Specifics on "Ocean Square Proposal"

[jjoshjl]

Sorry about that, had the wrong numbers...

Worst case...

Ocean - 64.5-65

Peterbrooke - 65

Best Case

Ocean - 71ish

Peterbrook - 59ish

Sorry, quoted my numbers wrong, but you ge the point

Cheers

[jjoshjl]

HA ha...

Forgot about that Captian...

Im not use to someone I talk to in the boards ACTUALY being someone proposing the Bids...

Insert foot here...

In any case, you do bring up a good point about "need"

[bobliocatt]

I can't speak for TUC, but somehow I doubt he will be spurred to run for mayor because the city took extra time to consider his own development idea ... instead of instantly awarding the project to his competitor.

edit: nevermind - see above

Also, let me keep playing devil's advocate here. Several people have said something to this effect: "Peterbrooke shouldn't win because it doesn't NEED this location. It could theoretically build its chocolate factory at x, y, or z."

The same logic could be applied to Atkins. They don't NEED to build a residential tower there. There are dozens of other sites that could work just as well if not better/cheaper. If you apply that logic to Peterbrooke, you should apply it to Atkins. (The only finalist who truly needs that specific site is TUC's group)

People should argue against Peterbrooke on the basis of finances, not on the "needs." That's the wrong can of worms to open if you support Atkins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're right, all of these projects could be placed anywhere in downtown. Peterbrooke in the Landing, a specialty grocery at the base of the Carling and a theater/mega book or record store in the parking lot across the street.

However, the "Need" part very much comes into play. Not exactly what Peterbrooke, Adkins or Main Branch need, but what downtown needs the most and how this decision process can benefit those needs. Based off that, it can be argued that a factor in the decision-making process should be how well these projects favorably impact downtown development and complement the surrounding environment.

Its easy to point out the benefits of Main Branch and Adkins, in terms of enhancing nightlife/entertainment, adding residents in a compact section of downtown, bringing in a grocery market to support downtown living, and restaurants that create a dining/nightlife corridor, that includes the Burrito Gallery and the London Bridge nearby.

However, how does a chocolate manufacturing plant, with a fudge tour, only open during the day, support the surrounding developments? What type of businesses could it possibly attract to downtown?

Plus, is it really a strong enough proposal with enough potential to have a cash-starved city government walk away from two other good proposals with uses that are clearly needed in the area, who are offering millions more in cash?

[La Florida]

Plus, is it really a strong enough proposal with enough potential to have a cash-starved city government walk away from two other good proposals with uses that are clearly needed in the area, who are offering millions more in cash?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

NO its not. I havent been posting for a while because I wanted to wait and see how this thing played out before jumping to conclusions. But I cannot sit back any more and listen to people try to make sense of this peterbrooke thing. People please wake up! This is not Wonka's Factory( which im sure we'd all love to visit and so many others around the world)..its peterbrooke!! For goodness sake, who is really going to make regular visits to see how chocolate is made? Sure it'll be all the buzz when it opens, but after the Jax population has seen and done it, it'll quickly lose interest. I cant imagine a family saying, "Hey, instead of going to Disney, let's travel down to Florida to see the Peterbrooke factory! Yippee!" Come on, Ocean Square and Main will keep people coming with its theatre, grocery store, clubs,etc. It may not be a tourists attraction, but it'll definately be a staple in downtown for locals and not just a fad...which is exactly what the Peterbrooke Factory would be..A FAD. Lord help me, I might have to be hospitalized if the city selects Peterbrooke...what a waste, what a waste.

[vicupstate]

Also, let me keep playing devil's advocate here. Several people have said something to this effect: "Peterbrooke shouldn't win because it doesn't NEED this location. It could theoretically build its chocolate factory at x, y, or z."

The same logic could be applied to Atkins. They don't NEED to build a residential tower there. There are dozens of other sites that could work just as well if not better/cheaper. If you apply that logic to Peterbrooke, you should apply it to Atkins. (The only finalist who truly needs that specific site is TUC's group)

People should argue against Peterbrooke on the basis of finances, not on the "needs." That's the wrong can of worms to open if you support Atkins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are NOT a dozen sites that could work for what Ocean Square wants to do. Just because a piece of land is vacant does not mean it is available for development or even suitable for development or for that specific project. Sites can be contaminated, such as the Parkview Inn site. The owners may refuse to sell at any price, or any price that makes economic sense. It may be too close to a negative factor such as the Duval Jail. What appears to be one vacant lot may in fact be two, three or more lots. Each one may have a different owner. If just one of them won't sell, guess what, no deal. I've even seen situations where ONE parcel was inherited by a multitude of people. Just tracking down the heirs is a huge chore. Try getting them all to agree to sell! and for the same price!

If there is a lease on the property, guess what, you have to either honor it or buy them out. That's AFTER you have already bought the property for whatever the original owner would sell it for.

Frontage on streets such as State and Union is less desireable because they are set up as one-way "junior expressways" with no onstreet parking. There may be an easement or right of way through the middle of the property that makes it unmarketable or unworkable for the project.

The appeal of the library location is that people can walk to places of employement, the Florida Theatre, the riverwalk, etc. The vacant land in LaVilla, (most of which the city owns) is too isolated for that. Same thing for the Stadium district.

Many retail/restaurant establishments will only open on the one side of a given street. It is often imperative that they be on the right-turn side for either the morning traffic or the evening traffic. An identical lot on the exact opposite side may be of no interest to them. Traffic flow both pedestrian and vehicular can easily make a huge difference in value to them. The lot may be too narrow or odd-shaped for the design.

The parking lot across Ocean street that is on the market is NOT comparable to the Library lot. The Library lot measures an exact square of 210 x 210. That gives 44,100 sq. foot in a very efficient and versatile shape. The lot across the street is really two smaller square parcels partially joined in the rear. The shape is a "straigthened out" Z not a square. The total size is less as well, as it is 39,338 sq. ft. If anyone is familiar with doing property searches on coj.net, refer RE numbers 073458 0000 and 073584 0000, and you will see the differences in shape. You might say, "buy the London Bridge and add it to the lot". Well for one thing the owner doesn't need to sell and is quite wealthy. There is also the lease issue.

In other words, NO two parcels of property are identical and there are a thousand reasons why a deal can't work on a given site. Ocean Square has made an offer that exceeds the appraised value of the Burns site and is the highest offer made. No one should second guess their reasoning. Conversely, Peterbrooke is offering a small fraction of the value of the property.

Now just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that there IS a parcel that is TRULY comparable to the Burns library site. Why would the seller sell it for less than the demonstrated value of the library? If it is truly equal in value, why wouldn't the seller want the SAME PRICE. The seller could even argue that the vacant parcel is more valuable because their is no demolition cost.

[asonj23]

My two cents..

Of the three left my choice would be easy. As discussed by just about everyone on ths forum, either the Adkins or Main Branch proposals benefit the city for the long run for four reasons:

1.) Both add population downtown (we all know the benefits there)

2.) Both rid the busy corner of the gahstly dead walls and provide street interaction.

3.) Both provide a necessary support to the new downtown community, be it grocery/retail/entertainment that will provide a lasting recurring benefit.

4.) Both actually propose to pay the city what the property is worth (at least close to it) in up front funds and taxes over an indefinite period.

The Peterbrooke proposal does not compare to the remaining two proposals and should be passed along to another smaller vacant property or the Landing where their argued "destination" status will be properly supported. As LaFlorida said, something like this will be nothing more than a fad and is not a proper use for the site.

The Whetstone factory in St. Augustine does not actively advertise their factory tours because there is hardly a tour at all. All it is is a small corridor with glass overlooking a virtually completely automated plant. At one end is a small room showing a short documentary on the origins of chocolate and how it is made. To me it is barely a few steps above seeing workers make doughnuts behind a glass at Krispy Creme. I find it hard to believe that it will attract the kind of attention that was stated in the Times Union article.

[Captain Obvious]

Now just for the sake of the discussion, let's say that there IS a parcel that is TRULY comparable to the Burns library site.  Why would the seller sell it for less than the demonstrated value of the library?  If it is truly equal in value, why wouldn't the seller want the SAME PRICE.  The seller could even argue that the vacant parcel is more valuable because their is no demolition cost.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because Atkins wants to pay a grossly over-inflated price for the library site. That land is not worth 5 million. Period. Most of you apparently see this as a reason to support Atkins. For me, it sets off warning bells that Atkins might fundamentally alter their project later on, to make the numbers work. The fact that some of you are already crying "government corruption" if anyone but Atkins is picked is mind-boggling to me. I think it's quite reasonable to have question marks and to want more information on all the finalists.

Anyway, as I've said several times, I think Atkins is fine. Though I have my favorite I won't be truly upset regardless of who gets picked. I don't think any of the finalists are all that great, but none are outrageously bad like the Pension fund plan was. I guess it's really weird that I keep on posting on this subject, since I honestly don't mind Atkins that much. But I really don't see how it's all that superior, either. The fervor with which most of you all support it is well beyond me.

However, it's definitely time for me to bow out of this discussion, since it's clearly unacceptable to express the simple and rather moderate opinion that Atkins is less-than perfect.

[bobliocatt]

For the record, I'm fine with both the Main Branch and Atkins proposals. Could they be improved? Of course, they could. However, imo, these two are far and away better than Peterbrooke's, which is very comparable to the Funds, at this point. If there's anyone who wants to see Peterbooke take over the site, I'd like to here your point of view.

[bobliocatt]

Well, I must admit that Peterbrooke is doing a hell of a better marketing job, compared to the other two. If you type the word "Peterbrooke" in the search box, on T-U's website, it gives you a direct link to their 91 page proposal.

here's a link:

http://www.chocolatier.com/PB_RFP-full3.pdf

[vicupstate]

For the record, I'm fine with both the Main Branch and Atkins proposals.  Could they be improved?  Of course, they could. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If I had my way, the Ocean Square proposal would have at least double the number of units proposed. It is a top-notch location, that if successful would be a huge boost to off-the-river Northbank residential development.

Having more units might bring the per-unit costs down so that they could be somewhat more affordable too.

Adding that many new residents would definitely help to get a lease for the commercial space in 11E. as well. (It will need it considering the 10-year lease requirement.)

[jacksonvillian]

Well, maybe it's time for me to weigh in again, especially since I have worked for Atkins a bit in their research and marketing.

Peterbrooke has done a hell of a job in their public relations... In fact, their entire proposal effort is based around the media push and inside city influence. Even after Atkins won the scoring Friday, the two reporters for the evening news on channels 4 and 12 waved chocolate pretzels in the air as they discussed the vote??? How can you beat that?

As for the Atkins proposal and price, from the beginning, Atkins has emphasized that they would not seek city incentives. If you need the RFP, it clearly states that any purchase price less than the appraised value of $4.5M would be considered a request for city incentives... hence Atkins' offer a $5M. Based on the other proposals, everyone else has asked for incentives, Peterbrooke and Vestcor more than anyone else. As for the Fund, a credit against pension payments is not a cash offer. Atkins told me personally, that a request for incentives would be the death of a project given the current climate within the city government.

As for the validity of developing this project somewhere else... location, location, location. This design was conceived like all good ones, it is developed in relationship to the site and its characteristics. Atkins is looking at other locations downtown as well as Riverside Ave. for other development... but to suggest that one project can just be relocated to another vacant parcel downtown is just unrealistic.

This forum is filled with valid criticism and praise of all the proposals, but if you take a hard look at them all and ask yourself, which one acheives the most in terms of the goals the city professes to want to acheive for downtown, IMO Atkins' Ocean Square is a clear winner and I am supporting them in their efforts.

If anybody has contructive criticism or suggestions as to how to better convey this to the City, I am all ears.. and I will pass it on to Atkins.

- J

[bobliocatt]

My suggestion would be to get the Atkins story out in the press ASAP, with updated renderings, plans or even lifestyle photos showing what Ocean Square can potentially do for downtown. Basically beat Peterbrooke at they're own game. Atkins needs to prove why its the best proposal, by comparing it to the other two.

Btw, the same goes for Main Branch.

[vicupstate]

My suggestion would be to get the Atkins story out in the press ASAP, with updated renderings, plans or even lifestyle photos showing what Ocean Square can potentially do for downtown.  Basically beat Peterbrooke at they're own game.  Atkins needs to prove why its the best proposal, by comparing it to the other two. 

Btw, the same goes for Main Branch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bravo and Amen to that! Let's see some renderings of the three story movie screen with dinner served at your seat. Let's hear about what type of movies would be shown. Let's see the interior of the club. Let's see pictures of what these type facilities look like in other cities. And get the new project rendering out there. It blows the first one away.

Respectfully request that the T-U give equal time.

See if you can recruit Tony Sleiman to your side, at least in a behind-the-scenes way. Try to get Vestcor and the Pension Fund folks to support you. Vestcor might get a lease on 11 E's commercial space if Atkins gets the nod. Maybe Vestcor will let Atkins solicit support from 11 E. tenants. The Marble Trio would benefit from additional retail in the area. The Landing would certainly benefit from more downtown residents. Talk to Suzanne Jenkins, maybe she will recant her endorsement of Peterbrooke, she she gets the whole story on the other options.

Frankly, I think DVI needs to take a stand on this matter. They are funded by the city, but they took a stand on the Library catwalk issue and I assume will do likewise on 4a.m. alcohol. If nothing else, they could endorse the two options with a housing element, Main Branch and Atkins.

BTW, once again, does anyone know if the project that gets the nod also has to get city council/mayoral aproval?

[jacksonvillian]

Bravo and Amen to that!  Let's see some renderings of the three story movie screen with dinner served at your seat. Let's hear about what type of movies would be shown. Let's see the interior of the club.  Let's see pictures of what these type facilities look like in other cities. And get the new project rendering out there.  It blows the first one away. 

Respectfully request that the T-U give equal time.

See if you can recruit Tony Sleiman to your side, at least in a behind-the-scenes way.  Try to get Vestcor and the Pension Fund folks to support you.  Vestcor might get a lease on 11 E's commercial space if Atkins gets the nod.  Maybe Vestcor will let Atkins solicit support from 11 E. tenants. The Marble Trio would benefit from additional retail in the area.  The Landing would certainly benefit from more downtown residents.  Talk to Suzanne Jenkins, maybe she will recant her endorsement of Peterbrooke, she she gets the whole story on the other options.

Frankly, I think DVI needs to take a stand on this matter.  They are funded by the city, but they took a stand on the Library catwalk issue and I assume will do likewise on 4a.m. alcohol.  If nothing else, they could endorse the two options with a housing element, Main Branch and Atkins. 

BTW, once again, does anyone know if the project that gets the nod also has to get city council/mayoral aproval?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Great Ideas..and YES the winner needs both mayoral and council approval.

[merlin]

Great Ideas..and YES the winner needs both mayoral and council approval.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

get in touch with Ryan Geddes at the TU. He does a mojority of those business articles. Also Mary Palka is one to get in touch with at th TU.

[RiversideGator]

I think it is clear that the reason why the city is passing this off to another committee is that they didnt like the results, i.e. their designated favorite (the Peterbrooke people) did not win under the rules as they were established by the city. Thus, like an Iranian election, if the rulers dont like the results, they call for a new election by new electors. What other conclusion could one draw? Atkins was the clear winner on points. End of story - award it to Atkins. Unless the city has another agenda, i.e. Peterbrooke and preservation of that ghastly building.

By the way, I wanted to comment on this sooner, but was on an unwanted hiatus from UP for making a joke about Charlotte boosterism in front of the wrong person. My advice: dont upset the Charlotte mafia.

[cracklow]

Unless the city has another agenda, i.e. Peterbrooke and preservation of that ghastly building.

I think preservation of the building, however ghastly you think it may be, is the main stickler for the city-that and the time it would take before the site is no longer one of those construction nightmares downtown. Seems like before, we used to always tear the building down, so at least we have made progress there-and even if the building is old or not especially aestically pleasing, you can't deny that it has character, which is definitively what jacksonville's downtown lacks. And someone at the city/JEDC sees that. There is some weird feeling of comfort in that building held by the populace that has lived here for a while (architectural types notwithstanding)-a co-worker of mine said today when I asked her if she knew anything about the proposals was "don't tell me they're going to tear that building down...just because I'm old and ugly doesn't me you would kill me.."

[RiversideGator]

Cracklow: No offense, but there is obviously a difference of opinion on the relative value of building itself here. I have lived in Jacksonville all of my life (except for during college and law school) and I just have always hated the Haydon Burns Library. I have also been going there since I was a kid and I wouldnt feel very sad to see it go. I think the building is simply ugly and it should not continue to occupy such a critical spot in downtown, in my opinion. By the way, speaking of preservation, which I am usually very much in favor of for good architecture, the worst thing about the structure is the city had to dynamite the beautiful old city hall to build it. See http://www.allposters.com/-sp/City-Hall-Ja...da_i877639_.htm

Where was Taylor Hardwick's concern for preservation then??

[scongro]

^^ I completely agree. Not only did they demolish Jacksonville's first Post-Fire City Hall to build this, this building is just plain hideous.

First, this is not a good example of sixties architecture. A better example would be 100 North Laura. This is wht they would have called modern art then. Some modern art ages well, some does not (this is the risk you take when you build something edgy).

Second, buildings from the fifties and sixties just were not built to withstand the test of time like buildings from the 10's, 20's and 30's.

[bobliocatt]

I think preservation of the building, however ghastly you think it may be, is the main stickler for the city-that and the time it would take before the site is no longer one of those construction nightmares downtown.

[crazy cuban]

hey, if it means that we get more people into downtown and a bit more urban community, let the dynamite fly! but don't give this crappy arguement that the building hasn't withstood the test of time and the buildings from the 20's and 30's do? time is any buildings greatest enemy, and without upkeep and repair, they all faulter, how about the Laura Street trio? yes, the building is in need of repair, tiles are missing... but look at your bathroom one day!! "edgy" deisgns that are well built and cared for will last... it seems that the only thing that will pass the test of time in this city is "anitquated thinking".

so blow her up, if the result is a better downtown... and i don't think importing some building off 5th avenue in Jacksonville is the answer, architecturally speaking. and the other hand, cleaning the building and moving in for half price isn't going to help either. whether you like the building or hate it, in the end what has to be done is what is best for downtown. whoever wins has to remember that!!!

[La Florida]

^ And let the Church say Amen!!

[Urban_Legend]

I haven't had a chance to get online while I've been in Jax. So I ended up going to this crappy old library downtown, and it gives me all the more reason to blow the hell out of this place. Sorry, that's just my opinion.

I think that RESIDENTIAL units are important for this site. We're never going to reach that overly-ambitious goal of 10,000 units downtown if we keep awarding projects like chocolate factories. We need young professionals down here, not Oompa-Loompas.

[merlin]

we are never going to reach that goal if the prices of these residential units keep rising exponentially. They are already out of reach of so many people.

If it makes for a better downtown, go right ahead and let the church say amen. but that corner/half a block is too central to turn over to just residential units or to one owner/business. IMO

[bobliocatt]

^I agree, beause of its centralized and high profile location, the site definately needs to be mixed-use, regardless of whether the building is saved or not. It should also have the potential to be a catalyst for more urban development in the Northbank.

As far as housing prices in downtown go, there won't be any "affordable" housing, without city incentives, due to the high cost of land. Or the other option is to make smaller 500-800sf units that could be marketed in the low 100ks.