Haydon Burns RFP Thread

[bobliocatt]

The 60s were a unique time for architecture - people were still excited about the possibility of becoming "modern" - whatever that means.

[cracklow]

I wanted to post some photos of the Library from the 60s.  It wasn't always dirty and cluttered, and filled with homeless people.  That's the eventual fate of any public building.

...

Note - Sorry for the links.  It won't let me post the images because the board does not allow "dynamic pages."  If some kind soul wants to re-post the photos, I'd appreciate it.

hey~ i found some pictures of the haydon burns (and other buildings) at the library's florida collection

...too many to re-post here, some of them are quite funny, especially that it includes pictures of the model.

[bobliocatt]

Cracklow, you hit the motherload. I wonder what happened to this proposed look along Forysth. It looks much more interesting and inviting then what ended up being built.

[asonj23]

My point is that no matter how hard it tries, the new design is not going to exactly replicate the past buildings in it's surrounding context. So to that end, why try to mimic something. Why not express your differences. If it is different, make it different. There are ways to design womething to fit into a context without having to mimic it. The Atkins design - IMO - is bland and uninspiring. The program however, as I have mentioned, is great - so in that respect I agree with you viper.

I'm glad that this building stands out and doesn't blend in with its surroundings. Its by far "bland" and IMO has a lot visual activity. Heck, if you want bland look next door at the 11E building. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE that building for its historical signifigance, but propose something representative of that downtown today and you'll be laughed out of town. Like others have mentioned, we don't need to dwell in the past and try to replicate structures of the early 20th century. we need to embrace and restore what we do have left and continue to move forward into the new century with modern structures.

Not everyone is going to like everything being built or proposed to be built, understandably, but I'm sure that everyone can agree that this structure, bland or not, is doing our city's core a favor by providing added population and entertainment.

I'm also torn on the idea that the DRC should/should not have an architect on the board. The negatives and positives are closely matched. The main problem I could see is a visual agenda being pressured on our DT. I for one don't want to see a multitude of the same structures on our skyline, a mix of all should be welcomed.

[merlin]

Fantastic photos. I haven't seen many of these. I wouold agree that the above image is a much better end condition and transition to 11 E. The model shots are nice too. Thanks for posting the link.

[RiversideGator]

Not everyone is going to like everything being built or proposed to be built, understandably, but I'm sure that everyone can agree that this structure, bland or not, is doing our city's core a favor by providing added population and entertainment.

asonj23: I agree with you. No matter the design, everyone will not like it. I think the main thing to focus on with the library site is that the new structure will bring much more activity to the heart of downtown than any other proposal. I would still support this if it were a modernist design, so long as it contained the same components. I do happen to like the design though, but I can see how others may not.

[vicupstate]

Jenkins backs Peterbrooke over Atkins for Burns Library

Jenkins needs an education in what makes an urban area work. A specialty grocer,bookstore or movie theatre will do a much better job of bring people downtown REPEATEDLY, than a minor tourist attraction.

Also, I want to know why it it required that Atkins utilize a "one-of-a-kind-in-the-world-architecture" while Fidelity (just to name one) can use bland-seen-it-in-every-town-over-10,000-population-architecture" ? Can someone answer me that?

[RiversideGator]

Jenkins is wrong on a wide variety of issues, including this one. My views on the old library/Peterbrooke are well known on here. I am hopeful that Atkins will still sail through city govt and get approved. They can always hang their hats on the extra $3.5 million Atkins will pay an already cash strapped city hall.

[bobliocatt]

Wow some times it amazes me to see the ignorance of some of our city leaders when it comes to understanding what it takes to create a vibrant urban core. Jenkins should get over the fact that Peterbrooke's proposal for the Haydon Burns was flat out weak, compared the Atkins proposal in terms of money and economic influence for the city.

As a City Councilwoman, she should should accept (this months long process and decision and instead focus her efforts on finding Peterbrooke and Main Branch alternative locations within the center city.

As for the Haydon Burns, we can't save them all. Its served its purpose and now its time to move on to bigger and better things.

[jjoshjl]

Exactly my thoughts riverside...

1) WE NEED PEOPLE DOWNTOWN.. Both living and visiting. Further more, in ANY downtown in ANY larger city, a vast majority of those visiting downtown are locals, NOT TOURISTS. Look at NY and Chicago. All those people all over the streets, how many do you think are tourists. Ild say it is barely 10% (just a guess). If Peterbrooke is ment to be a tourist attraction (and I still would love for them to be downtown) Once most of the locals visit it, very few will return no matter HOW good it is. How many locasl do you think go to the Coke Museum in Atlanta more than one or two times. Its Great for out of towners, but not realy for locals.

2) Tourism to JAX is not that strong and IMHO, i am thankful for it. As I have mentioned before, I really dont think we should be focusing on what kind of tourism we should bring AND THAT IS WHERE OUR FOCUS STOPS. We have such a diverse set of industries here, I realy dont want to see jacksonville become jsut another tourist place in Florida. We cna be more creative than that. In focusing on businesses and not tourists, We are able to offer business that will bring HIGH PAYING jobs a great alternative to relocating here as opposed to say Miami where they have to deal with a very large tourist population. I promise you guys, we can compete with places like Atlanta and Miami for businesses to relocate here. Stratigicly we are in far better area than Miami or Atlanta (Highways, Ports, decent sized airport, rail, i could keep going)

3) Ocean (and Main for that matter) offered the ability for REPEAT customers for the business that want to open there. Peterbrooke is for the most part a one time visit deal

4) (and most important in my eyes) LOCAL AND NONLOCAL BUSINESSes WILL NOT RELOCATE TO DOWNTOWN IF THERE ISNT SOME LEVEL OF RETAIL AROUND AS WELL. Think about it, if you were a business relocating, would you want to go somewhere that had things like oh say resteraunts you can go for lunch, Pharmacies PEOPLE downtown? It may not seem like a major factor, but it realy is. A company is not going to relocate to an area that seems dead most of the times.

anyway, jsut something to chew on

Cheers

[jacksonvillian]

Just talked with Atkins' offices... Publically, they are remaining diplomatic, but privately they are steaming mad over this b.s. with Suzanne Jenkins. Don't be surprised to see an all-out blasting of this small minded thinking early next week.!

Atkins won this thing fair and square, and should be thanked for bringing this caliber of development and level of investment to downtown. If Atkins was a company from out of town getting this kind of treatment, they'd propbably tell this city and its small town politics to go to hell and look at a mature market for their project.

Jacksonville, Where Florida Begins? ... Seems more like where South Georgia ends!!

[RiversideGator]

Jacksonvillian: I share your revulsion at Jenkins, but in the end she is just a big blowhard and will not carry the day. I dont see how she can win the argument that Jacksonville, with a budget shortfall, should give away $3+ million to Peterbrooke to put them in that building which most people in Jacksonville dont even like. She is a liberal and it has somehow become trendy among the open minded set to want to save that architectural travesty, but most of Jacksonville I think would rather take the money and run regardless of the merit of the respective proposals. Atkins also has the virtue of having the best proposal. So, my advice is ignore her, keep going with the project, send her a free membership to Weight Watchers, and watch the City Council and Mayor fall into line behind the committee's recommendation. After all, the whole reason why these politicians create these committees is to avoid making the decision themselves.

As to your reference to South Georgia, my family is originally from there and I can tell you that, although people there are rural, they would never be dumb enough to turn down an offer for $3,000,000 over the other guy's offer. This isnt a matter of Southern people being resistant to change. This is a naive liberal sticking her nose, yet again, into business she doesnt understand.

[jaxg8r1]

Jacksonvillian:  I share your revulsion at Jenkins, but in the end she is just a big blowhard and will not carry the day.  I dont see how she can win the argument that Jacksonville, with a budget shortfall, should give away $3+ million to Peterbrooke to put them in that building which most people in Jacksonville dont even like.  She is a liberal and it has somehow become trendy among the open minded set to want to save that architectural travesty, but most of Jacksonville I think would rather take the money and run regardless of the merit of the respective proposals.  Atkins also has the virtue of having the best proposal.  So, my advice is ignore her, keep going with the project,  send her a free membership to Weight Watchers, and watch the City Council and Mayor fall into line behind the committee's recommendation.  After all, the whole reason why these politicians create these committees is to avoid making the decision themselves. 

As to your reference to South Georgia, my family is originally from there and I can tell you that, although people there are rural, they would never be dumb enough to turn down an offer for $3,000,000 over the other guy's offer.  This isnt a matter of Southern people being resistant to change.  This is a naive liberal sticking her nose, yet again, into business she doesnt understand. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Suzanne Jenkins a liberal? Hardly...a Southern Baptist Republican yes, but liberal no. But I've noticed you also blame liberals for the Springfield homeless shelter thing, so maybe you just like to use the word. Regardless, this was a stupid decision on her part and I am otherwise completely agree with what you said....Ideally the best decision would involve Atkins getting this site, and Peterbrooke settling somewhere else in the core...or maybe even in Springfield.

[RiversideGator]

jaxg8r1: I think Jenkins is a Democrat and I also believe she dropped her affiliation with the Southern Baptists and joined a more moderate Baptist church. I do think you could describe her anti-business leanings as liberal. As to the homeless shelter, who else but naive liberals would propose such a thing. I use the word "liberal" in these cases because it is this philosophy which leads people to such goofy conclusions like we need a homeless shelter downtown and govt good/business bad. No offense intended. I do like your name, by the way. Go Gators!

[vicupstate]

Jenkins was elected and re-elected to council as a Democrat but switched parties several months back. She has a pro-downtown record overall, but she is DEFINITELY not seeing the big picture on this one. She is the chief supporter and sponsor of the 4a.m. Alcohol bill, which most of us forumers support. She was also responsible for a charette (sp?) on the Southbank. I don't know how much good that did, but she at least had the right idea about getting all the parties together to help make the various southbank projects interact with each other.

I would suggest the Atkins folks meet with her individually and make their case. The worst thing to do is underestimate an adversary. It may be difficult not to strangle her during such a meeting, but she would probably at least appreciate being taken seriously. Honey works better than vinegar.

I know some of her constituents, and I plan on emailing them about this issue.

[Captain Obvious]

Jekins has done more for downtown than every member of this forum combined. Her support of Peterbrooke is her perogative, and it's a completely reasonable opinion.

[jacksonvillian]

Jekins has done more for downtown than every member of this forum combined. Her support of Peterbrooke is her perogative, and it's a completely reasonable opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

She, like everyone else is entitled to her their opinion, but with all do respect Capt, this is not a reasonable opinion. She made a promise to Peterbrooke to get them in the building cheap and has pressed everyone she could to forego the RFP process altogether. That my friend is not only unreasonable, it is a betrayal of her obligation as a council person to work in the best interest of the city!! IMO she has shown her trur colors here.

[bobliocatt]

Jekins has done more for downtown than every member of this forum combined. Her support of Peterbrooke is her perogative, and it's a completely reasonable opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No doubt. But there was an official RFP process taken to decide the winner and Peterbrooke lost fair and square, despite enjoying months of over the top positive press and support. The time for debates about who should get the building and why is over. Instead of crying about the outcome, its now time to move on and help Peterbrooke and Main Branch find alternative sites within the downtown core.

Or better yet, attempt to talk Florida Coastal School of Law to reconsider their move to the Southside before its set in stone.

[Captain Obvious]

^ Actually, Peterbrooke didn't lose fair and square, in my opinion. One of the JEDC members was barred from voting simply because he's a member of the historical society. Considering how close the final committee result was (people here keep forgetting to mention that part), his participation might have swung it the other way. Basically, by doing that, the JEDC was de facto saying that historic preservation would not be a factor in their decision. They went out of their way to take preservation out of the economic equation. The city council is under no such obligation, and in fact, many city planning documents encourage them to consider preservation.

Therefore, I think a responsible city council should be obligated to consider the preservation aspect, and determine if that should impact the final decision. Just because JEDC made the decision to ignore preservation, doesn't mean the council or mayor can't re-insert it into the equation, if they so chose.

And no, the time for debates is not over. The JEDC committee is only the first step in the process. 1st comes the JEDC, 2nd comes the mayor, 3rd comes the city council. Neither the mayor or council are under any obligation to accept the committee's "winner," so the debate is clearly not over. Interested parties will continue to lobby.

(Jacksonvillian - you freaking WORK on the Atkins project. Isn't it slightly ironic for you to accuse Jenkins of being beholden to Peterbrooke?)

[bobliocatt]

^ Actually, Peterbrooke didn't lose fair and square, in my opinion. One of the JEDC members was barred from voting simply because he's a member of the historical society. Considering how close the final committee result was (people here keep forgetting to mention that part), his participation might have swung it the other way. Basically, by doing that, the JEDC was de facto saying that historic preservation would not be a factor in their decision. They went out of their way to take preservation out of the economic equation. The city council is under no such obligation, and in fact, many city planning documents encourage them to consider preservation.

Therefore, I think a responsible city council should be obligated to consider the preservation aspect, and determine if that should impact the final decision. Just because JEDC made the decision to ignore preservation, doesn't mean the council or mayor can't re-insert it into the equation, if they so chose.

If the historic preservation of the building was supposed to be a factor in the selection of a winner, it should have been mentioned by all parties, as such in the beginning of the RFP process. Since it wasn't, its bad business to introduce it into the equation now. Its also easy to see that Suzanne Jenkins has wanted Peterbrooke in the building well before the RFP ever started, since she clearly stated this in the press months ago, before there was a Main Branch or Atkins.

And no, the time for debates is not over. The JEDC committee is only the first step in the process. 1st comes the JEDC, 2nd comes the mayor, 3rd comes the city council. Neither the mayor or council are under any obligation to accept the committee's "winner," so the debate is clearly not over. Interested parties will continue to lobby.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well it looks like its not over yet. I guess its time for those who favor anyone but Peterbrooke, to start heavy lobbying to put the final nail in their coffin.

[Captain Obvious]

One more thing ... I just wanted to re-emphasize that I'm not really part of the Peterbrooke crowd. My hopes were on Main Branch, and that's clearly a lost cause.

However, I've been so argumentative because I think some of you are being very dismissive about certain things. Peterbrooke still has a rather large amount of support among both the regular citizens and political elites. Tons of people are still working very hard to make sure that Atkins ulitimately loses. But most importantly, these people are not idiots, they are not "good ol boys," they are not close-minded suburbanites. Many of our downtown revitalizers, civic leaders, and urban-minded citizens support Peterbrooke. In other words ... people who care about downtown as much as y'all, and have done more for downtown than y'all (or I) probably ever will.

I don't think Peterbrooke will actually pull out a win in the council (unless Atkins really screws things up during negotiations). However, I think more respect needs to be given to all those people out there who obviously care very much about downtown and urban vitality, but have somehow shockingly come to a different conclusion about the project.

[RiversideGator]

Captain: The result wasnt that close. It wasnt like the contestants were one or two points apart. Atkins was the clear winner. And again, aside from the particulars, the money is much better from Atkins.

As for Jenkins, I agree she is a downtown supporter, but she already tried to tell the buyers of the JEA site what to do with their new property and she is now trying to put the chocolate people in for some reason. She affects a condescending attitude, in the media at least, towards the people who actually make things happen most downtown - businessmen. Government officials should facilitate business, not impede it.

As for Jacksonvillian, he is not impartial but I am (unless you count thinking Haydon Burns is ugly as bias). I dont have any dog in this fight except that I want downtown to be a more vibrant place and I think Atkins offers this.

[jacksonvillian]

^ Actually, Peterbrooke didn't lose fair and square, in my opinion. One of the JEDC members was barred from voting simply because he's a member of the historical society. Considering how close the final committee result was (people here keep forgetting to mention that part), his participation might have swung it the other way. Basically, by doing that, the JEDC was de facto saying that historic preservation would not be a factor in their decision. They went out of their way to take preservation out of the economic equation. The city council is under no such obligation, and in fact, many city planning documents encourage them to consider preservation.

Therefore, I think a responsible city council should be obligated to consider the preservation aspect, and determine if that should impact the final decision. Just because JEDC made the decision to ignore preservation, doesn't mean the council or mayor can't re-insert it into the equation, if they so chose.

And no, the time for debates is not over. The JEDC committee is only the first step in the process. 1st comes the JEDC, 2nd comes the mayor, 3rd comes the city council. Neither the mayor or council are under any obligation to accept the committee's "winner," so the debate is clearly not over. Interested parties will continue to lobby.

(Jacksonvillian - you freaking WORK on the Atkins project. Isn't it slightly ironic for you to accuse Jenkins of being beholden to Peterbrooke?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Irony has nothing to do with it, Yes I do work on the Atkins Project and I'm proad to say I support it! If you support the Peterbrooke proposal, that's your right as well... But as Lake said, The purpose of the RFP is to determine the most advantageous proposal for the city, at that process was followed and Atkins won, TWICE. IF the Mayor or City Council disregards their input entirely (as Jenkins has suggested) then we might as well give up the chance for "FAIR" winners and losers entirely!

[RiversideGator]

Captain: In response to your second post, obviously reasonable people can differ about things like this and it doesnt make the people who support other proposals bad. All I am saying is that just because someone cares about something doesnt mean their favored course of action is the right one. As far as my part in being abrasive in arguing about this issue, I apologize if I have offended anyone.

As for Jenkins having done more for downtown than anyone here, I am not sure what she has done except to vote on downtown issues and to be a general downtown supporter. Again, I applaud her for that. If she has done more than this, I would like to know. I have a small part in downtown (if you count Riverside as a part of downtown) in that I have purchased and renovated 4 historic buildings and have over 20 tenants. So, I am not completely on the sidelines and I will be downtown one day when I have more capital. I just dont want to reveal my identity on here for business reasons.

[vicupstate]

(Jacksonvillian - you freaking WORK on the Atkins project. Isn't it slightly ironic for you to accuse Jenkins of being beholden to Peterbrooke?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jacksonvillian is under no obligation to be beholden or not beholden to ANY party in this matter. Jenkins holds an elected public office. With that position, comes a public trust, a fiduciary responsibility. At a minimum, she should have withheld support for Peterbrooke until all proposals had been submitted and publicly announced. Who's to say there wouldn't have been another proposal that would saved the Burns building? This is not like making an endorsement for a candidate running for office, this is the disposal of a very valuable and strategically important public asset. She should not have endorsed Peterbrooke or anyone else's proposal until the deadline for submissions had passed.