Landmark downtown restaurant River City Brewing could make way for apartments

[Steve]

I'm not sure what the exact solve is. The DDRB requires some pretty good detail on what comes before them, even if you're seeking conceptual approval, so a developer won't want to spend a lot of resources on that if there's no shot at a financial detail before SIC.

The answer is something people have been saying that downtown needs for years.....a real master plan. Boyer spent the first 10 minutes of her presentation this morning,  defending criticisms about the design of the project by mentioning things no one knew. She talked about the potential restaurant pad, MOSH 2.0 and renovations at Friendship Fountain that would include restrooms and a concession kiosk. These are all basic things that would be in a master plan. If made available to the public and development community in a more transparent manner, everyone would have already known and those who want to invest in projects would already know how their investment could fit and assist in achieving the overall vision.

I certainly agree that the master plan is needed and should be public, but I don't know if that solves the process issue in every case. Let's say tomorrow DIA published an amazing downtown master implementation plan that was literally perfect. It obviously can't define the exact development proposed on every single parcel of land downtown.

For example, say someone wanted to build something on the site of the parking lot across from the TU Center and wanted incentives for it. I don't think there is anyone that would argue that a parking lot is the best use of the properly and I'd certainly be open to incentives for that location. Now whether that's residential, office, hotel, or mixed I really don't care - there's still the potential for the development to be good or trash and I feel like if it went through DDRB then things like property use, etc. could be ironed out.

Now I think that fixes the process. The fact that it's so rare for DDRB to deny something and that the DDRB tends to roll over is an issue with the people on it, not the process.

[jaxlongtimer]

I guess no one questioned how close the 8 story building comes to the river and what the standard is for setbacks?  Or my thoughts about how the view of the garage may impact views from, say, the bridge, which provides some of the more panoramic views of the skyline, or across the arc of the curve?

Are we going to get another generic boxy stucco coated residential building with lots of square and rectangle motifs?

Another thing addressed is the riverwalk, as it breaks at the Acosta Bridge/RR Tracks. Basically Boyer explained that because there isn't as much vertical clearance under the Acosta on the Southbank (as opposed to the northbank), there isn't a way to go up and over the RR tracks. While disappointing, I get it. they're going to enhance the sidewalk down San Marco Blvd, then Prudential, then adjacent to the new apartments being built by OneCall. This sucks, but I don't know of an easier alternative if you can't cross the RR tracks at grade.

Now, I'll point out that with the path outlined you're still crossing the RR tracks at grade but I guess there's much less temptation to walk out onto the Railroad bridge all the way from Prudential than if there's an at grade crossing right at the bridge. the only other way you could solve this is to have two of the "corkscrew" structures (like on the northbank) actually in the river. That seems...pricy.

Maybe this is a good spot for a gondola ride.  It could start at Friendship Park and rise over 8 stories ( ) and the Acosta and RR bridges and come down on the other side.  It could provide great views of the City on the east side of the bridge and of the widening river and sunset on the west side.  Charge a couple of bucks per rider to pay for it.  Another possibility is to utilize a water taxi to bridge the river walk sections.  Solve a problem and create a unique tourist attraction.

[thelakelander]

I certainly agree that the master plan is needed and should be public, but I don't know if that solves the process issue in every case. Let's say tomorrow DIA published an amazing downtown master implementation plan that was literally perfect. It obviously can't define the exact development proposed on every single parcel of land downtown.

Typically, it would be associated with coordinated form-based zoning. You'd also have a pretty good idea of what is desired for publicly owned properties and a general timeline of when public capital projects would take place. Between those two things, you'd have pretty strong guidance regarding the most general types of projects, which RCBC would fall into. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule but the project I heard pitched today would not be one of them.

For example, say someone wanted to build something on the site of the parking lot across from the TU Center and wanted incentives for it. I don't think there is anyone that would argue that a parking lot is the best use of the properly and I'd certainly be open to incentives for that location. Now whether that's residential, office, hotel, or mixed I really don't care - there's still the potential for the development to be good or trash and I feel like if it went through DDRB then things like property use, etc. could be ironed out.

The master plan and zoning should already form the general parameters of the project (ex. maximum scale, setbacks, mixed-use, or not, etc.). If the project proposed is of trash level, that would imply that it does not meet the minimum requirements of those parameters. Whether they need incentives or not would fall outside of that though.

I guess no one questioned how close the 8 story building comes to the river and what the standard is for setbacks?  Or my thoughts about how the view of the garage may impact views from, say, the bridge, which provides some of the more panoramic views of the skyline, or across the arc of the curve?

This was explained by Boyer. It is designed that way to protect the future view of a restaurant in MOSH 2.0. The bridge crosses the river, so I'm not sure an 8-story building is blocking the view from the Acosta. She also talked about how you could build close to the river as long as certain features of the project were transparent.

Are we going to get another generic boxy stucco coated residential building with lots of square and rectangle motifs?

This will be determined whenever the project makes it to DDRB.

[Steve]

I certainly agree that the master plan is needed and should be public, but I don't know if that solves the process issue in every case. Let's say tomorrow DIA published an amazing downtown master implementation plan that was literally perfect. It obviously can't define the exact development proposed on every single parcel of land downtown.

Typically, it would be associated with coordinated form-based zoning. You'd also have a pretty good idea of what is desired for publicly owned properties and a general timeline of when public capital projects would take place. Between those two things, you'd have pretty strong guidance regarding the most general types of projects, which RCBC would fall into. Of course, there's always exceptions to the rule but the project I heard pitched today would not be one of them.

For example, say someone wanted to build something on the site of the parking lot across from the TU Center and wanted incentives for it. I don't think there is anyone that would argue that a parking lot is the best use of the properly and I'd certainly be open to incentives for that location. Now whether that's residential, office, hotel, or mixed I really don't care - there's still the potential for the development to be good or trash and I feel like if it went through DDRB then things like property use, etc. could be ironed out.

The master plan and zoning should already form the general parameters of the project (ex. maximum scale, setbacks, mixed-use, or not, etc.). If the project proposed is of trash level, that would imply that it does not meet the minimum requirements of those parameters. Whether they need incentives or not would fall outside of that though.

Interesting....any idea of cities that have done this well? It's hard for me to visualize this level of detail without seeing it.

I've read the Downtown Master Plan that was done in 1999 but that definitely wasn't an implementation plan, plus that plan is now old enough to drink.

[thelakelander]

Lakeland. They did a master plan in 1988. Much of what was in it was actually implemented to near perfection over a 20 year period. It's been since updated.



Here's a bit of it from a 2007 Metro Jacksonville article. Basically the existing buildings weren't targeted, except for adaptive reuse and renovation. The plan focused on the parks, streetscapes, two-waying streets, lighting and directing new infill to large surface parking lots at the time. The infill garages have generally been designed to include public parking, easing the pressure of each individual project having to do their own. What's sketched in the middle of this graphic eventually became the SunTrust Bank and Heritage Plaza buildings. An office tower is now under construction on the lot overlooking Lake Mirror. The Terrace parking lot still remains but that's also envisioned as a garage or infill development site. All of the parks are done from this plan.

[Florida Power And Light]

Too bad to see public waterfront land consigned to residential. Will simply skip any notations regarding reserved public access, various " Mix".

[Ken_FSU]

So MOSH plans to add a restaurant as well?  Is it conceivable that we'd actually NET +1?

They do plan a cafe, yes, in MOSH 2.0 (their big plan). But, I'm not sure if that will be open to the public (in other words, do I have to buy admission to get to the cafe)? My guess is yes. They may have some outside seating (no idea), but like the Cummer it's fenced off so you have to go through the museum first.

Sounds like MOSH is now considering a move to the Northbank for the 2.0 expansion.

I wonder where.

Shipyards would be cost-prohibitive because of the environmental situation, and it seems like it's tracking toward park use.

The Landing site?

Ford on Bay if Spandrel doesn't start moving?

[jaxlongtimer]

Lakeland. They did a master plan in 1988. Much of what was in it was actually implemented to near perfection over a 20 year period. It's been since updated.



Here's a bit of it from a 2007 Metro Jacksonville article. Basically the existing buildings weren't targeted, except for adaptive reuse and renovation. The plan focused on the parks, streetscapes, two-waying streets, lighting and directing new infill to large surface parking lots at the time. The infill garages have generally been designed to include public parking, easing the pressure of each individual project having to do their own. What's sketched in the middle of this graphic eventually became the SunTrust Bank and Heritage Plaza buildings. An office tower is now under construction on the lot overlooking Lake Mirror. The Terrace parking lot still remains but that's also envisioned as a garage or infill development site. All of the parks are done from this plan.

Based on your graphic and some of the photos below, it appears that structures (many low rises) are at least 70 feet back from the lake and sometimes quite a bit more.  In the views below, you can see the beauty of having significant setbacks.  Some of this reminds me of the ambiance of Memorial Park in Riverside, perhaps our prettiest urban area park.  Unfortunately, Jacksonville isn't headed this way.

[bl8jaxnative]

MOSH at the old landing site has a lot of potential to be a great use of that space.

[Ken_FSU]

MOSH at the old landing site has a lot of potential to be a great use of that space.

I love everything about the MOSH 2.0 expansion, but I think MOSH at the Landing would be a bad idea for the city, for a few reasons:

1) Although space seems to be the primary reason that MOSH is considering a move to the Northbank, the Southbank site plan that they've circulated is incredible. It integrates with and complements the Friendship Fountain/St. Johns Park project and creates a genuine node of activity on the Southbank.

2) You're undercutting said $6 million public investment in Friendship Foundtain/St. Johns Park if you relocate the museum and the park's primary source of foot traffic to the Northbank.

3) A MOSH at the Landing site creates a net loss for downtown. Even with an expanded, improved MOSH, you're still sacrificing the most strategically important piece of property downtown and hurting the Southbank just to relocate something that's already downtown.

4) It's not the right type of use for the property. If the desire is for downtown to be a vibrant, 24/7 district, it's vital that Laura Street be anchored by mixed-use development that's going to be open past 5 PM. The old Landing wasn't perfect, we all know that, but it's crazy how nighttime activity and foot traffic has just totally disappeared since it was demolished. I feel like the focus of Landing 2.0 really needs to be creating a vibrant space with ample uses for downtown workers during the day, and for locals and visitors at night, as all previous market studies have called for. A family museum (or aquarium) just isn't that.

[thelakelander]

Based on your graphic and some of the photos below, it appears that structures (many low rises) are at least 70 feet back from the lake and sometimes quite a bit more.  In the views below, you can see the beauty of having significant setbacks.  Some of this reminds me of the ambiance of Memorial Park in Riverside, perhaps our prettiest urban area park.  Unfortunately, Jacksonville isn't headed this way.

They are set back because that pedestrian promenade you see, used to be Business US 92. A major part of their master plan was relocating the highway around downtown (Intown Bypass), which allowed them to convert Lemon Street into a pedestrian promenade on the southside of the lake and a linear park through downtown. Main Street became a two-way street. I'll try to find some before and after pictures to show later today.

[vicupstate]

Discussion topic:

Some benefactor donates $100 million to the city (yeah, I know, crazy) with the stipulation that is has to be spent either on a new or existing city park in the DT area. 

What is the best place to create an iconic, signature park in DT?  Based just on the location itself and what is around it or what could reasonably be put close to it, what is the best site? For the sake of the discussion, don't consider any land acquisition or remediation cost.

Landing
Friendship Fountain/Park
Current Metro Park
Shipyards
The District/old JEA site
The T-U property
McCoy Creek corridor  from St. Johns to I-95
Hogan Creek from St. John's to State/Union
Somewhere else

[thelakelander]

I'd say (1) the city's orginal "central park", Springfield Park between Old City Cemetery and UF Health Jax or (2), the Northbank between the Acosta Bridge and Liberty Street. The signature park would have spaces like the performing arts center, incorporated into the space.

[Ken_FSU]

In a perfect world, I'd like to see the park be multi-bank.

Specifically, would love to see our signature "park" span the northbank riverfront from the Acosta to the Hyatt, but also include Friendship Fountain/St. Johns Park.

With the Main Street Bridge - our most scenic pedestrian crossing - serving as the connection between the two halfs.



Main Street Bridge is vital for traffic in to the CBD, but it's such a pretty, scenic crossing that it would be kind of cool to see it go pedestrian-only for certain weekend events like Pittsburg does with the Roberto Clemente bridge on game days. Could line it with food trucks, farmer's market, Peyton's hot dog stand, etc.

Difference of course is finding a way to deal with boat traffic, which might not be possible.

[jaxlongtimer]

In my perfect world it would go from RAM to Metro Park and from the Acosta Bridge to the eastern edge of the District with expanses of width in several places to support up to an athletic field or more.  I believe all the downtown waterfront on both sides of the river should be a vibrant, well maintained, interactive public green space like most any world class city has or would desire.  If we spent our incentive dollars on that, we wouldn't have to do much more to entice residents or investors to Downtown.  People would be clamoring to be there.

Sadly, I don't see anything like this on the horizon in my lifetime and I don't have the $100 million to make it so.  Maybe someone should call Shad?