“Is there a groundbreaking ceremony associated with this? Maybe Parks is doing something. I think the Mayor should be all over this.”
Paul R. Crawford
Deputy Executive Director
Jacksonville Economic Development Commission
“Downtown is everybody’s neighborhood,” said Peyton. “And ‘Greening Downtown’ is a simple, economic way to improve the pedestrian experience.” – 6/26/06
“It is wonderful that this will not take big, big dollars to do,” said Peyton. “The dramatic impact you can have with minimal dollars is great. Trees protect the quality of life and improve the way we live with minimal dollars.” The City plans to improve the “walk-ability” feature of Downtown and to improve the pedestrian experience, said Peyton.” – 6/26/06
http://www.downtownthisweek.com/story.php?story_id=2342
Award 12-7-06 Execution of contract 12-22-07
(Schedule may adjust due to holidays)
Schedule Preconstruction Meeting 1-19-07
Begin Construction 1-29-07
Park Construction Complete 4-30-07
Project Complete 7-30-07
If there are any questions I can be reached at 630-1324.
“This is a terrible idea. I love how the picture shows those large, majestic oaks that must be at least 50 years old, those are gonna be hard to plant there and no homeless, bums, vagrants, etc. That land has lots of potential and again the City will drop the ball on this. Will the Mayor's office ever learn? I am sure the park will look nice, but it will do nothing for the vibrancy, increasing retail, or housing options for Downtown. It will end up as another option for the bums to sleep in and ask for people's money.” – Fsujax 12/18/06
"THE MAYOR SHOULD BE ALL OVER THIS". Translation, what a bang up idea and terrific photo op. They think this is a good idea, so wonderful infact that the Mayor should be all over it. Another feel good sales job. It doesn't matter the long term impact, the reality of the choice.... just look make it look good and get plenty of media there. The must be sprinkling "Peyton" fairy dust all over city hall. Believe....believe.....” – Diane Melendez 12/17/06
“Keep in mind, grass and landscaping alone, doesn't attract people. Also we still haven't figured out how to maintain and attract people to most of the urban parks we already have. Furthermore, we're taking a prime plot of property with high visible frontage on Main Street (downtown's main North/South route) and keeping it off the tax rolls. Redoing Main Street's streetscape is a great move that being funded by outside sources, but spending $686,000 for a passive park on that land is the worst use out there.” – thelakelander 12/18/06
It looks like the Greening of Main project will be getting underway soon. For those who don't know, it will include the city spending $686,157 to construct a pocket park surrounded by surface parking lots, parking garages and a Salvation Army labor pool office. Some believe that people will read library books there, but fail to recognize that the library already has its own courtyard and Hemming Plaza is only ONE BLOCK away from this site.
Conceptual Rendering
This thing has shopping carts written all over it. -thelakelander 12/15/2006
“I'm kind of wondering why it cost so much to build myself. Does fill dirt and constructing small concrete planters/retaining walls cost that much? If so, someone at a high level has to have the guts to pull out the red pen and start slashing. Sod at grade, would have had the same overall impact, yet would have been a fraction of the cost.” – thelakelander 7/19/07
“It will be interesting to watch how the park is used in the coming months. Like the other pocket "parks" downtown which are connected to nothing and of no significance, I suspect it will be inhabited only by vagrants and people talking to themselves. This is what happens, BTW, when you let a suburban oriented Mayor looking for a project to tout design his own park. What a waste!” – Riversidegator 7/19/07
“This park is awful.... 1st there is NOTHING interesting about it..... 2nd It will take years for the trees to mature and looking at Jacksonville's track record, they will probably be neglected and become diseased or stunted before they make any impact on the site..... 3rd The grass will probably end up looking like most of the grass at Friendship park....A MESS 4th ....and no disrespect to the homeless and the thousands who trash our neighborhoods, streets and parks with litter, this is gonna be even a bigger trash collector than Hemming. Especially since it is surrounded by nothing except parking lots and the Salvation Army.” – AvonJax 7/20/07
“Just got back from the news conference. I missed most of it, because of work, but I did catch the tail end and looked at the concept art. From what I could tell, this was mainly focusing right now on Main street all the way up to the bridge, going back past church street. The concept drawing showed a 5' buffer on both sides of the sidewalks for planting. I saw Date Palm and some type of Holly tree alternating on both sides. The drawing didn't look half bad. The pocket park across from the library looked fairly big as it encompassed about half of that block next to the daycare. There was room for a sculpture and the lawn was angled toward the street. Just don't know how you would keep the homeless from taking over, like every park. In fact, as I was looking at these pictures in Hemming Park, a homeless man asked me for a hotdog. I bought him one since he didn't ask for money. Anyways, maybe someone else caught the beginning.” DapperDan – 5/02/06
“Mayor and his visions...does he smoke a joint before he gets these visions or what???” – BostechComputers – 5/04/06
“I'd rather see the entire parcel given over to developers and allow a substantial number of residences and street retail/entertainment in the form of an attractive tower. This will maximize profits to the city by putting ht whole thing on the tax rolls and eliminate the need to pump more city money into maintenance and put more people on the street to patronize the parks and buisnesses we already have. We have a lot of public space for a "downtown" of our size. Why detract from what we have by adding even more park space? Why not invest that same money into refurbishing our other downtown parks and creating true destinations? The only positive I'm getting from this whole idea is that it will be "nice". All of our downtown parks are "nice", why can't we make them great?” – Jason 5/04/06
“Dude I totally agree. I think it is a face saving project. Why not improve what we have and then add in a project not city owned. The money could be used for other things. I am beginning to see now that maybe this has been the reason why a city this size does not have a more developed downtown and low of funds” – theskyliner – 5/05/06
MetroJacksonville.com asks Mayor Peyton to re-think Main St Beatification Project
Jacksonville, FL
Subject: No More Empty Parks!
Members of Downtown Advocacy Group MetroJacksonville.com are asking Mayor John Peyton to re-think the city’s current plan for Main Street Beautification.
The overall project is broken down into several facets.
1) Base Bid (Sidewalk Hardscape Improvements Forsyth to Union) $1,145,101.50
2) Landscape Maintenance (Extend Hardscape maintenance one additional year) $23,980.00
3) (Park Improvements) $686,157.00
4) Landscape Maintenance (Extend Park maintenance one additional year) $19,135.00
This makes for a total project cost of $1,855,858.50 According to internal emails, Items two and four are not being funded at this time, and MetroJacksonville.com supports Main Street Hardscaping and Beatification, as listed in Item 1.
Item 3, however, MetroJacksonville strongly opposes. This item refers to a parcel of land across Main Street from the Main Library between Monroe and Duval Streets. Mayor Peyton’s stated plan is to turn the current parking lot into a public park. MetroJacksonville.com feels this is a bad use of a valuable parcel of land.
Rather than spending almost $700 thousand dollars and keeping the parcel off the tax rolls, MetroJacksonvilles advocates that the city issue a Request for Proposals for either
a. workforce/affordable housing, with ground level retail. or
b. A mixed use greenspace/retail development
This use would help reestablish Main Streets importance as a “Main Street” for downtown, as well as provide a concrete location for bringing affordable housing and or retail and business space downtown.
The current design plan also has not taken into consideration that the Vagrancy and Criminal element situation downtown is still a very real problem. Surrounding the proposed park are the Salvation Army, Trinity Rescue Mission, Clara White Mission, as well as a day labor facility. Clearly this park would become an additional magnet to many of Jacksonville's most at-risk residents, requiring even more dependency on the Sherrifs office to maintain it as a pedestrian friendly green space.
Lastly, with Hemming Plaza being a mere block from the proposed site, and Confederate and Klutho Parks, and the soon to be constructed Hogan’s Creek Greenway within a few blocks, the need for another public park in this location is simply not there. The state of the aforementioned parks show that the city has a history of not maintaining its parks, and adding the burden of another park simply takes money away from existing parks that badly need maintenance.
The Mayor recently showed great leadership for downtown by signing into law new parking ordinances designed to bring people back to downtown for more than an hour at a time. We ask that the Mayor re-think his current plan though before a contract is signed with Jensen Civil Construction Inc, to begin construction in January. The contracts could be signed as soon at December 22nd.
More free housing for the homeless?
Written by Kevin Conner
Friday, 05 May 2006
Parks, green space, public plazas. All catchy buzzwords that the public loves to hear and Mayor Peyton knows it – especially when we are quickly approaching the April 2007 city elections. Budget cuts, overspending and job losses. Now those are NOT the buzzwords that the public loves to hear.
So, what does our Mayor do when the news gets out to the public that he and the City Council have overspent for 3 years now and it will require 295 job cuts off of the city payroll to get us financially back in balance? He does the only thing that makes sense…he announces that he is going to build another park downtown.
And check out the geography of this park. It is proposed to be built along Main Street. It will be one block from the existing large city park, “Hemming Plaza” (also known as “The Homeless Village” during much of the day and night). And one more point on the geography of this park…it is in very close proximity to the Salvation Army and WorkSource (a labor pool business), which are both highly frequented by the homeless.
Throwing “affordable housing” out the door for this parcel and creating more “free housing” for the homeless? I guess it makes sense to someone on the fourth floor of City Hall. But I suppose only after you have created a huge budget deficit and you are facing re-election next year. Which begs the question of, “How did we find the money for this park when we have major budget deficit and the Mayor keeps crying that there is no money in the vault?”
In Peyton’s most recent push to provide “green space” along Main Street in the form of a pocket park, the Mayor is seeking to deplete the city of potential future revenue (in the form of taxes collected from that property) AND is taking away a prime location for a downtown affordable housing project. The Mayor should issue an RFP for this property to be used as affordable housing.
The Mayor himself has said we need to focus on improving our existing parks, rather than building new ones. Whatever happened to this theory? My best guess is that the Mayor knows he can’t hold a press conference for the same thing twice.
So, now, if you are homeless in Jacksonville, you have options. Current renters and homeowners who are on the brink of being forced out onto the streets may not have affordable housing options, but that’s okay. When you lose your home, you’ll have multiple parks to hang out in downtown.
Main Street Pocket Park Photo Tour - October 6, 2007
"Great Ideas build great Cities"
Share this article
RSS
tufsu1
October 09, 2007, 07:59:08 AMI drive by the park every morning on the way to work and walk by/through it several days a week.....this is the first time I've seen trash strewed about this way.
You all need to remember that the $ was from an FDOT grant and had to be used on/adjacent to a state road....its not like the City wasted $ from their own budget.
As I said many months ago, GET OVER IT!
Lunican
October 09, 2007, 08:21:03 AMWhy is it ok to waste state money?
As we said many months ago, there are plenty of existing parks along state roads that could have used the money.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 08:30:11 AMWow, what a case study!! In any event, I guess could say the park is not officially completed.
I've seen trash out there a few times and I'll say the city normally does a pretty good job of quickly getting out and picking up the trash let over by vagrants. Anyway, for those who do drive by on a regular occassion, do you see people reading books, eating lunch or playing in the grass during various times of the day? For whatever reason, other than the occassional dog watering the grass, the completed portion does not seem to be getting much usage when I drive by.
Are you sure about that? The park was NOT funded by the FDOT grant, the Main Street streetscaping was. As mentioned over a year ago, the park was funded by the city's tree mitigation trust fund. The money used for the construction of the pocket park could have went towards the improvement of many existing parks littered across the city. Here's a quote from a May 6, 2006 Times Union article on the funding breakdown.
"The cost of creating a pocket park and planting new plants along Main Street is estimated at $1.8 million. A Florida Department of Transportation grant will provide about $610,000. Another $990,000 will come from a tree mitigation trust fund and the rest from leftover bond money for parks, according to Peyton spokeswoman Misty Skipper. The trust fund has about $11.5 million that comes from developers who don't replant protected trees torn down during construction. The City Council will need to approve using the fund for the landscaping projects."
Here's a link: http://www.jacksonville.com/tu-online/stories/050306/met_21774622.shtml
Unfortunately, we did invest $700k in that site. Instead of getting over it, maybe we should add it to a list of shame and use for an example of how "NOT" to do things, when we plan for future projects.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 08:33:23 AMAlthough we live in Florida, it did not come out of our pockets, its free money that raineth from the heavens.....duh.
Jason
October 09, 2007, 08:35:13 AMWhere are the 100 year old oaks that the rendering shows? I think we got ripped off.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 08:40:01 AMLets see....in downtown....
Confederate Park
Friendship Fountain
Treaty Oak Park
Northbank Riverwalk
Southbank Riverwalk
Brooklyn Central Park
Bay & Broad pocket park
Forsyth & Newnan pocket park (across from the Florida Theater)
its not like any of these parks need money for improvement anyway. Other than a few pumps not working on a fountain and a riverwalk falling into the river everything looks peachy clean and pristine. Besides, like the Skyway....it was free money that came from outside of Duval's county limits.
Lunican
October 09, 2007, 08:56:18 AMAt the time, the mayor and friends were insisting that the $700,000 was just a "drop in the bucket". Now that they are trimming $10,000 and $20,000 at a time in order to approach a balanced budget, maybe that was a foolish stance afterall.
Jason
October 09, 2007, 09:21:18 AMI'm glad to see the park getting used by at least one person.
tufsu1
October 09, 2007, 09:31:36 AMand I suppose the parking lot that was there before was better....
many people on this site say the land should have been made available for private development....I agree.....but there are plenty of vacant lots downtown and not very many developers stepping up to buy and redevelop them!
brooklyn-ite
October 09, 2007, 09:39:19 AMConfederate Park
Friendship Fountain
Treaty Oak Park
Northbank Riverwalk
Southbank Riverwalk
Brooklyn Central Park
Bay & Broad pocket park
Forsyth & Newnan pocket park (across from the Florida Theater)[/size][/size][/size][/size]
There is NO such thing as a Brooklyn Central Park yet - The city has bungled that too thinking they were going to get the dirt for cheap by eminent domain. What they didn't think about is taking square blocks off of the market also takes them off of the tax rolls and potential tax rolls from developers that do want them. There is no way they are going to get that Park thru City Council in light of the Riverside Park's proximity (.25 mile) and the tax base potential that those blocks hold.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 09:47:23 AMummm.....yes. It did not cost $700k and was no more of an eyesore to the area then the surface parking lots still in use next door. No matter which way it is spinned, its tough to justify spending $700k for a half a block of elevated sod at that particular location.
Actually, in the last few years several have stepped up to the plate and purchased vacant buildings and lots for new uses. Chamblins, Burrito Gallery, Churchwell Lofts, Cesery's Lofts in Springfield, 122 Ocean, the Lerner Shops Building, etc. However, before we can get to that point, we have to make the property available first. Like the city's vacant lots in Springfield, that was never allowed and especially not advertised in this case.
downtownparks
October 09, 2007, 10:04:05 AMSpeaking of City Owned Springfield lots.
071446 0000 6th and Laura,(on Laura) third lot from NW corner
070943 0000 3rd and Market (on E 3rd), two lots down from NE corner
072643 0000 3rd and Ionia,(on E 3rd) 2nd lot from SW corner
071272 0000 5th and Hubbard,(on E 5th) 3rd Lot from NW corner
073132 0090 Perry, across from Cottage (This maybe a parking lot for emergency services)
071083 0000 4th and Laura, (on Laura) 2nd lot from NW corner
072783 0000 2nd and Market, (on Market) third lot from SW corner
071936 0000 8th and Market (on Market), 3rd lot from NW corner
072429 0000 4th and Liberty (on liberty), 3rd Lot from NE corner
072480 0000 4th and Ionia (on Ionia) third lot from NE corner.
And all of these were over grown, and it took nearly an act of congress to get them mowed, and some of them never did...
Supposedly the city is working on a plan to dispose of them. I guess we shall see.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 11:13:01 AMFor those who may have designed this park or are familiar with it, I have a question:
How we get from the bottom of the park to the top? Are we supposed
to step over the retaining walls and cross through the dirt to access each level of greenspace?
fsujax
October 09, 2007, 11:21:11 AMJason, I agree with you, where are those 100 year old oaks?
big ben
October 09, 2007, 12:54:34 PMi think the city could somehow divert disaster with these parkets if they could get retail and/or housing surrounding them. there's still lots of surface parking on the east side of them, from what i remember. perhaps retail that fronts the parkets with a large pedestrian walkway instead of a road. it would create more of a parking problem, but it'd be nice to have a row of shops, restaurants and bars with outdoor seating that has a small buffer between the road instead of the usual 3-ft walkway and curb. throw in some residential units above and more retail/residential facing oceanand you would definitely need a parking garage, but i think in the long run it would be better than unused parkets and surface parking lots.
RiversideGator
October 09, 2007, 01:41:16 PMI drive by the park pretty much every day also and I have seen exactly two people "using" the park since it was finished. One was a clearly deranged homeless woman similar to the photos above and another was some guy I saw sitting in the park today who was staring into space. There is just no reason for the park and nothing to do there except sit on the bench and stare at the back of the library or the traffic whizzing by on Main Street (which needs to be significantly slowed and curtailed also BTW). It has also been a trash magnet for vagrants and for passing motorists who toss litter out of their windows. Finally, I saw today a number of weeds popping up through the expensive looking sod the City laid there.
TUFSU: Perhaps no developers would have wanted to build at this site. But, we will never know if, given a proper RFP at a reasonable price, a developer could have been brought in. We already know that a market rate housing firm (I cant remember the name now) was scouting downtown for sites. Perhaps if we had proactive intelligent leadership they could have approached these people and cut a deal to develop the site. Now, since no efforts of any kind were made, we will never know. The bottom line is this site will now sit fallow until we have better leadership in City Hall.
downtownparks
October 09, 2007, 01:54:48 PMYeah, what builder in his right mind would want a Main St Address three blocks from the river...
Jason
October 09, 2007, 02:13:54 PMNovarre is the developer you're thinking about Riverside.
tufsu1
October 09, 2007, 03:53:45 PMperhaps you all should do some research on Novare is planning for Jax....maybe then you can find out what parcels they are considering....I think you'll find that Main Street would not be on the top of their list.
Jason
October 09, 2007, 04:15:59 PMNovarre 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.
JWW
October 09, 2007, 05:14:29 PMThis 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.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 05:44:25 PMAs to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
We're pinching pennies to balance the city's budget, yet its okay to blow $700k on a feel good temporary band aid? Being wasteful of funds is never a good thing, parking lots, elevated grass or not.
vicupstate
October 09, 2007, 06:26:27 PMAs to the litter, scumbags will litter regardless.
The land was never offered, so for all anyone knows, there might have been numerous developers interested in it. As Gator says, we will never know. What would have been lost by putting an RFP out there and seeing what bites? If no one came forward with a proposal, at least you would have had some EVIDENCE to back up the assertion.
What we do know is that the administration was willing to sell the old library for a fraction of it's worth ($1mm) to Peterbrooke when not ONE but TWO proposals for major, mixed-use projects were on the table. As bad as that was, they even considered keeping the building for SOE storage.
My belief is that the administration does not believe that the middle class wants to live DT (off the river). That explains why they cannot visualize this site as anything other than landscaping, why the mixed use proposals for the old library were not taken seriously (until there was only one option remaining), why the words 'LaVilla' and 'residential' never come out of their mouths, why it doesn't bother them that Hemming Plaza is returning to 9-5 again, why street-level retail is not even considered for the Haverty/City Hall annex building, why upgrading the parking meters was quickly dismissed as too expensive(wouldn't $700,000 have covered that cost, BTW?), etc.
They are suburban folks with a suburban mindset, who only pay lip service to being in favor of DT redevelopment. Actions speak louder than words.
I'm not satisfied with the fact that the parcel is visiually more appealing (at least when it is clean). Minor, marginal improvements is not sufficient for a city that is already a decade plus behind the curve.
Oh my
October 09, 2007, 07:14:56 PMIf one looked closely with the COJ comprehensive plan you would see that we had a State requirement to build 18 fields by the year 2005,and an additional 29 by the year 2020. I can't for the life of me understand why ever dime doen't go towards this goal. The athletic community is screaming for more facilities or just for minor improvements to our existing parks. It is time for the citizens to stop this misguided mayor for he was the one to put the unqualified directors on his staff. We need to impeach him before any more damage is done to the citizens of Jacksonville. This is the worst Mayor I've ever seen for the citizens. We need leadership to step upso the process of removal can begin!
I-10east
October 09, 2007, 07:49:59 PMBoy 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.
tufsu1
October 09, 2007, 08:10:07 PMthey 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
tufsu1
October 09, 2007, 08:14:51 PMAs 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?
brooklyn-ite
October 09, 2007, 08:55:00 PMok tufsu1 , for those inquiring minds that haven't been able to find out where Novarre is looking at - please tell us... !!!
downtownparks
October 09, 2007, 09:26:29 PMYeah, 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.
thelakelander
October 09, 2007, 10:38:26 PMthey 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
October 09, 2007, 10:43:43 PMWell, 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
October 09, 2007, 10:47:42 PMYeah, 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
October 09, 2007, 10:56:50 PMI'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
October 10, 2007, 07:48:31 AMok 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
October 10, 2007, 08:56:30 AMAs 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
October 10, 2007, 09:02:35 AMok 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
October 10, 2007, 09:14:48 AMthe 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
October 10, 2007, 01:49:45 PMMy 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
October 11, 2007, 08:14:05 AMthe 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
October 11, 2007, 08:51:18 AMWait, 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
October 11, 2007, 09:15:27 AMAlright, 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
October 11, 2007, 09:43:59 AMto 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
October 11, 2007, 09:52:31 AMyou 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
October 11, 2007, 10:51:37 AMOption 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.
Lunican
October 11, 2007, 10:59:48 AMSo is the park up for sale to the highest bidder? Does the city normally sell off park land to developers? I would think it would be harder to build something on a park than a parking lot.
City Hall stated that their goal was to get buildings on these blocks, but then they went ahead and spent money to get them further from their goal. Kind of weird.
thelakelander
October 11, 2007, 11:11:56 AMWe didn't NEED to spend $700k on sod. If we really wanted to green the lot, you can get a 500sf pallet of St. Augustine Sod for about $100 bucks. The site is 33,075sf, which means it would have taken 66 pallets of sod to fill it and create a passive greenspace (if desired). At $100/pallet that comes out to $6,615.00. Assume the same amount for labor and that puts you at $13,230. Even if you wanted improved lighting and a few perimeter trees (the Federal grant would have funded them along Main) it could still be done for well less than $100k.
So with that said, the better choice should have been to leave the vacant lot and apply to $700k to improving a permanent public space. Lets get real, this site is across the street from the butt of the Library. The community would have been better served taking that money and spending it in Hemming (or some other park) to make them more of an inviting place and allow the free market to take control of the Main Street lot.
big ben
October 11, 2007, 12:32:37 PMi'm thinking this park needs more attention from the tax payers. since nobody is using this lot, we could also try to change that. if people actually use the park, it's not a complete disaster and developers might be more likely to want to use downtown.
i'm thinking if there is a group of people in this parket during rush hour, people will notice. since these parkets are too small for most park activities except sitting activities, i'm thinking we could play croquet. then again, i don't know enough about that to know if it would fit on one of these parkets.
regardless, i think it would draw attention, because how often do you actually see a group of people playing croquet. we could set up a large sign or signs saying something like "the cost of this croquet field was $700,000" and large enough for people to easily read it while driving. i also think this is better than just trying to draw attention to the cost, because people from the suburbs would see that people actually do things downtown when there isn't an event drawing them there.
does anyone else think this is a good idea? if it does nothing else, i will at least have learned how to play croquet...maybe.
Jason
October 11, 2007, 12:57:45 PMI find it hard to believe that this park will ever be sold off to developers. 10 to 20 years from now this park my be a welcomed addition in what could be a very active, urban, and dense downtown environment, however, the cost of the park could/should have been the responsibility of a developer versus the city. There are too many other parks out there (as many have mentioned) that are being neglected and ignored that could have used the money and attention.
I guess these arguments are pointless though because it is built and isn't going anywhere and as Big Ben has suggested, we should try to make something of it so that it doesn't fall off of the charts like so many others around town. This should be a "lesson learned" by the city though.
JWW
October 11, 2007, 01:49:31 PMThey did not spend 700K on just sod. I'm all about the free market, but the free market gave us all those surface parking lots. Free market can still give you the computer graphic middle class housing that is in such high demand, but for some reason the Mayor kept it off the property tax rolls. Metrojacksonville has complained about surface parking lots and tearing down buildings, and the blight it has caused downtown. Now, the city turns one backwards and still can't win. "Is this park for sale to the highest bidder?","can you build on a park"? Yes - in a free market everything is for sale.
thelakelander
October 11, 2007, 02:05:41 PMI agree. If it is a temporary fix, it was flushed down the toilet on permanent elements like retaining walls.
Actually the free market didn't. The creation of many of downtown's surface parking lots are heavily influenced by public policy.
Its not a game. The winners and losers are me, you and Duval County taxpayers. The idea of a public park next to a Salvation Army, a one way freeway, the butt of the library and asphalt lots is a bad one, plain and simple. It was bad a year ago and you're seeing the results off little usage today.
I think you're missing the point, unless you have no problem lighting money on fire. The $700k could have been spent somewhere else and had a greater impact on more of the existing population.
Because that block is green, it won't bring people to the core and it won't get much usage, due to the location. It may look nice driving by, but downtown should be designed to be a fish bowl or a tour ride. In Baymeadows this type of designing may work, but in urban areas the success of public spaces are contingent on what takes place around them and how well they integrates with them.
vicupstate
October 11, 2007, 03:13:03 PMThere is quite often OPPOSITION to converting park land to something else. There was a proposal to convert a SMALL PERCENTAGE of an existing pocket park at the corner of Broad and Bay into parking so that an adacent building could have residential units. The city council turned it down, primarily because 'park space shouldn't be developed'.
It's not like the city didn't already have several useless pocket parks. The one across the Florida Theater and the aforementioned Bay and Broad one show that they don't generate activity in and of themselves.
In fact that $700,000 could have implemented Tri VU's plan for the FL Theater pocket park that would have made it a viable space.
JAX has enough 'lessons learned' on DT screw-ups, to bring Wikipedia to it's knees. It needs to start getting it right for a change.
JWW
October 11, 2007, 04:34:32 PMWell, I agree the park isn't going to be used as a park (lounging, picnic, etc.) - I don't plan on going there. The streetscape improvements would have been enough to visually improve main street as you drive through without the grass area. What type of space is needed for the residence of the Cathedrals, 11 E. Forsyth, the Carling, Berkmans, Churchill Lofts, etc. to go walk, relax, play with dogs and children? Is that the focus, and what needs to be built to start Downtown Jax on the right path?
downtownparks
October 11, 2007, 04:44:11 PMI think one of the things we suggested at the time was for the city to issue an RFP that included not only market rate housing, but also included green elements. I believe it was over on MetJax, but I am pretty sure several people posted examples of mid/high rise style buildings with green elements.
downtownparks
October 11, 2007, 04:55:25 PMYeah, here are some of the threads from back then... We have hashed this all out before.
We are making the same points now that we made then. This to me was an issue on two fronts. The waste of money that could have been used in other parks, and the fact that we are continuing to turn our downtowns back on Main St.
Here is where it all started, and the issue was jumped on immediately by many of us.
http://www.metjax.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2020&
Here is when we realized they were hammering it though regardless.
http://www.metjax.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3756&
thelakelander
October 11, 2007, 05:05:09 PMYes, some of us also met with Adam Hollingsworth and Paul Crawford and suggested that as well. In that case, the site would have been developed into something that put it back on the tax rolls, but also included a linear greenspace element.....at the developer's expense. By combining the two you would have then had a space with retail/housing opening up onto it, thus providing it with a continuous flow of traffic.
There's a quaint pocket park at Market and Church Streets. We have the Riverwalk, Hemming Plaza and a few existing pocket parks scattered in between. On top of that you then have Metropolitan Park and the chain of parks lining Hogans Creek. It can be argued that there's already plenty of park space in core that we need to improve and build upon to help them recieve more usage.
As for getting downtown off to the right track, I think we have to look at the issue of connectivity. Overall we've made significant progress from a few years ago, but we need that extra umph to push it to the next level.
People attract people and the more you can pile into a compact area with a diverse amount of uses, the more successful downtown will be. If we applied that concept to parks, then we'd take a space like Hemming Plaza, clean it up, add additional uses within it (like a tot lot) and fill its borders with a mix of uses that are alive around the clock on all four sides (including city hall). Once the vibrant epicenter is formed, things spreadout from there and connect to other nearby popular nodes like the Landing and the waterfront, via redeveloping corridors like Laura Street.