Metro Jacksonville

Today, on his call-in segment on Stereo 89.9's First Coast Connect, Mayor Peyton responded to a caller asking about family friendly activities Downtown with the suggestion that the JEA site would make a great location for ball fields for kids to play on.

Thanks Mayor for joining my club.  Don't forget the Shipyard's site too.

Let's put this on the list of Downtown improvements to attract families both as visitors and residents of Downtown.  Don't forget some area schools by working with the School Board.  The playing fields in parks could double as school playgrounds.  And, the schools could host adult education classes, smaller cultural events (in their auditoriums or gyms), etc. in the evenings.

Personally, I rather see ballfields redeveloped and maintained in our existing parks like the ones lining Hogans Creek or in Brooklyn before spending money on the JEA site.  Nevertheless, long term (and I mean long term) the JEA site does have a ton of potential as a mixed-use urban infill community that could include ballfields and public space.

Lake, where would you locate a regulation soccer, football, and/or baseball field or fields in Brooklyn and/or Hogans Creek?

Have you ever been to one of the City's soccer field complexes?  They usually have a half dozen or more soccer fields for league play of all ages.  You would likely need multiple fields for the other sports as well.  Add viewing sidelines and stands, parking, concession stands, storage, restrooms, a security office or live-on-property cop, etc. and you are talking a good number of acres (10 to 20 or more, I would estimate).

Hogans Creek - Klutho Park.  There is already a baseball and soccer field in this space.  There are also basketball and tennis courts nearby.  However, all would benefit from better maintenance.

In Brooklyn there is a park on the corner of Spruce and Jackson (within walking distance of the Prime Osborn, Park Street and Riverside Avenue) with a baseball field, tot lot, tennis and basketball courts.  It too, would benefit from better maintenance.

These are areas where urban residents already live.  In the short term, imo it would be better to fix these places up before spending millions for a park with no immediate residential population.  If you're talking about a regional park, then I'd like to see something like that constructed on the stadium's parking and tailgate lots instead of prime riverfront property.  Imo, the JEA site would be best used for a mix of uses instead of one dominant use.

I am not mister it hAs to be private and the government should not spend money.  The JEA site is one that has been attractive to private developers and will attract that interest again after the ecconomy improves. Mixed use is the best use for that river front property.

agreed Jeffrey...but using the site as a park in the short-term might not be a bad idea

Nice brownfield site.

I don't agree with ball fields at JEA site; there are other areas in Duval and Jax where you can play ball.  Reserve that property for an 80 story tower.

"HU"

Reserve it for something. I hate this small town way of thinking.

Quote from: copperfiend on February 02, 2010, 09:28:10 AM
Reserve it for something. I hate this small town way of thinking.

It is in no way small-town thinking to put parks/ballfields on the site as a temporary use (same could be done w/ the Shipyards site).

The only risk is that close-minded folks wouldn't let you convert it to highest and best use when the market can support it.

Build the city Aquarium there. I know there is no money to do this, but one can dream right? Then have that guy come in and build his over the river Gondola system that connects the Aquarium to metro Park and the stadium. Instant tourist area.

Quote from: tufsu1 on February 02, 2010, 09:42:56 AM
It is in no way small-town thinking to put parks/ballfields on the site as a temporary use (same could be done w/ the Shipyards site).

Who are the ballfields for?

(http://www.bedstuyblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/dsc01196.JPG)

I found the Jacksonville Aquarium, now do we have any volunteers to install it at the JEA site?

(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/101/288839181_88c0ec88d7.jpg)


This is the ticket, BASEBALL! Let's subject another ball park to our city's stellar maintenance!

OCKLAWAHA

Quote from: copperfiend on February 02, 2010, 10:03:15 AM
Who are the ballfields for?

Copper, go back to the top of the thread:

QuoteLet's put this on the list of Downtown improvements to attract families both as visitors and residents of Downtown.  Don't forget some area schools by working with the School Board.  The playing fields in parks could double as school playgrounds.  And, the schools could host adult education classes, smaller cultural events (in their auditoriums or gyms), etc. in the evenings.

If we want people, including families and fitness/outdoorsy types (often, young professionals), to live Downtown and rely on walkable neighborhoods and public transit, not cars, a major attraction will be having recreational opportunities within easy access.  These same facilities can serve area schools as well.

We need to get it that even though people live Downtown, they want many of the same amenities of the suburbs.  Surbanites are famous for saying they prefer the suburbs to have a yard for the kids to play in and for the added "green space" not found in many urban areas.  This would level the "playing field", literally!  ;D

haha. good one Ock! I needed a laugh this morning.

Quote from: Ocklawaha on February 02, 2010, 10:18:32 AM
This is the ticket, BASEBALL! Let's subject another ball park to our city's stellar maintenance!

Exactly...the city can't maintain the fields it has now, especially for its organized leagues, let alone just for general family recreation. I recently played a season for one of the softball leagues, only to have, out of 9 games, 3 outright canceled, and 4 others postponed multiple times simply because the city couldn't get the fields in order after the last rain - which was 3+ days prior. It was an absolute travesty - as with much being proposed, the city needs to demonstrate it can take care of what it has now before adding to their problems.

Quote from: stjr on February 02, 2010, 10:19:07 AM

Quote from: copperfiend on February 02, 2010, 10:03:15 AM
Who are the ballfields for?

Copper, go back to the top of the thread:

QuoteLet's put this on the list of Downtown improvements to attract families both as visitors and residents of Downtown.  Don't forget some area schools by working with the School Board.  The playing fields in parks could double as school playgrounds.  And, the schools could host adult education classes, smaller cultural events (in their auditoriums or gyms), etc. in the evenings.

If we want people, including families and fitness/outdoorsy types (often, young professionals), to live Downtown and rely on walkable neighborhoods and public transit, not cars, a major attraction will be having recreational opportunities within easy access.  These same facilities can serve area schools as well.

We need to get it that even though people live Downtown, they want many of the same amenities of the suburbs.  Surbanites are famous for saying they prefer the suburbs to have a yard for the kids to play in and for the added "green space" not found in many urban areas.  This would level the "playing field", literally!  ;D

So are the people living downtown going to drive to these new ball fields?

The problem with putting "temporary" ball feilds in this location is trying to do anything else with it in the future. Litigation expenses would soon outrun plausibility.

Should the residential units currently in the area ever sell out, that is a prime location for more, with a healthy shot of Mixed Use, Downtown Jax becomes even more livable.

Business and residence will revive downtown, if transit is mixed in. Ball fields could be a hinderence.

Quote from: copperfiend on February 02, 2010, 10:27:02 AM
So are the people living downtown going to drive to these new ball fields?

Copper, again read my posts, please.

I stated that these parks should be primarily accessible by pedestrians and public transit.  Some parking may be necessary for equipment drop off, maintenance vehicles, or visitors from outlying areas if they can't otherwise "park and ride" from a public transit hub.  Actually, with the JEA site, the already existing and under used Kings Road garage should serve this need very well.  And, a JEA park will give urban core areas an excuse to use the $ky-high-way that terminates there.  That should make some posters here happy.

Quote from: buckethead on February 02, 2010, 10:34:55 AM
The problem with putting "temporary" ball feilds in this location is trying to do anything else with it in the future. Litigation expenses would soon outrun plausibility.

Should the residential units currently in the area ever sell out, that is a prime location for more, with a healthy shot of Mixed Use, Downtown Jax becomes even more livable.

Business and residence will revive downtown, if transit is mixed in. Ball fields could be a hinderence.

Bucket, I agree about temporary.  I am advocating for permanent park space.  Residential units can be built around the periphery of JEA park.  Just like living units around NY's Central Park, they would likely be premium units due to proximity to the park.  See also living units built around Memorial Park in Riverside.

I see the park fostering residential development, not hindering it.  With the disdain some are showing here for parks, they are demonstrating, IMHO, why Jax is being held back.  Most successful urban revitalizations I have witnessed has large and centrally located parks playing an integral role as both a catalyst and attraction.

Until Jax starts doing things differently, we will continue to spin our wheels.  "Wishing" for Downtown residential isn't going to make it happen.  Providing amenities to create demand for it will.

The Skyway is minimally useful, but with a grocery store near a station, those precious few downtown residents would have a new reason to patronize it.

It now stops near museums, art galleries, the best Library our city has ever known, a college campus and residential hi-rise.

I really beleive it could be a success if just a few more sections are added, coupled with a few more residents and retail grocery/dry cleaning, daily neccesity shops in close proximity to one or more stations.

Had it gone to Publix in Riverside, I would have used it as a means to buy groceries, not to mention walking the family over to the Cummer. Hey... would there possibly any new ridership driven from that location?

How many lovely urbanites live within 2 blocks of that Publix?

Quote from: stjr on February 02, 2010, 10:35:29 AM

Quote from: copperfiend on February 02, 2010, 10:27:02 AM
So are the people living downtown going to drive to these new ball fields?

Copper, again read my posts, please.

I stated that these parks should be primarily accessible by pedestrians and public transit.  Some parking may be necessary for equipment drop off, maintenance vehicles, or visitors from outlying areas if they can't otherwise "park and ride" from a public transit hub.  Actually, with the JEA site, the already existing and under used Kings Road garage should serve this need very well.  And, a JEA park will give urban core areas an excuse to use the $ky-high-way that terminates there.  That should make some posters here happy.

I think this is completely unrealistic.

Why do we assume there is no public space in the urban core?  If there's money laying around to improve recreational space (fields, tot lots, greens, tennis courts, etc.), to me its hard to justify spending it on something new at the JEA site before fixing up the countless number of urban parks with these amenities that already exist.

I agree. We have enough freaking parks around the urban core that are in need of great repair. Let's stop building new ones until we can better take care of the ones we have!

Quote from: copperfiend on February 02, 2010, 10:59:26 AM
I think this is completely unrealistic.

To each their own.  Just realize how many cities already have accomplished this.  With your thinking, Central Park would not exist.

Quote
Let's stop building new ones until we can better take care of the ones we have!

Park land needs to be put aside when the land is available or the opportunity may be forever lost.  Mayor Delaney realized this when he launched his ambitious park land acquisition program.  It may be years before they are fully developed, but we would never have park land if we waited for development money at the same time as acquisition monies.  Failure to maintain parks should not be an excuse for not adding to park land.  The City needs to simply get its house in order and start doing its job.  We citizens shouldn't be penalized for decades for current incompetencies.

If all we are talking about is setting aside some land for future development, then COJ should work on some type of development agreement with JEA to make sure recreational space is accomodated in future plans.  If we're talking about immediately spending capital we don't have to build a park for residents that aren't there, then I think we are better off using the money we have to improve existing urban core parks and amenities.

If we are going to build ACTIVE parks, then they need to be MAINTAINED!! Our City has a poor track record on this. We can't even properly maintain passive parks. I do not have a problem with purchasing land in its natural state for preservation.

Quote from: stjr on February 02, 2010, 11:30:08 AM
To each their own.  Just realize how many cities already have accomplished this.  With your thinking, Central Park would not exist.

Not exactly. And it's laughable to try and compare building teeball fields on a tract of land sitting next to our suburban style School Board Building to an 800 acre park.

QuoteTo each their own.  Just realize how many cities already have accomplished this.  With your thinking, Central Park would not exist.

Not a good comparison.  The land that would be central park used to be a wasteland off of the river that was home to junkyards and was very toxic.  Frederick Law Olmsted was able to convert it into a park through drainage, purification, and genius.  JEA is prime undeveloped land on the St Johns without any nearby residents (I wouldn't count Peninsula, Strand, SMP as a community just yet) or complimentary uses.

I think preserving 10-15 acres of the site for green space (As a part of the master plan for a development) is a good idea.  San Marco Riverfront District had 12 acres reserved for a natural wetlands and park space with trails and board walks.  For the time being, I think improving drainage and increase access to the JEA land is about as far as we need to go in developing it. 

QuoteFailure to maintain parks should not be an excuse for not adding to park land.

I think this is a great excuse to not add park land.  If we keep producing sub par park space, residents will never support funding any new park space.  Lets start improving or developing current parks into great destinations before we shove more pocket parks down anyone's throat.

No more parks until the city can maintain what we already have! Fixing Klutho would be a great start.

Wasn't this the proposed site of the San Marco Village or was it San Marco Riverfront with 6 towers?

Quote from: Captain Zissou on February 02, 2010, 12:04:08 PM
The land that would be central park used to be a wasteland off of the river that was home to junkyards and was very toxic. 

FYI, according to the recently released Downtown visioning report, the JEA site was identified as a brownfield.  Maybe we should find out just how "brown" it is.

QuoteI think this is a great excuse to not add park land.  If we keep producing sub par park space, residents will never support funding any new park space.  Lets start improving or developing current parks into great destinations before we shove more pocket parks down anyone's throat.

I don't hear anyone hear making that case about our public transit.  We do a poor job running our buses and the $ky-high-way, yet people continue to advocate for more in the form of street cars, commuter rail, expansion of the $ky-high-way, BRT, etc.  In fact, my argument, in part, against the $ky-high-way is that it serves as poster child to tarnish the public transit's community image in the same manner that you say a poorly maintained park does for parks.

My concern here is that large parcels of well located land such as the JEA and Shipyards sites in an urban core may only come up once in generations, especially at a time when values are depressed and the land may actually be relatively affordable.  As such, I think these parcels are worthy of some long term visioning/thinking as to how they could play into Downtown's future over the next 100 or more years.

I think we need more long term thinking like this to make Downtown long term successful.  The "project of the week" isn't getting it done.

stjr, we actually agree more than I thought.  I see your argument regarding transit, and can agree that the skyway is creating a negative image for transit in jax.  I doubt many would be willing to build a streetcar with the failed (in its current form) skyway overhead. I also agree that the two sites are once in a generation pieces of property, but I think there are higher and better uses for them than a park.  However, I think a park component for both should be mandatory.

Riverfront ball fields?  Another waste of taxpayer money.  Spend the money on Klutho Park!!!!!

Quote from: stjr on February 02, 2010, 01:17:20 PM
I don't hear anyone hear making that case about our public transit.  We do a poor job running our buses and the $ky-high-way, yet people continue to advocate for more in the form of street cars, commuter rail, expansion of the $ky-high-way, BRT, etc.

There is a major difference. We already have the recreational amenities you describe in several of our existing urban core parks.  Many of which were and can be great spaces, when maintained.  On the other hand, we don't have fixed rail transit capable of spurring sustainable walkable development.  This is where the need for fixed rail comes into play.  BRT and buses aren't bringing that equation to the table.

QuoteMy concern here is that large parcels of well located land such as the JEA and Shipyards sites in an urban core may only come up once in generations, especially at a time when values are depressed and the land may actually be relatively affordable.  As such, I think these parcels are worthy of some long term visioning/thinking as to how they could play into Downtown's future over the next 100 or more years.

There is no problem with planning.  It just might not be the best us of public money to develop these sites as park space with expensive amenities and infrastructure before improving what's already in place.

QuoteI think we need more long term thinking like this to make Downtown long term successful.  The "project of the week" isn't getting it done.[/b]

I agree, however the JEA site is not really centralized to the downtown urban core.  If thinking long term about the urban core, then I would agree with others in that more emphasis should be placed on the Hogan Creek park system and its connection with the surrounding urban area.

QuoteThere is a major difference. We already have the recreational amenities you describe in several of our existing urban core parks.  Many of which were and can be great spaces, when maintained.  On the other hand, we don't have fixed rail transit capable of spurring sustainable walkable development.

Lake, you are speaking as someone who is into the nuances of public transit but maybe not parks.  The general public is certainly not as discerning about the difference in mass transit as you are.  You can split hairs about rail vs. non-rail, but John Q. Public could care less.  It's all mass transit to them.

But, if you can split hairs, so can I.  I don't think we have any Downtown parks that fully achieve the vision I have for JEA or the Shipyards sites, especially in combining the attributes of riverfront location, size, potential amenities, orientation to Downtown and potential mass transit service, etc.  By the way, both of these sites hosted major Super Bowl activities (NFL Experience at JEA, concerts at Shipyards), not Hogan Park.  That alone should indicate why they are special properties.

QuoteIt just might not be the best us of public money to develop these sites as park space with expensive amenities and infrastructure before improving what's already in place.

Again, you are repeating the same argument some make against expanding mass transit.  I believe if we wait for every park to be perfect, we will never acquire any more park space.  By the way, acquisition is the key.  And, I use that loosely since the Shipyards appears to be reverting back to the City and the JEA site is controlled by a City owned agency.  Park development could be phased in during the years to follow.  Just having a few level and sodded playing fields would be a good and inexpensive start.  

To some degree, long term capital expenditures need to continue regardless of deficiencies in daily operations.  The world will never be perfect.  "Just do it".

QuoteIf thinking long term about the urban core, then I would agree with others in that more emphasis should be placed on the Hogan Creek park system and its connection with the surrounding urban area.

Lake, I find this line of thought somewhat frustrating and typical of Jax (and other governmental) planning.  This, to me, is a false choice.  I don't think this decision should be couched as "either-or" but rather as we should be doing BOTH.

Our public officials use this tactic all the time.  They fail to properly do their job addressing a mission of government and then, rather than level with the taxpayers and say we need more resources (i.e. usually more taxes), they pit one mission against another in a fight to the death.  By example, that's why we have the 50th in the nation lowest funded education system.  Not buying this excuse for dereliction of duty and neither should anyone else.

There is a fundamental difference between passive parks like found in urban districts (like Hemming Plaza), and the active/recreation-based parks that you (stjr) are referring too.  Passive parks require much less space (although they CAN be large in some instances, such as Central Park) and are found in virtually every successful urban core area.  Active/recreational parks require far more land, (and thus cost-prohibitive in most big cities) and require more organized use (ie baseball or soccer leagues, etc. as opposed to individuals just walking to or through a park).   

Active/recreational parks are not practical in an urban setting because they consume a lot of space that has a higher use, while providing a single purpose that is rarely used.  A Baseball diamond is of no use to anyone, except while a game is in progress.  Hemming Plaza (pretend the homeless aren't there) provides an ambience and respite from the paved urban environment, around the clock for any and every person that is desires it. 

Would someone strolling along the Southbank Riverwalk be drawn to an empty baseball field, or even one with a recreation league game in progress?  Probably not, they also wouldn't be carrying a ball and bat to start their own pick up game either.  But if there was an shaded, attractive path with nice plantings and the sound of a water fountain in the background, then they will be tempted to explore. 


               

I wonder what happened to the huge

Quote from: reednavy on February 02, 2010, 12:43:11 PM
Wasn't this the proposed site of the San Marco Village or was it San Marco Riverfront with 6 towers?

Yes it was a huge mixed use development planned with many towers.  It had already gone through conceptual design.  I'm guessing all of those plans are scratched.

perhaps the idea of fields on the JEA site is more to serve San Marco and the Southbank than it is for downtown.

San Marco is completely cut off from the JEA site by I-95 and the FEC railroad tracks.  If you want fields for San Marco, use FEC Park instead.  Its more accessible to that community.  Sorry guys, I'm just not sold on a suburban regional park being the best use for waterfront property in DT.  I believe our existing parks can be stronger economic generators and better for the urban community if better preserved, invested in and maintained.  They served the urban core well for over 50 years before we abandoned them for the suburbs.  

As for the JEA and Shipyards properties, we should be thinking about mixed-uses (this should include integrated public space, not single-use regional), economic anchors and better connectivity with those parcels, imo.  If regional ballfields are a true need, there are a ton of better non-riverfront sites that could accomodate this type of need.  Thus, even if public money is spent acquiring these sites, I'd probably advocate identifying a centralized public space, then carving the rest of the parcels up into an urban street grid then selling those parcels off to the private sector.

Quote from: stjr on February 02, 2010, 06:29:50 PM

QuoteThere is a major difference. We already have the recreational amenities you describe in several of our existing urban core parks.  Many of which were and can be great spaces, when maintained.  On the other hand, we don't have fixed rail transit capable of spurring sustainable walkable development.

Lake, you are speaking as someone who is into the nuances of public transit but maybe not parks.  The general public is certainly not as discerning about the difference in mass transit as you are.  You can split hairs about rail vs. non-rail, but John Q. Public could care less.  It's all mass transit to them.

But, if you can split hairs, so can I.  I don't think we have any Downtown parks that fully achieve the vision I have for JEA or the Shipyards sites, especially in combining the attributes of riverfront location, size, potential amenities, orientation to Downtown and potential mass transit service, etc.  By the way, both of these sites hosted major Super Bowl activities (NFL Experience at JEA, concerts at Shipyards), not Hogan Park.  That alone should indicate why they are special properties.

QuoteIt just might not be the best us of public money to develop these sites as park space with expensive amenities and infrastructure before improving what's already in place.

Again, you are repeating the same argument some make against expanding mass transit.  I believe if we wait for every park to be perfect, we will never acquire any more park space.  By the way, acquisition is the key.  And, I use that loosely since the Shipyards appears to be reverting back to the City and the JEA site is controlled by a City owned agency.  Park development could be phased in during the years to follow.  Just having a few level and sodded playing fields would be a good and inexpensive start. 

To some degree, long term capital expenditures need to continue regardless of deficiencies in daily operations.  The world will never be perfect.  "Just do it".

QuoteIf thinking long term about the urban core, then I would agree with others in that more emphasis should be placed on the Hogan Creek park system and its connection with the surrounding urban area.

Lake, I find this line of thought somewhat frustrating and typical of Jax (and other governmental) planning.  This, to me, is a false choice.  I don't think this decision should be couched as "either-or" but rather as we should be doing BOTH.

My whole reason for backing rail transit has always been about stimulating economic development.  From this angle, you simply can't compare or substitute a bus with rail.  That's not semantics, that's just the truth and examples to prove this can be found in every city that has rail transit in this country.

On the park angle, I'm just failing to see using an entire Shipyards or JEA site as limited use recreation only parks as visionary.  On the other hand, I see vision as getting as much as we can out of those sites in the future to stimulate 24/7 continuous activity.  To me that means a dense mixed-use setting fully integrated with the area surrounding the site.

(http://www.partnershipforparks.org/get_involved/images/eastriver_map.gif)

Perhaps something like Manhattan's East River Park would be feasible for the JEA site.  However, that's just a thin strip of active greenspace hugging the river with high density uses directly adjacent to it.  Something like this would meet the definition of a dense mixed-use setting designed to stimulate 24/7 use.

Lake I agree! But I need to add one small element..............if we don't start taking care of what Parks we have now, we won't have any Parks soon! Rail has been proven beyond doubt to be an "Economic Engine" along way points and routes............Jacksonville's transit purveyors and so-called experts have selected concrete and BRT's.....dumb a**'s!

QuoteImo, the JEA site would be best used for a mix of uses instead of one dominant use.

Lake - You get the gold star. Peyton is dumb as mud, and so are his ideas. 18 months cannot come soon enough. Why would you take a property that can be taxed and turn it into non-taxing status? His intellect is clearly on the demise....

Quote from: mtraininjax on February 03, 2010, 08:33:10 AM

QuoteImo, the JEA site would be best used for a mix of uses instead of one dominant use.

Lake - You get the gold star. Peyton is dumb as mud, and so are his ideas. 18 months cannot come soon enough. Why would you take a property that can be taxed and turn it into non-taxing status? His intellect is clearly on the demise....

I wonder how serious he was or if it was just him being courteous on a radio show.

As a start we should extend the Riverwalk the length of the property.  This would preserve public access regardless of future development.  That side of the Riverwalk is about to be renovated anyway...

ROW can be preserved without paying to extend the riverwalk through access easements.  I would not spend one red dime for any type of infrastructure on the JEA property until a plan for its future is developed, accepted and adopted. We have limited financial resources.  The money we do have should be spent on connectivity, clustering complementing uses and building density.  Like Metropolitan Park, the JEA site is not centrally located.  In fact, its more isolated than Metropolitan Park.  The downtown we see today is a result of not clustering and spreading our financial resources too thin.  If we truly believe that density creates synergy, our financial focus should be on projects that promote these urban characteristics in an effort to stimulate additional clustered economic development.    

QuoteI wonder how serious he was or if it was just him being courteous on a radio show.

I am amazed he makes public appearances still. After all he has no money, no real courageous vision, and plans to leave office with the same hot air he arrived with.

What a wasted 8 years.

Quote from: mtraininjax on February 03, 2010, 08:33:10 AM
Why would you take a property that can be taxed and turn it into non-taxing status?

Mtrain, you are failing to take into account that properties bordering public areas like this can become just as valuable or more so as if they were built on the park site itself.  As long as such "towers" have unobstructed views of the waterfront looking over the park site, value and demand may be enhanced, not diminished by the presence of a park.  This may actually be an opportunity to have our cake and eat it to.

Roads, football stadiums, arenas, schools, fire stations, police facilities, airports, and all other public properties are taken off the tax rolls everyday to provide value that enhances the surrounding community.  It is no different for parks.

I'm all for the JEA site eventually incorporating public space and private development.  That would be an opportunity to have our cake and eat it to.

Here were the plans in 2005
http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/122905/met_20677898.shtml (http://jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/122905/met_20677898.shtml)

QuotePublished Thursday, December 29, 2005


Developer's picture of the Southbank



By JOE LIGHT
The Times-Union,


A barren, 42-acre stretch of riverfront property on the Southbank will become a mixed-use urban village with condominiums, office and retail space if the developer is able to move forward with its plans to revive the former site of the JEA Southside Generating Station.

Cowford Riverfront LLC, a joint venture of Daniel Corp. and Case Pomeroy Properties, revealed that it plans to construct 2,000 condominiums and townhomes, a 300-room hotel, 215,000 square feet of office space, 350,000 square feet of retail, and a 600-slip marina. The site would also include almost 10 acres of open space.

"You can't compare it to anything in Jacksonville now," said Douglas McNeill, president of Case Pomeroy Properties.
But several stumbling blocks could quash the deal. Most notably, an issue of access has threatened to derail the project. Duval County School Board officials, whose headquarters is adjacent to the site, have not yet agreed to allow the developer to create an access road through School Board property, said Nancy Kilgo, the JEA director of government relations. But both JEA and Cowford officials are hopeful the issue will be resolved soon.

The School Board issue was just the latest setback to plague the riverfront property, which has remained undeveloped for four years since the JEA decommissioned the Southside Generating Station in 2001. A previous deal between the JEA, The St. Joe Co. and Haskell fell through last year. The JEA reopened the site for bidding in March, and Cowford won the right to purchase the property for $40.6 million last May.

The dispute over access first erupted in October. Since that time, Kilgo said that the parties have discussed several options for the access road, including the purchase of the road property.

Because School Board officials were initially concerned about a road splitting their waterfront location, JEA officials have floated the idea of purchasing the property that is cut off from the School Board building and then selling that property to the developer, she said.

"We're looking at several options with them but are still in a review stage of the negotiations," Kilgo said.

She said she hoped to meet with School Board officials early next year to discuss the specifics of a solution.

Retail space: Plans call for 350,000 square feet of retail, which is about a third the size of The Avenues mall. A 600-slip marina also is planned. Rendering provided by Daniel Corp.

"In the very beginning, they hadn't thought too much about it," she said, referring to the School Board's initial refusal to grant access. "This kind of thing was all new to them."

For Cowford to close on its purchase of the property in early May, JEA and School Board officials must resolve the access issue, McNeill said.

Officials from the facilities division of the School Board did not return a message seeking comment left on the division's general voice mail. The division is on vacation until next week. A message left on the cell phone of Karen Kuhlmann, the general director of facilities planning for the School Board, was not returned.

But even if the School Board and JEA work out a deal, the city must also obtain several permits or state designations for development to progress.

The city submitted those applications in the past two weeks, said Ron Barton, executive director of the Jacksonville Economic Development Commission.

Cowford officials also submitted an application to rezone the property as a planned-unit development on Wednesday, said company spokesman Michael Munz. A PUD allows a developer greater flexibility by allowing deviations from the typical design standards required by traditional zoning.

Despite the uncertainty, Cowford officials have moved forward with the planning and design of the development, Munz said.

If the closing takes place in May, construction could begin as early as next summer, Munz said.

The proposed development, tentatively called the San Marco Riverfront District, would contain several condominium towers approaching 20 stories and a townhome neighborhood on the east portion of the property, he said.

Housing: Developers plan to construct 2,000 condominiums and townhomes and the site would include several condominium towers approaching 20 stories. Rendering provided by Daniel Corp.

The Riverwalk would extend through the site's 4 acres of wetlands and circle the development.

The community's architecture would incorporate elements from the San Marco and St. Nicholas neighborhoods, he said.

Officials for Cowford, which is the master developer, are in talks with residential and commercial developers but have not settled on specific developers for the community's various components, Munz said.

Councilwoman Suzanne Jenkins, whose district includes the site, said that she is happy with what she has seen so far.

"It's been a long time coming," she said. "I'm looking forward to receiving community input on their ideas."

Barton said that JEDC officials are scheduled to meet with Cowford representatives next week to discuss the project. The developer has not asked for city incentives, he said.

"They seem anxious to move forward with their development," he said. "I would classify them as highly motivated."

joe.lightjacksonville.com, (904) 359-4689

San Marco Riverfront District: The dead JEA property proposal:

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Jacksonville%202006/SanMarcoRiverDistrict-plan.jpg)

(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/122905/110143_400.jpg)(http://www.jacksonville.com/images/122905/110140_300.jpg)

San Marco Village: The dead Wyndham Hotel property project

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Jacksonville%202006/SanMarcoRiverwalkVillage-plan.jpg)

(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v84/lakelander/Jacksonville%202006/SanMarcoRiverwalkVillage.jpg)

Quote from: mtraininjax on February 03, 2010, 08:33:10 AM

QuoteImo, the JEA site would be best used for a mix of uses instead of one dominant use.

Lake - You get the gold star. Peyton is dumb as mud, and so are his ideas. 18 months cannot come soon enough. Why would you take a property that can be taxed and turn it into non-taxing status? His intellect is clearly on the demise....

I think he is floating it as a temporary use...until the private market returns

QuoteMtrain, you are failing to take into account that properties bordering public areas like this can become just as valuable or more so as if they were built on the park site itself.  As long as such "towers" have unobstructed views of the waterfront looking over the park site, value and demand may be enhanced, not diminished by the presence of a park.  This may actually be an opportunity to have our cake and eat it to.

Cake and eat it to, that does not occur here and I really don't see it happening here with this property. We can dream, but then again, we have enough dreamers on rail, why not add park space to it as well?

The costs to spend and turn these into ball fields and soccer, while not as much as the 20+ million for the other downtown improvements, would still need to be voted on by the council. With the budget issues coming up, I am amazed Peyton would lobby for things he has no money for. The council controls the fate of the next 18 months. Lobby them for ballfields and soccer, my bet is that they are not willing to waste taxpayer funds right now, and I see this as a waste, for now, without taxable revenue coming in to cover it.

Bleh, glad the San Marco Village never happened. I'm saddened that the San Marco Riverfront didn't, as Daniel Corp. has a healthy track record, including the still evolving 12th and Midtown in Midtown Atlanta.

Quote from: reednavy on February 04, 2010, 03:15:37 AM
Bleh, glad the San Marco Village never happened. I'm saddened that the San Marco Riverfront didn't, as Daniel Corp. has a healthy track record, including the still evolving 12th and Midtown in Midtown Atlanta.

Agreed.

That is a site that will see private money someday lets use the public money somewhere else.

Quote from: JeffreyS on February 04, 2010, 10:01:16 AM
That is a site that will see private money someday lets use the public money somewhere else.

I agree.  The proposal for that site looks wonderful, it's sad it never came to be.  What a waste.  Could a stronger mayor have forced the School Board to cooperate, or does it not work that way??

I am sure we just did not realize how fast the developement projects would come to a hault. The school board should feel real shame for not playing ball on that one.

In hindsight, it might be that it would only have served to undermine hopes for renewal. There are still quite a few residential units still unoccupied in that area.

Had it opened prior to 05, then it could have been a big plus, but opening after might have proved to be a financial disaster for investors.

That project I believe started development in 2000 but the school board dragged it's feet and after five years the developer left.
I feel if we could have hit a residentail tipping point before the bottom fell out of the real estate boom we could have had a population explosion downtown. We might even be at that "magic" 10,000 resident number.

Quote from: JeffreyS on February 04, 2010, 12:49:34 PM
That project I believe started development in 2000 but the school board dragged it's feet and after five years the developer left.
I feel if we could have hit a residentail tipping point before the bottom fell out of the real estate boom we could have had a population explosion downtown. We might even be at that "magic" 10,000 resident number.

I gotcha. Having commenced prior to the burst, many units might have sold resulting in quite a different picture there right now.

Although the School Board should have been more receptive to working this out, I don't think they killed it.  There were far more plans than proven market, even before things tanked.

Projects that were further along would have needed to begin construction before any of the towers in San marco Village would have broke ground, IMO.  All that gets proposed does not get built. 

That said though, had the SB acted quicker, the property transfer might have taken place and at least the property would be back on the tax rolls, and JEA would have the cash out of the site. The Schools as well as the city could use that tax money. 

I don't think this project was even in someone's mind in 2000.  If so, it was a well-kept secret.   

QuoteI don't think this project was even in someone's mind in 2000.  If so, it was a well-kept secret

Vic, I went back to reread the article I posted and I guess I saw the 2000 condos and misread that for the year. I can't figure how else I got the 2000 figure in my head.  So maybe I owe the school board an apology.