Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/AC-Hotels-Brooklyn-August-2024/i-82fnF2v/0/L23qDkZBQBjFjCrsVhRQ287PXPW7pR6ZtkS9M8nhj/L/MAY%208%202025%20DDRB%20AGENDA%20PACKET_Page_057-L.jpg)
An AC Hotel and supporting parking deck is proposed at 800 and 825 Dora Street in Brooklyn. The project will seek conceptual approval from the Downtown Development Review Board on May 8 2024. Here is a look at the project's conceptual plans. Let us know what you think!
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/ac-hotel-proposed-in-brooklyn-seeks-ddrb-approval/
Nice to see retail added to the garage
Who will be responsible for repaving Dora Street and the enhanced crosswalks of both Dora and Magnolia Streets?
Will the only ADA parking space be the one near the hotel entrance at the corner of Magnolia and Dora? That seems insufficient for 128 hotel rooms and the commercial spaces in the garage.
The renderings show Magnolia, Dora, and Oak Streets with new asphalt pavement and enhanced (pavers) crosswalks in all directions at both Dora intersections.. However, the plans in the DDRB agenda show new asphalt on Dora near Magnolia, and the only concrete paver pedestrian crossing is across Dora at this intersection. Dora is shown as "new concrete pavement," replacing the existing concrete pavement. Is the City going to do the rest of the street enhancements?
Ho hum... another look-alike building. This could be any hotel or apartment building today, by the looks.
Do like the Brooklyn mural though ;D.
Meh all around. At least this deck is kind of hidden on a midblock between Riverside and Park. These shitbox hotels aren't going to age well.
Too bad we can't get a new high rise hotel in the core. Every major city at least has a glass JW Marriott tower. Are we not trying to host a Super Bowl in 2030?
The Gateway Jax tower at Riverfront Plaza would essentially provide that if built:
(https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/VVYD9lK3Y.jxDRgtQaFtCQ--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTI0MDA7aD0xMzUw/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the-florida-times-union/b67418f201bf76c698713d5cf73c3b7b)
And the Four Seasons by the stadium is essentially meant to fill that role.
^ Recently, I have talked to some old timers before me. There was supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" that nothing tall would be built between the WF/Independent Life Tower and the river. Proposing any high rise on the property violates that trust.
It makes no sense to dominate or partition park land for a high rise. I don't agree with Salem on his tactics but would rather the City not do a land swap if that kills any tower project on this land.
Aesthetically, any major structure also looks forced/squeezed in between the bridge and existing tower. What's wrong building one block back somewhere and leaving the riverfront as open greenspace?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 05, 2025, 10:47:09 PM
^ Recently, I have talked to some old timers before me. There was supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" that nothing tall would be built between the WF/Independent Life Tower and the river. Proposing any high rise on the property violates that trust.
Respectfully, fuck that trust ;D
Uncodified "gentlemen's agreements" from the old timers led us to the mess we're currently in.
The Independent Life tower is now on its seventh owner, I'm sure they'll understand.
Totally get the desire for more greenspace, but we've got 70 acres of parkland coming up between Riverfront Plaza, Shipyards West, Mosh 2.0, Four Seasons, Met Park, RiversEdge, Friendship Park, and McCoys Creek.
What we don't have are active uses to keep them funded, programmed, patrolled, and successful.
Without that private use, which occupies a relatively minor portion of the property, where is that $300k annually for programming coming from? What's making people stay at the park? What's incentivizing the city to keep it clean and safe?
Agree in a lot of cases, but this tower will be the best thing to happen to Riverfront Plaza.
^ I respectfully differ with your take here. We are thinking short term, not long term, to forfeit our public lands on the river. If we aggressively developed our parks by redirecting our tens of millions in incentive funds to developers into those green spaces, we would have little trouble attracting developers investing a block inward knowing they had (a) green space amenities/river access/views for their occupants and (b) knowing that no one would ever build between them and the river.
Do you think 50 years from now those developers will still be helping to "fund, program, patrol" greenspaces? Are those agreements forever no matter the future of their properties?
The lack of "funding, programming, patrolling" to be successful falls to the City but the City choses to spend its resources in other ways... whether at the stadium, developer incentives, wasteful projects like the U2C, subsidizing garbage fees, ballooning pension costs, reducing taxes, etc.
I note the City has come up with $100 million for UF, $50 million for MOSH, $1+ billion for the stadium, $100 million for Four Seasons, tens of millions for developer incentives, $30+ million for the ballpark, $400+ million for U2C, $3 million for E-sports at UNF, $5 million for EWU's football stadium, tens of millions for unlimited JSO requests... all while mostly holding the line on taxes, some of the lowest of any major city in Florida. The money can be found if the City wants to get it done... you can't convince me otherwise.
It is just not a priority.
I don't know why Jax can't figure out what most every city in the world has... this is 101 City planning. A dollar invested in public spaces yields many more dollars in return. Plain and simple.
By the way, $300,000 is a drop in the bucket in the big scheme of things. It isn't even equal to one month's interest on the financing for most of these projects and it is a mere decimal point in the City's budget. Sad if the City is that desperate to sell out for so little.
To be creative, the City should set up "Adopt A Park" nonprofits like many cities do. They could likely raise much of the money that way and/or build endowments for each park that would fund maintenance and improvements perpetually. But, no one thinks outside the box here.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 05, 2025, 10:47:09 PM
Aesthetically, any major structure also looks forced/squeezed in between the bridge and existing tower. What's wrong building one block back somewhere and leaving the riverfront as open greenspace?
Austin has one of the most active "riverwalks" I've ever encountered and it's just a gravel path between a highway and the rest of downtown. The average width is about 120 feet between the water and the highway, but much of that is sloped or covered in wild plantings. It was nice, but nothing revolutionary, but there were dozens of people walking by every minute for hours. The reason it's so busy is because of the concentration of uses around it, not the path itself. Bradenton, FL, has what I'd argue is a a better and more activated riverwalk than Jax, but it's largely empty due to a lower surrounding population. Anchored at one end by a museum and other cultural institutions, the entire length of the riverwalk has connected parks of different uses on the upland side. They have a fishing pier, a skate park, volleyball courts, a passive green space, an amphitheater, a great lawn for larger events with support amenities, and a splash pad all in a row and connected by a riverwalk similar to what we have downtown. An amazing public space, but sparsely used because it's not surrounded by density.
The Landing property is almost 400 feet deep. I think we can spare a portion of the downtown side for further development. Also, your statement about "anything tall" is extremely subjective. I would argue that the proposed 16 floors by Gateway is not tall at all and an appropriate step down from the 35 floor Independent Square tower to a flat park space. Put 16 floors in middleburg and yes that's tall, but in the context of a major downtown, that's great infill between the skyscrapers.
Quote from: Makedtjaxgreatagain on May 05, 2025, 05:06:13 PM
Too bad we can't get a new high rise hotel in the core. Every major city at least has a glass JW Marriott tower. Are we not trying to host a Super Bowl in 2030?
Super Bowl in 2030? That's a first. I'm pretty sure anyone in a leadership position knows the city is not getting another Super Bowl. Ever.
Maybe a college football playoff game. But even that is probably a one time thing.
Moll did say that maintenance of the park would be coming out of the HOA fees and Hotel Tax surcharge from the condos and hotel rooms. So the park will be funded by those staying and living there.
And while maintenance is a loose term here, this is most likely maintaining the quality of the park (cleanliness, lawn service, event activation, etc.), not capital improvements or other substantial repairs since the park is still city owned.
Quote from: Jagsdrew on May 06, 2025, 02:35:12 PM
Moll did say that maintenance of the park would be coming out of the HOA fees and Hotel Tax surcharge from the condos and hotel rooms. So the park will be funded by those staying and living there.
And while maintenance is a loose term here, this is most likely maintaining the quality of the park (cleanliness, lawn service, event activation, etc.), not capital improvements or other substantial repairs since the park is still city owned.
Yep! Similar to the upkeep that the Jags will provide for Met Park based on their donations and fees. Similar to what Related has mentioned for Friendship Park/St. Johns Park. And hopefully we'll see something similar with RiversEdge and the greenspace there. Ditto the park planned near One Riverside. We've seen what happens historically when the city is left in charge of upkeep, love the idea of a reliable, dedicate, consistent stream of revenue for upkeep, collected by a private entity with a vested interest in keeping the space nice.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 05, 2025, 10:47:09 PM
^ Recently, I have talked to some old timers before me. There was supposedly a "gentlemen's agreement" that nothing tall would be built between the WF/Independent Life Tower and the river. Proposing any high rise on the property violates that trust.
I don't see why a modern city in 2025 would be under any obligation to honor some unwritten "gentlemen's agreement" from however long ago. If the owners of 1 Independent Square want to preserve a view then they are welcome to make an offer for the land themselves in order to do that, instead of expecting indefinite taxpayer subsidy based on a handshake by people who may no longer be involved or alive. If you want to talk about trust, how about the public's trust that agreements that impact the city are being made in the sunshine as they ought to be?
On top of that, clearly no one at the city or in the private sector has heard of such an agreement given that there are proposals for buildings taller than the Landing as far back as 2003, and the Curry Administration picked the Perkins & Will design including a tower on it, then initially backed the American Lions proposal.
Are those private payments perpetual? How are these payments calculated vs. the estimated costs of caring for the parks? Is there a proforma budget? Are the payments adjusted for inflation?
For the critics of the City's upkeep, are we saying the private parties are going to not just fund the parks, but maintain them? If the payments are just reimbursing City efforts, the City is still running the parks for those who lack confidence in their ability to properly do so.
What if there are differences of opinions on how the park is used, managed or maintained? Who controls?
What if the private payer fails to deliver, goes out of business, changes the use of their property, sells to another party that fails to comply? Can the City lien these payers for nonpayment?
What if the parks, over time, require more to maintain/replace/upgrade/modify than the private payers are obligated to pay, willing to support or if such changes increase future maintenance beyond the initial amount?
How about requiring these payments to be paid into a perpetual maintenance fund like cemeteries do so the funding isn't dependent on the future of the private payer?
How much of this is just developers boosting their incentive requests to enable these payments and to give cover to politicos for approving the incentives? Effectively, just giving taxpayers back their own money.
In the end, we sacrifice riverfront to get some drop-in-the-bucket dollars that aren't going to move the needle very much. And, no one can tell me we can't "activate" the parks and riverfront with buildings set back a block. I have seen too many successful parks with buildings set back to believe that can't be done.
I don't see most of these questions answered in the public domain. Maybe those who think this is the way to go can answer them ;D.
Pretty happy to see retail being added. This is why you plan to leave room for the future.
JLT, all really excellent questions that should be thoughtfully applied to both options. Similar due diligence on the other side of the argument would lead to a well-informed pro/con assessment of each path:
----------------------------
Is public funding perpetual? How is that funding going to be allocated vs. the actual required costs of caring for the parks? Is there a proforma budget? Will funding keep pace with inflation?
For the critics of the private funding, are we saying the City is going to not just adequately fund the parks, but adequately maintain them with those funds?
What if there are differences of opinions from one administration or council to the next on how the park is used, managed or maintained?
What if the City fails to deliver or encounters a funding crisis? Will the City raise taxes to fund an expansive park system when times are tight?
What if the parks, over time, require more to maintain/replace/upgrade/modify than the City initially obligated, is willing to support or if such changes increase future maintenance beyond the initial projections?
How about requiring dedicated tax revenues to be paid into a perpetual maintenance fund like cemeteries do so the funding isn't dependent on the future political whims of the party in power? Where do these incremental dedicated revenues come from absent a private development tie-in?
How much of this is just fancy renderings produced by expensive studies funded by politicos to generate excitement about amenities that will ultimately underwhelm once the lack of funding takes its toll? Effectively, just stringing taxpayers along.
In the end, we sacrifice any type of private investment and development to install a park the City underfunds from the get-go, potentially never gets completed, and is poorly maintained.
^ The answer maybe is a hybrid... a portion of property taxes or other City revenue stream should be dedicated to parks just like we do for schools. Taxpayers would mostly be glad to pay up if they knew 100% went for parks and they could see the associated improvements and expansions.
And, there should be nonprofit "friends of the parks" to collect private monies and/or donate labor and time to supplement, enhance or take parks to a higher level of maintenance and engagement. Friends adopting parks should be partners with the City in designing and managing them so everyone feels a connection and is invested in the best outcome for the community just like we ask families to support their kid's schools. This is done in many cities but we just keep repeating the same thing over and over here.
Lastly, we should have a dedicated team from JSO, or otherwise, that is a "park police/ranger" force to provide security and to prevent vandalism and abuses such as littering, unauthorized activities, etc. The savings in maintenance alone would go a long way to paying for such a force while greatly increasing public uses of the park system. Imagine national parks without rangers... how bad that would be. We need to learn such lessons.
If the city wants to have world class parks they are going to need to be funded as such. As of right now, COJ following up with that is laughable. If they can work some sort of partnership with whoever develops that pad to specifically fund the park through taxes or whatever vehicle I'm all ears.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on May 06, 2025, 10:33:55 PM
Imagine national parks without rangers... how bad that would be. We need to learn such lessons.
Won't have to imagine for long.
https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/05/thousands-layoffs-hit-interior-national-parks-imminently/405145/
I guess we need access to NPS trees so we won't need lumber from Canada anymore!
Did the DDRB approve the plan and is the project proceeding?
Yes, they did get DDRB approval.
Thank you. I like the idea of the Liddy's Garage name. It was my families business for 91 years.
Regarding the funding on a recurring basis, there does need to be a guaranteed minimum standard of upkeep that is extremely high. I think the selling liquor/beer in those special cups is a really great start and has a lot of potential to help bridge the gap from "Standard upkeep" to world class.
I think another possible thing that could help is a half cent sales tax on food/beverage across the entire city limits of downtown specifically where 100% of the funds go to security, maintenance, upkeep of just the signature parks. (Riverfront Plaza, St. Johns River Park, Music Heritage Gardens, Shipyards West Park, RiversEdge Parks, Metropolitan Park. This could also apply to four seasons revenue for food & beverage.
Quote from: ChrisG on August 12, 2025, 05:56:48 AM
Thank you. I like the idea of the Liddy's Garage name. It was my families business for 91 years.
That's so cool!