The Jacksonville Landing: What Should It Be?

[CCMjax]

But I don't think the landing is super critical right now and should not be the top priority.  Although not ideal, it is functioning and has tenants.  My comments on its redesign are just me thinking well into the future after the super critical stuff is addressed.  The DIA and city of Jacksonville are getting pulled in every direction, it's ridiculous.  They will end up spreading their resources too thin . . . again . . . and not executing things properly.  Top priority needs to be the Trio, then the Barnett.  They are on the verge of being lost forever and becoming surface parking lots (like we need more).  The landing is not deteriorating and is not going anywhere.  Once these treasures are restored, then the quick hitters that don't cost much but improve the quality of life downtown like streetscape stuff should be addressed.  Then the big stuff like the Landing, Shipyards, etc.  The Landing can't be a half-ass design.  It needs to be right and it needs to have a longer service life than 30 years.

[vicupstate]

But I don't think the landing is super critical right now and should not be the top priority.  Although not ideal, it is functioning and has tenants.  My comments on its redesign are just me thinking well into the future after the super critical stuff is addressed.  The DIA and city of Jacksonville are getting pulled in every direction, it's ridiculous.  They will end up spreading their resources too thin . . . again . . . and not executing things properly.  Top priority needs to be the Trio, then the Barnett.  They are on the verge of being lost forever and becoming surface parking lots (like we need more).  The landing is not deteriorating and is not going anywhere.  Once these treasures are restored, then the quick hitters that don't cost much but improve the quality of life downtown like streetscape stuff should be addressed.  Then the big stuff like the Landing, Shipyards, etc.  The Landing can't be a half-ass design.  It needs to be right and it needs to have a longer service life than 30 years.

+100

[Get Real]

The proposed plan actually increases public access along the river from 20,000 square-feet to almost 89,000 square-feet.

Find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact last year's design (3D Rendering) intent looks very similar to the scketched one COJ just paid $100k for...do we see buildings fronting the river?  What happened to keeping that entire area open green space for the PUBLIC to enjoy?  Now there is a reduction of public access.

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-23/story/new-design-ideas-shown-rebuilding-jacksonville-landing#

[jaxnyc79]

The proposed plan actually increases public access along the river from 20,000 square-feet to almost 89,000 square-feet.

Find it interesting that no one has commented on the fact last year's design (3D Rendering) intent looks very similar to the scketched one COJ just paid $100k for...do we see buildings fronting the river?  What happened to keeping that entire area open green space for the PUBLIC to enjoy?  Now there is a reduction of public access.

Monday nights, movies in Bryant park.  Turn much of the landing space into a breathtaking, well-lit, riverfront park where adjacent to which people want to live, and offices want to relocate.  Create a compelling sense of place along the riverfront.[/img][/img]

http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2015-07-23/story/new-design-ideas-shown-rebuilding-jacksonville-landing#

[UNFurbanist]

Again, the one that was just released is not the final design. It was a draft in order to prompt discussion at the public meeting. It also has a lot of ground level elements that aren't exactly represented well in the rendering. Just wait a month or two and we will have an actual final design to look at and complain about.

[Charles Hunter]

If it will be a "final design" in a couple months, will there be any opportunity for public input - besides complaining?

[thelakelander]

I haven't been following the Landing saga as closely this time around as I did a decade ago. Has any thought been given to removing the other Main Street ramp first, retrofitting the existing Landing structure and adding the housing/parking component on the east lot?  If designed well, it would be good filler between the Landing and the Hyatt.

[Get Real]

Again, the one that was just released is not the final design. It was a draft in order to prompt discussion at the public meeting. It also has a lot of ground level elements that aren't exactly represented well in the rendering. Just wait a month or two and we will have an actual final design to look at and complain about.

Sources communicated the same last summer, the proposed design and exterior skin were preliminary. The focus was on the right  "programmatic solution".  Face it, designs will always have critics.

What is interesting, and silent, is the overwhelming outcry from last year regarding more green space and public access.  DIA board members and City Council expressed their dissatisfaction with the "public" green space in 2014 and today, all are silent on the fact the designers have proposed retail/commercial structures on the waterfront. Doesn't Jacksonville have enough buildings obstructing the riverfront, did the public sessions not divulge this information or is this the result of out of town design firms that the City is paying for? 

[tufsu1]

^ I think the new plan has more than enough public open space (whether green or hardscape) along the river.  And no, there are very few buildings "obstructing" the riverfront...we do have public riverwalks on both sides after all.

[strider]

I haven't been following the Landing saga as closely this time around as I did a decade ago. Has any thought been given to removing the other Main Street ramp first, retrofitting the existing Landing structure and adding the housing/parking component on the east lot?  If designed well, it would be good filler between the Landing and the Hyatt.

Now that makes sense, certainly more than tearing down and building all new. Seems like a lot less expensive too.

[IrvAdams]

I haven't been following the Landing saga as closely this time around as I did a decade ago. Has any thought been given to removing the other Main Street ramp first, retrofitting the existing Landing structure and adding the housing/parking component on the east lot?  If designed well, it would be good filler between the Landing and the Hyatt.

Now that makes sense, certainly more than tearing down and building all new. Seems like a lot less expensive too.

The shape, color and size of the Landing are iconic and very familiar. Consideration should be given to retaining part of the original structure which would also save limited funds. Regardless of what else, I think the main components are: remove the curved Main Street Bridge on-ramp, open up Laura Street to the river and give us some grassy area...on the river...no road.

[thelakelander]

The reason I ask about the East lot is because it's cheaper to prepare the land for new construction (then taking out the entire existing complex), fills a key dead space on the riverfront with a use both COJ and Sleiman desires. It's also interesting combining 20 years of redevelopment studies, plans, dreams, cost concerns, and issues into a single alternative, so here goes!


Jacksonville Landing

As far as the existing Landing structure goes, one can easily argue it's been a fixture in Jax's skyline for nearly 30 years and is iconic in it's own right.  Yes, the design is not ideal but let's face it, Miami's Bayside Marketplace is pretty much the same type of structure and design. However, it's filled with retail and restaurants because the downtown surrounding it is healthier. Same goes for Baltimore's recently renovated Harborplace.  Same style building by design and age but retrofitted with newer uses....like a museum (Ripley's) to replace retail square footage no longer needed.


Miami's Bayside Marketplace


Baltimore's Harborplace

Thus, is it worth exploring retrofitting the existing structure to open to Laura Street (it's been considered in the past), better embrace Independent Drive (it's been considered in the past) and reconfigure a few spots (like the food court) as spaces for restaurants and limited chain retail (think CVS/Walgreens) by combining existing retail space into a bigger box) that's needed in DT?


Inside SF's Ferry Building's public market

With the remaining mall, fill it in with public market style local vendors/eateries, etc. Then looking at the public space situation, consider demolishing one/both riverfront buildings and/or integrating everything facing the riverfront, from the courthouse lot to the TU Center as one massive interactive waterfront green space?


Include some of those old Northbank riverwalk public space ideas sitting on the self for the green space and dead streets that do exist.

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2013-mar-the-history-of-downtown-jacksonvilles-riverwalks/page/1



http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=47655

From the outside looking in, it seems you could implement such a strategy incrementally and much cheaper than immediately dropping $12 million in public money to replace the entire complex with a smaller version of DC's National Harbor, Oakland's Jack London Square or any Post Properties infill mixed used development built over the last 20 years.

I'm sure all of this has probably already been vetted, but I'm interested to see what people's opinions are.

[UNFurbanist]

There is quite a bit of public access on the river. A grassy amphitheater, a children's fountain area, shade trees over public benches and tables, cafes, the riverwalk and a pedestrian plaza just to name the elements that I remember.

As far as renovating the Landing goes I would be totally in favor of just a 5-10 million dollar (total) facelift as mentioned above because I agree that a lot could be done if the current building was just brought into the 21st century and used differently. That being said, Sleiman obviously doesn't want to go that route and he owns the thing so I don't think we really have a ton of options right now. He is looking to make a big investment to make big money. (Hence the residential) He wants something flashy and new that will attract the type of money he saw in the 80s and this is the way he thinks he can do that.

So IMO I am going to buy into the total overhaul because I don't really have a final say in the matter and I honestly think that there are some good parts of this that will make the area a destination again. I am not going to throw any stones until I see a final design. Also trust me that almost all of the concerns brought up on the forum so far were addressed at the public meeting so the architects are aware and will probably try to incorporate some of that input into the finished draft.

[Jason]

Honestly, I'm more of a fan of the original 2005 renovation plan... the one that was on display for so many years.  Cut out the center, add in some midrise residential towers on each side (fronting Water Street) and add is some more retail along the front.  Give the whole place a good spruce and maybe upgrade some finishes.  I love the look and feel of The Landing and would rather see it preserved and upgraded versus totally rebuilt.

[fsujax]

I am with you Jason.