QuoteThe developers behind The District — an ambitious mega-development with a Zen-like ethos planned for Jacksonville's Southbank — inked a deal this week for a hotel with up to 200 rooms, which would make it the first riverfront hotel constructed in downtown since 2001.
Impact Properties, a Florida hotel builder and operator that does business with Marriott and Starwood branded hotels, has signed a sale and purchase agreement with The District team and put down a deposit. The hotel — whose brand wasn't disclosed — is in the design phase.
The hotel "will have a very cool and edgy vibe," said Michael Munz, a partner in The District. "It's not a brand that is in Jacksonville at this time."
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-07-13/district-signs-deal-riverfront-hotel-southbank
Not a current brand. What mid-tier brands that we do not have would make a good fit there?
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2017, 11:26:53 AM
QuoteThe developers behind The District — an ambitious mega-development with a Zen-like ethos planned for Jacksonville's Southbank — inked a deal this week for a hotel with up to 200 rooms, which would make it the first riverfront hotel constructed in downtown since 2001.
Impact Properties, a Florida hotel builder and operator that does business with Marriott and Starwood branded hotels, has signed a sale and purchase agreement with The District team and put down a deposit. The hotel — whose brand wasn't disclosed — is in the design phase.
The hotel "will have a very cool and edgy vibe," said Michael Munz, a partner in The District. "It's not a brand that is in Jacksonville at this time."
Full article: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-07-13/district-signs-deal-riverfront-hotel-southbank
Yes, I'm sure its ethos is very "Zen-like". When I think "Zen", I think "commercial development". The two go hand-in-hand.
Quote from: Jim on July 13, 2017, 11:44:09 AM
Not a current brand. What mid-tier brands that we do not have would make a good fit there?
They have 30 brands and quite a few that aren't in Jax. If I had to guess, something like an AC Hotels probably fits the vibe the District is striving for. I don't think that brand has a presence in the area.
I was thinking EVEN Hotel which had been rumored for Brooklyn awhile back and is a wellness-focused hotel brand. But they are with IHG so would be a departure from Starwood/Marriott.
Home2 Suites looks to have more under construction than currently operating. That kind of expansions is aggressive. I'm starting to think that's a high likely candidate.
Why not dream big - W Hotel.
Will we all live long enough to see it built?
I could go on forever on this one as Starwood Preferred Guest is my go-to loyalty program, with Marriott as my backup....
Of the 30 Marriott/Starwood hotel brands that aren't in the area (counting Ritz-Carlton @ Amelia and Renaissance @ WGV as in the area):
(Pre-Merger Marriott)
Editon
Bvlgari (sort of Marriott)
JW Marriott
Delta
Gaylord
Protea
AC
Moxy
(Pre-Merger Starwood)
St. Regis
W
Westin
Le Meridien
Element
Some of my feeling has to do with the fact that I can't fathom Marriott keeping all 30 brands once the integration is complete (and at this point it appears nowhere close). If it's a select service (Courtyard Marriott, Four Points Sheraton type), My money is on AC, Element, or Moxy (in that order). If it's a full service, my money is on Westin, Delta, or Moxy (in that order). I'd love a W but I can't see a W happening before a Westin.
Quote from: pierre on July 13, 2017, 03:02:31 PM
Will we all live long enough to see it built?
Lol, I see the begin construction date has been pushed back to 2018. So it will probably be 2020 at best before anything is completed at The District. Let's hope the economy doesn't fall into a down cycle by then.
Westin....back in the day, that was the hotel brand proposed for the Riverwatch site. We ended up with a parking garage instead of the Westin and Cameron Kuhn's Riverwatch Tower.
Interesting to note that the District already has a letter of intent signed with a movie theater, is closing in on one with an office tenet, and is in talks with a grocery chain as well. Sounds like a pretty good start to me.
It's also been interesting to see how closely Munz and Rummell's plans mirror those of Shad Khan's across the river at the Shipyards (hotel, entertainment, dining, residential, marina, office space).
In the event that both are eventually built out, it will be interesting to see how if they synergize or cannibalize each other.
My guess is that it will be the new West Elm hotel concept.
https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4078485.html
I don't believe West Elm is a Marriott/Starwood brand or has an association with Impact Hotels. Why do you think that will be the brand?
Has 'The District' broken ground on it's own buildings yet?
Groundbreaking has not yet begun but it certainly has more traction than the majority of the mid 2000's proposed projects that never happened.
Quote from: MusicMan on July 13, 2017, 04:40:35 PM
Has 'The District' broken ground on it's own buildings yet?
Now they say 2018. However, the hotel would be one of the buildings illustrated in previous concepts. The update here is that they've found a company willing to operate the proposed hotel. The hotel is labeled building 7A:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-xKTJ6kV/0/37747762/XL/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_3-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-MRW9bKC/0/2fa60e5a/XL/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_7-XL.jpg)
Quote from: MusicMan on July 13, 2017, 04:40:35 PM
Has 'The District' broken ground on it's own buildings yet?
They haven't even closed on the property yet.
Once they do, they plan to build out all of the streets, utilities and horizontal infrastructure first.
Assuming they break ground in early 2018, it'll likely be early 2019 before we see any vertical construction.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2017, 04:28:44 PM
I don't believe West Elm is a Marriott/Starwood brand or has an association with Impact Hotels. Why do you think that will be the brand?
West Elm does have an association with Marriott.
http://springhillsuites.marriott.com/westelm/
"Is this a serious question? Or is this an East San Marco joke?"
Can't you tell? It's both.
I mean, there's been a "contract" to build a Publix in San Marco too.
In 2021 San Marco will be a hell hole of snarled traffic and misplaced Yankees. Until then, enjoy!
Rummell is committed to this though. We potentially could have 4-5 new hotels in the downtown core in 3-4 years.
Jaguars/Shipyard
Berkman II
Convention Center Hotel
Laura St. Trio
District
Btw, they really need a better name than the District.
^ I kind of liked "Health Town," and was looking forward to the jokes it would undoubtedly bring.
Quote from: JaxAvondale on July 13, 2017, 05:18:24 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2017, 04:28:44 PM
I don't believe West Elm is a Marriott/Starwood brand or has an association with Impact Hotels. Why do you think that will be the brand?
West Elm does have an association with Marriott.
http://springhillsuites.marriott.com/westelm/
That's supply them with furniture. That's not a partnership with West Elm Hotels.
Quote from: MusicMan on July 13, 2017, 07:13:25 PM
"Is this a serious question? Or is this an East San Marco joke?"
Can't you tell? It's both.
I mean, there's been a "contract" to build a Publix in San Marco too.
In 2021 San Marco will be a hell hole of snarled traffic and misplaced Yankees. Until then, enjoy!
Bring it on! By then, Publix at East San Marco, Target at the Baptist site, and The District will all be walkable from most of the neighborhood. Traffic is a problem for other people.
Quote from: JaxAvondale on July 13, 2017, 04:14:48 PM
My guess is that it will be the new West Elm hotel concept.
https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4078485.html
Nice! If this is the one.
Quote from: JaxAvondale on July 13, 2017, 04:14:48 PM
My guess is that it will be the new West Elm hotel concept.
https://www.hospitalitynet.org/news/4078485.html
This seems like a strange way to go. People already have doubts about the project, and partnering with a start-up hotel concept isn't likely to gain people's confidence.
I'd think there is certainly advantages to partnering with someone who's used to working with a top tier name in the industry.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2017, 05:03:07 PM
Quote from: MusicMan on July 13, 2017, 04:40:35 PM
Has 'The District' broken ground on it's own buildings yet?
Now they say 2018. However, the hotel would be one of the buildings illustrated in previous concepts. The update here is that they've found a company willing to operate the proposed hotel. The hotel is labeled building 7A:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-xKTJ6kV/0/37747762/XL/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_3-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-MRW9bKC/0/2fa60e5a/XL/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_7-XL.jpg)
Would it be better to say that LOT 7A will contain Hotel, Residential Lobby, and Dining? That's the way it appears that this diagram is served.
My guess is that it will be an Autograph Collection hotel. I say that because I looked at the hotels in Celebration, FL, and of the 6 listed there, I saw the Bohemian Hotel Celebration, which is part of Marriott's Autograph Collection. It would sort of make sense that it could be them because they are already familiar with a Peter Rummell development. Thoughts? And by the way, if you are familiar with the Atlantis Hotel in the Bahamas, that is part of the Autograph Collection also.
I think Autograoh Collection is unlikely...I think AC (not to be confused) is more likely
Quote from: heights unknown on July 14, 2017, 10:39:01 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on July 13, 2017, 05:03:07 PM
Quote from: MusicMan on July 13, 2017, 04:40:35 PM
Has 'The District' broken ground on it's own buildings yet?
Now they say 2018. However, the hotel would be one of the buildings illustrated in previous concepts. The update here is that they've found a company willing to operate the proposed hotel. The hotel is labeled building 7A:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-xKTJ6kV/0/37747762/XL/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_3-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/The-District/i-MRW9bKC/0/2fa60e5a/XL/The-District-Masterbook-16-0621-Pg1-7-Compressed_Page_7-XL.jpg)
Would it be better to say that LOT 7A will contain Hotel, Residential Lobby, and Dining? That's the way it appears that this diagram is served.
+18
P.S. My guess is Element.
Something similar to what they're doing in Buckhead seems to fit the District vibe.
https://atlanta.curbed.com/2017/7/13/15961706/buckhead-prominence-hotel-element-starwood
LEED certified, complimentary bikes, modular furniture, spa-style bathrooms, etc.
Quote from: KenFSU on July 14, 2017, 03:28:17 PM
P.S. My guess is Element.
Something similar to what they're doing in Buckhead seems to fit the District vibe.
https://atlanta.curbed.com/2017/7/13/15961706/buckhead-prominence-hotel-element-starwood
LEED certified, complimentary bikes, modular furniture, spa-style bathrooms, etc.
Nice for Buckhead, but needs to be taller and more Florida- Like for a waterfront site like The District.
For those that picked AC Hotels.....you're the winner (of what I don't know).
Business Journal is reporting that groundbreaking is early next year. The more I hear about this project, the less I seem to understand what exactly we're doing here.
I win, I win, I win!!
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2017, 03:20:49 PM
For those that picked AC Hotels.....you're the winner (of what I don't know).
Business Journal is reporting that groundbreaking is early next year. The more I hear about this project, the less I seem to understand what exactly we're doing here.
Seems to be piecemealing together. I was thinking it would all get built at once but it seems like only as deals are finalized do they start. As long as they keep to the master plan and keep the projects at least steadily coming, I am fine with it. Just taking an extra cautious approach I guess.
^I'm not sure there is sufficient labor force in Jax to construct more than a couple buildings at a time without the rate skyrocketing considering all the simultaneous projects going on throughout the metro area. Slow and steady is fine with me.
Quote from: Dapperdan on November 27, 2017, 03:37:28 PM
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2017, 03:20:49 PM
For those that picked AC Hotels.....you're the winner (of what I don't know).
Business Journal is reporting that groundbreaking is early next year. The more I hear about this project, the less I seem to understand what exactly we're doing here.
Seems to be piecemealing together. I was thinking it would all get built at once but it seems like only as deals are finalized do they start. As long as they keep to the master plan and keep the projects at least steadily coming, I am fine with it. Just taking an extra cautious approach I guess.
Neither the District or the Shipyards are projects that will be built in a single phase. Jax doesn't have the market to support that amount of new construction infill at once.
Quote from: Steve on November 27, 2017, 03:20:49 PM
For those that picked AC Hotels.....you're the winner (of what I don't know).
Business Journal is reporting that groundbreaking is early next year. The more I hear about this project, the less I seem to understand what exactly we're doing here.
AC Hotels. Are they known for building high rise hotels or lower scale. The picture shown on channel 4 showed a 5 or 6 story building- I think it needs to be taller as the conceptual site specs indicated.
AC Hotels is Marriott's version of Aloft. I stayed in one in DC a few months. That one was a midrise with a few restaurants and bars at street level and the room layout was the same as Aloft's.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cwA8nyk064Q/hqdefault.jpg)
The AC hotel in New Orleans has a nice setup.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 27, 2017, 06:49:16 PM
AC Hotels is Marriott's version of Aloft. I stayed in one in DC a few months. That one was a midrise with a few restaurants and bars at street level and the room layout was the same as Aloft's.
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cwA8nyk064Q/hqdefault.jpg)
Correct, though it seems like AC is more willing to do their own box, where aloft wants their exact setup, interior and exterior, with few exceptions in urban markets.
Side note - this is why I don't see Marriott keeping 30 brands. Really, there is no difference between AC and aloft - they are going after the same crowd. My belief is within the next 24 months this becomes an aloft or the Southside/Airport alofts become an AC.
(I'd also like to point out that AC was my #1 guess from my post months ago :P).
Back to more at hand - I looked at the rendering again. The hotel was on the west edge, meaning on the property adjacent to the School board. If you're going to phase it, that's the way to do it as long as DCPS is there.
Now, when the Mayor and DIA announce that Marriott is going to put a Delta concept to complete Berkman 2, we'll really have something to talk about...
He promised it will be wrapped up this quarter.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-11-28/jea-extends-deadline-southbank-development-includes-city-hall-prolonged-talks#
By Nate Monroe
JEA extends deadline for Southbank development, includes City Hall in prolonged talks
The JEA board agreed Tuesday to give the developers behind a planned mega-development on Jacksonville's Southbank more time to close on the purchase of the utility's waterfront land, a delay that appears to have also wrapped City Hall into the prolonged talks.
JEA officials said the 90-day delay they approved will give the group behind The District — a planned mixed-use development — time to transfer its purchase agreement over to the city, which faces a July 16 deadline to pay JEA $18.5 million for its 30 acres of land.
It's not clear why the city is looking to pay JEA for the land instead of The District, a group which includes prominent Jacksonville developer Peter Rummell as one of its partners. JEA and The District say the deal is still under negotiations with the city and the Downtown Investment Authority.
It's also unclear if the city and the DIA will bear the full cost of the $18.5 million purchase price, or how else either or both might compensate JEA for its land. The District had no comment on the latest development.
City Councilman Matt Schellenberg, who serves as the council's liaison to JEA, criticized the extension and said it's a bad deal.
"Three years is long enough," he told the JEA board of directors ahead of the vote on the extension.
JEA selected the development group behind The District to negotiate on a purchase agreement for its land in 2014. In the time since, District representatives say they have spent about $2 million on preliminary work, despite not yet closing on the purchase of the JEA land they plan to build on.
The District would be a first-of-its-kind development in Jacksonville's urban core, and the so-called entitlements process — the various regulations, approvals and permits that rely on decisions at the staff and political levels in municipal and state government — appear to have taken longer than anyone anticipated.
The 90-day delay the JEA board approved Tuesday also came with a requirement that The District convert a $250,000 deposit that was previously refundable into a non-refundable payment that does not get applied to the purchase price of the utility's land. That site formerly housed a JEA generating plant.
The builders have signaled that they are determined to move forward with the project. On Monday, the group announced that AC Hotel by Marriott plans to build a six-story, 200-room hotel on the westernmost riverfront parcel of the 30–acre project.
ruh roh
Never ending......................................
There really are no excuses. And this does not look good no matter what Peter Rummell or anyone else says.
Cluster f$$k. Welcome to Jacksonville....................
This exactly supports my previous statement, "you have no idea if this will close or not." 3 years and we still do not know.............
Can someone say with specificity what they spent the $2 million on? (Besides attorneys...........)
A 90 day delay...... which means they'll start working on the paperwork in 80 days, so they'll need another extension for 90 more days, .......... This is the pace for a real estate transaction in the 1890's, not the 21st Century.
And further delays any groundbreaking by ANYONE at all over there, including the AC Hotel that "Business Journal is reporting that groundbreaking is early next year." Maybe 2019.
"JEA officials said the 90-day delay they approved will give the group behind The District — a planned mixed-use development — time to transfer its purchase agreement over to the city,...."
That is the kiss of death to this deal folks. And gives Rummell an out. He's done nothing but delay. He's supposed to be among the best in this industry, and he can't get it done.
Reading this it is clear The District reps went to JEA and asked for an extension. WHY CAN'T THEY CLOSE THE DEAL THEY AGREED TO?
Every time I hear this deal, I get more confused. I feel confident Rummel has pockets deep enough for it, but it seems like this is really hard. I get why the Barnett and Laura Trio has taken forever. This on the other hand is vacant land.
Interesting that they extended this 90 day's so they can negotiate with the City, yet this seems to be the first public news that the City was going to take the land.
COJ has NEVER negotiated anything this complex in 90 days, so don't expect anything final within that time frame.
Honestly, it's hard to take the concept seriously. Does anyone else feel like "Healthy Town, Life Well Lived," sound gimmicky and contrived? I suppose no more than "celebration." What's with commissioning a JU study to sell your project?
I could be wrong, but this is the death knell for this project. If you google "New Urbanism Townhomes," I believe you'll pull up some urban-style, low-rise housing product. My view is that this is more along the lines of what a market like Jax can support in and around downtown. Just infill all the empty urban core lots and blocks throughout jax with townhomes and low-rise apartments that are all very well connected with sidewalks and transit. I just don't think there's much of a demand pipeline for high-rises (even 8 or 10 floors)...I could be wrong.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 29, 2017, 08:07:29 AM
Just infill all the empty urban core lots and blocks throughout jax with townhomes and low-rise apartments that are all very well connected with sidewalks and transit.
Not at the prices the landowners want. Demand is not high enough for this either.
We have a merged city/county government. Why does it seem like things take longer here than do developments that must go through city AND county agencies?
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on November 29, 2017, 08:46:20 AM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 29, 2017, 08:07:29 AM
Just infill all the empty urban core lots and blocks throughout jax with townhomes and low-rise apartments that are all very well connected with sidewalks and transit.
Not at the prices the landowners want. Demand is not high enough for this either.
True
Quote from: Jim on November 29, 2017, 03:06:45 PM
We have a merged city/county government. Why does it seem like things take longer here than do developments that must go through city AND county agencies?
I'll light up the city when I feel it's due, but the city didn't mess up here. This was an agreement between the District People and JEA. The city only became directly involved recently (so recently that the City Council President was unaware).
I believe that Peter Rummel has the money, but I truly believe these guys have botched this up to this point. Not saying it can't be salvaged, but holy hell. Khan made the quote about bums in Detroit having more mojo than Jacksonville Millionaires. This project is his Exhibit A.
Lol I missed that quote. When did he say that? Btw, congrats on the twins.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 29, 2017, 08:07:29 AM
Honestly, it's hard to take the concept seriously. Does anyone else feel as though the quote: "Healthy Town, Life Well Lived," sounds gimmicky and contrived? I suppose no more than "Celebration." And what's with commissioning a JU study to sell your project?
I could be wrong, but this recent delay may be the death knell for this project. On to other ideas: if you google "New Urbanism Townhomes," I believe you'll pull up some examples of urban-style, low-rise housing product. My view is that this is more along the lines of what a market like Jax can support in and around downtown. Just infill all the empty urban core lots and blocks throughout jax with townhomes and low-rise apartments that are connected to sidewalks and transit. I just don't think there's much of a demand pipeline for high-rises (even 8 or 10 floors)...I could be wrong. Jax should pattern itself after Savannah and Charleston more so than New York City.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 29, 2017, 09:57:54 PM
Lol I missed that quote. When did he say that? Btw, congrats on the twins.
Was quoted as saying it in an April 22, 2014 article in the Times Union
He's probably on to something. i mean, it was an exaggeration, but I'm not sure Jax has traditionally been a city where people endeavor to build wealth. The wealthy class in Jax are probably retreating to Jax from somewhere else where they've built their wealth. Jax misses out on the energy, dynamism, creativity, and industriousness of enterprise-building that makes a city shine. Instead of the city giving away money to recruit "jobs," how about investing those resources in the entrepreneurial potential of truly local, homegrown talent. How about a bunch of start-up incubators in live-work spaces downtown on some of that city-owned land? It's very positive that UNF is locating an entrepreneurial center at the renovated Barnett (the city should be doing all it can to facilitate that move by UNF).
Quote from: Steve on November 29, 2017, 09:25:49 PM
Quote from: Jim on November 29, 2017, 03:06:45 PM
We have a merged city/county government. Why does it seem like things take longer here than do developments that must go through city AND county agencies?
I'll light up the city when I feel it's due, but the city didn't mess up here. This was an agreement between the District People and JEA. The city only became directly involved recently (so recently that the City Council President was unaware).
I believe that Peter Rummel has the money, but I truly believe these guys have botched this up to this point. Not saying it can't be salvaged, but holy hell. Khan made the quote about bums in Detroit having more mojo than Jacksonville Millionaires. This project is his Exhibit A.
Reading the Daily Record article on this, it sounds like Rummell is expecting the city to incentivize this project, or it will likely not go forward.
If that's the case then Peter Rummell is a POS.
^Really?
I honestly don't get the lack of faith. Someone mentioned that they understood the Trio + Barnett taking years, but not this project. To me, 29 acres of brownfield on the river seems every bit as complicated as four old buildings in disrepair. And just like the District, the Trio went through years of delays, tenet announcements, bureaucratic holdups, and public doubt. Now, I walk to work each morning and witness the Barnett being brought back to life.
Not sure why Element go through all the trouble of successfully bidding on the project, spending millions on the master plan and environmental certification, vetting hotel/grocery/theater tenets, going through the DDRB approval process, filing for approval for 125 marina slips, partner with JU, etc. if it wasn't in good faith. Clearly some investment from the public sector will be necessary to make the project viable, even if it's just infrastructure (roads, utilities, a riverwalk extension, etc.).
Personally, I think Rummell has earned more than the benefit of the doubt in terms of his commitment to Jacksonville. Hell, he helped convince the NFL to bring the Super Bowl to Jacksonville, Florida. Not even 2017 Jacksonville. 2005 Jacksonville. He launched One Spark. And he's got more high-profile development experience than anyone in Jax.
I've said it for the last two years, but I still think the District breaks ground 3-5 years before the Shipyards.
Both projects are complicated and won't turn out anything like the renderings that have been shown today. Jax's market can only support so much. My ultimate fear is that we'll be in a national recession before either breaks ground on their first phase. If that happens, they'll both disappear completely like previous mid 2000s plans for these sites.
^That's the much bigger fear. However, the JEA site won't be any worse than it is now if nothing comes together. The Trio is more of a problem as the buildings will have that much more time to decay.
Quote from: Tacachale on November 30, 2017, 02:43:23 PM
^That's the much bigger fear. However, the JEA site won't be any worse than it is now if nothing comes together. The Trio is more of a problem as the buildings will have that much more time to decay.
Thankfully, Southeast/Molasky has $8 million reasons to finish the Trio in a timely fashion.
Quote from: KenFSU on November 30, 2017, 02:10:37 PM
^Really?
I honestly don't get the lack of faith. Someone mentioned that they understood the Trio + Barnett taking years, but not this project. To me, 29 acres of brownfield on the river seems every bit as complicated as four old buildings in disrepair. And just like the District, the Trio went through years of delays, tenet announcements, bureaucratic holdups, and public doubt. Now, I walk to work each morning and witness the Barnett being brought back to life.
Not sure why Element go through all the trouble of successfully bidding on the project, spending millions on the master plan and environmental certification, vetting hotel/grocery/theater tenets, going through the DDRB approval process, filing for approval for 125 marina slips, partner with JU, etc. if it wasn't in good faith. Clearly some investment from the public sector will be necessary to make the project viable, even if it's just infrastructure (roads, utilities, a riverwalk extension, etc.).
Personally, I think Rummell has earned more than the benefit of the doubt in terms of his commitment to Jacksonville. Hell, he helped convince the NFL to bring the Super Bowl to Jacksonville, Florida. Not even 2017 Jacksonville. 2005 Jacksonville. He launched One Spark. And he's got more high-profile development experience than anyone in Jax.
I've said it for the last two years, but I still think the District breaks ground 3-5 years before the Shipyards.
My problem is what I feel like is a lack of transparency. To be fair, part of this is on JEA.
I don't think Rummel is a POS, but if he asks for incentives from the city then that would be in bad taste, outside of any environmental cleanup. Outside of any environmental issues, it's vacant land. Unless there is some amount of parkland or some other public land, this wouldn't be an incentive project.
The city really needs to clamp down on offering economic incentives for these projects. It's just sad and pathetic for developers to keeping feeding from the trough, to keep asking for special set-asides from a city that isn't that rich and with a ton of social welfare needs. And why do they want these incentives, for buildings which, in most cases, house relatively well-off people. I know I'm wishy-washy on this. I want downtown vibrancy, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the city's incentives policy. I believe in investing downtown, making it a clean and safe place for investment, and even building catalysts for investment and development - like riverfront parks, pocket parks, etc. But hand-outs to developers or property tax rebates really should stop.
If there was a comprehensive strategy to re-brand downtown just the way it is...that would be much more cost-efficient. Throwing out ideas: Downtown as the abode of the cognoscenti.
Downtown as the place of Innovators and Differentiators.
Thought Revolutionaries don't live in cookie-cutter 'burbs or at the end of a cul-de-sac.
Suburbia-Home of Minivan-Coasting Fatties...The Fittest People Live In Walkable Urbanity.
Downtown: A Place to Reclaim Your Heritage.
Like, seriously, get aggressive. At the same time, how many policy-makers actually live downtown? Lol.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 30, 2017, 04:43:03 PM
Downtown: A Place to Reclaim Your Heritage.
What could possibly go wrong ;D
Quote from: KenFSU on November 30, 2017, 05:34:00 PM
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 30, 2017, 04:43:03 PM
Downtown: A Place to Reclaim Your Heritage.
What could possibly go wrong ;D
If that's in reference to Confederate statues, ha, well I'm ok with them on display, as long as they're counterbalanced with the symbols of the country's progress, and as long as the write-ups on the statues tell the entire story. I like the idea of walking along the streets of Jax and seeing the city's evolution on grand display. This is what it was, this is what it is, love it or hate it, it's the truth and it's different. That makes the streetscape interesting. What else am I supposed to see - a bunch of chain stores and landscaping I might see in Anywhere, USA? A showcase of the past, rather than a celebration of it. A celebration of uniqueness though.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on November 30, 2017, 04:43:03 PM
The city really needs to clamp down on offering economic incentives for these projects. It's just sad and pathetic for developers to keeping feeding from the trough, to keep asking for special set-asides from a city that isn't that rich and with a ton of social welfare needs. And why do they want these incentives, for buildings which, in most cases, house relatively well-off people. I know I'm wishy-washy on this. I want downtown vibrancy, but I'm increasingly uneasy with the city's incentives policy. I believe in investing downtown, making it a clean and safe place for investment, and even building catalysts for investment and development - like riverfront parks, pocket parks, etc. But hand-outs to developers or property tax rebates really should stop.
Downtown is not healthy enough to significantly grow and revitalize without incentives and tax rebates. I'd actually argue that we need to be more aggressive with them.....like Philly, Charlotte and Detroit back in the early 2000s.
Bring the District concept as urban infill for several abandoned blocks in LaVilla or Sugar Hill or through the adaptive reuse of historic Northbank buildings, then incentives make a lot of sense. With that said, I'm skeptical of anything on the Southbank needing public assistance....especially riverfront property.
My biggest question is; Why can't they close on the deal now, like they proposed? There is no answer out there. Just another extension. I do a fair amount of real estate, and both parties SHOULD be chomping at the bit to get this closed so that the future can begin to unfold over there. JEA gets their money, and Rummel can start to prepare the ground for all these partners he supposedly has lined up. Any extension AT THIS POINT is bad news. You can pretty much bank on at least one more.
It's like the folks over at Publix San Marco. WAITING for market conditions to support their investment. Biggest difference is Rummell has not even closed on the property. As I said before, there really is no excuse. Close on the deal or let someone else try. The parcel for all practical purposes got a clean bill of health from Florida DEP. LETS GO!!
Quote from: MusicMan on November 30, 2017, 09:32:15 PM
My biggest question is; Why can't they close on the deal now, like they proposed? There is no answer out there. Just another extension. I do a fair amount of real estate, and both parties SHOULD be chomping at the bit to get this closed so that the future can begin to unfold over there. JEA gets their money, and Rummel can start to prepare the ground for all these partners he supposedly has lined up. Any extension AT THIS POINT is bad news. You can pretty much bank on at least one more.
It's like the folks over at Publix San Marco. WAITING for market conditions to support their investment. Biggest difference is Rummell has not even closed on the property. As I said before, there really is no excuse. Close on the deal or let someone else try. The parcel for all practical purposes got a clean bill of health from Florida DEP. LETS GO!!
The posts here are alluding to the fact that Rummel wants government incentives to develop the JEA riverfront property. If Rummel won't get assurances of those incentives, he probably doesn't want to close on the Real Estate transaction. Curry is in a tough spot because he's pretty much committed to giving incentives to the Shipyards - Shad Khan has flown him all over the country on a "Tour of Possibilities," and I imagine it's politically untenable to approve grand packages of incentives for both the Shipyards and the District. The City should get out of the business of awarding incentives...of picking winners and losers. If a free market producer can't put together a product downtown that the market will support and absorb, then the idea of living and playing downtown hasn't been branded well enough for the local citizenry, and Jax doesn't deserve the product. If open space and waterfront can't get people downtown, then it's a wrap folks.
^To play devil's advocate, the downtown market struggles because the suburban market is heavily subsidized. There's no SJTC, UNF or IKEA without the public first fronting billions for infrastructure like JTB and I-295 East Beltway since the 1970s. Without such investments and public policy driving development away from the core, the city would be naturally denser and struggling inner ring neighborhoods like Emerson and Mixon Town would be more desirable today......and the SJTCs, UNFs and IKEAs of the world would have still found their way to town, as long as the population is sufficient to support their product. So in reality, we haven't had an actual "free market" since WWII. With that said, I'm not of the belief that the Southbank needs any incentives.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 30, 2017, 10:08:10 PM
^To play devil's advocate, the downtown market struggles because the suburban market is heavily subsidized. There's no SJTC, UNF or IKEA without the public first fronting billions for infrastructure like JTB and I-295 East Beltway since the 1970s. Without such investments and public policy driving development away from the core, the city would be naturally denser and struggling inner ring neighborhoods like Emerson and Mixon Town would be more desirable today......and the SJTCs, UNFs and IKEAs of the world would have still found their way to town, as long as the population is sufficient to support their product. So in reality, we haven't had an actual "free market" since WWII. With that said, I'm not of the belief that the Southbank needs any incentives.
You're right that the transit side of sprawl was largely financed by state and federal governments, although not so much by the city. But even then, these are public roads, not private ones. Everyone in Jax can drive along Butler Blvd or I-295. Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you hit the gates of Deerwood Country Club, everything within those gates was, for the most part, privately funded and is maintained on an ongoing basis by the Association, with notable exceptions of course. I ask, were any incentives directly awarded to the developers of Deerwood Country Club, so that some governmental rebate actually enhanced the ROI for Deerwood's investors?
If the District or Shipyards Project wants well-laid sidewalks, road diets, park spaces and plazas, river walks and river access points, kayak launches, public art, all accessible to the public but adjacent to their projects to make those projects more appealing, I'm all for that! But no rebates.
I'm of the belief that a strong Jeffersonian streak courses through the veins of many of the people in Jax, and that streak is anathema to downtown's prospects.
Not giving incentives for downtown projects is a great way to see more nothing happen there. There would be no Laura Street Trio or basically any of the residential buildings and hotels that have been built in the last 20 years.
QuoteQuote from: jaxnyc79 on November 30, 2017, 10:28:46 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on November 30, 2017, 10:08:10 PM
^To play devil's advocate, the downtown market struggles because the suburban market is heavily subsidized. There's no SJTC, UNF or IKEA without the public first fronting billions for infrastructure like JTB and I-295 East Beltway since the 1970s. Without such investments and public policy driving development away from the core, the city would be naturally denser and struggling inner ring neighborhoods like Emerson and Mixon Town would be more desirable today......and the SJTCs, UNFs and IKEAs of the world would have still found their way to town, as long as the population is sufficient to support their product. So in reality, we haven't had an actual "free market" since WWII. With that said, I'm not of the belief that the Southbank needs any incentives.
You're right that the transit side of sprawl was largely financed by state and federal governments, although not so much by the city.
The city is certainly involved in the development of federal and state infrastructure, as well as its own streets. Those type of infrastructure projects are built in cities that don't want them. In addition, the proliferation of sprawl is also driven by autocentric land use policies that separate land uses and encourage lower densities. As the population spreads out, the local costs rise in the form of police, fire, education, recreational, utility infrastructure, etc. needed to support the spread out, less dense population. At the end of the day, it's a ponzi scheme that ultimately puts the public in debt while a few influential landowners profit.
QuoteBut even then, these are public roads, not private ones. Everyone in Jax can drive along Butler Blvd or I-295. Correct me if I'm wrong, but once you hit the gates of Deerwood Country Club, everything within those gates was, for the most part, privately funded and is maintained on an ongoing basis by the Association, with notable exceptions of course. I ask, were any incentives directly awarded to the developers of Deerwood Country Club, so that some governmental rebate actually enhanced the ROI for Deerwood's investors?
Wasn't Deerwood developed by the Skinner family on land acquired by Richard Green Skinner for turpentine in 1899? With that in mind, do you think Deerwood would be there today if the Skinner family had to pay for I-95, Baymeadows Road or Southside Boulevard to provide access to that area of their land? The donation of land or selling of land for the state to then construct the infrastructure at the public's expense certainly improves the ROI for investors. If the investors had to bare the cost of the infrastructure providing access and frontage, it would not look like it is today. That area would more than likely be closer to the layout of density of neighborhoods built in an area when the developers had to bare the brunt of the infrastructure to connect them to the rest of the world (ex. like a Riverside, Springfield or San Marco).
If you inherited a few thousand acres and you want to make some real money off of it. Find a way to get the public paying for the major up front infrastructure costs providing access to the middle of it. Your ROI will skyrocket when you can start selling that newly found prime commercial frontage to fast food restaurants, strip malls, garden apartments and track home subdivisions. With that said, this isn't just as Jax thing. It's part of a economic game that's been in play since we started favoring cars over people. It's also an acknowledgement that the market is anything but free. Incentives in DT are not really doing anything but leveling the playing field a bit. If you want a real free market, downtown isn't where the process for correction should start. In the grand scheme of things, downtown incentives equate to nothing more than a pothole on I-95.
I'm not making light of your points, I'm just saying that we get the government and the land use policies we deserve. Auto centric land use policies resulted from a largely auto-centric populace...from auto-centric market demand. This auto-centricity is, perhaps, more pronounced in a place like Jax with its abiding Jeffersonian principles.
Downtowns are not without major infrastructure needs, and population density can put an intense strain on infrastructure. I've read the arguments about inner city infrastructure versus suburban infrastructure. I don't quite know the answer. I just don't know if extending a highway so that Deerwood can materialize and remain largely self-sufficient, necessarily puts downtown at a competitive disadvantage. I conjecture that downtown lost its competitive edge versus suburbia because auto-centric suburbia was shiny and new, and technologically accessible. Second, suburbia appealed to a Jeffersonian underbelly in a place like Jax. Third, cars and suburbia afforded segments of Jax with the means to escape dispossessed and struggling minority neighborhoods. And once people (and perhaps the biggest taxpayers) were in the 'burbs, policies and policy-makers had to respond to the shifting desires of constituents.
At any rate, I'm a huge believer in Downtowns and in walkability because I really do believe it's healthy for the soul of America, even if people don't broadly know it yet. But to get to where we want to be, I believe in a re-branding of Downtown so that it's a compelling option for the marketplace, i.e. the people who would live and recreate there. I don't believe in doling out cash to individual property developers, while withholding from others who've been there all along. Just doesn't feel right. In the long-run, I think it does more harm than good. Doling out cash directly to a wealthy guy like Rummel probably sows the wrong seeds. But again, I'm open to changing on this.
I'm back to typing on the phone now but Deerwood isn't close to being self sufficient and auto centric policies aren't driven by auto centric market demand. Growth patterns in this country are driven by those invested in making money off of it. We the consumers are simply sheep, but that discussion is for another day. There's a market for downtown, as proven by the current occupancy rate. However, that market isn't necessarily for overpriced, upscale living. If Rummell wants incentives, it would be interesting to see why he needs them when it appears his neighbor is currently building their apartment development without them.
Quote from: thelakelander on November 30, 2017, 11:51:02 PM
I'm back to typing on the phone now but Deerwood isn't close to being self sufficient and auto centric policies aren't driven by auto centric market demand. Growth patterns in this country are driven by those invested in making money off of it. We the consumers are simply sheep, but that discussion is for another day. There's a market for downtown, as proven by the current occupancy rate. However, that market isn't necessarily for overpriced, upscale living. If Rummell wants incentives, it would be interesting to see why he needs them when it appears his neighbor is currently building their apartment development without them.
Yes, we can at least agree on Southbank incentives for upscale apartments. Night night:)
By the way, to make this more complicated, I do have a nuanced view on this as it relates to historic building renovations. To me, they are more fine art restorations - the revitalization of a cultural relic. What's happening with Barnett and Laura Street Trio are very different, in my opinion, than the District. I will say that as of now, I'm opposed to the millions in incentives requested by Vestcor for their 2nd project adjacent to Lofts at LaVilla.
Getting back to incentives for Rummel, has he proceeded from Day 1 with no promise of incentives, and now at the last moment, he is insisting on some? Am I reading the tea leaves correctly?
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 01, 2017, 07:03:08 AM
By the way, to make this more complicated, I do have a nuanced view on this as it relates to historic building renovations. To me, they are more fine art restorations - the revitalization of a cultural relic. What's happening with Barnett and Laura Street Trio are very different, in my opinion, than the District. I will say that as of now, I'm opposed to the millions in incentives requested by Vestcor for their 2nd project adjacent to Lofts at LaVilla.
Then you are against affordable housing within the context of our current zoning laws. With construction costs and land acquisition costs as they are in today's market.... an affordable/workforce housing project like Vestcor's two projects under construction in LaVilla DO NOT work w/out being incentivized. There is a huge hole in bringing those projects to market (probably in the $8-12mm range) without some form of subsidies.
Since current zoning laws (and NIMBYism) discourage a particular type of middle income housing stock (4-6 unit multifamily, rooming houses, ADU's, etc), then large-scale, subsidized multi-family projects are pretty much the only real tool available to increase housing stock for those earning less then median wages.
If you know of many people that are willing to build something knowing they will lose a significant amount of money in the process, please have them call me so I can take advantage of their generosity in the most humanely way possible before they go broke.
Also, Vestcor's affordable housing projects are largely incentived through a federal program....not local. They specialize in these types of projects outside of Jax as well. The federal affordable housing program isn't a downtown vs suburban thing. We have a few in the burbs as well.
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2017, 10:37:00 AM
Also, Vestcor's affordable housing projects are largely incentived through a federal program....not local. They specialize in these types of projects outside of Jax as well. The federal affordable housing program isn't a downtown vs suburban thing. We have a few in the burbs as well.
Yes, I'm aware that Vestcor is getting Federal subsidies. In my view, Vestcor should continue with that form of subsidy, and not ask for additional subsidies from the city just for the sake of investing downtown, unless it is a subsidy that creates a feature that can be directly enjoyed by the public at large - for example, a pocket park, or enhanced sidewalks, or shade features, et cetera. Ideally, such features provide a direct benefit to the public at large, while at the same time enhancing the value and attractiveness of the project to its residents. If Trump's government massively devolves affordable housing finance to the local level, well we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 01, 2017, 01:11:23 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on December 01, 2017, 10:37:00 AM
Also, Vestcor's affordable housing projects are largely incentived through a federal program....not local. They specialize in these types of projects outside of Jax as well. The federal affordable housing program isn't a downtown vs suburban thing. We have a few in the burbs as well.
Yes, I'm aware that Vestcor is getting Federal subsidies. In my view, Vestcor should continue with that form of subsidy, and not ask for additional subsidies from the city just for the sake of investing downtown, unless it is a subsidy that creates a feature that can be directly enjoyed by the public at large - for example, a pocket park, or enhanced sidewalks, or shade features, et cetera. Ideally, such features provide a direct benefit to the public at large, while at the same time enhancing the value and attractiveness of the project to its residents. If Trump's government massively devolves affordable housing finance to the local level, well we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
That seems backwards. If we want investment downtown, we're going to have to provide incentives, or we'll be in the same situation we've been in for the last 10 years where nothing happens. And we do want investment in terms of residential units, it's been recognized for decades that that's a major piece missing for revitalization.
Lol, Jax isn't new to "incentives." They've been happening downtown for at least a generation, and downtown is still full of empty lots and misadventures. Also, carefully read my description of subsidy - if it's a subsidy that the public can enjoy directly - I'm supportive. Jax should do all it can to prep downtown for investment - to look after the basics of an urban and walkable and transit-oriented infrastructure. Jax should invest in re-branding downtown - I know funding came from private sources, but One Spark was beginning to re-brand the entire region as one of innovation and entrepreneurial rigor with downtown as its epicenter. But doling out dollars to private developers - sorry, but I'm still against it.
Quote from: jaxnyc79 on December 01, 2017, 05:44:06 PM
Lol, Jax isn't new to "incentives." They've been happening downtown for at least a generation, and downtown is still full of empty lots and misadventures. Also, carefully read my description of subsidy - if it's a subsidy that the public can enjoy directly - I'm supportive. Jax should do all it can to prep downtown for investment - to look after the basics of an urban and walkable and transit-oriented infrastructure. Jax should invest in re-branding downtown - I know funding came from private sources, but One Spark was beginning to re-brand the entire region as one of innovation and entrepreneurial rigor with downtown as its epicenter. But doling out dollars to private developers - sorry, but I'm still against it.
Back in the 90s and early 2000s when we were incentivizing residential development downtown, it got built and was an improvement. When we stopped, it stopped. Growth hasn't been for the better since then.
We may be talking of federal incentives, especially Historic Tax Credits, in the past tense since the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (aka Early Xmas For Scrooge McDuck Act) was passed by the Senate at 1:50 AM. I think LIHTC survived. This is really really bad.
Another of my issues with these super huge proposal/contracts/development plans is they are basically worthless.
Rummell knows he can walk at the last minute and outside of a small expenditure ($2 mil) which he has probably used as a deduction on his tax returns he owes nobody nothing. And a premium piece of real estate has been tied up for almost 3 years. It's maddening.
Same can be said for The Shipyards. While I have more confidence in Shad Khan we still don't know when contstruction will begin (or truly IF IT WILL) and what the final product will be. And another prime piece of real estate tied up for an undetermined amount of time.
I'm pretty sure we were making jokes about IKEA opening before anyone even broke ground on any of these proposals 2 years ago.
Lo and behold........
(Or maybe that was Publix San Marco.....)
Apparently a lot of the tax credits survived, although the market for them may be diminished.
A partial expose on the current state of the District real estate transaction in the Times Union this morning. So let me get this straight...put in the highest bid, close out the other two bidders, and then negotiate the city's acquisition while you get development rights? To be fair, a lot of details are missing but these recent events fail to pass the smell test.
Here's the link.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-12-01/move-city-buy-riverfront-land-development-puzzles-officials
What a crock of shit. Reading the quotes is like Trump's famous line about the complexity of healthcare.
Literally these guys are blowing smoke up every ass at JEA. I can see a lawsuit in the near future that shuts the whole thing down.
I have pretty much lost all respect for Lori Boyer at this point. She has become a total shill for Jax 'Old Money.'
"She (Boyer) said if the city is going to put money toward the project — for things like installing underground infrastructure necessary for development — then assuming ownership of the property would secure the city's investment."
HUH? What the f$#k is she talking about? She must have come up with this idea while the developers were buying her dinner at BB's.
LB: "Hey guys, thanks for lunch. How 'bout this. We'll buy the real estate and prep the site, you can develop it and make the money. Sound good?"
3 YEARS AFTER THE BID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote from: MusicMan on December 03, 2017, 10:11:09 PM
Here's the link.
http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-12-01/move-city-buy-riverfront-land-development-puzzles-officials
What a crock of shit. Reading the quotes is like Trump's famous line about the complexity of healthcare.
Literally these guys are blowing smoke up every ass at JEA. I can see a lawsuit in the near future that shuts the whole thing down.
I have pretty much lost all respect for Lori Boyer at this point. She has become a total shill for Jax 'Old Money.'
"She (Boyer) said if the city is going to put money toward the project — for things like installing underground infrastructure necessary for development — then assuming ownership of the property would secure the city's investment."
HUH? What the f$#k is she talking about? She must have come up with this idea while the developers were buying her dinner at BB's.
LB: "Hey guys, thanks for lunch. How 'bout this. We'll buy the real estate and prep the site, you can develop it and make the money. Sound good?"
3 YEARS AFTER THE BID!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come to think of it, I've always thought it odd that these RFPs don't get more bids from international developers. I mean, I know it's Jax, but surely more than 3 people have an interest in Florida waterfront property for a dense mixed-use project. Is downtown Jax waterfront really so repugnant, or is there a good ole boy network closing others out of the process.
^Neither. It's just an unproven area for investors competing with many proven areas, both in the region and elsewhere.
As far as incentives for private projects, vs. public infrastructure, I think the public should get the majority of such funding. BUT, I think it is a mistake to do only public infrastructure. That was what the city did with Phillip Randolph Blvd. and it did not light the fire there. I do think going to the other extreme is just as unsuccessful, which has been what the city has by and large done in the last 20-30 years.
Just read the T0U article and it does not sound good. It seems that at a minimum the buyer has purposely stalled things to prevent paying interest while the clean-up and slip reviews are being done. HOPEFULLY, they are only asking for money for infrastructure, which would at least be somewhat ordinary. If they truly want to city to buy the land, I would call the whole deal off.
Quote from: vicupstate on December 04, 2017, 08:49:39 AM
As far as incentives for private projects, vs. public infrastructure, I think the public should get the majority of such funding. BUT, I think it is a mistake to do only public infrastructure. That was what the city did with Phillip Randolph Blvd. and it did not light the fire there. I do think going to the other extreme is just as unsuccessful, which has been what the city has by and large done in the last 20-30 years.
The city hasn't gone to any "extremes" with incentives downtown. It has vacillated between offering good incentives that had productive results (11E, the Carling, Adams Mark, etc. in the 90s, and the Laura Street Trio recently), and doing nothing. It reflects the attitudes of many people around here which fluctuate wildly between those who want a better downtown and see the necessity of incentives, and those who don't want to spend the money to get the things we want (or don't care about downtown). Unfortunately, it's strongly tied to who's in the mayor's office at any given time.
Did the original accepted bid call for the City to provide incentives or to do the site prep?
Also judging from the current prices being paid for real estate in San Marco , both residential and commercial on the South Bank riverfront area, I would say the term "unproven area for investors" is not accurate. See The Peninsula/The Strand and the current selling price there for reference. I think it is safe to say that area is considered 'better' than the North Bank downtown CBD.
And if anyone thinks the idea of the City retaining ownership of the land while a developer manages the improvements please check out the current situation with The Landing to know we absolutely do not want to do this again. If they (Rummell and friends) can't close the deal they negotiated 3 years ago PUT IT BACK OUT ON THE MARKET.
Quote from: MusicMan on December 04, 2017, 11:44:39 AM
Did the original accepted bid call for the City to provide incentives or to do the site prep?
Also judging from the current prices being paid for real estate in San Marco , both residential and commercial on the South Bank riverfront area, I would say the term "unproven area for investors" is not accurate. See The Peninsula/The Strand and the current selling price there for reference. I think it is safe to say that area is considered 'better' than the North Bank downtown CBD.
Of course it's a safer bet than the Northbank. You also don't see developments flying up in the Northbank, except for those with incentives. And yes, it's unproven for investors compared to other parts of town and other markets with healthier downtowns. Buying a building that's already complete is a lot different than building a new one from scratch.
Quote from: Tacachale on December 04, 2017, 09:33:19 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on December 04, 2017, 08:49:39 AM
As far as incentives for private projects, vs. public infrastructure, I think the public should get the majority of such funding. BUT, I think it is a mistake to do only public infrastructure. That was what the city did with Phillip Randolph Blvd. and it did not light the fire there. I do think going to the other extreme is just as unsuccessful, which has been what the city has by and large done in the last 20-30 years.
The city hasn't gone to any "extremes" with incentives downtown. It has vacillated between offering good incentives that had productive results (11E, the Carling, Adams Mark, etc. in the 90s, and the Laura Street Trio recently), and doing nothing. It reflects the attitudes of many people around here which fluctuate wildly between those who want a better downtown and see the necessity of incentives, and those who don't want to spend the money to get the things we want (or don't care about downtown). Unfortunately, it's strongly tied to who's in the mayor's office at any given time.
Let me clarify my point. It has been 'extreme' by being too heavy on the incentives rather than infrastructure. Going 80-100% EITHER way is a mistake, given where DT JAX is currently, IMO. A 70/30 to 30/70 range seems to work better with that mixing changing over time as the revival takes hold.
The private incentives INDIVIDUALLY have not been extreme in MOST cases, such as the ones you mentioned. That said, some have been bad. LaVilla Seafood (which never made ANY sense), Brewster Hospital, the Harbormasters deal from long ago. A few probably should have gotten money, but were turned down.
I would agree that there were periods when no incentives or infrastructure spending was provided and that was also sapped momentum.