The Premature Destruction of Downtown Jacksonville

[fieldafm]

Remember that the Courthouse Parking Lot is suspended above the river on pilings.  Also remember that a the high-capacity live structural loads of a Convention Center are much higher than a parking lot - and if built over the river new/upgraded pilings will require forever ongoing maintenance.

Good point.  Some of the pilings there now are insufficient.  The city has had to fix several pilings over the last 10 years that have faulted.  Imagine putting 5 stories of a building that has things like 18 wheelers hauling full loads up loading ramps... redeveloping the space where the parking lot is now won't be cheap by any stretch of the imagination. 

I don't buy the economy argument.

If you travel, you see many projects moving ahead in almost every other large city in the country - both public and private.

Using the economy is an easier excuse than to accept the fact that Jacksonville hasn't adapted as well as pretty much every other city in the country.

I would agree with the parts in bold. 

However it is absolutely true to say the project hasn't received financing due to a lack of tenant letter of intent.  It's not an all-cash deal, and until they have the tenant interest... he's not getting financing on it. 

Its an economic hurdle... not a city leadership, vision, zoning, or whatever problem.  Would it be more attractive from a financial standpoint with a different plan?  Maybe(just look at Halmark's property a mile away).  But that's neither here nor there when it comes to the reality of the current situation.   

[fsujax]

i do not believe the Hyatt is on pilings. I dont believe the actual courthouse is either, just the parking lot.

[Tacachale]

This is a great article with a strong argument against just destroying these buildings without anything resembling a plan. I don't care if either building is demolished to be replaced by something else; hell, if there were a potential buyer who balked at the expense of having to raze the structures themselves, I wouldn't even mind the city paying for the demo then. But just to destroy two buildings with no plans for the site is ridiculous.

[thelakelander]

Head up the road a ways to Laura and Forsyth and feast your eyes on the Laura Trio, those things have been vacant since before Delaney's term, no one has resurrected them as a place to live, so why should anyone think that an asbestos filled building like the Annex will make a better spot for living or as a hotel? Use the Brown lingo of "Public/Private" investment and realize that space is destined for a CC.

What large scale older building in Jacksonville (or any other American city) didn't have asbestos before renovation?  During the real estate boom over the last decade, I can only think of two large scale Northbank residential projects that happened without public incentives.


Metropolitan Lofts




Residences at City Place

The Metropolitan Lofts and the nearby Residences at City Place.  Both were adaptive reuses of buildings constructed during the same era as the Courthouse Annex.  Also, come to think of it, the Laura Trio remained vacant during that time as well.  In short, the status of the Laura Trio have nothing to do with what can or can't be done at this particular site.

[thelakelander]

I don't buy the economy argument.

If you travel, you see many projects moving ahead in almost every other large city in the country - both public and private.

Using the economy is an easier excuse than to accept the fact that Jacksonville hasn't adapted as well as pretty much every other city in the country.

I would agree with the parts in bold. 

However it is absolutely true to say the project hasn't received financing due to a lack of tenant letter of intent.  It's not an all-cash deal, and until they have the tenant interest... he's not getting financing on it. 

Its an economic hurdle... not a city leadership, vision, zoning, or whatever problem.  Would it be more attractive from a financial standpoint with a different plan?  Maybe(just look at Halmark's property a mile away).  But that's neither here nor there when it comes to the reality of the current situation.

Speaking of the old library.  What's wrong with simply subdividing the interior and leasing it out "as is"?  While the library plans are great, I've always wondered if it would be more feasible to keep the same footprint and subdivide the raw space on the first floor just to get something going.

[JaxNative68]

Both the World Bank Headquarters Building (18th & G St, NW) and the National Research Council Building (5th & E Street, NW) in Washington, DC is a great example of how to reuse existing buildings on site while intergrating them into new construction.  All it takes is a little creativity from an architect and client.  No reason why it can't be done here.

[ben says]

I don't buy the economy argument.

If you travel, you see many projects moving ahead in almost every other large city in the country - both public and private.

Using the economy is an easier excuse than to accept the fact that Jacksonville hasn't adapted as well as pretty much every other city in the country.

I would agree with the parts in bold. 

However it is absolutely true to say the project hasn't received financing due to a lack of tenant letter of intent.  It's not an all-cash deal, and until they have the tenant interest... he's not getting financing on it. 

Its an economic hurdle... not a city leadership, vision, zoning, or whatever problem.  Would it be more attractive from a financial standpoint with a different plan?  Maybe(just look at Halmark's property a mile away).  But that's neither here nor there when it comes to the reality of the current situation.

Speaking of the old library.  What's wrong with simply subdividing the interior and leasing it out "as is"?  While the library plans are great, I've always wondered if it would be more feasible keep the same footprint and subdivide the raw space on the first floor just to get something going.

+1000

Again, this is what I heard Cesery WAS going to do until he got "bigger plans," i.e. ones that can't be financed in this economy...

[mtraininjax]

Both the World Bank Headquarters Building (18th & G St, NW) and the National Research Council Building (5th & E Street, NW) in Washington, DC is a great example of how to reuse existing buildings on site while intergrating them into new construction.  All it takes is a little creativity from an architect and client.  No reason why it can't be done here.

Still waiting for that creativity to come forward with the empty buildings that occupy downtown Jacksonville. I don't think there is any creativity left, I think it all went back to the mother ship.

In short, the status of the Laura Trio have nothing to do with what can or can't be done at this particular site.

You are correct, it does not have anything to do with could or could not be done, the issue that remains though, is that NOTHING has been done to date, other than gutting, which was done to the JEA building and the Library, and nothing new has crawled into or been done with the buildings. All signs would point to the economy as the major factor. I do not believe that 11E or the Carling would have been finished in this economic period. They were fortunate to be completed when there was money available for those projects.

[Steve_Lovett]

Is the Hyatt on pilings?

Also, great discussion.  The river is the city's greatest asset, no question.  Make it public and useful for visitors/tourists, and let developers build up to give residents a view over the public space/parks/CC that could line the river.

The Hyatt is on fill, but within the historic banks of the river. 

The river's shoreline was up against the Courthouse and City Hall (what is now the Courthouse Annex).

In the early 1960's parking was needed, and the city provided parking for City Hall by filling and constructing it behind a seawall.  The county provided it for its courthouse built on piers. 

[Steve_Lovett]

Steve_Lovett  -  Do you see it to be feasible to do away with the pilings all together and just fill it in?  More/Less expensive?

I understand the River is around 50-60' deep (or deeper) where you'd need to build a seawall.  It would be extremely costly, and still require a great deal of maintenance to capture this land.   

There are also stormwater and shoreline ecology considerations.  It might be a good idea if this whole thing is vetted against a much more comprehensive, intelligent set of criteria than a quick "we could do this, or we could do that..." response to one (of many) specific technical issues.

[nomeus]

So who wants to kayak underneath this vast unique Downtown Urban Waterway Destination. As a bonus we can fish under the brand new no fishing signs.

I am Downtown and why you aren't.

[Noone]

So who wants to kayak underneath this vast unique Downtown Urban Waterway Destination. As a bonus we can fish under the brand new no fishing signs.

I am Downtown and why you aren't.

I'd love to take you. Doors will open and close for everyone. The Plaza at Berkman townhomes are also on pilings. This is a Downtown Urban Waterway Destination Activity right now.

[Timkin]

  I haven't been in the Old Courthouse since I was a kid , but I guess I am failing to understand what makes its unusable?

Is it because of Asbestos content?  Its what... a 50 year old building?  So I cannot envision it being a structural issue.  Have no  emotional attachment  to the building at all.  I just do not quite grasp the hurry to demolish it, particularly with money we do not seem to have for saving anything that exists , first .

Some valid points are made on both sides of this.  If it stays, we are on the hook to maintain it. if it goes, we are on the hook to demo it and probably a lot of area around it.   Is there no way whatsoever that this building , or at least some part of it  (maybe reducing it in height and expanding it horizontally rather than vertically ) can be incorporated into a new Convention Center? possibly not in its context.  Id like to believe there is a happy medium between keeping it as it is ( which I do not necessarily support) or destroying it altogether (which also does not seem practical or necessary) to add to our growing acres of parking garages and weed and trash infested vacant lots in Downtown.  In a choice between the two, Id rather it just stay there.

[sheclown]

I don't buy the economy argument.

If you travel, you see many projects moving ahead in almost every other large city in the country - both public and private.

Using the economy is an easier excuse than to accept the fact that Jacksonville hasn't adapted as well as pretty much every other city in the country.

I would agree with the parts in bold. 

However it is absolutely true to say the project hasn't received financing due to a lack of tenant letter of intent.  It's not an all-cash deal, and until they have the tenant interest... he's not getting financing on it. 

Its an economic hurdle... not a city leadership, vision, zoning, or whatever problem.  Would it be more attractive from a financial standpoint with a different plan?  Maybe(just look at Halmark's property a mile away).  But that's neither here nor there when it comes to the reality of the current situation.

Speaking of the old library.  What's wrong with simply subdividing the interior and leasing it out "as is"?  While the library plans are great, I've always wondered if it would be more feasible to keep the same footprint and subdivide the raw space on the first floor just to get something going.

I love that library space.  Keep it Simple.  Keep it cheap.  Get it done. 

Use it or lose it.

[nomeus]

Demolition is a permanent solution to a temporary problem

qft (quoted for truth)