I think this subject deserves a dedicated thread so here it is! 8)
To start the conversation, this from another thread:
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 15, 2021, 01:22:19 PM
Quote from: Charles Hunter on February 14, 2021, 02:18:57 PM
The coalition of groups supporting downtown, and specifically riverfront, parks is opposing allowing Iguana Investments access to the "city" portion of Metro Park for environmental testing.
Quote
Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations representing thousands of citizens, is asking the public to oppose the DIA resolution, recognizing that commercial development of the property will rob locals of the opportunity to maintain public access and ownership, and to create something distinctive, inviting, and resilient.
https://jaxlookout.com/metro-park/?fbclid=IwAR2SqVvFkGhuOPTRLcTdN3xj-jNEdjhRB5wOf6XdbjsuprQti28s_F5iiqU
I fully support the mission of Riverfront Parks Now and agree that we should preserve as much of our riverfront as possible as green space and public access. Any development set back behind such spaces should retain or even increase in value with these spaces as an added amenity as proven in cities all over the world. It is really a relatively inexpensive economic development driver.
We are blessed that the City already owns so much of this land and we need to not squander the opportunity away. Khan and his ilk are welcome to build all day long across from such spaces. Future generations of Jacksons will be thanking us for our foresight.
Added benefits include urban health, environmental and resiliency. It should be a no-brainer. Only in our City due we have to fight for this type of decision.
And, today, this audio exchange to lead off First Coast Connect:
Quote
https://news.wjct.org/post/riverfront-parks-now-bryant-academy-reunion-aid-music-venues-wgw (https://news.wjct.org/post/riverfront-parks-now-bryant-academy-reunion-aid-music-venues-wgw)
How should Jacksonville best develop its underutilized riverfront?
We discussed the issue in more detail with Scenic Jacksonville Director Nancy Powell and St. Johns Riverkeeper Executive Jimmy Orth. Both are members of Riverfront Parks Now, a growing coalition of 10 civic organizations that is challenging the city's developers with another vision for the St. Johns River front.
Adding this letter to the T-U about Lori Boyer and urban and riverfront parks to this thread:
QuoteWhat happened to Lori Boyer?
As a San Marco resident I was always pleased with Lori Boyer's representation of our district on the City Council. She seemed attuned to the needs of the area and advocated on our behalf. I was also impressed by her recognition of the importance of the St Johns River to the identity and livability of the city. She made efforts to increase access to the river and make it the centerpiece of activity in the urban core.
After becoming CEO of the Downtown Investment Authority (DIA) though, she seems to have succumbed to the groupthink that has guided city leaders and planners for years. That is, add more concrete and pavement to the downtown area and people will want to live there. A mindset where livability and visual appeal appear to be foreign concepts. She also seems to concur with the thinking that any downtown area with soil, grass, and natural elements is a wasted opportunity for development and a drag on the tax roll.
I am surprised by this because I thought she would bring a fresh perspective to the DIA and take steps to increase the livability of the downtown area. What she has done, though, is perpetuated the notion that greenspace is nothing more than another opportunity for a new structure or parking lot. This is a shame because there is now greenspace in the urban core and along the river that could be converted to an interconnected park system that would be the envy of other cities and make the urban core a desirable place to live.
Such parks would also serve as a resilient, natural barrier to river overflow. If she and other city planners were not under the spell of a stale urban planning philosophy, they might realize the once in a lifetime opportunity they have. Lori, please return to your roots and break the shackles of the dated school of thought that guided many failed downtown ventures of the past. Please don't miss this one-time opportunity!
Logan Cross, San Marco
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/02/20/letters-readers-when-america-great/4512008001/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/02/20/letters-readers-when-america-great/4512008001/)
Not sure I get what the fuss is all about. They want to extend the riverwalk and have some more parkland. Fine. We all like that.
We should be careful with some of the tools they're proposing to use. Tax Increment Districts tie money up for long periods of time, making it unavailable to use on all the services those "new" residents + businesses are consuming. In a way, they let developers pay for the their development with tax dollars instead private loans. etc, etc, etc. And a lot of the development was going to happen --- people need houses after all --- it was just a matter of where.
That's a pretty expensive way to shape development. They're not wrong but they're a dangerous tool and should rarely be used.
Just don't forget that cities like Stockton went bankrupt while pouring money into their riverfronts. And those developments haven't panned out 20 years later.
Remember, most of the resurgence of inner cities that's happened that helps make these riverfront projects look successful was driven by demographics --> the millenials. They're getting into their 40s + looking for backyards for their kids. Gen Z is smaller.
Throw that in with Jacksonville being below average in incomes, education, et al & the money probably isn't there for the thousands of $2.5K / mo 2 bd apartments and $548K condos. Without those, things can't pay for themselves.
https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/02/23/dia-talks-riverfront-development-workshop.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=ae&utm_content=ja&ana=&j=23026171 (https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2021/02/23/dia-talks-riverfront-development-workshop.html?utm_source=st&utm_medium=en&utm_campaign=ae&utm_content=ja&ana=&j=23026171)
From the above article on today's DIA meeting, I find the following totally inadequate:
Quote....Boyer outlined several strategic objectives, such as ensuring that the riverfront is physically and visually accessible, enforcing a 50-foot minimum building setback from the river, formalizing guidelines for the design and orientation of buildings, prioritizing beautification via Florida-friendly landscaping and encouraging public river access...
I have a problem with 50 feet and then up goes walls like we are seeing at the River City site. 50 feet (I would really like to see at least 100+ feet or a full lot of green space) should be a minimum PLUS, beyond that, by example, a foot of horizontal setback for every foot of height to some other minimum setback, say 200 to 300 feet or more. My point is this approach should be considered in some form and maybe its used in other cities we can learn from.
By the way, that is not an original thought. I took this from a similar setback requirement in a fire code but it makes sense to me that a 45 degree line of elevation should be a minimum scaling line up to a point for visual purposes too.
^ Would the Wells Fargo and Bank of America buildings fit those guidelines? Or CSX, or DoubleTree, Ameris, the Peninsula and Strand and Berkman buildings? Or even the Hyatt?
I understand having a goal for setbacks for visual or resiliency purposes, but I can't help but wonder what that would leave the skyline looking like to set limits like that. I'm not saying Jacksonville should look like Manhattan or anything, but it's hard enough to get vertical construction downtown as it is.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 23, 2021, 07:53:47 PM
^ Would the Wells Fargo and Bank of America buildings fit those guidelines? Or CSX, or DoubleTree, Ameris, the Peninsula and Strand and Berkman buildings? Or even the Hyatt?
I understand having a goal for setbacks for visual or resiliency purposes, but I can't help but wonder what that would leave the skyline looking like to set limits like that. I'm not saying Jacksonville should look like Manhattan or anything, but it's hard enough to get vertical construction downtown as it is.
Marcus, note that I suggested after, say, 200 or 300 feet the guidelines would not apply. In my opinion, the skyline would look much better 8). Ideally, if we made more of our city owned riverfront parcels green space, these guidelines would become moot in more instances.
Wells Fargo, per Google Maps, is 490 feet from the river, so it would not be impacted (nor would the B of A tower which is further back). Yes, some of the others might have to stand back a bit more by these standards. But, having a 200 to 300 wide strip (behind the 50 to 100 foot minimum) of low rise or stepped buildings would make our river views much nicer.
By the way, I particularly dislike the Hyatt's "wall of windows" along the river. It is, at its midpoint, only about 75 feet back and is a poster child for the concerns I have.
FYI, per my Google Maps estimates, Berkman is 164 feet back. CSX varies from 98 to 130 feet (the high rise, not the low rise in the center), Ameris is at about 246 feet at its midpoint, and the Double Tree is about 188 feet for the high rise portion. The Peninsula is only 35 feet. I am including the Riverwalk in these numbers even though in some places it is actually out over the river and should not be counted.
Can and should Jax do more to celebrate the St. John's and create better park space Downtown (including doing something with Exchange Island)? That's an obvious yes, but I'm going to drop a truth bomb here. Many people move to Florida for our beautiful beaches, crystal clear water, golf, and a tropical environment. Not to live next to a blackwater river (and I say this as a kid that grew up fishing, swimming, and going to aquatics camp in the river). You cannot look at Louisville, Chattanooga, etc in a vacuum and think successes there will automatically translate to Jacksonville. Existing residents in those places do not have the opportunity to live on or near the beach in places like Ponte Vedra, Atlantic/Neptune/Jax Beaches, St. Augustine, or Amelia Island. Prospective out of town middle/upper income residents looking to move to Florida also have the opportunity to live in South Florida, Tampa Bay, SW Florida, 30A, all of which have crystal clear water, and considerably better better water front housing, recreational, and boating options than Downtown Jax.
As a quality of life strategy, it can be a big boost for the existing residents of Jacksonville, but as an economic development or new resident attraction strategy, it's not a guaranteed game changer unless heavily tied in with music, events, dining, and redevelopment opportunities.
I'm glad this group is making a push for this, because frankly Jacksonville's parks system is a joke. Throw out the largest park's system in the country marketing BS, it's a bad parks system. I just hope that there is some realism grounded in whatever this group is doing. They have to create something TRULY unique and special to really move the needle and they need to be fully aware of what they are up against.
Quote from: CityLife on February 24, 2021, 09:32:41 AM
I'm glad this group is making a push for this, because frankly Jacksonville's parks system is a joke. Throw out the largest park's system in the country marketing BS, it's a bad parks system. I just hope that there is some realism grounded in whatever this group is doing. They have to create something TRULY unique and special to really move the needle and they need to be fully aware of what they are up against.
This is my main concern. Before we start designating huge swaths of the most visible land in town as parks, we need to fix our park system. We can't manage what we already have, so I'm very hesitant to give them even more. Add in the groundworks plan, daylighting McCoy's creek, fixing Hogan's creek, S-Line.... all these new grand park initiatives and I think we're headed for disaster. Typical Jacksonville logic. All hype for big budget items while the existing assets languish and decay.
As a runner, cyclist, dog owner, and thrower of frisbees, I would love quality park space. I just don't think our current government or parks department will be able to pull it off.
^I'd love to see a strategy that would first focus in on upgrading and maintaining existing parks. At this point, the shipyards could be a property tax generating shipyard, boat yard or scrap yard as for as I'm concerned, if it means we can get existing spaces like Springfield Park, James Weldon Johnson Park, Courthouse Plaza, etc. clean, sparkling and consistently programmed.
^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive. To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks. Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.
The problem with deferring many park acquisitions is the land is often gone "forever" and can't be obtained when funds finally become available. Or, it is far more expensive due to additional development occurring around the parks.
Many parks are passively owned following acquisition until more funds are found to develop them for use by the citizenry. We don't need to instantly develop parkland upon acquisition.
Nate Monroe put out an interesting article a few weeks ago about how Jacksonville's deliberately low taxes and lack of dedicated funds (compared to peer cities) have left a severe burden on public services by running a budget on survival mode for decades. At the end of the day, people always say they want this and that here, but the question for the ages is: how willing are we to pay for it? We only just answered that question with schools last year, and there are a lot more problems like that.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/02/05/nate-monroe-pandemic-not-jacksonville-crisis-mode-too-often/4403718001/
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 24, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive. To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks. Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.
^Unfortunately, our current condition is our reality. We don't have enough money to do a lot of quality of life things, from mass transit and parks, to septic tanks, water/sewer and keeping public libraries open. With that said, I'm in favor of a tax increase to cover many quality of life issues throughout the city.
[cross posted from "Mayor, Local Leaders ... Downtown Jacksonville]
Running in parallel is the City's Adaption Action Area workshop series, looking at the coming impacts of sea and river level rise, increased rainfall, and other changes leading to more widespread flooding. Four of the six workshops have been held - including one this morning. The remaining two are Friday morning, at 10:00 AM, and Monday evening at 6:00 PM, they run between 90 minutes and 2 hours.
Here is the project website https://gather.cdmsmith.com/v/Xw1Lx9X21L8
The Adaption Area (in purple) covers much of downtown, notably including pretty much the entire stadium area (sorry, I can't seem to embed this image)
https://gather.cdmsmith.com/v/5VjYlOyJzob
Quote from: thelakelander on February 24, 2021, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 24, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive. To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks. Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.
^Unfortunately, our current condition is our reality. We don't have enough money to do a lot of quality of life things, from mass transit and parks, to septic tanks, water/sewer and keeping public libraries open. With that said, I'm in favor of a tax increase to cover many quality of life issues throughout the city.
The next Mayor, whomever it is, will be raising taxes out of necessity. Curry may be convinced to take one for the team, as it were, and do it before he leaves, so the next Mayor doesn't have to lift that weight. I suppose it would depend on his parachute strategy leaving office.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 24, 2021, 12:24:19 PM
The next Mayor, whomever it is, will be raising taxes out of necessity. Curry may be convinced to take one for the team, as it were, and do it before he leaves, so the next Mayor doesn't have to lift that weight. I suppose it would depend on his parachute strategy leaving office.
I said essentially the same thing about Peyton and the pension situation. He wasn't able to run for re-election and wasn't going to run for higher office, so he could help the city tremendously without hurting himself much. Of course, he did nothing of the kind.
Is there anything keeping the next mayor (let's assume for a moment that it's Daniel Davis, because odds are it will be) from being enough of an ideologue to just... not do that? I was just reading an article (https://folioweekly.com/The-Courage-of-Alvin-Brown,9192) about Alvin Brown and his refusal to raise taxes to the point that Council did it anyway. Why couldn't Davis just let Council raise taxes again? And what keeps Rory Diamond-types on Council from also refusing to do it? What penalty do they face?
^ Just fear of the wrath of Trump "no-tax-increase-ever" GOP voters that make up a big chunk of their base.
And, subject to future events, I think Carlucci can give Davis a real run for the money. In fact, I think Carlucci may have an advantage at this point in name recognition, favorable image and a wider base of support (maybe Democrats, Independents and moderate Republicans). Of course, a nasty campaign can change all that as we have, unfortunately, seen in past elections.
Thank you Jaxlongtimer for this post.
A historically significant event.
( I was intending to perhaps post subject, but a combination of disinterest subject overload and curiosity to just watch how something might be empowered was inclination to Wait and thank you here @ page two.
But no accolades for Carlucci- I knew his Dad the Senator well, hand to hand combat on two items ( A certain leg of the First Coast Outer Beltway should be named after Senator Carlucci) and after I have promised self to no longer support serial family politicians Clinton, Bush, Carlucci etc.)
If I recall, Bill Bishop was doing alright in the primary before some guy named after food waltzed in from Tallahassee and immediately rounded up half a million from big donors in the first few weeks. I'm not saying Carlucci has no chance, he certainly does, and I think he'd do a great job. But until someone figures out how to wrassle voters to actually show up without the monetary advantage, we're a city of kingmakers.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 25, 2021, 01:57:20 AM
If I recall, Bill Bishop was doing alright in the primary before some guy named after food waltzed in from Tallahassee and immediately rounded up half a million from big donors in the first few weeks. I'm not saying Carlucci has no chance, he certainly does, and I think he'd do a great job. But until someone figures out how to wrassle voters to actually show up without the monetary advantage, we're a city of kingmakers.
I was at an event before that mayoral election and both Bishop and Curry were in attendance. I was a big Bill Bishop fan and had gone to events of his. I didn't even know who curry was at that time. The head of the local GOP got on the microphone and came just short of threatening the attendees to vote for curry. He never once mentioned that Bishop was even there.
The real problem with our parks... and it is not the parks!
Mark Woods elaborates:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2021/02/24/met-park-slippery-slope-kids-kampus-four-seasons/4547769001/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2021/02/24/met-park-slippery-slope-kids-kampus-four-seasons/4547769001/)
Quote....Next week will mark the 20th anniversary of the grand opening of Kids Kampus. There won't be an anniversary celebration. There will be talk of building a Four Seasons hotel.
Kids Kampus didn't even last a decade. It has been closed since 2010, ever since a planned revitalization of Met Park never came to fruition, with the City Council instead diverting much of the allotted funds to The Landing....
....One of the arguments some have given for doing this — for breaking up our largest downtown public park and turning a piece of it into a private development — is that Met Park is a "failed park."
If Met Park failed, maybe the problem isn't the 24 acres of land on our riverfront.
Met Park certainly isn't what anyone wants it to be. But if it's a failed park, that isn't because the park failed. It's because the city failed the park. Again and again.
Without sufficient and sustained support, every great urban park in the world would be a failed park. At some point in their existence, many of them were indeed, by this standard, failed parks. And if leaders in these cities had used this logic, they would have given away pieces of their parks to developers....
....In cities more similar in size to us — Cincinnati, Louisville, Chattanooga — those places have transformed riverfronts, all doing something that's worth noting. Instead of shrinking what they envisioned as their iconic riverfront parks, they expanded them....
Rebuild the Kids Kampus someplace where there are actual... kids. The former location was mostly empty most of the time. Great idea... wrong place.
Kids Kampus was isolated but well used. If it were closer to downtown, there would have been more economic spinoff for downtown businesses. I recall many who used to visit, would get back in their cars and drive back to the side of town they came from to eat. Nevertheless, Jax failed that space. It's unbelievable that it did not last 10 years.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 26, 2021, 06:38:16 AM
Rebuild the Kids Kampus someplace where there are actual... kids. The former location was mostly empty most of the time. Great idea... wrong place.
Lori Boyer in her time on Council and with the DIA has worked to get something like that at the Friendship Fountain space. I believe the initial design work was funded and completed, but construction bids were delayed as plans for MOSH and River City Brewing began to evolve.
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/11527634/screen-shot-2019-11-13-at-41622-pm*1024xx1726-971-0-55.png)
(https://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wjct/files/styles/large/public/201911/MapOfPlans.JPG)
This is the basis of this editorial:
https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-rcbc-debate-shows-downtown-needs-a-master-plan/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/the-rcbc-debate-shows-downtown-needs-a-master-plan/)
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2021, 07:25:15 AM
Kids Kampus was isolated but well used. If it were closer to downtown, there would have been more economic spinoff for downtown businesses. I recall many who used to visit, would get back in their cars and drive back to the side of town they came from to eat. Nevertheless, Jax failed that space. It's unbelievable that it did not last 10 years.
I used to spend quite a bit of time in the immediate area of the Kampus... much like the fire museum... it was empty most of the time. Occasionally a school bus or van of children would spend an hour there but from my perspective it was empty and unused... I was not at all surprised at its removal...
If Riverfront Parks Now wants to be successful, they need to come up with a very straight forward, simple concept and message. Right now, what little they have is very noisy.
At that, not sure how much success they'll have. They may need to go big and have a plan that can looks like it helps all the city. Right now for a lot of Jacksonvillians, it looks like something that doesn't do much of nothing for them.
Here is more perspective on riverfront parks:
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/02/26/guest-column-our-parks-not-sale/6817159002/
QuoteOPINION
Guest column: Our parks are not for sale
Your turn
Jimmy Orth
When Metropolitan Park opened in 1984, former Mayor Jake Godbold envisioned a people's park where all citizens could gather and enjoy the river for generations to come. The park's success led to the addition of a public marina and the Kids Kampus, an interactive children's play area that quickly became a popular destination for families throughout the region.
In 2010, funding was appropriated to revitalize Metro Park, but the money was unfortunately diverted by City Council to pay for parking for the now-defunct Landing.
The failure to properly maintain and invest in Metropolitan Park over the years leaves us with the park we have today – one that is underutilized and has fallen into disrepair.
Like all essential public infrastructure, parks must be maintained and updated over time. Our failure to do so is no reason to give away a portion of Jacksonville's largest riverfront park to a developer for a high-end hotel.
Parks belong to us. Parks are set aside for our benefit and are intended to remain in the public trust in perpetuity. While there are rare circumstances when selling or repurposing parklands may potentially be in the best interests of the citizens, this is not one of them.
The Downtown Investment Authority's own planning document says "Metropolitan Park serves as the perfect location for outdoor entertainment" and "recommends the redesigning of Metropolitan Park into the City's iconic waterfront park, an engaging prime waterfront venue which becomes a regional destination that provides a relevant space for all Jacksonville's citizens at all times."
The bottom line is we need more parks and access to our river, not less. We also need to protect and invest in the ones we already own.
Destination parks and public green spaces benefit us in so many ways by:
Improving health and wellness,
Providing a much needed place for people to access and connect with nature and our river,
Attracting businesses and residents, creating jobs, and increasing surrounding property values,
Capturing and filtering stormwater runoff, improving air quality, and providing habitat for wildlife, and
Protecting us from storm surge and sea level rise and making our community more resilient.
Jacksonville is in an enviable position shared by no other city, and no other city has a river quite like the St. Johns flowing through the heart of its downtown. With so much publicly owned land along the river, Jacksonville has a unique, once in a lifetime opportunity to create a riverfront for all – one including a revitalized Metropolitan Park that is connected to a network of green spaces and active parks. To seize this opportunity, we must begin by developing a shared vision and comprehensive riverfront master plan that involves the public, prioritizes public access, and commits to investing in the public realm. Together, we can create a world-class riverfront that connects the community to our river, stimulates economic development, makes us more resilient, and reestablishes downtown as the heartbeat of Jacksonville.
Jimmy Orth is executive director of the St. Johns Riverkeeper.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on February 24, 2021, 12:22:55 PM
Nate Monroe put out an interesting article a few weeks ago about how Jacksonville's deliberately low taxes and lack of dedicated funds (compared to peer cities) have left a severe burden on public services by running a budget on survival mode for decades. At the end of the day, people always say they want this and that here, but the question for the ages is: how willing are we to pay for it? We only just answered that question with schools last year, and there are a lot more problems like that.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/nate-monroe/2021/02/05/nate-monroe-pandemic-not-jacksonville-crisis-mode-too-often/4403718001/
Here's the thing: every mayor in the last 25 years has raised taxes at least once (or in the case of Alvin Brown, depended on a budget passed by City Council that included a tax increase). That includes Curry. The citizens have voted to raise their own taxes 3 times in that span. That is to say, people don't appear to be as tax averse as some assume - if they see it going to something of value.
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 26, 2021, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2021, 07:25:15 AM
Kids Kampus was isolated but well used. If it were closer to downtown, there would have been more economic spinoff for downtown businesses. I recall many who used to visit, would get back in their cars and drive back to the side of town they came from to eat. Nevertheless, Jax failed that space. It's unbelievable that it did not last 10 years.
I used to spend quite a bit of time in the immediate area of the Kampus... much like the fire museum... it was empty most of the time. Occasionally a school bus or van of children would spend an hour there but from my perspective it was empty and unused... I was not at all surprised at its removal...
When we used to go on the weekends, it was always crowded with young families and events like birthday parties. I suspect that the empty days may have been the weekdays, since there was not much of residential population within walking distance.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2021, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: BridgeTroll on February 26, 2021, 09:57:58 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 26, 2021, 07:25:15 AM
Kids Kampus was isolated but well used. If it were closer to downtown, there would have been more economic spinoff for downtown businesses. I recall many who used to visit, would get back in their cars and drive back to the side of town they came from to eat. Nevertheless, Jax failed that space. It's unbelievable that it did not last 10 years.
I used to spend quite a bit of time in the immediate area of the Kampus... much like the fire museum... it was empty most of the time. Occasionally a school bus or van of children would spend an hour there but from my perspective it was empty and unused... I was not at all surprised at its removal...
When we used to go on the weekends, it was always crowded with young families and events like birthday parties. I suspect that the empty days may have been the weekdays, since there was not much of residential population within walking distance.
That explains our differing perceptions... bottom line is the kampus is better off somewhere else. :)
Mark Woods makes a great point about park sizes. One 30 acre park is a different experience than three 10 acre parks. Many cities are building/assembling larger sized parks on or about their waterfronts. Breaking up Metro Park with part of it going to the Shipyards is not the same thing as leaving it whole. Interestingly, Woods points out the City is already treating it as a smaller park, even before any plan is approved.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2021/03/03/met-park-jacksonville-does-size-matter/6878168002/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2021/03/03/met-park-jacksonville-does-size-matter/6878168002/)
Emphasis added.Quote
If you go to the city of Jacksonville website to read about Met Park, this is how the description begins: "Metropolitan Park is an 18.25-acre waterfront park ...."
Or that's how it begins today.
Let's go to the Wayback Machine, a website that launched in 2001, creating a digital archive of billions of web pages. The Wayback Machine allows you to go back in time and see what a web page looked like in the past. And if you go back to the summer of 2018 and look at the city's "About Metropolitan Park" page, this is how that description begins:
"Metropolitan Park is a 23-acre waterfront park ...."
Note the one small — but significant — change, which just happens to have preceded the tearing down of the Hart Bridge ramp and a proposal to build a Four Seasons hotel on Met Park.
Twenty-three acres turned into 18.25.
It's like a Jacksonville sequel to "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." This time instead of the family ending up in a backyard that suddenly feels larger, we've shrunk the park....
....Now the city is quite purposefully trying to define Met Park, both semantically and legally, as the original 14.3 acres — which, because of the way those acres were purchased, remain off-limits for development.
Here's the pitch for the plan to shrink Met Park: It won't shrink the overall park space. The land where Kids Kampus used to be will move closer to downtown, on the Shipyards property. That will become a new park. A Four Seasons and orthopedic facility will go up on the former site of the kids park. And when all is said and done, that development will be surrounded on both sides by beautiful, vibrant parks — with as much or more riverfront park space as exists today....
....But beyond that, the cities that have created vibrant riverfronts — the places we often talk about emulating — don't just have parks on their water. They typically have at least one park that's larger than 14.3 acres, often significantly larger.
We're not just talking big cities with big parks, like Chicago's Grant Park (319 acres).
Louisville has changed dramatically from when I worked for the Louisville Courier-Journal in the 1990s. If you ask people there about that change, they say one key piece is their 85-acre waterfront park, part of what was recently named one of the 10 best riverwalks in America.
They aren't shrinking that park. They're adding 22 acres. And across the Ohio River in Indiana, there are plans for a 600-acre park that will provide both recreation and resiliency.
Cincinnati has Smale Riverfront Park (32 acres). Memphis has Tom Lee Park (30 acres, with luxury homes and condominiums overlooking the park and the river). Tampa has the Julian B. Lane Riverfront Park (25 acres). Chattanooga has Renaissance Park (23 acres, part of 150 acres along the Tennessee River, connected by a 13-mile paved greenway and a pedestrian bridge across the river)....
....St. Petersburg has its pier park (where its website says "26 beautiful acres seamlessly combine the peaceful blue waters of Tampa Bay with the vibrant greenery of downtown St. Petersburg parks").
These cities haven't transformed their waterfronts in spite of parks bigger than the original Met Park. They have done so partly because of these parks.
"That's one thing we've seen in our research," said Jimmy Orth, Riverkeeper executive director and part of a Riverfront Parks Now steering committee. "Size does matter."
There are cities that have created vibrant riverfronts with more of a linear string of parks and trails. But all of these cities and their parks, no matter how many acres, have something else that matters immensely — the size of park funding.
While we like to brag about our park system, by pretty much any measure of spending — per capita, per acre, capital improvements, maintenance — we rank far behind the best park systems in America.
If that doesn't change — if we could look into a Way Ahead Machine and see the future — it won't matter how many acres the city says are in Met Park.
Springfield Park....Jax's true Central Park says hello! I'd love to see it get some equal attention.
^Not taking away from any other park... God knows, we need as many as we can get in my opinion. And, as previously noted, with the City under-funding the entire park system (which Woods also notes in his column(s)), all need more "attention."
That said, like it or not, the riverfront is Jacksonville's front door/centerpiece/focal point and, as such, deserves its own "grand" park like what most other cities with such opportunities offer. Additionally, a riverfront park offers over other locations all the attractions and benefits of being along a body of significant and navigable water.
I don't know if it's the front door, that's subjective. It's important and definitely deserves some attention and investment. However, isolating the focus sets up for sure failure. It's one of the things that should be included in a comprehensive and coordinated plan for the core. When looking at things holistically, we'll discover the best path for incremental implementation to effectively reach the grand vision.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 05, 2021, 03:43:35 PM
That said, like it or not, the riverfront is Jacksonville's front door/centerpiece/focal point and, as such, deserves its own "grand" park like what most other cities with such opportunities offer.
I was just pointing out that we do have a grand park like other cities. We've just let it go to hell since the 1950s. Nevertheless, at one time, it was just as grand as NYC's Central Park and Boston's Common to Jacksonville. Two grand parks that are still grand for their communities, despite not being on the waterfront in those coastal cities.
Ennis, I will gladly settle for TWO (or more) "grand" parks! We should be so blessed 8). And, connecting them with the Emerald Trail would be a force multiplier.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 05, 2021, 03:43:35 PM
^Not taking away from any other park... God knows, we need as many as we can get in my opinion.
what money should be used to build and maintain these grand parks?
Well, at least we don't have to purchase...... after all, the public owned/ owns a great deal of Water Front Property.
Quote from: tufsu1 on March 06, 2021, 09:44:53 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on March 05, 2021, 03:43:35 PM
^Not taking away from any other park... God knows, we need as many as we can get in my opinion.
what money should be used to build and maintain these grand parks?
Tufsu, I already answered this question earlier in this thread. See re-post below:
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 24, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive. To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks. Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.
The problem with deferring many park acquisitions is the land is often gone "forever" and can't be obtained when funds finally become available. Or, it is far more expensive due to additional development occurring around the parks.
Many parks are passively owned following acquisition until more funds are found to develop them for use by the citizenry. We don't need to instantly develop parkland upon acquisition.
Quote from: fsu813 on February 24, 2021, 01:50:10 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 24, 2021, 12:24:19 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on February 24, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
^ Taking care of parks and adding more parks are not mutually exclusive. To do either one, we just need a small incremental increase in property taxes dedicated to parks. Maybe we should actually create a "parks district" dedicated tax so citizens are assured the money goes where they can appreciate it.
^Unfortunately, our current condition is our reality. We don't have enough money to do a lot of quality of life things, from mass transit and parks, to septic tanks, water/sewer and keeping public libraries open. With that said, I'm in favor of a tax increase to cover many quality of life issues throughout the city.
The next Mayor, whomever it is, will be raising taxes out of necessity. Curry may be convinced to take one for the team, as it were, and do it before he leaves, so the next Mayor doesn't have to lift that weight. I suppose it would depend on his parachute strategy leaving office.
As if I had a crystal ball ....