Peytons Pocket Park Disaster

[thelakelander]

Novarre has not announced any plans to develop a property in Jacksonville, yet.  I'm keeping a close eye on them.  When/if something is announced you will here about it here first.

they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering

I don't know what sites Novare may be looking at, but regardless of what they choose, its difficult to present a convincing argument that no private entity would have been interested in a parcel located on one of downtown's busiest streets, if it were placed on the market at a realistic price.  As for developments on Main, Cesery is preparing to construct a development at Main & 3rd.

[jeh1980]

Well, it's obvious. They should've build a skyscraper on the spot instead of a park. Mayor Peyton, we all due respect, but please, no more downtown parks...unless their is a high rise next to it.

[thelakelander]

Boy people really do hate this pocket park. Maybe as time goes on it will gradually get better; Who knows, overtime it can sorta be our NY Central park here in Jax; Maybe not.

Yeah, minus another 828 some odd acres :-) That park is smaller than Strawberry Fields or the land required for Cleopatras Needle.. or any one of the 10 some odd baseball fields... :-)

It wouldnt be as bad if they made it interesting. Art work, sculptures, statues, history markers... there would be ways to make it more beautiful and permanent, and used.

This issue was bought up at a Downtown Action Committee meeting back in April of 2006.  An urban park will only as successful as its surroundings and how it integrates with them.  We are working to build a downtown that is actually a living neighborhood, as opposed to a museum viewed from our speeding cars down Main Street.  With any urban public space project, if you want it to do well, it needs to be designed in a manner that attracts a diverse range of people on an around the clock basis and it needs to offer activities that incorporates users from nearby establishments.  This is why most new urban parks include features like fountains, sidewalk cafes, retail, monuments, tot lots, etc. instead of just....grass.  In other words, it needs to become an interactive space, instead of a feel good drive by story on days when litter is not present.

[thelakelander]

Well, it's obvious. They should've build a skyscraper on the spot instead of a park. Mayor Peyton, we all due respect, but please, no more downtown parks...unless their is a high rise next to it.

I'd say at this point, the core would be better off WITHOUT any more grand visions from the 4th floor.  If this is the type of stuff we have to look forward to, we're better off with the money not being spent. 

Instead of trying to leave a legacy, lets get back to the basics and focus on getting the non-press release items corrected.  These would include finally getting wayfinding and directional signage, trolley stops that actually are identifiable, getting JTA's BRT system out of the heart of the core, selling vacant/under utilized city-owned properties, CORRECTLY revising the parking meter situation and working with JSO to come up with a compromise on the Sports District street closing issue. 

These little things aren't as exciting as putting hot dogs in the middle of a working drawbridge, finding a way to spend $700k on elevated sod or creating an "E-Town", but they will have a more powerful impact on the viability of the core.

[tufsu1]

they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering

ok tufsu1 , for those inquiring minds that haven't been able to find out where Novarre is looking at - please tell us... !!! 

no can do

[vicupstate]

This Park looks great compare to what was there. The mayor didn't beat back developers to build this park. As much as you all hate surface parking lots, I would think this a welcomed band-aid. The lot is still there and when it becomes valuable to a developer - sell it. Build something great.
As to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.   

My belief is that the administration does not believe that the middle class wants to live DT (off the river).   

some of us "middle class" folks already do live downtown (off the river)...fo example, there is The Parks @ Cathedral townhomes....a development partially subsidized by the City.

There goes that theory.....next?

I am SO glad you brought that up.

The Parks at The Cathedral was supported fnancially by the DELANEY administartion !!

Same story with The Carling, 11 E., Knight Lofts, Shipyards, the Peninsula, and the Strand.  Delaney GOT IT.  He understood the importance of residential. This guy doesn't! 

Thanks for providing MORE supporting evidence of my theory.

The fact of the matter is, there was supposed to be a SECOND phase of the Parks at the Cathedral.  Peyton's church, St. John's Episcopal had contributed the land for it, but took it back.  Why didn't Peyton use his influence to shepherd the second phasse to completion. 

Again, their ACTIONS say it all.     

[thelakelander]

they haven't announced yet....but they are doing due diligence...I'm sure if you look hard enough, you can find out what site(s) they are considering

ok tufsu1 , for those inquiring minds that haven't been able to find out where Novarre is looking at - please tell us... !!! 

no can do

I'm just happy they are still looking around.

[tufsu1]

the second phase has not been built because it wouldn't work financially....units in Phase 1 were originally sold for around $150k...even with the subsides the builders cut all kinds of corners so they could make even a small profit....it is likely that the costs for the 12 units proposed for Phase 2 would be over $300k....which some would say is no longer targeted for the middle class...not sure I agree but that's another issue

[Jason]

Well, it's obvious. They should've build a skyscraper on the spot instead of a park. Mayor Peyton, we all due respect, but please, no more downtown parks...unless their is a high rise next to it.

My beef with the park has nothing to do with it being a park, just the fact that no other idea was entertained for the property.  Pocket parks a wonderful elements of modern urbanism, however without a residential base to support them they become burdens on the budget. 

IMO, a better proposal would have been to issue an RFP for a residential structure with a ground level retail/dining element that fronted a small pocket park at the corner of the property  That way there is a built in user for the park.  The tax income from the residences would then offset the cost of maintaining the park versus adding to the strain of an already distressed city budget.

[vicupstate]

the second phase has not been built because it wouldn't work financially....units in Phase 1 were originally sold for around $150k...even with the subsides the builders cut all kinds of corners so they could make even a small profit....it is likely that the costs for the 12 units proposed for Phase 2 would be over $300k....which some would say is no longer targeted for the middle class...not sure I agree but that's another issue

My understanding is that some expensive drainage required for the site, which the city would not pay for, made the numbers not work.  I don't know if it was attempted, but a reworking of the development plan might have made something work.

The first phase lost a lot of potential buyers because the units are tri-level.  Demand for flats was unmet.  Perhaps this site could have been converted to 4-5 stories of flats with ground level parking.  The number of additional units might have covered the high drainage costs and the cost of 'up' rather than 'out' construction. 

The numbers might have worked or not, but I question if that idea was even considered.       

[downtownparks]

Wait, Vic... are you suggesting that we put dense vertical residential structures in the urban core???

Mods, can we get this guy banned, he clearly is just trying to cause problems...   

[Jason]

Alright, tell me this everyone.  Which would be the better option for downtown Jacksonville?




This?







Or this?

















Of course, the second option would require some actual effort to fully coordinate but projects like these are being built in urban areas around the country and are reshaping and complimenting the environment in which they are built.  Furthermore, developments like these add money to the city coffers, require little infrastructure upgrades, enhance walkability, revive once blighted areas, spur other similar infill developments, etc.  The benefits of developing this site far outweigh the benefits of a park.

[tufsu1]

to end this once and for all...Option 2 is clearly better....no argument.....

but nothing about Option1 precludes Option 2.....the park is still in public ownership, and if the development market rebounds and a bunch of other empty available parcels are developed, then this site (and the adjacent parking lots) could be as well!

[downtownparks]

you are correct with one big caveat... we could have not only done option 2 without spending 700K, we would have put that lot back on the tax rolls. Even if we gave the developer a HUGE discount on the property taxes as an incentive for market rate housing, we still would have NOT spent 700K. As it sits now, its not on the tax rolls and its not being used. At least as a parking lot it was being used...

Yes, we can still have option 2, but would could have spent that 700K in another park that would truly benefit the community around it, and would have been used.

[JWW]

Option 2? Yea that is great, but come on. The choice was between a vacant lot or the Park. This is Main Street across from the new Library with new sidewalks and planters stretching several blocks north and south. We needed this. If it is easier, Just consider it landscaping.