The Jaxson

Jacksonville by Neighborhood => Downtown => Topic started by: thelakelander on April 28, 2021, 10:26:52 PM

Title: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: thelakelander on April 28, 2021, 10:26:52 PM
Quote
(https://photos.moderncities.com/photos/i-jjJ8q9q/0/L/i-jjJ8q9q-L.png)

293 residential units part of $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II.

Read More: https://www.thejaxsonmag.com/article/135-million-redevelopment-of-berkman-ii-proposed/
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkam II proposed
Post by: JaGoaT on April 29, 2021, 02:31:16 AM
This building is not pretty enough to be on the river.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkam II proposed
Post by: Des on April 29, 2021, 07:19:20 AM
Looks better than the Berkman I at least.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkam II proposed
Post by: icarus on April 29, 2021, 07:43:32 AM
Spell check the title of the article.  Aspire to be more than the Times Union in terms of grammar and spelling.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkam II proposed
Post by: acme54321 on April 29, 2021, 08:17:52 AM
I'll believe it when I see it.  For now, just another flashy renderings.  At least there's not a water park, giant ferris wheel, or gondola though...
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: blizz01 on April 29, 2021, 10:39:01 AM
I don't really understand the concept of two "Riverwalks".
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Charles Hunter on April 29, 2021, 10:59:54 AM
I don't really understand the concept of two "Riverwalks".

I do not understand your comment.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: blizz01 on April 29, 2021, 12:29:22 PM
Well, if you look at the renderings and description in the article there is a subset walking path that runs parallel to the Riverwalk.  Just seems redundant to me at first glance to have 2 sets of pedestrians walking alongside one another divided by a fence.  Seems like a wasted use of that space in my humble opinion.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: marcuscnelson on April 29, 2021, 12:54:20 PM
I guess one is more akin to the standard riverwalk, and the other is more of a plaza-type setting. I recall someone here being very adamant about larger setbacks from the river, hopefully this is a win for them.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Lostwave on April 29, 2021, 01:30:50 PM
I am very happy they are including that plaza and riverwalk as well as retail around the parking.  We need to stop the parking garages built right up to the river like the south bank.  You can never undo that, really as these types of riverfront projects are built, they should require it.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: heights unknown on April 29, 2021, 04:45:06 PM
I like it if it pans out and comes to fruition. I hope it gets built. It's pretty tall (yeah!)...for Jax (sad). Oh well, can't cry over spilled milk, hope it gets (get er) done.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkam II proposed
Post by: JaGoaT on May 01, 2021, 01:26:51 AM
This building is not pretty enough to be on the river.


*************

Just read the article and saw KBJ designed it. They designed most of the buildings downtown many my favorites. So I guess this building will have to grow on me.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: jaxlongtimer on May 01, 2021, 01:32:02 AM
Will this development comply with the river height setbacks set by DIA?  Or, are we again making an exception?
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Ken_FSU on June 17, 2021, 01:42:15 PM
Significant demo now underway, shutting down a lane of Bay Street.

(https://i.postimg.cc/44r4260h/IMG-0744.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bwRzvKwQ/IMG-0748.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/jqWdhgMb/IMG-0750.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kDrHNXfB/IMG-0743.jpg)
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Peter Griffin on June 17, 2021, 02:03:09 PM
thank goodness the eyesore of the past 2 decades will FINALLY be gone

such a scar on our skyline
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: heights unknown on June 17, 2021, 10:57:26 PM
They, or someone, could have made something out of this building. Such a waste in my opinion; waste of money.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Peter Griffin on June 18, 2021, 08:18:23 AM
They, or someone, could have made something out of this building. Such a waste in my opinion; waste of money.
Short answer, no. Long answer, nope.

There was over a decade for somebody to do something

Nobody would ever sign off on a project that killed somebody during construction, then sat for over a decade in an extremely harsh environment, completely unmaintained and exposed to the elements. That building was barely a building, it was an eyesore, a liability, and a hazard. Goodbye.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: vicupstate on June 18, 2021, 08:42:37 AM
They, or someone, could have made something out of this building. Such a waste in my opinion; waste of money.
Short answer, no. Long answer, nope.

There was over a decade for somebody to do something

Nobody would ever sign off on a project that killed somebody during construction, then sat for over a decade in an extremely harsh environment, completely unmaintained and exposed to the elements. That building was barely a building, it was an eyesore, a liability, and a hazard. Goodbye.

Actually it was the adjoining GARAGE that killed somebody and it was demolished long ago. There was no reason this building had to sit for so many years. In just about any city the size of Jacksonville, it would have been salvaged. The market here was just too weak for that to happen.       
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 18, 2021, 09:34:42 AM
I just want that trash building to go away.   HOpe it happens soon.


There aren't many hi rises that get stuck uncompleted.   But when they do in that sort of state, completely exposed, I don't know of one that was later completed.

Ones that do, like the Fontainebleau Las Vegas, you have a combo of high demand plus the building was mostly done when the project stopped.  It was protected from the elements + such. 


Maybe it could.  IIRC Poland's got a skyscraper that sat exposed for 30 something years that was recently finished.  It'll be interesting to see how that holds up over time. 
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: fieldafm on June 18, 2021, 01:50:16 PM
They, or someone, could have made something out of this building. Such a waste in my opinion; waste of money.
Short answer, no. Long answer, nope.

There was over a decade for somebody to do something

Nobody would ever sign off on a project that killed somebody during construction, then sat for over a decade in an extremely harsh environment, completely unmaintained and exposed to the elements. That building was barely a building, it was an eyesore, a liability, and a hazard. Goodbye.

Actually it was the adjoining GARAGE that killed somebody and it was demolished long ago. There was no reason this building had to sit for so many years. In just about any city the size of Jacksonville, it would have been salvaged. The market here was just too weak for that to happen.     

While Berkman II has certainly been an eyesore for quite some time, the reason it sat undeveloped had everything to do with the ongoing series of lawsuits, countersuits, arbitration and foreclosure proceedings that followed the tragic collapse of the parking structure that claimed the life of William Edwards, and injured a few dozen more. 

In fact, the current owner(original general contractor) has been marred in legal proceedings since being awarded the building from those foreclosure proceedings.

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the tower that can't be fixed. It is not in danger of collapsing, nor is structurally unsound.  There are many engineering reports that back that up.

I think many people here are going to be disappointed when they begin to realize that the current demo won't be through a large implosion, that it will take many months to complete... and in fact won't be a complete demolition of the structure.  Unfortunately, the current lead partner of this newest redevelopment effort (Park Beeler) has a far, far worse track record than David Berkman (the original developer... who also once owned various minor league arena football and hockey teams in Jax).
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: bl8jaxnative on June 23, 2021, 10:11:15 AM

There is nothing wrong with the structure of the tower that can't be fixed.

Everything can be fixed.  The question isn't can it be fixed but is it worth it.  I can fix up a 1982 Ford LTD and run it forever.   But it ain't worth the $$$$ compared to just buying a new car.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: marcuscnelson on August 11, 2021, 07:10:08 PM
Sale confirmed.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/article/documents-show-berkman-ii-purchased-for-dollar5-503-million-in-april

Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: heights unknown on August 11, 2021, 08:47:24 PM
Significant demo now underway, shutting down a lane of Bay Street.

(https://i.postimg.cc/44r4260h/IMG-0744.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/bwRzvKwQ/IMG-0748.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/jqWdhgMb/IMG-0750.jpg)

(https://i.postimg.cc/kDrHNXfB/IMG-0743.jpg)
Still...in my opinion...WHAT A WASTE!!!
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: jaxoNOLE on August 21, 2021, 12:18:38 PM
It's possible the structural issues identified in today's T-U article were caused by the demolition itself -- but it's also possible they uncovered a structural defect during demo that couldn't be seen with the building intact.

With the property's troubled past, I think we're better off starting anew in this case -- even if the current proposal falls through and we're stuck with another grass lot. Too much uncertainty with the current structure. At this point, there's no turning back anyway.

Quote
[JFRD Cheif Keith Powers] said the contractor and engineers working on the demolition had notified city authorities about possible structural instability Friday afternoon.

"They were attempting to take a piece of concrete down from one of the upper stories and it did not act like they thought it should act," Powers said. He didn't specify what raised the workers' concerns.

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2021/08/21/engineers-inspecting-berkman-ii-demolition-structural-integrity/8227163002/ (https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/crime/2021/08/21/engineers-inspecting-berkman-ii-demolition-structural-integrity/8227163002/)
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: acme54321 on August 24, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Back to implosion now... Looks like it should come down in about a month.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: heights unknown on August 24, 2021, 08:32:16 PM
What was the issue or problem with choosing implosion initially?
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: acme54321 on August 24, 2021, 09:15:38 PM
What was the issue or problem with choosing implosion initially?

Cost
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Charles Hunter on August 24, 2021, 09:37:45 PM
... and, I think, that the City Hall implosion went somewhat badly.

If the building is unsafe to enter, as was said on the news tonight*, how will the explosives experts be able to plant their charges on multiple levels?

Seems the logical plan would be to drop it onto the grass lot just to the east.


* Yes, I realize the local news may have got the "unsafe to enter" thing wrong.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: Fallen Buckeye on August 25, 2021, 09:51:31 AM
(https://media.giphy.com/media/11CPvPzgluI9Lq/giphy.gif?cid=ecf05e471is7116fhm8ceabc6uapxdjnrkar7ieji793sxpk&rid=giphy.gif&ct=g)
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: bl8jaxnative on August 25, 2021, 10:58:48 AM


For those that claim that the integrity of an exposed building like that can be known up front, please note that you were wrong.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: fieldafm on August 25, 2021, 05:57:32 PM


For those that claim that the integrity of an exposed building like that can be known up front, please note that you were wrong.

The demo contractor and their cockamamey method of trying to dismantle the building caused the structural defect, Professor.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: fsu813 on August 25, 2021, 06:35:46 PM

cockamamey


That's a curse word in 14 different countries. Tread lightly!
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: acme54321 on August 25, 2021, 08:53:43 PM


For those that claim that the integrity of an exposed building like that can be known up front, please note that you were wrong.

The demo contractor and their cockamamey method of trying to dismantle the building caused the structural defect, Professor.

What's so crazy about their method?  It's not like they are the first ones to demolish a building that size conventionally.  The high reach demolition excavator they were using is designed specifically for the job.
Title: Re: $135 Million redevelopment of Berkman II proposed
Post by: heights unknown on August 25, 2021, 09:31:09 PM
When they first announced that it would be demolished that way, I thought it was odd, and, it would probably take a long time. I even questioned in my mind why they would choose this type method over demolition; but what do I know? Nothing about things of this nature. I've never seen any type high rise demolished in this way and never knew this was a method type. However, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to put 2 and 2 together to get a sum total. It never really entered my mind that by them using this method, that it might initiate some type of structural damage or weakness. Yes it's been sitting there for upteen number of years, with the elements etc., but would the elements and exposure really weaken the structure that much? They just need to get it demolished with explosives and get to work on the new development.