Author Topic: The Ford on Bay  (Read 18659 times)

Captain Zissou

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3866
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #60 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?

bl8jaxnative

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 372
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #61 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.

vicupstate

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3355
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #62 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.
"The problem with quotes on the internet is you can never be certain they're authentic." - Abraham Lincoln

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1882
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #63 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.
Third Place

Tacachale

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7783
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #64 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.
Do you believe that when the blue jay or another bird sings and the body is trembling, that is a signal that people are coming or something important is about to happen?

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1882
Third Place

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #66 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.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Ken_FSU

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 292
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #67 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).

Steve

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3285
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #68 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).

billy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 945
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #69 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.

Kerry

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1882
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #70 on: January 22, 2020, 07:22:21 PM »
When will we know how many millions they are asking for?
Third Place

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #71 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.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #72 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....


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.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 07:54:05 PM by thelakelander »
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

simms3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3272
  • Time has come
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #73 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.
Bothering locals and trolling boards since 2005

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 30608
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Ford on Bay
« Reply #74 on: January 22, 2020, 08:24:53 PM »
Welcome back!
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali