QuoteDuval County Public Schools has narrowed the slate of companies vying for a piece of the district's effort to sell its Downtown Southbank administration building and develop a new headquarters off the riverfront.
A July 7 purchasing department memo shows a bid evaluation committee recommended the district start negotiations with top scorers to sell its headquarters building at 1701 Prudential Drive along the St. Johns River.
The top scorers are Miami-based Related Development LLC; the Jacksonville Transportation Authority; and PSF 1 Jax Metro LLC of Jacksonville.
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/duval-county-public-schools-narrows-list-of-bidders-for-headquarters-move
JTA??? I don't know what that's about but I imagine it has to do with leasing the site to someone as "TOD" like their adjacent parcel. They need to stick with transportation not going out of their way to get into development IMO.
I agree with acme54321, it's one thing for JTA to work with developers for parcels actually adjacent to transit infrastructure, but to go about acquiring property for speculative development is way "out of their lane" (intentional transportation pun).
How are our city agencies both so insane? First the fraud committed by JEA and JTA is burning through millions to create something that will probably never come to fruition and even if it does, it won't serve a purpose. Now, despite not even executing on their core business, they are branching out into new areas that they have no business in.
Maybe JTA could concentrate on getting that 100 ft extension into Brooklyn finished first. May be time for Mr Ford to move on? Not seeing too many good leadership decisions lately.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on August 05, 2022, 09:17:54 AM
I agree with acme54321, it's one thing for JTA to work with developers for parcels actually adjacent to transit infrastructure, but to go about acquiring property for speculative development is way "out of their lane" (intentional transportation pun).
Basically sounds like all the speculative land grabs that were once proposed in the early 2000s with the original BRT boondoggle that eventually died.
Quote from: acme54321 on August 05, 2022, 08:50:01 AM
JTA??? I don't know what that's about but I imagine it has to do with leasing the site to someone as "TOD" like their adjacent parcel. They need to stick with transportation not going out of their way to get into development IMO.
I actually disagree. In a world where transit needs efficient land use adjacent to the infrastructure in order to be successful, and securing operating dollars from governments can be incredibly difficult, it makes a ton of sense for the transit agency to own and ground lease the property near stations for TOD. It doesn't have to own
all the property in a certain radius, but turning, for example, the parking lot of a rail or BRT station into a transit village that easily connects riders to the system can provide money to fund better service that would be hard to come by otherwise. It also encourages, particularly with the right zoning codes, private developers to build their own projects near it and further support ridership. It's a model that's repeated by transit agencies around the world.
I will say that this model being successful generally requires building reliable systems with fixed infrastructure that people at JTA like Nat Ford have been very clear they don't believe in building. That's where I see the problems cropping up.
Quote from: edjax on August 05, 2022, 11:32:49 AM
Maybe JTA could concentrate on getting that 100 ft extension into Brooklyn finished first. May be time for Mr Ford to move on? Not seeing too many good leadership decisions lately.
The impression I'm under at this point is that they've decided to forgo that project in favor of just skipping to using the LOGT funding to rebuild the guideway for the shuttles.
The thing I've found frustrating about the Ford era is how it seems in a lot of ways the agency has really worked to do right by its employees and set itself up for financial success, and to a reasonable extent has focused on getting at least the Flyer network and JRTC built out, but then you have just this enormous albatross in the form of U2C that dilutes the impact of the rest of that work. It's such a shame.
The problem is that JTA isn't an expert at TOD or real estate development. We'd get a better product with them being a supportive passenger in the development train and not the entity behind the wheel.
This makes me think of the new river crossing proposed in u2c renderings. Is their hope to line up a possible future additional crossing with one of the remaining piers?
Maybe JTA wants to convert the Skyway track to a horizontal office building (see the miles long horizontal city Saudi Arabia wants to build in the desert for inspiration). Finally, a real use for that thing. LOL.
On a more serious note, I recall JTA still owns some land near their Skyway garage off Hendricks. Maybe they want to offer that up for a developer to partner with the School Board to build something there.
I was under the impression that something was already planned there?
Quote from: thelakelander on August 05, 2022, 04:24:40 PM
The problem is that JTA isn't an expert at TOD or real estate development. We'd get a better product with them being a supportive passenger in the development train and not the entity behind the wheel.
They're not right now, that's something you have to build internal capacity for. Same thing they
should (but clearly will not) be doing with regional rail, getting internal staff and building institutional knowledge instead of depending on consultants for everything.
Quote from: ricker on August 05, 2022, 05:07:26 PM
This makes me think of the new river crossing proposed in u2c renderings. Is their hope to line up a possible future additional crossing with one of the remaining piers?
Last I checked the river crossing is gone from any currently filed plans, and there already are plans for the northbank so that seems safely dead.
No one has commented on this yet, but the top contender at the moment is .......Blue Cross and Blue Shield.
Is this likely putting DCSB in some of their current offices?
I hope it's the Brooklyn office and not Deerwood. BCBS has a lot of empty office space, so it could be either.
QuoteQuote from: marcuscnelson on August 05, 2022, 10:34:36 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on August 05, 2022, 04:24:40 PM
The problem is that JTA isn't an expert at TOD or real estate development. We'd get a better product with them being a supportive passenger in the development train and not the entity behind the wheel.
They're not right now, that's something you have to build internal capacity for. Same thing they should (but clearly will not) be doing with regional rail, getting internal staff and building institutional knowledge instead of depending on consultants for everything.
They've yet to capitalize on most of the properties they own around existing Skyway Stations. I hope they focus on them as opposed to acquiring more property. The private sector will do something there and it will likely be as dense as the market can support, making it TAD. Anything JTA touches will likely sit vacant and empty for another decade.
QuoteQuote from: ricker on August 05, 2022, 05:07:26 PM
This makes me think of the new river crossing proposed in u2c renderings. Is their hope to line up a possible future additional crossing with one of the remaining piers?
Last I checked the river crossing is gone from any currently filed plans, and there already are plans for the northbank so that seems safely dead.
[/quote]
This extra river crossing was never a serious thing. It was a result of someone doing some high level visioning that never made sense in reality.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 05, 2022, 07:35:00 PM
Maybe JTA wants to convert the Skyway track to a horizontal office building (see the miles long horizontal city Saudi Arabia wants to build in the desert for inspiration). Finally, a real use for that thing. LOL.
On a more serious note, I recall JTA still owns some land near their Skyway garage off Hendricks. Maybe they want to offer that up for a developer to partner with the School Board to build something there.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 05, 2022, 10:08:04 PM
I was under the impression that something was already planned there?
At one point, Mike Balanky wanted to enter into a long term lease for some of this property and had offered it up as candidate for JEA's new headquarters. I found an old post of mine and a news article on the Kings Road site offered - see quotes below. It seems that same parcel might be again offered now as a candidate for the DCPS, except as JTA (Balanky again?) playing the role of developer. Or maybe, just offering the site and leaving it to DCPS to take it from there.
QuoteSouthbank 'A little too far away'
Developer Mike Balanky, through Kings Avenue Station P3 LLC, pitched JEA to relocate to the Downtown Southbank on property he controls on Kings Avenue, next to the Kings Avenue Skyway Station and two hotels he developed.
Balanky reminded the board that his site was pad-ready, had a garage and was near a public transportation hub.
After the Tuesday meeting, Howard said JEA preferred to be within the DIA boundaries, but the Southbank property was outside.
"It was just a little too far away," Howard said.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/jeas-next-hq-what-put-the-west-adams-street-site-past-the-jaguars-northbank-locations
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on January 22, 2019, 07:12:13 PM
Quote from: dp8541 on January 22, 2019, 02:55:15 PM
I am not familiar with the Kings Ave site proposal. Is this on the parking lot across the street from the Bearded Pig? The address listed on the Daily Record Article lists the address of the two hotels already there (1201 Kings Ave).
FYI, I have it on very good authority that this site is, indeed, the parking lot across from the Bearded Pig and next to the hotels....
.....Interesting note, too: JTA apparently owns all of this property and leases it to Kings Avenue Redevelopment. They, in turn, are subleasing to the hotel owner about 1/2 of the property and still control the other 1/2 being offered to JEA. Will be interesting to see if JTA has agreed to sell, rather than lease, the property to get this deal done.
The property does appear to have some unique characteristics such as being adjacent to an already large parking garage, being along side the I-95 overland bridge giving it outstanding visibility (but, not so sure about the traffic noise factor - will require quite a bit of soundproofing) and being connected to the (underutilized) Skyway. Main downside could be the "San Marco Train" [https://twitter.com/sanmarcotrain?lang=en (https://twitter.com/sanmarcotrain?lang=en) ](and its horns). Being across from the Bearded Pig might be help clinch the deal though :).
Excuse the photo quality, but I think I've stumbled across a piece of JTA's bid for the new DCPS building.
They took the renderings originally developed as part of the U2C TOD study and replaced the block where the pedestrian bridge turns to connect Greyhound and the main JRTC building with a mid-rise building that appears to have DCPS logos on it. They then used these renderings in the updated Commuter Rail proposal (https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/43572ee892264d9aa1df6dc1c72e6a24). Looks like an L-shaped building wrapped around a parking garage.
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1028877146371919933/1028877238759862302/Screen_Shot_2022-10-09_at_9.21.09_PM.png)
(https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/1028877146371919933/1028877239275753472/Screen_Shot_2022-10-09_at_9.20.23_PM.png)
Of course, JTA ranked sixth in the list of bids anyway, so this probably isn't happening, but it's interesting to see a bit of what the idea was.
Rumor has it that the BCBS/Florida Blue space in their Brooklyn building is what was offered and ranked at the top. With their new garage and what's happening in Brooklyn plus the access to I-95 and I-10 to visit various schools, I can see how this would greatly appeal to DCPS. They could also share the cost of building security with other tenants. And, I bet Florida Blue, as a "non-profit" that is very vested in our community would make a great landlord for them.
Can't say a building constructed in 1968 is what I'd expect from an "office of the future," but if that's sufficient for them then why not, I guess. Certainly cheaper than building from scratch.
LoopNet (https://www.loopnet.com/Listing/532-Riverside-Ave-Jacksonville-FL/21026582/) says the building has nearly 240k sqft of space available, and DCPS only asked for about half that, so it'd make some sense. If they took all the available space on the 10th-15th Floors it'd be about 113k sqft. Biggest challenges then would be ensuring public accessibility and building out all the spaces they want. I wonder if at that point you rebrand at least part of the building for them, like Morgan & Morgan just did across the street.
Estimated Costs:
$67m to rent at BCBS in Riverside for 20 yrs
OR
$200m new building in Lavilla over 40 yrs but they'd own the building after that.
Source: https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/education/duval-schools-superintendent-search-potential-new-headquarters/77-da8ac698-ef4b-4e01-9b65-bb7c661dd26b (https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/education/duval-schools-superintendent-search-potential-new-headquarters/77-da8ac698-ef4b-4e01-9b65-bb7c661dd26b)
Although I like the idea of a new $200 million building in LaVilla and having direct access to the Northbank via the Skyway, it seems their decision has already been made:
QuoteThe first option - rent a space for 20 years in the Florida Blue building in Riverside. The other, to build a brand-new headquarters in LaVilla next to JTA.
Estimates show the district would pay $67 million over 20 years to rent in Florida Blue, or more than $200 million for the new building near JTA over 40 years, but they'd own the building after that.
Chair Coker brought up the district has lost 9000 students in the past five years, so that downward trend is something she'd like them to consider.
Board Member Charlotte Joyce echoed those concerns.
"We don't want to put future boards in a position where so many dollars are going to maintaining an administrative building and not educating children," said Joyce.
The LaVilla site would be better for downtown revitalization, in that those employees are 100% more likely to support LaVilla and Northbank businesses. However, at the end of the day, even with BCBS, they will be staying in the urban core (switches that potential business support to Brooklyn and Five Points/Riverside). So, I'm happy a building in a Southside office park, miles away from downtown, didn't end up as a finalist.
To be fair DCPS already owns a pretty good site that could be redeveloped at Midtown Centre. That area also could use the revitalization of DCPS coming into it. It is a 10 acre site with 200k SF existing. Hard to imagine DCPS should have a $200M HQ built for them when there is another really good site not that far away with an existing building. It has good access too, with multiple bus routes running in or nearby.
DCPS moving out of the downtown core would be devastating for downtown. Don't expect the type of development you'd like to see and talk about happen in downtown from the private sector, if our own public agencies are moving hundreds of employees out to the burbs.
Looking at the scope that was originally laid out in the Jax daily record article from August 2022:
Quote"The district advertised for an "office of the future" to accommodate 618 full-time employees with 100,000 to 120,000 square feet of space."
That doesn't cost $200M. Just look at what JEA built for reference. 162,000 square feet of office with a 656 space parking garage cost $100M. If the office floors are intended to be above a parking podium, I LOVE IT, but it still doesn't add $100M to the cost. I would say they could accommodate he stated needs for $80M or less depending on the level of finish. Did the scope of this project massively change, or where are these inflated costs coming from.
^ are you sure? I mean the mid-rise hotel at the proposed Lot J was supposed to cost something like $120 million.
I went through the staff's slide presentation. The elephant in the room is that, of all the options, staying put and renovating their building is far and away the cheapest option.
An insider told me the only reason for considering a move is for the political optics created by our dysfunctional school board. When the school tax was passed, there was also a provision/promise that all of it would pay for schools, not administrative buildings, so where do we think this money to move will come from.
Bottom line, everyone should be focused on improving our schools, not building a new and unnecessary new HQ's for the school board. As many have noted, there is plenty of developable land along the river so there is no pressing need to add more. Unlike the jail, the school board building is an office building that adds vibrancy to an area otherwise, to date, lacking same. The development next door isn't exactly setting the world on fire so why add more land to that area. What do we think will replace the school board building? Another empty lot for the next few decades?
It's another boneheaded project by our elected officials IMHO.
^I haven't followed this close enough but if the moves cost them more money in the long run, then staying put, then they should stay put. If part of a coordinated downtown master plan to get complimentary uses located adjacent to each other, then some downtown money should be used to cover the financial gap.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2023, 10:58:36 AM
DCPS moving out of the downtown core would be devastating for downtown. Don't expect the type of development you'd like to see and talk about happen in downtown from the private sector, if our own public agencies are moving hundreds of employees out to the burbs.
I don't think it is fair to consider the first exit off of Hart Bridge "the burbs." Also to your prior points, I'd rather see that money go elsewhere (aka jail) than to a single-use government facility in an area only invested in by other single-use government facilities and subsidized housing.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 21, 2023, 12:21:15 PM
I went through the staff's slide presentation. The elephant in the room is that, of all the options, staying put and renovating their building is far and away the cheapest option.
An insider told me the only reason for considering a move is for the political optics created by our dysfunctional school board. When the school tax was passed, there was also a provision/promise that all of it would pay for schools, not administrative buildings, so where do we think this money to move will come from.
Bottom line, everyone should be focused on improving our schools, not building a new and unnecessary new HQ's for the school board. As many have noted, there is plenty of developable land along the river so there is no pressing need to add more. Unlike the jail, the school board building is an office building that adds vibrancy to an area otherwise, to date, lacking same. The development next door isn't exactly setting the world on fire so why add more land to that area. What do we think will replace the school board building? Another empty lot for the next few decades?
It's another boneheaded project by our elected officials IMHO.
I believe this scenario completely.
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 21, 2023, 11:57:12 AM
^ are you sure? I mean the mid-rise hotel at the proposed Lot J was supposed to cost something like $120 million.
Did you get personally attacked by someone at the Jags? Your 5 most recent posts are some sort of lamentation about present or past Jag developments. Let it go, tufsu.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 21, 2023, 01:00:36 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2023, 10:58:36 AM
DCPS moving out of the downtown core would be devastating for downtown. Don't expect the type of development you'd like to see and talk about happen in downtown from the private sector, if our own public agencies are moving hundreds of employees out to the burbs.
I don't think it is fair to consider the first exit off of Hart Bridge "the burbs." Also to your prior points, I'd rather see that money go elsewhere (aka jail) than to a single-use government facility in an area only invested in by other single-use government facilities and subsidized housing.
I believe its fair for two major reasons:
1. Historically speaking, Midtown was the first suburban office complex built in the country.
2. Moving hundreds of employees out of downtown proper, removes that population from spending money daily at downtown shops, restaurants, etc.
I'd rather them stay where they're at, if that was the option.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 21, 2023, 12:21:15 PM
I went through the staff's slide presentation. The elephant in the room is that, of all the options, staying put and renovating their building is far and away the cheapest option.
An insider told me the only reason for considering a move is for the political optics created by our dysfunctional school board. When the school tax was passed, there was also a provision/promise that all of it would pay for schools, not administrative buildings, so where do we think this money to move will come from.
Bottom line, everyone should be focused on improving our schools, not building a new and unnecessary new HQ's for the school board. As many have noted, there is plenty of developable land along the river so there is no pressing need to add more. Unlike the jail, the school board building is an office building that adds vibrancy to an area otherwise, to date, lacking same. The development next door isn't exactly setting the world on fire so why add more land to that area. What do we think will replace the school board building? Another empty lot for the next few decades?
It's another boneheaded project by our elected officials IMHO.
The presentation also says the "stay put" option does not include HVAC, roofing, elevators, carpet, paint, tech needs, and other needs of the 40-year-old HQ building. The analysis also notes that parking is inadequate at the current location. Staying in place may still be the least expensive option, but the comparison should include all necessary costs. The stay put and "restack" the building (whatever that means) is the second least expensive in NPV (but is the 4th (of 7) most expensive in total cost.
Presentation (I thought there was a link here, but didn't see it) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854341-dcps-building-power-point-presentation
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 21, 2023, 01:15:29 PM
Quote from: tufsu1 on June 21, 2023, 11:57:12 AM
^ are you sure? I mean the mid-rise hotel at the proposed Lot J was supposed to cost something like $120 million.
Did you get personally attacked by someone at the Jags? Your 5 most recent posts are some sort of lamentation about present or past Jag developments. Let it go, tufsu.
It was a simple question
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 21, 2023, 01:53:12 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 21, 2023, 12:21:15 PM
I went through the staff's slide presentation. The elephant in the room is that, of all the options, staying put and renovating their building is far and away the cheapest option.
An insider told me the only reason for considering a move is for the political optics created by our dysfunctional school board. When the school tax was passed, there was also a provision/promise that all of it would pay for schools, not administrative buildings, so where do we think this money to move will come from.
Bottom line, everyone should be focused on improving our schools, not building a new and unnecessary new HQ's for the school board. As many have noted, there is plenty of developable land along the river so there is no pressing need to add more. Unlike the jail, the school board building is an office building that adds vibrancy to an area otherwise, to date, lacking same. The development next door isn't exactly setting the world on fire so why add more land to that area. What do we think will replace the school board building? Another empty lot for the next few decades?
It's another boneheaded project by our elected officials IMHO.
The presentation also says the "stay put" option does not include HVAC, roofing, elevators, carpet, paint, tech needs, and other needs of the 40-year-old HQ building. The analysis also notes that parking is inadequate at the current location. Staying in place may still be the least expensive option, but the comparison should include all necessary costs. The stay put and "restack" the building (whatever that means) is the second least expensive in NPV (but is the 4th (of 7) most expensive in total cost.
Presentation (I thought there was a link here, but didn't see it) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854341-dcps-building-power-point-presentation
I have more questions about all three options, after looking through that presentation. Right off the bat, the options need to be apples to apples. What I just saw was an apple, orange and grapefruit. Hard to make a logical decision based off what was presented.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 21, 2023, 01:00:36 PM
I don't think it is fair to consider the first exit off of Hart Bridge "the burbs."
It definitely is when you consider whether those people could walk to lunch, stay late for dinner, etc.
I'd rather it stay put too... for $200M lol.
Quote from: Steve on June 21, 2023, 02:34:18 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on June 21, 2023, 01:00:36 PM
I don't think it is fair to consider the first exit off of Hart Bridge "the burbs."
It definitely is when you consider whether those people could walk to lunch, stay late for dinner, etc.
That is because of code more than anything. With the density of FDOT classified arterials nearby, the zoning here should be much more dense than it is currently.
FDOT arterials have little to do with local zoning. The city could (and is well overdue) overhaul its entire zoning code without FDOT's permission.
In general, I agree that it doesn't make sense to move if it cost them more money than staying put.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 21, 2023, 01:53:12 PM
The analysis also notes that parking is inadequate at the current location.
They have almost 5 acres at their current site. There are many solutions to provide adequate parking at the existing site that would cost less than relocating. I'm in favor of them getting off the river, so I prefer the BCBS option. However, some of these false narratives they're throwing around make me think they're trying to justify the JTA proposal.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 21, 2023, 01:53:12 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 21, 2023, 12:21:15 PM
I went through the staff's slide presentation. The elephant in the room is that, of all the options, staying put and renovating their building is far and away the cheapest option.
An insider told me the only reason for considering a move is for the political optics created by our dysfunctional school board. When the school tax was passed, there was also a provision/promise that all of it would pay for schools, not administrative buildings, so where do we think this money to move will come from.
Bottom line, everyone should be focused on improving our schools, not building a new and unnecessary new HQ's for the school board. As many have noted, there is plenty of developable land along the river so there is no pressing need to add more. Unlike the jail, the school board building is an office building that adds vibrancy to an area otherwise, to date, lacking same. The development next door isn't exactly setting the world on fire so why add more land to that area. What do we think will replace the school board building? Another empty lot for the next few decades?
It's another boneheaded project by our elected officials IMHO.
The presentation also says the "stay put" option does not include HVAC, roofing, elevators, carpet, paint, tech needs, and other needs of the 40-year-old HQ building. The analysis also notes that parking is inadequate at the current location. Staying in place may still be the least expensive option, but the comparison should include all necessary costs. The stay put and "restack" the building (whatever that means) is the second least expensive in NPV (but is the 4th (of 7) most expensive in total cost.
Presentation (I thought there was a link here, but didn't see it) https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23854341-dcps-building-power-point-presentation
Charles, our comments don't really matter because the Board has set up a move as a foregone conclusion. Just look at the resolution below:
QuoteBoard passed a resolution dated September 7, 2021, to:
o Vacate 1701 Prudential and sell the property along with 4 other administrative properties
o Fund new facility in an amount between $12 - $60 million over 20 years, subject to availability of funds
o Release the Invitation to Negotiate
To show how lacking their interest is in staying put, they don't even discuss how much a potential renovation of the current building might cost to make a full comparison to other options. Hard to evaluate when no one asks the appropriate questions.
To add, they don't calculate the cost of moving or value the disruption to the organization. I would add that construction costs estimates are likely to turn out to be lower than actual based on typical construction estimates vs. reality, especially for civic projects.
The "challenges" to staying put look trumped up to me. Citing the school board resolution as one of them is a self-fulfilling prophecy... that's clearly a self imposed and discretionary-by-the-Board challenge! Just rescind the resolution and this "challenge" is gone.
Same with the comment on parking. "May constrain future growth"... that is true of any facility that can't be expanded beyond some imaginary number. It certainly doesn't mean there is a parking problem now or in the foreseeable future. I didn't see an effort made to compare current parking spaces to the options presented... again, showing a lack of interest in staying put. Looking at Google Maps, it appears the current site has at least 500 spaces vs. 539 (shared with JTA!) and 625 for the options. Not a whole lot of difference and certainly doesn't justify this comment.
Staying for another couple of decades will also allow the market to absorb most of the surrounding develop-able land greatly increasing the existing property's value whereas now it is more likely to be a fire sale given the surplus of land in the area.
As usual, it looks like a consultant got paid big bucks to support the end game dictated by their client and just back filled much of their report to get to the demanded finish line.
QuoteADVANTAGES•Lowest cost option assuming a non renovation and/or non-restack scenario • No disruption of daily operations during move • Exclusive tenancy and branding • Location is central and known to employees and the public • Convenient parking • Owned debt free • Value increase over time • Preserves commitment from sales tax referendum that money would not be used for admin facilities / no capital to admin facilities (assuming no renovation/restack and status quo)
CHALLENGES | RISKS • Does not achieve Board Resolution directive to move off the river • Property in prime location remains untaxed and does not stimulate economic development • Inefficient space utilization • 40-year-old facility with capital improvement needs • Limited growth possibilities without significant capital investment • Less parking than other options and may constrain future growth • Outdated technology infrastructure • Forego estimated $10.6M in twenty-year tax revenue, if it materializes
Quote from: thelakelander on June 21, 2023, 04:01:40 PM
FDOT arterials have little to do with local zoning. The city could (and is well overdue) overhaul its entire zoning code without FDOT's permission.
In general, I agree that it doesn't make sense to move if it cost them more money than staying put.
The point is the location should allow it to be denser than it is. They allow more density in Arlington than here, yet Midtown's location has better road access than the college park area by far. The Hart Bridge is one of the least utilized bridges I can think of too. The area was indeed once a suburb but now it is the only area across from a DT bridge not in a UPA.
^That's totally up to COJ. I agree that the entire zoning code should be overhauled citywide. Until then, the Midtown area is still suburban, autocentric and outside of downtown. Would love for redevelopment to happen there, but not at the expense of downtown.
Update on the search. The School Board doesn't sound particularly happy about either proposal.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2023/aug/08/duval-school-board-hesitant-on-bids-for-hq-relocation-from-downtown-riverfront/
To include my comments from the other post (https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,36924.msg524987.html#msg524987), I think it's fine for JTA to be part of getting their real estate developed, especially if it could then help fund the transit operations, but I don't think developing new office space is a good use of those resources. There's kind of too much office space as it stands right now. More residential, perhaps with a smaller office or retail element if demand called for it would make more sense here.
Especially if Florida Blue is suggesting they don't want to hold the property anyway, if there's a move at all it sounds like they could just lease their space and then sell the old office to Preston Hollow.
Glad to see the School Board asking the necessary questions.
Thanks for posting it here Marcus. I would agree with you though... a ton of office space DT that is already built and available for use. Not sure why we need JTA spending time & resources on this.
Call me crazy, but is anyone looking at the idea of moving the School Board to the old JEA building that they just moved out of? The city already owns the land/building. So refresh that building, relocate the School Board to 21 Church St., and sell the current building. Or does that make too much sense?
Copying from the U2C thread to here:
Quote from: thelakelander on August 09, 2023, 02:19:21 PM
It may be time to reconsider the decision to relocate from the existing property they own? Other then some not wanting them to be on riverfront land, how does moving help or hurt DCPS itself?
On the surface, it seems like staying where they are at may be the cheapest option (when compared to the two deals on the table). Heck, they have a huge piece of property with a large surface lot. Have they considered constructing a new building on the south side of the property and then partnering or selling off the riverfront side of the property for infill development? I hope they aren't moving for the sake of moving.
Maybe they should keep their land and partner with Preston Hollow on a redevelopment where DCPS becomes an anchor for the redevelopment?
Lake, this is the correct answer. I recently engaged with a DCPS employee connected to this process that said staying at the current site, even with some renovations, was far cheaper than moving anywhere else. The only reason to move is for the political optics of saying they moved off the river. If the current HQ's was a few hundred feet back from the river, I doubt anyone would be talking about moving. Like the AV's, this is another project that needs to die.
Quote from: Houseboat Mike on August 09, 2023, 12:32:51 PM
Call me crazy, but is anyone looking at the idea of moving the School Board to the old JEA building that they just moved out of? The city already owns the land/building. So refresh that building, relocate the School Board to 21 Church St., and sell the current building. Or does that make too much sense?
JEA owns 21 West Church Street. I believe their plans are to sell the building to the highest bidder. Not give it away. DCPS should re-evaluate what they are trying to do altogether. Unless its profitable for them and their core purpose, they should stay right where they are at. They already own the property and their existing building. That entire space could likely be renovated or redeveloped in a manner that far cheaper for DCPS, then selling the property and locking itself into a long term deal at a much higher cost then the profit they'd make in the sale.
I think there's still some promise in the Florida Blue bid, but at the same time it probably does make sense to avoid making a bad deal just so that DCPS is off the river. It's good that they went down the road of exploring what options the market had, but if they're not positive outcomes for DCPS then there's no dishonor in admitting that and returning to the status quo.
Another municipal RFP that ends in a colossal waste of time for all bidders involved.
Here is my shocked face:
:o
I mean in this case it isn't necessarily a bad thing. DCPS looked for offers and found out the market wasn't what they hoped for and there wasn't a good enough deal.
That's not the same thing as picking a winner and then deciding that actually you'd like to do something else so you abandon the RFP and then fumble around for several years until deciding that actually you'd like to spend even more money in order to accomplish those goals through some harebrained scheme.
If they ended up with an RFP where the bids are light years away from where they wanted to be, then that speaks to the RFP being a bad one.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on August 09, 2023, 07:00:22 PM
I mean in this case it isn't necessarily a bad thing. DCPS looked for offers and found out the market wasn't what they hoped for and there wasn't a good enough deal.
That's not the same thing as picking a winner and then deciding that actually you'd like to do something else so you abandon the RFP and then fumble around for several years until deciding that actually you'd like to spend even more money in order to accomplish those goals through some harebrained scheme.
In a vacuum, maybe it's not that bad, but you've got to think that over time, all of these bad-faith RFP processes are going to erode the trust and willingness of developers to participate, if that hasn't already happened.
- Convention Center - issue an RFP; lots of major entities participate; Jacobs spends millions and brings 30 people to their presentation; we decide as a city that, "Never mind, this dusty old DIA study says we need entertainment first; we're not going to build a convention center after all."
- Landing RFP - DIA picks winner amongst national firms based on a public art piece that they later dismiss as "unrealistic"
- LaVilla Townhomes - Johnson Commons is clearly the best bid; project given to Vestcor; Vestcor told to essentially copy the Johnson Commons design
- DCPS Headquarters - SIXTEEN companies devote the time, resources, and dollars necessary to respond in good faith to the DCPS's relocation RFP. From the sounds of it, DCPS never wanted to spend money to begin with, and was purely issuing the RFP because of the poor optics related to having a headquarters on the river.
Carter was awarded Ford on Bay in part because the DIA was prioritizing someone who could break ground quickly; they immediately give Carter a two-year due diligence window before even committing to the project
Landing private development RFP was looking for hotel and office uses; was awarded to a 40-story residential tower (in fairness, it was the only bidder)
The list just goes on and on and on.
Throw in how we treat private developers like Toney Sleiman who do invest in Downtown Jacksonville, and it has to be a contributing factor to why we don't see more interest in some of these RFPs.
Like many other aspects of how the city handles things, particularly in regards to timelines and communication, it's just totally disrespectful to stakeholders and the general public.
^ I am against moving DCPS off the river as it doesn't make financial sense.
That said, developers participation in RFP's is a cost of doing business. When they win one, they typically win handsomely rewarding them for the risk of not being selected at other times. Even when an RFP is awarded, any one developer can be among many who do not get the award so the result of nothing happening is the same, many times, as if an award is given.
Any sales person knows that, at best, if you knock on 10 doors, you are doing good to get one answer (that might not lead to an actual sale). This applies to any business. "Marketing" expenses are built into the pricing if the business is performing properly.
I agree, though, no one wants to spend time on a solicitation if there is absolutely no chance for a win. In a political process, this possibility is heightened. But, I also believe government entities pay a premium for this extra risk so, in the end, developers still win if they play the lottery enough times. The real losers are the taxpayers.
I might add that, in talking with business people who do, or could do, business with government, many won't bid due to the bureaucratic hassle and/or feeling the game is often rigged. If they do bid, they mark up the bids substantially to cover the effort and frustration involved to bid and/or should they be selected to move forward. This self-direction by potential bidders vouches for the extra costs to taxpayers for almost any project.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 10, 2023, 02:33:42 PM
^ I am against moving DCPS off the river as it doesn't make financial sense.
This is where I'm ending up. I'm failing to see how relocating from the property makes financial sense. If the building needs to be replaced, they have enough property to do that on-site and still achieve other's goals of being off the river.
My only counter to the current situation is that they do have an 11 acre site at Midtown Centre. I understand the drawbacks of a site like that relative to the downtown discussion, but truthfully the current site now really does not serve as a huge benefit to the business environment that 'needs' help downtown... I'd argue. The greater Midtown Centre on the other hand would certainly benefit from the employment in the area. It does have great connectivity there as well, and is arguably as accessible as the current site being right off the Hart Bridge & Rt 1. (One Bus Line runs through it, and another runs 0.1 miles away.) The building is also 200k+ SF with room to expand and existing parking. Makes it pretty capable of handling a sizable office presence today... retrofit it for a drastically lower cost.
I feel like in this scenario, it would just make sense to add the DCPS river site to the Preston Hollow development next-door. Another several acres which should be able to sustain 400+ apartments and hopefully some retail. DCPS gets $10m+ for the river site and gets to focus on improving the Midtown site and moving some funds elsewhere. Win/Win in my eyes. I don't think they should stay on the river, but I also don't think they "need" a new flashy HQ or to lease some DT space... Why not look at using resources already available?
A 20 or 40 year commitment is not advisable. A business would not commit to that either.
It seems to me the DCPS should pay to retrofit the space in Florida Blue and sign a 10 year lease at what ought to be a low rate given how old the building is and how low lease rates are in DT JAX. If Florida Blue can't commit to that surely someone in the DT area would.
DCPS should then sell their building and use that to offset the cost of renovations and to pay the lease. The tax revenue from the riverfront site should cover a lot or all of whatever still remains for the 10 years. Given the way the world of work is changing their needs could be far different in 10 years.
As for 21 W. Church St., I can't see that building fetching a high price. It is specifically designed for JEA's needs and it is what 60 years old, give or take? Who else would want it and the First Baptist properties are direct competition for anyone that might want it. I could see the School Board buying it at a reasonable price and getting significantly more from selling it's current building.
Quote from: thelakelander on August 10, 2023, 07:18:22 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on August 10, 2023, 02:33:42 PM
^ I am against moving DCPS off the river as it doesn't make financial sense.
This is where I'm ending up. I'm failing to see how relocating from the property makes financial sense. If the building needs to be replaced, they have enough property to do that on-site and still achieve other's goals of being off the river.
Lake, for those pushing to move DCPS off the river to spur development, I would compare this on some level to your discussion about moving the jail. There is no urgency or great demand to develop this property when one considers the abundance/back log of existing opportunities not being exploited. What's the rush here? We will just end up with another empty lot for years to come. Better to have DCPS productively use it until all else around it is consumed by development. This will also yield far more dollars for DCPS as its land will be much more valuable when it is the "last man standing."
^I agree. If it doesn't make financial sense to relocate, then stay for the time being. There's no reason to move or sell the property for the sake of moving. Both of those relocation deals sound bad. So better to have a few hundred downtown employees on the site than it sitting vacant.
I don't see why this or the jail requires immediate vacancy. Both should be phased plans.. DCPS can create an agreement to be gone in 5 years for example. This happens a lot elsewhere, and it benefits both sides in the LR. There are real benefits to moving both with the correct strategy in place. The problem is that there is no faith in the leadership locally to execute.
Regarding the jail, I met with CM Boylan earlier this week. The jail study will be looking at things from the perspective of our public safety needs, moving forward. Not necessarily moving the jail out of downtown. When those needs are defined, they'll know what they need for new or renovated facility (or maybe multiple smaller facilities). From an equity perspective, there may still be a need for a centralized facility, so the rumors of a random move to the pea farm are premature. I believe they are on the right track with the study and look forward to the updates.
Good start. I'm really interested to see the results of their efforts.