The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Downtown => Topic started by: edjax on September 12, 2019, 07:38:58 PM

Title: The Ford on Bay
Post by: edjax on September 12, 2019, 07:38:58 PM
I see where the Daily Record just posted what the DIA will be voting on with regard to the specifics for the development requirements for the old City Hall and Courthouse area.  I’d bring over the article but not too good at that so perhaps someone can post it.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 12, 2019, 08:06:25 PM
https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/former-downtown-courthouse-city-hall-sites-branded-the-ford-on-bay

Quote
Former Downtown courthouse, City Hall sites branded ‘The Ford on Bay’
Terms released by the DIA give developers specific requirements for ground-level retail.

---

Proposed terms for developing the former Duval County Courthouse and City Hall properties released Thursday by the Downtown Investment Authority give detailed requirements on the amount of retail space expected at the site.

The DIA board will consider a resolution Wednesday to approve the scope of a request for proposals to develop the vacant 8.38-acre green space at 220, 330 E. Bay St. and adjacent land submerged under the St. Johns River —  now collectively named The Ford on Bay.

The terms state that bids to develop one, a combination of two or all three of The Ford on Bay parcels will be accepted. However, the DIA will not accept a proposal to develop only the submerged parcel.

If approved by the DIA board, the authority will issue the request for proposals Oct. 21 and award the project by Feb. 20, 2020.

Marketing material created by firm CBRE Jacksonville for the DIA to lure developers to the project also was released Thursday. It provides a breakdown of each parcel — the former City Hall site at 2.39 acres; the former courthouse parcel at 5.99 acres; and submerged land on the St. Johns River at 3.1 acres.

DIA officials say the development will be mixed-use and could include office, open space and hotel.

Where the term sheet is specific is in the amount of retail expected in the development.

All buildings facing East Bay Street require “a vertical mix of uses” and ground-floor retail — that includes restaurants and merchants.

According to the DIA, 80% of East Bay Street buildings’ frontage at the site must be retail. Of that, 62.5% of the retail must be street level while the remaining required retail can be on the second floor.

“At a minimum, the proposal shall include at least one semi-public use such as a sidewalk cafe or patio seating along Bay Street,” the terms state.

Both retail and multifamily residential will be required components of any proposal to build The Ford on Bay. The DIA will show preference to proposals with high-density residential, according to the terms, but there is no specific number of residential units.

DIA staff envision the submerged parcel on the St. Johns River as a marina. Developers must include “a material number” of slips dedicated to visiting boaters and commercial vendors at part of their marina proposal.

Respondents also are required to indicate the number and size of the slips and which are for public or private use.

Developers interested in building on all three sites are required to have experience with a singular $120 million capital project of at least 650,000 square feet.

Included in the DIA’s vote Wednesday will be consideration of a development timeline and scoring criteria for bids on the Downtown riverfront property.

The full bid timeline is as follows:

• Issue public bid notice: Oct. 21

• Pre-proposal conference: Nov. 5,

• Written questions from bidders due: Nov. 12

• Written answers from DIA due: Nov. 21

• Bids due: Jan. 21

• Oral presentations for short-listed respondents: Jan. 30

• Evaluation Committee recommendation to the scoring committee: Feb. 10

• DIA Board proposal selection: Feb. 19

• Award posted: Feb. 20

The DIA wants development to begin within 120 days of the property closing and “all phases much commence” within two years of that date.

CBRE created the name The Ford on Bay for its marketing material, stating “it is the site of former river crossings where Native Americans and travelers would cross.”

The DIA Board will at 2 p.m. Wednesday in the Lynwood Roberts Room at City Hall, 117 W. Duval St.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 12, 2019, 08:11:32 PM
I don't see why we needed to demolish the existing buildings before doing this.

Since it looks like we won't really see anything on this until next year, I don't really have any strong feelings about it. What's done is done. I hope whatever they put there is nice.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kiva on September 12, 2019, 08:17:43 PM
"The Ford on Bay" what kind if idiot marketing is that? You are referring to Cowford?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: blizz01 on September 12, 2019, 09:50:01 PM
Yes.  Context provided above.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on September 12, 2019, 10:16:19 PM
Quote
CBRE created the name The Ford on Bay for its marketing material, stating “it is the site of former river crossings where Native Americans and travelers would cross.”
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on September 12, 2019, 10:29:21 PM
I dig the name, and like the plan.

Looking forward to seeing what comes back.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 12, 2019, 10:56:29 PM
Would have liked them to leave the convention center component in the RFP, as opposed to requiring residential. Could have given the city hall annex away to a residential developer if residential density was really a priority. Seriously doubt anything proposed will be denser or taller. Other than that, let me know when something real is proposed and we can take a closer look then.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Captain Zissou on September 13, 2019, 09:28:50 AM
Names I like better than The Ford on Bay:

Lenny's Lawn
The Former Courthouse and City Hall Annex Site
The two blocks south of Bay and West of the Plaza at Berkman and one submerged property which used to be the site of the courthouse parking lot
The Grass Patch
The Bro-town Chill Zone
Downtown Bro-Down
The Place that will undoubtedly house the homeless for the next two years
A Great Place to Play Ultimate Frisbee that Only Cost $35M to Make
The Clusterf*ck
220 East Bay Street
The Suck
sadjknbsadxjkb
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on September 13, 2019, 09:37:45 AM
I mean the name is whatever - I suppose if you want to brand the RFP then fine. I still think the RFP should have included a convention center/exhibit hall option.

I suppose unless explicitly excluded a respondent could propose it so long as they met the rest of the RFP requirements....but considering that I can't imagine a facility like that making money on it's own the COJ isn't going to kick in anything for that.

I am glad they seem to be mandating retail, so I'll reserve judgement for the proposals themselves.

I think the whole RFP is fine.

Now......If you didn't want the Convention Center, I cannot understand why this exact RFP couldn't be issued even prior to these buildings being vacated. I suppose the answer is the fact that the Civic Council endorsed the Convention Center plan until Curry and Khan didn't like that.

Now, the Civic Council has gone underground like government holed up in a bunker during a nuclear war, but that's a separate issue.

Even still....there's no reason this exact RFP couldn't be issued with the buildings standing. Perhaps you do the asbestos abatement and stop there.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on September 13, 2019, 10:08:09 AM
I don't care for the name. I don't know why an RFP would be used to name it as anything. Leave that to the eventual owner. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.  Knowing the city's legal history, it is probably an infringement on Ford Motor Company.

The Convention Center ship has sailed (into Metro Park). The only way it is going anywhere else is if someone buys the Jags. 

Is this open to the public? If so, it would be the first indicator of the level of interest:
• Pre-proposal conference: Nov. 5,
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Charles Hunter on September 13, 2019, 10:34:20 AM
About the name, when I saw the headline, "Ford on Bay" I thought it was about the old Ford plant under the Mathews Bridge, and someone made an error on the location.

I think pre-proposal meetings are open to the public, but wouldn't swear to it.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Pastor Eric Wester on September 13, 2019, 11:09:59 PM
About the name...gauging by tonight's activities, function points to another possible name:  overflow parking area for pickup trucks and motorcycles hitting Bay Street night venues. Friday night means more than a score of motorcycles and a row or two of cars and trucks. I knew The Lawn wouldn't last long.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Bativac on September 14, 2019, 02:03:19 AM
I don't see why we needed to demolish the existing buildings before doing this.

This is like asking why the sun must set before it rises. This is Jacksonville. It's what Jacksonville....does. The site must be razed to the ground at public expense before seeing if maybe anybody wants to buy it.

I'm visiting next week for the first time in a year and am excited to check out the new vacant lots downtown!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 15, 2019, 10:37:05 PM
I don't think I have ever heard/seen any City go to this length to brand and publicize an RFP.  It is a freaking RFP.  The local news media has run several stories on it already which makes people think something is already happening.  What the hell?  How about getting some proposals first.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 15, 2019, 10:37:52 PM
I dig the name, and like the plan.

Looking forward to seeing what comes back.

What plan?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 15, 2019, 10:50:34 PM
There is no plan. I seriously don't know why this is getting as much press as it is. It's a RFP. At this point, for all we know, all the responses could be rejected just like they were with the convention center RFP for the same exact site.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: jaxlongtimer on September 16, 2019, 01:05:29 AM
I don't care for the name. I don't know why an RFP would be used to name it as anything. Leave that to the eventual owner. I wouldn't be surprised if they did.  Knowing the city's legal history, it is probably an infringement on Ford Motor Company.

You may be on to something here.  I believe Ford was in the driver's seat (no pun intended) when they owned Jaguar and threatened to sue/sued the Jaguars for trademark infringement on their original logo.  Once again, we have a "Ford" vs. "Jaguar" in Jax.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 16, 2019, 07:31:14 AM
How did the DIA get to $1 billion in current downtown construction?  They must have counted I-95 construction and several projects that haven't started yet.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 16, 2019, 09:39:21 AM
^Bingo. The devil is always in the details. The list included I-95 construction, the demolition of City Hall Annex/Courthouse, and a host of other questionable things. Here are a few:

Northbank Riverwalk bulkhead repair, wayfinding signage - $5.65 million
Acosta Bridge LED Lighting - $2.6 million
Coastline Drive - $31 million
I-95 Overland Bridge - $227 million
I-10/I-95 Interchange Improvements/Fuller Warren Bridge expansion - $128 million
Courthouse/City Hall Annex demolition - $7.95 million

Full list here (page 6): http://www.downtownjacksonville.org/Libraries/PDF_Libraries/2018-2019_State_of_DTJax_Interactive.sflb.ashx
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on September 16, 2019, 09:53:26 AM
There is no plan. I seriously don't know why this is getting as much press as it is. It's a RFP. At this point, for all we know, all the responses could be rejected just like they were with the convention center RFP for the same exact site.

Agreed. I feel like people are focused on the RFP Branding. I personally don't care that they branded it (or what the branding is). It's not like the developer is somehow obligated to keep the RFP Branding.

Like I said, the RFP is fine given the immovable objects Curry has placed on it (buildings already demolished, can't do a convention center).

I'm glad to see they actually issued the thing, but at this stage it's like celebrating (or being upset for that matter) building a house, but all I've actually done is invite all my friends over to tell them, "I'm actually going to do it." Ok fine.......but let me know when I can come over, watch a Super Bowl and mess up your living room.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on September 16, 2019, 12:39:06 PM
There is no plan. I seriously don't know why this is getting as much press as it is. It's a RFP. At this point, for all we know, all the responses could be rejected just like they were with the convention center RFP for the same exact site.

I think it is good at least that Boyer has provided a vision that this MUST be retail focused for restaurants/bars. Hopefully, someone bites.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 16, 2019, 12:48:56 PM
^I'd have to go back and look at the zoning, land use and design guideline policies already on the books to confirm but I thought a certain percentage of ground floor retail space was already required with DT development? We're just pretty good at granting exceptions during the design process. So some of this may be being regurgitated from stuff already on the books. Enforcement will be key, assuming a viable project materializes.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Captain Zissou on September 16, 2019, 01:09:57 PM
Doro District is listed as $9M UNDER CONSTRUCTION.  What is the $30M cathedral residences renovation that is apparently under construction?

And Vystar is putting $80M into that building?  Does that include purchase price?

Laura Trio $44M under construction.... that's a real stretch.

Small potatoes, but I don't think Ron is putting $800k into 225 Laura unless that includes purchase price.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on September 16, 2019, 01:48:00 PM
Doro District is listed as $9M UNDER CONSTRUCTION.  What is the $30M cathedral residences renovation that is apparently under construction?

And Vystar is putting $80M into that building?  Does that include purchase price?

Laura Trio $44M under construction.... that's a real stretch.

Small potatoes, but I don't think Ron is putting $800k into 225 Laura unless that includes purchase price.

Generally yes, the cost of the building purchase is included.

I agree that Doro shouldn't be included, nor the Cathedral residences since Vestcor JUST closed on the building a week ago.

VyStar I'm actually fine with since they did buy a building and are actively doing work.

IMO, Laura Trio should be included for what they've already bought and I'm okay with the full cost of the Barnett renovations, as it seems HIGHLY unlikely they'd just stop today on it.

But I do agree with your point. To include FDOT improvements on I-95 and I-10 is akin to including Jaguar Free Agent Signings as a Downtown Investment.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: itsfantastic1 on September 16, 2019, 01:57:17 PM
Doro District is listed as $9M UNDER CONSTRUCTION.  What is the $30M cathedral residences renovation that is apparently under construction?

And Vystar is putting $80M into that building?  Does that include purchase price?

Laura Trio $44M under construction.... that's a real stretch.

Small potatoes, but I don't think Ron is putting $800k into 225 Laura unless that includes purchase price.

Generally yes, the cost of the building purchase is included.

I agree that Doro shouldn't be included, nor the Cathedral residences since Vestcor JUST closed on the building a week ago.

VyStar I'm actually fine with since they did buy a building and are actively doing work.

IMO, Laura Trio should be included for what they've already bought and I'm okay with the full cost of the Barnett renovations, as it seems HIGHLY unlikely they'd just stop today on it.

But I do agree with your point. To include FDOT improvements on I-95 and I-10 is akin to including Jaguar Free Agent Signings as a Downtown Investment.

Don't give the Mayor any ideas; otherwise we may soon see the City Council getting involved in Jags personnel discussions.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 16, 2019, 02:23:42 PM
But I do agree with your point. To include FDOT improvements on I-95 and I-10 is akin to including Jaguar Free Agent Signings as a Downtown Investment.

Without picking into the numbers too much, those two FDOT projects alone (Overland and Fuller Warren Bridge) are 36% of the billion. But $1 billion sounds a lot better than $645 million.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: tufsu1 on September 16, 2019, 04:16:09 PM
What is the $30M cathedral residences renovation that is apparently under construction?

This is not for the proposed Vestcor project. The existing senior citizen residential towers are being refurbished.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Captain Zissou on September 16, 2019, 04:36:56 PM
What is the $30M cathedral residences renovation that is apparently under construction?

This is not for the proposed Vestcor project. The existing senior citizen residential towers are being refurbished.

Yeah I saw Vestcor's project listed as "proposed".  $30M to refurbish senior housing listed as downtown development?  I'm surprised the buildouts of all office space wasn't also thrown into the total. 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 16, 2019, 05:10:16 PM
Including purcase price is disingenuous because the building already existed.  The only way counting that would make sense is if there was an equal disinvestment from the previous owner.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on September 16, 2019, 06:08:40 PM
I love the way you guys expose DIA and Lenny Curry. I'll bet they hate this forum. That's what they get!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on September 16, 2019, 08:37:39 PM
Only in Jacksonville would the cost of demolishing a building would be considered economic development.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Lunican on September 16, 2019, 10:36:38 PM
Under Office and Retail - Proposed:

The Jacksonville Landing demolition .............................$18,000,000
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 16, 2019, 10:54:33 PM
That list is pure foolishness. But in this town, people can make a claim with a straight face and not get called out on it by media. Probably because people are taking numbers at face value and not spending any ounce of time doing fact checking.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: jaxlongtimer on September 17, 2019, 02:24:08 AM
The list for "Downtown" is not at all credible.  It is better described as "incredible" and for all the wrong reasons  8).

Aside from the aforementioned comments about including things like demolition of buildings (and the Hart Bridge ramps for $37 million) and interstate expenditures that serve to expedite people getting "around" Downtown more than into it, it includes routine maintenance items like office renovations and infrastructure repairs.  Why don't they go on and add all maintenance and operating costs of every structure in the area.  This type of "investment" mostly just maintains the status quo as refreshes/upkeep without adding employees or contributing to the development of the greater area unless they are re-purposing a building or bringing a long dormant building back online.

JEA is shrinking employment downtown but they are down for $72 million.  Most of the dollars of significance are in Brooklyn and the Southbank.  When I grew up here, no one ever called those areas "downtown.  "And, Downtown didn't include the "Stadium District" either as that was all industrial. 

How about subtracting the values of buildings going offline like the First Baptist properties, the Landing, the old City Hall and Courthouse, the old Greyhound bus station, the Catholic center, the soon to be vacant (demolished?) JEA building, the Florida Times Union building (hey, they included it in their new office build-out!), all the restaurants that close (like FSCJ's 20 West that they included in their total), etc.  They should also subtract all the tax credits and incentives ($233 million just for Lot J) the City puts up.

As to the $3.6 billion in proposed projects, are they going to count those every year, over and over, until they get built, if ever?  Most are likely pie in the sky projects and numbers that have been thrown around for over 10 years (can you say "Berkman Plaza II" or the "Shipyards" - down for a cool $2 billion or over half of the total shown).  Interestingly, they missed adding the $100 million aquarium and millions more for the USS Adams. LOL.

Surprised they didn't count FIS's likely new $145 million Brooklyn HQ's as "proposed."  Missed that one.

For this list to have any real value, it should have at least three minimum requirements:  Only count private dollars invested, only count projects for which construction began during the subject period (i.e. can only count a project once!) and only projects that increase the permanent employment base.  Everything else is smoke and mirrors and comparisons from one period to another become meaningless as a result.  They should also breakdown the numbers by Brooklyn, Southbank, Northbank and Stadium to highlight what pieces are thriving and which are just treading water.

The real test to me for Downtown is how resilient it will be during an economic downturn.  Will businesses and residents move out in droves or hang in there for the long haul because Downtown is a truly viable neighborhood in good times and bad?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Bill Hoff on September 17, 2019, 08:34:50 AM
The real test to me for Downtown is how resilient it will be during an economic downturn.  Will businesses and residents move out in droves or hang in there for the long haul because Downtown is a truly viable neighborhood in good times and bad?

Already passed that test about 9 years ago. Whatever downturn happens in the future, won't be as devastating as what its already been through.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on September 17, 2019, 08:58:00 AM


Already passed that test about 9 years ago. Whatever downturn happens in the future, won't be as devastating as what its already been through.

I agree that it passed that test 9 years ago, but I don't have faith that the next downturn won't be as bad or worse than 2008. It MIGHT not be, but it is possible, IMO.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 17, 2019, 09:03:08 AM
Downtown is already resilient. In reality, residents didn't move out of downtown in droves in 2008. Things went stagnant but that was all over and not just downtown.  The only true sickness it has is COJ's political leadership and shortsightedness. 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on September 17, 2019, 09:23:38 AM
Downtown is already resilient. In reality, residents didn't move out of downtown in droves in 2008. Things went stagnant but that was all over and not just downtown.  The only true sickness it has is COJ's political leadership and shortsightedness. 

True dat. I think Breyer will be an improvement provided she has some independence from the higher ups. 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 17, 2019, 09:52:27 AM
Downtown is already resilient. In reality, residents didn't move out of downtown in droves in 2008. Things went stagnant but that was all over and not just downtown.  The only true sickness it has is COJ's political leadership and shortsightedness. 

True dat. I think Breyer will be an improvement provided she has some independence from the higher ups.

She was on News4Jax over the weekend selling the Ford on Bay RFP.  It was cringe inducing.  Basically sold it to the viewers that some unknown project will be under construction within 6 months.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 17, 2019, 10:38:33 AM
Maybe we can add $350,000,000 in downtown investment every time Khan brings the Kismet to town.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 17, 2019, 11:13:20 AM
It's more likely that people will still be parking there in six months. Unless, someone is installing tents, it's pretty much impossible time-wise for anything to be under construction within six months, considering time will be needed to respond to a RFP, select the winner and negotiate with the winning selection. That alone, will likely take two or three months minimum. If you're lucky, at that point you'll be on a typical development timeline which will include everything from design and engineering plan production, financing, permitting, DDRB approval, etc.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on September 18, 2019, 07:58:44 AM
I don't see any reason why all of a sudden Jax is going to start developing downtown in the absence of any coordinated plan on the City's part.  An RFP isn't a plan.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on September 18, 2019, 08:44:44 AM
I'd like to see more RFPs issued sooner rather than later, but without a doubt a RFP is not a plan.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on September 18, 2019, 08:51:17 AM
"It's more likely that people will still be parking there in six months. Unless, someone is installing tents, it's pretty much impossible time-wise for anything to be under construction within six months, considering time will be needed to respond to a RFP, select the winner and negotiate with the winning selection. That alone, will likely take two or three months minimum. If you're lucky, at that point you'll be on a typical development timeline which will include everything from design and engineering plan production, financing, permitting, DDRB approval, etc."


Just gonna say one thing:   The District
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on September 18, 2019, 07:03:47 PM
It's more likely that people will still be parking there in six months. Unless, someone is installing tents, it's pretty much impossible time-wise for anything to be under construction within six months, considering time will be needed to respond to a RFP, select the winner and negotiate with the winning selection. That alone, will likely take two or three months minimum. If you're lucky, at that point you'll be on a typical development timeline which will include everything from design and engineering plan production, financing, permitting, DDRB approval, etc.
You have to have sod brought in, etc., for an empty lawn; that's what she means. (LOL...maybe they'll add a public restroom).
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: KenFSU on October 18, 2019, 10:43:38 AM
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-mendenhall-report-the-ford-on-bay-could-draw-international-interest

Quote
The Mendenhall Report: The Ford on Bay could draw international interest

When the Downtown Investment Authority begins looking for developers for the former Duval County Courthouse and City Hall sites — now branded The Ford on Bay — officials expect bids from top-tier national developers, and possibly international investors.

The DIA will issue a request for proposals Monday to develop the city-owned property. Bids are due Jan. 21.

CBRE Jacksonville, the real estate firm chosen by DIA to brand and market The Ford on Bay, has sent email blasts that include an executive summary calling the site a “rare and unique mixed-use development opportunity on ±8.38 acres of high visible land in downtown Jacksonville.”

Cliff Taylor and Joe Ayers, CBRE’s co-leads for North Florida multifamily investment sales, told the DIA board in September they will market the city-owned property “far and wide.”

“There will be a conversation with a large number of groups of high caliber that have never developed here in the past,” Taylor told the DIA on Sept. 18.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on October 18, 2019, 11:04:18 AM
Maybe I'm being too harsh but I don't see why this is even news. The Ford on Bay is not a real development. Maybe something materializes in a few months, maybe it doesn't. In any event, they actually have to issue a request for proposal and market the site before anything realistic is possibly proposed and materializes down the line. Maybe it's just me, but it's a shame that these types of dreams are making the news as opposed to reports of real downtown projects moving forward. What's next? Another story about the District promising to start pushing dirt across their site in another year or so?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on October 18, 2019, 11:21:41 AM
Quote
In 2018, the average lease rate for Downtown office space was $21.54 per square foot, according to Downtown Vision Inc.’s 2018-19 State of Downtown Report.

Good luck getting a new office building built with that market rate.

The DIA better hope the new bidders don't talk to the old bidders. They might get an earful about not wasting their time.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Captain Zissou on October 18, 2019, 11:38:24 AM
Yeah i don't see this going anywhere for the while, unless the city gives away the farm.  By that I mean unless the city has a 2nd farm that they never told anyone about that they can also give away.  Shad already has the first one firmly in his grasp.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on October 18, 2019, 11:46:20 AM
Maybe I'm being too harsh but I don't see why this is even news. The Ford on Bay is not a real development. Maybe something materializes in a few months, maybe it doesn't. In any event, they actually have to issue a request for proposal and market the site before anything realistic is possibly proposed and materializes down the line. Maybe it's just me, but it's a shame that these types of dreams are making the news as opposed to reports of real downtown projects moving forward. What's next? Another story about the District promising to start pushing dirt across their site in another year or so?

Seems like the stadium development would make more sense over here.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on October 18, 2019, 11:58:14 AM
Quote
In 2018, the average lease rate for Downtown office space was $21.54 per square foot, according to Downtown Vision Inc.’s 2018-19 State of Downtown Report.

Good luck getting a new office building built with that market rate.

The DIA better hope the new bidders don't talk to the old bidders. They might get an earful about not wasting their time.

Which is why it was pretty dumb to blow up the 19-story structurally sound building that was already standing on the property. Would have been better off giving it away, which would have made private redevelopment more feasible and using the $8 million spent on demo on other downtown needs.......like two-waying streets, revamping public spaces, investing in small business growth or replenishing the historic preservation trust fund.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: acme54321 on October 18, 2019, 01:09:53 PM
Is the city going to sell the land to a developer or are they planning a ground lease?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on October 18, 2019, 03:36:57 PM
Is the city going to sell the land to a developer or are they planning a ground lease?

In the RFP Response, the Respondent will propose the financial terms so they could in theory propose this. With that said, I can't imagine any human on earth proposing this to COJ, especially if they have the internet and can read the news.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on October 18, 2019, 04:00:32 PM
Is the city going to sell the land to a developer or are they planning a ground lease?

In the RFP Response, the Respondent will propose the financial terms so they could in theory propose this. With that said, I can't imagine any human on earth proposing this to COJ, especially if they have the internet and can read the news.

EXACTLY the first thing I thought when I read the first post.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Charles Hunter on October 18, 2019, 04:18:44 PM
If the RFP has enough trendy bells and whistles, the City will likely give the land to the developer (or if his name is Khan)
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on January 18, 2020, 10:59:13 AM
Reponse deadline is Tuesday.

I heard some talk shortly after the new year that responses were expected to be a little underwhelming versus what the city was expecting, particularly in density and useage (primarily residential/garage with minimal lip service paid to retail), but hopefully that's not the case.

Should be really interesting to see what actually came in on this parcel.

I also hope that the DIA has a better scoring rubrick in place than they did for the LaVilla townhomes.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 18, 2020, 12:10:19 PM
One thing is for sure. We don't have a market that demands high-rise construction. No cranes and blocks and blocks of vacant lots and surface parking lots clearly visualize this. Our market is a stick-built one like it is in the suburbs in most large cities across the country. It is, what it is. So whatever we demolish that was built in a time when the market demanded such density, is likely to be replaced by something that's less mixed use, more autocentric and less pedestrian friendly. If that's not a cry for stronger preservation and adaptive reuse policies and regulations, I don't know what is.

Also keep in mind just because the RFP response deadline is coming up, it doesn't mean anything going vertical is imminent. Over the years, RFPs have come and gone for the Shipyards, The District, Snyder Memorial, LaVilla Townhomes site and 324 North Broad. To date, not a single site has changed from what it was 15-20 years ago.....abandoned and vacant.

So it will be interesting to see what the next round of slick renderings are....but we're likely some time away from seeing something actually happen that you can see, touch, go inside and interact with.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: tufsu1 on January 20, 2020, 03:17:01 PM
The grass lots were roped off so as not to allow parked cars on them today (unlike every other day) for the MLK parade
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on January 20, 2020, 03:35:48 PM
"....but we're likely some time away from seeing something actually happen that you can see, touch, go inside and interact with."

So true for many of the BIG projects.  That being said I cannot wait to interact with some fresh produce at Publix San Marco. ;D
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Captain Zissou on January 21, 2020, 09:39:01 AM
That being said I cannot wait to interact with some fresh produce at Publix San Marco. ;D

Haha... I feel sorry that the Baltimore guys will miss out on the fresh produce.  RIGHT?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: bl8jaxnative on January 21, 2020, 10:26:26 AM
Which is why it was pretty dumb to blow up the 19-story structurally sound building that was already standing on the property. Would have been better off giving it away, which would have made private redevelopment more feasible

No one wanted it.  It's floors were undersized.   It would've sat empty like Berkman II.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 21, 2020, 10:35:02 AM
Which is why it was pretty dumb to blow up the 19-story structurally sound building that was already standing on the property. Would have been better off giving it away, which would have made private redevelopment more feasible

No one wanted it.  It's floors were undersized.   It would've sat empty like Berkman II.

How do you know, no one was ever given the opportunity to do so? 
The floor plates were plenty big enough for a residential project, so they were not undersized. Probably could have put a restaurant on the ground floor or the top floor or both too.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on January 21, 2020, 10:42:58 AM
Who knows if anyone would have wanted the vacant building, but we do know for sure that developers are not lining up for vacant lots.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Tacachale on January 21, 2020, 10:53:43 AM
Which is why it was pretty dumb to blow up the 19-story structurally sound building that was already standing on the property. Would have been better off giving it away, which would have made private redevelopment more feasible

No one wanted it.  It's floors were undersized.   It would've sat empty like Berkman II.

Folk wisdom isn't a reason for spending millions of dollars in tax payer money.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on January 21, 2020, 09:51:01 PM
Would have been a good use for the former buildings.

https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/Harrah-s-Reno-sold-plans-for-non-gambling-14981744.php?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=socialflow
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 21, 2020, 09:59:50 PM
Biggest difference is Harrah's was privately owned and the City Hall Annex, Courthouse and Landing were not. If those buildings were in private hands, they'd all still be standing because demolishing for the sake of demolishing doesn't make financial sense, unless you're paying with other people's money.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on January 21, 2020, 10:22:05 PM
Reponse deadline is Tuesday.

I heard some talk shortly after the new year that responses were expected to be a little underwhelming versus what the city was expecting, particularly in density and useage (primarily residential/garage with minimal lip service paid to retail), but hopefully that's not the case.

Should be really interesting to see what actually came in on this parcel.

I also hope that the DIA has a better scoring rubrick in place than they did for the LaVilla townhomes.

Response deadline is actually tomorrow, not today.

Public won’t be privy to any details beyond applicant names until after the recommendation committee does their scoring (mid February).

DIA thinks that a JEA style cone of silence is necessary to protect the integrity of our local processes (insert lol here).
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 22, 2020, 04:56:56 PM
Two Bids:

Related Group (pretty famous) and Spandrel Development Partners (hadn't heard of them but seem qualified).
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: billy on January 22, 2020, 05:37:40 PM
Spandrel is out of New York.
They have done projects in Charleston and Savannah, among other locations.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on January 22, 2020, 07:22:21 PM
When will we know how many millions they are asking for?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 22, 2020, 07:36:52 PM
Full article: https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/the-mendenhall-report-the-ford-on-bay-could-draw-international-interest

Quote
The Mendenhall Report: The Ford on Bay could draw international interest

When the Downtown Investment Authority begins looking for developers for the former Duval County Courthouse and City Hall sites — now branded The Ford on Bay — officials expect bids from top-tier national developers, and possibly international investors.

The DIA will issue a request for proposals Monday to develop the city-owned property. Bids are due Jan. 21.

CBRE Jacksonville, the real estate firm chosen by DIA to brand and market The Ford on Bay, has sent email blasts that include an executive summary calling the site a “rare and unique mixed-use development opportunity on ±8.38 acres of high visible land in downtown Jacksonville.”

Cliff Taylor and Joe Ayers, CBRE’s co-leads for North Florida multifamily investment sales, told the DIA board in September they will market the city-owned property “far and wide.”

“There will be a conversation with a large number of groups of high caliber that have never developed here in the past,” Taylor told the DIA on Sept. 18.

Hmmm, after all the media puff pieces about a RFP drawing a ton of interest, all we got was two responses? That's underwhelming. Let's hope at least one of them is decent.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 22, 2020, 07:49:08 PM
Two Bids:

Related Group (pretty famous) and Spandrel Development Partners (hadn't heard of them but seem qualified).

I've been around too long, lol. Perhaps the second time is a charm. Here's a Downtown Related Group blast from the past....

(http://www.metrojacksonville.com/photos/thumbs/lrg-6844-san_marco_village_final.jpg)
Related Group's San Marco Riverwalk Village proposal from the 2004-2006 era

Quote
Downtown development arena not as hot as you might think Many projects are announced, but few ever come to fruition.

April 9, 2006 | Florida Times-Union, The (Jacksonville, FL)
Author: JOE LIGHT | Page: G-1


From one perspective, not much has changed with the San Marco Riverwalk Village since Riverwalk Hotels LLC first unveiled the massive Southbank condominium development in August 2004. At that time, the group garnered approval from the city's Design Review Committee, but never made much progress on the first phase of the 2,000-unit project, which includes five towers and 180,000 square feet of retail.

But if you ask Stevan Pardo, Riverwalk Hotels's managing member, it's a whole new ballgame. Now, the developer isn't just Riverwalk Hotels; it's The Related Group of Florida and CEO Jorge Perez, world-class condominium developers with dozens of projects in South Florida.

The Related Group was just the most recent developer from outside Jacksonville to take an interest in downtown development, joining others such as Hines and Kuhn Cos.

When Perez visited Jacksonville last week, however, he saw what has become a common observation from those accustomed to greener pastures: Jacksonville's market is slow. Condominiums sell for less. And construction costs are as high as other locales.

"Jacksonville is a huge risk," he said. "It's a leap of faith. This is not like putting another condo up in South Florida that we know will sell."


I bolded the part about Related, Hines and Kuhn. All three were highlighted just as much as we talk about the Shipyards and the District these days. None of their projects came to fruition.

A Metro Jacksonville article from 2008: https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2008-oct-results-of-the-boom-dead-projects

Based on history, I'll take a wait and see approach with this one.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: simms3 on January 22, 2020, 08:09:45 PM
There is a public hearing on January 30th in a TBD location downtown that will go over the 2 bids, and I believe to field Q&A from public.  I heard this straight from the source's lips at the last DIA meeting, so stay tuned for any announcements on when/where.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 22, 2020, 08:24:53 PM
Welcome back!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: simms3 on January 22, 2020, 08:26:06 PM
Welcome back!

Thanks!  I sent you a direct message a while back when I first got to town, but I don't think you got it?  Wanted to get together for a coffee or lunch. :)
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 22, 2020, 08:36:29 PM
I must have missed it. Yes, let's catch up. Shoot me an email at edavis@moderncities.com
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: simms3 on January 23, 2020, 08:49:23 AM
Sent.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 23, 2020, 09:14:34 AM
Hmmm, after all the media puff pieces about a RFP drawing a ton of interest, all we got was two responses? That's underwhelming. Let's hope at least one of them is decent.

I wonder how we're marketing these RFPs. Perhaps that's the issue? Additionally, the developer requirements in the RFP likely pushed out anyone but larger developers.

Regardless of that, at least these two firms are pretty decent it appears. I know Related's projects pretty well. They're the master developer on Hudson Yards in NY which you can likely argue is the most complex urban development project in America at present. They could put a junior associate on this project compared to Hudson Yards. Looking at Spandrel, they seem to promote their adaptive reuse (don't tell Lenny Curry) but have built some nice things regardless.

The other issue - Jacksonville has done a poor job with RFPs in the past. Let's hope that at least one of these project proposals is decent and assuming so, let's make sure it gets off the ground.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: CityLife on January 23, 2020, 09:47:09 AM
Related is a good one for DT Jax. They’re one of the 5 firms I referenced in another thread that could help Rummel pull The District off.

Wouldn’t even bother looking at Hudson Yards though for an idea of what they would do in Jax. They are based in Miami and do a lot in South Florida. They are currently doing a $550 million redevelopment of City Place in downtown WPB. Doubt they do anything on that scale in Jax, but who knows. Will be interested to see what they have proposed...
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 23, 2020, 10:18:13 AM
Wouldn’t even bother looking at Hudson Yards though for an idea of what they would do in Jax.

Of course not. Hudson Yards is a $25B development and probably the most complex urban development in the US. My guess is what they proposed has at least two 0s removed from the price, if not more. My point was only that there's nothing Jacksonville has that they can't handle.

Except for some idiotic politics.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on January 23, 2020, 10:39:39 AM
I wonder how we're marketing these RFPs. Perhaps that's the issue? Additionally, the developer requirements in the RFP likely pushed out anyone but larger developers.

Lori Boyer is great for Jacksonville, and she's got some fantastic ideas for downtown Jacksonville. Love the zoning overhaul, love the restaurant districts and retail grants, love the ideas for the riverwalk. That said, there would have also been a lot of value in bringing in someone to head the DIA with national experience and a proven track record marketing a city to outside investors and revitalizing its downtown. As much as I like and respect her, a fresh perspective from outside of Jacksonville could have been nice.

Though her ascension coincided with a lot of other terrible decisions down at City Hall outside of her control, it does feel like downtown lost a lot of momentum after Aundra Wallace left the post.

As for the lack of responses, I can't help but wonder if at least part of it was caused by the city's actions over the last two years coming home to roost. We burnt multiple developers with the last courthouse/Annex RFP for the convention center, when the Jags brought the entire process to a screeching halt with their unsolicited bid at the Shipyards and Rimrock Devlin dropped an alternate, out-of-scope proposal for the Courthouse site. EIGHTEEN different groups lit an obscene amount of money on fire putting together thousand page proposals to acquire JEA, only to have the city pull out. The owner of the most comparable downtown property was publicly villified by the mayor and forced to sell his property. It's gotta look like a business-hostile clown show from the outside.

And speaking of Rimrock Devlin, interesting that when we want to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they think a convention center belongs at the Shipyards and they offer to develop the Courthouse land as mixed use. But when we decide not to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they don't put in a bid to redevelop the property.

For what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much in Jacksonville, the winner is required to be in full development within 120 days, with all elements under construction within two years. 

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 23, 2020, 11:10:57 AM
Quote
For what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much in Jacksonville, the winner is required to be in full development within 120 days, with all elements under construction within two years.

That would be a good reason why only two parties responded. It will take more than 120 days to get all the approvals. Getting the whole thing built in two years is pretty ridiculous too considering the demand (or lack thereof) of many uses in DT currently. 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on January 23, 2020, 11:15:00 AM
Quote
For what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much in Jacksonville, the winner is required to be in full development within 120 days, with all elements under construction within two years.

That would be a good reason why only two parties responded. It will take more than 120 days to get all the approvals. Getting the whole thing built in two years is pretty ridiculous too considering the demand (or lack thereof) of many uses in DT currently.

I think the intent is actually that the approvals process is underway within 120 days (of land transfer), and that construction is in full swing (not completed) within two years.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 23, 2020, 11:20:33 AM
I get Vic's point. You can't force a market into reality. If anything, such demands would likely drive down the level of density and quality of the responses. It's easier to get a stick frame Texas donut style apartment complex with a drive through Dunkin off the ground faster than a 12-story mixed-use multifamily project with structured parking like Vista Brooklyn.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 23, 2020, 11:31:45 AM
Lori Boyer is great for Jacksonville, and she's got some fantastic ideas for downtown Jacksonville. Love the zoning overhaul, love the restaurant districts and retail grants, love the ideas for the riverwalk. That said, there would have also been a lot of value in bringing in someone to head the DIA with national experience and a proven track record marketing a city to outside investors and revitalizing its downtown. As much as I like and respect her, a fresh perspective from outside of Jacksonville could have been nice.

Here's my feeling: Think of a truly world class downtown as a $5B company. Think of Jacksonville's as a $10M company. If you're a $10M company you can have all of the aspirations to be a $5B company, but you need so much in terms of groundwork first. In other words, think of a position like a CIO. The person who can take the company from $10M to $250M isn't necessarily the same person that takes a company from $1B to $5B.

I see Boyer as the person that can take us from a "$10M company" downtown to somewhere between $250M and $1B....provided the rest of the leadership is there (i.e. the CEO). Do I see her taking downtown from being that "$1B company" downtown to a "$5b company" downtown. I do not.

Long story short I think she's the right person right now. Not necessarily 10 years from now.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 23, 2020, 11:35:32 AM
As for the lack of responses, I can't help but wonder if at least part of it was caused by the city's actions over the last two years coming home to roost. We burnt multiple developers with the last courthouse/Annex RFP for the convention center, when the Jags brought the entire process to a screeching halt with their unsolicited bid at the Shipyards and Rimrock Devlin dropped an alternate, out-of-scope proposal for the Courthouse site. EIGHTEEN different groups lit an obscene amount of money on fire putting together thousand page proposals to acquire JEA, only to have the city pull out. The owner of the most comparable downtown property was publicly villified by the mayor and forced to sell his property. It's gotta look like a business-hostile clown show from the outside.

And speaking of Rimrock Devlin, interesting that when we want to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they think a convention center belongs at the Shipyards and they offer to develop the Courthouse land as mixed use. But when we decide not to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they don't put in a bid to redevelop the property.

For what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much in Jacksonville, the winner is required to be in full development within 120 days, with all elements under construction within two years. 

Totally agree. That's exactly what I meant when I said "Jacksonville has done a poor job with RFPs in the past". We need to actually follow through to completion on one of these, or no one wants to play ball.

I do think the RFP was written (right or wrong) in a manner that excluded some participants. It seems like it was written so that only "big boys" can play. I see positives and negatives for this. You likely won't have an issue with funding this development, so certainly a plus.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: 120North on January 23, 2020, 12:06:59 PM
As for the lack of responses, I can't help but wonder if at least part of it was caused by the city's actions over the last two years coming home to roost. We burnt multiple developers with the last courthouse/Annex RFP for the convention center, when the Jags brought the entire process to a screeching halt with their unsolicited bid at the Shipyards and Rimrock Devlin dropped an alternate, out-of-scope proposal for the Courthouse site. EIGHTEEN different groups lit an obscene amount of money on fire putting together thousand page proposals to acquire JEA, only to have the city pull out. The owner of the most comparable downtown property was publicly villified by the mayor and forced to sell his property. It's gotta look like a business-hostile clown show from the outside.

And speaking of Rimrock Devlin, interesting that when we want to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they think a convention center belongs at the Shipyards and they offer to develop the Courthouse land as mixed use. But when we decide not to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they don't put in a bid to redevelop the property.

For what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much in Jacksonville, the winner is required to be in full development within 120 days, with all elements under construction within two years. 

Totally agree. That's exactly what I meant when I said "Jacksonville has done a poor job with RFPs in the past". We need to actually follow through to completion on one of these, or no one wants to play ball.

I do think the RFP was written (right or wrong) in a manner that excluded some participants. It seems like it was written so that only "big boys" can play. I see positives and negatives for this. You likely won't have an issue with funding this development, so certainly a plus.

The "bid bond" likely scared some teams away.  The way the deal was structured pointed away from civic uses (Convention Center).
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 23, 2020, 12:43:11 PM
As for the lack of responses, I can't help but wonder if at least part of it was caused by the city's actions over the last two years coming home to roost. We burnt multiple developers with the last courthouse/Annex RFP for the convention center, when the Jags brought the entire process to a screeching halt with their unsolicited bid at the Shipyards and Rimrock Devlin dropped an alternate, out-of-scope proposal for the Courthouse site. EIGHTEEN different groups lit an obscene amount of money on fire putting together thousand page proposals to acquire JEA, only to have the city pull out. The owner of the most comparable downtown property was publicly villified by the mayor and forced to sell his property. It's gotta look like a business-hostile clown show from the outside.

And speaking of Rimrock Devlin, interesting that when we want to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they think a convention center belongs at the Shipyards and they offer to develop the Courthouse land as mixed use. But when we decide not to build a convention center at the Courthouse site, they don't put in a bid to redevelop the property.

For what it's worth, which admittedly isn't much in Jacksonville, the winner is required to be in full development within 120 days, with all elements under construction within two years. 

Totally agree. That's exactly what I meant when I said "Jacksonville has done a poor job with RFPs in the past". We need to actually follow through to completion on one of these, or no one wants to play ball.

I do think the RFP was written (right or wrong) in a manner that excluded some participants. It seems like it was written so that only "big boys" can play. I see positives and negatives for this. You likely won't have an issue with funding this development, so certainly a plus.

The "bid bond" likely scared some teams away.  The way the deal was structured pointed away from civic uses (Convention Center).

Maybe, but this shouldn’t be a hard site to develop. Heck, that’s why the city demolished the existing buildings. Plus, there’s really zero thought of any environmental issues, etc. with the site.

Now....that could also be a problem too. Heck, most of the high rises that have sold recently in downtown could not be rebuilt for the sale price.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: acme54321 on January 23, 2020, 01:58:17 PM
Whatever the proposals her for the site will be very telling about the status of our market DT.  It doesn't get any easier than a vacant, waterfront grass lot.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 23, 2020, 02:09:20 PM
Slightly off topic, but any progress on the Hyatt Place hotel across from the Landing ruins? 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on January 23, 2020, 02:45:50 PM
Slightly off topic, but any progress on the Hyatt Place hotel across from the Landing ruins?

Entirely off-topic. The relevant thread is here:

https://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,34928.15.html
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 23, 2020, 02:58:02 PM
I was aware of that thread, but it can be difficult to find a thread that has not been updated recently.
It is on Bay Street, and within close distance of the 'Ford', and the two projects will clearly benefit each other. I wouldn't say it is 'entirely' off topic.   
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on January 23, 2020, 03:17:51 PM
Lori Boyer is great for Jacksonville, and she's got some fantastic ideas for downtown Jacksonville. Love the zoning overhaul, love the restaurant districts and retail grants, love the ideas for the riverwalk. That said, there would have also been a lot of value in bringing in someone to head the DIA with national experience and a proven track record marketing a city to outside investors and revitalizing its downtown. As much as I like and respect her, a fresh perspective from outside of Jacksonville could have been nice.

Here's my feeling: Think of a truly world class downtown as a $5B company. Think of Jacksonville's as a $10M company. If you're a $10M company you can have all of the aspirations to be a $5B company, but you need so much in terms of groundwork first. In other words, think of a position like a CIO. The person who can take the company from $10M to $250M isn't necessarily the same person that takes a company from $1B to $5B.

I see Boyer as the person that can take us from a "$10M company" downtown to somewhere between $250M and $1B....provided the rest of the leadership is there (i.e. the CEO). Do I see her taking downtown from being that "$1B company" downtown to a "$5b company" downtown. I do not.

Long story short I think she's the right person right now. Not necessarily 10 years from now.

Great post, Steve.

I like this analogy.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: itsfantastic1 on January 29, 2020, 01:03:12 PM
A joke of mine from another thread about the Ford on Bay is actually possible.

How great would it be if the Ford on Bay ended up as a convention center/marina anyway, just done to the Hyatt's size/market specifications instead of the city's.

Looks like an unsolicited bid for a convention center appeared but won't be judged against the formal RFPs (but should they reject both offers, it may come back into play)

Quote
The Downtown Investment Authority also received an unsolicited proposal for a convention center and supporting facilities at the site that will not be considered.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/bids-for-the-ford-on-bay-site-downtown-to-be-unveiled-feb-4 (https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/bids-for-the-ford-on-bay-site-downtown-to-be-unveiled-feb-4)
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 29, 2020, 03:15:15 PM
I so hope we're not screwing ourselves on this convention center issue. Despite the farce of convention center RFP last year and unsolicited sports district convention center renderings that torpedoed things, the reality is a convention center attached to the Hyatt makes all the sense in the world for downtown.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Charles Hunter on January 29, 2020, 03:16:11 PM
I so hope we're not screwing ourselves on this convention center issue. Despite the farce of convention center RFP last year and unsolicited sports district convention center renderings that torpedoed things, the reality is a convention center attached to the Hyatt makes all the sense in the world for downtown.

Thereby disqualifying it from consideration.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 29, 2020, 03:44:32 PM
I so hope we're not screwing ourselves on this convention center issue. Despite the farce of convention center RFP last year and unsolicited sports district convention center renderings that torpedoed things, the reality is a convention center attached to the Hyatt makes all the sense in the world for downtown.

The only convention center that will get built while Curry is mayor, is one where Shad Khan wants it, and that isn't next to the Hyatt. Politics doesn't care about logic.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 29, 2020, 04:43:47 PM
Curry won't get it built. We'll just do something crazy like put a Waffle House or stick frame apartment complex on the city hall annex site to eliminate the possibility.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 29, 2020, 05:34:41 PM
Curry won't get it built. We'll just do something crazy like put a Waffle House or stick frame apartment complex on the city hall annex site to eliminate the possibility.

Well, that was my point but expressed in a round about way.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on January 30, 2020, 10:59:51 AM
I so hope we're not screwing ourselves on this convention center issue. Despite the farce of convention center RFP last year and unsolicited sports district convention center renderings that torpedoed things, the reality is a convention center attached to the Hyatt makes all the sense in the world for downtown.

Thereby disqualifying it from consideration.

Convention Center has always made the most sense, but could you imagine any national developer ever submitting a proposal in Jacksonville again if we:

- Put out an RFP for a convention center at the Courthouse site
- Received an unsolicited bid for a convention center at the Shipyards and mixed use at the Courthouse site
- Backed out of a selection; wasted the time of all those involved
- Put out a new RFP for mixed use at the Courthouse site
- Received an unsolicited offer for a convention center center at the Courthouse site
- Backed out of a selection; wasted the time of all those involved
- Put out a new RFP for a convention center at the Courthouse site

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

To me, best case scenario would be if the developers only bid on Pads 2 & 3 (allowable under the RFP). That would potentially put mixed-use residential and marina into play for the site while leaving Pad 1 open for a modestly priced convention center integrated with the Hyatt (like this - https://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2014-dec-a-cheap-solution-to-jaxs-convention-center-problem/page/1).

(https://snipboard.io/4ovMFV.jpg)

Sure, Shad wants a convention center, but even if we agreed to give it to him, so many things need to happen first. Hart Bridge ramps need to come down (a two-year project). Lot J needs to be built (a three-year project). Phase II of Lot J needs to be built (let's call that two more years). A stadium lease extension and upgrades need to be negiotated and executed. The Shipyards need to be remediated.

Feels like we could have shovels in the ground on a cheap but market-appropriate solution tomorrow, versus waiting until 2030 or longer to build at the Shipyards. Would also open up the Prime Osborne for potential transit use instead of holding it hostage for another decade+.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on January 30, 2020, 12:07:54 PM
Convention Center has always made the most sense, but could you imagine any national developer ever submitting a proposal in Jacksonville again if we:

- Put out an RFP for a convention center at the Courthouse site
- Received an unsolicited bid for a convention center at the Shipyards and mixed use at the Courthouse site
- Backed out of a selection; wasted the time of all those involved
- Put out a new RFP for mixed use at the Courthouse site
- Received an unsolicited offer for a convention center center at the Courthouse site
- Backed out of a selection; wasted the time of all those involved
- Put out a new RFP for a convention center at the Courthouse site

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

I've thought the exact same thing. I also heard there was an RFP-type process going on regarding selling JEA that we pulled the plug on. I think I heard something like that recently:)

I mean, at some point we need to follow through with an RFP.

Now....if both of these proposals from Related and Spandrel are both terrible, then we can seriously look at them. Something tells me that this won't be the case though. Both of these guys are large development groups.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on January 30, 2020, 12:49:40 PM
Or make them modify it. That's what happened with Vestcor's townhouse bid in LaVilla.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: tufsu1 on January 31, 2020, 09:50:06 AM
^ If the Related Company proposal is reasonable, I say let's see fi they can make it happen. They finally expanded out of south Florida into Tampa a few years ago and built some apartments across the river from the downtown core. That said, the design is uninspiring.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 31, 2020, 10:57:26 AM
^ If the Related Company proposal is reasonable, I say let's see fi they can make it happen. They finally expanded out of south Florida into Tampa a few years ago and built some apartments across the river from the downtown core. That said, the design is uninspiring.

Am I missing something? Has a design been published? I thought everything was under wraps for a few days yet.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on January 31, 2020, 12:52:37 PM
Am I missing something? Has a design been published? I thought everything was under wraps for a few days yet.

I think they mean the design for the apartments in Tampa.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on January 31, 2020, 02:13:15 PM
Am I missing something? Has a design been published? I thought everything was under wraps for a few days yet.

I think they mean the design for the apartments in Tampa.

Ah. Makes sense.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: tufsu1 on February 01, 2020, 07:16:45 PM
^ correct. I was referring to the downtown Tampa apartments.

On another note, this year's World of Nations festival will take place at the Ford on Bay - get excited!!!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on February 01, 2020, 09:38:25 PM
On another note, this year's World of Nations festival will take place at the Ford on Bay - get excited!!!

Wow! Completely trucked-in and temporary infrastructure! Portable toilets and those assembled stages! Whoo-hoo!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 03, 2020, 10:41:33 AM
From the JBJ.

Boyer thinks the Hyatt's right of first refusal may have scared off potential bidders.

Quote
Despite having only two formal bids, Boyer told the Business Journal she was more optimistic about the Landing than might be suggested by the number of bids for the Ford on Bay.

The reasons: The strength of those who did bid, the interest in the property pre-bid and a unique situation that may have dampened interest.

The three parcels comprising the Ford on Bay neighbor the Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront, and the hotel has first right of refusal, which means it can decide to buy them even after a bidder is selected. Boyer said she received interest from a lot of developers prior to the release of the request for proposals, which disclosed the Hyatt's right of first refusal.

"I think the Hyatt's first right of refusal had a chilling effect," Boyer said. "It's a lot of effort to go through if the Hyatt can just take it away at the end of the day."

Full (paywalled) article: https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/02/03/only-two-companies-bid-for-former-courthouse-site.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 03, 2020, 11:03:27 AM
Hmm. So either the Hyatt has Shad Khan convention center RFP type power, past RFP failures played a negative role or the RFP had requirements many considered not being worth the risk. I can't wait to see what the two proposals are. I also wonder if the Hyatt may have some affiliation with the unsolicited convention center bid?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 03, 2020, 11:30:35 AM
I also wonder if the Hyatt may have some affiliation with the unsolicited convention center bid?

Hyatt was affiliated with Jacobs' original $600 million convention center bid last fall.

More specifically, the owners of Hyatt Regency Waterfront (Westmont Hospitality Group) partnered with Jacobs on the proposal.

I don't think it was ever explicit, but there were implications that right-of-first-refusal might be exercised by Hyatt if the Jacobs plan wasn't chosen.

Even though Jacobs got burnt by the city - they literally brought a team of 30 to their presentation - they invested a ton of money into their proposal. Who knows, maybe the unsolicited convention center bid is a scaled down, more affordable variant of the original Jacobs/Hyatt plan.

Of the other two firms who originally put in a convention center bid, it likely isn't Rimrock Devlin (unless they broke rank with Iguana).

Leaves Jacobs, Preston Hollow, or a new entity who didn't originally bid last year.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: 120North on February 03, 2020, 01:19:06 PM
I also wonder if the Hyatt may have some affiliation with the unsolicited convention center bid?

Hyatt was affiliated with Jacobs' original $600 million convention center bid last fall.

More specifically, the owners of Hyatt Regency Waterfront (Westmont Hospitality Group) partnered with Jacobs on the proposal.

I don't think it was ever explicit, but there were implications that right-of-first-refusal might be exercised by Hyatt if the Jacobs plan wasn't chosen.

Even though Jacobs got burnt by the city - they literally brought a team of 30 to their presentation - they invested a ton of money into their proposal. Who knows, maybe the unsolicited convention center bid is a scaled down, more affordable variant of the original Jacobs/Hyatt plan.

Of the other two firms who originally put in a convention center bid, it likely isn't Rimrock Devlin (unless they broke rank with Iguana).

Leaves Jacobs, Preston Hollow, or a new entity who didn't originally bid last year.
You are on the right track I do believe.  Not sure about Hyatt involvement, but I think you are dead on with regards to the scope/scale and proposer of the revised CC offer.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 10:02:36 AM
Spandrel's proposal looks to be Vestcor-looking low-rise apartment buildings (maybe four floors).

Market-appropriate perhaps, but certainly not game changing.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 04, 2020, 10:04:38 AM
Spandrel's proposal looks to be Vestcor-looking low-rise apartment buildings (maybe four floors).

Market-appropriate perhaps, but certainly not game changing.

We don't need game-changing

More residents are a good thing, an apartment complex downtown is a good thing.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 04, 2020, 10:14:21 AM
Give Spandrel a deal for another vacant city owned site and let them put their low rise, stick frame apartments there.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 10:17:36 AM
An apartment complex downtown is a good thing.

In a vacuum, I totally agree.

On this prime riverfront plot, after more than five years and $40 million in demolition and site work, and after shelving a convention center plan, and after a national search by CBRE, I disagree.

With the qualifier that I've only seen a couple of renders of the residential and don't know if there's some kind of major retail component I'm missing, there are literally a hundred vacant spots downtown where something like this could go.

Hopefully there's something I'm missing, OR hopefully Related brings something denser and more location-appropriate to the table.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on February 04, 2020, 11:17:03 AM
At the old Courthouse site, it actually makes Bay St. a lot more appealing with the grassy lot opening to the water. As a result, I think you can be picky with the site. The big mistake was knocking down a historic and dense building in old City Hall. That site needs to be retail focused and if this is going to be your big nightlife destination, apartments are not a good idea right on Bay St a floor or two up.

Other than the Shipyards, there aren't really many large city owned properties on the Northbank within the CBD.

Are there renderings yet?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 11:33:28 AM
Are there renderings yet?

^There should be by mid-afternoon.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 04, 2020, 12:28:35 PM
Spandrel's proposal looks to be Vestcor-looking low-rise apartment buildings (maybe four floors).

Market-appropriate perhaps, but certainly not game changing.


If Related’s proposal is similar, that actually opens the door for the unsolicited convention center proposal. They can certainly cite a number of things to reasonably reject the proposals and not look like they had egg on their face.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 12:38:30 PM
JBJ just posted details.

Spandrel looks a little better after seeing some more renders. They want to include a grocer, but no marina, and public subsidies in line with other Jacksonville projects downtown. $130 million project.

Related is $80 million five story residential with marina. Very little retail space, but no incentives requested.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Tacachale on February 04, 2020, 12:51:46 PM
JBJ just posted details.

Spandrel looks a little better after seeing some more renders. They want to include a grocer, but no marina, and public subsidies in line with other Jacksonville projects downtown. $130 million project.

Related is $80 million five story residential with marina. Very little retail space, but no incentives requested.

Almost like it was a dumb idea to demolish those buildings with no plan or something.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 01:23:11 PM
^Listen, interested developers had every opportunity during the $30 million rush to demolition to break into the DIA/City Hall offices Watergate-style and present, at gunpoint if necessary, an unsolicited proposal for reuse, even if absolutely no parameters for doing such a thing were ever in place.

Love her to death, but would love to see her sources for this quote from November.

Quote
Adaptive Redevelopment

The question of adaptive reuse came up in regards to the Landing and the courthouse/annex sites, which were both targeted for demolition. 

Boyer said she wasn’t seeing anyone come forward with any solid proposals to do adaptive reuse projects for either site, which in turn led to the city's decision to demolish the structures at both sites.

“If you have a vacant piece of land, you are much more likely to get interest and creative input on what can go there, than if you’re constraining someone to use an existing building," Boyer said.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 04, 2020, 01:38:16 PM
JBJ just posted details.

Spandrel looks a little better after seeing some more renders. They want to include a grocer, but no marina, and public subsidies in line with other Jacksonville projects downtown. $130 million project.

Related is $80 million five story residential with marina. Very little retail space, but no incentives requested.

Spandrel's looks better but will likely require Jag's Lot J type incentives. Related's is likely more realistic of Jax's market. Btw, have we not seen the latest headlines regarding Earth Fare and Lucky's?  Just because someone draws a grocery store on their plans (there are at least four DT proposals claiming this now) doesn't mean there's an actual market or ability to land one. Also, if 74,000 square feet of retail didn't work at the Landing site, it isn't going to work at this site either. Then there's the Lot J thing. Can they co-exist? Probably not. Personally, I hope the Hyatt exercises their option for the City Hall Annex block and find a way to get an exhibition hall that's larger than the Prime Osborn's on it. Then the winner of these two bids can focus their project on the courthouse lot.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on February 04, 2020, 05:18:47 PM
JBJ just posted details.

Spandrel looks a little better after seeing some more renders. They want to include a grocer, but no marina, and public subsidies in line with other Jacksonville projects downtown. $130 million project.

Related is $80 million five story residential with marina. Very little retail space, but no incentives requested.

Spandrel's looks better but will likely require Jag's Lot J type incentives. Related's is likely more realistic of Jax's market. Btw, have we not seen the latest headlines regarding Earth Fare and Lucky's?  Just because someone draws a grocery store on their plans (there are at least four DT proposals claiming this now) doesn't mean there's an actual market or ability to land one. Also, if 74,000 square feet of retail didn't work at the Landing site, it isn't going to work at this site either. Then there's the Lot J thing. Can they co-exist? Probably not. Personally, I hope the Hyatt exercises their option for the City Hall Annex block and find a way to get an exhibition hall that's larger than the Prime Osborn's on it. Then the winner of these two bids can focus their project on the courthouse lot.

Did Related provide details of density in their plan? It seems the more realistic of the two and would be a solid addition with its retail fronting Bay st.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 06:00:50 PM
^For better or worse, I think it’s Spandrel’s to lose.

Lori Boyer is hinting that Related might be out of compliance with the RFP requirements for retail, which is a major component of scoring. Design is also a major consideration, of which Related presented none.

Spandrel also showed more willingness to only develop one parcel of Hyatt exercise right of first refusal. We might see a situation where Hyatt claims the old Annex site and Spandrel develops the property fronting the river.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 04, 2020, 06:26:01 PM
Marina?  Is there a demand for that? Or is it for a place to store the boat you never use?  The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 06:30:09 PM
Marina?  Is there a demand for that? Or is it for a place to store the boat you never use?  The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.

Spandrel didn’t include a marina component for this very reason.

They didn’t think there was currently a market for any more marina in Jacksonville.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: acme54321 on February 04, 2020, 07:15:20 PM
Marina?  Is there a demand for that? Or is it for a place to store the boat you never use?  The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.

Lol, seriously?  You should go out there on a weekend.  Not saying there needs to be another marina down there though.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 07:24:15 PM
The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.

Dumb question from a non-boater:

Why is this?

Seems like everywhere you look in Florida, the rivers and waterways are jammed with recreational boats. Fishing boats. Sail boats. Pontoons. Fort Myers, where I grew up, has a river running through it's downtown, and it's not uncommon to see literally 300 boats dotting the river at any given time.

What makes Jax different? The conditions? Economics? Is everyone just off boating somewhere else?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: acme54321 on February 04, 2020, 07:41:05 PM
Dumb question from a non-boater:

Why is this?


It's not. 

There is a lot of boat traffic downtown on the weekends.  People aren't stopping, but there is traffic.  Plus we have much more water per capita than most other parts of Florida so people aren't as concentrated.  You can run down the St John's, Black Creek, Doctors Lake, ICW, numerous tidal creeks, Nassau River, inlets Etc.

Fort Myers has miles and miles and miles of dredge and fill canals and a ton of waterfront homes (boats) in a very concentrated area.  That coupled with a bunch of well off retirees that can run boats all day isn't a normal situation. 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 04, 2020, 08:12:15 PM
^Good answer, thanks!

Makes sense that the sprawl would apply to boaters as well.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 04, 2020, 08:40:11 PM
^For better or worse, I think it’s Spandrel’s to lose.

Lori Boyer is hinting that Related might be out of compliance with the RFP requirements for retail, which is a major component of scoring. Design is also a major consideration, of which Related presented none.

Spandrel also showed more willingness to only develop one parcel of Hyatt exercise right of first refusal. We might see a situation where Hyatt claims the old Annex site and Spandrel develops the property fronting the river.

I don't mind Spandrel. I would prefer the proposal be realistic. Seems that new construction residential shouldn't need that much incentives these days......and 74k of retail is a pipe dream.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Lostwave on February 05, 2020, 09:33:34 AM
The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.

Dumb question from a non-boater:

Why is this?

Seems like everywhere you look in Florida, the rivers and waterways are jammed with recreational boats. Fishing boats. Sail boats. Pontoons. Fort Myers, where I grew up, has a river running through it's downtown, and it's not uncommon to see literally 300 boats dotting the river at any given time.

What makes Jax different? The conditions? Economics? Is everyone just off boating somewhere else?

As a boater, the reason is there is nowhere to dock.  We used to go downtown on our boat all the time and dock at the landing to have lunch.  The docks got messed up so we don't go downtown anymore on the boat.  There needs to be a marina for boats to come.  Not putting public docks here would be a real shame.  We would get day boaters as well as transients (not bums, rich people on yachts) passing through on their way up north.  Of course you need to have the retail/nightlife/food in order to support those transients.  When snowbirds bring their boats from the North East to their south Florida homes, they skip jax because there is no good place to dock.  A few people stop at Beach Marine for the night, but they definitely don't stay for a few days like they do in Charleston because there is absolutely nothing to do in Jax for a boater looking to make a trip of it.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: downtownbrown on February 05, 2020, 09:58:17 AM
The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.

Dumb question from a non-boater:

Why is this?

Seems like everywhere you look in Florida, the rivers and waterways are jammed with recreational boats. Fishing boats. Sail boats. Pontoons. Fort Myers, where I grew up, has a river running through it's downtown, and it's not uncommon to see literally 300 boats dotting the river at any given time.

What makes Jax different? The conditions? Economics? Is everyone just off boating somewhere else?

As a boater, the reason is there is nowhere to dock.  We used to go downtown on our boat all the time and dock at the landing to have lunch.  The docks got messed up so we don't go downtown anymore on the boat.  There needs to be a marina for boats to come.  Not putting public docks here would be a real shame.  We would get day boaters as well as transients (not bums, rich people on yachts) passing through on their way up north.  Of course you need to have the retail/nightlife/food in order to support those transients.  When snowbirds bring their boats from the North East to their south Florida homes, they skip jax because there is no good place to dock.  A few people stop at Beach Marine for the night, but they definitely don't stay for a few days like they do in Charleston because there is absolutely nothing to do in Jax for a boater looking to make a trip of it.

^100%.  I would come from Palm Valley to downtown on a day trip frequently if there were a place to dock.  The Berkman marina was literally empty in 2012.  Look at it now.  And the Landing site was in total disrepair 3 hurricanes ago. Plus, boat vandals prevented overnight docking (not to mention no power stations).  I'm sure a new marina would be well utilized, especially if it could accomodate medium term visitors, like St. Augustine Municipal.  Some people might think the current is too strong for a lot of recreational boating.  Not true.  All local boating destinations have current issues.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: billy on February 05, 2020, 11:24:29 AM
I believe there was a boatyard/marina or two in Riverside/Brooklyn a long time ago, not sure where.

Yes, I am old. Go listen to one of your Ed Sheeran cassette tapes ....
....and stay off my lawn!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on February 05, 2020, 11:39:48 AM
The river from St Vincent's to the stadium is barely used at all.

Dumb question from a non-boater:

Why is this?

Seems like everywhere you look in Florida, the rivers and waterways are jammed with recreational boats. Fishing boats. Sail boats. Pontoons. Fort Myers, where I grew up, has a river running through it's downtown, and it's not uncommon to see literally 300 boats dotting the river at any given time.

What makes Jax different? The conditions? Economics? Is everyone just off boating somewhere else?

As a boater, the reason is there is nowhere to dock.  We used to go downtown on our boat all the time and dock at the landing to have lunch.  The docks got messed up so we don't go downtown anymore on the boat.  There needs to be a marina for boats to come.  Not putting public docks here would be a real shame.  We would get day boaters as well as transients (not bums, rich people on yachts) passing through on their way up north.  Of course you need to have the retail/nightlife/food in order to support those transients.  When snowbirds bring their boats from the North East to their south Florida homes, they skip jax because there is no good place to dock.  A few people stop at Beach Marine for the night, but they definitely don't stay for a few days like they do in Charleston because there is absolutely nothing to do in Jax for a boater looking to make a trip of it.

^100%.  I would come from Palm Valley to downtown on a day trip frequently if there were a place to dock.  The Berkman marina was literally empty in 2012.  Look at it now.  And the Landing site was in total disrepair 3 hurricanes ago. Plus, boat vandals prevented overnight docking (not to mention no power stations).  I'm sure a new marina would be well utilized, especially if it could accomodate medium term visitors, like St. Augustine Municipal.  Some people might think the current is too strong for a lot of recreational boating.  Not true.  All local boating destinations have current issues.

Especially right where there is supposed to be nightlife/bars and retail. It would be the perfect location for some day drinking. It would be sweet to have a little make shift bar/hut of sort in the Marina too so folks could just pull up and load up for a bit. They have something similar in DT Tampa by the convention center.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on February 05, 2020, 12:34:31 PM
So based on everything I've heard here, it sounds like the ideal solution would be:
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: itsfantastic1 on February 05, 2020, 04:57:08 PM
So based on everything I've heard here, it sounds like the ideal solution would be:
  • Convince Hyatt to use their right of first refusal, acquire the parcel directly adjacent to the hotel for use as an exhibition hall connected to their existing meeting space with retail and nightlife on the ground level.
  • Award Spandrel the remaining land parcel, give them a little bit of incentive to build their development on it.
  • Construct an economical marina on the coastline parcel that can provide access to downtown and see if induced demand works.
  • With the Prime Osborn vacated, demolish the convention center and make those parcels available for development (maybe build a park and ride lot while we're waiting), while planning to bring Amtrak downtown and perhaps Virgin.
  • Tell JTA to cool it with the AVs and just build a normal urban circulator system.


Sounds pretty great to me!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 05, 2020, 06:44:12 PM
Spandrel got the nod from the selection committee, per the Daily Record.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 05, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
I would love an independent thread addressing the market for another marina downtown. I am not a boater, but I am at the TU for 40 weeks a year and often drive from San Marco to Springfield at 7 45 am to get my daughter to Stanton. I am not seeing a lot of boats, probably because it's too early. But the marina at Met park was woefully underused and it seemed pretty nice. And everyone curses the city marina on South bank because of the strong current.  Perhaps it's because we don't have a lot of retired recreational boaters who would be downtown or thereabouts.  But what about crew or kayaking or SUP?  Don;t see that downtown at all, and I always wondered why. 
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on February 05, 2020, 08:29:47 PM
Spandrel got the nod from the selection committee, per the Daily Record.

First, probably should have swapped Phases 1 and 2. With that in mind…

Excellent. Now on to Phase 2: Convince Hyatt to claim their right of first refusal in order to build an exhibition hall.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on February 06, 2020, 12:36:03 AM
I wonder if there's any chance we could brush off the restaurant idea from Iguana's "Riverwalk Place" plan if we were to do a marina in that area.

https://www.wokv.com/news/local/riverwalk-place-proposed-for-old-courthouse-annex-site-downtown/T10ZldvsaQhCNxyyj2m2jO/
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: howfam on February 06, 2020, 02:29:11 AM
Give Spandrel a deal for another vacant city owned site and let them put their low rise, stick frame apartments there.


Another stick-frame low rise structure is hardly a replacement for the 15 story brick building that used to occupy the city hall portion of this site. Another example of Jax's phobia when it comes to high rises, and a gross underutilization of precious water-front real estate.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 06, 2020, 07:38:52 AM
Another example of Jax's phobia when it comes to high rises, and a gross underutilization of precious water-front real estate.

High-rises don't have a viable market in Jax. You can't build what the market won't support, and replacing a vacant structure with a mid-rise apartment building is a net benefit.

We're not Miami, we don't need to pretend to be.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 06, 2020, 08:08:50 AM
This is why you preserve what you have. You'll never get the density and character back. In the majority of these demolition situations we're ending up paying more for interior products that take a decade or more to materialize into something that actually exists.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Tacachale on February 06, 2020, 10:45:50 AM
This is why you preserve what you have. You'll never get the density and character back. In the majority of these demolition situations we're ending up paying more for interior products that take a decade or more to materialize into something that actually exists.

Yes, in this case, simply not blowing up the annex would have resulted in a denser product that would be cheaper for the city.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 06, 2020, 10:50:41 AM
This is why you preserve what you have. You'll never get the density and character back. In the majority of these demolition situations we're ending up paying more for interior products that take a decade or more to materialize into something that actually exists.

Yes, in this case, simply not blowing up the annex would have resulted in a denser product that would be cheaper for the city.

This is assuming that adaptive reuse would have actually occurred, which seems to be the magical assumption rampant on this forum.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on February 06, 2020, 10:58:36 AM
This is why you preserve what you have. You'll never get the density and character back. In the majority of these demolition situations we're ending up paying more for interior products that take a decade or more to materialize into something that actually exists.

Yes, in this case, simply not blowing up the annex would have resulted in a denser product that would be cheaper for the city.

This is assuming that adaptive reuse would have actually occurred, which seems to be the magical assumption rampant on this forum.

One which is easily proved or disproved with an RFP. Of course, given the city's reputation for wasting a lot of people's time and money, there might have been genuine interest that wouldn't take it seriously simply because of said reputation.   
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on February 07, 2020, 02:02:52 PM
This is why you preserve what you have. You'll never get the density and character back. In the majority of these demolition situations we're ending up paying more for interior products that take a decade or more to materialize into something that actually exists.

Yes, in this case, simply not blowing up the annex would have resulted in a denser product that would be cheaper for the city.

This is assuming that adaptive reuse would have actually occurred, which seems to be the magical assumption rampant on this forum.

With the type of money, in the end, it will be for the demo and damage caused by demo (around $7 million) and the type of incentives being sought anyway, it would have made more sense. Likewise, that building was historic and dense. It would have taken some incentives, but it would have gotten done and cheaper than what it will end up being for the city.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 07, 2020, 06:29:10 PM
Anyone who is familiar with Jacksonville has seen the Berkman II standing for over 10 years, I think that speaks to "reputation" pretty well.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: simms3 on February 10, 2020, 03:07:19 PM
Overall I'm happy with the Spandrel proposal, from the architecture to the density to the uses and the plan.  It seems feasible and I think it is actually a decent replacement for the ugly brutalist high-rise product that was there (I'm not sure how feasible or practical a repurposing of those former government buildings would have been in this town - the replacement cost of the apartments that Spandrel will put up is still low enough where it probably made more sense to build new, designed for mixed-use/apartments from the start, which allows for the rents that they think they can achieve (probably around $2/sf) versus the high cost to repurpose the CH and CH-annex (probably had some asbestos remediation and other high cost issues) with a hit to rents if the product is deemed inferior.

This is assuming the damn thing gets built, but I have hope and faith that it will.


Now on to opinions and observations about boating in Jax/NE FL.

Dumb question from a non-boater:

Why is this?


It's not. 

There is a lot of boat traffic downtown on the weekends.  People aren't stopping, but there is traffic.  Plus we have much more water per capita than most other parts of Florida so people aren't as concentrated.  You can run down the St John's, Black Creek, Doctors Lake, ICW, numerous tidal creeks, Nassau River, inlets Etc.

Fort Myers has miles and miles and miles of dredge and fill canals and a ton of waterfront homes (boats) in a very concentrated area.  That coupled with a bunch of well off retirees that can run boats all day isn't a normal situation. 

Compared to other waterfront cities in this state, there is NOT a lot of active boating going on throughout the year.  A lot of the marina boats docked up here are larger boats (35'++) owned by people who live in South FL.  It wasn't mostly NE FL residents who filled area marinas as they were built over the last 10-15 years.

Since moving back, I have taken my own boat out probably about every other weekend.  Often I am the ONLY boat on the entire river that I can see.  And we have had a warm, sunny winter with beautiful weather and great temps for boating.  "Cold" and winter is NOT an excuse for the level of inactivity in this part of the state.

It is true that right now there is nowhere to dock downtown.  It is also true that it takes a LONG time to get from a riverfront location south of downtown to the Intracoastal or the ocean.  Neither of these are excuses for why there is just no boating on the actual river.

There is substantially more boat traffic along the Intracoastal and I get the sense that there are simply more cold weather transplants who have access to a boat closer to the beach, than on the river.  I am guessing that lends itself to the obvious increase in usage of the waterways closer to the beach and down into St. Augustine (because they are NOT taking this beautiful Florida weather and a waterfront location for granted as is so apparent with most of the city south of downtown).

People on the river just don't use their boats so much and frankly, it's a shame.  So much of the world would kill to have the access!
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on February 10, 2020, 04:05:29 PM
The city had to pay for asbestos removal in both buildings anyway, so they could be demolished, so it was a sunk cost either way. They also had to pay for the remaining cost of demo such as the explosion and debris removal.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 04:34:04 PM
"Compared to other waterfront cities in this state, there is NOT a lot of active boating going on throughout the year.  A lot of the marina boats docked up here are larger boats (35'++) owned by people who live in South FL.  It wasn't mostly NE FL residents who filled area marinas as they were built over the last 10-15 years.

Since moving back, I have taken my own boat out probably about every other weekend.  Often I am the ONLY boat on the entire river that I can see."

That is exactly what I thought when I carefully scoped it out this weekend, super calm conditions and one boat out there. Was there a solid boating turnout on Sunday for the Food and Wine Festival under I 95? I think you can tie up down there?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: acme54321 on February 10, 2020, 07:52:39 PM
LOL.  The highs were in the upper 60s all weekend and it was blowing 10-15 on Sunday.  That's not comfortable in any boat owned by us mere mortals.  Unless you have a yacht or a larger boat with some cover from the wind it wouldn't have been enjoyable. 

Might be a different story this weekend, especially Sunday and Monday with highs approaching 80 and winds under 10.  I'll probably be out there on Monday.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 10, 2020, 08:39:06 PM
Take some pics and post
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 11, 2020, 11:16:14 AM
Spandrel got the nod from the selection committee, per the Daily Record.

First, probably should have swapped Phases 1 and 2. With that in mind…

Excellent. Now on to Phase 2: Convince Hyatt to claim their right of first refusal in order to build an exhibition hall.

Spandrel didn't include a purchase price for the land in their proposal, but I think they're probably expecting to get it pretty cheaply from the city based on their statements about requesting incentives in line with other downtown riverfront projects. It might not take much for Hyatt to exercise their ROFR and match on the old Annex property.

Might be a long time though, if ever, before Hyatt actually broke ground on a convention hall.

At this point, when it comes to the downtown core, I kind of favor path of least resistance in terms of what's actually going to get shovels in the ground. Beggars can't be choosers, and if the choice is to get something moving at the site now versus Hyatt sitting on it for a decade and hoping to work out a deal with the city on a convention center, I'd rather just see the apartments.

Downtown has lost so much momentum in the last two years. Feels like we've got 50 delayed or stalled projects (Laura Street Trio, Jones Furniture, Ambassador Hotel, old Independent Life building, Landing, Hyatt Place, Berkman II, Laura Street Garage, Main Street pocket/dog park, Barnett retail, Aetna apartments, Mathers Social/Joysticks) and almost no significant movement in the CBD in a roaring economy.

We gotta get some real momentum going ASAP before the window passes, even if it's not absolutely ideal.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 11, 2020, 12:04:30 PM
^I think the devil is still in the details for sites like this. Assuming they get into the mix, I don't know much about what Hyatt will do at this point (even an exhibition hall box could be mixed use with apartments/hotel/commercial space on top....sort of like Seattle's), other than what's been presented by Spandrel, which will require some time itself, given the request for incentives and the admission of a phase two being dependent on market conditions. Quite frankly, like the Landing site, District, Shipyards, etc., this is a conceptual vision that I don't see breaking ground any time soon (ex. within the next 12 months). The imminent projects appear to be those that are pushing past DDRB review, filing permits and getting started without all the media fluff and early requests for massive public incentives.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 11, 2020, 02:45:08 PM
^Looks like they'll have a little time to figure it out.

Per the JBJ, looks like Spandrel might only be given the waterfront parcel for now, while the city tries to figure out how they're going to get around Hyatt's claim on the Annex parcel identified for Phase II.

Quote
The Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront, which neighbors the Ford on Bay, has caused a wrinkle in the bid process. The hotel has the first right of refusal on one of the three parcels the city is soliciting, which stems from an existing development agreement.

John Sawyer, an attorney at the Office of General Counsel, told the committee the city would prefer more time to figure out how to resolve the situation with the Hyatt. Spandrel, which would conduct two-phase construction starting with the parcel to which the Hyatt has no claim, would give them that time, Sawyer said.

A Spandrel representative said the grocery would be included in Phase II, and no grocer had yet agreed to occupy the space.

He advised that if DIA moves forward with Spandrel, its final agreement would only be for the first parcel, so as not to trigger the Hyatt's first right of refusal. Spandrel could be given assurances to the second parcel, but it could not be given an option to purchase it without hitting the Hyatt's trigger, if the DIA proceeded down that route.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 11, 2020, 03:07:09 PM
It seems this should have been figured out a long time ago. The big question that needs to answered is if the Hyatt's owners want the lot and if so, what are their intentions for it? As for Spandrel, they're planning a two phased development and no one knows if that second phase will ever materialize. Work out a deal for the courthouse parcel, allowing them to move forward with a Phase 1. But before trying to "get out" of the Hyatt thing, we need to first get an idea of where the Hyatt's head is at. If they are interested in an exhibition hall of some sort, that's not something we should try to discourage. No matter what the extremely long term and unfunded visions are for the Shipyards. They could put up a box that could fill the city's convention center needs for the next 20-30 years because it will be well more than a decade before a convention center the size of what's shown on those Shipyards renderings is needed, funded and completed.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 11, 2020, 03:27:15 PM
It seems this should have been figured out a long time ago.

Maybe even before we spent $5 million to demolish the Annex and prepare a site for development that we potentially can't actually offer up for development  :D
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 11, 2020, 10:17:40 PM
"Downtown has lost so much momentum in the last two years. Feels like we've got 50 delayed or stalled projects (Laura Street Trio, Jones Furniture, Ambassador Hotel, old Independent Life building, Landing, Hyatt Place, Berkman II, Laura Street Garage, Main Street pocket/dog park, Barnett retail, Aetna apartments, Mathers Social/Joysticks) and almost no significant movement in the CBD in a roaring economy."

This is so true. My question: is this by design?  Many folks have said the only way you end up with such a dysfunctional CBD is on purpose, and what we are looking at in terms of lost mojo seems to support the theory that Jacksonville's old money and well heeled interest's DO NOT want to see downtown succeed.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 11, 2020, 10:30:43 PM
^Feels things fell a bit off track when Brian Hughes became the interim DIA CEO after Audra Wallace left. That's when all the crazy demo stuff started happening.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: jaxlongtimer on February 11, 2020, 10:53:04 PM
^Feels things fell a bit off track when Brian Hughes became the interim DIA CEO after Audra Wallace left. That's when all the crazy demo stuff started happening.

After 8 years of Curry, his legacy is more likely to be dozens of empty lots than any new additions to the Downtown skyline.  And, this during the longest economic expansion since WWII.  Have to work hard to screw things up so badly but Jax seems to have a natural ability to do so.

It's also ironic that, being the former State chair of the Republican party, the party of "business friendly successes," he is an abject failure at having any while Democratic mayor Jake Godbold is being celebrated for same.  Curry can't even claim success in his favorite business category, sports, as the Jags move a second game to London.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 12, 2020, 09:08:00 AM
Quote from the Daily Record Article:
Quote
He told the committee if a grocer does not work for the development, Spandrel could consider a food hall, gallery exhibition space or meeting space for guests at the neighboring Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront hotel.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/dia-committee-recommends-spandrel-for-the-ford-on-bay

Wouldn't the best thing then to be for Spandrel and the Hyatt owners to talk and potentially present COJ with a proposal together for the 220 E Bay site? Hyatt right now has all of the cards in this, but development is likely better for them than a vacant lot and this COULD be a win-win for all.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 12, 2020, 10:07:02 AM
Another example of Jax's phobia when it comes to high rises, and a gross underutilization of precious water-front real estate.

High-rises don't have a viable market in Jax. You can't build what the market won't support, and replacing a vacant structure with a mid-rise apartment building is a net benefit.

We're not Miami, we don't need to pretend to be.
Why not "pretend to be?" If city leaders would do their jobs, and do the right thing for the city, we wouldn't have to pretend, and the demand would be there for high rises or anything else that would be offered or put on the table for the public.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 12, 2020, 10:18:51 AM
Spandrel got the nod from the selection committee, per the Daily Record.

First, probably should have swapped Phases 1 and 2. With that in mind…

Excellent. Now on to Phase 2: Convince Hyatt to claim their right of first refusal in order to build an exhibition hall.

Spandrel didn't include a purchase price for the land in their proposal, but I think they're probably expecting to get it pretty cheaply from the city based on their statements about requesting incentives in line with other downtown riverfront projects. It might not take much for Hyatt to exercise their ROFR and match on the old Annex property.

Might be a long time though, if ever, before Hyatt actually broke ground on a convention hall.

At this point, when it comes to the downtown core, I kind of favor path of least resistance in terms of what's actually going to get shovels in the ground. Beggars can't be choosers, and if the choice is to get something moving at the site now versus Hyatt sitting on it for a decade and hoping to work out a deal with the city on a convention center, I'd rather just see the apartments.

Downtown has lost so much momentum in the last two years. Feels like we've got 50 delayed or stalled projects (Laura Street Trio, Jones Furniture, Ambassador Hotel, old Independent Life building, Landing, Hyatt Place, Berkman II, Laura Street Garage, Main Street pocket/dog park, Barnett retail, Aetna apartments, Mathers Social/Joysticks) and almost no significant movement in the CBD in a roaring economy.

We gotta get some real momentum going ASAP before the window passes, even if it's not absolutely ideal.
I remember years back, yes, and in this forum, someone posted an article, or it may have been an opinion, on what downtown Jax would look like in the future. One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all. Can't remember who posted that, or where it came from, but being a high rise fan, when I saw it, I discounted it and said, "no, that won't happen." But what has happened in downtown Jax in the last decade or so, they predicted accurately in their crystal ball. Not only is their a starvation of high rise, tall's or super tall's (which doesn't define a city or downtown), but also a starvation and hunger for approved and under construction new developments, etc. I hope it changes very quickly because I too fear that Jax is again missing a very important and vital window of opportunity relative to the current economic and financial climate not only nation wide, but also worldwide.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 12, 2020, 10:54:08 AM
One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 12, 2020, 11:04:58 AM
The best way to get more high-rise residential in downtown right now is adaptive reuse of existing office buildings (ex. 11 East, Barnett or the Old Independent Life Building, etc.). This is why it was short sighted to demo the city hall annex. That's built density you're simply never going to get back and if COJ is willing to use the value of an existing property as the public subsidy, it could go a long way to eliminating the adaptive reuse financial gap for some of these publicly owned assets.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 12, 2020, 11:18:27 AM
The best way to get more high-rise residential in downtown right now is adaptive reuse of existing office buildings (ex. 11 East, Barnett or the Old Independent Life Building, etc.). This is why it was short sighted to demo the city hall annex. That's built density you're simply never going to get back and if COJ is willing to use the value of an existing property as the public subsidy, it could go a long way to eliminating the adaptive reuse financial gap for some of these publicly owned assets.

Haven't we kind of run out of high-rise vacant buildings to reactivate?

Outside of that, mid-rise works and fits our city, but I see people bemoan it here like we need to have every new DT parcel be built up as a Miami-style high-rise condo, which just isn't a good fit for our current population or projected population
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 12, 2020, 11:30:49 AM
The Old Independent Life building has a proposal but work hasn't began yet. The JEA Tower (Universal Marion Building) will be empty in a couple of years when JEA moves into their new tower. Then we have quite a few vacant older mid-rise office structures in the 5 to 7-story range that could possibly be converted into housing. They include the Furchgott's, Exchange Bank, Hilderbrant and Jones Brothers Furniture buildings. Combined, you could probably get a couple hundred units in these buildings alone.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 12, 2020, 11:31:44 AM
CBRE on the current viability of new high rise in DT Jax:

Quote
CBRE Jacksonville, the real estate firm that marketed The Ford on Bay, says it marketed the site to 15,000 development companies nationwide.

Senior Vice President Cliff Taylor and Vice President Joe Ayers told the committee that developers considering the property for high-rise and midrise uses dropped out of consideration after analyzing the market.  A “garden product” is lower than midrise.

“We candidly thought there would be groups from all three  of those categories who would look at the site and make an attempt to make them work because of the desirability of the location on the river and where they are positioned in the core,” Taylor said.

Spandrel and The Related Group submitted the only bids.

Spandrel’s total project cost is estimated at $262,000 per unit, according to CBRE. The real estate firm’s initial estimate for a garden product at the Ford on Bay site was $225,000 per unit.

Taylor said the added cost could justify the city giving the land to the developer at no cost, which is what Spandrel has proposed.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 12, 2020, 11:36:42 AM
The best way to get more high-rise residential in downtown right now is adaptive reuse of existing office buildings (ex. 11 East, Barnett or the Old Independent Life Building, etc.). This is why it was short sighted to demo the city hall annex. That's built density you're simply never going to get back and if COJ is willing to use the value of an existing property as the public subsidy, it could go a long way to eliminating the adaptive reuse financial gap for some of these publicly owned assets.

While I agree it was shortsighted to demo the annex, I'm really not sure how many units you'd get in there compared to a mid-rise that used the whole block. The building say back quite a distance from the street, and other than the first 2 floors the floor plates were really small.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on February 12, 2020, 11:45:00 AM
Haven't we kind of run out of high-rise vacant buildings to reactivate?

I wonder why…
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 12, 2020, 11:59:10 AM
I'm totally confused to why we'd think we'd have a market for high rise construction of any type. There haven't been tower cranes in the Northbank in well over a decade. I believe that the most recent project to have them was the Duval County Courthouse. Before that, it's likely Berkman 2.

Currently, the place is littered with surface parking lots, pedestrian hostile streets, poorly maintained public spaces and very limited clustering to stimulate any consistent pedestrian activity. We've just reached a point where garden style stick frame apartments work from a market perspective. I know we tend to not want to believe or hear it but we have to learn to crawl and walk before we can run.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 12, 2020, 12:04:50 PM
I'm totally confused to why we'd think we'd have a market for high rise construction of any type. There haven't been tower cranes in the Northbank in well over a decade. I believe that the most recent project to have them was the Duval County Courthouse. Before that, it's likely Berkman 2.

Currently, the place is littered with surface parking lots, pedestrian hostile streets, poorly maintained public spaces and very limited clustering to stimulate any consistent pedestrian activity. We've just reached a point where garden style stick frame apartments work from a market perspective. I know we tend to not want to believe or hear it but we have to learn to crawl and walk before we can run.

In the short term I'm okay with it as long as they're well designed at the street level. Density is nice, but let's get a few 5 story buildings that have a strong ground level retail game and go from there.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 12, 2020, 12:10:07 PM
I'm totally confused to why we'd think we'd have a market for high rise construction of any type. There haven't been tower cranes in the Northbank in well over a decade. I believe that the most recent project to have them was the Duval County Courthouse. Before that, it's likely Berkman 2.

Currently, the place is littered with surface parking lots, pedestrian hostile streets, poorly maintained public spaces and very limited clustering to stimulate any consistent pedestrian activity. We've just reached a point where garden style stick frame apartments work from a market perspective. I know we tend to not want to believe or hear it but we have to learn to crawl and walk before we can run.

High rises?!? We talking about High Rises!?!

Hell, I have people fighting a 4 story building being built near me.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 12, 2020, 12:22:53 PM
The best way to get more high-rise residential in downtown right now is adaptive reuse of existing office buildings (ex. 11 East, Barnett or the Old Independent Life Building, etc.). This is why it was short sighted to demo the city hall annex. That's built density you're simply never going to get back and if COJ is willing to use the value of an existing property as the public subsidy, it could go a long way to eliminating the adaptive reuse financial gap for some of these publicly owned assets.

While I agree it was shortsighted to demo the annex, I'm really not sure how many units you'd get in there compared to a mid-rise that used the whole block. The building say back quite a distance from the street, and other than the first 2 floors the floor plates were really small.

The floor plates were small for office space but probably perfect for residential. The total number of units would be dependent of the size of them. Also, we'll never know but I'd assume new infill at the site could have been possible.

Now that the annex is gone, I'd favor figuring out a way to get an exhibition hall there (Spandrel can take the courthouse site) because stick frame apartments can go anywhere in downtown. Once we blow the opportunity on this site, we're screwed on the CC issue for at least another generation, which ties up the Prime Osborn's potential, as well as the Shipyards.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: vicupstate on February 12, 2020, 12:50:19 PM
Yeah, there is no reason a two story (or more) addition at the City Hall Annex wouldn't have worked to replace the building's setback. Would be a great location for an addition to the Elbow bar district.   
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 12, 2020, 01:43:00 PM
An interesting tidbit from the article......because if we're logical, we all know there's no market for a 15,000 to 25,000 square foot grocery store there, along the with the urban bodega proposed at the Trio, the 20,000 grocery proposed at  the old JEA Building, the existing Harvey's on Market Street and the existing Fresh Market in Brooklyn.

Quote
A proposed grocery store would be held until Phase II when the project has residential density, Scharf said.

525 apartments at build-out won't make a full line grocery store viable.

Quote
In an interview after the meeting, Scharf said a typical urban grocer needs 15,000 to 25,000 square feet of space, but Spandrel would examine the market feasibility before committing to a size or announcing an operator.

“We’ve spoken with local brokers, but I think it’s premature at this point to comment further on specific tenant interest,” Scharf said.

He told the committee if a grocer does not work for the development, Spandrel could consider a food hall, gallery exhibition space or meeting space for guests at the neighboring Hyatt Regency Jacksonville Riverfront hotel.

Both of these alternative options are more realistic.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: tufsu1 on February 12, 2020, 02:53:04 PM
Spandrel didn't include a purchase price for the land in their proposal, but I think they're probably expecting to get it pretty cheaply from the city

They are proposing the land be given to them for free
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 12, 2020, 04:08:10 PM
Is free riverfront property the full extent of the incentives requested or are they expecting more?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: jagsonville on February 12, 2020, 04:43:40 PM
Is free riverfront property the full extent of the incentives requested or are they expecting more?

Free land and an REV grant, for now. Although Reggie Gaffney’s comment “ He told the committee not to base its decision on the ability to commit to financial incentives. “What I don’t want you to do is limit this to what dollars you think you have,” he said. “Allow us to have the problem if you need more dollars.”” insinuate that some sort of money will be asked for as this goes further..
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 12, 2020, 06:45:41 PM
Is free riverfront property the full extent of the incentives requested or are they expecting more?

Free land and an REV grant, for now. Although Reggie Gaffney’s comment “ He told the committee not to base its decision on the ability to commit to financial incentives. “What I don’t want you to do is limit this to what dollars you think you have,” he said. “Allow us to have the problem if you need more dollars.”” insinuate that some sort of money will be asked for as this goes further..

Perfect.  Did the City win the PowerBall lottery and no one told us?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 12, 2020, 06:59:21 PM
So we just have to giveaway what should be rather valuable property? That’s fine. Phew... Just imagine the ask if we didn’t have an NFL franchise that has had such an amazing impact on the desirability of Jax vs those loser NFL-less cities like Greenville.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on February 12, 2020, 07:13:05 PM
So we just have to giveaway what should be rather valuable property? That’s fine. Phew... Just imagine the ask if we didn’t have an NFL franchise that has had such an amazing impact on the desirability of Jax vs those loser NFL-less cities like Greenville.

That is poor leadership on other fronts. However, ask someone from Seattle, Houston, New York or Boston if they know about Jacksonville, they will probably know of us because of the Jaguars. Ask them about Greenville, they will look at you with a blank stare. Greenville has a nice walkable strip of retail and restaurants, but other than that 7 block stretch, it did not rival Jax at all IMO.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: sanmarcomatt on February 12, 2020, 07:17:13 PM
So we just have to giveaway what should be rather valuable property? That’s fine. Phew... Just imagine the ask if we didn’t have an NFL franchise that has had such an amazing impact on the desirability of Jax vs those loser NFL-less cities like Greenville.

That is poor leadership on other fronts. However, ask someone from Seattle, Houston, New York or Boston if they know about Jacksonville, they will probably know of us because of the Jaguars. Ask them about Greenville, they will look at you with a blank stare. Greenville has a nice walkable strip of retail and restaurants, but other than that 7 block stretch, it did not rival Jax at all IMO.

Relax Francis. It was just a joke.  Now go wash that Jaguar Snuggie....gonna need it on Friday.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: howfam on February 15, 2020, 02:19:46 AM
One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.



These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding. High-rise makes more sense because it uses less land and still achieves the occupant level and square footage desired. The 5 story buildings proposed over 2 city blocks could be consolidated into one 10-12 story  building with more ground-floor retail and parking. Jax is not worthy of the title of "city" of any size if it can't build at least "entry-level" buildings of 10-12 stories.  Don't waste precious waterfront land with low-rise stick-frame buildings. /Howfam
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 15, 2020, 06:50:22 AM
One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.



These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding. High-rise makes more sense because it uses less land and still achieves the occupant level and square footage desired. The 5 story buildings proposed over 2 city blocks could be consolidated into one 10-Y12 story  building with more ground-floor retail and parking. Jax is not worthy of the title of "city" of any size if it can't build at least "entry-level" buildings of 10-12 stories.  Don't waste precious waterfront land with low-rise stick-frame buildings. /Howfam
Yehhhhhhhhh, aye aye, yes! Finally someone speaks with some sense; and...I understand all about market support; if the market or demand is not there for high rises, and/or also in relation to property values, etc., high rises won't get built; learned this from this forum; however, I agree with what you said "fam."
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: howfam on February 15, 2020, 10:07:13 AM
One of the things they said, or pointed out, was to forget about skyscrapers and/or going vertical, and that a lot of construction downtown would be low to midrise or even lower. They even posted a rendering that showed little to none high rise vertical construction...at all.

This seems to be the most cost effective method, and it's a decent fit for Jacksonville. We're a midsized city of medium density, midrise apartments actually INCREASE the population density of Downtown. Highrise condos and apartments in DT Jax don't really seem to fit the market, midsize is better than what's there now (aka: not much) and fits the context of our downtown.

In short, midrise is a good thing and seems to be a good fit for OUR downtown.



These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding. High-rise makes more sense because it uses less land and still achieves the occupant level and square footage desired. The 5 story buildings proposed over 2 city blocks could be consolidated into one 10-Y12 story  building with more ground-floor retail and parking. Jax is not worthy of the title of "city" of any size if it can't build at least "entry-level" buildings of 10-12 stories.  Don't waste precious waterfront land with low-rise stick-frame buildings. /Howfam
Yehhhhhhhhh, aye aye, yes! Finally someone speaks with some sense; and...I understand all about market support; if the market or demand is not there for high rises, and/or also in relation to property values, etc., high rises won't get built; learned this from this forum; however, I agree with what you said "fam."

Yes Heights . One high-rise (12-plus stories) will lead to others, as no one wants to be outdone. That's why I'm excited about the Lot J project. All the renderings I've seen show high-rises in Lot J and across the street at "The Shipyards". Let's face it, someone has to "prime the pump", and Mr. Kahn just might be the one in the right position, both financially and politically, to do it.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Papa33 on February 15, 2020, 01:00:19 PM
Can someone remind me about the market for the three Southbank residential high rises when they were built.  What was the demand?  Was it a build it and they will come situation?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 15, 2020, 03:09:32 PM
Can someone remind me about the market for the three Southbank residential high rises when they were built.  What was the demand?  Was it a build it and they will come situation?

Talking about the two on the river:

-The Strand was built as apartments and shorty before completion in 2006-ish, they were talking interest on whether people wanted to buy. They never pursued and it’s apartments to this day.
-I believe the Peninsula was “sold out” before completion, meaning people put down deposits on all of the units. Rule of thumb at the time was to have deposits on 50% of units before groundbreaking. But, I do know there were people that basically never showed up to the closing table once the building was built.
-The third tower (the Vu) never broke ground and I don’t think they ever actually took deposits.

San Marco Place followed a similar trajectory as the Peninsula I believe.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 15, 2020, 04:38:03 PM
Can someone remind me about the market for the three Southbank residential high rises when they were built.  What was the demand?  Was it a build it and they will come situation?
There were several high rise proposals back then, before the real estate bust. Those three (and Berkman 2) were the ones that broke ground before the crash. The other proposals simply fizzled away....just like most of the
current proposals will.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 15, 2020, 04:42:14 PM
Miami went through a similar experience but thousands of units went under construction. When the market blew up, many lost their shirts and new buildings initially sat empty. However, one man's loss is another's gain. Those empty units got filled for reduced prices and when the market improved, that downtown had a base in place to justify and drive more development. Now it is unrecognizable from what it was in 2000.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Captain Zissou on February 16, 2020, 08:45:26 PM
These mid-rise stick-frame structures are not a good fit for our city. They do more to compromise the big city image that we need to foster in order to gain the attention of would-be investors, tourists etc. - If we are to attract tourists, we have to compete with the cities that are already tourist magnets, size not-withstanding.
I just visited a tourist magnet last weekend that has barely any buildings above 10 floors.  Savannah was full of pedestrian activity on every block and their riverfront was a hotbed of activity.  Density and clusters of complementing, pedestrian friendly, uses are more likely to get us tourists than taller buildings.  Jax needs to worry more about filling in the moonscapes that cover our downtown (which this project helps to accomplish) before we require buildings to be of a certain height.

That said, I don't like the stick built construction either.  I would rather see a stronger and more architecturally significant building than what has been going into the core lately, but I don't know if we can command the rents that would support the increased costs of construction.  Smart development practices in the core will lead to increased demand, which will lead to a better product being offered.  What we have been doing for the last 10 years to "spur growth" have not been smart practices..
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 16, 2020, 11:49:30 PM
Miami went through a similar experience but thousands of units went under construction. When the market blew up, many lost their shirts and new buildings initially sat empty. However, one man's loss is another's gain. Those empty units got filled for reduced prices and when the market improved, that downtown had a base in place to justify and drive more development. Now it is unrecognizable from what it was in 2000.
Tell me about it.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: bl8jaxnative on February 17, 2020, 05:53:22 PM
Miami went through a similar experience but thousands of units went under construction. When the market blew up, many lost their shirts and new buildings initially sat empty. However, one man's loss is another's gain. Those empty units got filled for reduced prices and when the market improved, that downtown had a base in place to justify and drive more development. Now it is unrecognizable from what it was in 2000.

They've had a nice run thanks to Latin American buyers.  Those buyers have largely dried up.  They may have built themselves right back into another bubble.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 17, 2020, 06:02:33 PM
Interesting. It's likely better to be in a bubble with 100k downtown residents already in hand than headed into a recession with 5k spread across 4 square miles and still having to subsidize stick frame garden style apartments.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: MusicMan on February 17, 2020, 06:27:57 PM
Let's stop comparing Miami to Jacksonville.That's like comparing bananas to sour oranges!

Didn't some dude pay $25 million for a one acre waterfront parcel in Brikell 2 years ago?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 18, 2020, 12:38:36 AM
Interesting. It's likely better to be in a bubble with 100k downtown residents already in hand than headed into a recession with 5k spread across 4 square miles and still having to subsidize stick frame garden style apartments.
LOLOL
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 18, 2020, 12:40:27 AM
Let's stop comparing Miami to Jacksonville.That's like comparing bananas to sour oranges!

Didn't some dude pay $25 million for a one acre waterfront parcel in Brikell 2 years ago?
Yeah, there's no comparison, none. Miami has the 3rd densest skyline in the nation for a city of close to 500k.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 18, 2020, 06:50:49 AM
Pretty crazy that the skylines were comparable in the 1980s. Same as Jax and Charlotte in the 1990s and Jax and Nashville in early 2000s. Even Orlando, which had a significantly smaller skyline in 1995, looks dramatically different. In Jax, not much has changed since the 1990s completion of the BOA Tower. After missing the fruits of two historic urban real estate boom periods in the first 20 years of the 2000s, the comparable list is looking pretty thin. So we're at a point where places much smaller 30 years ago are now in our peer group.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 18, 2020, 06:59:21 AM
Let's stop comparing Miami to Jacksonville.That's like comparing bananas to sour oranges!

Didn't some dude pay $25 million for a one acre waterfront parcel in Brikell 2 years ago?
Yeah, there's no comparison, none. Miami has the 3rd densest skyline in the nation for a city of close to 500k.
There's close to 6 million in that MSA now and it's an international tourism destination. Yeah, it's in a different tier now. No doubt.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: jaxjags on February 18, 2020, 12:24:28 PM
Question - With the zoning height restrictions along the river could the Ford on Bay buildings be much higher or not?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 18, 2020, 12:28:02 PM
Question - With the zoning height restrictions along the river could the Ford on Bay buildings be much higher or not?

Yes. The Overlay does discuss the stepping up in height as you get away from the river, but certainly it could be taller than 5 floors.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 18, 2020, 03:23:49 PM
It is probably 5 floors for the same reason almost every other apartment building stops at 5 floors.  The fire codes change when you go above 5 floors.  It takes a lot of floors to cover the cost difference and there isn't demand for that many.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Florida Power And Light on February 18, 2020, 06:12:02 PM
Five Floor is plenty.
Why alter/ further clutter visual scenery/ landscape with more concrete, sky view and light blocked? Plenty of “ Density/ Vibrancy”.( Other than $$$$)
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 19, 2020, 07:36:45 AM
It is probably 5 floors for the same reason almost every other apartment building stops at 5 floors.  The fire codes change when you go above 5 floors.  It takes a lot of floors to cover the cost difference and there isn't demand for that many.

Some people on here seem to forget that a project ought to be profitable after construction. We got some people in here saying we ought to build skyscrapers (regardless of their profitability) just to... impress out-of-town investors? That kind of idea sounds like buying a new Cadillac because you wanna show off how good your MLM is doing. Ineffective and unsustainable, all for the sake of TALL BUILDING
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 19, 2020, 08:38:22 AM
Which is why it is pretty foolish to blow up publicly owned skyscrapers with no real redevelopment plan in place. That's density, you'll likely never get back. You'd be better off giving away the building as the public incentive to help make redevelopment numbers work, as opposed to spending millions to raze and then millions more to replace it with a five story stick frame structure.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 19, 2020, 09:21:55 AM
Which is why it is pretty foolish to blow up publicly owned skyscrapers with no real redevelopment plan in place. That's density, you'll likely never get back. You'd be better off giving away the building as the public incentive to help make redevelopment numbers work, as opposed to spending millions to raze and then millions more to replace it with a five story stick frame structure.

We all know that. You're preaching to the choir. What's done is done, though, I'm focusing on discussing the current situation and development, not lamenting the errors the city has made.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 19, 2020, 09:37:12 AM
Downtown is a big hamster wheel. Yesterday it was the City Hall Annex and the Landing. Today, it's the FBC Sunday school building. Tomorrow, it could be the Universal Marion Building. The mistakes remain the same. So in a way, what's done is actually not really done. It just moves on another site, lighting public money on fire as it continues throughout downtown's streets. As for this site, at this point, whatever is built will be low rise. That's Jax's market and it is, what it is. The potential error here (another that happens in the hamster wheel) is heavily subsidizing stick frame apartments on the waterfront. You can do market rate stick frame now. There's no strong reason to heavily incentivize it. It you want retail.....provide that same level incentives to the existing vacant storefronts and buildings already down there.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: icarus on February 19, 2020, 10:11:30 AM
Downtown is a big hamster wheel. Yesterday it was the City Hall Annex and the Landing. Today, it's the FBC Sunday school building. Tomorrow, it could be the Universal Marion Building. The mistakes remain the same. So in a way, what's done is actually not really done. It just moves on another site, lighting public money on fire as it continues throughout downtown's streets. As for this site, at this point, whatever is built will be low rise. That's Jax's market and it is, what it is. The potential error here (another that happens in the hamster wheel) is heavily subsidizing stick frame apartments on the waterfront. You can do market rate stick frame now. There's no strong reason to heavily incentivize it. It you want retail.....provide that same level incentives to the existing vacant storefronts and buildings already down there.

As someone who has walked away from investments downtown, I can honestly say that if you want to develop anything in downtown Jacksonville ... you have to financially plan on not being able to do anything for a year to 2 years after you acquire the building or site .... as long as that level of regulation and delay exists .. why would you develop downtown without incentives ....????
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 19, 2020, 10:22:39 AM
Time is money. Why does it take so long and what would you suggest to reduce the timeline? Is this specific to downtown Jax or the city as a whole?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 19, 2020, 10:58:35 AM
It is probably 5 floors for the same reason almost every other apartment building stops at 5 floors.  The fire codes change when you go above 5 floors.  It takes a lot of floors to cover the cost difference and there isn't demand for that many.

Some people on here seem to forget that a project ought to be profitable after construction. We got some people in here saying we ought to build skyscrapers (regardless of their profitability) just to... impress out-of-town investors? That kind of idea sounds like buying a new Cadillac because you wanna show off how good your MLM is doing. Ineffective and unsustainable, all for the sake of TALL BUILDING

Personally, my favorite places have all the buildings in the 3 to 10 story range.  Old London is much better than new London and at least Paris had the good sense to make them build all the highrises in La Defense outside the city limits.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Wacca Pilatka on February 19, 2020, 11:41:13 AM
Time is money. Why does it take so long and what would you suggest to reduce the timeline? Is this specific to downtown Jax or the city as a whole?

Plus, wasn't a big part of the point of consolidation to reduce red tape and increase efficiency?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: icarus on February 19, 2020, 01:31:45 PM
Time is money. Why does it take so long and what would you suggest to reduce the timeline? Is this specific to downtown Jax or the city as a whole?

Its easier to get approval from the historic commission for work in Riverside than to get anything permitted downtown. And infinitely easier to get a building permit anywhere in JAX but downtown. 

Maybe, its because of the focus of wanting development downtown but what you have wound up with is an overlay of nonconnected and noncommunicating regulatory bodies .. any of which can send you all the way back to the starting point.
And dont even get me started on the fire marshal.

Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 20, 2020, 12:05:40 AM
It is probably 5 floors for the same reason almost every other apartment building stops at 5 floors.  The fire codes change when you go above 5 floors.  It takes a lot of floors to cover the cost difference and there isn't demand for that many.

Some people on here seem to forget that a project ought to be profitable after construction. We got some people in here saying we ought to build skyscrapers (regardless of their profitability) just to... impress out-of-town investors? That kind of idea sounds like buying a new Cadillac because you wanna show off how good your MLM is doing. Ineffective and unsustainable, all for the sake of TALL BUILDING
Talking about me? Shhhhhhhhhhhh...don't tell anyone that I'm a tall and super tall fan. I agree with what you said; however, let's be real and face the facts of this matter; if a city has a million people, people that's never been to that city will expect skyscraper density; and no, not trying to impress anyone, but if you have a million people, why not act and look like a city of 1 million people, rather than looking like a city of 200,000 or less. It's sad when Orlando, St. Petersburg, Miami beach, North Miami Beach, etc., have beautiful tall beautiful buildings, and yes skyscrapers taller than Wells Fargo and BOA, and with deep and intense density to boot, and, their populations are not even near the population of Jax; that's my point. But if our city wants to think in a box, i.e., small minded and minor league in all aspects, then maybe we should strip that consolidation moniker (that 1968 citizens voted on), annex neighborhoods in and around the old city limits and urban core and our downtown, and then our skyline will correlate to a city of 300,000 (maybe) rather than close to 1 million. That's all I am saying. Just playing, you probably wasn't talking or referring to me, then again, you probably were; but I am responding to your post because it appears it was speaking to me, and thanks for your post.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Ken_FSU on February 21, 2020, 12:02:24 PM
DIA greenlit Spandrel's project.

https://www.bizjournals.com/jacksonville/news/2020/02/21/dia-approves-136m-plan-to-develop-ford-on-bay.html?iana=hpmvp_jac_news_headline

Note from the article on the convention center biz, and some insight as to where the DIA's thoughts are on convention center:

Quote
The DIA received an unsolicited proposal for a convention center in December that did not meet the requirements of the Ford on Bay solicitation process, but per procurement rules, it could not be considered until the formal solicitation process concluded.

The unsolicited bid came from KBJ Architects, which spoke during public comments Friday.

KBJ President Thomas Rensing criticized the board's interest in Spandrel's bid, since Spandrel's second phase was not guaranteed and the full project amounted to a small fraction of the winning convention center bid. That plan by Jacobs Engineering would have cost at least $705 million and comprised 713,000 square feet of hotel and exhibition space, a marina, retail space and apartments.

"The highest and best use is a convention center, multipurpose high-rise development – $162 million of annual impact versus $500,000 of annual impact," Rensing said.

DIA CEO Lori Boyer, in response, noted that studies had concluded Jacksonville was not yet ready for a convention center, but it should be a part of long-term planning. A study further recommended a 25-acre site for a convention center, Boyer said, while the Ford on Bay comprises just 8.4 acres.

Board member Ron Moody added that a convention center could be a better fit for land in the Shipyards district, once the market could support it. Board member Todd Froats agreed that Jacksonville "isn't ready for it," and board member Oliver Barakat noted that the convention center would have demanded hefty incentives to be feasible.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: marcuscnelson on February 21, 2020, 12:58:53 PM
I feel like what they're saying depends on what exactly is being defined as a "convention center."

We've gone on for years here about how simply building a large open exhibition hall and connecting it to the existing meeting space at the Hyatt would be more than sufficient for the Jacksonville market.

But if they're talking about a convention center needing to be a new exhibition hall plus new meeting space plus new hotel space, and all of it on a massive plot of land, then I can see where they're coming from on us not being ready for that, even if I disagree.

Quote
Board member Ron Moody added that a convention center could be a better fit for land in the Shipyards district, once the market could support it.

But why?

Quote
board member Oliver Barakat noted that the convention center would have demanded hefty incentives to be feasible.

What convention center wouldn't? Does Oliver Barakat believe that if we wait long enough, someone just going to waltz up and say they'll build a convention center for the hell of it?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 21, 2020, 01:02:59 PM
The responses aren't surprising but I'd argue they're based on a faulty perspective, an out-of-scale DIA-led convention center RFP and a Shipyards wet dream for the following reasons (based off the quoted comments):

Quote
DIA CEO Lori Boyer, in response, noted that studies had concluded Jacksonville was not yet ready for a convention center, but it should be a part of long-term planning.

The Prime Osborn is a convention center. Like it, admit it or not....we're already in the business.

Quote
A study further recommended a 25-acre site for a convention center, Boyer said, while the Ford on Bay comprises just 8.4 acres.

We're not ready for the massive thing the DIA RFP solicited and what Khan's pixie dust renderings have shown at the Shipyards. However, we won't be ready for those in 2040 either.  Realistically speaking, a lot of our problems would be resolved for the foreseeable future by doing exactly what the civic council advocated for when Alvin Brown was mayor.  That is to construct an exhibition hall adjacent to the Hyatt. Combined with the Hyatt's existing meeting and ballroom space, that would serve as our convention center/hotel solution for the foreseeable future. That combination isn't 25 acres but it isn't 8.4 acres either. Furthermore, unless we're only thinking horizontally, one could argue that 25 acres is excessive and a poor use of land within an urban area.

The "nothing to do" downtown argument for not addressing our convention center ills is something that would also be resolved by the centralized location. The Elbow, Florida Theater, Northbank Riverwalk, the DIA's restaurant incentive program, MOSH's expansion, events at the Sports District, convention center events itself, consistent programming (something we control locally), the floating ship proposal, etc. are the cluster of things that will give people something to do.

Quote
KBJ President Thomas Rensing criticized the board's interest in Spandrel's bid, since Spandrel's second phase was not guaranteed

Although the renderings were more impressive than Related's, Spandrel's second phase is a pipe dream. Rensing is 100% correct about that. Plus, if the Jax Daily Record article concerning a grocery going into the Old JEA Tower is correct, the market that doesn't exist now for Spandrel's grocery component won't exist in the future either.

Quote
Board member Todd Froats agreed that Jacksonville "isn't ready for it,"

We aren't ready for the thing Khan showed. It would be a larger misuse of tax dollars than the $233 million that will likely be approved for Lot J. Yet, we already have a convention center. It's been operating since 1985. I think we can safely assume it needs some work to remain viable. However, there's a gap between remaining viable for the next 20-30 years and significantly expanding with what the DIA RFP and Khan's renderings have shown.

Quote
and board member Oliver Barakat noted that the convention center would have demanded hefty incentives to be feasible.

The bloated thing the DIA solicited would demand hefty incentives. An adequately sized properly scaled exhibition hall on the back side of the Hyatt  would not cost taxpayers anything near the amount that Lot J will. Spandrel's proposal also will take a bit of incentives and it still isn't 100% realistic.

Although it seems like the DIA would attempt to stop it from happening, as long as they don't stick a stick frame apartment complex on the city hall annex site, market conditions and Hyatt's first right of refusal on the City Hall Annex site leave the window open for a logical solution to the convention center issue. But it may need to be resolved once the current mayoral administration has moved on, so that more creativity and objectivity can be introduced into the downtown revitalization conversation.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 21, 2020, 01:03:29 PM
Glad to see they're going ahead with the development.

Regarding the convention center, though, something always seems to be missing. What about the Prime Osborn? We HAVE a convention center, does it suck so much that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned, is it the fact that there's no adjacent hotel?
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 21, 2020, 01:07:07 PM
If they want 25 acres for a convention center, that's 6 blocks (if the Bay Street site is 8.4). I get that the Sports Complex has parking but it still has all of the other problems with the current site, mainly being disconnected from everything else.

Where did the 25 acre number come from?

 - Pittsburgh's is just under 10
 - Charlotte's is 8.7
 - Cincinnati's is just over 8
 - OKCs is 14 acres (You're welcome Kerry!)

If Jacksonville "isn't ready" for a convention center, when will they be?

At this point, if the requirement is 25 acres then the only sites you'll likely get is the current one, somewhere in LaVilla (which would be a mistake IMO), the Sports Complex/Riverfront over there, the District property (sorry, I'm still not buying this project whatsoever).

Of those, if you want 25 acres, I think the Sports Complex plan sucks the least. Not the Best, but sucks the least.

The only other possibility that is this large is the First Baptist property, though even if the site worked it doesn't seem likely this would come to fruition.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Des on February 21, 2020, 01:08:10 PM
Regarding the convention center, though, something always seems to be missing. What about the Prime Osborn? We HAVE a convention center, does it suck so much that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned, is it the fact that there's no adjacent hotel?

It's too small. Events often pass up Jacksonville in lieu of Tampa and Orlando because of that, among other reasons.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 21, 2020, 01:27:04 PM
Regarding the convention center, though, something always seems to be missing. What about the Prime Osborn? We HAVE a convention center, does it suck so much that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned, is it the fact that there's no adjacent hotel?

It's too small. Events often pass up Jacksonville in lieu of Tampa and Orlando because of that, among other reasons.

The Prime's exhibition hall is too small, there's no hotel and it is isolated from things like museums, restaurants, bars, retail, etc. While we're in a different tier than Tampa and Orlando and will never directly compete with them, we can resolve the majority of our Prime Osborn issues by just building an exhibition hall that's slightly larger than the Prime's next to the Hyatt. The Hyatt already has hotel rooms, just as much meeting space and a larger ballroom than the Prime Osborn. It's also centrally located. All it needs is a Walmart type box next too it. That shouldn't cost +$100 million like the rest of the bloated proposals we've seen floating out there.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 21, 2020, 01:30:26 PM
Glad to see they're going ahead with the development.

Regarding the convention center, though, something always seems to be missing. What about the Prime Osborn? We HAVE a convention center, does it suck so much that it doesn't even deserve to be mentioned, is it the fact that there's no adjacent hotel?

Yes, it's crazy that we don't acknowledge that we already have a convention center. It may suck, but it does exist.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: FlaBoy on February 21, 2020, 03:06:55 PM
The responses aren't surprising but I'd argue they're based on a faulty perspective, an out-of-scale DIA-led convention center RFP and a Shipyards wet dream for the following reasons (based off the quoted comments):

Quote
DIA CEO Lori Boyer, in response, noted that studies had concluded Jacksonville was not yet ready for a convention center, but it should be a part of long-term planning.

The Prime Osborn is a convention center. Like it, admit it or not....we're already in the business.

Quote
A study further recommended a 25-acre site for a convention center, Boyer said, while the Ford on Bay comprises just 8.4 acres.

We're not ready for the massive thing the DIA RFP solicited and what Khan's pixie dust renderings have shown at the Shipyards. However, we won't be ready for those in 2040 either.  Realistically speaking, a lot of our problems would be resolved for the foreseeable future by doing exactly what the civic council advocated for when Alvin Brown was mayor.  That is to construct an exhibition hall adjacent to the Hyatt. Combined with the Hyatt's existing meeting and ballroom space, that would serve as our convention center/hotel solution for the foreseeable future. That combination isn't 25 acres but it isn't 8.4 acres either. Furthermore, unless we're only thinking horizontally, one could argue that 25 acres is excessive and a poor use of land within an urban area.

The "nothing to do" downtown argument for not addressing our convention center ills is something that would also be resolved by the centralized location. The Elbow, Florida Theater, Northbank Riverwalk, the DIA's restaurant incentive program, MOSH's expansion, events at the Sports District, convention center events itself, consistent programming (something we control locally), the floating ship proposal, etc. are the cluster of things that will give people something to do.

Quote
KBJ President Thomas Rensing criticized the board's interest in Spandrel's bid, since Spandrel's second phase was not guaranteed

Although the renderings were more impressive than Related's, Spandrel's second phase is a pipe dream. Rensing is 100% correct about that. Plus, if the Jax Daily Record article concerning a grocery going into the Old JEA Tower is correct, the market that doesn't exist now for Spandrel's grocery component won't exist in the future either.

Quote
Board member Todd Froats agreed that Jacksonville "isn't ready for it,"

We aren't ready for the thing Khan showed. It would be a larger misuse of tax dollars than the $233 million that will likely be approved for Lot J. Yet, we already have a convention center. It's been operating since 1985. I think we can safely assume it needs some work to remain viable. However, there's a gap between remaining viable for the next 20-30 years and significantly expanding with what the DIA RFP and Khan's renderings have shown.

Quote
and board member Oliver Barakat noted that the convention center would have demanded hefty incentives to be feasible.

The bloated thing the DIA solicited would demand hefty incentives. An adequately sized properly scaled exhibition hall on the back side of the Hyatt  would not cost taxpayers anything near the amount that Lot J will. Spandrel's proposal also will take a bit of incentives and it still isn't 100% realistic.

Although it seems like the DIA would attempt to stop it from happening, as long as they don't stick a stick frame apartment complex on the city hall annex site, market conditions and Hyatt's first right of refusal on the City Hall Annex site leave the window open for a logical solution to the convention center issue. But it may need to be resolved once the current mayoral administration has moved on, so that more creativity and objectivity can be introduced into the downtown revitalization conversation.

It seems to me that the second phase, in partnership between the Hyatt and Spandrel, could include retail, an exhibition hall short term (12-15 years) convertible into grocery/Target or other box store or other use (which is about when the city will execute a plan for an updated football stadium and convention center as one large package deal) with additional density in the area. That way, the Prime Osborne can move on to another role as a train station/reuse while Jacksonville can host larger meetings in the Hyatt/Exhibition space within walking distance of Bay Street bars, the Florida Theater, and the Arena/Baseball Grounds. All of a sudden, there are things to do in the area when more people are around.

Keep the frills to a minimum like its future use is a grocery store/Target but something that is new, clean and can do the job for the next decade. If there is some plan for putting a roof on the stadium, and convention center with meeting rooms next to the stadium (which I think is the eventual plan), then that is a decade off anyway for just the stadium portion and then convention center issues.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 21, 2020, 03:54:32 PM
Any convention center should be primarily geared towards the local population.  Except for a hand full of the largest convention centers, primarily in tourist destinations, almost all users are local residents.  Very few convention centers host more than a handful of national conventions.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 21, 2020, 04:24:35 PM
I am not amused with what I've seen that will be going on that site that used to be the courthouse. Not amused at all; but...I guess it's better than nothing.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 21, 2020, 04:31:47 PM
Any convention center should be primarily geared towards the local population.  Except for a hand full of the largest convention centers, primarily in tourist destinations, almost all users are local residents.  Very few convention centers host more than a handful of national conventions.

Not sure that’s accurate. I attend 6 or so conventions every year, and while usually 1 or 2 are in the big ones (like McCormick in Chicago), the rest are in places like Columbus, Scottsdale, Pittsburgh, etc.

Give me a little while and I’ll pull the schedule for one of the midsized cities. It’s truly a good split.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 21, 2020, 07:56:37 PM
Any convention center should be primarily geared towards the local population.  Except for a hand full of the largest convention centers, primarily in tourist destinations, almost all users are local residents.  Very few convention centers host more than a handful of national conventions.

Not sure that’s accurate. I attend 6 or so conventions every year, and while usually 1 or 2 are in the big ones (like McCormick in Chicago), the rest are in places like Columbus, Scottsdale, Pittsburgh, etc.

Give me a little while and I’ll pull the schedule for one of the midsized cities. It’s truly a good split.
What really bothers me about this, that is, all this convention talk, is that we (Jax) is not a mid-sized city; or not supposed to be (thanks to consolidation). Maybe we are. But look; this is why we need to shed that small, mid-sized city thinking and think big, out of the box if you will. WE are a city of almost a million people. Now in my opinion, if we can't think out of the box, and want to think small minded, we really need to throw consolidation out of the window, annex some surrounding neighborhoods around the old urban core and city limits, and become the mid-sized or small size city that we really probably are, 200K to 350K. It just befuddles me that it appears that Jax is afraid to be the big city that we really can be.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 21, 2020, 09:32:38 PM
Jax is a metro of 1.5 million. The top tier MSAs are +6 million and above. Jax is a mid sized city of 200k that consolidated with its core county. It may have nearly 900k residents spread across an 800 square mile area but it's not the same scale as a San Francisco. Nevertheless, we can do better, regardless of how big or small we are when compared to other places.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on February 22, 2020, 09:04:21 AM
Now this makes a lot more sense. Kudos if they can actually pull this off because it really does resolve the convention center issue for the foreseeable future:

Quote
The Hyatt’s right of first refusal dates back to the late 1990s when the city did a development deal for construction of the hotel, which was built originally under the Adam’s Mark brand.

Boyer told the JEA board that discussions continue with Hyatt officials. She said one path could be to build exhibition space into the residential buildings, which would give the Hyatt more room to host conventions that pull guests to the hotel.

“There are a number of other avenues and approaches that we’ll be evaluating,” she said.

Spandrel is open to incorporating exhibition space into its building and has done it elsewhere, said Emanuel Neuman, principal of the company.

He said an exhibition hall would have its own floor and a separate entrance from the rest of the building, so its activities wouldn’t affect residents.

Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200221/city-might-use-design-competition-for-future-vision-of-landing-site-post-demolition
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: bl8jaxnative on February 22, 2020, 09:55:54 AM

Convention centers area  public money pit.  The smartest thing for the public to do is stay out of the business.  The hotels will take care of it where it actually makes sense.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20050117_conventioncenters.pdf
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Steve on February 22, 2020, 10:03:17 AM
Now this makes a lot more sense. Kudos if they can actually pull this off because it really does resolve the convention center issue for the foreseeable future:

Quote
The Hyatt’s right of first refusal dates back to the late 1990s when the city did a development deal for construction of the hotel, which was built originally under the Adam’s Mark brand.

Boyer told the JEA board that discussions continue with Hyatt officials. She said one path could be to build exhibition space into the residential buildings, which would give the Hyatt more room to host conventions that pull guests to the hotel.

“There are a number of other avenues and approaches that we’ll be evaluating,” she said.

Spandrel is open to incorporating exhibition space into its building and has done it elsewhere, said Emanuel Neuman, principal of the company.

He said an exhibition hall would have its own floor and a separate entrance from the rest of the building, so its activities wouldn’t affect residents.

Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200221/city-might-use-design-competition-for-future-vision-of-landing-site-post-demolition

This would require a level of coordination that this city doesn’t execute well. But yes....if this could be done then it COULD be a win-win.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Tacachale on February 22, 2020, 10:21:55 AM

Convention centers area  public money pit.  The smartest thing for the public to do is stay out of the business.  The hotels will take care of it where it actually makes sense.

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/20050117_conventioncenters.pdf

That ship sailed over 30 years ago. We’re already in the business. Might as well do it in a way that gets the best results for the least money.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Tacachale on February 22, 2020, 10:23:19 AM
Now this makes a lot more sense. Kudos if they can actually pull this off because it really does resolve the convention center issue for the foreseeable future:

Quote
The Hyatt’s right of first refusal dates back to the late 1990s when the city did a development deal for construction of the hotel, which was built originally under the Adam’s Mark brand.

Boyer told the JEA board that discussions continue with Hyatt officials. She said one path could be to build exhibition space into the residential buildings, which would give the Hyatt more room to host conventions that pull guests to the hotel.

“There are a number of other avenues and approaches that we’ll be evaluating,” she said.

Spandrel is open to incorporating exhibition space into its building and has done it elsewhere, said Emanuel Neuman, principal of the company.

He said an exhibition hall would have its own floor and a separate entrance from the rest of the building, so its activities wouldn’t affect residents.

Full article: https://www.jacksonville.com/news/20200221/city-might-use-design-competition-for-future-vision-of-landing-site-post-demolition

This would require a level of coordination that this city doesn’t execute well. But yes....if this could be done then it COULD be a win-win.

Since it would be private entities taking the lead, it could be easier to pull off than cases where the city decides to try and do things itself. But yes, that’s a good point.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 22, 2020, 10:57:26 PM
Jax is a metro of 1.5 million. The top tier MSAs are +6 million and above. Jax is a mid sized city of 200k that consolidated with its core county. It may have nearly 900k residents spread across an 800 square mile area but it's not the same scale as a San Francisco. Nevertheless, we can do better, regardless of how big or small we are when compared to other places.
I agree; no argument here. But dammit, think outside of the box and think within the realm of who you say you are and who you dared to be and are; embrace it, accept it. I know what the metro and CSA populations are...well aware, but I'm talking city, and, as I said in my post, we are probably anywhere from 200K to 350K (in reality) and that's probably being generous (if neighborhoods are annexed IF we ever ditch consolidation). Yes! We can do better, and that's what I am saying, alluding to, and have been screaming in this forum for years. Thanks Lake for your post.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 23, 2020, 07:01:25 PM
Jax is a "big city" only in land area.  Population wise we are about mid-level, but at the corporate/business level, we are way down the list.  We just don't have the business presence most large cities have available to them.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: heights unknown on February 24, 2020, 08:12:26 PM
Jax is a "big city" only in land area.  Population wise we are about mid-level, but at the corporate/business level, we are way down the list.  We just don't have the business presence most large cities have available to them.
Agreed Kerry, agreed. But the population, in which I am well aware sucks up all of Duval County except for a couple of cities that opted out of consolidation, screams "big city" to people and others (businesses and corporations), that don't really know Jax. Like I've always said; maybe we should shed the consolidation, annex additional areas and neighborhoods around the old city limits, and shrink back to the mid-size city that we really are, which probably is around 300k, and, I might be generous here. But as the old soul song says, "it's too late to turn back now." We consolidated, been that for about 52 years now, and city leaders and government needs to bring the city up to par and in line with what "on paper" our population is.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 25, 2020, 07:53:49 AM
Yes Jax has a population of 1.5 million but to me that number doesn't reflect reality.  My friends in St Johns County do not consider themselves part of metro Jacksonville, even if the government does.  At best, they work in southern Duval County (Gate Parkway/Deerwood/Baymeadows) but that is it.  They don't do anything else in Jax and now with Durbin Creek they have even less reason to cross the County line.

Basically, we have 1.5 million but they are almost all spread across thousands of square miles with no synergy.  It is just 4 counties of low density urban sprawl.  Howard Kunstler coined the phrase for this - there is just no "there" there.
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Peter Griffin on February 25, 2020, 08:15:39 AM
we need more First Coast Synergy (TM)
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Charles Hunter on February 25, 2020, 08:28:49 AM
Basically, we have 1.5 million but they are almost all spread across thousands of square miles with no synergy.  It is just 4 counties of low density urban sprawl.  Howard Kunstler coined the phrase for this - there is just no "there" there.

Actually, Gertrude Stein coined the phrase. But it does apply to NE Florida.
Quote
"There is no there there"
It appears in Gertrude Stein, Everybody's Autobiography (Random House 1937, p 289) and is often applied to the city of her childhood, Oakland, California.

Gertrude Stein - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Gertrude_Stein
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: Kerry on February 25, 2020, 11:40:17 AM
Thanks Charles.  I stand corrected on the origin. :)
Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: bl8jaxnative on March 07, 2020, 08:28:19 AM
Yes Jax has a population of 1.5 million but to me that number doesn't reflect reality.  My friends in St Johns County do not consider themselves part of metro Jacksonville, even if the government does.  At best, they work in southern Duval County (Gate Parkway/Deerwood/Baymeadows) but that is it.  They don't do anything else in Jax and now with Durbin Creek they have even less reason to cross the County line.


That's not any different from anyplace else.   If you look at other edge counties, the have the same outcomes.

For example, iuf you look at place like York County, SC.  It's suburban Charlotte.  70% of it's residents work in the county.  And what ones that do leave the county for work, 40% don't leave the state.  The few that work in Charlotte work on the fringe.  There's no daily connection with the core city for most of their residents.

You'll find similar situations in St. Croix county, WI, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, or Williamson County, Tennessee.



Title: Re: The Ford on Bay
Post by: thelakelander on March 07, 2020, 08:43:18 AM
You'll find similar situations in South Florida, New York, Detroit, Chicago, LA, Dallas and even Greenville. Yeah, it's no different than any place else.