Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Baptist-Health-Jax-Hotel-DDRB-March-2026/i-pvjKVDs/0/MGbR4fnpT9Zxkgmqzq6z5cmFSzL9MX2FwF2R4Gczh/L/DDRB%20March%2012,%202026%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_37-L.jpg)
Baptist Health is proposing to build a 15-story, 226-key hotel at its Southbank medical campus. The project will seek conceptual approval from the Downtown Development Review Board on March 12, 2026. Here is a look at the project's conceptual plans. Let us know what you think!
Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/baptist-health-jax-hotel-headed-to-ddrb/
Not the best aesthetically, but great for what it will offer. Huge win for both the city and Baptist! One surface parking lot at a time.
I'm kind of meh on the whole thing. There isnt a good side to it. On Palm Ave you have a huge wall hiding the transformer yard, Baptist Way has the only real activity and it's a tower stuffed mid block and the most hidden part of the site, the rest is bland parking deck wall, the San Marco Blvd side is a bunch of blank walls (How are people going to get to Sherwood's???), and Gary street is just looking at the back of house service entrances and probably dumpsters.
Big ole MEH.
It's ok, I guess for the Southbank. And the fact that it's a part of the Baptist Medical Center. Otherwise, IMO, bland, not aesthetically pleasing to the eye (which really don't matter to most of us but it does to me). It's ok.
Ugly hotel that looks straight out of Deerwood Park. Good for Baptist, opening an extended stay hotel next to their hospital. It's a great amenity for their patients and their patient's families as they navigate a difficult and scary time in their lives.
But let's not pretend that this in any way addresses an urgent need in the redevelopment of Downtown Jacksonville.
I'm fine with the 75% property tax reduction over 20 years, as at the very least, we're still getting a parking lot on the tax rolls at 25%.
Absolutely, positively zero universe where Jacksonville's taxpayers should be putting up $8 million from our operating budget, or where the DIA/City should be burning a completion grant, on a random, isolated hospital hotel.
The litmus test for any completion grant moving forward needs to be.
1. What very specific section of Downtown Jacksonville needs our immediate focus.
2. What is our very specific, concrete, 3-5 year plan and goal for this area.
3. Does this project help us get there?
If yes, by all means, hand out a completion grant.
If no, let the project sink or float without it.
Would argue that the $8 million would be MUCH BETTER served being held in reserve to help jumpstart a project in the 16-20 blocks within the CBD that are crumbling right now.
Lest we end up in a situation where we dump hundreds of millions of dollars into isolated grants on the Southbank, San Marco, Sports District, and Brooklyn, and make no progress on the actual neighborhood (CBD) holding downtown back.
Street level activation couldn't be more terrible. Building looks like it belongs in the 1970s. Give no benefits and let the hospital build a five story building with their own money!
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 06, 2026, 10:02:22 AMUgly hotel that looks straight out of Deerwood Park. Good for Baptist, opening an extended stay hotel next to their hospital. It's a great amenity for their patients and their patient's families as they navigate a difficult and scary time in their lives.
But let's not pretend that this in any way addresses an urgent need in the redevelopment of Downtown Jacksonville.
I'm fine with the 75% property tax reduction over 20 years, as at the very least, we're still getting a parking lot on the tax rolls at 25%.
Absolutely, positively zero universe where Jacksonville's taxpayers should be putting up $8 million from our operating budget, or where the DIA/City should be burning a completion grant, on a random, isolated hospital hotel.
The litmus test for any completion grant moving forward needs to be.
1. What very specific section of Downtown Jacksonville needs our immediate focus.
2. What is our very specific, concrete, 3-5 year plan and goal for this area.
3. Does this project help us get there?
If yes, by all means, hand out a completion grant.
If no, let the project sink or float without it.
Would argue that the $8 million would be MUCH BETTER served being held in reserve to help jumpstart a project in the 16-20 blocks within the CBD that are crumbling right now.
Lest we end up in a situation where we dump hundreds of millions of dollars into isolated grants on the Southbank, San Marco, Sports District, and Brooklyn, and make no progress on the actual neighborhood (CBD) holding downtown back.
Amen. I agree with you and jcjohnpaint. If cash, or monetary (or otherwise) incentives are given out, this project should not receive any of the taxpayers money (IMO). Downtown is Downtown, and the boundaries have been set; i.e., it is what it is. However, more careful thought, investigation, monetary appropriation and rational choice should be strongly iterated and taken into account when doling out these incentives. Yes, dole out to the whole of downtown (the boundaries are the boundaries and are set), but more carefully, thoughtfully, etc. I feel that the Urban Core/CBD and its developments should be give priority; THAT AREA is the CORE of downtown and where primary consideration and indepth interest should be given.
The design is not inspiring.
I echo the other comments on the lack of street activation on three of the four frontages - and that is on an internal private street. The plans show a pedestrian access mid-block on Gary Street. But it must be a service/employee entrance, as it seems to be behind the registration counter. I can't read the (few) words printed on the full-size site plan, or the insets on the perspective drawings.
I agree that this project should not receive any sort of tax-payer cash incentive because its impact on the Urban Core will be minimal. However, at the same time, this project should not have to go through the DDRB process because its impact on the Urban Core will be minimal. We can't have it both ways.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 06, 2026, 10:02:22 AMUgly hotel that looks straight out of Deerwood Park. Good for Baptist, opening an extended stay hotel next to their hospital. It's a great amenity for their patients and their patient's families as they navigate a difficult and scary time in their lives.
But let's not pretend that this in any way addresses an urgent need in the redevelopment of Downtown Jacksonville.
I'm fine with the 75% property tax reduction over 20 years, as at the very least, we're still getting a parking lot on the tax rolls at 25%.
Absolutely, positively zero universe where Jacksonville's taxpayers should be putting up $8 million from our operating budget, or where the DIA/City should be burning a completion grant, on a random, isolated hospital hotel.
The litmus test for any completion grant moving forward needs to be.
1. What very specific section of Downtown Jacksonville needs our immediate focus.
2. What is our very specific, concrete, 3-5 year plan and goal for this area.
3. Does this project help us get there?
If yes, by all means, hand out a completion grant.
If no, let the project sink or float without it.
Would argue that the $8 million would be MUCH BETTER served being held in reserve to help jumpstart a project in the 16-20 blocks within the CBD that are crumbling right now.
Lest we end up in a situation where we dump hundreds of millions of dollars into isolated grants on the Southbank, San Marco, Sports District, and Brooklyn, and make no progress on the actual neighborhood (CBD) holding downtown back.
Lol what is the 3-5 year plan? It would be great to have one ;)
Quote from: Joey Mackey on March 06, 2026, 01:40:36 PMI agree that this project should not receive any sort of tax-payer cash incentive because its impact on the Urban Core will be minimal. However, at the same time, this project should not have to go through the DDRB process because its impact on the Urban Core will be minimal. We can't have it both ways.
My only devil's advocate here would be that if the project expects a REV grant from the DIA/Southbank CRA, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold it to quality design standards. That said, the DDRB is effectively a rubber stamp in practice, so who knows...
I'd be interested to know how much feedback they've already received from DDRB members.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 06, 2026, 02:48:17 PMMy only devil's advocate here would be that if the project expects a REV grant from the DIA/Southbank CRA, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold it to quality design standards. That said, the DDRB is effectively a rubber stamp in practice, so who knows...
That's fair, I can get behind the idea that property tax-breaks should result in design review. Do you know if REV grants outside of the DIA's geographic scope also result in some sort of design review? (Are REV grants even a thing in other parts of the City?)
Quote from: Joey Mackey on March 06, 2026, 03:14:41 PMQuote from: Ken_FSU on March 06, 2026, 02:48:17 PMMy only devil's advocate here would be that if the project expects a REV grant from the DIA/Southbank CRA, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold it to quality design standards. That said, the DDRB is effectively a rubber stamp in practice, so who knows...
That's fair, I can get behind the idea that property tax-breaks should result in design review. Do you know if REV grants outside of the DIA's geographic scope also result in some sort of design review? (Are REV grants even a thing in other parts of the City?)
Someone might be able to add some extra nuance or correction, but from my understanding:
1. In the 1980s, Jacksonville created redevelopment CRAs for both the Downtown Northbank, and the Downtown Southbank.
2. The basic idea was that - at that moment in time - existing property taxes in those two areas would be treated as baseline property taxes that continue to go to the city. Any incremental property taxes above that each year in the future would be put in a development fund specifically set aside for either the Northbank or Southbank.
3. The DIA was established to manage those incremental tax funds.
4. REV grants are a downtown-specific mechanism deployed by the DIA to incentive projects.
So, in other words:
Shad Khan is considering adding a Four Seasons hotel to the Northbank. Projected annual property taxes for the Four Seasons are $100. Because those property taxes are incremental/net new, instead of going towards into the general fund, they would go into the Northbank TIF/CRA fund, for use at the DIA's discretion. The DIA, with $100 potentially in its pocket, says to Shad Khan, "Hey, I'll give you back $75 of your property taxes each year for the next 20 years if you build the Four Seasons. And I'll keep $25." Shad Khan agrees.
So, long way of saying, although incentives exist elsewhere in the city, the REV grant is unique to downtown, and only available because the DIA has necessary access to the incremental property taxes to refund them.
Ken, you are correct that Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRAs) in Jacksonville can issue Recapture Enhanced Value (REV) Grants. But Northbank and Southbank (consolidated into "DIA") are not the only CRAs in Jacksonville. The others are
- Renew Arlington CRA - primarily along University Blvd., Merrill Road, Arlington Road, and a portion of the Arlington Expressway
- Jacksonville International Airport CRA
- KingSoutel Crossing CRA - primarily along New Kings Road from I-295 to Soutel Drive, and Soutel/Pritchard from Norfolk Blvd. to Imeson Road
Quotehttps://coj365-my.sharepoint.com/personal/rmezini_coj_net/_layouts/15/guestaccess.aspx?share=IQD8Mwkxj2mBTo7qeGrW6MkBAadDrtlj4HXXICCG4nsi0NY&e=DAdyH4
SUBPART D. - APPROPRIATIONS FOR COMMUNITY REDEVELOPMENT AGENCIES
Sec. 106.340. - Definitions.
CRA or Community Redevelopment Agency means and includes any agency created by Council to carryout community redevelopment under F.S. Ch. 163, Pt. III. This term includes the Downtown Investment Authority ("DIA"), the Renew Arlington Community Redevelopment Agency ("Renew Arlington CRA"), the Jacksonville International Airport Community Redevelopment Agency ("JIA CRA"), the KingSoutel Crossing Community Redevelopment Agency ("KingSoutel Crossing CRA") and such other agencies as may be created by the Council for community redevelopment purposes.
Financial Obligations Category means the budget category on an Approved CRA Budget that itemizes expenses related to the CRA Board's debt service and expenses, mandatory contractual payments, and other financial obligations of the CRA, including, but not limited to, debt payments, REV grants and QTI grants.
Quote from: Ken_FSU on March 06, 2026, 04:07:45 PMQuote from: Joey Mackey on March 06, 2026, 03:14:41 PMQuote from: Ken_FSU on March 06, 2026, 02:48:17 PMMy only devil's advocate here would be that if the project expects a REV grant from the DIA/Southbank CRA, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold it to quality design standards. That said, the DDRB is effectively a rubber stamp in practice, so who knows...
That's fair, I can get behind the idea that property tax-breaks should result in design review. Do you know if REV grants outside of the DIA's geographic scope also result in some sort of design review? (Are REV grants even a thing in other parts of the City?)
Someone might be able to add some extra nuance or correction, but from my understanding:
1. In the 1980s, Jacksonville created redevelopment CRAs for both the Downtown Northbank, and the Downtown Southbank.
2. The basic idea was that - at that moment in time - existing property taxes in those two areas would be treated as baseline property taxes that continue to go to the city. Any incremental property taxes above that each year in the future would be put in a development fund specifically set aside for either the Northbank or Southbank.
3. The DIA was established to manage those incremental tax funds.
4. REV grants are a downtown-specific mechanism deployed by the DIA to incentive projects.
So, in other words:
Shad Khan is considering adding a Four Seasons hotel to the Northbank. Projected annual property taxes for the Four Seasons are $100. Because those property taxes are incremental/net new, instead of going towards into the general fund, they would go into the Northbank TIF/CRA fund, for use at the DIA's discretion. The DIA, with $100 potentially in its pocket, says to Shad Khan, "Hey, I'll give you back $75 of your property taxes each year for the next 20 years if you build the Four Seasons. And I'll keep $25." Shad Khan agrees.
So, long way of saying, although incentives exist elsewhere in the city, the REV grant is unique to downtown, and only available because the DIA has necessary access to the incremental property taxes to refund them.
To answer the question, there's nothing like a DDRB in the rest of the city, but there are specific design requirements in other areas, not only through zoning and land use reqs but in certain historic areas or places with private HOAs. At its best, the DDRB makes sure that properties in the greater Downtown -- including those that are also targeting incentives as noted above -- maintain core urban design principals. As it functions now, it helps back up the basic guidelines and DIA staff recommendations without slowing projects down too much. In the past, there was a lot more rubber stamping of shit designs, but this was less about the DDRB, DIA or design guidelines per se, and more to do with the former mayor's administration pressuring them to rubber stamp terrible designs. We've gotten a lot better designs the last several years where the process is allowed to work.
There are still issues where the guidelines may not be optimal (signage is one that comes to mind) and certainly room for improvement on other things like primary street frontage (as in, which street should even be considered the primary face). But it works a lot better than it used to.