Jaguars already planning Phase II for Lot J development

[marcuscnelson]

Exactly!  Why not just eliminate the "private developer" component, fund the whole thing with tax dollars, and keep all the profits for the City".

Well, you see, that's socialism. You can't just allow the public to own a development like that, it'd turn us into Venezuela or something!

[Bativac]

Are they planning to relocate WJCT? The "Future Phases" area includes building right on top of where their current station is.

The overall plan looks lovely, but if it's basically going to require a billion dollars in public money, I'm not entirely sure what the point of a private developer is.

Exactly!  Why not just eliminate the "private developer" component, fund the whole thing with tax dollars, and keep all the profits for the City".

If only there was a piece of land right on the river that the city already owned... and maybe they could build a structure on it with restaurants and shops and a performance venue... and program events with bands and... naaaaah that would never work, they'd screw it up and tear it down

[jaxlongtimer]

Are they planning to relocate WJCT? The "Future Phases" area includes building right on top of where their current station is.

Per the tax rolls, WJCT owns its 4.44 acres of property.  So they would have to be compensated for the land and an approximately 65,000 square foot state-of-the-art studio, production and office building complex valued at over $5 million by the property appraiser.  With moving costs added, I would think a minimum buy-out would be in the range of $10 to $15 million, very likely quite a bit more.

[CityLife]

I posted years ago that the City should follow the model of Brooklyn Bridge Park. NYC essentially acted as master developer; funded park and infrastructure improvements up front and curated the development around the park and waterfront. They created a master plan and issued RFP's for each individual parcel and developed it incrementally over the past 10-15 years. The park is mandated to be self-sustaining from revenue produced by developments in and around the park. It's more than self-sustaining, it's printing money. Even after paying $26 million of expenses (staff, maintenance, etc), it still made a $61 million profit in 2019. The entity managing the park's total financial position is $395 million (assets minus liabilities). But perhaps most importantly, Brooklyn got a world class waterfront park.

Now I'm the first to call people out who say, "hey why don't we turn the Skyway into the High Line, or hey wouldn't it be cool if we built something like The Vessel in Jax", so I know things that happen in NY, LA, Miami, etc are not always analogous with Jax. Brooklyn Bridge Park happens to be located next to Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill (which are insanely expensive and desirable places to live) and also has an incredible view of Lower Manhattan, so the astounding profit they've made there would not exactly translate to Jax. That said, I still think the model of the City acting as the master developer making waterfront and infrastructure improvements, then parceling land off to developers would be more sustainable and successful than giving Khan hundreds of millions of dollars for him to develop what appears to essentially be a market rate development, where he is taking minimal risk and is basically only acting as master developer himself.

The real problem is that COJ is so horrifically run and hires virtually no talent that a concept like this is completely foreign and there would be no faith from the public that the City could pull it off...

If interested in the Brooklyn Bridge Park model, you can find quite a bit of info here
https://www.brooklynbridgepark.org/pages/project-approvals-and-presentations

[Steve]

I actually think of the arguments for keeping the Skyway/Hart Bridge ramps could have been our take on the High Line, and do a cool path underneath the thing. I have no desire for a high line in Jacksonville. I don't want to be any closer to the sun in the summer time than I have to be. But, a shade structure could be cool.

Regardless, we're dumping 1/2 of the Hart Bridge ramps, which could be cool but it doesn't seem like the end result will be, based on the renderings of Gator Bowl Blvd. For the money JTA is spending on the clown cars, I bet you could extend the Skyway to the stadium and do a cool walking park underneath.

But, I guess that's a separate topic.

[Ken_FSU]

Hart Bridge ramp removal now underway:

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/03/24/hart-bridge-ramp-removal-underway-working-around.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline

[heights unknown]

What is THE reason again why these ramps need to be removed? For all of Lot J or for some other reason?

[Charles Hunter]

"Short" term - funnel more traffic driving by whatever develops at Lot J, and have the opportunity to turn into Lot J
Long term - to remove a "barrier" between the Stadium / Lot J / Daily's Place and the future Khan development at Metro Park / Shipyards

[tufsu1]

^ also long term - since it was built 50+ years ago, the bridge structure would have needed significant rehabilitation funds

[marcuscnelson]

At this point, the general agreement seems to be that it's okay to lose the ramps, but the way they're redesigning the road as a result is absolutely idiotic.

[Charles Hunter]

^ also long term - since it was built 50+ years ago, the bridge structure would have needed significant rehabilitation funds

Prior to the demolition project, there was no rehab project in the FDOT's 5-year work program. That means the bridge inspection reports must not have been showing any structural problems. If a bridge report shows a bridge to be structurally deficient, FDOT must schedule a rehabilitation or replacement project within 5 years (maybe shorter, I don't remember).  Also, FDOT would place weight limits, if that were a problem.  This does not include operationally deficient, where there are traffic capacity issues, or design standards have changed (shoulder width, for example) since the bridge was built. 

To marcusnelson's point (that appeared while I typed) - I disagree, people who commute through the stadium district, either on the surface or on the ramps, likely do not want to see the ramp removed.  Traffic on event evenings will be terrible.

[Tacachale]

To marcusnelson's point (that appeared while I typed) - I disagree, people who commute through the stadium district, either on the surface or on the ramps, likely do not want to see the ramp removed.  Traffic on event evenings will be terrible.

Yes, but there's a tradeoff - more traffic going through Downtown means more opportunities to spur economic development. The way it's designed may be the worst of both worlds - worse traffic without increased development on the rest of Bay Street.

[Ken_FSU]

^On the plus side, Bay Street's only a clown car away.

[thelakelander]

^I'll believe it when I see it! Those things will have to move alot faster to get approval to mix with expressway traffic near the stadium.