Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Prudential-Drive-Self-Storage/i-WJN5sMf/0/d260e440/X2/20230209__DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_106-X2.jpg)
A controversial plan to rezone a key parcel in the Southbank for a mixed-use self storage will be reviewed by the Downtown Development Review Board (DDRB) on February 9th. Representatives for The Simpson Organization, Inc. are requesting the Land Use and Zoning Committee and City Council to approve their Application for Rezoning Ordinance 2023-007 to Planned Unit Development.
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/controversial-southbank-self-storage-project-back/
I agree with others that this doesn't belong at the proposed location.
That said, it looks a lot like a hotel and is a design so much better for a storage building compared to most of those built about the City. Also, I like the retail element on the ground floor. While denied at this location, the City should raise the bar and demand this nicer standard for mini-storages throughout the City. If this developer can justify this design here, certainly others can do so elsewhere.
Looks like the City has, once again, been selling itself short on design standards but no surprise.
^Bingo! I thought the same thing. Inappropriate for the site but the city should thank the design team. They just provided a free design guideline rendering for what should be required of self storage projects in areas of the city where the use is already allowed by right.
Nobody likes storage units no matter how you dress them up, but they are a necessary evil. Do they need to be at this particular location, probably not? Personally, I think this is an attractive design and fully appropriate for the Southbank. And if the Southbank ever happens to explode into some highlyi desired mecca, maybe it could be repurposed? I'd just love to understand why Self Storage companies are willing to do such elaborate designs instead of just buying another plot of land. It must be highly profitable to have a particular location over another?
That's the best damn storage building I've seen.
Quote from: hightowerlover on February 03, 2023, 08:37:47 AM
Nobody likes storage units no matter how you dress them up, but they are a necessary evil. Do they need to be at this particular location, probably not? Personally, I think this is an attractive design and fully appropriate for the Southbank. And if the Southbank ever happens to explode into some highlyi desired mecca, maybe it could be repurposed? I'd just love to understand why Self Storage companies are willing to do such elaborate designs instead of just buying another plot of land. It must be highly profitable to have a particular location over another?
This is the explanation sent to me in a text chain:
QuoteThe land acquisition cost is of little importance. These things provide significant cash flow and have very little operating costs. They are cash cows, even if you have to overpay for land and spend up on your facade.
Same as all. The design is excellent and the have to go somewhere, but that's a marquee intersection (or should be).
Quote from: thelakelander on February 03, 2023, 08:49:32 AM
This is the explanation sent to me in a text chain:
QuoteThe land acquisition cost is of little importance. These things provide significant cash flow and have very little operating costs. They are cash cows, even if you have to overpay for land and spend up on your facade.
This is true for almost any development in Jacksonville. Land will consist of a small percentage of the construction. Markets like Miami or NYC follow this trend but to a lesser extent.
The issue here is these parcels never hit the open market.. given the zoning & location.. hard to see this being the highest & best use. The minimal price differences between doing a standard facade & premium facade is easily made up with the premium they can charge for storage in this part of town.
Something to really consider here, which may be impacting these self-storage projects, is the parking requirements. 33 parking spaces is a HUGE price savings. Jacksonville planning needs to consider alternatives to parking densities if Jacksonville's urban core is to become more dense. An apartment build here would require 200+ parking spaces likely. Destroys the economics fast.
A YouTuber pointed out how ridiculous the parking requirements are in Jacksonville.. If you take the Hudson Yards Development in NYC, and used Jacksonville parking standards, the parking lot would cover almost the entirety of Manhattan. We are not NYC, but that is an insane stat. Hard to find another city of 1M people that has such dated parking standards.
^ My observation of development projects in Jax is that land runs about 10 to 15%, at most, of the total project placed on it. Working backwards, if land goes for $x/acre, multiply that by about 10 and then find what kind of project you can feasibly develop for that.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on February 03, 2023, 10:32:14 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 03, 2023, 08:49:32 AM
This is the explanation sent to me in a text chain:
QuoteThe land acquisition cost is of little importance. These things provide significant cash flow and have very little operating costs. They are cash cows, even if you have to overpay for land and spend up on your facade.
This is true for almost any development in Jacksonville. Land will consist of a small percentage of the construction. Markets like Miami or NYC follow this trend but to a lesser extent.
The issue here is these parcels never hit the open market.. given the zoning & location.. hard to see this being the highest & best use. The minimal price differences between doing a standard facade & premium facade is easily made up with the premium they can charge for storage in this part of town.
Something to really consider here, which may be impacting these self-storage projects, is the parking requirements. 33 parking spaces is a HUGE price savings. Jacksonville planning needs to consider alternatives to parking densities if Jacksonville's urban core is to become more dense. An apartment build here would require 200+ parking spaces likely. Destroys the economics fast.
A YouTuber pointed out how ridiculous the parking requirements are in Jacksonville.. If you take the Hudson Yards Development in NYC, and used Jacksonville parking standards, the parking lot would cover almost the entirety of Manhattan. We are not NYC, but that is an insane stat. Hard to find another city of 1M people that has such dated parking standards.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't the DIA get rid of parking minimums Downtown a few years ago?
Quote from: Zac T on February 03, 2023, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on February 03, 2023, 10:32:14 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 03, 2023, 08:49:32 AM
This is the explanation sent to me in a text chain:
QuoteThe land acquisition cost is of little importance. These things provide significant cash flow and have very little operating costs. They are cash cows, even if you have to overpay for land and spend up on your facade.
This is true for almost any development in Jacksonville. Land will consist of a small percentage of the construction. Markets like Miami or NYC follow this trend but to a lesser extent.
The issue here is these parcels never hit the open market.. given the zoning & location.. hard to see this being the highest & best use. The minimal price differences between doing a standard facade & premium facade is easily made up with the premium they can charge for storage in this part of town.
Something to really consider here, which may be impacting these self-storage projects, is the parking requirements. 33 parking spaces is a HUGE price savings. Jacksonville planning needs to consider alternatives to parking densities if Jacksonville's urban core is to become more dense. An apartment build here would require 200+ parking spaces likely. Destroys the economics fast.
A YouTuber pointed out how ridiculous the parking requirements are in Jacksonville.. If you take the Hudson Yards Development in NYC, and used Jacksonville parking standards, the parking lot would cover almost the entirety of Manhattan. We are not NYC, but that is an insane stat. Hard to find another city of 1M people that has such dated parking standards.
If I'm not mistaken, didn't the DIA get rid of parking minimums Downtown a few years ago?
Yep
QuoteIf I'm not mistaken, didn't the DIA get rid of parking minimums Downtown a few years ago?
Sort of, but not really.
Parking minimums were abolished in the Northbank, except for new construction residential and hotel uses.
The Southbank does have parking minimums, and unless you are doing an adaptive reuse to convert to residential (whereas you would receive a 50% discount), then new construction multifamily still needs to meet code... which is basically 1.5 to 2 parking spots per unit.
You can, and most will, apply for a variance to be as close to the 1.5 space/unit figure as possible.
Minimum off-street parking requirements for Central Civic Core District and portion of Riverfront District. There shall be no minimum off-street parking requirement for the Central Civic Core District and that portion of the Riverfront District described as follows: (redacted)
except for all residential and hotel uses, which shall meet the requirements of Part 6 of the Zoning Code, unless associated with the rehabilitation of an existing building which has no minimum on-site parking requirement. The minimum off-street parking requirements contained in Part 6 shall be 50 percent of the requirement as applied to the remaining Downtown Districts, including rehabilitation of existing buildings to residential or hotel use, except for all new residential uses and hotel uses that are constructed as a new building, which shall meet the minimum parking requirements for said uses under Part 6.
Part 6
Number of off-street parking spaces required.Multiple-family dwellings—One and one-half spaces for an efficiency, studio or one bedroom dwelling not exceeding 500 square feet, one and three-quarters spaces for one bedroom dwelling containing 500 square feet or more, two spaces for two bedroom dwellings and an additional one-quarter space for each bedroom in excess of two, plus one space for owner or operator and one space for each two employees. In determining the number of bedrooms, rooms depicted as dens, studios and similarly depicted areas shall be construed to be an additional bedroom for the purposes of determining the number of off-street parking spaces required.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this Section, two off-street parking spaces shall be required for each townhome or condominium. Additionally, one guest parking space shall be provided for every three townhome or condominium units.
^ Yes, exactly why the adaptive reuse of the Northbank historical buildings became a "thing" only recently. Before, you could not make those projects make sense.. all because of parking.
Almost always makes more sense to renovate than demolish & build new. Im glad that they figured that item out. There needs to either be incentives or credits that can be used for creative parking solutions. The Artea (which is touted as a TOD project) contains 425 parking spaces.. for 340 units.. why?
425 parking spaces, even at $15,000/space (which is a heavy discount) would cost in excess of $6M. Again, going back to the self-storage... 150k of interior sf for 33 parking spaces... You literally can't build anything else in Jacksonville with that parking ratio. Makes these self-storage places a no brainer DT. That is a huge issue if you ask me.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on February 04, 2023, 11:34:21 AM
^ Yes, exactly why the adaptive reuse of the Northbank historical buildings became a "thing" only recently. Before, you could not make those projects make sense.. all because of parking.
The parking abolition certainly helps. What has helped most though, are the financial incentives DIA has put together. Code allows for one to apply for a variance, and previous residential adaptive reuse projects in the 2008 timeframe received large parking reductions. Churchwell, 20 East Adams, W.A. Knight Building, Lofts At San Marco, and City Place all were approved without on-site parking. Churchwell and City Place later leased surface parking lots after construction was complete, which at the time Code didn't allow for leased parking or shared parking facilities to substitute for off-street parking requirements.
Not having to deal with applying for a variance allows for one less step in an already complicated process when dealing with historic renovations/adaptive reuse. The biggest help though, is the DPRP program DIA put in place... which has been a Godsend for the Northbank. Until the Barnett came online in 2019, there had been no new residential properties opened in the Northbank since 2009. Which is quite simply, staggering.
Getting back to the issue at hand... this self storage project should never be given the green light. If anything, these renderings clearly show that a limited-service hotel like this (pictured Hyatt House in Tallahassee) can easily fit on this site (the Baptist gated surface lot and the privately-owned, gated and patroled parking lot surrounding the Southbank Marriott offer the kind of shared parking facility that can make valet service at such a hotel to be a workable solution).
(https://visittallahassee.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/184662be-ce78-40ad-a0a3-67443e008651.jpg)
... and give a blueprint to how new self-storage facilities can be better designed in other parts of the urban core which actually DO allow this type of use. You can't force self-storage units to create more parking than they need... but you can force them to include ground-floor retail along retail-oriented streets, and provide better setbacks and parking facility placements.
(https://jaxtoday.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/The-Jaxson-6-6.22.22-800x450.jpg)
https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/resolving-the-downtown-self-storage-wars/ (https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/resolving-the-downtown-self-storage-wars/)
All development is not good development. That would be like saying all food is good food... as you shove processed Twinkies into your mouth, while the person next to you is eating a meal containing good fibers, proteins and no refined sugars. One person is slowly killing themselves, while the other is maintaining good health. Downtown doesn't need more Twinkies.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 04, 2023, 08:01:48 PM
Quote from: Jax_Developer on February 04, 2023, 11:34:21 AM
^ Yes, exactly why the adaptive reuse of the Northbank historical buildings became a "thing" only recently. Before, you could not make those projects make sense.. all because of parking.
The parking abolition certainly helps. What has helped most though, are the financial incentives DIA has put together. Code allows for one to apply for a variance, and previous residential adaptive reuse projects in the 2008 timeframe received large parking reductions. Churchwell, 20 East Adams, W.A. Knight Building, Lofts At San Marco, and City Place all were approved without on-site parking. Churchwell and City Place later leased surface parking lots after construction was complete, which at the time Code didn't allow for leased parking or shared parking facilities to substitute for off-street parking requirements.
The DIA incentives do help, and I think they play an important role. But, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of parking. 75% Rev grants and facade grants really don't come close when you underwrite these deals.
I'm extremely aware of the history & code of these projects DT. What do they all have in common? No structured parking or very minimal. That's the reason they were profitable when they were. Since then, we have had rent rise faster than inflation, and that has allowed SOME projects to get going during our last low interest environment. Take the RISE project near the Stadium as a perfect example. That project is not feasible with today's interest. There are other projects in the Northbank approved, with parking, that I can guarantee you will be either waiting to secure low interest financing or delaying their start dates to get better financing & terms.
Hence why almost every project in the DT Northbank recently (with structured parking) was Vestcor using low income housing credits. (Self-explanatory)
Of course you can't force users to put in more parking than required, but how can you justify any other development near DT if these self-storage places can develop with a parking ratio per 1,000 sf of under 0.1? The parking provided is required by code for RETAIL. A similar proposal in Brooklyn a while back had a similar parking ratio too.
Again the problem here, as I see it are really these key item.
- Self Storage should be banned entirely in the DDRB zone, or force those projects to be mixed-use. (And not just ground-floor retail)
- Jax planning needs to find more creative solutions for parking credits/discounts in this part of town. (I was wrong earlier, there literally is not a higher & better use for this property with this setup in mind)
- Just because there is a nice facade, doesn't mean we should allow projects that will inherently allow for more.
If this is approved, it won't be the last. Soon these will be littered all over the urban core. I bet there are multiple self-storage companies watching this ordinance. I understand that parking is an odd item to be focused on, but it really does significantly impact any pro forma I put together. Ironically, the Southbank is one of the only locations that integrated parking can pencil out. That's really why I think this is an extremely poor location for this product.
Maybe a hotel or other retail product could fit here with a parking agreement in place. Now good luck getting that parking agreement... unless you know someone.
Have there been other PUD's approved within the Downtown Zoning Overlay? I don't recall any....
Quote from: fsu813 on February 05, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Have there been other PUD's approved within the Downtown Zoning Overlay? I don't recall any....
Since the formation of CBD & CCBD, I don't think so. They are old PUD's grandfathered into the area. Given the immense flexibility of the two designations, there really hasn't been any need. I think this one is unique because this is one of the few uses which is allowable under a PUD, but not the CBD & CCBD zoning & land use designations.
Quote from: Jax_Developer on February 05, 2023, 03:50:10 PM
Quote from: fsu813 on February 05, 2023, 01:34:41 PM
Have there been other PUD's approved within the Downtown Zoning Overlay? I don't recall any....
Since the formation of CBD & CCBD, I don't think so. They are old PUD's grandfathered into the area. Given the immense flexibility of the two designations, there really hasn't been any need. I think this one is unique because this is one of the few uses which is allowable under a PUD, but not the CBD & CCBD zoning & land use designations.
Didn't think so.
That's a point to harp on. Does COJ want to open the doors to developers X, Y and Z bringing whatever projects they fancy up for approval, whenever they like? Each one would be a battle to some degree, and the COJ decision makers on these issues don't especially like public battles.
QuoteThe DIA incentives do help, and I think they play an important role. But, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of parking. 75% Rev grants and facade grants really don't come close when you underwrite these deals.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Without the revamped DIA program, there is a 30% hole in the proforma for every one of the historic renovation projects currently under construction in the Northbank.
QuoteAgain the problem here, as I see it are really these key item.
- Self Storage should be banned entirely in the DDRB zone, or force those projects to be mixed-use. (And not just ground-floor retail)
- Jax planning needs to find more creative solutions for parking credits/discounts in this part of town. (I was wrong earlier, there literally is not a higher & better use for this property with this setup in mind)
- Just because there is a nice facade, doesn't mean we should allow projects that will inherently allow for more.
I agree on points one and three. On point two, Code now allows for shared parking (in Downtown only). There are three buildings which will be undergoing renovation soon that will have such arrangements. Again, several adaptive reuse projects Downtown have been granted complete parking deviations in the past, and new builds within Downtown's broader borders receive parking reductions through the administrative deviations process. I can't think of any new builds in the last 15 years which didn't receive parking reductions, but I'm also not wasting a lot of time thinking about it. Can the parking ratios continue to be refined Downtown? To an extent, yes. Hell, there are a lot of things with the zoning rewrite a few years ago that should be made better. Is three parking spaces for a three bedroom unit excessive? Yes. Should you be able to build a quad in LaVilla or the Cathedral District and not provide parking? Absolutely, yes. There are enough options for residents of smaller projects to act as true parking consumers and choose their own parking arrangements either in existing garages or surface lots that offer monthly parking rates. But, I also couldn't wrap my head around having three new 400-unit apartment or condo buildings constructed with no on-site parking, either. You still need a car when living Downtown- this I know from personal experience as both a resident and a property owner. JWB bought the Florida Baptist parking garage specifically to support their future infill projects North of Ashley Street, as an example of a creative (and insanely cheap) way to deal with their future parking needs.
QuoteTake the RISE project near the Stadium as a perfect example. That project is not feasible with today's interest.
That's apples to oranges to the parking question. With today's rates, they'd likely have to increase the intensity of the building and likely lose out on some equity in favor of their current private equity partner (maybe even lose out on some of the retail space).
Both Iconic's Doro redevelopment previously approved, and RISE's Doro infill project both received parking reductions, FWIW.
QuoteNow good luck getting that parking agreement... unless you know someone.
I think we very much agree on why self-storage shouldn't (and already doesn't) be allowed for this particular site, so I'll cry uncle on the parking talk. Its an interesting discussion that likely deserves its own thread. But, I have two such agreements, so they are feasible and available.
QuoteHave there been other PUD's approved within the Downtown Zoning Overlay?
There are quite a few PUDs Downtown, in fact there are two located a block away from the self-storage site (San Marco Place PUD and the St. Johns PUD- encompassing The Strand, Peninsula and the never-built Vu). None have been put in place since the most recent formation of the DIA, although you could argue that the RiversEdge DRI is like a PUD. Additionally, the Jaguars' Shipyards project received a blanket rezoning that included an existing PUD.
QuoteIf this is approved, it won't be the last.
QuoteDoes COJ want to open the doors to developers X, Y and Z bringing whatever projects they fancy up for approval, whenever they like? Each one would be a battle to some degree, and the COJ decision makers on these issues don't especially like public battles.
100% agree on both points.
You can't build something that does not fit code. What I am saying is the expense to bring in parking to the projects in the core of the Northbank makes them unfeasible (with or without incentives) if they were forced to provide structured parking! The easing on regulations in the Northbank has allowed for these projects to now become feasible. I don't think that is a crazy statement. The incentives were there before this ordinance was passed. As previously mentioned, there were exemptions made for higher profile projects before the DIA passed legislation for such reductions.
We agree on the fact that this project doesn't make sense here. My emphasis is on the fact that this particular build is the literal highest & best use from a development angle. I just can't see how any other use or user could compete with the intensity of these projects. That needs to be highlighted. How do we allow other more intense uses in our downtown?
Quote from: fieldafm on February 05, 2023, 05:17:17 PM
QuoteAgain the problem here, as I see it are really these key item.
- Self Storage should be banned entirely in the DDRB zone, or force those projects to be mixed-use. (And not just ground-floor retail)
- Jax planning needs to find more creative solutions for parking credits/discounts in this part of town. (I was wrong earlier, there literally is not a higher & better use for this property with this setup in mind)
- Just because there is a nice facade, doesn't mean we should allow projects that will inherently allow for more.
I agree on points one and three. On point two, Code now allows for shared parking (in Downtown only). There are three buildings which will be undergoing renovation soon that will have such arrangements. Again, several adaptive reuse projects Downtown have been granted complete parking deviations in the past, and new builds within Downtown's broader borders receive parking reductions through the administrative deviations process. I can't think of any new builds in the last 15 years which didn't receive parking reductions, but I'm also not wasting a lot of time thinking about it. Can the parking ratios continue to be refined Downtown? To an extent, yes. Hell, there are a lot of things with the zoning rewrite a few years ago that should be made better. Is three parking spaces for a three bedroom unit excessive? Yes. Should you be able to build a quad in LaVilla or the Cathedral District and not provide parking? Absolutely, yes. There are enough options for residents of smaller projects to act as true parking consumers and choose their own parking arrangements either in existing garages or surface lots that offer monthly parking rates. But, I also couldn't wrap my head around having three new 400-unit apartment or condo buildings constructed with no on-site parking, either. You still need a car when living Downtown- this I know from personal experience as both a resident and a property owner. JWB bought the Florida Baptist parking garage specifically to support their future infill projects North of Ashley Street, as an example of a creative (and insanely cheap) way to deal with their future parking needs.
...did you say
north of Ashley Street?
Yes, they've acquired property north of Ashley, in the vicinity of the First Baptist garages. One property is the FBC warehouse on Pearl between Beaver and Ashley.
Interesting. Until checking the map it did not occur to me how many blocks between Broad and Julia streets (north or just south of Ashley) are mostly or even completely vacant. Lot of room out there.
Yes, there's a great opportunity to cluster infill development in that area. It's in the Northbank and has visibility to heavy traffic on State & Union with structured parking already in place.
Quote from: fieldafm on February 05, 2023, 05:17:17 PM
QuoteThe DIA incentives do help, and I think they play an important role. But, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of parking. 75% Rev grants and facade grants really don't come close when you underwrite these deals.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Without the revamped DIA program, there is a 30% hole in the proforma for every one of the historic renovation projects currently under construction in the Northbank.
Up to 40% locally plus 20% via tax credits. So 60% of development costs for projects involving buildings that are both locally landmarked and on the National Register.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 06, 2023, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on February 05, 2023, 05:17:17 PM
QuoteThe DIA incentives do help, and I think they play an important role. But, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of parking. 75% Rev grants and facade grants really don't come close when you underwrite these deals.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Without the revamped DIA program, there is a 30% hole in the proforma for every one of the historic renovation projects currently under construction in the Northbank.
Up to 40% locally plus 20% via tax credits. So 60% of development costs for projects involving buildings that are both locally landmarked and on the National Register.
Yup, allowing Historic Incentives to be utilized is much more significant than DIA REV & facade grants. The task of accumulating adjacent undeveloped parcels for parking next to historic buildings is a needle in a hay stack activity. The parking exemption is essentially a must have, prior to the lengthy process of entitling and getting qualified for the credits. The time really adds up. Makes the project that much less likely. Also creates a valve on what is allowed. Not good for outside investment. The DIA played its role here in allowing this investment type to open up.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 06, 2023, 09:39:24 AM
Quote from: fieldafm on February 05, 2023, 05:17:17 PM
QuoteThe DIA incentives do help, and I think they play an important role. But, they are a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of parking. 75% Rev grants and facade grants really don't come close when you underwrite these deals.
With all due respect, you are incorrect. Without the revamped DIA program, there is a 30% hole in the proforma for every one of the historic renovation projects currently under construction in the Northbank.
Up to 40% locally plus 20% via tax credits. So 60% of development costs for projects involving buildings that are both locally landmarked and on the National Register.
What do you guys think the difference is between the other historic renovations that have broken ground in the last two years in the CBD and the Laura Street Trio? Between the revamped DIA program, tax credits, VyStar taking on the parking garage themselves, and strong occupancy numbers for downtown residential, is there something inherent to the project that's not immediately obvious that makes it financially unviable versus the others, or are the holdups and issues on the developer's end (e.g. can't get financing, unwillingness to put significant skin in the game)? Would you expect the Trio project to already be underway if another developer owned the property?
My only guess is that they are having troubles with the financial underwriting. There isn't currently another property to reliably comp rents off of. The current product is either dated, fixed-income or condos that people rent out. Right now my guess is the developer is being conservative one way, and the banks are the other way creating some gap in their desired terms. I bet the ownership group is waiting for either more favorable terms or for another project to begin lease up to reliably underwrite rents/income for the $50M+ loan. Another group might have been more bullish but its hard to say.
I heard from a councilperson that the Trio will be back in the next 60 days and should succeed this time.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on February 06, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
What do you guys think the difference is between the other historic renovations that have broken ground in the last two years in the CBD and the Laura Street Trio?
I believe the project's cost has dramatically risen over time. That's one of the major reasons.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 06, 2023, 03:23:21 PM
I heard from a councilperson that the Trio will be back in the next 60 days and should succeed this time.
Last Fall, a city rep mentioned it would back "soon" and that it appeared viable this time, as well.
My expectations are rising.
Quote from: thelakelander on February 06, 2023, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on February 06, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
What do you guys think the difference is between the other historic renovations that have broken ground in the last two years in the CBD and the Laura Street Trio?
I believe the project's cost has dramatically risen over time. That's one of the major reasons.
Quote from: fsu813 on February 06, 2023, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 06, 2023, 03:23:21 PM
I heard from a councilperson that the Trio will be back in the next 60 days and should succeed this time.
Last Fall, a city rep mentioned it would back "soon" and that it appeared viable this time, as well.
My expectations are rising.
I wouldn't get your hopes up any higher than they have been for the last 10 years on the Trio, unless the city is going to kick in an even higher percentage of the total costs than in the past.
Quote from: Tacachale on February 07, 2023, 12:11:42 AM
Quote from: thelakelander on February 06, 2023, 06:06:11 PM
Quote from: Ken_FSU on February 06, 2023, 01:11:46 PM
What do you guys think the difference is between the other historic renovations that have broken ground in the last two years in the CBD and the Laura Street Trio?
I believe the project's cost has dramatically risen over time. That's one of the major reasons.
Quote from: fsu813 on February 06, 2023, 07:54:41 PM
Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 06, 2023, 03:23:21 PM
I heard from a councilperson that the Trio will be back in the next 60 days and should succeed this time.
Last Fall, a city rep mentioned it would back "soon" and that it appeared viable this time, as well.
My expectations are rising.
I wouldn't get your hopes up any higher than they have been for the last 10 years on the Trio, unless the city is going to kick in an even higher percentage of the total costs than in the past.
By any means (reasonably) necessary
If the financials couldn't be made to work under the deal approved 2 years ago, it's hard to imagine anything of the same scale penciling more favorably now. Borrowing costs aren't helping anything, and construction costs are still high.
If they wait long enough, one day the city's share will be the $87 million it would have cost to build the darn thing in 2022.
Pretty sure that whatever deal comes next will likely require the city to put in more money. Some value engineering to control costs a bit are likely as well.