Florida Times-Union property under contract; $250 million project planned

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I get what you're saying Lake, but isn't that the fight on all of the developments?  The fact they're so far ahead of conceptual is because they're taking the cookie-cutter plans and plopping them down on the site.

Hell, there's probably have 3 or 4 elevations / renderings already done and ready to go, they'll just need to figure out the foundation plans.

But you're right - this should have been shot down already based solely on the layout.

[thelakelander]

One other thing. Now that the proposal is to relocate the creek, it would have been interesting to see what could be done with the site if the office building stayed and was converted into a boutique hotel and/or residential use with lower level retail.

[thelakelander]

I get what you're saying Lake, but isn't that the fight on all of the developments?  The fact they're so far ahead of conceptual is because they're taking the cookie-cutter plans and plopping them down on the site.

Hell, there's probably have 3 or 4 elevations / renderings already done and ready to go, they'll just need to figure out the foundation plans.

But you're right - this should have been shot down already based solely on the layout.

Cookie cutter plans can be laid out differently. The grocery store is a box. No reason it needs to have surface parking between the building and the development entrance. I think the DIA would have more leg to stand on, in regards to getting the site plan right, if they attacked that during the incentives approval process, like they did with this particular desire for a full service restaurant.

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

I get what you're saying Lake, but isn't that the fight on all of the developments?  The fact they're so far ahead of conceptual is because they're taking the cookie-cutter plans and plopping them down on the site.

Hell, there's probably have 3 or 4 elevations / renderings already done and ready to go, they'll just need to figure out the foundation plans.

But you're right - this should have been shot down already based solely on the layout.

Cookie cutter plans can be laid out differently. The grocery store is a box. No reason it needs to have surface parking between the building and the development entrance. I think the DIA would have more leg to stand on, in regards to getting the site plan right, if they attacked that during the incentives approval process, like they did with this particular desire for a full service restaurant.

I get that with the buildings, but I'm sure the civil part is pretty cookie cutter as well, is it not?  (civil is kinda out of my wheelhouse, so I don't know)

[thelakelander]

No, civil isn't necessarily cookie cutter. Especially, considering the unique aspects of this site (railroad, creek, relocated creek, two bridges, a river, etc. as the frontage).

[Non-RedNeck Westsider]

No, civil isn't necessarily cookie cutter. Especially, considering the unique aspects of this site (railroad, creek, relocated creek, two bridges, a river, etc. as the frontage).

I say that in the sense that by leaving parking / ingress / egress along the main roadways and over ROW of undergrounds, it typically allows them access for utility tie-in while the rest of the site can go vertical - speeding up the construction times by months.

[thelakelander]

In my experience, that's never been the driver of putting surface parking up front on private property. In this plan specifically, there does not appear to be a utility easement between the development's entrance driveway and the left wall of the grocery store box.

[jaxjags]

If the site plan is this far along, I agree where are the basic elevations? Not the final design but the artist/conceptual version.

Something tells me The Jaxon followers will need to express our opinions loud and clear to the DDRB when the time comes. And yes please move grocery to the street. It's funny that way up here on the Northside there are two strip centers with buildings at the street and parking hidden in the rear. Why not DT.

[acme54321]

A restaurant on the helipad site is an interesting concept but seems very cut off from the rest of the development.

[thelakelander]

Destined for failure. There's not enough visibility from the street and not enough foot traffic on the riverwalk to support it. They need to find a way to better connect it with the retail component of the project.

[marcuscnelson]

My layman's question here is why they would try and put a restaurant on the helipad instead of using the opportunity to straighten the Riverwalk so that there aren't two 90-degree turns there anymore?

[fieldafm]

My layman's question here is why they would try and put a restaurant on the helipad instead of using the opportunity to straighten the Riverwalk so that there aren't two 90-degree turns there anymore?

The entire property, including the helipad, is owned by the Morris family and under contract to the developer.  The Morris family, Haskell, Fidelity, the old St Joe building, etc all have a series of easements to allow the Riverwalk to have been extended from the Northbank to the Fuller Warren.   COJ can't just rearrange the Riverwalk whenever they want to as the property owner has rights to the land including a small extension over the water.

The desire to put a restaurant on that small helipad site is one of the most bizarre things I have seen the DIA ever do in their existence. 

[marcuscnelson]

^ I'm not saying just do it whenever they'd like, I'm saying now that the site is being redeveloped anyway, why have the city or developer not sought to straighten the Riverwalk instead of trying to stick the restaurant there?

But I guess you might not have an answer for that.

[acme54321]

Destined for failure. There's not enough visibility from the street and not enough foot traffic on the riverwalk to support it. They need to find a way to better connect it with the retail component of the project.

Yeah I didn't want to say it, trying to be optimistic, but no way any sort of restaurant makes it in that spot.

[fieldafm]

^ I'm not saying just do it whenever they'd like, I'm saying now that the site is being redeveloped anyway, why have the city or developer not sought to straighten the Riverwalk instead of trying to stick the restaurant there?

But I guess you might not have an answer for that.

The Riverwalk is already not straight, and is well-used. What does eliminating one right angle going to accomplish at the end of the day?


If I were the developer, I'd have no interest in revising my easement, which I still have control over and could potentially revoke.

If I were COJ, I'd offer to improve the helipad site at no cost to the developer and offer the developer cash to maintain the space... and construct something that is beneficial to the Riverwalk... like some kind of drinking fountain/rest station/bike repair station for the runners/walkers/bikers that use the Riverwalk. That doesn't change the existing easement, the property owner keeps their over-water rights... and you are replacing a blighted and no-longer-useful helipad with something that is complimentary to the Riverwalk and not shoehorning some ridiculous retail structure on this small sliver of land.   

Retail has been tremendously successful in Brooklyn because the retail is easily visible to the vehicular traffic and offers easy and free parking.  There are already two cafe spaces fronting the Riverwalk (one in Haskell and one in the Raymond James Building... and a smoothie shop inside the YMCA at the Tillie Fowler Memorial).  At least those cafe spaces serve the existing office users inside those buildings.  This helipad restaurant idea literally ignores every aspect of what has made retail actually function in Brooklyn.