https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/03/06/berkman-ii-owner-getting-close-to-resolving.html
Hate to bring up a sore subject, but apparently Ohde is not dead yet. Would be nice to know who Boyer spoke with, and if Ohde has anything to do with that conversation. I suspect not, but I'm always optimistic.
Hopefully, but it sounds a bit like he might be posturing to avoid having the property confiscated by the city.
Quote"In a conversation with the Business Journal, Ohde declined to give specifics about how the company will handle its impending balloon payment, but said, "We've got things ready to go forward."
The building has sat vacant and unfinished for years, and the city condemned the structure last month. City spokespeople did not immediately respond to questions sent Friday morning about steps the city has taken since sending that letter.
Barrington submitted plans in 2018 to redevelop the Berkman into a 340-room hotel, water park, ferris wheel and parking garage. It subsequently downgraded those plans, and 500 East Bay then failed to pay $58,000 in property taxes that year.
Those delinquent taxes, as well as last year's property taxes, were paid in full last December.
Downtown Investment Authority CEO Lori Boyer told the Business Journal on Friday she had met with prospective buyers for the Berkman – including people who were in Jacksonville this week — but Ohde said he expects to stay attached to the property.
"We're looking at partnering with someone at this point," he said. "I can't go into any more details at this point."
one look at Ohde's website will confirm that he is out of his depth. Hard to believe he still hasn't updated it over the last several years. Documents still pasted haphazardly. No, the more I think about it, the more I think part of the strategy is to get him out of the way.
https://www.500eastbay.com/
OK. Once we get these road blocks out of the way...WHERE are the damn cranes? Let's get moving!
Quote from: downtownbrown on March 10, 2020, 09:40:23 AM
one look at Ohde's website will confirm that he is out of his depth. Hard to believe he still hasn't updated it over the last several years. Documents still pasted haphazardly. No, the more I think about it, the more I think part of the strategy is to get him out of the way.
https://www.500eastbay.com/ (https://www.500eastbay.com/)
I mean, for pete's sake... what are the odds I could charge this guy a thousand bucks to get him some Wordpress? It's pitiful.
RFP for demolition appears imminent.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/03/11/city-has-steps-in-place-to-demolish-berkman.html
^Sounds like a Jax type solution. Who pays for the demolition?
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 12, 2020, 10:16:51 AM
RFP for demolition appears imminent.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/03/11/city-has-steps-in-place-to-demolish-berkman.html
Man oh man; unless they're going to build something super and extraordinary there, they should find someone who wants to finish building what's there (residential, office, or multi). Every time I turn around something is getting demolished, torn down, or razed in downtown Jacksonville. Glad it's not the whole city because if it was, there would be no Jacksonville!
Quote from: heights unknown on March 12, 2020, 11:40:34 AM
they should find someone who wants to finish building what's there
Doesn't seem very likely. Difficult to finish a structure that's sat vacant and possibly vandalized for over a decade, even harder to find someone who would sign off on the structural integrity of such a building, especially when the ORIGINAL construction had a major collapse and death.
Getting nostalgic and wanting old structures not to be knocked down, I can sympathize with. IDGAF about an unfinished eyesore, can't see why anybody else would either.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on March 12, 2020, 12:52:23 PM
Quote from: heights unknown on March 12, 2020, 11:40:34 AM
they should find someone who wants to finish building what's there
Doesn't seem very likely. Difficult to finish a structure that's sat vacant and possibly vandalized for over a decade, even harder to find someone who would sign off on the structural integrity of such a building, especially when the ORIGINAL construction had a major collapse and death.
Getting nostalgic and wanting old structures not to be knocked down, I can sympathize with. IDGAF about an unfinished eyesore, can't see why anybody else would either.
But wasn't the idea entertained a few years ago where someone was going to finish it into something else. IDOGAF; understood about structural integrity, etc.; but look like they would have demolished it long ago if that really was an issue.
At this point I really don't care. I'd rather see the city just fine the piss out of the property then foreclose on it and RFP it or something. Mainly because I would rather not pay for the demo.
Quote from: acme54321 on March 13, 2020, 06:27:21 AM
At this point I really don't care. I'd rather see the city just fine the piss out of the property then foreclose on it and RFP it or something. Mainly because I would rather not pay for the demo.
Then the owner will declare bankruptcy and the fines will attach as a lien that any potential buyer will have to pay. No one will want to buy it. The City will still be stuck with demolition.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on March 13, 2020, 08:46:44 AM
Quote from: acme54321 on March 13, 2020, 06:27:21 AM
At this point I really don't care. I'd rather see the city just fine the piss out of the property then foreclose on it and RFP it or something. Mainly because I would rather not pay for the demo.
Then the owner will declare bankruptcy and the fines will attach as a lien that any potential buyer will have to pay. No one will want to buy it. The City will still be stuck with demolition.
That's why I said the city could foreclose on it and sell/RFP it.
Can't the city waive or reduce the fines? If someone wants to take it over and develop it, the fines should not get in the way. If some developer were to get a certificate of occupancy, the city should say job well done and waive the fines/remove the liens.
The city has made it clear in the past they're willing to wave the fines. Those shouldn't be an issue unless the developer lookign to buy has been stepping on too many toes in town.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/unfinished-berkman-plaza-ii-downtown-could-be-sold-soon
This is one of those, we'll see ones. I can see a stick frame development on this site but have my doubts on if there's a real market for high rise residential construction currently. Hopefully it works out.
The rendering doesn't make any sense. It's showing an L shaped property, which the Berkman II property is not.
The property doesn't stick out into the river until you get to almost Hogan's Creek, which is about 3 blocks East of Berkman. Even if their just trying to show art to make it pretty the land doesn't stick out there.
That makes me think this is HIGHLY conceptual. I'm much more exited about the Sifakas plans if for no other reason I think they'll happen.
I think that rendering takes some artistic liberties with the shipyards site next door. The L-shape comes from the artist showing the submerged portion of the Shipyards parcel being filled in with a make believe building sitting on it. Nevertheless, I agree that what is show is HIGHLY conceptual.
I thought I was crazy or something with how little sense that rendering made.
It looks like the rendering assumes the city is going to give some land up. I think that has been the case with the earlier concepts when more space for parking was in the conversation. Regardless, the whole thing is "conceptual" until somebody signs a contract.
To me I don't even understand the logic in putting out a rendering that shows reclaimed river land. I mean, with all of the vacant lots downtown, there's no way it's economical to fill in the river to build something. Especially when there's a COJ owned surface parking lot ACROSS THE STREET
Oh I agree but I doubt who ever did the rendering put much thought into the feasibility of that part.
Quote from: Steve on September 10, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
The rendering doesn't make any sense. It's showing an L shaped property, which the Berkman II property is not.
The property doesn't stick out into the river until you get to almost Hogan's Creek, which is about 3 blocks East of Berkman. Even if their just trying to show art to make it pretty the land doesn't stick out there.
That makes me think this is HIGHLY conceptual. I'm much more exited about the Sifakas plans if for no other reason I think they'll happen.
They say they will tear down the existing unfinished structure and start over. In viewing the concept drawing, it looks to me like the actual structure on the demolished site parallels Bay Street, not that it sticks out into the river (note the stadium rendering in the distance). The part "behind" the building that does project into river as apparent "green space" appears to be part of the will-it-ever-happen Shipyards project. That's another story 8)!
QuoteBeeler said the group intends to demolish the property, which has sat unfinished on the Downtown Northbank of the St. Johns River for nearly 13 years.
you are correct
the more I look at it the more it looks like the existing footprint.
Apparently KBJ provided the renderings.
And wait, so everything behind the tall building is actually the Shipyards? Weird why they'd even include it in there.
Quote from: downtownbrown on September 10, 2020, 11:15:06 AM
It looks like the rendering assumes the city is going to give some land up. I think that has been the case with the earlier concepts when more space for parking was in the conversation. Regardless, the whole thing is "conceptual" until somebody signs a contract.
Gosh, just think...... not too long ago the citizens of Jacksonville owned near 100 acres public waterfront.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on September 10, 2020, 07:19:31 AM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/unfinished-berkman-plaza-ii-downtown-could-be-sold-soon
Hallelujah (maybe).
Quote from: Steve on September 10, 2020, 09:16:07 AM
The rendering doesn't make any sense. It's showing an L shaped property, which the Berkman II property is not.
The property doesn't stick out into the river until you get to almost Hogan's Creek, which is about 3 blocks East of Berkman. Even if their just trying to show art to make it pretty the land doesn't stick out there.
That makes me think this is HIGHLY conceptual. I'm much more exited about the Sifakas plans if for no other reason I think they'll happen.
I agree; and...the conception or rendering is so "un-Jacksonville" like; but...if it comes to fruition, I will take it.
The city posted a new condemnation notice on Berkman II last week.
QuoteDowntown's half-built Berkman II tower could be sold, demolished
Downtown's Berkman II property could soon be sold to a new ownership group that plans to tear down the half-built tower and build a mixed-use development that includes townhomes, retail space and possibly a hotel.
If the sale goes through, it would start a new chapter for the beleaguered property that has seen its waterfront potential squandered by tragedy, economic recession, legal battles, and most recently, its owners' unexplained abandonment of their plans to build a family-focused urban resort.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/09/16/downtown-jacksonvilles-half-built-berkman-ii-could-sold-razed/3471500001/
Reading this, this project is possibly reliant on a convention center. Don't get your hopes up high at seeing anything materialize any time soon.
It's strange, they're insisting that they'd move forward regardless of there being a convention center, but they really can't help but bring up a convention center.
That article made this thing sound like a pipe dream.
I'm being an idealist, but it's so crazy that in over a decade we haven't be able to find anyone to just top off the building where it is, build a new garage and put something in there. The insistence on a convention center implies the numbers don't really work for a site clearing and new vertical build.
There were some interesting quotes in the article.
QuoteHowever, Beeler said the group is keeping close tabs on the nearby Ford on Bay property, a vacant city-owned lot that was once the site of the old City Hall and county courthouse. He said their project would be greatly enhanced by the construction of a convention center.
Seems it isn't planning on a convention at the Shipyards but at Ford on Bay to help their development.
QuoteThe DIA's board rejected the firm's unsolicited offer for a convention center last month but said they would reconsider it if their negotiations with Spandrel fall through.
Seems like Hyatt's first right of refusal is still holding. Either Spandrel needs to play ball with Hyatt and incorporate what they want to be able to develop the land or it sounds like the negotiations would fall through and then the DIA might be on board with a convention center (pending details probably)
Quote from: itsfantastic1 on September 16, 2020, 11:53:25 AM
Seems like Hyatt's first right of refusal is still holding. Either Spandrel needs to play ball with Hyatt and incorporate what they want to be able to develop the land or it sounds like the negotiations would fall through and then the DIA might be on board with a convention center (pending details probably)
This is one I really don't understand from Boyer's tenure with DIA. Did they not know about that first right when the issued the RFP? If not then that's REALLY bad on someone. If so then why issue the RFP?
I can't remember but was that RFP issued before Boyer's tenure?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 16, 2020, 12:12:21 PM
I can't remember but was that RFP issued before Boyer's tenure?
Well, the decision to issue was not. But yes, the RFP I believe WAS actually issued after Boyer started. So in fairness, Brian Hughes owns this too.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 16, 2020, 12:12:21 PM
I can't remember but was that RFP issued before Boyer's tenure?
Nope, during her tenure.
Aundra Wallace's last act as DIA President was to help close out the original convention center RFP that Jacobs won.
Boyer was selected to lead the DIA in May 2019.
Her tenure started immediately after she left City Council in June 2019.
RFP was then scoped, developed, and voted on in mid-September 2019, for a late October 2019 release.
So it was during Hughes' stint that the actual decision to issue the RFP was made.
Quote from: Steve on September 16, 2020, 12:00:58 PMThis is one I really don't understand from Boyer's tenure with DIA. Did they not know about that first right when the issued the RFP? If not then that's REALLY bad on someone. If so then why issue the RFP?
The DIA/Lori Boyer did know.
It's why the RFP specifically gave developers the option of proposing development on either one, two, or three of the parcels included in the RFP (the Courthouse site owned by the city, the Annex site that Hyatt has claim to, and the now-submerged portion of the property).
From the way that the DIA describes it, there were over 130 interested parties that responded to the initial RFI.
When the formal RFP/Notice of Disposition went out - which did disclose the Hyatt's right of first refusal - the pool shrunk down to only the two developers who submitted responses.
Everyone else was scared off (if you take the DIA at face value here).
At some point after the RFP was released, Lori Boyer went to Texas to try to convince the Hyatt's owners to release their right of first refusal, but they refused.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 16, 2020, 12:44:11 PM
So it was during Hughes' stint that the actual decision to issue the RFP was made.
Yep, correct.
It was around March or April that Brian Hughes specifically floated the idea of either an RFI, RFP, or finding a way to give the property outright to Rimrock Devlin for their counter-proposal for the site that dropped alongside Khan's Shipyards convention center proposal during the initial RFP for a convention center at the old Courthouse site.
Hmm....that's a take I didn't completely know. So it could be that Boyer thought the First Right didn't matter, OR she was in a position to try to keep the Mayor's office happy by doing it anyway because CurryHughes wanted to.
I'm remembering this now. There were only 2 participants and I remember that the first right was disclosed.
So basically, #BoyerKnew. But it's unclear if behind the scenes she objected and CurryHughes said, "Damn the Torpedoes". I'd believe it either way.
Looks like she's coming down soon after the Florida-Georgia game.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/developer-applies-to-demolish-the-unfinished-berkman-plaza-ii-downtown
Well thank god we are gonna preserve it for the game...
Do we know what has been proposed on the site after demolition?
From the linked article above:
QuoteJacksonville Riverfront Revitalization intends to redevelop the property with mixed-use retail, a 300-unit residential development and public park space.
Quote from: thelakelander on October 28, 2020, 06:45:58 PM
From the linked article above:
QuoteJacksonville Riverfront Revitalization intends to redevelop the property with mixed-use retail, a 300-unit residential development and public park space.
I see. But I assume there are no publicly available info in terms of design or images.
Nothing concrete! Here is a conceptual rendering that was shown last month:
https://news.wjct.org/post/potential-buyers-want-demolish-unfinished-berkman-ii-redevelop-property
Quote from: thelakelander on October 28, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Nothing concrete!
I would agree. Probably just a grass and dirt "park" for the foreseeable future ;)
Quote from: ProjectMaximus on October 28, 2020, 07:49:50 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on October 28, 2020, 07:41:32 PM
Nothing concrete!
I would agree. Probably just a grass and dirt "park" for the foreseeable future ;)
....which would be awesome...
Why is it more efficient to tear down what is there instead of finishing/adapting with what is a substantial amount of structure..?
Sorry if I missed it, but I am confused.
One man's trash is another one's treasure. Although the shell appears to be structurally sound, it really depends on the buyer and the product they seek to do. The previous buyer planned to finish/adapt the existing structure. The current buyer does not.
Consider the original garage structure wasn't supposed to collapse and yet the garage did. Do you really want to roll the dice that the same builders somehow got it perfectly right on the remaining tower?
Throw in the high cost of high rises and a small market overall and little obvious demand for that location and.... ya, not the sort of thing most people want to undertake.
Keep in mind that there there are 2 residential high rises going up right now. One over in Brooklyn and the other on the south bank next to the Acosta. I suspect the nail in the coffin is the poor location of the tower.
Should we really consider 7 stories high rise, in the case of the Southbank?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on November 05, 2020, 11:47:27 AM
Consider the original garage structure wasn't supposed to collapse and yet the garage did. Do you really want to roll the dice that the same builders somehow got it perfectly right on the remaining tower?
Throw in the high cost of high rises and a small market overall and little obvious demand for that location and.... ya, not the sort of thing most people want to undertake.
Keep in mind that there there are 2 residential high rises going up right now. One over in Brooklyn and the other on the south bank next to the Acosta. I suspect the nail in the coffin is the poor location of the tower.
Just to be clear the garage was designed by a different engineer and being built by a completely different contractor.
yes, 7 stories is a high rise
the National Fire Protection Association defines a high-rise as being higher than 75 feet (23 meters), or about 7 stories.
Workers in Berkman 2 this morning. Looks like this implosion might actually happen!
No more implosion but Curry will get him a crane in the sky for the demolition.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/berkman-plaza-ii-headed-for-conventional-demolition-not-implosion
I was wondering when action would be taken on this. It struck me the other day when I was crossing the river to see the Berkman II skeleton hanging in the skyline that it would be odd to stump for the construction of a new district with a never-finished structure just a mile away, within line-of-sight of the new project.
The new section of the Riverwalk there from the hotel and around Berkman is nice...
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2021, 01:24:08 PM
The new section of the Riverwalk there from the hotel and around Berkman is nice...
umm no - try sitting down at a bench and let me know what you see
LOL....concrete and a missed opportunity to tie the Hyatt's ground floor bars and restaurants into the space.
Quote from: thelakelander on January 12, 2021, 02:51:47 PM
LOL....concrete and a missed opportunity to tie the Hyatt's ground floor bars and restaurants into the space.
LOL...someone is from MacClenny if they think that's nice.
Wow...I certainly wasn't commenting on the building. The Riverwalk extension from Hyatt to Berkman around the former bridge/parking lot is a huge improvement. Great view of the river... not sure what Maclenny has to do with anything... if not the Riverwalk then what lakelander... tufsu... and heights???
^ problem is there's no view of the river when sitting down. The whole thing seems to have been over-engineered and sterile. That's fine for the "under-carriage" infrastructure, but its a missed opportunity at street level. Maybe that will change over time, but IMO what was there before was better.
oh, and the City seems to have decided to leave the connecting block incomplete - and wait on the proposed development (which may never come).
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2021, 07:38:16 PM
Wow...I certainly wasn't commenting on the building. The Riverwalk extension from Hyatt to Berkman around the former bridge/parking lot is a huge improvement. Great view of the river... not sure what Maclenny has to do with anything... if not the Riverwalk then what lakelander... tufsu... and heights???
There are large concrete barricades along the Riverwalk in front of the Hyatt and Berkman, pictured here:
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU092720/i-KMQcXCs/0/4a3d7f39/L/20201115_105737-L.jpg)
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU092720/i-4fhvsKZ/0/ef44d8e1/L/20200926_110159-L.jpg)
If you are sitting in the outdoor dining section at Morton's inside the Hyatt, you stare into a concrete wall. You used to stare into transparent fencing like the rest of the Riverwalk.
If the Ford on Bay project ever moves forward, the developer would be required to complete their portion of the Riverwalk. Due to massive cost overruns on the Liberty Street project that shored up the failing bulkhead and also removed the overwater parking deck, the City chose to not complete the Riverwalk between the Hyatt and Berkman, and chose to instead wait on whatever developer would build on the old Courthouse/City Hall site. Whether the Ford on Bay project moves forward, appears to still be in limbo... so we're stuck with a gap in the Riverwalk for the foreseeable future, seen here:
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/UCU111420/i-mxJm2bF/0/bb94c4a5/L/20201114_142941-L.jpg)
I guess you could criticize the City for the Riverwalk extension... however I understand the logic behind it. On the Chamber trip to Toronto a few years back, public officials there talked quite a bit about how requiring developers to pay for the public access portion of their waterfront development was a key piece missing from their waterfront revitalization plan/ The City, and specifically then-Councilwoman and now-DIA head Lori Boyer... decided to adopt that policy. I agree with that reasoning, and so I won't get too bent out of shape about the gap in the Riverwalk.
However, putting up concrete barriers along with Riverwalk has nothing to do with that aforementioned policy procedure. Those concrete walls along the Riverwalk are inexcusable.
To tufsu1's point, the new streetscape along Coastline and Market Street is way overengineered.
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
You must work for GAI?
As far as 'private access-controlled parking lot as it was', sorry no. Coastline Drive has been in existence since before my father was born.
(http://photos.metrojacksonville.com/photos/453319076_2zR8A-L.jpg)
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:08:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
You must work for GAI?
Nope, but nice try. I just know a potential safety issue when I see one.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:08:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
You must work for GAI?
Nope, but nice try. I just know a potential safety issue when I see one.
Good thing there aren't transportation professionals commenting here that can't offer their own professional analysis or anything. Safety issues have all sorts of solutions, after all.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:08:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
You must work for GAI?
Nope, but nice try. I just know a potential safety issue when I see one.
Good thing there aren't transportation professionals commenting here that can't offer their own professional analysis or anything. Safety issues have all sorts of solutions, after all.
In this case, a vehicular dropoff hazard would typically be shielded by guardrail, but that would provide no pedestrian dropoff protection and might still allow a vehicle to deform the guardrail to the point that it would fall. The other option is... you guessed it! A concrete barrier wall.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:26:00 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:08:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
You must work for GAI?
Nope, but nice try. I just know a potential safety issue when I see one.
Good thing there aren't transportation professionals commenting here that can't offer their own professional analysis or anything. Safety issues have all sorts of solutions, after all.
In this case, a vehicular dropoff hazard would typically be shielded by guardrail, but that would provide no pedestrian dropoff protection and might still allow a vehicle to deform the guardrail to the point that it would fall. The other option is... you guessed it! A concrete barrier wall.
Just off the top of my head...
I'll go down and measure later today, but I don't think that the roadway is more than 22 feet from the river in front of the Hyatt. Could be wrong. There is a lot of space there.
To your point about safety data, FDOT actually does require crash data when evaluating whether a guardrail is necessary.
I could go one about this, but I have to work. This could turn into a good discussion. There are many examples of providing similar accommodations along the waterfront that don't resort to concrete barriers.
Of course, FDOT once told us that the Fuller Warren Bridge couldn't include a shared use path, and yet....
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:45:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:26:00 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:12:06 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 02:08:54 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 14, 2021, 01:47:16 PM
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 01:44:07 PM
Better to have a concrete wall than someone drowning in the river because they accidentally drove off the side of the bulkhead
I guess the fencing that had been installed when the Riverwalk was built in the 1980's was somehow inviting motorists to drive into the river? Never once saw that happen, but then again its not like that area hadn't been a large parking lot since the 1960's or anything.. so the sample size for motorists driving into the river is not very large.
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
You must work for GAI?
Nope, but nice try. I just know a potential safety issue when I see one.
Good thing there aren't transportation professionals commenting here that can't offer their own professional analysis or anything. Safety issues have all sorts of solutions, after all.
In this case, a vehicular dropoff hazard would typically be shielded by guardrail, but that would provide no pedestrian dropoff protection and might still allow a vehicle to deform the guardrail to the point that it would fall. The other option is... you guessed it! A concrete barrier wall.
Just off the top of my head...
I'll go down and measure later today, but I don't think that the roadway is more than 22 feet from the river in front of the Hyatt. Could be wrong. There is a lot of space there.
To your point about safety data, FDOT actually does require crash data when evaluating whether a guardrail is necessary.
I could go one about this, but I have to work. This could turn into a good discussion. There are many examples of providing similar accommodations along the waterfront that don't resort to concrete barriers.
Of course, FDOT once told us that the Fuller Warren Bridge couldn't include a shared use path, and yet....
Alright, pal. You can jump through all the hoops you want to make yourself believe that you're correct on this one by pointing to vague "similar accommodations" and other unrelated things.
This isn't an FDOT job, a crash study is not necessary to install additional guardrail on a project. If a slope does not meet recoverable criteria and is too close to the roadway, a roadside barrier is installed so long as work is being done on the project. Plus, guardrail would look even worse here and would require maintenance, so it's a non-starter.
As for the riverwalk bulkhead by Hyatt, built in a different time, and wouldn't you know, it has concrete barriers behind the guardrail as well! But alas, that type probably wouldn't match any modern standard or adhere to crash safety standards.
I work in the the transportation industry. Safety modifications are part and parcel of any project. Safety rules over aesthetics for a very good reason. It's unfathomable to me that you'd bother arguing contrary to that because you think it would be nice to see the water.
My initial post was a jaded-tone post about why a concrete barrier would be built next to a roadway, which seems pretty obvious to me, but then you went and started spouting off unsubstantiated reasons as to why a dropoff into the river a mere dozen or so feet from the edge of the pavement on a public road is not unsafe. If it isn't obvious to you, no amount of pointless arguing I could do would convince you otherwise.
And in the end, it is what it is, and none of us can do anything about it, but that doesn't stop people from nitpicking, and I can't stop that either.
Good arguing with you today.
QuoteIt's unfathomable to me that you'd bother arguing contrary
You're funny.
Simple bollards separating the sidewalk from the road accomplishes the same thing, while still allowing uniformity (particularly the style of fencing) along the Riverwalk. That you insist that there are only two ways of doing things (either concrete wall or, nice view but sure death), is exactly the problem I am pointing out.
Wow... you guys are never happy...rofl. instead of a collapsing bridge/parking lot we have a small bay with a walkway around it... It is in fact a river walk... not a Riverview so it doesn't bother me one tiny bit that your too short to see over the wall while sitting.
Count me as happy something finally is completed... sheesh... ::)
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 14, 2021, 06:52:44 PM
Wow... you guys are never happy...rofl. instead of a collapsing bridge/parking lot we have a small bay with a walkway around it... It is in fact a river walk... not a Riverview so it doesn't bother me one tiny bit that your too short to see over the wall while sitting.
Count me as happy something finally is completed... sheesh... ::)
Despite my bad attitude that's what I'm trying to say. People round these parts have a knack for nitpicking
Sure, coulda put bollards, but they put a concrete wall. That's fine.
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 14, 2021, 02:00:48 PM
Well, then, since you never saw it it never happened! Guess they built an expensive concrete wall for absolutely no reason at all, they just wanted to really mess up those precious sight lines to the river. Couldn't possibly be that safety standards have improved since the fencing was installed in the 1980's, or that it is a valid concern considering this is a public street abutting the river and not a private access-controlled parking lot as it was. Plus, as you noted, lack of fatalities in a particular location gives us carte blanche to design unsafe public spaces so long as nobody has been killed by it yet!
If this was the case, why aren't they replacing the fencing throughout - and why didn't they put a concrete wall up on the missing block?
This all turns a lot more amusing if, like me, you initially read "bollards" as "collards"
QuotePeople round these parts have a knack for nitpicking
Sure, coulda put bollards, but they put a concrete wall. That's fine.
For being significantly over budget (topping $33 million) and taking over two years longer than it was supposed to have been completed in... and the section in question fronts Downtown's flagship hotel, where most convention guests will garner their first impression of the city... I think 'fine' is a little too low for a standard of acceptance. To echo tufsu's post:
QuoteThe whole thing seems to have been over-engineered and sterile. That's fine for the "under-carriage" infrastructure, but its a missed opportunity at street level.
At some point, it would be nice to have a nice Downtown. But I guess that's just nitpicking. Guess I'll just back to to the large lawn two blocks away from these concrete walls, watch the grass grow and thank my blessings that the engineers made everything just fine.
Quote from: Wacca Pilatka on January 14, 2021, 11:16:33 PM
This all turns a lot more amusing if, like me, you initially read "bollards" as "collards"
Luckily, bollards would stop motorists distracted from eating collards in their car from driving into the river.
Quote from: fieldafm on January 15, 2021, 09:02:32 AM
At some point, it would be nice to have a nice Downtown. But I guess that's just nitpicking. Guess I'll just back to to the large lawn two blocks away from these concrete walls, watch the grass grow and thank my blessings that the engineers made everything just fine.
Moving the goalposts again and changing the subject yet again. We're talking about one concrete wall. I guess I just can't win, though, clearly you have the solution: bollards on the street and a fence on the river. It's too bad the designers didn't seek your input, and now downtown is worse for it because of this abysmal, unsightly, frankly insulting, concrete wall was constructed.
How will we ever recover from such a blunder...
Quote from: Peter Griffin on January 15, 2021, 09:21:13 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on January 15, 2021, 09:02:32 AM
At some point, it would be nice to have a nice Downtown. But I guess that's just nitpicking. Guess I'll just back to to the large lawn two blocks away from these concrete walls, watch the grass grow and thank my blessings that the engineers made everything just fine.
Moving the goalposts again and changing the subject yet again. We're talking about one concrete wall. I guess I just can't win, though, clearly you have the solution: bollards on the street and a fence on the river. It's too bad the designers didn't seek your input, and now downtown is worse for it because of this abysmal, unsightly, frankly insulting, concrete wall was constructed.
How will we ever recover from such a blunder...
Making Downtown more functional and more inviting at the street level is exactly the point. That environment is created through a series of actions, such as a generational reconstruction of Coastline Drive. You typically don't get a re-do on a $33 million infrastructure project a few years later. What you design is what your stuck with for decades.
The mentality that 'its just one section of the riverwalk', and 'its just a lawn on the river', and then 'well its another lawn but it wont be empty long', and 'hey its just a small pocket park', and then 'its just a road cutting through the courthouse public space'... and so on... is how Downtown got to where it is today.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on January 12, 2021, 07:38:16 PM
Wow...I certainly wasn't commenting on the building. The Riverwalk extension from Hyatt to Berkman around the former bridge/parking lot is a huge improvement. Great view of the river... not sure what Maclenny has to do with anything... if not the Riverwalk then what lakelander... tufsu... and heights???
From my perspective, there are minor things that could have been done to add life to the area. Transparent railings were one. Here's a sitting down view of the river from the new riverwalk benches on Market Street:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-tqHDX5r/0/X2/i-tqHDX5r-X2.jpg)
Some transparent railing, like on the Southbank Riverwalk would have been more preferable:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-r6vqTBr/0/X2/i-r6vqTBr-X2.jpg)
Or even this small piece on the new riverwalk would have been more preferable:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Northbank-Riverwalk-December-2020/i-c7kvjTK/0/3cb6700b/X2/20201224_115307-X2.jpg)
Or the little small things like cleaning up, even if the overgrown weeds and plants are just outside the project limits. After all, they are there because this exact project cut this portion of the riverwalk off for several years, allowing the weeds to grow.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Northbank-Riverwalk-December-2020/i-2g7z6cF/0/52f4289b/X2/20201224_120935-X2.jpg)
I also think there was a missed opportunity to better integrate the Hyatt into that corner at Coastline Drive and Market Street. There are three ground floor restaurants (Morton's The Steakhouse, Tavern and Shor Seafood Grill) there, all likely struggling with the pandemic, while we spend all our time dreaming about subsidizing competitive businesses at Lot J. This would be a great space for an outdoor plaza, dining area and signage allowing riverwalk users to know that there are dining spaces literally facing the riverwalk. Especially with the Landing now gone.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-2XCbFP3/0/X2/i-2XCbFP3-X2.jpg)
New dead end driveway to nowhere, looking south.(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-VSW3Gq5/0/X2/i-VSW3Gq5-X2.jpg)
New dead end driveway to nowhere, looking east.(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Neighborhoods/Northbank-Riverwalk-December-2020/i-H2HZtPL/0/682d3432/X2/20201215_201019-X2.jpg)
Struggling restaurants facing the riverwalk with no outdoor visibility closed on a week day night. It doesn't have to be anything super expensive but a bit more placemaking areas dominated by large amounts of asphalt and drive by landscaping would greatly benefit people's impression of the area:
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/-1/Armature-Works-August-2018/i-mC4rXSg/0/8f2e721f/X2/20180808_200626-X2.jpg)
An interactive green space between Armature Works and the Hillsborough River in Tampa.(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/-1/Armature-Works-August-2018/i-fwGmQ3w/0/18ae78ce/X2/20180808_200634-X2.jpg)
Armature Works overlooking the Hillsborough River in Tampa.Overall, I'd love to see a visionary revamp of the Hyatt and how it can better integrate with the riverwalk. I can say the same thing about other spaces along both riverwalks. A little bit of master planning and coordination would go a long way in maximizing the potential of things we're investing our public dollars into. That's one of the biggest differences between Downtown Jacksonville's story and the story of places considered to be more vibrant.
Then there this from NYC's "greenway" wrapping, ultimately, around the entire island of Manhattan. Notice, too, how much more width to the walkway and the much larger green setback behind it. In places, the setback is way more than a football field wide.
Even with the value of Manhattan real estate, they don't want high rises or other imposing buildings close to their waterfront. Contrast that with the apartments proposed for Friendship Park or by the One Call building.
Jax should be doing this with the Shipyards, Landing, District, Friendship Park and Metro Park waterfronts while they can. No reason we can't aspire to a smaller version of this.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0d/The_Esplanade_in_Battery_Park_November_2003_New_York_City.jpg)
My bet is that since that part of the road is classified as a bridge that the full concrete wall has something to do with the requirements of that classification.
^Market Street isn't classified as a bridge. The riverwalk portion on Market Street is essentially a sidewalk. Another trick that could have been used would be to reduce the road width, in favor of a wider riverwalk. More space would alter the sight lines when seated.
The city being hostile to a local developer while simultaneously burning national firms with yet another RFP that they probably don't intent to follow through on and that will probably go nowhere?
Cool!
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/three-bids-made-for-berkman-ii-demolition-order
Lol same ole same ole!
Apparently (https://twitter.com/lennycurry/status/1387025802131349506?s=21) crews are beginning demolition today. Unclear whether it's the city or the developer.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 15, 2021, 08:24:39 PM
The city being hostile to a local developer while simultaneously burning national firms with yet another RFP that they probably don't intent to follow through on and that will probably go nowhere?
Cool!
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/three-bids-made-for-berkman-ii-demolition-order
I can see it now... 'After the COJ Procurement Division and Brian Hughes issued conflicting messages, everyone has yet again walked away from the Berkman project leaving its future in limbo for another 15 years'
Demolition? Call 1-800-Curry. Yes, we won't recognize downtown - it will all be demolished. Can't believe he restated the quote below.;D Really out of touch. One demo out of many that is actually justified. Congrats, Mayor.
QuoteMayor Lenny Curry tweeted Tuesday morning that the demolition crews were on the ground preparing to take down the "13-year-old eyesore."
"I promised you wouldn't recognize downtown, the transformation continues," Curry tweeted.
Apparently (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/demolition-crews-working-at-berkman-ii-downtown) it is in fact the developer's demolition crew that began work today.
Count me as one happy to see it gone... should have been demolished years ago...
News conference in the AM.
Fingers crossed this thing actually happens.
The developer and CM Gaffney were on the news discussing this project on Sunday. It will be interesting to see what's planned.
After reading this article, my anger with Curry and his administration continues to increase daily. You have a developer doing demolition work and you still wont remove your own demo order? Please just get out of the way. If I was a developer and read this article I would be asking " how far is it to Orlando".
If this was happening right at the start of the mayor's tenure everyone would have been cheering him. He's don't some seemingly dumb stuff but I don't see the problem with this. I also don't have a problem with the city strong arming the developer because how long has thing been getting kicked around with all sorts of crazy plans? Either the owner knocks it down or the city will do it and put a lien on the property. That will light a fire in someone's pants.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 27, 2021, 07:30:57 PM
News conference in the AM.
Fingers crossed this thing actually happens.
Did this happen? What exactly is proposed? Did they show any renderings or provide a timeline?
https://twitter.com/NateMonroeTU/status/1387440548974301186?s=20 (https://twitter.com/NateMonroeTU/status/1387440548974301186?s=20)
Quote from: acme54321 on April 28, 2021, 12:50:24 PM
If this was happening right at the start of the mayor's tenure everyone would have been cheering him. He's don't some seemingly dumb stuff but I don't see the problem with this. I also don't have a problem with the city strong arming the developer because how long has thing been getting kicked around with all sorts of crazy plans? Either the owner knocks it down or the city will do it and put a lien on the property. That will light a fire in someone's pants.
Please keep in mind this is not the same owner/developer who was proposing some wild stuff and showed no interest in demolishing. This is a new owner/developer trying to do the demo, who claimed they was delayed on closing on the property because of the condemnation order Brian Hughes then said what are you talking about we work with issues like this all the time, but then admitted he has never discussed this with the new owners. Between Lot J, Landing, City Hall, U2C Gas Tax and other issues the Mayors team does not impress me.
Architecture is nice. This is what I would prefer to see at River City Brewing instead of what is proposed. The incentive ask must be really big on this one. Hard to see the market supporting this all by itself. It is agood sign that they want a pharmacy/grocer on site. They will need free rent to have any chance, IMO.
The grocery store sounds like a wish list type of use. There's at least four Northbank proposals that include a grocery component. Whichever project gets that use will kill that option for the others. It will be interesting to see what the incentives request is because a tower that thin isn't feasible here from a market perspective. This one will be interesting to follow.
The renderings look the same as those on several previous Daily Record articles including one Dec. 24, 2020. I believe the developers said that this would be a phased project with the mid rise mixed use building first. Hopefully that would reduce the size of the incentives to get the project started.
Quote from: jaxjags on April 28, 2021, 01:08:49 PM
Quote from: acme54321 on April 28, 2021, 12:50:24 PM
If this was happening right at the start of the mayor's tenure everyone would have been cheering him. He's don't some seemingly dumb stuff but I don't see the problem with this. I also don't have a problem with the city strong arming the developer because how long has thing been getting kicked around with all sorts of crazy plans? Either the owner knocks it down or the city will do it and put a lien on the property. That will light a fire in someone's pants.
Please keep in mind this is not the same owner/developer who was proposing some wild stuff and showed no interest in demolishing. This is a new owner/developer trying to do the demo, who claimed they was delayed on closing on the property because of the condemnation order Brian Hughes then said what are you talking about we work with issues like this all the time, but then admitted he has never discussed this with the new owners. Between Lot J, Landing, City Hall, U2C Gas Tax and other issues the Mayors team does not impress me.
Who says this developer will be any different than the rest? I'm no fan of the shadiness of this administration but if you think that developers aren't playing the same game you need to get your head out of the sand. They're all in it to get free money to make money, they do that with big promises and flashy renderings and if one of them sticks so be it.
Curry's latest explanation for his string of demolitions* and delivering on "I promised you wouldn't recognize downtown, the transformation continues" after 8 years in office:
QuoteThe demise of the tower means it will join other downtown Northbank buildings that have been demolished in recent years such as the Jacksonville Landing, which was partially used at the time the city took it over in order to raze it, and the old county courthouse and City Hall Annex buildings that had been vacant for years like Berkman 2.
"We've readied our downtown for private investment," Curry said. "I want to see that happening and happen on my watch, but I'm going to be just as grateful and the biggest cheerleader for the next mayor and the next City Council if that stuff is happening because of the work we've done here."
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/04/27/demolition-berkman-2-tower-downtown-jacksonville-begins/4852606001/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2021/04/27/demolition-berkman-2-tower-downtown-jacksonville-begins/4852606001/)
*Quote from article leaves out the Hart Bridge Ramps, Fire Station #5 in Riverside, the Greyhound Bus Station, the historic night club building and the Doro among other demolitions on Curry's watch. Meanwhile, the one I wanted to see, the Skyway, gets over $400 million coming its way...
Bay Street has so much potential but until the day I see another shovel in the ground there I'll just treat every single glossy rendering with the disrespect I've built up every time I see something proposed somewhere along that stretch fall on its face.
Also I've just noticed, hilariously those renderings also have the convention center on the ford on bay ha!
Meanwhile in the real world we have dirt, grass and parking lots.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 28, 2021, 01:03:32 PM
https://twitter.com/NateMonroeTU/status/1387440548974301186?s=20 (https://twitter.com/NateMonroeTU/status/1387440548974301186?s=20)
I like that building/conceptual. I just wish they would quit building things that look like it should be in Orlando or Miami; but hey, if it gets built, I'll take it; and as y'all know, I will blow my top if they shorten it!
Quote from: thelakelander on April 28, 2021, 01:30:25 PM
The grocery store sounds like a wish list type of use. There's at least four Northbank proposals that include a grocery component. Whichever project gets that use will kill that option for the others. It will be interesting to see what the incentives request is because a tower that thin isn't feasible here from a market perspective. This one will be interesting to follow.
I hope not, but it'll probably fade away like all of the rest.