Is the FTU site locked into a suburban site plan?

[jaxoNOLE]

At least verbally, multiple members of the DDRB have pondered aloud about expecting more re: architecture/development. Moving the needle from technically satisfactory to above average is obviously quite difficult without policy to give it teeth.

One of the members of DDRB is responsible for 2 of the projects that have contributed to our current aesthetic downtown. 

I also think suggesting that the Vestcor projects on Water street are "comps" in any way is part of the problem.  2 workforce housing projects in what was a vacant area at the time should not have the same design concept as a signature waterfront piece of property in a neighborhood that is seeing tremendous growth (for jacksonville at least).

This is what is so frustrating. The DDRB knows this is a problem, actively expresses objections, and at the end of the day...grants final approval. The city has leverage in its granting of incentives that it is choosing not to use. And that is why we're comparing inland workforce housing as "comps" to a waterfront development. Visitors can take a boat tour and admire our Soviet Public Housing theme, but with more colors!

[jaxjaguar]

^in addition to approval there is 0 accountability. Remember how the first apartment building looked in it's renders vs what we got? Remember how there was supposed to be an iconic glass lotus in the middle of the retention pond? Parking lot issues, etc, etc... Same with the Suntrust/Landing/Vystar parking garage... The powers at be will rubber stamp anything and everything and do the absolute bare minimum for every project that arises with 0 enforcement. 

[jaxlongtimer]

My comments on this project and DDRB/DIA:

Proof that DDRB/DIA is a complete waste of time are the renderings of the 8 existing apartment structures appended to the application.  Nothing says boring and unimaginative better than these pictures (they could add a few more such as the ones adjacent to the One Call tower and the upcoming project at River City Brewing):





With respect to this project, aside from the many critiques offered already on this thread, I continue to be disturbed by the willingness to allow tall buildings way too close to the river's edge.  I also note the waiver by DDRB of the rule for building perpendicular, instead of parallel, to the river.  The rationale for caving in, ironically, is we need more "development" along the river.  For whose enjoyment?  Certainly not the general public.  Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?

DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development.  I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show.  If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere.  Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.

[Zac T]

Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?

DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development.  I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show.  If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere.  Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.

Just thinking that maybe an urban environment isn't the best place for you...

[fsu813]

Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?

DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development.  I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show.  If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere.  Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.

Just thinking that maybe an urban environment isn't the best place for you...

Major urban cities around the US (and world) have quality public space along their rivers and bays. From Memphis, to Chatanooga, to St. Pete, to NYC, to Chicago, etc, quality public space on the waterfront is a valued amenity that cities are investing in. Talent follows place, place requires investment.

[jaxlongtimer]

Who wants to go to a riverfront lined with boxy and overbearing buildings, little or no parking, and cut-off views (did we not learn anything from the positioning of the Landing)?

DDRB and DIA are killing the future of Downtown for lifetimes to come with their undisciplined, thoughtless, uncreative, disorganized and spineless approach to development.  I have yet to see a project that makes me want to go Downtown for anything other than a theater show.  If I want to enjoy the river, I will be looking elsewhere.  Sanford, Green Cove Springs or Palatka are looking better every day.

Just thinking that maybe an urban environment isn't the best place for you...

Not so, quite the opposite.  If we want to attract a wide range of urban dwellers, we also need to provide adequate open and green spaces for them to recreate in.  Paving and building over too much of that and we are losing a valuable amenity to attract both dwellers and visitors.

If I want to walk in the valleys of tall buildings surrounded with mostly hardscape, I don't need a river.  That environment can be built most anywhere.  Nothing special about that.  Our river is what makes our Downtown unique.  If we are not going to respect it, it is a major lost opportunity and a slap at our natural identity.

[jaxjaguar]

Downtown Denver is a great example of how to build along a river. Obviously, their rivers aren't as grand as the St Johns, but the green space and trails on either side are world class. Multiple parks to stop at that are all different, skate park, walking and bike trails, pedestrian bridges and the buildings along the river aren't unreasonably tall. The buildings progressively get taller as you move into the core.
The trails are incredibly long to. You can safely ride a bike for several miles without crossing more than 2-3 at grade intersections.

[marcuscnelson]

Final design approval.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/one-riverside-residential-design-approved-by-downtown-development-review-board

[jaxjaguar]

Only in Jacksonville can you transplant an apartment complex from a suburban outdoor mall (SJTC) to prime riverfront property in the downtown core.

[thelakelander]

^ Quotes from the article would suggest board members are just fine with the outcome.

Mosley said the development team also addressed the board's concerns about pedestrian safety and park access.

Board member Joe Loretta said the design was "a great finish" to the board's previous concerns with the project.

"Candidly, this is a fantastic project," Loretta said.

"Overall between architecture, hardscape, landscape and everything of that nature, I'm not sure we've seen too many better in the past seven years I've been on the board."

[jcjohnpaint]

Joe Loretta must be proud of himself

[jaxlongtimer]

^ DIA, DDRB and other City officials should be required to read the Jaxon threads before opining on any projects involving the urban core.  The lack of basic sensibilities regarding good design and planning is appalling.  The deciders must spend a whole 5 minutes thinking about the items they vote on.  Sad for our City.

[acme54321]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/fuqua-buys-riverfront-times-union-property-plans-dollar250-million-redevelopment%3famp

Done deal.

[jaxlongtimer]

Quote from Fuqua himself:

"To go through the city process and financing, they (usually) don't happen that fast in a deal this complicated," he said.

Could it be because our City doesn't have a clue what a good development standard is or has any principles or vision to enforce?  Or gives away the bank to developers because the City is a terrible negotiator?

[fieldafm]

Quote from Fuqua himself:

"To go through the city process and financing, they (usually) don't happen that fast in a deal this complicated," he said.

Could it be because our City doesn't have a clue what a good development standard is or has any principles or vision to enforce?  Or gives away the bank to developers because the City is a terrible negotiator?

The development process SHOULDN'T be overly difficult or have needless red tape and mindless bureaucracy.  So stories like this should be the NORM. 

If you step off your anti-development/every developer is a dirt bag soap box for just a sec... the real issue with this site plan is that the Code doesn't do what its supposed to do. 

I don't blame COJ for not wanting to chase away a grocery store that will break the internet when its finally announced, and instead choose to be a 'tough negotiator'.