Jump to content

Jacksonville P&C Discussion Thread

bobliocatt

By bobliocatt
in Jacksonville

Recommended Posts


  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply
bobliocatt City

bobliocatt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

As of right now, 3 stations are planned for this proposed skyway route.

1. Bay Street Town Center (along Bay, in the center of the Holmes Block).

2. Berkman/Shipyards (along Bay, right on the property line of Berkman Plaza & the Shipyards property)

3. Philip Randolph Blvd. (at the intersection of Philip Randolph & Bay in front of One Shipyard Place.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

I have some thoughts on the Skyway...

If I had a magic wand, I would turn the skyway into a ground-level light rail line. San Diego has one that serves the downtown and tourist oriented areas. It is very impressive and seems to have much higher ridership than the skyway. You can see nearly all the key areas of S.D., without getting a car, finding parking, paying for parking, etc. It's very convenient, clean and quick. You also don't have to walk up or down any stairs to get on or off.

St. Louis has a similiar light rail line that is very impressive as well, but it doesn't cover as much territory.

The problem with the skyway is the up/down climb to the stations, the jarring and somewhat disorienting size of it. It also takes a lane out of HoganStreet.

But since It is already built, Jax needs to make the best use of it possible.

I can't support extending the Skyway down Bay St. It will be impossible to create the ambience that the Bay Street Town Center is trying to create, with a monorail running through the middle. Plus a lane would have to be taken out for the supports.

What I suggest is that the skyway be extended instead from the FCCJ station along Union or State streets (or between them) down to the Arena and then onward to Alltell stadium. A station would go in the JTA trolley lot north of the arena and then another where the old baseball field was. This would allow access to those two key destinations, with a lot less visiual disturbance since the Union/State corridor is largely nondescript and somewhat vacate.

I doubt there will be any serious effort to expand the Skyway until light rail or busway lanes are installed to bring in more users.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urban_Legend Town

Urban_Legend

Posted
Posted

I agree that the big bulky Skyway might aesthetically disturb the fell of Bay Street. My guess is that is will be located on the south side of the street, when they start improving that side. I had always wanted the monorail columns to be built in a median, providing crosswalks underneath for pedestrians. Maybe the Bay St. extension will have a historic flare to it, so it can somewhat blend in to the surrounding historic buildings. Either way, it will be very visible. While it will be unsightly to run the line down Bay, I think that's exactly where it needs to go. State/Union won't provide the ridership that Bay will. Bay offers access to the Riverwalk, all the nearby housing, and street retail. It's a bittersweet project, but it needs to be done. If only we could go back in time, and convince the city to use street-level transit. Or we could try the magic wand idea... Maybe Harry Potter could help us, in the next installment of the book series: Harry Potter, and the Transit of Terror!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

Urban Legend is correct about the fact that State/Union wouldn't have the traffic that Bay Street would have. However, putting the line in the State/Union area would probably be cheaper since the area is not redeveloping at the moment, PLUS, it would encourage the State/Union street area to redevelop once it is in place. Downtown redevelopment needs to spread beyond the riverfront/view areas. Then the traffic level might be similiar to Bay St.

I just don't see how to make the Bay Street corridor meet it's potential and at the same time have the Skyway run through it. Compare Hogan Street to Laura Street. Walking up Laura from the Landing to Hemming Plaza, you notice all the beautiful historic buildings, but would you if the Skyway was there?

Ideally, the skyway could be run between State and Union, with new buildings going up on each street to hide the skyway from view.

Lakelander's employer drew renderings for a high-rise at Main And State street. It never materalized, but it might if the skyway ran next to it.

BTW, would love to see that rendering sometime Lakelander.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobliocatt City

bobliocatt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Urban Legend is correct about the fact that State/Union wouldn't have the traffic that Bay Street would have. However, putting the line in the State/Union area would probably be cheaper since the area is not redeveloping at the moment, PLUS, it would encourage the State/Union street area to redevelop once it is in place. Downtown redevelopment needs to spread beyond the riverfront/view areas. Then the traffic level might be similiar to Bay St.

I just don't see how to make the Bay Street corridor meet it's potential and at the same time have the Skyway run through it. Compare Hogan Street to Laura Street. Walking up Laura from the Landing to Hemming Plaza, you notice all the beautiful historic buildings, but would you if the Skyway was there?

Ideally, the skyway could be run between State and Union, with new buildings going up on each street to hide the skyway from view.

Lakelander's employer drew renderings for a high-rise at Main And State street. It never materalized, but it might if the skyway ran next to it.

BTW, would love to see that rendering sometime Lakelander.

I'll post that rendering tomorrow, when I go back to work. Running the skyway down State & Union is an interesting idea. Actually, while doing a site analysis for the high-rise, we found out the city is in the process of acquiring land between State & Union Streets to possibly expand the skyway to the stadium. However, I don't see anything like that occuring for another 20-30 years or so.

Instead of expanding the skyway I'd run a nice starter BRT system, with its on dedicated lanes from Riverside/Five Points, down Park St., along Bay Street to the Stadium area and some how find a way to get up to 8th St. in Springfield. Now that I think of it, I'd probably extend the skyway, from I-95 to Atlantic Blvd in the heart of San Marco. I would also work with the city of St. Augustine to establish a commuter rail line to that city. If successful future lines, or BRT could be built or even turned into light rail.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobliocatt City

bobliocatt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

state.jpg

This is an early conceptual rendering of the apartment tower, we were working on, that was proposed for the old Parkview Hotel site on the corner of Main & State Streets. Because it was going to consume the whole block, a decision was made, early on, to break down the mass size of the building into two seperate towers, with a shorter central tower connecting the two.

From what I've heard, even though its delayed, there is a chance that it could still be built. However, I'll believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

WOW !! Awesome building design for the Main & State corner!

Thanks for sharing Lakelander! I agree that is it wise to take a wait-and-see attitude on this one. This project is probably 2-4 years ahead of its time. This project would work wonders for spreading downtown redevelopment beyond the riverfront and Hemming Plaza core. It also would link Springfield and downtown together in a very big way. This building would have good visibility from I-95 and visually "spread out" the city skyline.

Was the company behind this a local, regional or national firm? I know you probably can't say a lot, but it would be interesting to know if the vision behind this was local or outside.

Also, the city needs to cleanup the Klutho/Confederate park areas. No one is going to invest big money in that area until those parks are spruced up.

As for the Landing, Tony Sleiman needs to step up to the plate and get to some kind of agreement with the Peyton administration. The last time I was at the Landing was a Friday night a few months before Sleiman bought it, and it was dead. It amazes me that there are as many restaurants/stores open as there are. They must be getting a deal on rent, until things improve.

The turnover at the Landing is a wonder. Sleiman needs to get a firm plan in place and started, or some of the current tenants will lose patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
bobliocatt City

bobliocatt

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We breifly talked about making a proposal to the city to renovate Confederate Park, along with the design of the tower. At one point, the developer was also interested in getting a Walgreens to open inside the building.

Anyway, its a high profile site, and the developer still has his coming soon signs on the building. There's a good chance this project, or a similar one could come back online, in the future.

As far as the Landing goes, I think Tony Sleiman needs to rethink his plans. He, and the city, would save a lot of money by eliminating plans for a new exterior facade and constructing a large joint parking garage (The Landing & The Westin/Condo Tower) on the vacant site across the street. Then spend the extra money on upgrading the Landing's interior and painting and pressure washing the center's exterior areas. The city has already offered to give him money to open the center up to Laura Street and to attract, better retailers. Sleiman needs to get on board and stop being greedy.

However, I will say, he has done an excellent job, having live bands, 4-5 evenings out of the week, to play in the courtyard. If you haven't had a chance, go check it out on a Friday night. Its beginning to pull respectable even crowds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urban_Legend Town

Urban_Legend

Posted
Posted

I think that the Landing is too inclusive. Most of the retail is indoors, like in a mall gallery. I wish his plan could work out, so that he could open up some streetside retail on Water St. I read in the Daily Record, that Sleiman sent a letter to the mayor, trying to improve relations. That was a smart move, but I still don't think he'll ever get the incentives he wants. Wasn't it like $50 Million he wanted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

Latest from Business Journal ,Downtown This Week & Daily Record:

The Business Journal has an article about the Ruby Tuesday closing and an article about the four $1million + townhouses planned for The Lake Marco/San Marco Square area.

Downtown This Week has an article on the Holmes Building which is in the 100 block of E. Bay St, and is part of the Bay Street Town Center.

The Daily record quoted Mike Langton as saying he wanted a shot at the Laura Place project, since he was the second choice in the original proposal selection.

Another article mentioned that the recommendations from the recent parking studies need to be implemented. I'll second that. It seems that under Peyton a certain degree of momentum with downtown is being lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Urban_Legend Town

Urban_Legend

Posted
Posted

I also found this:

Five Points Project Almost Done

by J. Brooks Terry

Staff Writer

According to project managers, sidewalk and streetscape improvements in Five Points should be finished by mid-July. Budgeted at approximately $1 million and funded by the City and private initiatives, the project began in January and was originally targeted for a late-2004 completion date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
vicupstate Metropolitan Area

vicupstate

Posted
Posted

Business Journal addresses Convention Center

There is a fairly long article on the convention center. Not a lot of new info. though. Mostly a comparison (with lots of pics) with centers in other cities. Lad Daniels was quoted as saying a new plan for a center is 3-5 years away. This guy does not impress me at all. I'm glad he is no longer council President. Most conventions are planned years in advance, so if a new or expanded center is not ready for 5 years, it could mean another 7-8 years of not having a suitable facility.

The Better Jax Plan went a very long way to bring Jax up to speed in terms of public facilities of all types. A convention center is the last thing missing. If the room tax can be bonded to pay for a new center, why wait any longer? Those funds are required to be spent on tourism to begin with. Why delay? The cost isn't going to come down, we miss out on the money more conventions would bring, we also miss out on a key development engine for downtown.

God bless Kitty Ratcliffe and the Convention Bureau for pushing this when the city leaders should be, but aren't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • 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.