Reinvigorating the Jacksonville Landing

Tacachale · December 10, 2013, 04:49:35 PM

It is definitely a good long(ish) term plan. They should also remove the expressway on the Southbank side and make it an urban boulevard. If they can get rid of the Independent St. ramp sooner that would definitely open up a lot of potential.

Charles Hunter · December 10, 2013, 06:50:02 PM

Is Bishop asking for the DOT to give the City the antique Main Street Bridge (1940 something) - and the attendant maintenance?

From what I've read here about the Sleiman plan, I think folks are right - Toney knows strip malls with front-door parking, so that's what he wants to convert the Landing to. Talk of future residential is, IMO, just talk to sweeten the deal for folks that aren't thinking.

Kay · December 10, 2013, 07:52:56 PM

It was not a good day for downtown Jacksonville when Tony Sleiman bought the Landing.

fieldafm · December 10, 2013, 08:54:32 PM

Quote from: Kay on December 10, 2013, 07:52:56 PM
It was not a good day for downtown Jacksonville when Tony Sleiman bought the Landing.

I think the exact opposite is true. Nobody wanted it. Without Sleiman, it woud have become a surface parking lot 10 years ago.

When people stop blaming Toney Sleiman or First Baptist for downtown's downfall and start finding solutions with the assets downtown does have... Downtown will have better days.

Bottom line is, the owner has needs. Downtown has needs. There is common ground in between both of those needs. You can still have parking and flex space for events and festivals which still contributes to a vibrant, walkable environment by simply flipping a few things around.

rutabaga · December 10, 2013, 09:01:40 PM

I remember the area long before the landing. I like most things about the landing. But I don't like the inside area.. where you first walk in. It seems so confining or awkward. I think that opening up the middle so that people can see the river from Laura Street will be a big improvement.

tufsu1 · December 10, 2013, 09:47:32 PM

Quote from: fieldafm on December 10, 2013, 08:54:32 PM
Bottom line is, the owner has needs. Downtown has needs. There is common ground in between both of those needs. You can still have parking and flex space for events and festivals which still contributes to a vibrant, walkable environment by simply flipping a few things around.

sure...which begs the question as to why Sleiman (and Haskell) couldn't just show a good plan from the start

Kay · December 10, 2013, 10:01:27 PM

Exactly. If he is unwilling to be only a strip center developer, then he is not right for downtown. Sorry, but he's going to have to prove me wrong--and I would love to be wrong about this. I do not believe he will break out of his box and build something great.

Charles Hunter · December 10, 2013, 10:02:13 PM

So a compromise mediocre plan will seem to be wonderful?

CityLife · December 10, 2013, 10:42:18 PM

I think Sleiman showing a mediocre plan is a smart strategy on his behalf...especially if he's asking for incentives. Expectations have been lowered, so now any revisions will seem better than they would have if he had initially presented them. He can also claim to be making concessions based on what the public and city want to see, which might get him more community buy in on incentives he asks for.

This certainly wouldn't be the first time a developer tried setting the bar low to either see what they could get away with, or with the knowledge that it would make an intended or revised plan look comparatively better.

For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A · December 10, 2013, 11:37:13 PM

Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

I-10east · December 11, 2013, 02:58:14 AM

No one has any concerns about Maverick's? Maybe they can move to the Rush Street location; Oh wait, that's gonna be bulldozed too....

IMO the second floor outdoor half-circle deck which overlooks the river and courtyard is the most relaxing area of the Landing. I doubt if that environment would ever be replicated, even with a new phase. That Landing phase would be an equivalent of tearing down Regency's West mall, and trying to convince people that the mall is better now; Maybe tearing a section down is needed, but that doesn't mean that it's gonna be better. When fact, it (the Landing) actually would be worse, considering all of the things (many non-retail, and some successful retail) being taken out.

Sorry, but a waterview from Laura Street doesn't made up for all of that. The thing that no one is mentioning is that the Landing's first phase caters more to the newbie crowd in the future; Unfortunately for the Landing, it isn't some big tourist draw on regular occasion, and those 'improvements' really does nothing for Jax residents.

Longtimer: "What new restaurants etc are coming to the new and improved Landing? What, there aren't any? Just the riverview that I've seen many times? bummer..." Hopefully a phase 2 will come in, and make the Landing very vibrant, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. Oh well...

thelakelander · December 11, 2013, 06:25:18 AM

^The proposed layout is pretty conceptual at this point. However, the biggest money loser at the Landing is probably the second floor food court. Most of it cost ownership to keep it open as opposed generating revenue for them. Phase I would involve the construction of two, two-story buildings for additional restaurants, in place of the demolished structure.

billy · December 11, 2013, 06:55:38 AM

Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on December 10, 2013, 11:37:13 PM
Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

Isn't there already a downtown zoning overlay that allows residential conversion?
I think a useful change for other areas would be a modification that allows residential conversion in Light Industrial structures that are at least fifty years old.

vicupstate · December 11, 2013, 09:10:03 AM

Quote from: For_F-L-O-R-I-D-A on December 10, 2013, 11:37:13 PM
Downtown needs to focus on building a residential base. It is time to change the codes in the city to promote adaptive reuse to change many of the buildings currently empty in downtown into residences. I think the renaissance in Riverside that is spilling into Brooklyn will soon make this a prime period to focus on building the residential base in downtown.

If you bring the people, then there will be retail that follows. Likewise, businesses will want to be in downtown. Several cities have focused on residential growth and have seen incredible success.

As for the Landing, the mall needs to go one way or another. However, there is an identity crisis that needs to be dealt with. Is the Landing for Night Clubs? Families? Sports Bars? High end restaurants? There is no identity currently so it attracts no one. You cannot market to all of these groups. Rather you need to focus on a a true market. I believe that the Landing can do well if it does serve as a high end restaurant destination and some family programming during the day as "the town center" concept. Send the bars to Bay St.

Outstanding post and welcome to the forum! I agree 100%, especially about the residential part.

vicupstate · December 11, 2013, 09:24:27 AM

Quote from: I-10east on December 11, 2013, 02:58:14 AM
No one has any concerns about Maverick's? Maybe they can move to the Rush Street location; Oh wait, that's gonna be bulldozed too....

IMO the second floor outdoor half-circle deck which overlooks the river and courtyard is the most relaxing area of the Landing. I doubt if that environment would ever be replicated, even with a new phase. That Landing phase would be an equivalent of tearing down Regency's West mall, and trying to convince people that the mall is better now; Maybe tearing a section down is needed, but that doesn't mean that it's gonna be better. When fact, it (the Landing) actually would be worse, considering all of the things (many non-retail, and some successful retail) being taken out.

Sorry, but a waterview from Laura Street doesn't made up for all of that. The thing that no one is mentioning is that the Landing's first phase caters more to the newbie crowd in the future; Unfortunately for the Landing, it isn't some big tourist draw on regular occasion, and those 'improvements' really does nothing for Jax residents.

Longtimer: "What new restaurants etc are coming to the new and improved Landing? What, there aren't any? Just the riverview that I've seen many times? bummer..." Hopefully a phase 2 will come in, and make the Landing very vibrant, but I'm not gonna hold my breath. Oh well...

I basically agree. Opening up a view corridor is a good idea, but it NOT the silver bullet that will reinvigorate The Landing all by itself. There needs to be a GOOD design and a FRESH appearance in the FIRST phase, or this will fail, IMO. The incentives will be throwing good money after bad.

Also, others projects in the area like the Laura Trio don't need to be pushed to the back burner just so this can happen (even though the Landing is indeed a critical element in the big picture).