Mayor Curry wants the Landing back

[vicupstate]

The city's inconsistent, but many entertainment facilities run by the city and its contractors - the stadium, arena, Baseball Grounds, and apparently the new amphitheater, are all better run than the Landing.

If I'm not mistaken the management of all of those facilities is contracted out to SMG or some other party, not the city itself. I suppose the city could 'contract out' management of the Landing if it were the owner, but I would expect that would be a very unusual situation.   

[jlmann]

call sleimans bluff.  he hasn't been running it like a strip mall?  what a joke.

all those tenants are just chomping at the bit!  we just have to get to the magical 600 parking spots and we're all coming to fill the landing!!  cuz real estate/development/planning consultants!

if the place could operate as a success with 600 spots, why isn't there anything there now that any one I know would actually want to go to?  Its not like theres zero parking now, but there is zero positive going on at the landing.  because sleiman.

ADDITIONAL parking can help businesses.  this idea that it will single handedly fill the dozens of storefronts there or be some silver bullet catalyst makes no sense.

[thelakelander]

^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

[FlaBoy]

^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

I know the parking issue is there, but on weekends in downtown, there are several massive parking garages that are empty most weekend within two blocks of the Landing. Heck, the Landing parking lot is rarely full. Maybe the argument for dedicated parking hurting the Landing can be made for weekdays, although they have a massive lunch crowd within blocks, but not a persuasive argument for weekends.

Also, if you took the $11-12 million to demolish and rebuild the Landing, and put it into incentives similar to the Trio at completion for the Berkman II and old JEA buildings, I bet we would see some movement there on residential.

[Tacachale]

The city's inconsistent, but many entertainment facilities run by the city and its contractors - the stadium, arena, Baseball Grounds, and apparently the new amphitheater, are all better run than the Landing.

If I'm not mistaken the management of all of those facilities is contracted out to SMG or some other party, not the city itself. I suppose the city could 'contract out' management of the Landing if it were the owner, but I would expect that would be a very unusual situation.   

Correct, they contract out the management of the facilities. My point is that not all facilities the city owns or contributed to are poorly managed, or as poorly managed as the Landing is.

Now, whether fighting Sleiman on the Landing is a wise use of city resources that could be going to other projects is another question.

^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

I know the parking issue is there, but on weekends in downtown, there are several massive parking garages that are empty most weekend within two blocks of the Landing. Heck, the Landing parking lot is rarely full. Maybe the argument for dedicated parking hurting the Landing can be made for weekdays, although they have a massive lunch crowd within blocks, but not a persuasive argument for weekends.

Also, if you took the $11-12 million to demolish and rebuild the Landing, and put it into incentives similar to the Trio at completion for the Berkman II and old JEA buildings, I bet we would see some movement there on residential.

The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

[jlmann]

i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.  What landlord would just say, "oh well wish I had more parking, so i'm not going to pursue tenants or control what I can control and run my business well"

my bias against sleiman is that his actions articulate that my quote above is his approach to the landing

I also cant think of one sleiman strip center that is anything more than, well, a crap suburban strip center.

Theres at least a chance coj partners with someone competent who has the taste and ability to deliver the type of product that should be at the landing. 

worst case we get someone who can't run the landing very well and we have a major Jax asset sitting idle compared to what it could be.  Oh wait, that's exactly what we have in sleiman currently

[thelakelander]

^I think your bias against Sleiman is showing.  It's not like it was filled to capacity in 2002 and Rouse clearly made dedicated parking an issue, because they would not have come to town if the city didn't agree to provide it.  So history indicates the lack of dedicated parking and vacancy pre-date Sleiman. History also indicates continuous indecision on if the existing structure will remain or be demolished for full redevelopment.  Whether we like or trust the guy doesn't change factual history. History also suggests COJ has a bad track record involving DT redevelopment. If COJ can't even accept history, concerning the needs of a retail development, the future is pretty scary because we're more likely to repeat our past mistakes. So remove the indecision by saying screw full redevelopment, call his bluff and focus on addressing other issues that hold downtown back.  We'll find out real quick what the market may bear, without risking additional subsidies on this site.

I know the parking issue is there, but on weekends in downtown, there are several massive parking garages that are empty most weekend within two blocks of the Landing. Heck, the Landing parking lot is rarely full. Maybe the argument for dedicated parking hurting the Landing can be made for weekdays, although they have a massive lunch crowd within blocks, but not a persuasive argument for weekends.

The issue with dedicated parking and the impact on leasing is a bit more complicated than this.  Here's an article I wrote seven years ago (btw, it's crazy we're still talking about this) on what dedicated parking in the retail world actually means:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality

With that said, you can resolve the dedicated parking issue by shifting existing spaces in adjacent lots and garages to fill that need, as opposed to adding parking.  However, the logistics of doing such would have to be explored and deals would have to be ironed out with those property owners.

[thelakelander]

The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

I question the design of the structure being bad, to the point where the structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt.  The design was fine for a festival marketplace. The problem was Jacksonville was too small to support that type of retail concept and the vibrant downtown environment Rouse and the Godbold administration were hoping for, never materialized. 

We now know that it should be primarily dining and entertainment, as opposed to 60% specialty retail.  That's what the market is right now. However, we probably can't fill up 125,000 square feet of leasable space with those two uses.  Thus, some of the more undesirable spaces may have to be converted into different uses.  As for opening the courtyard up to Laura Street. That's not a need. That's a want that has little to do with what the market can support.  Looking back into the history of the Landing, that idea even pre-dates Sleiman and appears to have come from visionaries, moreso than it being based on the practicality of the market being able to support the product.

Even dating back to the Peyton days, we really haven't had a true conversation on the potential of just renovating the existing structure and changing the tenant mix to meet today's consumer needs.

[Tacachale]

The issue is dedicated parking. There are businesses that won't even consider a site if there's not confirmed dedicated parking. The existence of other parking in the area is actually part of the problem - with the Parador garage, the city built a garage near the Landing that doesn't resolve the structure's core parking issues. But yes, parking's only one issue, along with bad management and a design that didn't work 30 years ago and has never had a single renovation.

I question the design of the structure being bad, to the point where the structure needs to be demolished and rebuilt.  The design was fine for a festival marketplace. The problem was Jacksonville was too small to support that type of retail concept and the vibrant downtown environment Rouse and the Godbold administration were hoping for, never materialized. 

We now know that it should be primarily dining and entertainment, as opposed to 60% specialty retail.  That's what the market is right now. However, we probably can't fill up 125,000 square feet of leasable space with those two uses.  Thus, some of the more undesirable spaces may have to be converted into different uses.  As for opening the courtyard up to Laura Street. That's not a need. That's a want that has little to do with what the market can support.  Looking back into the history of the Landing, that idea even pre-dates Sleiman and appears to have come from visionaries, moreso than it being based on the practicality of the market being able to support the product.

Even dating back to the Peyton days, we really haven't had a true conversation on the potential of just renovating the existing structure and changing the tenant mix to meet today's consumer needs.

But you don't question that the design is bad to the point that it's not suitable for the kinds of uses that could actually be successful there, and so needs a renovation that none of its owners have ever done, which is the point.

[thelakelander]

i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.

I guess, I'm suggesting that we really haven't. We've seen what he can do when there's been 15 years of indecision on if the existing structure is going to remain, be torn down and if so, replaced with what.  In addition to that, we've seen 14 years of politics between Sleiman and COJ. This game and indecision on the site's future can easily be resolved by getting off the pot. Select no redevelopment and move on to another issue. That ends the back and forth and sets that path for the market taking control.

What landlord would just say, "oh well wish I had more parking, so i'm not going to pursue tenants or control what I can control and run my business well"

I'm not sure that's actually happening.  Why spend millions on remodeling, pursuing long term tenants, if the dominant thought is full redevelopment in the short term?  That type of indecision can screw up a lot of things when it comes to securing long term tenants.

my bias against sleiman is that his actions articulate that my quote above is his approach to the landing

I also cant think of one sleiman strip center that is anything more than, well, a crap suburban strip center.

You probably can't think of one successful shopping center in Jax that isn't a strip mall of some sorts. 

Theres at least a chance coj partners with someone competent who has the taste and ability to deliver the type of product that should be at the landing.

What product should be at the Landing? Is this a product that can be supported by the market, or a dream that resulted in the Landing being built and failing in the first place.  Also, based off of our history, it's more likely a publicly financed redevelopment ends up with the site looking like the Shipyards or LaVilla.  Given the history and expertise of the two parties, I'd put my money on the party with actual retail experience and connections, even if those tenants end up not being the ones some dream about. 

worst case we get someone who can't run the landing very well and we have a major Jax asset sitting idle compared to what it could be.  Oh wait, that's exactly what we have in sleiman currently

It can get worse. Worse case scenario is the Shipyards. Millions of public dollars spent and only a hole along the waterfront to show for it.

[thelakelander]

But you don't question that the design is bad to the point that it's not suitable for the kinds of uses that could actually be successful there, and so needs a renovation that none of its owners have ever done, which is the point.

I believe the structure is suitable for a different tenant mix now.  It's not in danger of falling down.  However, it is dirty and dated. That's were remodeling primarily comes into play.  Yet, if full redevelopment is the goal, don't waste money on remodeling and signing long term leases you'll have to break, within a year or two. 

Basically, a decision needs to be made on the site's future.  My point is that decision should be for COJ to take the idea of full redevelopment off the table and go address more significant issues impacting the downtown core. That puts the Landing's future in the hands of it's owner.  If he wants to make money off of it, he can remodel and run it like a shopping center.  If not, he'll eventually sell than maintaining real estate that continues to stay in the red.

[Jim]

i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.

You do realize we have not, right?  I mean he's provided 3-4 different redevelopment plans and the city hasn't worked to make any of them happen.  So how can you say we've seen what he can do.

We have seen what he will do IF the city would let it happen.

[jlmann]

why does sleiman need a dime or any commitment from the city to operate it as strip center as he described.  He's had 12 years.

has he been proposing he pay for all the landing improvements if he can get his 600 spots?  I'm assuming no, but please correct me.

in my view he's been refusing to do anything until he gets what he wants from the city- money.  sleiman positions it as you do.  the city wont "let" him do anything?

the city wont give him everything he wants seems more accurate.  if sleiman was worth his salt and such a savvy operator he would've done something besides complain for the last 12 years

there's been nothing stopping from running it like a strip center since day one.  sure they owe him parking but he wants more and wont operate in good faith otherwise.

[Tacachale]

i'm not suggesting coj is a great developer.

i'm suggesting that we've seen what sleiman can and will do.

You do realize we have not, right?  I mean he's provided 3-4 different redevelopment plans and the city hasn't worked to make any of them happen.  So how can you say we've seen what he can do.

We have seen what he will do IF the city would let it happen.

The plans he's submitted just make it worse. The last several looked awful and required vast subsidies from the city. We're much better off that it didn't work out.

[ProjectMaximus]

The issue with dedicated parking and the impact on leasing is a bit more complicated than this.  Here's an article I wrote seven years ago (btw, it's crazy we're still talking about this) on what dedicated parking in the retail world actually means:

http://www.metrojacksonville.com/article/2010-may-the-jacksonville-landing-parking-myths-vs-reality

Seriously. I began following this site around 2007 and moved back to Jax in 2009. I think the Fuddruckers jokes were abundant since I first arrived.