DIA wants the Landing to start with a park

[tufsu1]

This quote from Lori Boyer is so emblematic of what is fundamentally wrong with DIA and the city's approach to Downtown. You put out an RFP for an iconic park space with an iconic centerpiece sculpture. You select Perkins + Will in large part due to the sculpture that was included in their bid. Now it's too much and is not a reasonable budget for Jax. Everything the DIA does at this point is so laughable.

to be fair, the original P+W proposal was double the budget the RFP had - because of the sculpture - so this is nothing new

[Ken_FSU]

This quote from Lori Boyer is so emblematic of what is fundamentally wrong with DIA and the city's approach to Downtown. You put out an RFP for an iconic park space with an iconic centerpiece sculpture. You select Perkins + Will in large part due to the sculpture that was included in their bid. Now it's too much and is not a reasonable budget for Jax. Everything the DIA does at this point is so laughable.

to be fair, the original P+W proposal was double the budget the RFP had - because of the sculpture - so this is nothing new

Would counter that another problem with the RFP was that it was unclear about the final budget for the park.

It included a "placeholder" budget, while also suggesting in the RFP and in the clarifying Q&As with respondents that the design shouldn't necessarily be constrained that that budget either, and that iconic public art could be considered outside of that budget.

So, you had respondents working strictly within the framework of the "placeholder" budget, and other respondents, like P+W, being more ambitious and proposing a final design beyond the scope of the placeholder budget.

I don't think either group of respondents was wrong (P+W's scoped budget for the park itself was within DIA placeholder range), they just didn't have clear direction from the DIA.

I'll reiterate every day that, even though I personally like the P+W design the best, Agency was done dirty in the RFP process, and giving them Shipyards West doesn't change that.

Perkins + Will, per Lori Boyer's own words, was chosen as the winner BECAUSE of the "unreasonable" art piece whose cost was very clearly laid out in P+W's RFP response. Agency had the slight edge otherwise. Dismissively pulling the plug on the art piece makes a mockery of the entire RFP process and those executing it, and there's just no getting around that.

[simms3]

The city undoubtedly botches every RFP.

The Ford on Bay site 3x over...that was fun to watch!  Absolutely loved Hyatt dusting off the well-known Right of First Refusal in round #2.  Just hilarious.

[marcuscnelson]

I don't get it, do other cities of this size have these problems with things as basic as getting their own properties onto the tax rolls? Or building a park?

[Ken_FSU]

I don't get it, do other cities of this size have these problems with things as basic as getting their own properties onto the tax rolls? Or building a park?

Similar question that I'm not construction savvy enough to know the answer to, but that I'm genuinely curious about.

Is there a specific reason that bulkhead work and other site work can't occur simultaneously?

With a lot of downtown projects on the river front (the District, Times-Union Center park, Riverfront Plaza, etc.) we routinely hear that the first six months of the project will be exclusively bulkhead work in a vacuum.

Really drags out a lot of timelines.

Is there a logistical/environmental reason we have to do the bulkhead work before we can start other aspects of the park?

[Captain Zissou]

With bulkheads you first put in the sheet-piling or wooden/concrete piles with a retaining wall attached to it, and then you build the tiebacks.  Tiebacks are concrete masses put in the ground upland from the water's edge and then connected to the bulkhead to help hold it in place.  Until the tiebacks are installed there's a risk of the site pushing the bulkhead over and eroding into the water.  Maybe the vibrations and other sitework would exacerbate this problem and pose a significant risk to the bulkhead work?  I'm no expert, but I know a little bit about the process and this is my somewhat educated guess.

[Ken_FSU]

With bulkheads you first put in the sheet-piling or wooden/concrete piles with a retaining wall attached to it, and then you build the tiebacks.  Tiebacks are concrete masses put in the ground upland from the water's edge and then connected to the bulkhead to help hold it in place.  Until the tiebacks are installed there's a risk of the site pushing the bulkhead over and eroding into the water.  Maybe the vibrations and other sitework would exacerbate this problem and pose a significant risk to the bulkhead work?  I'm no expert, but I know a little bit about the process and this is my somewhat educated guess.

Thanks Cap!

Great info and context, much appreciated!

[acme54321]

I don't get it, do other cities of this size have these problems with things as basic as getting their own properties onto the tax rolls? Or building a park?

Similar question that I'm not construction savvy enough to know the answer to, but that I'm genuinely curious about.

Is there a specific reason that bulkhead work and other site work can't occur simultaneously?

With a lot of downtown projects on the river front (the District, Times-Union Center park, Riverfront Plaza, etc.) we routinely hear that the first six months of the project will be exclusively bulkhead work in a vacuum.

Really drags out a lot of timelines.

Is there a logistical/environmental reason we have to do the bulkhead work before we can start other aspects of the park?

The bulkhead work will be an extreme disruption to the river side of the site, it might be so much that it really wouldn't make sense to start the rest of the site work otherwise.  These aren't like the seawall in someone's backyard.  The river along that site is really deep where it makes that turn and constricts there, it's like 70' under the main street bridge.  I wouldn't be surprised if there was 20 or 30 feet of exposed wall there.

[marcuscnelson]

Not sure anyone noticed, but the DIA has clarified in its press release that $25 million will only cover half of the park, approximately everything west of Laura Street:

Phase I of the two-phase project starts with closing and removing a portion of Independent Drive to clear space for park amenities. In addition, Independent Drive will be rerouted to Hogan Street.
Other first-phase work includes rebuilding the bulkhead and riverwalk along the entire length of the plaza to improve resilience, transforming a portion of Hogan Street into a pedestrian plaza connecting and integrating the Performing Arts Center, and building park attractions such as a multipurpose lawn, a series of curving walkways, native plant gardens, a water play area and the café with roof-mounted playground.

Phase I construction is expected to take two years, with appropriated funding of $25 million expected to cover all of the first-phase costs.

Despite Lori Boyer's statement of fifteen to eighteen months, the press release says two years, which would put the opening date (of just Phase 1!) in mid 2025. Ironically around the same time autonomous shuttles are supposed to start running on Bay Street.

The second phase (the cost of which is currently unclear) will cover the east half, including the connection to the Main Street Bridge (which is now in Mayor Deegan's proposed CIP):

The second phase of the park will include such features as a rain garden, water feature, civic stairs, a beer garden and a pedestrian ramp from the Main Street Bridge.

This still does not include the cost of the proposed statue, and of course does not include the cost of the River View Plaza tower, if it is ever built at this point.

[thelakelander]

I noticed right off the bat that the price would be $50 to $100 million. Even said it during the debates about keeping the Landing. Don't really care what's promised, dreamed or highlighted locally about these projects. These things cost money and typically double whatever costs were mentioned by the previous administration. Glad to see that this budget proposes funds to finally get several of these long discussed infrastructure projects started. It will probably take a decade (as predicted years ago) to get this park built. We should also accept the reality that it will likely create less jobs and bring less people downtown on a regular basis then the Landing did. It is what it is, but I am looking forward to having a space that at least brings public restrooms back and has something for kids to be entertained. It's been more than a decade that we've gone without something as basic as a tot lot or playground in downtown.

[acme54321]

The park they keep showing in those flashy renderings is easily approaching $100m all said and done once you include all of the infrastructure work.  It looks great, but I have zero faith it would be built and maintained anywhere near they level shown.

[fsu813]

Not sure anyone noticed, but the DIA has clarified in its press release that $25 million will only cover half of the park, approximately everything west of Laura Street:

Whether it's been in a press release or not, this has been openly discussed, including during the Mayoral campaign, for months.

There will be a push to do the entire park more or less at once, instead of waiting on (something?) to begin phase 2.

[thelakelander]

May as well build the entire park and sod the tower pad as a lawn for the foreseeable future. Pay for all park amenities and connections up front with public funds. This includes a bike/ped connection to the Main Street Bridge. If it cost $50 million, so be it. Just be transparent with residents on total costs and construction timeline (completion is still at least five years out). When and if private development happens (more likely with a completed park) it will just be an extra amenity for park users.

[thelakelander]

Same with the missing riverwalk connection through the Shipyards. We don't have to 100% fund everything in between to make the connection. Pay for it upfront with public funds and add the expensive park amenities incrementally. This should have been done 20 years ago.

[marcuscnelson]

Listened in to today's Riverfront Subcommittee meeting. The presentations were largely about the ports today, with presentations from JaxPort, Crowley, and the Army Corps of Engineers, but afterwards there were discussions about funding for riverfront parks. Apparently there is something like $3.5 million needed to complete St. Johns River Park by next year, as well as $750,000 for the Music Heritage Park and $2.5 million for the Hogan Street Connector.

I was surprised to hear near-outrage on the part of some people at the meeting in person about the pace at which the city is working. Complaints about seeing other cities complete major park projects in two years, and how budgets have spiraled out of control and timelines have slipped. Some discussions about both the process of developing parks and the capacity to get these projects done. Also questions about how these parks are going to be maintained once they're built, and ensuring they stay resilient in the coming years.