Metro Jacksonville

Quote
The River City Brewing Company restaurant that's been serving seafood and steak at tables overlooking the St. Johns River for decades could make way for a new apartment building on the Southbank next to Friendship Foundation and the Acosta Bridge.

The conversion of the property would involve a three-way deal involving the city, which owns the land, along with Maritime Concepts, which has a long-term lease with the city for the land where the restaurant stands, and a developer that wants to build an eight-story apartment building on the site.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2020/10/02/downtown-jacksonville-restaurant-river-city-brewing-could-be-demolished-for-apartment-building/5887365002/

I hoped something with a bit more density and height could be built on that site. Oh well.

It would be really nice if a ground level restaurant with transient dockage could be built into it.  I like the idea of the store at the boat ramp but there isn't enough traffic at that ramp to realistically support that. 

So since there is a ground lease does the city have to approve anything they want to do or does the owner of the lease pretty much have freedom to put whatever they want on the site?

Quote from: acme54321 on October 02, 2020, 09:40:27 AM
So since there is a ground lease does the city have to approve anything they want to do or does the owner of the lease pretty much have freedom to put whatever they want on the site?

COJ must approve as they own the dirt.

It would be cool if they could get out of that RCB lease. We'll see how it goes.

Is there really a need for more apartments?  River City has a great spot, but everything else about it is terrible.  I hope whatever plan they go with it includes riverfront dining which there is a dearth of in this city.  That spot could be killer in the right hands/right type of food.

Yeah, it will be interesting to learn more about what they have in mind. Residential is fine for upper levels but I'd hope there would be some form of retail/dining along the riverfront, the park and Riverplace Boulevard.

It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.  Uuggh!  One day we are going to be looking down the river like we are in a giant tunnel with the lack of setbacks.  Just look at the ocean front in South Florida to see what a high rise "wall" looks like (and that's with the ocean on one side).  No aesthetics reflecting the river's character, lack of appropriate scaling, little or no green space, little public access or recreational opportunities, no concern for grade level interactions, blah buildings, etc.

Same attitude leads to the destruction of our historic buildings (as an aside, I see the Doro sale also closed this week) and everything else distinctive about the City.  Jacksonville would sell its soul to the devil for the right price.  Not impressed.  No vision, no creativity, no master plan, no leadership, no sense of design and so on...

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.

No, the (new) zoning code does not permit new construction akin to the Strand/Peninsula along the riverfront. There are max height limits within so many feet of the waterfront.  If apartments are constructed on the RCB site, they would likely be set back from the waterfront. Most of the property is off the river (the trees in between the restaurant and Friendship Fountain are all on COJ property). I believe 5 stories is the max along the riverfront (see: Broadstone apartments next to School Board).

Quote from: fieldafm on October 02, 2020, 01:48:41 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.

No, the (new) zoning code does not permit new construction akin to the Strand/Peninsula along the riverfront. There are max height limits within so many feet of the waterfront.  If apartments are constructed on the RCB site, they would likely be set back from the waterfront. Most of the property is off the river (the trees in between the restaurant and Friendship Fountain are all on COJ property). I believe 5 stories is the max along the riverfront (see: Broadstone apartments next to School Board).

I hope you are right but the City is famous for breaking its own rules.  The renderings for many of these projects don't seem to me to follow the plan but we will see.   I see the apartments adjacent to the One Call building, the recent ones on the water in Riverside, the FIS HQ's, etc. close to the river.  Maybe my idea of an appropriate set back differs from others.  I think it should be a multiple of 100 feet, not a multiple of 10 feet.  That's what impresses me in other cities that have more respect for this issue.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.  Uuggh!  One day we are going to be looking down the river like we are in a giant tunnel with the lack of setbacks.  Just look at the ocean front in South Florida to see what a high rise "wall" looks like (and that's with the ocean on one side).  No aesthetics reflecting the river's character, lack of appropriate scaling, little or no green space, little public access or recreational opportunities, no concern for grade level interactions, blah buildings, etc.

Jax isn't a first tier metropolitan area. It couldn't have a scene like Miami or Chicago even if it wanted it. This market can't support much of anything new over 10 stories. That's suburban infill in most growing major cities. No need to lose sleep about getting close to anything like South Florida.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:58:13 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on October 02, 2020, 01:48:41 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.

No, the (new) zoning code does not permit new construction akin to the Strand/Peninsula along the riverfront. There are max height limits within so many feet of the waterfront.  If apartments are constructed on the RCB site, they would likely be set back from the waterfront. Most of the property is off the river (the trees in between the restaurant and Friendship Fountain are all on COJ property). I believe 5 stories is the max along the riverfront (see: Broadstone apartments next to School Board).

I see the apartments adjacent to the One Call building, the recent ones on the water in Riverside, the FIS HQ's, etc. close to the river. 

The apartments going up next to the One Call building had an entitlement that pre-dated the new zoning code, which I think is a reasonable condition for an exception to the 60 ft height rule. Nevertheless, they did come down from their initial proposal, and later came down further based on a lawsuit from the adjacent property owner

FIS received a small height variance, however the building is set back from the river... and Fidelity already paid for (20+ years ago) the public park and Riverwalk extension (public access) in between the river and the new office tower under construction.  There is no infringement of public access caused by that building.

Frankly, opposing either of those projects (a residential tower in an oddly shaped lot next to very noisy train tracks... and the expansion of a F500 headquarters which is likely the best economic development deal EVER done by COJ) would be failing to see the forest through the trees, IMO.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 02, 2020, 02:06:45 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.  Uuggh!  One day we are going to be looking down the river like we are in a giant tunnel with the lack of setbacks.  Just look at the ocean front in South Florida to see what a high rise "wall" looks like (and that's with the ocean on one side).  No aesthetics reflecting the river's character, lack of appropriate scaling, little or no green space, little public access or recreational opportunities, no concern for grade level interactions, blah buildings, etc.

Jax isn't a first tier metropolitan area. It couldn't have a scene like Miami or Chicago even if it wanted it. This market can't support much of anything new over 10 stories. That's suburban infill in most growing major cities. No need to lose sleep about getting close to anything like South Florida.

Exactly!  And, it never will be first tier (which can mean "first class," not necessarily a much larger city) the way we plan (or don't plan) things out in this City.  We need to think first tier if we want to move up the ladder instead of looking down to second and third tier for our visions.  I know you think this way and are doing your best and it may be resulting in small victories here and there.  You probably have to pick your battles so compromise is often made.  I would suggest you should not have to do so very often when you are so right about what needs to be done.  It's a tough nut to crack and hats off to you for your outstanding efforts.

I would like to see much more much sooner.  As a long timer, it's frustrating to watch how the City has (mis)managed itself over these many decades and continues to do so while the rest of much of the world passes us by.  Guess I am losing some patience with the prevalence of our continued backward thinking.  Hope springs eternal though  8)!

Quote from: fieldafm on October 02, 2020, 02:17:05 PM
Frankly, opposing either of those projects (a residential tower in an oddly shaped lot next to very noisy train tracks... and the expansion of a F500 headquarters which is likely the best economic development deal EVER done by COJ) would be failing to see the forest through the trees, IMO.

I get it and that's part of my point.  The City will always lay down for "economic development" (translated, essentially "any development proposed") in the short run for what might be much better economic development in the long run.  We think of today only, not tomorrow.  We don't have principled standards despite saying we do.  And, some poorly conceived concessions today will not be reversible in our lifetimes, if ever.  I might add that some might be willing to sacrifice some degree of "economic development" for quality of life.  I realize finding the balance is tricky but we should at least consider the thought.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
I would like to see much more much sooner.  As a long timer, it's frustrating to watch how the City has (mis)managed itself over these many decades and continues to do so while the rest of much of the world passes us by.  Guess I am losing some patience with the prevalence of our continued backward thinking.  Hope springs eternal though  8)!

We all would, that's why we're here.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 03:45:38 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on October 02, 2020, 02:17:05 PM
Frankly, opposing either of those projects (a residential tower in an oddly shaped lot next to very noisy train tracks... and the expansion of a F500 headquarters which is likely the best economic development deal EVER done by COJ) would be failing to see the forest through the trees, IMO.

I get it and that's part of my point.  The City will always lay down for "economic development" (translated, essentially "any development proposed") in the short run for what might be much better economic development in the long run.  We think of today only, not tomorrow.  We don't have principled standards despite saying we do.  And, some poorly conceived concessions today will not be reversible in our lifetimes, if ever.  I might add that some might be willing to sacrifice some degree of "economic development" for quality of life.  I realize finding the balance is tricky but we should at least consider the thought.

I think the constant challenge that comes up in municipal economic development is that there's no guarantee of better economic development in the long run. Unless there is a consistent driver that will effectively guarantee future growth (i.e. Gainesville being home to the state's flagship university), tomorrow isn't necessarily promised. Jax staved off greater decline by annexing/consolidating its suburbs instead of letting the residential tax base run (which it seems many responded to by simply moving to even further suburbs, but besides the point). Ideally, the "adults" in the room should be thinking more about making the types of investments that won't immediately pay off, but that's hard to do when whether it paying off at all might be a question. It's been said before here that whoever loses the Jaguars will be run out of town on a rail, and it doesn't seem much less true these days. Obviously, we can do better, other cities are, but to a limited extent I understand the desperation. People have different definitions of "quality of life," which is also a big factor.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on October 02, 2020, 04:46:43 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
I would like to see much more much sooner.  As a long timer, it's frustrating to watch how the City has (mis)managed itself over these many decades and continues to do so while the rest of much of the world passes us by.  Guess I am losing some patience with the prevalence of our continued backward thinking.  Hope springs eternal though  8)!

We all would, that's why we're here.

When it comes to downtown, I'd love for us to be accomplish being average first. We dream big, show pretty pictures of spaces that cost +$100 million to build, yet we still can't get public restrooms in many of the parks we already have. For the planner in me, struggling to implement the basics is probably the most frustrating thing in discussions about downtown revitalization. The fiasco around the planning of courthouse plaza and the condition of James Weldon Johnson Park are great examples of this. Cities big and small would have transformed these spaces decades ago already.

I'm all for progress, but I've got mixed feelings about this one. River City is one of our most beautiful riverfront dining spaces, even if the restaurant itself is fairly unspectacular. Lot of history there too dating back over 50 years. We've already lost a ton of riverfront dining with the demolition of the Landing that isn't going to be regained with the Curry design.

Do we really want to tear down another active use, spend $3 million in public money on dock repair for the developer, and hand out the 20-year, 75 percent tax abatement the developer is requesting, just to replace an existing restaurant with apartments with limited retail (a small boat supply shop). Feels like a zero sum game, at best, influenced by a desire to hit some arbitrary downtown resident goal.

I also worry this would mean hitting pause, potentially for years, on the existing Friendship Fountain/St. John's River Park that is already designed out now that there's the potential to add more land.

Feels like restaurant use is more compatible with the Mosh expansion plans too.

We're sitting on 100 acres of undeveloped riverfront downtown, feels silly to keep knocking down functional shit to make way for new development (or lawns). The Landing. Doro Fixtures. Courthouse Site. River City Brewing.

Did Doro get demoed yet?  Haven't been down there since COVID.

Quote from: acme54321 on October 02, 2020, 07:58:28 PM
Did Doro get demoed yet?  Haven't been down there since COVID.

Rise (the developer) just closed on their purchase of the property on Wednesday.

They are prohibited from demoing the Doro buildings until permitting for vertical construction is in and work is imminent. That said, they plan to have construction underway this year, so I wouldn't be surprised to see the buildings gone by end of November.

I've heard that the Jags are excited about and indirectly supporting the project, and I've also heard that Lot J and stadium renovation talks - perhaps in a combined package - are going to be pick back up in October.

If we were ever to fight for density be that by height or by using every inch of land, this is the spot to do it... This spot arguably has the best view possible of the north bank skyline, has access to the most prominent dock downtown, across the street from skyway and river taxi, next to our most prominent downtown park.
A mixed building makes sense here with variable levels of cost housing and maximum density.
That being said we'll find a way to spend $5 million to tear down the restaurant without anything in contact to replace it. Demolition will cause permanent damage to friendship fountain resulting in another $5 million to tear it down. A fire from that demolition will destroy MoSH and mayor Curry will decide we have enough funding to support an illegal sod parking lot for 3 years.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on October 02, 2020, 04:46:43 PM
I think the constant challenge that comes up in municipal economic development is that there's no guarantee of better economic development in the long run. Unless there is a consistent driver that will effectively guarantee future growth (i.e. Gainesville being home to the state's flagship university), tomorrow isn't necessarily promised. Jax staved off greater decline by annexing/consolidating its suburbs instead of letting the residential tax base run (which it seems many responded to by simply moving to even further suburbs, but besides the point). Ideally, the "adults" in the room should be thinking more about making the types of investments that won't immediately pay off, but that's hard to do when whether it paying off at all might be a question. It's been said before here that whoever loses the Jaguars will be run out of town on a rail, and it doesn't seem much less true these days. Obviously, we can do better, other cities are, but to a limited extent I understand the desperation. People have different definitions of "quality of life," which is also a big factor.

To your point, this pattern of behavior is symptomatic, to me, of an inferiority complex, and I am not the first to think that is the prevailing civic mindset here.  I don't get it.  Jacksonville has amazing natural assets, a diversified and resilient economy, steady growth, and some great quality of life attributes that any city would be envious of.  But you would never know it sometimes as we constantly sell the City short in negotiations (some might say we prostitute ourselves).  It seems we always think we have to latch on to any and everyone who makes a pass at us, giving them all of our gold to impress and attract them.  The best partners are often attracted to those who exhibit self confidence and self esteem, not who over-attend to them.  It is this same strength that should be exerted in attaining results that benefit the widest swath of the community, not just a few, and do so for the long run, not necessarily for the sugar high short run.

As Jacksonville grows further, we will be destined to a day when our community thinks far differently than the one we have now.  And those future citizens will look back on these times, as we sometimes look back today on the 1950's to 1970's +/-, by example, and wonder what were people of the present thinking when they mangled so many opportunities to do things better for the greater good.

I love the idea, but don't like the design/site plan.  I'd rather have something taller on top of parking on the existing parking lot and more retail on the waterfront/park sides.  I know that it's not likely economically feasible, but this design doesn't leave much room left on one of the most prime spots in town. Related is a great company and I'd love for them to start looking at Jacksonville as a possible development center, but they way this project is laid out needs work.  (I'm going off the vague rendering on JDR)

That layout they show on the JDR Is pretty wonky.  It all but eliminates the boat ramp, which I use a lot, so I'll be raising hell about that if it moves forward LOL.

Wow, so no retail whatsoever? Talk about further killing reasons to spend time on the Southbank Riverwalk. I was hoping they'd at least incorporate a restaurant or something that would interact with the riverwalk and park.

Quote from: fieldafm on October 02, 2020, 01:48:41 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 01:33:40 PM
It looks like the City is open to high rises abutting the river on both sides throughout Downtown.

No, the (new) zoning code does not permit new construction akin to the Strand/Peninsula along the riverfront. There are max height limits within so many feet of the waterfront.  If apartments are constructed on the RCB site, they would likely be set back from the waterfront. Most of the property is off the river (the trees in between the restaurant and Friendship Fountain are all on COJ property). I believe 5 stories is the max along the riverfront (see: Broadstone apartments next to School Board).

Quote
The eight-story apartment building will have an adjacent eight-story parking garage with 535 spaces.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/related-group-proposes-dollar92-million-development-at-river-city-brewing-co-site (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/related-group-proposes-dollar92-million-development-at-river-city-brewing-co-site)

(https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/sites/default/files/styles/sliders_and_planned_story_image_870x580/public/310146_standard.jpeg?itok=6L-ZVftt)

Field, so much for 5 stories and appropriate set backs.  Between the article and the picture, it proves my point completely.  I note that this will block a chunk of the river view (now replaced with a glorious view of the 8 story parking garage) from the Acosta bridge, a popular public viewing and walking spot, and, being at a turn in the river, the minimal setback will further restrict the view over its arc.  And, as noted, no interaction with the pedestrian traffic in the park or along the river walk (which I assume will remain although you can not easily see it in the picture.  Not very big if it is there.) 

Another point about these taller buildings are the shadows they cast on the public spaces around them and the potential for directing wind flows downward.

Please explain to me how this enhances appreciation of our river asset or falls in line with the purpose of those newly adopted zoning rules.  If this does meet the zoning rules, they are clearly not strict enough.

^What views are being blocked that aren't already being blocked by the current restaurant? What's your thoughts on a development with the same number of units but 16 or 24 stories tall along Riverplace Boulevard, creating more space between the building and the river?

Personally, I'm not against development at this site. It's currently a blight on the Southbank, IMO. Related is a good company with the ability to actually pull something off. I do think that it could be better though. However, this is where the DIA, DDRB and having an actual vision and plan of what we want our downtown to be, happens to come in.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2020, 03:41:50 PM
What's your thoughts on a development with the same number of units but 16 or 24 stories tall along Riverplace Boulevard, creating more space between the building and the river?

I was thinking about something like this. If you cut off the L-shaped part closest to the river, and dropped it on top of the rest of the building/garage, it seems there'd be plenty of space to still have some sort of riverfront dining/additional park space. Or perhaps (don't know if the market supports this) spreading the garage to be maybe six stories with the same number of spaces, and the building on top of that?

Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2020, 03:41:50 PM
^What views are being blocked that aren't already being blocked by the current restaurant? What's your thoughts on a development with the same number of units but 16 or 24 stories tall along Riverplace Boulevard, creating more space between the building and the river?

Personally, I'm not against development at this site. It's currently a blight on the Southbank, IMO. Related is a good company with the ability to actually pull something off. I do think that it could be better though. However, this is where the DIA, DDRB and having an actual vision and plan of what we want our downtown to be, happens to come in.

Lake, I think it goes without saying that a monster 8 story structure is going to obstruct many more views than a two story restaurant a fraction of the mass of this complex.  If a high rise was back from the river on Riverplace Blvd., I would buy into that far more than this that creeps up close to the river.

I also think it's a stretch to call the area blighted.  It's an active parking lot, restaurant and marina.  I haven't been to River City in awhile and you can say what you want about their service and food, but I always found the structure well maintained.

As I have advocated in other threads, if I had my druthers, we would expand the green space of Friendship Park over this parcel and leave it at that.  They can build these apartments in Rummel's project if they like the area that much and it would seem like he could use the assist  8).

Again, I say the City is giving away its gold for a short run sugar high.  Boyer, herself, said, its all about more residents downtown.  Public access and enjoyment be damned.  Where are all these "new residents" going to recreate at the rate we are giving up public green spaces?  I don't think a narrow river walk with little or no amenities is going to cut it.

Besides an 8-story wall right on the river, apparent lack of retail or restaurant interaction with the Riverwalk, and the increased traffic from 335 apartment, it look like MOSH is losing parking. 

Quote
According to the draft DIA term sheet, 30 parking spaces in the garage will be set aside for public use and Related Group must provide parking for the neighboring Museum of Science & History.

It is unclear how many spaces that "Related Group mut provide for the neighboring MOSH" - is it the 30 mentioned? How many more spaces?  Will they charge for these spaces? How much?

Also, although the rendering includes renovations to Friendship Park, it ignores the MOSH 2.0 expansion.

Even if the eventual parking garage includes adequate spaces reserved for MOSH, what about during the construction period of ... what ... 2 years?

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 03, 2020, 05:19:37 PM

Lake, I think it goes without saying that a monster 8 story structure is going to obstruct many more views than a two story restaurant a fraction of the mass of this complex.  If a high rise was back from the river on Riverplace Blvd., I would buy into that far more than this that creeps up close to the river.

I think this site is a unique situation where it doesn't block anyone's views anymore than the existing building does, unless we're trying to preserve the views of the office tower across the street.

QuoteI also think it's a stretch to call the area blighted.  It's an active parking lot, restaurant and marina.  I haven't been to River City in awhile and you can say what you want about their service and food, but I always found the structure well maintained.

For the urbanist in me, a pedestrian hostile surface parking lots that consume acres of prime downtown property are the definition of blight. It looks straight out of the 1960s, stays empty 90% of the time and includes an aging parking attendant kiosk that's empty. The structure itself is pretty auto centric, suburban and totally ignores any interaction with the park adjacent to it.

It's great for something along the Intracoastal on Beach Boulevard but definitely not the best for a high profile downtown site. So from that perspective, I'm okay with seeing that building go. However, the restaurant space should be incorporated into the project. Related has no problem with building mixed-use projects in South Florida. They should be able to make it work here. Otherwise, they're basically putting a Town Center Parkway style apartment complex on the downtown riverfront.

QuoteAs I have advocated in other threads, if I had my druthers, we would expand the green space of Friendship Park over this parcel and leave it at that.  They can build these apartments in Rummel's project if they like the area that much and it would seem like he could use the assist  8).

Rummel's project is off the beaten path. I can see how a developer would view this property as having greater potential, given the riverfront, highway access and the land uses immediately surrounding it.

QuoteAgain, I say the City is giving away its gold for a short run sugar high.  Boyer, herself, said, its all about more residents downtown.  Public access and enjoyment be damned.  Where are all these "new residents" going to recreate at the rate we are giving up public green spaces?  I don't think a narrow river walk with little or no amenities is going to cut it.

I agree that a narrow river walk with little or no amenities isn't going to cut it. The city definitely needs a real community based plan and vision. Not just for the riverfront parks, but for the entire central business district. If something like that were in place, most of the individual projects being proposed by the private sector would then have some general guidance. As things currently stand, it's basically every man for himself with a wish that everything works out and goes together in the end.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 03, 2020, 05:31:05 PM
Besides an 8-story wall right on the river, apparent lack of retail or restaurant interaction with the Riverwalk, and the increased traffic from 335 apartment, it look like MOSH is losing parking. 

Quote
According to the draft DIA term sheet, 30 parking spaces in the garage will be set aside for public use and Related Group must provide parking for the neighboring Museum of Science & History.

It is unclear how many spaces that "Related Group mut provide for the neighboring MOSH" - is it the 30 mentioned? How many more spaces?  Will they charge for these spaces? How much?

Also, although the rendering includes renovations to Friendship Park, it ignores the MOSH 2.0 expansion.

Even if the eventual parking garage includes adequate spaces reserved for MOSH, what about during the construction period of ... what ... 2 years?

MOSH has it's own free parking lot between the museum and the Main Street Bridge. From my understanding, it is also just as likely that MOSH 2.0 ends up on a different site altogether. Downtown has a lot of moving parts and project dreams right now. It will be interesting to see how things play out.

The sliver of a lot between the MOSH building and Main Street is not adequate for anything more than minimal attendance. And, I think even the limited capacity is maintained by an arrangement for staff to park in the surface lot in front of the DoubleTree.

Do you know something common folk don't know about MOSH 2.0?

Yes, I've heard something from a credible source. Can't say too much about it at the moment.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 03, 2020, 07:55:00 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 03, 2020, 05:19:37 PM

Lake, I think it goes without saying that a monster 8 story structure is going to obstruct many more views than a two story restaurant a fraction of the mass of this complex.  If a high rise was back from the river on Riverplace Blvd., I would buy into that far more than this that creeps up close to the river.

I think this site is a unique situation where it doesn't block anyone's views anymore than the existing building does, unless we're trying to preserve the views of the office tower across the street.

It's reality that an 8 story complex of this size vs. a much smaller 2 story structure is going to block a heck of a lot more site lines to the river from numerous viewing points around it.  I guess it depends on where you stand, literally and figuratively.  ;D

Quote

QuoteI also think it's a stretch to call the area blighted.  It's an active parking lot, restaurant and marina.  I haven't been to River City in awhile and you can say what you want about their service and food, but I always found the structure well maintained.

For the urbanist in me, a pedestrian hostile surface parking lots that consume acres of prime downtown property are the definition of blight. It looks straight out of the 1960s, stays empty 90% of the time and includes an aging parking attendant kiosk that's empty. The structure itself is pretty auto centric, suburban and totally ignores any interaction with the park adjacent to it.

It's great for something along the Intracoastal on Beach Boulevard but definitely not the best for a high profile downtown site. So from that perspective, I'm okay with seeing that building go. However, the restaurant space should be incorporated into the project. Related has no problem with building mixed-use projects in South Florida. They should be able to make it work here. Otherwise, they're basically putting a Town Center Parkway style apartment complex on the downtown riverfront.

If the parking lot there is blight, what do you call an 8 story garage?  There will always be a need for some parking to support MOSH, the boat ramp and, minimally, Friendship Park.  Could it be better maintained?  Sure, let's repave it, landscape it, etc.  Its condition is not a reason to go forward with this project though.  As has been noted before, Jax isn't ready for a non-autocentric world.  Even Chophouse has to offer valet parking.  Chart House has a good sized parking lot too.  So, why hold River City to a different standard?

Quote

QuoteAs I have advocated in other threads, if I had my druthers, we would expand the green space of Friendship Park over this parcel and leave it at that.  They can build these apartments in Rummel's project if they like the area that much and it would seem like he could use the assist  8).

Rummel's project is off the beaten path. I can see how a developer would view this property as having greater potential, given the riverfront, highway access and the land uses immediately surrounding it.

For the same reason this is "superior" for the developer, it is also superior as a public access to remain in the public domain.  Why should we give up all the "best property" to privateers?  Can't we save some "gold" for the taxpayers who already own it?  Are we citizens' to always take a back seat to developers?  And, Rummel and his partners are experienced developers betting a lot more on their property than this group is here so they must think his property has some pretty good "potential."

Quote

QuoteAgain, I say the City is giving away its gold for a short run sugar high.  Boyer, herself, said, its all about more residents downtown.  Public access and enjoyment be damned.  Where are all these "new residents" going to recreate at the rate we are giving up public green spaces?  I don't think a narrow river walk with little or no amenities is going to cut it.

I agree that a narrow river walk with little or no amenities isn't going to cut it. The city definitely needs a real community based plan and vision. Not just for the riverfront parks, but for the entire central business district. If something like that were in place, most of the individual projects being proposed by the private sector would then have some general guidance. As things currently stand, it's basically every man for himself with a wish that everything works out and goes together in the end.

This paragraph and particularly your last sentence here says it all and follows my points.  It's a race to the bottom regarding the public good magnified by no plan, no vision, no discipline, no concern for the community.

Its all about appeasing developers now, the future be damned.  Want to tear down historic buildings? Check.  Want to build an illegal parking lot? Check.  Want to rip off the taxpayers with over-the-top incentives?  Check.  Want to sell our best/prime public properties to developers in bargain deals?  Check.  Want to build (or demolish) infrastructure for developers that cost millions for only their benefit while other parts of the City in need for decades get nothing?  Check.  Want to rig RFP's to insure the politically connected win out?  Check.  Want to partner with developers with little or no due diligence to make it easy for them at great risk to the taxpayers?  Check.  Want to waive zoning or other standards for developers in the name of "economic development?" Check.  Want to not utilize best business practices to assure deals go forward as promised?  Check.

I believe we generally agree but differ on when and where to stand our ground and hold out for what is really best for all.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 03, 2020, 09:15:01 PM
If the parking lot there is blight, what do you call an 8 story garage?  There will always be a need for some parking to support MOSH, the boat ramp and, minimally, Friendship Park.  Could it be better maintained?  Sure, let's repave it, landscape it, etc.  Its condition is not a reason to go forward with this project though.  As has been noted before, Jax isn't ready for a non-autocentric world.  Even Chophouse has to offer valet parking.  Chart House has a good sized parking lot too.  So, why hold River City to a different standard?

Not many cities, including NYC and Chicago, are ready for a non-autocentric world. This doesn't mean that expansive surface parking lots in the central business district should be viewed as acceptable or a necessary evil. They just represent poor design standards and lack of vision in how to handle off-street parking needs in a downtown environment. By no means am I pushing for the design as illustrated in the JDR. With that said, the project looks like a Texas donut, in that the garage is hidden by the apartments. That's one of the better ways to address off-street parking. Sort a like Brooklyn Riverside in Brooklyn or Bell Riverside in Five Points. Chart House's surface lot should be identified as an infill development site as well.

QuoteFor the same reason this is "superior" for the developer, it is also superior as a public access to remain in the public domain.  Why should we give up all the "best property" to privateers?  Can't we save some "gold" for the taxpayers who already own it?  Are we citizens' to always take a back seat to developers?  And, Rummel and his partners are experienced developers betting a lot more on their property than this group is here so they must think his property has some pretty good "potential."

My understanding has been that the developer is buying out RCB's long term lease on the property. From that perspective, we're not giving up anything. On the other hand, if we want this entire site to be a park, we (COJ) would need to buy the lease. Something we could certainly do, since we just did it with the Landing. However, I have no faith that anything good would come of it during the current administration.

QuoteI believe we generally agree but differ on when and where to stand our ground and hold out for what is really best for all.

Yes, I think most of it is semantics. In general we all want the same. However, because there is no unified community vision, we're likely describing the same thing through a different lens. For example, when most say they want riverfront parks, they don't mean what the Landing is today. They want something with a mix of amenities like what one will find in Chicago's Millennium Park or St. Pete's new pier. Both would be examples of what I'd argue could be considered mixed use in that they include retail, dining, museums, etc.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 02, 2020, 09:25:42 AM
I hoped something with a bit more density and height could be built on that site. Oh well.

Ditto Lake, ditto.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 02, 2020, 06:25:18 PM

Quote from: marcuscnelson on October 02, 2020, 04:46:43 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 02, 2020, 03:45:38 PM
I would like to see much more much sooner.  As a long timer, it's frustrating to watch how the City has (mis)managed itself over these many decades and continues to do so while the rest of much of the world passes us by.  Guess I am losing some patience with the prevalence of our continued backward thinking.  Hope springs eternal though  8)!

We all would, that's why we're here.

When it comes to downtown, I'd love for us to be accomplish being average first. We dream big, show pretty pictures of spaces that cost +$100 million to build, yet we still can't get public restrooms in many of the parks we already have. For the planner in me, struggling to implement the basics is probably the most frustrating thing in discussions about downtown revitalization. The fiasco around the planning of courthouse plaza and the condition of James Weldon Johnson Park are great examples of this. Cities big and small would have transformed these spaces decades ago already.

As I said...poor leadership, poor planning.

I'm so annoyed by this rendering, especially from Related - one of the largest developers there is. They know mixed use very well.

To me there should be 2 Restaurants: One similar in concept to RCBC (I don't care if it's a brewery or not, just a full service restaurant), and one that is perhaps only a window with outside tables. This would cater to boaters, visitors, park goers, etc.

For Related, this shouldn't be a hard add.

Hopefully the DIA/DDRB can have some positive impact on what's proposed. Definitely agree that this site should include some form of mixed use and interaction with the park and riverfront. Related knows mixed-use very well, so it shouldn't be too difficult for them.

Quote from: Steve on October 05, 2020, 09:39:16 AM
I'm so annoyed by this rendering, especially from Related - one of the largest developers there is. They know mixed use very well.

To me there should be 2 Restaurants: One similar in concept to RCBC (I don't care if it's a brewery or not, just a full service restaurant), and one that is perhaps only a window with outside tables. This would cater to boaters, visitors, park goers, etc.

For Related, this shouldn't be a hard add.

Agreed.

They must not have too much faith in the downtown retail market, as their Ford on Bay proposal also included the absolutely bare minimum in terms of retail, with nearly all of the retail in that proposal taking the form of resident amenities.

Kinda feels like they just took their Ford on Bay proposal (335 units, 10,000 SF of resident amenities, riverfront courtyard & pool) and shifted it up the river a bit.

I wonder if that Parcel B & C space that (I believe) would be conveyed to the city is big enough to add restaurant back in.

(https://snipboard.io/wDmY2q.jpg)

Weird shape, but maybe something like Blacksheep, overlooking Friendship fountain on the right side and the river on the other. Rooftop bar would offer fantastic views of both.

So they are blocking the riverwalk there, just ending it at the fountain?  This city can't get out of its own way.  Walking down the riverwalk it always amazes me that 6 floor parking garages line most of it.  Why cant the waterfront side of the garage be retail?!?  Why can't we have anything nice?

So I'd say if Related wants this land, then COJ should work with them to build the restaurant spaces at the same time. If not, then we risk RCBC closing then this being developed, then the restaurant spaces, "get held up".

In that way it's no different then a demolition for something cool, then the something cool gets held up and then we have less cool then we originally had.

Quote from: Lostwave on October 05, 2020, 10:22:53 AM
So they are blocking the riverwalk there, just ending it at the fountain?  This city can't get out of its own way.  Walking down the riverwalk it always amazes me that 6 floor parking garages line most of it.  Why cant the waterfront side of the garage be retail?!?  Why can't we have anything nice?

That's actually not how I interpret the rendering. Looks like the Riverwalk is maintained. there previously was a weird, "break" at the boat ramp, but I'm not sure how to solve that easily with keeping the ramp.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 05, 2020, 09:52:47 AM
Hopefully the DIA/DDRB can have some positive impact on what's proposed. Definitely agree that this site should include some form of mixed use and interaction with the park and riverfront. Related knows mixed-use very well, so it shouldn't be too difficult for them.

Do you have these hallucinations often?  The DIA/DDRB history does not bode well for it happening here.  The best leverage (if DIA has it) would be to make it a requirement of the transfer of the lease.

Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 05, 2020, 10:54:32 AM
The best leverage (if DIA has it) would be to make it a requirement of the transfer of the lease.

Bingo. In this case COJ DOES have leverage.

Quote from: Steve on October 05, 2020, 11:08:01 AM

Quote from: Charles Hunter on October 05, 2020, 10:54:32 AM
The best leverage (if DIA has it) would be to make it a requirement of the transfer of the lease.

Bingo. In this case COJ DOES have leverage.

But ... will they use it?
Or will they follow the usual City "strategy" of folding if the developer hints they might not do the project if the City requires them to include indoor plumbing or something equally onerous?

Quote from: Lostwave on October 05, 2020, 10:22:53 AMWalking down the riverwalk it always amazes me that 6 floor parking garages line most of it.

If you were on a Riveralk llined with 6 story garages, you weren't in Jacksonville.



Looking forward to this project.  RCB has become an eyesore.  Would be a nice addition downtown and a vast improvement over the current state of things.   

QuoteIf you were on a Riveralk llined with 6 story garages, you weren't in Jacksonville.

Riverplace Tower, The Hilton, The Strand, The Peninsula all have garages that face the river on the Southbank.     

Quote from: vicupstate on October 06, 2020, 12:27:10 PM

QuoteIf you were on a Riveralk llined with 6 story garages, you weren't in Jacksonville.

Riverplace Tower, The Hilton, The Strand, The Peninsula all have garages that face the river on the Southbank.   

You can add Baptist, St. Vincent's and the Hyatt in other urban-area parts of the river.  I believe a few other condo/apartment towers (e.g the one at One Call?) might also do so at ground level.

Lol, some people never seem to get tired of being wrong.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 06, 2020, 01:56:48 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on October 06, 2020, 12:27:10 PM

QuoteIf you were on a Riveralk llined with 6 story garages, you weren't in Jacksonville.

Riverplace Tower, The Hilton, The Strand, The Peninsula all have garages that face the river on the Southbank.   

You can add Baptist, St. Vincent's and the Hyatt in other urban-area parts of the river.  I believe a few other condo/apartment towers (e.g the one at One Call?) might also do so at ground level.

Yes, it's a veritable death tunnel on that stretch, isn't it?   It's such horrible no one dares set foot there.

Lined with means all along and on both sides.  Not in a one spot.

Outside of Saskatchewan, no one would call a road "lined with trees" if it had 3 trees in 3 miles.  Please show the English language more respect.

Quote from: Steve on October 05, 2020, 09:39:16 AM
I'm so annoyed by this rendering, especially from Related - one of the largest developers there is. They know mixed use very well.

To me there should be 2 Restaurants: One similar in concept to RCBC (I don't care if it's a brewery or not, just a full service restaurant), and one that is perhaps only a window with outside tables. This would cater to boaters, visitors, park goers, etc.

For Related, this shouldn't be a hard add.

There are two "Related" companies. Related Group and Related Companies. Stephen Ross (Dolphins owner) has a piece of both I believe, but his main company is Related Companies. Related Companies does a lot of large-scale, horizontal mixed-use development like Hudson Yards, The Grand in LA, The 78 in Chicago, and Rosemary Square (former City Place) in Downtown West Palm. The Related Group is the one doing this proposed project and they are more of a single building developer. They are still a huge developer (especially for Jax), but their forte is not dining, entertainment, and activation of urban areas. Not to say the City with it's leverage can't push them, but it's not their sweet spot.

Also, ground floor waterfront dining in a vertical tower rarely has the ambiance and of a standalone waterfront restaurant, where it is easier to create interesting outdoor seating areas.  Is adding back a waterfront restaurant in an apartment building really going to create much vibrancy there? Did having RCBC on the site (with a better outdoor setup) ever do anything to activate the Southbank Riverwalk?  Problem is it's wedged between two bridges, is on a poorly designed Riverwalk with no amenities and connectivity to residential neighborhoods, and there is little nearby to ever create any kind of vibrancy. If you were a developer would you gamble on MOSH actually becoming a legitimate draw? Not to say MOSH will not or cannot make major improvements through their capital campaign, but I wouldn't bank on that if I was a developer. Nor would I bank on an isolated waterfront restaurant in an apartment building doing well. 

IMO, Jax needs to pick one Downtown spot to create a dining and entertainment district and go all in on it. This is how Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Winter Park, and so many other places around the state have created bustling entertainment districts. It does no good to have a hodgepodge of restaurants here and there. There are ample opportunities to add waterfront dining along the northbank, in proximity to other dining and entertainment uses, where Jax can create something truly special.

Quote from: CityLife on October 07, 2020, 09:06:47 PMAlso, ground floor waterfront dining in a vertical tower rarely has the ambiance and of a standalone waterfront restaurant, where it is easier to create interesting outdoor seating areas.  Is adding back a waterfront restaurant in an apartment building really going to create much vibrancy there?

Ground floor restaurant with rooftop bar (like River & Post, the Rise development, Vista Brooklyn (more of a lounge here, to be fair), Cowford, what's proposed for the VyStar/Profit building & the Trio Courtyard & Independent Life, etc.) would be amazing in this spot and add a lot of vibrancy.

View of the river, skyline, and fountain would be incredible.

Quote from: Ken_FSU on October 07, 2020, 10:53:00 PM

Quote from: CityLife on October 07, 2020, 09:06:47 PMAlso, ground floor waterfront dining in a vertical tower rarely has the ambiance and of a standalone waterfront restaurant, where it is easier to create interesting outdoor seating areas.  Is adding back a waterfront restaurant in an apartment building really going to create much vibrancy there?

Ground floor restaurant with rooftop bar (like River & Post, the Rise development, Vista Brooklyn (more of a lounge here, to be fair), Cowford, what's proposed for the VyStar/Profit building & the Trio Courtyard & Independent Life, etc.) would be amazing in this spot and add a lot of vibrancy.

View of the river, skyline, and fountain would be incredible.

Having isolated restaurants and rooftop bars does not create vibrancy. Have you ever been out in Downtown Orlando, Clematis Street, Atlantic Avenue, Los Olas, or Duval Street?

Just to highlight how spaced out Jacksonville's Downtown scene is:

The distance from RCBC to River and Post is .3 miles further than it is from Chelsea Market is to Times Square.
The distance from Vista Brooklyn to Cowford Chophouse is .5 miles further than it is from Times Square to Central Park
The distance from the Laura Street Trio to the Rise Development is the same distance as it is from Central Park to Bryant Park

Downtown Jax actually has enough stuff to already have a vibrant entertainment district, but everything is spread out as widely as Midtown Manhattan, with 1/100,000 of the residential density.

No argument there, but I'd also argue the RCBC/Friendship Fountain/MOSH site isn't the one to develop a restaurant district in. This is an area that is largely open space, and I believe that should be kept:

- The apartment development IF they add mixed use (even just a single restaurant) is fine. Not transformative, but fine.
- MOSH is aggressively working on fund raising for their expansion. I hope it happens as THAT would be transformative by itself.
- I'm completely fine with the rest of the space being parkland, etc.

Expand out from that area - you have Two Prudential Plaza, an office building built in the 1980's that outside of the main entrance, is about as lively on the ground floor as a warehouse. Going further you have a ridiculous traffic light where San Marco, Prudential, Acosta Off Ramp, and the Railroad tracks all converging under an overpass. That's not being fixed easily. A little further out you have the hospital and the OneCall/new Apartments which aren't exactly designed to be walkable.

There is a lot of vacant land and empty buildings in the core on the northbank - focus things like a restaurant district there. To Boyer's credit, she's identified the Laura/Hogan and Bay St Corridors for those places, and DIA is offering facade grants. The new historic preservation bill if passed (passed both committees 7-0) should help a lot.

I'm not saying it's easy or we don't have a long way to do. WE DO. But, if there's an area that I'm okay having an isolated restaurant, it's at this location here.

Quote from: CityLife on October 08, 2020, 09:09:17 AM
Downtown Jax actually has enough stuff to already have a vibrant entertainment district, but everything is spread out as widely as Midtown Manhattan, with 1/100,000 of the residential density.

Now, your point about this is 100% spot on. I agree completely. I just don't see the Friendship Park site as the lynchpin to this.

Quote from: vicupstate on October 06, 2020, 12:27:10 PM

QuoteIf you were on a Riveralk llined with 6 story garages, you weren't in Jacksonville.

Riverplace Tower, The Hilton, The Strand, The Peninsula all have garages that face the river on the Southbank.     

Don't look for him to rely on facts to make his points.  I'm trying hard to understand what he actually wants downtown to look like.  From what I can tell, a razed moonscape paid for with COJ taxpayer money is the ideal. 

Quote from: Steve on October 08, 2020, 09:24:33 AM
There is a lot of vacant land and empty buildings in the core on the northbank - focus things like a restaurant district there. To Boyer's credit, she's identified the Laura/Hogan and Bay St Corridors for those places, and DIA is offering façade grants. The new historic preservation bill if passed (passed both committees 7-0) should help a lot.

I'm cool with Laura/Hogan.  If Bay Street is to happen, we need both sides of the street activated.  The businesses on the North side of the street are doing what they can, but they will struggle as long as the city is waiting for a "game changer" on the other side of the street.  The city needs to get real and do something feasible rather than let the sites sit vacant for 10 years waiting on a billionaire philanthropist to save them.

We are starting to get decent amounts of residential on the southbank, La Villa, and Brooklyn, but we're trying to make the entertainment districts in the CBD.  For that to happen, we need to reinforce the connectivity between those areas as much as possible.  Your most likely and most consistent customers are going to be the ones living nearby, so facilitate there use of these new initiatives.

Quote from: CityLife on October 07, 2020, 09:06:47 PM

Quote from: Steve on October 05, 2020, 09:39:16 AM
I'm so annoyed by this rendering, especially from Related - one of the largest developers there is. They know mixed use very well.

To me there should be 2 Restaurants: One similar in concept to RCBC (I don't care if it's a brewery or not, just a full service restaurant), and one that is perhaps only a window with outside tables. This would cater to boaters, visitors, park goers, etc.

For Related, this shouldn't be a hard add.

There are two "Related" companies. Related Group and Related Companies. Stephen Ross (Dolphins owner) has a piece of both I believe, but his main company is Related Companies. Related Companies does a lot of large-scale, horizontal mixed-use development like Hudson Yards, The Grand in LA, The 78 in Chicago, and Rosemary Square (former City Place) in Downtown West Palm. The Related Group is the one doing this proposed project and they are more of a single building developer. They are still a huge developer (especially for Jax), but their forte is not dining, entertainment, and activation of urban areas. Not to say the City with it's leverage can't push them, but it's not their sweet spot.

Also, ground floor waterfront dining in a vertical tower rarely has the ambiance and of a standalone waterfront restaurant, where it is easier to create interesting outdoor seating areas.  Is adding back a waterfront restaurant in an apartment building really going to create much vibrancy there? Did having RCBC on the site (with a better outdoor setup) ever do anything to activate the Southbank Riverwalk?  Problem is it's wedged between two bridges, is on a poorly designed Riverwalk with no amenities and connectivity to residential neighborhoods, and there is little nearby to ever create any kind of vibrancy. If you were a developer would you gamble on MOSH actually becoming a legitimate draw? Not to say MOSH will not or cannot make major improvements through their capital campaign, but I wouldn't bank on that if I was a developer. Nor would I bank on an isolated waterfront restaurant in an apartment building doing well. 

IMO, Jax needs to pick one Downtown spot to create a dining and entertainment district and go all in on it. This is how Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Delray Beach, Winter Park, and so many other places around the state have created bustling entertainment districts. It does no good to have a hodgepodge of restaurants here and there. There are ample opportunities to add waterfront dining along the northbank, in proximity to other dining and entertainment uses, where Jax can create something truly special.

I wouldn't call RCBC well laid out, and many would say it's been pretty mediocre for years. Still it's stayed open for 22 years and when there are concerts and events it's pretty vibrant. Losing it without a replacement would be a step back. To my mind, there are plenty of things that could be done to better integrate a restaurant to the park and Riverwalk, with a few tweaks it could better than what's there now.

Quote from: Captain Zissou on October 08, 2020, 09:28:36 AM

Quote from: vicupstate on October 06, 2020, 12:27:10 PM

QuoteIf you were on a Riveralk llined with 6 story garages, you weren't in Jacksonville.

Riverplace Tower, The Hilton, The Strand, The Peninsula all have garages that face the river on the Southbank.     

Don't look for him to rely on facts to make his points.  I'm trying hard to understand what he actually wants downtown to look like.  From what I can tell, a razed moonscape paid for with COJ taxpayer money is the ideal.

That's the next step of his plan. Cancel the Artemis moon missions and just do the moonwalks in Downtown instead. Somehow it'll cost the same as actually doing the Artemis missions.

Perhaps it's time to consider whether the constantly broken and high maintenance and repair cost Friendship fountain should be replaced with something useful...

^ but COJ is about to fix it again

Wow... completely underwhelmed by that...

Quote from: BridgeTroll on October 08, 2020, 04:19:09 PM
Perhaps it's time to consider whether the constantly broken and high maintenance and repair cost Friendship fountain should be replaced with something useful...

Good point.

Does Friendship Fountain break so much because the City doesn't do regular maintenance on it? When they do major repairs, they buy cheap parts and equipment? Does the fountain in Lake Eola in Orlando have as many problems?

Based on what I've heard today, although I believe the plan can be improved to be more interactive, I can live with the project if it goes through. A plan was shown illustrating Friendship Fountain improvements that will be added by December 2021. They included a concessions/restroom building, a kid's splash pad, kid's play and picnic areas. Boyer also mentioned that the DIA envisions a Safe Harborish fish camp style restaurant pad on the adjacent city owned parcel on the west side of the boat ramp. An underground riverfront fuel tank at the marina will also be relocated.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/River-City-Brewing-Related-Group/i-SVCV2DF/0/99af73c4/XL/RCBC%20Friendship%20Fountain-XL.jpg)

I'd want to see some of that in writing or something. The DIA can envision anything, that certainly doesn't mean it will happen.

^I listened in as well. I still think the best opportunity is to have a restaurant somewhere around the upper left of the rendering of the above (upper right of the development plan), but I also think it's a compromise. I do think pressure should be there to push for that to actually happen.

Another thing addressed is the riverwalk, as it breaks at the Acosta Bridge/RR Tracks. Basically Boyer explained that because there isn't as much vertical clearance under the Acosta on the Southbank (as opposed to the northbank), there isn't a way to go up and over the RR tracks. While disappointing, I get it. they're going to enhance the sidewalk down San Marco Blvd, then Prudential, then adjacent to the new apartments being built by OneCall. This sucks, but I don't know of an easier alternative if you can't cross the RR tracks at grade.

Now, I'll point out that with the path outlined you're still crossing the RR tracks at grade but I guess there's much less temptation to walk out onto the Railroad bridge all the way from Prudential than if there's an at grade crossing right at the bridge. the only other way you could solve this is to have two of the "corkscrew" structures (like on the northbank) actually in the river. That seems...pricy.

Quote from: marcuscnelson on October 09, 2020, 11:28:46 AM
I'd want to see some of that in writing or something. The DIA can envision anything, that certainly doesn't mean it will happen.

Looks like the Friendship park building (restrooms and concessions) is in writing and seemingly will happen. The restaurant west of the boat ramp seems doable, but definitely conceptual.

At the meeting, they punted the design aspects of the apartment building to the DDRB and focused on the financial package. The park improvements, MOSH 2.0 restaurant and potential marina restaurant pad aren't included in the Related project.

So MOSH plans to add a restaurant as well?  Is it conceivable that we'd actually NET +1?

Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2020, 11:43:18 AM
At the meeting, they punted the design aspects of the apartment building to the DDRB and focused on the financial package. The park improvements, MOSH 2.0 restaurant and potential marina restaurant pad aren't included in the Related project.

That's something that seems like a flaw in the process. The SIC (Strategic Implementation Committee)'s role seems almost entirely financial, though the DIA did definitely tweak this design a little. Their role seems to be to craft the financial package. The DDRB likely wouldn't push for any major changes because it would disrupt the financial package. Thus, there doesn't seem to be an opportunity for real public input on things that go  through the SIC.

I'm not sure what the exact solve is. The DDRB requires some pretty good detail on what comes before them, even if you're seeking conceptual approval, so a developer won't want to spend a lot of resources on that if there's no shot at a financial detail before SIC.

I'm not a developer so I don't know exactly what should happen, but I'm thinking that the DIA/DDRB should significantly lower the bar on what's required for conceptual approval - just identify a rough site plan, rough scale, and rough use(s). I feel like a project like this, even in a very rough conceptual stage should go through DDRB for conceptual, then go through the SIC process, then come back to DDRB for final. It's not any more steps; it just changes the order of those steps.

Quote from: blizz01 on October 09, 2020, 12:18:27 PM
So MOSH plans to add a restaurant as well?  Is it conceivable that we'd actually NET +1?

They do plan a cafe, yes, in MOSH 2.0 (their big plan). But, I'm not sure if that will be open to the public (in other words, do I have to buy admission to get to the cafe)? My guess is yes. They may have some outside seating (no idea), but like the Cummer it's fenced off so you have to go through the museum first.

Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2020, 12:22:44 PM

I'm not sure what the exact solve is. The DDRB requires some pretty good detail on what comes before them, even if you're seeking conceptual approval, so a developer won't want to spend a lot of resources on that if there's no shot at a financial detail before SIC.

The answer is something people have been saying that downtown needs for years.....a real master plan. Boyer spent the first 10 minutes of her presentation this morning,  defending criticisms about the design of the project by mentioning things no one knew. She talked about the potential restaurant pad, MOSH 2.0 and renovations at Friendship Fountain that would include restrooms and a concession kiosk. These are all basic things that would be in a master plan. If made available to the public and development community in a more transparent manner, everyone would have already known and those who want to invest in projects would already know how their investment could fit and assist in achieving the overall vision.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2020, 01:06:39 PM

Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2020, 12:22:44 PM

I'm not sure what the exact solve is. The DDRB requires some pretty good detail on what comes before them, even if you're seeking conceptual approval, so a developer won't want to spend a lot of resources on that if there's no shot at a financial detail before SIC.

The answer is something people have been saying that downtown needs for years.....a real master plan. Boyer spent the first 10 minutes of her presentation this morning,  defending criticisms about the design of the project by mentioning things no one knew. She talked about the potential restaurant pad, MOSH 2.0 and renovations at Friendship Fountain that would include restrooms and a concession kiosk. These are all basic things that would be in a master plan. If made available to the public and development community in a more transparent manner, everyone would have already known and those who want to invest in projects would already know how their investment could fit and assist in achieving the overall vision.

I certainly agree that the master plan is needed and should be public, but I don't know if that solves the process issue in every case. Let's say tomorrow DIA published an amazing downtown master implementation plan that was literally perfect. It obviously can't define the exact development proposed on every single parcel of land downtown.

For example, say someone wanted to build something on the site of the parking lot across from the TU Center and wanted incentives for it. I don't think there is anyone that would argue that a parking lot is the best use of the properly and I'd certainly be open to incentives for that location. Now whether that's residential, office, hotel, or mixed I really don't care - there's still the potential for the development to be good or trash and I feel like if it went through DDRB then things like property use, etc. could be ironed out.

Now I think that fixes the process. The fact that it's so rare for DDRB to deny something and that the DDRB tends to roll over is an issue with the people on it, not the process.

I guess no one questioned how close the 8 story building comes to the river and what the standard is for setbacks?  Or my thoughts about how the view of the garage may impact views from, say, the bridge, which provides some of the more panoramic views of the skyline, or across the arc of the curve?

Are we going to get another generic boxy stucco coated residential building with lots of square and rectangle motifs?

Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2020, 11:40:42 AM
Another thing addressed is the riverwalk, as it breaks at the Acosta Bridge/RR Tracks. Basically Boyer explained that because there isn't as much vertical clearance under the Acosta on the Southbank (as opposed to the northbank), there isn't a way to go up and over the RR tracks. While disappointing, I get it. they're going to enhance the sidewalk down San Marco Blvd, then Prudential, then adjacent to the new apartments being built by OneCall. This sucks, but I don't know of an easier alternative if you can't cross the RR tracks at grade.

Now, I'll point out that with the path outlined you're still crossing the RR tracks at grade but I guess there's much less temptation to walk out onto the Railroad bridge all the way from Prudential than if there's an at grade crossing right at the bridge. the only other way you could solve this is to have two of the "corkscrew" structures (like on the northbank) actually in the river. That seems...pricy.

Maybe this is a good spot for a gondola ride.  It could start at Friendship Park and rise over 8 stories ( 8)) and the Acosta and RR bridges and come down on the other side.  It could provide great views of the City on the east side of the bridge and of the widening river and sunset on the west side.  Charge a couple of bucks per rider to pay for it.  Another possibility is to utilize a water taxi to bridge the river walk sections.  Solve a problem and create a unique tourist attraction.

Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2020, 01:22:21 PM
I certainly agree that the master plan is needed and should be public, but I don't know if that solves the process issue in every case. Let's say tomorrow DIA published an amazing downtown master implementation plan that was literally perfect. It obviously can't define the exact development proposed on every single parcel of land downtown.

Typically, it would be associated with coordinated form-based zoning. You'd also have a pretty good idea of what is desired for publicly owned properties and a general timeline of when public capital projects would take place. Between those two things, you'd have pretty strong guidance regarding the most general types of projects, which RCBC would fall into. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule but the project I heard pitched today would not be one of them.

QuoteFor example, say someone wanted to build something on the site of the parking lot across from the TU Center and wanted incentives for it. I don't think there is anyone that would argue that a parking lot is the best use of the properly and I'd certainly be open to incentives for that location. Now whether that's residential, office, hotel, or mixed I really don't care - there's still the potential for the development to be good or trash and I feel like if it went through DDRB then things like property use, etc. could be ironed out.

The master plan and zoning should already form the general parameters of the project (ex. maximum scale, setbacks, mixed-use, or not, etc.). If the project proposed is of trash level, that would imply that it does not meet the minimum requirements of those parameters. Whether they need incentives or not would fall outside of that though.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 09, 2020, 01:41:45 PM
I guess no one questioned how close the 8 story building comes to the river and what the standard is for setbacks?  Or my thoughts about how the view of the garage may impact views from, say, the bridge, which provides some of the more panoramic views of the skyline, or across the arc of the curve?

This was explained by Boyer. It is designed that way to protect the future view of a restaurant in MOSH 2.0. The bridge crosses the river, so I'm not sure an 8-story building is blocking the view from the Acosta. She also talked about how you could build close to the river as long as certain features of the project were transparent.

QuoteAre we going to get another generic boxy stucco coated residential building with lots of square and rectangle motifs?

This will be determined whenever the project makes it to DDRB.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2020, 02:19:19 PM

Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2020, 01:22:21 PM
I certainly agree that the master plan is needed and should be public, but I don't know if that solves the process issue in every case. Let's say tomorrow DIA published an amazing downtown master implementation plan that was literally perfect. It obviously can't define the exact development proposed on every single parcel of land downtown.

Typically, it would be associated with coordinated form-based zoning. You'd also have a pretty good idea of what is desired for publicly owned properties and a general timeline of when public capital projects would take place. Between those two things, you'd have pretty strong guidance regarding the most general types of projects, which RCBC would fall into. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule but the project I heard pitched today would not be one of them.

QuoteFor example, say someone wanted to build something on the site of the parking lot across from the TU Center and wanted incentives for it. I don't think there is anyone that would argue that a parking lot is the best use of the properly and I'd certainly be open to incentives for that location. Now whether that's residential, office, hotel, or mixed I really don't care - there's still the potential for the development to be good or trash and I feel like if it went through DDRB then things like property use, etc. could be ironed out.

The master plan and zoning should already form the general parameters of the project (ex. maximum scale, setbacks, mixed-use, or not, etc.). If the project proposed is of trash level, that would imply that it does not meet the minimum requirements of those parameters. Whether they need incentives or not would fall outside of that though.

Interesting....any idea of cities that have done this well? It's hard for me to visualize this level of detail without seeing it.

I've read the Downtown Master Plan that was done in 1999 but that definitely wasn't an implementation plan, plus that plan is now old enough to drink.

Lakeland. They did a master plan in 1988. Much of what was in it was actually implemented to near perfection over a 20 year period. It's been since updated.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2885-lakeland-sdi.jpg)

Here's a bit of it from a 2007 Metro Jacksonville article. Basically the existing buildings weren't targeted, except for adaptive reuse and renovation. The plan focused on the parks, streetscapes, two-waying streets, lighting and directing new infill to large surface parking lots at the time. The infill garages have generally been designed to include public parking, easing the pressure of each individual project having to do their own. What's sketched in the middle of this graphic eventually became the SunTrust Bank and Heritage Plaza buildings. An office tower is now under construction on the lot overlooking Lake Mirror. The Terrace parking lot still remains but that's also envisioned as a garage or infill development site. All of the parks are done from this plan.

Too bad to see public waterfront land consigned to residential. Will simply skip any notations regarding reserved public access, various " Mix".

Quote from: Steve on October 09, 2020, 12:25:22 PM

Quote from: blizz01 on October 09, 2020, 12:18:27 PM
So MOSH plans to add a restaurant as well?  Is it conceivable that we'd actually NET +1?

They do plan a cafe, yes, in MOSH 2.0 (their big plan). But, I'm not sure if that will be open to the public (in other words, do I have to buy admission to get to the cafe)? My guess is yes. They may have some outside seating (no idea), but like the Cummer it's fenced off so you have to go through the museum first.

Sounds like MOSH is now considering a move to the Northbank for the 2.0 expansion.

I wonder where.

Shipyards would be cost-prohibitive because of the environmental situation, and it seems like it's tracking toward park use.

The Landing site?

Ford on Bay if Spandrel doesn't start moving?

Quote from: thelakelander on October 09, 2020, 03:11:45 PM
Lakeland. They did a master plan in 1988. Much of what was in it was actually implemented to near perfection over a 20 year period. It's been since updated.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2885-lakeland-sdi.jpg)

Here's a bit of it from a 2007 Metro Jacksonville article. Basically the existing buildings weren't targeted, except for adaptive reuse and renovation. The plan focused on the parks, streetscapes, two-waying streets, lighting and directing new infill to large surface parking lots at the time. The infill garages have generally been designed to include public parking, easing the pressure of each individual project having to do their own. What's sketched in the middle of this graphic eventually became the SunTrust Bank and Heritage Plaza buildings. An office tower is now under construction on the lot overlooking Lake Mirror. The Terrace parking lot still remains but that's also envisioned as a garage or infill development site. All of the parks are done from this plan.

Based on your graphic and some of the photos below, it appears that structures (many low rises) are at least 70 feet back from the lake and sometimes quite a bit more.  In the views below, you can see the beauty of having significant setbacks.  Some of this reminds me of the ambiance of Memorial Park in Riverside, perhaps our prettiest urban area park.  Unfortunately, Jacksonville isn't headed this way.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/1261345111_j8cMJGH-M.jpg)

(https://www.tripsavvy.com/thmb/kAkRi-SHu_Q7zoz7bo8blz2jrN0=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/GettyImages-140878207-57e978e05f9b586c35bfed47.jpg)
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/33/cd/94/33cd94011613b94b71d18ea7d3853a8b.jpg)

(https://www.tripsavvy.com/thmb/R6ThclfkAOGNkxfaIBFm7ysQCS0=/1000x0/filters:no_upscale():max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():format(webp)/GettyImages-140878204-57e975b83df78c690f7ec952.jpg)

MOSH at the old landing site has a lot of potential to be a great use of that space.

Quote from: bl8jaxnative on October 10, 2020, 11:33:08 AM
MOSH at the old landing site has a lot of potential to be a great use of that space.

I love everything about the MOSH 2.0 expansion, but I think MOSH at the Landing would be a bad idea for the city, for a few reasons:

1) Although space seems to be the primary reason that MOSH is considering a move to the Northbank, the Southbank site plan that they've circulated is incredible. It integrates with and complements the Friendship Fountain/St. Johns Park project and creates a genuine node of activity on the Southbank.

2) You're undercutting said $6 million public investment in Friendship Foundtain/St. Johns Park if you relocate the museum and the park's primary source of foot traffic to the Northbank.

3) A MOSH at the Landing site creates a net loss for downtown. Even with an expanded, improved MOSH, you're still sacrificing the most strategically important piece of property downtown and hurting the Southbank just to relocate something that's already downtown.

4) It's not the right type of use for the property. If the desire is for downtown to be a vibrant, 24/7 district, it's vital that Laura Street be anchored by mixed-use development that's going to be open past 5 PM. The old Landing wasn't perfect, we all know that, but it's crazy how nighttime activity and foot traffic has just totally disappeared since it was demolished. I feel like the focus of Landing 2.0 really needs to be creating a vibrant space with ample uses for downtown workers during the day, and for locals and visitors at night, as all previous market studies have called for. A family museum (or aquarium) just isn't that.

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 09, 2020, 09:04:14 PM
Based on your graphic and some of the photos below, it appears that structures (many low rises) are at least 70 feet back from the lake and sometimes quite a bit more.  In the views below, you can see the beauty of having significant setbacks.  Some of this reminds me of the ambiance of Memorial Park in Riverside, perhaps our prettiest urban area park.  Unfortunately, Jacksonville isn't headed this way.

They are set back because that pedestrian promenade you see, used to be Business US 92. A major part of their master plan was relocating the highway around downtown (Intown Bypass), which allowed them to convert Lemon Street into a pedestrian promenade on the southside of the lake and a linear park through downtown. Main Street became a two-way street. I'll try to find some before and after pictures to show later today.

Discussion topic:

Some benefactor donates $100 million to the city (yeah, I know, crazy) with the stipulation that is has to be spent either on a new or existing city park in the DT area. 

What is the best place to create an iconic, signature park in DT?  Based just on the location itself and what is around it or what could reasonably be put close to it, what is the best site? For the sake of the discussion, don't consider any land acquisition or remediation cost.

Landing
Friendship Fountain/Park
Current Metro Park
Shipyards
The District/old JEA site
The T-U property
McCoy Creek corridor  from St. Johns to I-95
Hogan Creek from St. John's to State/Union
Somewhere else

I'd say (1) the city's orginal "central park", Springfield Park between Old City Cemetery and UF Health Jax or (2), the Northbank between the Acosta Bridge and Liberty Street. The signature park would have spaces like the performing arts center, incorporated into the space.

In a perfect world, I'd like to see the park be multi-bank.

Specifically, would love to see our signature "park" span the northbank riverfront from the Acosta to the Hyatt, but also include Friendship Fountain/St. Johns Park.

With the Main Street Bridge - our most scenic pedestrian crossing - serving as the connection between the two halfs.

(https://snipboard.io/dlU3yI.jpg)

Main Street Bridge is vital for traffic in to the CBD, but it's such a pretty, scenic crossing that it would be kind of cool to see it go pedestrian-only for certain weekend events like Pittsburg does with the Roberto Clemente bridge on game days. Could line it with food trucks, farmer's market, Peyton's hot dog stand, etc.

Difference of course is finding a way to deal with boat traffic, which might not be possible.

In my perfect world it would go from RAM to Metro Park and from the Acosta Bridge to the eastern edge of the District with expanses of width in several places to support up to an athletic field or more.  I believe all the downtown waterfront on both sides of the river should be a vibrant, well maintained, interactive public green space like most any world class city has or would desire.  If we spent our incentive dollars on that, we wouldn't have to do much more to entice residents or investors to Downtown.  People would be clamoring to be there.

Sadly, I don't see anything like this on the horizon in my lifetime and I don't have the $100 million to make it so.  Maybe someone should call Shad?

Quote from: thelakelander on October 10, 2020, 02:17:05 PM

Quote from: jaxlongtimer on October 09, 2020, 09:04:14 PM
Based on your graphic and some of the photos below, it appears that structures (many low rises) are at least 70 feet back from the lake and sometimes quite a bit more.  In the views below, you can see the beauty of having significant setbacks.  Some of this reminds me of the ambiance of Memorial Park in Riverside, perhaps our prettiest urban area park.  Unfortunately, Jacksonville isn't headed this way.

They are set back because that pedestrian promenade you see, used to be Business US 92. A major part of their master plan was relocating the highway around downtown (Intown Bypass), which allowed them to convert Lemon Street into a pedestrian promenade on the southside of the lake and a linear park through downtown. Main Street became a two-way street. I'll try to find some before and after pictures to show later today.

Here are some more images showing the incremental implementation of Lake Mirror Park from the master plan:

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2893-lake_mirror-1960.jpg)
In this 1950s aerial, you can see Main Street being split into a one-way pair (Main and Lemon Streets) to circle the lake into downtown.

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-2890-lake_mirror-1946.jpg)
A "before" image of Main Street, taken during the 1950s.

(https://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/plog-content/images/learning-from/lakeland/lake-mirror-park-implementation.jpg)
The implementation plan for Lake Mirror Park after the city took control of Main and Lemon Streets from FDOT.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-SsbBsWp/0/b494d5a5/X3/20200717_194556-X3.jpg)
Here is the summer 2020 "after" shot of Main Street.

While there has been very little demolition, additional private elements in the 1980s downtown master plan have come to fruition since the completion of the park.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-Sbdx4p4/0/3fffb7ee/X3/20200717_194740-X3.jpg)
A recently completed office building on the north side of the park.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-W6TtL2p/0/eb32ac09/X3/20200717_194734-X3.jpg)
Next door, an old warehouse has been converted into a food hall.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-h9kJT9f/0/7dd6b9d1/X3/20200717_195618-X3.jpg)
Inside The Joinery food hall

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-6mvGv8Q/0/1ee42012/X3/20200717_200906-X3.jpg)
A small transportation center for Amtrak and Greyhound was one of the earlier projects around the park. The city moved Amtrak from a location outside of downtown, to this site to help cluster their investments within a centralized setting.

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-b4zW3NR/0/49ccbd70/X3/20200717_201028-X3.jpg)
Next door to the Amtrak station, this project was supposed to an adaptive reuse of the Lakeland Cash Feed plant. However, the plant was significantly damaged during a hurricane. So a new building was constructed with a design that attempted to pay homage to what was lost. Below, a picture of the old Cash Feed Building. This is the type of place that Jax tears down on a regular basis (ex. Doro).

(https://www.lkldnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/cashfeedhorizontal.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Lakeland-July-2020/i-g2ZZ7Bh/0/c081da38/X3/20200717_203011-X3.jpg)
The former Lemon Street section of the park in July 2020. The tall building is the headquarters for Lakeland Electric.

(https://i0.wp.com/www.lkldnow.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/117-mass-lake-view.png?fit=1024%2C643&ssl=1)
This office building is now under construction on a former parking lot and closed section of Main Street. The $50 million building will be the new headquarters for a local insurance company.

Now the city is building a +$100 million urban park on the other side of downtown on a former railyard.

(https://www.lunz.com/wp-content/uploads/BonnetSprings7-1600x800-1080x675.jpg)

https://bonnetspringspark.com/

Didn't mean to take away from the RCBC project discussion. Just showing a real life example of how master planning a space like the RCBC/Friendship Fountain site can play out over time when there's a transparent community driven vision and master plan for a downtown.

Is Lakeland still pushing forward a new-new Amtrak / bus station in another location.  IIRC a couple years ago they put forward a plan for one.  Is that still in play?

Quote from: bl8jaxnative on October 12, 2020, 01:22:33 PM

Is Lakeland still pushing forward a new-new Amtrak / bus station in another location.  IIRC a couple years ago they put forward a plan for one.  Is that still in play?

There was a study last year to look at potential locations for an intermodal center that would include Amtrak, Greyhound, and local bus service. One of the sites considered allowed for using the current Amtrak station, built in 1994. As the study progressed it became apparent that this site would not work. An alternate site, near the RP Funding Center on the west side of downtown was selected. More analysis is needed and funds need to be identified before dirt can be turned.

Related Group adds restaurant to proposal at River City Brewing site

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/related-group-adds-restaurant-to-proposal-at-river-city-brewing-site

Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2020, 04:35:53 PM
Related Group adds restaurant to proposal at River City Brewing site

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/related-group-adds-restaurant-to-proposal-at-river-city-brewing-site

Love it.

They're modeling the space after Glass & Vine in Boca.

https://glassandvine.com/

It's good to see them listen to a community concern and respond in the manner they did. The project and park will be better because of it.

Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2020, 05:49:24 PM
It's good to see them listen to a community concern and respond in the manner they did. The project and park will be better because of it.

Amen...maybe the Jaxson also had something to do with their change of mind relative to adding dining into it?

Quote from: heights unknown on October 13, 2020, 11:06:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2020, 05:49:24 PM
It's good to see them listen to a community concern and respond in the manner they did. The project and park will be better because of it.

Amen...maybe the Jaxson also had something to do with their change of mind relative to adding dining into it?

I'll bet not, honestly. This is our own special little echo chamber, we just happen to hit on the prevailing opinion about redevelopment occasionally.

Quote from: Peter Griffin on October 14, 2020, 08:10:17 AM

Quote from: heights unknown on October 13, 2020, 11:06:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2020, 05:49:24 PM
It's good to see them listen to a community concern and respond in the manner they did. The project and park will be better because of it.

Amen...maybe the Jaxson also had something to do with their change of mind relative to adding dining into it?

I'll bet not, honestly. This is our own special little echo chamber, we just happen to hit on the prevailing opinion about redevelopment occasionally.

Perhaps indirectly. Multiple people that participate on this site spoke during public comment (one way or another), and the vote during the SIC meeting wasn't unanimous - the reason being it lacked a restaurant.

Quote from: Peter Griffin on October 14, 2020, 08:10:17 AM

Quote from: heights unknown on October 13, 2020, 11:06:02 PM

Quote from: thelakelander on October 13, 2020, 05:49:24 PM
It's good to see them listen to a community concern and respond in the manner they did. The project and park will be better because of it.

Amen...maybe the Jaxson also had something to do with their change of mind relative to adding dining into it?

I'll bet not, honestly. This is our own special little echo chamber, we just happen to hit on the prevailing opinion about redevelopment occasionally.

People on this forum do more than just complain online  ;)

My Public Comment for the DIA Board Meeting:

I'd like to thank both the developer as well as the DIA Board/Staff for revising this proposal to include a Restaurant – this was my biggest objective to the project and I'm now in favor of the proposal despite the additional incentive funding. I'd still like to raise my concern from the SIC meeting about parking in the area as now it seems that 30 public spaces will be shared by the Restaurant, MOSH, and Parkgoers. My ask during the SIC meting was for the city to consider increasing incentives in exchange for adding a floor to the parking garage that could be used for public parking. However, a simpler and cheaper solution may be just to allow for parallel parking on the roads in the area as that could add up to a fair number of spaces – plus our Downtown Master Plan encourages Parallel Parking to help create a sense of place. Based on other roads throughout downtown, the Right of Way is should be wide enough to accommodate parallel parking on both sides of the screen both Museum Circle and San Marco Blvd. Thank you.

Quote from: Steve on October 14, 2020, 09:21:29 AM
My Public Comment for the DIA Board Meeting:

I'd like to thank both the developer as well as the DIA Board/Staff for revising this proposal to include a Restaurant – this was my biggest objective to the project and I'm now in favor of the proposal despite the additional incentive funding. I'd still like to raise my concern from the SIC meeting about parking in the area as now it seems that 30 public spaces will be shared by the Restaurant, MOSH, and Parkgoers. My ask during the SIC meting was for the city to consider increasing incentives in exchange for adding a floor to the parking garage that could be used for public parking. However, a simpler and cheaper solution may be just to allow for parallel parking on the roads in the area as that could add up to a fair number of spaces – plus our Downtown Master Plan encourages Parallel Parking to help create a sense of place. Based on other roads throughout downtown, the Right of Way is should be wide enough to accommodate parallel parking on both sides of the screen both Museum Circle and San Marco Blvd. Thank you.

My public comment was a summary of the article I wrote and the radio segment Lake did based on it.

Quote from: Tacachale on October 14, 2020, 09:51:55 AM

Quote from: Steve on October 14, 2020, 09:21:29 AM
My Public Comment for the DIA Board Meeting:

I'd like to thank both the developer as well as the DIA Board/Staff for revising this proposal to include a Restaurant – this was my biggest objective to the project and I'm now in favor of the proposal despite the additional incentive funding. I'd still like to raise my concern from the SIC meeting about parking in the area as now it seems that 30 public spaces will be shared by the Restaurant, MOSH, and Parkgoers. My ask during the SIC meting was for the city to consider increasing incentives in exchange for adding a floor to the parking garage that could be used for public parking. However, a simpler and cheaper solution may be just to allow for parallel parking on the roads in the area as that could add up to a fair number of spaces – plus our Downtown Master Plan encourages Parallel Parking to help create a sense of place. Based on other roads throughout downtown, the Right of Way is should be wide enough to accommodate parallel parking on both sides of the screen both Museum Circle and San Marco Blvd. Thank you.

My public comment was a summary of the article I wrote and the radio segment Lake did based on it.

Well said. I definitely think that reasonable public comments that are logical can have an impact.

Quote from: fieldafm on October 14, 2020, 08:50:00 AM
People on this forum do more than just complain online  ;)

Not anymore.

I pretty much just complain online now.   ;D

I'll bet not, honestly. This is our own special little echo chamber, we just happen to hit on the prevailing opinion about redevelopment occasionally.

☑️

I wouldn't rule out that an experienced developer recognizes the importance of changing plans based on public feedback.   So remove from the original plans what you knew was a good idea - outdoor riverside dining - knowing it's something feedback will focus on.   Gives one an easy win.

Not only does it give you an easy win to be ( supposedly ) changing based on that feedback but it has the added bonus of distracting folk from the usual complaining over more parking spots, precise boat ramp access, etc.

I think it's much more likely that they just didn't plan to include outdoor dining than that they conspired to manipulate the public into thinking they listened to feedback.

Occam's Razor, makes a lot of sense.

Then again, they came back with new plans all of what?  1 1/2 after the original?  And they're already well acquainted w/ downtown and know RCBC is the only outdoor dining on the river downtown.

Had a chance to have a meal at Glass and Vine in South Florida last week. This would be a nice use for the Southbank Riverwalk and Friendship Fountain. Here are a few pictures:

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Miami/Random-South-Florida-October-2020/i-ntvhJxq/0/b9a850a8/X2/20201101_095832-X2.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Miami/Random-South-Florida-October-2020/i-sGdWT3C/0/273554bf/X2/20201101_100048-X2.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Miami/Random-South-Florida-October-2020/i-xWMZF94/0/7ab737b5/X2/20201101_101004-X2.jpg)

(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Miami/Random-South-Florida-October-2020/i-FHf6JTW/0/ec767d4d/X2/20201101_095849-X2.jpg)