The Premature Destruction of Downtown Jacksonville

[Steve_Lovett]

why is it overwhelming (proposed building isn't as tall as the Churchwell Lofts) to the pedestrian scale?  Following your point, why would it not be overwhelming if built where the police station and jail currently sit?

As an example, check out the Pennsylvania Covention Center in Philly on Google Maps....it is much bigger than what is being proposed here (goes for several blocks along Arch St) and has arguably improved the pedestrian experience vs. what was there previously....also look at the Frontier Center in Milwaukee

http://www.paconvention.com/

http://www.midwestairlinescenter.com/categories/2-frontierairlinescenter

Neither the Philly or Milwaukee Convention Center are ON the waterfront, or interrupt public interaction with the waterfront. In the case of Philly, there are multiple several-hundred room hotels in close proximity, so the convention center is probably a big step down in scale by way of comparison. As I said, I don't dispute that we can build a great Convention Center on that site. But my opinion is that the structural costs together with the sacrifice of the public's waterfront access, and potential diminished value that a barrier such as this creates several blocks perpendicular to the river isn't worth it as compared with other options.

[acme54321]

Here's a spot: http://goo.gl/maps/kjJ7

[thelakelander]

Everyone wants to move things, but no one has any idea where to relocate them; So where are the jail and police department gonna relocate to? That does not seem practical at all IMO, it simply will not happen; You might as well wish for the Morocco Temple, or the Immaculate Conception to move, it will have the same effect, none.   

The bigger issue with moving something is where does the money come from to pay for the relocation?  We don't even value funding for proper maintenance of parks, schools and libraries.  It will be a cold day in hell before the jail relocates.

[Steve_Lovett]

Everyone wants to move things, but no one has any idea where to relocate them; So where are the jail and police department gonna relocate to? That does not seem practical at all IMO, it simply will not happen; You might as well wish for the Morocco Temple, or the Immaculate Conception to move, it will have the same effect, none.   

The bigger issue with moving something is where does the money come from to pay for the relocation?  We don't even value funding for proper maintenance of parks, schools and libraries.  It will be a cold day in hell before the jail relocates.

I don't necessarily agree.

It will be a cold day in hell if we look at everything as a "cost" (expenditure with no return) rather than an investment (expenditure designed to return more than what's spent). Nearly all improvements in Jacksonville have been "costs" - and we've been left with lots of unanswered questions about what do do with what's been created/left behind/etc...

If Jacksonville's improvements are looked at as investments - purposefully intended to serve their purpose AND to represent the city's values and achieve other goals and objectives (including greater economic growth/value) - then better decisions can be made and the city's potential can be realized.

Unfortunately, the current stance of disinvestment and cutting doesn't support this way of thinking --- and will (and has) cost the city much more in the long run than making well-conceived investments today.

To that point, it's sad that we can justify building tens-to-hundreds of millions of dollars building new roads, freeways, overpasses, etc. - yet we have trouble building or maintaining parks, can't keep libraries open, aren't making public transit improvements, and have school facilities that are embarrassingly inadequate. As a community, we will fall further and further behind if our investments are so consistently misguided. 

[thelakelander]

I actually agree with your statement even though my previous post sounds like the opposite.

[tufsu1]

Neither the Philly or Milwaukee Convention Center are ON the waterfront, or interrupt public interaction with the waterfront.

ok..well in that case, how about San Diego or Tampa

the key here is making sure tha actual riverfront (i.e., the riverwalk) is still public....and that there are vistas to the water (which Market and Liberty St would do)....remember that we have a pretty large public open space on the river at the Shipyards...and there won't be major development there anytime soon....plus there's Metro Park...why do we need another one?

Also keep in mind that convention centers are used by local citizens for trade shows (think boat show, home show, car show) and ballrooms could be rented for weddings and the like....I agree that it would be a large piece of land and that public use of at least some of it is key.

One idea TransForm Jax has had (doesn't show in drawings) is to have a terrace on the second level cantilever out over Coastline Drive...and then use the Coastline Drive space as an occasional covered market space...and as noted, another idea is to have the center's roof be used as passive and/or active recreation space.

[jcjohnpaint]

Personally I'm so sold on the whole convention center idea.  The center will be dead when not in use and the jail wouldn't even provide much more space even if it did move.  The only way that space will stay public would be some kind of park.  Although I don't think the Annex should be torn down either. 

[Tacachale]

Steve, in general I like your proposal. One thing I can't tell from the pics I can see online - would the old City Hall building be torn down?

I'd rather it not be.

[Steve_Lovett]

Neither the Philly or Milwaukee Convention Center are ON the waterfront, or interrupt public interaction with the waterfront.

ok..well in that case, how about San Diego or Tampa

the key here is making sure tha actual riverfront (i.e., the riverwalk) is still public....and that there are vistas to the water (which Market and Liberty St would do)....remember that we have a pretty large public open space on the river at the Shipyards...and there won't be major development there anytime soon....plus there's Metro Park...why do we need another one?

Also keep in mind that convention centers are used by local citizens for trade shows (think boat show, home show, car show) and ballrooms could be rented for weddings and the like....I agree that it would be a large piece of land and that public use of at least some of it is key.

One idea TransForm Jax has had (doesn't show in drawings) is to have a terrace on the second level cantilever out over Coastline Drive...and then use the Coastline Drive space as an occasional covered market space...and as noted, another idea is to have the center's roof be used as passive and/or active recreation space.

Tampa's Convention Center has been widely criticized because it chokes access to the river and it has been credited with being a limitation to downtown Tampa's redevelopment because of the limited opportunity for waterfront engagement. Compare the values and activity along Bayshore with a waterfront public edge compared with downtown Tampa that is largely walled in behind the Convention Center.

I happen to be an Arthur Erickson fan and really like the San Diego Convention Center. But it's not as constrained as Jacksonville's courthouse site and it's not built over the water. If it were in a tightly constrained site it wouldn't have been able to expand and adapt to the market as it has - and SD wouldn't be the great convention city it has become.

My opinion on this site is informed by numerous factors, including: future adaptability/expansion, cost of structural requirements and ongoing maintenance costs, elimination of a potentially great public waterfront venue along Bay Street, the ability of this site to be a catalyst for private investment and to create value in the Bay Street District multiple blocks from the river, and the fact that the jail in its current location will forever be a limiting factor in the ability to make the desired connection between the downtown core and sports complex. 

[Steve_Lovett]

Steve, in general I like your proposal. One thing I can't tell from the pics I can see online - would the old City Hall building be torn down?

I'd rather it not be.

The plan I prepared shows it torn down - mostly because that's the scenario that was posed to me by those who asked me to study these sites. But it doesn't have to be, and I don't necessarily think it should be. I would suggest that the first phase (east block - old courthouse) of the park be developed immediately, and the old City Hall continue to function as it does now (and will for a couple of years). At that time the park can be expanded or the old City Hall building can be adapted for reuse, and oriented to take advantage of it's location adjacent to a great park.

Frankly, my hope in this whole exercise is not so much to force a specific detailed concept but to look at how we make decisions differently - based in Jacksonville's values, and achieving clear goals and objectives with great conviction. The concept is but one idea of what that can possibly look like, and how many different things it can accomplish. I have given it a lot of thought and study and think it has merit, but the final determination will best be informed by extensive public engagement, input, and participation.

[simms3]

I like Steve's plan.  It has forced me to reconsider my own stance on the CC there.  He is talking "big-city big-picture" speak, too, when he believes everything the city does should be viewed and treated as an investment rather than a cost.

I am glad we agree that there is little to anything salvageable from those 50s/60s government buildings.  Actually - I wish they were salvageable and could be sold to the private market, but there's just no way.  Anyone who buys those buildings is buying land (or I guess in the courthouse's case water!).

Thank you Steve for very intelligent and well thought out replies and thank you for your editorial in the JBJ.

[jcjohnpaint]

Pittsburgh is another cc on the river.  I really feel that it is quite a dead spot in the dt and river when no convention is taking place.  Philly has the Terminal market that keeps the cc area booming, but on the new segment on N Broad is only somewhat populate because of the Art Academy and Race on the back is pretty dead.  I don't think a convention center is going to add to much vibrancy to Bay in Jax. 
What if the site was between:
Forsyth and Water on on side and Lee and Jefferson on the other.  The only problem I see is a suburban style office building on the land.  Probably would be much easier to move than the Jail and would provide more space.  The skyway is running through the site.  Most convention centers have street running through with ground level lobby/parking, so the center is raised.  Pittsburgh, Philly, LA etc.  The skyway could run under the center and have a convention center stop in the lobby or courtyard/ whatever. 
If the cc was on this site is wouldn't have to break the grid either, would be in close proximity to the downtown without being in the middle, and be next to the transportation center.   

[Tacachale]

Steve, in general I like your proposal. One thing I can't tell from the pics I can see online - would the old City Hall building be torn down?

I'd rather it not be.

The plan I prepared shows it torn down - mostly because that's the scenario that was posed to me by those who asked me to study these sites. But it doesn't have to be, and I don't necessarily think it should be. I would suggest that the first phase (east block - old courthouse) of the park be developed immediately, and the old City Hall continue to function as it does now (and will for a couple of years). At that time the park can be expanded or the old City Hall building can be adapted for reuse, and oriented to take advantage of it's location adjacent to a great park.

Frankly, my hope in this whole exercise is not so much to force a specific detailed concept but to look at how we make decisions differently - based in Jacksonville's values, and achieving clear goals and objectives with great conviction. The concept is but one idea of what that can possibly look like, and how many different things it can accomplish. I have given it a lot of thought and study and think it has merit, but the final determination will best be informed by extensive public engagement, input, and participation.

That wasn't a criticism of your ideas, which as I say are pretty impressive. More just a general observation that I'd rather we found a re-use for the old City Hall.

[simms3]

^^^I don't think that's possible Tacachale, unless you want to keep city government employees in there.  It's basically a non-adaptible building that the private sector would never touch without major incentives and guarantees, aka taxpayer dollars going towards it with their profit basically in development fees alone.

[thelakelander]

^Why do you think it is non-adaptable and why shouldn't it be combined with incentives to get something done?  The fact that it's structurally sound and already publicly owned makes the incentive process much easier, imo.  Where else in town can you find a 15 story tower within a block of the river.  Until we actually try and market it as a redevelopment project and no suitors turn up, I think its a stretch to automatically assume it has no future.