Khan: Downtown has "gone downhill" over last decade

Started by jaxlongtimer, December 14, 2021, 06:03:15 PM

heights unknown

Quote from: thelakelander on December 15, 2021, 02:20:26 PM
RiversEdge is on tomorrow's DDRB agenda. They are reducing maximum building heights for a future project on two of the parcels. Giving the building configuration shown on the documents, I assume they have something planned there. Who knows how long it will take before ground is broken on it though.
DDRB makes me sick sometime. What is their problem? Are they afraid to let this city grow? And grow? And grow?
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ACCESS MY ONLINE PERSONAL PAGE AT: https://www.instagram.com/garrybcoston/ or, access my Social Service national/world-wide page if you love supporting charities/social entities at: http://www.freshstartsocialservices.com and thank you!!!

jaxlongtimer

Quote from: thelakelander on December 15, 2021, 02:20:26 PM
RiversEdge is on tomorrow's DDRB agenda. They are reducing maximum building heights for a future project on two of the parcels. Giving the building configuration shown on the documents, I assume they have something planned there. Who knows how long it will take before ground is broken on it though.

Help me better understand this.  Is the developer reducing height on select parcels to allow more height on others?  Kind of like the "averaging" that was used to permit the extra height in San Marco?  Or, is the developer reducing the height because they have uses that don't justify the heights they originally requested?  Or, is DDRB reducing height because of the proximity to the river and the requested heights violating their riverfront setback "standards" (that would be refreshing!)?

thelakelander

I actually don't understand exactly why they need to reduce the maximum height limit of those parcels. The site plan they have appears to shift the tallest part of the proposed building to a different location. However, I'm not sure why the height limit needs to be changed. Here's the DDRB agenda:

https://dia.coj.net/Meetings/DDRB-Meetings/DDRB-Meeting-December-2021

It starts on page 123 and the Lincoln Property development concept plan is on page 134.

According to an older Jax Daily Record article, this must be the 750 unit apartment development mentioned:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/riversedge-a-new-vision-for-the-downtown-southbank
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

jaxlongtimer

Quote from: thelakelander on December 15, 2021, 10:27:07 PM
I actually don't understand exactly why they need to reduce the maximum height limit of those parcels. The site plan they have appears to shift the tallest part of the proposed building to a different location. However, I'm not sure why the height limit needs to be changed. Here's the DDRB agenda:

https://dia.coj.net/Meetings/DDRB-Meetings/DDRB-Meeting-December-2021

It starts on page 123 and the Lincoln Property development concept plan is on page 134.

According to an older Jax Daily Record article, this must be the 750 unit apartment development mentioned:

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/photo-gallery/riversedge-a-new-vision-for-the-downtown-southbank

It looks like the request is due to the greatest height being over parking structures located in the core/center area of the wrap-around apartments.  Something about moving the "tower zone" heights to over the garages from the perimeter structures.  Not sure I follow the rule on this but that is what is in Item 1 of Attachment A from Kimley Horn in the agenda packet for this development.  I am gathering they must have had an approved master plan and any changes to it must be reapproved.

acme54321

#19
To me it reads like they are eliminating the actual "tower" pieces of those parcels and using that height to allow the parking deck to stick up over the 80' roofline. The original plans had the tower sections on the edges of those parcels.

Here is the previous rendering: https://us-west-2-02820030-view.menlosecurity.com/c/i/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuamF4ZGFpbHlyZWNvcmQuY29tL3NpdGVzL2RlZmF1bHQvZmlsZXMvc3R5bGVzL3NsaWRlcnNfYW5kX3BsYW5uZWRfc3RvcnlfaW1hZ2VfODcweDU4MC9wdWJsaWMvMzQxMTg4X3N0YW5kYXJkLmpwZWc_aXRvaz05Y0tEdGVwSQ~~

Hopefully this means that they have someone lined up to move forward on that part of the project.  I'm ready to see this thing kick off for real.  The current land clearing they are doing is either in relation to the Toll Bros townhouses or the park/boardwalk on the back of the property.

vicupstate

Why doesn't the Rivers Edge principals offer to build the DCSB a new building inside their project (but not on the river) in exchange for getting the existing DCSB property?
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

thelakelander

#21
Quote from: acme54321 on December 16, 2021, 07:46:49 AM
To me it reads like they are eliminating the actual "tower" pieces of those parcels and using that height to allow the parking deck to stick up over the 80' roofline. The original plans had the tower sections on the edges of those parcels.

Here is the previous rendering: https://us-west-2-02820030-view.menlosecurity.com/c/i/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuamF4ZGFpbHlyZWNvcmQuY29tL3NpdGVzL2RlZmF1bHQvZmlsZXMvc3R5bGVzL3NsaWRlcnNfYW5kX3BsYW5uZWRfc3RvcnlfaW1hZ2VfODcweDU4MC9wdWJsaWMvMzQxMTg4X3N0YW5kYXJkLmpwZWc_aXRvaz05Y0tEdGVwSQ~~

Hopefully this means that they have someone lined up to move forward on that part of the project.  I'm ready to see this thing kick off for real.  The current land clearing they are doing is either in relation to the Toll Bros townhouses or the park/boardwalk on the back of the property.

This is a specific project. Same thing I mentioned about the "conceptual plans" at the TU site being a bit more engineering level than "conceptual". The detailed foot print (down to number of bedrooms and bathrooms per unit) on this document, including what appears to the the developer and architecture firm, solidifies a potential project is in the works. It looks something of a similar scale to what has been built at Town Center and in Brooklyn in recent years.



Quote from: vicupstate on December 16, 2021, 08:42:59 AM
Why doesn't the Rivers Edge principals offer to build the DCSB a new building inside their project (but not on the river) in exchange for getting the existing DCSB property?

They have a chance to respond to the DCPS ITN. I can see something along these lines as one of the responses that could come. Same goes for the sites not selected in the JEA headquarters proposal a few years back.

"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

Captain Zissou

How far south into the south shores area is the city buying and demolishing property?  Due to the new resiliency policies, the District is going to be built up higher than the existing homes nearby.  In a flooding situation it looks like the water will drain off of the District and onto the surrounding property.

acme54321

#23
Quote from: Captain Zissou on December 16, 2021, 10:27:57 AM
How far south into the south shores area is the city buying and demolishing property?  Due to the new resiliency policies, the District is going to be built up higher than the existing homes nearby.  In a flooding situation it looks like the water will drain off of the District and onto the surrounding property.

They are currently in the process of demoing some.  In the part of the neighborhood around marjenhoff park they have taken a few down, one this week.  Interestingly enough the two houses adjacent to that one are being remodeled.  They have a couple on Southampton that have been prepped for demo.  Pretty much all of the properties in the blocks around the park were eligible. I'm not sure how many people went through with it though because, at least originally, it was based on property values before Irma.  On the same note most of the houses are off grade and water didn't actually get into their living areas so while it flooded I don't think many of the owners felt the effects like they would have if water was in their loving room.


I'm not sure how much of an impact the district will have on flooding, it should have enough retention for rainwater.  The flooding issue in South Shores is tidal and short of a levee you aren't stopping that.

MusicMan

"Downtown has, in the 10 years I have been here, absolutely hasn't progressed," Khan said Monday while speaking with the media on his yacht, the Kismet."

The irony. Being lectured to by Shad Khan while he sits safely in his little boat. He's worth $8 billion or so they say.  I'd be a lot more impressed if he dropped a little coin and purchased one of the penthouse units at The Peninsula. For a guy like this (who lives in Naples) they are flat out cheap.  So he could spend a year here instead of short little visits on his boat. From his balcony at The Pen he can easily see the stadium. He could be present in Jacksonville instead of the absentee landlord/owner he now is.  I don't think he's getting much good advice when it comes to football or Jacksonville. Thats my $.02

Captain Zissou

Quote from: MusicMan on December 16, 2021, 11:23:35 AM
For a guy like this, they are flat out cheap. 

Exactly.  He's not interested in what the Peninsula has to offer.

fieldafm

#26
Khan, First Baptist Church, insert your boogeyman/scapegoat here ____  is not the reason that Downtown hasn't progressed during a generational urban real estate boom over the past decade.

WTF cares if Khan doesn't buy an overpriced condo, instead of staying on his much nicer $200mm yacht (that also pays mooring fees and brings a staff of over two dozen people into Downtown that all patronize local businesses several months a year.. and pays catering and event management fees to local businesses for the occassional guests they host on yacht).  Tony Khan has rented a suite at the Hyatt or a condo at Berkman for the past several years.  Last I checked he's an owner of the team as well.    Its not like Khan's money isn't being recirculated into the local economy because he doesn't own a rinky-dink condo.

thelakelander

Is it Khan's fault that we could not work out a deal with Sleiman and the Landing prior to the super bowl back in 2005? How about 2015? How about not being able to two-way at least Adams so far or effectively RFP most of the deteriorating properties in public ownership? We've been talking about renovating  James Weldon Johnson Park in front of City Hall, at least since the days that Suzanne Jenkins was on council. That predates the DIA and at least two mayor administrations. All the things mentioned above should have been done years ago and we should be benefitting from their increased vibrancy today. I wasn't really crazy about Lot J for the incentives that were being requested, but I'll also say while downtown has it problems and challenges, Khan isn't one of them.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life." - Muhammad Ali

MusicMan

#28
Have the Jags "gone downhill" over the same time frame?  Whose fault is that?

My $.02 was trying to pint out that sitting on the boat lecturing locals will have as much positive influence as hiring Urban Meyer. I didn't blame Khan for DT's woes.

Has he mentioned moving the jail off the block where he wants a Four Seasons?  When will that ask take place?  Everything he wants would be so much easier and palatable if the Jags were winning on a regular basis. They are not. And we are a long way away from fielding a consistent winner.

Captain Zissou

At this point you're just throwing whatever you can at the wall to see what sticks.  He has pledged $5M to the new MOSH, $4M to funding Met Park's maintenance, $1M to the renaissance of the eastside neighborhood. He is doing his part to help downtown and the larger city to advance.  He has not mentioned moving the jail.  The city has stated they would like to move it from its current location and has even included funds for that in the 5 year CIP budget.