One point of view posted on the Jaxson with this as its main argument for a high rise, exactly what I have cautioned against:
Quote....But the best accomplishment of the land swap proposal is that it gets development done on the Landing pads...
https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/uf-campus-land-swap-is-the-best-deal-on-the-table/
A counterpoint by Mark Woods, Florida Times-Union columnist, which refrains my contention that we need much more public spaces, not less, to be a first class city and downtown:
QuoteGoal for Riverfront Plaza should be to get it right and get it done | Opinion
Mark Woods
Jacksonville Florida Times-Union
....Truth be told, I don't care all that much about a lot of the land swap details. And I'm fine with the University of Florida, one way or another, ending up with an existing building in LaVilla for its planned campus.
What I do care about is what happens in Riverfront Plaza.
Riverfront Plaza should be centerpiece
For as long as I've lived in Jacksonville, we've been bragging about having the biggest urban park system in America — and saying it's high time we turned it into the best.
To me, this should be our identity. Florida's natural playground. Our rivers, beaches, trees, parks. And achieving that admirable goal — something that can meld quality of life, economic impact, tourism, resiliency and more — involves a mix of things.
∎ Taking some of our preservation land — much of it the result of the Delaney administration's Preservation Project — and, while still protecting the natural assets there, improving the access and infrastructure.
∎ Creating and maintaining parks with all kinds of recreation, for all ages. Swimming, soccer, baseball, softball, tennis, pickleball and so on.
∎ And, finally, our own Central Park.
Every great parks system has that one iconic park, the communal outdoor meeting space. A park that mixes nature, recreation, relaxation, entertainment, food. A place that, by being a great urban park, is an engine of the economy and identity.
Many of these are massive parks. New York's Central Park is more than 800 acres. Chicago's Grant Park is more than 300 acres. St. Louis' Forest Park is about 1,300 acres.
To put that in perspective, our Met Park has shrunk to close to its original 14 acres. Riverfront Plaza is about 7 acres. Memorial Park is about 5.8 acres. James Weldon Johnson Park is about 1.5 acres.
Suffice it to say, we're never going to have a downtown park with hundreds of square acres. But what we can dream about having is a truly remarkable linear park stretching from Met Park to Memorial Park on the Northbank, and from the RiversEdge development to the Fuller Warren on the Southbank, connected by riverwalks, the shared-used path and bridges, linking to the Emerald Trail and its creeks.
To achieve this dream doesn't require all of this to be greenspace. But it does require all of it to be connected — and to have several sizable pieces of public land, with things for the public to do.
That's where Riverfront Plaza fits in.
It should be the centerpiece of all of this.
It's important to get it done and get it right. Or maybe that order should be flipped. Get it right and get it done....
....Another one of the selling points for the tower proposal is that it could generate about $700,000 a year to maintain and program the park.
This certainly is a long-running issue in a city that, by nearly any measure, spends less on parks than other places.
But it's a sad statement if the way we maintain our parks is by chipping away at them.
Every great park, from national parks to urban parks, involves and invites that temptation. In New York, Central Park represents about 6 percent of Manhattan's insanely valuable land. And yet while there have been many attempts to chip away at the park, it has remained largely intact — which has only made the land around it even more valuable.
That's probably not a good comparison. Few places are New York. A more relevant comparison might be St. Petersburg — where they have resisted the temptation to chip away at something that has become integral to their quality of life and economic boom: their downtown waterfront parks.
Those advocating for a land swap in downtown Jacksonville emphasize that this is merely the first step toward the Gateway Jax plans, that the next would involve getting into the weeds of those plans, and making a decision whether to continue down that path.
Still, this will take us down that path.
And I tend to agree with those who say we should first make sure this path is the right one — not just building this high-rise there, but building any high-rise there....
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/columns/mark-woods/2025/06/06/should-land-swap-for-uf-riverfront-plaza-be-path-to-park/84008385007/
Quote∎ And, finally, our own Central Park.
Every great parks system has that one iconic park, the communal outdoor meeting space. A park that mixes nature, recreation, relaxation, entertainment, food. A place that, by being a great urban park, is an engine of the economy and identity.
Many of these are massive parks. New York's Central Park is more than 800 acres. Chicago's Grant Park is more than 300 acres. St. Louis' Forest Park is about 1,300 acres.
When I read this earlier, I thought these were bad examples. Springfield Park or basically the mile of historic parks lining Hogans Creek between Downtown and Springfield would be a better comparable. Hopefully, with the Emerald Trail project, this space can be placed back on its original pedestal.
If the goal is a lot of urban park space, a much more practical way of getting there seems to be leveraging the combination of Shipyards West, Sulzbacher relocating, (eventually) demolishing the jail, and Klutho Park to assemble a large, linear park along Hogans Creek through essentially much of the urbanized population. That's a much more substantial and Central Park-esque space than Riverfront Plaza, tower or not.
I'm not sure why Mark Woods seems to be treating the former Landing site as if it is already a completed park in its current form that is now somehow being torn up to include the tower and bridge connection. St. Petersburg is an admirable comparison, but its downtown is also very different territory from downtown Jacksonville. Is it a sad statement that you need people living near a park to maintain it? Perhaps. But it also is, given where Jacksonville is now.
Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2025, 11:30:48 PM
Quote∎ And, finally, our own Central Park.
Every great parks system has that one iconic park, the communal outdoor meeting space. A park that mixes nature, recreation, relaxation, entertainment, food. A place that, by being a great urban park, is an engine of the economy and identity.
Many of these are massive parks. New York's Central Park is more than 800 acres. Chicago's Grant Park is more than 300 acres. St. Louis' Forest Park is about 1,300 acres.
When I read this earlier, I thought these were bad examples. Springfield Park or basically the mile of historic parks lining Hogans Creek between Downtown and Springfield would be a better comparable. Hopefully, with the Emerald Trail project, this space can be placed back on its original pedestal.
Curious, how many acres is Springfield Park?
I also don't think that Downtown wraps around it like Central Park or some parks in other cities. But, agree, it is better than nothing even if not what some of us think of as a focal point for downtown given its "edge of town" location. Will be interesting to see if the Emerald Trail makes it more relevant.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on June 09, 2025, 11:37:28 PM
If the goal is a lot of urban park space, a much more practical way of getting there seems to be leveraging the combination of Shipyards West, Sulzbacher relocating, (eventually) demolishing the jail, and Klutho Park to assemble a large, linear park along Hogans Creek through essentially much of the urbanized population. That's a much more substantial and Central Park-esque space than Riverfront Plaza, tower or not.
I'm not sure why Mark Woods seems to be treating the former Landing site as if it is already a completed park in its current form that is now somehow being torn up to include the tower and bridge connection. St. Petersburg is an admirable comparison, but its downtown is also very different territory from downtown Jacksonville. Is it a sad statement that you need people living near a park to maintain it? Perhaps. But it also is, given where Jacksonville is now.
LOL, you have a better chance of getting a 100 story skyscraper here than accomplishing all the things you list to get your linear park, based on all the complaints here about not funding the parks adequately that we already have or finally moving the jail for $1 billion. But, we can all dream...
By the way, I take it Woods is advocating for a connected park from the iconic centerpoint of downtown to the other park areas. It is a signature park, not the same as one less conspicuous. As such, it can help to elevate the "brand" of downtown.
Woods agrees with those here about "getting it done" and emphasized that even in the column's headline. The park is under construction, and minus the theoretical building pad, it appears that it will be completed in a reasonable time. I think you also miss the point about chipping away at our parks... we need to think longer term, not "where Jacksonville is now."
This is my main gripe about our City, this desire to chase "instant gratification" over longer term benefits. If decades ago, instead of building acres of riverfront parking lots, we built these public green spaces, maybe we wouldn't be debating the current shortcomings of downtown. We lack coherent and thoughtful planning and, instead, randomly ping pong from one "grand project" to another, hoping it somehow comes together and makes sense. Gateway acknowledges this shortcoming by building their own ecosystem at Pearl, planned to integrate their city blocks into a coherent unit, starting with walkability (a must as mass transit isn't coming anytime soon to the urban core, another drop out due to lack of holistic planning). What other mass of city blocks has been planned out that way?
I fail to see how activating this private development pad, putting it on the tax rolls, ensuring a funding source for the park, and giving people something to actually do at Riverfront Plaza meaningfully harms our ability to create a network of quality riverfront parks. It's a corner parcel, catty-cornered with busy roadways.
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/12445501/screenshot-2023-02-09-at-124715-pm*900xx1892-1064-103-0.png)
For this quote from Mark Wood's column, "It's a sad statement if the way we maintain our parks is by chipping away at them [for private development]," I'd remind him that Riverfront Plaza is net-new park, and was formally commercial mixed-use.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2025, 11:54:58 PM
We lack coherent and thoughtful planning
Agreed. I think adding one more random acre of green space to a public park surrounded only by office uses is a lack of coherent and thoughtful planning. What does one more acre of grass due to Riverfront Plaza vs activation of the existing space with complementary uses? This seems like a similar argument to "convert the skyway into a pedestrian path. It will be like the high line!". Those things are needed in NYC because there's a scarcity of other public space in Manhattan. We have nothing but open space. There's over 100 acres of park space in the DIA's definition of downtown. Thoughtful planning would be connecting those spaces, programming them in complementary ways, and making them the best spaces they can be.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 10, 2025, 09:58:15 AM
For this quote from Mark Wood's column, "It's a sad statement if the way we maintain our parks is by chipping away at them [for private development]," I'd remind him that Riverfront Plaza is net-new park, and was formally commercial mixed-use.
Just to take your point... before it was commercial space, it was a parking lot. Before that it was shipyard/docks and before that it was swamp and river bottom. I don't see that is relevant to its current state. I guess because the Four Seasons is being built on former public space and numerous other proposals are being made on similar property, we should take them off the table based on your comment that conversion is not acceptable. Well, I can agree on opposing this reversal in those cases.
You could make your comment about most any real estate in use today.
Quote from: Captain Zissou on June 10, 2025, 10:07:58 AM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2025, 11:54:58 PM
We lack coherent and thoughtful planning
Agreed. I think adding one more random acre of green space to a public park surrounded only by office uses is a lack of coherent and thoughtful planning. What does one more acre of grass due to Riverfront Plaza vs activation of the existing space with complementary uses? This seems like a similar argument to "convert the skyway into a pedestrian path. It will be like the high line!". Those things are needed in NYC because there's a scarcity of other public space in Manhattan. We have nothing but open space. There's over 100 acres of park space in the DIA's definition of downtown. Thoughtful planning would be connecting those spaces, programming them in complementary ways, and making them the best spaces they can be.
We have at least as much open space to build high rises and such on private land in the urban core so why give up a precious acre on the most visible and possibly valuable property in Downtown to a high rise vs. public use? As Woods' notes, 100 acres is not a lot. I am also not sure how that number was arrived at. I don't see that many acres in the traditional north core area. Keep in mind, as I recall, we define Downtown as a much larger area than most people think of... from the Stadium to Brooklyn. Also, the point is made we are chipping away. This isn't the first or last proposal on prime public riverfront facing property.
There's really two things here. First, and what Kelsi's editorial really addresses, is which is the better way for the City to get the Interline property and move the UF deal forward with celerity: swapping the Landing pad or spending $7 million to buy it? After extensive negotiation, planning and work, those are the deals being voted on tonight. To me the price tag settles the matter: Gateway's price for the Interline property $7 million, and the Landing pads are only valued at $5.5 million.
Now, I'm in the administration, but no one has written more on Landing and the various issues and travesties surrounding it than we at the Jaxson. This is a good deal, and short of someone inventing a time machine and going back to prevent us from blowing $25 million demolishing the Landing, the best way to see anything but grass at this site in the next few years.
The second thing is what should go at the Landing development sections. Folks have their own opinions, and this thread is proof you'll never get everyone to agree. The mayor decided to go with the plan as we inherited it (which always has included a development integrated with the park) and strike the best possible deal we could for the taxpayers, rather than going back to the drawing board and potentially spending more years. And at any rate, this thread is proof not everyone agrees anyway. One thing I've always believed having visited and researched other cities, is the park will fail without activation — and revenue. The current project will provide both. As such I'm very happy with it, not just as a mayoral aide but as a longtime advocate for our urban spaces.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on June 10, 2025, 09:58:15 AM
I fail to see how activating this private development pad, putting it on the tax rolls, ensuring a funding source for the park, and giving people something to actually do at Riverfront Plaza meaningfully harms our ability to create a network of quality riverfront parks. It's a corner parcel, catty-cornered with busy roadways.
(https://media.bizj.us/view/img/12445501/screenshot-2023-02-09-at-124715-pm*900xx1892-1064-103-0.png)
For this quote from Mark Wood's column, "It's a sad statement if the way we maintain our parks is by chipping away at them [for private development]," I'd remind him that Riverfront Plaza is net-new park, and was formally commercial mixed-use.
Yeah, I really don't understand this line of thinking. It's only a park at all because of a historically disastrous decision to demolish the Landing. And before the Landing it was surface parking, the result of another unfortunate decision to demolish the working waterfront. The thing in Downtown that's been most "chipped away" over the last 70 years is our building fabric! At one point a few years ago, we had 12 nearly continuous blocks of grass, and it's not like that resulted in a huge boom of folks coming down to "enjoy" it. What we've really needed is more intentional decision making.
Based on the renderings, it appears roughly one-third of the surface area of the development pad will be park space. Additionally, the Gateway proposal includes a floor of public food and beverage space. So at the garden terrace level, the entire area remains accessible to the public. The space taken up by the main tower abuts the Main Street bridge. I actually believe the tower would make the park more enjoyable by acting as a visual and sound buffer against that traffic.
What specific negative externalities will the tower impose on the park?
Are there design compromises that could maximize the public space but still allow the synergies of a built-in user base? For example, adding a floor to the short leg abutting Independent Dr to permit a "blow-through" floor contiguous with the garden terrace, effectively doubling the size of the terrace and providing a covered area that could also house small-scale retail or pop-up markets? It just seems so possible to achieve activation & ensure public access without foreclosing the interest of private development, especially with Gateway as a partner.
It's been a while, so I just went back and looked at the presentations from Perkins and Will, Agency, and Olin; and all three planned to have a high-rise structure there. There is even a 2nd structure in the NW corner in some. Seems like the ship sailed long ago to make the pad part of the park...
Here are the 3 presentations:
https://coj365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/rmezini_coj_net/_layouts/15/onedrive.aspx?id=%2Fpersonal%2Frmezini%5Fcoj%5Fnet%2FDocuments%2FP%2001%2002%20Northbank%20Lawn%20Riverfront%20Plaza%20FKA%20Jacksonville%20Landing%20Design%20Competition%2FPresentations&ga=1
The Perkins and Will proposal integrated the structure with the park the best by including outdoor dining and a "sky garden terrace" (see below). I think those (in addition to cough cough, the public art) are a big reason it was the winning proposal. Gateway is proposing essentially the same thing. Seems like a no brainer.
(https://media.yourobserver.com/img/photos/2022/05/09/347975_standard_t900x600.png?d666c25c0ae2036b31e9e5deb97c48b6f611244c)
I know I am poking the bear here 8) and respect the opposing heartfelt points of view.
I hope everyone feels the same in reverse.
Where I am coming from is this: This property, as a public space, is truly unique. It is riverfront, located in heart of the north core, is well connected with the riverwalk/Emerald Trail and walkability down Laura Street and is strategically located to brand, identify and glorify the downtown skyline.
No hotel is going to do the same. Hotels can go anywhere downtown, they don't need to be on the most valuable and unique piece of property on our riverfront. We talk about all the empty blocks and surface parking lots downtown. These should be prime for hotel development. Why cram one in here that will also detract from the most iconic building on our skyline that instantly says "Jacksonville?"
After a couple of amendments, City Council passed the land swap 16-1, Rory Diamond voting no. Ju'Coby Pittman out on excused absence.
^ Even Ron Salem? Good job melting down the opposition. While I had other thoughts, congrats are in order for getting something passed by such a margin in front of a partisan City Council.
Will be interesting to see next steps from Gateway. If they ask for too much in incentives or fail to follow through, I hope the City revisits the position of those questioning building a high rise there in another round. The excuse of getting something done would no longer hold water, I would think, at that point.
The logical decision. Well done all involved.
Hopefully Gateway and DIA can move quickly on a development agreement. Don't want to see the east side of that plot sit vacant for long.
They mentioned a high end hotel interested. I hope the allure of a nice brand would help the incentives come through.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2025, 11:38:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2025, 11:30:48 PM
Quote∎ And, finally, our own Central Park.
Every great parks system has that one iconic park, the communal outdoor meeting space. A park that mixes nature, recreation, relaxation, entertainment, food. A place that, by being a great urban park, is an engine of the economy and identity.
Many of these are massive parks. New York's Central Park is more than 800 acres. Chicago's Grant Park is more than 300 acres. St. Louis' Forest Park is about 1,300 acres.
When I read this earlier, I thought these were bad examples. Springfield Park or basically the mile of historic parks lining Hogans Creek between Downtown and Springfield would be a better comparable. Hopefully, with the Emerald Trail project, this space can be placed back on its original pedestal.
Curious, how many acres is Springfield Park?
I also don't think that Downtown wraps around it like Central Park or some parks in other cities. But, agree, it is better than nothing even if not what some of us think of as a focal point for downtown given its "edge of town" location. Will be interesting to see if the Emerald Trail makes it more relevant.
40 Acres or so. Its basically just like the Boston Commons and historically was our "central park" and once even included our zoo.
Well done!
Quote from: thelakelander on June 10, 2025, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 09, 2025, 11:38:29 PM
Quote from: thelakelander on June 09, 2025, 11:30:48 PM
Quote∎ And, finally, our own Central Park.
Every great parks system has that one iconic park, the communal outdoor meeting space. A park that mixes nature, recreation, relaxation, entertainment, food. A place that, by being a great urban park, is an engine of the economy and identity.
Many of these are massive parks. New York's Central Park is more than 800 acres. Chicago's Grant Park is more than 300 acres. St. Louis' Forest Park is about 1,300 acres.
When I read this earlier, I thought these were bad examples. Springfield Park or basically the mile of historic parks lining Hogans Creek between Downtown and Springfield would be a better comparable. Hopefully, with the Emerald Trail project, this space can be placed back on its original pedestal.
Curious, how many acres is Springfield Park?
I also don't think that Downtown wraps around it like Central Park or some parks in other cities. But, agree, it is better than nothing even if not what some of us think of as a focal point for downtown given its "edge of town" location. Will be interesting to see if the Emerald Trail makes it more relevant.
40 Acres or so. Its basically just like the Boston Commons and historically was our "central park" and once even included our zoo.
A little Off Topic, but if Deegan is re-elected, a massive revitalization of Springfield/Klutho park would be an amazing legacy project.
Now that would likely require a cleaned up Hogan's Creek which will likely require federal $$$, but that would be a stunning park.
Springfield Park is east of Main Street, basically two parks divided by Hubbard Street.
Klutho Park is the string of parks west of Main Street that curves from 1st to 8th.
I believe Lake is including all these spaces in the 40 acre number.
Groundwork Jacksonville is approaching 60% design on the Hogans Creek renovation, which will drastically impact these parks.
Great news! Well done to all those involved. I feel like this is second only to the Jags Stadium in terms of importance for the Mayor and City Council.
Now, I'm going to speculate a little bit for a second, so excuse me, but absolute masterclass whoever ordered that UNF poll last week. Mayor polling at above 60 percent and City Council polling at below 50 percent. The opposition saw the writing on the wall and their self-interested, personal ambition, partisan bullshit was going to be on full display if they voted against this no brainer of a deal.
Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2025, 05:25:55 PM
After a couple of amendments, City Council passed the land swap 16-1, Rory Diamond voting no. Ju'Coby Pittman out on excused absence.
For me, great news; YAY!!!
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 10, 2025, 06:33:27 PM
Will be interesting to see next steps from Gateway. If they ask for too much in incentives or fail to follow through, I hope the City revisits the position of those questioning building a high rise there in another round. The excuse of getting something done would no longer hold water, I would think, at that point.
This clause would be interesting if ever exercised...
QuoteAmong the terms of the swap, if Gateway Jax can't come to an incentives agreement on the Riverfront Plaza project, or otherwise backs out, the city has the option to buy back the property at a discount.
Under Council member Will Lahnen's amendment the buyback price for the Riverfront Plaza is set at $6.25 million.
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/jun/10/jacksonville-city-council-opts-for-swap-for-property-for-uf-graduate-campus/
Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2025, 05:25:55 PM
After a couple of amendments, City Council passed the land swap 16-1, Rory Diamond voting no. Ju'Coby Pittman out on excused absence.
That's 18, where's the 19th member, and who is it?
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 10, 2025, 05:22:37 PM
I know I am poking the bear here 8) and respect the opposing heartfelt points of view.
I hope everyone feels the same in reverse.
Where I am coming from is this: This property, as a public space, is truly unique. It is riverfront, located in heart of the north core, is well connected with the riverwalk/Emerald Trail and walkability down Laura Street and is strategically located to brand, identify and glorify the downtown skyline.
No hotel is going to do the same. Hotels can go anywhere downtown, they don't need to be on the most valuable and unique piece of property on our riverfront. We talk about all the empty blocks and surface parking lots downtown. These should be prime for hotel development. Why cram one in here that will also detract from the most iconic building on our skyline that instantly says "Jacksonville?"
I absolutely feel the same in reverse! Frankly it's awesome to have people passionate about a project or space, even if we don't agree on some things. Especially when it's respectful and in good faith. I don't always have that pleasure at work but fortunately out in the real world, it's more common than not! To me, this one's a case where different people want different specifics, but everyone wants a good park in this prominent spot. When there's different opinions, you have to make decisions based on the expertise and best information you have, and that's what we did here. I stand by this decision and am very proud of the work everyone put in to get here.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 10, 2025, 06:33:27 PM
^ Even Ron Salem? Good job melting down the opposition. While I had other thoughts, congrats are in order for getting something passed by such a margin in front of a partisan City Council.
Will be interesting to see next steps from Gateway. If they ask for too much in incentives or fail to follow through, I hope the City revisits the position of those questioning building a high rise there in another round. The excuse of getting something done would no longer hold water, I would think, at that point.
Ron Salem submitted an amendment that, long story short, allowed him and a few others to get comfortable with the land swap. I don't think it was well advised on most of its merits but am glad it helped get us to a consensus.
The incentives package will be pretty much what you've seen already. It will be a $20 million ask, paid for from the TIF rather than general fund, and the hotel will have a surcharge that goes back to maintain the park. One good thing the Salem amendment did was reduce the time Gateway has to get it through Council (to 12 months instead of 15). Gateway is confident they can do that.
Quote from: Charles Hunter on June 10, 2025, 11:16:42 PM
Quote from: Tacachale on June 10, 2025, 05:25:55 PM
After a couple of amendments, City Council passed the land swap 16-1, Rory Diamond voting no. Ju'Coby Pittman out on excused absence.
That's 18, where's the 19th member, and who is it?
Typo. It was 17-1.
Quote from: fsu813 on June 10, 2025, 07:40:42 PM
Springfield Park is east of Main Street, basically two parks divided by Hubbard Street.
Klutho Park is the string of parks west of Main Street that curves from 1st to 8th.
I believe Lake is including all these spaces in the 40 acre number.
Groundwork Jacksonville is approaching 60% design on the Hogans Creek renovation, which will drastically impact these parks.
Yes, historically these were one cohesive space called Springfield Park. Over the course of the 20th century, various parts of this green space have been renamed to honor various individuals, groups and places.
To play devil's advocate regarding urban parks. Most great urban parks in the US are not on any waterbody, including in cities where there is a lot of water. Chicago is probably the outlier with Grant Park and Lincoln Park, but even in those parks most of the focal points are not near the lake.
A lot of the parks below would be in the top 10 best urban parks in the USA and are all largely landlocked.
-Central Park and Prospect Park in NYC
-Boston Common
-Griffith Park in LA
-Golden Gate Park-Funny enough it has ocean frontage, but that is one of the least active parts of the park
-Balboa Park in San Diego
-Forsyth Park in Savannah
-Discovery Green in Houston
-Patterson Park in Baltimore
-Audobon Park in New Orleans-is mostly cutoff from the river by a railroad track
-Forest Park in St. Louis
-Centennial Park in Nashville
Springfield's chain of parks could easily be the City's great urban park, but the City unfortunately either gave away adjacent land or didn't ever acquire enough to create a truly great park. There is barely enough width to do anything in it. Ideally it would have room for a couple baseball/softball fields, multiple basketball courts, flex fields for football/soccer, tennis courts, skate park, a swimming complex, 9 hole golf course, amphitheater, and so on. Piedmont Park in Atlanta is around 190 acres and has 12 tennis courts, two softball/baseball fields, two soccer fields, two beach volleyball courts, and a swimming center, and still has acres and acres of open space and trails. It's a bummer that Springfield's park's aren't big enough to do even do 1/3rd of that.
Quote from: jaxlongtimer on June 10, 2025, 05:22:37 PM
I know I am poking the bear here 8) and respect the opposing heartfelt points of view.
I hope everyone feels the same in reverse.
I love reading your takes, even when I disagree!
Very glad you're here, buddy!
It's very boring when everyone agrees ;D
Speaking of everyone agreeing:
The 17-1 vote last night really made my night. There will ALWAYS be needless politicking in this city, but it was great to see the City Council (obvious exception aside) come together to flesh out an agreement, for the good of the city, that everyone could agree on. This could have very easily been railroaded to try to avoid giving Donna credit.
Love the path that we're currently on.
And double-love the shortening of the 15-month window to 12-months.
Quote from: CityLife on June 11, 2025, 10:38:11 AM
To play devil's advocate regarding urban parks. Most great urban parks in the US are not on any waterbody, including in cities where there is a lot of water. Chicago is probably the outlier with Grant Park and Lincoln Park, but even in those parks most of the focal points are not near the lake.
A lot of the parks below would be in the top 10 best urban parks in the USA and are all largely landlocked.
-Central Park and Prospect Park in NYC
-Boston Common
-Griffith Park in LA
-Golden Gate Park-Funny enough it has ocean frontage, but that is one of the least active parts of the park
-Balboa Park in San Diego
-Forsyth Park in Savannah
-Discovery Green in Houston
-Patterson Park in Baltimore
-Audobon Park in New Orleans-is mostly cutoff from the river by a railroad track
-Forest Park in St. Louis
-Centennial Park in Nashville
Springfield's chain of parks could easily be the City's great urban park, but the City unfortunately either gave away adjacent land or didn't ever acquire enough to create a truly great park. There is barely enough width to do anything in it. Ideally it would have room for a couple baseball/softball fields, multiple basketball courts, flex fields for football/soccer, tennis courts, skate park, a swimming complex, 9 hole golf course, amphitheater, and so on. Piedmont Park in Atlanta is around 190 acres and has 12 tennis courts, two softball/baseball fields, two soccer fields, two beach volleyball courts, and a swimming center, and still has acres and acres of open space and trails. It's a bummer that Springfield's park's aren't big enough to do even do 1/3rd of that.
The funny thing is Springfield Park....or the chain of parks along Hogans Creek currently offer what no other park in the downtown core does, in terms of these amenities all being in one connected urban green space.
2 children's playground/tot lot
2 basketball court
2 tennis courts
1 public swimming pool (once had two but white pool filled in instead of embracing integration)
1 disc golf
1 baseball field
1 miniature golf course (long closed)
1 dog park
Thats a strong collection of existing recreational amenities to begin with and that can be added to. In addition, it actually has a decent "outer square" to playaround with. Something most of the riverfront parks planned east of Hyatt/Berkman lack. Definitely an undervalued and largely overlooked space with the downtown parks crowd.
I think that park just needs a lot of refreshing. It has the bones but I think needs some investment to make it up to modern standards.
Quote from: Jankelope on June 12, 2025, 10:32:06 AM
I think that park just needs a lot of refreshing. It has the bones but I think needs some investment to make it up to modern standards.
Very much agree.
Quote from: Jankelope on June 12, 2025, 10:32:06 AM
I think that park just needs a lot of refreshing. It has the bones but I think needs some investment to make it up to modern standards.
Some investment is an understatement. It needs like $100m ;D.
Quick photos of Piedmont Park's recreational amenities. It has has 18 tennis courts, 5 pickleball courts and a tennis center with bathrooms, locker rooms, concessions, etc. Springfield has 2 courts with no shade structure or restroom.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgRs76UXZCVmlW4m27XrYRk70sUgsnSJFKAqTFeCGKf4YVOlfx2fgJsv6CS4_Ddgu4yhqFMT_VFSYhZLakGPmfdtQfs3RuXDRj-vKfUe-E2U0l9QKuMHRulZ3SRoemzFINCYfmpA467jD8r/w1200-h630-p-k-no-nu/LesterTennisCenter_100_IMG_20180303_103600411.jpg)
It has two full softball, two soccer/flex fields, and two sand volleyball courts all near each other. They do adult kickball, softball, and soccer leagues there and I'm sure also do youth activities. Klutho has a poorly maintained softball field with no fence that I believe is rarely ever used. Maybe only for the 4th of July game?
(https://piedmontpark.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2020-Active-Oval-Map-3.png)
(https://www.tsw-design.com/wp-content/uploads/Piedmont-Park-Active-Oval.webp)
The pool near the Springfield parks feels cutoff from the rest of the park and is dated and poorly maintained. The Piedmont swimming center has four full swimming lanes and then a massive play area with zero entry. It also has a beautiful bathhouse.
(https://img-s-msn-com.akamaized.net/tenant/amp/entityid/BB1p3Yx8.img?w=768&h=432&m=6)
There is not room to do anything like this in the Springfield chain of parks, but the City could at least fund a portion of the Hogan's Creek Master Plan, which was completed in 2010. Ideally focused on the active/recreational components of the plan.
https://www.groundworkjacksonville.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Hogans-Creek-Masterplan_032410.pdf
What is also crazy is just how close the park is to Downtown. It's essentially an extension of Downtown as much as it's part of Springfield. It's roughly 1/3rd of a mile from Springfield Park to JWJ Park. It's less than a quarter mile from Gateway. It's only about .6 miles to the Old Landing and the same to the Shipyards. It could have easily been as big of a catalyst for redeveloping downtown as the riverfront parks projects, imo.
Oh I wasn't making a comparison in the scale of Springfield Park with the scale of larger parks in cities historically 3-5 times our size. I've been to Piedmont Park plenty of times over the decade, as well as many others across the country. It's a great park.
I was talking about to taking advantage of Springfield Park's historic purpose and role as Jax's "central park" and better maximizing the recreational assets already there.
Funny thing about the park is that downtown was a border at one time. 1960s/70s urban renewal along the State/Union corridor and Hansontown have severed that seamless connectivity. However, some good urban infill can restore that!
I do think City Life demonstrates the limitations of park amenities available to the Downtown core due to inadequate acreage. This is a point I have been making for a long time. We just can't meet all the possible requests for recreation, outdoor entertainment, etc. with the "100 acres or less" spread across a Downtown from the stadium to Brooklyn. This makes every acre we have all the more precious.
It is highly unlikely that if the City continues to grow and Downtown actually "takes off" that we could ever reclaim for public space the land we are currently so anxious to pay developers to take off our hands.
This lack of future-thinking is a big Achilles heal for Downtown in my opinion. And, pair that with the aforementioned lack of urban mass transit and there is an absolute cap on Downtown's potential.
We have a ton of park space in Downtown without having to turn every city-owned parcel into more. What we haven't had in a long time in consistently activated and maintained spaces. The Springfield Park chain is a great example. It's no more remote from the Downtown Jax core than Boston Common is from Downtown Boston or the Charleston waterfront is from the center of their downtown. Fixing that up is a long term project, but it would have more impact than if we kept all of the 12 blocks of waterfront land that existed just a few years ago as permanent parks. As has been noted, the Landing site will be a substantial net gain of park space from what we have now, plus thanks to this deal it'll have a revenue source to keep it up.
We also have plenty of parks on the fringe of downtown in adjacent neighborhoods. A big point of the Emerald Trail project is to connect them.
There is a seemingly feasible long term solution to the size limitations of the Springfield Parks and the land is all owned by the Jacksonville Housing Authority. Centennial Townhomes West is owned and operated by the JHA. It's 7.69 acres and is immediately next to Klutho Park. The complex was built in 1977 and has likely reached the end of it's life. Then to the west of that you have Blodgett Villas, which is on 17.73 acres and is also owned by the JHA. The complex was built in the early 90's and presumably still has some life left. Between both of those complexes is the JHA HQ which is 9.56 acres. In total, this is 34.98 acres. Nearly equal to the rest of the chain of parks. But that's not it. South of Blodgett is a nice 5.5 acre lake/retention pond that is part of the state complex. I'm sure COJ could agree to take on maintenance from the state if it was included in the park, so you really could add 40 acres to the park.
The City could start planning for the future and expand the park in phases. Centennial more immediately and Blodgett in the future. This would not only expand the park, but provide the necessary width to add more recreational amenities to the park. If you add all this land and simply remove Broad and Jefferson between 6th and 1st, there would be 58 acres of connected parks space uninterrupted by roads.
The City gets so much money yearly from the federal government for the CDBG program that it could likely fund a lot of this project that way. The city could also increase the maximum residential height and density on the edges of the park (away from the historic district) and make a killing off the increase of ad valorem taxes. To make this happen, COJ just has to find a new HQ for the JHA and rebuild affordable housing nearby to replace the two lost projects.
This is obviously putting the cart before the horse, as the first priority should actually upgrading the existing system. However, I think if there is a long term expansion plan and the opportunity to create a truly great park, it might make renovating the existing system a higher priority and more financially viable.
^That entire area that was once Sugar Hill and Hansontown, stretching from UF Health Jax, down to State and Union between I-95 and Hogans Creek/Main Street, should be looked at. Its an excellent opportunity for Springfield Park and packing in some density on the edge of downtown. It fills a gapping hole in the urban core and the land is so underutilized, you won't get the type of neighborhood opposition that would be present in historic neighborhoods that still exist.
Agreed Lake. And the land acquisition cost should make it all very feasible financially.
Ideally, the entire 30 acre state complex would also get redeveloped in the future. You know, the one that has the transportation planning agency for the metro area in a one story suburban building with surface parking that is behind a fence and closing gate....
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2025, 10:47:49 AM
Agreed Lake. And the land acquisition cost should make it all very feasible financially.
Ideally, the entire 30 acre state complex would also get redeveloped in the future. You know, the one that has the transportation planning agency for the metro area in a one story suburban building with surface parking that is behind a fence and closing gate....
Of course, the TPO isn't the only state agency in the complex. Some of the others are the Department of Revenue, Corrections/Probation, Agency for Health Care Administration, Law Enforcement (FDLE), and Childrens Medical Services.
Quote from: CityLife on June 13, 2025, 10:25:51 AM
There is a seemingly feasible long term solution to the size limitations of the Springfield Parks and the land is all owned by the Jacksonville Housing Authority. Centennial Townhomes West is owned and operated by the JHA. It's 7.69 acres and is immediately next to Klutho Park. The complex was built in 1977 and has likely reached the end of it's life. Then to the west of that you have Blodgett Villas, which is on 17.73 acres and is also owned by the JHA. The complex was built in the early 90's and presumably still has some life left. Between both of those complexes is the JHA HQ which is 9.56 acres. In total, this is 34.98 acres. Nearly equal to the rest of the chain of parks. But that's not it. South of Blodgett is a nice 5.5 acre lake/retention pond that is part of the state complex. I'm sure COJ could agree to take on maintenance from the state if it was included in the park, so you really could add 40 acres to the park.
The City could start planning for the future and expand the park in phases. Centennial more immediately and Blodgett in the future. This would not only expand the park, but provide the necessary width to add more recreational amenities to the park. If you add all this land and simply remove Broad and Jefferson between 6th and 1st, there would be 58 acres of connected parks space uninterrupted by roads.
The City gets so much money yearly from the federal government for the CDBG program that it could likely fund a lot of this project that way. The city could also increase the maximum residential height and density on the edges of the park (away from the historic district) and make a killing off the increase of ad valorem taxes. To make this happen, COJ just has to find a new HQ for the JHA and rebuild affordable housing nearby to replace the two lost projects.
This is obviously putting the cart before the horse, as the first priority should actually upgrading the existing system. However, I think if there is a long term expansion plan and the opportunity to create a truly great park, it might make renovating the existing system a higher priority and more financially viable.
Also a sizeable Department of Health complex (with a large, mostly empty parking lot) directly abutting the parks between 6th-8th.
Wonder if all those State offices could fit in the recently vacated JEA building complex? Would boost Downtown and add green space to the park 8).
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/sep/16/uf-jacksonville-campus-tour-draws-about-100-developer-reps/ (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/sep/16/uf-jacksonville-campus-tour-draws-about-100-developer-reps/)
What in the world! Did we rush the land swap deal? Now UF is saying " While accepting responses to its ITN, the university is working on a separate track to renovate the Interline Brands building, where it plans to offer graduate classes beginning in fall 2026."
I thought classes were supposed to start this fall - 2025 in the Interline building?! Hence the rush to get the deal done. Not saying the deal was good or bad either way. Just stating the rush was so that classes can be held there. Now they're saying a year later. Was the building not up to par? Make it make sense. How are they getting away with this?
Phase 1 of the "Riverfront Plaza" old Landing site is scheduled to be done early 2026. Barring any major setbacks, it seems they will actually hit this milestone. Still no phase 2 proposals have been announced as far as building designs or approvals from Gateway that I've heard of. I thought there was a timeline in which the end of phase 1 and park development that it was essential for phase 2 of the building construction that needed to get done because of the added cost it may incur by waiting.
That fall 2025 thing for the interline building was never realistic and they announced it would be 2026 shortly after the deal was done.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on September 16, 2025, 08:25:53 PMStill no phase 2 proposals have been announced as far as building designs or approvals from Gateway that I've heard of. I thought there was a timeline in which the end of phase 1 and park development that it was essential for phase 2 of the building construction that needed to get done because of the added cost it may incur by waiting.
From my understanding, Gateway plans to bring designs to the DDRB for approval in Q4, and the incentive package will be vetted and voted on by end of Q2 of next year. Definitely a chance that the public/private project could break ground next year.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on September 16, 2025, 08:25:53 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/sep/16/uf-jacksonville-campus-tour-draws-about-100-developer-reps/ (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2025/sep/16/uf-jacksonville-campus-tour-draws-about-100-developer-reps/)
Still no phase 2 proposals have been announced as far as building designs or approvals from Gateway that I've heard of. I thought there was a timeline in which the end of phase 1 and park development that it was essential for phase 2 of the building construction that needed to get done because of the added cost it may incur by waiting.
Some have warned about the timeline issue for years. I don't want to relitigate it, but the essence is:
"If we wait on the next big thing that may never materialize, half of the park will be a dirt construction zone for an indefinite period. Is this what we want for the jewel of our downtown?"
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/columns/guest/2024/05/12/no-need-to-delay-or-build-towers-on-jacksonville-riverfront-plaza-site/73593359007/
Water under the bridge. Fingers crossed everything goes on schedule in Q4 and on.
Quote from: acme54321 on September 16, 2025, 10:09:47 PM
That fall 2025 thing for the interline building was never realistic and they announced it would be 2026 shortly after the deal was done.
IMO, the "FALL 2025" goal or benchmark, to me would have been a rush rush. I guess they wanted to make sure that the "Interline Building" was renovated properly and to their specific expectations; for them to go as is or with something "thrown together" would not have sufficed for UF (I guess). Earlier in the year when everyone was talking late 2025 for classes to start in the Interline Building, I thought that was really pushing it and too short of a time to get that building ready in that short amount of time. I think everything is in line and on time so far. Gateway, IMO, is doing a super job in the urban core and downtown; KUDOS and "pat on the back" to them; however, I wish they'd soonest come out with exactly what will soon be going on that parcel on Riverfront Plaza Phase II. (Inquiring and impatient METRO JAX members LOL want to know). I believe, and hope that it won't look like what we've already seen; and I am hoping it won't and it looks much more better, appealing, and fits in more perfectly with the park and waterfront. Lastly, to address "National Champions" concerns relative to constructing a tower on that parcel/site, I see no harm in it as long as it is done right, don't completely block Independent Square, and correctly fits in with the park and the waterfront...and don't ask me how that would be; let the people in city hall who are in power and who make the "big bucks" figure that one out!
American lions back then proposed that 44 story tower and was fitting that spot perfectly where it wasn't blocking independent tower and had a restaurant up top that high would had great views and sunset
Quote from: Skybox111 on September 17, 2025, 01:00:08 PM
American lions back then proposed that 44 story tower and was fitting that spot perfectly where it wasn't blocking independent tower and had a restaurant up top that high would had great views and sunset
Yeah; I liked that tower; especially because of the "tallnest," LOL. It would have fit in nicely as it had a slender triangular type shape. Gateway may stick with their initial rendering/proposal, but I hope they don't. I hope they come up with something more interesting and a little taller.
ActionNews had a story tonight. They highlighted concerns some of the Board Members have over the deal. The video had a chart showing various costs, but it isn't in the text report linked here: https://www.actionnewsjax.com/news/local/i-dont-love-this-deal-concerns-grow-over-dcps-move-prominence-park/7UQREKWAXZFP3K534DLYODBD2M/
This has always been a politically, not financially, driven decision to make taxpayers think more property taxes will be paid overall. There is no other reason to do this. It is becoming clearer with more details that this proposal is a net financial loser and not at all living up to the expectations for getting it done. Time to back down and get back to running our schools. Nothing wrong with admitting it makes no sense following additional due diligence.
Fleet Landing can build their towers on the adjacent Rivers Edge property and everyone comes out a winner.
The superintendent states this is the best deal for DCPS. How so? How does this compare to not doing anything for now and staying put for the time being? Does it make sense to stay and sell off some of the existing property? Or sell off or co-redevelop closed school sites into viable infill, to generate additional income for DCPS?
Quote from: heights unknown on September 17, 2025, 08:40:18 PM
Quote from: Skybox111 on September 17, 2025, 01:00:08 PM
American lions back then proposed that 44 story tower and was fitting that spot perfectly where it wasn't blocking independent tower and had a restaurant up top that high would had great views and sunset
Yeah; I liked that tower; especially because of the "tallnest," LOL. It would have fit in nicely as it had a slender triangular type shape. Gateway may stick with their initial rendering/proposal, but I hope they don't. I hope they come up with something more interesting and a little taller.
yeah i wish they could collaborate gateway with american lions to build that tower even ergisi tower. Sad if we don't get the fleet landing towers built. Nearly 20 years since those three towers were built on the southbank finished in 2007.