We really need our leaders to not make unilateral decisions without an ounce of public involvement. They are historically bad at this. This is Robert Moses era type planning and a systemic example of what ultimately harms disenfranchised communities. Even though general intentions may be well, at times, we can be too clueless to even see the flaws in this type of wheeling and dealing and decision making. In short, urban recreational space should remain in the urban core.
QuoteCity tried to find new park to clear way for Shad Khan's Shipyards development at Metropolitan Park
Jacksonville City Hall began working last year to clear a regulatory hurdle that would allow Jaguars owner Shad Khan to move forward with plans to build his proposed Shipyards development on parts of Metropolitan Park, which he owns exclusive development rights for even though he cannot currently do anything with the land.
The city agreed in the 1980s to maintain the land as a public park in return for receiving a $1.7 million federal grant. The city could allow private development on the land if it finds another public park to replace it, and emails obtained by the Times-Union show city attorneys were working on doing so as recently as September.
The emails show city attorneys identified a property on Black Hammock Island, located in Duval County's rural, marshy northeast corner, and a 30-acre park that's part of the proposed District development in downtown's Southbank as replacements. Other potential replacements included properties near Arlington's Reddie Point and Fort Caroline's Greenfield.
Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200626/city-tried-to-find-new-park-to-clear-way-for-shad-khanrsquos-shipyards-development-at-metropolitan-park
Completely agree Lake. That said, it sounds like this project has been put on the back burner and the heat isn't even on.
No offense but that sounds like something written about something else copy and pasted about Metropolitan Park. I'd be willing to wager a slab of ribs from Jenkins that more people from Ponte Verde use Metropolitan park in a month than people from the eastside all year. That park may be located in the Urban Core but that ain't who use it.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 29, 2020, 08:51:43 AM
No offense but that sounds like something written about something else copy and pasted about Metropolitan Park. I'd be willing to wager a slab of ribs from Jenkins that more people from Ponte Verde use Metropolitan park in a month than people from the eastside all year. That park may be located in the Urban Core but that ain't who use it.
Met Park was never meant to be a neighborhood park - it is for the whole city. Also, where exactly is Ponte Verde?
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 29, 2020, 08:51:43 AM
No offense but that sounds like something written about something else copy and pasted about Metropolitan Park. I'd be willing to wager a slab of ribs from Jenkins that more people from Ponte Verde use Metropolitan park in a month than people from the eastside all year. That park may be located in the Urban Core but that ain't who use it.
Right now, park reservations are basically at a standstill.. but its clear you have not been to MetPark during a non-event day. The pavilions are routinely used on weekends for birthday parties... and generally by families from the Eastside/Northwest Jacksonville neighborhoods.
Non special-events use has been declining ever since Kids Kampus has been torn down, but you are making an ignorant assertion as a whole.
BTW, in 2019 the Mayor's office shifted around $2mm to repay the National Park Service for the closure of MetPark. City Council has yet to appropriate the money due to the ongoing and open-ended attempts to resolve the contractual obligations with the NPS.
Lake's comments about making unilateral decisions with only consulting Shad Khan, Peter Rummel and Michael Munz and the rest of the public be damned.. are 100% true.
Quote from: bl8jaxnative on June 29, 2020, 08:51:43 AM
No offense but that sounds like something written about something else copy and pasted about Metropolitan Park. I'd be willing to wager a slab of ribs from Jenkins that more people from Ponte Verde use Metropolitan park in a month than people from the eastside all year. That park may be located in the Urban Core but that ain't who use it.
When Kids Kampus was there, I'd bet three slabs of Jenkins ribs that more people from the Eastside used it. I'd bet you a slab of ribs right now that more Eastside people are using it right now. If anyone is really interested in it, this site is a great example of local systemic racisim with longstanding local policies.
The City can at times display poor negotiation and contract " skills"
I have never been against Khan's plan. But I've always been against dismantling Metro Park until construction is signed, sealed and delivered. Again Curry is awful and has allowed this. What's going to happen if the shipyards doesn't happen. The Hart Bridge ramps will be gone and cost a ton with no development in sight. And the city LIED about why they were being removed. I know, I know I'm cynical. I am. Just look at all the waste and destruction in the last few years. At least Metro Park was used. NOW nothing.
From the Jacksonville.com article: "However, the Landing was not on the list of the potential properties the city identified as a replacement for Metropolitan Park when City Hall informed state and federal officials it intended to do so." Now correct me if I'm wrong but this seems to say that the demolition of the Landing was done as a replacement for Metro Park. But that just seemed to be another lie from the city. Was the demo just for show? Now look what we have.
Sadly Jax doesn't need more parks anyway. We do an appalling job maintaining what we have. And most of our parks are so blah you may as well stay in your backyard.
Maybe someday this city will stop failing but it will require people with real vision not like the clueless ones we have now.
Quote from: avonjax on July 30, 2020, 08:23:37 AM
At least Metro Park was used. NOW nothing.
Agree in spirit with your post, albeit not with some of the details (Landing demo was never about MetroPark... its actually a smaller site comparatively; and the City didn't really lie about the ramp removal- it was always being done for stadium development)
Just wanted to add, that despite the only amenities being left at Metro Park are the marina, the riverfront bulkhead (both the marina and the bulkhead have been repaired in the past year) and tables/grills along the riverfront... when I was at MetPark Monday and Tuesday of this week, about a dozen people were in the park fishing and having lunch along the riverfront area. I think that is a bigger product of banning fishing along the Northbank and Southbank Riverwalks a few years ago, more so than the current attractiveness of what's left of Metro Park.
I spoke with a few of the older gentleman fishing on Tuesday. They were not from Ponte Verde.
Metropolitan Park and the space being WJCT is really interesting when tied to the history of the Eastside and the Gullah Geechee. Access to the waterfront and living off the land and water has always been apart of the Gullah and working class culture of our region....even predating the actual city of Jacksonville. Call me a cynic but I really do believe that the banning of fishing along the riverwalks in the heart of downtown is a local example of a systemic discriminatory public policy partially intended to limit a certain element of the local population from having access to the river. Lifting that ban is one of the easy and affordable ways to help naturally activate the downtown riverfront, embrace and build upon Jax's authentic identity, history and culture, IMO.
In fairness, I'd rather not catch a hook while riding a bike down the Riverwalk
I'm not even sure you're legally supposed to riding a bike on the riverwalk. It certainly doesn't meet the design criteria requirements for what would be considered a shared use path.
Pretty easy to set aside some areas for fishing, dont'ya think!?
Woah, weird. I typed up a pretty long comment, but only the first sentence posted. I don't feel like typing the whole thing again, but in short I think that it would be great to create "fishing zones". The current can make fishing tough, but a good starter would be where the parking deck was taken out. Turn it into an estuary of sorts and it could become a gathering spot for fishing, people watching, recreation, etc.
Quote from: jaxjaguar on July 30, 2020, 11:50:58 AM
In fairness, I'd rather not catch a hook while riding a bike down the Riverwalk
My take on banning fishing from the Riverwalk is a little more nuanced than Lakelander's take. I recognize that fishing is banned in some of the tributaries within many working class neighborhoods, due to pollution issues. That's a conversation in and of itself. I would also welcome public fishing back Downtown, but in a way that is respectful to all users of the Riverwalk.
I think in order to bring back public fishing Downtown, there needs to be a designated area to do so that has the necessary cleaning tables, places to discard fishing line.. and one that is maintained on an ongoing basis (multiple times a day). A finger pier (like the many at the old Shipyards site) would likely be the best site for such activities.
It wasn't uncommon to see fishing line and discarded fish and shrimp carcasses lining the former wooden structure Southbank Riverwalk... and runners and cyclists near the exercise area at Corkscrew Park are routinely ducking fishing poles from the few that still try to bottom fish along the Acosta Bridge rock formations near the CSX building (whenever an Ambassador isn't staffed at Corkscrew). When the Southbank Riverwalk was reconstructed and became much more narrow as a result... its now hard to accommodate multiple users (no way you can have people throwing shrimping nets when the shrimp run in the summer, while runners and hotel guests are trying to also use the walkway).
I see both sides of the coin, and feel there is certainly a way to accommodate multiple goals at once. From 10,000 feet up, there are a variety of public access issues for the Riverwalk that need to be addressed in a holistic manner. For instance:
-In the past 10 years, there are now 4 places where kayak/SUP/canoes can be launched (one is also ADA compliant)... before there were two (and those two were not ADA compliant).
-Also in the past 10 years, boaters are no longer able to tie up to docking facilities- either by design (Southbank) or neglect (Northbank). -The River Taxi has expanded to include a dock at RAM (however that stop is only open during the Riverside Arts Market operating hours). A new River Taxi stop will be added in Riverside along Post Street (adjacent to the Cummer Musuem and the Garden Club). However, a River Taxi stop in San Marco was halted due to opposition from area residents.
There are others, the point is that there is a bigger picture to access that goes beyond wanting to limit economically challenged fishermen.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2020, 12:08:43 PM
I'm not even sure you're legally supposed to riding a bike on the riverwalk. It certainly doesn't meet the design criteria requirements for what would be considered a shared use path.
You used to not be able to ride a bike on the old wooden structure Southbank Riverwalk. That policy was changed when the new concrete structure went it.... however to your point, the concrete structure was supposed to be about 6 feet wider than what we actually have now. Delays in bidding out the work, resulted in a rise of materials and construction costs, which in turn led to a much smaller structure and the ditching of many of the amenities (pavilions, seating and a viewing tower) that were originally proposed. This was one of the more regrettable missteps of the former Mayoral administration, in regards to Downtown.
Any idea on the width of the Northbank Riverwalk in front of the Landing's grave? I recall it being pretty narrow in there. A standard path is about 12' in width. If we're mixing bikes and pedestrians out on the riverwalk, it would ideal to be much wider than that. Width isn't a problem when the place is empty but if downtown were vibrant, we'd have some serious pedestrian/bike conflict issues.
Quote from: thelakelander on July 30, 2020, 02:16:20 PM
Any idea on the width of the Northbank Riverwalk in front of the Landing's grave? I recall it being pretty narrow in there. A standard path is about 12' in width. If we're mixing bikes and pedestrians out on the riverwalk, it would ideal to be much wider than that. Width isn't a problem when the place is empty but if downtown were vibrant, we'd have some serious pedestrian/bike conflict issues.
I doubt its more than 6 feet.
When I lived downtown the space infront of the Landing was the one spot I wouldn't take my bike. It's way too narrow even when it's not very crowded. I'd usually stick to the North Bank and start in front of the Times Union Center riding West into Riverside. The South bank was nice, but it felt really short in comparison and it's really disconnected since there's nothing to see or do along the way aside from the Sailor Statue and Friendship fountain.
This core issue with fishing from riverwalk ain't space. Too many fishers leave their junk behind. It's the old a few bad apples ruin it for the rest.
This junk is discarded shells, hooks, bait, fishing lines, etc. Stuff that you can't have lieing around in a high volume path. People get hurt because of it.
That said, I was pretty disappointed with the city. The installed a kayak launch. They have yet to do what there's a clear demand for even dowtown, space for fishing.
That can be accomplished with docks off a the riverwalk. We already see a couple of those uses for exactly that from time to time. It seperates the fishing from the high activity walking / jogging / biking space.
Yes, the easy solution would be to have designated zones for fishing. St. Pete just spent $92 million on a pier and was able to figure this out and work it into the design of their first class public space. However, significant public engagement was conducted during their planning process.
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/St-Petersburg-July-2020/i-6VZmM39/0/5c563cad/XL/20200718_144134-XL.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/St-Petersburg-July-2020/i-4bBmtzv/0/35db763f/XL/20200718_144105-XL.jpg)
A pier is a must have for Downtown Jax. There should be other fishing areas too.
Quote from: Tacachale on August 04, 2020, 01:55:32 PM
A pier is a must have for Downtown Jax. There should be other fishing areas too.
A fishing pier ( or three) is long overdue throughout the city...
Curry is requesting the NPS Bill be withdrawn and Iguana is proposing "moving" Met Park to either side of Hogan's Creek:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/curry-administration-to-withdraw-metropolitan-park-bill
(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/styles/sliders_and_planned_story_image_870x580/public/304459_standard.jpeg?itok=0ItMCbqS)
It looks like a better option and goes more along in line of what was envisioned for the site 20 years ago.
^With that said, it sucks to have an expressway interchange at A.Philip Randolph Boulevard and Bay, which appears will be a major entrance into this green space.
I would tend to agree - this location being closer to the core actually makes the difference of whether or not it's walkable from say Laura Street in my eyes.
Additionally, the development on the section between the park and Berkman, done right, can contribute to the environment with things like ground level restaurants visible both from the river and Bay Street, etc. There's also the option to RFP the parking lot across Bay that's COJ property.
Now all of that is wonderful but is there a recent term sheet for the Shipyards yet?
I wouldn't hold my breath. This thing is years away from realistically breaking ground. Whatever happens with the Shipyards will be well after the current administration has moved on.
The shell game continues ;D
Not holding my breath that anything happens in the next decade, but I do think this is a fantastic location for a park that's reasonably accessible for both the CBD/urban core and the sports complex.
Also saves the city a lot of money ($20 million+, I'd imagine) on remediating that section for mixed-use, as it's mega contaminated and has got to a real logistical challenge to clean versus that block to the left. If the city invests the cash they would have spent on remediating into a world-class greenspace instead, feels like a net win.
(https://www.news4jax.com/resizer/bySwr1nmuGD8lu5cl4KS7w6kAiI=/1280x720/smart/filters:format(jpeg):strip_exif(true):strip_icc(true):no_upscale(true):quality(65)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-gmg.s3.amazonaws.com/public/DGEPT5OSUJCNBNF36JGGB63AKQ.jpg)
Curious, with all the talk about developing Met Park, are we certain it doesn't have the same level of contaminates as the Shipyards directly to its left? Does Met Park have any history of industrial use?
This MJ article from 2011 has a lot of photos of the area. Pretty much all of the riverfront looks industrial in some way.
https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2011-jul-exploring-downtowns-commodore-point
It's happening, apparently.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-to-ask-national-park-service-for-metropolitan-park-shipyards-swap
Dumb question that probably has an obvious answer:
It feels like we've been hearing about these back and forths for a few years now, with multiple sites (some downtown, some far from it) being floated for land swaps with Met Park.
If Met Park's designation was holding back legitimate development, why wouldn't we just pay back that $1.7 million to the feds and figure out our downtown park plans independent of a land swap? If we can pay $20 million for a clean slate at the Landing, certainly we can pay less than a tenth of that to clear a roadblock for the Jags, right?
Is there some hidden consequence/downside of handing back the money now until we've figured out our park plans in the future?
All that said, still love the idea of a signature public park on the western Shipyards.
Gives the city SO MUCH more bang for the buck than wasting the entire Landing on greenspace (e.g. the Landing is fully developable; the Shipyards will require $35 million in remediation to make way for mixed-use development; makes sense to have the signature greenspace on land not suited for other types of development).
Also, I'm wondering if the imminent proposal by Iguana cited by Boyer means that the preliminary environmental reports are coming back somewhat positive.
Metropolitan Park didn't hold anything back until this current administration came on the scene. The public has never demanded that something be built on the top of this space. If it were up to the community, Kids Kampus would still be there. That should tell you all you need to know about our downtown visioning or lack of thereof.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on September 14, 2020, 12:33:03 PM
If Met Park's designation was holding back legitimate development, why wouldn't we just pay back that $1.7 million to the feds and figure out our downtown park plans independent of a land swap? If we can pay $20 million for a clean slate at the Landing, certainly we can pay less than a tenth of that to clear a roadblock for the Jags, right?
I believe I read somewhere along the way that the Feds said the property isn't for sale. Only a swap with comparable land would do as this project was intended to provide riverfront green space in perpetuity. Selling it back won't support that.
For the record, I am for all our city owned riverfront land being green space. Let the developers have at it one block or more back. There are plenty of opportunities for them. Future generations will thank those of us today who had the foresight to put these lands aside just as they do in cities many times our size who have benefited from similar decisions in decades and centuries past. It's a red herring to say we don't have the funds to maintain our parks. If we have $233 million +++ for Shad's projects, we have the money for parks. Additionally, if we had an "adopt a park" program for citizens and businesses to make tax deductible contributions to support our parks, we would have additional funds (see foundations supporting our national parks).
If one looks at any flood maps calculating sea level rises of 1 to 6+ feet, one would see the added benefit of not building on land that is destined to flood regularly in the coming years. Downtown Jax is possibly one of the most vulnerable spots in the county outside of remaining wetlands. Just as the City/Feds are now looking at buying a few dozen houses for $5 million due to repeated flooding so they can forever convert the land back to green space, we may be wishing for the same Downtown if we develop these properties today (see the Wells Fargo Building and Hyatt after Irma flooding).
River Access
The Call For River Access has become Boring, key limited opportunities lost, the realities of what was possible, costs and commitment required hardly noted.
Drop it.
St Johns Riverkeeper desperately needs an issue/ cause. This is perfect Dead End.