Shipyards

[fieldafm]

  Delaney even tried several times to purchase this property in order to turn it into a large public park.

council members sure could use some emails in support of the public pier today  It takes just as much time to post in this thread than it does to email a councilperson about your thoughts on 2010-604 as it relates to the public pier. 

As for me and many others,large public use. The Pier doesn't garner much traction.
As for me,large public use.Period-no interest in just the Pier.Skip just the Pier.

I respect your viewpoint, however....
I have a very rational and very real fear that if the pier is not set aside as seperate... it would be very easy for it to be completely wiped off the map of public use if a developer or other land owner came in with a deal.  The riverwalk extension is going to happen as this was originally required as part of the financing deal for the bulkhead rehabilitation, but from everything I've read in the previous agreements/land contracts there is nothing to stop the city from selling the 680' pier and effectively forever cutting off its use by the public.

I think there is much constructive conversation to be had about the ultimate use of the entire 44 acre property, and I do like some of your views NorthMiami(as an avid kayaker, I welcome any additional public launch points but I'd personally never try to kayak downtown nor within the shipping lanes at Commodore Point b/c of the current issues you mentioned).  No matter what happens ultimately with the property, it would be a HUGE mistake if at least the pier was not made available for public use.

That is the context of my urgency to act at the very least on this issue now.  The lessons learned from the now defunct Fuller Warren fishing pier should resonate soundly in our consciousness as a call to act now, lest the opportunity slip away forever.

[north miami]

I wonder what real benefit public access to only a pier would be.We could stroll out and wonder out loud about what could have been while gazing at likely bland retail, private basically boring buildings and view scape.


For those that ardently wish to see the Pier reserved in public domain I suggest refrain from reference to "Fishing" pier.The concept of "Fishing" element compromised the Fuller Warren pier proposal.

[CS Foltz]

I still wonder if there has not been a back room deal allready made! The reason being, neither Gaffney nor Redman have come forth with an amendment reserving that part for the public! A lack of interest from the Council bodes not well to me!

[bornnative]

I missed the voting on this, but have to say this...

If we want an "ideal" solution to this, which seems like most people agree is some mix of commercial development with public access, we have to look long term.  No offense to the proponents of the "cover costs for now by inviting industrial maritime companies to downtown" plan, but this would be a terrible step backwards IMO.

Here's a few reasons why, to my way of thinking:

1)  Something on the order of $30 million has been spent so far on environmental mitigation of the site, which operated for 100+ years as a commercial shipyard.  Included in this sunk cost is the price of basic-use infrastructure, like the new bulkheads that were put in along the length of the waterfront.  To re-introduce industrial operators to this property, such as Reynolds shipyards in Palatka or North Florida Shipyards at Commodore's Point, would be destroying the value of the land for anything EXCEPT further heavy industrial use, which seems to be totally counter to what majority of people in Jax want to see this turn into.  Shipyard work is dirty, damaging work.

2)  The crab tenders that work the pots around downtown, including the crab pot fields near the Hart & Matthews bridges, and off the shore of Riverside/Avondale, are small boats, not real trawlers like are in Mayport to do offshore shrimping.  Many of the crabbers can/do trailer their boats to take advantage of fishing in many different waterways around our area without being bound to only water transit between fields.  It all comes down to cost...the established logistical mini-system for the downtown crabbers probably wouldn't be able to easily bear the additional cost of overland transport from the Shipyards Pier to their buyers' warehouses.  The seafood they put ashore on the pier would have to be sold at the pier to be profitable, and the likelihood of a high-volume seafood market suddenly appearing in the heart of an abandoned brownfields site is not...very...high.   **would love to hear an actual crabbers take on this point though, to support/refute the basic economics of this part of the proposal**

3)  As for the TU articles from 96/97 that were referenced, talking about the barge lines that used to be at the site...that business is gone.  The barge line to Gitmo now runs out of Blount Island, which saves the operators upwards of $10,000 PER PORT CALL by reducing fuel, pilotage, and assist tug costs that were required for the trip all the way to downtown.  This line of thinking also brings into play the "back to industrial use" problems I referenced before.

For my unsolicited $.02, I say move the current chain link fence along Bay Street back to the water IMMEDIATELY.  Use the open space during Jaguar season as fields to play, tailgate, etc.  We need to re-introduce the are to the public first, to get a positive image of the place back in people's minds...get them to remember it "that big field where we grilled and tailgated and hung out by the water before the game" rather than "that failed development downtown, next to the abandoned highrise where the parking garage collapsed".  After that, still feel that private commercial development is that way to go.  The City doesn't have to own it to be involved in it, but sitting on the property until values rebound some seems a prudent move.  It's a classic "buy and hold" investment opportunity...COJ's carry cost on the property is very low, its all sunk costs already.

[north miami]

Bornnative your newbie post # 1 was a dandy! Welcome!!
Interesting insights.
I like the idea of moving the fence and introducing people to the site is excellent.

[thelakelander]

Great post, Bornnative and welcome to the site. Any suggestions for what to do with the existing piers in the short and long term?

[CS Foltz]

Why do anything at all? Since the City is such dire financial straits, why not just hold on to it, fence all of it off and use the 680' as a Public Pier? I am just concerned there is something going on with the whole thing and we won't find out untill it is too late! Use the land as a "Tail Gate Area" until we can afford to really do something to the whole stretch!

[thelakelander]

It will probably be over a decade before commercial development makes any sense at the site.  The economy won't be really improving anytime soon, downtown is declining and we've been trying to get commercial development there for at least 15 years already with no luck in the best of boomtimes.  While I agree with the idea that a mix of uses integrated with public space would be best, I see no reason to limiting ourselves to just opening the site for tailgating (that's something like 10 out of 365 days of the year).  

Personally, I'd like to see the city move forward with developing a plan for the property, carving out whatever public space it desires, using those piers for something and moving forward with the riverwalk connection.  At this point, the significant work has already been done.  Imo, if it takes shifting the rest of the Metro Park money over to complete the pier and connect the riverwalk to the sports district, so be it.

[stjr]

Lake, I am sticking with 100% public use.  For some thoughts on park development at potentially very low costs, see the new thread I just started on the subject at: http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,9511.msg171471/topicseen.html#new

[thelakelander]

No problem, as you know I'm not against public use.  However, I do believe an urban public space is much better when it's integrated with complementing private uses (this doesn't mean they have to consume the site like Landmar's old plan).  A look across the country of vibrant downtown urban parks easily proves this.  Without the complementing private uses, you're basically looking at a remake of our pitiful rarely used Metropolitan Park instead of a Millenium Park, City Garden or Campus Martius.

[CS Foltz]

lake.............how many acres are there Metropolitan Park? Is there enough area for a Convention Center? Maybe we are just looking in the wrong direction!

[thelakelander]

A convention center makes less sense, imo.  Those sites are just as isolated as the Prime Osborn and we can't support another Hyatt sized hotel in downtown.

[bornnative]

Regarding short term use for the piers, I'd probably advocate opening them for unstructured public access, in whatever form that may take - fishing, strolling, sightseeing, etc.

Long term, I think a 680' jut into the river could be a grand place for some semi-permanent low profile (read: NOT museum size or style) exhibitions/installations by the St. Johns Riverkeeper, JU's marine biology program, the Jax Zoo, and/or an organization like BEAKS on Big Talbot Island (which if you don't know about them, give them a call...well worth your time and interest).  We don't have the money for a real aquarium at the site, but the river is the real draw to that property...the river is why it is valuable (culturally and economically)...the river should be integral in the use of the land.  These kinds of presences on the waterfront would serve to reinforce the "public access and use" portion of the property, increase general goodwill toward the site by the citizenry, and would create a natural "next door" draw for the groups that already use Met Park, such as all the schoolchildren that eat lunches there while on field trips.  Even without committing the entire 44 acre site to public use, maintaining public access along the waterfront, especially a more substantive presence than just a strip of Northbank Riverwalk, would serve the overall development of the greater downtown entertainment/sports/recreation corridor well.

As for Lakelander's 2nd comment, I fully agree and acknowledge that it will be some time before property values and the commercial RE market come back to "premium" levels.  However, I still believe that our carry cost on the property is extremely low.  With a huge opportunity like the Shipyards parcel is, I personally would much prefer the City to err on the side of caution and retain ownership than relinquish it to the first (or 4th, in this property's case) developer to throw a fistful of cash at them.  Let the developers have the JEA parcel on the southbank as their riverfront experiment/prize.  The Shipyards is too integral a link between core DT and the stadium/arena/Met Park complex to mess it up (again).

My suggestion to open the site for tailgating was purely a short term answer, I hadn't intended that COJ only open the site for football Sundays.  With a relatively minimal amount of prep/infrastructure, the site could pretty easily be used for festivals, flag football, softball, car shows, etc.

The sad fact is that COJ would more than likely play the budget card in denying any allocation of funds to open the site, since doing so would require security, administration, insurance, and would open them up to all sorts of lawsuit possibilities if someone were to get injured on "unsupervised City property".  Realistically, the hoops through which COJ would have to jump in order to "properly" prep the site for public use will, ironically, keep it inaccessible to the public until a private developer/partner comes along to mitigate the City's cost and liability.

So, anyone in the park vendor business want a contract to manage a riverfront park?  

[CS Foltz]

bornnative............I concur! Any COJ usage would require a minimal expenditure to "Safety" and possible liability issue's! Current COJ funds would preclude spending allmost anything at all! Possibly signage saying "Use at own risk" or something similar...........I would bet OCG would be more than happy to provide verbage in lawyer speak! The container layout, might be quick and cheap, since they could be obtained at no cost for minimal restroom facilities and basic food's............set up could be minimal as well as removal..........add solar power, tank in potable water and that's pretty basic! Up and running in very short time............just fence off unused piers and mow/clean up as needed!

[Fallen Buckeye]

I know I've mentioned this before, but in Columbus there is a project underway to convert the now defunct City Center Mall to a park space that will eventually be converted to various uses. This seems like a good place to do the same thing. Create temporary park space which will later be developed.

Here's more info.

The Project:
The Columbus Commons takes 1.2 million square feet of dead urban space and turns it into 9 live acres of inviting green space with trees, flowers, grass and walking paths.
That’s the future for the central parcel of property upon which City Center once stood. This Capitol South property will continue in its proud tradition of creating a space that draws people inside. This time, instead of concrete walls, the community will be drawn inside the beautiful natural surroundings of the Columbus Commons.

Capitol South surgically dismantled the entire mall from September 2009 into mid 2010, at which time construction began on the creation of a community park with one-third of the entire site reserved for market-driven development.  By late fall 2010 park construction will be complete and the park will open in spring of 2011.
Over time, the spot will help support the development of walkable neighborhoods that integrate residential living with retail, office and entertainment space.

http://www.downtowncolumbus.com/progress/columbus-commons


Initial phase


Next step


Final Product