Retail-less Parador Parking Garage Up For DDRB Appoval

[PeeJayEss]

Downtown, the taxpayers and the entire city of Jacksonville simply deserve better.

Downtown, sure. And the city as an abstract, yes. But the people of Jacksonville? I'm not so sure we deserve better. For the most part, we just elect hacks and sit back and enjoy our low taxes and a corresponding level of amenities and services. The civic involvement expressed by this forum is, unfortunately, not indicative of the city as a whole.

[dougskiles]

Downtown, the taxpayers and the entire city of Jacksonville simply deserve better.

Downtown, sure. And the city as an abstract, yes. But the people of Jacksonville? I'm not so sure we deserve better. For the most part, we just elect hacks and sit back and enjoy our low taxes and a corresponding level of amenities and services. The civic involvement expressed by this forum is, unfortunately, not indicative of the city as a whole.

We are much closer than you think.  In any group (city, company, church, whatever) the direction is provided by about 5% of the people (maybe even less).  Those who have the motivation and interest to invest time directing the future of the organization.  That isn't to say that the other 95% are doing something wrong, it's just not the role they have chosen to play.

The 95% are looking for good judgement and leadership that they can trust.  That trust has been broken.  I feel that the time couldn't be more perfect for a change in community leadership.

Think of it this way, we don't need to become a majority of all the people in Jacksonville, we just need to become a majority of the 5%.

[fieldafm]

I've also heard that the reason this garage is being pushed so hard is that it is one of the few Class A office spaces downtown that has the size for say PSS and Advanced Disposal... and that the incentives packages will favor downtown locations. 

It makes sense in that light why the powers that be are pushing this thing so hard.  I still just can't comprehend how moving the freaking building back 25 feet to allow for realistic infill opportunities isn't a big deal. 

That would eliminate an uneccessary courtyard b/w the garage and the Suntrust Building.  Which in the grand scheme of things, is a courtyard more important than providing for the activation of the streetscape with market rate infill opportunities in a downtown environment in one of the most prime empty sites in Downtown Jacksonville?   

[JeffreyS]

^If the point is to get out of doing retail make the space so that reasonable efforts to rent it won't work. My guess is they won't build until they have renters so when they have to solicit they can approach people who have more space needs and prevent it from ever happening.

The way to get the ball rolling is force them to build appropriate spaces up front as the incentive to work hard to find retail renter.

[tufsu1]

just out of curiosity....what would stop a retail space from just turning the building on Hogan to go north/south...in essence, Lake shows that a small CVS needs 35' in width....the space along Hogan will be 38'

my bad...I now see tyhe CVS is 75' x 135' (not 75' x 35')....my point is, while not idea, the retail depth needed could be done parallel to Hogan St...the downside is that back-of-house wouldn't face the garage and instead be on the street....which is part of the problem with the Landing

[thelakelander]

^The major negative is you significantly reduce not only your potential retail uses with limited depths but you also kill the possibility of greater infill development.  For example, the wider your depth is, the better chance you could accommodate a new mixed use structure with several floors above street level retail included.  In the current configuration, maybe you'll get that long lost Starbucks back because to leasing rates to cover the new construction will probably be above the level of a mom & pop startup.  Nevertheless, I wish them the best of luck in landing a company like PSS at the Suntrust Tower.  That would be a major coup for DT.

[Steve_Lovett]

It was approved 3-1.  Chris Flagg voted against it because he believes the product isn't best suited for that piece of property.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-06/story/city-board-oks-concept-parking-garage-across-jacksonville-landing

Ashish Bahl, a Parador principal, said the 65 percent occupancy rate is not an arbitrary number.
“That's the point when we make money, and we’re more than happy to funnel it back into Jacksonville,” he said.

The parking garage could fulfill the city’s long-standing obligation to provide parking for the Landing, if the mall’s ownership agreed. In that case, the city would earmark up to $132,500 per year to Parador for a maximum payout of almost $1.6 million for a parking validation program that would give discounted parking to Landing patrons.

The validation program would begin five years after the garage is built. The Landing owner, Toney Sleiman, so far has not agreed to let the proposed garage fulfill the city’s obligation.

Chris Flagg is the only one on that board with any sense and a true planning/design background.  To bad he is outnumbered by idiots.

Chris is a great guy, but the statement that he's the only one on that Board with planning/design background/sense is simply not true.

Unfortunately many members of the DDRB weren't in attendance for this discussion. I understand they were scrambling at the start of the meeting just to establish a quorum. That's a shame - especially for an important discussion such as this.

I haven't seen the 10 stipulations that this project was approved with (and I don't know what they are), but the merits of the approval/disapproval should take into account the conditions placed on the decision.

[simms3]

Has anybody brought forth an argument about inconsistency between the Landing and this dead zone; that is, I thought a main problem of the Landing was that it turned its back on downtown, that it should be opened up in the middle?  How well can the Landing embrace the rest of an active (hopefully increasing) downtown and create a synergy?  Unless I'm missing something this seems asinine to me.

Yes, what happens on the south side of the garage will be a critical component of downtown's future.  The intersection of Water and Hogan Streets really should be a high activity zone and major destination point in the heart of downtown.

Remember, taxpayers are subsidizing this.  I have no problem with the developer wanting a parking garage for his building.  They simply just need to a) construct it according to the minimum design standards downtown (which are far less restrictive than virtually ALL downtown areas) b) not take taxpayer money from a dedicated pot to satisfy a 20 year long legal requirement to provide parking to the Landing to pay for half of the construction cost  and c) don't allow some arbitrary occupancy rate designed to mitigate the risk to the developer as the impetus to receiving TAXPAYER money to finance this project


Downtown, the taxpayers and the entire city of Jacksonville simply deserve better.

This is a good point that I believe we made the first go around as well a year ago it seems.  Taxpayers are essentially subsidizing Parador Partners the ability to exit their risky deal to sell office condos in downtown Jacksonville and that's all.  Personally I think it's a crime.

Retail or no retail  (and I have a hard time thinking anything substantial, even a CVS, would consider the site with current opportunity downtown) this site deserves to be a grass lot until something grand with hard backing can do the job.  This could be the most blatantly bad and inequitable decision ever made for downtown to allow and subsidize this horrible project that so many Jacksonville companies seem proud to carry their names on.

It was approved 3-1.  Chris Flagg voted against it because he believes the product isn't best suited for that piece of property.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2012-09-06/story/city-board-oks-concept-parking-garage-across-jacksonville-landing

Ashish Bahl, a Parador principal, said the 65 percent occupancy rate is not an arbitrary number.
“That's the point when we make money, and we’re more than happy to funnel it back into Jacksonville,” he said.

The parking garage could fulfill the city’s long-standing obligation to provide parking for the Landing, if the mall’s ownership agreed. In that case, the city would earmark up to $132,500 per year to Parador for a maximum payout of almost $1.6 million for a parking validation program that would give discounted parking to Landing patrons.

The validation program would begin five years after the garage is built. The Landing owner, Toney Sleiman, so far has not agreed to let the proposed garage fulfill the city’s obligation.

Chris Flagg is the only one on that board with any sense and a true planning/design background.  To bad he is outnumbered by idiots.

Chris is a great guy, but the statement that he's the only one on that Board with planning/design background/sense is simply not true.

Unfortunately many members of the DDRB weren't in attendance for this discussion. I understand they were scrambling at the start of the meeting just to establish a quorum. That's a shame - especially for an important discussion such as this.

I haven't seen the 10 stipulations that this project was approved with (and I don't know what they are), but the merits of the approval/disapproval should take into account the conditions placed on the decision.

What a damn shame.  I realize that unlike many city workers DDRB members are almost performing a community service, but this is one of the most if not the most important decision they will have to make regarding any projects downtown and most couldn't make it?  No excuses unless one's loved one were dying or something tragic.  If you can make a meeting to discuss signage for small businesses or 7-11 way back on State St or some retail buildouts in some old crappy garages, you HAVE to make a meeting to discuss this.  Pathetic and shameful they didn't (did the City threaten DDRB members in avoiding the vote or voting for it if they were in attendance?  Sounds like the Mayor was FOR this project!!)

[Ocklawaha]

To achieve those extra few feet needed for retail, do I sense another metrojacksonville video presentation on our horizon?

[jcjohnpaint]

They should add 5 more floors to this garage... Three for the landing (end this issue once and for all) and two so the city will never have the right to bitch about no parking downtown every again!

[dougskiles]

I am beginning to feel the same way - and as long as this new structure is moved closer to the Suntrust building so as to allow a successful retail building along the perimeter, it could be a win for all.

And who knows - there may be some other opportunities out there that haven't been explored yet.

In fact, this decision would be a PERFECT test case for the IBM Smarter Cities program of developing a more objective decision-making process.

There are three (3) significant goals that the development of this site can achieve:

1. Provide dedicated private parking for the SunTrust building that would have the potential to bring another 800 workers downtown.

2. Provide dedicated public parking for the Landing and fulfill the city's obligation.

3. Provide street level businesses that will eliminate a dead zone of pedestrian activity.

Is it possible to achieve all three?  Absolutely.  Should we accept anything less? No.

[Jason]

What parking arrangements does the building currently have with surrounding garages/lots?  And why are those arrangements suddenly not sufficient?  Did the building grow taller last year?

I don't see how giving money to a private company for an uneeded garage on a PRIME peice of real estate is any benefit to the city or The Landing.  The Landing needs parking on site and has/had a development strategy to provide it.  All that is needed is the means to provide it as promised by the city decades ago.  The deal is and should remain between the City and The Landing.... leave the other properties alone.

[JaxArchitect]

I've read all of the posts about moving the garage closer to the Suntrust Bldg and I don't completely agree.  I do think that they could maybe move it 5' to 10' closer to the Suntrust Bldg but beyond that, this would do a great disservice to the quality of the Suntrust Bldg and (maybe more importantly) the marketability and value of the rentable real estate in those offices where windows and views are important.  Furthermore, if they simply incorporate the first 20' deep parking stall on the first floor to the rear of the retail space, those retail spaces would be 58' deep (completely acceptable for downtown) rather than 38'.  If these spaces are critical to the proforma, they would have to be replaced by adding another level to the garage.  The only other complication is that the first floor would have to most likely have a higher floor-to-floor height than currently planned in order to fit the retail into the first floor of the garage.  This is done all the time and should not be a deal killer.

Also, I need to reiterate that this building design is terrible and should never have been approved.

[fieldafm]

If these spaces are critical to the proforma, they would have to be replaced by adding another level to the garage.

I agree, but you have to understand the context:  this garage is to be constructed as cheaply as possible.  Adding another level will make this 'economically unfeasible'.  That was made unequivocably clear during the entire process.

I think it's ludricrous that taxpayers are subsidizing this and are subsequently getting dicated the terms... escpecially since the money was provided through a settlement that was earmarked to satisfy a decades long commitment to the Jacksonville Landing. 

If you can't afford to build it correctly then the answer is quite simple:  Don't build it. 

If the taxpayers weren't paying for HALF the cost of a private developer's parking garage, I would be moved to conclude that a proper setback is a reasonable solution.

But subsidizing this parking garage (haven't we learned that lesson yet: http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2011-10-27/story/jacksonville-has-time-make-decision-3-parking-garages ) and approving a design that all but ensures unleasable property downtown is absolutely absurd!

[JaxArchitect]

I completely agree that this project's main objective is to be cheap.  It's very apparent.