The Ford on Bay

[thelakelander]

Is free riverfront property the full extent of the incentives requested or are they expecting more?

[jagsonville]

Is free riverfront property the full extent of the incentives requested or are they expecting more?

Free land and an REV grant, for now. Although Reggie Gaffney's comment " He told the committee not to base its decision on the ability to commit to financial incentives. "What I don't want you to do is limit this to what dollars you think you have," he said. "Allow us to have the problem if you need more dollars."" insinuate that some sort of money will be asked for as this goes further..

[Kerry]

Is free riverfront property the full extent of the incentives requested or are they expecting more?

Free land and an REV grant, for now. Although Reggie Gaffney's comment " He told the committee not to base its decision on the ability to commit to financial incentives. "What I don't want you to do is limit this to what dollars you think you have," he said. "Allow us to have the problem if you need more dollars."" insinuate that some sort of money will be asked for as this goes further..

Perfect.  Did the City win the PowerBall lottery and no one told us?

[FlaBoy]

So we just have to giveaway what should be rather valuable property? That's fine. Phew... Just imagine the ask if we didn't have an NFL franchise that has had such an amazing impact on the desirability of Jax vs those loser NFL-less cities like Greenville.

That is poor leadership on other fronts. However, ask someone from Seattle, Houston, New York or Boston if they know about Jacksonville, they will probably know of us because of the Jaguars. Ask them about Greenville, they will look at you with a blank stare. Greenville has a nice walkable strip of retail and restaurants, but other than that 7 block stretch, it did not rival Jax at all IMO.

[howfam]

One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.

These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding. High-rise makes more sense because it uses less land and still achieves the occupant level and square footage desired. The 5 story buildings proposed over 2 city blocks could be consolidated into one 10-12 story  building with more ground-floor retail and parking. Jax is not worthy of the title of "city" of any size if it can't build at least "entry-level" buildings of 10-12 stories.  Don't waste precious waterfront land with low-rise stick-frame buildings. /Howfam

[heights unknown]

One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.

These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding. High-rise makes more sense because it uses less land and still achieves the occupant level and square footage desired. The 5 story buildings proposed over 2 city blocks could be consolidated into one 10-Y12 story  building with more ground-floor retail and parking. Jax is not worthy of the title of "city" of any size if it can't build at least "entry-level" buildings of 10-12 stories.  Don't waste precious waterfront land with low-rise stick-frame buildings. /Howfam

Yehhhhhhhhh, aye aye, yes! Finally someone speaks with some sense; and...I understand all about market support; if the market or demand is not there for high rises, and/or also in relation to property values, etc., high rises won't get built; learned this from this forum; however, I agree with what you said "fam."

[howfam]

One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.

These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding. High-rise makes more sense because it uses less land and still achieves the occupant level and square footage desired. The 5 story buildings proposed over 2 city blocks could be consolidated into one 10-Y12 story  building with more ground-floor retail and parking. Jax is not worthy of the title of "city" of any size if it can't build at least "entry-level" buildings of 10-12 stories.  Don't waste precious waterfront land with low-rise stick-frame buildings. /Howfam

Yehhhhhhhhh, aye aye, yes! Finally someone speaks with some sense; and...I understand all about market support; if the market or demand is not there for high rises, and/or also in relation to property values, etc., high rises won't get built; learned this from this forum; however, I agree with what you said "fam."

Yes Heights . One high-rise (12-plus stories) will lead to others, as no one wants to be outdone. That's why I'm excited about the Lot J project. All the renderings I've seen show high-rises in Lot J and across the street at "The Shipyards". Let's face it, someone has to "prime the pump", and Mr. Kahn just might be the one in the right position, both financially and politically, to do it.

[Papa33]

Can someone remind me about the market for the three Southbank residential high rises when they were built.  What was the demand?  Was it a build it and they will come situation?

[Steve]

Can someone remind me about the market for the three Southbank residential high rises when they were built.  What was the demand?  Was it a build it and they will come situation?

Talking about the two on the river:

-The Strand was built as apartments and shorty before completion in 2006-ish, they were talking interest on whether people wanted to buy. They never pursued and it's apartments to this day.
-I believe the Peninsula was "sold out" before completion, meaning people put down deposits on all of the units. Rule of thumb at the time was to have deposits on 50% of units before groundbreaking. But, I do know there were people that basically never showed up to the closing table once the building was built.
-The third tower (the Vu) never broke ground and I don't think they ever actually took deposits.

San Marco Place followed a similar trajectory as the Peninsula I believe.

[thelakelander]

Can someone remind me about the market for the three Southbank residential high rises when they were built.  What was the demand?  Was it a build it and they will come situation?

There were several high rise proposals back then, before the real estate bust. Those three (and Berkman 2) were the ones that broke ground before the crash. The other proposals simply fizzled away....just like most of the
current proposals will.

[thelakelander]

Miami went through a similar experience but thousands of units went under construction. When the market blew up, many lost their shirts and new buildings initially sat empty. However, one man's loss is another's gain. Those empty units got filled for reduced prices and when the market improved, that downtown had a base in place to justify and drive more development. Now it is unrecognizable from what it was in 2000.

[Captain Zissou]

These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding.

I just visited a tourist magnet last weekend that has barely any buildings above 10 floors.  Savannah was full of pedestrian activity on every block and their riverfront was a hotbed of activity.  Density and clusters of complementing, pedestrian friendly, uses are more likely to get us tourists than taller buildings.  Jax needs to worry more about filling in the moonscapes that cover our downtown (which this project helps to accomplish) before we require buildings to be of a certain height.

That said, I don't like the stick built construction either.  I would rather see a stronger and more architecturally significant building than what has been going into the core lately, but I don't know if we can command the rents that would support the increased costs of construction.  Smart development practices in the core will lead to increased demand, which will lead to a better product being offered.  What we have been doing for the last 10 years to "spur growth" have not been smart practices..

[heights unknown]

Miami went through a similar experience but thousands of units went under construction. When the market blew up, many lost their shirts and new buildings initially sat empty. However, one man's loss is another's gain. Those empty units got filled for reduced prices and when the market improved, that downtown had a base in place to justify and drive more development. Now it is unrecognizable from what it was in 2000.

Tell me about it.

[bl8jaxnative]

Miami went through a similar experience but thousands of units went under construction. When the market blew up, many lost their shirts and new buildings initially sat empty. However, one man's loss is another's gain. Those empty units got filled for reduced prices and when the market improved, that downtown had a base in place to justify and drive more development. Now it is unrecognizable from what it was in 2000.

They've had a nice run thanks to Latin American buyers.  Those buyers have largely dried up.  They may have built themselves right back into another bubble.

[thelakelander]

Interesting. It's likely better to be in a bubble with 100k downtown residents already in hand than headed into a recession with 5k spread across 4 square miles and still having to subsidize stick frame garden style apartments.