Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-February-DDRB/i-rDbSbnX/0/e6606613/L/20210211_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_14-L.jpg)
A plan to restore the Laura Street Trio into a Marriott branded hotel continues to advance. Here is a look at this month's Downtown Development Review Board presentation for the project's conceptual approval.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/laura-street-trio-finally-headed-to-ddrb/
Looks great... 8)
Criticism in 3... 2... 1...
Built it already! I love how the new buildings architecturally go with the older buildings.
I love it!
From this point in time, about how long should it take to get to ribbon-cutting on this?
Probably a good three or four years. If I were the DIA, I'd aggressively work on filling the remaining vacant spaces and retrofitting the ground level of office buildings between the Landing site and JWJ Park. The goal would be to have a cohesive district of complementary pedestrian scale uses within 3 years. Accomplish and program that same compact area and the talk of a dead downtown will be over.
(https://thumbs.gfycat.com/BewitchedLinearIrukandjijellyfish-size_restricted.gif)
The only nuance this creates is not with this project, but the VyStar garage:
The previous Laura St Trio plan had the motor court exiting onto Forsyth Street. That necessitated the Parking Garage to have it's entrance close to the corner of Forsyth and Main. The result of that was that while the VyStar garage is overall excellent, much of Forsyth Street is ground level parking due to the flow of the garage. Now that the Motor Court Entrance and Exit is on Adams, the placement of the Parking Garage entrance could be anywhere in the garage design. I'd love to seem the DIA/VyStar try to move the entrance closer to Laura, thereby opening up much more of the Forsyth Street frontage to retail, now or in the future.
Aside from that, we don't want to delay any further.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/laura-street-trio-design-granted-conceptual-approval
Granted Conceptual Approval-not surprisingly, the vote was 8-0, with Brockelman recusing himself as his company is a lobbyist for the developer.
QuoteI wish we saw this kind of quality every single time someone submitted
No shit. Don't we all...
Dare I say it, the Trio would be a great spot for a Starbucks. ;D
Between the likes of this and Independent Life there's the potential for a few projects to run concurrently.
^Quite a few! Add the adaptive reuse projects up that could be underway by summer and there's more coming now, that would have been developed at Lot J and for a fraction of the public expense. This could be a big year for the actual heart of downtown.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 12, 2021, 07:53:11 AM
^Quite a few! Add the adaptive reuse projects up that could be underway by summer and there's more coming now, that would have been developed at Lot J and for a fraction of the public expense. This could be a big year for the actual heart of downtown.
Fingers crossed. All in spite of the Mayor's of office.
(https://media.giphy.com/media/KEYEpIngcmXlHetDqz/source.mov)
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/proposal-laura-street-trio-deal-includes-dollar24-67-million-in-forgivable-deferred-loans
A little more taxpayer incentive than I would have expected, but still worth it in my eyes for this project. At least there aren't any Breadbox loans.
I'm not surprised. That revamp with the DT historic preservation fund was transformational for these types of adaptive reuse projects. Just hopping we can get a few of these large projects started before anything changes.
And in this, COJ is covered. They don't get the full amount unless:
- The developer completes the full $66.98 million project
- Opens hotel with at least 140 rooms.
- 8k SqFt Retail Space
- 21k SqFt of Restaurant Space
The big thing driving this is the $10M Code Compliance Forgivable Loan. Frankly, this is the poster child project for this type of loan - historic building that hasn't been occupied in some time where it will cost a ton to bring to code.
To me this seems like a no brainer.
Update
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-board-approves-dollar24-67-million-laura-street-trio-loan-package
Quote from: Steve on March 09, 2021, 08:55:33 AM
And in this, COJ is covered. They don't get the full amount unless:
- The developer completes the full $66.98 million project
- Opens hotel with at least 140 rooms.
- 8k SqFt Retail Space
- 21k SqFt of Restaurant Space
The big thing driving this is the $10M Code Compliance Forgivable Loan. Frankly, this is the poster child project for this type of loan - historic building that hasn't been occupied in some time where it will cost a ton to bring to code.
To me this seems like a no brainer.
Can you explain the $10 million Code Compliance Forgivable Loan? Is this for past citations or to bring the buildings up to compliance or a mixture?
The Trio's loan is a larger version of the Code Compliance Forgivable Loan program that began earlier this year
Quotehttps://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/could-downtown-historic-preservation-be-a-game-changer/
Buildings like these were designed and constructed under a different set of Codes. ADA compliance, fire sprinklers, elevator shafts, etc were either non-existent 50 years ago, or are drastically different than today's standards. Retrofitting older buildings to current Code standards is expensive... and the biggest financial burden to someone looking to bring a building back to life that has been sitting empty for decades.
Additionally, preserving older architectural elements which use quite a bit of concrete and plaster, is more expensive than say gypsum products used for new construction today.
The forgivable loans to bring these buildings back up to today's standards are basically the equalizer between the cost of rehabilitation versus the cost of new construction
Is the coneptual or rendering in the news article is the way that it will look? Is that a new skyscraper that will be built and attached to the trio? This is the first time I've seen that scraper building; I thought a parking garage will also be added? Maybe it will be attached at the bottom of the scraper. Kind of looks like a taller version of the new JEA building now being constructed. About time though they move forward with this projects with caveats and holding them accountable...i.e., no money, no loan until the project is finished.......I love it!
^ Some of the renderings in this image include what looks like a future apartment complex directly adjacent to the Trio buildings themselves. But only the section next to (I think) the Bisbee Building are actually part of the hotel. I think these are sharing the Vystar garage across the street.
Whatever the cost.
This is the single most important project downtown, and Atkins has MORE than proven himself with the Barnett.
If the city plays nice with Atkins on the Trio, plays nice with VyStar on their expansion, and knocks the Landing out of the park, it will be more transformational for downtown than anything in the sports district or Shipyards.
We can't mess this one up.
Just need to write the check, remove any unnecessary red tape, and get out of the way of Atkins and Danis.
Pretty much! Write the check and move out the way. If there's a desire to do more, work with the owners of BOA, Wells Fargo Center and Omni/Enterprise Center to do something productive at street level.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 18, 2021, 08:12:31 PM
Pretty much! Write the check and move out the way. If there's a desire to do more, work with the owners of BOA, Wells Fargo Center and Omni/Enterprise Center to do something productive at street level.
Open the main library's two retail spots to the street, toss some of those historic preservation fund bones to Ron to finish his project, and heavily incentive the repurposing of Snyder Memorial, and you've got yourself a pretty badass stretch from Hemming to the river to build off of.
On a similar note, I'd
love to see the Main Library and Hemming Park become better partners.
Just makes so much sense for the library to take a more active role in programming the park.
Bryant Park and the New York Public library partner on an outdoor "reading room" concept that would work really well in our climate. Basically just involves the library setting up an outdoor area in the park with newspapers, magazines, and popular books each day. No library card required, just the honor system with a librarian or park staff keeping everyone honest. At lunch time and on weekends, they have book and poetry readings in the park, and they partner with Bryant on movies nights as well. They also do coffee and snack carts, popcorn, etc.
https://bryantpark.org/amenities/reading-room
It's truly mind-boggling how much potential this city leaves on the table on a regular basis.
Laura Street Trio clears another hurdle
QuoteSouthEast Group's application for a Historic Preservation Certificate for the Laura Street Trio buildings has been approved by the National Park Service, setting the stage for the $70 million redevelopment of the properties to move ahead.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/05/28/laura-st-trio-nps-2.html
Great news! I was prepared that it might take longer to clear that hurdle!
QuoteSouthEast Group's application for a Historic Preservation Certificate for the Laura Street Trio buildings has been approved by the National Park Service, setting the stage for the $70 million redevelopment of the properties to move ahead.
The final hurdle before work can begin is having the City Council sign off on a development agreement as part of the $24.67 million in city funding that the Downtown Investment Authority agreed to provide earlier this year.
That agreement is still being worked on by the city's lawyers, SouthEast Managing Director Steve Atkins told the Business Journal on Friday. Once it is finalized and approved by council, work can begin.
When it does, it should go quickly.
"I want to be in the ground by the end of summer," Atkins said. "When I say I'm ready to go, I'm ready to go."
Excellent that the NPS is catching up on the backlog of applications! Hopefully this sails through Council so they can hop to it.
I imagine it could be a real morale booster for downtown to see the Trio under construction. Something that really lives up to the idea that we're not only coming back from the pandemic, but even on the rise again. Not to mention the sheer value of having the heart of the northbank reactivated.
When is VyStar supposed to start construction on the parking garage? I feel like I've been hearing 6 weeks for a few months now. These two projects are going to completely transform the feel of that entire corridor and I'm really looking forward to seeing them move forward especially as Bread and Board Provisions comes online
Was going to ask about the garage too. What are they waiting on at this point.
This March article said the garage construction should start in 6 to 12 weeks:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/vystar-continued-to-grow-during-pandemic-looking-at-downtown-expansion
This week is the 12th week. The article also said the breezeway would be open by mid April and Estrella Cocina by May 1st. Both Estrella Cocina and the breezeway just opened last week. Bread & Board Provisions is also a few weeks off for the March projection of it being open by June 1. So it seems they are running a few weeks behind. Hopefully, the garage will be under way within the next month or so.
Thank You
Went snooping through downtown today "Angela Lansbury Style" (murder she wrote with the flashlight), and walla, I see a sign around the fence at Laura Street Trio about "COMING SOON, LAURA STREET TRIO," made me feel a lot better about where Jax is going; things are picking up and beginning to rise. Didn't see the cranes around Riverside Avenue over the new high rise there until day before yesterday; that area (Brooklyn) is taking on the look of its own signature downtown or urban core (LOL). So is the Southbank. I hope they keep the momentum going and keep getting those critical first downs (projects/development starts) and on to much needed touchdowns (completion of those projects/development). Western downtown on the Northbank really needs a fusion bad; looks like it was bombed out. I hope they don't neglect that eastern end of LaVilla, which is the western end of the Northbank of downtown. Read somewhere that new projects are proposed for LaVilla.
New fencing up around the Trio site.
Hopefully this flies through City Council in the coming weeks so work can get started soon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZmS4M4S/IMG-0740.jpg)
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 17, 2021, 01:39:16 PM
New fencing up around the Trio site.
Hopefully this flies through City Council in the coming weeks so work can get started soon.
(https://i.postimg.cc/RZmS4M4S/IMG-0740.jpg)
Positive sign, literally. Any visible movement across the street at the Vystar site?
^Nope! JEA's garage is well underway though.
Quote from: landfall on June 17, 2021, 02:03:04 PM
Positive sign, literally. Any visible movement across the street at the Vystar site?
HQ or the parking garage?
Lots of movement in the last few months on their new headquarters. The Bread & Burger has opened in the alley, as has Estrella Cocina on the rooftop.
Last time I walked by Bread & Board provisions, it looked like they were getting close to opening.
Still no action with the parking garage.
The revised garage plans necessitate VyStar purchasing a portion of property from Regions Bank. The two parties have been under contract forever, but the sale hasn't closed yet. With City Council passing an incentives package this week for Regions renovations contingent on that sale going through to VyStar, VyStar's employees heading back imminently, the Trio heading before City Council, etc. I think/hope we're going to see movement on the garage ramp up pretty quickly in the next month or two.
Regarding the parking garage, I read something in the JDR that implied that VyStar hadn't closed on the Regions parking lot yet. That seems to be the indirect holdup.
Now what's the holdup with the closing on that parking lot?........unsure.
Quote from: Steve on June 17, 2021, 04:13:30 PM
Regarding the parking garage, I read something in the JDR that implied that VyStar hadn't closed on the Regions parking lot yet. That seems to be the indirect holdup.
Now what's the holdup with the closing on that parking lot?........unsure.
I was under the impression that Regions wanted to secure the incentives package from the City before finalizing the sale.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them close by end of month.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 17, 2021, 03:05:19 PM
Quote from: landfall on June 17, 2021, 02:03:04 PM
Positive sign, literally. Any visible movement across the street at the Vystar site?
HQ or the parking garage?
Lots of movement in the last few months on their new headquarters. The Bread & Burger has opened in the alley, as has Estrella Cocina on the rooftop.
Last time I walked by Bread & Board provisions, it looked like they were getting close to opening.
Still no action with the parking garage.
The revised garage plans necessitate VyStar purchasing a portion of property from Regions Bank. The two parties have been under contract forever, but the sale hasn't closed yet. With City Council passing an incentives package this week for Regions renovations contingent on that sale going through to VyStar, VyStar's employees heading back imminently, the Trio heading before City Council, etc. I think/hope we're going to see movement on the garage ramp up pretty quickly in the next month or two.
Sorry yeah, meant the parking garage. The other stuff looks like its churning along.
Glad to see that fence up.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 17, 2021, 04:54:06 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 17, 2021, 04:13:30 PM
Regarding the parking garage, I read something in the JDR that implied that VyStar hadn't closed on the Regions parking lot yet. That seems to be the indirect holdup.
Now what's the holdup with the closing on that parking lot?........unsure.
I was under the impression that Regions wanted to secure the incentives package from the City before finalizing the sale.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them close by end of month.
Ken is correct. Regions, wisely, has been holding out on actually selling the property to Vystar while COJ a) approved Region's fairly large signage exception b) signed off on giving Regions money to pay for parking spots in off-site parking garages and c) signed off on a historic preservation façade grant (which exceeds the limits of the incentive program).
Frankly, it was a nice little carrot to wag on Region's part.
Unless there is a severe recession, Vystar has even more plans for Downtown once the parking garage is built.
Trio Funding approved by MBRC, on to Council:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dollar24-67-million-laura-street-trio-incentives-deal-advances-to-council
Quote from: fieldafm on June 17, 2021, 07:08:40 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 17, 2021, 04:54:06 PM
Quote from: Steve on June 17, 2021, 04:13:30 PM
Regarding the parking garage, I read something in the JDR that implied that VyStar hadn't closed on the Regions parking lot yet. That seems to be the indirect holdup.
Now what's the holdup with the closing on that parking lot?........unsure.
I was under the impression that Regions wanted to secure the incentives package from the City before finalizing the sale.
Wouldn't be surprised to see them close by end of month.
Ken is correct. Regions, wisely, has been holding out on actually selling the property to Vystar while COJ a) approved Region's fairly large signage exception b) signed off on giving Regions money to pay for parking spots in off-site parking garages and c) signed off on a historic preservation façade grant (which exceeds the limits of the incentive program).
Frankly, it was a nice little carrot to wag on Region's part.
Unless there is a severe recession, Vystar has even more plans for Downtown once the parking garage is built.
What plans? Or...are you not obliged to let the cat out of the bag? LOL
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/bill-introduced-for-dollar24-67-million-in-incentives-for-downtown-trio-renovation
Let's go!
Drink every time a City Council member who voted for a $250 million Lot J subsidy in the sports complex parking lot grumbles about spending $25 million for a catalytic project in the heart of the CBD.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on July 29, 2021, 03:18:40 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/bill-introduced-for-dollar24-67-million-in-incentives-for-downtown-trio-renovation
Let's go!
Drink every time a City Council member who voted for a $250 million Lot J subsidy in the sports complex parking lot grumbles about spending $25 million for a catalytic project in the heart of the CBD.
No, because 1) that's still illegal for me and 2) I don't want alcohol poisoning.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on July 29, 2021, 03:18:40 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/bill-introduced-for-dollar24-67-million-in-incentives-for-downtown-trio-renovation
Let's go!
Drink every time a City Council member who voted for a $250 million Lot J subsidy in the sports complex parking lot grumbles about spending $25 million for a catalytic project in the heart of the CBD.
I'm happy that this project seems to be on the road and on the way; but September? They are so damn slow in Jax. Well, patience is virtue so they say, and, when this project gets underway and then finished, we all will be happy in love!
I don't know if patients is good in this town. All honesty, I would jut love to see this project start.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on July 29, 2021, 08:44:06 PM
I don't know if patients is good in this town. All honesty, I would jut love to see this project start.
In Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Pete, (and there are other smaller cities), when they announce a project, they start shoveling dirt and moving cranes in yesterday. In Jax it takes 2 years or more, or even never, for a project or development that's been announced and/or approved to get underway.
Quote from: heights unknown on July 29, 2021, 09:27:28 PM
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on July 29, 2021, 08:44:06 PM
I don't know if patients is good in this town. All honesty, I would jut love to see this project start.
In Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Pete, (and there are other smaller cities), when they announce a project, they start shoveling dirt and moving cranes in yesterday. In Jax it takes 2 years or more, or even never, for a project or development that's been announced and/or approved to get underway.
At least in regards to Orlando, this is not true. The Sports & Entertainment District has been announced since 2017. All they have done is demo a perfectly good garage with ground-floor retail and the police HQ. Society has gone through 3+ names in as many years. I can go on, but I think Jax is unique in that many of the projects are viewed as "downtown saving" with high publicity. Not to mention many of them are megaprojects that never happen, like the Shipyards (v1,2,3...), Lot J, The District, etc. Granted it seems The District is finally starting.
The pace of this project is why I have increasing doubts about the viability of the Riverfront Jax plan.
Quote from: WAJAS on July 29, 2021, 10:22:56 PM
Quote from: heights unknown on July 29, 2021, 09:27:28 PM
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on July 29, 2021, 08:44:06 PM
I don't know if patients is good in this town. All honesty, I would jut love to see this project start.
In Miami, Tampa, Orlando, St. Pete, (and there are other smaller cities), when they announce a project, they start shoveling dirt and moving cranes in yesterday. In Jax it takes 2 years or more, or even never, for a project or development that's been announced and/or approved to get underway.
At least in regards to Orlando, this is not true. The Sports & Entertainment District has been announced since 2017. All they have done is demo a perfectly good garage with ground-floor retail and the police HQ. Society has gone through 3+ names in as many years. I can go on, but I think Jax is unique in that many of the projects are viewed as "downtown saving" with high publicity. Not to mention many of them are megaprojects that never happen, like the Shipyards (v1,2,3...), Lot J, The District, etc. Granted it seems The District is finally starting.
It's slow in Tampa as well. The riverfront property that Trump was supposed to build a tower on back in the 2000's has had 3-4 different owners and multiple proposals since then, including the tallest building in Florida outside Miami, and it's still sitting there. Now they have a new proposal for a 37-story tower but we'll see how it goes. Water Street Tampa is moving but Ybor seems to get its fair share of proposals with pretty renderings that never actually happen.
Quote from: heights unknown on July 29, 2021, 08:06:21 PMI'm happy that this project seems to be on the road and on the way; but September? They are so damn slow in Jax. Well, patience is virtue so they say, and, when this project gets underway and then finished, we all will be happy in love!
Totally agree on many projects in Jacksonville, just not on this one.
I really admire Steve Atkins, and though the Trio has been slow to progress, you can't fault the guy's passion and perseverance.
He absolutely crushed it with the Barnett (full occupancy with 40 people on the wait list), and he learned a lot of lessons from the project (and its cost overruns) that can be applied to the Trio.
Many of the delays on the Trio post-Barnett were out of Southeast's control. Lots of red tape to get through when you're talking about three historical structures. Lots of red tape to get through when the city amends its historical preservation fund. And lots of red tape to get through when you need to go through two DIA reviews and City Council for the new incentives deal.
Would like to see it advance more quickly than September, but when you're talking about nearly $30 million in public contribution, I'm all for giving it the necessary time.
Atkins has a great plan for this project and the Marriott is going to be a massive addition to the CBD.
I think the project will be off to the races this fall, will be worth the wait, and is no way indicative of how fast or slow any new construction he leads along the riverfront might be.
I've been excited about this project since I moved here 11 years ago. Never seen it this far along. I think it will really add to the connectivity in Laura Street, creating the vibrancy needed. To be honest, I feel the Barnett looks more beautiful than I'd ever imagined.
Tonight, Council debated the additional $2M request from the developer to release an outstanding lien on the Trio leftover from the Barnett project, which release will permit closing on the financing.
CM Cumber had the audacity to raise parallels to Lot J and complain that this $2M has not been through the DIA process, and she therefore will not support the $2M addition. Key context:
- CM Cumber voted yes on Lot J.
- She is "philosophically opposed" to historic preservation if the economics don't stand on their own. If the economics don't work, she'd rather "tear the buildings down and allow something that makes sense" to be built there instead. Presumably this makes sense because Lot J was economically feasible on it's own, and the economics on all our tear-downs have worked out great for the City. /s
- She was, thankfully, the only "no" vote on the legislation.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:06:04 PM
Tonight, Council debated the additional $2M request from the developer to release an outstanding lien on the Trio leftover from the Barnett project, which release will permit closing on the financing.
CM Cumber had the audacity to raise parallels to Lot J and complain that this $2M has not been through the DIA process, and she therefore will not support the $2M addition. Key context:
- CM Cumber voted yes on Lot J.
- She is "philosophically opposed" to historic preservation if the economics don't stand on their own. If the economics don't work, she'd rather "tear the buildings down and allow something that makes sense" to be built there instead. Presumably this makes sense because Lot J was economically feasible on it's own, and the economics on all our tear-downs have worked out great for the City. /s
- She was, thankfully, the only "no" vote on the legislation.
Stop it. She represents San Marco.
I'm going to have to pull the tape of this council meeting.
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
But massive subsidies for projects on vacant land like Lot J is okay??
Apparently
QuoteCouncil approves Laura Street Trio redevelopment plan
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-February-DDRB/i-sVdNtjM/0/94ac3344/L/20210211_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_35-L.jpg)
The long proposed Laura Street Trio redevelopment project has received City Council approval for $24.67 million financing package.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/council-approves-laura-street-trio-redevelopment-plan/
Quote from: vicupstate on September 14, 2021, 09:11:28 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
But massive subsidies for projects on vacant land like Lot J is okay??
She's not a fan of putting money into historic properties. From the article:
Quote"Now that we just gave them an extra $2 million, there's essentially no cash that they're putting into this," she said.
"Now, I have ... philosophical reasons on why we shouldn't be giving money for historic properties. I think that if the private sector doesn't see that it's something we should be doing and it's not going to make money, then I would just rather, for the most part, tear them (the Trio) down and build something else that does make money."
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2021, 07:18:47 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 14, 2021, 09:11:28 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
If
But massive subsidies for projects on vacant land like Lot J is okay??
She's not a fan of putting money into historic properties. From the article:
Quote"Now that we just gave them an extra $2 million, there's essentially no cash that they're putting into this," she said.
"Now, I have ... philosophical reasons on why we shouldn't be giving money for historic properties. I think that if the private sector doesn't see that it's something we should be doing and it's not going to make money, then I would just rather, for the most part, tear them (the Trio) down and build something else that does make money."
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 08:59:04 AM
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
Her husband owns or owned a number of properties in San Marco, she used to be the president of the San Marco Preservation Society, and she lives in a home on River Road built in 1935. She should know better than anyone the value of historic buildings. I'm not at all surprised that she believes this, but I'm quite surprised she actually said it on the record.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2021, 07:18:47 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 14, 2021, 09:11:28 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
If
But massive subsidies for projects on vacant land like Lot J is okay??
She's not a fan of putting money into historic properties. From the article:
Quote"Now that we just gave them an extra $2 million, there's essentially no cash that they're putting into this," she said.
"Now, I have ... philosophical reasons on why we shouldn't be giving money for historic properties. I think that if the private sector doesn't see that it's something we should be doing and it's not going to make money, then I would just rather, for the most part, tear them (the Trio) down and build something else that does make money."
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
The biggest problem with her quote is that she ended up voting for Lot J. That was new and wasn't worth it to the developer without $250 million in public incentives and up front cash. Jax could have incentivized 10 Laura Street Trio type deals with the money we were about to flush down the toilet on Lot J.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on September 15, 2021, 09:26:15 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 08:59:04 AM
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
Her husband owns or owned a number of properties in San Marco, she used to be the president of the San Marco Preservation Society, and she lives in a home on River Road built in 1935. She should know better than anyone the value of historic buildings. I'm not at all surprised that she believes this, but I'm quite surprised she actually said it on the record.
It's not a coincidence that San Marco has declined pursuing local Historic District designation multiple times. Her mentality is not uncommon.
Quote from: fsu813 on September 15, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on September 15, 2021, 09:26:15 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 08:59:04 AM
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
Her husband owns or owned a number of properties in San Marco, she used to be the president of the San Marco Preservation Society, and she lives in a home on River Road built in 1935. She should know better than anyone the value of historic buildings. I'm not at all surprised that she believes this, but I'm quite surprised she actually said it on the record.
It's not a coincidence that San Marco has declined pursuing local Historic District designation multiple times. Her mentality is not uncommon.
A lot of people don't understand or just don't want to deal with the restrictions, etc that come with historic designations. That isn't the same as not understanding or appreciating the intrinsic value of historic properties.
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2021, 07:18:47 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 14, 2021, 09:11:28 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
But massive subsidies for projects on vacant land like Lot J is okay??
She's not a fan of putting money into historic properties. From the article:
Quote"Now that we just gave them an extra $2 million, there's essentially no cash that they're putting into this," she said.
"Now, I have ... philosophical reasons on why we shouldn't be giving money for historic properties. I think that if the private sector doesn't see that it's something we should be doing and it's not going to make money, then I would just rather, for the most part, tear them (the Trio) down and build something else that does make money."
The Braindead Coalition strikes again.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 10:10:58 AM
Quote from: fsu813 on September 15, 2021, 09:39:59 AM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on September 15, 2021, 09:26:15 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 08:59:04 AM
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
Her husband owns or owned a number of properties in San Marco, she used to be the president of the San Marco Preservation Society, and she lives in a home on River Road built in 1935. She should know better than anyone the value of historic buildings. I'm not at all surprised that she believes this, but I'm quite surprised she actually said it on the record.
It's not a coincidence that San Marco has declined pursuing local Historic District designation multiple times. Her mentality is not uncommon.
A lot of people don't understand or just don't want to deal with the restrictions, etc that come with historic designations. That isn't the same as not understanding or appreciating the intrinsic value of historic properties.
The requirements behind local historic districts can be pretty difficult on the property owner. Since affordable housing is a major concern with the Eastside, we're pursuing a national register designation for that neighborhood as opposed to a local designation, which would only help gentrify it. National is more honorary and places no restrictions on the property owner, unless the property owner decides to take advantage of tax credit, incentive and/or grant programs associated with it. Overall, combined with some slight zoning changes to provide additional market rate protection to the existing building stock, historic integrity and sense of place of the neighborhood, its a more equitable and inclusive way of dealing with preservation in historically excluded communities using policies and processes already on the books.
Carlucci dropped some knowledge on Cumber in his comments last night. If you watch the meeting online she starts around 3:05 and he comes roaring in at 3:11 on the broadcast.
So is there anything left now before work begins?
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:06:04 PM
Tonight, Council debated the additional $2M request from the developer to release an outstanding lien on the Trio leftover from the Barnett project, which release will permit closing on the financing.
CM Cumber had the audacity to raise parallels to Lot J and complain that this $2M has not been through the DIA process, and she therefore will not support the $2M addition. Key context:
- CM Cumber voted yes on Lot J.
- She is "philosophically opposed" to historic preservation if the economics don't stand on their own. If the economics don't work, she'd rather "tear the buildings down and allow something that makes sense" to be built there instead. Presumably this makes sense because Lot J was economically feasible on it's own, and the economics on all our tear-downs have worked out great for the City. /s
- She was, thankfully, the only "no" vote on the legislation.
I guess "SHE" thinks, or, to HER a PARKING LOT would MAKE SENSE. I'd like to know what did she have in mind that made sense. I'll bet she doesn't have a clue; and in the meantime, if they tore those buildings down, a parking lot would go there indefinitely...oh, wait, or how about a plush lawn right smack in the middle of the downtown/urban core. That's the way Jacksonville rolls.......isn't it?
Quote from: thelakelander on September 14, 2021, 11:14:22 PM
QuoteCouncil approves Laura Street Trio redevelopment plan
(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-February-DDRB/i-sVdNtjM/0/94ac3344/L/20210211_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_35-L.jpg)
The long proposed Laura Street Trio redevelopment project has received City Council approval for $24.67 million financing package.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/council-approves-laura-street-trio-redevelopment-plan/
THANK GOD!!!!!!!
Busy month, looks like everyone already covered it well, but just dropping by to quickly appreciate LeAnna Cumber and Rory Diamond abstaining/opposing $27 million in incentives to turn three of our most blighted, historically significant buildings in the most strategically important corridor in Downtown Jacksonville into a 145-room Marriott, restaurant, rooftop bar, and bodega while just months ago cheerleading a $300 million debt-financed handout to the Jags for a 120-room hotel, restaurants, Daily's bodega, and event space.
Good job, guys!
Horrifying quote about historic preservation from Cumber, btw.
Spoken like somebody who has never stepped foot outside of Jacksonville and experienced the character of other urban areas in her life.
Excited to see the garage already underway next-door, and really excited to see this one finally come to life.
Interesting that Atkins has this project scoped at $70 million while the Barnett alone ended up at nearly $60 million.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on September 17, 2021, 10:54:18 AMInteresting that Atkins has this project scoped at $70 million while the Barnett alone ended up at nearly $60 million.
Barnett is a much larger structure, according to the property appraiser it's 216k sq ft vs 93k for all three Trio buildings combined. On top of that there are a lot less unknowns about the new construction portion of the Trio project so you can getter better cost estimates on that piece.
Given the cost over runs at the Barnett, they probably have a large contingency fund to cover unexpected costs.
Quote from: acme54321 on September 17, 2021, 01:13:14 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on September 17, 2021, 10:54:18 AMInteresting that Atkins has this project scoped at $70 million while the Barnett alone ended up at nearly $60 million.
Barnett is a much larger structure, according to the property appraiser it's 216k sq ft vs 93k for all three Trio buildings combined. On top of that there are a lot less unknowns about the new construction portion of the Trio project so you can getter better cost estimates on that piece.
Good info! Thanks acme!
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/laura-street-trio-developer-wants-to-add-multifamily-phase-by-mid-2022
^ I am thinking with a housing shortage and the increased housing Downtown we should be at, or close, to the point where the City no longer incentivizes such projects unless they are restoring a historic building. Only others are projects that bring jobs, maybe.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 27, 2021, 12:22:41 PM
^ I am thinking with a housing shortage and the increased housing Downtown we should be at, or close, to the point where the City no longer incentivizes such projects unless they are restoring a historic building. Only others are projects that bring jobs, maybe.
The rents that the city can command and the impact of increasing construction costs still make margins very slim or non-existent for developers downtown. $2.50-$3.0 per square foot is the very upper end of what you can charge locally. That doesn't cover the added expenses caused by material and labor shortages/delays.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on September 27, 2021, 12:49:07 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 27, 2021, 12:22:41 PM
^ I am thinking with a housing shortage and the increased housing Downtown we should be at, or close, to the point where the City no longer incentivizes such projects unless they are restoring a historic building. Only others are projects that bring jobs, maybe.
The rents that the city can command and the impact of increasing construction costs still make margins very slim or non-existent for developers downtown. $2.50-$3.0 per square foot is the very upper end of what you can charge locally. That doesn't cover the added expenses caused by material and labor shortages/delays.
Suburban apartment developers have the same construction costs and labor issues but it's not slowing them down. Some of the complexes appear to be selling at upwards of $250 to $300K a unit. Rents in the area are rising at double digit rates. Urban living seems finally to be coming in style here. Investors also seem to be accepting of relatively low cap rates putting a premium on these developments allowing developers to cash out handsomely. I am not convinced we are not approaching a point where it can make sense to build Downtown without incentives.
What is really missing Downtown is more retail and better urban-centered public transit so living without use of a car is much easier. The savings of not having to have to operate a full time vehicle helps support premium rents too.
Without incentives the developers build more suburban style stick framed low rise apartments on the outermost limits of downtown to maximize profit because land is cheap... Rather than fill in the empty lots near the SkyWay stations / Hogan St, Water St etc where density is needed. Jacksonville is permanently stuck in a "fill outward in" mentality rather than "fill inward out". This is what causes people to move to the suburbs and businesses that should be in the CBD to move into office parks away from downtown.
I remember when I was working for one of the largest companies in Jacksonville and they were desperate for new office space. Plenty was available downtown, but ultimately they settled on offices in South Point and moving some jobs to another state because so many people complained about not wanting to work downtown. It wasn't that the employees were scared or concerned about things to do after work. The 3 biggest complaints were 1. traffic 2. Lack of parking 3. 90%+ of our employees lived in St Johns County, Mandarin and Orange Park so South Point was "the central location".
I predict Nocatee and St Johns building out more office parks and further exacerbating the problem, because land is cheap and people don't want to spend 2 hours going to and from work each way every day.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on September 27, 2021, 01:31:16 PM
Suburban apartment developers have the same construction costs and labor issues but it's not slowing them down.
4 story stick built with surface parking is not at all "the same construction costs".
Quote from: thelakelander on September 27, 2021, 09:43:00 AM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/laura-street-trio-developer-wants-to-add-multifamily-phase-by-mid-2022
Carry on.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/southeast-development-group-adding-166-apartments-to-laura-street-trio-project
Better than nothing, but would love to see the DIA toss some funds to double the number of apartments. Close to 400 in that area would be incredible.
Good. Get er done now. You never know what the future, or no future might bring, as crazy as this world and our nation is.
Quote11-story tower proposed for Laura Street Trio project
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-VZqNkL9/0/L/i-VZqNkL9-L.jpg)
SouthEast Development Group shares additional details on plan to add 166 mixed-income and workforce housing units to Laura Street Trio redevelopment plan.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/11-story-tower-proposed-for-laura-street-trio-project/
Quote from: thelakelander on January 05, 2022, 08:22:11 AM
Quote11-story tower proposed for Laura Street Trio project
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-VZqNkL9/0/L/i-VZqNkL9-L.jpg)
SouthEast Development Group shares additional details on plan to add 166 mixed-income and workforce housing units to Laura Street Trio redevelopment plan.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/11-story-tower-proposed-for-laura-street-trio-project/
Give me density, or give me death! (to our downtown)
^ please just give us something (after 10+ years of talk of this project)
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 05, 2022, 10:52:04 AM
^ please just give us something (after 10+ years of talk of this project)
I agree. I'm concerned about WHY they're including this. Money issue and somehow this helps the pro forma?
The Steve Atkins need to constantly be in the news? He was also pitching on the Ford on Bay today.
I agree that all of these renderings and additions mean nothing until dirt starts moving.
Quote from: Steve on January 05, 2022, 11:11:28 AM
Money issue and somehow this helps the pro forma?
Based on the low cap rates that apartment complexes are selling for these days, this could help the financials considerably.
Rofl... the real clownshow...
Quote from: Steve on January 05, 2022, 11:11:28 AM
Quote from: tufsu1 on January 05, 2022, 10:52:04 AM
^ please just give us something (after 10+ years of talk of this project)
I agree. I'm concerned about WHY they're including this. Money issue and somehow this helps the pro forma?
Can't speak to the pro forma, but Atkins has wanted to add multifamily to the Trio for at least six months. From Atkins directly, he genuinely believes there's demand for more housing and there will significant economies of scale from building infrastructure for the Trio and adjacent apartments concurrently and developing both projects simultaneously.
All that said, I expected to see work underway by November, and still few signs of life at the property.
^ I expected to see work underway in November....of 2015
This is a completely different design....
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-January-2022-DDRB/i-pz3C4kZ/0/a8d42f9f/X3/20220113_DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_074-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-January-2022-DDRB/i-xCzxrBf/0/cc7d3824/X3/20220113_DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_082-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-January-2022-DDRB/i-FVSRfDt/0/02d0633d/X3/20220113_DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_084-X3.jpg)
(https://photos.smugmug.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Laura-Street-Trio-January-2022-DDRB/i-ZQkmKtc/0/d523e3ce/X3/20220113_DDRB%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_089-X3.jpg)
I like this site plan better since it removes the vehicular driveway on Adams that was in the original plan. This would create 3 continuous blocks of building frontage along Adams Street which may become 4 blocks if the proposal for the Hildebrandt Building parking lot moves forward.
The city should really look into redesigning the Adams Street corridor and expanding the pedestrian space to allow for more outdoor dining opportunities
Better site plan, worse architecture. At this point I'm not sure they'll ever turn dirt on this thing so meh.
Quote from: Zac T on January 07, 2022, 10:39:19 AM
The city should really look into redesigning the Adams Street corridor and expanding the pedestrian space to allow for more outdoor dining opportunities
Agreed. Two-waying Adams Street, taking out one lane of parking and replacing that on-street parking with an extended sidewalk area for outdoor dining is relatively simple and inexpensive to accomplish.
https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/five-development-myths-that-hold-downtown-jax-back-page-2/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/five-development-myths-that-hold-downtown-jax-back-page-2/)
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-K8dQKSn/0/L/i-K8dQKSn-L.jpg)
Or COJ could dial back some of the requirements for the parklet program that is already in place, in order to reduce the cost. When we first envisioned this, we penciled out about $2,500-$3,000 in construction costs. It ballooned to more than double that based on COJ's (then) traffic planner who indicated that parklets had serious safety concerns and were 'too European'. They made us FAR exceed the NACTO safety standards adopted in cities around the country, and required an 18-inch-high, steel-reinforced concrete jersey wall, as well as curb stops. The material costs drastically skyrocketed as a result.
The bottom line is, there are very simple, cost-effective ways to transform Adams into a very vibrant corridor... to complement the projects either proposed or already in process/finished.
(https://downtownjacksonville.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/Parklet-website.png)
Quote from: acme54321 on January 07, 2022, 10:42:34 AM
Better site plan, worse architecture. At this point I'm not sure they'll ever turn dirt on this thing so meh.
Fair point, but still fun to consider :):
The new architecture looks like it could work with some tweaks, but as drawn, is just confusing -- like it is halfway between the modern all-glass original and trying to blend in as a faux-historical structure.
The view from the Bisbee side is not good, IMO. I'm no architect, but it looks like the grid-layout facade is trying to match the Bisbee, but the proportions are all wrong. They either need more glass surface area, to distinguish the modern building from the Bisbee more decisively, or they need to adopt more of the Bisbee's proportions (thicker horizontal and vertical grid look between windows). Some horizontal elements line up with the horizontal features on the Bisbee; others don't, instead appearing to bisect the Bisbee windows (but not with any consistency there, either). And there's zero ornamentation at the top, making it look like they forgot to roof the building. Even the plain, flat overhang (such as rendered on the Independent Life side, horizontally aligned with the IL's roofline) would improve the roofline look without the building pretending to be part of the original Bisbee.
It actually doesn't look bad from the Independent Life side. If we had never seen a rendering of a glass modern building, we'd probably be reasonably happy.
Quote from: Zac T on January 07, 2022, 10:39:19 AM
The city should really look into redesigning the Adams Street corridor and expanding the pedestrian space to allow for more outdoor dining opportunities
Been saying this for years! It's one of the few remaining streets in the Northbank that still has continuous blocks of urban street edge. It's a no brainer between the county courthouse/LaVilla and Ocean/Elbow District. The two-way street thing the DIA has been talking about is a chance to go that route. However, I'm not sure where that project currently stands and what the timeline is.
Ho boy.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/local/2022/01/11/jacksonville-housing-authority-and-laura-street-trio-could-team-up/9136683002/
Looks like the idea for the apartment addition is to have the housing authority purchase the land from Southeast for $10 million, lease it back to them, issue bonds to cover construction, and then try to make their $10 million back through bond proceeds.
I believe this would take the apartment building off the tax rolls as well.
Talks with housing authority lawyers are in "early stages."
Have a feeling we're going to be looking at those crumbling buildings for a while.
On the surface, it sounds like the 136 market rate units would be taken off the tax rolls if the property is owned by JHA. Overall, that article makes it sound like actual ground breaking may take longer than what was anticipated last last year.
For all of you that liked SE Developments Ford On Bay- READ ABOVE
Atkins claims that the the development will be under construction "within the next three months."
Just can't see that happening if the financing isn't in place for the new addition and the plan is for concurrent construction.
The incentive deal with the city would need to be amended if he's not under construction by July, assuming he gets DDRB approval for the revised plan.
I think it's gonna be closer to the later, unfortunately.
DDRB generally liked the new design and provided conceptual approval today.
Personally I liked the architecture a little better with the previous design, but the site plan is fine with this one.
That said, I feel like this whole thing will delay this a lot. Not in DDRB's purview but still disappointing.
^Per the incentive deal with the city, they've now got five months (from DDRB approval) to obtain permitting and commence construction.
This article covers the reason behind the new plan and value engineering:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/new-plan-for-laura-trio-project-in-downtown-jacksonville
At this rate, fine. I just want to see them save those three buildings and if they fill in the rest of the block even better. New architecture is so-so but not the worst.
Is this in danger of falling apart again?
They said they wanted a deal done by the end of January in a Daily Record article. It's now nearly the end of March. To think Atkins was trying to convince us he could construct 14 new buildings and landscape a whole new riverfront!
Quote from: landfall on March 22, 2022, 07:20:10 AM
Is this in danger of falling apart again?
They said they wanted a deal done by the end of January in a Daily Record article. It's now nearly the end of March. To think Atkins was trying to convince us he could construct 14 new buildings and landscape a whole new riverfront!
Atkins is still trying to find a way to raid money from the Jacksonville Housing Authority, money that should be earmarked for badly needed affordable housing units, but instead will be used to satisfy what should be the developer's own capital contributions into the project and also exempt them from ever paying property taxes in exchange for a few affordable housing units mixed in to a much larger market-rate project (ICYW, there would be a 10 year tax abatement anyway for rehabbing landmarked properties).
Unfortunately, this whole deal stinks.
Quote from: vicupstate on September 15, 2021, 08:59:04 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on September 15, 2021, 07:18:47 AM
Quote from: vicupstate on September 14, 2021, 09:11:28 PM
Quote from: jaxoNOLE on September 14, 2021, 08:23:32 PM
I don't think she meant to imply that the Trio should be torn down, but she definitely implied a general hostility to incentives focused on historic adaptive reuse.
If
But massive subsidies for projects on vacant land like Lot J is okay??
She's not a fan of putting money into historic properties. From the article:
Quote"Now that we just gave them an extra $2 million, there's essentially no cash that they're putting into this," she said.
"Now, I have ... philosophical reasons on why we shouldn't be giving money for historic properties. I think that if the private sector doesn't see that it's something we should be doing and it's not going to make money, then I would just rather, for the most part, tear them (the Trio) down and build something else that does make money."
Maybe someone should show her the rent per SF in historic downtowns, versus the rent per SF in DT Jacksonville.
Although there are inconsistencies in her statements, Cumber is absolutely correct on this statement:
Quote"Now that we just gave them an extra $2 million, there's essentially no cash that they're putting into this," she said.
In the package City Council voted on, the developer's capital contribution was something like $6mm (thats the 'cash' they are putting into the deal), which was mostly the value of the land they already owned that had an existing mortgage on it. That mortgage was required to be paid off prior to COJ securing the historic renovation loans against the property. City Council then decided to give the developer additional money to help pay off that existing mortgage. Money that would otherwise have had to come out of the developer's own pocket.
Currently, the developer is trying to get additional money earmarked for affordable housing projects via the Jacksonville Housing Authority (mostly money provided from the Federal Government as COVID relief) so that there will be essentially zero of their own money into this project. Almost $10mm in cash is being asked for to buy the ~1 acre parcel (thats about $9mm more than Vystar paid for the ~1acre parcel across the street) to pay off the existing mortgage and then act as the developer's capital contribution to finance the residential building construction. Basically, COJ is putting up money, the bank is putting up money, and the developer isn't. And there will never be any property taxes generated from the project, only an annual lease payment that will be used to repay the debt the Jacksonville Housing Authority would take on to help fund this project. That's a legitimate moral hazard problem that needs serious vetting from City Council (which likely will raise little real objections or do much introspection in the end).
All of this is being done under the guise of providing badly needed affordable housing. A legitimate need. However, there are much more impactful ways to leverage $10mm to create affordable housing units. In the Laura Street Trio scenario, $10mm will provide a few dozen (small) units (with no parking). $10mm could easily be used to create one or maybe even two 100+ unit affordable housing complexes (with parking). There is a lot of smoke here...
Here we damn well go again. Any hope that we can pull OUT of this funk and get this project moving?
Q2 2022 and still no shovels in the ground.
Starting to think Atkins is a bit of a cowboy, talks a far better game than he delivers. His Riverfront proposal just looks more laughable by the minute. Hopefully somehow someway we can finally get this thing rehabbed and Atkins gets relegated back to the shadows.
Quote from: landfall on April 01, 2022, 05:28:50 AM
Q2 2022 and still no shovels in the ground.
Starting to think Atkins is a bit of a cowboy, talks a far better game than he delivers. His Riverfront proposal just looks more laughable by the minute. Hopefully somehow someway we can finally get this thing rehabbed and Atkins gets relegated back to the shadows.
And...while they are all possibly, somehow, stuffing money in their pockets and then reneging on the project, and/or, coming up with excuses to not get it done and asking COJ for more money. They need to be jailed and/or imprisoned.
Quote from: heights unknown on April 02, 2022, 04:59:57 PM
Quote from: landfall on April 01, 2022, 05:28:50 AM
Q2 2022 and still no shovels in the ground.
Starting to think Atkins is a bit of a cowboy, talks a far better game than he delivers. His Riverfront proposal just looks more laughable by the minute. Hopefully somehow someway we can finally get this thing rehabbed and Atkins gets relegated back to the shadows.
And...while they are all possibly, somehow, stuffing money in their pockets and then reneging on the project, and/or, coming up with excuses to not get it done and asking COJ for more money. They need to be jailed and/or imprisoned.
Between the likes of Atkins and Spandrel recently theres too many weak developers who have been getting access to prime plots of land and real estate. When you are desperate like Jacksonville is, you sadly take chances like this.
Quote from: landfall on April 02, 2022, 06:23:04 PM
Quote from: heights unknown on April 02, 2022, 04:59:57 PM
Quote from: landfall on April 01, 2022, 05:28:50 AM
Q2 2022 and still no shovels in the ground.
Starting to think Atkins is a bit of a cowboy, talks a far better game than he delivers. His Riverfront proposal just looks more laughable by the minute. Hopefully somehow someway we can finally get this thing rehabbed and Atkins gets relegated back to the shadows.
And...while they are all possibly, somehow, stuffing money in their pockets and then reneging on the project, and/or, coming up with excuses to not get it done and asking COJ for more money. They need to be jailed and/or imprisoned.
Between the likes of Atkins and Spandrel recently theres too many weak developers who have been getting access to prime plots of land and real estate. When you are desperate like Jacksonville is, you sadly take chances like this.
I agree; but then when they get it (the property) they lie, misleading the public and others to believe that they are going to develop the property, get money from DIA/COJ, then probably spend the money on whatever, and then want more money or make up excuses citing the need for additional money/funds. They're all con and scam artists in my opinion. I'll bet if I pulled something similar I'd be arrested, convicted, and given no less than 15 years in Prison.
^^ He probably isn't getting any money from the public until he actually starts work. Construction costs have definitely risen with everything else, so I can see why the numbers keep changing. That said, the whole Riverfront plan undermined his credibility, which wasn't in large supply to begin with. He needs to finish the Trio before making a play for anything else.
Quote from: vicupstate on April 03, 2022, 12:48:16 PM
^^ He probably isn't getting any money from the public until he actually starts work. Construction costs have definitely risen with everything else, so I can see why the numbers keep changing. That said, the whole Riverfront plan undermined his credibility, which wasn't in large supply to begin with. He needs to finish the Trio before making a play for anything else.
Amen Vic.
Things fell apart with the Housing Authority.
No longer an option.
Source: Biz Journal
From the article
Quote
Atkins told the Business Journal via email that the timing between SouthEast and JHA did not align.
"After much discussion and review, JHA wanted considerably more time to develop their program and engage on the Trio project," Atkins said. "While we would have liked to collaborate with JHA, we want to move forward immediately with the project. Therefore, we have changed directions to proceed with other financing options."
A plan announced in January would have had the housing authority partner with SouthEast on construction of an 11-story, 166-unit mixed-income apartment component, with a fifth of the units designated workforce housing.
It's unclear how the change will affect the multifamily part of the project.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2022/04/22/southeast-development-jha-no-longer-partnering-on.html
So groundbreaking isn't happening soon?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 22, 2022, 11:41:20 PM
So groundbreaking isn't happening soon?
Sounds like it's going to need to go back through the DIA and City Council once again for an amended development agreement.
Just put a fork in this place its done. The worst Downtown real estate market in America with the worst politicians, decision makers, the most inept real estate players.
A centrally located historic site and after all the bullshit over how many years we have nothing. Just turn it into parking already.
Today is the day I officially gave up.
The DT real estate market is fine. Jax just needs to get out of its own way.
This is one project that's so strategically important that I'm fine with the city writing whatever check it takes to Southeast to just get the damn thing done.
Leanna Cumber won't be happy, but I'm not sure there's a better option.
Not sure there's anything more important in the CBD right now than removing the Trio's current blight and replacing it with active uses like SE is proposing.
There's no hope for the trio.
At best it somehow gets bought by VyStar and turned into another parking garage with ground floor retail. Atkins got every incentive and tax break under the sun and still had to beg a housing authority to get the deal done.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 23, 2022, 01:10:59 PM
This is one project that's so strategically important that I'm fine with the city writing whatever check it takes to Southeast to just get the damn thing done.
Leanna Cumber won't be happy, but I'm not sure there's a better option.
Not sure there's anything more important in the CBD right now than removing the Trio's current blight and replacing it with active uses like SE is proposing.
the best option is to get Southeast/Atkins out of the deal
Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 23, 2022, 01:10:59 PM
This is one project that's so strategically important that I'm fine with the city writing whatever check it takes to Southeast to just get the damn thing done.
Leanna Cumber won't be happy, but I'm not sure there's a better option.
Not sure there's anything more important in the CBD right now than removing the Trio's current blight and replacing it with active uses like SE is proposing.
Sorry, but unequivocally disagree. Raiding affordable housing money because the developer can't or won't contribute their own capital, is a horrible option.
In the last economic development deal approved by DIA/COJ, the only capital the developer had into the deal was the value of the land. That land had a loan from LISC that was required to be paid off in order to get public funds. The developer then convinced City Council to give them $2mm more in hard cash to payoff that $4mm loan (on top of the incentives they were already getting). So, basically they have to come up with $2mm in cash, to finance more than a $70mm project, about 40% of which was paid for with taxpayer incentives. That is more of a subsidy then anyone has received Downtown, ever. Its about as generous of a deal as it gets... more generous than Lot J, the original Landing deal (about 30% in initial taxpayer subsidies to construct- not counting the $25mm to buy it back and demo it 30 years later), insert project here____. And that Trio deal did not include whatever was required to get a 'phase 2' of the project done at a future date.
BTW, that loan from LISC, was a lien placed against the Trio to give the developer cash to finish the Barnett because the Barnett's lender was wary of the amount of debt that was required to finish the project, and didn't want to further leverage their security (the building) with more debt.
The new scheme presented to the Jax Housing Authority bumped up the project cost and scope, and required JHA to buy the land for $10.3mm (Vystar paid about $1mm for roughly the same size property next door... so taxpayers would be overpaying for the land by more than $9mm), then pay a developer fee of another $3.5mm, and another 3.5% annual property management fee. That cash would payoff the rest of the $2mm LISC loan ($4mm less $2mm from City Council) and net the developer roughly $12mm in cash to contribute back into the project. That would also take the property off the tax rolls for the next century (99 year ground lease). The JHA would then be paying off more than $15mm in bond monies for the next 30 years, which would adversely impact their ability to issue new bond money for additional (and badly needed) affordable housing projects for decades to come. That would be a total of almost $16mm in cold hard cash up front from taxpayers, additional cash each year based on a % of the rental income collected, a $16mm forgivable loan from taxpayers, almost $10mm in historic tax credits, and a $5.5mm deferred principal loan (at less than market rate interest) from taxpayers... all so that 33 very small (likely one bedroom or studio) workforce housing apartments (with no parking) would be around for 15 years (after 15 years, the developer could rent them at market rate- and still never pay property taxes). Hard working Jacksonville families would be denied affordable housing for the rest of my lifetime, so that a hotel can be built Downtown that will never pay property taxes? How is that a wise use of taxpayer money? Its hard to follow, but here's a basic breakdown of this JHA ask: Cash from the developer= 0%. Cash from taxpayers= 45%. Cash from bank/equity partners= 55%. Property Taxes= none. COJ policies for historic renovations incentives, which are very generous, requires the developer to have at least 10% in equity to qualify for these loan programs. In this latest proposal, it would have been 0%, with again... no property taxes ever owed (historic tax abatements already give developers of designated historic properties a 10 year tax break, this JHA scheme would extend that tax break from 10 years to basically in perpetuity).
This is a situation where two wrongs don't make a right. There were many people who wouldn't talk bad about this deal publicly, because the Trio is such a high profile eyesore... but behind closed doors knew this JHA deal stunk worse than the Jacksonville papermills of yesteryear. If Shad Khan asked for this deal, there would be men dressed like Sam Adams storming the Kismet and throwing barrels of tea overboard. Remember how Kahn was vilified after he loaned the developer money to acquire the Barnett and Trio buildings, and then foreclosed because he realized that this very same situation was going to happen a decade later? Perhaps some of those people are walking back that vengeance now.
The only party failing the Trio right now, is the developer.
100% in favor of turning that blighted lot into something better. 100% in favor of DIA's historic renovation loan program- the long-empty buildings that are being rehabbed Downtown at this very moment is proof positive that the program works as intended.
100% NOT in favor of 'whatever it costs'... constantly dealing with the bait and switch... and another decade of inaction by the developer because they are trying to curry their political favor towards getting a deal that is so far out of the best interests of the taxpayer. You wouldn't bankrupt yourself in order to renovate the kitchen in your home, so why should taxpayers contribute
well above what is reasonable to turn this blighted property into something better? There are all kinds of examples of bad development deals Downtown which should give one pause towards the 'whatever it costs' mindset: IE the Metropolitan parking garages (total tab from taxpayers is going to approach $100mm soon, there's still almost $30mm in bond debt that will be paid out over the next 20+ years), the Landing ($30mm and counting, and still a grass lot), the Shipyards (COJ still owes about $25mm in bond money from the development deal in 2005- 17 years ago- that went into foreclosure), etc.
Perhaps its time for a new developer to be in control of that property.
I get the sentiment here though about "Whatever it takes". If there's any project that I've believed could really be transformative for the urban core it's this one - more than any other mega-development that whoever in the past has proposed. Yes, the JHA deal was terrible. I didn't know the economics as well as field laid out but I knew it was bad. It's obviously a balance. Historic renos aren't always truly economical, in that the renovation cost often exceeds the value of the building after (not news to anyone here of course). This is why the program the north core projects are taking advantage of is so important.
Clearly Atkins can't pull this off, and every time this has a setback and then he proposes some underground parking garage thing that doubles as flood control underneath a $2B concept I want to scream. I genuinely believe he's trying to do it and has a passion for doing this project, but sometimes that isn't enough.
The challenge is he owns the buildings now, correct? Is there any way COJ can set a "no kidding" deadline, then if the project hasn't truly commenced COJ gets the property and can RFP the thing? I can't believe I'm suggesting this because normally I want COJ to get out of it's way, but it's time I believe.
I don't think Atkins can pull this off, but I also don't want us to slam the door in the guy's face then he lets the buildings continue to deteriorate.
Quote from: fieldafm on April 24, 2022, 10:52:09 AM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on April 23, 2022, 01:10:59 PM
This is one project that's so strategically important that I'm fine with the city writing whatever check it takes to Southeast to just get the damn thing done.
Leanna Cumber won't be happy, but I'm not sure there's a better option.
Not sure there's anything more important in the CBD right now than removing the Trio's current blight and replacing it with active uses like SE is proposing.
Sorry, but unequivocally disagree. Raiding affordable housing money because the developer can't or won't contribute their own capital, is a horrible option.
In the last economic development deal approved by DIA/COJ, the only capital the developer had into the deal was the value of the land. That land had a loan from LISC that was required to be paid off in order to get public funds. The developer then convinced City Council to give them $2mm more in hard cash to payoff that $4mm loan (on top of the incentives they were already getting). So, basically they have to come up with $2mm in cash, to finance more than a $70mm project, about 40% of which was paid for with taxpayer incentives. That is more of a subsidy then anyone has received Downtown, ever. Its about as generous of a deal as it gets... more generous than Lot J, the original Landing deal (about 30% in initial taxpayer subsidies to construct- not counting the $25mm to buy it back and demo it 30 years later), insert project here____. And that Trio deal did not include whatever was required to get a 'phase 2' of the project done at a future date.
BTW, that loan from LISC, was a lien placed against the Trio to give the developer cash to finish the Barnett because the Barnett's lender was wary of the amount of debt that was required to finish the project, and didn't want to further leverage their security (the building) with more debt.
The new scheme presented to the Jax Housing Authority bumped up the project cost and scope, and required JHA to buy the land for $10.3mm (Vystar paid about $1mm for roughly the same size property next door... so taxpayers would be overpaying for the land by more than $9mm), then pay a developer fee of another $3.5mm, and another 3.5% annual property management fee. That cash would payoff the rest of the $2mm LISC loan ($4mm less $2mm from City Council) and net the developer roughly $12mm in cash to contribute back into the project. That would also take the property off the tax rolls for the next century (99 year ground lease). The JHA would then be paying off more than $15mm in bond monies for the next 30 years, which would adversely impact their ability to issue new bond money for additional (and badly needed) affordable housing projects for decades to come. That would be a total of almost $16mm in cold hard cash up front from taxpayers, additional cash each year based on a % of the rental income collected, a $16mm forgivable loan from taxpayers, almost $10mm in historic tax credits, and a $5.5mm deferred principal loan (at less than market rate interest) from taxpayers... all so that 33 very small (likely one bedroom or studio) workforce housing apartments (with no parking) would be around for 15 years (after 15 years, the developer could rent them at market rate- and still never pay property taxes). Hard working Jacksonville families would be denied affordable housing for the rest of my lifetime, so that a hotel can be built Downtown that will never pay property taxes? How is that a wise use of taxpayer money? Its hard to follow, but here's a basic breakdown of this JHA ask: Cash from the developer= 0%. Cash from taxpayers= 45%. Cash from bank/equity partners= 55%. Property Taxes= none. COJ policies for historic renovations incentives, which are very generous, requires the developer to have at least 10% in equity to qualify for these loan programs. In this latest proposal, it would have been 0%, with again... no property taxes ever owed (historic tax abatements already give developers of designated historic properties a 10 year tax break, this JHA scheme would extend that tax break from 10 years to basically in perpetuity).
This is a situation where two wrongs don't make a right. There were many people who wouldn't talk bad about this deal publicly, because the Trio is such a high profile eyesore... but behind closed doors knew this JHA deal stunk worse than the Jacksonville papermills of yesteryear. If Shad Khan asked for this deal, there would be men dressed like Sam Adams storming the Kismet and throwing barrels of tea overboard. Remember how Kahn was vilified after he loaned the developer money to acquire the Barnett and Trio buildings, and then foreclosed because he realized that this very same situation was going to happen a decade later? Perhaps some of those people are walking back that vengeance now.
The only party failing the Trio right now, is the developer.
100% in favor of turning that blighted lot into something better. 100% in favor of DIA's historic renovation loan program- the long-empty buildings that are being rehabbed Downtown at this very moment is proof positive that the program works as intended.
100% NOT in favor of 'whatever it costs'... constantly dealing with the bait and switch... and another decade of inaction by the developer because they are trying to curry their political favor towards getting a deal that is so far out of the best interests of the taxpayer. You wouldn't bankrupt yourself in order to renovate the kitchen in your home, so why should taxpayers contribute well above what is reasonable to turn this blighted property into something better? There are all kinds of examples of bad development deals Downtown which should give one pause towards the 'whatever it costs' mindset: IE the Metropolitan parking garages (total tab from taxpayers is going to approach $100mm soon, there's still almost $30mm in bond debt that will be paid out over the next 20+ years), the Landing ($30mm and counting, and still a grass lot), the Shipyards (COJ still owes about $25mm in bond money from the development deal in 2005- 17 years ago- that went into foreclosure), etc.
Perhaps its time for a new developer to be in control of that property.
Don't worry, when the underwater hydrokinetic turbines in the St. Johns River are installed, the project will literally be overflowing with surplus cash! It's all part of the plan:
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/atkins-ups-riverfront-jacksonville-proposal-to-dollar2-billion-adds-hydropower
Does it matter that the developer didn't run that idea past JEA first? (a mere technicality)
^Haha. Even worse than not running it by JEA is even claiming it is in the works. The St. John's River like most flat/Florida rivers is a slow moving river at .3 miles an hour and while there may be higher flows downtown where the river narrows, I doubt that is enough to generate anything. At 1 mph, barely any energy is produced. The bare minimum to even run hydrokinetic turbines is around 2 mph, with 5.5 mph and greater being optimal.
It took me less than 5 minutes of online research to figure that out. Hopefully people in Jax will catch on to Atkins...
I actually totally agree with almost everything you're saying Mike - the JHA proposal was a bum deal, nearly everyone I talk to thinks Atkins is a clown, and two wrongs don't make a right - I just want to see the damn things developed in the next five years.
If an extra $10 million is what it takes to break ground in the next three to six months now that the National Park Service has given the final go-ahead, I don't know if the city has a more realistic alternative other than pinch our nose and beef up the subsidy.
He's already been sitting on the property for a decade.
Assuming he'd be willing to sell, or assuming the city tried to force the property out of his hands, you've gotta think that would add another 5 years to the timeline. And, with our city's track record down the street with the Landing, with the Courthouse & Annex, with the old Greyhound Station, with the Doro, etc, there's no guarantee that an ownership change wouldn't result in three new blocks of surface parking with a future promise of redevelopment.
All the while, tourists, visitors, and businesses considering relocation are coming to our city, being told we're a hot market, but seeing a Laura Street that looks like it was bombed. I think we see the Trio so often that we kind of get blinded to how awful of a message it sends.
Maybe I'm jaded, but after 30 years of blight with these building, if Southeast really does have all the necessary clearance to move forward "immediately" with historic rehab and an agreement with Marriott for a four-star hotel and restaurant, I still think that long-term, the cost of doing nothing and allowing these blocks to remain blighted for years to come will ultimately outweigh the cost of a bad deal that gets these building rehabilitated quickly.
The ol' Broken Window Theory.
I secretly suspect that Vystar - after already bailing out Southeast on the garage - ultimately becomes involved with the project in some way.
I hope they find a solution to get these properties renovated, but I'm not upset at JHA money not going into this project.
Quote from: CityLife on April 25, 2022, 07:20:26 AM
^Haha. Even worse than not running it by JEA is even claiming it is in the works. The St. John's River like most flat/Florida rivers is a slow moving river at .3 miles an hour and while there may be higher flows downtown where the river narrows, I doubt that is enough to generate anything. At 1 mph, barely any energy is produced. The bare minimum to even run hydrokinetic turbines is around 2 mph, with 5.5 mph and greater being optimal.
It took me less than 5 minutes of online research to figure that out. Hopefully people in Jax will catch on to Atkins...
Haven't you been paying attention? We're the city of the future! While pioneering autonomous shuttles weaving in & out of vibrant urban neighborhoods, we'll also lead the way on harvesting green renewable power from the St. Johns. It's like 2050 over here. What
can't we do?