The Jacksonville Landing's Redevelopment Plan

[jcjohnpaint]

Lake, I can support something like above.  I do have to admit, the proposal is better than what the landing provides, but not worth handouts. 

[ronchamblin]

Looking at the rendering, I've arrived at the opinion that I like it, and am unable to suggest improvement.  This disappoints me, as I like to dislike things.

The straight through street, with shops on both sides ... the restaurants and shops with awnings along the river suggests an openness ... a quaintness ... a relaxed and inviting environment, all with views of the river.   

Is that a statue at the end of the street?  What a waste of space.  What mortal is so important so as to occupy such a prime spot?  The area could be used as a stage for music concerts or shows of various kinds.  The end of the street, and part way back to the roundabout, could be used for seating during concerts.  Larger concerts could be held at the future shipyards development, or at the old metro park.

The layout is not Disney-like ... its real and basic ... and therefore will stand the test of time.  The design is not trying to produce something that it is not ... if that makes any sense.  The idea of having residents close by is an added plus, as there will always be people around ... walking dogs, having lunch or dinner. 

In anticipation of having a full-blown mass transit system in the future, which might reduce the need for parking spaces, any large areas currently allowed for parking should be structured so as to ease remodeling for offices, more condos, or retail.

[avonjax]

After taking some time to absorb the new design I have to say I don't like most of it. As run down as the Landing may seem it is iconic to our skyline. I much preferred one of the earlier designs that opened Laura Street to the river and kept the horseshoe design.
I'm not crazy about the architecture, don't hate it, but I am not in love with it either.
Hate the idea of a street down the middle. Love the idea of opening Laura to the river just not a street for cars.
For me this will NOT draw people downtown. I think 220 Riverside has a better shot. With a celebrity chef opening a restaurant and a great looking plaza it doesn't have the same potential to draw large numbers but it just may hurt the Landing.
I may be in the minority but the Riverfront piece isn't exciting enough to warrant losing river front dining.
And another thing about the architecture, for me it's way too ordinary and blends in way too much to create a "destination" feel.
The new concept may be fine for downtown residents and workers but I don't think beyond some Riverside, Springfield and San Marco residents it will lure people away from the burbs.
Without a high profile retailer, another unique restaurant or great and exciting, possibly iconic design, I think the new Landing will mostly succeed as nice apartment complex on the river.

[Tacachale]

I can't believe they'd want to get rid of that public/retail space. They could say goodbye to all that revenue coming in during New Years, Florida-Georgia, and other events. Hopefully as tufsu1 says, they'll change their minds - especially if they're getting taxpayer money.

[peestandingup]

Yeah, I agree with some here. This looks like total crap & like something you'd find in an office type suburb somewhere. There's hardly any public space, cars running down each & every part of it, a little fountain that's only good for looking at, etc. Its basically just a couple buildings with some street side shops in them. Wow. That's the best they got? Oh yeah, the "green space". I'm sure that'll be nothing.

Hell, I like the current design better than this. At least there's space. And sounds like all the cities they visited are southern "suburbs first" cities. They didn't think to, I dunno, maybe visit some truely urban enviornments in the northeast or out west??

[Dapperdan]

Huge disappointment here. To me, it is terrible.What happened to the old plans of just cutting a center in the existing landing and building to the sides of it? That was a way better plan that incorporated some old with some new. As much as people talk about the Landing, I think all of us agree that it is very successful as a meeting place for downtown events. I don't see this at all with the new design. Do all the current stores get kicked to the curb for undoubtedly much higher rents in the new place? Capitalism at its best again.

[KenFSU]

A few more random thoughts:

1) Sleiman's project manager for the Landing redevelopment, Tom Senkbeil, was quoted by the T-U as saying, "Maybe a company would want to come to town and build its office building there [the southwest corner of the Landing property]. Can you imagine a better location?" Can Sleiman do that? Isn't this publicly owned land, theoretically intended for public use?

2) Mayor Brown believes the proposed redevelopment is tremendous, saying "The Landing is going to be the catalyst for all the economic development downtown, and I'm excited about it. I want the downtown to be a destination and not just a pass through." How does eliminating nearly 70% of retail and restaurant space, demolishing the iconic courtyard that hosts the city's biggest events, and replacing it with apartments, parking garages, and roads make the Landing more of a destination? How does it catalyze economic development? The street-level restaurants remind me of a larger version of the Metropolitan Parking Garage/Chicago Pizza out at the beach (pic below), and almost seem more like a public concession than an integral part of the design. Same goes for the fountain and public greenspace. It's pretty terrifying if the mayor and City Council truly believes the proposed plan to be "world class."



3) What happens to the existing leases at the Landing? Rent is sure to increase after construction. Do we have assurances that restaurants/retail will fill the new space?

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

[funguy]

You can bet Sleiman will make millions out of the deal..

[Tacachale]

A few more random thoughts:

1) Sleiman's project manager for the Landing redevelopment, Tom Senkbeil, was quoted by the T-U as saying, "Maybe a company would want to come to town and build its office building there [the southwest corner of the Landing property]. Can you imagine a better location?" Can Sleiman do that? Isn't this publicly owned land, theoretically intended for public use?

2) Mayor Brown believes the proposed redevelopment is tremendous, saying "The Landing is going to be the catalyst for all the economic development downtown, and I'm excited about it. I want the downtown to be a destination and not just a pass through." How does eliminating nearly 70% of retail and restaurant space, demolishing the iconic courtyard that hosts the city's biggest events, and replacing it with apartments, parking garages, and roads make the Landing more of a destination? How does it catalyze economic development? The street-level restaurants remind me of a larger version of the Metropolitan Parking Garage/Chicago Pizza out at the beach (pic below), and almost seem more like a public concession than an integral part of the design. Same goes for the fountain and public greenspace. It's pretty terrifying if the mayor and City Council truly believes the proposed plan to be "world class."



3) What happens to the existing leases at the Landing? Rent is sure to increase after construction. Do we have assurances that restaurants/retail will fill the new space?

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

1). Where there's a will, there's a way.
2). Because he has absolutely no clue what he's doing.
3). I think that's the least of Sleiman's/our worries if this goes through.
4). Good question.

[KenFSU]

Here's the design that Sleiman proposed back in January, preserving the courtyard and marina, with public promenades and plazas along the river and at the end of Hogan Street. Certainly much more publicly friendly than what is now proposed. Those thru-roads in new proposal are absolute killers, and it looks like the pedestrian plaza initially proposed at the end of Hogan Street will now be used for private development (hotel or office tower).

[JHAT76]

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

For Louisville I am guessing one development would be 4th Street Live.

Before (Old mall in downtown blocking off a street although not on the river)



After: New 4th Street Live.  Mall demolished except that roofline, street opened, shops and buildings on side. 
         Sttreet is often blocked off as pedestrian only in the small section for events.







Louisville has, in the past 15 - 20 years, developed some great riverfront parks, built a minor league baseball stadium and new arena downtown, and what I think was catalyst, revamped old convention center.  Many other things (museums, restaurants, housing, etc) followed.

[JaxNative68]

A few more random thoughts:

1) Sleiman's project manager for the Landing redevelopment, Tom Senkbeil, was quoted by the T-U as saying, "Maybe a company would want to come to town and build its office building there [the southwest corner of the Landing property]. Can you imagine a better location?" Can Sleiman do that? Isn't this publicly owned land, theoretically intended for public use?

2) Mayor Brown believes the proposed redevelopment is tremendous, saying "The Landing is going to be the catalyst for all the economic development downtown, and I'm excited about it. I want the downtown to be a destination and not just a pass through." How does eliminating nearly 70% of retail and restaurant space, demolishing the iconic courtyard that hosts the city's biggest events, and replacing it with apartments, parking garages, and roads make the Landing more of a destination? How does it catalyze economic development? The street-level restaurants remind me of a larger version of the Metropolitan Parking Garage/Chicago Pizza out at the beach (pic below), and almost seem more like a public concession than an integral part of the design. Same goes for the fountain and public greenspace. It's pretty terrifying if the mayor and City Council truly believes the proposed plan to be "world class."



3) What happens to the existing leases at the Landing? Rent is sure to increase after construction. Do we have assurances that restaurants/retail will fill the new space?

4) For the purpose of comparison, do we know what specific developments in Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, N.C., and Louisville inspired the proposed redevelopment plan?

the metropolitan has to be one of the worst pieces of architecture constructed in jax beach.  i have a hard time even considering it architecture.

[KenFSU]

Seriously, this plan simply cannot be allowed to happen as presented.

You're replacing this:







With this:

[strider]

Seriously, this plan simply cannot be allowed to happen as presented.

You're replacing this:







With this:

Perfect example of the issue.  The only reason I can think of that would make the politicians support this is money.  It appears to be at best supporting new development for new development sake rather than what is best for the community. Have we not learned that not all development is a positive?

I would think the issue is not at the Landing but rather what is around the Landing.  Fix the issues around it and perhaps no high dollar investment would be needed.  If the apartments suggested in this proposal were to be built adjacent to the landing, would not the retail follow at the Landing? Can part of the existing landing be saved and operated while one end is rebuilt to add apartments or whatever?  Can we loose a parking garage close by to facilitate the apartments suggested?

I believe somewhere on this forum is a list of the landing type developments in other cities and how they are fairing.  I also suspect that it can be proven that their fate is far more tied to the activity around them rather than their architecture or size limitations.

[JaxArchitect]

the metropolitan has to be one of the worst pieces of architecture constructed in jax beach.  i have a hard time even considering it architecture.

You read my mind there.