Metropolitan Park Concepts Revealed

[Jason]

I'm not sure those are good examples. All of those sports complexes are adjacent to an interstate highway.

Is the pedestrian overpass truly a necessity? Definitely not. That said, I think it could give people on gamedays and event days an easier way to explore pre- and post-game.

It also gives Met Park more flexibility with festivals and other events that might need the stadium parking areas for overflow space.

[thelakelander]

My take is that Bay Street, as a complete street, is screwed unless we're willing to take out the rest of the Hart Bridge expressway ramps, put a grid of streets/traffic signals in between APR and the Hart Bridge and include infill development to make it a pedestrian centric node.

The likelihood of doing that is a decade plus and a couple of hundred million (in addition to the stadium deal money) away at this point. It also doesn't help that the Four Seasons project is autocentric along Bay, instead turning its focus primarily internally and to the river.

From this perspective, we'd be better off putting it in a trench and/or building over it to connect the Four Seasons / Metropolitan Park area with Lot J and the stadium. That would create a more pedestrian centric condition in that area than trying to make an expressway a complete street. Doing such would also assist with moving traffic in and out on game day.

Columbus, OH has some great example of capping expressways with overpasses that seem like an extension of a cohesive neighborhood at street level. Here are a few pictures of the High Street overpass at Interstate 670:

[thelakelander]

Another Columbus, OH interstate overpass. This one is a linear park:









The linear green space is actually a building pad for future infill development when the market can support it.

[Jax_Developer]

In a few years, we will have speculative autonomous vehicles going up & down this road, with an uber exclusive resort, combined with parks that have parking designated for the majority of the frontage.

Some other things are: A parking garage for the Shipyards, and frontage for mandatory parking that spans more than 1,500' (conservatively).

Bay St. will be a stroad with almost zero activation for the long long future. That's the plan anyway, our leaders have made sure of that.

(Good luck to the MOSH.)

[thelakelander]

It certainly won't be the Embarcadero. That ship sailed a couple of mayoral administrations ago.

[fsu813]

Bay St. will be a stroad with almost zero activation for the long long future. That's the plan anyway, our leaders have made sure of that.

(Good luck to the MOSH.)

Shipyards West is currently designed to have some Bay Street activation as well, with a cafe of some kind and the historic fire building fronting Bay. Though, I'm not sure how realistic that is, considering it'll be across from Maxwell House. And eventually, some kind of future development pending market demand, possibly the ever-green (yet still elusive) food hall idea.

As an aside, I believe the former fire museum operators aren't interested in resuming that role. So that building could be something more engaging, potentially.

[Jax_Developer]

Bay St. will be a stroad with almost zero activation for the long long future. That's the plan anyway, our leaders have made sure of that.

(Good luck to the MOSH.)

Shipyards West is currently designed to have some Bay Street activation as well, with a cafe of some kind and the historic fire building fronting Bay. Though, I'm not sure how realistic that is, considering it'll be across from Maxwell House. And eventually, some kind of future development pending market demand, possibly the ever-green (yet still elusive) food hall idea.

As an aside, I believe the former fire museum operators aren't interested in resuming that role. So that building could be something more engaging, potentially.

Yeah... Shipyards West is the best we are going to get. No idea if they are actually going to save any portion for a future building pad. (I would guess not). Still, Shipyards West will 100% face issues with the jail's proximity, in addition to Maxwell house having zero street activation across from the park.

What's even more ironic, is that Shipyards West parcel(s) will be required to provide 200 parking spots, according to the Jags agreement. So, very conservatively, the city will spend roughly $5M on just parking for this park to look like this in any form. We will start to see VE & a reduction of scope once the decision makers put 2 & 2 together.

https://www.shipyardswest.com/
https://www.jacksonville.gov/getattachment/Mayor/Stadium-of-the-Future/Stadium-of-the-Future_Economic-Framework.png.aspx?lang=en-US

Still like the Jags deal everyone? We keep shooting ourselves in the foot. It's sad to watch. This is one of many examples. The other being that the MOSH is required to build 600 parking spots. So, that's (very conservatively) $15M. There are terms that allow for the city to allocate spaces elsewhere, yet we only have 300 spaces max to pull from. So the city needs to magically procure another 500 spots for 30-years (do we have another 5 acres lying around the Stadium that we can prevent building on for 30 years?)...

[tufsu1]

^ how much money are the Jags contributing to Shipyards West, MOSH, and Metro Parks?

[Jax_Developer]

^
Mosh = $5M from Khan himself

Everything else, $118M over 30 years with zero guidance on where/if these funds will ever be used for these purposes or other. But, anybody with a slight clue of how money works understands that this isn't $118M for *these* parks.

The city is funding these parks almost 100%, point blank period. The notion that a $3.9M payment beyond 2044 will impact these parks at all, is completely false. That's even if ALL of the Jags money goes just to these projects, which we know not to be the case. By the time we reach 2044, the 2025 outlay the city has will eclipse any Jag contribution. Inflation will also make that money worth 2/3's of today's value when it's all said & done.

We as the taxpayer, who are fully on the hook to maintain the required spaces, will see zero parking revenue from all team events. So, with the exception of the FL/GA game, those 50 acres will basically sit empty for the next 30 years, besides game day parking. These parking lots will be a massive net loss for the city over these next 30 years.

You really can't make this stuff up. I might even pay CityNerd to bring this insanity to light lol.

We got a deal though!

[Tacachale]

Yes, the city is paying for the downtown parks, as it always has been. What we’re doing now is committing the extra $56 million to get them done by 2028. Not only does that get them done sooner, it saves money by getting them done before costs rise, and it got the Jags to put in extra money. Old heads know that the way to not spend so much money on these parks would have been to not tear down the Landing and turn it into an empty lot for 4 years.

Where the Jags money goes is to be determined between the mayor and the Jags. That would be done by now except City Council pulled part of the CBA out of the stadium bill. Now it’ll be decided depending on how the rest of the CBA unfolds, which should be done by September. Our current thinking is that part may go to maintenance for the new parks. It’s about how best that money can be put toward meaningful projects.

[jaxoNOLE]

I am curious as to why parking agreements were included when the Sports district was split out. It seems much of the agreed-upon parking will need to be renegotiated if and when the entertainment district happens. This is probably more appropriate in the Stadium thread, but with the interconnectedness of all these plans, it's hard to imagine it won't directly impact Met Park.

[Tacachale]

^Both the city and the team are committed to seeing the entertainment district developed, but the moving pieces in that made it unfeasible to include with the stadium deal. When that moves forward, the parking agreement and any needed changes to it will be part of the talks. The current agreement is there to make sure we know what we're doing with parking for at least the next few years. That's especially important as the parking revenues is part of the funding source for operations and utilities, which saves the city a ton of money. It also gives the city and Jags an incentive to book more non-game events as that helps fill that well as it were.

[Jax_Developer]

I am curious as to why parking agreements were included when the Sports district was split out. It seems much of the agreed-upon parking will need to be renegotiated if and when the entertainment district happens. This is probably more appropriate in the Stadium thread, but with the interconnectedness of all these plans, it's hard to imagine it won't directly impact Met Park.

Because he can get a much more lucrative deal, now that our hands are tied behind our backs.

Here's how it'll go:

Khan will execute the ROFO parcel credit, when the parcel is appraised well under $25M (in 2025)... Then, he will roll that $25M credit into Lot J, or another adjacent parcel. (In fact, Lot J would be interesting. The city would lose another 1,309 spots from him doing that, which he has the right to do.) Then, he will use DIA incentives, with a sprinkle of completion grants thrown in the mix, to have the taxpayer (basically) fully fund his parking garage & the auxiliary "Sports District."

Then, Khan will be agreeable to amending the parking & district agreement. In which, he will let the city utilize his parking garage(s) for all Everbank/Daily Place events, but only if StadCo keeps 100% of the revenue for all events (team & city). The DIA's ROI calc will be under 1.1x for the incentives, but the City will be literally forced to do this deal, because of: their prior obligations made under the original deal, the MOSH agreement, and the amount of funding allocated to the parks along Bay St. (MOSH & Shipyards West are also starting in 2025, what a coincidence.)

This is a great deal for Khan, because that parcel next to the Shipyards & Lot J, are two of the best parcels for parking at the Stadium or Daily's Place. They will be able to charge premium rates (secured & covered) & make an absolute killing from it, all at the taxpayers expense.

The "city" feels happy because they will get: two new parks, a small sports district, MOSH & the 4S. All the while, 40+ acres of land will sit empty for 30 years.

Very calculated by Khan & impressive of him to negotiate from a real estate angle. This is business to him after all.

I'll go back to stadium thread if the conversation continues.

[Jax_Developer]

The first domino falls. Still no news on the 500+ parking spots that are needed by the start of the 2025 season.

https://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/news/2024/sep/04/council-committee-votes-to-trim-20-million-in-funding-for-riverfront-parks/

[thelakelander]

One thing we know....the prices won't get cheaper in the future. Jax needs to decide if it wants a decent downtown or let it die.

But if we're going to go cheap, at least clean these spaces up, construct a few paths and get some decent landscaping done at the minimum. You can always figure out opportunities to later fund various amenities, understanding that peicemealing will likely cost you more in the long run, while limiting the positive impact in the short term.

Some members of the Finance Committee said that when they approved the agreement, they believed the $56 million would cover the remainder of the city’s costs for building the three parks.

After discovering that total costs for the projects was $154 million as listed in Mayor Donna Deegan’s proposed Capital Improvement Plan for 2025-29, committee Chair Ron Salem froze $90 million in parks funding and called the Sept. 4 meeting for more information.

The five-year plan called for $68.2 million for Riverfront Plaza, $60 million for Shipyards West Park and $26 million for Metropolitan Park.

Committee member Raul Arias said the parks were too elaborate for the city to afford. He also questioned why there needed to be three high-priced parks on the Northbank, and why all of them were being developed simultaneously.

“We’re dreaming too far, too high and we’re not being realistic about what our current budget is,” he said.