The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

[thelakelander]

I don't think the pedestals are large.  I think the highrise boxes sitting on top of them are not to a realistic scale.

I also believe it's possible to phase in development by (1) demolish the mall/keep existing riverfront restaurants, (2) build only restaurant/retail buildings facing the proposed riverside plaza, (3) demolish existing riverfront buildings to construct plaza, and (4) add tower/garage buildings when market is ready. 

[JBTripper]

Wouldn't removing the ramp cut off walking access from the Southbank? Walking across the MSB on the southbound side dumps you off right in front of the Landing on Independent Drive now. If you tear out the ramp, then you'd have to walk all the way down to Bay Street and back around Wells Fargo and down Laura Street.

I guess it's just another two blocks, but crossing the river is already a pretty huge deterrent for folks in San Marco/Southbank. Maybe they would put a direct connection from the MSB to the North AND Southbank Riverwalk as part of this project and the Southbank Riverwalk construction?

[edjax]

^^couldnt they build a ramp from the bridge down to street level similar to the one on the Riverwalk next to CSX to get you over the railway bridge.

[thelakelander]

Plans also show a new stairwell from the Landing to the Main Street bridge.

[hightowerlover]

Bring this back from the dead, and everybody will be happier.

[Ajax]

Seems like another boutique hotel would cannibalize the Trio, no?

My thoughts exactly.  In fact, as much as I'd love to see this Landing redevelopment happen, I'm also worried that we have another Shipyards-type scenario where we put all of our eggs in one basket and throw all of the city's incentive money at this while ignoring some of the smaller projects that may be more viable. 

[Ajax]

Bring this back from the dead, and everybody will be happier.

There are parts of this old proposal that are pretty cool, but now that I've seen that linear park that links the Landing to the TU center and CSX, I really want that...

[Tacachale]

I don't think the pedestals are large.  I think the highrise boxes sitting on top of them are not to a realistic scale.

I also believe it's possible to phase in development by (1) demolish the mall/keep existing riverfront restaurants, (2) build only restaurant/retail buildings facing the proposed riverside plaza, (3) demolish existing riverfront buildings to construct plaza, and (4) add tower/garage buildings when market is ready.

I think that's about the only way you're going to do it in phases. However, if you build out the first floor, what do you do about the parking? If you leave out the streetfront buildings, the plan is exactly the same as the previous plan (ie, surface parking in the front).

[ProjectMaximus]

as to the pedestal concerns raised by acme and highertowerlover, let me suggest you look at the condo towers built over the last decade in cities like Vancouver. 

They include a large pedestal composing the whole block but only a few stories tall to keep the pedestrian scale....with a skinny tower sitting on top....this serves two purposes

1. allows maximum sun to make it down to street level (something places like NYC could desperately use)
2. allows for amenities...including small green space, pools, etc. on the top of the pedestal

Yeah, I was thinking about Vancouver too, having done some research recently about why skyscrapers hinder walkability. So now you get all the benefits while avoiding a few of the negatives.

With all due respect, this is Florida not Vancouver.  No one is complaining about not maximizing sunlight in downtown Jacksonville.  The shade would be a welcome relief. 

Trust me I appreciate having a rooftop deck and pool area for the residents I just don't think this scale looks good.  I'm not saying elimate any sense of a pedestal element, I just think it looks bad as designed/proportioned.  I think the Strand and the Peninsula on the southbank got their pedestals right visually. This just looks weird to me as presented and I hope it evolves again.

You're talking about aesthetics so you can't have a wrong opinion, and I actually agree with your opinion in those terms. But theres more to the practicality perspective than just amount of shade. With the skinny design their would be less trapped heat, which, I guess, offsets the lack of shade which in its own right is considered a negative because of psychological effects, not temperature. Same with the trapping of air pollutants. Also, imagine if you could take four or five stories off of the Peninsula and Strand and build out a larger base that more adequately addresses the pedestrian at street level...wouldnt that be far more desirable from a walkability/vibrancy perspective?

Anyway, we're going nuts over an extremely conceptual sketch.

[finehoe]

If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

[Ajax]

If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine. 

[mtraininjax]

...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine.

Yup, Sleiman was waiting on the sideline, biding his time and now comes forward with plans he has had for some time, so he can suck the 9 million from the DIA for his 1 project.

The man does this for a living, when are you dreamers going to wake up and realize he will have the city pay for all of his fantasyland?

[avonjax]

My question is this; Sleiman only owns the building not the land beneath it...I know I'm being kinda naive but wouldn't he have to rebuild something there? Empty land belongs to the city...
I too believe if the current structure is torn down we are looking at a decade or more of empty lot.
I think the Jacksonville way is believe a promise, tear it down and watch the weeds grow.
Shipyards: Check
Old JEA: Check
Brooklyn: about 10 years of weeds, Check
Talk of the Landing remodel or repurposed: Check (Over 10 years)
Southbank Hotel and shops on the River: Check  (Thank goodness they didn't raze any of those buildings waiting for the proposed redo.) It would look like the weed infested space that was once Crawdaddies.
LaVilla: Check. The greatest hits of weed infested empty blocks. How many years since the bulldozers and the continuation, and a slow one at that, of creating a Southside business park?
The wonderful old Southern Bell Building on Adams: Check. A great example of tearing down a terrific building and then totally revamping the ridiculous footprint of the original plan for the Courthouse complex.
And the total destruction of the cool buildings and warehouses near the Osborn Convention Center.

[I-10east]

With some past pie in the sky projects that never panned out, I noticed that the Jax media has gotten more skeptical and savvy; Adding comments like 'Many want to know how viable or realistic this is' etc. 

[thelakelander]

If history is any guide, what is most likely to happen is that the current Landing structures will be demolished to make way for the new development, but then something will happen and the result will be that the empty land will just sit there for at least a decade.

...and the City will have about $9 million tied up in it while other viable projects die on the vine. 

I don't believe this will happen. I put my money on the project being scaled down to something a little more realistic with a similar footprint.