Jump to content

Downtown Jacksonville


bobliocatt

Recommended Posts

Downtown Observations...

The Southtrust Building is no longer the Southtrust building. All of the corporate branding from the top of the tower has quickly and quietly been removed, leaving a blank tower. Possibly this is related to Wachovia's buyout of Southtrust, but there is already a Wachovia tower on the Northbank. Will there be two now...?

The Roosevelt Hotel now sports a huge neon sign on the rooftop, proclaiming the building the "CARLING" and hiding the ghastly huge air conditioning units Vestcor installed on the roof. The sign teeters somewhere between Nostalgic Jacksonville and Awkward Eyesore, but the further away you view it from the cooler it is.

London Bridge still hasn't began it's facade improvements, despite receiving grant money from the city over four months ago. C'mon c'mon... :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Replies 921
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Actually, London Bridge doesnt own their space. It is the landlord's responsibility to make the improvements. As for the Carling sign. I didnt realize it was turned on yet. I can see it out my window now (during the day). It looks like a brand new sign now. The old Jacksonville stuff was new once too - let it age a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The redevelopment plans for The Barnett are still on hold

Plans to refurbish the old Barnett Bank building on the corner of Laura and Adams Streets remain slow on the take. However, the group spearheading those efforts remains hopeful that something can be done. Langton and Associates have extended their option on the building while waiting for the Mayor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds great. They have a similar program in Detroit, where they have different types of ethnic festivals and concerts every weekend in downtown's Hart Plaza. Its grown to become a pretty popular social and cultural event. Hopefully ours can be just as successful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said in a differant Thread.... TUC for Mayor

I Am looking forward to seeing what all will be done this summer downtown. It does sound very promising, I just hope we can get the turnout we need to justify future endevures like this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Business Journal of Jacksonville - 2:44 PM EDT Tuesday

$40M offer tops bids for Southbank property

Dave Strupp

Seven developers submitted bids Tuesday ranging from $15.5 million to $40.6 million for a 40-acre site on the Southbank. The property was for decades the site of JEA's Southside Generating Station, and earlier this year was home to the NFL Experience during Super Bowl XXXIX.

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jackso...tml?jst=b_ln_hl

I wonder who Cowford Riverfront consists of and why didnt the city just do this with the Shipyards?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Business Journal of Jacksonville - 2:44 PM EDT Tuesday

$40M offer tops bids for Southbank property

Dave Strupp

Seven developers submitted bids Tuesday ranging from $15.5 million to $40.6 million for a 40-acre site on the Southbank. The property was for decades the site of JEA's Southside Generating Station, and earlier this year was home to the NFL Experience during Super Bowl XXXIX.

http://jacksonville.bizjournals.com/jackso...tml?jst=b_ln_hl

I wonder who Cowford Riverfront consists of and why didnt the city just do this with the Shipyards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here is the TU preliminary article.

Please note that the appraisal for this site was 27-29 million. The highest offer was over 40 million AND THAT WAS WITH 10 FEWER ACRES!!!!!! Also note that Landmar was the lowest bidder.

JEA site gets 7 bids

The city didn't do this with the Shipyards because it is run by men and women of little confidence or vision for Jacksonville. Of course, don't blame councilman Warren Alvarez, he advocating doing just what JEA did. Showcase the site during the SB and put the bids out.

Anyway you cut it, the taxpayers of Jax got royally screwed on the Shipyards deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why didnt the city just do this with the Shipyards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

One reason is possibly that the Shipyards is a smaller, less desireable site than JEA. (FOP, jail, Maxwell House factory, elevated highway next door, noisy stadium district, homeless shelter, bums sleeping everywhere.) By contrast, the JEA site is spared from most of the Shipyards urban blight issues. Developers will still be able to shamelessly sell a connection to San Marco, and more importantly there's the proven sales of the emerging Southbank residential highrises.

Furthermore, the Shipyards site is not "free and clear" like JEA. Public money has already been spent on negotiated public improvement projects. If the city were to just sell it to the highest bidder, how would they ensure future public improvements are applied properly? They couldn't. In order to sell the Shipyards to anyone, the city would still have to create an extensive public-private deal to guarantee all the public construction.

What Warren Alvarez, and Ron Littlepage don't seem to believe, is that the Shipyards site probably has a negative total value to developers. In other words, the land might theoretically be worth $X million dollars. But the total value of required site improvements and pulbic infrastructure the developer is yet obligated to build out of pocket equals $X+Y million. Therefore, the city would probably have to pay a developer to take the shipyards off their hands (if they still want their riverwalk, parkspace, and site cleanup). Essentially, this is what the city chose to do with Landmar; but rather than upfront payments which failed with Trilegacy, they are giving future tax breaks.

Also, consider this. The city spent far more than $40 million to clean-up the JEA site. In fact, they spent $27 million on a partial soil cleanup alone! (I think the total clean-up price tag is over $100 million). So is the city "screwing" taxpayers by accepting a loss of tens of millions of dollars on the JEA site? If the anti-shipyards people applied their logic equally, this deal would be considered a screwjob too. (I don't think either deal is bad, obviously)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Warren Alvarez, and Ron Littlepage don't seem to believe, is that the Shipyards site probably has a negative total value to developers. In other words, the land might theoretically be worth $X million dollars. But the total value of required site improvements and pulbic infrastructure the developer is yet obligated to build out of pocket equals $X+Y million. Therefore, the city would probably have to pay a developer to take the shipyards off their hands (if they still want their riverwalk, parkspace, and site cleanup). Essentially, this is what the city chose to do with Landmar; but rather than upfront payments which failed with Trilegacy, they are giving future tax breaks.

Also, consider this. The city spent far more than $40 million to clean-up the JEA site. In fact, they spent $27 million on a partial soil cleanup alone! (I think the total clean-up price tag is over $100 million). So is the city "screwing" taxpayers by accepting a loss of tens of millions of dollars on the JEA site? If the anti-shipyards people applied their logic equally, this deal would be considered a screwjob too. (I don't think either deal is bad, obviously)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When a developer builds a development of any kind, where the homes are mostly $500,000 to 2,000,000 (which the Shipyards will be), the developer MUST build expensive amenities like golf courses, clubhouses, tennis courts, etc. The Riverwalk is no different than that. The money they will spend is the investment they have to make to get people to pay those prices. TriLegacy had deposits for half the units in One Shipyard Place, plus Berkman units have sold well, the Northbank market is not completely untested any more.

Many would consider being able to walk to an NFL game a positive, not a negative. Why else would people pay $200,000 for a tiny train car to be next to the stadium?

Sorry, I just don't buy the "this is Jacksonville, how can anything here be nice" mentality.

I don't see a problem with using future tax receipts instead of outright grants, just not 30 years and $232 million worth.

As for those clean-up figures, the last thing I saw, the total clean-up was in the 27-29mm range.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder who Cowford Riverfront consists of and why didnt the city just do this with the Shipyards?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would REALLY like to know who this is and if they have the ability to develop it.

I work for the second highest bidder and we have a great plan. I hope the approval process also looks at the developers ability to get the land developed. It is in the city's best interest to have it improved ie more tax revenue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does it look close to being completed?

Jaylon: It looks close to being finished from the exterior. The new windows are all in, the A/C units and sign are in place on top and the exterior has been cleaned/painted. It looks great on the outside. From what I can see of the interior though from driving by, it is not quite finished inside yet and I cant tell how far off completion will be. I would guess that a June 1 opening would be too soon though. Maybe late summer. But, I would call them and check.

By the way, where are you moving from in Bham and why the move to Jacksonville?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work for the second highest bidder and we have a great plan.

Jaxson: Who do you work for and describe their plans a little, please. I agree that JEA should look at the ability to follow through, but I think as a quasi-independent agency all they care about is the high bid. I could be wrong though, I just thought I had read that in the T-U.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jaxson:  Who do you work for and describe their plans a little, please.  I agree that JEA should look at the ability to follow through, but I think as a quasi-independent agency all they care about is the high bid.  I could be wrong though, I just thought I had read that in the T-U.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I work for Toll Brothers the 11th largest builder in the nation based on sales $. They purchased Richard Dostie Homes here in 03. Toll is based in Philadelphia and has recently jumped full force into infill. They purchased the Philadelphia Naval Shipyards and are currently developing that prime urban tract. Last year we purchased a company named Manhattan Building Company to handle the urban side of our business which is vastly different than the suburban developments Toll is known for in the northeast. One other large project that we recently undertook is the old Maxwell plant in Hoboken, NJ that overlooks Manhatten, that project would be the closest to what we could do on the JEA site.

One thing Toll does understand is density. Our plans were extremely preliminary, however it would have included a brownstone product (similar to Product being built on the former Philadelphia Naval Yard), 2 to 3 highrises 20 to 25 stories, and an urban old world retail sector...retail with residential above in 3,4, or 5 story buildings with varying facades to look like they had been there. The highrise design was still up in the air to fit in.

Toll is mostly known for luxury suburban homes, but our sr mgmt will build 'housing where ever people want to live.' Visit tollbrothers.com to see info about the Naval Square, Maxwell Place on the Hudson. Go to "Find a Home" and choose "Community Type" = Urban Living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I work for Toll Brothers the 11th largest builder in the nation based on sales $.  They purchased Richard Dostie Homes here in 03.  Toll is based in Philadelphia and has recently jumped full force into infill.  They purchased the Philadelphia Naval Shipyards and are currently developing that prime urban tract.  Last year we purchased a company named Manhattan Building Company to handle the urban side of our business which is vastly different than the suburban developments Toll is known for in the northeast.  One other large project that we recently undertook is the old Maxwell plant in Hoboken, NJ that overlooks Manhatten,  that project would be the closest to what we could do on the JEA site.

One thing Toll does understand is density.  Our plans were extremely preliminary,  however it would have included a brownstone product (similar to Product being built on the former Philadelphia Naval Yard), 2 to 3 highrises 20 to 25 stories, and an urban old world retail sector...retail with residential above in 3,4, or 5 story buildings with varying facades to look like they had been there. The highrise design was still up in the air to fit in. 

Toll is mostly known for luxury suburban homes, but our sr mgmt will build 'housing where ever people want to live.'  Visit tollbrothers.com to see info about the Naval Square,  Maxwell Place on the Hudson.  Go to "Find a Home" and choose "Community Type" = Urban Living.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

This sounds great, especially since Toll Brothers is a company that has the financial means to get something done. Do you have any idea of the anticipated completion date or construction start, if Toll Brothers is awarded the site?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Roosevelt Hotel now sports a huge neon sign on the rooftop, proclaiming the building the "CARLING" and hiding the ghastly huge air conditioning units Vestcor installed on the roof. The sign teeters somewhere between Nostalgic Jacksonville and Awkward Eyesore, but the further away you view it from the cooler it is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Here's a view of the Carling building and sign from the parking garage on Bay Street:

Carling-full.gif

I like that you can see the incline of Monroe Street.

This is an artsy shot of the sign, reflected into the Modis building:

Carling-reflection.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.