Quote(https://photos.moderncities.com/Cities/Jacksonville/Development/Fleet-Landing-DDRB-March-2026/i-6b8X5Cm/0/NX5bRBvMrNLwvBCSDzzfJzWbNNmNzP8DFBLxH28L8/L/DDRB%20March%2012,%202026%20Agenda%20Packet_Page_62-L.jpg)
After a failed attempt to acquire the DCPS Southbank headquarters, Fleet Landing now has plans for a 32-story tower in Brooklyn at 111 Riverside Avenue. 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/fleet-landing-riverside-seeks-ddrb-conceptual-approval/
Due to relevancy, reposting here from the Haskell Building thread:Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 06, 2026, 10:20:59 PMGreat share! The Fleet Landing proposal looks really nice, and well put together - just stands out a bit from my opinion. I'm curious if they plan to acquire the empty lot next door for a potential Phase 2 as well.
Looking at the Fleet site plan, they appear to be only taking 1/2 of the Haskell Building's footprint creating an empty lot where there is none now. I gather you are talking about the next lot over, to be clear.
Curious about the planned auditorium and its use. Being on the riverfront, will it be open to public events or only for residents? What will be its seating capacity? I thought they were going to also include a restaurant open to the public?
I note that part of the tower violates the height setbacks from the river. Once again, it appears the City is rolling over for this. I get there is a volume/massing allowance swap here but I still feel that this creates a massive (pun intended 8)) loophole that frustrates the purpose of the guideline, especially, when repeatedly violated.
I note the following guideline cited by DDRB that it is pushing aside:
QuoteWaterfront Design and River Views: setbacks, height and access corridors.
It is the intent of this subsection to encourage and protect enticing views of the river
from as many places in downtown as possible by providing View and Access Corridors
at the street level, to maximize overall value by providing both enhanced public spaces
at the riverfront and by facilitating river and creek views from as many buildings as
possible, as well as managing building forms and massing to be respectful of the
context of the surrounding buildings and of the pedestrian environment by stepping
buildings up from the river and defining height zones as delineated hereunder to allow
views around, over and through the architecture, and, to respect the scale of the context
in which development occurs.
And, here is the guideline vs. the request:
ZONE C100' TO 175' SETBACK FROM MHWL
MAX HEIGHT ALLOWED: 75'
Request: 375 feet!QuoteFINDING: The conceptual site plan identifies a view corridor aligned with
Stonewall Street extending from Riverside Avenue to the St. Johns River. The
proposed development maintains this corridor and provides a public plaza and
pedestrian access connection linking Riverside Avenue to the Riverwalk. The
submitted volume diagram indicates building height distributed within Zones B
and C in accordance with the waterfront height provisions of ยง656.361.6.2.H.
What's the point of having a rule that is easily circumvented?!
If the ordinance that restricts the height of buildings in favor of view corridors stops this building from being built the way it is shown, then the ordinance should be repealed. It's just another excuse to stop building up our Downtown. Truth is, any building you build, a one story bld. would block the view to a pedestrian. Truth is, the best, most "enticing" views of our river and downtown can be seen from the various bridges we have, especially from the Fuller Warren (Best Panorama) and Acosta (Best Close-Up) Bridges. Lets hope this and other proposed high rises are approved so we can look forward to many years of seeing these buildings as much-needed additions to our skyline.
Quote from: howfam on March 09, 2026, 08:32:28 PMIf the ordinance that restricts the height of buildings in favor of view corridors stops this building from being built the way it is shown, then the ordinance should be repealed. It's just another excuse to stop building up our Downtown. Truth is, any building you build, a one story bld. would block the view to a pedestrian. Truth is, the best, most "enticing" views of our river and downtown can be seen from the various bridges we have, especially from the Fuller Warren (Best Panorama) and Acosta (Best Close-Up) Bridges. Lets hope this and other proposed high rises are approved so we can look forward to many years of seeing these buildings as much-needed additions to our skyline.
This is not about preventing high rises downtown. It's about preserving views of the river that make such high rises attractive. Looking out the window of one building to look at another isn't very exciting. And, for those not in buildings, having a view along the banks of the river, not just the water itself, is part of completing and framing the natural environment that is the centerpiece of the City.
Manhattan and other major cities do just fine building up their skylines back from their waterfront or in landlocked parcels. In fact, if you live/work back from the waterfront, you will be looking to have enjoyable access to it, not having to fight a wall of high rises. So, if you really want to build up Downtown, leave some green spaces along the river as an amenity.
The lack of high rises Downtown has more to do with poor planning and management than focusing on the river.
By the way, the Fuller Warren only has sidewalks on its west facing side. The east facing side toward Downtown is cars only so taking in that view at 60+ mph isn't going to last long.
They could flip the garage and the high rise and that might solve the height and setback issue, but would that be better, having the garage on the river side?
Another option is having a parking podium style tower, thus making the tower significantly taller but maybe putting it up at Riverside. I've been told this makes the project *significantly* more expensive and thus infeasible.
They have not mentioned needing incentives and I do not believe that are asking for them. At least we have THAT, MAJOR positive relative to other projects.
I hope this project gets built. This target demographic (empty nesters and retirees) is the perfect demographic to include alongside young professionals downtown. They will fill restaurants and cultural venues and museums. And spend money that young professionals don't have.
This one was approved by DDRB. I was the lone no vote. Not because I'm against the project because I also hope it gets built. I voted against the precedent that was set where an applicant can walk in, and get conceptual approval with a high level paper napkin sketch and not have to come back to the DDRB until they're ready for final approval.
QuoteThey could flip the garage and the high rise and that might solve the height and setback issue, but would that be better, having the garage on the river side?
Another option is having a parking podium style tower, thus making the tower significantly taller but maybe putting it up at Riverside. I've been told this makes the project *significantly* more expensive and thus infeasible.
All valid possibilities but none of this will happen since the site layout was basically approved as is. I did ask the question of what was the decision to go FIS-style with a separate garage and tower, as that leads to some constraints with ground floor retail spacing and pushes the closer to the river. I knew the answer was financial feasibility, but I wanted the applicant to say it on record. I may be in the minority with this opinion, but incentives should be considered for projects that go above and beyond the minimum (i.e. better urban site design, that may lead to higher costs). Anyway, I wish the project the best and hope they do what they said they would, but did not want to be required to do.
When do they typically ask for incentives in the process? Simms, you said they are not asking?
I'd be surprised if they don't end up eventually asking for some type of incentives. Why wouldn't they ask is a better question. Anyway, at this point, they're in a very early stage of planning.
So, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives and the design isn't flushed out and/or vague. Could they change anything they showed once approved? Sorry for the confusion.
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 14, 2026, 11:47:27 AMSo, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives and the design isn't flushed out and/or vague. Could they change anything they showed once approved? Sorry for the confusion.
I was concerned about the process and the precedent set. Basically, if you can get a fairly vague idea through conceptual approval and you don't "have to" come back until you're ready for final approval, that's a really bad practice for a community (in this case, downtown). Ultimately, you're placing your downtown hope on each individual applicant getting it right. History has shown, thats a pretty bad position to be in.
I know if someone walked into one of the historically Black neighborhoods I work with, we'd immediately chop their heads off due to the importance of making sure all concepts align with the greater community vision.
@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned. Raymond James has a wonky parking lot as well, but also proposed to build a storefront on Riverside Ave. Considering all 3 locations what do you think best suites each? The Hub is rocking! Anejos is also really good. One Riverside is will be getting a premiere Michelin restaurant. Can the storefront being on Riverside ave, be enough to activate the riverwalk?
Quote from: jcjohnpaint on March 14, 2026, 11:47:27 AMSo, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives..
Regarding downtown incentives, I have no control or say in those but I have been quietly following the debate.
My two cents are that I do think incentives are needed for various downtown projects and we're nowhere close to a period in time where they will not be needed.
However, its the wild west with downtown right now policy-wise. So we aren't getting the most bang for our buck. Some strategy with incentives would be a great thing.
For example if you're separating your garage from your tower because of feasibility concerns, perhaps incentives are used to alleviate that concern, leading to a better product as a whole. Or if you're getting incentives, you should be required to put some ground floor retail on a major street your project is facing, as opposed to a blank parking garage wall. These things can't be decided within a siloed approach. For years, we have made much decision-making in silos. So a Frankenstein set of outcomes is what happens as a result.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 14, 2026, 12:19:25 PM@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned.
FIS' retail was an afterthought. A bad add-on, similar to Vesctor's retail space at Lofts of Monroe in LaVilla. With that one, we ended up with the retail space facing low traffic Monroe Street, while high traffic Adams ends up with the ass of the building and a surface parking lot. News flash...that retail spot is still empty. If it were on Adams facing LEVS Park, the Emerald Trail and Johnson Commons, someone would probably be in it by now. That situation was totally avoidable if addressed during the conceptual planning stage of that project.
I used to do site selection and planning work for retail developers before shifting to transportation planning and ultimately launching my own urban planning practice. Just so happens, I'm very familiar with supermarkets, big boxes, varioud F&B chains, pharmacies, etc. and their site site design criteria in both urban and suburban areas. That type of product won't work in that space as it was shown at DDRB. It would likely sit empty like FIS' and it would have nothing to do with the market.
Its a simple fix though and one I hope they work out down the line, but could change the costs to construct. The retail would need to be integrated with the garage, allowing for a much larger box footprint and not a narrow side addition squeezed in between the garage and the property line like FIS'.
Thank You!
I didn't know you had your own practice now Ennis! Great to hear you're rolling up your sleeves like that.
Quote from: marcuscnelson on March 14, 2026, 03:29:29 PMI didn't know you had your own practice now Ennis! Great to hear you're rolling up your sleeves like that.
Thanks! 3 years in this past January 1st. So far so good. Been pretty busy nationwide.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2026, 12:10:04 PMQuote from: jcjohnpaint on March 14, 2026, 11:47:27 AMSo, you are concerned they will later ask for incentives and the design isn't flushed out and/or vague. Could they change anything they showed once approved? Sorry for the confusion.
I was concerned about the process and the precedent set. Basically, if you can get a fairly vague idea through conceptual approval and you don't "have to" come back until you're ready for final approval, that's a really bad practice for a community (in this case, downtown). Ultimately, you're placing your downtown hope on each individual applicant getting it right. History has shown, thats a pretty bad position to be in.
A public work shop would likely help. Easy to do. Often beneficial. No reason one couldn't be organized within a few weeks time, prior to final approval.
^Offered that option. They may or may not. They aren't required to.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2026, 01:02:52 PMQuote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 14, 2026, 12:19:25 PM@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned.
I used to do site selection and planning work for retail developers before shifting to transportation planning and ultimately launching my own urban planning practice. Just so happens, I'm very familiar with supermarkets, big boxes, varioud F&B chains, pharmacies, etc. and their site site design criteria in both urban and suburban areas. That type of product won't work in that space as it was shown at DDRB. It would likely sit empty like FIS' and it would have nothing to do with the market.
Its a simple fix though and one I hope they work out down the line, but could change the costs to construct. The retail would need to be integrated with the garage, allowing for a much larger box footprint and not a narrow side addition squeezed in between the garage and the property line like FIS'.
Given the type of project this is, meaning the age of the residents and the large quantity of them, I imagine the pharmacy is meant to serve the on-site residents primarily and to almost serve as an amenity for them. They might even lease the space at a deep discount to a third party. Just a guess but it would seem logical to me.
BTW, where would this building land on the list of tallest JAX buildings? I assume 3rd or 4th??
^Assuming all proposed towers gets built, possibly 4/5 senior living worldwide. Nationwide for senior living, maybe 3rd? 2nd in Florida with Ft Laud having a proposed 42 story. In Jax, amongst tallest towers, my guess is probably much lower at 4-7. This might be a little premature. Maybe we wait to see what they actually come back with as what they presented was just conceptual.
Quote from: vicupstate on March 15, 2026, 01:35:15 PMQuote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2026, 01:02:52 PMQuote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 14, 2026, 12:19:25 PM@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned.
I used to do site selection and planning work for retail developers before shifting to transportation planning and ultimately launching my own urban planning practice. Just so happens, I'm very familiar with supermarkets, big boxes, varioud F&B chains, pharmacies, etc. and their site site design criteria in both urban and suburban areas. That type of product won't work in that space as it was shown at DDRB. It would likely sit empty like FIS' and it would have nothing to do with the market.
Its a simple fix though and one I hope they work out down the line, but could change the costs to construct. The retail would need to be integrated with the garage, allowing for a much larger box footprint and not a narrow side addition squeezed in between the garage and the property line like FIS'.
Given the type of project this is, meaning the age of the residents and the large quantity of them, I imagine the pharmacy is meant to serve the on-site residents primarily and to almost serve as an amenity for them. They might even lease the space at a deep discount to a third party. Just a guess but it would seem logical to me.
BTW, where would this building land on the list of tallest JAX buildings? I assume 3rd or 4th??
Thats not what they presented (pharmacy facing Riverside Avenue thats only for internal use) to the DDRB. If that were proposed in that particular location, I would have had more serious concern with the preliminary site plan. Outward facing retail, F&B, etc. should be open to the public for any major new infill developmentin downtown.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 15, 2026, 03:05:47 PM^Assuming all proposed towers gets built, possibly 4/5 senior living worldwide. Nationwide for senior living, maybe 3rd? 2nd in Florida with Ft Laud having a proposed 42 story. In Jax, amongst tallest towers, my guess is probably much lower at 4-7. This might be a little premature. Maybe we wait to see what they actually come back with as what they presented was just conceptual.
Unfortunately everything proposed in downtown won't come to fruition. Never does. Some projects still fizzle out in cities like NYC and London. But I hope we can get more out of the past then we have in the past 26 years. This project in particular, was requesting conceptual approval to be able to try and find financing before they spent money on a fleshed out concept and design.
I wonder how much they will have to "take off the top" to make it financially feasible. That is, would the numbers work for a 20-storey building? Fifteen?
It's quite problematic to see a Senior Living Community as the Highest & Best for this property. They do have an 'ecosystem' mentality so I do wonder what/if any of the associated uses/features will be available/open to the public.
With that being said, I have no doubts this will be an exceptional site based on their other properties.
One of the articles said the auditorium would be available for community use.
Quote from: thelakelander on March 15, 2026, 04:27:54 PMQuote from: vicupstate on March 15, 2026, 01:35:15 PMQuote from: thelakelander on March 14, 2026, 01:02:52 PMQuote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 14, 2026, 12:19:25 PM@thelakelander Watched the presentation. Didn't realize that was you. Good job! So, they proposed a pharmacy in the space. It seems a bit small for a pharmacy given the space allotted and design layout. What else would you like to see in that space?
FIS's storefront has been vacant for years, at one point they were supposed to partner with Pet Paradise, but that didn't go as planned.
I used to do site selection and planning work for retail developers before shifting to transportation planning and ultimately launching my own urban planning practice. Just so happens, I'm very familiar with supermarkets, big boxes, varioud F&B chains, pharmacies, etc. and their site site design criteria in both urban and suburban areas. That type of product won't work in that space as it was shown at DDRB. It would likely sit empty like FIS' and it would have nothing to do with the market.
Its a simple fix though and one I hope they work out down the line, but could change the costs to construct. The retail would need to be integrated with the garage, allowing for a much larger box footprint and not a narrow side addition squeezed in between the garage and the property line like FIS'.
Given the type of project this is, meaning the age of the residents and the large quantity of them, I imagine the pharmacy is meant to serve the on-site residents primarily and to almost serve as an amenity for them. They might even lease the space at a deep discount to a third party. Just a guess but it would seem logical to me.
BTW, where would this building land on the list of tallest JAX buildings? I assume 3rd or 4th??
Thats not what they presented (pharmacy facing Riverside Avenue thats only for internal use) to the DDRB. If that were proposed in that particular location, I would have had more serious concern with the preliminary site plan. Outward facing retail, F&B, etc. should be open to the public for any major new infill developmentin downtown.
I would fully expect that a pharmacy would serve the general public and face the street, but the expectation being the on-site residents would be the PRIMARY driver of business. Seeing the value of such an amenity, the developer would have the rent low enough such that the value of the location to CVS/Walgreens/Whoever is worthwhile.
The space is a weird shape thats about the size of a takeout Chinese restaurant or Subway sandwich shop. What was shown was half baked (super conceptual).
If your goal is a CVS or Walgreens, a complete redesign and enlargement of that spot will be necessary at a minimum and doing that could impact BOH access, which could dramatically change what was approved.
Little things like that, which most may overlook if never have been in that specific line of work, are why it would be good for some projects to not proceed too far for Final Approval before being required to workshop at the conceptual level. Hopefully, this particular group will figure it out but the big problem is precedence with the process. The next project may not get it right, will skip all critical checks and balances and DT will end up with some horrible infill that hurts the vision of downtown vibrancy every has been dreaming abouy for the last 70 years.
^ I'd be interested to know how many developers come to the table with half baked conceptual designs? From the presentations of Baptist's hotel and this, they were on either side of the spectrum. One funded and ready to go with minor adjustments while the other, well not so much.
I'd like to remain optimistic about their final product. They've been primarily in Jax for many years and have great communities. I don't think this would be any exception This is a little different what they've done in the past, but I think they'll get it right when it's all said and done. Would be nice if they do touch base halfway through just for a quick glance over but that time will come. They're very early in the process and have to do things differently unfortunately. Now if this was done Joe Schmo then I'd think twice about it, but let's give them a chance and see how things pan out.
Not related, but the disposition has ended for the old courthouse site. Interested to see what has came out of that. As well as in curious to know what's up with the permits on getting the Related Jax going. Probably won't see cranes until fall at this rate. Lastly, not reading too much into it, but kinda am - MOSH. They requested another extension and it was approved. Is it ever going to happen? And they have a substantially completion date set for 1 Aug 2029 rather than 30 Jan 2029. Are we gearing up to throw our hat in the ring to host the 2030 NFL draft? Or do they want it up and running prior to the season beginning? Latest on Gateway proposal for Riverfront Plaza? My guess is an Edition with additional floors - key rooms 40/60% residential. Kinda upset the Lion Group fell through that looked beautiful. But everything happens for a reason.
There is part of me that understands council questioning incentives, especially since every project asks for the maximum amount of incentives regardless of what they put forward and DIA passes everything on to council. I'm guessing a good Masterplan would explicitly spell out what developers would have present at every level to get awarded full incentives or the highest priority. Seems like most of the last tower proposals over the last 10 years said little, but asked for everything.
^Yes a good plan and revision of public policy to align with that plan would resolve most of the issues I've expressed, as they rid us of the wild west situation that's hurt downtown's momentum over the decades. Instead, we'd get predicatibility, and time saving efficiency. Hell, do it right and we wouldn't even need a DDRB.
Quote from: MakeDTjaxGre@tAgain on March 18, 2026, 08:24:38 PM^ I'd be interested to know how many developers come to the table with half baked conceptual designs? From the presentations of Baptist's hotel and this, they were on either side of the spectrum. One funded and ready to go with minor adjustments while the other, well not so much.
Most come to the DDRB at the level or close to the level of the Baptist project. The Fleet project was a first during my time on the DDRB at that early conceptual level. Being in my professional field of work, I feel I have a pretty good idea of how much time it took to put that concept together, how far they have to go and how likely that there are several issues that will alter the concept to the point that when they come back at final, it will be a challenge and waste of volunteer time (I could literally care less what type of tree goes up in the parking lot or what type of fence material surrounds the dumpster) to review and recommend any changes (the actual building layout and how its spaces can best interact and engage the pedestrian at street level) that may be viewed as too significant.
QuoteI'd like to remain optimistic about their final product. They've been primarily in Jax for many years and have great communities. I don't think this would be any exception This is a little different what they've done in the past, but I think they'll get it right when it's all said and done. Would be nice if they do touch base halfway through just for a quick glance over but that time will come. They're very early in the process and have to do things differently unfortunately. Now if this was done Joe Schmo then I'd think twice about it, but let's give them a chance and see how things pan out.
I've been around long enough to know words, wishes and hope don't equate to much when it comes to good urban design. Policy, zoning regulations, ordinances, etc. can either make or break you from achieving a vision. Hope and wishing have turned Riverside Avenue and Forest Street in Brooklyn into an autocentric district despite the amount of infill projects that have clustered there since 2015. With guidance, direction and good policy, Brooklyn looks and feels completely different than it does today. When its the wild west, you end up with a Vista Brooklyn style project being immediately located next door to a strip mall with a big surface parking lot between Fresh Market and the street. Even that center looks a lot different if we didn't fight and rally to get the restaurant outparcels shifted to closer to Riverside Avenue than the original layout. Same goes for a number of other infill projects built over the past 15 years like the VyStar Garage, Gate gas at Forest & Park, the JTA U2C Operations building on Jefferson. Anyway, I do believe the ultimate fix is a comprehensive update of zoning, design guidelines, etc. in some parts of downtown to make things more predictable, understandable, efficient, timesaving, affordable, etc. for all involved (COJ, the community, the developer), while also facilitating individual development projects working together to get us closer to a corresponding community vision for downtown.
QuoteNot related, but the disposition has ended for the old courthouse site. Interested to see what has came out of that. As well as in curious to know what's up with the permits on getting the Related Jax going. Probably won't see cranes until fall at this rate. Lastly, not reading too much into it, but kinda am - MOSH. They requested another extension and it was approved. Is it ever going to happen? And they have a substantially completion date set for 1 Aug 2029 rather than 30 Jan 2029. Are we gearing up to throw our hat in the ring to host the 2030 NFL draft? Or do they want it up and running prior to the season beginning? Latest on Gateway proposal for Riverfront Plaza? My guess is an Edition with additional floors - key rooms 40/60% residential.
Time will tell. Its not always easy to get through permitting, which is where I think the Related Jax project is at. Even the LaVilla Heritage Trail project I worked on is still tied up in permitting hell. That installation date keeps getting pushed back. We're hoping to reach the finish line with that one later next month or early May.
QuoteKinda upset the Lion Group fell through that looked beautiful. But everything happens for a reason.
This particular project was always a pipe dream. Part of me hates that conceptual renderings hit the media so quick. Most of these high level concepts will never make it to the final stage and the ones that do will most likely not look exactly like the original rendering. So to a degree, premature news only leads to great disappointment when the ones like Lions expectedly fizzle out because their proformas don't work.