Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/River-City-Brewing-Related-Group/i-FwkGfRQ/0/d48cb657/L/20210323_DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_19-L.jpg)
Miami-based Related Group will seek conceptual approval from the Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) for a mixed use project on the current site of the Southbank's River City Brewing restaurant on March 25th. The latest concept is a dramatic modification from an early resort-style design that received negative feedback in January. Let us know what you think about the new design.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/a-new-look-for-rd-river-city-brewing-project/
Thanks for sharing, Ennis.
This looks far better than the original concept. That said, I still would like to see this publicly owned land stay that way and be utilized as riverfront green space/public access with apartments set back much further/across the street.
I also note that the zone B and C height restriction zones are, respectively by their own documents, supposed to be 45 and 75 feet. Yet they are asking to go to, respectively, 88'4" and 80'5". This is exactly one of my other concerns: We are letting too much height too close to the river. What is the point in having setback standards if we are not going to adhere to them. Knowing this city has no backbone, it is another reason why we shouldn't even consider these projects on (especially public) riverfront parcels.
This is definitely an improvement. It also looks like they finally realized that the way they had the boat ramp configured in the original proposal wasn't going to work.
It'd still be better if they could cut the front half (towards the river) of the building off and stack it on top of the other half. But this does seem less... monolithic than the previous design. Breaking up the massing is definitely a good move. I think the flatter roof helps too.
This is so much better. I think it looks great, actually.
For those saying they would like the building pushed off the river and twice the height... I agree in a perfect world, unfortunately that building would not currently (or in future, without stepping stone projects like this) get built in jax. This is a great project for Jax's downtown and the waterfront, and getting Related here is a big win for jax - they lend a ton of credibility and will attract other regional and national developers to the market.
I like it; not tall enough for a 1 million pop city, but beggars won't be choosy; I'll take it.
Quote from: Alex Sifakis on March 16, 2021, 08:20:14 PM
This is so much better. I think it looks great, actually.
For those saying they would like the building pushed off the river and twice the height... I agree in a perfect world, unfortunately that building would not currently (or in future, without stepping stone projects like this) get built in jax. This is a great project for Jax's downtown and the waterfront, and getting Related here is a big win for jax - they lend a ton of credibility and will attract other regional and national developers to the market.
A man can dream, Alex. After all, we don't often get more than one chance to define our riverfront (unless climate change does us some very expensive favors). But yes, I suppose we can't make perfect the enemy of good. It's still a substantive improvement.
I like the concept and this will definitely be an improvement to the area. Hopefully everything will go well and shovel will actually hit the ground something soon
It's a great improvement, but those east and west elevations are still massive and pretty uniform. I was outraged at the last rendering, but I'm only mildly underwhelmed by this one.
I'd love to know what is going on the museum property before this gets too far down the road. I doubt the city has a plan, but will it at least remain a public use? This used to be a cultural and educational hub, but if that property flips to private use then I worry that Friendship park will be less frequented and fall further into disrepair. I know there are plans to spruce it up, but there have been plans for various parks for decades that remain unchanged.
^This is one of those things where a good master plan that lays out what will happen (and when) with public property comes into play. I hope it stays in public hands and is revamped into another cultural destination for downtown. Everyone has ideas but no one has money to invest in the construction of a new building, which is why adaptive reuse should get more play in this community. We made a mistake tearing down the Landing and City Hall Annex. I'm hoping we'll learn and do better when the next opportunity arises.
Maybe with more residential near the fountain, more noise from residents to the city & council will keep them accountable for maintaining the fountain but I laugh as I type this response.
I don't like the flat roof personally, I think the other one definitely reads more resort, but I didn't think that was a bad thing. This is Florida after all. I'm not a fan of all the lack of character of rooflines in most residential buildings going up lately around the country. Something to break up the monotony in the skyline gave it a little more interest. Plus with Jacksonville demolishing uniquely shaped architecture it was a welcome addition to me.
I just saw something in the renderings that I don't like which is the location of the pool right along the riverwalk facing DT. I don't think that's the best use of the area and should be opened to more public greenspace and/or outdoor seating with a restaurant or something.
With the asymmetrical building design, extensive courtyards, varied balcony sizes, and architectural exterior elements, I think the final product will be much better and a two dimensional rendering can provide. This is much better than the original and some of the Tampa examples shown here previously. Have to give them credit for doing what was asked, and not just changing the building color or roof design.
Where do you guys think they'll put the new RC brewery? I have a feeling that they'll try the place it in shipyards or close to the entertainment district area.
There will not be a new RC brewery. The business will close.
Quote from: hightowerlover on March 17, 2021, 10:24:38 AM
I don't like the flat roof personally, I think the other one definitely reads more resort, but I didn't think that was a bad thing. This is Florida after all. I'm not a fan of all the lack of character of rooflines in most residential buildings going up lately around the country. Something to break up the monotony in the skyline gave it a little more interest. Plus with Jacksonville demolishing uniquely shaped architecture it was a welcome addition to me.
I honestly never understood why people had a problem with the "resort look".
Quote from: Jagsdrew on March 17, 2021, 11:55:06 AM
I just saw something in the renderings that I don't like which is the location of the pool right along the riverwalk facing DT. I don't think that's the best use of the area and should be opened to more public greenspace and/or outdoor seating with a restaurant or something.
this is a similar design to what Related built on Tampa's riverfront
It should be better. There will be a restaurant with lots of outdoor seating overlooking the river and Friendship Fountain.
City asked for more money as this project shrinks in size by 33% and the developer backs out of repairing one of the docks. While I am glad it is shrinking in size (really wouldn't mind if it died and the land stayed as green space), I don't understand why the City should put up more money as a result. I assumed it shrank this much to keep the rising costs in line so why the need for more City money on top of that. Not buying the developer's sob story and already think the City's now 18% subsidy (about $81,000/apartment!) is too much.
Once again, the City is in over its head negotiating these deals. It appears these developers do bait and switch once they have the City on the initial hook. The developers are supposed to be highly experienced and educated in these projects so I am amazed how often they say, "oops,' off by millions so we need more help. Everyone of them seems to come back for more later and the City always caves. What happened to developers assuming risks in return for their rewards?
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/miami-developer-requests-dollar1-09-million-incentives-boost
Quote...The larger tax refund would bring the city's total investment in the proposed Southbank apartments to $18,274,679, according to a DIA staff report released April 9.
Related Group estimates its plan to demolish the River City Brewing Co. restaurant at 835 Museum Circle and redevelop the site will cost $99.16 million, the report says.
That's up $6.32 million from the $92.32 million the developer projected in November.
Related Group also told DIA officials it will reduce the number of apartments from 335 to 227 and decline to repair one of the docks at the site.
Both changes are allowed under the initial agreement approved by the DIA board last year....
If +100 units are being chopped out, does that change the site plan? I wonder if that allows for a larger setback from the river, which was a big concern of the Riverfront Parks Now types?
Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 07:03:41 AM
If +100 units are being chopped out, does that change the site plan? I wonder if that allows for a larger setback from the river, which was a big concern of the Riverfront Parks Now types?
The article doesn't indicate the design is changing. They probably lost a few units during the minor redesign, but the drop in units may be a result of them increasing the the mix of units to have more 2 or 3 bedroom units. I don't know what the original unit mix was supposed to be, but having a greater allocation of larger units might make the number of total bedrooms a wash. Plus, units with more bedrooms are more affordable for young professionals or service industry employees. So it could end up being a good thing.
The developers are simply asking for a larger REV grant (tax abatement) based on higher assumed construction cost and a subsequent higher tax assessment. No real problems for me on that. The real problem with this project is the scale and mass is atrocious and should have never even come forward for review. However, the project is too far along for the developers and architects to make major changes, so the City will be stuck with a lemon.
Knowing how public sector planning and development works, it wouldn't surprise me if the DIA was not able to spend as much time on this project as they would have liked due to the high profile nature of Lot J and the sheer amount of work involved with it. I've seen so many things skate by or slip through the cracks, while there are "bigger fish to fry".
It's not the prettiest project but I'd also argue that the scale and massing says more about our policies that shape these projects, then the developers trying to make market rate projects within them. The request doesn't give me heartburn.
Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 09:17:24 AM
It's not the prettiest project but I'd also argue that the scale and massing says more about our policies that shape these projects, then the developers trying to make market rate projects within them. The request doesn't give me heartburn.
Market rate projects? They are asking for $18 million in incentives...
I'm sure the downtown policies could be refined a bit to eliminate the possibility for staff error, but the DIA still had plenty of ammunition in the downtown code to make the developers bring forward a better project. Let's look at Section 656.361.6.2 (Private Realm Regulations)
Section C. Building Massing and Form:
Purpose and Intent: It is important that future buildings are designed so that their scale and massing does not overwhelm the Public Realm and make it unattractive and inhospitable. The modulation of a block and the massing of buildings significantly impacts how the size of a building is perceived by a person at street level.
Subsection: Create a transition in bulk in scale
DIA's Finding: The design includes areas of relief along the facades incorporating landscaped courtyards and upper-level terraces which create a transition in the bulk of the building.
The DIA could have EASILY called out the fact that the east elevation of this is roughly 2/3rds the length of the Pentagon and 3 stories taller and that the west elevation isn't much better. Knowing good urban design, there is nothing anybody can say to convince me that this building shouldn't have been broken up into two buildings to create more pedestrian friendly blocks (and a view corridor to the river looking east/west) and make it less bulky.
The end result will still be good for Downtown, but it could have been much better. Especially when the City is giving the developer $18 million.
Quote from: CityLife on April 13, 2021, 09:51:43 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on April 13, 2021, 09:17:24 AM
It's not the prettiest project but I'd also argue that the scale and massing says more about our policies that shape these projects, then the developers trying to make market rate projects within them. The request doesn't give me heartburn.
Market rate projects? They are asking for $18 million in incentives...
Yes, the project does not happen without incentives, if you want stuff like structured parking as opposed to the Texas style donuts with lots of surface parking to make the numbers work. That's the state of DT Jax today unfortunately.
QuoteI'm sure the downtown policies could be refined a bit to eliminate the possibility for staff error, but the DIA still had plenty of ammunition in the downtown code to make the developers bring forward a better project. Let's look at Section 656.361.6.2 (Private Realm Regulations)
Section C. Building Massing and Form:
Purpose and Intent: It is important that future buildings are designed so that their scale and massing does not overwhelm the Public Realm and make it unattractive and inhospitable. The modulation of a block and the massing of buildings significantly impacts how the size of a building is perceived by a person at street level.
Subsection: Create a transition in bulk in scale
DIA's Finding: The design includes areas of relief along the facades incorporating landscaped courtyards and upper-level terraces which create a transition in the bulk of the building.
The DIA could have EASILY called out the fact that the east elevation of this is roughly 2/3rds the length of the Pentagon and 3 stories taller and that the west elevation isn't much better. Knowing good urban design, there is nothing anybody can say to convince me that this building shouldn't have been broken up into two buildings to create more pedestrian friendly blocks (and a view corridor to the river looking east/west) and make it less bulky.
I don't disagree. DIA could have likely done a lot of things. I doubt that happened though and would not be surprised is some of the opposite took place.
QuoteThe end result will still be good for Downtown, but it could have been much better. Especially when the City is giving the developer $18 million.
No argument from me here. I just place more responsibility of the outcome on the public side.
With fewer units and more money, the city should expect a smaller footprint (more floors) and a better design. This is a very key parcel with a lot of visibility.
Frankly I would tell them to wait until MOSH moves and use that site instead. Retail on the ground floor, offices for the next 7-10 and apartments on top of that in a slender, tall building.
Appears someone has a typo error on the number of apartment reductions. It looks like the DR article says 337 t0 325 not 225. Can someone please double check this.
Quote from: jaxjags on April 14, 2021, 10:52:48 AM
Appears someone has a typo error on the number of apartment reductions. It looks like the DR article says 337 t0 325 not 225. Can someone please double check this.
I believe the original DR article may have had the typo. Jaxlongtimer's post copied the 227 directly from the article and I recall the article also saying that when I read it yesterday.
Thanks for clarifying that.
^I recall seeing the 225 in the article yesterday too. A drop from 337 to 325 isn't a big deal, IMO.