Lake, I think it goes without saying that a monster 8 story structure is going to obstruct many more views than a two story restaurant a fraction of the mass of this complex. If a high rise was back from the river on Riverplace Blvd., I would buy into that far more than this that creeps up close to the river.
I think this site is a unique situation where it doesn't block anyone's views anymore than the existing building does, unless we're trying to preserve the views of the office tower across the street.
It's reality that an 8 story complex of this size vs. a much smaller 2 story structure is going to block a heck of a lot more site lines to the river from numerous viewing points around it. I guess it depends on where you stand, literally and figuratively.
I also think it's a stretch to call the area blighted. It's an active parking lot, restaurant and marina. I haven't been to River City in awhile and you can say what you want about their service and food, but I always found the structure well maintained.
For the urbanist in me, a pedestrian hostile surface parking lots that consume acres of prime downtown property are the definition of blight. It looks straight out of the 1960s, stays empty 90% of the time and includes an aging parking attendant kiosk that's empty. The structure itself is pretty auto centric, suburban and totally ignores any interaction with the park adjacent to it.
It's great for something along the Intracoastal on Beach Boulevard but definitely not the best for a high profile downtown site. So from that perspective, I'm okay with seeing that building go. However, the restaurant space should be incorporated into the project. Related has no problem with building mixed-use projects in South Florida. They should be able to make it work here. Otherwise, they're basically putting a Town Center Parkway style apartment complex on the downtown riverfront.
If the parking lot there is blight, what do you call an 8 story garage? There will always be a need for some parking to support MOSH, the boat ramp and, minimally, Friendship Park. Could it be better maintained? Sure, let's repave it, landscape it, etc. Its condition is not a reason to go forward with this project though. As has been noted before, Jax isn't ready for a non-autocentric world. Even Chophouse has to offer valet parking. Chart House has a good sized parking lot too. So, why hold River City to a different standard?
As I have advocated in other threads, if I had my druthers, we would expand the green space of Friendship Park over this parcel and leave it at that. They can build these apartments in Rummel's project if they like the area that much and it would seem like he could use the assist 
.
Rummel's project is off the beaten path. I can see how a developer would view this property as having greater potential, given the riverfront, highway access and the land uses immediately surrounding it.
For the same reason this is "superior" for the developer, it is also superior as a public access to remain in the public domain. Why should we give up all the "best property" to privateers? Can't we save some "gold" for the taxpayers who already own it? Are we citizens' to always take a back seat to developers? And, Rummel and his partners are experienced developers betting a lot more on their property than this group is here so they must think his property has some pretty good "potential."
Again, I say the City is giving away its gold for a short run sugar high. Boyer, herself, said, its all about more residents downtown. Public access and enjoyment be damned. Where are all these "new residents" going to recreate at the rate we are giving up public green spaces? I don't think a narrow river walk with little or no amenities is going to cut it.
I agree that a narrow river walk with little or no amenities isn't going to cut it. The city definitely needs a real community based plan and vision. Not just for the riverfront parks, but for the entire central business district. If something like that were in place, most of the individual projects being proposed by the private sector would then have some general guidance. As things currently stand, it's basically every man for himself with a wish that everything works out and goes together in the end.
This paragraph and particularly your last sentence here says it all and follows my points. It's a race to the bottom regarding the public good magnified by no plan, no vision, no discipline, no concern for the community.
Its all about appeasing developers now, the future be damned. Want to tear down historic buildings? Check. Want to build an illegal parking lot? Check. Want to rip off the taxpayers with over-the-top incentives? Check. Want to sell our best/prime public properties to developers in bargain deals? Check. Want to build (or demolish) infrastructure for developers that cost millions for only their benefit while other parts of the City in need for decades get nothing? Check. Want to rig RFP's to insure the politically connected win out? Check. Want to partner with developers with little or no due diligence to make it easy for them at great risk to the taxpayers? Check. Want to waive zoning or other standards for developers in the name of "economic development?" Check. Want to not utilize best business practices to assure deals go forward as promised? Check.
I believe we generally agree but differ on when and where to stand our ground and hold out for what is really best for all.
