Mayor Curry wants the Landing back

[Jim]

Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

A park is a bad option.  We have one directly across the river that we cannot properly maintain.  How can we expect the city to maintain 2 major parks directly across from each other?


And if the T-U wants to be a mouth piece for the mayor they should at least have the guts to admit it.

[FlaBoy]

Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

A park is a bad option.  We have one directly across the river that we cannot properly maintain.  How can we expect the city to maintain 2 major parks directly across from each other?


And if the T-U wants to be a mouth piece for the mayor they should at least have the guts to admit it.

You never see two parks on a river or body of water in any city... ...that would be unheard of...except it is the norm lol.

Sleiman responded with a letter to the TU:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2017-06-22/friday-lead-letter-politics-has-prevented-redevelopment

[vicupstate]

In order to be successful, a park would have to be activated by what borders it, and by what is actually in it. Right now, there is nothing surrounding it except office buildings. Obviously that provides very limited activation.

Those office buildings aren't going anywhere, so whatever is actually in the park itself would have to be the solitary 'draw' and would have to do so pretty much 24/7.  That is very difficult to do.  There is no reason to think that it would be any more active that the Friendship Fountain, which is to say not very.   

[KenFSU]

Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I think people underestimate just how far the Shipyards property is from the central business district. For downtown residents and workers in the CBD (Carlling, 11E, FSCJ, Laura Street Trio, etc), it's a legitimate 25-minute walk to the parcel of land designated for retail and restaurant in Khan's Shipyards plan. It'd be a half-mile shorter to walk to Brooklyn.



There is no universe where a public park makes sense for the Landing property. I mean, zero. Four blocks to the north of the Landing, you have Hemming Park, one of the most strategically important spaces in the city. And nine blocks to the east is the proposed site of the new riverfront Veterans Park that will be built as part of the Shipyards project.

Clearly the Times-Union knows that a new riverfront park is coming nearby, it makes zero sense to suggest a park at the Landing as well. Unless (cue conspiracy theory) Curry has a plan up his sleeve to put the Landing back in city control, change the terms of the Met Park land swap from the Shipyards to the Landing, and let Khan develop all of the Shipyards without the requirement for X acres of greenspace. But again, even that makes no sense, as it's much more cost-effective in terms of remediation costs to put the park in that area rather than a clean area.

Finally, I'd argue that the existing Landing courtyard is the most successful "park" in downtown Jacksonville in terms of being a civic gathering spot. The structures are run-down, but it's an important, successful civic space in terms of things like Florida-Georgia weekend, the Christmas Tree lighting, the boat parade, 4th of July, New Year's Eve, presidential speeches, etc.

[Jim]

Can't we call just get along?  I for one, believe, the best use is a public park and I hope those with some clout advocate for that.  By the time this thing sorts itself out, there will be retail/restaurant space etc in another part of downtown (i.e. shipyards).

I know it won't be easy, but the city has surplus property, so try to trade Sleiman some city property of comparable value (comparable in dollars) to do what he pleases.  Unfortunately, the property on which the landing sits is priceless and Sleiman knows that, so I think he will hang on.

A park is a bad option.  We have one directly across the river that we cannot properly maintain.  How can we expect the city to maintain 2 major parks directly across from each other?


And if the T-U wants to be a mouth piece for the mayor they should at least have the guts to admit it.

You never see two parks on a river or body of water in any city... ...that would be unheard of...except it is the norm lol.

Sleiman responded with a letter to the TU:

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/letters-readers/2017-06-22/friday-lead-letter-politics-has-prevented-redevelopment

I never said it wasn't common.  I'm saying we can't even properly maintain the one we have and we're supposed to somehow manage 2 of them?

And let's not forget that a park there would be a major tax drain on top of the lax losses from removing the current Landing tax revenue.  All around just a bad idea.

[Tacachale]

Truly odd editorial by the Times-Union board blaming Sleiman for all of the Landing's woes and calling for him to effectively do the right thing and give up the property. They also mention demoing the whole thing, figuring its use out later, and maybe turning it into a park. They also include Curry's tweets about the city owning the Landing without correction or qualification. Really, really strange stance for a newspaper to take, and no t a great look after a secretive closed-door meeting with Curry about the issue a few days ago.

http://jacksonville.com/opinion/editorials/2017-06-22/editorial-it-s-time-sleiman-take-buyout-and-bow-out-landing

Some observations about this editorial. First, there are very many fair criticisms to make about the way Sleiman has run the Landing, but the editorial focuses mainly on Sleiman's statement that "We must either undertake a complete redevelopment of the property or enter into new long-term leases of the current facilities to maintain the Landing's economic viability". Of everything Sleiman has said, this is about the most innocuous - if we don't redevelop it, leases should be signed.

Second, they are arguing for tearing down the Landing completely and replacing it with something else. That isn't necessarily a bad idea, but that's exactly what Sleiman has been proposing. I also don't see what so bad about residential units being in the mix- unlike mall space, there's actually a demand for that.

The real problem with Sleiman's plans is that is that all of his proposals have been very underwhelming designs at massive cost to the public, and he's made it clear he'll continue doing as little as possible with the property otherwise. They do touch on this, but don't get into it in depth, and that's the real conversation to have.

All that said, it's nice to see the local paper put forward so strong a stance on downtown issues. That's definitely a refreshing change of pace, so it's understandable there'd be some kinks to work out in their thinking. First comes the interest, then the education.

[thelakelander]

Count me as someone who believes it does not make sense to turn the Landing into a park.  Instead, turn the block of Hogan Street, between the river, Water Street, the Landing and performing arts center into an interactive park. 



Vibrancy isn't achieved by continuing to demolish and replace what we have, or spreading things further than what they already are.  You get vibrancy through the infilling of existing underutilized spaces, which also enhances existing destinations adjacent to them.  The empty streets and parking lots along the riverfront are what we should be targeting.



^In Baltimore, they didn't tear down Harborplace when it got old.  The tenant mix was revamped and underutilized spaces adjacent to it were upgraded.  In this case, a park with a visitor's center.  You can see the roof of Harborplace in the background.

[thelakelander]

Finally, I'd argue that the existing Landing courtyard is the most successful "park" in downtown Jacksonville in terms of being a civic gathering spot. The structures are run-down, but it's an important, successful civic space in terms of things like Florida-Georgia weekend, the Christmas Tree lighting, the boat parade, 4th of July, New Year's Eve, presidential speeches, etc.

If it's true that the city owns the land and Sleiman owns the buildings, what's stopping the city from cleaning up and enhancing the outdoor areas, including the courtyard? Why not...

A. Call Sleiman's bluff to revamp the structures/sign long term leases and manage it like a shopping center

B. COJ invest in sprucing up the exterior public spaces surrounding the structures that it already owns

C. Take all that public money possibly being wasted on full redevelopment and using it to address a variety of other downtown issues

[FlaBoy]

Count me as someone who believes it does not make sense to turn the Landing into a park.  Instead, turn the block of Hogan Street, between the river, Water Street, the Landing and performing arts center into an interactive park. 



Vibrancy isn't achieved by continuing to demolish and replace what we have, or spreading things further than what they already are.  You get vibrancy through the infilling of existing underutilized spaces, which also enhances existing destinations adjacent to them.  The empty streets and parking lots along the riverfront are what we should be targeting.



^In Baltimore, they didn't tear down Harborplace when it got old.  The tenant mix was revamped and underutilized spaces adjacent to it were upgraded.  In this case, a park with a visitor's center.  You can see the roof of Harborplace in the background.

Great idea with turning South Hogan into a park.

[thelakelander]

^I can't take credit for it. We've studied the Landing and its surroundings for decades.  This idea dates back at least a decade. There's even a sketch of it on this site somewhere. The last thing we need is another round of visioning for this property.

[Keith-N-Jax]

If you guys on here can come up with these ideas, then why cant the city? We've been fighting this battle wayyyyy to long, its time to get this done on focus on other areas that need attention in the DT core and surrounding areas.

[remc86007]

C. Take all that public money possibly being wasted on full redevelopment and using it to address a variety of other downtown issues

Imagine $50 million being used to incentivize residential redevelopment in the core...and the resulting property tax revenue the city would gain from it.

If another 2000 people lived downtown, the prospects of a redeveloped landing would be much brighter.

[thelakelander]

^Exactly!

If you guys on here can come up with these ideas, then why cant the city? We've been fighting this battle wayyyyy to long, its time to get this done on focus on other areas that need attention in the DT core and surrounding areas.

Because the Landing situation has more to do with local politics and bad blood with the owner.

[jlmann]

5PTS VILLAGE

What a squandered opportunity done in poor taste.  Shows quite clearly Sleiman cannot be trusted to produce a product worthy of the landings real estate.

The landing is an embarrassment.  At the end of the day that's on Sleiman.  He needs to go.  Literally anything, ANYTHING, would be better.  Even if the city actually developed and managed something themselves, it literally cannot be worse.

Sleiman needs to go.  the design sucks.  activation and planning jargon needn't ever enter the picture.  its common sense

Lake your article should be "what the TU editorial said"   Don't use such a platform to lend an ounce of support to Sleiman.  Hes been inviting this for years.  Good for Curry

[ProjectMaximus]

5PTS VILLAGE

To be fair, I'm pretty sure that's the other Sleiman brother and they don't do business or talk to each other so can't put that one on Toney.