Print Article
200 Riverside will be located on the corner of Riverside Avenue and Forest Street, becoming an anchor at a major downtown entry point.
The development will be designed to make the existing FDOT retention pond a central water feature.
Day (above) and Night (below): Looking south along Riverside Avenue.
A night rendering looking north along Riverside Avenue.
The street level plan leaves enough sidewalk width for future Skyway expansion.
East Elevation (Riverside Avenue)
South Elevation (Forest Street)
North Elevation (Jackson Street)
Building Section through middle of development, looking north.
Building Section looking west.
Building Section looking South through office building.
Article by Ennis Davis
Share this article
RSS
reednavy
November 03, 2008, 06:26:09 AMVery nice, let's get it done!
This area needs more projects like this, in order to compete with the Southside area.
heights unknown
November 03, 2008, 09:38:37 AMAnd.......this entryway or gateway to downtown will provide a catalyst for more growth and development in that small surrounding downtown area in Riverside/Brooklyn, and to the western portion of downtown going into Lavilla/Brooklyn. Great renderings and I love the look, appeal, and overall appearance of the building itself and the development as a whole. And...it complements the nearby Everbank Building and Blue Cross/Blue Shield. Is it finished yet?
Heights Unknown
alta
November 03, 2008, 09:45:45 AMThey have been delaying this project for the last year or two. I thought this particular building was supposed to break ground by the end of the year. They still have the coming soon sign up.
copperfiend
November 03, 2008, 09:50:45 AMI hope we see some progress.
Doctor_K
November 03, 2008, 10:18:03 AMIf the Convention Center were to get reverted back to Union Terminal with all the commuter rail coming through (crosses fingers), would that then make this a TAD?
thelakelander
November 03, 2008, 10:20:50 AMIf the skyway is extended into this area, then it could be considered a TAD. However, I don't think this development would qualify as either (TAD or TOD) because it's feasibility isn't dependent in any fashion on transit.
Ocklawaha
November 03, 2008, 10:29:45 AMIf this don't light a fire under the City to get that SKYWAY headed South, then they're wood is wet. Just a funny aside, with the current heavy freight transfers through the terminal, I can't wait until everyone in this place is soundly tucked into bed... Just then a CSX or NS engineer, stopped on signal, gets a green light. Being the hot-shot that he is, he yanks the throttle and the slack runs down 100 cars. CRASH-BANG-BOOM-CLATTER-CRASH-BOOM-BANG! It won't hurt the train but it's going to sound like a frickin earthquake ...and yes, if I was the Hogger on that train, I'd do it just for the SOB effect... hee hee.
OCKLAWAHA
vicupstate
November 03, 2008, 10:35:22 AMThis is the same site as the Marks Gray Law Firm proposal. Was that office space incorporated into this project, or is that dead?
thelakelander
November 03, 2008, 10:35:58 AMIt hasn't lite a fire under city hall, they're trying to get the courthouse out of the ground. The Skyway is JTA's baby. But I can't imagine them expanding anything in that area before construction on these long delayed projects takes place.
thelakelander
November 03, 2008, 10:36:48 AMSame project. The Marks Gray offices have been incorporated into a larger scheme.
civil42806
November 03, 2008, 10:49:31 AMHope this happens but I'm skeptical considering the present business environment
Jason
November 03, 2008, 11:52:48 AMThis and Brooklyn Park are absolutely massive in their benefit to Brooklyn and DT Jax as a whole.
GatorShane
November 03, 2008, 01:26:58 PMLooks great! This will be a great infill project that will further connect the downtown core with Riverside/Brooklyn.
reednavy
November 03, 2008, 06:07:27 PMWasn't this originally supposed to have condos or apartments? Either way, it appears those have been sacked, and rightfully so.
fhrathore
November 03, 2008, 06:55:23 PMwhere is brooklyn park in relation to this project?
alta
November 03, 2008, 10:21:48 PMIt is part of Brooklyn Park. I guess the condos and apartments have been scrapped indefinitely.
brainstormer
November 03, 2008, 10:42:26 PMI'm almost positive that Brooklyn Park is its own development. It will be located to the right of Jackson Street, closer to downtown. This project is between Jackson and Forest, on the left of Jackson if you are facing west.
Now wouldn't it be cool if the city partnered with the developers to extend the skyway and incorporate the skyway station into the new building. It would save money and pave the way for new mass transit partnerships between the city and private developers. The two should be built simultaneously.
ProjectMaximus
November 03, 2008, 11:46:59 PMI'm pretty sure Brainstormer is right. These are separate projects, and BP is just to the east of this.
Coolyfett
November 03, 2008, 11:52:59 PMNow wouldn't it be cool if the city partnered with the developers to extend the skyway and incorporate the skyway station into the new building. It would save money and pave the way for new mass transit partnerships between the city and private developers. The two should be built simultaneously.
Hmmmmm So Brooklyn Park and 200 Riverside are 2 different projects huh? When Lake says "commercial" that means like restaurants, clothing store, electronic device and etc right?
Also dumb question, but what is the difference between a TOD & TAD? What would MOSH & Main Library be classified under?
avonjax
November 04, 2008, 12:02:04 AMLove the project just hope at some point some residential at some point will happen in Brooklyn Park.
blizz01
November 04, 2008, 12:08:25 AMSpot on with your commercial definition; MOSH & Main Library are non-profits or institutions (I only suppose) - insight?
TOD = Transit Oriented Development
TAD = Transit Adjacent Development
Here's a cool little presentation from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council that differentiates the two quite nicely:
http://www.sfrrc.net/documents/TOD101-SFRRC.pdf
jeh1980
November 04, 2008, 02:48:19 AMI definately see this happening
Knowbusiness
November 04, 2008, 11:46:38 AMBrooklyn Park is adjacent to this project, just to the east, directly across the street from the Haskell Building. I have looked at financing it for the developers, but that's easier said than done these days.
Jason
November 04, 2008, 11:54:03 AMIts good to hear things from a financial side Knowbuisness. Are you at liberty to share any more details on the situation? If not, I completely understand.
How confident are you that this may be built?
thelakelander
November 04, 2008, 12:06:28 PMHmmmmm So Brooklyn Park and 200 Riverside are 2 different projects huh?
Yes, they are two indepedent developments that happen to be next to each other.
You are correct.
TOD (Transit Oriented Development) - Mass transit is a central focus of the project. Its designed around mass transit. Without mass transit, this development will not happen. If it happens, Jackson Square would be considered a TOD.
TAD (Transit Adjacent Development) - This is a new development located near a mass transit stop. Transit can play a role in its feasibility, but its not as critical an element and the development isn't designed with a mass transit stop as the central feature. Many of the projects JTA labels as TODs are actually TADs. Kings Avenue Station is a prime example. Its just as dependent on the skyway as Morton's and San Marco Place.
Neither. The Main Library and MOSH are not transit "dependent" development. They would be there regardless of if transit were nearby or not.
Knowbusiness
November 07, 2008, 02:26:54 PMBanks are not lending for this type of project unless there is a LOT of CASH equity in the deal (not equity from an enhanced land value).
This project was announced over a year ago, and nothing has happened yet. I don't see it happening in the near future.
thelakelander
November 07, 2008, 04:28:23 PMThere's a story about downtown projects being affected by the credit crisis in today's Jax Business Journal. According to the article 200 Riverside will break ground in 2009. Hallmark Partners claim they are moving forward because most of the office component of that project is already preleased.
Others in the article include 16:Flat, Brooklyn Park, The Library and 323 Duval. 16:Flat has died and been replaced with a 9 unit apartment project called 9 on Duval. 9 on Duval will start in 2009 if a construction loan can be secured. Brooklyn Park and the Library projects have been delayed. The guys behind 323 Duval and the Ambassador Hotel still plan to move forward with those projects but they won't break ground until construction starts on the courthouse.
ProjectMaximus
November 07, 2008, 04:41:53 PMOthers in the article include 16:Flat, Brooklyn Park, The Library and 323 Duval. 16:Flat has died and been replaced with a 9 unit apartment project called 9 on Duval. 9 on Duval will start in 2009 if a construction loan can be secured. Brooklyn Park and the Library projects have been delayed. The guys behind 323 Duval and the Ambassador Hotel still plan to move forward with those projects but they won't break ground until construction starts on the courthouse.
can you link to the story? I didn't see it.
thelakelander
November 07, 2008, 04:48:14 PMIts in a special handout. I'll scan and post it.
Coolyfett
November 07, 2008, 05:07:52 PMTOD (Transit Oriented Development) - Mass transit is a central focus of the project. Its designed around mass transit. Without mass transit, this development will not happen. If it happens, Jackson Square would be considered a TOD.
TAD (Transit Adjacent Development) - This is a new development located near a mass transit stop. Transit can play a role in its feasibility, but its not as critical an element and the development isn't designed with a mass transit stop as the central feature. Many of the projects JTA labels as TODs are actually TADs. Kings Avenue Station is a prime example. Its just as dependent on the skyway as Morton's and San Marco Place.
Neither. The Main Library and MOSH are not transit "dependent" development. They would be there regardless of if transit were nearby or not.
So basically TOD is more than one development around a train station as its central point? But the station would have to be there first?
What would be the terminology of MOSH, Main Library, Treaty Oak, Hemming Plaza etc etc, what category would those places fall under?
thelakelander
November 07, 2008, 05:19:55 PMthelakelander
November 07, 2008, 05:30:26 PMSo basically TOD is more than one development around a train station as its central point? But the station would have to be there first?
No. A TOD is a development with mass transit as its central focus. Its a project that is not feasible without having mass transit as a central element and amenity.
A TOD apartment complex in suburban San Diego. Residents can go from their unit to downtown without ever getting in a car or leaving the property before catching the train. Without the light rail station, this project does not happen in this shape or form.
A TAD is a development that is close in proximity to transit, but with a design that has not been significantly influenced by it. The proposed Laura Street project is a TAD. Its directly next to the skyway station, but it has a design that isn't dependent on the skyway.
None of these are transit dependent so that aren't TODs or TADs. They are just regular parks and cultural destinations.
Charles Hunter
November 08, 2008, 01:01:16 AMThus, by these definitions, Jackson Square is more TAD than TOD, as they seem to be going ahead before the transit component - either BRT or Commuter Rail - happens. The transit seems to be an enhancement rather than a necessity.
ProjectMaximus
November 08, 2008, 03:12:16 AMThanks for the article, Lake. It was a nice read and has me hopeful that things can turn around quickly if the economy recovers.
ChrisG
November 09, 2008, 02:02:11 PMAbout a year or two ago, the city wanted to buy property for a proposed "Brooklyn Central Park". This was going to be from Park st. to Riverside, Forest to Dora st.
thelakelander
November 09, 2008, 03:11:12 PMIts still apart of the plan for this area. 200 Riverside will face that park.
ChrisG
November 09, 2008, 07:34:23 PMYes the current retention Pond, but not the land to the north of Magnolis st. to Park st.
Charles Hunter
November 09, 2008, 10:57:55 PMFrom the renderings, it looks like the 200 Riverside folks are going to turn the retention pond into fountain ("cement pond") near their main entrance. Didn't the old City Brooklyn Park plan (not to be confused with the private development to the north called Brooklyn Park) call for expanding the pond, to provide drainage for the private Brooklyn Park development?
I thought I'd read that here, or at another site, some time ago.
Jason
January 05, 2009, 02:01:54 PMAny new information here?
jeh1980
January 31, 2009, 10:10:39 PMThere's a likely possibilty that it's gonna start construction soon! Keep the faith.
brainstormer
February 02, 2009, 01:22:44 PMAre you sure? Because I'm almost positive that they have taken down the "coming soon" sign and now it just says the site is available. Why would they do that if it was still going to be built? I'm hoping it hasn't been scratched because of the economy, but that is my guess.
jeh1980
February 02, 2009, 02:03:44 PMWell, I hope it's not scratched either. 200 Riverside would be a great edition for the downtown/riverside area. Let's not lose hope!
blizz01
January 29, 2010, 01:33:15 PMLooks like this still has some life - I do like the idea of a boutique hotel. I trust that new renderings will ensue:
A mixed-use plan for a seven-acre site on Riverside Avenue near Forest Street was approved by DDRB at its January 2007 meeting, but the project didn’t move forward due to changes in market conditions.
“The original design included a substantial residential component,” said Hallmark Partners Senior Vice President Coen Purvis before the meeting was called to order. “We’re still bullish on the site.”
The 2007 plan also included a four-story office building which has been retained in the new design for the development.
The revised plan has no residential element and a limited service hotel has taken its place, said Jason Faulkner of Rink Design Partnership, Inc. It will be four stories high with 130 rooms facing the pond and park that also remain in the site plan.
Miller said putting a hotel next to an office building, “is just wrong architecturally.” He said the only way he could approve the concept would be if the hotel “doesn’t look like the hotels on Baymeadows Road.”
Faulkner said that a dozen hospitality providers had been approached as candidates for the project and the developers are aware of the challenges involved in locating a hotel next to an office building.
“Finding a boutique hotel vendor who is willing to build a new prototype was like finding a needle in a haystack, particularly in this economic environment,” said Faulkner.
However, he added, an agreement has been reached with a company that currently operates 300 hotel properties and is developing its first urban prototype for the 200 Riverside project. Faulkner declined to identify the vendor but did say the company is currently operating hotels in North Florida.
In addition to the office building in the first plan, another office building with retail and restaurant space on the ground floor has been added. Faulkner said the restaurant will serve the commercial tenants as well as people who use the park and amphitheater which was also retained in the new site plan.
Conceptual approval for the amended plan was granted with a unanimous vote
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530153
Captain Zissou
January 29, 2010, 01:47:14 PM130 Rooms on 4 stories?? Sounds like a Holiday Inn. I hope it goes through some design changes so this isn't the case.
reednavy
January 29, 2010, 01:52:27 PMI wouldn't mind this style of Hampton Inn, which blends well in the SoBro neighborhood in Nashville. They also have one in a converted historic building in Downtown Atlanta, and a modern high-rise in Austin.
http://www.hamptoninn.com/en/hp/hotels/index.jhtml?ctyhocn=BNADTHX
blizz01
January 29, 2010, 01:53:30 PMI would have initially assumed something like Aloft or Hotel Indigo, however, the article indicates that this would be a "prototype".
JoeMerchant
January 29, 2010, 01:55:28 PMWell, sure I don't think anyone wants to see the typical Interstate exit hotel, but hotels go next to office buildings all of the time in urban settings, right?
reednavy
January 29, 2010, 02:05:11 PMtufsu1
January 29, 2010, 02:08:47 PMCourtyard by Marriott is my understanding
thelakelander
January 29, 2010, 02:52:36 PMIts a Courtyard by Marriott. Here are the latest renderings:
thelakelander
January 29, 2010, 03:00:17 PMThe original plan for comparison's sake:
copperfiend
January 29, 2010, 03:13:56 PMmeh
ProjectMaximus
January 29, 2010, 03:34:53 PMThere goes any hope of a riverside extension on the skyway.
fsujax
January 29, 2010, 03:51:58 PMI wouldn't worry too much about it. This will probably never be built. A few more years they might bring back the original plans.
duvaldude08
January 29, 2010, 03:53:11 PMProject is still moving forward. Due to market conditions, they had to axe the residential idea.
http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=530153
reednavy
January 29, 2010, 05:05:29 PMblizz01
January 29, 2010, 05:08:11 PMYes - looks like the new plan is only inclusive of the two buildings on the right.
thelakelander
January 29, 2010, 05:35:41 PMOriginal Concept
Current Modified Concept
TheProfessor
January 29, 2010, 05:48:16 PMI like the metalic curve. I am not sure about the EIFS/Stucco materials behind it though. It needs more glass and steel!
vicupstate
January 29, 2010, 06:34:13 PMQuite a step down from the original. Riverside Avenue was suppose to become Jax's version of Miami's Brickell Ave. With designs like this, that won't ever happen.
They should build the office building as originally designed (taller with a smaller footprint), and just wait for the economy to turn.
reednavy
January 29, 2010, 07:02:08 PMHopefully they build it strong enough to provide for further vertical development when things get back up to par in the economy.
ProjectMaximus
January 29, 2010, 07:36:59 PMI feel like this exact sentiment has been expressed on these boards several dozen times for several dozen projects.
brainstormer
January 30, 2010, 01:10:57 PMI'd almost support not building it rather than building something suburban and crappy just because the economy is weak.
I still disagree that a residential component would fail in this area. Yes, a luxurious $400,000 condo project probably wouldn't make it, but how about something an average office worker, teacher or cop can afford? Are developers so greedy that they will only build developments that give them a "retirement profit?"
I guarantee you that Jason and the other architects/designers on this forum could come up with something that is vertical, unique and affordable. Let's convince someone local to invest in a project there because it is good for the city. They should still make a small profit, but it doesn't need to be hundreds of millions of dollars. Or how about a good rental project? Something beautiful like the Strand, but just a little less expensive? I'm so tired of greedy developers.
reednavy
January 30, 2010, 01:13:30 PMIt doesn't make financial sense at all to build the size of building they wanted, for them to be affordable, nobody would finance it. The land is worth more than that to begin with, given it's location and afforable housing wouldn't turn a profit at all.
buckethead
January 30, 2010, 01:16:23 PMAny reasonable return on investment will lure a developer to build. If it costs $150 per square foot just to get a high-rise structure in place, don't count on seeing condo/apartment prices at $150,000 for 1000 square feet.
There is still much money to spend to make the raw space habitable.
(I don't know the actual numbers, but I'm geussing I'm close)
{Edit: in response to Brainstormer}
brainstormer
January 30, 2010, 01:28:29 PM^ I got you. Are there any studies someone can direct me to that show the cost/expense comparisons for going vertical vs. horizontal? What I'm getting at is that once the money is invested in land and strong enough footings/foundation for a tall structure, does the cost for each floor decrease each time another one is added? Can a developer make more money by building a 12 story building and selling more condos for a little less rather than a 7 story building with more expensive condos?
Ocklawaha
January 30, 2010, 01:33:01 PMIt is exactly THIS TYPE OF THING that JTA should be involved in, with the blessing, encouragement and incentives of both the COJ and CofC. As a team, they should be approaching these developers and explaining to them the benefit of having the Skyway RUN THROUGH their buildings, a Skyway that will be built as soon as they break ground. The same approach should be used on Commuter Rail Routes (Jackson Square) and Streetcar (the Laura Trio and The Team at Jaguar Stadium).
The slogan is JTA = MAKING MOVES. Not bad boyz and girls, now if we'd only MAKE MOVES!
OCKLAWAHA
brainstormer
January 30, 2010, 01:55:55 PM^ Some call it "thinking outside the box." I call it common sense!
Here in Jacksonville, none of the above.
tufsu1
January 30, 2010, 04:05:28 PMnice try...but they can't even fill the 4 stories with enough committments to start construction yet.
JeffreyS
January 30, 2010, 05:45:01 PMI hope this goes forward I do not mind the new design. Perhaps if this moves along it will encourage something to become of the Brooklyn park site.
braeburn
January 30, 2010, 05:49:47 PMOf course this is still a great plan. It is growth for the Brooklyn area. Right now it acts somewhat like a wedge in between downtown and Riverside.
Jason
February 01, 2010, 10:53:34 AM^ Agreed. These guys seem to be very adamant about moving forward. If this takes off it could spur more attention and development potential for the Brooklyn Park plans a year or two after this is completed. By then the market should have leveled out and the banks loosened up.
Just because it's not a skyscraper doesn't mean it's not well well planned and good for the area.
braeburn
February 01, 2010, 06:28:07 PMToo true. Let us also not forget about one of the biggest factors in a property: Location
ProjectMaximus
February 01, 2010, 06:45:11 PMJust because it's not a skyscraper doesn't mean it's not well well planned and good for the area.
My disappointment is simply the lack of a residential component, which, I assume, would have been the impetus for a skyway extension.
tufsu1
February 01, 2010, 07:43:25 PMthe Skyway extension isn't going to happen anytime soon regardless...several City Council members are adamantly opposed to any more $ going toward it.
stephendare
February 01, 2010, 07:50:27 PMYeah. My cousins all voted against Obama as well.
buckethead
February 01, 2010, 07:50:58 PMFear not! We can always replace unwanted Councilpersons as easily as light bulbs.
tufsu1
February 01, 2010, 08:41:05 PMthe difference being 100 million voters vs. 19
thelakelander
February 01, 2010, 11:59:01 PMThis project does not block a potential skyway extension. The ROW will still be preserved.
Jason
February 02, 2010, 11:39:48 AMThe mixed use building site is also primed for a mid or highrise building with a residential component. Throw in a garage large enough for tenants and hotel patrons and you have one nice site for a 30 story scraper.
fieldafm
February 08, 2010, 09:23:58 PMIts good to hear 200 Riverside is still 'active' for all intents and purposes. With the money the city spent on that stretch of Riverside Ave(and the subsequent demolition of a once vibrant thoroughfare), infill is needed.
I actually think a hotel there would be fantastic. More rooms close to downtown is sorely needed if we are to attract things such as better convention business, another Super Bowl, a potential NCAA Final Four(or Frozen Four), close hotel rooms for performers of an expanded RAM, etc.