The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

[JaxNative68]

I don't see the reduction in rentable square feet and the addition of more obvious parking along street as the answer.  I also don't see the future mixed use buildings happening anytime soon.  Without the future buildings, it will have the look of a suburban office/retail park.  There has to be an option that opens up the view corridor at the street level while still maintaining the current roof line. The current ground floor in the view corridor area is primarily kiosk style retail, which isn't high dollar rent and probably the easiest to loose.  This project should be looked at more creatively with what is currently there, instead of clean slating the lot and starting over.  There are enough riverfront vacant lots and parking lots in downtown Jax already.  Let's not make more.

[edjax]

I do not see the need to have entry into the parking via the roundabout.  Enter via Hogan or existing.  Agree with Tacachale on this one.  Now for a pedestrian to enter you must cross Water  and a wide parking lot with traffic at all times from at least three directions.  Hardly going to make it more pedestrian friendly.  I guess we can all stand on sidewalks on Laura and admire the river view.  Other than that it would seem to better than the existing. 

If the city would provide incentives for the demolition of mall space and rebuild of the parking spaces would this finally meet their obligation for the dedicated parking?  My guess is no since he will pull the I will eventually build on those lots my high rises.  Lol. Yea sure Toney.  I like to see the city negotiate ow that part of it. Something along lines this will count as meeting this obligation unless you break ground on the other building within 5 years and tie it to a dollar figure.  In other words the new structure must represent 30 million or so in new construction so he just doesn't throw up some small building and say hey.  Give me more. 

[tufsu1]

On the vehicular circulation slide, is that lane going right through the north side of the courtyard??

Yes. The main entrance to the parking lot would be off the round-a-bout with the Jackson statue in it.

my major modification to the plan would be extending the two new buildings north to address Independent Drive and the roundabout.

This would still allow for the pedestrian/events plaza but would negate the area being used as an entrance/exit to the parking lots....and I think the # of spaces would be, at most, minimally affected 

oh yeah...and pull out the pavement on Hogan Street south of the parking/service entrance....that would allow for additional event space along the river adjacent to the TUPAC

[thelakelander]

Okay so what is the difference in terms of the Landing actually being redeveloped than it was a few years ago. I remember Sleiman had a display at the Landing of how he wanted to redevelop it. This never happened as we all can tell. So what is different now.

An agreement between the previous administration and Sleiman never came to fruition. There was bad blood there.

Also will the parking garage across the street in that vacant lot ever be built. What good is a new Landing if there is no where for a good crowd of people to park? Someone please school me!

I believe that parking garage will be breaking ground soon but it won't resolve the Landing's dedicated parking situation, which is appears why they've decided to attempt to resolve it on-site.

[hightowerlover]

I think Jacksonville just needs to learn how to park in a downtown setting, there's plenty of options in the vicinity they're just not signed well. 

If Sleiman really feels like the Landing is facing backwards because it embraces the river view rather than downtown, then fine I object to having a suburban-style parking lot "in front" of the building.

I just have a hard time justifying the need for more parking, for less retail/restaurant space.  Just seems like wasted money.  Yes the space is empty now, but if the original redevelopment plans worked, ie hotel or residential space, I could see those smaller venues becoming desirable again.  But there would need to be a core customer base on site.

To me this is like saying take the top 20-30 floors off the Bank of America tower because they can't find anyone to lease them now.

[Tacachale]

I don't mean to be negative, as clearly something needs to be done with the Landing. However, at this point we're seriously looking at demolishing most of the Landing, replacing most of it with suburban surface parking lots, and making it no more walkable than it is now. Fortunately there is time to fix it while it's all still on nice, cheap paper; the key will be actually doing it so we're not just throwing public money into another poor design.

[thelakelander]

Perhaps Independent Drive can be reconfigured to include on-street diagonal parking between Laura and Hogan Streets? That could be a way to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces and the need for a vehicular entrance through the middle of the courtyard. That would also create an opportunity to pull the new buildings closer to Laura Street.

[gedo3]

One small thing that might also be figured in--PR.  Over the years, right or wrong--but by very popular word of mouth--the Landing has developed a reputation for being somewhat unsafe--particularly at night.  My personal guess is that a few incidents may have been exaggerated--but favorable Landing publicity will obviously need to improve.

[Tacachale]

Perhaps Independent Drive can be reconfigured to include on-street diagonal parking between Laura and Hogan Streets? That could be a way to reduce the number of off-street parking spaces and the need for a vehicular entrance through the middle of the courtyard. That would also create an opportunity to pull the new buildings closer to Laura Street.

That sounds like it would be a nice compromise. Conceivably, though, Sleiman wants drivers to be able to go from one lot to the other without going out to the street (even though that means driving through what is now and always should be a pedestrian thoroughfare). And of course a compromise will require the city not to roll over.

[KenFSU]

One small thing that might also be figured in--PR.  Over the years, right or wrong--but by very popular word of mouth--the Landing has developed a reputation for being somewhat unsafe--particularly at night.  My personal guess is that a few incidents may have been exaggerated--but favorable Landing publicity will obviously need to improve.

My co-worker's son was shot at the Landing in an attempted cell phone robbery. A Chicago Bears fan had his throat slashed at Fionn MacCool's. A massive brawl at Maverick's last year ended with a 22 year old getting run over and killed by a pick-up truck.  There are worse areas, but it's definitely not a completely fabricated issue either.

[Coolyfett]

interesting replies to this news....

[JayBird]

I like the opening up to Laura Street, but not that it was done specifically for more auto use. Maybe they're hoping a drive thru would bring Starbucks back?!! 

Also, is the public restroom under the bridge just to appease the city? Currently you can use the public restrooms inside the Landing. Or are they not going to be rebuilt?

Think I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

[thelakelander]

The Landing's mall would be demolished. The restrooms are inside the mall. That structure would be completely demolished and replaced by two smaller, two story buildings. I think would be safe to assume, the restrooms under the bridge would also serve the Landing, outside of what would be in sit-down restaurants.

Think I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

City money will be involved if anything happens. However, I think the second part about the parking situation is feasible.

[Coolyfett]

The Landing's mall would be demolished. The restrooms are inside the mall. That structure would be completely demolished and replaced by two smaller, two story buildings. I think would be safe to assume, the restrooms under the bridge would also serve the Landing, outside of what would be in sit-down restaurants.

Think I'd be more impressed of he did it without city money (i know, never happen) or if he took city money it came along with a caveat to end the parking dispute.

City money will be involved if anything happens. However, I think the second part about the parking situation is feasible.

I dont visit the site very often...but LAKE was this not your idea to open up the Landing to Laura street? Or maybe it was someone else, but someone here was always posting about that sort of thing.

[Kay]

Retail should front all streets -- Laura, Water and Hogan.  Perhaps residential fronts river since river can be seen from the streets for retail.  Sidewalk cafes on all streets.  On-street parking.

City money should not be given, nor should Sleiman be allowed to build a huge surface parking lot.  City should work out shared parking arrangements with garages and other surface lots.  Someone should do a map showing how many existing parking spaces are in a certain minute walk of the Landing today.

If residential is how you redevelop downtown and retail follows residential, why is City putting money into an existing retail facility?