Author Topic: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future  (Read 42470 times)

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35028
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #30 on: July 11, 2023, 09:56:09 PM »
I'd like to see the part of the plan where improvement timelines and funding has been identified for the public projects. I flipped through quickly but didn't see anything.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

jaxoNOLE

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #31 on: July 11, 2023, 10:26:35 PM »
A personal favorite of mine was the "carrot and stick" section, p26-27:

The carrot: incentives.

The stick: mandatory downtown zoning overlay that is much less restrictive than ordinary zoning and may either be complied with or deviated from with permission.

Quite the balance we've struck. I think we've got those developers right where we want them /s

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #32 on: July 12, 2023, 08:40:05 AM »
jaxnole - YES, that's it!!  Thanks!

simms3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3473
  • Time has come
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #33 on: July 12, 2023, 09:05:39 AM »
I did appreciate the renderings throughout that incorporated some of the existing proposals.
Bothering locals and trolling boards since 2005

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #34 on: July 12, 2023, 10:42:56 AM »
Maybe this?
https://issuu.com/dia.coj.net/docs/dia_downtown_master_plan_summary_web_issuu/1

Interesting! There's a lot going on here, although it's probably early to say whether it's really going on.

For starters, this graphic is something, I guess:



I think it says a lot that the DIA is openly giving up on actually planning anything from a transit standpoint. Just hoping JTA figures whatever out, really.



I'm curious about the comparison of this document to other urban master plans, what we've done differently here (because I don't imagine this is of the same nature as others). I find it funny that the opening description of downtown on page 6 can't decide whether to call the subsections neighborhoods or districts. I've figured for a while now that Downtown was the neighborhood and LaVilla, Brooklyn, etc. were districts within it, but they don't seem sure. It also mentions that the boundaries were set in the 1980s and haven't changed since, and I wonder if perhaps that's something we should revisit.

Goal #1 is having downtown as the epicenter for business in the region, but that seems at odds with the permissive view towards office development in further-flung areas like Town Center, the Southside, and even as far as Nocatee (within Duval County).

Interesting that the Southbank is currently the residential core of downtown, with Brooklyn second and then Cathedral Hill third. Certainly a lot of room for filling in the core.

It's a little disappointing, even if understandable, that only about 5 streets are planned to be made two-way, with the remainder to stay for "thru traffic to bridges and I-95". While it does create a new "box" of street grid in City Center, it also walls off LaVilla and Cathedral Hill.

I think this graphic of the approval process is funny:



Now to glance at each of the neighborhood renderings:



Brooklyn's rendering probably is the closest to showing things really happening, although the two buildings on either side of Park St in the foreground don't seem to exist even on paper. I'm somewhat suspect of the concept of Park as a sharrow, unless they're really going to be okay with slowing vehicles down, not to mention that it's probably not good for Bus Rapid Transit to be stuck in a sharrow.



I see LaVilla has a new logo now. Interesting choice to use the Terminal in it. It's not the worst but it personally feels a bit less polished compared to some of the others. I actually think the render looks quite nice, especially with the park, although I feel like it doesn't really strike me as "this place is directly adjacent to/part of an urban core." The TOD and JRTC elements are going to be an open question for a while, so it's unclear what more to say.



Something tells me those lights under the Skyway aren't happening. That aside, this seems fine, I actually don't see why this isn't something we can basically do tomorrow. Even if actually building the bike path to sidewalk-height takes time, you can plant trees and add signs tomorrow, or quickly repaint the lane lines in a week. The scooters already exist!



Making use of that parking lot is a great idea, again we should be able to do it tomorrow if we don't already. Personally it strikes me as sad that despite claiming it's so important Bay St have these nightlife options, there's no interest in creating more sidewalk space by taking away the street parking there. I've walked this part of Bay and if anything's happening outside the buildings it's hard to squeeze between them and the trees. Pretty nuts in general that the speed of the vehicles suggests continuing to use Bay as a high-speed thoroughfare while sidelining the people.



None of this looks real, honestly. Looks fine, but not real. Here's the equivalent perspective of Market & Monroe in Street View (Jan 2021):



Good luck, I guess.



This feels… empty, somehow. Less lively than most of the previous renderings. The parks and marina are fine, but obviously it's been nearly a decade now and we're still mostly watching dirt move around.



Interesting to finally see the convention center idea in some form. Basically zero detail in it, but more than literally nothing. Personally I think that if Khan wasn't willing to build a tower for the Four Seasons we're not going to get one here, but I've talked about Lori Boyer's idea of how this would all play out before so I guess this supports that. Of course the Hyatt's parcel is juuuust out of frame so we can't see what happens with that here. The park looks nice but forgive me for doubting that it'll actually come out like that given the hard time we've had with all the other parks.
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35028
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #35 on: July 12, 2023, 10:56:52 AM »


I see LaVilla has a new logo now. Interesting choice to use the Terminal in it. It's not the worst but it personally feels a bit less polished compared to some of the others. I actually think the render looks quite nice, especially with the park, although I feel like it doesn't really strike me as "this place is directly adjacent to/part of an urban core." The TOD and JRTC elements are going to be an open question for a while, so it's unclear what more to say.

That's the Ritz. This logo is one that was selected by the LaVilla Heritage Trail and Gateway committee. The committee is comprised of local LaVilla residents, business owners and historians. They hated the original logos but loved this one and that it was designed by a member of the community. Since consensus was finally built, it was decided to move forward with it.

Other than the townhouses and the park, the other buildings in the rendering aren't actual projects. They are likely just the scale of what JTA and the DIA would like to see on those vacant properties.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #36 on: July 12, 2023, 11:24:35 AM »
Great observations.
A couple of mine.
Southbank - the map (p53) still shows "MOSH" there - as well as in the Sports & Entertainment District

Sports & Entertainment District
The Map (p53) shows the Police Building and Jail, while the rendering (p54-55) shows a convention center and other development there.
The Map also shows the Veterans Memorial Wall in its current location. I thought I'd read somewhere that it would be relocated to make way for redevelopment of the stadium parking lots - or was that just a "Lot J" thing?

I agree with marcusnelson's skepticism about the park in the S&ED - especially that curved walkway connecting the various piers.

And, sadly, the plan continues to show the vestigial ramps that used to connect to the Hart Bridge. Get rid of them, and open up more land for development and reconnecting the street grid.

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #37 on: July 12, 2023, 11:49:28 AM »
I just realized that in the convention center rendering the jail is still behind the convention center. Which either means that this rendering was lazy and they didn't appropriately account for the physical space of the convention center, or it's much smaller than previously suggested.

Which actually leads me to think: I think we've historically assumed that the police building and the jail would stay together or be replaced at the same time, but that's not actually obligated, is it? Could we just build a new police building, rehab the jail, and use it for another decade or two with provisions to eventually hold an expansion of the convention center?

Anyway, I was under the impression that the Veterans Memorial Wall was staying in place ever since the proposal to put it in the middle of the Hart Ramps died (back when they were proposed as a loop to Bay St). I think even the Jaguars renderings (which, let's be real, the DIA is going to defer to) show it still in its current location. I do wonder if because federal funding was used for the Hart Ramps they have to stay in place, or if it's just a matter of spending more money on further demolition.

Personally I don't see any reason to demolish the existing MOSH building even once the new building is complete. As has been discussed here before, there's no reason it couldn't be renovated into another space, like as a new cultural attraction.
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey

Charles Hunter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5171
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #38 on: July 12, 2023, 12:03:31 PM »
Good eye! I had not seen the jail either. It looks like the Convention Center sits on the Police Building site. That makes even less sense. Just put in next to the Hyatt already, extending to the "Ford on Bay" site if more space is needed (but I don't think it is).

Since the Infrastructure Act (or one of the other recent Acts) includes a specific program to remove outmoded highway structures, I don't think there is any federal problem with removing those ramps.

I agree, the existing MOSH building can and probably should be repurposed. Just noting "the master plan" has 2 MOSHes.

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #39 on: July 12, 2023, 12:28:41 PM »
Good eye! I had not seen the jail either. It looks like the Convention Center sits on the Police Building site. That makes even less sense. Just put in next to the Hyatt already, extending to the "Ford on Bay" site if more space is needed (but I don't think it is).

They had multiple chances to do this, including the original convention center RFP that Jacobs won, the unsolicited bid from Jacobs that they ignored for Spandrel, and the second unsolicited bid from Jacobs that they ignored for Carter. Now with the interest rates and the obvious disinterest of the DIA and the still-extant selection of Carter I can't imagine Jacobs (or anyone serious, really) still want to bother trying at this point.

Quote
Since the Infrastructure Act (or one of the other recent Acts) includes a specific program to remove outmoded highway structures, I don't think there is any federal problem with removing those ramps.

I could see that applying to the existing ramp, but then there's the new structure they built to get that ramp down to grade, and I wonder if doing that means the whole structure now is protected by the grant.
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey

thelakelander

  • The Jaxson
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 35028
    • Modern Cities
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #40 on: July 12, 2023, 12:33:43 PM »
IMO, from I've viewed, the renderings are simply renderings. Not everything shown in them is a real project.
"A man who views the world the same at 50 as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life.” - Muhammad Ali

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #41 on: July 13, 2023, 01:29:41 PM »
For some form of comparison to the DIA's Master Plan, the city of Sunnyvale, California, just approved a Specific Plan for a place called Moffett Park. Obviously the Bay Area isn't going to have the same level of demand as Jacksonville, but it seems worth looking at the kind of consideration being made to support new development, especially when we know it's possible to build housing all over the region and that the demand for housing does exist.

One of their city council members breaks down the plan here (you can see the original Twitter thread here). And the plan itself is available on their website here.
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey

BridgeTroll

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15437
  • The average person thinks he isnt
    • London Bridge Pub
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #42 on: July 13, 2023, 05:28:42 PM »
Wow... thanks for posting. I  spent eight years flying P-3 Orion aircraft from Moffett Field and I know that area well. Onizuka AFB was next door featuring the "Blue Cube " NSA building. Lockheed also had facilities there. Pretty sure NASA still flies the U-2 from the airfield. Moffett was home to the USS Akron... a rigid airship similar to the Hindenburg and Graf Zeppelin... the difference being ours were filled with non explosive helium instead of hydrogen... the hangar was absolutely gigantic!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Akron
In a boat at sea one of the men began to bore a hole in the bottom of the boat. On being remonstrating with, he answered, "I am only boring under my own seat." "Yes," said his companions, "but when the sea rushes in we shall all be drowned with you."

Jax_Developer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 597
Re: The Downtown Investment Authority's Future
« Reply #43 on: July 13, 2023, 06:17:50 PM »
I had the privilege to tour the wind tunnels at Moffett.. largest in the world and just hard to fathom til this day. So big it creates a large air vacuum above Moffett, and a few commercial liners almost got taken out before they realized. Such a cool site.

marcuscnelson

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2266
  • Gen Z - Tired of the status quo
So, to the young people fighting in this movement for change, here is my charge: march in the streets, protest, run for school committee or city council or the state legislature. And win. - Ed Markey