salaries running about $10 to $20 an hour.
Other companies also have expressed an interest in the building, including The Ledger, a Lakeland-based newspaper, and a New York-based compact disc manufacturer.
Before Sony came on the scene, the LDDA had offered the JCPenney building to the state Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to serve as the agency's new district headquarters.
However, the LDDA withdrew its offer after the (HHS) board failed to act on it quickly enough.
QuoteTruck line to expand in Lakeland
Tampa Tribune, The (FL) (Published as The Tampa Tribune) - June 21, 1994
LAKELAND -- One of the largest trucking companies in the nation will take over a vacant downtown Lakeland department store in an expansion that will create 300 to 450 jobs within five years.
Watkins Motor Lines Inc. of Lakeland will spend $4.2 million in improvements to the 140,000-square-foot Burdines building after the store is moved to Lakeland Square Mall at the end of the year.
The administrative jobs would average $9 an hour, and would generate an annual payroll of $6 million. The 300 full-time positions will be added gradually over five years. The company will continue to operate its facilities at Griffin Road in north Lakeland at its current level.
Steven Newhouse, vice president of human resources for Lakeland-based Watkins, said the company hasn't decided what departments will be moved to the Burdines building.
Under the proposal, the company would pay the downtown authority $1 a year for 20 years with an option to buy. Watkins also would pay the $70,000 annual taxes on the building, plus insurance and maintenance costs.
The 25-year-old building is appraised at about $2.4 million.
The expansion was necessary because of the growth of the company, which President John Watkins estimated at 18 percent a year since 1980. He said the company should double in size in the next 4 1/2 years. Watkins Motor Lines has about 6,000 employees nationwide in 29 states, including 930 in Florida, and 620 in Polk County. The privately owned company has about 8,000 or more vehicles, Watkins said. He declined to reveal profits. Watkins had total revenue of $327 million in 1992, according to the Virginia-based American Trucking Association, making it the 21st largest trucking company in the nation.
On Monday, exuberant members of the Lakeland Downtown Development Authority agreed to a contract with Federated Department Stores Inc., which owns Burdines, to accept the 140,000-square-foot building for $10 and lease it back to the store for the rest of the year for $10.
Burdines is moving its downtown store operation to the Lakeland Square Mall, probably before year's end. By donating the building to a nonprofit redevelopment agency, the department store chain can deduct the building on its income tax.
After approving the contract with Federated, board members agreed to pursue negotiations with Watkins.
The city will provide 400 parking spaces in its 700-space, city-owned parking garage, with the downtown agency providing another 100 spaces at $10 a space.
However, the city would be willing to consider selling the $2.5 million parking garage to a tenant, with the proviso that there would be 300 spaces reserved for the empty JCPenney building, said City Manager Gene Strickland.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/jea-board-moves-ahead-with-plan-for-downtown-campus
Quote"Even if you look at renovating the spaces, you're talking about having to maintain a building that's substantially bigger than we need," she said. Dykes said the utility hasn't started the design, but was seeking about 200,000 square feet of space. JEA's current campus, comprising the tower and a customer care center, has 337,600 square feet of space. "Between the two buildings we have at least 100,000 square feet too much," she said. Dykes said a benefit of the new site also is its proximity to other government buildings, like the Duval County Courthouse and the city's Ed Ball Building.
This is an interesting aspect to why JEA wants to move. The buildings are too big and, as a result, renovating the property too costly if not using the whole property.
QuoteHoward said he hasn't had direct communication with Mayor Lenny Curry about the project, but is looking forward to negotiating with the city. "I think we've got a very thorough and comprehensive term sheet," he said. "We're all on the same team here looking to achieve the same goals."
I do take some comfort in the fact that city has not seriously discussed the terms such as the demolition of the buildings. Hopefully, the city can add some language that gives them the option not to demo.
Another example of giving away a historic city-owned structure for market rate downtown housing. In this case, the city purchased a vacant highrise, gave away the building and loaned the developer $4.8 million to have it converted into market-rate apartments.
QuoteRegency Tower Makeover Under Way
Tampa Tribune, The (FL) (Published as The Tampa Tribune) - January 27, 2004
LAKELAND - The facelift of the historic Regency Tower hotel is under way.
City officials hope the estimated $12.2 million project - to turn the downtown landmark into a nine-story, market-rate apartment building - will persuade more people to move downtown.
"It's long been the intent of our city commission to encourage downtown residential development," City Attorney Tim McCausland said. "They are excited about this project because it represents the first big domino to fall in that effort, and they hope there will be many more to follow."
Built in 1926 as the New Florida Hotel, the Regency, overlooking Lake Mirror, will have a new name: Lake Mirror Tower.
The redevelopment and renovation project is a joint venture by The Carlisle Group, headed by Miami developer Lloyd J. Boggio, and Lakeland. The city and the developer closed the deal last month. Construction began Dec. 22.
The city, which bought the vacant building in 2001 for $650,000, loaned The Carlisle Group $4.8 million at 3 percent interest for 10 years.
The complex will have 21 two-bedroom apartments and 55 one-bedroom apartments, with rental rates ranging from $657 to $1,475 per month.
This building was every bit of an eyesore as the Florida Life Building when I moved to Jax in 2003. Here's some pictures of it now:
(http://capi.myleasestar.com/v2/dimg/45662975/1238x682/45662975.jpg)
(http://capi.myleasestar.com/v2/dimg/45662966/1238x682/45662966.jpg)
(http://capi.myleasestar.com/v2/dimg/26921190/1238x682/26921190.jpg)
(http://a.mktgcdn.com/p/h8H4RFA7yIbVK-IB8IXMecuUcJxuP5--zR_X_SDuKVg/2084x2084.png)
http://www.lakemirrortowerapts.com/
In short, beggars can't be choosy. Even the most depressed downtown land a few projects to help turn around their markets if the city is willing to get financially creative with the underutilized properties its sitting on. After all, your vacant lot or building is only worth what the actual market is willing to pay for.
Not to mention that revitalizing the property causes land values to increase all around the property in order to spur growth.
Quote from: vicupstate on June 20, 2017, 05:30:01 PM
I could see a lot more potential buyers wanting the Customer Service Center than the tower. I hope there is the flexibility to sell one or the other separately if that is what the market desires.
Putting the School Board in the Customer Center sounds like an idea that should be explored extensively.
I generally support preservation, but I have always thought the Tower building was pretty ugly. I get that if it goes down, it wouldn't be replaced with something as big, but I personally wouldn't miss it much. The honeycomb windows are just weird and I hate the way it turns it's back on Springfield.
.
There's nothing wrong with that building's looks. In fact, the odd shaped windows give it its architectural appeal. Bottom line : we need highrises in our downtown, and no existing highrises should be demolished if nothing more than to give us tall buildings to keep an urban look and feel to our downtown. Tearing one building down every time one is built yields a net gain of zero, something we don't need.