EverBank Field Development Renderings
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4509083631_htvvkPq-L.jpg)
Read More: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2015-nov-everbank-field-development-renderings
I like how the Hart Bridge Expressway in the second to last picture is an elevated canal, complete with flooded cars. Why extend an elevated train when you can have elevated boats!
Quote from: Sonic101 on November 12, 2015, 07:35:22 AM
I like how the Hart Bridge Expressway in the second to last picture is an elevated canal, complete with flooded cars. Why extend an elevated train when you can have elevated boats!
I always liked the "It's a Small World" ride at Disney. I love how they are incorporating that in the elevated canal idea . . . and the idea that all future cars will be amphibious . . . . . COOL!
Quote from: Sonic101 on November 12, 2015, 07:35:22 AM
I like how the Hart Bridge Expressway in the second to last picture is an elevated canal, complete with flooded cars. Why extend an elevated train when you can have elevated boats!
I like how many amphibious cars are using the canal. That's about a full day's volume at one time.
I don't think I've seen anyone mention it yet, but that's (Jags fan) Paul McCartney performing on stage:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/4509083442_6f2594f-L.jpg)
(It's taken from a concert in Mexico. Here's the original (http://indscene.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/pm-mexico2012-2.jpg).)
as noted in another thread, I want to see some real to-scale drawings. I am not at all convinced a 10,000 person capacity amphitheater can be "tucked in" between the stadium and indoor practice facility. It seems more likely that some of the surface parking area would need to be used.
While this may not be a bad thing, it would mean a loss in total spaces, and a potential reduction in revenue to the city for some events (like GA-FL). And yes, I fully realize that those lots sit empty much of the time, and that programming at the amphitheater would mean better utilization of the lots. I just think it is important that the City and Jaguars be 100% open and honest with taxpayers.
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 12, 2015, 08:39:25 AM
as noted in another thread, I want to see some real to-scale drawings. I am not at all convinced a 10,000 person capacity amphitheater can be "tucked in" between the stadium and indoor practice facility. It seems more likely that some of the surface parking area would need to be used.
While this may not be a bad thing, it would mean a loss in total spaces, and a potential reduction in revenue to the city for some events (like GA-FL). And yes, I fully realize that those lots sit empty much of the time, and that programming at the amphitheater would mean better utilization of the lots. I just think it is important that the City and Jaguars be 100% open and honest with taxpayers.
Taking some of the existing parking spots should not be a problem here people. Aren't there acres of dirt and grass fields east of the stadium for parking? And two parking garages near by, and acres of fields along the north bank of the river? Seems like more parking than most stadiums in cities have.
What exactly does this mean for the shipyards?
Quote from: jaxlore on November 12, 2015, 09:01:49 AM
What exactly does this mean for the shipyards?
What does this mean for Metro Park?
Quote from: jaxlore on November 12, 2015, 09:01:49 AM
What exactly does this mean for the shipyards?
It means if something is ever done with the shipyards, it probably won't include a practice facility for the Jags or an amphitheater.
Quote from: JaxJersey-licious on November 12, 2015, 09:04:41 AM
What does this mean for Metro Park?
Hopefully it means the death of the blight that's there today and a revamp of that space into something more useful.
Quote from: jaxlore on November 12, 2015, 09:01:49 AM
What exactly does this mean for the shipyards?
I don't think they wanted to wait. In reality, the shipyards is likely a decade away if ever built.
The blight I was describing is the decaying thing we use as an amphitheater and the ghost of Kids Kampus. Metro Park is the definition of underutilization and disconnectivity.
Quote from: copperfiend on November 12, 2015, 09:09:43 AM
Quote from: jaxlore on November 12, 2015, 09:01:49 AM
What exactly does this mean for the shipyards?
I don't think they wanted to wait. In reality, the shipyards is likely a decade away if ever built.
Probably more like two decades from even coming close to what was shown in this rendering:
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3914112729_BbvJgCH-L.jpg)
It would take less time to turn it back into this....
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/3914233437_wCqnmRF-L.jpg)
Yeah. Not holding my breath on the Shipyards.
Practice facilities at the shipyards was a horrible idea anyway, so that's a positive. And there is already an amphitheater space on the river that we don't really use properly, so throwing one of those in the shipyards wasn't a great idea either.
Both facilities being owned by the city and managed by the Jags are positives. Both will be kept up better and the amphitheater will have more frequent and higher quality programming than Met Park. Met Park could just be a nice park (again, it would have to be well maintained), or allowed to be privately developed after or in conjunction with the shipyards (though that is looking possibly a lifetime into the future).
Also, are the exterior walls of the practice facility rendered as video boards? Is Jax going for the first, second, and third biggest video boards?? This looks like something out of Beijing in 2008.
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2015, 09:26:43 AM
In many ways, I would prefer a cleaner more modern version of the lower picture than the largely empty golf course looking thing in the first.
Agreed. Ennis, when is that pic from? Late 70s? Seems like it would be very long ago based on how different things are, but it really isn't.
Interesting points made about "blight of public facilities" and Jags "managing" the two new facilities. Lamping and the Jags will not let those become blighted over time. That is for sure.
Quote from: PeeJayEss on November 12, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2015, 09:26:43 AM
In many ways, I would prefer a cleaner more modern version of the lower picture than the largely empty golf course looking thing in the first.
Agreed. Ennis, when is that pic from? Late 70s? Seems like it would be very long ago based on how different things are, but it really isn't.
Early 1980s. The EverBank Center (Southern Bell) building is under construction.
Hard to tell by the renderings, is there fixed seating - or standing room only (amphitheater)?
Quote from: PeeJayEss on November 12, 2015, 09:31:39 AM
... the amphitheater will have more frequent and higher quality programming than Met Park...
And we know this how?
Quote from: finehoe on November 12, 2015, 10:17:00 AM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on November 12, 2015, 09:31:39 AM
... the amphitheater will have more frequent and higher quality programming than Met Park...
And we know this how?
On the quantity side, it's a given.
Because the park was built with federal funding, there's a limit on the number of paid events that can be held at Met Park each year.
Quote from: blizz01 on November 12, 2015, 10:16:15 AM
Hard to tell by the renderings, is there fixed seating - or standing room only (amphitheater)?
Description says 5k fixed, additional 5k standing.
Clearly a win-win.
I'm still hoping that multiple-use facility won't be nearly as limited as the college indoor practice facilities typically are and will have seating that will allow for the hosting of high school games, etc.
On the amphitheater, I presume the renderings aren't really highlighting the probable up-slope where the 5k standing crowd will also be able to view events on the amphitheater stage. Rather than these renderings, it would be good to see a basic scale of the anticipated layout.
This is some really exciting stuff.
At the very least, it should be an improvement of the sidewalk and surface parking that's there today. Assuming the numbers are right, it should be a win for Jax.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 12, 2015, 09:17:27 AM
The blight I was describing is the decaying thing we use as an amphitheater and the ghost of Kids Kampus. Metro Park is the definition of underutilization and disconnectivity.
I think a revival of Kids Kampus - a scaled down version - would see a lot of visitors to Metro Park. A lot of us millennials have young families and aren't scared to take our children downtown (the former issue). We also aren't scared of letting our kids play with a diverse group of children at a city park (another former issue). I think it would be a fantastic public amenity with a splash pad, playground and a bank of covered picnic areas. They could make it Jaguars-themed and let Khan pay for it for all I care. Keep it simple and inexpensive, so it can be utilized for something more ambitious later in life...
Quote from: CCMjax on November 12, 2015, 08:49:31 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 12, 2015, 08:39:25 AM
as noted in another thread, I want to see some real to-scale drawings. I am not at all convinced a 10,000 person capacity amphitheater can be "tucked in" between the stadium and indoor practice facility. It seems more likely that some of the surface parking area would need to be used.
While this may not be a bad thing, it would mean a loss in total spaces, and a potential reduction in revenue to the city for some events (like GA-FL). And yes, I fully realize that those lots sit empty much of the time, and that programming at the amphitheater would mean better utilization of the lots. I just think it is important that the City and Jaguars be 100% open and honest with taxpayers.
Taking some of the existing parking spots should not be a problem here people. Aren't there acres of dirt and grass fields east of the stadium for parking? And two parking garages near by, and acres of fields along the north bank of the river? Seems like more parking than most stadiums in cities have.
Not to mention the Stadium Shuttle.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 12, 2015, 10:21:59 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 12, 2015, 10:17:00 AM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on November 12, 2015, 09:31:39 AM
... the amphitheater will have more frequent and higher quality programming than Met Park...
And we know this how?
On the quantity side, it's a given.
Because the park was built with federal funding, there's a limit on the number of paid events that can be held at Met Park each year.
Which makes NO sense at all.
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on November 12, 2015, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 12, 2015, 09:17:27 AM
The blight I was describing is the decaying thing we use as an amphitheater and the ghost of Kids Kampus. Metro Park is the definition of underutilization and disconnectivity.
I think a revival of Kids Kampus - a scaled down version - would see a lot of visitors to Metro Park. A lot of us millennials have young families and aren't scared to take our children downtown (the former issue). We also aren't scared of letting our kids play with a diverse group of children at a city park (another former issue). I think it would be a fantastic public amenity with a splash pad, playground and a bank of covered picnic areas. They could make it Jaguars-themed and let Khan pay for it for all I care. Keep it simple and inexpensive, so it can be utilized for something more ambitious later in life...
Kids Kampus used to be packed with young families. I don't think attendance was an issue. The larger concern from COJ may have been the maintenance.
QuoteAlso, are the exterior walls of the practice facility rendered as video boards? Is Jax going for the first, second, and third biggest video boards?? This looks like something out of Beijing in 2008.
I noticed this from the beginning. I would be really surprised if these aren't used for advertising that the Jags get 100% of the revenue from, even though the city would 'own' the facility. Of course, they would classify as billboards for all intents and purposes, and therefore illegal, but no doubt would be allowed.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 12, 2015, 01:33:52 PM
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on November 12, 2015, 12:02:19 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 12, 2015, 09:17:27 AM
The blight I was describing is the decaying thing we use as an amphitheater and the ghost of Kids Kampus. Metro Park is the definition of underutilization and disconnectivity.
I think a revival of Kids Kampus - a scaled down version - would see a lot of visitors to Metro Park. A lot of us millennials have young families and aren't scared to take our children downtown (the former issue). We also aren't scared of letting our kids play with a diverse group of children at a city park (another former issue). I think it would be a fantastic public amenity with a splash pad, playground and a bank of covered picnic areas. They could make it Jaguars-themed and let Khan pay for it for all I care. Keep it simple and inexpensive, so it can be utilized for something more ambitious later in life...
Kids Kampus used to be packed with young families. I don't think attendance was an issue. The larger concern from COJ may have been the maintenance.
Then add it to things the Jaguars are managing and let it double as a "tailgating" park for game days...
Quote from: thelakelander on November 12, 2015, 09:55:53 AM
Quote from: PeeJayEss on November 12, 2015, 09:42:38 AM
Quote from: stephendare on November 12, 2015, 09:26:43 AM
In many ways, I would prefer a cleaner more modern version of the lower picture than the largely empty golf course looking thing in the first.
Agreed. Ennis, when is that pic from? Late 70s? Seems like it would be very long ago based on how different things are, but it really isn't.
Early 1980s. The EverBank Center (Southern Bell) building is under construction.
Ah! I was looking for the Bell South tower to better date it, but couldn't make it out.
If I were the jags I would try and find some space in the practice facility that at street level where they could open a retail store for Jags merchandise to be open year round.
Quote from: edjax on November 12, 2015, 04:00:35 PM
If I were the jags I would try and find some space in the practice facility that at street level where they could open a retail store for Jags merchandise to be open year round.
Brick and mortar retail: The future of Jacksonville!
Some relevant points have been brought up. I too question the scale of the project. I don't see how a giant practice facility and an amphitheater can both fit between the current stadium and the Hart Expressway. I think both projects should happen, I'm just not convinced about the location of both. I'm also fine with taking up surface parking if we need to.
Met Park lost its relevancy a while ago. People have complained about the noise and obviously maintenance was non existent. Bring the Hart Expressway down to street level and repurpose the area where Met Park is along the river. There is a good bit of land that isn't environmentally toxic that should be opened up for private development. If Khan wants to develop it, let him. I personally think one massive "Shipyards" development will never happen. Clean it up an acre at a time and RFP it. The USS Adams connected to some development where Met Park currently is complete with a River taxi stop, etc. Maybe even the aquarium. There are realistic opportunities if we stop dreaming of one massive project by one developer.
Quote from: brainstormer on November 12, 2015, 08:24:58 PM
I too question the scale of the project. I don't see how a giant practice facility and an amphitheater can both fit between the current stadium and the Hart Expressway. I think both projects should happen, I'm just not convinced about the location of both. I'm also fine with taking up surface parking if we need to.
I'm genuinely curious about this. Is the idea that they've announced they want construction to proceed quickly with a target completion date *prior* to the start of the next football season but . . . somehow failed to properly size their needs ? ? ? Incompetent architects have somehow been employed who have overlooked the requirements for both buildings in the space available ? ? ?
The presumption seems odd as hell to me but maybe I'm overlooking something. Or . . . is it that they've purposely undersized the two buildings so as to undersell the amount of parking that will be taken? And, if so, is that a real issue?
^I doubt it. I'm sure they'll fit. They may take up some parking, but that's not a negative, imo.
QuoteMayor Curry didn't apply vigorous scorecard exam to Shad Khan plan for $90 million project
As a candidate for Jacksonville mayor barnstorming across the county on a platform of law and order and fiscal accountability, Lenny Curry released a written plan promising voters he would subject any program seeking taxpayer money to a strict level of scrutiny, pledging to develop and use a scorecard "based on established goals and objectives."
That did not happen before Curry's office quietly filed legislation last week seeking to borrow $45 million for an ambitious plan — Curry's first large-scale proposal — to help build an amphitheater and indoor football practice facility outside EverBank Field, as well as upgrading the stadium's luxury seating area.
City Hall's contribution would cover half the $90 million cost, with the Jaguars picking up the remaining $45 million.
Curry told the Times-Union on Thursday the omission of the scorecard wasn't an oversight. He had never intended to use the scorecard to evaluate a project like the one he's pursuing at EverBank Field.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-11-12/story/mayor-curry-didnt-apply-vigorous-scorecard-exam-shad-khan-plan-90-million?utm_source=story_footer_recommendations&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=cxense
QuoteCurry told the Times-Union on Thursday the omission of the scorecard wasn't an oversight. He had never intended to use the scorecard to evaluate a project like the one he's pursuing at EverBank Field.
So in other words, he only plans on "scorecarding" projects he's not in favor of. Sounds fair to me.
Quote from: finehoe on November 13, 2015, 08:22:39 AM
QuoteCurry told the Times-Union on Thursday the omission of the scorecard wasn't an oversight. He had never intended to use the scorecard to evaluate a project like the one he's pursuing at EverBank Field.
So in other words, he only plans on "scorecarding" projects he's not in favor of. Sounds fair to me.
If you click through the link and read just one more sentence:
QuoteHe said the scorecard — which has not yet been developed — would be used when private investors seek to use city incentives for their own assets. In the case of the amphitheater and the practice field, the city would own the facilities.
Quote from: hiddentrack on November 13, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 13, 2015, 08:22:39 AM
QuoteCurry told the Times-Union on Thursday the omission of the scorecard wasn't an oversight. He had never intended to use the scorecard to evaluate a project like the one he's pursuing at EverBank Field.
So in other words, he only plans on "scorecarding" projects he's not in favor of. Sounds fair to me.
If you click through the link and read just one more sentence:
QuoteHe said the scorecard — which has not yet been developed — would be used when private investors seek to use city incentives for their own assets. In the case of the amphitheater and the practice field, the city would own the facilities.
Come on, hiddentrack, you know reading sentences is not why we're here.
This may be a bit off topic but the usage of the bed tax for this project got me thinking... Could the city use this pot to fund something like revitalizing the emerald necklace? If done correctly using maybe $5-10M and marketed well I feel like the argument could be made that the eventual emerald necklace park could be a tourist attraction that the city would own. It would also add to quality of life generally.
It may be pie-in-the-sky, I know, but clicking through these slides:
http://www.slideshare.net/nflandtrust/onespark-prez-31499496
that Emerald Necklace idea sounds like an inspired effort. I know the "Healthy Town" project will be on the Southbank, but it sounds like it (and other projects) should be linked to this initiative.
In their original presentation for the Shipyards redevelopment, Lamping mentioned integration/completion of Hogan's Creek cleanup with the Shipyards. The entire Emerald Necklace project is great. It should be the answer we point to every time someone says we should scrap the Skyway and turn it into a High Line style park. The Emerald Necklace would be a much more unique and useful park than any High Line copy ever would be.
Is this $45 million coming from the coffers of the bed tax? Or are we spending the future bed tax revenues on this?
bed tax.
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on November 13, 2015, 10:47:28 AM
Is this $45 million coming from the coffers of the bed tax? Or are we spending the future bed tax revenues on this?
The impression I got was it's coming from future bed taxes as they commented about leveraging the revenue. And also cause there's no way we have saved $45 million collected.
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on November 13, 2015, 11:17:00 AM
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on November 13, 2015, 10:47:28 AM
Is this $45 million coming from the coffers of the bed tax? Or are we spending the future bed tax revenues on this?
The impression I got was it's coming from future bed taxes as they commented about leveraging the revenue. And also cause there's no way we have saved $45 million collected.
That's what I'm getting, too. We also used the same money for the scoreboards, so I am just wondering how far into the future this bed tax money is tied up.
QuoteFIRST COAST NEWS - The city is proposing to leverage bed tax dollars to pay its share of the projected $90 million in improvements. Currently, the city has a six-cent bed tax with revenues dedicated to specific needs.
According to budget documents, two cents generates almost $6 million annually. The city is committed to using two cents of the bed tax to support sports complex maintenance and improvements with another two cents going to pay down stadium debt. The remainder would be used to promote tourism.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/money/2015/11/10/bed-tax-everbank-improvements/75538754/
So, $18 million annually splits three ways - Sports Complex Upgrades, Stadium Debt, Tourism
Quote from: hiddentrack on November 13, 2015, 09:02:29 AM
Quote from: finehoe on November 13, 2015, 08:22:39 AM
QuoteCurry told the Times-Union on Thursday the omission of the scorecard wasn't an oversight. He had never intended to use the scorecard to evaluate a project like the one he's pursuing at EverBank Field.
So in other words, he only plans on "scorecarding" projects he's not in favor of. Sounds fair to me.
If you click through the link and read just one more sentence:
QuoteHe said the scorecard — which has not yet been developed — would be used when private investors seek to use city incentives for their own assets. In the case of the amphitheater and the practice field, the city would own the facilities.
Yeah, the city OWNS it. Because the city OWNS it, there will be no property taxes paid. Because the city OWNS it, it will pay for maintenance (directly or indirectly). Yet even though the city OWNS it, it will receive
none of the revenues from it.
Yeah, that is MUCH better than the city giving incentives to someone's private assets.
[Just so it is clear, that last sentence was sarcasm]
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on November 13, 2015, 11:27:55 AM
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on November 13, 2015, 11:17:00 AM
Quote from: InnerCityPressure on November 13, 2015, 10:47:28 AM
Is this $45 million coming from the coffers of the bed tax? Or are we spending the future bed tax revenues on this?
The impression I got was it's coming from future bed taxes as they commented about leveraging the revenue. And also cause there's no way we have saved $45 million collected.
That's what I'm getting, too. We also used the same money for the scoreboards, so I am just wondering how far into the future this bed tax money is tied up.
QuoteFIRST COAST NEWS - The city is proposing to leverage bed tax dollars to pay its share of the projected $90 million in improvements. Currently, the city has a six-cent bed tax with revenues dedicated to specific needs.
According to budget documents, two cents generates almost $6 million annually. The city is committed to using two cents of the bed tax to support sports complex maintenance and improvements with another two cents going to pay down stadium debt. The remainder would be used to promote tourism.
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/story/money/2015/11/10/bed-tax-everbank-improvements/75538754/
So, $18 million annually splits three ways - Sports Complex Upgrades, Stadium Debt, Tourism
Which begs the question, WHERE is the new money coming from, if the entire 6% is already spoken for?
As for the Emerald Necklace, because of the 2009 provision to devote 2% ONLY to the Stadium district, only the part of the Necklace that runs through the 'Stadium District (if any) could receive these funds. That is my interpretation.
^This would be a sports complex upgrade. A portion of the bed tax is set aside for these type of projects inside of the sports complex area.
Regarding the Emerald Necklace, there's already a decent sum of money set aside to construct a 12' shared use path along Hogans Creek between UF Health and Liberty Street. In the event, there was an extension to the south into the stadium district, perhaps it could be funded via the bed tax.
QuoteMark Woods: Yes, let's build an amphitheater, but ...
Should the city use bed tax money to foot half of the $90 million cost of a new amphitheater and practice facility?
About two-thirds of respondents said yes. One-third said no.
Such tallies are, of course, quite unscientific. And 19 City Council members have the votes that count.
But if I were to give my two cents on this use of a piece of the 6-cent bed tax, I would add a third option — one that is way too long for any kind of online poll.
Yes, but ...
Yes, I like the idea of a new outdoor amphitheater.
Yes, I like the idea of an indoor training facility next to the stadium — mainly because I never liked the idea of one right next to the river.
Yes, I like the idea of all of this being paid for by others: visitors and Shad Khan.
But ... at some point I'd like to see Jacksonville take an unconventional approach to how we use our hotel bed tax dollars.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2015-11-14/story/mark-woods-yes-lets-build-amphitheater
Stop with the yes, but stuff. Just stop. Admit it: this is a good utilization of the money, period. Why is that so damn hard for some of these folks?
QuoteA portion of the bed tax is set aside for these type of projects inside of the sports complex area.
This money is already being collected
currently. What is it being SPENT on
currently? I'm speaking of this specific portion that is required to go to the Sports District only.
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 14, 2015, 05:03:12 PM
Stop with the yes, but stuff. Just stop. Admit it: this is a good utilization of the money, period. Why is that so damn hard for some of these folks?
No. It's not. If this were something that you didn't personal benefit from, you would see the deal much differently.
Quote from: vicupstate on November 14, 2015, 06:56:56 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on November 14, 2015, 05:03:12 PM
Stop with the yes, but stuff. Just stop. Admit it: this is a good utilization of the money, period. Why is that so damn hard for some of these folks?
No. It's not. If this were something that you didn't personal benefit from, you would see the deal much differently.
Whether or not specific individuals benefit from an amphitheater, the city as a whole will. It's something we've needed for a long time and it should help us attract events that currently pass us by because we don't have this kind of venue.
Vic, how in the heck am I personally benefiting from these enhancements? That kind of logic allows me to say just because *you* aren't personally benefiting you insist on talking yang about this good project.
Come on, Vic. That's unthinking junior high stuff.
Vic, make it plain. So what if the money is being collected and expended? So what? Are they proposing something illegal? Certainly not. So, are you bitching just to be bitching and . . . if not, what is the allegation? The six percent isn't already spoken for, the six percent is already slotted for categories of usage. Categories that allow for flexibility. Big difference from what you seem to be insinuating.
What is hard or confusing about this?
If I have things wrong, where am I wrong?
Rattler,
I can't think of one thing I have seen you advocate in favor of on this website, that involved government spending on any level. However, when it involves the Jags/Khan, it is not only a great idea,it is not to be questioned.
Obviously you are a die hard Jags fan that receives personal satisfaction from anything that boosts the team in any way. I am just pointing out the motivation for your position on this.
The tax is already being collected. Is it simply being stockpiled or is it paying for something now? If it is paying for something now, what is it? Why is that funding no longer needed?
The same money cannot be used to pay for the NEW projects AND still pay for whatever it was ALREADY paying for.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 14, 2015, 04:48:38 PM
QuoteMark Woods: Yes, let's build an amphitheater, but ...
Should the city use bed tax money to foot half of the $90 million cost of a new amphitheater and practice facility?
About two-thirds of respondents said yes. One-third said no.
Such tallies are, of course, quite unscientific. And 19 City Council members have the votes that count.
But if I were to give my two cents on this use of a piece of the 6-cent bed tax, I would add a third option — one that is way too long for any kind of online poll.
Yes, but ...
Yes, I like the idea of a new outdoor amphitheater.
Yes, I like the idea of an indoor training facility next to the stadium — mainly because I never liked the idea of one right next to the river.
Yes, I like the idea of all of this being paid for by others: visitors and Shad Khan.
But ... at some point I'd like to see Jacksonville take an unconventional approach to how we use our hotel bed tax dollars.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/business/columnists/2015-11-14/story/mark-woods-yes-lets-build-amphitheater
+2
Is there a site plan?
Met Park is toast, its way past its useful life and all those boards along the river are just another Alvin Brown walkway away from a lawsuit.
Quoteas noted in another thread, I want to see some real to-scale drawings. I am not at all convinced a 10,000 person capacity amphitheater can be "tucked in" between the stadium and indoor practice facility. It seems more likely that some of the surface parking area would need to be used.
Once Met Park is cleared, look for the space to be used for parking until the Shipyard plan comes about and then look for parking in the decks to come to help alleviate parking issues.
How realistic is the aquarium project? I see sporadic press releases from AquaJax but rarely see any energy from the outside community.
Quote from: vicupstate on November 15, 2015, 07:21:54 PM
Rattler,
I can't think of one thing I have seen you advocate in favor of on this website, that involved government spending on any level.
Vic, if you honestly believe that then you've worked quite hard to only view my posts from an incredibly biased and somewhat blind perspective. Presuming you've taken the time to even check. I haven't tracked it, of course, and I'm not invested enough to worry about individuals posting here like that. But, for instance, I do know that I recently commented positively on the Emerald Necklace Urban Park idea that surely would involve the expenditure of public funds. I have strongly said that UNF should build a large dorm downtown -- did you miss that, Vic?
If so, I invite you to go back and check it out. I have no doubt there are other examples that cast your aspersion in a seriously suspect light.
This deep need some have to caricature those of us who come at politics from a right-of-center perspective is disappointing, to say the least.
Quote$90M upgrade to Everbank Field wins preliminary approval from first of four Jacksonville council committees
An ambitious $90 million makeover to EverBank Field, which includes a new outdoor amphitheater and indoor practice facility, cleared on Monday the first of several preliminary reviews it will face this week from the Jacksonville City Council.
The council Finance Committee approved the project, which will cost the city $45 million, in a 6-1 vote. While it easily passed, council members and their auditors spent hours discussing and questioning it.
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-11-30/story/90m-upgrade-everbank-field-wins-preliminary-approval-first-four#cxrecs_s
So my point about this money ALREADY being used for SOMETHING was on point. The money that was being used for maintenance will now pay for the new facilities. Maintenance expenses can now be paid for with GENERAL budget dollars. That includes revenues from property taxes. It is pretty plain that the HOPE is that growing revenues will cover the maintenance and no doubt, some of the maintenance will likely be deferred. General revenues will most likely be tapped though.
And did you see the previously never mentioned cost of restoring the seating for the FL/GA game?? I guess that $900k will be general tax revenues as well?
To say this whole thing is a scam is a huge understatement. Socialize the risk/expense and privatize the profit sums it up pretty well.
Congrats JAX, you do have at least ONE council member watching your interests.
Apparently the 'bar' for 50% funding of a project in JAX is the private party must 1) have deep pockets and 2) be willing to pay half of the initial costs and yet receive all revenues thereafter. If I were Tony Sleiman, I would present my most grandiose plans for the Landing and tell the city they should pay for 50% of it.
^ My biggest concerns are with the amphitheater (the pat the city is paying for). They are:
1. Why are they aiming for only 25 events per year (7-9 will be concerts before home games)
2. The City only has access to 5 events per year at the amphitheater (the contract could "allow" for more)
3. Still need to have site plans showing actual seating for 5,000 plus room for another 5,000 on lawn. Anything less further minimizes market potential and recoup on investment through ticket surcharges.
^The amphitheater should be 5-7k seats at most to provide a venue we're lacking in the metro area. Or at least it should have 5k "good" seats and space for others outside covered area, so that it can comfortably accommodate mid-sized events. Your other points are good; it could easily have several times that number of events.
^ the proposal from the Jags said 5,000 seats plus room for 5,000 more on the lawn. That is hard to imagine given the renderings shown so far.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 01, 2015, 10:43:15 AM
^ the proposal from the Jags said 5,000 seats plus room for 5,000 more on the lawn. That is hard to imagine given the renderings shown so far.
Something the size of the St. Augustine Amphitheater (5000 seats) looks like it would fit there without a problem. As for the 5k on the lawn, you can fit a lot more people in back-end standing than is seats, though honestly I'm not sure this is even needed, except maybe for events where the amphitheater concert is only part of it. But I'd like to see clearer renderings too.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 01, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
^ My biggest concerns are with the amphitheater (the pat the city is paying for). They are:
3. Still need to have site plans showing actual seating for 5,000 plus room for another 5,000 on lawn. Anything less further minimizes market potential and recoup on investment through ticket surcharges.
A rendering in the Jax Daily Record:
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/storyimages/1448988042Exhibit-B-Club-PAGE-7.jpg)
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546586
^ well that looks much different than earlier renderings....and with the re-orientation, could better accommodate the mentioned 10,000 people...especially if they include the SeaBest Col Zone currently underneath the Bud Zone space.
So, will they dig a pit/ build a berm? Looks like you'll be able to stand in the walkways of the Bud Zone and look down into the Amphitheater(?).
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2015, 10:14:02 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 01, 2015, 09:09:54 AM
^ My biggest concerns are with the amphitheater (the pat the city is paying for). They are:
3. Still need to have site plans showing actual seating for 5,000 plus room for another 5,000 on lawn. Anything less further minimizes market potential and recoup on investment through ticket surcharges.
A rendering in the Jax Daily Record:
(http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/storyimages/1448988042Exhibit-B-Club-PAGE-7.jpg)
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546586
I dig this. It looks like they may be opening up space underneath the scoreboard, kinda like in Gillette Stadium?
(http://www.stadiumsofprofootball.com/afc/images/gill08900.jpg)
I am not sure because that would mean getting rid of more seats and those ones usually sell well.
I would also be surprised if they did that. The Bud Zone and South End Zone are pretty popular within the stadium...
If "vertical circulation" means escalators, they have been moved farther out and placed at a different angle, so I'm guessing they may be expanding or just re-configuring the bud zone area, not removing it.
I feel like those big open spaces in sports arenas are the new trend. I know that's the thought behind the new Braves stadium and others. If anything, it could enhance the BudZone - which is god awful in my opinion. It's like a dungeon.
I like that new rendering. Squeezing an amphitheater in between the stadium and practice facility looked odd in the earlier renderings, but here it looks
completely different - and much better.
It also explains a tweet I saw yesterday about sections of the stadium in that end zone overlooking the amphitheater. I'm guessing the Bud Zone stays where it is (the rendering seems to be ground level, where one of the Sea Best Cool Zones is). The area where the escalators are now sounds like it would be an additional outdoor area (probably in the style of the North End Zone deck) overlooking the amphitheater.
Quote from: BoldCityRealist on December 02, 2015, 02:38:54 PM
I feel like those big open spaces in sports arenas are the new trend. I know that's the thought behind the new Braves stadium and others. If anything, it could enhance the BudZone - which is god awful in my opinion. It's like a dungeon.
This reminds me of this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERvARKwPtiU) about the future of sports stadiums (it has a brief clip from the Shipyards proposal in there). It talks about stadiums being community spaces most of the week, turning into the sporting facilities on game days. It's an interesting concept, and sounds like it's the way Populous may be nudging the Jaguars and the way the Jaguars are nudging the city.
This 'sunken in pit, new trendy neighborhood concept' will fall on deaf ears for existing adequate NFL stadiums. The only exception maybe will be when LA gets a NFL team.
This rendering changes a lot and is so different than the first one that was released. This looks like they have almost configured the amphitheater to be a part of the stadium. I can foresee utilization of the Bud Zone or Terrace Suites as additional ticket options for concerts, etc. because they could technically still see/hear into the amphitheater. This configuration also allows them to use restrooms and concession stands for games and concerts. There is a lot of unused space underneath that section of the stadium. It is mostly fenced in and used by game day staff. I still think that final renderings should be public before city council votes. Does the DDRB have to approve the final design? Will there be any input on what the final design will be and the constructional materials that will be used? I mean, all we have seen are two very different renderings. I'm hoping that at least the council gets to view the final project before construction actually starts.
This one is moving quick. It's now ready for council's final vote:
QuoteEverBank Field upgrades ready for final council vote
By David Chapman, Staff Writer
It was almost a clean sweep.
Despite not being unanimous, supporters of the $90 million EverBank Field upgrades walked away Tuesday with wins in the final three City Council committees reviewing the deal.
Two committees — Rules and Recreation, Community Development, Public Health and Safety — unanimously approved contributing $45 million toward the club seat upgrades and building of a city-owned amphitheater and multipurpose outdoor practice facility.
In Land Use and Zoning, however, council member Danny Becton declined his support. It came a day after he held the same stance in the Finance Committee.
Becton again questioned how the project — combined with the $43 million scoreboard and north end zone upgrades two years ago — could be paid for and still fund maintenance needs for other city-owned venues.
When he asked how much of the scoreboard project's principal had been paid off to date, he was told none.
"This is called kicking the can down the road," said Becton.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546589
If we could get condo towers and office buildings approved this fast, we'd be giving Miami a run for its money!!!
Is Paul Harden carrying this one through city hall?
^Lol, is that a serious question? Though it helps too that there's no serious opposition.
Quote from: brainstormer on December 02, 2015, 08:40:36 PM
This rendering changes a lot and is so different than the first one that was released.
Which kind of makes one think they'll end up building whatever they want there, regardless of what pretty pictures they release beforehand.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 03, 2015, 09:46:04 AM
^Lol, is that a serious question? Though it helps too that there's no serious opposition.
The Pied Piper in full affect. This joke would be funny, if it weren't so serious.
So, far ONE member of council has a spine.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 03, 2015, 10:40:11 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 03, 2015, 09:46:04 AM
^Lol, is that a serious question? Though it helps too that there's no serious opposition.
The Pied Piper in full affect. This joke would be funny, if it weren't so serious.
So, far ONE member of council has a spine.
I think it's more that like most people, Council sees this as basically a good project.
I do wish there was this kind of energy in the media and social media during the scoreboards and wonky Shipyards deals.
Looks like city Council voted unanimously to fund the amphitheater:
http://www.news4jax.com/top-stories/city-council-votes-on-new-amphitheater-construction
And it passes council unanimously. Good. Move forward.
Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on December 08, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.
More like brain dead. A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on December 08, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? .
yes...it addresses the noise concerns of the neighborhoods across the river
Quote from: vicupstate on December 08, 2015, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on December 08, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.
More like brain dead. A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.
Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.
That's not specifically directed at you, Vic, beyond the fact that your wording suggests that none of those could be as bad as this.
It might as well of been directed at Vic. The envy is outrageous.
Charlotte has done the same by giving Mr. Richardson anything he wants.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 08, 2015, 10:02:34 PM
Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.
I was not aware that the Sleiman deal was within the last few years...also not aware of any deal the City has reached with Khan on the Shipyards.
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 08, 2015, 10:59:13 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 08, 2015, 10:02:34 PM
Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.
I was not aware that the Sleiman deal was within the last few years...also not aware of any deal the City has reached with Khan on the Shipyards.
I'm speaking, of course, about Sleiman's proposal for $11 million dollars to demolish the Landing and replace it with a bland development, which was a variant of things he's been proposing for the last several years. Fortunately the city didn't finalize that or Khan's Shipyards proposal, which was majorly problematic but which got little but adulation from the media.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 08, 2015, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on December 08, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.
More like brain dead. A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.
Not a stupid idea at all. The city is in desperate need of a new amphitheater. Metro Park's is structurally unsafe to use any more.
QuoteYears of wear and tear have taken its toll on the covered pavilion. The structural deficiencies in the tent were severe enough that a city-hired New York firm in October said it is "not safe to occupy and must be brought down."
"Whether we have those improvements or not (at EverBank Field), there's still an issue at Metro Park," said council member Doyle Carter, head of the Recreation, Community Development, Public Health and Safety Committee.
Carter called it a "stretch" to fix the tented staging area for a price he's heard could reach $10 million — especially with a venue that could meet the city's needs being built nearby.
And even if it were rebuilt, he said, noise issues and event limitations would still be there.
Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546623 (http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546623)
The city will own it and have a much easier and less restrictive venue to hold events in, regardless of if the Jaguars were to leave town (highly unlikely). There is a legal limit of 12 paid events a year at Metro Park right now. This venue will allow them more per year. I might be wrong on this number, but I think there is a limit of 15 with the new amphitheater. That can increase with advance warning. I was watching the vote earlier and one of the councilmen said it like building a house and only paying 50 cents for every dollar it costs to build. The city would have been stupid not to take the offer. There is no way they could have negotiated a better deal. In building it, if it is under-budget when built, the Jags pay the city back. If it is over-budget, the Jags pay the overages. The city will eventually make their money back in increased tax revenue (at least for the amphitheater part of the package). I'm sure Khan will make some money on it, but if you were him, you would probably want to make some money also if you were spending $45 million. Also, we will no longer have to hear every time Metro Park holds a concert about the people across the river complaining about the sound. In all likelihood, this will be the end of the stage there.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 08, 2015, 10:02:34 PM
Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.
That's not specifically directed at you, Vic, beyond the fact that your wording suggests that none of those could be as bad as this.
Don't forget the Parador parking garage. That ranks up there with the worst deals in history for me.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 09, 2015, 09:12:32 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 08, 2015, 10:02:34 PM
Hyperbole. The city made at least 3 far worse deals within the last few years alone: Sleiman's Landing proposal, the overpriced scoreboards, and Khan's Shipyards project. I'm still baffled by the blowback this project has gotten in light of the comparative silence the media (and social media) gave those objectively worse deals.
That's not specifically directed at you, Vic, beyond the fact that your wording suggests that none of those could be as bad as this.
Don't forget the Parador parking garage. That ranks up there with the worst deals in history for me.
Oh man, can't believe I forgot about that one. And that one went through every step of the way with as little friction as possible.
The city is receiving ownership of assets that they are paying half of the value. Do not see how this can be a bad move, and apparently, neither did the city counsel
By a 19-zip vote, with an aging and severely limited Metropolitan Park front-and-center in the consciousness of the City. But hey, Vic assures us it's brain dead and one of the worst things the city has ever done . . . so there's that.
The huge issue I have with this is simple- we heard about this proposal what, a couple months ago? And boom! Just like that, we approved $45M in spending.
However getting the city to approve tax incentives or credits to bring development to the core, well now hang on, we gotta do some studies, make sure it is feasible, make sure this is a good deal, and we will get back to you, in about 10 years. Barnett, LST, etc.
I get it, 50 cents on the dollar investment is a good deal, and I really don't oppose the spending. But to say that "well, we gotta spend the money on sports stuff and not on core development" is weak. Why have segregated accounts for investment? Why not have one investment account, and if it is proven the proposed plan benefits the city, then it gets approved, no matter if it is tax incentives to bring a business downtown, an amphitheater, cleaning up dirt (shipyards- which we will have to do anyway before it is sold), etc.?
Completely agree that there are other areas I would much rather see the city invest in than the sports district. However, the reason this was approved so quickly by the city is that the city actually owns what they are investing towards. I have not heard of any other potential developments where the city would own an asset a private developer is willing to contribute towards at the rate of current stadium project.
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
yeah. the nice thing about a forum like this is that we have time to measure outcomes.
Do you, now! I'll make sure to keep an eye out for those measurements. Not partisan opinions, mind you (an apparent specialty of this forum), but
measurements.
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2015, 11:38:44 AMOf course, its not like the whole country is beginning to revisit sport franchise parasitism or anything (see municipal stadiums and FIFA).
And it is good to get periodic reminders for your penchant to overstate, Stephen.
Parasitism? Mmmm hmmmm. I think I'm gonna report you to our billionaire owner of the Jaguars and, and . . . ooooh, you're gonna be in trouble!
The whole country? Mmmm hmmmm. Frisco, Texas (and many other municipalities around this great nation, I'm sure) would like to have a word with you, son.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 08, 2015, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: BenderRodriguez on December 08, 2015, 08:37:02 PM
Good move, pretty much a no-brainer. Recent renderings have the amphitheatre facing the stadium though. I wonder if that was a stipulation from the city in order to sign off on the project? Also, the Jags have mentioned the intent of having about 25 (maybe more). Very interesting to see what that's going to do/bring to the immediate area. Exciting stuff guys.
More like brain dead. A huge transfer of wealth to the city's wealthiest resident, or I should say non-resident, at the expense of the public. One of the stupidest things JAX has ever done, and that is saying something.
Various quotes from council members:
"We're going to own $90 million worth of assets," Councilman John Crescimbeni said at the meeting. "We're going to spend 50 cents on the dollar to get there. That's a deal that's difficult to walk away from.""You can always find something wrong and critique things," Brown said. "You can always say something can be done better. We've got some good things going, we're putting people to work. The Jaguars are investing assets in the city. This is a good project.""[The bill] is long on assumptions and short on guarantees," Becton said. "There's a better deal to be had. Nevertheless, his vote was an "aye."http://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/blog/morning-edition/2015/12/city-funding-for-amphitheater-sails-through-city.html
Tommy Hazouri referred to it as a Christmas gift for the city."There's no way we can fix Metro Park to work as an amphitheater in the future," Gulliford said.http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=546634
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
Let me put it in an analogy.
Let's say I am a wealthy person and I hold options to buy 500 vacant lots and distressed houses in Jacksonville, I make an offer to the city. I will invest $45mm into building and/or renovating these houses. The city will pay $45mm as well. An average of $180k will be spent per house. The title will be held by the city, thus there will be no property taxes to pay. I will rent out all of them and receive 100% of the rent or any other income I can generate from them. My company will have complete control of the properties in perpetuity.
All maintenance and upkeep on them will be paid 50/50 between the city and myself.
I stand to collect market rate rent while completely eliminating my property tax expense, no small item I may add. I will also reduce my maintenance and carrying expenses by 50%. That is not small potatoes either. But best of all, I will be spared 50% of the debt service.
It is a pretty big payday for me, to be sure.
In return the city will 'own' these houses. The renovations/construction will likely spur new invest in the vicinity, so the city gets that benefit. People will be living in these previously unoccupied houses, thus bring demand for goods and services.
The way I see it, my proposal is a lot better than Khan's because it doesn't rob the maintenance fund of the Sports District and the FL/GA game is not affected to the tune of $900k per year.
Should the city take this deal?
^Go ahead and propose it with your $45 million dollars.
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2015, 05:36:26 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2015, 05:34:05 PM
^Go ahead and propose it with your $45 million dollars.
does everyone else get a matching grant for all of their projects then? Sounds like a pretty sweet environment for speculation!
I expect anyone offering to split the cost on city-owned buildings would be listened to pretty seriously.
And even beyond city-owned venues, we may get some more good deals in place, now that the media is apparently paying attention to what the city does again. It's strange, but I guess it's a nice change of pace from the last couple of years.
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
the nice thing about a forum like this is that we have time to measure outcomes.
Yeah, I'll be interested to see how all this alleged pent-up demand for performers who will only play a 5000-seat outdoor venue plays out.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 09, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
........
Should the city take this deal?
Would you be hosting 10,000 people who would later spend money in the surrounding neighborhoods at your houses? Would you bring in national acts that would pull in people from surrounding counties to spend money downtown? Kahn does get a sweet deal, to be sure, but the city will benefit greatly from having more concerts downtown without drawing the ire of the crotchety residents of St Nick.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 10, 2015, 09:58:14 AM
the crotchety residents of St Nick.
People that live there are THE WORST!!
Quote from: PeeJayEss on December 10, 2015, 10:09:58 AM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 10, 2015, 09:58:14 AM
the crotchety residents of St Nick.
People that live there are THE WORST!!
Burn everything in that neighborhood to the ground!!!
Quote from: vicupstate on December 09, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
Let me put it in an analogy.
Let's say I am a wealthy person and I hold options to buy 500 vacant lots and distressed houses in Jacksonville, I make an offer to the city. I will invest $45mm into building and/or renovating these houses. The city will pay $45mm as well. An average of $180k will be spent per house. The title will be held by the city, thus there will be no property taxes to pay. I will rent out all of them and receive 100% of the rent or any other income I can generate from them. My company will have complete control of the properties in perpetuity.
All maintenance and upkeep on them will be paid 50/50 between the city and myself.
I stand to collect market rate rent while completely eliminating my property tax expense, no small item I may add. I will also reduce my maintenance and carrying expenses by 50%. That is not small potatoes either. But best of all, I will be spared 50% of the debt service.
It is a pretty big payday for me, to be sure.
In return the city will 'own' these houses. The renovations/construction will likely spur new invest in the vicinity, so the city gets that benefit. People will be living in these previously unoccupied houses, thus bring demand for goods and services.
The way I see it, my proposal is a lot better than Khan's because it doesn't rob the maintenance fund of the Sports District and the FL/GA game is not affected to the tune of $900k per year.
Should the city take this deal?
If you could positively measure the economic impact of it, then yes.
Let's put aside the Crescembeni argument of "spending $45 million to get $90 million in facilities" for a second (though it's a good argument)
Here's the thing: The city had an issue with Metro Park. Let's say you spent the millions to fix the stage and canopy, you still had the 12 concerts a year thing. You're creating a 365 Day facility that no only can take over for Metro Park's concerts, you can probably grab some shows from St. Augustine. Assuming it's managed well, they'll keep it filled. It then allows for some visioning on Metro Park combined with the shipyards/ Frankly, Metro Park doesn't take advantage of being on the river well, and should be addressed.
Then there's the stadium. Jacksonville is going a different route from a lot of other cities when it comes to their stadium; they're constantly enhancing things with good-sized projects every few years. The alternative is the route that most other cities go - they put no money into the place, then they come to the city looking for them to build them a new stadium - that's the BIG nut that has to be avoided, because I'm not sure how Jacksonville would fund something like Atlanta or Minneapolis is building.
Right now, St. Louis, San Diego, or Oakland (or more than one of them) is GOING to lose their team to Los Angles. San Diego and Oakland's stadium is from the 60's, and St. Louis build theirs on the Cheap in 1995 and put NOTHING into it in 20 years. I'll bet the good old, Trading Places "One Dollar, Mortimer" that there is NFL football in Los Angeles next year, and one of those cities is going to have a vacant, stadium that could never attract a top tier team.
At this point, Shad Khan has put $78 million in the stadium area, of which $68 million is for the public ($10 million was on internal team facilities). If you're willing to spend $68 million in Jacksonville for physical things that the public can enjoy, I'd give you $88 million if I was in charge.
Quote from: finehoe on December 10, 2015, 09:53:16 AM
Quote from: stephendare on December 09, 2015, 11:38:44 AM
the nice thing about a forum like this is that we have time to measure outcomes.
Yeah, I'll be interested to see how all this alleged pent-up demand for performers who will only play a 5000-seat outdoor venue plays out.
Well considering the St Augustine amphitheater holds less than that amount, I would say there's quite a demand.
We've had several critics of the project say we don't need an amphitheater because we already have the Arena, or because the bands playing at 5k-seat venues is limited. In reality, many touring performers have been trending toward venues of that size for years. Northeast Florida misses out because we have too few and too inconvenient venues of that type, and a large-scale, expensive venue like the Arena is in a different category.
Here are some recent stops for well established musicians (ie, not newbies hoping to "move up" to stadium shows) of different stripes that were prominent in 2015:
Beach House (http://www.beachhousebaltimore.com/):
12/07 – Santa Ana, CA @ The Observatory (capacity 550)
12/09 – Los Angeles, CA @ The Fonda Theatre (capacity 1200)
12/10 – Los Angeles, CA @ The Fonda Theatre (capacity 1200)
12/11 – Los Angeles, CA @ The Fonda Theatre (capacity 1200)
12/12 – Los Angeles, CA @ The Fonda Theatre (capacity 1200)
12/17 – San Francisco, CA @ The Fillmore (capacity 1150)
12/18 – San Francisco, CA @ The Fillmore (capacity 1150)
12/19 – San Francisco, CA @ The Fillmore (capacity 1150)
02/29 – Cleveland, OH @ House of Blues (capacity 2000)
03/01 – Chicago, IL @ Vic Theatre (capacity 1300)
03/05 – Toronto, ON @ Danforth Music Hall (capacity 1500)
03/09 – Montreal, QC @ Rialto Theatre (capacity 1165)
03/11 – Boston, MA @ House of Blues (capacity 2425)
03/14 – New York, NY @ Webster Hall (capacity 1500 for the ballroom)
03/15 – New York, NY @ Webster Hall (capacity 1500 for the ballroom)
03/18 – Philadelphia, PA @ Union Transfer (capacity 1200)
Run the Jewels (http://www.runthejewels.net/) (Killer Mike and El P):
09-29 Tuscon, AZ - Rialto (capacity 1200)
09-30 El Paso, TX - Tricky Falls (capacity 1500)
10-02-04 Austin, TX - Austin City Limits (festival)
10-03 New Orleans, LA - Republic (capacity 700)
10-06 Memphis, TN - Minglewood Hall (capacity 1600)
10-07 Tulsa, OK - Cain's (capacity 1700)
10-09-11- Austin, TX - Austin City Limits (festival)
10-12 Dallas, TX - House of Blues (capacity 1650)
10-13 Houston, TX - House of Blues (capacity 1500)
10-15 Phoenix, AZ - Marquee (capacity 2500)
10-20-21 Denver, CO - Ogden (capacity 1600)
10-22 Kansas City, MO - Midland (capacity 3,573)
10-23 Minneapolis, MN - First Avenue (capacity 1550 in the main room)
10-24 Royal Oak, MI - Royal Oak Music Hall (capacity 1700)
11-21 Mexico City, Mexico - Corona Capital Festival (festival)
Grimes (http://www.grimesmusic.com/):
10/24 – Santa Ana, CA @ Growlers Beach Goth Party Festival (festival)
10/26 – Vancouver, BC @ Commodore (capacity 995)
10/27 – Portland, OR @ Wonder (capacity 778)
10/28 – Seattle, WA @ The Showbox (capacity 1100)
10/31 – San Francisco, CA @ The Fillmore (capacity 1150)
11/02 – Los Angeles, CA @ Mayan (capacity 2,200)
11/07 – Austin, TX @ Fun Fun Fun Festival (festival)
11/09 – New Orleans, LA @ Republic (capacity 700)
11/10 – Nashville, TN @ Marathon Music Works (capacity 1500)
11/11 – Atlanta, GA @ Buckhead Theatre (capacity 2500+)
11/13 – Washington, DC @ 9:30 Club (capacity 1200)
11/14 – Philadelphia, PA @ Union Transfer (capacity 1200)
11/16 – New York, NY @ Terminal 5 (capacity 3000)
11/20 – Boston, MA @ Paradise (capacity 933)
11/21 – Montreal, QB @ Metropolis (capacity 2,350)
11/22 – Toronto, ON @ Danforth (capacity 1500)
11/25 – Chicago, IL @ Metro (capacity 1100)
Sleater-Kinney (http://www.sleater-kinney.com/)
12-04 Indianapolis, IN - Old National Centre (capacity 2500)
12-05 Columbus, OH - Newport Music Hall (capacity 1,700)
12-06 Cincinnati, OH - Bogarts (capacity 1,464)
12-08 Royal Oak, MI - Royal Oak Music Theatre (capacity 1700)
12-09 Cleveland, OH - Masonic Auditorium (capacity 3,165)
12-10 Buffalo, NY - Asbury Hall (capacity 1200)
12-12 Brooklyn, NY - Kings Theatre (capacity 3000)
12-13 New York, NY - Terminal 5 (capacity 3000)
12-14 New York, NY - Irving Plaza (capacity 1,025)
12-15 Brooklyn, NY - Music Hall of Williamsburg (capacity 550)
12-16 Brooklyn, NY - Market Hotel (?)
Kendrick Lamar (http://www.kendricklamar.com/) has done a mix of very large and mid-sized venues:
10-20 Washington, DC - Kennedy Center (capacity 2462 in the Concert Hall)
10-22 Brooklyn, NY - Barclays Center (capacity 18,103)
10-24 Columbus, OH - LC Pavilion (capacity 5200)
10-25 Chicago, IL - United Center (capacity 20,500)
10-27 Atlanta, GA - The Tabernacle (capacity 2600)
10-29 Dallas, TX - South Side Music Hall (capacity 1500)
11-01 Washington, DC - Lincoln Theatre (capacity 1225)
11-02 New York, NY - Webster Hall (capacity 1500)
11-03 Philadelphia, PA - The Trocadero Theatre (capacity 1200)
11-04 Cleveland, OH - House of Blues (capacity 2000)
11-08 Los Angeles, CA - The Forum (capacity 17,505)
11-10 Oakland, CA - Fox Theater (capacity 2800)
Northeast Florida has a dearth of venues of the type listed above, and in fact we have only a handful of venues that hold between 300 and 10,000 people. Those that we do have (Florida Theater, Times-Union Center, St. Augustine Amphitheater, PV Concert Hall, Met Park) all have major drawbacks. The Florida Theater and Times-Union Center are great, but they have fixed seating and aren't designed for amplified music. The St. Johns County venues do very well, but they're poorly located for the vast majority of the metro area. Met Park had a good run, but it's now virtually unusable for this purpose.
The amphitheater plugs a hole we've had for a long time. I doubt this would be controversial if the Jaguars weren't involved.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 01:05:50 PM
I doubt this would be controversial if the Jaguars weren't involved.
Nailed it.
This forum shouldn't be so hard on the jags (obviously I'm biased, look at my avatar), because the jags bring 60,000+ people downtown every weekend.
I would have rather seen some of our existing buildings get the money, but as we've been told they have to use this money for tourism things, and if that's the case I think this is a pretty good use for it. It makes downtown a destination for many concert goers. In the past I've driven to St Augustine and Tampa to go to a concert, maybe they'll stop here next time.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 01:05:50 PM
I doubt this would be controversial if the Jaguars weren't involved.
Well, duh. What other private business in Jacksonville receives such lavish public subsidies?
Unless it has changed, the refrain I always heard as far as Jag games goes was this: JSO traffic control is such that the traffic is funnelled to the stadium and funnelled out, such that little economic benefit trickles to the DT area. There is or was a business in the historic building next to the arena, and Intuition Ale Works (when it opens) would be exceptions obviously.
Is that a fair assessment still, and would it be any different with concerts at this Amphitheatre?
As for another use of tourism funds, there is (for the moment) 2 cents of the bed tax going directly to promote tourism marketing. Given the low profile of JAX, it would seem to be woefully inadequate. I realize in 2009, these funds were tied specifically to the Stadium district itself (the city should have NEVER agreed to that, btw). I would argue that certain marketing spending could still be in direct support of the district however.
Quote from: finehoe on December 10, 2015, 02:37:34 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 01:05:50 PM
I doubt this would be controversial if the Jaguars weren't involved.
Well, duh. What other private business in Jacksonville receives such lavish public subsidies?
What business in town brings more 8,7, and 6 figure salaries to Jacksonville?
Here is the staff directory... http://www.jaguars.com/staffdirectory/
Here are player salaries... http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/jacksonville-jaguars/
This private company is good for Jacksonville... Muslim owned too!
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 10, 2015, 09:58:14 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 09, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
........
Should the city take this deal?
Would you be hosting 10,000 people who would later spend money in the surrounding neighborhoods at your houses? Would you bring in national acts that would pull in people from surrounding counties to spend money downtown? Kahn does get a sweet deal, to be sure, but the city will benefit greatly from having more concerts downtown without drawing the ire of the crotchety residents of St Nick.
I actually would be bring PERMANENT residents who could be patronizing restaurants and other businesses on a continual basis. They would create demand (365 days a year) for all kinds of things that a tourist wouldn't. I would say that is much better than one time visitors.
And Tacahale, my scenario was that that city WOULD own the houses.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 10, 2015, 03:07:53 PM
What business in town brings more 8,7, and 6 figure salaries to Jacksonville?
So you're saying that the richer the organization the more public help they should get?
Quote from: finehoe on December 10, 2015, 03:17:23 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 10, 2015, 03:07:53 PM
What business in town brings more 8,7, and 6 figure salaries to Jacksonville?
So you're saying that the richer the organization the more public help they should get?
And that the Jags will be hiring MORE people making these high salaries because of this project?
Ultimately I am fairly neutral about the situation. I think as far as tourism goes there are plenty of other things it could go towards like fixing up our "nations largest urban park system" and marketing that along with a newly beautified emerald necklace project. However, I understand that this could be a great quality of life boost and we do sorely need to compete with other big cities in the realm of bringing quality acts and music to town. If this helps in netting even 10 more big acts per year that wouldn't come here otherwise it's a win. Not only in the possible tourism but in showing young people that we can get the big performances too. Plus it does at least look really nice. If they can now turn metro park into something really useful and enjoyable then I'll consider this a big win.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 10, 2015, 03:19:49 PM
Quote from: finehoe on December 10, 2015, 03:17:23 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 10, 2015, 03:07:53 PM
What business in town brings more 8,7, and 6 figure salaries to Jacksonville?
So you're saying that the richer the organization the more public help they should get?
And that the Jags will be hiring MORE people making these high salaries because of this project?
I am saying... the diversity and wages brought to this city by the Jaguars... would NOT be here but for the Jaguars. The project will certainly employ more people... probably not in the 8 figure range but...
Quote from: finehoe on December 10, 2015, 03:17:23 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on December 10, 2015, 03:07:53 PM
What business in town brings more 8,7, and 6 figure salaries to Jacksonville?
So you're saying that the richer the organization the more public help they should get?
You frame it as if the benefit to the city is irrelevant as long as the Jaguars are involved in any fashion. That's not a good way to get things done.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 10, 2015, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 10, 2015, 09:58:14 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 09, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
........
Should the city take this deal?
Would you be hosting 10,000 people who would later spend money in the surrounding neighborhoods at your houses? Would you bring in national acts that would pull in people from surrounding counties to spend money downtown? Kahn does get a sweet deal, to be sure, but the city will benefit greatly from having more concerts downtown without drawing the ire of the crotchety residents of St Nick.
I actually would be bring PERMANENT residents who could be patronizing restaurants and other businesses on a continual basis. They would create demand (365 days a year) for all kinds of things that a tourist wouldn't. I would say that is much better than one time visitors.
And Tacahale, my scenario was that that city WOULD own the houses.
It's still a hypothetical scenario based on money you don't actually have. It's obviously not hard to make a fantasy that sounds better than reality.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 03:49:07 PM
You frame it as if the benefit to the city is irrelevant as long as the Jaguars are involved in any fashion. That's not a good way to get things done.
No. You said we wouldn't be having the discussion if it wasn't the Jaguars, and I said you're absolutely right because if it was anyone besides the Jaguars, the city wouldn't be putting up this kind of money. It's not a question of if the city will benefit, but one of are the benefits commensurate with the costs.
Quote from: finehoe on December 10, 2015, 04:57:16 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 03:49:07 PM
You frame it as if the benefit to the city is irrelevant as long as the Jaguars are involved in any fashion. That's not a good way to get things done.
No. You said we wouldn't be having the discussion if it wasn't the Jaguars, and I said you're absolutely right because if it was anyone besides the Jaguars, the city wouldn't be putting up this kind of money. It's not a question of if the city will benefit, but one of are the benefits commensurate with the costs.
I said that if the city were doing this project (for the same cost) without the Jaguars being involved, it probably wouldn't be controversial. You're right that the project wouldn't be happening without the Jaguars, because no one else would put $45 million into a city-owned project, and it couldn't be done for this cost without it.
If the question were really about whether the benefits were commensurate with the costs, that's what we'd be talking about. By and large, we haven't been.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 03:53:19 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 10, 2015, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 10, 2015, 09:58:14 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 09, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
........
Should the city take this deal?
Would you be hosting 10,000 people who would later spend money in the surrounding neighborhoods at your houses? Would you bring in national acts that would pull in people from surrounding counties to spend money downtown? Kahn does get a sweet deal, to be sure, but the city will benefit greatly from having more concerts downtown without drawing the ire of the crotchety residents of St Nick.
I actually would be bring PERMANENT residents who could be patronizing restaurants and other businesses on a continual basis. They would create demand (365 days a year) for all kinds of things that a tourist wouldn't. I would say that is much better than one time visitors.
And Tacahale, my scenario was that that city WOULD own the houses.
It's still a hypothetical scenario based on money you don't actually have. It's obviously not hard to make a fantasy that sounds better than reality.
Actually, there is no need for ONE person to make this deal. The city could offer the same terms to an unlimited numbers of developers, and in a week they would have enough takers to cover the 500 houses.
Frankly, you missed my entire point. The hypothetical is a LOUSY deal for the city just as the Khan deal is (albeit mine is somewhat better IMO). That is the point I was trying to make, but with an example more people could relate to.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 11, 2015, 05:07:13 AM
Actually, there is no need for ONE person to make this deal. The city could offer the same terms to an unlimited numbers of developers, and in a week they would have enough takers to cover the 500 houses.
Frankly, you missed my entire point. The hypothetical is a LOUSY deal for the city just as the Khan deal is (albeit mine is somewhat better IMO). That is the point I was trying to make, but with an example more people could relate to.
Yeah, but you're not a billionaire, so you don't count.
Quote from: finehoe on December 11, 2015, 08:16:25 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 11, 2015, 05:07:13 AM
Actually, there is no need for ONE person to make this deal. The city could offer the same terms to an unlimited numbers of developers, and in a week they would have enough takers to cover the 500 houses.
Frankly, you missed my entire point. The hypothetical is a LOUSY deal for the city just as the Khan deal is (albeit mine is somewhat better IMO). That is the point I was trying to make, but with an example more people could relate to.
Yeah, but you're not a billionaire, so you don't count.
My concern would be that the city is going to spend all this money and not get to see any of the money made at the venue. Is that the case? The original article wasn't clear - it only said that a company affiliated with the Jaguars would manage the place.
If the city was going to get a reasonable cut of the money, then it wouldn't be such an issue for me.
COREDUMPED SAYS: " The Jags bring 60,000 people downtown every weekend."
No they do not. They play 7-8 home games a year. Just want to make sure that was understood.
One of the issues with the stadium is it sits vacant 300+ days per year.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 11, 2015, 05:07:13 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 03:53:19 PM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 10, 2015, 03:13:49 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 10, 2015, 09:58:14 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 09, 2015, 05:16:49 PM
Jeez, I hardly know where to begin.
........
Should the city take this deal?
Would you be hosting 10,000 people who would later spend money in the surrounding neighborhoods at your houses? Would you bring in national acts that would pull in people from surrounding counties to spend money downtown? Kahn does get a sweet deal, to be sure, but the city will benefit greatly from having more concerts downtown without drawing the ire of the crotchety residents of St Nick.
I actually would be bring PERMANENT residents who could be patronizing restaurants and other businesses on a continual basis. They would create demand (365 days a year) for all kinds of things that a tourist wouldn't. I would say that is much better than one time visitors.
And Tacahale, my scenario was that that city WOULD own the houses.
It's still a hypothetical scenario based on money you don't actually have. It's obviously not hard to make a fantasy that sounds better than reality.
Actually, there is no need for ONE person to make this deal. The city could offer the same terms to an unlimited numbers of developers, and in a week they would have enough takers to cover the 500 houses.
Frankly, you missed my entire point. The hypothetical is a LOUSY deal for the city just as the Khan deal is (albeit mine is somewhat better IMO). That is the point I was trying to make, but with an example more people could relate to.
If that was your point, you didn't make it very well.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 10:30:45 AM
If that was your point, you didn't make it very well.
Either that, or you chose to focus on vicupstate's net worth rather than his argument.
Quote from: finehoe on December 11, 2015, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 10:30:45 AM
If that was your point, you didn't make it very well.
Either that, or you chose to focus on vicupstate's net worth rather than his argument.
Huh?
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: finehoe on December 11, 2015, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 10:30:45 AM
If that was your point, you didn't make it very well.
Either that, or you chose to focus on vicupstate's net worth rather than his argument.
Huh?
After vicupstate first posted his analogy, which you admit went over your head, your response was
Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2015, 05:34:05 PM
^Go ahead and propose it with your $45 million dollars.
and when he explained it further, you replied
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 03:53:19 PM
It's still a hypothetical scenario based on money you don't actually have.
as if vic's finances had anything at all to do with the point he was making.
Quote from: finehoe on December 11, 2015, 02:07:02 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 01:26:22 PM
Quote from: finehoe on December 11, 2015, 12:32:40 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 10:30:45 AM
If that was your point, you didn't make it very well.
Either that, or you chose to focus on vicupstate's net worth rather than his argument.
Huh?
After vicupstate first posted his analogy, which you admit went over your head, your response was
Quote from: Tacachale on December 09, 2015, 05:34:05 PM
^Go ahead and propose it with your $45 million dollars.
and when he explained it further, you replied
Quote from: Tacachale on December 10, 2015, 03:53:19 PM
It's still a hypothetical scenario based on money you don't actually have.
as if vic's finances had anything at all to do with the point he was making.
And again, whatever the point was, he didn't make it very well.
I'm still waiting to see an actual site plan and scaled drawings. Guess that's too much to ask for before agreeing to $45 million.
Well whatever the final site plan and look, it sure won't take much to beat the tent we call an amphitheater currently at metro park. Thus is good for the sports district, the elbow, downtown, the city and all of us who are actually concert goers. Its been a total embarrassing situation for the city too long having concerts skip over Jax and head to Auggie because of our inadequate venue and uptight residents across the water. Time to change that. Those who still oppose and act like the money is being taken directly from their paychecks are probably the same ones who don't attend, contribute to any social activities in the core and could care less about the value adequate entertainment facilities bring to the total quality of life in the city. Move if you don't like what Khan is doing. He seems to be the spark this city needed. I for one remember the superbowl walking by out of towners hearing them openly bash our downtown for lack of anything interesting to do. It's going to take small steps to get where we need to be but this is certainly a step in the right direction. Curry seized the opportunity and made a good purchase on a half off sell.
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 11, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
Move if you don't like what Khan is doing.
Or... here's an idea: why don't you move to North Korea?
No thanks, I like it here. ;)
I don't think it's unreasonable for a citizen of a city to complain about how that city is run while still maintaining their residence. I even more don't think someone ought to stop complaining and move away simply because they don't like the guy in town that owns the NFL team. That's an idiotic argument.
It wasnt an argument. It was a statement. Said statement may have rubbed a few the wrong way and I apologize. U are right, no one should have to move simply because they disagree. I wrote out of emotion after reading comments of a few earlier here that IMO don't want to see any progress if the city has to spend a dime. Some here seem to have an anti-khan stance on anything the guy does which is why I said what I maybe shouldn't have. I never once called any one particular person out nor said their opinion was idiotic. But neither one of our opinions will matter much when we are both sitting in a brand spanking new amphitheater rocking out. But then again, I'm picky about color scheme and may find their choice of seat colors just plain idiotic. ;)
Some people are just overly sensitive, hopefully it will be better when I get my mansion in North Korea.
I think this will be a great value to downtown, lots of younger people will head downtown to enjoy a concert then maybe off to the elbow for a post party.
And as a bonus, the noise might keep Redmon awake across the river :)
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 11, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
Well whatever the final site plan and look, it sure won't take much to beat the tent we call an amphitheater currently at metro park.
really? Met Park can accommodate 12,000+ people, many of which sit on lawn chairs and blankets. That's a pretty nice feature of many amphitheaters around the country. Stated capacity for this one was 10,000, but I think it may have shrunk as it seems there will be very little "lawn" seating.
The problem wasn't acts skipping over Jax. because of quality issues with Met Park. It was simply the 12-ticketed event limit. Guess you are really excited about all the 5 shows the City can bring in now....along with the 7-9 shows Khan's team will be bringing in (around home games).
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 11, 2015, 11:02:33 PM
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 11, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
Well whatever the final site plan and look, it sure won't take much to beat the tent we call an amphitheater currently at metro park.
really? Met Park can accommodate 12,000+ people, many of which sit on lawn chairs and blankets. That's a pretty nice feature of many amphitheaters around the country. Stated capacity for this one was 10,000, but I think it may have shrunk as it seems there will be very little "lawn" seating.
The problem wasn't acts skipping over Jax. because of quality issues with Met Park. It was simply the 12-ticketed event limit. Guess you are really excited about all the 5 shows the City can bring in now....along with the 7-9 shows Khan's team will be bringing in (around home games).
Yes, the issue is acts skipping over Jax because of the lack of appropriate venues for modern concerts. Met Park had a good run, but the "amphitheater" thing there was never a good facility, and it's so dilapidated now that it's all but impossible to use for that purpose. Just this weekend festival planners had to spend their own money on temporary replacement stages. And unfortunately it will never be made into anything better, not that it could be without substantial costs and finagling with the National Parks Service.
At the new amphitheater the Jaguars have repeatedly said they expect to hold 25 events a year, not "7-9". Even this number is too low, but double the events Met Park could do. And the city is *guaranteed* the ability to 5 events a year, but can host more if they want. How many events does the city do currently?
http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-11-05/story/amphitheater-part-proposed-90-million-improvement-plan-everbank-field-city
My take away from Metro Park being such a disaster is JAX fails on many levels to maintain its properties......most parks are not well kept, roads are falling in the river, the list goes on........
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 11, 2015, 11:02:33 PM
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 11, 2015, 04:16:44 PM
Well whatever the final site plan and look, it sure won't take much to beat the tent we call an amphitheater currently at metro park.
really? Met Park can accommodate 12,000+ people, many of which sit on lawn chairs and blankets. That's a pretty nice feature of many amphitheaters around the country. Stated capacity for this one was 10,000, but I think it may have shrunk as it seems there will be very little "lawn" seating.
The problem wasn't acts skipping over Jax. because of quality issues with Met Park. It was simply the 12-ticketed event limit. Guess you are really excited about all the 5 shows the City can bring in now....along with the 7-9 shows Khan's team will be bringing in (around home games).
Yes. I am excited.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 11, 2015, 11:34:02 PM
Yes, the issue is acts skipping over Jax because of the lack of appropriate venues for modern concerts. Met Park had a good run, but the "amphitheater" thing there was never a good facility, and it's so dilapidated now that it's all but impossible to use for that purpose. Just this weekend festival planners had to spend their own money on temporary replacement stages. And unfortunately it will never be made into anything better, not that it could be without substantial costs and finagling with the National Parks Service.
At the new amphitheater the Jaguars have repeatedly said they expect to hold 25 events a year, not "7-9". Even this number is too low, but double the events Met Park could do. And the city is *guaranteed* the ability to 5 events a year, but can host more if they want. How many events does the city do currently?
http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-11-05/story/amphitheater-part-proposed-90-million-improvement-plan-everbank-field-city
This is the continually weird thing to me. Tufsu1 will comment in a way to attack the perspective that lists *a* problem with Metropolitan Park in order to assert that -- no, no, no! -- Metropolitan Park really did have some attributes but *the* real problem was the 12-ticketed event limit.
Well, damn. Who gives a flying f*ck about
that minutia? I do give a damn about purposely misstating the intended minimum events contemplated and rephrasing them as some kind of "this is all that's gonna happen" standard. Metropolitan Park is an obvious problem (for not one reason but MULTIPLE reasons) and this initiative solves
multiple issues associated with the Met Park problem. Yet the bitch-and-moan crowd on here has to still bitch-and-moan about this or that *and* whatchamacallit, no matter how obviously unreal the rationale.
Yes, they probably did overstate on the capacity of the new space to accommodate 10,000 people. We shall soon see. They may *not* have. Whatever the case, it's a very creative thing they are attempting. Some integration between the amphitheater and the south end of EverBank? Hmmmmmm. And throw in the flex field, a huge space that will accommodate a big crowd all on its own? That
EverBank / Amphitheater / FlexField combination could prove to be very interesting, and might end up being utilized in ways that might surprise the bitch-and-moan crowd still desperate to cast some shade on Shad Khan -- a billionaire investing millions of his own money in Downtown Jacksonville.
Newsflash: there are few American cities that wouldn't kill to have a billionaire investing millions of privately-controlled dollars in
their Downtown no matter how much public-private partnership money was included in the mix.
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 12, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
Some integration between the amphitheater and the south end of EverBank?
This is the most intriguing part in my head. I saw the renderings and the first thing that came to me was:
Outdoor terrace with a bar inside overlooking the amphitheater? Sounds like a perfect VIP section to me with premium ticket charges. Not close enough to the stage? How hard would it be to run a feed directly to the NEZ scoreboard. Then you can draw that crowd that wants to see certain shows without actually dealing with the majority concert goer.
For the rest of the general seating, the SeaBest Cool Zone will be open with concessions, so it's a win-win-win in my head.
Total waste of money. How can we event think of spending millions when we have roads in disrepair, sinking boats moored at the south bank, shortchanged our firemen.....
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 12, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
This is the continually weird thing to me. Tufsu1 will comment in a way to attack the perspective that lists *a* problem with Metropolitan Park in order to assert that -- no, no, no! -- Metropolitan Park really did have some attributes but *the* real problem was the 12-ticketed event limit.
I never said that Met Park was in good shape or that there aren't issues. But I'm willing to bet the City could remedy just about every one of those issues for far less than $45 million. As for the 12-event limit at met Park, that's still more than double the 5 events that the City would be guaranteed at the new facility. Finally, until plans show the capacity of the new facility is in fact near 10,000, then it is clear that Met Park can hold far more people for concerts.
QuoteHow can we event think of spending millions when we have roads in disrepair, sinking boats moored at the south bank, shortchanged our firemen.....
Newsflash - We will always have some list of crisis that will be at the top of everyone's list. There will always be something else people can think of spending millions on for some other purpose. So what, its Jacksonville. It happens everywhere else too. Get on board with it or move.
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 12, 2015, 09:10:47 PM
QuoteHow can we event think of spending millions when we have roads in disrepair, sinking boats moored at the south bank, shortchanged our firemen.....
Newsflash - We will always have some list of crisis that will be at the top of everyone's list. There will always be something else people can think of spending millions on for some other purpose. So what, its Jacksonville. It happens everywhere else too. Get on board with it or move.
If it happens everywhere else, then where can we move to?
Quote from: PeeJayEss on December 11, 2015, 05:47:08 PM
I don't think it's unreasonable for a citizen of a city to complain about how that city is run while still maintaining their residence. I even more don't think someone ought to stop complaining and move away simply because they don't like the guy in town that owns the NFL team. That's an idiotic argument.
Don't complain about anything in our 2014-560 zone.
Quote from: tpot on December 12, 2015, 12:07:04 AM
My take away from Metro Park being such a disaster is JAX fails on many levels to maintain its properties......most parks are not well kept, roads are falling in the river, the list goes on........
+1
DP is right; this is a win/win or the city and the Jaguars. At Wednesday's Southside Businessmen's Club meeting, Mark Lamping explained the expenditures of the $90 million and what the improvements mean. There will be a $25 million makeover the Club Seating areas, resulting in fewer seats and more amenities. The part that everyone wonders about will be the amphitheatre.
The stage will face the stadium so that sound to the south wall of the stadium to absorb the noise and not toward St. Nicholas. There will be 4000 seats at ground level and the bud zone will extended out to the south allowing a second and third balcony level with 1000 seats each. The facility will be under a roof to protect patrons and performers from the elements. How does tie into the stadium and the indoor practice fields.
The step of removing the ground level outside concessions on the south end of the stadium will allow the field to be open to the theatre and allow people to walk through. The 95% of the time the indoor facility is not being used for practice, it can be used as an event venue. This opens the three venues to the probability for future festivals with performances on three stages. This is the type of concert/special event venue we should have had 20 years ago. Kudos to the city and the Jaguars on reaching this agreement.
Will CoJ see revenue from events held at the venue? Or will the revenue go to the Jaguars and the company that is managing it?
Also - who will pay for maintenance? Will this be a CoJ responsibility or will it be shared with the company that manages it?
This is quite important as, if CoJ doesn't get any money from events but is expected to pay for the maintenance (as they will be the owners), this will mean that the Jaguars will recoup their expenditure over time, but CoJ will lose money on the project.
I haven't seen any info on how money from the events, concessions, etc will be split (or who will be responsible for the maintenance). Does anyone have a link or info about this?
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 12, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 12, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
This is the continually weird thing to me. Tufsu1 will comment in a way to attack the perspective that lists *a* problem with Metropolitan Park in order to assert that -- no, no, no! -- Metropolitan Park really did have some attributes but *the* real problem was the 12-ticketed event limit.
I never said that Met Park was in good shape or that there aren't issues. But I'm willing to bet the City could remedy just about every one of those issues for far less than $45 million. As for the 12-event limit at met Park, that's still more than double the 5 events that the City would be guaranteed at the new facility. Finally, until plans show the capacity of the new facility is in fact near 10,000, then it is clear that Met Park can hold far more people for concerts.
No offense, tufsu1, but this strikes me as backward thinking. We *could* spend money renovating the bandshell at Metro Park but it would have the exact same issues it has now with noise complaints and the Parks Service, and would still be restricted to only 12 events a year. Why spend any money on a losing proposition?
Again, the city could have as many events as it wants at the new amphitheater. At Metro Park, it's limited to 12 ticketed events total, both city events and everyone else's. Many of the events held there (Rockville, Big Ticket, the boat show, various things with "Fest" in the name) aren't city events. Again, how many events does the city hold there every year?
As for the size, there are plenty of other empty fields for holding thousands of people. There's another one right in the sports district, the Fairgrounds. What we're really missing is a venue with suitable infrastructure for modern concerts holding 2-5k people. We don't have that now, Metro Park isn't it, it never has been and it never will be.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 13, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 12, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 12, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
This is the continually weird thing to me. Tufsu1 will comment in a way to attack the perspective that lists *a* problem with Metropolitan Park in order to assert that -- no, no, no! -- Metropolitan Park really did have some attributes but *the* real problem was the 12-ticketed event limit.
I never said that Met Park was in good shape or that there aren't issues. But I'm willing to bet the City could remedy just about every one of those issues for far less than $45 million. As for the 12-event limit at met Park, that's still more than double the 5 events that the City would be guaranteed at the new facility. Finally, until plans show the capacity of the new facility is in fact near 10,000, then it is clear that Met Park can hold far more people for concerts.
No offense, tufsu1, but this strikes me as backward thinking. We *could* spend money renovating the bandshell at Metro Park but it would have the exact same issues it has now with noise complaints and the Parks Service, and would still be restricted to only 12 events a year. Why spend any money on a losing proposition?
Again, the city could have as many events as it wants at the new amphitheater. At Metro Park, it's limited to 12 ticketed events total, both city events and everyone else's. Many of the events held there (Rockville, Big Ticket, the boat show, various things with "Fest" in the name) aren't city events. Again, how many events does the city hold there every year?
As for the size, there are plenty of other empty fields for holding thousands of people. There's another one right in the sports district, the Fairgrounds. What we're really missing is a venue with suitable infrastructure for modern concerts holding 2-5k people. We don't have that now, Metro Park isn't it, it never has been and it never will be.
It would seem to me that the suitability of Metro Park and this proposal are two separate issues.
Quote from: Adam White on December 13, 2015, 10:11:07 AM
Will CoJ see revenue from events held at the venue? Or will the revenue go to the Jaguars and the company that is managing it?
Also - who will pay for maintenance? Will this be a CoJ responsibility or will it be shared with the company that manages it?
This is quite important as, if CoJ doesn't get any money from events but is expected to pay for the maintenance (as they will be the owners), this will mean that the Jaguars will recoup their expenditure over time, but CoJ will lose money on the project.
I haven't seen any info on how money from the events, concessions, etc will be split (or who will be responsible for the maintenance). Does anyone have a link or info about this?
According to this (http://floridapolitics.com/archives/195496-jags-amphitheater-dog-pony-show-sales-pitch-highlights-jax-finance-committee-meeting), the city would get some revenue from all events at the new facilities through ticket surcharge and parking. From the Jaguars' 25 events, the city would expect to see about $800k. Sounds like they'd put that money back into the facilities. They would also keep the revenues from city-sponsored events, of which there will be at least 5, but the city has to pay for the operations.
As for maintenance, that seems to be a wider question. As the owner, the city would be on the hook for maintenance, as they are for existing facilities now. But according to that article and previous ones, it sounds like the Jaguars will be contributing money as well. They'll also be operating the facility, which takes some pressure off the city.
Quote from: Adam White on December 13, 2015, 10:52:38 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 13, 2015, 10:31:36 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on December 12, 2015, 05:41:07 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 12, 2015, 08:43:19 AM
This is the continually weird thing to me. Tufsu1 will comment in a way to attack the perspective that lists *a* problem with Metropolitan Park in order to assert that -- no, no, no! -- Metropolitan Park really did have some attributes but *the* real problem was the 12-ticketed event limit.
I never said that Met Park was in good shape or that there aren't issues. But I'm willing to bet the City could remedy just about every one of those issues for far less than $45 million. As for the 12-event limit at met Park, that's still more than double the 5 events that the City would be guaranteed at the new facility. Finally, until plans show the capacity of the new facility is in fact near 10,000, then it is clear that Met Park can hold far more people for concerts.
No offense, tufsu1, but this strikes me as backward thinking. We *could* spend money renovating the bandshell at Metro Park but it would have the exact same issues it has now with noise complaints and the Parks Service, and would still be restricted to only 12 events a year. Why spend any money on a losing proposition?
Again, the city could have as many events as it wants at the new amphitheater. At Metro Park, it's limited to 12 ticketed events total, both city events and everyone else's. Many of the events held there (Rockville, Big Ticket, the boat show, various things with "Fest" in the name) aren't city events. Again, how many events does the city hold there every year?
As for the size, there are plenty of other empty fields for holding thousands of people. There's another one right in the sports district, the Fairgrounds. What we're really missing is a venue with suitable infrastructure for modern concerts holding 2-5k people. We don't have that now, Metro Park isn't it, it never has been and it never will be.
It would seem to me that the suitability of Metro Park and this proposal are two separate issues.
I think so. It would take a lot to turn Metro Park into something comparable to the amphitheater project (and similar ones around North America). Unfortunately, as we learned in the 1990s when we tried that very thing, pulling it off is prohibitively difficult. There are legitimate questions that could be raised about this project, but by and large I think most critics have focused on wrong ones.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 13, 2015, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 13, 2015, 10:11:07 AM
Will CoJ see revenue from events held at the venue? Or will the revenue go to the Jaguars and the company that is managing it?
Also - who will pay for maintenance? Will this be a CoJ responsibility or will it be shared with the company that manages it?
This is quite important as, if CoJ doesn't get any money from events but is expected to pay for the maintenance (as they will be the owners), this will mean that the Jaguars will recoup their expenditure over time, but CoJ will lose money on the project.
I haven't seen any info on how money from the events, concessions, etc will be split (or who will be responsible for the maintenance). Does anyone have a link or info about this?
According to this (http://floridapolitics.com/archives/195496-jags-amphitheater-dog-pony-show-sales-pitch-highlights-jax-finance-committee-meeting), the city would get some revenue from all events at the new facilities through ticket surcharge and parking. From the Jaguars' 25 events, the city would expect to see about $800k. Sounds like they'd put that money back into the facilities. They would also keep the revenues from city-sponsored events, of which there will be at least 5, but the city has to pay for the operations.
As for maintenance, that seems to be a wider question. As the owner, the city would be on the hook for maintenance, as they are for existing facilities now. But according to that article and previous ones, it sounds like the Jaguars will be contributing money as well. They'll also be operating the facility, which takes some pressure off the city.
Thanks Tachacale. That was the sort of info I was looking for. I wonder if it would be better for the city not to own it. I am not certain I see a real benefit to owning the amphitheatre.
Quote from: Adam White on December 13, 2015, 11:50:56 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on December 13, 2015, 10:53:38 AM
Quote from: Adam White on December 13, 2015, 10:11:07 AM
Will CoJ see revenue from events held at the venue? Or will the revenue go to the Jaguars and the company that is managing it?
Also - who will pay for maintenance? Will this be a CoJ responsibility or will it be shared with the company that manages it?
This is quite important as, if CoJ doesn't get any money from events but is expected to pay for the maintenance (as they will be the owners), this will mean that the Jaguars will recoup their expenditure over time, but CoJ will lose money on the project.
I haven't seen any info on how money from the events, concessions, etc will be split (or who will be responsible for the maintenance). Does anyone have a link or info about this?
According to this (http://floridapolitics.com/archives/195496-jags-amphitheater-dog-pony-show-sales-pitch-highlights-jax-finance-committee-meeting), the city would get some revenue from all events at the new facilities through ticket surcharge and parking. From the Jaguars' 25 events, the city would expect to see about $800k. Sounds like they'd put that money back into the facilities. They would also keep the revenues from city-sponsored events, of which there will be at least 5, but the city has to pay for the operations.
As for maintenance, that seems to be a wider question. As the owner, the city would be on the hook for maintenance, as they are for existing facilities now. But according to that article and previous ones, it sounds like the Jaguars will be contributing money as well. They'll also be operating the facility, which takes some pressure off the city.
Thanks Tachacale. That was the sort of info I was looking for. I wonder if it would be better for the city not to own it. I am not certain I see a real benefit to owning the amphitheatre.
That's an interesting thought. The city owns the lot it's going on, so they'd have to do a deal like the Landing, where the Jags own the building but not the land. I think it's more likely the thing just wouldn't get built without the city owning it. Jacksonville's music scene isn't at a place yet where private owners see profit in building venues of this scale. The only similar venue in the metro area is the St. Augustine Amphitheater, which is also publicly owned. All the other privately-owned venues are much smaller.
Quote from: brucef58 on December 13, 2015, 09:17:55 AM
DP is right; this is a win/win or the city and the Jaguars. At Wednesday's Southside Businessmen's Club meeting, Mark Lamping explained the expenditures of the $90 million and what the improvements mean. There will be a $25 million makeover the Club Seating areas, resulting in fewer seats and more amenities. The part that everyone wonders about will be the amphitheatre.
The stage will face the stadium so that sound to the south wall of the stadium to absorb the noise and not toward St. Nicholas. There will be 4000 seats at ground level and the bud zone will extended out to the south allowing a second and third balcony level with 1000 seats each. The facility will be under a roof to protect patrons and performers from the elements. How does tie into the stadium and the indoor practice fields.
The step of removing the ground level outside concessions on the south end of the stadium will allow the field to be open to the theatre and allow people to walk through. The 95% of the time the indoor facility is not being used for practice, it can be used as an event venue. This opens the three venues to the probability for future festivals with performances on three stages. This is the type of concert/special event venue we should have had 20 years ago. Kudos to the city and the Jaguars on reaching this agreement.
Thanks, very interesting info as I didn't think there were going to be balcony level seating. Opening the field to the venue is an awesome idea. I do wonder however how the final appearance of both structures will turn out. I have read that the city will have final design approval so let's hope for the best.
Come on, tufsu1. What the heck is animating your take? You know Metropolitan Park is an extremely limited facility in a spot with problematic atmospherics associated with it.
Size of seating at our festival space? Really? When this creative approach will add 3 new components to our entertainment and sports district? It adds: [1] serious additional utility to EverBank Field, [2] it adds a new facility that blows away our current downtown amphitheater, and [3] it adds an entirely new space that has utility far, far beyond indoor practices for the Jaguars.
It's mindblowing to me that anyone is taking issue with this at all. It is (apparently) the expertise, goodwill, profit-motive, and creativity of the Jaguars leadership that is making this possible. And it is, in part, a $45 million gift to the City of Jacksonville and area residents who give a damn about downtown Jacksonville. The Jaguars are making a MAJOR contribution to the creation of an entertainment district that is less dependent of sporting events and far more relevant to a wide range of events.
How can anyone gloss over this fact? Why would anyone gloss over this fact?
Metropolitan Park is now freed up, theoretically, to become a jewel of a riverfront park -- I would think *that* would be our appropriate focus going forward with respect to the old amphitheater.
We're missing the bigger picture here, its NOT about how many events we have or who gets the money. The fact is that the events are DOWNTOWN JACKSONVILLE. Everyone in downtown will prosper from the events, more people downtown means more restaurants and bars downtown and eventually more people living downtown who like what they see downtown.
Forget the 800k or the who owns what and does which thing with it. The whole downtown prospers from this. Think bigger here!
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 14, 2015, 11:04:41 AM
We're missing the bigger picture here, its NOT about how many events we have or who gets the money. The fact is that the events are DOWNTOWN JACKSONVILLE. Everyone in downtown will prosper from the events, more people downtown means more restaurants and bars downtown and eventually more people living downtown who like what they see downtown.
Forget the 800k or the who owns what and does which thing with it. The whole downtown prospers from this. Think bigger here!
I'm not saying that won't happen - but we were promised that sort of thing back in the 90s when we were giving away the farm in order to land an NFL team. We were meant to be a "first tier city" by now.
I think asking questions like this is smart, as those who are financially benefiting from these arrangements are known to be economical with the truth.
QuoteI'm not saying that won't happen - but we were promised that sort of thing back in the 90s when we were giving away the farm in order to land an NFL team. We were meant to be a "first tier city" by now.
Look at every project going on in the core of downtown. The entire basis of the 77 million dollar boondoggle known as the Laura Trio is that the "redevelopment will bring people back downtown" and its not even gotten out of committee meetings. The last great downtown project was Hemming Park and its still trying to find its feet and wide-spread use.
At least with the Jags, they said they would build the damn video boards and add the pools, they did it. I have no problem with them saying they will build the amphitheatre and actually doing it. Just as the City should really look at pushing the Shipyards further down the development pipeline and letting Lamping and Khan start work there too. The projects are not about what is in IT for the city today, its what comes from the developments tomorrow. Let the Lamping/Khan take the risk today and give them the sweet deal, then stick it to those who follow.
You need the grease to drive the wheel.
Quote from: mtraininjax on December 14, 2015, 11:12:30 AM
QuoteI'm not saying that won't happen - but we were promised that sort of thing back in the 90s when we were giving away the farm in order to land an NFL team. We were meant to be a "first tier city" by now.
Look at every project going on in the core of downtown. The entire basis of the 77 million dollar boondoggle known as the Laura Trio is that the "redevelopment will bring people back downtown" and its not even gotten out of committee meetings. The last great downtown project was Hemming Park and its still trying to find its feet and wide-spread use.
At least with the Jags, they said they would build the damn video boards and add the pools, they did it. I have no problem with them saying they will build the amphitheatre and actually doing it. Just as the City should really look at pushing the Shipyards further down the development pipeline and letting Lamping and Khan start work there too. The projects are not about what is in IT for the city today, its what comes from the developments tomorrow. Let the Lamping/Khan take the risk today and give them the sweet deal, then stick it to those who follow.
You need the grease to drive the wheel.
It's very possible the Jaguars will get this done. But I would be more concerned about how much money the City is going to be on the hook for moving forward. If this is something that will end up being a black hole that they have to pour money into (on maintenance, on upgrades in a few years because the Jaguars suddenly say it's no longer good enough, etc), then it might not be worth it, at least in my opinion.
This sort of thing seems unnecessary to me. This just seems like another big vanity project that is going to get people all excited about how it's going to fix downtown.
It has already been stated where the money will come from for maintenance and how the Jaguars will be matching those funds etc, etc, etc, etc. How is this a "vanity" project when it's obviously a need at this point with MetroParks venue now closed and deemed unsafe!? How is it expect a private investor to not at least see some level of profit from investin his own cash into a city owned venue. Man I'd hate to be a billionaire in Jacksonville, some people here will demonize you for just being rich no matter how good your intentions may be.
Quote from: Marle Brando on December 14, 2015, 12:57:59 PM
How is this a "vanity" project when it's obviously a need at this point with MetroParks venue now closed and deemed unsafe!?
Completely agree. A proper amphitheater has been a quality-of-life need for a city Jacksonville's size for decades. It's an absolute embarrassment that so many acts skip over Jacksonville in favor of St. Augustine. And, if the previous poster was correct in his statement that the Jags plan to integrate the amphitheater into the stadium and expand the Bud Zone to include multiple balconies, we're looking at one of the best outdoor musical facilities on the East Coast. Not only do we fill a long-time need for fifty cents on the dollar, but we shelter the project from city ineptitude and put it in the hands of someone with the reputation and track record to produce world-class results. No reason the venue couldn't host 40 events a year. With the JTA discussing ways to expand the Skyway to the stadium and into Riverside and San Marco, you're getting a lot of bang for your investment buck with this project.
I hope if this all comes together they tear down the met park venue and make something nice of that spot. The location on the waterfront is great.
Isn't this amphitheater being built over a portion of MetPark?
No.
heights unknown, that's one of the exciting developments with this project -- it appears the amphitheater will not only be covered but will also become connected to EverBank Field.
Really creative, really exciting. It will be interesting to see once the ACTUAL plans are finally revealed.
The Jags showed a video of the new Ampitheater today.
Lamping called it less of a traditional Ampitheater, and more of an open theater.
Compared their vision to Radio City Music Hall, but open.
3,500 seats.
Second phase of the project will potentially include a pedestrian bridge from "south Bay Street" (East Bay?) to the stadium complex (the Jags are now branding the stadium complex as "the River District."
No mention of the Shipyards, from what I understand.
Also, it looks like the practice field is now literally part of the ampitheater, rather than it's own separate thing.
(http://jacksonville.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/lead_photo_wide/01292016NewJagsRendering.jpg)
3500 seat on the floor level..another 1500 in the upper two decks. Love the concept, love the renderings way more than the preliminary design. I'm also happy to see that end of Bay activated with the new digs up close against the street. With the way both ends can open up from the street, all the way to the stadium field to view the videoboards, festivals like welcome to Rockville etc. should have no problem with this venues capacity. Simply put smaller acts in the amphitheater and the larger ones either on the flex field or stadium. This design was absolutely brilliant. Que the naysayers..
http://www.news4jax.com/sports/nfl/jaguars/new-renderings-of-everbank-field-improvements
Quote from: Marle Brando on January 29, 2016, 12:17:37 PM
3500 seat on the floor level..another 1500 in the upper two decks. Love the concept, love the renderings way more than the preliminary design. I'm also happy to see that end of Bay activated with the new digs up close against the street. With the way both ends can open up from the street, all the way to the stadium field to view the videoboards, festivals like welcome to Rockville etc. should have no problem with this venues capacity. Simply put smaller acts in the amphitheater and the larger ones either on the flex field or stadium. This design was absolutely brilliant. Que the naysayers..
Agreed. Being able to use the flex field and the stadium for events means that Rockville, Big Ticket, Warped Tour, etc. all can be done in Jacksonville, instead of seeing our events shipped out of town.
Here's the video:
https://twitter.com/Jaguars/status/693114030576128000
So the stage faces north. Seems like some of the renderings contradict each other with the layout of the fields. Is there just one practice field, is there and indoor and outdoor portion of practice fields, is there a wall up to the roof between the field and the theater? Is the elevated walkway around the whole thing for real? Regardless, these renderings honestly look pretty damn good.
Way way way way way waaaaaaaaay better than the initial concept! I do like how it engages Bay Street.
So the practice field can be used as part of the facility for concerts I am guessing? Hell, they should build this in a way that the Armada could play here. 5,500 is more than enough for most matches.
If it looks like it does on the video... pretty impressive
Well . . . something akin to Radio City Music Hall but much more creative, flexible, and linked to the stadium and the flex field. Not ho-hum in the slightest.
Stephen, oh Stephen . . . step up and give these people some props, man!
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 29, 2016, 01:08:25 PM
So the practice field can be used as part of the facility for concerts I am guessing? Hell, they should build this in a way that the Armada could play here. 5,500 is more than enough for most matches.
Is that practice field grass? If so, I wouldn't want to play soccer on a field that just had a bunch of drunk concert-goers walking all over, etc.
^Turf - it's one field that can be enclosed (the Bay Street windows open and close)
Quote from: Steve on January 29, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
^Turf - it's one field that can be enclosed (the Bay Street windows open and close)
Thanks.
I think the Armada would want to play on grass, then. No one wants to play on turf unless they have to. I still wonder about how smart it is to let the public walk all over your practice field - but I assume that has been considered and people who know waaaaay more about this stuff than me decided it was okay.
Quote from: RattlerGator on January 29, 2016, 04:10:21 PM
Well . . . something akin to Radio City Music Hall but much more creative, flexible, and linked to the stadium and the flex field. Not ho-hum in the slightest.
Stephen, oh Stephen . . . step up and give these people some props, man!
Hes too busy posting about the HRO, as if nothing came of the State of the Franchise. Even if he dislikes the design, material, integration within its surroundings, something of some sort of response would be nice from him. But he is not a Jaguar fan, not a football fan, definitely not a Khan fan so what do u expect..silence. Im sure he is sitting back marveling at our stupidity to support such a thing for our city. Yesterday on was so quick to post an 'anonymous' email suggesting Khan pulled a switcharoo on taxpayers with a cheaper flawed design, and what do we get today..a design that is clearly more functional and superior to the latter. I respect stephendare for his insight, knowledge, and opinions on many things as he contributes greatly to this site. However its becoming very clear that opinion has crossed over into agenda territory.
Quote from: Adam White on January 29, 2016, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 29, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
^Turf - it's one field that can be enclosed (the Bay Street windows open and close)
Thanks.
I think the Armada would want to play on grass, then. No one wants to play on turf unless they have to. I still wonder about how smart it is to let the public walk all over your practice field - but I assume that has been considered and people who know waaaaay more about this stuff than me decided it was okay.
It is field turf. The same stuff that the Seattle Seahawks and Seattle Sounders play on. Ditto with the Vancouver White Caps. I don't think they would seriously care.
Quote from: FlaBoy on January 29, 2016, 05:08:25 PM
Quote from: Adam White on January 29, 2016, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: Steve on January 29, 2016, 04:21:52 PM
^Turf - it's one field that can be enclosed (the Bay Street windows open and close)
Thanks.
I think the Armada would want to play on grass, then. No one wants to play on turf unless they have to. I still wonder about how smart it is to let the public walk all over your practice field - but I assume that has been considered and people who know waaaaay more about this stuff than me decided it was okay.
It is field turf. The same stuff that the Seattle Seahawks and Seattle Sounders play on. Ditto with the Vancouver White Caps. I don't think they would seriously care.
I know those teams play on it - because they have to. Portland does too, I think. Soccer teams always moan about playing on field turf. Remember the big deal before the women's world cup?
No soccer team wants to play on field turf if grass is an option.
The thing is Stephen, I'm not so much a football fan as I am a Jaguars fan. I gave not a care about football until 1995 when my city, my home, Jacksonville embarked on this journey with an NFL franchise. More than a Jaguars fan, I am a fan of Jacksonville. Also in architecture, design and implementation, the arts, history and yes museums. I actually attended Art Basel Miami this past year not for the party, but for the exhibits and energy associated with. I want this so bad for Jacksonville. I want our city to shine with culture, life, energy and entertainment. I want a downtown to be proud of when out of towners come to visit and actually have things to do. Synergy. With that being said, my enthusiasm for what Khan and the Jaguars are doing doesn't have anything to do with a football game but it has everything to do with seeing my home finally have someone with vision, capital, and the imagination to do something, anything to give life to our downtown core. It just so happens he owns an NFL franchise and he uses that appeal and leverage to get things done. I am not so involved in the politics of it all as you are and that where I sincerely value your and others insight to how some of these things work and should work for the city. I can not agree with you more that we should all want the best deal and best in return for investment.
I may have been off in my approach and 'tone' for which I apologize, but it's the way I interpreted your approach and 'tone' in your responses to anything regarding the Jags and Khan that led me to make the agenda comment. Because we don't know each other personally though, it's all we have to go by here on the forum. So even if we are on opposite sides of the fence, we share the same interest (except paleoanthropology) in seeing Jacksonville grow which is why I'm here on Mjax. Which is why I'll continue to be here engaging with you Stephen and whoever else regardless of opinion differences. Which is why I appreciate your response..thanks.
Here is the YouTube posting.
https://www.youtube.com/v/n5qXL7RuO1Y
I was a naysayer, but admit that the newest design looks pretty cool. I like the use of "waves" both inside and outside the stadium.
So a couple of thoughts, not meant to be negative. ;)
How will branding of the "River District" coexist with "The District: Life Well Lived" being built just across the river? To me, that could get confusing for people.
I also think Khan is maybe dropping hints about developing another piece of land along the river that is not contaminated. Could he be trying to get access to Metro Park? Is there another piece of land that is development ready East of the stadium?
I'm mentioned on a number of previous times, that it is time to bring the Hart Expressway down to street level (i.e. Bay Street). It just looks obnoxious in the video. The southern end of the practice field is meant to interact with the river and development along the river. The raised expressway needs to come down to make this truly happen.
Quote from: brainstormer on January 29, 2016, 08:50:43 PM
How will branding of the "River District" coexist with "The District: Life Well Lived" being built just across the river? To me, that could get confusing for people.
Mark Lamping dismissed that area being called 'the River District' on Jaguars All Access.
It's now been revealed the land for expansion is indeed MetPark. Now all the rumblings of MetPark coming down and what to do with it makes sense. He mentioned including a hotel and maybe offices in a second phase. Hmm..interesting. What will make up his Shipyards revised vision now. Maybe Aquajax comes online as part of the Shipyards..who knows. But I have the feeling everything what's known is not being spoken of outside of closed doors, but that pedestrian bridge will lead to more than just parking across Bay.
I think redevelopment of MetPark will be Khan's second audition for the Shipyards (the amphitheater and practice facility being the first). This is his chance to show what he can do. He's one of the few people I'd trust to do something unique and special, even if it may just be a hotel. We've already seen from today's presentation he'll push for something beyond the usual style of development we see around here. I hope it can have a snowball effect.
The City would just give up the valuable Metro Park property? Weren't Federal funds used for at least part of the purchase? Wouldn't that have to be paid back?
Quote from: Marle Brando on January 29, 2016, 05:00:47 PM
However its becoming very clear that opinion has crossed over into agenda territory.
Crystal clear
Quote from: Marle Brando on January 29, 2016, 07:28:01 PM
The thing is Stephen, I'm not so much a football fan as I am a Jaguars fan. I gave not a care about football until 1995 when my city, my home, Jacksonville embarked on this journey with an NFL franchise. More than a Jaguars fan, I am a fan of Jacksonville. Also in architecture, design and implementation, the arts, history and yes museums. I actually attended Art Basel Miami this past year not for the party, but for the exhibits and energy associated with. I want this so bad for Jacksonville. I want our city to shine with culture, life, energy and entertainment. I want a downtown to be proud of when out of towners come to visit and actually have things to do. Synergy. With that being said, my enthusiasm for what Khan and the Jaguars are doing doesn't have anything to do with a football game but it has everything to do with seeing my home finally have someone with vision, capital, and the imagination to do something, anything to give life to our downtown core. It just so happens he owns an NFL franchise and he uses that appeal and leverage to get things done. I am not so involved in the politics of it all as you are and that where I sincerely value your and others insight to how some of these things work and should work for the city. I can not agree with you more that we should all want the best deal and best in return for investment.
I may have been off in my approach and 'tone' for which I apologize, but it's the way I interpreted your approach and 'tone' in your responses to anything regarding the Jags and Khan that led me to make the agenda comment. Because we don't know each other personally though, it's all we have to go by here on the forum. So even if we are on opposite sides of the fence, we share the same interest (except paleoanthropology) in seeing Jacksonville grow which is why I'm here on Mjax. Which is why I'll continue to be here engaging with you Stephen and whoever else regardless of opinion differences. Which is why I appreciate your response..thanks.
Touché, Marle, touché ! ! ! It's so rich, and hilarious, to read Stephen unknowingly criticize you and then do a quick backstroke when confronted with more information, all the while insisting he's okay with alternate viewpoints. It's even more rich to see him label someone a troll -- ha! -- for daring to have a contrary opinion. Then he dares mention bullying; I'm someone who doesn't take kindly to the routine bullying he employs on this board -- dumb!, etc., and similar uncivil takes he employs regularly -- to advance his agenda (yes, he quite obviously has several) but, hell,
he knows several billionaires ! ! !
Wowza, Stephen -- the self-parodying.
Marle, your kind of take is what I would have expected from someone like Stephen who doesn't happen to have a deep love for football but does have a deep love for Jax. He has severely disappointed on that score, unfortunately.
Quote from: I-10east on January 29, 2016, 08:56:35 PM
Quote from: brainstormer on January 29, 2016, 08:50:43 PM
How will branding of the "River District" coexist with "The District: Life Well Lived" being built just across the river? To me, that could get confusing for people.
Mark Lamping dismissed that area being called 'the River District' on Jaguars All Access.
"River District?" At the 1/13/16 Jacksonville Waterways Commission meeting the DIA pointed out that the Shipyards has gone from a 150 slip marina to 400. WOW!
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
The City would just give up the valuable Metro Park property? Weren't Federal funds used for at least part of the purchase? Wouldn't that have to be paid back?
I have heard the may be able to "relocate" Met Park and not have to give back money. So imagine Met Park moved closer to the Hyatt/Berkman area without the restriction on the # of ticketed events allowed.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
The City would just give up the valuable Metro Park property? Weren't Federal funds used for at least part of the purchase? Wouldn't that have to be paid back?
+1
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2016, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
The City would just give up the valuable Metro Park property? Weren't Federal funds used for at least part of the purchase? Wouldn't that have to be paid back?
I have heard the may be able to "relocate" Met Park and not have to give back money. So imagine Met Park moved closer to the Hyatt/Berkman area without the restriction on the # of ticketed events allowed.
Isn't the land between the Berkman and Met Park the same contaminated land the Shipyards/Khan's plan was planned for?
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2016, 05:17:24 PM
I have heard the may be able to "relocate" Met Park and not have to give back money. So imagine Met Park moved closer to the Hyatt/Berkman area without the restriction on the # of ticketed events allowed.
That would be a truly sweet occurrence.
Quote from: vicupstate on January 31, 2016, 01:17:43 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 30, 2016, 05:17:24 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2016, 10:29:24 PM
The City would just give up the valuable Metro Park property? Weren't Federal funds used for at least part of the purchase? Wouldn't that have to be paid back?
I have heard the may be able to "relocate" Met Park and not have to give back money. So imagine Met Park moved closer to the Hyatt/Berkman area without the restriction on the # of ticketed events allowed.
Isn't the land between the Berkman and Met Park the same contaminated land the Shipyards/Khan's plan was planned for?
Interesting, I think you are right, the only land between the existing Metro Park and Berman, is the contaminated Shipyard property.
^Yes.
This is a somewhat old article but just read it last night. The new Red Wings arena is already under construction with the core proposal in place largely funded by state bonds and taxpayer money it sounds like, but when Ilitch wants to go that extra mile he just throws down $95 mil from his own stash, or should I say Stache? Might make Kahn & Co. blush a bit. Cool practice facility too. There are a lot of parallels between this development and the Everbank Field development so it will be interesting to follow. I'm very interested to see what happens in the Midtown neighborhood when the M-1 rail along with this $1 billion+ development are both complete.
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article/20151104/NEWS/151109915/ilitches-add-95-million-worth-of-features-to-new-red-wings-arena
Per the T-U, it sounds like we definitely won't be seeing the ampitheater and practice field this season.
QuoteNot included in the bustle of activity around the stadium is construction on an amphitheater and indoor practice facility (called a "flex-field" by the Jaguars) outside the south end zone.
"We're still in the design phase," Johnson said. "We're getting toward the tail end of that, but it's too early to [announce] a construction timeline. I would expect you will start to see work [starting] this year."
^ not one bit suprising
Quote from: KenFSU on March 03, 2016, 12:57:20 PM
Per the T-U, it sounds like we definitely won't be seeing the ampitheater and practice field this season.
QuoteNot included in the bustle of activity around the stadium is construction on an amphitheater and indoor practice facility (called a "flex-field" by the Jaguars) outside the south end zone.
"We're still in the design phase," Johnson said. "We're getting toward the tail end of that, but it's too early to [announce] a construction timeline. I would expect you will start to see work [starting] this year."
At the state of the franchise they said this as well. Not shocking.
Designing and building the amphitheater and practice field in 7 months would be rather sporty.
Quote from: Steve on March 03, 2016, 02:00:19 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on March 03, 2016, 12:57:20 PM
Per the T-U, it sounds like we definitely won't be seeing the ampitheater and practice field this season.
QuoteNot included in the bustle of activity around the stadium is construction on an amphitheater and indoor practice facility (called a "flex-field" by the Jaguars) outside the south end zone.
"We're still in the design phase," Johnson said. "We're getting toward the tail end of that, but it's too early to [announce] a construction timeline. I would expect you will start to see work [starting] this year."
At the state of the franchise they said this as well. Not shocking.
I must have missed this.
When the deal was approved, all reports were that the practice facility and amphitheater would have a very quick turnaround, with construction completed by end of July.
This isn't surprising.
Quote from: KenFSU on March 03, 2016, 02:46:35 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 03, 2016, 02:00:19 PM
Quote from: KenFSU on March 03, 2016, 12:57:20 PM
Per the T-U, it sounds like we definitely won't be seeing the ampitheater and practice field this season.
QuoteNot included in the bustle of activity around the stadium is construction on an amphitheater and indoor practice facility (called a "flex-field" by the Jaguars) outside the south end zone.
"We're still in the design phase," Johnson said. "We're getting toward the tail end of that, but it's too early to [announce] a construction timeline. I would expect you will start to see work [starting] this year."
At the state of the franchise they said this as well. Not shocking.
I must have missed this.
When the deal was approved, all reports were that the practice facility and amphitheater would have a very quick turnaround, with construction completed by end of July.
The only thing promised for the 2016 season was the club renovations.
Quote from: Steve on March 03, 2016, 04:50:55 PM
The only thing promised for the 2016 season was the club renovations.
From Jaguars.com when the deal was announced:
QuoteCompletion of the club renovations is expected prior to the Jaguars' first home preseason game in 2016. It is anticipated that the amphitheater and flex field will be completed in early fall.
Source: http://www.jaguars.com/news/article-JaguarsNews/Amphitheater-covered-flex-field-and-US-Assure-Club-upgrades-approved-for-EverBank-Field-area/0667e462-ee21-4e18-a4a5-6fe0cdc9bcea
Regarding the club seat reductions, have they figured out how to meet the FL/GA minimum seat requirements? And are the Jags paying for the temp seats, since they are the ones reducing capacity?
Here is a good article about the Cowboys new practice facility multi-use space.
http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/14878969/how-jerry-jones-dallas-cowboys-changing-game-new-training-facility
New renderings show the inside/connection to the stadium for the amphitheater better
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/community/everbank-field-expansion-project-handed-to-hunt-danis/250449073
None of those renderings are new
New to me I guess... I'd never seen #4,5 or 7 before.
Yeah, that one (#4?) showing the linkage between the endzone and the amphitheater is definitely new to me.
Quote from: stephendare on August 22, 2016, 02:29:12 PM
Quote from: RattlerGator on December 14, 2015, 08:11:19 PM
heights unknown, that's one of the exciting developments with this project -- it appears the amphitheater will not only be covered but will also become connected to EverBank Field.
Really creative, really exciting. It will be interesting to see once the ACTUAL plans are finally revealed.
They were revealed.
They didn't live up to the concepts that sold you, hook line and sinker.
??
Isn't the amphitheater still covered and connected to Everbank?
Yes
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 12, 2015, 08:39:25 AM
as noted in another thread, I want to see some real to-scale drawings. I am not at all convinced a 10,000 person capacity amphitheater can be "tucked in" between the stadium and indoor practice facility.
Regardless of the design, the Jags originally sold the City on a 10,000-capacity amphitheater, and are now doing just 5,500 (with no "lawn" seating) . Note that I was skeptical on how realistic that was from the beginning, and got criticized by folks like RattlerGator. How soon we forget.
Quote from: tufsu1 on August 22, 2016, 07:49:08 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on November 12, 2015, 08:39:25 AM
as noted in another thread, I want to see some real to-scale drawings. I am not at all convinced a 10,000 person capacity amphitheater can be "tucked in" between the stadium and indoor practice facility.
Regardless of the design, the Jags originally sold the City on a 10,000-capacity amphitheater, and are now doing just 5,500 (with no "lawn" seating) . Note that I was skeptical on how realistic that was from the beginning, and got criticized by folks like RattlerGator. How soon we forget.
When did the Jags ever sell the city on a 10,000 capacity amphitheater? 10,000 is roughly what the arena holds for concerts with big stage setups. Who needs an amphitheater that size, particularly when one of the major appeals of this type of venue is intimacy. The plan from the day it was first announced (http://jacksonville.com/news/2015-11-05/story/amphitheater-part-proposed-90-million-improvement-plan-everbank-field-city) to the day it was approved (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-12-08/story/city-council-unanimously-approves-90-million-improvement-everbank-field) was for 4,000 to 5,000 fixed seats. We settled in on 5,500. We lost some additional, unspecified lawn space, gained some standing room areas and club and bar areas, and the enclosed practice space became integrated lawnspace.
^ the plan was 5,000 fixed seats and lawn seating/standing room for another 5,000. Remember that this is being billed in part as a replacement for Met Park, which holds over 12,000.
The amphitheater concert circuit is not the same as the arena circuit. For example, Tampa has an amphitheater and arena that both hold about 20,000. They are both doing just fine.