MOSH weighs relocating museum from its Southbank site in downtown Jacksonville

[marcuscnelson]

I think there still needs to be something on that street-facing end (where MOSH is now) to keep people in the area besides just... standing around on the grass? Whether that's a cafe or second restaurant or something. The Related tower already accomplishes what the Gateway Jax project will at Riverfront Plaza with bringing some residents, so a second tower there seems unnecessary, but I don't think it will work long-term to have nothing but more lawn. Serving as an expansion of the park with more things to do would be good. Strikes me as a bit of a shame if the building is really unusable though, unless there's something wrong structurally somehow.

[thelakelander]

^There's nothing stucturally unstable with the building. Like all buildings, it requires upkeep and maintenance and there's a cost that comes with that. We'd really benefit from having an actual master plan for publicly owned assets in downtown that has been vetted with real public input. But we've been saying that for years now.

[acme54321]

DIA board approved unanimously.  I really hope there is a plan behind all of this.

[Jones518]

I emailed the DIA's new CEO, Colin Tarbert last week expressing my disappointment about the plans to demolish the MOSH building....This was the response:

" Dear......,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your perspective on the former MOSH building. I appreciate the advocacy for preservation and adaptive reuse, and I wanted to respond directly and candidly.

Before coming to Jacksonville, I spent more than 20 years working in urban redevelopment in Baltimore, much of it involving historic and legacy buildings. Over that time, I've worked on projects where preservation and reuse made sense, and others where demolition was the responsible outcome based on building condition, feasibility, and long-term public benefit.

One example is Baltimore's 1961 Civic Center. Many people believed it should be demolished, but we instead found a path to reinvest $250 million and modernize it. That project is now CFG Bank Arena:
https://cfgbankarena.com/about-the-arena/

At Lexington Market, we pursued new construction for the market itself while preserving the 1960's structure for future reuse because it was adaptable and lent itself to continued market use. We demolished the 1982 addition to reopen the former street into a new public space:
https://lexingtonmarket.com/our-story#the-market

Similarly, when a developer proposed demolishing Broadway Market (after it being vacant for a decade) and turning the site into a park, I took the lead in ensuring the building was preserved and returned to active use. In that case, we had a clear plan and a building flexible enough to support reuse in a market-like format:
https://broadwaymarketbaltimore.com/history/

We also successfully reused buildings where the right opportunity and partner existed. The Ivy Hotel, for example, was a former city government office building that we repositioned by finding the right developer to transform it into a first-class hotel:
https://www.theivybaltimore.com/

In other cases, it was clear that buildings needed to come down. One example was the former BARD Building at Baltimore City Community College. That structure had been vacant for years, suffered repeated fires, and was no longer viable for reuse. We advocated for its demolition, and the site has since been cleared and converted into open green space, with the opportunity for future redevelopment. A local summary of that project is here:
https://www.southbmore.com/2025/03/05/a-look-at-the-new-green-space-downtown/

I'm also attaching a short PDF that shows the long-term evolution of Baltimore's Harbor East area, a redevelopment effort that began in the mid-1980s. It illustrates how historic warehouse buildings were selectively preserved, others were demolished, sites sat as parking or open space for a period of time, and then—over many years—incremental high-density development took hold. Today, only one or two major sites remain undeveloped.

I share that example because large-scale urban redevelopment, particularly in secondary markets, often unfolds over decades rather than years. Open or interim sites can feel stagnant in the moment, but they are often part of a longer transition toward more intense, higher-quality development. In my experience, once market momentum begins, development tends to accelerate.

In Downtown Jacksonville, there are several buildings I strongly believe should be reused and rehabilitated, including the Trio, the former Stanton School building, and remaining historic fabric in LaVilla as you noted. Preservation absolutely has an important role here.

In the case of the former MOSH building, however, my professional judgment is that reuse or rehabilitation is not viable. The building was designed for a very specific museum use, with an internalized layout and floor plate that do not lend themselves to other uses. Major building systems have failed or are close to failing, the roof would need replacement, the building is highly energy inefficient, and it contains asbestos. Simply maintaining the building to prevent further deterioration would require hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, with no realistic path to reuse.

These same realities are why MOSH determined that renovating and expanding the building did not make sense and chose to pursue new construction elsewhere.

[acme54321]

Hey, at least he took the time to write you a relatively lengthy response I guess.

[thelakelander]

There's a lot to read in this response but there's one thing I was looking for that isn't elaborated on much.

What about the community/public having a seat at the decision-making table? Was there a vision or plan that had originally been created through the work of inclusive community engagement and participation, thus allowing the things mentioned below to be evaluated as a part of implementing a vision built with community consensus?

We don't have community consensus or visioning in place with downtown Jax. We've been flying by the seat of our pants for years and as a result, we've spent just as much money on downtown as Baltimore but have failed to create the synergy and vibrancy everyone claims they want.

On the other hand, there are some things Jax has succeeded at that Baltimore is still seriously struggling with. The Inner Harbor has some great spots and has come a long way since the 1980s. But walk a few blocks away and you'll find yourself in some real hell and dispair....much more significant than you will find in Jax. So context is key as well.

I emailed the DIA's new CEO, Colin Tarbert last week expressing my disappointment about the plans to demolish the MOSH building....This was the response:

" Dear......,

Thank you for reaching out and sharing your perspective on the former MOSH building. I appreciate the advocacy for preservation and adaptive reuse, and I wanted to respond directly and candidly.

Before coming to Jacksonville, I spent more than 20 years working in urban redevelopment in Baltimore, much of it involving historic and legacy buildings. Over that time, I've worked on projects where preservation and reuse made sense, and others where demolition was the responsible outcome based on building condition, feasibility, and long-term public benefit.

One example is Baltimore's 1961 Civic Center. Many people believed it should be demolished, but we instead found a path to reinvest $250 million and modernize it. That project is now CFG Bank Arena:
https://cfgbankarena.com/about-the-arena/

At Lexington Market, we pursued new construction for the market itself while preserving the 1960's structure for future reuse because it was adaptable and lent itself to continued market use. We demolished the 1982 addition to reopen the former street into a new public space:
https://lexingtonmarket.com/our-story#the-market

Similarly, when a developer proposed demolishing Broadway Market (after it being vacant for a decade) and turning the site into a park, I took the lead in ensuring the building was preserved and returned to active use. In that case, we had a clear plan and a building flexible enough to support reuse in a market-like format:
https://broadwaymarketbaltimore.com/history/

We also successfully reused buildings where the right opportunity and partner existed. The Ivy Hotel, for example, was a former city government office building that we repositioned by finding the right developer to transform it into a first-class hotel:
https://www.theivybaltimore.com/

In other cases, it was clear that buildings needed to come down. One example was the former BARD Building at Baltimore City Community College. That structure had been vacant for years, suffered repeated fires, and was no longer viable for reuse. We advocated for its demolition, and the site has since been cleared and converted into open green space, with the opportunity for future redevelopment. A local summary of that project is here:
https://www.southbmore.com/2025/03/05/a-look-at-the-new-green-space-downtown/

I'm also attaching a short PDF that shows the long-term evolution of Baltimore's Harbor East area, a redevelopment effort that began in the mid-1980s. It illustrates how historic warehouse buildings were selectively preserved, others were demolished, sites sat as parking or open space for a period of time, and then—over many years—incremental high-density development took hold. Today, only one or two major sites remain undeveloped.

I share that example because large-scale urban redevelopment, particularly in secondary markets, often unfolds over decades rather than years. Open or interim sites can feel stagnant in the moment, but they are often part of a longer transition toward more intense, higher-quality development. In my experience, once market momentum begins, development tends to accelerate.

In Downtown Jacksonville, there are several buildings I strongly believe should be reused and rehabilitated, including the Trio, the former Stanton School building, and remaining historic fabric in LaVilla as you noted. Preservation absolutely has an important role here.

In the case of the former MOSH building, however, my professional judgment is that reuse or rehabilitation is not viable. The building was designed for a very specific museum use, with an internalized layout and floor plate that do not lend themselves to other uses. Major building systems have failed or are close to failing, the roof would need replacement, the building is highly energy inefficient, and it contains asbestos. Simply maintaining the building to prevent further deterioration would require hundreds of thousands of dollars annually, with no realistic path to reuse.

These same realities are why MOSH determined that renovating and expanding the building did not make sense and chose to pursue new construction elsewhere.

[jcjohnpaint]

I kind of thought that when he said he or DIA decides what is significant and can be salvaged and what can be demolished. This decision does involve the community. He is also quite new to the city. Could this building be another museum? Who determined it has no other use? What happens if MOSH does not raise the money? Are we out a Science Museum?

[Des]

No problem. Just raze it to the ground, and development will come! Right...? In the meantime, it can be a parking lot, just like the old Greyhound building.

[Jankelope]

I would like to try to meet with the new DIA guy. I think he is great, but also question some of this with MOSH.

To someone else point, the community had no say in if this should have become another museum, etc.

I still don't feel that we have a clear answer why Alistar Dove, who is a true pro at running museums...is stepping down from CEO. There's something we don't know going on.

[thelakelander]

I kind of thought that when he said he or DIA decides what is significant and can be salvaged and what can be demolished. This decision does involve the community. He is also quite new to the city. Could this building be another museum? Who determined it has no other use? What happens if MOSH does not raise the money? Are we out a Science Museum?

Yes, all these are important factors to consider that should guide staff decision making with public assets.

[fsu813]

I still don't feel that we have a clear answer why Alistar Dove, who is a true pro at running museums...is stepping down from CEO. There's something we don't know going on.

He has no museum to run for the foreseeable future.

[Jax_Developer]

Can't wait for another massive incentive package for another apartment tower on the Southbank.

[Jankelope]

That space really needs to be something more similar to the ideas for the Gateway Tower that's currently being proposed for Riverfront Plaza.

That mid-rise tower could have Hotel, Residential, Retail, Restaurant, and Rooftop access. That is really what is needed at that former MOSH site IF they believe they must have something of that scale. If it just ends up being apartments or condos it will be a huge loss of an important space. Surely they're not that stupid right?

[thelakelander]

If MOSH is going to go away, there's an argument to expand the park and focus on filling the vacant ground floor retail spaces in the office tower immediately to the south.

[Ken_FSU]

https://jaxtoday.org/2026/01/28/jax-council-extends-mosh-construction/

MOSH was granted a six month extension to start construction, which would push the opening to 2029, best case scenario.

The 75 parking spots will remain.

Joe Carlucci on what will happen to the old MOSH site post-unilateral decision to demolish without public input:

Carlucci said Tuesday that he expects it will "get a lot of attention" when the city issues a formal request for proposals to redevelop the MOSH property later this year. But he doesn't expect it to be used for for-rent housing.

"There is obviously a lot of interest in that site but nothing formal or specific yet," Carlucci told Jacksonville Today in a text message. "Preferred use is probably retail, hotel or multiuse. Not apartments."

Broken record, but the absence of a true master plan leads to monumental foolishness like this, where you've got a random Council member and a new DIA head crying asbestos on a building that was just occupied five months ago, knocking it down, and replacing it with either parking, or retail, or hotel, or mixed use. How will it be paid for? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Will it require large cash incentives that may or may not fit into our larger strategy? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  Does another hotel undermine that one down the block we just laid out $15 million in incentives for? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ What does the public want in this historic civic space opposite our lovely, historic public park? \_(ツ)_/¯

Key question to me that has been very poorly communicated during this rushed demolition talk: Does Related have a right of first refusal for the MOSH property.  If yes, I hope we don't pull a Ford on Bay and waste a lot of time and a lot of goodwill putting out a performative RFP knowing the end already.

If this is a play to give Related the property to develop, it's disappointing to see Curry-era antics seep back in. Public deserves a seat at the table with this one, or at least more transparency into the process and decision making. Not opposed to mixed use with retail, assuming it strongly complements the park. Not even opposed to Related taking control with a smart, pedestrian-first plan. We kind of screwed them when they purchased the land under the promise of having a new MOSH next door.  Just deeply dislike more demolition accompanied by either a lack of a follow up plan, or a secretive follow up plan.