A Northbank renaissance in the making

[jaxlongtimer]

I'll also say that I agree with this point, as well.  The DIA's plans for Lenny's Lawn, the TUPAC site and the Shipyards is going to require a STAGGERING amount of taxpayer money... that the general public really can't comprehend as the numbers are basically hidden and VASTLY under-reported.  Just this week, the DIA suggested that fixing the piers (which were identified as far back as Ed Burr's scuttled attempt at the Shipyards of yester-decade) would cost more than $20mm. That doesn't include the MOSH site (which will require shoring up of its own).

OK, since everyone on this thread this week seems to be in the mood for "robust discussion," I will add that I disagree with the premise above. 

If the City would take much (or all) of its developer incentive and "giveaway" dollars and invest it in green infrastructure I believe Downtown and the citizens of this City would be far better off... and developers would be swarming Downtown to take advantage of the enhanced quality of life and resident/visitor amenities.  The dollars needed for quality riverfront parks pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions going for projects that may or may not benefit Downtown.  It comes down to priorities and sensible ROI's derived from good planning and disciplined execution.  We have none of that here.  Whatever, don't tell me we can't find the dollars... we always find them for "friends of the mayor."

[fieldafm]

Please don't compare city-funded housing redevelopment & what has been done at the Barnett building to prove a point. Apples to oranges.

There's a link provided, which provides a list of a variety of mixed-use, adaptive reuse projects in Downtown over the last two decades. All of which received various city incentives- including property tax abatements, completion grants, construction loans, historic preservation grants, below-market rate junior liens (some that have been deferred many times), historic tax credit financing, etc.  Although one capital stack is not like the other, you can't get more apples to apples than that. I'm familiar with the proformas on most of those (including the Barnett and Hardwick). Point being, the Barnett wasn't the first mixed-use adaptive reuse to come online in Jacksonville, and it isn't the last.  Maybe now is a good time to bow out of this conversation, cheers.

OK, since everyone on this site this week seems to be in the mood for "robust discussion," I will add that I disagree with the premise above

Lenny's Lawn, the former Courthouse and the Shipyards West sites (which excludes the Jaguars portion east of Hogans Creek) have had more than $100mm in taxpayer monies spent on them since 2009... and all are currently grass lots.  For the plans on all of those sites to come to fruition, multiples of that will still be needed.   

[thelakelander]

I'll be that greedy developer and say that "preserving" all of the Riverfront is a huge mistake.

That's not been suggested anyone.

And the two high-profile new public spaces that are being planned -Riverfront Plaza & Shipyards West- have business/residential development proposed literally inside them. Restaurant, Cafe, apartments, food hall, etc.

Maybe even a TGI Friday's, if we get lucky

I have to vehemently disagree with this post. TGI Friday's should take a back seat to Fuddrucker's. In fact bringing Hooter's back should be before both of those.

Hooters has already proven that they can succeed. Even when the city tried everything it could to drive the Landing out of business.

[thelakelander]

Lenny's Lawn, the former Courthouse and the Shipyards West sites (which excludes the Jaguars portion east of Hogans Creek) have had more than $100mm in taxpayer monies spent on them since 2009... and all are currently grass lots.  For the plans on all of those sites to come to fruition, multiples of that will still be needed.   

This may be one of the most unfortunate things of all, concerning downtown. +$100 million spent and currently grass lots.

[Jax_Developer]

- The Barnett Building has received the smallest incentive package, proportional to the project size of any project DT. Fact check me. Find another 100 unit project with actual mixed use that has the package it had.
- The Barnett Building was delivered with and continues to have successful mixed-use
- The Barnett Building was not financed, more than 50%, with a low interest 20-Year Fixed Loan from the COJ
- The Barnett Building was and still is the largest building to be redeveloped

Nobody in real estate finance would compare a GOVT guarantee loan (THROUGH CONSTRUCTION!!!!) to a completion grant with a (small) REV grant. What Vestcor got was a once in a lifetime business opportunity that should never happen again if we do things right DT. What Southeast has done isn't a complete pile of garbage either.. except for the trio.

--

I'll also say that I agree with this point, as well.  The DIA's plans for Lenny's Lawn, the TUPAC site and the Shipyards is going to require a STAGGERING amount of taxpayer money... that the general public really can't comprehend as the numbers are basically hidden and VASTLY under-reported.  Just this week, the DIA suggested that fixing the piers (which were identified as far back as Ed Burr's scuttled attempt at the Shipyards of yester-decade) would cost more than $20mm. That doesn't include the MOSH site (which will require shoring up of its own).

OK, since everyone on this thread this week seems to be in the mood for "robust discussion," I will add that I disagree with the premise above. 

If the City would take much (or all) of its developer incentive and "giveaway" dollars and invest it in green infrastructure I believe Downtown and the citizens of this City would be far better off... and developers would be swarming Downtown to take advantage of the enhanced quality of life and resident/visitor amenities.  The dollars needed for quality riverfront parks pales in comparison to the hundreds of millions going for projects that may or may not benefit Downtown.  It comes down to priorities and sensible ROI's derived from good planning and disciplined execution.  We have none of that here.  Whatever, don't tell me we can't find the dollars... we always find them for "friends of the mayor."

It is a tough cookie to crack, certainly a chicken or the egg concept. This is my biggest concern too, we are somewhat erasing the future tax base of DT. In all reality the city is paying tomorrow's taxes today. I can't image that works out for the best.. I think that's why I am a big believer in developing the Riverfront with a mandatory setback green space.. That land shouldn't require the grants that we see closer to the thick of things DT. In theory that staggers in over time but theory doesn't always work out.

[thelakelander]

All of these things would turn out much better and be implemented much quicker if everyone was on the same page and swimming in the same direction regarding downtown development. We've been talking about downtown revitalization in this town since the 1950s. Despite that, ask 20 people what their definition of downtown vibrancy is today and you'll likely get 20 different opinions.

[landfall]

A blind man could have seen the Hardwick was pie in the sky. Completely suckered hook, line and sinker by renderings of something tall and shiney, rather than the substance of how realistic the project was. Other than the Southeast project this was easily the toughest of the six bids to finance and build.

[Jax_Developer]

A blind man could have seen the Hardwick was pie in the sky. Completely suckered hook, line and sinker by renderings of something tall and shiney, rather than the substance of how realistic the project was. Other than the Southeast project this was easily the toughest of the six bids to finance and build.

Exactly... Instead of pushing for an under 10-story product, lets shoot for the 18-20 story proposal. That would be economically difficult even on prime land around the Southbank.

[landfall]

A blind man could have seen the Hardwick was pie in the sky. Completely suckered hook, line and sinker by renderings of something tall and shiney, rather than the substance of how realistic the project was. Other than the Southeast project this was easily the toughest of the six bids to finance and build.

Exactly... Instead of pushing for an under 10-story product, lets shoot for the 18-20 story proposal. That would be economically difficult even on prime land around the Southbank.

The state of Bay Street really is criminal. It should be Jacksonville's nightlife strip and the place to be for young professionals. All it needed on the vacant parcels was some of the run of the mill, nothing special, cooker cutter, apartment buildings with ground floor retail that are a dime a dozen in cities all over the country now to create vibrancy on each side of the street. Going with the likes of the Mid America or Vantrusts proposals for instance would have been a far safer option, but they wanted to go for glory, take the risk and get the vanity skyscraper.

You wouldn't even need to get rid of the Police HQ etc to start with.

[jaxlongtimer]

OK, since everyone on this site this week seems to be in the mood for "robust discussion," I will add that I disagree with the premise above

Lenny's Lawn, the former Courthouse and the Shipyards West sites (which excludes the Jaguars portion east of Hogans Creek) have had more than $100mm in taxpayer monies spent on them since 2009... and all are currently grass lots.  For the plans on all of those sites to come to fruition, multiples of that will still be needed.

The fact that City wasted or overpaid millions of dollars in the past should not prevent taking corrective action in the future.  The past is a result of failed and incompetent leadership.  I would gladly entrust the needed millions to a competent, forward thinking administration.  The real issue is can we get one. 

We need to look at this point going forward.  The ROI on spending millions on green space, in my opinion, is far greater than spending millions on developers with poorly conceived and/or "iffy" projects that will not stand the test of time and can be just as successful or more so one block or more back from riverfront green space.  In a 100 years, our descendants are going to wonder who the crazies were that not only gave up our riverfront but paid people to take it off our hands, just so some politicos could try and get instant gratification to support their next run for office.

If the current developers fail to follow through on their bid awards, I say let the next mayor and council back up and take these properties off the market and make them green space.  For a fraction of the money going to JTA's AV project or for the upcoming stadium renovation or other Khan projects, past, present and future, we could pave our parks with gold.  So, again, money is not the issue, it is priorities.  I might add that some creative grant writers might get some dollars from the Feds and/or State, such as under the banners of "resiliency," brownfield mitigation or urban renewal.  Florida Inland Navigation funding is another possible source.  I am sure there are many more.  But, we need a solid plan and leadership to execute it.

[marcuscnelson]

You've suggested this a number of times before, and personally it's getting a little confusing when we are already attempting to spend quite an amount of money on park space, and clearly struggling to gather all of the needed funds and operational ability to do so. Between Metro Park, Shipyards West Park (including the Naval Museum), the new MOSH and the park space next to that, the expansion of the Northbank Riverwalk, the Riverfront Plaza Park, the Music Commons Park, the McCoys Creek Park, Gefen Park next to FIS, the Riverside Arts Market Park, the Artist Walk Park, the St. Johns River Park where MOSH currently is, and the new park at RiversEdge, and the Southbank Riverwalk extension, we are building or upgrading a lot of parks.

That's before you even start talking about the Emerald Trail or Hogan's Creek or Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing or any of the other major park projects in the urban core, and that all comes on top of already having the largest urban park system in the country, much of which needs improvement anyway. You've treated this for some time like we're somehow not doing anything to create or improve park space in Jacksonville, which seems pretty contrary to the facts on the ground. Heck, we already did pretty much what you asked for by tearing down the Landing and rededicating most of it to signature park space, something we are still struggling to actually bring to completion after 4 years since starting to do so! Or McCoys Creek Park, where we're even relocating the mouth of the creek to better serve as a central point for the park. Lori Boyer is pretty open if you ask that the former City Hall Annex site is going to be park space for events pretty much indefinitely.

There's a lot of work that a lot of public money is already trying to satisfy your vision with and you don't seem to have any sense of satisfaction about it. I can't seem to figure out what is actually an acceptable amount of urban park space for you, especially in the context that this is still ultimately supposed to be an urban neighborhood with offices and restaurants and amenities and housing and infrastructure.

[Jax_Developer]

Those of us who build understand that there needs to be a first win, before anything happens. Like Landfall is saying, that Ford site could have easily been the proof in the pudding for future sites. Didn't need to be the flashiest site.

Many boom cities like Nashville & Austin started with smaller developers taking risks. The incentives should be used as a way to get the ball rolling. Not to maximize a rendering. You get the flashy buildings later.

I completely agree with Marcusnelson also in that there is just way too much public money and space being put towards parks. We already have a massive park system. How much of our city budget goes to just maintaining parks and how much more will go towards maintaining the several thousand foot bulkheads? Make those parcels private and make developers and revenue generating businesses pay for the ongoing cost nightmare that these parks will create for future residents.

[marcuscnelson]

Those of us who build understand that there needs to be a first win, before anything happens. Like Landfall is saying, that Ford site could have easily been the proof in the pudding for future sites. Didn't need to be the flashiest site.

Many boom cities like Nashville & Austin started with smaller developers taking risks. The incentives should be used as a way to get the ball rolling. Not to maximize a rendering. You get the flashy buildings later.

I completely agree with Marcusnelson also in that there is just way too much public money and space being put towards parks. We already have a massive park system. How much of our city budget goes to just maintaining parks and how much more will go towards maintaining the several thousand foot bulkheads? Make those parcels private and make developers and revenue generating businesses pay for the ongoing cost nightmare that these parks will create for future residents.

Personally, I'm not afraid of the concept of investing in some signature buildings, provided we can afford to. We already have some really interesting smaller development efforts like JWB, Augustine, and Corner Lot. North Core is going to be impressive once those projects get completed and new ones proceed. Meanwhile there's a lot of pressure involved in making the riverfront development look significant when it's going to impact the city's skyline. In theory, projects like Broadstone River House and the Southerly and One Riverside are already our toes in the water. The fair question at this point is whether the developers the DIA is picking to develop these sites are actually capable of delivering and if we're prepared to invest what might be demanded of us in order to make these projects feasible. I'm spitballing, but perhaps we'd be better off declaring upfront how much we're actually willing or able to spend on incentivizing the use of these parcels instead of hoping people come to us with numbers that we can afford. And if we're going to spend the effort on the Godzilla method of development in the first place, we shouldn't then be surprised by what's under the grass we just planted.

Re: Parks, don't get me wrong here, I do think investing in parks is worthwhile and valuable. The Emerald Trail and many of these parks are great for downtown. But at some point there needs to be room for people to actually utilize these amenities. We've spent an enormous amount of resources on the idea that suburbanites will drive in from Southside or the beaches or St. Johns simply to enjoy the beaches when we should be well aware at this point that there have to be people living downtown to use downtown. Rededicating the entire riverfront to park space that we then don't have anyone close enough to actually enjoy and use is a contrived mindset. 

[jaxoNOLE]

We already tried the "nothing flashy" approach when we picked Spandrel for the first RFP. I'd say the DIA exercised some wise discretion by not falling for the flashy option in Southeast's proposal for round two. Carter is a serious developer with a track record, and while there was some debate here over whether mid-century modern architecture in general was appealing for the site, there was a lot of praise for the scoring criteria, evaluation process, and final selection.

Inflation was happening when Carter was selected, and the construction industry was in the throes of the severe supply chain issues. I can't imagine any developer would have agreed to quick or even typical timelines with the fallout from those economic conditions still on the horizon. It's okay in my mind to be disappointed at the extended timeline, but also realize it's the reality of our market, economic conditions, and the fact that the city wasted a decade of record-low interest rates, low inflation, and a strong economy doing....something?

A value-engineered Hardwick will still be a win on that site. It's more realistic, even as a high rise, than Spandrel's 74,000 sq ft of proposed retail, and it's proposed on land the city is actually legally able to transfer.

[Jax_Developer]

Those of us who build understand that there needs to be a first win, before anything happens. Like Landfall is saying, that Ford site could have easily been the proof in the pudding for future sites. Didn't need to be the flashiest site.

Many boom cities like Nashville & Austin started with smaller developers taking risks. The incentives should be used as a way to get the ball rolling. Not to maximize a rendering. You get the flashy buildings later.

I completely agree with Marcusnelson also in that there is just way too much public money and space being put towards parks. We already have a massive park system. How much of our city budget goes to just maintaining parks and how much more will go towards maintaining the several thousand foot bulkheads? Make those parcels private and make developers and revenue generating businesses pay for the ongoing cost nightmare that these parks will create for future residents.

Personally, I'm not afraid of the concept of investing in some signature buildings, provided we can afford to. We already have some really interesting smaller development efforts like JWB, Augustine, and Corner Lot. North Core is going to be impressive once those projects get completed and new ones proceed. Meanwhile there's a lot of pressure involved in making the riverfront development look significant when it's going to impact the city's skyline. In theory, projects like Broadstone River House and the Southerly and One Riverside are already our toes in the water. The fair question at this point is whether the developers the DIA is picking to develop these sites are actually capable of delivering and if we're prepared to invest what might be demanded of us in order to make these projects feasible. I'm spitballing, but perhaps we'd be better off declaring upfront how much we're actually willing or able to spend on incentivizing the use of these parcels instead of hoping people come to us with numbers that we can afford. And if we're going to spend the effort on the Godzilla method of development in the first place, we shouldn't then be surprised by what's under the grass we just planted.

Re: Parks, don't get me wrong here, I do think investing in parks is worthwhile and valuable. The Emerald Trail and many of these parks are great for downtown. But at some point there needs to be room for people to actually utilize these amenities. We've spent an enormous amount of resources on the idea that suburbanites will drive in from Southside or the beaches or St. Johns simply to enjoy the beaches when we should be well aware at this point that there have to be people living downtown to use downtown. Rededicating the entire riverfront to park space that we then don't have anyone close enough to actually enjoy and use is a contrived mindset.

I think we need a true win in the Northbank. I've mentioned this before but the jail really shys developments off in the Adams St area. The skyline tells that tale. Very difficult to guess what banks will underwrite here vs. the Southbank. I do agree that we have local developers doing a lot of great work.. however most of it is still under 5-story product. RISE is likely going to be the best comp for the Northbank folks on rents and such.. but even then I'd say RISE is closer to a lot more happening right next to it.. & the location is pretty nice.

I am also for parks, and don't want to sound like someone who wants every last inch developed.. I just believe were likely going a little far with everything were doing combined.

We already tried the "nothing flashy" approach when we picked Spandrel for the first RFP. I'd say the DIA exercised some wise discretion by not falling for the flashy option in Southeast's proposal for round two. Carter is a serious developer with a track record, and while there was some debate here over whether mid-century modern architecture in general was appealing for the site, there was a lot of praise for the scoring criteria, evaluation process, and final selection.

Inflation was happening when Carter was selected, and the construction industry was in the throes of the severe supply chain issues. I can't imagine any developer would have agreed to quick or even typical timelines with the fallout from those economic conditions still on the horizon. It's okay in my mind to be disappointed at the extended timeline, but also realize it's the reality of our market, economic conditions, and the fact that the city wasted a decade of record-low interest rates, low inflation, and a strong economy doing....something?

A value-engineered Hardwick will still be a win on that site. It's more realistic, even as a high rise, than Spandrel's 74,000 sq ft of proposed retail, and it's proposed on land the city is actually legally able to transfer.

I agree if it all works out! lol.. If not, then this will be another case of selecting a design that wasn't feasible in the first place.. regardless of the capital & construction markets. 18-stories vs 10-stories is a huge price difference per sf.