The Landing owners issue ultimatum for future development

[thelakelander]

The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago. 

Some great ideas.  A lot of money being invested.  But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential.  A lot of wasted investment money.  And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.

Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term.  Short-term we'll do fine.  What happens when some of the new wears off?

The Landing itself is a very good example of this very problem. It was a good idea when conceived, but lost a lot of its allure very quickly and has been struggling ever since due to poor foresight and integration with its surroundings. Bayside Marketplace in Miami and New Orleans Riverwalk, both built by the same developer (Rouse Co.) and opened in '86 and '87 respectively have been thriving ever since. Why is that?

I would say for those two cities tourism plays a much more significant role

Norfolk's Waterside District (former Waterside Festival Marketplace) is a better comparison.  Similar scaled MSA with an economy that's not exactly based on tourism.  Like the Landing, Waterside went down the tubes.  However, instead of tearing it down, it was recently remodeled into a food hall.

[ProjectMaximus]

I'd let him go ahead and negotiate some long term leases. If the city invests properly (Laura Trio-type partnerships) and follows a comprehensive plan then there will be a reason to redevelop. We'll cross that bridge when we get there.

[KenFSU]

That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.

Random question:

Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?

[jaxjaguar]

New Orleans (Mississippi River) and Tampa (Hillsborough River) would be the closest comparisons. Tampa has more beaches nearby, but the Mississippi is a more "connected" river.

[Jax-Nole]

Does anyone else feel that Sleiman Enterprises should begin considering trying to sell the Landing to a new developer? Maybe one that is willing to redevelop it without city help, or at least minimal help? I imagine there is at least one company out there that would do anything for such prime real estate.

I know Tony Sleiman wants to hold on to the property, but at the same time he seems to be growing more and more frustrated with the city. Hopefully there is some progress on this issue over the next year or so, but we'll see.

[thelakelander]

That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.

Random question:

Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?

The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach).  DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside.  Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...

[Adam White]

That Norfolk property does look like a LOT like the Landing.

Random question:

Is there another major city in the country, particularly in the sunbelt, that enjoys our same combination of riverfront and beaches?

The Hampton Roads...(Norfolk/Virginia Beach).  DT Norfolk is on the Elizabeth River and Virginia Beach serves as Norfolk's version of Jacksonville Beach and the Southside.  Others to consider include Houston/Galveston, Savannah, Charleston, Tampa Bay...

Outside of the sunbelt, NYC springs to mind...

[heights unknown]

I think, and believe, based on their letter, that their request is "real" and legitimate; not unreasonable at all. Don't know what the problem is with the city, or even if Sleiman is not doing something right, but the two really need to sit down at the table and come to a plausible solution that will benefit not only all concerned with the success of the landing, but for the city and area as a whole.

[heights unknown]

The fact that we have development quickening on both the northbank, the southbank, Brooklyn, La Villa and the stadium complex with no fucking clue on how to tie them all in tells me that we're really no better off than we were 10 years ago. 

Some great ideas.  A lot of money being invested.  But without a plan to tie everything together and create synergy between them, we'll end up with some great ideas that never reached full potential.  A lot of wasted investment money.  And still no plan on what needs to be done to bring the city to life.

Sorry to be the Negative Nancy on this one, but I personally don't see any reason to be happy about the long-term.  Short-term we'll do fine.  What happens when some of the new wears off?

"Negative Nancy," I like that. What about "Drop the ball" Debra? Or "Loser Linda?" LOL...just kidding. You are right and I agree with you "Non Red Neck." You've got to tie  it all in somehow relative to transportation especially, to keep the vibrancy humming downtown (and other relevant items as well).

[heights unknown]

What's full redevelopment? 

A. The plan with the building/Main Street Bridge demolished and replaced with something completely new

B. Renovation of the existing configuration

Would renovation of the existing structure and change in tenant mix, like Norfolk's Waterside District, be considered full redevelopment?

Personally, I don't think the existing Landing needs the wrecking ball. It's iconic, structurally sound, and full of potential with a little TLC.

I really do love the idea of opening up Laura Street to the water, and converting the Landing into a food hall & market, hyper-focused on local foods. You're not going to draw many people down to the Landing with a Hooters, American Cafe, or even something like a Cheesecake Factory. But if you make the Landing a showcase space for the best local or semi-local restaurants (think Safe Harbor, Taco Lu, M Shack, 4 Rivers, Hawkers, Clark's, Metro Diner, Maple Street, etc.), coffee shops (Brew, Vagabond, Urban Grind, Bold Bean), breweries (Bold City, Engine 15, Intuition, Ardwolf, Veterans United, etc.) and other artisans (Peterbrooke, etc.), I genuinely think it gives the place an actual value proposition. Throw in tons of outside seating and balcony space overlooking the river and allow open containers anywhere on Landing property, and I think you create a unique space exclusive to downtown that is worth traveling to while we ride downtown's continued residential growth.

Further, the Landing is typically one of the first places that tourists visit when they come to Jacksonville and I really think a local food hall concept makes it representative of our city. Lori Boyer is also pushing for a first-class visitor center and museum to showcase Jacksonville (http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2017-06-14/tourism-council-wants-visitor-center-jacksonville), what better spot than the Landing? Emphasize the water taxi tours. Program the courtyard with local musicians. Really make the Landing a literal landing for tourists to get a feel for Jacksonville and instill pride in locals.

There's also plenty of room for expansion even with the existing structure in place. Residential can be added on both sides as the market dictates, preferably with ground level restaurants (even better with rooftop bars).

I wonder what specifically Sleiman is looking for from the city. I know Alvin Brown's Landing redevelopment called for a $12 million taxpayer subsidy for a total redesign.

Bravo; excellent post. I think Sleiman is looking for money; however, I question whether he has a definitive plan and focus relevant to the redevelopment of the landing, to bring the people, tourists, and others in for the Landing to be a resounding success. We can't answer that, but we can wonder and ask these questions. It's all about money; and then when the money comes, nothing happens.

[Adam White]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

[thelakelander]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

[heights unknown]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

Then maybe he should buy the land from the city (he probably doesn't have deep pockets to do it); then he'll have more leeway to do what he wants with HIS property that will benefit HIM and of course the city as a whole in the long run. "Pouty Patricia."

[CityLife]

Does anyone else feel that Sleiman Enterprises should begin considering trying to sell the Landing to a new developer? Maybe one that is willing to redevelop it without city help, or at least minimal help? I imagine there is at least one company out there that would do anything for such prime real estate.

I know Tony Sleiman wants to hold on to the property, but at the same time he seems to be growing more and more frustrated with the city. Hopefully there is some progress on this issue over the next year or so, but we'll see.

That's a great question. There are definitely national developers that specialize in that type of redevelopment and could execute better. The problem is that due to Jacksonville's demographics, its difficult to attract some of the major national retailers, restaurants, and entertainment that would make the project desirable to a big development group. I'm working on a somewhat similar project elsewhere in Florida with a large national developer, and they are throwing a ton of money into redeveloping a property that was built more recently than The Landing and is somewhat successful currently (but does have design flaws). The big difference though, is that the project has a few key anchor tenants, and is centered in the middle of one of the heaviest concentrations of wealth in Florida. Due to those factors, they are having a very easy time lining up national restaurants, hotels, and entertainment groups, to go along with the anchor tenants they intend to keep. A large component is also new residential and office, which are both in strong demand. With those factors in mind and easy money to be made from redevelopment, it makes it much easier for them to dump a lot of money into the project with no government assistance.

The Landing, on the other hand has no key anchor tenants, and has demographic challenges, with a substantial amount of upper middle to high income residents (HH Income of 75k and up) in Jax living at the Beaches/PVB, SJC, Amelia Island, and Fleming Island. For a project like The Landing, I've seen a 20 minute drive used as the trade area for a project. This excludes all of the aforementioned areas. I would guess that the average HH within a 20 minute drive of The Landing is less than $50k, which makes it a major challenge to attract national tenants. For comparison, the average HH within a 20 minute drive of City Place in WPB is $79k.

With that in mind, in my opinion the easiest path towards redevelopment is something similar to what Ken described earlier in the thread (and something I think I've also mentioned in the past). Basically a Best of Jax type project. Getting all of those successful businesses under one roof is also a challenge, with Intuition/Bold City both opening up DT, many of the others already being located close by, and what's potentially going on at the Shipyards and Doro.

In other words, it isn't a desirable project for a national developer and Sleiman either has to take a huge risk and throw a lot of money at the project, and/or COJ needs to step up to the plate. Otherwise, I don't see anything happening soon.

[Adam White]

Perhaps I'm being unreasonable or unrealistic. But I don't see why the future of Sleiman's property is anyone's problem but his. Why should the City have to help pay so this guy can make money?

The city owns the land. Sleiman owns the buildings.  In other words, if you want to see the courtyard, green areas, riverwalk, etc. improved, which would help the viability of leasing the buildings, you'll need city involvement.

Thanks. I think, if I were the City, I'd want to see firm plans from Sleiman before I'd invest a dime. Why bother spending a lot of money if the Landing is just going to sit empty?