200 Riverside Renderings

vicupstate · January 29, 2010, 05:34:13 PM

Quite a step down from the original. Riverside Avenue was suppose to become Jax's version of Miami's Brickell Ave. With designs like this, that won't ever happen.

They should build the office building as originally designed (taller with a smaller footprint), and just wait for the economy to turn.

reednavy · January 29, 2010, 06:02:08 PM

Hopefully they build it strong enough to provide for further vertical development when things get back up to par in the economy.

ProjectMaximus · January 29, 2010, 06:36:59 PM

Quote from: reednavy on January 29, 2010, 06:02:08 PM
Hopefully they build it strong enough to provide for further vertical development when things get back up to par in the economy.

I feel like this exact sentiment has been expressed on these boards several dozen times for several dozen projects.

brainstormer · January 30, 2010, 12:10:57 PM

I'd almost support not building it rather than building something suburban and crappy just because the economy is weak.
I still disagree that a residential component would fail in this area. Yes, a luxurious $400,000 condo project probably wouldn't make it, but how about something an average office worker, teacher or cop can afford? Are developers so greedy that they will only build developments that give them a "retirement profit?"
I guarantee you that Jason and the other architects/designers on this forum could come up with something that is vertical, unique and affordable. Let's convince someone local to invest in a project there because it is good for the city. They should still make a small profit, but it doesn't need to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Or how about a good rental project? Something beautiful like the Strand, but just a little less expensive? I'm so tired of greedy developers.

reednavy · January 30, 2010, 12:13:30 PM

It doesn't make financial sense at all to build the size of building they wanted, for them to be affordable, nobody would finance it. The land is worth more than that to begin with, given it's location and afforable housing wouldn't turn a profit at all.

buckethead · January 30, 2010, 12:16:23 PM

Any reasonable return on investment will lure a developer to build. If it costs $150 per square foot just to get a high-rise structure in place, don't count on seeing condo/apartment prices at $150,000 for 1000 square feet.

There is still much money to spend to make the raw space habitable.

(I don't know the actual numbers, but I'm geussing I'm close)

{Edit: in response to Brainstormer}

brainstormer · January 30, 2010, 12:28:29 PM

^ I got you. Are there any studies someone can direct me to that show the cost/expense comparisons for going vertical vs. horizontal? What I'm getting at is that once the money is invested in land and strong enough footings/foundation for a tall structure, does the cost for each floor decrease each time another one is added? Can a developer make more money by building a 12 story building and selling more condos for a little less rather than a 7 story building with more expensive condos?

Ocklawaha · January 30, 2010, 12:33:01 PM

It is exactly THIS TYPE OF THING that JTA should be involved in, with the blessing, encouragement and incentives of both the COJ and CofC. As a team, they should be approaching these developers and explaining to them the benefit of having the Skyway RUN THROUGH their buildings, a Skyway that will be built as soon as they break ground. The same approach should be used on Commuter Rail Routes (Jackson Square) and Streetcar (the Laura Trio and The Team at Jaguar Stadium).

The slogan is JTA = MAKING MOVES. Not bad boyz and girls, now if we'd only MAKE MOVES!

OCKLAWAHA

brainstormer · January 30, 2010, 12:55:55 PM

^ Some call it "thinking outside the box." I call it common sense!

Here in Jacksonville, none of the above.

tufsu1 · January 30, 2010, 03:05:28 PM

Quote from: vicupstate on January 29, 2010, 05:34:13 PM
They should build the office building as originally designed (taller with a smaller footprint), and just wait for the economy to turn.

nice try...but they can't even fill the 4 stories with enough committments to start construction yet.

JeffreyS · January 30, 2010, 04:45:01 PM

I hope this goes forward I do not mind the new design. Perhaps if this moves along it will encourage something to become of the Brooklyn park site.

braeburn · January 30, 2010, 04:49:47 PM

Of course this is still a great plan. It is growth for the Brooklyn area. Right now it acts somewhat like a wedge in between downtown and Riverside.

Jason · February 01, 2010, 09:53:34 AM

^ Agreed. These guys seem to be very adamant about moving forward. If this takes off it could spur more attention and development potential for the Brooklyn Park plans a year or two after this is completed. By then the market should have leveled out and the banks loosened up.

Just because it's not a skyscraper doesn't mean it's not well well planned and good for the area.

braeburn · February 01, 2010, 05:28:07 PM

Too true. Let us also not forget about one of the biggest factors in a property: Location

ProjectMaximus · February 01, 2010, 05:45:11 PM

Quote from: Jason on February 01, 2010, 09:53:34 AM
^ Agreed. These guys seem to be very adamant about moving forward. If this takes off it could spur more attention and development potential for the Brooklyn Park plans a year or two after this is completed. By then the market should have leveled out and the banks loosened up.

Just because it's not a skyscraper doesn't mean it's not well well planned and good for the area.

My disappointment is simply the lack of a residential component, which, I assume, would have been the impetus for a skyway extension.